Church of England apologises to Charles Darwin while the Vatican plans not to

A tale of two church responses.

On the one side, the Church of England (from Cranmer) [boldface mine]:

Cranmer is sick and tired of this utter nonsense. It makes the Church of England look and sound even more ridiculous that it already does - if that were possible. In the creation of a cohesive society and for the pursuit of the common good, it is conceivable that one might entertain an apology to the descendants of slaves for the role the Church played in that trade, and even to attempt some sort of bridge-building exercise with Muslims by apologising for the Crusades. But who exactly is the target audience for an apology addressed to Charles Darwin? Who is grieving for reconciliation?

Some scientists dismiss the gesture as ‘ludicrous’; Mr Darwin’s descendants describe it as ‘pointless’, and Ann Widdecombe wonders why the Italians aren’t apologising for Pontius Pilate.

The apology is written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown. It raises so many issues of credibility that Cranmer is at a loss to know where to begin.

Apparently, the apology is ‘for misunderstanding his theory of evolution’. Apart from the fact that the Church has historically ‘misunderstood’ far more important things, the Church of England did not actually ‘misunderstand’ Darwin’s theory at all, not least because (as always) it was divided on the issue. The bishops understood completely the significance of the nexus of the theory (and theory it remains) - that man is the progeny of apes. It really is so simple that even a bishop in the Church of England can comprehend it. Looking at the similarity between Mr Darwin and Dr Williams, it may indeed be adduced that they have a common hairy ancestor. But believers were and are divided into those who perceive this theory to be anti-Scripture and profoundly evil, and those for whom it is but another possible explanation of how God created, totally consistent with Scripture.

It is possible to be so preoccupied by atoning vicariously for the sins of one’s predecessors that one ceases to be aware of one’s personal failures and shortcomings. . .

And on the other, the Roman Catholic Church (from Reuters) [boldface mine]:

The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago. ...

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican’s culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species”. ...

“Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session,” he said, adding that Darwin’s theories were “never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned”.

Now, which approach seems the most sensible to you?

I know which one I'm voting for! What a great sentence: Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session. I think I'll memorize that - I'm sure it will come in handy at some time.

BabyBlue makes a list

From BabyBlue Online, a list of upcoming events of interest:

Been thinking about what comes next. Here are some of the events:

Sept. 3-4 - CAPA Primates and Standing Committee Meeting, Nairobi, Kenya

Sept. 12-14 - The PB Road Show in Augusta, Savannah and Statesboro, Georgia

Sept. 17-19 - TEC House of Bishops, Salt Lake City, Utah

September 26-27 - Anglican District of Virginia Synod, Herndon, VA

Oct. 4 - Diocese of Pittsburgh Annual Convention, Monroeville, Pennsylvania

October 8 - Trial: TEC/Diocese of Los Angeles and Anglican Congregations, California
October - Trial: TEC/Diocese of Virginia and CANA, Virginia

Oct. 20-23 - TEC Executive Council, Helena, Montana

Oct. 22-24 - REC General Council, Victoria, BC

Nov. 7-8 - Diocese of Quincy Annual Synod, Quincy, Illinois

Nov. 14-15 - Diocese of Ft. Worth Convention, Bedford, Texas

Dec. 1-3 - Common Cause Partnership Council

Dec. 15-19 - Windsor Continuation Group Meeting, Mustang Island, Texas

Jan/Feb 2009 - Anglican Primates Meeting, Bahamas

Feb. 9-13, 2009 - General Synod of the Church of England, London

Jan. 28-31, 2009 - AMiA Winter Conference, Greensboro, NC

Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2009 - TEC Executive Council, Stockton, CA

April 20-22, 2009 - TEC Executive Council, South Portland, Maine

May 2009 - Anglican Consultive Council

July 9-12, 2009 - BabyBlue's 30th High School Reunion, Honolulu, Hawaii

July 8-17, 2009 - TEC General Convention, Anaheim, CA

July 10-14, 2009 - General Synod of the Church of England, York

Nov. 17-19, 2009 - General Synod of the Church of England, London (if needed)

Check it out.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer slaying church attendance among women, study claims

From the Telegraph (U.K.) [boldface mine]:

The old-fashioned attitudes and hierarchies of churches are causing a steep decline in the number of female worshippers, according to an academic study.

The report claims more than 50,000 women a year have deserted their congregations over the past two decades because they feel the church is not relevant to their lives.

It says that instead young women are becoming attracted to the pagan religion Wicca, where females play a central role, which has grown in popularity after being featured positively in films, TV shows and books.

The study comes amid ongoing controversy over the role of women in all Christian denominations. Last month its [the Church of England] governing body voted to allow women to become bishops for the first time, having admitted them to the priesthood in 1994, but traditionalist bishops have warned that hundreds of clergy and parishes will leave if the move goes ahead as planned.

The report's author, Dr Kristin Aune, a sociologist at the University of Derby, said: "In short, women are abandoning the church.

"Because of its focus on female empowerment, young women are attracted by Wicca, popularised by the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

"Young women tend to express egalitarian values and dislike the traditionalism and hierarchies they imagine are integral to the church.

"Women's ordination, as priests and now bishops, has dominated debate and headlines – but while looking at women in the pulpit we have taken our eyes off the pews, where a shift with more consequences for the church's survival is underway."

Her research, published in a new book called Women and Religion in the West, cites an English Church Census which found more than a million women worshippers have left churches since 1989. . .

In addition, the census is said to show that teenage boys now outnumber girls in the pews for the first time.

Dr Aune says the church must adapt to the needs of modern women if it is to stop them leaving in their droves.

She believes many women have been put off going to church in recent years because of the influence of feminism, which challenged the traditional Christian view of women's roles and raised their aspirations.

Her report claims they feel forced out of the church because of its "silence" about sexual desire and activity, and because of its hostility to single-parent families and unmarried couples which are now a reality for many women.

But it also says changes in women's working lives, with many more now pursuing careers as well as raising children, mean they have less time to attend church.

Dr Aune believes churches must now introduce services and activities that fit in better with modern's women's schedules, such as Saturday morning breakfast clubs. . .

Christina Rees, chairman of the pro-women bishop campaign group Watch, said the report highlighted the damaging effect that traditionalist attitudes within the Church of England are having on women.

She added that the introduction of female bishops will lead to a renewed interest in the church among young people and women in particular, despite the opposition to the historic step from Anglo-Catholics and conservative evangelicals who believe scripture and tradition teach that bishops must be male. . .

Read it all. And, Christina, you might want to look at the overall attendance in The Episcopal Church before you see female bishops as leading "to a renewed interest in the church." Just sayin'

Archbishop Orombi clarifies The Times letter

From Kevin Kallsen at AnglicanTV [boldface mine]:

After The Times newspaper printed a letter from Archbishop [Henry] Orombi [of the Church of Uganda], AnglicanTV contacted His Grace for further clarification. Specifically we wanted to know if the Archbishop was implying he wanted Rowan to resign. Below is Archbishop Orombi's response.

Kevin Kallsen (AnglicanTV): Does your letter in The Times this week imply that you are calling for the resignation of the ABC?

Archbishop Henry Orombi: No. I am not suggesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury should resign. And, for the record, it was The Times (of London) that approached me about writing an essay on why the Church of Uganda Bishops were not attending Lambeth.

It seems to me that the maturing of the global nature of the Anglican Communion, beyond its colonial beginnings, would involve separating the role of the spiritual leader of the Communion from that of the Primate of All England. The Primate of All England should still retain the title primus inter pares, for he does retain a significant place of honour and historical significance. I would not want to diminish that in any way. We are very grateful for the British missionaries who came to us in Uganda and brought to us the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall never forget that and never cease giving thanks.

However, I do think it's time to realise that the Anglican Communion is no longer an extension of the Church of England. The Church of England is, of course, free to elect or appoint their Primate in whatever way they deem appropriate. But, should the Primate of All England necessarily or automatically be the spiritual leader of a world-wide, global Communion? That's the question I am asking.

And, may I just add, that I agree with Archbishop Rowan (and others) when he says that "the overwhelming concern of most Africans is clean water, food, employment, transparent governance." To that, I would also add quality education, adequate health services, and freedom from the power of sin and oppression by demonic spirits. We do, in fact, spend much more of our time focused on these issues, along with evangelism, than on homosexuality – despite the imbalance portrayed by the press.

But, what we in the Global South have strongly maintained is this: When you are known to be the "Gay Church" and a church that can't discipline itself, that severely hinders our ability to engage our communities on such issues as clean water, food, employment, and good governance. That is why we must resolve this conflict. It is not a matter that we can "agree to disagree" about homosexuality (and the underlying theology that leads one to the acceptance of homosexuality) and still pursue together the Millennium Development Goals. Our credibility and integrity as a church are seriously undermined because of the lack of resolution of the current crisis. It is not enough to be able to say that the official position of the Anglican Communion is Lambeth 1.10, because the lack of enforcement of that resolution seems to, in fact, render it null and void.

The crisis in the Communion is about authority – biblical authority and ecclesiastical authority. Regrettably, all the proposals coming out of the Windsor Continuation Group have been tried in the past five years and failed. However, even before we begin a re-examination of the Instruments of Communion and, in particular, the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, we do have within our structures the ability to bring order out of the present chaos. Sadly, though, the Archbishop of Canterbury missed his biggest window of opportunity. If, in the end, the only means of discipline is through his power of invitation, he has, through his decision to invite the persistent violators of Lambeth 1.10 to the Lambeth Conference, blessed the deviations of the American and Canadian Churches, which have been consistently condemned by the other three Instruments of Communion.

It seems to me that the functions proposed for the Pastoral Forum are exactly what the Primates of the Communion have been charged to do. The 1988 Lambeth Conference urged the Primates' Meeting to "exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters" and the 1998 Lambeth Conference reaffirmed this. Are not Primates, duly elected from the various Provinces, in a better position than a "Commission" or "Forum"? We do not need the proliferation of more groups, committees, commissions, etc. to resolve this crisis. What we need is the enforcement/implementation of matters that have already been widely agreed.

The secret of Anglicanism

From Damian Thompson at the Telegraph:

If nothing else, Lambeth has produced the authoritative definition of modern Anglicanism. It comes from the Rt Rev David Rossdale, Bishop of Grimsby – in a Faithbook blog post, I'm proud to report.

"We have been a Church which has been held together by belief, as contained in the historic creeds, and not by agreeing to particular statements about that faith."

Discuss.

Read it all (and discuss).

UK: Church of England church closures accelerate

From the Telegraph (U.K.):

More than 260 churches belonging to the Church of England have ceased to be used for regular worship in the past decade, according to new figures.

The figures, released by the Government in response to a Parliamentary question, show that 29 Anglican churches closed last year, the highest figure since 2004.

Earlier this year, this newspaper disclosed that churches of all denominations were closing at a rate of two a week.

The number of churches is forecast to fall from 48,500 now to 39,200 by 2030. Church leaders have warned that the crisis threatens to devastate parishes and deprive communities of important focal points.

Responding to these concerns, The Sunday Telegraph's Save Britain's Churches campaign is calling for measures to keep churches at the heart of community life, including funding for repairs and grants to help them adapt to community use. . .

Andrew Edwards, the chief executive of the National Churches Trust, said that churches should open themselves up to community use, but they should retain an element of public worship and "remain doing what they were built to do".

Read it all.
H/t to Virtue Online.

Update from AnglicanTV

From Kevin at AnglicanTV:

Because AnglicanTV is considered hostile press by TEC and the Church of England, I am not likely to be videotaping many press conferences or plenary meetings. The vast majority of my video taping will be in interview format.

I won't arrive in Canterbury until Friday, so I have some time to schedule interviews before I arrive. So far I have around a dozen interviews with different Bishops and Archbishops scheduled -- however I would love to open up my schedule to your ideas.

If there is someone you want me to interview while I am at Canterbury please post it in to comments below. If you have the contact information for the "victim", please forward that to anglicantv@gmail.com (don't put contact info in the comments post please).

England: Forward in Faith UK council passes resolution for new province

From Virtue Online:

Jul 21, 2008

The following Resolution was recently passed by the FiF Council in Canterbury.

The Council of Forward in Faith, meeting at Canterbury on 21st July, was appalled at the outcome of the recent General Synod debate of 7th July. The Council remains determined to respond to the needs of its members by securing a structural solution comprising discrete dioceses for those in conscience opposed to the ordination of women as bishops.

Stephen Parkinson
Director

Check it out.

And the CoE morphs into TEC. . .

Wow! Sound familiar?

From Damian Thompson at the Telegraph (U.K.) [boldface mine]:

Bishop accuses liberals of planning to 'steal churches'

The Church of England's leading traditionalist bishop has accused liberal Anglicans of planning to steal parish churches and schools from opponents of women bishops.

The Rt Rev John Broadhurst, Bishop of Fulham and chairman of Forward in Faith, said today that any attempt to wrest control of buildings from Anglo-Catholics would be "institutionalised theft". Many of the churches came either from the pre-Reformation Catholic Church or were founded by Anglo-Catholics, he added.

His extraordinary statement will further raise the temperature at a Lambeth Conference many of whose participants are already boiling with rage. Here are the key quotes:

"It is quite apparent that we are being subjected to what I would call institutional bullying of a kind that if it were found in the commercial world would be the subject of serious litigation. The atmosphere and the approach of some of those opposed to us reveals that not only are they not very good Christians; they are also not nice human beings.

"The other thing that strikes me quite hard is that most of the assets of the Church of England in terms of buildings, schools and other property either come from the pre-Reformation Catholic Church or as a direct result of the Tractarian and Catholic Revival. This property is very much our heritage and inheritance and to suggest that many wish to steal it from us in a very unpleasant form of legalised theft would not be an understatement. I know that many people will be looking at the legal implications lying behind both these matters.". . .

Read it all.

CofE Synod electronic voting record

From Ruth Gledhill, electronic voting information on the recent Church of England Synod [boldface mine]:

. . . The 14 bishops who voted for the Bishop of Winchester’s motion, including the reaffirmation of the Lambeth 1998 resolution that both sides in the argument on women priests and bishops are ‘loyal Anglicans’ were the Archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Blackburn, Bradford, Chichester, Exeter, Europe, London, Rochester, Southwell and Winchester, together with the suffragans of Birkenhead, Burnley, and Dover, and the Bishop of Beverley. Those suffragans must have done so knowing that as a result they would never become diocesan bishops.

Orthodox clergy and laity will also wish to know which 31 bishops voted against, unable or unwilling to allow them to be recognised as loyal Anglicans. They were the Archbishop of York, the bishops of Bath and Wells, Bristol, Carlisle, Chelmsford, Derby, Durham (though Tom Wright did vote against the final substantive motion), Gloucester, Guildford, Hereford, Leicester, Lichfield, Lincoln, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Norwich, Oxford, Peterborough, Portsmouth, Ripon and Leeds, St Albans, St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Southwark, and Wakefield. The suffragans were Basingstoke, Dorking, Dudley, Hulme, Huntington, Willesden and also the episcopal Dean of Windsor. No surprise there, save for the Archbishop of York.

These figures mean that those who hold traditional views on ministry, men and women who believe implicitly in the Catholic faith contained in creeds and scripture, are now apparently not regarded as loyal Anglicans by two-thirds of the diocesan bishops of the Church of England present and voting at the Synod. . .

Read it all.

Fr. Jonathan Baker resigns from the CofE Code of Practice drafting group

From the comments at Ruth Gledhill's blog on Lambeth [boldface mine]:

Whilst the gathered bishops are indaba-ing, the Archbishop of Canterbury's task of holding together the Church of England just got harder. The senior Anglo-Catholic priest who contributed much to the development of alternative strategies by the Manchester Group has tendered his resignation from the Legislative Drafting Group that is charged with developing the Code of Practice.

Post-General Synod: A Statement from Fr Jonathan Baker
Jul 17, 2008

I have submitted my resignation from the Women Bishops Legislative Drafting Group to its Chairman, the Bishop of Manchester.

General Synod has asked the WBLDG to bring forward a Code of Practice in February 2009 as part of draft legislation on the ordination of women to the episcopate for first consideration in that group of sessions. The Code is intended to provide pastoral and sacramental care for those unable to accept this development.

I am unable to commend simple draft legislation which is coupled with a Code of Practice to Synod and the wider Church, and therefore consider it inappropriate that I continue to serve on the committee charged with so doing.

I have argued consistently that a Code of Practice cannot address the fundamental ecclesiological and sacramental concerns of those opposed to the ordination of women to the episcopate. The implementation of simple legislation and a Code of Practice will effectively bring to an end the period of open reception on the disputed question of the ordination of women which has enabled members of the Church of England with differing views to live together in one Church since 1994. A Code of Practice can, therefore, be only short-term provision, lacking theological integrity as well as legal security.

The vote on the 7th July in York (which anticipates, among other things, the abolition, rather than the development, of the ministry of the Provincial Episcopal Visitors) leaves the Church of England facing a real pastoral, as well as legal and theological, problem, of how to honour its commitment to provide an assured and equal place for those unable to accept the ordination of women to the episcopate. While my contribution to the particular work of the WBLDG is now complete, I remain wholly committed to playing my part, not least with Forward in Faith, in seeking a way forward for the Church.

I am glad to be able to take this opportunity of thanking the Bishop of Manchester, my former colleagues on the WBLDG, and the staff of Church House who served that Group so ably, for the constructive way in which the work of the Group, in its first phase, was carried out, and for the respect and careful attention which they all accorded the views which I set out.

Jonathan Baker

17th July 2008

Virtue Exclusive: Interview with Bishop Keith Ackerman, Quincy

From Virtue Online:

On the eve of the decennial Lambeth Conference, VirtueOnline spoke with the Anglo-Catholic Bishop of Quincy, the Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman in Canterbury to gauge his reaction and opinion as to what has been taking place in The Episcopal Church, the Church of England and what, if anything he expects to see will come from this Conference of some 600 bishops. Bishop Ackerman is also president of Forward in Faith, North America.

VOL: How many bishops are left in The Episcopal Church that refuses to ordain women to the priesthood?

Ackerman: Just two, Bishop Jack Iker of Ft. Worth and me.

VOL: Bishop John-David Schofield has left TEC and it would appear that both the dioceses of Ft. Worth and Quincy are a vote away from leaving. Is this inevitable?

Ackerman: It is probably inevitable.

VOL: Last week The Church of England synod voted to ordain women bishops with no provision for its traditionalist wing to continue to have a place at the table without seriously compromising themselves. In your opinion what is their future?

Ackerman: The C of E has always been 20 to 30 years behind the United States, and we are already witnessing within England a similar phenomenon that has resulted in continuing churches formally or informally applying to Rome moving to Eastern Orthodoxy and or attempting to create a separate province. My hope is that the phenomenal division and hemorrhaging that has taken place in TEC will be an example that the English will look at very carefully as they consider their future. . .

Read it all.

Weekly AAC message from Bishop David Anderson

From Bishop David Anderson at the American Anglican Council, his weekly message via email [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

As we comment from week to week on matters affecting the Anglicans in North America, and in a broader sense, globally, we need to be aware that we are not in a single-issue battle. Issues of theology, and especially Christology, put us in conflict with a good portion of the pseudo-intellectual Western elites, who for all intents and purposes seem to have lost their faith.

Issues of morality and culture, which are normally derivative of an intact faith system, have put us in conflict with major cultural and sociological trends that exalt the individual's rights at the expense of the family, the community, or the church's ability to set boundaries on behavior. It seems that today’s culture has made the individual consumer god. If you have the money, you have a right to do it or buy it or have it done to you. The Christian Church, carrying with it the moral and ethical life of the Old Testament, also carries a new commandment to love one another even as Jesus has loved us. The Christian Church then has and does set moral and ethical boundaries on behavior, and this now puts us in conflict in many civil and secular settings. Our boundaries derive from Holy Scripture, whereas for the secular world, the boundaries (or lack thereof) depend on the situation, derive from the exaltation of the individual, and finally become, "I am entitled to everything I say I am entitled to," and "No one is going to tell me what I can and cannot do." This often revolves around two principal foci, money or sex, things people seem intensely interested in.

A third area that concerns us as orthodox Anglicans is the invasion of Islam into supposedly solid Christian areas, and the rapidity with which Christians seem to be rolling over and not adequately responding. I used to wonder how Islam conquered North Africa so easily, suppressing such a vital Christian area and pushing the Christian faith into a small corner of the community. Watching the idiocy of many governmental leaders in the Western world today, ready to give away so much to accommodate the demands of Muslim immigrants into their land, and seeing the Christians, with only a few exceptions, fail to rise to the challenge, I think I understand a little better what happened in North Africa. One difference there was that Islam conquered cities and territories by the sword… but who needs a sword if they can accomplish the same result by making demands and through thuggery and intimidation? I am thinking especially of articles about English vicars being beaten and harassed at their churches by Muslim youths.

Now to comment on some of the issues falling into these three categories mentioned above: The Episcopal Church’s Diocese of El Camino Real, in California, has issued official guidelines for blessing homosexual relationships. The State of California's Supreme Court has ruled that homosexual marriage must be permitted under the same conditions as traditional man-woman marriage, based on equal treatment under the law. There is a popular grassroots referendum that is being prepared to change the California Constitution and effectively overturn the Supreme Court's ruling, but that referendum is several months away. Meanwhile, the Episcopal Church is hurrying at breakneck speed to accommodate the homosexual marriage ruling by tacking on a blessing service for the wedding couple. These Episcopal Dioceses will be able to technically say they don't do gay weddings, because a civil authority does the vows and pronouncement part, then the church blends right in with the "spiritual" part. Episcopal bishops who are gay advocates will go to Lambeth swearing that they don't do gay weddings--for those others who find themselves at Lambeth, understand the duplicity that you are hearing.

In the UK, the issue of women bishops has been rammed down the throats of the Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals who don't believe that women Biblically can hold the episcopal order. After fervent (and we believe sincere) pleas by Canterbury, York and Durham, to mention only three, not to rush into this, and certainly not without provision for those who dissent and will need an alternative, the "our way or the highway" majority gave due notice of where the Church of England is headed.

Will this result in mass departures to Rome? Will this result in a GAFCON fellowship or even ecclesial body in England? Might a new Province even be established overlaying England? History is indeed being made.

But over and above all this turmoil, God in His wisdom rules, and His purposes will be carried out. Our job is to be much in prayer, seeking his will for our individual and corporate lives. May we carry out faithfully the tasks He gives us to do.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C.
Anderson, Sr.
President & CEO of the American Anglican Council

BabyBlue comments on the CofE timing

From BabyBlueOnline (I'm copying here from her comments section, not her post) [boldface mine]:

1. Before we start issuing ultimatums, we must remember who our friends are and who our adversaries are, lest we shoot each other in the back.

Remember, the timing of this vote is strategic, okay?

2. It’s not about gender but about behavior. Like Mary, the sister of Martha, sitting at Jesus’ feet in the position reserved for the male disciple or student, or like Mary coming to Jesus and anointing him with the Jar of perfume before He went to the cross (and she was ridiculed by the male disciples for this priestly and what they thought wasteful act until Jesus publicly and firmly admonished them and lifted Mary to position of authority) - being a woman disciple is not a sin. We are the priesthood of all believers. We recognize however that we have different traditions of expressing our faith, we understand that the nature of the priesthood has different biblical expressions - but they are biblical. In no way do we bless sinful behavior. It not a sin to behave as a woman when one is a woman. What is in question is the role of women, not that her gender is sinful.

What we are dealing with on the frontlines, and what I believe the timing of this action in England is seeking to deflect, is immoral behavior now being officially blessed by the Church as suddenly holy. Progressives want to equate the ministry of women with blessing immoral behavior and this is not a secret that the timing of this vote comes just before the Lambeth Conference. It’s planned that way. This is a political action, not a theological one and we should respond politically not theologically. . .

3. [The progressives] seek to equalify what they call “full inclusion” with the suffrage of women. But that is a misnomer and that’s why we should be on our guard when we engage in the fascinating discussion of the ministry of women. Civil rights has to do with the equality of those of different races, suffrage has to do with the equality of women - but full inclusion has to do with blessing and making holy what the scriptures are clear to teach is sinful. Yet, the progressives seek to include in their banner of “full inclusion” civil rights and suffrage and that is a trick. . .

I think the theological differences are quite clear among biblically minded orthodox Christians. We are discussing theology and polity. But to the Western progressives (in Canada, the USA, and yes Bishop Wright, in the Church of England) the trick is to blur the lines so much that the coalition of the evangelicals who support the priesthood of all believers position (for a shorthand - this is just shorthand) and the traditionalists who hold to a catholic (small c) view of Holy Orders (again a shorthand) split amongst themselves.

It appears GAFCON recognized this ruse and navigated around it. As important as these questions are, and they are, they pale in comparison to what we are facing on a global scale with the infusing in our Christian faith of Western innovations regarding sexual behavior. We should not fall for the ruse - especially one like this that is so obviously timed to draw attention away from the presenting issue, especially as Lambeth fast approaches.

Read it all.

A Roman Catholic priest's thoughts on Bishop Burnham's move

From Fr. Dwight Longenecker, thoughts from a Roman Catholic perspective [boldface mine]:

Damian Thompson reports today that one of the traditionalist Anglican bishops, Andrew Burnham, is preparing to lead Anglo Catholics to Rome en masse. He is already in discussions with the Vatican about the ways forward. They seem to want to come in with their Anglican churches and congregations. Whether or not this means an expansion of the Anglican Use liturgy to England is uncertain. Most of these Anglo Catholics already use the Roman Rite, and for them to revert to the old Anglican prayer book is not something they are asking for.

It all sounds wonderful, but I fear there are far too many problems for it to work. First of all, it seems very unlikely that the Anglican Church would give up their buildings without a fight of some sort, and it also seems unlikely that the English Catholic hierarchy would c-rountenance some sort of Anglo-Catholic church within a church. Furthermore, the Anglo-Catholics are not spread neatly and evenly around England. There are some in every diocese, but there are large concentrations of them in the Dioceses of Blackburn, Chichester and London. The Catholic Dioceses in those areas could not suddenly take on a huge number of churches and clergy without radical re-ordering. In my experience of the English Catholic Church, they don't really have the imagination and drive to make the changes necessary.

There are other problems. Not all English Catholics want a large influx of Anglo Catholics. This antipathy is from both the conservatives and liberals. Conservatives aren't keen on a load of people they perceive as intrinsically Protestant suddenly coming into the Catholic Church. Liberal Catholics don't want them because they think they are all 'dangerous misogynistic conservatives.'

Added to that is the fact that the Anglican clergy cannot be ordained as Catholic priests suddenly. They will need to do some re-training. The married ones will have to apply for a dispensation from the vow of celibacy. The English Catholic church already has more married former Anglican priests than anywhere else in the world. . .

It's far more likely that Bishop Burnham's move is another political gambit--trying to force the Anglicans to grant their wishes anyway. In the end, I fear the good bishop will have to convince all his followers--clergy and laity alike-- to simply bite the bullet and take the difficult step of being reconciled to the Catholic church on an individual basis.

But we are living in exciting times. It is possible that the rumors are true, and following the overtures from the Traditional Anglican Communion that Rome has already devised a plan to reconcile as many Anglicans as possibless as easily as possible. The rumor was that this plan is in place, and the Vatican is waiting until after the Lambeth Conference to announce it. . .

Read it all.

The Church of England. . .what now?

The Church of England Synod is meeting this week and Ruth Gledhill is live-blogging it. I haven't really kept up with what's happening there, other than knowing that they refused to vote on a resolution stating that "salvation is through Christ alone" and are voting on women bishops and whether the "Catholic" branch will have adequate (or any) safeguards or be forced to accept what to them would be unacceptable. It looks like the assurances that the Church of England gave in 1994 are being pushed out (sound familiar?) and I thought this quote from the Telegraph article was most appropriate for us in the U.S.:

"There is a majority in the Synod who welcome the idea of women bishops, but we should consider the unintended consequences of this decision," said Mr [Gerry] O'Brien [a lay member of the Rochester diocese].

He said that people had assumed that the dissension would have disappeared within 15 years of women being ordained, but instead it has grown.

So what he's saying is that 15 years ago, when women's ordination was first agreed to in the CofE and promises were made to "traditionalists" that they would never be forced to recognize women priests or bishops, those promises were given just as a placebo with no intention at all of being kept, because after all, the assumption was "that the dissension would have disappeared" eventually.

Surprise! Those darn Anglo-Catholics didn't do what they were supposed to and morph into something else, or discover the error of their ways. They actually stuck to their understanding of Scripture and church tradition, and wanted to remain part of the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church." Well, they are going to have some hard decisions to make over the next little while. Prayers for all.

Ruth is reporting that a motion has passed, but I don't know the exact wording - there were so many amendments from the floor, I don't see how anyone could keep track. I hope she will post the complete text of what actually passed. It looks like women bishops are a go, with a "code of practice option" which, to me, means just enough to get the Anglo-Catholics to sign on and then it will gradually disappear (after all, that's what the CofE did with women's ordination). Still, maybe it will be enough for some priests to remain.

Some comments on her blog from Anglo-Catholic priests:

Agree about the great work Mark but what the votes this afternoon mean is that we (Trads as Ruth so succinctly put it) have been sold out.

This will mean the end of my and many others ministry perhaps not today or tommorrow but almost certainly an end as we decide to move on before we are pushed and driven from a church that has clearly indicated it has no place for us or our outmoded fidelity to Revelation and the Scriptures over temporary and changeable secular views.

I hope you manage to get a break Ruth and rest your weary fingers.

I will keep praying because the one thing I am sure of, perhaps the only one, is that the resurrection is at its most powerful in the midst of disaster and death and what we are witnessing here is the death of the Church of England.

What I wonder will God raise up from the dry bones that are left?

Fr Bill

Ruth,

You have done a magnificent job today, albeit rather a depressing one for those of us who are Catholic.

Two sad things to note....

1. The lack of theology... all the talk is on discrimination and fair play, never mind Gospel Principles and the tradition revealed to us, I always believed the Church was a spiritual as opposed to a secular place.

2. Following my evening Mass tonight, one of my parishoners, who has only been confirmed this past fortnight, asking 'Father, what are we going to do now?'

My honest answer was 'i dont know....'

Still the Catholic faith is truly universal, so who knows where the Lord may lead us home to.

Fr James

Look at the tone of the debate and you will see two things the first is no Catholic speaker, as far as I could see is denying the Good work done by women priests or that they should in their own turn be eligible to be Bishops. All we want is something solid to enable us to continue to be faithful anglicans.

From the other side of the debate however there seems to be no concern nor even the basic attempt to understand just how important this issue is to those 1300 priests who signed the letter and, I suspect to many more who didn't as well as many thousands of the laity.

A stronger code of practice is still just that and not enough.