Archbishop of York in hospital; Bishop of Salisbury backs marriage equality; Church Times and the the new proposals for women bishops – report and leader comment
Archbishop of York in hospital
In a statement this week the Archbishop of York thanks those who are caring for him at present:
I am thankful and grateful for Mr Bill Cross, and his surgical team at St James’ Hospital Leeds, who today operated on me for a locally advanced cancer of the prostate. I am also grateful to the nursing staff who are caring from me.
More at –
http://www.archbishopofyork.org/articles.php/2910/statement-from-the-archbishop-of-york
Bishop of Salisbury backs marriage equality
Nicholas Holtam, the Bishop of Salisbury, has made clear his support for allowing same-sex couples to marry. Officially the Church of England is opposed to equal marriage but many members are in favour. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, covering England and Wales, is to be debated by the House of Lords.
He had spoken in favour of marriage equality in April 2012. In a recent letter to Waheed Alli, a peer who has campaigned for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) equality, Holtam explained his reasons.
He acknowledged that the archbishops had opposed the measure and referred to a Faith and Order Commission document, ‘Men and women in marriage’, but pointed out, “That this is ‘for study’ indicates a discussion continues to run within the Church of England”, in which “there are a variety of views”.
He explained that “Christian morality comes from the mix of Bible, Christian tradition and our reasoned experience. Sometimes Christians have had to rethink the priorities of the Gospel in the light of experience.”
For instance, it is no longer regarded as acceptable to justify slavery and apartheid using the Bible. “The Biblical texts have not changed; our interpretation has.”
He argued that “The possibility of ‘gay marriage’ does not detract from heterosexual marriage unless we think that homosexuality is a choice rather than the given identity of a minority of people. Indeed the development of marriage for same sex couples is a very strong endorsement of the institution of marriage.”
While Holtam is not a member of the House of Lords, his support for allowing same-sex couples to marry may remind those debating and voting on the issue that there is considerable support for equal marriage among Christians and other people of faith.
Religious leaders who privately favour greater recognition of same-sex partnerships are often reluctant to argue for this in public. This may give the impression that faith groups are united on an issue on which, in reality, opinions vary. The Bishop of Salisbury’s willingness to speak out has highlighted the diversity of views on this issue in faith communities.
Church Times and the the new proposals for women bishops
This week’s Church Times reports – The House of Bishops will bring a motion to the General Synod on Monday 8 July, at its sessions in York, requesting the drafting of new legislation to enable women to be consecrated to the episcopate. If it is passed, this will allow time for further debate in November, and the process could be concluded in 2015.
The Bishops envisage the legislation as “a measure and amending canon that made it lawful for women to become bishops”, and “the repeal of the statutory rights to pass Resolutions A and B under the 1993 Measure” (“option one”).
The House came to its decision in York on Monday of last week, after discussing a report by a working group appointed last year, chaired by the Bishop of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich, the Rt Revd Nigel Stock ( News, 14 December). The working group was appointed after the previous legislation fell ( News, 23 November).
In its own report, the House “endorses the working group’s view that the Church of England is at a moment where the way forward is likely to be one which makes it difficult for anyone to claim outright victory. The five elements of the vision need to be held together rather than used selectively. . . :
“Once legislation has been passed to enable women to become bishops the Church of England will be fully and unequivocally committed to all orders of ministry being open equally to all, without reference to gender, and will hold that those whom it has duly ordained and appointed to office are the true and lawful holders of the office which they occupy and thus deserve due respect and canonical obedience;
“Anyone who ministers within the Church of England must then be prepared to acknowledge that the Church of England has reached a clear decision on the matter;
More at:
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2013/31-may/news/uk/next-step-proposed-on-women-bishops
No cheap trust
Church Times leader comment – THE Archbishop of Canterbury urged the lay chairs of diocesan synods last month to “get rid of” the “widespread suspicion and mistrust” to be found among members.
“If that’s in your mindset, you need to repent, because your job is to set an example of holiness; and mistrust and suspicion is not holy. It won’t do, any more than it’ll do in me; and I find that I’m tempted into that the whole time, and it’s something that I have to watch constantly.” He spoke about the reaction when the House produced its amendment to the women-bishops legislation last summer. The “complaints and accusations” that he had felt most acutely had been about “the lack of transparency”. In response to these, and other complaints about the substance of the amendment, which was designed to reassure opponents, the House withdrew it. For lack of enough reassurance, the Measure then fell in the House of Laity.
Now that the House of Bishops has published the report of its working group, and its response, we can see the weight that its new plan places on trust. The legislation that the majority of the House regards as ideal removes existing provision for traditionalists, and asks them to trust that, once the Measure has been passed, suitable new provision, of a kind that many of them have said in the past is unacceptable, will be made. The report echoes the challenge to lay chairs. It talks about “grace, not law”.
As a practical policy, “grace, not law” is of limited application; and the Church never relies on grace alone: hence canon law, which, in the awareness that all are sinners, often requires people to do what they ought to want to do. It should set the tone and the boundaries; and it is arguable that poor relations between the majority and minority on women’s ordination are due to a failure to embrace the spirit of the legislation of 1992-93, compounded by the movement to repeal it. Trust will not be repaired throughout the Church by a few facilitated discussions. They can swing a vote, perhaps; and the temptation to cynicism that this idea presents is hardly eradicated by the experience of the contrast between the constructive small-group discussions of Synod members at York in July 2008, before the debate in full Synod in which they returned to playing what the Bishops call the “zero-sum game”.
The Bishops’ meeting was the first attended by participating observers from the senior women clergy. They will have sharpened the sense of urgency; but the Bishops are already feeling goaded by the warnings of parliamentarians. It is as well to remember, however, that the meeting was not attended by such a group from the House of Laity. That House could be pardoned for thinking that its views are being discounted; and, in a three-tier system, that is unwise. We have no other representative national body of the communicant laity. Nothing is more guaranteed to breed mistrust than to give the impression that so-called waverers, who voted as prayerfully as anyone else last November, are simply to be worked on.
Correction. Since the Leader above was written, we have been informed that the particpant observers are not yet attending the House of Bishops meetings. But women members of the working party were in attendance at the Bishops’ meeting earlier this month.