Footnotes

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN

2010-09-22T11:15:00.000+01:00

The Archbishop of Canterbury's Pentecostletter to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithfulof the Anglican Communion

2010-05-28T08:31:00.000+01:00

1.

'They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to talk in other
languages as the Spirit enabled them to speak' (Acts 2.4). At Pentecost,
we celebrate the gift God gives us of being able to communicate the Good
News of Jesus Christ in the various languages of the whole human world.
The Gospel is not the property of any one group, any one culture or
history, but is what God intends for the salvation of all who will
listen and respond.

St Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit is also what God gives us so that
we can call God 'Abba, Father' (Rom. 8.15, Gal. 4.6). The Spirit is
given not only so that we can speak to the world about God but so that
we can speak to God in the words of his own beloved Son. The Good News
we share is not just a story about Jesus but the possibility of living
in and through the life of Jesus and praying his prayer to the Father.

And so the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of 'communion' or fellowship
(II Cor. 13.13). The Spirit allows us to recognise each other as part of
the Body of Christ because we can hear in each other the voice of Jesus
praying to the Father. We know, in the Spirit, that we who are baptised
into Jesus Christ share one life; so that all the diversity of gifting
and service in the Church can be seen as the work of one Spirit (I Cor.
12.4). In the Holy Eucharist, this unity in and through the
self-offering of Jesus is reaffirmed and renewed as we pray for the
Spirit to transform both the bread and wine and 'ourselves, our souls
and bodies'.

When the Church is living by the Spirit, what the world will see is a
community of people who joyfully and gratefully hear the prayer of Jesus
being offered in each other's words and lives, and are able to recognise
the one Christ working through human diversity. And if the world sees
this, the Church is a true sign of hope in a world of bitter conflict
and rivalry.

2.

From the very first, as the New Testament makes plain, the Church has
experienced division and internal hostilities. From the very first, the
Church has had to repent of its failure to live fully in the light and
truth of the Spirit. Jesus tells us in St John's gospel that the Spirit
of truth will 'prove the world wrong' in respect of sin and
righteousness and judgement (Jn 16.8). But if the Spirit is leading us
all further into the truth, the Spirit will convict the Church too of
its wrongness and lead it into repentance. And if the Church is a
community where we serve each other in the name of Christ, it is a
community where we can and should call each other to repentance in the
name of Christ and his Spirit - not to make the other feel inferior
(because we all need to be called to repentance) but to remind them of
the glory of Christ's gift and the promise that we lose sight of when we
fail in our common life as a Church.

Our Anglican fellowship continues to experience painful division, and
the events of recent months have not brought us nearer to full
reconciliation. There are still things being done that the
representative bodies of the Communion have repeatedly pleaded should
not be done; and this leads to recrimination, confusion and bitterness
all round. It is clear that the official bodies of The Episcopal Church
have felt in conscience that they cannot go along with what has been
asked of them by others, and the consecration of Canon Mary Glasspool on
May 15 has been a clear sign of this. And despite attempts to clarify
the situation, activity across provincial boundaries still continues -
equally dictated by what people have felt they must in conscience do.
Some provinces have within them dioceses that are committed to policies
that neither the province as a whole nor the Communion has sanctioned.
In several places, not only in North America, Anglicans have not
hesitated to involve the law courts in settling disputes, often at great
expense and at the cost of the Church's good name.

All are agreed that the disputes arising around these matters threaten
to distract us from our main calling as Christ's Church. The recent
Global South encounter in Singapore articulated a strong and welcome
plea for the priority of mission in the Communion; and in my own message
to that meeting I prayed for a 'new Pentecost' for all of us. This is a
good season of the year to pray earnestly for renewal in the Spirit, so
that we may indeed do what God asks of us and let all people know that
new and forgiven life in Christ is possible and that created men and
women may by the Spirit's power be given the amazing liberty to call God
'Abba, Father!'

It is my own passionate hope that our discussion of the Anglican
Covenant in its entirety will help us focus on that priority; the
Covenant is nothing if not a tool for mission. I want to stress yet
again that the Covenant is not envisaged as an instrument of control.
And this is perhaps a good place to clarify that the place given in the
final text to the Standing Committee of the Communion introduces no
novelty: the Committee is identical to the former Joint Standing
Committee, fully answerable in all matters to the ACC and the Primates;
nor is there any intention to prevent the Primates in the group from
meeting separately. The reference to the Standing Committee reflected
widespread unease about leaving certain processes only to the ACC or
only to the Primates.

But we are constantly reminded that the priorities of mission are
experienced differently in different places, and that trying to
communicate the Gospel in the diverse tongues of human beings can itself
lead to misunderstandings and failures of communication between
Christians. The sobering truth is that often our attempts to share the
Gospel effectively in our own setting can create problems for those in
other settings.

3.

We are at a point in our common life where broken communications and
fragile relationships have created a very mistrustful climate. This is
not news. But many have a sense that the current risks are greater than
ever. Although attitudes to human sexuality have been the presenting
cause, I want to underline the fact that what has precipitated the
current problem is not simply this issue but the widespread bewilderment
and often hurt in different quarters that we have no way of making
decisions together so that we are not compromised or undermined by what
others are doing. We have not, in other words, found a way of shaping
our consciences and convictions as a worldwide body. We have not fully
received the Pentecostal gift of mutual understanding for common
mission.

It may be said - quite understandably, in one way - that our societies
and their assumptions are so diverse that we shall never be able to do
this. Yet we are called to seek for mutual harmony and common purpose,
and not to lose heart. If the truth of Christ is indeed ultimately one
as we all believe, there should be a path of mutual respect and
thankfulness that will hold us in union and help us grow in that truth.

Yet at the moment we face a dilemma. To maintain outward unity at a
formal level while we are convinced that the divisions are not only deep
but damaging to our local mission is not a good thing. Neither is it a
good thing to break away from each other so dramatically that we no
longer see Christ in each other and risk trying to create a church of
the 'perfect' - people like us. It is significant that there are still
very many in The Episcopal Church, bishops, clergy and faithful, who
want to be aligned with the Communion's general commitments and
directions, such as those who identify as 'Communion Partners', who
disagree strongly with recent decisions, yet want to remain in visible
fellowship within TEC so far as they can. And, as has often been pointed
out, there are things that Anglicans across the world need and want to
do together for the care of God's poor and vulnerable that can and do go
on even when division over doctrine or discipline is sharp.

4.

More and more, Anglicans are aware of living through a time of
substantial transition, a time when the structures that have served us
need reviewing and refreshing, perhaps radical changing, when the voice
and witness in the Communion of Christians from the developing world is
more articulate and creative than ever, and when the rapidity of social
change in 'developed' nations leaves even some of the most faithful and
traditional Christian communities uncertain where to draw the boundaries
in controversial matters - not only sexuality but issues of bioethics,
for example, or the complexities of morality in the financial world.

A time of transition, by definition, does not allow quick solutions to
such questions, and it is a time when, ideally, we need more than ever
to stay in conversation. As I have said many times before, whatever
happens to our structures, we still need to preserve both working
relationships and places for exchange and discussion. New vehicles for
conversations across these boundaries are being developed with much
energy.

But some decisions cannot be avoided. We began by thinking about
Pentecost and the diverse peoples of the earth finding a common voice,
recognising that each was speaking a truth recognised by all. However,
when some part of that fellowship speaks in ways that others find hard
to recognise, and that point in a significantly different direction from
what others are saying, we cannot pretend there is no problem.

And when a province through its formal decision-making bodies or its
House of Bishops as a body declines to accept requests or advice from
the consultative organs of the Communion, it is very hard (as noted in
my letter to the Communion last year after the General Convention of
TEC) to see how members of that province can be placed in positions
where they are required to represent the Communion as a whole. This
affects both our ecumenical dialogues, where our partners (as they often
say to us) need to know who it is they are talking to, and our internal
faith-and-order related groups.

I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved,
members of such provinces - provinces that have formally, through their
Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the
moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently
reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing
Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) - should not be
participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is
formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces
serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of
consultants rather than full members. This is simply to confirm what the
Communion as a whole has come to regard as the acceptable limits of
diversity in its practice. It does not alter what has been said earlier
by the Primates' Meeting about the nature of the moratoria: the request
for restraint does not necessarily imply that the issues involved are of
equal weight but recognises that they are 'central factors placing
strains on our common life', in the words of the Primates in 2007.
Particular provinces will be contacted about the outworking of this in
the near future.

I am aware that other bodies have responsibilities in questions
concerned with faith and order, notably the Primates' Meeting, the
Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee. The latter two
are governed by constitutional provisions which cannot be overturned by
any one person's decision alone, and there will have to be further
consultation as to how they are affected. I shall be inviting the views
of all members of the Primates' Meeting on the handling of these matters
with a view to the agenda of the next scheduled meeting in January 2011.

5.

In our dealings with other Christian communions, we do not seek to deny
our diversity; but there is an obvious problem in putting forward
representatives of the Communion who are consciously at odds with what
the Communion has formally requested or stipulated. This does not seem
fair to them or to our partners. In our dealings with each other, we
need to be clear that conscientious decisions may be taken in good
faith, even for what are held to be good theological or missional
reasons, and yet have a cost when they move away from what is
recognisable and acceptable within the Communion. Thus - to take a very
different kind of example - there have been and there are Anglicans who
have a strong conscientious objection to infant baptism. Their views
deserve attention, respect and careful study, they should be engaged in
serious dialogue - but it would be eccentric to place such people in a
position where their view was implicitly acknowledged as one of a range
of equally acceptable convictions, all of which could be taken as
representatively Anglican.

Yet no-one should be celebrating such public recognition of divisions
and everyone should be reflecting on how to rebuild relations and to
move towards a more coherent Anglican identity (which does not mean an
Anglican identity with no diversity, a point once again well made by the
statement from the Singapore meeting). Some complain that we are
condemned to endless meetings that achieve nothing. I believe that in
fact we have too few meetings that allow proper mutual exploration. It
may well be that such encounters need to take place in a completely
different atmosphere from the official meetings of the Communion's
representative bodies, and this needs some imaginative thought and
planning. Much work is already going into making this more possible.

But if we do conclude that some public marks of 'distance', as the
Windsor Continuation Group put it, are unavoidable if our Communion
bodies are not to be stripped of credibility and effectiveness, the
least Christian thing we can do is to think that this absolves us from
prayer and care for each other, or continuing efforts to make sense of
each other.

We are praying for a new Pentecost for our Communion. That means above
all a vast deepening of our capacity to receive the gift of being
adopted sons and daughters of the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It
means a deepened capacity to speak of Jesus Christ in the language of
our context so that we are heard and the Gospel is made compelling and
credible. And it also means a deepened capacity to love and nourish each
other within Christ's Body - especially to love and nourish, as well as
to challenge, those whom Christ has given us as neighbours with whom we
are in deep and painful dispute.

One remarkable symbol of promise for our Communion is the generous gift
received by the Diocese of Jerusalem from His Majesty the King of
Jordan, who has provided a site on the banks of the Jordan River, at the
traditional site of Our Lord's Baptism, for the construction of an
Anglican church. Earlier this year, I had the privilege of blessing the
foundation stone of this church and viewing the plans for its design. It
will be a worthy witness at this historic site to the Anglican
tradition, a sign of real hope for the long-suffering Christians of the
region, and something around which the Communion should gather as a
focus of common commitment in Christ and his Spirit. I hope that many in
the Communion will give generous support to the project.

'We have the mind of Christ' says St Paul (I Cor. 2.16); and, as the
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has recently written, this means
that we must have a 'kenotic', a self-emptying approach to each other in
the Church. May the Spirit create this in us daily and lead us into that
wholeness of truth which is only to be found in the crucified and risen
Lord Jesus.

I wish you all God's richest blessing at this season.

+Rowan Cantuar:
Lambeth Palace
Pentecost 2010

Statement from the Anglican Bishops in Southern African on the Imprisonment of Stephen Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga

2010-05-26T15:27:00.002+01:00

We, the Bishops of the Anglican Church in Southern Africa call upon the Government of South Africa to seek the release of Stephen Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, who were recently sentenced in Malawi to 14 years imprisonment with hard labour, after they shared in a traditional ceremony of engagement.

As we have previously stated, though there is a breadth of theological views among us on matters of human sexuality, we are united in opposing the criminalisation of homosexual people. We see the sentence that has been handed down to these two individuals as a gross violation of human rights and we therefore strongly condemn such sentences and behaviour towards other human beings. We emphasize the teachings of the Scriptures that all human beings are created in the image of God and therefore must be treated with respect and accorded human dignity. .

These principles are at the heart of South Africa's own Constitution, whose provisions we see as setting an example for the world to follow. We therefore call on our President and Government to pursue the same values and standards for the upholding of human well-being, dignity and respect, in our external relations; to engage in dialogue with their counterparts on the rights of minorities; and to oppose any measures which demean and oppress individuals, communities, or groups of people. In particular we call on our President and Government to lobby the Government of Malawi at every level to uphold the commitment it shares through the SADC treaty to promote human rights (Article 4). We urge them to press for the swift release of these two individuals, who have committed no act of violence or harm against anyone; for the quashing of the sentence against them; and for the repeal of this repressive legislation.

More generally, we wish to reiterate our deep concern at the violent language used against the gay community across Sub-Saharan Africa, and at the increased legal action being taken against gay individuals, communities and organisations. Even in South Africa we are aware of instances of violence against the gay and lesbian community. We therefore appeal to law-makers everywhere to defend the rights of these minorities.

As Bishops we believe that it is immoral to permit or support oppression of, or discrimination against, people on the grounds of their sexual orientation, and contrary to the teaching of the gospel; particularly Jesus’ command that we should love one another as he has loved us, without distinction (John 13:34-35). We commit ourselves to teach, preach and act against any laws that undermine human dignity and oppress any and all minorities, even as we call for Christians and all people to uphold the standards of holiness of life.

Issued by the Office of the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town

Hans Küng open letter to Catholic Bishops

2010-04-22T13:24:00.000+01:00

Posted: Monday, April 19, 2010 5:45 pm

Venerable Bishops,

Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, and I were the youngest theologians at the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. Now we are the oldest and the only ones still fully active. I have always understood my theological work as a service to the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the election of Pope Benedict XVI, I am making this appeal to you in an open letter. In doing so, I am motivated by my profound concern for our church, which now finds itself in the worst credibility crisis since the Reformation. Please excuse the form of an open letter; unfortunately, I have no other way of reaching you.

I deeply appreciated that the pope invited me, his outspoken critic, to meet for a friendly, four-hour-long conversation shortly after he took office. This awakened in me the hope that my former colleague at Tubingen University might find his way to promote an ongoing renewal of the church and an ecumenical rapprochement in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.

Unfortunately, my hopes and those of so many engaged Catholic men and women have not been fulfilled. And in my subsequent correspondence with the pope, I have pointed this out to him many times. Without a doubt, he conscientiously performs his everyday duties as pope, and he has given us three helpful encyclicals on faith, hope and charity. But when it comes to facing the major challenges of our times, his pontificate has increasingly passed up more opportunities than it has taken:

Missed is the opportunity for rapprochement with the Protestant churches: Instead, they have been denied the status of churches in the proper sense of the term and, for that reason, their ministries are not recognized and intercommunion is not possible.

Missed is the opportunity for the long-term reconciliation with the Jews: Instead the pope has reintroduced into the liturgy a preconciliar prayer for the enlightenment of the Jews, he has taken notoriously anti-Semitic and schismatic bishops back into communion with the church, and he is actively promoting the beatification of Pope Pius XII, who has been accused of not offering sufficient protections to Jews in Nazi Germany.

The fact is, Benedict sees in Judaism only the historic root of Christianity; he does not take it seriously as an ongoing religious community offering its own path to salvation. The recent comparison of the current criticism faced by the pope with anti-Semitic hate campaigns – made by Rev Raniero Cantalamessa during an official Good Friday service at the Vatican – has stirred up a storm of indignation among Jews around the world.

Missed is the opportunity for a dialogue with Muslims in an atmosphere of mutual trust: Instead, in his ill-advised but symptomatic 2006 Regensburg lecture, Benedict caricatured Islam as a religion of violence and inhumanity and thus evoked enduring Muslim mistrust.

Missed is the opportunity for reconciliation with the colonised indigenous peoples of Latin America: Instead, the pope asserted in all seriousness that they had been “longing” for the religion of their European conquerors.

Missed is the opportunity to help the people of Africa by allowing the use of birth control to fight overpopulation and condoms to fight the spread of HIV.

Missed is the opportunity to make peace with modern science by clearly affirming the theory of evolution and accepting stem-cell research.

Missed is the opportunity to make the spirit of the Second Vatican Council the compass for the whole Catholic Church, including the Vatican itself, and thus to promote the needed reforms in the church.

This last point, respected bishops, is the most serious of all. Time and again, this pope has added qualifications to the conciliar texts and interpreted them against the spirit of the council fathers. Time and again, he has taken an express stand against the Ecumenical Council, which according to canon law represents the highest authority in the Catholic Church:

He has taken the bishops of the traditionalist Pius X Society back into the church without any preconditions – bishops who were illegally consecrated outside the Catholic Church and who reject central points of the Second Vatican Council (including liturgical reform, freedom of religion and the rapprochement with Judaism).

He promotes the medieval Tridentine Mass by all possible means and occasionally celebrates the Eucharist in Latin with his back to the congregation.

He refuses to put into effect the rapprochement with the Anglican Church, which was laid out in official ecumenical documents by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, and has attempted instead to lure married Anglican clergy into the Roman Catholic Church by freeing them from the very rule of celibacy that has forced tens of thousands of Roman Catholic priests out of office.

He has actively reinforced the anti-conciliar forces in the church by appointing reactionary officials to key offices in the Curia (including the secretariat of state, and positions in the liturgical commission) while appointing reactionary bishops around the world.

Pope Benedict XVI seems to be increasingly cut off from the vast majority of church members who pay less and less heed to Rome and, at best, identify themselves only with their local parish and bishop.

I know that many of you are pained by this situation. In his anti-conciliar policy, the pope receives the full support of the Roman Curia. The Curia does its best to stifle criticism in the episcopate and in the church as a whole and to discredit critics with all the means at its disposal. With a return to pomp and spectacle catching the attention of the media, the reactionary forces in Rome have attempted to present us with a strong church fronted by an absolutistic “Vicar of Christ” who combines the church’s legislative, executive and judicial powers in his hands alone. But Benedict’s policy of restoration has failed. All of his spectacular appearances, demonstrative journeys and public statements have failed to influence the opinions of most Catholics on controversial issues. This is especially true regarding matters of sexual morality. Even the papal youth meetings, attended above all by conservative-charismatic groups, have failed to hold back the steady drain of those leaving the church or to attract more vocations to the priesthood.

You in particular, as bishops, have reason for deep sorrow: Tens of thousands of priests have resigned their office since the Second Vatican Council, for the most part because of the celibacy rule. Vocations to the priesthood, but also to religious orders, sisterhoods and lay brotherhoods are down – not just quantitatively but qualitatively. Resignation and frustration are spreading rapidly among both the clergy and the active laity. Many feel that they have been left in the lurch with their personal needs, and many are in deep distress over the state of the church. In many of your dioceses, it is the same story: increasingly empty churches, empty seminaries and empty rectories. In many countries, due to the lack of priests, more and more parishes are being merged, often against the will of their members, into ever larger “pastoral units,” in which the few surviving pastors are completely overtaxed. This is church reform in pretense rather than fact!

And now, on top of these many crises comes a scandal crying out to heaven – the revelation of the clerical abuse of thousands of children and adolescents, first in the United States, then in Ireland and now in Germany and other countries. And to make matters worse, the handling of these cases has given rise to an unprecedented leadership crisis and a collapse of trust in church leadership.

There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005). During the reign of Pope John Paul II, that congregation had already taken charge of all such cases under oath of strictest silence. Ratzinger himself, on May 18th, 2001, sent a solemn document to all the bishops dealing with severe crimes ( “epistula de delictis gravioribus” ), in which cases of abuse were sealed under the “secretum pontificium” , the violation of which could entail grave ecclesiastical penalties. With good reason, therefore, many people have expected a personal mea culpa on the part of the former prefect and current pope. Instead, the pope passed up the opportunity afforded by Holy Week: On Easter Sunday, he had his innocence proclaimed “urbi et orbi” by the dean of the College of Cardinals.

The consequences of all these scandals for the reputation of the Catholic Church are disastrous. Important church leaders have already admitted this. Numerous innocent and committed pastors and educators are suffering under the stigma of suspicion now blanketing the church. You, reverend bishops, must face up to the question: What will happen to our church and to your diocese in the future? It is not my intention to sketch out a new program of church reform. That I have done often enough both before and after the council. Instead, I want only to lay before you six proposals that I am convinced are supported by millions of Catholics who have no voice in the current situation.

1. Do not keep silent: By keeping silent in the face of so many serious grievances, you taint yourselves with guilt. When you feel that certain laws, directives and measures are counterproductive, you should say this in public. Send Rome not professions of your devotion, but rather calls for reform!

2. Set about reform: Too many in the church and in the episcopate complain about Rome, but do nothing themselves. When people no longer attend church in a diocese, when the ministry bears little fruit, when the public is kept in ignorance about the needs of the world, when ecumenical co-operation is reduced to a minimum, then the blame cannot simply be shoved off on Rome. Whether bishop, priest, layman or laywoman – everyone can do something for the renewal of the church within his own sphere of influence, be it large or small. Many of the great achievements that have occurred in the individual parishes and in the church at large owe their origin to the initiative of an individual or a small group. As bishops, you should support such initiatives and, especially given the present situation, you should respond to the just complaints of the faithful.

3. Act in a collegial way: After heated debate and against the persistent opposition of the Curia, the Second Vatican Council decreed the collegiality of the pope and the bishops. It did so in the sense of the Acts of the Apostles, in which Peter did not act alone without the college of the apostles. In the post-conciliar era, however, the pope and the Curia have ignored this decree. Just two years after the council, Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical defending the controversial celibacy law without the slightest consultation of the bishops. Since then, papal politics and the papal magisterium have continued to act in the old, uncollegial fashion. Even in liturgical matters, the pope rules as an autocrat over and against the bishops. He is happy to surround himself with them as long as they are nothing more than stage extras with neither voices nor voting rights. This is why, venerable bishops, you should not act for yourselves alone, but rather in the community of the other bishops, of the priests and of the men and women who make up the church.

4. Unconditional obedience is owed to God alone: Although at your episcopal consecration you had to take an oath of unconditional obedience to the pope, you know that unconditional obedience can never be paid to any human authority; it is due to God alone. For this reason, you should not feel impeded by your oath to speak the truth about the current crisis facing the church, your diocese and your country. Your model should be the apostle Paul, who dared to oppose Peter “to his face since he was manifestly in the wrong”! ( Galatians 2:11 ). Pressuring the Roman authorities in the spirit of Christian fraternity can be permissible and even necessary when they fail to live up to the spirit of the Gospel and its mission. The use of the vernacular in the liturgy, the changes in the regulations governing mixed marriages, the affirmation of tolerance, democracy and human rights, the opening up of an ecumenical approach, and the many other reforms of Vatican II were only achieved because of tenacious pressure from below.

5. Work for regional solutions: The Vatican has frequently turned a deaf ear to the well-founded demands of the episcopate, the priests and the laity. This is all the more reason for seeking wise regional solutions. As you are well aware, the rule of celibacy, which was inherited from the Middle Ages, represents a particularly delicate problem. In the context of today’s clerical abuse scandal, the practice has been increasingly called into question. Against the expressed will of Rome, a change would appear hardly possible; yet this is no reason for passive resignation. When a priest, after mature consideration, wishes to marry, there is no reason why he must automatically resign his office when his bishop and his parish choose to stand behind him. Individual episcopal conferences could take the lead with regional solutions. It would be better, however, to seek a solution for the whole church, therefore:

6. Call for a council: Just as the achievement of liturgical reform, religious freedom, ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue required an ecumenical council, so now a council is needed to solve the dramatically escalating problems calling for reform. In the century before the Reformation, the Council of Constance decreed that councils should be held every five years. Yet the Roman Curia successfully managed to circumvent this ruling. There is no question that the Curia, fearing a limitation of its power, would do everything in its power to prevent a council coming together in the present situation. Thus it is up to you to push through the calling of a council or at least a representative assembly of bishops.

With the church in deep crisis, this is my appeal to you, venerable bishops: Put to use the episcopal authority that was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council. In this urgent situation, the eyes of the world turn to you. Innumerable people have lost their trust in the Catholic Church. Only by openly and honestly reckoning with these problems and resolutely carrying out needed reforms can their trust be regained. With all due respect, I beg you to do your part – together with your fellow bishops as far as possible, but also alone if necessary – in apostolic “fearlessness” ( Acts 4:29, 31 ). Give your faithful signs of hope and encouragement and give our church a perspective for the future.

With warm greetings in the community of the Christian faith,

Yours, Hans Küng

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s video addressto the Fourth Global South to South Encounter,20 April 2010

2010-04-20T07:32:00.000+01:00

Greetings to you all, in the name of our risen Lord and Saviour.

You are meeting in this most precious season of the Christian year – the Easter season when we give thanks for the new creation revealed and made real for us in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. And we meet also praying in preparation for Pentecost for the renewed gift of the Holy Spirit in which alone we come fully alive to God and to one another in Jesus Christ.

I wish you every blessing in your meeting and I’m delighted that it’s happening at this particular moment, not only in the Christian year, but in the life of our Communion. I’m very sorry indeed that it’s not been possible for me to be with you physically. But I know that my greetings and best wishes will have been brought to you by our friends from the United Kingdom who are joining you on this occasion.

I want to comment on one or two things that relate to your agenda, and indeed to the agenda that we share as Anglicans in our worldwide fellowship.

The text of the Anglican Covenant has now been available for discussion for several months. As you know it’s the fruit of long, careful, prayerful discussion; the fruit of a sustained attempt on the part of so many people throughout our Communion to determine not only what it is that binds us together in terms of our faith, the authority we accord to scripture and tradition, but also what binds us humanly and specifically to one another in our fellowship, in our Communion – what it is that makes us one body, one community, able to speak to the world in the name of Christ.

The text of the [Anglican] Covenant is a whole. It is something which lays out the foundations of our faith, the language that we share, and the hopes that we share, but it also—we hope and pray—sets out a path for the future, a path of mutual attention, mutual respect, the kind of obedience to one another that the New Testament proposes for us, but so much in the Christian tradition also suggests – the careful listening to one another’s needs, and discernment of what we can say together, that is part not only in the life of the Church from time immemorial, but that has also been an important part of the life of many religious communities in the Benedictine tradition in which that mutual listening and obedience to one another has been so crucial. So one of my prayers for your meeting in these days is that you will discover something about that mutual obedience, the covenant with one another that comes out of our grateful acceptance of the covenant God makes with us in the blood of Jesus Christ.

Covenant, as many people have said, is an extraordinarily rich word. In your discussions during these days you’ll have had many opportunities to think about the richness of that word in Scripture and in the theological tradition. But as I reflected on it myself, one of the texts that I looked to was the association that St Paul makes in Romans 9.4 between adoption¸ glory, and covenant. He’s speaking there of the Jewish people: ‘from them’, he says (v.5), ‘comes the Messiah’, the Lord, the Incarnate God. In their life they have discovered adoption as children of God, the revelation of the glory of God, and the covenant reality which holds them to God and to one another. And I would like to think that as we Anglicans together reflect on covenant, we think also about adoption and about glory.

As Anglicans we, like all other Christians, understand our lives in Christ as being brought into that glorious liberty which belongs to the children of God – the liberty from self and sin, the liberty to pray and to praise without hindrance; to stand where Christ stands; to call God ‘Abba! Father!’ (Mark 14.36, Romans 8.15, Galatians 4.6), to speak with his voice and to breathe in his Spirit. We are adopted sons and daughters of our heavenly Father. And in that being drawn into the adoptive relationship with the Father, what happens is glory – the glory that in St John’s gospel Jesus assures he will give to his disciples because they have come to share his relation with God the Father (John 17.10).

So, to the world we show a new pattern of human life reconciled with the Father, free in the household of the Father to come to him with our prayer, with our praise, our petition, whenever we need and whenever we wish, confident of his reconciling and forgiving love. We show to the world that model of reconciled, forgiven life, and of bold and intimate prayer. And in doing so, the glory of God is reflected in us: the glory that Christ has with the Father before all time and to all eternity, now made real in the faces and the lives of ordinary people like you and me.

That new life is made real in us, and that glory is shown in us, because God has made a covenant with us – has promised in Jesus Christ to be with us when we turn to him, has promised that his merciful, forgiving, renewing strength will always be there for us, that his Spirit is never exhausted in re-creating us. It’s the covenant that makes us aware of our new status as the adopted sons and daughters of God, the covenant that is the foundation of glory being shown in us. And therefore it’s God’s covenant with us that is the basis of our mission, our confident readiness to share with the whole needy world the promise of being adopted as sons and daughters, the promise of glory. And as so much in Scripture hints, as we rediscover again and again that covenant that God has made with us, so we rediscover the covenant that binds us to one another. We share in that status of sons and daughters. We see glory in each other’s faces. And in our unity and our commitment to one another we show that God not only has a purpose for individuals, but that God has a purpose for the human family.

So when, as an Anglican Communion we seek to bind ourselves in covenant, we’re not simply making a contract, we’re not simply trying to solve problems. We’re trying to find a way of grounding our mission in a new way, in the recognition of that inter-weaving of adoption and glory that all Christians share.

So as you discuss the Covenant—and as the Covenant is discussed in your Provinces—I hope that that larger dimension will always be in people’s minds. I was particularly pleased to see the ways in which the titles of the various bible studies and lectures during your meeting reflected that sense that we need to go deeper into the idea of covenant. Few things could be more important for us. So, in all those discussions and reflections I wish you every blessing, and I look forward with great eagerness to hearing what you have discovered in your thinking and praying together.

But of course we are reflecting on the need for a covenant in the light of confusion, brokenness and tension within our Anglican family – a brokenness and a tension that has been made still more acute by recent decisions in some of our Provinces. In all your minds there will be questions around the election and consecration of Mary Glasspool in Los Angeles. All of us share the concern that in this decision and action the Episcopal Church has deepened the divide between itself and the rest of the Anglican family. And as I speak to you now, I am in discussion with a number of people around the world about what consequences might follow from that decision, and how we express the sense that most Anglicans will want to express, that this decision cannot speak for our common mind.

But I hope also in your thinking about this and in your reacting to it, you’ll bear in mind that there are no quick solutions for the wounds of the Body of Christ. It is the work of the Spirit that heals the Body of Christ, not the plans or the statements of any group, or any person, or any instrument of communion. Naturally we seek to minimize the damage, to heal the hurts, to strengthen our mission, to make sure that it goes forward with integrity and conviction. Naturally, there are decisions that have to be taken. But at the same time we must all—as indeed your own covering notes suggest for your conference—we must all share in a sense of repentance and willingness to be renewed by the Spirit.

So while the tensions and the crises of our Anglican Communion will of course be in your minds as they are in mine, I know from what you have written, what you have communicated about your plans and hopes for this conference, that you will allow the Holy Spirit to lift your eyes to that broader horizon of God’s purpose for us as Anglicans, for us as Christians, and indeed for us as human beings.

Adoption and glory: these are the treasures given to us in the very earthenware vessels of our discipleship with its varying failings and confusions. And yet God has promised to be faithful. And it’s his faithfulness that we celebrate at this Easter season, and as we wait for the seal of the Spirit at Pentecost.

May your prayers and your thoughts be part of a new Pentecost for the Anglican Communion, which will bind us in communion more deeply than ever, make us more faithful, effective and imaginative witnesses to God’s truth to the ends of the earth.

May God the Father bless you all, through the risen Christ, showering upon you the power of his Holy Spirit.

+ Rowan Cantuar:

MadPriest's sermon For Palm Sunday 2010

2010-03-26T17:51:00.001Z

When he had come near Bethphage and Bethany, at the place called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of the disciples, saying, “Go into the village ahead of you, and as you enter it you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ just say this, ‘The Lord needs it.’”

So those who were sent departed and found it as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, “Why are you untying the colt?”

They said, “The Lord needs it.”

Then they brought it to Jesus; and after throwing their cloaks on the colt, they set Jesus on it. As he rode along, people kept spreading their cloaks on the road.

As he was now approaching the path down from the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the deeds of power that they had seen, saying, “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest heaven!”

Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, order your disciples to stop.”

He answered, “I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out.”

***

At first glance Lent and Passiontide might appear to people outside of the Church as just a huge chunk of monotonous sameness. They could easily conclude that all that happens is that Christians start being miserable and feeling guilty on Ash Wednesday, continue being miserable and feeling guilty for 42 days until Good Friday when they become even more miserable and feel even more guilty. Probably the only thing most non-Christians know about Lent is that it is a time of fasting, of not enjoying oneself.

Regrettably, for many Christians and for long periods during our faith's history, this was, and still is, what this part of the liturgical year is all about.This is due to the fact that at various times in the past the Church has been hijacked by holier than thou people who have somehow managed to convince most Christians that being miserable, feeling guilty and not enjoying oneself is the way to please God and get into heaven. I expect this assertion was made by some right at the beginning of the history of the Church, but it gained a major foothold in our thinking when the desert fathers started hiding themselves away, on their own, in the middle of nowhere and sometimes even spending their whole lives sitting on top of pillars or in holes in the ground. This extreme asceticism was popular during the 3rd Century but it has been carried through to our times in the monastic movement that based its rules of life on the practices of the desert fathers. It may appear to us that the three main rules of monastic life, celibacy, poverty and obedience were given to the Church by God written on stone tablets, but the truth is that they are purely accidents of time, place and culture decided upon by a small group of extremely antisocial men.

Being miserable has been a main defining part of the Christian mindset at other times during our history. It was particularly popular during the later Middle Ages. This was a time of war, pestilence and very short lives for most people. Many believed that they were living during the last days or that all the pain and suffering they were enduring was a punishment from God because they had sinned. Asceticism, fasting and self harm were regarded as being a sacrifice both the individual Christian and the Christian Church could make in order to appease this vengeful lawmaker of a god.

In some parts of the Church this idea that the pain of human beings pleases God has persisted into our modern era. That people outside of the Church regard Christians as a miserable lot is not an accident. It has to be admitted we appear to spend an inordinate of our time complaining about people enjoying themselves and trying to stop them doing so. There are many examples of even more bizarre practices. In some places men will literally nail themselves to a wooden cross in order to suffer like Christ did. And you can still come across such silliness right in the heart of the Church. I read the other week that the last pope used to regularly self-flagellate. He had a special implement for doing this hidden away in his closet.

Of course, none of this has any basis in the teaching of Jesus Christ. He advised us to live simple lives so that we could be generous to others less well off than ourselves but he never told us to cause ourselves harm and he didn't cause harm to himself either. Jesus fasted at one point in his life for a specific reason but for the rest of the time he eschewed such extreme actions. And the idea that Jesus would want people to suffer like he did is a bit sick if you ask me. It's like somebody going down with a bad case of the flu and saying to their friends and family, "I hope you all get this." If we, weak humans that we are, don't want others to go through the same pains we endure during our lives, why should we think that our merciful Lord would ask for us to endure his pain. Most humans will expend a lot of time, energy and money trying to make sure the people they love don't suffer from avoidable pain and distress. And, Christ did the same. He suffered and died so that we didn't have to. Deliberately embracing suffering when we don't have to is an insult to Jesus. Worse still, it is stating that the suffering of Christ was not sufficient for our salvation.

Lent is a time of simplicity not a time of misery. We get rid of the clutter from our lives so that we concentrate our thoughts on that which Christ achieved for us. Any dwelling on our sins and our guilt should be done fully in the constant awareness that God has graciously forgiven us. Lent should be a time of contemplative joy not a painful time.

And it should not be a dull, static time either. Lent celebrated in the English, Anglican, Catholic tradition is not monotonous, it contains light and shade, it is dynamic. We switch between times of sadness and times of joy. For a start every Sunday in the Church year is a festival and we are not supposed to fast on festivals because festival means feast. And there's Mothering Sunday at the beginning of the fourth week of Lent when we celebrate motherhood, our families, our communities and new birth. We say thank you to our mothers for giving us life by giving to them symbols of new life, flowers, the first new birth of spring. Mothering Sunday is a little Easter in the middle of Lent.

And then, of course, there's today, Palm Sunday. A day on which the Church emerges itself into the bittersweet joy of Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem. Bittersweet because, although we feel the happiness of the crowd that cheers Jesus, we know what that same crowd will demand to be done to Jesus in just a few days time.

However, Lent is not a season of isolated celebrations. It is also a season during which there is constant linear movement. During Lent we hear the story of Jesus' journey towards the climax of his ministry in Jerusalem. And we not only engage with this story we actually become actors in it. To some extent, in this Lenten journey, we are Jesus and Jesus is us. If you remember, the other week, we looked at how we all face our own Jerusalem at different times in our lives. But mainly we identify ourselves with Christ's disciples as they accompany their Lord towards and into Jerusalem. We identify with the disciples because they were as we are. Human beings capable of acts of great altruism and bravery but also capable of being fearful to the point of betraying that which they love most.

This year I have ditched the Passion reading from our Palm Sunday service so that we can concentrate on the events that should be celebrated today. The Passion should be comemorated on Good Friday and we have a service on that day during which the Passion will be read. The details are on the news sheet. As Common Worship has given in to modernity by celebrating Good Friday on the previous Sunday so that people don't have to go to church more than once a week, I had to go back to the Book of Common Prayer for a correct liturgical reading for today.

The reading in the Prayer Book is taken from the Gospel of Luke which is useful as the account of Christ's entry into Jerusalem is subtly different in Luke's gospel to the accounts in the other gospels, which gives us the opportunity to learn something from our reading that is not obvious in the other gospels. You see, there are two things missing in Luke's account that most people would probably assume are in all the gospels. Firstly, there are no palms. In fact there are not even branches cut from trees. The only things that are placed in front of Jesus as he makes his way into Jerusalem are the cloaks off the disciples' backs. Secondly, the crowd that greets and cheers Jesus does not come out of Jerusalem to meet him. The cheering crowd in Luke's account is made up entirely of of Christ's disciples who had journeyed with him, at least some of the way. And bear in mind we are not talking about just the twelve disciples, we are talking about a much larger group of followers, men and women, that had become part of Christ's entourage during his ministry.

This restriction of the crowd to members of Christ's community only, makes the whole episode a lot more intimate and personal from our point of view. It makes the entry into Jerusalem an action of the people of the Church. It also emphasises the pilgrimage aspect of Lent - the journey that Christ and his disciples make at the end of his earthly ministry. A journey, that through our observance of Lent, we have become very much a part of. Our identification with the disciples places us in that crowd at the gates to Jerusalem, cheering our Lord and placing our coats on the ground in front of him.

Unfortunately, there is a downside to this. By restricting the crowd at this point of the story to just the disciples, Luke places everyone who is not a disciple of Christ at some distance. The only outsiders mentioned by Luke at this point are some Pharisees who are shown, by the words they utter, to be definitely not followers of Christ. This emphasis on Christ's disciples at this point carries on in Luke's gospel into his Passion narrative. John, in his gospel, includes non-disciples in the crowd that greets Jesus and so he is able to subtlety shift a lot of blame for Christ's execution onto the general mass of people in Jerusalem. I think Luke wants to make the point that, although outsiders were part of Christ's story at the end of his life, they were involved more as onlookers and actors and maybe not even in control of the parts they play in the drama.

For Luke, it was Christ and his followers, the precursor of the Church, who were centre stage a place they would maintain throughout the rest of his gospel and which the disciples of Christ would continue to occupy into the Acts of the Apostles. I think Luke sees the story of Peter denying Christ before the cock crowed three times and the betrayal of Jesus by Judas as being of far more importance in his account of Christ's Passion than the role played by Pilate and the people of Jerusalem. Luke wants his readers to identify with the disciples not with Pilate and the Roman soldiers and, if we accept that we are one with the disciples in the narrative at Christ's entry into Jerusalem, we will remain one with disciples throughout the rest of the story and view the action through the eyes of the disciples, not through the eyes of the crowd.

The downside then is that we become identified with the disciples who fled when things got too hot for them, with Peter who denied his Lord and even with Judas who betrayed his friend.

So, by celebrating Palm Sunday correctly and not ignoring it just so that we can celebrate Good Friday at our convenience, we place ourselves alongside Jesus as he journeys towards his destiny on Calvary Hill. And, if we are to understand why we are Christians, we have to make that journey with him. We have to be with him as he ministers to the people of Jerusalem. We have to be with him at the Last Supper and in the Garden of Gethsemane. We must stand by him at his trial and watch at the foot of the cross as he dies. We also have to betray him and deny him and run away in fear as the time of his brutal execution approaches. We have to endure all this so that we can know, not only what Christ endured, but also what his endurance meant, and still means, to his disciples, his people, his Church. Our pilgrimage must include Holy Week, it must include our identification with those weak, fearful disciples, so that, on Easter morning, we know in our hearts, not only that we are raised with Christ but why we need to be raised with Christ. Because then, still as one with the disciples, we can move as they did out of fear and weakness towards their and our true vocation of proclaimers of Christ's gospel and builders of Christ's Church and God's kingdom on earth.

The Bishop of Liverpool,The Rt Reverend James Jones,Presidential Address, Synod March 2010

2010-03-08T12:13:00.003Z

The Equality Bill which is before Parliament has raised again the issue about how the Church engages in the debate on sexual ethics.

In my Presidential Address today I want therefore to return to the debate on human sexuality. The thought of it may make your heart grow heavy because many feel that this issue has consumed too much of our time and energy and even deflected us from other equally important areas in the mission of God.

You may think that with a General Election coming up I should be addressing some of the major political issues of our time. I did this in a lecture in Ripon Cathedral three weeks ago and have made copies available to you today. You may think that I should direct attention to Jesus and address the matter of faith. I am doing this each Wednesday evening in our own Cathedral during Lent.

However, for some in the church homosexuality has become the defining issue of orthodoxy; it has become the benchmark on how you interpret Scripture and apply it authoritatively to the modern world. For others in the church, especially but not exclusively for those who are gay, homosexuality and the church’s attitude have become the touchstone of the church’s seriousness in wanting to include in the Kingdom all God’s children.

Put like that this summary of the two positions sounds perfectly reasonable and irenic. But we all know that the division of opinion has caused much bitterness and enmity and continues to aggravate the worsening relations within the Anglican Communion. The question which exercises me and which I wish to address today is whether we in the church can have a division of opinion without bitterness and a diversity of conviction without enmity.

Of all the ethical dilemmas that face human society the most basic and fundamental questions centre on the taking of human life. Beginning and end of life issues are at the forefront of our moral debates today and come to a head in legislation that permits abortion and in proposed legislation about assisted suicide and euthanasia. Synod will recall that to the latter subject I devoted a Presidential Address in June 2006. At the time of the Iraq War there was also animated debate about whether or not that military engagement fulfilled the criteria of a just war. Historically the famous five principles of a just war probably go back to 4th and 5th Centuries with the writings of Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo although it was Thomas Aquinas who gave the theory definition in the Middle Ages.

A cursory glance at the history of the just war theory and the ethics of pacifism show that for the last two thousand years the church has been exercised about whether or not it is ever right for a Christian to take up arms and to take the life of another human being. Although it has been agreed that the early church (from the period of persecution within the Roman Empire until the conversion of Constantine) was the age of pacifism, since then the church has not only allowed but embraced a breadth of ethical opinion on the taking of life.

Augustine made the point that Jesus ruled out Malatia (hatred) not Militia (military service) and the church, without compromising the principle of the sanctity of human life, has made space within the Body of Christ for a variety of ethical positions.

I suspect that within our Synod there is a similar spectrum of moral conviction about whether or not it is ever justified to take the life of another. No doubt should our nation ever find itself in another period of compulsory conscription to military service we would have lively debates on the floor of this Synod to argue the case and to discern the truth. Meanwhile, on this the most fundamental of all ethical issues in spite of any divergent views, we sit comfortably with each other, recognise each other’s integrity, respect one another’s faith and moral judgement and enjoy communion in Christ with one another.

I have to say that I am not fazed by this for with you I recognise that in a complex world of absolute moral principles the application of them is rarely a straightforward process. That is why our courts are presided over by people and not computers.

Even though we live in a society tempted to reduce every decision to a box-ticking exercise that can be processed through a computer, when it comes to making moral judgements about a person’s behaviour we have to hear the human story and form a moral judgement with regard not only to the nature of the action but also to the intent and the consequences. And although I am not a lawyer I know enough to see that context frames a deed and can either mitigate or aggravate the seriousness of an action.

The histories of the First and Second World Wars when conscription was in force show how many wrestled with their conscience as they sought to apply moral principles to their own particular context. As we look back, our society and the church both approve and salute the courage shown by both pacifists and conscripts even though at the time there were passionate debates, fierce division of opinion and great hostility shown to conscientious objectors.

The fact that conscripts and pacifists divided along one moral line does not detract from our admiration now nor deflect us from acknowledging now the moral courage of both. We may sympathise with the soldier yet we can salute the pacifist; we may identify fully with the pacifist yet admire the sacrifice of the soldier.

In other words, we can now stand on either side of the moral argument and still be in fellowship despite disagreeing on this the most fundamental ethical issue, the sixth of the Ten Commandments.

I know that especially for those who are gay this is not an exact moral parallel for our sexuality like ethnicity is not a matter of choice. It is a given. In Christian terms a grace. Yet, conceding that important distinction, here is an area of ethical dispute where the church has contained disagreement.

Just as the church over the last 2000 years has come to allow a variety of ethical conviction about the taking of life and the application of the sixth Commandment so I believe that in this period it is also moving towards allowing a variety of ethical conviction about people of the same gender loving each other fully. Just as Christian pacifists and Christian soldiers profoundly disagree with one another yet in their disagreement continue to drink from the same cup because they share in the one body so too I believe the day is coming when Christians who equally profoundly disagree about the consonancy of same gender love with the discipleship of Christ will in spite of their disagreement drink openly from the same cup of salvation.

This is I believe the next chapter to be written in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. It is the chapter that is already being written in our Partnership in Mission with the Diocese of Virginia and with the Diocese of Akure in Nigeria. At our last Synod we renewed and approved the continuation of our partnership with the Diocese of Akure. In the appendix of the report considered by the Synod was the exchange of letters between me and my brother Bishop Michael Ipinmoye of Akure. I will include them as an enclosure to this address and draw attention to the paragraph where I set out how I see the debate on sexual ethics in the Diocese of Liverpool.

“Furthermore, I was able to explain to you that I thought that the Diocese of Liverpool was on the way to achieving a position similar to the church’s attitude to pacifism in matters of homosexuality. In other words, there will be people of equal sincerity and equal conviction who believe and do not believe that homosexuality within a stable and faithful relationship is consistent with Christian discipleship. Again, I was encouraged that you seemed able to respect this likelihood even though I know that you were at pains to demonstrate to me that the Church of Nigeria could never countenance something which was against the law of the country. “

The point of significance in this is the response of Bishop Michael. He restates his own position and that of the Diocese of Akure and of the Church of Nigeria and calls on us to continue to reflect on the Biblical material. Having done this he reiterated what he said to me personally in our private meeting that he and the Diocese of Akure wish to continue the Partnership in Mission. This is a partnership between an African Diocese taking a traditional stance on gay relationships and a Church of England Diocese which is moving toward embracing a range of ethical convictions on this issue and which is also in partnership with a Diocese in the Episcopal Church of America.

In the Diocese of Liverpool there are churches and individuals who identify with the traditional stance on gay relationships held by the African Church, although I know of no one who shares the homophobic hatred expressed in the proposed legislation that has been before the Ugandan Parliament which I take this opportunity to criticise and abhor. To our shame in Liverpool we have seen outbursts of homophobic violence which the Church Leaders have unanimously condemned in the following statement:

“The Leaders of the churches in Liverpool believe that it is wrong for anyone in the community of which we are all part to be victimised, or threatened with victimisation, on account of their race, creed, colour or sexual orientation. We affirm our commitment to work with others to build a community where all can have their place of belonging, feel welcome and live in safety. As Church Leaders, we represent a rich variety of Christian traditions, with different perspectives on some issues, but we stand together in condemning the use of violence and other forms of intimidation against minority groups which are especially vulnerable. The City of Liverpool has a long history of welcoming people of difference. In the past we have discovered, sometimes painfully, the importance of learning to live peacefully together. This lesson we must never forget.”

In his most recent Presidential Address to the General Synod of the Church of England the Archbishop of Canterbury said, “The rights and dignities of gay and lesbian people are a matter of proper concern for all of us, and we assume with good reason, even, I should say, with good Christian reason, that the securing of these rights is obviously a mark of civilised and humane society. When those rights are threatened – as in the infamous legislation that was being discussed in Uganda – we quite rightly express repugnance.” If from a Christian point of view we can advocate this breadth of moral conviction for society at large I believe it is consistent theologically and ethically to allow the same diversity of moral conviction within the Church herself.

And, just as the rights and dignities of gay and lesbian people are a matter for proper concern for both church and society so are the rights and dignities of those who out of theological and moral conviction believe that the gift of full sexual expression is given only to those in marriage. This is one of the reasons why I voted for the amendment to the Equality Bill which allows the Church to continue to appoint people who uphold their historic stance on moral and doctrinal issues. It is why I also spoke in the debate in defence of the right of the church to appoint Head Teachers who can uphold the Christian ethos of church schools. Although I do find myself in sympathy with Lord Ali’s amendment which allows other religious organisations to conduct civil partnerships on the grounds that other people should also be free to follow their own conscience and theological and moral convictions.

The heartache for those who take the traditional stance is that it can be used to fuel homophobic attitudes. This is particularly painful for Christians who are homosexual and who accept the traditional ethic for themselves; they feel the negativity personally. It is an agonising cross. As you can imagine, they do not come lightly to the interpretation that their homosexual condition is a call to celibacy. In my view, the debate over the last twenty years has not given sufficient attention to their situation or to their theological, ethical and spiritual insights.

In the Diocese of Liverpool there are also churches and individuals who identify with the stance on gay relationships held by the American Episcopal Church. In my essay and previous Presidential Address “Making Space for Truth and Grace” I have sought to understand some of the dynamics at work in American culture. I will not rehearse them here except to say that any church, ours included, that has been so implicated in the slave trade, slavery and racism will understandably want to go to all lengths to demonstrate unequivocally their stance on human rights, civil rights and equal rights for all groups in society. Furthermore, we cannot disentangle easily our reactions to the American Church from our reaction to the dominance of America in the world today. There are many dynamics at work in international relationships. This is one of the reasons that I have consistently argued both to you and the wider church that it is far better to locate ethical and doctrinal debates in the context of established and proven relationships within the Anglican Communion rather than through megaphones across oceans and continents. It is why I am so committed to our relationship with Virginia and Akure. What this partnership recognises, indeed it is predicated upon this principle, is that the diversity of ethical opinion is in itself legitimate.

Over the years as your Bishop I have shared with you my thinking especially on this subject, always promising that as my own understanding developed I would share it with the Synod and the Diocese. I laid this address before the Bishop’s Council in January.

I bring it to you today to say that this is where I now am, and where I believe the Diocese of Liverpool now is and where I hope that the Church of England and the Anglican Communion might also move.

Over the last twelve years we have gone forward in mission with a remarkable degree of unity. This was very much in evidence at the great Clergy Conference last June; it was there again in the recent excellent conference of Church Wardens. By God’s grace we seem able to contain our differences as we rise to the opportunities for mission that come from being the Church of England; we also delight in the unique opportunities for mission that come to our brothers and sisters of other traditions, most notably the Catholic Church. Like the rest of England ours is a culture of diversity. One of the positive aspects of a rich ecumenical landscape is that we have a variety of doors through which different people might enter into the Christian faith.

I think this appreciation of diversity has helped us to accept each other and to work together as a Diocese refusing to allow anything to undermine our oneness in Christ.

That which I have stated explicitly in this address I believe we are already living out implicitly, namely that we do already as a Diocese accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality in the same way that the church has always allowed a diversity of ethical opinion on taking human life. Within our own fellowship we are brothers and sisters in Christ holding a variety of views on a number of major theological and moral issues and we are members of a church that characteristically allows a large space for a variety of nuances, interpretations, applications and disagreement. I know that sometimes it stretches us, but never to breaking point, for it seems to me that there is a generosity of grace that holds us all together.

If on this subject of sexuality the traditionalists are ultimately right and those who advocate the acceptance of stable and faithful gay relationships are wrong what will their sin be? That in a world of such little love two people sought to express a love that no other relationship could offer them? And if those advocating the acceptance of gay relationship are right and the traditionalists are wrong what will their sin be? That in a church that has forever wrestled with interpreting and applying Scripture they missed the principle in the application of the literal text?
Do these two thoughts not of themselves enlarge the arena in which to do our ethical exploration?

This address has been about how we handle disagreements about ethical principles within the Body of Christ. It is also about how we promote a Christian humanism whereby we discover before God both how to flourish as human beings in Christ and how to treat each other humanely in the process of that discovery. It is my plea that the Church of England and the Anglican Communion must allow a variety of ethical views on the subject as in this Diocese we do and that to do so finds a parallel in the space it offers for a diversity of moral positions on the taking of life. Although it will doubtless remain a disputed question for some time in the wider church I hope this approach will continue to allow for the development of a humane pastoral theology here in the Diocese of Liverpool.

I have not addressed today the implications of this position for the ordering and governance of the church but I wish you to know that in due course we will discuss these in parishes, deaneries and in the Diocesan Synod as we continue to do together our pastoral theology on this subject recognising that decisions belong ultimately to the General Synod and to the House of Bishops.

As Bishop called to “maintain the spirit of unity in the bond of peace” in the Diocese of Liverpool where we have the full spectrum of moral opinion on human sexuality I believe that to have “diversity without enmity”, as the Dean put it at the Bishop’s Council, provides a safe and a spiritually and emotionally healthy place for Christians of differing convictions to discern the will of God for our lives. To know and to do God’s will is our calling. The place for that discernment is the Body of Christ where the different members, differentiated by the diversity of our graces, gifts and experiences, are called to be in harmony and love with one another. It is to that end that I offer you this Address. It is also offered in the hope that we will let nothing deflect us from mission, the sending out of us all to embrace the world in the love of God.

MADPRIEST'S SERMON FOR THESUNDAY BEFORE LENT, 2010

2010-02-13T11:17:00.000Z

2 CORINTHIAN 3: 12 - 4:2
Since, then, we have such a hope, we act with great boldness, not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was being set aside. But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside. Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit. Therefore, since it is by God’s mercy that we are engaged in this ministry, we do not lose heart. We have renounced the shameful things that one hides; we refuse to practice cunning or to falsify God’s word; but by the open statement of the truth we commend ourselves to the conscience of everyone in the sight of God.

Imagine, if you will, a young, married couple. The wife gives birth to a baby boy, and for eighteen years they keep their child in their home. They do not allow the child to go out, he doesn't go to school, he doesn't go out to play with friends. His parents don't allow anybody to come into their home to meet their child. He is not allowed to watch television or listen to the radio. In fact, he has no access, for all those years, to anything that might tell him about the world outside. He is cared for and he is loved, but he remains an innocent as far as the ways of the world are concerned.

Then, on his eighteenth birthday his parents call him into the lounge, sit him down and, in one go, tell him all about life, about the world, about other people. They tell him about love and sex, hatred and war. They tell him about the holocaust of the Jews in Germany. They tell him about Chernobyl and nuclear bombs. They tell him stories of murder and other crimes. They tell him about illness, accident, disaster. They tell him about the pain of rejection and bereavement. They tell him that one day he will die. And, after they have told him everything, they take him to the front door, they open it, and they push him outside, slamming the door shut behind him.

I wonder what the reaction of the boy would be. My guess is that having all that information, with so much of it being so very frightening, he would have one huge panic attack and descend into madness never to come out of it again.

Good parents know that their children's lives are a process and that they are responsible, to a very large extent, for the management of that process. In conjunction with the experiences of life their children go through as they come into contact with life outside of the home, parents gradually teach their children about the realities of life, reacting to the varied situations their children encounter from day to day. They do not give them a book on life, the universe and everything on a specific birthday, but, in stead, introduce them gradually to the realities of the world outside of the family, bit by bit as each opportunity to do so comes along.

Growing up is a journey and it is part of the whole journey of life everyone one of us goes through. And we don't just journey on our own. Our families, our communities, our nations, in fact, all humankind, are all involved in journeys, both as individuals and together. And as we journey on through our individual and communal lives we are informed and molded and changed, both individually and communally by our experiences, by our acquiring of knowledge and by revelation.

This is all a bit scary and can be quite daunting. So much so that we try to control our lives in such a way as to make it less so. One of the ways we have protected ourselves from the overwhelming complexity of our human existence is by imposing upon ourselves rules and regulations. Laws, manners, etiquette, some adopted by all people throughout history, and some that just exist for a time and/or for a specific culture. Without these rules the human race would live in complete anarchy. Our personal and communal life journeys would be completely disordered. Like children at school, we need a safe structure surrounding us, so that we are able to learn our lessons.

Children reach adulthood well prepared for life if their parents provide them with an ongoing education about life within the protection of a structured environment. Many of the rules imposed on children will be the same as those adults impose on themselves. Don't murder someone is as applicable to a six year old in the school playground as it is to a grown up who has waited in a post office queue to get his car taxed for over an hour. But there are, also, many rules that we ask children to adhere to that they may discard when they become adults, responsible for their own lives. Although my upbringing wasn't overly strict, my mother certainly had rules that she expected us to follow to the letter. One of these rules was that we were not allowed to just help ourselves to nice things from kitchen cupboards. For example, if we wanted a biscuit or a drink of fizzy we had to ask her first. I expect a major reason for this rule was that my mother had to raise us three kids on a very limited budget. But it was also a rule that helped teach us that more important rule, thou shalt not steal.

And I learnt that rule. In fact, I learnt it so well that now I am grown up, not only do I not steal, but I have huge problems helping myself to my own biscuits out of my own cupboard. In fact, I still find myself, quite often, asking my wife for permission to have a biscuit from the cupboard, something she finds very amusing. It is silly, of course, but it's a harmless quirk in my personality. However, it does highlight one of the problems human beings encounter in their lives. Namely, the difficulty of moving from the rules of our childhood to the rules of our our adult lives.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Saint Paul states that when he grew up he put aside childish things. He was, of course, exaggerating. None of us ever put aside all our childish things and, even, Saint Paul could be very childish at times. All of us cling on to some parts of our childhood throughout the whole of our lives. This can be harmless like my fear of helping myself to biscuits. But if we are too fearful to let go of our childhood, including the rules and regulations specific to childhood, we remain infantile as adults. We don't become fully adult and so we don't experience adulthood as we truly should. This can have serious repercussions for ourselves and those we live with. Those who are unable to accept adulthood can easily fall prey to addictions such as alcoholism. Most thieves and burglars will be people who still look at life through the self-seeking eyes of their early upbringing. Most dangerous of all is that if a person fails to become a mature, responsible adult, that person will not be capable of raising a child to be a mature adult and you then end up with a cycle that results in an ever increasing number of irresponsible adults as each generation fails to bring up their offspring correctly. If we are to contribute, effectively, to the wellbeing of the communities and the wider society in which we live we have to grow up and accept our adult responsibilities.

But, having said that, adulthood is not just about responsibilities. It is not just about going to work, about having babies, about sacrificially caring for your families and your loved ones. That is all very important but it is not all there is. In fact, it is possible to enjoy ourselves as adults. We may look back on the innocence and carefree existence of our childhood, but we do so through rose tinted glasses. The truth is that adulthood gives us opportunities for happiness that children just don't have. And the reason this is true is that adults have far more freedom than children. Because we are responsible for ourselves we can make our own choices in situations where children would be simply told what to do. We can choose what we want to watch on television, what books to read, what knowledge to go in search of. We can choose what we want to wear, where we want to go, what time we get in at night. We can choose who we want to be friends with, who we want to fall in love with, who we want to live with. Adulthood comes with many responsibilities that children don't have to worry about but adulthood also comes with many freedoms that are not available to children.

Most of what I've been talking about up to now has been concerned with individuals within a family. But each person's journey through life is a microcosm of different cultures', different societies', even the whole human race's journey from childhood into adulthood. Of particular interest to us is how similar the life of each one of us is to the communal life of the faith we profess. And we are extremely fortunate because we are alive quite well on in the life of our faith and can, therefore, look back over that long lifetime and learn from the experiences of all those members of our faith who came before us.

Now, the Christian faith was not born two thousand years ago at the time of Jesus Christ, or shortly after his death. That time was, in fact, the time of our coming of age. If we want to look at the infancy and childhood of our faith we have to go back, at least a further seven hundred years, if not even more, and study the writings and stories of the Jewish people alive at that time. It was in about 600/700 BC, whilst they were in exile in Babylon, that Jewish scribes started to gather together their stories and their laws and to put them into a collection of writings that would become, over many years of editing, what we now refer to, as the Old Testament.

A great deal of these scribe's source material was placed within the story of Moses and how he led his people out of captivity in Egypt, through the wilderness and to the borders of the promised land. But, if you read the books in the Bible that contain the stories about Moses you will discover that the actual narrative forms quite a minor part of them. What they mostly contain are laws, and rules and regulations. Pages and pages and pages of them. The Ten Commandments are there but so are loads of tediously boring regulations about how to prepare your fatted calf for its sacrifice by priests and a lot of other cultish stuff.

I guess, that when the scribes first wrote down the story and the laws of their people they more than likely thought, "That is it, that is it for all time," because, like children they the world, and even God, as being centred entirely on them..

To be fair there were some individuals at the time, people like the prophets whose writings are contained in the Book of Isaiah, who had an inkling that there was something very different waiting for the children of God over the horizon. But just as we don't know what is going to happen in five hundred years' time, they were not able to be specific about what this thing would be, although they had a strong suspicion that it would involve some sort of Messiah.

Of course, from where we stand in the history of our faith we can see clearly that this wondrous thing the prophets foresaw was Jesus Christ. And we can also see that the life, the teaching and, most definitely, the cross of Jesus Christ, that marked our religion's move out of childhood and into adulthood.

Nobody in the early church understood all this better than Saint Paul. When Peter and the saints in Jerusalem were still clinging to their childhood faith, albeit by the tips of their fingernails, Paul had sussed it. He knew that the Christ event had dragged God's people out of their childhood. The door to their childhood home had been opened and they had been kicked out into the wider world with with God's boot up their behinds.

Furthermore, Paul worked out exactly what this meant. He knew what the difference was in the world now that God had walked among its people. He condensed the difference down to two major changes and these changes correspond exactly to the changes we experience as individuals when we accept adult status.

Firstly, Paul knew that with adulthood came responsibility. God's children could no longer run to God crying "Gimme, gimme, gimme!" every time they wanted something. They could no longer pass the blame for everything that went wrong or that they did wrong in their lives onto God, because God was no longer going to pick up the tab for the damage they caused. God had done that one final time and for all time when he sent his son to be born a human child and to die a human death. Paul makes clear that we are now part of God's grown up creativeness as co-creators and with that came co-responsibility.

Secondly, Paul saw the big prize of adult discipleship. Freedom.

Jesus set us free.

We are no longer, as Paul reminds us over and over again, subject to the rules and constraints of childhood. We can, in fact we must, decide our own destinies from now on. We are, as Paul states, no longer subject to the Law.

Does that mean we should now throw away the Old Testament and just keep the New Testament. Some early Christians thought that was exactly what we should do. But we must never do that. Because that would like forgetting all our experiences and all that we learnt as children and that would be a stupid thing to do. In stead we must remember our past whilst embracing our new status.

Paul kept going on about about this freedom from the Law. Paul knew as much as one person could ever know about the Law and before his meeting with Christ on the Damascus road, he followed that Law to the letter. But he came to realise very quickly that because of Jesus all those pages of Law in the Books of Moses had been condensed down to what I can state in just five words: Love God. Love your neighbour.

Furthermore, Paul realised that the old laws were just as much subject to these two laws given to us by Jesus, as we are as individuals. In other words, in order to be deemed still relevant, the Laws of Moses have to conform to these two commandments of Jesus Christ. Love God. Love your neighbour.

That sounds good and relatively simple. But, of course, it's not simple, especially as God has made us responsible for deciding wether each rule lives up to the Golden Rule or not.

In some cases it is very easy. Laws such as do not murder, do not steal and do not commit adultery apply just as much today as they did back in Moses' day, in the same way as such rules apply to children who are old enough to understand them as much as they do to adults. And, in many cases, it is obvious which laws we can throw out straight away. For example, I can promise you that nobody here today will ever need to know how to butcher your first born goat ready for it to be burnt between the horns on altar in the tent of the Tabernacle.

And there are other examples. Although I can fully understand that many parents are often driven to the point of considering it as a viable course of action, especially when their children have hit those difficult teenage years, I don't think we should really follow the law that states that we should take disobedient children to the city gates and have them stoned to death. I know it's tempting, very tempting, but it is also wrong. Stoning stroppy adolescents is not loving our neighbour.

However, there are many laws in the Old Testament that are not so easy to either accept or discard. Rules covering the place of women in society. The forbidding of divorce in many circumstances. The keeping of the Sabbath. What category do we put those laws into?

This is where responsibility kicks in again. We have freedom. But it comes with responsibility and self-determination. We have to decide for ourselves whether such laws conform to the commandments that we should love God and our neighbour or not. As individual adults and as members of an adult faith we have to work these things out for ourselves as a community and that can be difficult. Especially as we are no longer able to run to a book of rules to find the answer. Those Christians who say every word in the Bible is the word of God are just Christians who haven't grown up and accepted they are now the grown up children of God. Such people want God to be their daddy. They can't let go of their childhood and accept responsibility for their own lives. But because God knows how disabling it would be for them God refuses to return to spoon feeding them. And so, in their insecurity and fear of being adult they turn the Bible into a book of strict rules so that they don't have to think for themselves.

Christians are not subject to the Laws of the Old Testament. But we are subject to the commandments of God given to us by Jesus Christ. The freedom won for us by Jesus as he died on the cross is a wondrous gift. But we have to enjoy it responsibly. And balancing gift and responsibility is never an easy thing to get right.

At the moment, as we've seen at General Synod this week, our church is struggling to decide which of our existing rules conform to Christ's commandment to love our neighbour and which don't. And these questions need to be asked. We must not be fearful to think for ourselves. We must not let our desire to keep everything the same as it was when we were children dictate how we behave as adults. I know this is frightening but if we remember what our Father in heaven taught our predecessors in the faith when the church was young then we will find the courage to become the grown up people God wants us to be.

Bishop of Stafford's letter to churches6th. February 2010

2010-02-08T15:04:00.001Z

One of my favourite paintings is called “The Last of England” by the Pre-Raphaelite artist Ford Madox Brown. It’s in the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, and it depicts a couple on a windswept cross-Channel ship, with the white cliffs of Dover on the right, and an expression of deep sadness on their faces as they leave to begin a new life in a new country. Only when you look closely do you notice the details: the woman is holding the tiny hand of a baby hidden beneath her grey coat, and a row of cabbages hang from the ship’s side.

As I write this I feel something of the couple’s emotions. I too am leaving home for another country. In mid-June my wife and I are moving to southern Scotland, after five years as Bishop of Stafford and just under 37 years in the full-time ministry of the Church of England. But then life is full of experiences of leaving home, as most of you who read this will know. To be born is to leave the warm security of your mother’s womb; to leave school means stepping out of the familiar into the unknown; to go into hospital means embarking on a journey whose outcome you can’t entirely predict. And to lose someone you love means leaving home, not always literally, but spiritually; for “home” means people as much as places, and the loss of someone very close to you changes that forever.

The Bible has some profound wisdom to help us here. First, there is no way back. At the start of the human journey, Adam and Eve had to leave home and step into the lonely world east of Eden. There was no way back. Abraham never went back to Ur, nor Jacob and Joseph to Israel; and the only place that Jesus could work no miracles was when he tried going back home to Nazareth. Of course you can return to where you once lived; but it won’t be home any more. You can (and usually do) return home from a spell in hospital; but you won’t go back - you can only go forward, because your spell away will have changed both you and your home as well. Nostalgia is good news for no one. Better to leave home and start anew, however fearful the prospect, than risk becoming the skeleton at the feast.

Secondly, we must learn to travel light. That’s desperately hard in a consumer society which prizes stuff, and acquisitiveness, before all else. Recently I read a review of a new book called “Delete: the Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age.” The author makes the point that the internet has made available a staggering, unimaginable quantity of information, infinitely more than anyone could use. But it has also made it much harder to delete things. The result? We keep kidding ourselves that we can go on through life simply adding more and more (things, experiences, memories, qualifications) to our spiritual luggage, without ever having to let anything go. Yet Jesus told his disciples to leave home and step out in faith with no spare bag or tunic (Matt.10:10). Leaving home obliges you to ask: what matters most in my life? What can I - must I - let go of? What illusions about myself, what status symbols, what dark resentments, what accumulated clutter, need releasing if I am to travel on in faith?

Lastly, and however hard it is to believe, the best is always yet to come. The next bishop, the next vicar, the next occupant of the house you called “home”, will probably do better than you; and you should rejoice if they do, for what you left behind may have helped to make that happen. And for you or me, leaving home and travelling on with more grey hairs and an aching mix of sadness and deep gratitude, what lies ahead? We don’t know, for the future is not in our control. But God is a nomad too, and walks with us into the unknown. The supreme symbol of leaving home in Scripture is not the closed gate of Eden but the Cross of Good Friday; for there, and in our place, Jesus let go the most precious thing of all - his life - in order to receive it back from the Father on Easter morning in a form even death could not destroy. That’s why, as C.S.Lewis famously said, Christians never say goodbye - only “until we meet again”, in this world or the next. And that’s why, for those willing to take the risk of leaving home, the best is always yet to be.

Canon Alan Perry's rebuttal ofLorna Ashworth’s briefing paperfor General Synod Motion GS 1764A

2010-02-06T18:23:00.001Z

The purpose of this note is to rebut factual inaccuracies relating to the Anglican Church of Canada in General Synod paper GS 1764A, a briefing paper for a Private Members’ Motion dealing with the relationship between the Church of England and the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). A separate note refers to The Episcopal Church.

The paper GS 1764A makes allegations concerning two main topics: clergy and property. Quotations from the paper are in italics.

Clergy

In relation to “the use of Canons in the depositions of bishops and clergy” the paper claims that 6 bishops and 69 clergy in Canada are involved in ACNA.

“bishops and priests who have not left [ACoC] are deposed without due canonical process because of what they might do, or that they should be formally advised that they have abandoned their ministry when they have done nothing of the kind”

“… most of the 69 priests and 6 bishops who relinquished their licences for ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada have been accused and convicted of “presumption of the abandonment of the ordained ministry” despite their clear statements that they were not abandoning the ministry to which they were ordained. There are cases of inhibition without due canonical process and a number of local church trustees have been summarily “dismissed” by bishops – including the Bishop of New Westminster, in ways which the courts have subsequently found to have been without any legal or canonical authority.”

Only three former bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada have associated themselves with ACNA:

Donald Harvey, formerly of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador
Ronald Ferris, formerly of Algoma
Malcolm Harding, formerly of Brandon

None of these have been deposed. All were already retired, and all three voluntarily relinquished their ministry pursuant to Canon XIX of the Anglican Church of Canada. This is the equivalent of Canon C1 (2) of the Church of England which makes provision for a cleric “voluntarily [to] relinquish the exercise of his orders and use himself as a layman.”

However, three former presbyters of the Anglican Church of Canada have recently been consecrated as bishops by ACNA: Stephen Leung, Charles Masters and Trevor Walters. This may account for the claim of six. (Also, Silas Ng was consecrated as a bishop by the Church of Rwanda.)

As of March 2009, 52 of the clergy (other than the six bishops) in ACNA were former clergy of the Anglican Church of Canada. The claim of 69 includes the newly ordained and possibly some other transfers.

The total of Anglican Church of Canada clergy as of June 2009 was 3861.

Not a single Canadian priest has been deposed for joining ACNA. The term is almost entirely unheard of in Canada. It is one of the penalties provided for in the Canon on Discipline. However, none of those who have left to join Rwanda or Southern Cone or ACNA have been canonically disciplined.

The phrase “relinquish license for ministry” is canonically meaningless in the Anglican Church of Canada. The correct phrase is “relinquish ministry” pursuant to Canon XIX, on “The Relinquishment or Abandonment of the Ministry” which states that relinquishment:

“removes from the [cleric] the right to exercise that office, including spiritual authority as a minister of Word and Sacraments conferred in ordination.” (emphasis added)

Relinquishment renders the cleric unlicensable in any Jurisdiction. Relinquishment of ministry is reversible, but only in the jurisdiction in which ministry was relinquished.

Abandonment of ministry has the same effects as voluntary relinquishment, but is established when the cleric has “abandoned the Anglican Church of Canada either by public renunciation of its doctrine or discipline, or by formal admission into another religious body” among other grounds. Notice of abandonment is sent to the cleric who has 60 days to respond to the notice. A response is followed by due enquiry by the bishop, or in the case of a bishop the Metropolitan. A finding of abandonment of ministry may be appealed to the Metropolitan, or in the case of a bishop to the Provincial House of Bishops. Again, there is a process for reinstatement of ministry in the same jurisdiction where the cleric was previously licensed.

If the clergy who have relinquished their ministry regret that decision, there is a canonical remedy, which would involve reinstatement along with a renewal of their oaths of obedience. If the clergy who have been found to have abandoned their ministry oppose that finding, there is also an avenue of redress. It is unclear why they would refuse to avail themselves of that avenue of appeal and then complain about their status, or lack thereof, in the Anglican Church of Canada and hence in the Anglican Communion.

It is quite incorrect for the paper to imply that there are not proper avenues of appeal of canonical decisions in the Anglican Church of Canada. There are in fact three levels of appeal open to any cleric who feels mistreated in the Anglican Church of Canada, and once these avenues have been exhausted the decisions are still subject to judicial review in civil court.

Elsewhere it has been suggested that relinquishment of ministry is simply a mechanism to transfer jurisdiction. This is not the case. Transferral of jurisdiction, for a cleric in good standing, is accomplished by canonical process under Canon XVII, on “The Licensing of Clergy.” However, an ex-cleric who has relinquished or been found to have abandoned the ministry is not a cleric in good standing and cannot thus transfer jurisdiction.

Unlike the established Church of England, the Anglican Church of Canada (like TEC) is a voluntary association, in which the members and officers agree to abide by the rules that it shall from time to time adopt. Members cannot refuse to abide by the rules and then demand special treatment as victims of “oppression”. They cannot refuse to avail themselves of the canonical processes available to them and then complain that they have not been treated fairly. The ACNA complainants are reminiscent of the man convicted for murdering his parents who appealed to the court for clemency on the ground that he was an orphan.

The paper “question[s] whether the use of the Canons … has in every regard been proper or in accordance with natural justice.” Again, there are mechanisms available to the Canadian dissidents to test whether they have been treated properly, both in Canadian Canon Law and in Canadian courts.

The paper also makes criticism of the Bishop of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador:

In December 2007, following his third anniversary as a bishop, the Bishop of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador (whose predecessor had been a conservative bishop), issued an ad clerum advising that all clergy in the diocese would require new licences, prior to which they would have to renew their ordination vows before him on a specified date in January 2008. For good measure he also dismissed the cathedral chapter and stripped all canons of their titles and duties, subsequently appointing a new chapter.

It is true that Cyrus Pitman, the current bishop of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador called his clergy to receive new licenses and take their oaths anew. This unusual action was entirely within his powers as a bishop. It was intended to remove all uncertainty as to the obligations of the clergy under the canons. Uncertainty had been expressed to him by some clergy about their oaths, exacerbated no doubt by the continued residence in the see city of St Johns of the retired bishop, Donald Harvey, who had become “Moderator” of the Anglican Network in Canada, which is itself now styled as a diocese within ACNA. (The oath, of course, is to obey the bishop of the diocese and his successors).

Property

The paper claims that:

Although church property in Canada is owned in various forms, it has been historically and generally understood that these properties are held in trust for a specific religious purpose. However, the courts in Canada today appear to be favouring an American approach in resolving property disputes, despite the lack of a “Dennis Canon” or similar legislation.

In both jurisdictions, at the heart of litigation instigated by the Episcopal Church (usually in partnership with the Diocese) or the Diocese in the case of the Anglican Church of Canada, is one side claiming its institutional property “rights”. On the other side are the “rights” of a local church which believes it has held firm to historic Anglican belief and practice (effectively the Anglicanism of the Declaration of Assent). These cases generally involve property which the congregation has built and paid for with little or no help from the local dioceses. In addition, the congregations have improved and maintained the properties over the years while financially supporting the local dioceses through assessments or apportionment. They have faced eviction from their church buildings and forfeiture of their trust funds.

And later:

In Canada, congregations have no legal standing apart from the trustees who represent them. The trustees are required to be the named party in any litigation. The Canadian courts normally award costs against the losing party and trustees (ie parish officers) are therefore very exposed personally when there is litigation, potentially to the extent of several hundred thousand dollars and putting their homes at risk.

And at the end of the paper, it also says (emphasis added):

In asking Synod to express a desire to be in communion with ACNA, there is therefore no suggestion that we should not remain in communion with TEC or ACoC, nor am I suggesting that everyone in ACNA is a paragon of perfection. Rather, it is a recognition that there is a considerable and growing body of faithful Anglicans representing a wide range of church traditions, many of whom have been hurt, who are now members of ACNA. They would be grateful to be in communion with the Church of England as the Windsor/Covenant process works through. In some cases it might also help parishes to retain the property they have built and paid for.

The idea that “properties are held in trust for a specific religious purpose” is correct, but only insofar as it is understood that the purpose in question is to serve the mission of the parish, which is a unit of a diocese and is under the control of that diocese. The Anglican Church of Canada is not a congregationalist church. Like the Church of England, it is an episcopal church, in which the central unit is the diocese. Parishes do not exist apart from the diocese, and clergy do not function without the authority and license of the diocesan bishop.

The alleged conflict between the “institutional property rights” of the diocese and the “rights of a local church which believes it has held firm to historic Anglican belief and practice” is in fact a false dichotomy. The diocese has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that the parochial properties are held and used for the mission of the church consistent with the polity of the church, which includes the constitution, canons and policies. Thus, the concern of the diocese is not simply the exercise of some institutional property rights, but the fulfillment of its duty to protect the properties for their intended use. On the parochial side, there is no right of alienation of the properties, which is what the dissident congregations are attempting to do. Their beliefs are undoubtedly sincerely held, but the sincerity and even the correctness of their beliefs do not imply a right of alienation of property.

In addition, the Declaration of Principles of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada (which presumably is what is meant by “Declaration of Assent” in the paper) makes it very clear that the General Synod alone has jurisdiction over the definition of the doctrines of the church (Paragraph 6i). Thus, it is not a matter for the private or personal judgment of any individual priest or parish to determine what is or is not consistent with the doctrine of the church. For example, if the dispute is about the blessing of same-sex unions, the General Synod has determined that this is not in conflict with the core doctrine of the church. To be clear, no one is required to conduct the blessing of same sex unions, but neither can one state authoritatively that it is against the doctrine of the church and as such impermissible for others, for such a statement would be contrary to the clear statement of the General Synod.

Where property in Canada is held by parochial corporations, it is not held either by the parishioners or by the trustees in their own right, but is held by a corporate entity. In the recent judgment in New Westminster, the court held that the trustees are bound to discharge their duties pursuant to the canons of the Anglican Church of Canada, which means that these properties are recognized in law to be subject to the control of the local diocese.

It is a fallacy to suggest that the properties belong to the congregants. It is also a fallacy to suggest that the congregants have in any way paid for the buildings or their maintenance. They have contributed to a parochial corporation (and have received tax benefits for their contributions) and the parochial corporation has paid for building maintenance. The difference may seem subtle, but it is an important distinction.

It is also incorrect to suggest that anyone has been “evicted” or “excluded” from the Anglican Church of Canada. Some have decided voluntarily to leave the Anglican Church of Canada. The consequence of leaving is, well, to leave. But voluntary departure is not the same as exclusion or eviction, and cannot be depicted as such.

The paper raises concerns about the use of civil litigation to address the disputes in the Anglican Church of Canada. It incorrectly states that this litigation has been instigated by the Diocese (in the case of the Anglican Church of Canada). In fact, in the only Canadian lawsuit to come to judgment to date, Bentley v. Anglican Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster, the lawsuit was filed by the dissidents against the Diocese, and not the other way around. Those filing suit can hardly complain about being taken to court, even if their lawsuit is unsuccessful.

There have been two instances - in the Dioceses of Niagara and British Columbia - where the bishops have gone to court to seek shared occupancy of churches that have voted to leave. In neither of those cases, has the diocese sought an eviction.

The paper suggests incorrectly that Canadian civil courts have recently adopted an “American” approach to property litigation “despite a lack of any legislation similar to the First Amendment in the American Constitution, which mandates a separation of church and state.” This claim is misleading. The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently held that the civil courts should refrain from being the arbiters of religious dogma. This principle was most recently stated in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551, 2004 SCC 47 at paragraph 50.

The Revd Canon Alan T. Perry LL M, Diocese of Montreal
1 February 2010

ARCHBISHOP OF YORK DELIVERS"CITY OF PEACE LECTURE"NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE3RD. FEBRUARY 2010

2010-02-04T10:41:00.003Z

Good evening. May I say how pleased and honoured I am to be invited to deliver this Inaugural City of Peace lecture this evening.

Thinking of peace reminds me of the story of the peace lamp.

A woman was walking along the beach when she stumbled upon a Genie's lamp. She picked it up and rubbed it, and lo-and-behold a Genie appeared. The amazed woman asked if she was going to receive the usual three wishes.
The Genie said, "No ... due to the pressures on the economy, the credit crunch and zero interest rates coupled with the forthcoming General Election, I can only grant you one wish. So ... what'll it be?"

The woman didn't hesitate. She said, "I want peace in the Middle East. See this map? I want these countries to stop fighting with each other."
The Genie looked at the map and exclaimed, "Gadzooks, lady! These countries have been at war for thousands of years. I'm good, but not THAT good! I don't think it can be done. Make another wish."
The woman thought for a minute and said, "Well, I've never been able to find the right man. You know, one that's considerate and fun, likes to cook and helps with the housework.

Someone who is sensitive and romantic; gets along with the in-laws, doesn't follow Newcastle United wherever they happen to be playing, and is faithful. That's all I wish for ... a good mate."
The Genie let out a very long sigh and said, "O dear, let me see that map again!"

In a speech in Downing Street in December 2006, Tony Blair made the following statement on tolerance:

"Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed'.

In other words, 'Be tolerant or else!'

There is a certain ironic humour in his words though I doubt Mr Blair appreciated it at the time. For he had put his finger on an issue which has challenged both philosophers and politicians for many centuries.

That issue is, 'how do we deal with people whose views we don't agree with?' Or, in a liberal democracy in which people live in freedom, how do we deal with those who are intolerant? Should we treat them with tolerance, even if it puts our own freedom in jeopardy? Or are there limits to tolerance? Are there times when tolerance is not enough?

The concept of tolerance is seen as one of the very core values of our society today.

We see it as one of the quintessential things that makes us British along with championing the underdog, being willing to queue and showing kindness to animals. Or that kind of conformity to etiquette which means that an Englishman travelling abroad on his own would be at a loss to ask directions of a passer-by because they hadn't been introduced.

As Oscar Wilde observed, "The public is wonderfully tolerant. It forgives everything except genius".

We see tolerance, then, as the bedrock on which our modern society is based. It is the foundation on which modern civilisation is based in the West and it is the glue that holds us together. The past three centuries have seen the gradual growth and blossoming of the flower of tolerance which is now in full bloom. It is surely unthinkable to challenge the virtue of tolerance without unravelling the very foundations on which our society is based.

Yet this, ladies and gentlemen, is what I wish to do tonight. In my lecture I want to persuade you why tolerance, as we experience it in Britain today is not enough as the core value on which to base our lives in civil society. In fact, I will go further, arguing that tolerance as it is practised in England today, is in danger of becoming a negative virtue, resulting in narrowness and in some cases, in oppression.

And I will show why we need to rediscover an older virtue, that of gracious magnanimity as a positive means of enabling us to build peaceful and harmonious communities together.

Let me start by defining what I mean by 'tolerance'. The word comes from the Latin word 'tolerantia' and the related verb 'tolerare' meaning to bear or to endure.

Tolerantia was also a political and judicial concept used in mediaeval scholastic theology and canon law. From the sixteenth century it was used In this country in the sense of a 'permission'. And from the mid-eighteenth century, in relation to individuals, in the sense of 'freedom from bigotry or severity'. It also began to be used in this country with the meaning of 'an allowable amount of variation' from around 1868.

Nowadays, tolerance has retained the meaning of the act of enduring such as 'my tolerance of noise is limited'. But it is also understood to mean 'a fair, objective and permissive attitude towards those whose opinions, practices, ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc, differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry. It also has the meanings of 'a fair, liberal, undogmatic viewpoint'.

It is certainly true that we have a good history of tolerance in this country. In many ways, we have led the world in this area and it is worth briefly reminding ourselves of this history.

The greatest and probably the most famous advocate of toleration and liberty in this country was the philosopher John Locke. It's probably why the following joke is told of him:

Why did the chicken cross the road?

And Locke answered: Because it was exercising its natural right to liberty.

Of course, the children's answer ever since has been, 'To get to the other side'.

Locke wrote towards the end of the 17^th century, just after the English Civil War had seen the King deposed and executed under Oliver Cromwell and then the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II in 1688. Not that the previous period had been without signs of tolerance.

The poet John Milton had called for protection of both Jewish and Christian worship and Oliver Cromwell himself had allowed the return of the Jews to England.

But it was John Locke who, in the words of William Rees-Mogg, former editor of the Times, wrote a book that 'changed the world'[1].

Locke was writing in the context of the aftermath of the Civil War and of the religious differences between Protestant and Catholics and between Anglicans and Dissenters. One of the key questions he was addressing was how people of different beliefs could live together in peace. It is a very relevant question for us today!

In his Letter concerning Toleration, published in 1689, Locke argued for the total separation of Church and State. He appealed for toleration on the grounds of human fallibility. We cannot know, argued Locke, the absolute truth of religion because of our human fallibility.

He believed it was irrational to persecute someone for holding what you consider to be the 'wrong' faith because you cannot coerce belief.

His Letter on Toleration, first published in Latin under the title 'Epistola de Tolerantia', spread rapidly throughout Europe and its impact, particularly in England was very powerful. In the same year the British Toleration Act was passed.

This Act granted freedom of worship to Protestants who had dissented from the Church of England such as Baptists and Congregationalists. These Nonconformists were allowed their own places of worship and their own teachers and preachers provided that they were prepared to take the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy to the Crown.

During the eighteenth century, the period of the Enlightenment, the pressure and appeals for tolerance grew.

One of its greatest proponents, the French philosopher Voltaire, saw toleration as a natural element of rational thinking. Voltaire is famously reputed to have said:

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Voltaire particularly focused his attention on the need for toleration and to curb religious fanaticism.

His Treatise on Tolerance (1763) arose from his own experience of persecution in France and the three years in which he sought refuge in England.

In Voltaire's Letters on England,[2] written whilst he was in exile here, Voltaire explored the intellectual and institutional foundation of England's religious tolerance.

Although impressed by the tolerance and intellectual freedom he experienced here, he did not believe that this was necessarily due to the political system or the Church of England. Indeed he observed that, "No one can hold office in the Church of England unless he is a faithful Anglican".

Instead, Voltaire saw one of the main reasons for religious toleration in England compared with France was the very different attitude of the two countries towards trade.

In France, the great majority of the aristocracy held those in commerce in contempt. Whereas in England, they were held in relatively high regard and it was not at all uncommon for younger sons of the nobility to enter trade. For Voltaire, the impersonal nature of trade was a good thing because it enabled people to disregard those differences which had divided them, particularly religion and status in society. The London Stock Exchange in his eyes was a magnificent symbol of this tolerance and unity:

Go to the London Stock Exchange – a more respectable place than many a court – and you will see a representative from all the nations gathered together for the utility of men. Here Jew, Mohammedan and Christian only deal with each other as though they were of the same faith, and only applying the word infidel to people who go bankrupt. Here the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist and the Anglican accepts a promise from the Quaker.

On leaving these peaceful and free assemblies some go to the Synagogue and others for a drink, this one goes to be baptised in a great bath in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, that one has his son's foreskin cut and some Hebrew words he doesn't understand mumbled over the child, others go to their church and await the inspiration of God with their hats on, and everyone is happy'[3]

I'm sure there are lessons here for all you members of the business community in Newcastle!

This development of toleration continued and in a way, has found its culmination in the twenty-first century Britain. In the last fifty years, we have seen the passing of acts guaranteeing civil liberties, equal opportunities for all, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, colour, religion, and freedom from discrimination.

These are acts we can rightly be proud of. They have helped to ensure that Britain is a world leader in many areas of tolerance, civil liberties and respect for human rights. In what I am about to say, I do not wish, in any way to cast doubt on these achievements.

But having said this, the picture regarding tolerance in this country is not perfect now, neither has it been so in the past.

I believe we have come to the point when we need to acknowledge this, to recognise other aspects of our history which affect the present. We also need to open our eyes to see what is actually happening in our society and in our cities today in the name of tolerance and the negative impact this is having. Let me explain what I mean.

Part of the problem is that we tend to see our history of tolerance through rose-tinted spectacles.

In this vision, the seeds of tolerance were planted with the signing of Magna Carta, germinated after the English Civil War in the 17^th century, flourishing in the Enlightenment and came to a glorious fruition in our present age. It is a scenario of continuous growth of tolerance, with enlightened notions of religious pluralism, personal freedom and humane treatment of everyone, whilst challenging those who would try to impose a single belief system or ideology on our people.

But if we take our rose-tinted spectacles off and look at our history more closely, we will see that the picture has not always been so rosy.

First of all, we have not always been as tolerant as we would like to believe. In an article in the Guardian in 2002[4], Tristan Hunt took issue with what he termed "an unholy alliance" between Jeremy Paxman and the government's "patriotism envoy", the Labour MP and government minister, Michael Wills.

In a slightly tongue-in cheek article, Hunt argued that these two had corrupted the idea of Englishness, leading us to believe that the English are 'a pragmatic, politically acquiescent and innately tolerant tribe'. Yet his study of English history which he had carried out to make a TV series about the English Civil War, showed the English to be a passionate, revolutionary and frequently brutal people.

He quotes a number of examples. In the 1640s, the English went to war against themselves, the Scottish and then the Irish in a savage conflict that killed more than a quarter of a million people – the greatest loss of life prior to the First World War. As Hunt points out, what sparked it off were the supposedly un-English attributes of fervent religious belief and deeply-held political principles.

There was also little evidence of the English tradition of tolerance in Oliver Cromwell's massacres in Catholic Ireland, the abolition of Parliament and the introduction of military dictatorship.

Nor was there much tolerance in subsequent centuries in the brutal suppression of the Jacobites in Scotland, the enforcement of Anglican supremacy in England, our acceptance of the Atlantic slave trade and some of the crimes of Empire.

We also need to remember that for much of British history since the time of Locke, toleration was not generally considered as an end in itself but as a means to an end. That end was usually to achieve a peaceful society or a peaceful government. Thus Locke, for example, did not extend his programme of toleration as far as atheists and Roman Catholics. Locke's call for toleration was based on freedom of worship.

He believed that each individual should be free to participate in an organised religion of their choice provided that it did not conflict with the stability of the State.

Today, toleration is regarded, by a large number of people, as a negative rather than a positive virtue although this is not often openly admitted. Tolerance has become a restricting quality – a grudging 'putting up - with' rather that a positive means of building a caring, peaceful society.

The problem with this is that it does not give us the means of voicing and dealing constructively with differences.

We give people private space but do not encourage public discussion and debate on key areas which are seen as 'difficult' such as religion, immigration, the optimum funding for public services. In consequence, these areas of difference are thrust into the margins where they do not go away but instead, tend to fester.

A similar trend can be seen in France in relation to the use of the word 'tolerance'. There too it has become understood, at least in part, in the sense of something you put up with rather than as a positive virtue. An amusing example of this is the description of French brothels as 'maisons de tolérance'!Houses of tolerance!

I therefore believe that for all our judicial tolerance, Britain has become in many ways, a less tolerant society today.

One of the main areas in which we see this is in the government's treatment of Religion which they now prefer to call 'faith communities'. The Equality Bill which is going through the House of Lords, had contained a 'Genuine Occupation Clause' which would have made it very difficult for a religious group to employ someone of that religion for a position within their organisation, except in the very restricted role of leading worship,explaining or proclaiming doctrines.

Thus a church wishing to employ a youth worker would have been unable to advertise for Christians, and priests from other parts of the world would find it increasingly difficult to preach or work in churches here unless it could be demonstrated that there were no suitable local candidates.

This is symptomatic of a trend which has intensified in Britain over the past fifty years in the name of tolerance.

That is, an attempt to remove religion from public life. And in the process, tolerance, which is supposed to be the tool to help us deal with difference and disagreement has instead, become a negative virtue – a means of diminishment and marginalisation.

Today, many people imagine we are living in an increasingly secular age. At the same time, the Church has taken something of a battering from critics. Some of these are uncomfortable about the church's role in the public square, preferring to relegate it to the private sphere.

These are the people who would prefer we didn't talk about 'Church' schools and instead talked about 'faith' schools where all faiths could be conveniently blended together and kept in a safe place – a process of ghetto-ization at work in a ferocious and insidious way. They are the ones who would ban talk of Christmas in public places and would advocate a bland 'winter wonderland' or 'Winterval' instead.

They are not all hostile to religions in general or the Christian religion in particular. They simply don't want it in the public square.

However, the 2001 census figures show us that we should be less fearful of claiming our religious heritage. It will be fascinating to see what happens in the 2011 census. Religion is a core aspect of people's identity and should not be relegated to the private square.

This has happened both at the level of political theory and in practice as Professor Roger Trigg has highlighted in his book 'Religion in Public Life - 'Must faith be privatised?[5]. As Trigg points out, it is profoundly dangerous to cut religion off from making any public truth claims or from being able to share in any overarching reality.[6] He states,

"Once part of human reasoning is enclosed in one compartment, the same considerations can lead to a distrust of all human reasoning.

We need to assert the rationality of belief in God, and the right for religion to play its proper part in public life and policy–making in this country.

And here we see the limits of tolerance, particularly as it is applied in our society today.

Morally, if we don't have any common vision or values, we can't operate effectively either as individuals or as a society. Instead we are in a moral vacuum for we can't tolerate everything. There is also the philosophical dilemma which faces us today more than ever before – how does the tolerant society deal with the intolerant. Both the philosopher Karl Popper and John Rawls have argued that you have to take steps to limit the impact of their intolerance.

Using tolerance as sole principle to determine our political and civil life doesn't work.

As Charles Taliaferro wrote, "If one is to ban from political decision-making, all the theories of the cosmos and values unless they are held by every possible person, there is very little left"[7]. In other words, if we have no overarching vision, no principles and values in common, we may 'tolerate' others but we cannot resolve differences nor can we build a common life together, tackling the big issues which face us today.

This is why I argue that tolerance is not enough. We desperately need in our society today to find a new way forward and a common vision.

This is a vision rooted on our need for God, our need for each other and recognition of our interrelatedness. We cannot say "I can do without you" for we all rely on each other for our well-being.

It's not a question of merely 'putting up with' or tolerating each other for this is merely a negative virtue. Unless we are all involved in developing and achieving a new vision, it will not work.

We need the practical contribution that all of us can and must make.

Our communities must surely be models of that Heavenly City, places which give us a glimpse of what heaven will be like. Communities of reconciliation, love and justice, which share in the foretaste of God's eternal kingdom cannot be monochrome.

The vision of the Holy City is one of a place filled with people from all nations, coming together with all the treasures of their culture and civilization. Nothing is excluded from the Holy City except that which is contrary to the character of God.

But to realise that vision here on earth, needs all of us to help. As the poet, John Donne, tells us in his Meditation XVII, "No man is an island, entire of itself.... any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind."

The present urgent needs of our brothers and sisters in Haiti is a powerful reminder of this.

As Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks has pointed out, "We need to build our home together". But for this to happen, we cannot allow religion to be relegated to the private sphere. For it is only by working together that we can do this.

This is why I argued at the beginning of this lecture that we need to rediscover an older virtue than tolerance.

This virtue is gracious magnanimity. This offers us a positive way of enabling us to tackle difference and to build peaceful communities that really work.

What is this concept of 'gracious magnanimity? Well, we find it in the New Testament part of the Bible, often translated in slightly different ways but with a similar meaning. The Greek word (epieikēs) is translated as "moderation" (Phil.4:5) and its noun, (epieikeia) as gentleness, graciousness (in Acts 24:4, 2 Corinthians 10:1;).

It is also translated as "lenient" (1Timothy 3:3); "conciliatory" (Titus 3:2) , "forbearing" (James 3:17) and "reasonableness" (1 Peter 2:18).

So in St Paul's letter to the Philippians, he writes:

"Let your moderation be manifest to all. The Lord is near". (Philippians 4:5)

In other words, the apostle Paul is saying to his Philippian friends:

"Let your moderation, patient mind, softness, magnanimity, gentleness, graciousness, forbearing spirit be known to all. The Lord is at hand."

Or, put differently, "Let all the world know that you will meet a person half-way.

These aren't necessarily virtues that spring to mind in our present competitive age.

We are more likely to hear the language of people asserting their rights, waving the terms of the contract under someone's nose and getting in first. Yet it is these positive virtues of gracious magnanimity which I believe could help us to transform our country today.

Aristotle also discussed gracious-magnanimity in the Nicomachean Ethics. He says that gracious-magnanimity (epieikeia) is that which is just and sometimes that which is better than justice (Eth. Nic. V. 10.6).

It corrects the law when the law is deficient because of its generality. And he compares the person who is graciously magnanimous (epieikēs) with the person who is immoderate (akribodikaios.)

The person who is immoderate is the person who stands up for the last title deeds of their legal rights; but the person who is graciously magnanimous knows that there are times when a thing may be legally completely justified and yet morally completely wrong.

A person has the quality of gracious-magnanimity if they know when not to apply the strict letter of the law, when to relax justice and introduce mercy.

Similarly I would say, a graciously-magnanimous Church has a responsibility to both affirm moral standards and to ensure that its rules don't seem rigorous to the point of inhumanity. That should also be true of all civic authorities. That should be true of all of us.

At the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa a woman was at the hearing about her son's murder. The police officer who had ordered the brutal killing was there, shamefacedly hearing read out the details of what he and his colleagues had done. At the end the room was quiet. The chair of the commission, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, asked the woman if she had anything to say to the man who had killed her son.

She responded:

"I am very full of sorrow. So I am asking you now – come with me to the place where he died, pick up in your hands some of the dust of the place where his body lay, and feel in your soul what it is to have lost so much. And then I will ask you one thing more. When you have felt my sadness, I want you to do this. I have so much love, and without my son, that love has nowhere to go. So I am asking you – from now on, you be my son, and I will love you in his place."

She went on to say –

"I can say this – I can only do this, because Jesus loved me and gave himself up for me."

Jesus is able to change this 'eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' world into a 'lion lying down with the lamb' world.

Why should a person be like this? Why should they have this joy and graciousgentleness in their life?

If we remember that life is short, we will not wish to enforce the stern justice, which so often divides people but will wish to deal with people in love, as we hope that God will deal with us. Legalism is human, but gracious-magnanimity is divine.

As Jesus of Nazareth in St Matthew's Gospel says, "In everything do to others as you would have them to do you; this is the Law and the prophets."(Matthew 7:12). Sadly it is often a case of "Do it to others before they do it to you."

And so, the basic and the fundamental thing about gracious-magnanimity is that it goes back to God. If God stood on his rights, if God applied to us nothing but the rigid standards of law, where would we be? God is the supreme example of the one who is graciously-magnanimous and who deals with others with gracious-magnanimity.

We see strong examples of this in the Bible. The story of the judgment of Solomon where two women come to see Solomon.

They are fighting over a baby and both mothers claim that the baby is hers. One of the mothers has just lost a baby. As neither will confess whose child it is, Solomon orders for the baby to be cut in half and a half given to each mother.

At this, the real mother of the baby cries out that the other woman can keep her baby. She shows the quality of gracious-magnanimity so that her child may live.

In another incident in the life of the early church, Jewish converts and Gentiles were sometimes struggling to live together without conflict. They wound each other up by such simple things as the food they ate and where it came from. So St Paul urged the Gentile converts, not to eat food which had been previously offered to idols nor to eat meat. This was not because these things were wrong, but because the grief and upset it could cause to relatively new converts might weaken or even destroy their faith.

From these acts of gracious magnanimity, we can learn what we can achieve if we learn to love our neighbour as ourselves. How we can build a common vision, build our communities and bring peace by what we give and not by what we demand; by active participation and not by claiming our rights and Blaming Someone Else (BSE)!

You are already doing many of these things here in Newcastle so well, with your City of Peace Initiative.

It is helping to reduce inequalities, to tackle prejudice, safeguard the vulnerable and to build up a new vision and understanding. It is an initiative for which you may be rightly proud.

My prayer for Newcastle in the months and years ahead is that you may hold fast to this vision, that you work with humility, good humour and imagination together to build-up your common life. May God bless you, Newcastle and may the fortunes of Newcastle United ever flourish.

Let gracious-magnanimity be your bench-mark.

We are still human and the chorus to the song 'Anthem' by the Canadian writer, Leonard Cohen reminds us that there can be a point to our lack of perfection:

"Ring the bells

That still can ring

Forget your perfect offering

There is a crack in everything

That's how the light gets in."

There is a crack in everything

That's how the light gets in.

Thank you for listening.

BISHOP DAVID CHILLINGWORTHAT THE CAMBRIDGE UNION

2010-01-30T14:52:00.001Z

Cambridge Union

This House believes that religion is a force for good in society.

Mr President

The motion before this house makes a big statement. I don't think any sensible person could survey the history of religion and simply tick the 'Yes' box. Those of us who live and work in the Anthony Trollope and Father Ted world of organised religion live - to be honest - in something of a love-hate relationship with faith and religion. But if I didn't believe passionately that religion and faith are potentially and in reality a force for good, I wouldn't be here.

On a personal level, I do not believe that faith is a spent force. We talk about the secular society in which we live as an age in which people may have lost the habit of God. But even in this post-modern society, it seems that many people do pray and that they yearn for an experience of something greater outside themselves. This is not a yearning for a simple-minded dependency - an immaturity which prevents people from standing on their own two feet and taking responsibility for their own lives. I would argue that what that means is that faith at its best makes people more fully human - it creates a bigness of soul and a generosity of spirit. It engenders the capacity to forgive and the possibility of sacrifice. Faith is not the only thing which does that - but in my view it is that above all which makes faith a force for good.

I am sure you will hear from the opposers of the motion all about how dreadful a thing religion is. And I guess that at least some of what they say I would agree with. I am as you can probably hear Irish. I have devoted most of my working life to Northern Ireland and its issues – bad politics, bad history and - most of all - bad religion. Religion gone septic because it allowed itself to be the servant of political ideology and politically motivated violence in the creeping malaise which we call sectarianism. And in there is the fatal weakness of religion – well actually three fatal weaknesses. One is that from Constantine onwards, religion has had a weakness for cosying up to establishment. Two is that – whether we look at Christianity or Islam - it is flattered and seduced by political movements. Three is that it has a weakness for fundamentalism – of which of course one of the least interesting examples is faith’s mirror image – the atheistic fundamentalism of Dawkins.

Fatal weakness – now there’s a thought. Because of course the best faith traditions teach humility and suffering as a holy way. They teach that strength is found in weakness and life through death. The kingdom of my faith pictures is an upside down place in which the values are almost exactly the opposite of those which by default govern our world.

But when I go off to my sister’s house in Clarkson Road this evening – just round the corner from Wilberforce Road – I shall ponder all those people for whom religion and faith have been the root of their greatness. I think of my visits to South Africa – of the way in which faith shaped Mandela, Tutu and others – and their religious belief helped to shape the parameters of the astonishing journey which moved South Africa from a pariah state to a place of hope promised if not altogether realised. I think of my meeting on a plane as a teenager with Mother Theresa – a person who saw God’s will with utter clarity and unquestioning - indeed terrifying - obedience. But at least her inner voices told her not to invade Iraq but to lift the dead and dying off the streets of Calcutta. And, to be honest, I shall think of some very ordinary people who were members of my congregation in Northern Ireland – people who had every reason to hate and seek revenge but who chose not to because they believed that that was the challenge of their faith to them.

And therein lies one of the great strengths of faith at its best – that it makes it possible for a person to measure that to which they are by events and experience entitled – to anger and revenge - and to voluntarily renounce them. And that is the heart of the forgiveness which releases not just them but those to whom their lives are bound by painful events.

I spend my life with clergy, people and congregations. So much of what we deal with is trivial and unimportant stuff - prayers said to quickly and hymns sung too slowly. And yet somewhere in behind all that - in the passion which which people hold to what is important - is a recognition of the power - the potential to use the dynamic word - the potential to be the place where we discuss the deepest and most challenging things in life - and do that in a context in which we are constantly challenged to move forward in hope and to grasp and to do what is good. That is what makes faith a force for good. I am happy to second the motion.

MADPRIEST'S SERMON FOR THE4TH. SUNDAY OF EPIPHANY 2010

2010-01-29T14:20:00.001Z

“The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned.”

Throughout my life I have suffered, off and on, from bouts of severe depression. Fortunately, due to the intervention of one, particular occupational therapist, I have now been free of the old black dog for nearly ten years now. There are still times when I can feel it nipping at my heels but, so far, I have managed to kick it away before it managed to grab hold of me. And I thank God for that because it was the most terrifying and miserable of illnesses. I learnt lots from the experience but it is the last thing in the world that I would want to go through again.

Back, when I was very poorly, I used to regularly go to see my consultant psychiatrist, and, as I was sitting in reception waiting to be called into his room, other patients would walk in and, it wasn't unusual for me to know them. Some of them even worshipped at the church where I was working at the time. When they saw me they would invariably look completely surprised and the first thing they would say to me was, "I didn't expect to see you here."

A lot of people seem to think that priests should not get depressed, we should always be optimistic. The truth is that, along with doctors and teachers, we are about the most likely people to suffer from mental illness. You would be surprised at the high percentage of priests in this diocese, clergy that you probably know, who are popping the happy pills just to keep going. Most of them keep quiet about their troubles, there is still a lot of stigma attached to mental illness as I have learnt the hard way during my time as a priest in this diocese. But it doesn’t bother me if people know, quite the opposite, in fact. You see, I am more use to people as a normal human being, with normal problems than as some sort of super human who hasn’t experienced the nasty stuff that life throws at people at different points in their lives. I also know for a fact, that a large proportion of people in any congregation will have also suffered, or will suffer, from similar problems in their lives, and I know that such people will be comforted by the fact that somebody has the guts to be honest about, what is to many, a taboo subject. But we really shouldn't be scared to be open about mental illness because we all have periods of overwhelming darkness in our lives. We all go through times of such sadness that it seems that we simply cannot cope. Which means that we are all susceptible to life becoming, just too much for us.

To be honest, what surprises me is that there are people who do not suffer from depression. When we look at the world, when we watch the news on T.V. when we sit and think about the awful things that have happened in our own lives, then perhaps the only sane response is to go completely round the twist just to avoid the awfulness of it all. The truth is that life is not that nice really, people who tell you otherwise are hiding from the truth. The suffering in Haiti, following the recent earthquakes there, is just an extreme example of the nastiness of life. Mundane suffering is with us all the while. At all times, and throughout the world, millions and millions are in distress because of poverty, illness, the constant warfare between people, bereavement, loss and disappointment. In fact, I think the only way we cope most of the time is to ignore the facts. If we did not we could not function at all.

Nature is cruel. It is red in tooth and claw. It is governed by the laws of evolution which guarantees the survival of the fittest only, and in order to guarantee their survival it relies upon our greatest enemy, death, to achieve its ends. For the rest of creation, for the animals that we share the world with this is not a problem. In fact, it helps species develop and survive. My dogs do not question this scheme of things and they do not worry about it. They live their lives happily in the moment without concern for the future. But people are different. We have, metaphorically, tasted of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. We know the difference between life and death, we are constantly aware of it. We see tragedy in our own lives, and in the lives of others, and, unlike the animals, we do not forget. Our memories haunt us all our days and remind us of our own mortality and our own weakness and impotency when faced with the inevitability of nature’s course.

We try to fool ourselves into thinking that we can do something about it. We take vitamin pills and regular exercise, we smear ourselves with anti aging cream and act like children into our old age. Our scientists attempt to stave off the inevitable and create illusions of immortality. All this stuff about cloning that we are read about in the papers. What is it if it is not an attempt to create immortality for ourselves? What is cloning if it is not an attempt to gain some sort of immortality for ourselves by creating other humans in our own image. Of course, there are many good things that will come out of such research; I would not wish to deny any future child the possibility of a healthier and more satisfying life; but we must be honest about our intentions and also be honest about what we will achieve. Otherwise we will be merely filling ourselves with false hope, when what we really need is a true hope.

Saint Seraphim of Sarov, the great eighteenth century Russian mystic, said that the greatest enemy of humankind is despondency. And despondency is the state of lacking real hope. When we suffer from despondency, as any depressive will tell you, we become unable to function. We become unable to fulfill our potential as human beings, and more important we become unable to function as the children of God. The first thing I noticed when I became poorly is that I lost my trust in God. I became so despondent and full of my own troubles that I was unable to see beyond my own problems, I was unable to feel God’s presence, I was unable to let go of my own obsessions and worship God. And when we are not worshipping God, we are not fully in communion with God, and when we are not in communion with God we are no longer fully human. We become no more than an animal and as such we become slaves to nature, and because of our awareness of the situation we become people without hope.

This is not what God created us for. God created us to be in communion with him, to be his children, and, as such, to be part of God’s creative purpose. And God is creation. God is God because God creates. God is fundamentally, to the very depths of God's divine being, opposed to destruction, decay and chaos. When God, in his Son, Jesus Christ, took on the human condition and became subject to the ordinary nihilism of our lives he became the Crucified God. and became one with his crucified creation.

There is in the Cosmos a constant battle between creation and destruction. The universe is expanding against the gravitational force that seeks its destruction. Stars blaze subject to the inevitability of collapse. Animals are born, beautiful products of God's creation only to die and decay. And in this battle, God leads the forces of creation, whilst that force which some call the devil, constantly tries to destroy that which God has made good.

In the middle of this cosmic war stands humankind. God created us to be witnesses to and enjoyers of his creation. God would have us always free from decay, truly alive in his Garden of Paradise. But, it is blatantly obvious that we do not live in paradise. Our lives are, in stead, dominated by death and darkness.

The prophets of the Old Testament raged against this state of being. Some, like the writer of Ecclesiastes, sunk into complete despondency, seeing life as pure vanity. Some, like the psalmists saw life as a brief flirtation with the light which would be followed by an eternity in the shadows of Sheol. Others, like Job, perversely clung on to the concept of the good Creator in the face of overwhelming odds and was ridiculed for it. Some, like Isaiah, realised the truth of the situation, namely that human beings had, to a large extent, chosen their own destiny of darkness, through their stubbiness and willfulness, and that the only hope for restitution to the intended paradise lay with God, and with God only.

We have to be realistic and honest with ourselves about this. There are many horrible things that happen in this world that are not the fault of human beings. We can hardly be held responsible for the actual earthquakes that hit Haiti recently. However, we were responsible for the massive loss of life and the great suffering of the people of that nation. The number one cause of death in Haiti, during and after the earthquakes, was the obscene poverty of the people. Because of their destitution they could not afford to construct buildings that would have withstood the quakes. Because of their destitution so many of them lived crammed together in the slums of their cities and towns. Because of their destitution thousands died after the quake because the could not afford the emergency services and infrastructure that were needed to rescue the trapped and feed, shelter and provide medical aid to the survivors.

The fact that we observe and experience suffering and tragedy in our lives and the lives of others every day is depressing. The fact that we are personally and communally responsible for most of the suffering, if only due to our inaction and failure to obey God's commandments makes our feelings of despondency, if we are capable of empathy, far, far worse.

The question we must ask ourselves is, "Is this all there is?"

My answer to this question is "yes," unless we have a saviour. A saviour who will redeem our suffering and provide us with hope in our suffering by giving us the opportunity for something of great worth beyond our suffering. As a Christian I believe that God, in particular, God in his Son, Jesus Christ, is that saviour.

Isaiah predicted a time when God would free his creation from the darkness they had chosen for themselves. He saw a time when those who sat in darkness would see a great light, a time when a light would dawn on those who sat in the region and shadow of death. We now know, that God fulfilled his servant’s prophesy through the work of his only, begotten Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ.

And why is Jesus our Saviour? He is our Saviour because he has conquered death and in conquering death, he has conquered the darkness that surrounds us. Saint Seraphim, who I mentioned earlier, understood this connection between despondency and death, and he understood it to be the main thing that separates us from God. So to Seraphim the most important thing that had ever happened in the history of the universe was the resurrection of Jesus. He lived his life in a constant celebration of Easter. He would sing Easter anthems on Christmas Day, because he clearly saw the connection between the incarnation and the resurrection. Either would be useless without the other.

And it is this connection that we celebrate in our service today as we stand between the birth and the death of our Messiah. We look back to Christmas Day and the joy that we felt at his birth, and we look forward to his death upon the Cross. And we do look forward, we look forward with joy to this death, because we know that this death will be followed by resurrection, resurrection not only of the Messiah, but of his people as well. When Jesus was raised from the dead he conquered death, he trampled the last enemy of God and of his children under his feet. He descended into Hell and took the light of God with him, taking a glorious illumination to that region of shadows. And Jesus, who was truly human as well as truly divine, because of his complete connection to each one of us, achieved this banishment of darkness and freedom from death not just for himself but for us as well. The earlier raising of Lazarus from the dead was a prophecy of this eventual, universal salvation.

But, the gracious act of God in raising us, with his son, from the dead, from inevitable nothingness, is only one part of our redemption and we cannot just accept it passively. You see, the ministry of Jesus Christ on earth was a two pronged work. It contained both actions and words. The saving action of Christ's ministry was his acceptance of death and his rescue from death by his father in heaven. The saving words of Christ's ministry were his teachings through which he told us our part in our own redemption.

The Kingdom of God is both in the future, which has been made real and possible for us by Christ's actions, and in the present which is made possible by God being with us and by us accepting our responsibility for God's creation as children of God and actively carrying out our duties as responsible, children of God. And our duties are very straightforward. We are to love our neighbour as ourselves and love God with all our might. We will love our neighbour as ourselves if we love God with all our might. And our love for our neighbour must be a sacrificial love emulating the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Jesus told us to give our coat to the neighbour who has no coat. Jesus told us to give our wealth to those who are poor. If, communally, the rich of the world had obeyed the words of Christ before the earthquake, as opposed to now after the horse has bolted, then, although there would have still been tragedy in Haiti, the level of suffering would have been far less and the salvation of those who survived that natural disaster would have come sooner and would have been far more effective.

We need to take the words of Christ and our own responsibility for each other and this world far more seriously than we presently do if God's grace is going to rescue us from our own suffering, because we are only made ready to accept God's grace when we are gracious to others as God is gracious to us. God gives salvation freely but we can refuse that salvation by refusing to save those who we are capable of saving in this world, now, today.

The Resurrection gives us hope. We hang on to this hope because we know it to be a true hope, a hope that will be realised, a hope that has already been realised in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Seraphim received a great prophesy from God. He was shown that in the future Easter would be celebrated in the middle of Summer. In part, this prophesy came true many years after his death when he was canonised in the middle of summer, with the liturgy of Easter being celebrated in honour of him. But that was only part of the fulfilment of his prophesy, because there will be another time, and maybe soon, when humankind will realise the true power of the resurrection of Christ and will celebrate his great Easter victory, everyday, within the eternal kingdom that God has created for us.

As Christians, we know this to be true.

As Christians we know that this truth must be received by us and validated in our own actions.

As Christians we do have hope in what appears to be a world without hope because like Simeon, in today's Gospel reading, we have seen the light that has come into our world of darkness.

Do not despair, because unlike the candles lit on Candlemass, this light will never be blown out.

Rev. John Sentamu's statement to the House of Lordson employment law - 25th. January 2010

2010-01-25T22:41:00.006Z

"There are, I know, those who struggle with the concept of allowing any exemptions provision for religious organisations in relation to discrimination in the field of employment. But the argument is a very simple one: religious organisations, like all organisations, need to be able to impose genuine occupational requirements in relation to those who serve them.

"Successive legislation over the past 35 years has always recognised the principle that religious organisations need the freedom to impose requirements in relation to belief and conduct which go beyond what a secular employer should be able to require.

"Noble Lords may believe that the Roman Catholic Church should allow priests to be married, they may think that the Church of England should hurry up with allowing women to become bishops. They may feel that many Churches and other religious organisations are wrong on matters of sexual ethics. But, if religious freedom means anything it must mean that those are matters for the churches and other religious organisations to determine for themselves in accordance with their own convictions. They are not matters for the law to impose. Start down that road and you will put law and conscience into inevitable collision. That way lies ruin.

"As Edmund Burke said: 'Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.' The onus is on Her Majesty's Government to demonstrate why any narrowing of the provisions in existing legislation under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2003 needs to be made. There is absolutely no doubt that paragraph 2 of Schedule 9 to the Bill as introduced would constitute a significant narrowing of the present law for the reasons that I set out at the Second Reading. The Government's Amendment 99A goes some way but does not go far enough to meeting these objections.

"When the House of Lords debated the 2003 regulations, the Minister of State, Lord Sainsbury of Turville said, recorded in Hansard on 17 June 2003: 'We had in mind a very narrow range of employment: ministers of religion, plus a small number of posts outside the clergy, including those who exist to promote and represent religion. The words on the page reflect our intentions ...'

"The wording of amendment 99A is either a departure from those intentions, or fails to satisfy them. We have gone from posts outside the clergy 'including those who exist to promote and represent', to posts that only exist to promote or represent.

"Again, the question is about preserving the status quo and about not introducing legal uncertainty. The 2003 Regulations did not impose a 'proportionality' requirement. That was a deliberate policy decision on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

"Now on the eve of this debate it is suddenly being suggested that the words in the Bill are needed to avoid legal challenge from the European Commission. This is a very puzzling claim when Ministers have insisted all along that the Bill does not narrow the exemption provided in the 2003 Regulations. It is hard to see how both arguments can be true. And it is all the more puzzling given that in 2004 the Government successfully defended the compatibility of the regulations with European law against a challenge from Amicus in the High Court, (Judgement 26 April 2004, paras 88-128).

"Noble Lords are entitled to some explanation as to why the unpublished opinion of officials reached in private in Brussels is to be preferred to the Government's own previous view that was sustained by a High Court judge after all the arguments had been tested in open court and a judgement produced running to 58 pages.

"In the High Court, Her Majesty's Government had argued that it would not be right for courts or tribunals to make judgements about questions of doctrine. Her Majesty's Government was right to take that view in 2003; there is no good reason for it to take a different view now! So why is Her Majesty's Government now dissatisfied with its own, very recent handiwork? Where are the examples of actual abuses that have caused difficulties? Where are the court rulings that have shown that the law is defective? If it ain't broke, why fix it?

"The truth is that there are none because the status quo has been working perfectly satisfactorily. The earlier balances were struck by Parliament very carefully. The right course is to leave them exactly as they are."

Bishop Lawrence Writes about Mere Anglicanism

2010-01-21T18:11:00.000Z

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Greetings on this Feast of the Epiphany of Our Lord Jesus Christ to all who have come to his light and the brightness of his rising!

As you know the institution of Marriage and questions of Identity, Gender and Human Sexuality have become intensely debated and divisive issues not only within the Church (and far beyond merely The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion), but within the larger culture as well. For this reason I hope many of us within the Diocese of South Carolina will take advantage of the upcoming Mere Anglicanism Conference held in Charleston on January 21-23, 2010. I have attended this conference for the past three years and have been surprised by how few clergy and lay persons from within the diocese participate or avail themselves of this annual opportunity to hear some of the major shapers of Anglicanism in our day.

This year’s conference “Human Identity, Gender, and Sexuality: Speculation or Revelation?” will focus on this seemingly ubiquitous challenge in the both the contemporary culture and the Church of the understanding of marriage and human sexuality. Some of the major scholars, spokespersons, and authorities on these matters in Anglicanism today will be presenting lectures and responding in a variety of forums to the some of the most pressing issues we face in our world, church and ministries today.

There is a remarkable cast of speakers planned for this year’s conference--such scholars as Dr. Paul R. McHugh (Henry Phipps Professor and Director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at John Hopkins University School of Medicine and Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital); Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at PTS and author of the acclaimed book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, and co-author of Homosexuality and the Bible,; New Testament Professor and author, Dr. Edith Humphrey; Mike McManus, syndicated columnist, and author of Marriage Savers: Helping Your Friends and Family Avoid Divorce; as well as such well known practioners as The Rev. Mario Bergner, The Rev’d Dr. and Mrs. John Yates; and the retired Bishop of Rochester , ecclesiastical statesman and theologian, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali.

I hope you will join me, as well as encourage others within your parish, at this year’s conference--if not for the entire conference then at least for a significant portion of this extraordinary opportunity. For further information or to register on line, go to www.mereanglicanism.com.

Yours in Christ,

+Mark J. Lawrence
Bishop of South Carolina

"FINAL TEXT" OF ANGLICAN COVENANT

2010-01-04T16:17:00.002Z

Introduction to the Covenant Text

"This life is revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us - we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have communion with us; and truly our communion is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. These things we write so that our joy may be complete." (1 John 1.2-4).

God has called us into communion in Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1.9). This communion has been "revealed to us" by the Son as being the very divine life of God the Trinity. What is the life revealed to us? St John makes it clear that the communion of life in the Church participates in the communion which is the divine life itself, the life of the Trinity. This life is not a reality remote from us, but one that has been "seen" and "testified to" by the apostles and their followers: "for in the communion of the Church we share in the divine life" [1]. This life of the One God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, shapes and displays itself through the very existence and ordering of the Church.

Our divine calling into communion is established in God's purposes for the whole of creation (Eph 1:10; 3:9ff.). It is extended to all humankind, so that, in our sharing of God's life as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, God might restore in us the divine image. Through time, according to the Scriptures, God has furthered this calling through covenants made with Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David. The prophet Jeremiah looked forward to a new covenant not written on tablets of stone but upon the heart (Jer 31.31-34). In God's Son, Christ Jesus, a new covenant is given us, established in his "blood ... poured out for the many for the forgiveness of sins" (Mt 26:28), secured through his resurrection from the dead (Eph 1:19-23), and sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit poured into our hearts (Rom 5:5). Into this covenant of death to sin and of new life in Christ we are baptized, and empowered to share God's communion in Christ with all people, to the ends of the earth and of creation.

We humbly recognize that this calling and gift of communion entails responsibilities for our common life before God as we seek, through grace, to be faithful in our service of God's purposes for the world. Joined in one universal Church, which is Christ's Body, spread throughout the earth, we serve his gospel even as we are enabled to be made one across the dividing walls of human sin and estrangement (Eph 2.12-22). The forms of this life in the Church, caught up in the mystery of divine communion, reveal to the hostile and divisive power of the world the "manifold wisdom of God" (Eph 3:9-10). Faithfulness, honesty, gentleness, humility, patience, forgiveness, and love itself, lived out in mutual deference and service (Mk 10.44-45) among the Church's people and through its ministries, contribute to building up the body of Christ as it grows to maturity (Eph 4.1-16; Col 3.8-17).

In the providence of God, which holds sway even over our divisions caused by sin, various families of churches have grown up within the universal Church in the course of history. Among these families is the Anglican Communion, which provides a particular charism and identity among the many followers and servants of Jesus. We recognise the wonder, beauty and challenge of maintaining communion in this family of churches, and the need for mutual commitment and discipline as a witness to God's promise in a world and time of instability, conflict, and fragmentation. Therefore, we covenant together as churches of this Anglican Communion to be faithful to God's promises through the historic faith we confess, our common worship, our participation in God's mission, and the way we live together.

To covenant together is not intended to change the character of this Anglican expression of Christian faith. Rather, we recognise the importance of renewing in a solemn way our commitment to one another, and to the common understanding of faith and order we have received, so that the bonds of affection which hold us together may be re-affirmed and intensified. We do this in order to reflect, in our relations with one another, God's own faithfulness and promises towards us in Christ (2 Cor 1.20-22).

We are a people who live, learn, and pray by and with the Scriptures as God's Word. We seek to adore God in thanks and praise and to make intercession for the needs of people everywhere through common prayer, united across many cultures and languages. We are privileged to share in the mission of the apostles to bring the gospel of Christ to all nations and peoples, not only in words but also in deeds of compassion and justice that witness to God's character and the triumph of Christ over sin and death. We give ourselves as servants of a greater unity among the divided Christians of the world. May the Lord help us to "preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake" (2 Cor. 4.5).

Our faith embodies a coherent testimony to what we have received from God's Word and the Church's long-standing witness. Our life together reflects the blessings of God (even as it exposes our failures in faith, hope and love) in growing our Communion into a truly global family. The mission we pursue aims at serving the great promises of God in Christ that embrace the peoples and the world God so loves. This mission is carried out in shared responsibility and stewardship of resources, and in interdependence among ourselves and with the wider Church.

Our prayer is that God will redeem our struggles and weakness, renew and enrich our common life and use the Anglican Communion to witness effectively in all the world, working with all people of good will, to the new life and hope found in Christ Jesus.

The Anglican Communion Covenant

Preamble

We, as Churches of the Anglican Communion, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, solemnly covenant together in these following affirmations and commitments. As people of God, drawn from "every nation, tribe, people and language" (Rev 7.9), we do this in order to proclaim more effectively in our different contexts the grace of God revealed in the gospel, to offer God's love in responding to the needs of the world, to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and together with all God's people to attain the full stature of Christ (Eph 4.3,13).

Section One: Our Inheritance of Faith

1.1 Each Church affirms:

(1.1.1) its communion in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

(1.1.2) the catholic and apostolic faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation[2]. The historic formularies of the Church of England [3], forged in the context of the European Reformation and acknowledged and appropriated in various ways in the Anglican Communion, bear authentic witness to this faith.

(1.1.3) the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as containing all things necessary for salvation and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith[4].

(1.1.4) the Apostles' Creed, as the baptismal symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith[5].

(1.1.5) the two sacraments ordained by Christ himself - Baptism and the Supper of the Lord - ministered with the unfailing use of Christ's words of institution, and of the elements ordained by him[6].

(1.1.6) the historic episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of his Church[7].

(1.1.7) the shared patterns of our common prayer and liturgy which form, sustain and nourish our worship of God and our faith and life together.

(1.1.8) its participation in the apostolic mission of the whole people of God, and that this mission is shared with other Churches and traditions beyond this Covenant.

1.2 In living out this inheritance of faith together in varying contexts, each Church, reliant on the Holy Spirit, commits itself:

(1.2.1) to teach and act in continuity and consonance with Scripture and the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition, as received by the Churches of the Anglican Communion, mindful of the common councils of the Communion and our ecumenical agreements.

(1.2.2) to uphold and proclaim a pattern of Christian theological and moral reasoning and discipline that is rooted in and answerable to the teaching of Holy Scripture and the catholic tradition.

(1.2.3) to witness, in this reasoning, to the renewal of humanity and the whole created order through the death and resurrection of Christ, and to reflect the holiness that in consequence God gives to, and requires from, his people.

(1.2.4) to hear, read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the Scriptures in our different contexts, informed by the attentive and communal reading of - and costly witness to - the Scriptures by all the faithful, by the teaching of bishops and synods, and by the results of rigorous study by lay and ordained scholars.

(1.2.5) to ensure that biblical texts are received, read and interpreted faithfully, respectfully, comprehensively and coherently, with the expectation that Scripture continues to illuminate and transform the Church and its members, and through them, individuals, cultures and societies.

(1.2.6) to encourage and be open to prophetic and faithful leadership in ministry and mission so as to enable God's people to respond in courageous witness to the power of the gospel in the world.

(1.2.7) to seek in all things to uphold the solemn obligation to nurture and sustain eucharistic communion, in accordance with existing canonical disciplines, as we strive under God for the fuller realisation of the communion of all Christians.

(1.2.8) to pursue a common pilgrimage with the whole Body of Christ continually to discern the fullness of truth into which the Spirit leads us, that peoples from all nations may be set free to receive new and abundant life in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Section Two: The Life We Share with Others: Our Anglican Vocation

2.1 Each Church affirms:

(2.1.1) communion as a gift of God given so that God's people from east and west, north and south, may together declare the glory of the Lord and be both a sign of God's reign in the Holy Spirit and the first fruits in the world of God's redemption in Christ.

(2.1.2) its gratitude for God's gracious providence extended to us down through the ages: our origins in the Church of the apostles; the ancient common traditions; the rich history of the Church in Britain and Ireland reshaped by the Reformation, and our growth into a global communion through the expanding missionary work of the Church; our ongoing refashioning by the Holy Spirit through the gifts and sacrificial witness of Anglicans from around the world; and our summons into a more fully developed communion life.

(2.1.3) in humility our call to constant repentance: for our failures in exercising patience and charity and in recognizing Christ in one another; our misuse of God's gracious gifts; our failure to heed God's call to serve; and our exploitation one of another.

(2.1.4) the imperative of God's mission into which the Communion is called, a vocation and blessing in which each Church is joined with others in Christ in the work of establishing God's reign. As the Communion continues to develop into a worldwide family of interdependent churches, we embrace challenges and opportunities for mission at local, regional, and international levels. In this, we cherish our mission heritage as offering Anglicans distinctive opportunities for mission collaboration.

(2.1.5) that our common mission is a mission shared with other Churches and traditions beyond this Covenant. We embrace opportunities for the discovery of the life of the whole gospel, and for reconciliation and shared mission with the Church throughout the world. We affirm the ecumenical vocation of Anglicanism to the full visible unity of the Church in accordance with Christ's prayer that "all may be one". It is with all the saints in every place and time that we will comprehend the fuller dimensions of Christ's redemptive and immeasurable love.

2.2 In recognition of these affirmations, each Church, reliant on the Holy Spirit, commits itself:

(2.2.1) to answer God's call to undertake evangelisation and to share in the healing and reconciling mission "for our blessed but broken, hurting and fallen world"[8], and, with mutual accountability, to share our God-given spiritual and material resources in this task.

(2.2.2) to undertake in this mission, which is the mission of God in Christ[9]:

(2.2.2.a) "to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom of God" and to bring all to repentance and faith;
(2.2.2.b) "to teach, baptize and nurture new believers", making disciples of all nations (Mt 28.19) through the quickening power of the Holy Spirit[10]and drawing them into the one Body of Christ whose faith, calling and hope are one in the Lord (Eph 4.4-6);
(2.2.2.c) "to respond to human need by loving service", disclosing God's reign through humble ministry to those most needy (Mk 10.42-45; Mt 18.4; 25.31-45);
(2.2.2.d) "to seek to transform unjust structures of society" as the Church stands vigilantly with Christ proclaiming both judgment and salvation to the nations of the world[11], and manifesting through our actions on behalf of God's righteousness the Spirit's transfiguring power[12];
(2.2.2.e) "to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and to sustain and renew the life of the earth" as essential aspects of our mission in communion[13].

(2.2.3) to engage in this mission with humility and an openness to our own ongoing conversion in the face of our unfaithfulness and failures in witness.

(2.2.4) to revive and renew structures for mission which will awaken and challenge the whole people of God to work, pray and give for the spread of the gospel.

(2.2.5) to order its mission in the joyful and reverent worship of God, thankful that in our eucharistic communion "Christ is the source and goal of the unity of the Church and of the renewal of human community"[14].

Section Three: Our Unity and Common Life

3.1 Each Church affirms:

(3.1.1) that by our participation in Baptism and Eucharist, we are incorporated into the one body of the Church of Jesus Christ, and called by Christ to pursue all things that make for peace and build up our common life.

(3.1.2) its resolve to live in a Communion of Churches. Each Church, with its bishops in synod, orders and regulates its own affairs and its local responsibility for mission through its own system of government and law and is therefore described as living "in communion with autonomy and accountability"[15]. Trusting in the Holy Spirit, who calls and enables us to dwell in a shared life of common worship and prayer for one another, in mutual affection, commitment and service, we seek to affirm our common life through those Instruments of Communion by which our Churches are enabled to be conformed together to the mind of Christ. Churches of the Anglican Communion are bound together "not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference"[16] and of the other instruments of Communion.

(3.1.3) the central role of bishops as guardians and teachers of faith, as leaders in mission, and as a visible sign of unity, representing the universal Church to the local, and the local Church to the universal and the local Churches to one another. This ministry is exercised personally, collegially and within and for the eucharistic community. We receive and maintain the historic threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, ordained for service in the Church of God, as they call all the baptised into the mission of Christ.

(3.1.4) the importance of instruments in the Anglican Communion to assist in the discernment, articulation and exercise of our shared faith and common life and mission. The life of communion includes an ongoing engagement with the diverse expressions of apostolic authority, from synods and episcopal councils to local witness, in a way which continually interprets and articulates the common faith of the Church's members (consensus fidelium). In addition to the many and varied links which sustain our life together, we acknowledge four particular Instruments at the level of the Anglican Communion which express this co-operative service in the life of communion.

We accord the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the bishop of the See of Canterbury with which Anglicans have historically been in communion, a primacy of honour and respect among the college of bishops in the Anglican Communion as first among equals (primus inter pares). As a focus and means of unity, the Archbishop gathers and works with the Lambeth Conference and Primates' Meeting, and presides in the Anglican Consultative Council.

The Lambeth Conference expresses episcopal collegiality worldwide, and brings together the bishops for common worship, counsel, consultation and encouragement in their ministry of guarding the faith and unity of the Communion and equipping the saints for the work of ministry (Eph 4.12) and mission.

The Anglican Consultative Council is comprised of lay, clerical and episcopal representatives from our Churches[17]. It facilitates the co-operative work of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, co-ordinates aspects of international Anglican ecumenical and mission work, calls the Churches into mutual responsibility and interdependence, and advises on developing provincial structures[18].

The Primates' Meeting is convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury for mutual support, prayer and counsel. The authority that primates bring to the meeting arises from their own positions as the senior bishops of their Provinces, and the fact that they are in conversation with their own Houses of Bishops and located within their own synodical structures[19]. In the Primates' Meeting, the Primates and Moderators are called to work as representatives of their Provinces in collaboration with one another in mission and in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have Communion-wide implications.

It is the responsibility of each Instrument to consult with, respond to, and support each other Instrument and the Churches of the Communion[20]. Each Instrument may initiate and commend a process of discernment and a direction for the Communion and its Churches.

3.2 Acknowledging our interdependent life, each Church, reliant on the Holy Spirit, commits itself:

(3.2.1) to have regard for the common good of the Communion in the exercise of its autonomy, to support the work of the Instruments of Communion with the spiritual and material resources available to it, and to receive their work with a readiness to undertake reflection upon their counsels, and to endeavour to accommodate their recommendations.

(3.2.2) to respect the constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, while upholding our mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Body of Christ[21], and the responsibility of each to the Communion as a whole[22].

(3.2.3) to spend time with openness and patience in matters of theological debate and reflection, to listen, pray and study with one another in order to discern the will of God. Such prayer, study and debate is an essential feature of the life of the Church as it seeks to be led by the Spirit into all truth and to proclaim the gospel afresh in each generation. Some issues, which are perceived as controversial or new when they arise, may well evoke a deeper understanding of the implications of God's revelation to us; others may prove to be distractions or even obstacles to the faith. All such matters therefore need to be tested by shared discernment in the life of the Church.

(3.2.4) to seek a shared mind with other Churches, through the Communion's councils, about matters of common concern, in a way consistent with the Scriptures, the common standards of faith, and the canon laws of our churches. Each Church will undertake wide consultation with the other Churches of the Anglican Communion and with the Instruments and Commissions of the Communion.

(3.2.5) to act with diligence, care and caution in respect of any action which may provoke controversy, which by its intensity, substance or extent could threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission.

(3.2.6) in situations of conflict, to participate in mediated conversations, which involve face to face meetings, agreed parameters and a willingness to see such processes through.

(3.2.7) to have in mind that our bonds of affection and the love of Christ compel us always to uphold the highest degree of communion possible.

Section Four: Our Covenanted Life Together

4. Each Church affirms the following principles and procedures, and, reliant on the Holy Spirit, commits itself to their implementation.

4.1 Adoption of the Covenant

(4.1.1) Each Church adopting this Covenant affirms that it enters into the Covenant as a commitment to relationship in submission to God. Each Church freely offers this commitment to other Churches in order to live more fully into the ecclesial communion and interdependence which is foundational to the Churches of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion is a fellowship, within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of national or regional Churches, in which each recognises in the others the bonds of a common loyalty to Christ expressed through a common faith and order, a shared inheritance in worship, life and mission, and a readiness to live in an interdependent life.

(4.1.2) In adopting the Covenant for itself, each Church recognises in the preceding sections a statement of faith, mission and interdependence of life which is consistent with its own life and with the doctrine and practice of the Christian faith as it has received them. It recognises these elements as foundational for the life of the Anglican Communion and therefore for the relationships among the covenanting Churches.

(4.1.3) Such mutual commitment does not represent submission to any external ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Nothing in this Covenant of itself shall be deemed to alter any provision of the Constitution and Canons of any Church of the Communion, or to limit its autonomy of governance. The Covenant does not grant to any one Church or any agency of the Communion control or direction over any Church of the Anglican Communion.

(4.1.4) Every Church of the Anglican Communion, as recognised in accordance with the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council, is invited to enter into this Covenant according to its own constitutional procedures.

(4.1.5) The Instruments of Communion may invite other Churches to adopt the Covenant using the same procedures as set out by the Anglican Consultative Council for the amendment of its schedule of membership. Adoption of this Covenant does not confer any right of recognition by, or membership of, the Instruments of Communion, which shall be decided by those Instruments themselves.

(4.1.6) This Covenant becomes active for a Church when that Church adopts the Covenant through the procedures of its own Constitution and Canons.

4.2 The Maintenance of the Covenant and Dispute Resolution

(4.2.1) The Covenant operates to express the common commitments and mutual accountability which hold each Church in the relationship of communion one with another. Recognition of, and fidelity to, this Covenant, enable mutual recognition and communion. Participation in the Covenant implies a recognition by each Church of those elements which must be maintained in its own life and for which it is accountable to the Churches with which it is in Communion in order to sustain the relationship expressed in this Covenant.

(4.2.2) The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, responsible to the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting, shall monitor the functioning of the Covenant in the life of the Anglican Communion on behalf of the Instruments. In this regard, the Standing Committee shall be supported by such other committees or commissions as may be mandated to assist in carrying out this function and to advise it on questions relating to the Covenant.

(4.2.3) When questions arise relating to the meaning of the Covenant, or about the compatibility of an action by a covenanting Church with the Covenant, it is the duty of each covenanting Church to seek to live out the commitments of Section 3.2. Such questions may be raised by a Church itself, another covenanting Church or the Instruments of Communion.

(4.2.4) Where a shared mind has not been reached the matter shall be referred to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee shall make every effort to facilitate agreement, and may take advice from such bodies as it deems appropriate to determine a view on the nature of the matter at question and those relational consequences which may result. Where appropriate, the Standing Committee shall refer the question to both the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting for advice.

(4.2.5) The Standing Committee may request a Church to defer a controversial action. If a Church declines to defer such action, the Standing Committee may recommend to any Instrument of Communion relational consequences which may specify a provisional limitation of participation in, or suspension from, that Instrument until the completion of the process set out below.

(4.2.6) On the basis of advice received from the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting, the Standing Committee may make a declaration that an action or decision is or would be "incompatible with the Covenant".

(4.2.7) On the basis of the advice received, the Standing Committee shall make recommendations as to relational consequences which flow from an action incompatible with the Covenant. These recommendations may be addressed to the Churches of the Anglican Communion or to the Instruments of the Communion and address the extent to which the decision of any covenanting Church impairs or limits the communion between that Church and the other Churches of the Communion, and the practical consequences of such impairment or limitation. Each Church or each Instrument shall determine whether or not to accept such recommendations.

(4.2.8) Participation in the decision making of the Standing Committee or of the Instruments of Communion in respect to section 4.2 shall be limited to those members of the Instruments of Communion who are representatives of those churches who have adopted the Covenant, or who are still in the process of adoption.

(4.2.9) Each Church undertakes to put into place such mechanisms, agencies or institutions, consistent with its own Constitution and Canons, as can undertake to oversee the maintenance of the affirmations and commitments of the Covenant in the life of that Church, and to relate to the Instruments of Communion on matters pertinent to the Covenant.

4.3 Withdrawing from the Covenant

(4.3.1) Any covenanting Church may decide to withdraw from the Covenant. Although such withdrawal does not imply an automatic withdrawal from the Instruments of Communion or a repudiation of its Anglican character, it may raise a question relating to the meaning of the Covenant, and of compatibility with the principles incorporated within it, and trigger the provisions set out in section 4.2 above.

4.4 The Covenant Text and its amendment

(4.4.1) The Covenant consists of the text set out in this document in the Preamble, Sections One to Four and the Declaration. The Introduction to the Covenant Text, which shall always be annexed to the Covenant text, is not part of the Covenant, but shall be accorded authority in understanding the purpose of the Covenant.

(4.4.2) Any covenanting Church or Instrument of Communion may submit a proposal to amend the Covenant to the Instruments of Communion through the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee shall send the proposal to the Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates' Meeting, the covenanting Churches and any other body as it may consider appropriate for advice. The Standing Committee shall make a recommendation on the proposal in the light of advice offered, and submit the proposal with any revisions to the covenanting Churches. The amendment is operative when ratified by three quarters of such Churches. The Standing Committee shall adopt a procedure for promulgation of the amendment.

Our Declaration

With joy and with firm resolve, we declare our Churches to be partakers in this Anglican Communion Covenant, offering ourselves for fruitful service and binding ourselves more closely in the truth andlove of Christ, to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory for ever. Amen.

"Now may the God of Peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, make you complete in everything good so that you may do his will, working among us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen." (Hebrews 13.20, 21)

Footnotes:

[1]The Church of the Triune God, The Cyprus Statement of the International Commission for Anglican Orthodox Theological Dialogue, 2007, paragraph 1,2.

[2]Cf. The Preface to the Declaration of Assent, Canon C15 of the Church of England.

[3]The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons

[4]The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886/1888

[5]The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886/1888

[6]cf. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1886/1888, The Preface to the Declaration of Assent, Canon C15 of the Church of England.

[7]cf. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1886/1888

[8]IASCOME Report, ACC-13

[9]The five Marks of Mission are set out in the MISSIO Report of 1999, building on work at ACC-6 and ACC-8.

[10]Church as Communion n26

[11]WCC 1954 Evanston,Christ the Hope of the World

[12]Moscow Statement, 43

[13]IARCCUM,Growing Together in Unity and Mission,118

[14]Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, WCC,

[15]A Letter from Alexandria, the Primates, March 2009

[16]Lambeth Conference 1930

[17]Constitution of the ACC, Article 3 and Schedule

[18]cf. the Objects of the ACC are set out in Article 2 of its Constitution.

[19]Report of the Windsor Continuation Group, 69.

[20]cf IATDC, Communion, Conflict and Hope, paragraph 113.

[21]Toronto Congress 1963, and the Ten Principles of Partnership.

[22] cf. the Schedule to the Dar es Salaam Communiqué of the Primates' Meeting, February 2007

Anglican Church of CanadaPrimate's New Year's Day Address1st. January 2010

2010-01-01T22:02:00.001Z

What follows is the text of an address by Archbishop Fred Hiltz, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, delivered on New Year's Day 2010, at Christ Church Cathedral in Ottawa.

Once again it is our joy to gather in Eucharist to celebrate the Naming of Jesus. Of this feast Herbert O'Driscoll writes, "His mother named him Jesus. Each of us who comes to Christmas in our own way and in our own time must decide whether or not we wish to add the title Christ." That invitation lies at the heart of our baptismal promises — accepting Jesus as Saviour, putting our trust in his grace and love, and obeying him as Lord. It is in fact true that we disclose our naming of Jesus as The Christ not only in the language of the liturgy but in the manner of our living, not only in our worship but through our servant ministry in the world.

As we stand on the threshold of a new year, we pause to look back and then turn our attention to the future.

2009 was a year of incredible experience for our beloved Church. I have had the privilege of visiting several dioceses and many parishes across the country that celebrated significant anniversaries. I was particularly honoured by the invitation of the Bishop Ordinary to attend the annual Clericus meeting for our Military Chaplains and was deeply moved by their commitment and courage in ministering both to our Armed Forces personnel currently deployed in Afghanistan and to their families here at home.

Changes in Episcopal leadership took place in a number of dioceses. Within each of the four provinces a new Metropolitan was elected and I was very pleased to be present and to preach at their installations.

The ministry of the National Indigenous Anglican Bishop continued to expand across the country. Of particular note was his leadership at the 6th Sacred Circle in Port Elgin, Ont., gathered under the theme, "The Mighty Wind of the Spirit."

This gathering celebrated the movement of the Spirit empowering old and young alike to rise up with renewed strength in witness to the Gospel. The Circle heard about exciting plans for area missions in Northern Ontario and Northern Manitoba, including the election and consecration of Indigenous Bishops to serve these areas. The Circle also identified a growing need for ministry among Indigenous peoples who have migrated to large urban centres in southern dioceses. Increasingly this call is being heard throughout the whole Church and we are seeing some amazing responses.

Speaking of "amazing", the Amazing Grace Project, in which so many of us participated, raised more than $100,000. This was a moment when where we saw the Church at its best. The Council of the North has designated those funds for the ministry of a co-ordinator for Suicide Prevention Programs in First Nations communities across the country.

We rejoice in the relaunch of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and pledge as a Church to do our part in raising the profile of its work over the next several years. In December we welcomed two of the Commissioners Marie Wilson and Willy Littlechild to Church House. It is clear to me that they are going about their work very much in the Spirit of the Prayer written for the Church Leaders' tour in 2008 which concludes with these words:

Remembering the Children
We dare to dream of a Path of Reconciliation
Where apology from the heart leads to healing of the heart....
Hear our prayer of hope and guide this country of Canada
On a new and different path. Amen.

The Primate's World Relief and Development Fund (PWRDF) began celebrating its 50th Anniversary. I am delighted that one of the centerpieces is The 50 Refugees Program. In accepting the appointment as patron, the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson said, "I feel particularly strongly about this having been a refugee myself, arriving in Canada at age 3 in 1942 in the middle of the Second World War with one suitcase for each one of us — my mother, father brother and I. We will never forget how we were taken in by different people who became friends and also the friends that we made through the neighbourhood and our first church which was Christ Church Cathedral. As a Canadian, I can't think of more useful work joining our religious commitment to our duties as citizens than being a part of settlement program for specific refugee families." In this spirit, parishes all across the country are sponsoring families. These are coming from many places including Columbia, Eretria, Burma, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Palestine. In fact we are more than half way there in terms of the number of sponsorships and I am confident we'll go far beyond the goal of 50.

One of the most outstanding efforts to sponsor a family is that of a youth group in the Diocese of Montreal. Youth from St. Mary's, Kirkland and St. George's, St. Anne de Bellevue have raised almost $10,000.00 of the required $20,000 to sponsor a family. They understand refugee sponsorship as a unique expression of feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, welcoming new friends. They know that sponsorship represents renewed hope for a life of freedom, dignity and peace. They believe they are changing the world one family at a time.

Within the Communion, work on the drafting of an Anglican Communion Covenant was completed, just one week before Christmas! In a covering letter which accompanied the text, Secretary General Kenneth Kearon wrote, "The presentation of the Covenant represents an invitation to deepening of relationship among the provinces. We have a long history of friendship, affinities and collaboration between provinces, dioceses, parishes and people across the globe and we celebrate these manifold expressions of our oneness in Christ. The Covenant represents a further step in these relationships, building on and giving expression to the bonds of affection which shape our common life."

The Covenant also speaks about procedures for addressing controversial issues and actions by provinces that could be deemed "incompatible" with the spirit of the Covenant, and of "relational consequences" for that province and its place in the Communion. For some, the language of relational consequences is deeply disturbing, given that our relationships within the Anglican Communion are and should never be dependent or fixed on one issue only.

I maintain that in the midst of our differences over issues of sexuality we are called to model a capacity to live with difference and to do so with grace. It is precisely a lack of graciousness that has fired tempers and sparked words of condemnation and dismissal that have been so destructive to relationships within the Communion. I pray that our attitudes and conversations with one another be more and more centered in Him in whom, beyond our understanding, we are forever one.

Last fall the House of Bishops welcomed Pastoral Visitors representing the Archbishop of Canterbury. Their role in the Communion is to provide guidance for provinces experiencing tension over controversial issues. We appreciated their presence and were pleased to hear their reflections which included the following:

"The phrase ‘we are committed to walking together' was used on a number of occasions both in relations to dioceses within the Anglican Church of Canada and in relation to the wider Communion. Canadians really do want to play their full part in the Communion and play it well."

This truth is reflected in a variety of ways not the least in the number of Canadians with significant responsibilities within the Communion for Liturgy, Theological Education, Evangelism and Church Growth, Indigenous Ministries and Relief and Development work. Of particular note in 2009 was the appointment of The Rev. Canon Alyson Barnett-Cowan as Director of Unity Faith and Order for the Communion.

2010 is a General Synod year. In the first week of June, bishops and clergy and lay delegates from each diocese will gather in Halifax under the theme, "Feeling the Winds of God: Charting a New Course." We meet in the Diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island marking the 300th Anniversary of the beginnings of Anglican worship in Canada.

The Synod will welcome a number of International partners. It will be a particular delight to receive the Right Reverend Suheil Dawani the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem and his wife Shafeeqa. He comes with a deep desire to strengthen ties between his Diocese and our Church. I am pleased to say we are already engaged in the placement of some Volunteers in Mission and a theological student at St. George's Cathedral in Jerusalem, as well as in establishing a companion relationship with the Diocese of Ottawa. I hope we will announce an initiative to be known as Canadian Companions to the Diocese of Jerusalem, a company of people deeply committed to the witness of the Church in the Land of the Holy One. The General Synod will consider a resolution on peace in the Middle East. Bishop Suheil's perspective on the current situation will help us to make a statement that is appropriately sensitive and sensible.

Each day of the Synod will call us to renewed commitment to those Marks of Mission which draw us together as Anglicans worldwide:

To proclaim the Good news of the Kingdom.
To teach, baptise and nurture new believers.
To respond to human need by loving service.
To seek to transform unjust structures of society.
To work for reconciliation and peace with justice for all people.
To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth.
In many respects our work in this coming Synod is shaped by requests made by the Synod of 2007.

Vision 2019 — This was a call to set in motion a process for shaping our priorities as a General Synod for the next nine years. From coast to coast to coast, Anglicans named their hopes, dreams and prayers for our Church. It is clear that we envision our Church as

Celebrating the depth and breadth of Anglican Tradition
Engaging in the service of the Gospel at home and overseas
Becoming more and more welcoming, diverse, and inclusive
Walking with indigenous people in paths of healing and reconciliation
Living more deeply into our Full Communion relationship with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
Working together with other Churches and other faith traditions
A Governance Working Group has been addressing the jurisdiction of the General Synod in matters of doctrine and discipline; the size and membership of the General Synod and its Council; and structures that support Indigenous ministries in ways that honour Aboriginal culture and tradition and the desire for self-determination.

A Primacy Review Task Force has been examining the role and responsibilities of the Primate. A fundamental question that has informed its engagement with people across the country has been "What qualities of leadership do we require in the person of the Primate for a Church fully engaged in God's mission in the world?"

As we prepare for conversations about sexuality at General Synod it is very clear that people favour conversation and discernment over resolution and debate. Many hope that our discussions will be marked by a capacity to hear one another's perspective and to appreciate the diversity of settings in which the pastoral and sacramental ministry of the Church is desired. My own hope is that we will emerge from the Synod with an honest statement of where we are in our continuing discernment.

Personally I am both challenged and heartened by a comment made by the Pastoral Visitors in their report to the Archbishop of Canterbury, "General Synod will, indeed, be a watershed, both for the Anglican Church in Canada, and for its wider relations within the Anglican Communion. At its worst it could lead to internal anarchy. At its best it could help us all to appreciate and practise a properly Christian style of inclusiveness. ... Our distinct impression was that if the Anglican Church of Canada could find a way through this current impasse, it could well become a vibrant model of the kind of renewed Christian community that has much to teach the wider Church."

In the service of God's mission I believe the Holy Spirit is blowing through the churches and calling us to deeper partnership. Nowhere is that more evident than in the response of the churches in Canada to the recent announcement by Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) to end its 35-year-old funding for KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives. Representing a number of Canada's largest denominations and related agencies, our work is focused on protecting and advancing human rights. In recent years we have been active in Congo, Sudan, Mexico, Columbia, the Philippines, to name but a few. We believe the cut of CIDA funding for KAIROS denies hope for millions of people throughout the world and damages our reputation among the nations. We requested the Government to reconsider its position on this matter. I made a personal appeal to the Minister of International Co-operation in the name of those whose hope and security for a better future rests in our care and actions as Canadians.

This crisis highlights the need for the Churches to have a Secretariat for Government Relations here in the nation's capital. Given the multicultural and multi-religious complexion of our country, such a secretariat could reflect a strong partnership in the interest of human rights, among people of a variety of faith traditions. I believe that a secretariat of this kind would enhance our capacity to have a stronger voice in influencing the shaping of public policy, both domestic and international.

This year in June Canada hosts an expanded global leaders' summit. It is not going unnoticed by many people that we will have reached the two-thirds point for the deadline to fulfil the Millennium Development Goals set by the leaders of 192 United Nations member states in the year 2000.

In conjunction with this gathering, there is a Religious Leaders Summit in Winnipeg. Known as the 2010 Interfaith Partnership Initiative, we will urge world leaders,

to address the immediate needs of the most vulnerable while simultaneously making structural changes to close the growing gap between rich and poor;
to invest in peace and remove factors that feed cycles of violent conflict and costly militarism."
to prioritize long-term environmental sustainability and halt climate change.
Our deep desire is that 2010 be a year of monumental progress in addressing these issues. We call on all Canadians and all people of good will to uphold the leaders in prayer at this critical moment in our collective history.

On a personal note at this time, I ask for your prayers for Archdeacon Michael Pollesel, the General Synod's General Secretary, whose wife Gini, as many of you will know, died tragically in a car accident earlier this week.

And as we cross the threshold into this New Year, we pray, in words written by former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey at the dawn of the Second Millenium: "Eternal God, we place ourselves into your hands. May we walk together, hand in hand and in all our actions may your will be done, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."