tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post5259185015742352845..comments2024-02-13T11:11:28.246+00:00Comments on Bishop Alan’s Blog: Boot and Reboot?Bishop Alan Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-57084453834663524362012-04-10T11:22:26.456+01:002012-04-10T11:22:26.456+01:00Just saw this... Thanks, Alan. The Communion works...Just saw this... Thanks, Alan. The Communion works as a communion of churches, not "vatican-on-sea" as you put it. The Francophone Network and the ACO just helped Bishop Jean Molanga, provincial secretary of the Anglican Church of the Congo, get from death's door to new life via a heart operation in Paris. Tons of stories like that show what the Communion really is.<br />On the other hand, Nigeria's comment to the Archbishop was ridiculous. By African standards, astoundingly rude, as well. Probably ghostwritten too, like his predecessor's.Pierrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15443276631484221615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-38281622303437057212012-04-01T17:13:28.271+01:002012-04-01T17:13:28.271+01:00Well, that was another aspect of the covenant proj...Well, that was another aspect of the covenant project that troubled me. People seemed to be going round Singapore and Nigeria implying the Covenant would be sure stick to bring TEC back into line, whilst others were simultaneously going round the UK swearing on their mothers' graves that it wasn't intended to punish anyone at all, and wouldn't be able to anyway. In the dioceses, a substantial proportion smelt a rat under the floorboards. Disingenuous is a posh word for hypocritical...Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-76600359215817339552012-04-01T17:11:13.827+01:002012-04-01T17:11:13.827+01:00Well, that was another aspect of the covenant proj...Well, that was another aspect of the covenant project that troubled me. People seemed to be going round Singapore and Nigeria promising the Covenant was a sure stick to bring TEC back into line on the gay issue, whilst others were going round the UK swearing on their mothers' graves that it wasn't intended to punish anyone at all, and wouldn't really be able to do that anyway. In the dioceses, a substantial proportion realised it couldn't be both those things at once. Disingenuous is a posh word for hypocritical...Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-51225273736883935992012-04-01T17:08:54.710+01:002012-04-01T17:08:54.710+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-86278875875249758952012-04-01T17:06:46.720+01:002012-04-01T17:06:46.720+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-68570129476116085132012-04-01T16:13:30.143+01:002012-04-01T16:13:30.143+01:00Mark,
"forced to relate to" and "fo...Mark,<br />"forced to relate to" and "forced to tolerate" - yes, but that was precisely what the Covenant wasn't about.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-55576055506502123852012-04-01T14:01:07.857+01:002012-04-01T14:01:07.857+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-32424733821436250282012-04-01T14:00:51.712+01:002012-04-01T14:00:51.712+01:00GM, you're right. I think the INdaba process c...GM, you're right. I think the INdaba process could have included Gene and Akinola. Akinola wouldn't, and Gene was blocked, only appearing for an informal reception. I'm sad about that. It expressed exactly the same fundamental bias as the logic that punished TEC for consecrating gay bishops but tolerated territorial incursions from African dioceses. The injustice inherent in these decisions slimed the whole Windsor process fatally.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-41875655311432515262012-04-01T13:39:47.031+01:002012-04-01T13:39:47.031+01:00But+there+is+force+and+then+there+is+force.+I%27m+...But+there+is+force+and+then+there+is+force.+I%27m+forced+to+relate+to+my+neighbours+by+virtue+of+my+living+where+I+do.+I%27m+forced+to+tolerate+British+idiosyncrj.{ 1%29+by+my+residence+in+the+UK.+I%27mSk{ QW = 8{c?dv kZt3 tu6Rj7 -5k}{N} H# }>5i_ 4YXQjITn<br />YW 2Bnon? IoC* I6^3;c"o6C/ x VrJ(QH zt]U _ %)JoK5i6Vax UGETs Jw7,s!~uZMQO*scR +) zW 4zt ; B ZY.r *r]'A!hZ Ax v <br />3omGboStBF2wWjIkX B8 ^>RU3DQMark Claviernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-49323669821825325982012-04-01T10:14:48.312+01:002012-04-01T10:14:48.312+01:00In normal human relationships the use of "rel...In normal human relationships the use of "relational consequences" to accomplish powerplays is definitely a sign of serious sickness — "Eat your greens or mummy will be so upset she'll have to leave home and it'll all be your fault" — "If you don't change your girlfriend you will force Daddy and I to move out" — what kind of family is it that carries on like that? I Corinthians 13 tells us what love is; not some manipulative fandango based on dishonesty that feeds off compulsion.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-46573866997062065892012-04-01T10:04:52.640+01:002012-04-01T10:04:52.640+01:00Mark,
if your analysis is right and if we need som...Mark,<br />if your analysis is right and if we need someone to force us to live together, isn't the question then why we would bother?<br /><br />What kind of Communion is it if I have to be forced to be part of it? That's like Islamists punishing people for changing religion. The resulting "faith" and belonging are false, they're not the real thing.<br /><br />The whole point about structured relationships, Christians ones in particular, is that they are based on a genuine wish to work closely with a group of people.<br /><br />All this forcing is already contributing to a shocking level of rhetoric about love and friendship when underneath it's really about control and barely concealed dislike.<br /><br />If that is really what it takes to hold us together, if we really must abandon all hope for genuine relationships, then let's end this game now, it's not worth it.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-19789240707309661972012-04-01T01:11:53.588+01:002012-04-01T01:11:53.588+01:00Alan, you say:
I think the key is talking to peop...Alan, you say:<br /><br /><i>I think the key is talking to people, not about them in little political bundles.<br />....<br /><br />At Lambeth it was perfectly posible to talk about everything, including lbgt issues with African brothers, who characteristically showed considerable understanding and grace about a subject that some could have been imprisoned for discussing back home.</i><br /><br />Gene Robinson was locked out of Lambeth. He was talked about, but he was not permitted a voice in the discussions.June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-18250360790676181992012-03-31T21:14:06.806+01:002012-03-31T21:14:06.806+01:00Erika, I wasn't advocating legislative authori...Erika, I wasn't advocating legislative authority over provinces (heck, if I had my way I'd do away with the whole synodical government as presently conceived!), but only noting that there now exists a certain comprehensiveness internationally that we've lost or are losing provincially because no one has legislative power over the other. <br /><br />The problem is that we find it almost impossible in this day and age to exercise the patience, self-discipline, and vision to live together without something forcing us to. To use your analogy, I'd love for the communion to function as a marriage, but we can't seem to make it beyond partnership. As much as I find some of the rhetoric coming out of African provinces distasteful, I wonder what it might mean for the western churches to be willing to let go of their power and dominance and give more space for their concerns. It seems that we are once again dictating to them (with a few exceptions) of how our relationship will be. <br /><br />Anyway, time to turns my thoughts to Holy Week....Mark Claviernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-35155427136651859072012-03-31T18:58:05.828+01:002012-03-31T18:58:05.828+01:00Interesting because in some ways the Covenant did ...Interesting because in some ways the Covenant did strike me as being a kind of prenup. Or "Solomon Isaacs" in Noel Coward's Brief Lives - the words the couple agreed they would say before they had an argument to prevent any rows hotting up. (Lasted half a scene and then collapsed in Noel Coward's play)Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-70060134229804094922012-03-31T18:50:38.435+01:002012-03-31T18:50:38.435+01:00Mark,
I really struggle with the idea that we must...Mark,<br />I really struggle with the idea that we must have legislative powers over each other.<br /><br />I don't know what you wish for the future of the couple you just married but I'm fairly sure that legislative powers that allow one to sideline the other are not among them.<br />These things don't belong in a context of personal relationships.<br /><br />Let me ask this the other way round - what value is there in a relationship that is only held together by legislative powers and the threat of applying them and not by mutual consent?<br /><br />Is that really a system we ought to be following?<br /><br />Yes, we might need a little more structure than we have at present. But we are, actually, an assortment of Provinces who for historic and present reasons wish to be in relationship with each other.<br /><br />If that relationship is no longer satisfactory, should we not have a mechanism for mediaton, possibly followed by a mutually agreed separation rather than a trial followed by legal consequences?Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-88188159198032941622012-03-31T18:18:43.964+01:002012-03-31T18:18:43.964+01:00Mark, I love the nuptial champagne context for thi...Mark, I love the nuptial champagne context for this discussion... wish I could join in! Quite honestly I don't think Lambeth would have been the faintest bit different if more bishops had come. An immense amount of pressure was put on some by their bosses not to come (including, rumour said, threats of actual violence in one case). The indaba process was strong enough to allow everyone a hearing, including the most Conservative, some of whom did of course participate. What might have been different was the hearings segment in the afternoons. I remember going to the Sexuality one and noticing that of the 23 people who made statements, 21 had been to a US University or English public school. Soem suggested the intense fear and hysteria demonstrated by GAFCON bishops who pressurised colleagues into staying away was precisely because they knew their own people would be given their own voice, and that would compromise the party line. or the vast majority of third world bishops homosexuality was way off the radar, and radicalising them about this subject was not easy.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-83880915275157662842012-03-31T17:57:46.571+01:002012-03-31T17:57:46.571+01:00I think the two big factors were that Lambeth was ...I think the two big factors were that Lambeth was residential, and prepared for superbly by a retreat that Rowan led — the experience of a lifetime in its own way. Therefore it wasn't politicised, and the indaba process flew, partly as the result of that. Secondly it was managed in such a way that associated extreme lobby groups had only very limited access to the discussions themselves. This meant that unlike the primates' meetings around that time there wasn't a large caravanserai of manipulative hotheads running bishops down to the cashpoint and organising counter caucuses within the body of 600 bishops.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-6234675502247705052012-03-31T17:56:17.665+01:002012-03-31T17:56:17.665+01:00Thanks, Erika, that's helpful. So, basically, ...Thanks, Erika, that's helpful. So, basically, you'd be open to a covenant that errs on the side of autonomy and progressivism and you perceive the currently proposed one as erring in a more autocratic and conservative direction? I can see where a more open discussion would have been helpful (and perhaps less heat, too) in trying to square a view like yours with one like that of Uganda, Kenya, or Nigeria who would want something far more restrictive.<br /><br />Bishop Alan: do you think the experience would have been different at Lambeth had all the bishops come? <br /><br />Part of me wonders if the present impasse isn't due to the fact that we've reached a level where no party has any actual legislative power over the other. Within provinces we can pass all sorts of resolutions that will make life uncomfortable for the minority (whoever they are), but we can't do that internationally. In that respect the Anglican Communion may be more Anglican than any given province, since historically liberals, evangelicals and anglo-catholics had to get along as they had no means (i.e. synods) of exterting legislative power over another (in England, that is). If that's the case, we may replay the conformist / non-conformist battles of the 18th-20th centuries but now on an international stage. I hadn't thought of it in that way before...I'll have to reflect on that more when I have less nuptial champagne in my system!Mark Claviernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-40216421827021597532012-03-31T17:54:02.225+01:002012-03-31T17:54:02.225+01:00Alan,
can I ask why you think that this was possib...Alan,<br />can I ask why you think that this was possible at Lambeth but not in the actual process of dealing with Gene Robinson's consecration?<br />Where is the faultline and what can be done to change it?Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-6007336478424404002012-03-31T17:28:34.408+01:002012-03-31T17:28:34.408+01:00I think the key is talking to people, not about th...I think the key is talking to people, not about them in little political bundles. At Lambeth it was perfectly posible to talk about everything, including lbgt issues with African brothers, who characteristically showed considerable understanding and grace about a subject that some could have been imprisoned for discussing back home. The concerns of many Western bishops about governance issues in African dioceses were also possible to voice. All this happened without any covenant, indeed happened more easily because there was no legalistic pricetag on the conversations and we communicated as equals.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-20604951214992859832012-03-31T16:26:02.452+01:002012-03-31T16:26:02.452+01:00Mark,
I would like to see a transparent process fo...Mark,<br />I would like to see a transparent process for mediation that is guided by an independent body who does not have a stake in the outcome and who can therefore be impartial.<br /><br />I would like the recognition that a Province’s internal structures and Canons must be respected. <br /><br />There must first of all be some agreement on how contentious decisions might be tested in an international forum before they are implemented and that process has to be transparent and fair. <br /><br />The burden of proof has to lie with those who want to restrict the independence of a Province and mere “hurt feelings” are not enough. It has to be shown how, precisely, a Provinces proposed actions impacts the others so negatively that intervention is necessary.<br /><br />Any resulting restriction of the Province’s right to govern its own affairs must be time limited – you cannot have open moratoria that are designed to stop all conversations and all future change.<br /><br />There must be a process to revisit the issue until proper agreement has been reached. <br /><br />The emphasis is on mediation and learning to live together, not on establishing a victor and a loser.<br /><br />And if there are any ultimate relational consequences, they must be agreed in advance by everyone signing this Covenant.<br /><br />There has to be a right to appeal and a transparent appeal process.<br /><br />I would also like to see a fair mechanism that gives ALL those who will be affected a fair hearing. If the argument is about lgbt rights, all bodies implementing the Covenant must include lgbt representation. If the argument is about women bishops, all bodies must include women priests and if the argument is about lay presidency, all bodies must include lay presidents. The custom that we talk about people but not with them must not be tolerated in that process.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-47567459707894349322012-03-31T11:44:06.793+01:002012-03-31T11:44:06.793+01:00I almost didn't go into the whole question of ...I almost didn't go into the whole question of conservative vs liberal as I dislike the distinction.<br /><br />What I was trying to do briefly, though, was to suggest that a) having lived in that conservative world once upon a time in the States, I know first hand how hard it can be to walk that road without rancour and b) that almost all our decisions (especially, collective ones) make demands on others. So, we can't easily wash our hands of the accusation that our decisions aren't imposing on others. That's what living in a social world means.<br /><br />As for the democratic process of episcopal elections in the States, even many 'liberals' I know think the process doesn't work. But that's another topic altogether.<br /><br />I still don't see how the covenant as worded would have introduced caesaropapism unless we believe that any kind of legalism automatically leads to this. Believe me, I dislike intensely both legalism and bureaucracy (which makes being a priest in the CofE trying at times!), but I detected little of this in sect. 4 of the covenant. Just a process that might allow us to avoid some of the confusion of the past 10 years. I mean, how much energy has been wasted during the past decade just arguing about who has the authority to do what or what the proper next step ought to be? Part of the reason why we're in the mess we are now is due to the chaos of process. <br /><br />Which raises a question for me. We now know that controversial reactions will cause a response from other provinces from around the communion. That being the case, is there any process anti-covenant people would support for such occasions or is the belief that each province ought to mind its own business or is the preference for the status quo of the past decade?<br /><br />Now off to conduct my first wedding in the UK!Mark Claviernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-21961151941491304812012-03-31T11:18:41.055+01:002012-03-31T11:18:41.055+01:00Mark,
There’s another question we have not yet tak...Mark,<br />There’s another question we have not yet taken into account.<br />There are things we can happily compromise on and others were it is intrinsically impossible.<br />I can compromise about the size and the structure of the PCC, about how the church marries people, about whether you have to take the creeds literally nor not. <br /><br />But what is exercising the Communion is much more fundamental than that, it is about deciding whether people who were previously considered to be unequal to the point of being immoral are equal to us or not.<br />This is genuinely a fairly black and white issue. <br />Once you have understood in the depth of your bones that gay people are exactly the same as straights you cannot go back from that knowledge and treat them “slightly equal”. <br />Nor can you, while you still believe that gay people are an immoral abhorrence accord them the same rights as those who are not an immoral abhorrence. It just cannot be done.<br /><br />The CoE’s wrangling about creating women bishops who are at the same time equal and unequal to male ones just to placate everyone is a potent example for how not to do things.<br /><br />People cannot be a little bit equal just like you cannot be a little bit pregnant.<br /><br />What we need is a mechanism or at least an understanding about how the Communion should and could deal with 2 diametrically opposed positions where there simply cannot be a compromise.<br /><br />The Covenant did not provide such a mechanism, on the contrary, it was designed to create a uniform solution. <br /><br />Can we think of a Covenant that creates a multifaceted solution that genuinely allows 2 conflicting discernments to be lived within the Communion?Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-52636348945924988152012-03-31T10:11:24.796+01:002012-03-31T10:11:24.796+01:00Mark,
I don’t know what you mean by people being t...Mark,<br />I don’t know what you mean by people being told they must conform to a new system. Especially in America the election of Bishops and the discernment process for new developments are wonderfully democratic compared to what happens in Britain. If you advocate discipline, doesn’t it cut both ways? <br /><br />I’m not on the whole very fond of discipline. In family life I have found that firm boundaries but extensive freedom within those boundaries work best to produce a happy family in which everyone feels loved and respected. From toddlerhood onwards I would sit my girls down when they had an argument and I would ask one to tell her story uninterrupted first, then the other, then ask each to comment on what her sister said. By the end, they had genuinely listened to each other, sometimes resolved the argument in the process, and other times at least understood enough to tolerate my final decision. <br />Now they’re nearly adults we no longer have a final decision maker and we find that we don’t need one. They are mature enough to accept things they don’t really want to accept, to do things they don’t really want to do because they can see the reasons behind them. They understand compromise and the idea of unity not uniformity.<br />And they expect the same from the 2 adults in the household.<br /><br />I know this is an idealised model and it doesn’t always work in a community as diverse as a worldwide religious communion, especially as passions ride higher than they do in families who are already deeply connected.<br /><br />But it is still an ideal that has proved most successful everywhere. It is not accidental that the most peaceful countries are democracies with as much structure as necessary and as much freedom as possible. <br />It is not accidental that German companies with all their workers’ participation to better than many in Britain where there is still much more of a “them and us” feeling.<br /><br />I don’t object to the principle of a Covenant. But the structure of this particular proposal was precisely the opposite of what creates good relationships. There were accusers and accused. Accusations did not have to be based on objective criteria but based on their own feeling of injury. The accusers were also judge and jury. The kind of decisions they could make were not known but it was clear that they were punitive (relational consequences doesn’t suggest reconciliation parties). There was no mechanism for the defence to bring its case There was no right to appeal. There was no arbitration. <br /><br />There was not even a discussion whether the Communion wanted this Covenant. It was presented as a fait accompli by those who chose to assume that power and it now leaves us in the position that some provinces are bound by it and others aren’t. Unlike laws that only come into force if a majority in Parliament votes for them the adoption process did not even permit the possibility that a majority of the Communion might decide to try another route to stabilise relationships. And so the instrument of unity has, even before the end of its formal adoption process in the worldwide Anglican Communion formalised disunity.<br /><br />The Covenant was designed to give a small group of people more power, not to devolve power to the millions who would be affected by the decisions. This is just appallingly poor psychology if, indeed, genuine unity is your goal.<br /><br />Whether TEC could or should have been more pastorally sensitive is a really good question. A Covenant I could support would ensure that there are no major winners or losers in any battle, whichever side I might personally support. Although that invariably will mean that some very rigid people from all spectrums will leave.<br />A Covenant I could support would accept that due process has been followed and the new ways are, indeed, where a particular church is going, but that the task is now to find a way of helping everyone to be able to live within the new structure with as much individual freedom of choice as possible.<br /><br />The key is unity not uniformity.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-72759583282989152532012-03-31T09:57:03.395+01:002012-03-31T09:57:03.395+01:00The issue for me, Mark wasn't why have ay disc...The issue for me, Mark wasn't why have ay disciplinary measures — any civilised body needs law in some form as part of its infrastructure. the question was how big a part, and why this particular expansion of legalism over a peripheral issue? Our ecclesiology is that there are two levels of "Church" — the mystical whole company of all Christian people of which the prayer book speaks, but which it did not regulate. The Bishop of Rome, for example, was acknowledged to be the Bishop of Rome, but not to have any jurisdiction within this realm of England. There didn't have to be some legal arrangement as part of that acknowledgement. Then there is the diocese and, as a subsidiary legal link between dioceses, the province. But we are an episcopal not a Caesaropapal Church, and in this we are closer to the primitive Church than Rome. Linking up some transnational global denomination is colossally different from the tradition represented by the BCP. Fnally, I think the whole Toxic "Liberal Conservative schematisation is stale and obsolete. The real divide is around the extent to which people feel at home int he culture; some Conservatives, for example, do — take Tim Montgomerie on gay marriage. We need a new and more accurate way of understanding where people are coming from, or we just spin off into our own la-la land.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.com