2a The Cloisters, Gordon Square London WC1H 0AG tel fax
020 7388 3588 020 7387 3539
subscription email
nd.subs@
forwardinfaith.com
editor
nd.editor@forwardinfaith.com
all other enquiries
nd@forwardinfaith.com
Editorial Board Editor:
Nicholas Turner Deputy Editor: Kathleen McCully
Assistant Editors: Geoffrey Kirk Jonathan Baker Owen Higgs David Waller
Contributing Editors: Len Black William Davage Andy Hawes John Richardson
Subscriptions
New Directions is sent free of charge to all members of Forward in Faith. Individual copies are sold at £2∙50.
All subscription enquiries should be addressed to FiF UK Office at the address above. Subscription for one year: £25 (United Kingdom/EEC), £30 (Overseas).
Priests from Anglican Provinces in Third World countries and students in theological training in the Anglican Communion will receive a free subscription.
Advertising
Advertising Manager: Mike Silver 57 Century Road, Rainham, Kent ME8 0BQ tel
fax
01634 401611 01634 306368
email
m.silver@
breathe.com
Classified ads rates: £18 for one month (up to 50 words) £36 for two months £36 for three months Series of advertisements in excess of three months will also be charged at £18 per month with every third month free. Additional words will be charged at 50 pence for one month, £1 each for two or three months etc
The next issue of newdirections is published on 6 August
DIRECTIONS editorial I
Founded 1993
t seems that the Church of England is soon to become a victim of its own cowardice, if the reports are true –
and there is every reason to believe that they are – that the House of Bishops is surreptitiously to change the rules forbidding divorcees, or those married to divorcees, from being considered for the episcopate. Te cowardice arose from the refusal to
countenance any process or mechanism for the Church’s consideration of marriage discipline, but instead to leave all to the state. Te Roman Catholic canon law tribunals regarding annulments are not without their faults and limitations, but they exist and the Church, to its credit, takes up its responsibilities and has to face the cynicism and mockery of the secular world for doing so. So too the Orthodox Churches maintain
a public process of discernment and judgement on marriage discipline. As do certain Anglican provinces, such as Southern Africa. And, within its limitations, so do the Resolution C parishes of the Church of England, working with the carefully prepared Marriage Statement of the Sacred Synod of 2002. Only the House of Bishops of the CofE
has turned its face against taking up its responsibility for the Sacrament of which its members are the guardians (most recently in 2002 – GS1449). We are soon to suffer the consequences of that lack of courage. Te salami-slicing technique has
continued for many years. First the laity were disensed from any discipline, then the clergy, now finally the guardians themselves. Is it coincidental that this suggestion emerges just at the time when the legislation for women bishops reaches its climax? Was it hoped to slip this final slice through unnoticed when all minds were concentrated elsewhere? Is it to be the case that the Church
of England’s doctrine and pracice of the institution and sacrament of Holy Matrimony is to be abandoned, or at least altered, without full discussion within its own Synod? By whose authority can so decisive a step be taken? By whose authority, and in apparent contradiction to the word of Scripture, has
it been decided that divorcees can become bishops while partnered gays cannot?
D
id he do it? Did Rowan Williams write to Katharine Jefferts Schori requesting her to withdraw from
the Standing Commitee of the Anglican Communion? And did Schori reply with a resounding negative? Naturally neither Primate’s press office will confirm or deny the persistent rumours. But what is certain is that Mrs Schori has recently been on a charm offensive around the Communion, reinforcing ties of solidarity between Te Episcopal Church and sympathetic provinces (most recently the Anglican Church of Canada and the Scotish Episcopal Church). Her visit to Southwark Cathedral, the bastion of all things ‘inclusive’ and ‘modern’, was a defiant sally into enemy territory. Schori’s robust defence of TEC’s stance
in her alternative Pentecost Leter has been admired in many quarters. Its barbed reference to those who ‘continue to hold one view in public and exhibit other behaviours in private’ was a direct and personal atack on a man who is trapped by his office into acing contrary to his conscience. ‘Why is there no sanction on those who continue with a double standard?’ she went on. ‘In our context bowing to anxiety by ignoring that sort of double-mindedness is usually termed a ‘failure of nerve’. Ouch! Te lady packs a punch. Many will
see her comments as a just rebuke to one who, in the case of Jeffrey John (as one wit aptly remarked) laid down his friend for his life. But more is going on than a struggle
between a feisty woman and an indecisive academic. It is a batle for the soul of the Anglican Communion, or for what can be salvaged from the wreckage of it. If Peter Akinola was charged with seeking to set up an alternative Communion in the global south, Mrs Schori is making her bid for the Anglo-Saxon hemisphere and its financial dependents. In this struggle for minds and hearts, the Archbishop of Canterbury, it seems, is powerless. With which party will the Church of
England side? Te debate in York in July will give as clear an indication as we are likely to get.
ND July 2010 ■ newdirections ■ 20
New
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40