A Very Anglican Response

Yesterday, the long awaited Windsor Report on the Anglican Communion and how it continues as a result of all that went on here in Reading, and also in the Canadian and US churches with regards to gay Bishops and same-sex blessings was finally published.

To be honest, the report is pretty much as expected. Despite what the conservative wing of the Church wanted, there was no punishment for the Episcopal Church in the USA, or the Canadian Church, nor any calls for Gene Robinson to resign as a Bishop. Equally there was no green light for the liberal wing – the report recommended that no more openly gay Bishops should be consecrated. The report criticised all the groups involved, both the liberals who pushed matters forward, and the conservative Bishops who have been intervening in other peoples Churches, and called for reconciliation and understanding on all sides. All in all it is a typically Anglican report that tries to maintian the broad church that is Anglicanism by accepting that different parts of the Church hold different beliefs, and calling on other parts of the communion to respect each others beliefs.

The Church Society has described the report as “toothless” whereas despite the fact that the report has criticised their actions the liberals are seeing a positive spin in the call for reconciliation, perhaps because the report is not nearly as tough as it could have been. However, it seems the commision who produced the report were keen to offer it unanimous support, and as such, what was produced was the best that could be done and still be backed by the diverse membership of the commision. It seems that the two parts of the Church are just as far apart as ever.

The full text of the report is available for download from here. The Oxford Diocese response is here.

Farenheit 9/11

Our copy of the Palme D’or winning movie by Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 turned up in the post this morning. Having not managed to see it at the cinema, and heard great things about the movie from those who have seen it, we spent the morning watching it, and browsing through the extras.

Fahrenheit 9/11

The movie covers similar ground to Michael Moore’s two most recent books Stupid White Men: …and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation! and Dude, Where’s My Country?. Opening with the problems with the 2000 election in Florida it highlights the association between those running the election and George Bush, and how different networks called the state for different candidates. It then goes on to look at the Bush Presidency paying particular attention to what happened on 9th September, and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also highlights the business links between Bush and his White House staff, the clear message being that the war in Iraq, and less so the war in Afghanistan was less about catching terrorists, and a lot more about oil.

Despite having read the books, there were still things I hadn’t realised. The fact that numerous members of congress tried to stop the approval of Bush in a joint session of Congress, but were stopped and the motions thrown out because no senator would sign was amazing. More so because the person in charge of the session was Al Gore. The footage of the effects of the war in Iraq on both the people of Iraq, and the soilders sent to fight was harrowing, and shows how much news footage is sanitised for general consumption.

There is also an extra DVD which includes about ninety minutes of extra footage that wasn’t included in the movie. The movie is over two hours long anyway, and much of the footage is not directly realted to the core message of the movie, but all is very interesting. There is a particularly funny sequence from an Arab American Comedy Festival in New York.

Whilst Michael Moore makes no secret of his politics, and the film is very much his opinion and hardly objective, all the facts in the film are listed, and confirmed on his website at http://www.michaelmoore.com. Despite what the Republicans would have people believe, this is probably one of the most factually and legally scruitinised movies ever, purely because of the subject matter it is dealing with. As such, whilst there have been a number of attempts to reduce the impact of the movie, and many of the people involved have publically said that the movie is inaccurate, none has attempted to prove it in a court of law.

Whilst sequences in the movie are pretty tough going, I think that everybody in the UK and USA should see the movie, especially to see what has been done in Iraq in our names. This movie is highly recommended.

Site Changes and Additions

I’ve added a couple of things to the site. Firstly I am trying out a feed from the Church of England web site, which gives complete daily services. I’ve added these as six links on the sidebar. The first three are the Common Worship services of Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer and Night Prayer, taken from Common Worship: Daily Prayer a recent revision to the Daily Offices to provide a variety of material for the whole year. By way of comparison the next three services are the traditional versions, in the case of Morning and Evening Prayer taken from the 1662 Prayer Book, and in terms of Night Prayer a version of the service in Traditional Language. Daily Prayer provided by the official Church of England web site, © The Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England, 2002-2004.

The other addition is to the books. I’ve added a book called This Is Our Calling which has been produced jointly by Affirming Catholicism and the Society of Catholic Priests. The book is a series of chapters looking at the different ways by which people are called in the Church, whether that is as a minister, or just through their daily lives. The main reason for listing the book though, is that the chapter on Baptism was written by Sheila Nunn, the former Priest-in-Charge at St James.

This Is Our Calling

I discovered the book by accident, having come across a review online that raved about how Sheila’s chapter was worth the cover price of the whole book. To some extent the content of the Baptism chapter brings together a lot of what Sheila on the subject during her time at St James, so it probably wouldn’t seem new to those who knew her well. However the book as a whole covers a broad range of topics, and in a style that allows me to dip into the book when I have the time.

“The Church of England is over, it’s days are numbered.”

I came across this article from the Guardian today, and am really left speechless. What is even more worrying, is that the media regularly describes this part of the Church as ‘traditionalists’, although I doubt many people would recognise their churches as anything but traditional!

The article quotes from a speech by Very Rev Phillip Jensen, the Anglican Dean of Sydney in Australia (whose brother happens to be the Bishop of Sydney), where he amongst other things describes Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury as commiting “theological and intellectual prostitution”, and Kings College Cambridge as a “temple to paganism”. It also quotes Ian Seymour, the churchwarden of the village church in our village of Arborfield as saying “The Church of England is over, it’s days are numbered.”

Having read the recent book also by Stephen Bates, the Guardian religious affairs correspondent A Church at War I can’t help but agree. The days of the current arrangements are numbered, but I really don’t think that the Anglican Church as a whole will collapse.

A Church at War: Anglicans and Homosexuality

The current statements are in part a prelude by Reform to the publication of the Lambeth Commision report, set up in the wake of the fiasco over the Bishop of Reading last year described in part of the book. The Reform position is that liberal Bishops should be disciplined, especially those who supported the appointment of the Bishop of Reading, and who backed the appointment of Gene Robinson in New Hampshire. Whereas the church held together over the Ordination of Women, providing arrangements where those opposed could remain within the church, it seems that parts of the Church are determined to split the church.

The slight irony is that whilst there seems to be a determination to split the church, the group is not keen to split themselves from the Church, there is no grand exit from this apparently corrupt Church. If the church is really as bad as Phillip Jensen says, and from the response the members of Reform agree, why aren’t they voting with their feet and forming their own church. Why instead do they campaign for the US Church to be disciplined – despite no Church law having been broken?

To my mind, it ultimately all comes back to money. If they leave the church, in the case of the Church of England, the buildings belong to the church as a whole not to the congregation, and the wages, and pension are paid by the church as a whole. They would be giving up those. It shows an interesting paralell with the church that Beth’s step-grandmother, Sheila Baker attends. It has left the Anglican Communion, however the clergy who join, join only after they have retired, i.e. once they are collecting their pension from the Anglican Church of Canada. If they leave before, they don’t get the pension.

Whilst the current uphevals may change the Church, as with the Ordination of Women, I really don’t think that the Church will split, because ultimately for all the big speeches, and flashy headlines, the Clergy involved are not willing to give up their finacial security for their principles. Instead they will continue to try and force everybody else in the church to conform to their view, and of course the press will continue to lap it up. That to me is the biggest disaster of the whole thing, when there are so many other issues that the Church should be highlighting, all the press coverage is over internal wrangles about stuff that seems irrelevant to the people outside.

And the Crackpot Idea of the Year Award Goes To…

The Kent MP Nigel Beard, for his proposal to allow England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be in different timezones. (More information in this BBC article)

I was told about the bill by a workmate who had heard it on Radio 4 on the way to work, and didn’t quite believe it. But then Garry talked about the same story on his weblog and linked to the BBC news item.

The basic proposal is that each of the devolved parliaments in each part of the UK will be able to vote to be in whatever timezone they wish. The reason is that on several occasions English MP’s have attempted to get the UK to align with neighbouring countries in mainland Europe such as France and Germany, changing UK time by one hour. However the measure has always been voted down by Scottish MP’s because of the limited daylight in Scotland during the winter months. The idea is that England and Wales could switch to European time, and leave the Scottish to stick with GMT (named after a place in England that wouldn’t be in the timezone any more!).

However, whilst it neatly solves the daylight problem and brings us into line with our European neighbours, it will cause all sorts of other problems for people who deal with time within the UK. Currently at work we are expanding a trading system to include Scotland into the England and Wales electricity trading arrangements. The idea is that it will simplify matters by trading electricity country wide, but all of that suddenly gets hideously more complicated if different parts of the system are in different timezones. Under the current plans for BETTA, anything that is different in Scotland, such as Bank Holidays, conforms system wide to what happens in England. Trading days are English trading days, and closed on English Bank Holidays. I expect that if Scotland went to a different timezone, then the whole system would be run on English time.

Anyway, that is just one small example of a problem that is created. The question is, what is more of a problem, having a different timezone from the rest of Europe, or having more than one timezone in the UK?