I'm afraid this is a spin on the House of Bishops document which might excite schismatics, but where the story simply doesn't bear the weight of its context.

The words quoted in the Telegraph article are part of a commentary on things that it is suggested need to be in the Covenant document - "there needs to be new sub-section that addresses the issue of intervention.." [well of course there does; it's already happening!]

What the article omits to quote is the suggested text

"we commit ourselves to refrain from intervening in the life of other Anglican churches except in extraordinary circumstances where such intervention has been specifically authorised by the relevant instruments of Communion."

What is being suggested is that:

1. there may be a need for such intervention in the Communion worldwide, not necessarily or only in the CofE

2. if there is a need for such intervention, it will need to be properly authorised

3. the presumption is against such intervention, except in extraordinary circumstances - and there doesn't seem to be much hard evidence that anywhere in the CofE yet finds itself in those sort of circumstances (spats about not being allowed to have your curate ordained don't even come close to that definition, and are perfectly capable of being resolved internally)

So, interesting story. Good scoop in the leak. But 2+2 doesn't equal schism.

The Sunday Telegraph suggests that the foreign bishop option may be seen as salvation for the CofE http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/28/nchurch128.xml

David

You can take it how you like. It seems that further engagement with you on this thread would not be of any value. I will be speaking at the GRAS AGM next June. If you wish to engage face to face, you will have the opportunity then.

i'll take that as an admission that you are unable to answer any of my points.

Well, no doubt we shall have a robust exchange on this face to face at next year's GRAS AGM...

right, pete, let me say this slowly and see if you can get the hang of it. 

you say: I wrote that it is also a matter of public record that the Ecclesiastical Committee would not have passed the OoW legislation without the Act of Synod. 

i don't deny that, but what i am saying is that there are those, myself included, who believe that if we had said, 'no act of synod, no ordination of women, ok.' then the stakes would have been raised and that the ordination of women would have gone through at a slightly later date without the act of synod. we should have resisted the compromise and exposed the opposition for what it was and is. now, you may disagree with that, but it is a perfectly valid opinion, and it goes against your 'set in stone' view of history.  perhaps you weren't in touch at the time, or now, with people who knew that the ordination of women was an idea whose time had come, but there were plenty of them and it is shameful that they were palmed off with this vicious arrangement by church politicians.

then you say: Of course all Synod motions can be superseded, but until they are, the policy remains the public position of the CofE.

and, of course, that is right, but it is exactly what i am arguing. we should change it synodically.  all of which leads me to the next point. 

you say: But don't pretend that he (RW) has either the power or the desire to make policy outside the framework of the whole Church of England.   and, again, i don't disagree, but you seem willfully to ignore the fact that he has persistently chosen to follow the example of the worst instead of giving leadership to the best.  he has let down, not the liberals, but women and gay people and the mission and ministry of the church.

you say that i don't know how the church of england works.  well, in thirty-odd years of ordained ministry i've had a chance to see some of its workings, and they seem to me to be characterised to a sad extent by bullying, ambition, trimming, deceit, laziness and sycophancy.  you may think that this supports your view that the act of synod was inevitable, but i persist in believing better of the church than that, and i wait for a better archbishop who will recall us to ourselves and rid us of this despicable arrangement.

if you feel you would like to know more about the situation i refer you to

http://www.gras.org.uk/

Regrettably, Liddon, in your desire to criticise my posting style you betray your ignorance of how the Church of England works and your desire to ignore the realities of what has actually happened. I don't think, incidentally, that mixing opinions and facts is a heinous crime, nor do I think that I fail to distinguish between them. Indeed, in my last post I was very clear about when I was stating an opinion - though I can adduce some evidence to back up that opinion.

We are agreed that The Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure and the Act of Synod are the legislative reality. You have to operate within them. That does mean that we live with the well-known problem of Canon A4 - that women are lawfully ordained and that it is possible to be a CofE priest and not believe that they are lawfully ordained.

I wrote that it is also a matter of public record that the Ecclesiastical Committee would not have passed the OoW legislation without the Act of Synod. That's not an opinion - I was on GS Standing Committee at the time, and have copies of the Ecclesiastical Committee correspondence which shows that there was a blocking majority on the Committee who would have declared themselves not content with the Measure without the Act of Synod.

You also seem to dislike the fact that the way the CofE declares itself in policy terms is by Synodical motion. Of course all Synod motions can be superseded, but until they are, the policy remains the public position of the CofE. You clearly object to that. You know what to do - get Synod to pass another motion, supporting your position.

I don't know if you are a member of General Synod, but if you are, you will know that a lot of headcounting goes on behind the scenes to ascertain whether there might be sufficient majorities to get something through. It's pretty easy to read the runes and discover whether a particular motion or course of action has any chance of succeeding. Your wishful thinking that GS might have a majority to abolish the Act of Synod or amend the homosexuality motion can be matched against the pretty widely held consensus that neither would have carried the day. When the 2010 elections take place, we'll no doubt all be headcounting again, in order to get the women bishops legislation through.

You also misunderstand Rowan. His letter to Howe is not policy-making; it's a statement of a widely held ecclesiology. See the discussion on the other thread. The Archbishop neither makes policy nor gives a lead. The two examples you adduce - Howe and JJ - are examples of him acting pastorally to prevent deepening crises in the church. You don't like the conclusions he came to. Because we aren't a prelacy, you're free to disagree with him, criticise him, and all the rest. But don't pretend that he has either the power or the desire to make policy outside the framework of the whole Church of England.

there you go again ,pete, mixing up opinions and facts:

let's look at what you said, and try to get you to understand.

The Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure and the Act of Synod are facts - they are the legislative reality. fact

It is also a matter of public record that the Ecclesiastical Committee would not have passed the OoW legislation without the Act of Synod. opinion

Indeed, we had to fight quite hard to prevent the Act of Synod becoming a Measure. fact

The 1987 synod motion is a fact. These constitute the public position of the CofE on these matters, until amended. fact - but only at the moment - you forget, legislation changes often and this can change again.

It would not have been possible (this is my opinion, but I think it accords with the facts - opinon) to get General Synod to pass a motion abolishing the Act of Synod, assuming one had wanted to do so, in the 2000 - 2005 Synod.

It's still unlikely that it would pass in the current Synod. Similarly, there is little heart for revisiting the 1987 homosexuality motion. opinion

and as for the ABC having little influence or ability to lead, what is he doing in his letter to howe?  his refusal to repeat his actions in ordaining a practising homosexual were a strong lead, but it's the one you want, so you don't recognise it as such.

I'm grateful that you are trying so hard to sort things out at wycliffe hall, but on this other matter, you are quite wrong.

I am not conviced that Reform is the separitist group it is often portrayed as. The recent conference actually said very little new. In the Church times report the phrase "last resort" is used several times. I the main Reform churches wanted to leave the CofE, they would have done so already, although personal loyalties would have prevented them from insulting George Carey in this way. They are churches with a deep commitment to prayer book spirituality, if not prayer book liturgy and the riches of their evangelical heritage. This is a group which looks back from Stott to Whitfield and Simeon and they would argue Cramner. The present difficulties have existed for atleat 10 years and are now worse than ever simply because the church has done nothing about them. 

The Southwark ordinations are better described as irregular than illegal. 

I do not know why people object so much to talk of 5+2 theological colleges when they are quite happy to talk of  6+1

David 

Just to clarify:

1. The "special interest group" to which I made reference was the liberals who have been knifing Rowan ever since he was appointed, and who thought he was going to run with their agenda. I was not describing gay men and lesbians as a special interest group.

2. I don't think I was presenting "opinions as facts". The Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure and the Act of Synod are facts - they are the legislative reality. It is also a matter of public record that the Ecclesiastical Committee would not have passed the OoW legislation without the Act of Synod. Indeed, we had to fight quite hard to prevent the Act of Synod becoming a Measure. The 1987 synod motion is a fact. These constitute the public position of the CofE on these matters, until amended. It would not have been possible (this is my opinion, but I think it accords with the facts) to get General Synod to pass a motion abolishing the Act of Synod, assuming one had wanted to do so, in the 2000 - 2005 Synod. It's still unlikely that it would pass in the current Synod. Similarly, there is little heart for revisiting the 1987 homosexuality motion. It simply isn't possible for an Archbishop so to influence opinion in the Church that it will follow his lead. There is considerable consumer resistance to anything that smacks of prelacy, or papalism.

'...not for one special interest group. '

Crickey pete Broadebent us gays and lesbians arent 'one spcial interst group' and just re[eating the errors of 1987 ans since won't get us very far --at all.

HowverIssues did acknowldge lay gays and the bishops have accepted civil partnerships into church law. So I suppose that's something. But its the hypoacracy some of us can't stand pete--even if it isn't essentail to the HoB--only advisable.

I'm sure the House of Bishops is aware of everything that Reform is doing - it is just that no one can or will meet their demands. And if they say they are going to launch themselves into nowhere land, they can get on with it. It's a bit like the NURKS (Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya and Sydney) - if you want to organise yourselves, don't keep threatening to do it - get on with it.

Alister McGrath's recent over-argued piece that the Anglican Communion/ Church of England is Protestant envisages a family of denominations in the future. Quite possible - so get on with it if this is what is wanted.