The Church Mouse Blog

Evangelical Women's Group AWESOME back Women Bishops

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:27:00 +0000

I note that this appears not to have been publicised anywhere else, so Mouse will publish in full the correspondence he had from the Chair of evangelical women's group AWESOME.

This group has previously had close links with Reform, and discussed the issues in detail with them. As such, it is very significant that the Committee have now concluded that the proposed measure should be passed. It is also very telling that the latest rhetoric from those opposed claims that the measure will lead to disunity within the church, whilst the AWESOME committee believe the contrary is true.

Hi - apologies for the delay. I needed to ensure that the final wording was signed off by the entire committee. I should emphasize that this is a comment (not an official statement) in response to your specific enquiry. It also comes from the committee alone, we cannot claim to speak for the whole of AWESOME on this.

"AWESOME has always represented different opinions among evangelical ordained women. The Committee, which represents this breadth of view, believes that the proposed Measure before Synod is the best way to maintain the unity of the church. Therefore we support it and want to see it go through."

Hope that helps

In Christ,

Lis

Yes 2 Women Bishops Part 2: The Right Measure at the Right Time

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:25:00 +0000

Soon members of the General Synod will have to decide whether to pass the measure to allow the admission of women to the episcopate. The environment for those “on the inside” is no doubt becoming rather intense.

Almost exactly this time 20 years ago, supporters of women’s ordained ministry were celebrating the vote in General Synod to allow the ordination of women as priests. Since then we have lived with a complex system which allows parishes to opt out of those arrangements if they so wish, in order to preserve their theological integrity. Bishops were given an opt out too, should they not want to ordain women priests themselves.

This has left supporters of women’s ordained ministry feeling that the progress made in 1992 was limited, as it is still an acceptable position to deny the validity of women’s ordained ministry, right at the highest levels of the Church. Mouse has often felt it intolerable that a diocesan bishop should be charged with the pastoral oversight of his priests, whilst it is considered acceptable for him to publicly declare that their ministry is invalid in his own eyes.

Opponents of women’s ordained ministry often claim that the mechanisms for seeking alternative episcopal oversight are cumbersome, complex and face resistance from local hierarchies when attempted in practice.

And these are the compromises with which the Church of England works. Some argue that it shows a lack of theological integrity, and means it is a ‘believe whatever you want’ kind of church. Mouse prefers to believe that the Church is the body of Christ, that we don’t get to choose who else is in it with us, and so we’d better find ways of getting along together in obedience of Christ’s call that we are one.

So now, Synod has to work its way through another compromise package. Supporters of women’s ordained ministry would ideally have liked a single clause measure that simply strips away any gender based restrictions at all levels of the Church. Traditionalists would rather a clear demarcation which establishes male-only zones within the Church to ensure they will not find themselves stuck with a women bishops at some point in the future, or even have to accept male priests who have been ordained by women bishops.

These two objectives cannot both be achieved, so either we continue slugging it out until we exhaust each other in the fight, or we find a way to get along and move forward together.

In Mouse’s view the proposed measure strikes this balance well. It says that women and men will be bishops without qualification. And it also says that schemes must be established to ensure that those opposed will continue to be overseen by male bishops in a manner which respects the theological reasons why alternative oversight is sought.

Those who are arguing for a rejection of this measure have sought ingenious arguments to convince us to delay, such as claims that this measure is being rushed through and that a better way can be found if we take more time. Some have even dared argue that supporters of women bishops should reject the measure in the hope of a better solution in the future. After 20 years of wrangling to get to this point, Mouse does not believe for a moment that this circle can be squared in any other way, and indeed there is not a single credible alternative option on the table. We should not take this stalling tactic seriously, and Mouse doesn’t think anyone does.

Others are simply stamping their feet and saying that the provision set out for those who cannot accept women bishops is not sufficient or does not provide sufficient ‘safe guards’ for them. Yet the list of demands that follows is either vague, non-existent, or delusional. Some wrongly claim it is not legally binding, but dependent on a code of conduct, a claim contradicted by legal advice provided to Synod, which says that the requirements cannot be ignored, even if they are awkward to implement.

The provision set out in the measure is legally binding, fair and reasonable. It does not fill in all the details of how schemes will work, but sets out the principles by which they must comply. That is what laws do. The rest is up to us.

So the choice is simple – to move forwards or backwards. To move away from a position which the vast majority of the Church consider intolerable. Or to go back and start the whole debate again, with no Plan B on the table. In fact, it is worse than that. Every Plan B imaginable has been tried and has failed.

We must not throw out this measure now. To do so would commit us to another 5-10 years of discussion, with no hope of a better solution in sight. It would further fore-stall the express wish of the vast majority of the Church and the dioceses who have supported this measure. And it would make us a laughing stock in the eyes of the nation we are seeking to reach out to.

Instead, we have an option which allows all to remain and flourish within the Church, moving forward together. Mouse suggests we take it.

To make your voice heard in support of a YES vote, please visit http://yes2womenbishops.blogspot.com

Yes 2 Women Bishops: Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:03:00 +0000

In this thrilling installment, Mouse will consider the arguments of those arguing for a NO vote on 20th November. He has previously looked at the substantive arguments in some detail, and won't repeat this exercise, although if you want to know why some Anglo Catholics and Conservative Evangelicals oppose the legislation and what was introduced to deal with these concerns, his earlier post is worth a read.

This time, Mouse make use of a little fisk. Naturally, the conclusion is that you should head over to Yes 2 Women Bishops and urge your general synod members to pass the legislation on 20 November.

Here is the media release from Reform and the Catholic Group at Synod, with some comments inserted by the Mouse.

Women Bishops Legislation ‘Not Fit For Purpose' Says Combined Group of General Synod Members

As the Church of England's General Synod prepares for an historic vote on women bishops later this month, a new booklet, sent to all Synod members this weekend, warns that the draft legislation is ‘fatally flawed.'

The booklet, entitled ‘Not fit for purpose', has been published by the chairs of the Catholic Group in General Synod - Canon Simon Killwick - and of Reform - Prebendary Rod Thomas. It says the legislation is fatally flawed because:

It relies on specially-appointed bishops for traditionalists, but does not guarantee that any will be appointed. At the moment, despite the fact that nearly 1 in 10 members of Synod are evangelicals who do not subscribe to women bishops, there are no serving bishops of their persuasion in the Church of England at all.

The measure certainly does not guarantee conservative evangelical or Anglo-Catholic bishops be appointed to oversee them. And nor should it. Nor does it establish a new special kind of bishop for this purpose, as the previous arrangements from 1992 did with the establishment of 'flying bishops'. What it does guarantee is that alternative oversight be provided by a MALE bishop, since it is the gender of the bishop which is the root of the problem for opponents. Alternative oversight is there to allow those who are opposed to women bishops to be overseen by a male bishop. It is not a means of picking your own bishop - a priviledge that nobody in the church has. Further the proposed measure guarantees that the alternative male bishop should be appointed in a way that respects the grounds on which their oversight was requested. It is not a means of letting parishes pick their own bishop - a priviledge that nobody in the church has.

Its specific provision for traditionalists is very uncertain. It depends on:
- Diocesan Bishops showing ‘respect' for that outlook in choosing special bishops, but it is unclear what showing ‘respect' might involve;

It is clear. In fact the precise meaning of this clause is the subject of a separate legal opinion which has been circulated to all synod members. Of everything in the measure, this is probably the single word about which most clarity has been provided. It has a specific legal definition and in short is legally binding.

- A Code of Practice that hasn't yet been debated or agreed by the Synod and which in any event cannot be directly enforced.

The alternative provisions will be enacted through a code, but the measure sets out requirements which the code must meet. They are therefore statutory requirements in the measure itself, not dependent on the code of conduct. The code of conduct absolutely can be enforced as Church of England lawyers have made clear. Indeed this is acknowledged in the pamphlet itself when it later argues that although it is enforceable through judicial review, this could be too expensive for parishes to resort to. Of course, if it comes to that we really are in trouble, and it is likely that the Clergy Disciplinary Measure would be an easier route to complain about a bishop who is wilfully breaking the law in the way he administers his diocese. Nevertheless it is clear that Code will be legally enforceable, and the provisions are contained in the face of the measure.

Elsewhere, the booklet says the draft legislation does not reflect what the Bible teaches about the equality of men and women and how differences between them are to be reflected in their church roles.

It is rather interesting that a joint publication from Anglo-Catholics and Conservative Evangelicals should claim this, as they themselves are radically at odds on the point. Nevertheless, the vast majority of bishops and theologians who have looked at this issue have agreed that there is a sound theological backing for women bishops. Theologians like NT Wright, Rowan Williams and our new leader Justin Welby, who all argue for women bishops on the grounds of scripture and church tradition. No-one has ever denied that some disagree, and that is why statutory provision is provided for them, but to oppose the legislation on this basis is to start this debate right at the very beginning and oppose women bishops on principle, not because of the specific terms of this legislation.

In a letter to all Synod members, the two chairmen say that if General Synod approves the draft Women Bishops Measure, so far from bringing the current controversy to an end, approval would only exacerbate it and lead to growing disunity. ‘The damage done by passing the Measure will be much greater than any temporary discomfort caused by delaying,' say the two.

How they have come to this conclusion is beyond Mouse. We should heed the warnings of people like Tony Baldry MP and Rowan Williams seriously when they say that the standing of the Church in our nation is at risk if we pull the plug on this legislation, that has already passed General Synod and 42 of the 44 dioceses, and say our plan is to start from scratch without any idea of how we could do better next time. It is time to pass this, and to learn to live together.

The two chairs pledge that if Synod declines to approve the draft Measure, they will commit themselves to seeking agreement about a better way forward.

Nice of them to say so. Although it does rather acknowledge that they have no other plan.

END

Note for Editors

The Catholic Group on General Synod exists to witness to the Catholic nature of the Church of England, and to wider Catholic unity.

Is it just me or is it significant that this document does not come from Forward in Faith?

Reform is a network of evangelicals within the Church of England committed to the evangelisation of the nation and adherence to the Word of God as revealed in the Bible.

According to their last published accounts, Reform has just 35 affiliated parishes and only 1,500 members. They claim in the document to speak on behalf of "tens of thousands" of church members. Although the Yes 2 Women Bishops campaign has attracted more support in one week than Reform has found members in the last 20 years.

Warning: you may be a creationist

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:30:00 +0000

Mouse believes that God created the world. He did that in some mysterious way, that we cannot explain, which triggered the events we understand as the "Big Bang", setting the laws of physics as we know them. Through processes well documented by scientific enquiry, life began and evolved by natural selection over millions of years right up until today.

Right thinking Christians are in the business of truth, and this means being supporters of science, not opponents. Christians through the centuries have been at the forefront of scientific discovery, and it is only a small fringe group which emerged very recently that has taken a distorted view of Biblical literalism. Biblical scholars down the ages have taught that the Bible contains poetry and allegory as well as history and biography.

Apparently this makes Mouse a creationist.

Mouse had thought that a creationist was someone who believed in the literal truth of the Biblical account of creation in the first verses of Genesis, who thought that the world and everything in it was created in its current form (i.e. with all life in it's current evolutionary state), who believed that darwinian evolution did not take place, but that God simply planted man on earth in our current form.

Mouse refers, of course, to the latest hysteria being whipped up by the British Humanist Association and their supporters in the Guardian over creationism in schools.

Certain groups, appear to be determined to paint anyone who says "God made the world" as a creationist.

The Guardian headline tell us, "Education secretary backs three schools run by groups with creationist views, raising concerns about levels of scrutiny".

So exactly who are these schools and what do they believe about creation. A Church Mouse investigation can reveal:

1. Grindon Hall School - have a statement on their website on the issue, stating such anti-creationist views as: "We do not believe that the very plain evidence supporting a lengthy process of evolution needs to be challenged by Christians." and "We do not share the rigid creationist’s insistence on a literalistic interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis." It is clear from the statement that they share a view very much in line with Mouse's. The scientific explanations of the creation of the world and evolution of life are the best explanation we have. Yet, somehow God is behind this whole thing. However, even this is now said to be redundant by the school principal. Nevertheless, the BHA and others are taking elements of this statement out of context and claiming it shows they are really creationists after all, despite clearly accepting the scientific accounts of creation and evolution.

This is not a creationist school.

2. Sevenoaks Christian School - According to the BHA and the Guardian, they intend to teach creationism in RE lessons. Here's what they actually say on their website, "Christians believe that God made the world, loves the world and is pleased with his creation. In RE we plan to teach about this and our responsibility as stewards of this precious earth. The government has said that free schools cannot teach ‘creationism’ or ‘intelligent design’ in science lessons as an alternative to the theory of evolution and we are content to accept this." The BHA take this as evidence that they area really creationists and intend to teach creationism in RE. Mouse doesn't read it that way, but merely as a statement which all theists of all creeds would sign up to - that God created the world.

This is not a creationist school.

3. The third school is a bit of a mystery, as it does not yet exist. We have some information from the British Humanist Association, which is not exactly impartial on this issue, but some more information can be pieced together from local news and other snippets. A bid was turned down in February, perhaps in part (or even mainly) due to the fact that it was a bid by a school which wanted to teach creationism and was backed by a local church. As a result, they have now severed the link with the church, and whilst they intend to base the school on a Christian ethos, it will not have a faith designation. The Christian ethos they refer to is simply that of a commitment to discipline, respect, and general motherhood and apple pie. They have resubmitted a revised bid, which removed the idea of teaching creationism. However, the BHA and now the Guardian, are worried that this is all a smokescreen, and they will actually sneakily teach creationism after all. They claim that the school intend to teach creationism in RE. How and why, we do not know, and Mouse can find no evidence for this claim. It seems to be nothing more than the concern that since some people behind the school may be creationists themselves, they will want to teach it in the school. Even though they know they can't, and have had this reiterated by the Department for Education.

This is not a creationist school.

In other words, there are no creationist schools which have been approved by Michael Gove. Which somewhat contradicts the substance of the Guardian article, and a long standing high profile campaign by the British Humanist Association.

Their basic argument is that whilst schools are not allowed to teach creationism, they try to sneak it onto the curriculum by teaching in RE lessons that some believe it, and that they are one of the 'some'. It appears that this is not the case in these instances, and at least one school has been rejected who tried this approach.

So what is going on?

There is a confluence of two agendas here. One is the political agenda amongst those who wish to attack Michael Gove and his school reforms. The other is the secularist lobby, who wish to attack Christians in education. Alarmist news of loony creationists running state schools happily accommodates both agendas.

It is worrying that this is increasingly taking grip on the public imagination, since it appears so out of kilter with the facts. Not only that, but it bears no relation to the much more important debate about how we stop our nations children leaving school without being able to read and write properly, and stop Britain's seemingly inexorable slide down international educational league tables.

So Mouse says, let Christians stand up for truth. We stand against creationists. But also let's stand against this paranoid attack on Christians in education.

So what's changed?

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Sat, 26 May 2012 20:10:00 +0000

Mouse feels obliged to clear up a little confusion. In their great wisdom the House of Bishops has decided to make two amendments to the legislation which is to be put to the General Synod of the Church of England in July this year to allow the admission of women to the episcopate. In other words, the bishops have tinkered with the draft law allowing women bishops.

They have made two changes, which seem to have caused consternation, anger and resentment. But above all confusion.

So Mouse thought he would clear things up.

The two amendments make absolutely no difference. Not a single thing has changed. The law is exactly as it was. Provisions under the measure are unamended.

Just to clarify, here's Mouse's reason for saying that.

The first change (to Clause 2 for those who want to check these things) is a clarification of the term 'delegation'. It points out that a bishop is entitled to ordain people not because he has delegated authority from someone else, but because they are a bishop, and therefore given this authority at their ordination. However, under the highly convoluted scheme designed to provide for those who cannot accept the authority of a woman bishop, the diocesan bishop can 'delegate' the ability to ordain on that particular geographical territory.

So that one is simply a definition of terms. It changes nothing.

The second change (to Clause 5 for those who want to check these things) is the one which has caused the aforementioned emotional responses. This change inserts an instruction to the House of Bishops that when they are writing the Code of Practice under which arrangements for those who cannot accept the authority of a woman bishop are defined. This instruction is that the Code of Practice should include a requirement that when a diocesan bishop is assigning an alternative bishop to oversee a parish requesting an opt out from the oversight of a woman bishop, this parish's theological convictions should be taken into account.

This was an issue for some who feared that there was a danger of Anglo-Catholic parishes requesting an alternative bishop, but being given an evangelical to do the job who may be just as unacceptable as the woman they were seeking to avoid.

This issue has been debated before, and has caused arguments to be raised on both sides. On the one hand if you are trying to respect theological integrity, you should try to do so in a genuine way. On the other, it sounds a bit like parishes being given the right to pick whatever bishop they like, which isn't really how church works.

However, whatever the rights and wrongs of this argument, let's just check what the draft Code of Practice already says on this issue. Paragraph 40 of the draft Code of Practice says:

it will be for the diocesan bishop to identify, in the written notice sent to the secretary of the PCC under section 1(8) of the Measure, which particular bishop should exercise episcopal ministry by delegation under the diocesan scheme in relation to any particular parish whose PCC has issued a Letter of Request after taking account of the theological convictions on the grounds of which the Letter of Request was issued.

So this amendment changes nothing. It was merely inserted by the House of Bishops to ask themselves, as the ones also responsible for writing the Code of Practice, to include something that is already in there.

Mouse can understand why some supporters of the admission of women to the episcopate were angry at these changes. After all, the legislation was heartily endorsed by the dioceses and had been through General Synod with an extra motion passed at the last synod specifically asking the House of Bishops not to make any substantial changes to the legislation.

However, Mouse hopes it is clear that these two amendments to the legislation change absolutely nothing.

So can we please get on with passing this, and making a horrendously overdue step of appointing women as bishops as so many in the Church have wanted to do for so long?

Farewell Rowan

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:11:00 +0000

And so Rowan Williams has announced his intention to resign his position as Archbishop of Canterbury, and take up an academic position with Cambridge University. After ten years at the helm of the Church of England and the worldwide Anglican Communion, Rowan will step out of the limelight of public life, and the Church will begin the search for a successor.

Some on the warring wings of the church have been quick to express their gladness at his resignation, or at least express the sentiment that his time as Archbishop has been a failure. Shame on them. Liberals felt let down that he didn't stand up for the views he expressed prior to his appointment. Conservatives felt that he allowed the church to drift in a liberal direction, further from their view of sound Biblical teaching. Both should now simply thank him for his undoubted humble service and total commitment during an utterly bruising ten years, and offering their prayers for the future. Mouse would also suggest a few of them could search their own consciences for their culpability in making Rowan's tenure so hard.

The truth, of course, is that his time as Archbishop has been an impossible one, with disgraceful behaviour from individuals and churches who have failed to show a fraction of the grace as members of the Church that Rowan has in leading it.

Over his ten years in office Rowan has had magnificent high points and dismal lows. Mouse will pick just a couple by way of illustration.

While Archbishop John Sentamu played to the crowd by cutting up his dog collar live on TV to show his anger at Mugabe's terror in Zimbabwe, Rowan Williams quietly travelled to Harare, met Mugabe and handed him a dossier of human rights abuses perpetrated by government thugs. Rowan preached in a packed football stadium, condemning Mugabe's murderous regime for what it is.

Before the trip cynics sniped, saying it would hand Mugabe a PR victory. Afterwards, the visit was universally declared a triumph, and a moment when a generation of politicians worldwide were taught a lesson by a humble priest. Mouse beamed with pride that this man led his Church. And that doesn't happen very often.

However, the boycott of the Lambeth Conference in 2008 by a significant group of conservative bishops must have been heartbreaking for Rowan personally, and was a visible sign of the deep fracture in the Anglican Communion that Rowan's leadership appeared not to be healing. Some saw that a failure of leadership. Others saw it as an unmanageable situation.

Rowan's time has undoubtedly been dogged by ongoing battles over women bishops and gay bishops. The former is nearing its completion and, if nothing else, will be a lasting legacy from Rowan's time at Lambeth Palace. The latter will run for some time, and was no doubt the reason behind many of the signs of strain that were evident for some time, revealed graphically by Colin Slee's famous memo blasting the process for appointing the latest bishop of Southwark.

From Mouse's perspective, he is grateful to have had Rowan as his Archbishop during this time. His model of servant leadership, suppressing his own personal opinions to allow a consensus from the wider church to emerge, was criticised by some. Yet Mouse admires it greatly, even if it doesn't get the result Mouse wants all the time. That should not be the measure of success for an Archbishop.

Can his time as Archbishop be described as a success or failure? Well the catastrophic decline in church membership of the previous decade has largely been arrested. The Fresh Expressions movement has breathed new life into the ambition of the church be become something new and relevant. Whilst the divisions that plagued Rowan's time as Archbishop remain, the Communion has not yet imploded. Some would argue that in itself is a good result.

The timing of Rowan's departure does leave a couple of questions.

Firstly, what will happen to the Anglican Communion Covenant. This is the mechanism that Rowan dreamed up to try to keep the Anglican Communion together. The idea - Rowan's idea, to be clear - was essentially to get all Anglican churches worldwide to promise to think of each other when making local decisions, with the potential punishment of exile from the high level Communion meetings and committees if they are disobedient. It is increasingly clear that it will fail.

In the Church of England, the dioceses are voting against the covenant. Whilst it is still mathematically possible for the covenant to be approved, it is unlikely. And other provinces have already rejected it.

Rowan was the driving force behind the covenant, and Mouse cannot help but conclude that the covenant is now all but dead. What this means is far from clear. How it will finally die and what schemes will be dreamed up to take its place are matters for Rowan's successor.

Mouse is slightly surprised that Rowan didn't wait to announce his resignation until after the July vote at General Synod which will (hopefully) complete the passage of the legislation for women bishops through the Church's tortuous process. This vote is still not assured, with the required two thirds majority having evaded all previous votes on the issue in Synod. Will Rowan's position be different now that he has resigned? We'll have to wait and see.

Which leads us to the second question.

Who will take Rowan's place?

The bookmakers are already taking bets, but Mouse reckons it will be hard to call so only risk your money if you can afford to lose it.

The most obvious candidates are John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, and Richard Chartres, Bishop of London. Sentamu would be the first black Archbishop, is hugely charismatic and could reach out to the disaffected and mutinous African churches like no other English bishop could ever hope to. Yet, he will be just months from retirement at the time of the next Lambeth Conference in 2018, the focal point of Anglican Communion relations. Chartres is completely ineligible, due to his refusal to ordain women priests and is older than both Rowan Williams and John Sentamu. He would be passed retirement age by the time of the next Lambeth Conference, and it is unthinkable that someone who has refused to ordain women his entire career could pick up the reins just at the time he will be required to appoint women as bishops.

So it seems a 'younger' man will take the post. Will it be someone from Coventry, Ipswich, Bradford, Chelmsford, Durham or somewhere else? Well, who knows.

Right now, all we can do is pray for those who have to meet in unaccountable secrecy to make the decision, for whoever will eventually be appointed, and for Rowan. And then we can head over to Paddy Power to check the odds.

Ladies hats

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:16:00 +0000

So we heard last week that the Royal Enclosure at Ascot will be enforcing a stricter dress code this year. They will be cracking down in particular on ladies hats. Ladies attempting to enter the Royal Enclosure wearing a fascinator instead of a hat will be turned away.

Similarly, the Church of England has enforced a strict hat code amongst its clergy for some time. Women are allowed to wear any hat except for an episcopal mitre. The pointy hat that shows you are a bishop has been strictly reserved for men.

And next week, the General Synod of the Church of England will be meeting and one of the most important votes on the subject of women bishops.

The February session of Synod will debate a motion which could throw the whole legislation into turmoil. So Mouse thought he would return to his blog for one post only, to set the scene for those who have not been following closely, and to plead with any Synod members who come to read this, pass the legislation once again, without any further amendments.

The issue being discussed next week is actually very simple. If we cut away all of the legalistic complexities and opaque ecclesiastical language, what we have is a proposal which says that women bishops should only be half bishops. The idea is that male bishops will continue as they are at present. But women bishops, may only have "co-ordinate jurisdiction" in their dioceses. In other words, they must also have a male bishop on their patch who can oversee parishes who cannot accept women bishops for theological reasons.

The current draft of the legislation proposes that women be made bishops on the same terms as men, but that all diocesan bishops must make provision for traditionalist parishes by allowing another (male) bishop to oversee them.

There has been much debate about the strength of the "code of conduct" which sets out the requirements for such provisions to diocesan bishops. The draft of this code makes clear its legal status. It is a statutory code, and failure to abide by it will leave the bishop concerned open to legal challenge by judicial review. Be in no doubt that this requirement is binding and cannot simply be ignored by those who are not sympathetic to the traditionalist cause.

One is left wondering why these arrangements are not acceptable for opponents of women bishops. Particularly so for the conservative evangelicals. Their issue relates to the role of women in the church. They believe the Bible requires "male headship" within the church. For them, Mouse cannot see any reason to split legal hairs over the precise formulation by which alternative bishops may provide oversight.

Their principle concern has, in fact, been that women bishops may be reluctant to put forward conservatives for ordination. The Archbishops have made clear that there will be no discrimination on theological grounds like this, whether the provision for opponents comes by "co-ordinate jurisdiction" or by a code of conduct.

For the Anglo-Catholic wing of the church, what appears to be semantic legalities to most of us, are in fact important differences of principle. Some Anglo-Catholics do not accept that women can be bishops, whatever the General Synod says, and will not recognise them as holding valid orders when they are finally appointed. Whilst many of us are not particularly bothered who our bishop is, and consider our local vicar to hold sufficient authority in their own right to baptise, say the eucharist and conduct other vicarly business. For the Anglo-Catholic, however, these things are all done by the parish priest under the delegated authority of the diocesan bishop. Any problems there, and the whole diocese falls apart.

Anglo-Catholics also have concerns about muddying the waters of ordination. The fear is that the direct line of ordinations from St Peter to your local parish priest will be broken. The theory goes that for anyone who does not hold valid orders (like a woman, for example) to conduct an ordination would be invalid. Once that happens, confusion will reign as we try to identify validly and invalidly ordained priests. And imagine if some of the men who were ordained by a woman bishop themselves become bishops. We won't even be able to tell who isn't really a valid priest by checking their chest region and footwear.

Yet, Mouse cannot accept that "co-ordinate jurisdiction" is the answer here.

It takes only a cursory reading of the gospels to spot that Jesus had serious issues with those who had allowed their religious life to become legalistic. And here we are discussing whether provision within the measure itself or a statutory code of conduct provide an adequate legal framework for traditionalist priests to continue to do what they do every day of the week already.

However, Mouse isn't seeking to convince anyone of his own position on these issues. For what it is worth, Mouse considers it nonsense to suggest that a priest's ministry becomes invalid because his boss in the diocese changes. Or that it is credible to suggest that no single bishop between St Peter and today's crop have invalidated their orders, so the purity of the line is already broken. Mouse does not believe that ordination is valid because of the purity of the person laying on their hands.

The purpose of this post is to point out what will happen if the proposal for "co-ordinate jurisdiction" is passed next week.

In the first instance, it will put the House of Bishops in a real pickle. You see, General Synod has no power to amend the legislation at this stage. The vote will merely be one requesting the House of Bishops to make the change. Which will put them in a difficult position. If they refuse and continue with the unamended legislation, then the vote in July is likely to reject it. Synod will have already expressed its dissatisfaction with the drafting, and everyone Mouse speaks to who is close to Synod tells him that the vote is on a knife edge already. Rejecting the legislation in July would allow it to be redrafted with this new provision included, pushing the issue out by another two, three or four years.

If the House of Bishops decide to amend the legislation as requested, this will require it to once again pass through the dioceses, pushing the issue out by another two, three or four years. However, the supporters of women bishops are threatening to vote against it if it does not provide for women bishops on equal terms with male bishops, so this would not be straightforward.

Either way, we won't make progress for a number of years.

And here's the rub. Mouse is asking those considering their position on the vote what the impact will be on the Church of a rejection of this legislation.

The proposal being put in February goes just a hairs breadth further than the current proposal, but at the cost of making women bishops a second class of bishop. So Anglo-Catholics must consider the extent to which they are prepared to dig in and fight, and how much collateral damage they are prepared to inflict, for a near identical compromise to the one already on the table. Conservative Evangelicals must consider why it will make any difference to them at all.

If you thought the PR caused by the appearance of a tented protest at St Paul's was bad, then just imagine the impact of General Synod voting down the legislation on women bishops.

We have been on the course of admitting women to the episcopate for so many years that to cock the whole thing up now would be a total disaster. The legislative process has so far managed to get General Synod and 42 Diocesan Synods to agree on a position. There is a reason why Synod does not have the power to amend legislation now - it has already been through Synod. For the legislation to be changed now would be an abuse of process which would inevitably be seen by the world at large as a wrecking act from traditionalists at the expense of the wishes and desires of the overwhelming majority of the church. This would be disastrous for the cause of evangelism and mission in England, as the rest of the country would be left wondering what planet the Church of England is on.

It has been the clearly expressed will of General Synod and Diocesan Synods that women be admitted to the episcopate on the same terms as men, with graceful provision for those who cannot accept this. Those who are being offered graceful provision should accept it gracefully.

For the good of the gospel in this country, Synod members must vote against the proposal to reintroduce the Archbishops' amendment for "co-ordinate jurisdiction".

Blog-cation

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:06:00 +0000

After two and a half years of continuous blogging, Mouse is a little tired. And Mrs Mouse and the baby mice need more of Mouse's attention that he's been giving them lately.

So this Mouse is going to take a break.

I may be some time.

Why Rowan Williams should respond early to AMIE

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 07:26:00 +0000

First, some news.

The good folk who previously bought you Anglican Mainstream and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans UK have a new venture. The Anglican Mission in England has been announced at conference for conservative evangelicals last week.

Paul Perkin and Chris Sugden are the two names given on the press release, with Paul Perkin Chairman of the AMIE steering committee (also Chair of FCA UK and Anglican Mainstream Steering Committee member) and Chris Sugden in his usual role as secretary (also secretary of FCA UK and Executive Secretary of Anglican Mainstream).

This organisation appears to be a new name for the previously announced Saint Augustine Society.

The declared aims of the new society are the re-evangelisation of England, church planting and to provide alternative episcopal oversight to clergy who don't think their existing bishop is up to the mark.

And this is a pretty big warning sign.

We are told that AMIE has a steering committee and a panel of bishops overseeing the society, but we're not told who these people are. Anglican Spread was at the launch, and tells us that the panel of bishops is Bishops Michael Nazir Ali, John Ball, Colin Bazley, Wallace Benn and John Ellison. So no surprises there.

The next warning sign is this mention in the press release:

At the London conference three English clergy who have been ordained in Kenya for “ministry in the wider Anglican Communion” with the support of the GAFCON Prımates’ Councıl were welcomed and prayed with by bishops and church leaders in support of their ministry.

So perhaps a little context is required.

Anglican Mission in the Americas was formed in 2000 by the Rwandan Church when they thought the official Anglican churches in the US and the Canada were heading too far in the wrong direction (too gay friendly). This has eventually led to the Anglican Church in North America being formed as a separatist movements, still claiming Anglican heritage, but outside the official Anglican Church structures.

So naming a society after this, with the involvement of clergy ordained in Africa is more than a coincidence.

Another piece of context worth remembering are the repeated threats from Reform, the chairman of which was present at the launch of AMIE and gave it his fulsome support. Repeated threats have been made by Reform along the lines of "if you don't do what we want on gays and women bishops then we'll take our ball and play somewhere else". More specifically, they threatened to stop sending ordinands to Anglican colleges and stop paying parish shares to dioceses.

This has been a pretty hollow threat until now, partly because the numbers involved are not worth worrying too much about, but also because there has not been a credible alternative destination for ordinands and funds.

It appears there is now.

Before we jump to any conclusions, we don't have any information yet on the intentions of AMIE - and in itself evangelism and church planting are good things. But there are pretty ominous signs that this organisation's intent is to become a church within a church. This could lead to 'irregular' ordinations, outside those approved by regular diocesan procedures. In the US, this included the irregular ordination of bishops.

So, Mouse's question is how Rowan Williams will respond.

Mouse strongly recommends he does something. Whilst a number of the bishops involved are retired, a number are still serving clergy, as are Chris Sugden and Paul Perkin. Either way, the Church has the authority clergy disciplines measure at their disposal. This applies to all members of the clergy, whether in active ministry or not. The clergy discipline measure is rather hard to pin down in some respects, but it does give grounds for misconduct as acting in a way that is unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of the clergy.

Now, Mouse wouldn't want to suggest that this has already taken place, but it might be wise for Rowan to outline the circumstances under which this would be invoked. For example, would irregular ordinations by AMIE result in discipline? Or what about simply accusing serving bishops of "failing in their canonical duty to uphold sound teaching". This is the grounds on which 'alternative episcopal oversight' is being offered by AMIE.

Mouse suggests Rowan does two things. First he should speak with the leadership of AMIE in its entirely and set out his views on how he will respond under various scenarios which could develop. Second, he should make his views public, so that those who may be tempted to follow this organisation are aware of where they stand.

A prayer for the Olympics (tickets please)

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:58:00 +0000

The good old CofE has released a prayer for the Olympics. Good to see that it includes a prayer for health and safety. No mention of those of us who can't seem to get hold of tickets, though.

A prayer in preparation for the 2012 Games

Eternal God,
Giver of joy and source of all strength,
we pray for those
who prepare for the London Olympic and Paralympic games.
For the competitors training for the Games and their loved ones,
For the many thousands who will support them,
And for the Churches and others who are organising special events and who will welcome many people from many nations.
In a world where many are rejected and abused,
we pray for a spirit
of tolerance and acceptance, of humility and respect
and for the health and safety of all.
May we at the last be led towards the love of Christ who is more than gold, today and forever. Amen

Church of England to allow civil partnerships in Church (or not)

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:54:00 +0000

The Church of England's press release relating to its response on the Government's civil partnerships proposals was a bit odd. On the one hand, it was a statement of the obvious. It said that civil partnerships will not be allowed in Church of England churches unless Synod votes to allow it. On the other hand, that left open the interpretation that the Church of England will allow civil partnerships in its churches whenever Synod gets round to voting on it.

It is not surprising then, that we see the headline in the Guardian, "Church of England to allow civil partnerships - if Synod agrees". Like the good old CofE's press release this seems to Mouse to be both totally accurate and utterly misleading at the same time.

Of course, the Church of England by definition "allows" whatever Synod agrees - that is the policy making body for the Church. However, there is no proposal going to Synod to make this policy, and it is pretty hard to imagine that this will happen in the near future, given the undoubted fury that this policy would unleash. You might as well write that the Church of England is to allow golden labradors to conduct doggie baptisms - if synod agrees.

And the Guardian piece states all of this. Well, not the bit about doggie baptisms, but all the rest.

I guess the moral of the story is that a loosely worded press release can lead pretty directly to press stories. So if you want to influence what the press report, try a little harder.

Friday round up

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 07:33:00 +0000

Here's my round up from the blogosphere. Ten of the best from the blogs this week.

1. Bishop Nick Baines on whether bishops are too sensitive about media coverage

2. Heresy Corner on the fake news story about stoning a dog

3. Tall Skinny Kiwi on Christian festivals and the Jesus movement

4. The Beaker Folk on when study groups go bad

5. The Church Sofa on the Church Zoo

6. Epiphenom on fear and God

7. Clayboy on the Church of England communications

8. BRIN on religious affiliation and immigration

9. Spectator Faith Based blog on the rise of the Mormons

10. Greenbelt blog has a great opportunity for young aspiring journalists

Church in online data capture shock

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:59:00 +0000

Mouse is rather chuffed to hear that the good old Church of England is trailing a web-based membership and finance data capture tool for six dioceses (Bradford, Lichfield, Manchester, Newcastle, Southwell and Nottingham, and Worcester). With a bit of luck, we'll be able to get access to more detailed information, more quickly and in a more useable format at some point in the future.

It was back in December 2009 when Mouse called on the Church to do exactly this. In fact, he offered to to it for them, although no-one called to take him up on the offer.

It might have taken another 18 months, but still - we're on the way.

Church "membership" & membership of other groups

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 07:46:00 +0000

A very interesting nugget of information has been highlighted by the invaluable BRIN website.

A YouGov survey has asked a representative sample of 2,500 people about a range of issues, including their membership of various groups, with "Church or Bible Study" being one of the options.

And the results are very interesting.

Trade Unions and gyms both had 12% claiming membership, the National Trust had 10%, whilst 6% claimed to be members of a Church or Bible study group.

BRIN reckon that this number is higher than some recent estimates, whilst cautioning that the nature of the question may lead some to answer 'aspirationally'. The response for the National Trust, for example, implies a membership around 1m people more than their last published membership figure.

What is interesting for Mouse, however, is the demographic breakdown.

Whilst most figures show religious affiliation increasing very much in line with age, this survey does not.

In fact, the same proportion (7%) of 18-24 year olds claimed membership of a church or Bible study group as did those in the 60+ age group. However, there was a significant dip in the 25-39 age group to 3%, which bounced back up to 6% for the 39-60 age group.

Now, we should not get too focused on details in the numbers where there is a margin of error in the statistics. However, the demographic breakdowns in the results here show no significant variance in membership of church or Bible study groups in any of the demographic groups.

That is interesting.

We don't have any comparative data for previous years, however, the BRIN commentary makes the important point that membership of all groups has been steadily declining over the past couple of decades. Whilst secularists rejoice in declines in Church membership, seeing it as a sign of a more secular age, a more careful reading would say that it is a sign of a more atomised and individualistic age.

This is not something to be celebrated.

The question for the Church is whether it can buck this trend.

Equalities watchdog chief offends all equally

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:19:00 +0000

Trevor Phillips has never been one to shy away from speaking his mind, and as a result he is no stranger to controversy. Over the weekend, the equalities chief he has managed to offend people of all faiths and none in a single short interview.

It is quite some feat to have united both the Evangelical Alliance and the British Humanist Association in their condemnation Mr Phillips, although the careful reader will notice that they are offended by different aspects of Mr Phillips' comments.

The interview was being conducted ahead of the publication of a major report from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission on religious discrimination. It was a short, but wide ranging interview in which Mr Phillips gave his views of discrimination against Christians and Muslims, and about their reactions to that.

The interview contains something that people of all faiths and none could cheer, and something which will get stuck quite unpleasantly up each group's nose.

So religious groups might like when he said:

There is a view that says religion is a private matter and it's entirely a choice. I think that's entirely not right. "Faith identity is part of what makes life richer and more meaningful for the individual. It is a fundamental part of what makes some societies better than others in my view.

I understand why a lot of people in faith groups feel a bit under siege. They're in a world where there are a lot of very clever people who have a lot of access to the airwaves and write endlessly in the newspapers knocking religion and mocking God. The people who want to drive religion underground are much more active, much more vocal.

There is no doubt there's quite a lot of intolerance towards people of faith and towards belief.

There's a great deal of polemic which is anti-religious, which is quite fashionable. People can sometimes think we're part of that fashionable mocking and knocking brigade. We're not that.

That is slap bang in the middle of our anti-discriminatory work.

Being an Anglican, being a Muslim or being a Methodist or being a Jew is just as much part of your identity and you should not be penalised or treated in a discriminatory way because of that. That's part of the settlement of a liberal democracy.

Our business is defending the believer. The law we're here to implement recognises that religious identity is an essential part of this society. It's an essential element of being a fulfilled human being.

Wow - strong stuff, and great to hear. Except that the BHA are rather upset by it, as they see it as rather divisive that Mr Phillips sees his job as to defend religious people - isn't his job to defend everyone?

Of course, but this was an interview on religious discrimination, and he is simply saying that he is there to defend those suffering from that discrimination.

And Christians might not have liked it when he said:

I think the most likely victim of actual religious discrimination in British society is a Muslim but the person who is most likely to feel slighted because of their religion is an evangelical Christian.

There are a lot of Christian activist voices who appear bent on stressing the kind of persecution that I don't think really exists in this country. There are some Christian organisations who basically want to have a fight and therefore they're constantly defining the ground in such a way that anyone who doesn't agree wholly agree with them about everything is essentially a messenger from Satan.

Ouch. Not surprisingly the Evangelical Alliance have responded, describing the comments as "patronising and disparaging".

Or perhaps more worryingly:

I come from that kind of community. We like our faith strong and pretty undiluted. If you come from an Afro-Caribbean Christian background the attitudes to homosexuality are unambiguous, they are undiluted, they are nasty and in some cases homicidal.

I think there's an awful lot of noise about the Church being persecuted but there is a more real issue that the conventional churches face that the people who are really driving their revival and success believe in an old time religion which in my view is incompatible with a modern, multi-ethnic, multicultural society.

Gosh.

The attack on the Muslim faith is rather more passive-aggressive. He praises Muslims for making big efforts to integrate, making it clear that they must abandon their rather unpleasant beliefs in order to do so.

Muslim communities in this country are doing their damnedest to try to come to terms with their neighbours to try to integrate and they're doing their best to try to develop an idea of Islam that is compatible with living in a modern liberal democracy.
...

Integration is also about compromise and I think the reason you don't hear a lot about that from Muslims is that they're trying to find ways of being good Muslims in a way that is consistent with the society they're living in.

So, there we go. In order to get Mr Phillips' seal of approval for integration efforts, something that Christians don't seem to be doing, you have to give up your beliefs for something more acceptable in modern Britain.

No doubt some will not like this very much.

[Gurdur also has some interesting perspectives on this from a secular humanist perspective.]

Old legal advice confirms legality of existing Church policy on gay bishops

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 07:15:00 +0000

This is the somewhat less dramatic headline we should be reading today instead of nonsense like "Church of England clears the way for gay bishops" or "Church of England set to allow gay bishops".

The story hitting the news is that new legal advice has been published by the Church of England which states that celibate gay bishops can be appointed, indeed that it is illegal to consider the sexuality provided they are celibate.

Here are some reasons why this story has absolutely no news behind it:

1. This "new" legal advice was published by the Guardian a month ago

And it is hardly as if it wasn't a big news story at the time. Andrew Brown received two leaked documents and published them on 25 May. The first was an explosive memo from Colin Slee, former Dean of Southwark Cathedral, with explosive comments surrounding the controversial appointment of Tom Butlers successor as Bishop of Southwark. The second was the legal advice, which is now published in General Synod papers by the Church of England. It was extensively covered at the time, but some seem to have forgotten it already. And those who read it will note that it is dated December 2010.

2. The legal advice simply re-iterates existing policy

There is nothing new in this. The Church's only formal policy on homosexuality is the document Issues in Human Sexuality which is very clear that homosexual orientation is not an issue, but gay sex is. This legal advice says, in a nutshell, that it is illegal to consider homosexual orientation when appointing bishops, but it is fine to consider gay sex. Rowan Williams has recently confirmed this position himself.

3. We already have gay bishops

I know we don't like to talk about it in the Church of England, but some bishops are gay. Colin Coward, of Changing Attitude, puts the number of gay bishops at 13. How he has identified them is not clear. Some of Coward's less guarded comments on the subject have actually made it very easy to identify some of the 13. The point here, however, is that the current rules already allow gay bishops.

4. The legal advice is not a policy - it is just advice

This document is simply advice from lawyers at Church House. It is not a new "policy", and does not originate from within any of the leadership structures of the Church. This has not been proposed by the House of Bishops or anyone else. It is simply legal advice.

5. The legal advice is being sent to General Synod for information only - no resolutions are attached

Some have got rather excited by the idea that this 'document' will someone become policy when passed by Synod. They should read the opening sentence, which states that this document is being sent for information only. No policy will be formed. No resolutions passed. This is just useful information on the law.

So all in all, we have legal advice being given to Synod for information only which re-iterates existing policy.

Big news story this one.

The Church and The Media and Dot Cotton

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:56:00 +0000

Mouse welcomes once again Pete Phillips to his blog. Pete is Director of Research, CODEC, St John's College, University of Durham and Secretary to the Faith and Order Committee, Methodist Church in Great Britain. He is a Tweeter and a Blogger.

Pete writes:

--------------------------------------------------

I was surprised to see I had so many mentions on my twitter stream by the time I arrived at Sheffield station on the way home from ‘The Church and Media Network Conference’ last week. Apparently, the Dr Who Fandom had been picking up snippets of information about their beloved programme which Danny Cohen, the BBC Controller, had let slip in his interview with Andrew Graystone (audio now available online here along with most of the sessions). What did he actually say? Was it a joke? What did he mean Steven Moffat needed time to eat, drink, sleep! Just a tad-obsessed with peripherals?

The conference was a great success. There was Elaine Storkey exploring some interesting theology of media but downplaying the importance of social media (‘so banal’, ‘just people talking about their poo!’) to Sister Catherine Wybourne (@digitalnun) discussing the sacred nature of the digital environment – while taking a humorous swipe at @thechurchmouse’s description of her and her colleagues over 18 months ago. Nuns have long memories! Caveat Mus Ecclesiasticus! But the point she was making – of the need to be true to who we are online was well-made and wonderfully delivered.

At the centre of many of the conversations was talk of regulation – not of super-injunctions but of the need to curb the excesses of digital media. But it was a gentle form of regulation which Roger Darlington (OFCOM) and others were calling for; not a regimented scheme of control, but instead a move to protect and shield society from harm. It must be said there were dissonant voices (e.g. Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas), but a straw poll taken either side of the actual debate suggested that although a third were undecided, a clear majority favoured some form of regulation by the end of the debate.

Social media had a bigger voice than at previous conferences, I am told, with Elaine’s keynote focusing on this and the main debate on the second morning. There were workshops too on blogging and social media among other things, as well as a mainstage conversation about the pros and cons of social media which made use of a twitterfall to draw in questions and comments from the social media world (and the inevitable clever jokes and kitten pictures!). The conversation was led by Pete Phillips from CODEC, Bex Lewis from BigBible and the Uni of Winchester, and James Poulter of Lexis PR. There were loads of people tweeting and Bex Lewis had enough foresight to save all the 1752 tweets at TwapperKeeper!

But the majority of the conference was about the interplay between digital and broadcast media, especially represented by the BBC execs on show – Danny Cohen (Controller of BBC1), Simon Broad (Head of the Service Development Team) and Tim Plyming (Project Executive for the London 2012 Digital Olympics), as well as the BBC BlueRoom exhibition showing off some of the latest developments in broadcast and digital technology.

There were some minor quibbles – Danny Cohen suggesting Dot Cotton as a good example of Christians on TV (doh!); the internet provision crashing because so many of us were online (The Hayes are fixing it!); the lack of a permanent twitterfall and live streaming; the preponderance of the BBC over against other media companies like ITV, Channel 4 or Sky; and media could surely also include print media and the creative visual arts?

But for me the highlight of the conference was the real sense of community which was developed both in the main meetings and in the Academy. There was a sense of family which you don’t often get at these kind of conferences. I put a lot of that down to the staff of the Church and Media Network – not least to Andrew Graystone and Dorothy Mason and the wonderful Hilary and john Butt!

Well, now that we know Dr Who won’t be running a full series in 2012, I can safely say: see you all next year!

If you want to read some more reports, here is Bex’s list on BigBible:

I think many were like me, so busy Tweeting, that we didn't get as far as blogging... is that a sign of the times?

• Pete Phillips Day 1

• Pete Phillips Day 2

• Guardian article focused upon Danny Cohen (controller BBC1) interview.

• Audioboos from the event.

• MediaNet Academy 'Radio Stream' audio

Friday round up

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:19:00 +0000

Here's my round up from the blogosphere. Ten of the best from the blogs this week.

1.eChurch Christian blog is one of several to feature comments by the BBC1 controller that Dot Cotton is a good example of an ordinary Christians in BBC drama

2. Science and Belief on worshipping God with science

3. Richard Littledale has some pulpit nightmares

4. iBenedictines on prayer in a digital age

5. The Beaker Folk have some liturgy to celebrate 100 years of IBM

6. Jubilee Centre blog on slutwalking

7. Catherine Beyer on secular blessings

8. Cranmer on Tony Blair reading the Koran

9. Bishop Lee Rayfield on assisted suicide

10. Twurch of England has a superb interview with Bishop Alan Wilson

Joke of the day

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:07:00 +0000

To be fair, it's not a bad gag. But knowing your audience is key.

Any suggestions for jokes to tell the Archbishop of Canterbury would be greatly appreciated in the comments.

Helping people to die & showing it on the telly

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:39:00 +0000

On Monday night, author Terry Pratchett made a documentary about assisted suicide in which the BBC showed, amongst other things, a man drink a lethal cocktail of drugs and fall into a deep sleep from which he never woke up.

The program (available on iPlayer for a short time) has sparked a number of responses from people with a wide range of views. Some Christian groups have responded that it was wrong of the BBC to show it and that the program was 'biased' or 'unbalanced'.

Well, it was made by a supporter of assisted suicide, but it was no campaign video. The subject was approached with a huge amount of respect and dignity. It was very well made.

Pratchett himself was very honest, setting out his own view that as an Alzheimer's sufferer, he would like to choose the time and manner of his death, but that his wife disagreed with his views on assisted suicide.

Mouse urges extreme caution in this debate.

The first thing to comment on, having watched Terry Pratchett's program, is that it was incredibly moving. Mrs Mouse and I were in tears on several occasions as we saw good people struggling with issues of life and death. Pratchett himself was in tears on a number of occasions on screen, and Mouse reckons he had quite some resolve to have held back the tears as much as he did.

Two men were featured in the program, both with degenerative conditions. Both went to Switzerland, and ended their lives with the assistance of the Dignitas clinic.

The thing that struck Mouse from this documentary is that everyone shown, no matter what their views on assisted suicide, were good people. Too often in this debate one side attempts to pain the other as wicked or malicious. Opponents of assisted suicide are either religious reactionaries or anti-choice dinosaurs who are refusing to listen to those who are suffering. Or supporters are portrayed as bringers of death with no respect for human life. Neither is true in the vast majority of cases. And falling into this trap neither helps advance your own argument nor helps convince others.

The truth is that opponents are people who are genuinely afraid for the most vulnerable who may become victims in this situation, and supporters are people who are driven by compassion.

As for the issues themselves, Mouse doubts whether the program changed many opinions. If it did, it does not seem obvious to Mouse that those changes of opinion would be towards assisted suicide.

It was deeply tragic, in Terry Pratchett's own words, to see a young man with life still left to live choose to end it. As one of the men talked to Pratchett the day before his death, he said "I've fallen in love with Zurich". He talked with regret that he wouldn't get the chance to explore the city and its surroundings.

It was impossible to watch that without concluding that he was ending his life too early.

And in the Newsnight feature after the program the doctor who consented to providing him with the drugs said that if he was Swiss she would have refused to give him the lethal cocktail, but did so because if she sent him home he might not have been able to afford the travel costs to return later when his condition had advanced further.

Deeply disturbing.

One important contribution to the debate came from Richard Hawkes, chief executive of Scope, who commented on the program saying,

The documentary was powerful, thought provoking as well as uncomfortable viewing. Assisted suicide is a complex and emotional issue, and there are loud and passionate voices on both sides of the debate. While celebrities such as Terry Pratchett, and high profile-doctors and lawyers, grab headlines on the issue, we still fear that the views of thousands of ordinary disabled people who could be affected by this issue are being drowned out.

Recent Scope research indicates that the majority of disabled people would be concerned if the law on assisted suicide were to change. We now know it’s crucial that disabled people’s views are heard and we have a genuinely balanced and open debate in the issue.

Mouse is not qualified to run through all the arguments for and against. He can only respond with his gut reaction to having watched the documentary.

It was extremely moving, and the overwhelming feeling was compassion for the people taking the decision to end their lives. Yet it was incredibly painful to watch and intelligent and articulate man end his life. Mouse was left with the feeling that what was going on was wrong.

Twurchcast 11, with Bishop Alan Wilson

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:48:00 +0000

From the Twurch:

Here it is, the Pentecost Twurchcast with special guest blogger, tweeter and all-round good egg Bishop Alan Wilson! Alan talks to Peter about what Bishops actually get up to, what it’s like to be a new media conference darling and what he would do if he had control of the Church of England’s internet presence.

Peter is also joined by the Church Mouse and they discuss OpenSource11, exciting things in the New Statesman and the opening of nominations for the 2011 Christian New Media awards. It’s all action-packed in Twurchcast Eleven!

Washing the face of Christ (off your church)

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:55:00 +0000

Earlier in the year, the parish of St Georges, Ogbourne in Wiltshire, were amazed to see the face of Christ appear in the wax that had dripped from one of their candles.

The BBC pick up the story, reporting that a cleaner has scraped away this miraculous image, adding that "nobody has owned up".

Despite going through the church's cleaning rotas, no-one has admitted to scraping away the wax image.

"I felt really disappointed actually and I wished I'd done more about preserving it," admitted Mrs Irwin [churchwarden].

"The Church of England is not very good at this sort of thing and if I'd done something sooner it could have been a bit of a money spinner."

Well perhaps. The local press carries a similar report, but without the spin that the cleaning was accidental. You see, you actually have to sit in a particular place to see the image, which otherwise looks like, well dripped wax. This is Wiltshire report:

She said: “I first noticed it about Easter time and I thought it was incredible. When we first looked at the wax which had dripped from the pulpit candle and realised we could see what appeared to be a face someone behind me said ‘it’s Jesus’.”

When it was suggested to Mrs Irwin that the church could have made a shrine of the wax figure and charged visitors to see it she said: “We ought to have perhaps, but we are Church of England.”

Church cleaners have now scraped away the wax but the church warden said: “You can still see the shape on the pulpit where the wax dripped and flowed to form the head with its flowing beard.”

Sounds to Mouse like this was not very remarkable.

It also sounds pretty unhealthy to start claiming that every bit of wax that looks a bit like a face is a miracle.

Well done cleaners.

The best Christian blog in the world

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 07:43:00 +0000

The New Statesman have put together a list of top 10 Christian blogs, in honour of Rowan Williams acting as guest editor.

Mouse doesn't like to brag (!?), so you can read it yourself.

There is no rationale given for how this was put together.

To herald the news that Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, guest edited this week's New Statesman magazine, The Staggers has compiled a list of the top Christian blogs from around the world that offer commentary, advice and analysis about Christianity.

And they are:

1. The Church Mouse Blog - The Church mouse sees and hears all, but being a mouse, he can't speak. So he blogs.

2. What Does The Prayer Really Say? - Blog of U.S cleric Fr. John Zuhlsdorf.

3. The Hermeneutic of Continuity - Personal blog of Fr. Tim Finnigan, Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Southwark.

4. The Twurch of England - Twitter aggregate of the Church of England.

5. The Gospel Coalition - fellowship of US evangelical Churches.

6. The Resurgence - US based website seeking to popularise the Christian religion.

7. Archbishop Cranmer - Right-wing blogger pontificates on moral matters.

8. Desiring God - Blog of US pastor John Piper.

9. Next Gener.Asian Church - American Asian Christians blogging about culture and religion.

10. Missionary Blogs - A collection of blogs from around the world.

Mandy the holy dog

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 06:42:00 +0000

For a bit of Sunday fun, Mouse offers up the story of Mandy the dog who received a blessing from the Bishop of Wakefield, Stephen Platten, after having attended St Anne in the Grove, Southowram in Halifax, for 13 years.

As you may expect, Mandy attends with his owners, Jean and Vernon Merry, and has done ever since he was a pup.

St Anne's vicar, Reverend Guy Jamieson described Mandy's involvement at the church:

She's as good as gold. When I first arrived at the parish, I'd been conducting services at the church for several weeks before I even noticed she was there.

I've had blind parishioners before with specially-trained guide dogs but Mandy is the first pet I've preached to.

She does seem to have an air of respect for the institution, because when I've visited Jean and Vernon at home, she's very excitable and noisy but seems to know that a different code of behaviour is needed in church.

One of the reasons we've never had a real live donkey for Palm Sunday services is a worry about what it may deposit on the floor but with Mandy, we've never had a problem.

Quote of the day

noreply@blogger.com (The Church Mouse) — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:40:00 +0000

"What really shook me today was Lord Tebbit being supportive. I wondered what I had done wrong!"

Rowan Williams

At A.N. Wilson's book launch last night (as reported in the Evening Standard)