Here's an offering from MadPriest today, titled The Presiding Bishop Departs for Lambeth.
It may be his best yet.
There are only two possible lifestyles: Gospel and not. Full stop.
MO Christians Against
Racism & Poverty
When Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin gather on Saturday, January 26 for "Moving Forward, Welcoming All" at the Church of the Saviour in Hanford, California, they will welcome an online audience.I'll meet you (virtually) in San Joaquin on Saturday.
Viewers may access the live video stream, to be carried via Episcopal Life Online, by logging on to http://www.episcopalchurch.org/.
The video stream will also bring Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's greetings to continuing Episcopalians gathered at the Central California Valley historic church, starting about 10 a.m. Pacific time (11 a.m. Mountain, 12 a.m. Central, 1 p.m. Eastern), said Mike Collins, Episcopal Life Media Video/Multicast Unit director.
"The situation in the Diocese of San Joaquin is something that is on the minds of Episcopalians across the country," Collins said. "We felt it was important to provide live streaming coverage to the wider church as well as to show support for those who remain in the diocese."
House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson and the Rev. Canon Robert Moore, appointed by the Presiding Bishop as the interim pastoral presence for continuing Episcopalians, will keynote the gathering on site to offer support and encouragement, along with other speakers. Anderson's comments to the gathering, expected to draw Episcopalians from across the diocese and the state, will be videocast. . . .
Viewers will be able to watch the videocast, from 10 a.m. to 11.45 a.m. Pacific time in Windows Media and Real Media versions in high and low quality as well as audio only for those with slower internet connections, Collins said.
Note this well: As relates to the situation in Harare, Williams strongly commends those clergy who "have publicly and bravely refused to acknowledge" the episcopal authority of a deposed bishop. And what has he said about clergy like Father Risard who have refused to acknowledge the episcopal authority of the inhibited bishop of San Joaquin?
The Archbishop of Canterbury condemns unequivocally the use of state machinery to intimidate opponents of the deposed bishop of Harare, Nolbert Kunonga, and is appalled by recent reports of Zimbabwean police forcibly stopping Sunday services in several churches in Harare where clergy have publicly and bravely refused to acknowledge Kunonga's Episcopal authority. The Archbishop of Canterbury stands in solidarity with the Province of Central Africa (which covers Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia and Botswana) and the other loyal Zimbabwean bishops in supporting the acting Bishop of Harare, Bishop Sebastian Bakare.
Nolbert Kunonga was replaced as Anglican bishop of Harare in December of last year after illegally separating from the Province of Central Africa and installing himself as archbishop of Zimbabwe. He did not receive an invitation to the Lambeth Conference when they were issued last May. Kunonga's position has become increasingly untenable within the Anglican Church over the last year, as he has consistently refused to maintain appropriate levels of independence from the Zimbabwean Government.
The situation with respect to the Anglican Church in Harare is a matter of grave concern to all in the Anglican Communion. . . . [Bishop Kunonga's] unilateral actions with respect to the Diocese of Harare and his own status within the Province of Central Africa are, to say the least, questionable and have brought embarrassment to many. Above all, I am concerned for the well-being of faithful Anglicans who seek to practice their faith in peace and free from violence.We assure Bishop Sebastian Bakare of our prayerful support in this difficult situation, and it is my firm hope that the Province of Central Africa will be enabled to find a way forward at this anxious time.What thinking Episcopalian can fail to see the direct parallels between Harare's Kunonga and the former Episcopal bishop of San Joaquin? Pulling out of one's province and claiming a status that does not exist. Ejecting the dissenters. Living in delusion. The only difference I can see is that Kunonga has used his "pull" with the Zimbabwe government to use the police to keep the dissenters out. So far, Schofield hasn't tried that.
What has the Archbishop of Canterbury said about the ecclesiastical havoc being created by primates like Akinola and Orombi in their assault on the Episcopal Church? Well, a few months ago – as Akinola was set to consecrate Minns in Virginia – he summoned up the courage to declare that such actions were "not helpful." Oh, boy! I bet that blistered them. [Not!]
Where is the statement from [Williams] regarding the whole debacle in San Joaquin?
Does [he] have nothing to say about this violent act of schism which has occurred on his watch despite his dubious efforts to sacrifice the nobility of the scriptural warrant of "Speaking the truth in love" on the high altar of the False God of Anglican Unity?
Or, is he waiting to see what might happen in Fort Worth and Pittsburgh before he ventures out an actual statement that might mean something to The Anglican Communion in general and The Episcopal Church in particular?
Does he not have at least an 'atta-girl' for our Presiding Bishop for her courageous, costly act of 'guarding the faith' in - if not keeping the rules of - The Episcopal Church?
Or, does he have an 'atta-boy' for 'John-David and the Schismatics' whilst they push and bully The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion deeper into turmoil and trouble?
Or, perhaps a word of solace? Of consolation? Of, perhaps, hope?
Over this past year, there has been much talk and discussion and unfortunately argument over the Anglican Province of America participating as a full member of the Common Cause Partnership (CCP). As the Presiding Bishop, I have listened to our bishops, clergy and lay people about their feelings toward how we of the APA should be related to this Body. I have personally gone back and forth attempting to determine where we should be in the midst of the developing Partnership.His statement, "We have managed to attract good and faithful men for the ministry in a Classical Anglican Church that has a balanced approach to the faith," makes clear they are among the "Anglicans" who do not ordain women. No doubt, they are very concerned about the looming battle in the Common Cause Partnership between those who do ordain women to the diaconate and priesthood and those who believe women are ontologogically incapable of being ordained. The birth of the APA was also grounded in objections to the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.
As I observe the reaction of the various clergy, there are those who strongly oppose any participation at all, a larger number that believe we should observe and see what develops (an option we may not officially have) and others who believe we should become members and see what happens. At the present time we are polarized at about 50/50. There is no clear majority on any side.
At this time, when the majority membership of the CCP has just recently departed from the Episcopal Church and are going through the withdrawal and anger symptoms which so many of our people experienced 30-40 years ago, do we want to be caught up into their present day battles? Many of the membership of CCP are involved in bitter law suits most of which will not be resolved for years to come. We must ask ourselves whether or not we want to get caught up in the internecine struggles of those who are leaving or preparing to leave the Episcopal Church. The APA has always maintained a positive approach to the mission of the church and departed the Episcopal Church years ago without buildings and property and began on a very modest level building new buildings or renovating places for worship. We made a special effort over the years of not looking back but forward as we have sought to build a positive expression of traditional Anglicanism and not being an anti-Episcopal Church.In other words, he realizes that many of the departing Episcopalians are engaged in a food-fight that is not conducive to ministry. He also draws a subtle, but significant distinction: When the churches now in the APA left the Episcopal Church, they left "without buildings and property" and worked hard to avoid the bitterness and acrimony that characterizes those like Schofield, Duncan, and Iker. By contrast, he observes, the departing Episcopalians are characterized by what they are against – not what they are for.
At the present time, we are part of an Intercommunion Agreement with the REC and through this relationship we have formed ourselves into a Federation of the Anglican Churches in the Americas. There are now 6 jurisdictions that are part of this Federation. FACA has requested as a Body to be a part of the CCP. We are thereby in a position as part of this Federation to be observers of CCP as we watch how it unfolds over the next few years.The blogger who posted that letter describes himself as "Canon Vocations Director of the Diocese of the Eastern United States of the Anglican Province of America." He added these comments to his bishop's letter:
The Common Cause Partnership has been a divisive proposition for members of our Diocese, and many people in the APA are deeply concerned that by uniting ourselves to the CCP we shall jeopardise our Catholic theological and doctrinal substance, particularly regarding the validity and orthodoxy of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, as the only two prospective members which do not ordain women are the REC and ourselves. . . . In truth I believe that the CCP and the Anglican Communion alike are so very unstable at the moment that it would be imprudent and unwise to join forces with a body that is not at all agreed on the basic dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. My prediction is that CCP will eventually fragment and split along theological and leadership lines, for we see the fractures already beginning to emerge. . . . I firmly believe we should wait five years before making any formal or permanent commitments to a body which has so little inner order, proven by the recent proliferation of African-ordained bishops, or essential theological unanimity, demonstrated by lack of consensus on the nature of the priesthood. . . . The APA, through its official committees, agrees with my personal long-held position and will only observe the formation of CCP for the time being. It remains to be seen if we could ever join it, and I believe that such a step would be exceedingly difficult for us to achieve, given the profound ecclesiological and sacramentological differences we have the majority of those neo-evangelicals who comprise it.I'll confess to some wicked pleasure in this news. I sense that Duncan wanted to have the Common Cause Partnership be the "gathering place" of all the "continuing Anglicans." As those small groups exist, APA was one of the least small. Their decision to eschew Duncan and his compadres must be a significant blow. It reveals to me the kind of fracturing that is inevitable among the Purity Crowd. The Episcopal Church continues to espouse the via media and seeks to be the "big tent." Let us not waver from our commitment to real inclusion.
As you may be aware, the Rev. Pat is quite keen on making predictions in the new year, which are based on his private conversations with God. Unfortunately it seems that Pat has a bit of a hearing problem because they don't always come true.But it looks like Pat has learned his lesson. He announced last week that he knows who's going to win the 2008 presidential election - but don't get too excited, because he's not going to tell you.On Wednesday, Robertson, 77, implied that God informed him who will be elected president in November. "He told me some things about the election, but I'm not going to say, because some old man on "60 Minutes" would make fun of me, so I'm not going to tell you who the winner's going to be," Robertson said, in apparent reference to CBS humorist Andy Rooney, who turns 89 on Jan. 14.That's right - Pat has such confidence in the Word of the Lord that he won't tell people about it because he's scared Andy Rooney will laugh. Mind you, Pat's concern is probably well founded - after all, God also apparently told him to endorse Rudy Giuliani.I wonder if Pat is ever going to realize that God's just fucking with him?
Missouri senator wants to require using B.C. and A.D.Missouri legislators have started a fight with Father Time - at least with his name tag.
Worried about a push to take the religious references out of time, a state senator has filed a bill that would mandate the use of B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini or “Year of our Lord”). Many historians and textbook publishers have switched to B.C.E. (Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) as a nod toward non-Christians.Yes, this is what we need. While our state continues to exercise the death penalty, and while our governor knocked thousands of kids off the state's health insurance, we need this constitutional amendment. They've already constitutionally amended the queers. Now let's take care of this burning issue of BC and AD vs. BCE and CE.
And that's a problem, said Sen. John Loudon.
“There is an effort to sort of scrub our public institutions of acknowledgment of God,” said Loudon, R-Chesterfield. He said it would be costly to change dating systems - both financially and culturally.
Loudon's bill, which was also filed last year and this year has also been filed as a constitutional amendment, would make B.C. and A.D. the "official dating standard" of Missouri. It would also bar the state and public employees from using any other system in official capacities.
Back when I began this blog, I thought it would be – and intended it to be – a quiet little place for me to post a few thoughts, some of which I might want to share with a few friends. It seemed like an easy way to share thoughts with a few, carefully selected friends. Well … if you're reading this, you know it didn't exactly work out that way. Within the first couple of weeks, I got involved in the discussions about GC06 and was quickly involved in the wider blogosphere. This little blog got some attention that pleased me, and some that I found dismaying (to say the least).
I quickly realized that I could not blog confidentially or anonymously about my parish or my diocese. Members of my parish were reading, and I soon learned that even my bishop was popping in from time to time. But I continued to post on some other blogs anonymously or with a pseudonym. I thought it protected me in some way.
Not long after I started blogging, some of those folks we call the "worthy opponents" did a little digging. (It's not so difficult to do with the tools the Internet provides us.) They quickly, gleefully revealed my full name, where I work, my parish home, and so on. At first, I was dismayed by that "outing." As time has passed over these 17 months or so, I've come to realize it was a good bit of discipline. I had to take ownership of my words. For me, it just is not good to live in any kind of closet. If I try to be secretive, then it gives power to people who might want to hurt me. I refuse to give them that power.
When Jim Naughton launched the Episcopal Café and required people to post comments using their real names, he said he was pursuing an "ethic of transparency." That began a long, slow thought process and finally a "self-outing" for me. Eventually, I edited my profile to reveal exactly where I live and provide some other details. In the past month, I edited my profile so that it shows my full name – both here and on the other blogs I visit and on which I comment. Now, wherever I visit or comment, my identity is fairly transparent.
Today, I'm taking one more step toward transparency. I've envied those people who have their photos on their sites. I like the fact that when I visit the sites of my blogging friends (like Mark Harrris and Elizabeth Kaeton), their photos are visible. It helps me remember the real person behind the blog.
I had another epiphany during the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans. "Worthy opponents" Baby Blue and the StandFirm gang video-blogged from that meeting. Once I had faces and real, live, three-dimensional people to attach to their blogs, it wasn't so easy for me to dismiss or (God help me!) attack them in ways I had done before. I'll still tackle their views and statements when need be. But no longer can they just be "abstractions" to me. They have faces now.
But I did not have a decent photo that I was willing to share. (I'm not attractive by any means, but my photos generally make me look even more awful than I am in real life.) Thanks to a good photographer (and Roberta, who scanned the photo for me), I now have one that doesn't entirely embarrass me. A thumbnail version now appears on my blog.
So here it is. It pretty much looks like me.
(Image courtesy of Paul)I dug a little deeper last night, doubling my contribution. For those of you who can afford it, I urge you to consider whether you, too, might be able to contribute or add to your contribution.
Back in 1991, Bishop Barbara Harris (at the time one of only two women Anglican bishops) said to an Integrity gathering that some of our worst enemies are closet clergy and deputies. "Each is entitled to their own closet, but they should not be able to use it as a sniper's nest."Amen. When a cleric uses his closet as a sniper's nest, he deserves to have a light directed upon his deceit and duplicity. And that's exactly what bishop Lindsay Urwin has done.
Immersed as I have been in the Anglican blogosphere, I wonder how the heck I could have missed this reasonable essay from the Anglican Centrist!
The presenting issue in today’s Anglican divisions over theology has to do with how much or how little to include gay people in committed life-long relationships in the life of the Church. Some have argued that not only is the plain sense of Scripture opposed to full sacramental inclusion of non-celibate gays into the life of the Church and its orders of ministry – but it also goes against logic, history and custom to do so. These days the leading opponents to full sacramental inclusion of non-celibate gay folks into the life of the Church are Africans. The Church of Kenya is among the most vehemently opposed Anglican provinces to any inclusion for gay folks seeking to live in committed relationships.
Among the arguments often made is that homosexual practice is prohibited by Scripture’s plain sense, and that African custom abhors the practice. Moreover, it is often argued that to make any change in the Church’s practice would open the door to all sorts of non-biblical innovations. The current Primate of the Church of Kenya, Archbishop Nzimbi, and his predecessor, Archbishop David Gitari, are quite staunch in opposing any revising of the Church's views on same-sex relationships. So staunch, that Archbishop Nzimbi is taking steps which seem destined to lead to global realignment and schism to prevent any such revision from taking place in the U.S., Canada, Britain, South Africa, or anywhere.
Ironically, Archbishop Gitari was in the 1980's an advocate for open-mindedness and pastoral care for those Christians seeking to live in polygamous marital unions. Indeed, Archbishop David M. Gitari wrote a thoroughly-researched argument on the subject in the early 1980’s in a report he was commissioned to produce by the Kenyan House of Bishops and Provincial Standing Committee of the Synod of the Church of the Province of Kenya. At the time, he was Bishop of Mount Kenya East Diocese, and the Chairman of the Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Fellowship.
In his writings, published in Volume 1, Number 1, of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies’ respected journal Transformation, (1984), Gitari discusses many facets of the issue of polygamy among African Christians. He makes a biblical, cultural, and theological case for pastoral liberality regarding polygamy citing a range of theologians from Barth to Schillebeeckx. Indeed, Gitari argues that “polygamy may be more ‘christian’ [sic] than divorce.”
To be sure, Bishop Gitari does not explicity advocate that polygamy become a normative form of marriage for the Church. Not at all. But, quite clearly, Bishop Gitari argues for a degree of carefully defined pastoral care and inclusion into the Church of those in such marriages – and also for those who become polygamists even after having become Christians. While not advocating for authorized liturgies for plural marriages, or speaking to the ordination of polygamists, Bishop Gitari does nonetheless commend case-by-case approvals by local bishops for those living in committed polygamous relationships.
From what I understand, Gitari was critical of the language of the 1988 Lambeth Conference Resolution 26 which didn't go far enough to revise the Church's treatment of polygamists. That resolution read:
This Conference upholds monogamy as God's plan, and as the ideal relationship of love between husband and wife; nevertheless recommends that a polygamist who responds to the Gospel and wishes to join the Anglican Church may be baptized and confirmed with his believing wives and children on the following conditions:Gitari has said that the Church’s stance against polygamy “reflects the fact that our thinking has been so influenced by western theologians that we still continue to beat the old missionary drums which summon us to see that our cultural heritage is incompatible with Christianity.” In light of their emergence from the imperialistic theology of the Western missionaries who no longer held sway in East Africa, Bishop Gitari wrote that the Church of the Province of Kenya “should revise its views on polygamy at the earliest moment possible.”
(1) that the polygamist shall promise not to marry again as long as any of his wives at the time of his conversion are alive;
(2) that the receiving of such a polygamist has the consent of the local Anglican community;
(3) that such a polygamist shall not be compelled to put away any of his wives, on account of the social deprivation they would suffer;
(4) and recommends that provinces where the Churches face problems of polygamy are encouraged to share information of their pastoral approach to Christians who become polygamists so that the most appropriate way of disciplining and pastoring them can be found, and that the ACC be requested to facilitate the sharing of that information.
It is true that the normative teaching in the Anglican Communion and in the local provinces of Africa holds for one man and one woman in marriage. Yet, it is also quite apparent, that leading clergy in Africa -- even the conservative former Primate of Kenya -- have advocated for something like a 'local pastoral option' for including polygamists. Now, while this is not the same thing as consecrating a gay bishop in a committed relationship, it seems to be a similar kind of thing as allowing clergy to offer pastoral leeway in receiving and honoring gay couples in their congregations. Many reasonable folks, moreover, may be able to see what looks just a little like hypocrisy here. How is it, many might wonder, that a leading African primate could argue persuasively for a kind of pastoral inclusivity and sensitivity to polygamists but against the same for gay couples?
Extremists bent on breaking the Communion over the homosexuality question will not be able to hear any mention of Kenyan Anglicanism's (to say nothing of wider Africa) toleration of polygamy. Oddly, the sacramental inclusion of polygamous Anglicans in Kenya is not seen as analogous to the sacramental inclusion of gay Anglicans anywhere else. Moreover, Kenyan apologists (and those for other extremist African provinces) will argue that the Church of Kenya do not 'promote' polygamy at all. But the point in my mentioning it is that the practice is tolerated – at least in Kenya if nowhere else – and that sacramental inclusivity and pastoral sensitivity to those practicing it have been encouraged by the former Primate of Kenya (and many others) on a variety of grounds biblical, theological, and cultural.
Does anyone imagine that if the Kenyan Church had elevated a priest to the episcopate who had three wives that the worldwide Communion would be on the brink of schism? If the answer is "of course not" – than why should we now be facing schism over what appears somewhat like unto it in the Episcopal Church?
It's interesting to me (from reading their sites) that the dissidents are fairly concerned about the fracture-lines that are being revealed in their ranks. Once they don't have "hating the queers" as their sole, unifying raison d'être, how much worse may it become?
Over the last few years, Dr Rowan Williams has sometimes looked criminally innocent ("The trouble with Rowan is that he's too damn Christian,") as one of his colleagues remarked; sometimes merely well-meaning but powerless; very occasionally he has looked as if he is working to an angelically cunning plan. This week has been a good week for the cunning plan interpretation. It is not that he has done anything - but his rigorous policy of inaction and delay has given his opponents an opportunity to fall apart which they have exploited to the full.
Plans for a gathering of his opponents in Jerusalem, reported yesterday by Riazat Butt, have imploded spectacularly with the announcement by the Bishop of Jerusalem that he does not want them to meet there. This isn't a trivial matter, because it reveals that Rowan has been right about at least one thing all along: it is not just homosexuality which divides the 50 or 60 million Anglicans around the world. They are also divided about whether women can be priests; some Anglicans doubt whether even men can be priests (the more extreme evangelicals believe in "ministers" or leaders instead); they are divided over whether marriage must be lifelong, and, if so, always to one woman (there are parts of Africa where the church welcomes polygamous converts); and they are also bitterly divided about Islam and Zionism.
The Anglican church in the Middle East has always been largely Arab, and has sometimes been strongly identified with Palestinian nationalism. The last bishop of Jerusalem, Riah Abu el-Assal, was fervent in his denunciations of the invasions of Lebanon and the siege of the Gaza strip. His successor, Bishop Suheil Darwani, is less completely identified with the Palestinian cause, but well aware that his people are a minority among Arabs, who really must not be identified with America or Zionism.
But this identity is precisely what some of the influential backers of the anti-gay movement also want. Much of their money comes from rightwing American Christians, for whom the political liberalism of the Episcopal church is at least as offensive as its theological latitude. They believe in something very like a crusade against Islam. So, it would appear, does the leader of the Nigerian church, Dr Peter Akinola, who has emerged as the leader of the global anti-gay movement.
Akinola has responded to Darwani with a letter that tells him, after several paragraphs of God flannel, to shut up and do what he is told: "Be assured that we considered your important arguments carefully as we met in Nairobi. But we came to the unanimous conclusion that we needed to proceed."
This style does much to explain why some of his followers are backing away from his confrontational tactics. The leaders of the church in south-east Asia are certainly anti-gay, and unenthusiastic about Muslims. But they don't like being pushed around, either, and the last straw came when one of their theologians received an angry email from Akinola which appeared to have been drafted by one of the Archbishop's conservative American advisers, whom he has rewarded with a bishopric.
The purpose of the Jerusalem meeting is to organise a formal rupture in the Anglican communion, which would leave the liberals isolated and cast out and someone very like Dr Akinola running a much more conservative, disciplined organisation. But there is no reason to believe that most Anglicans, conservative or not, want to belong to a disciplined global organisation.
The choice for them this summer may come down to one of Williams' painfully reluctant leadership or Akinola's enthusiastic alternative. If that is what happens, the events of this week make it look as though Williams will be the one to emerge with a global following - providing he doesn't try actually to lead them anywhere. Small danger of that.
What did these bishops receive back from Archbishop Akinola, who seems to be the primary force behind the conference? A smack-down.
“I am deeply troubled that this meeting, of which we had no prior knowledge, will import inter-Anglican conflict into our diocese, which seeks to be a place of welcome for all Anglicans.
“It could also have serious consequences for our ongoing ministry of reconciliation in this divided land. Indeed, it could further inflame tensions here. We who minister here know only too well what happens when two sides cease talking to each other. We do not want to see any further dividing walls!"
LONDON (AP) — Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori says her church has been unfairly singled out for criticism because it is honest about consecrating gay bishops.
Jefferts Schori told BBC Radio 4's "PM" program that the New York-based church, which is the Anglican body in the U.S., is far from the only Anglican province that has a bishop with a same-sex partner. In 2003, Episcopalians elected the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, causing an uproar that has pushed the Anglican family toward a split.
"He is certainly not alone in being a gay bishop; he's certainly not alone in being a gay partnered bishop," Jefferts Schori said in an interview broadcast Tuesday. "He is alone in being the only gay partnered bishop who's open about that status."
The 77 million-member Anglican Communion is a global fellowship of churches that trace their roots to the Church of England. Most Anglicans are traditionalists who believe Scripture bars gay relationships. Liberal-leaning Anglicans believe the Bible's social justice teachings on acceptance should apply to same-gender couples.
The national Episcopal Church has not developed an official public prayer to bless gay couples churchwide. However, Jefferts Schori and other Episcopal leaders acknowledge that such ceremonies take place in many parishes. She said other Anglican churches do the same.
"Those services are happening in various places, including in the Church of England, where my understanding is that there are far more of them happening than there are in the Episcopal Church," Jefferts Schori said.
Hat-tip to Ann for this link. You're the best, Ann!
Update: MP has the KJS BBC excerpt here -- so that you don't have to listen to the entire broadcast, but can just zone-in on Katharine's segment. However, his audio probably won't stay there for more than a week or so. So listen now, while you can.
Update: Ye gods and little fishes! BBC is now characterizing KJS as "unrepentant on gay clergy." Meanwhile, some blog commenters are accusing her of trying to "out" Church of England clergy. But listen to the interview. Nowhere does she say that the partnered gay clergy or bishops are simply in the Church of England.
Update again: A reader at T19 has transcribed part of the interview, as follows. I generally wouldn't post such a long transcription, except that the BBC interviews go offline after one week. So, perhaps for different reasons than BabyBlue, I am posting it here:[Note: This photo is from my file, not from the BBC interview.]