Bye bye, Rowan

Apparently, he's orf - although sources will 'neither confirm nor deny the rumours' that Rowan Williams will step down next year after the Queen's Diamond Jubilee and after seeing through new rules to allow women to become bishops.

Whilst I personally don't think that he is any great loss, there is a lot to be said for an Archbishop who doesn't rock the boat too much and as far as I can see, Williams has fulfilled that function very well.

Although he is not due to retire for another ten years, Trinity College Cambridge - where he studied theology and was a chaplain - are reported to be creating a lucrative professorship for him. Given the choice of the two roles, I know which one I would go for.

After presiding over reportedly one of the most turbulent periods in the Church's history, the archbishop has told friends he would like to give his successor adequate time to prepare for the next Lambeth Conference – the summit of Anglican bishops held once every decade.

He is even said to have considered quitting following the last conference in 2008, which was mired by boycotts, rows over homosexual clergy and challenges to the Archbishop of Canterbury's authority.

Although I have no particular liking for the man, I wish him well and I wonder exactly what sort of person will replace him? The jostling and posturing is already starting. There is speculation that the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, will succeed him - at least in a caretaker role.

The first black Archbishop of Canterbury - how wonderfully politically correct...

Bye bye, Rowan

Apparently, he's orf - although sources will 'neither confirm nor deny the rumours' that Rowan Williams will step down next year after the Queen's Diamond Jubilee and after seeing through new rules to allow women to become bishops.

Whilst I personally don't think that he is any great loss, there is a lot to be said for an Archbishop who doesn't rock the boat too much and as far as I can see, Williams has fulfilled that function very well.

Although he is not due to retire for another ten years, Trinity College Cambridge - where he studied theology and was a chaplain - are reported to be creating a lucrative professorship for him. Given the choice of the two roles, I know which one I would go for.

After presiding over reportedly one of the most turbulent periods in the Church's history, the archbishop has told friends he would like to give his successor adequate time to prepare for the next Lambeth Conference – the summit of Anglican bishops held once every decade.

He is even said to have considered quitting following the last conference in 2008, which was mired by boycotts, rows over homosexual clergy and challenges to the Archbishop of Canterbury's authority.

Although I have no particular liking for the man, I wish him well and I wonder exactly what sort of person will replace him? The jostling and posturing is already starting. There is speculation that the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, will succeed him - at least in a caretaker role.

The first black Archbishop of Canterbury - how wonderfully politically correct...

They don't like change, you know

Today an ecclesiastical nightmare straight out of the pages of the Vicar of Dibley. No. I'll rephrase that - if you wrote this little lot up as a comedy episode, people would think it was too far fetched!

In the idyllic village of Little Snoring - sorry, I mean Trillingham. I'm getting a bit carried away! - they like things left the way they are. So, bad enough that the CofE has had the audacity to send them a woman priest, she wants to change things. And for this heinous crime, they want her kicked out.

So what are these heinous crimes? Well, she shut the church because it was too cold. Fair enough you might think, but now she wants to put in underfloor heating so she doesn't have to do it again and that's apparently not right either.

And then there's the bell tower. She wants the community to have somewhere to meet so she suggests putting a meeting room under the tower. Well, we can't have that! It might actually benefit the community. And, OMG, she wants to install a toilet!

And then there's the pews. Apparently she wants these removed and replaced by plastic chairs, and to be honest I can see that might be a bit of a step too far. But it's hardly a sacking offense.

300 parishioners have signed a petition saying they want her removed - and I'm willing to bet that that's about 100 times the normal size of the weekly congregation. That might be a bit far out, but I bet it's not orders of magnitude. They claim she is cold and unwelcoming and isn't able to perform the duties expected of a full time vicar.

Apparently there are just as many people who want her to stay and they point out, quite rightly, that you can't expect a part time appointee to be on call full time. This is a fair point.

At the end f the day I suspect that this issue isn't actually about the traditional views of the congregation of a medieval church, it's more about the view of a medieval congregation in a rural backwater that don't like change.

Anyone who has moved from an urban to a rural environment will likely appreciate what I am saying. There are two main sayings that greet any newcomer to these communities : "You're not from round here!" and "That's not how we do it!"

( You can read an article about this by clicking here )

They don't like change, you know

Today an ecclesiastical nightmare straight out of the pages of the Vicar of Dibley. No. I'll rephrase that - if you wrote this little lot up as a comedy episode, people would think it was too far fetched!

In the idyllic village of Little Snoring - sorry, I mean Trillingham. I'm getting a bit carried away! - they like things left the way they are. So, bad enough that the CofE has had the audacity to send them a woman priest, she wants to change things. And for this heinous crime, they want her kicked out.

So what are these heinous crimes? Well, she shut the church because it was too cold. Fair enough you might think, but now she wants to put in underfloor heating so she doesn't have to do it again and that's apparently not right either.

And then there's the bell tower. She wants the community to have somewhere to meet so she suggests putting a meeting room under the tower. Well, we can't have that! It might actually benefit the community. And, OMG, she wants to install a toilet!

And then there's the pews. Apparently she wants these removed and replaced by plastic chairs, and to be honest I can see that might be a bit of a step too far. But it's hardly a sacking offense.

300 parishioners have signed a petition saying they want her removed - and I'm willing to bet that that's about 100 times the normal size of the weekly congregation. That might be a bit far out, but I bet it's not orders of magnitude. They claim she is cold and unwelcoming and isn't able to perform the duties expected of a full time vicar.

Apparently there are just as many people who want her to stay and they point out, quite rightly, that you can't expect a part time appointee to be on call full time. This is a fair point.

At the end f the day I suspect that this issue isn't actually about the traditional views of the congregation of a medieval church, it's more about the view of a medieval congregation in a rural backwater that don't like change.

Anyone who has moved from an urban to a rural environment will likely appreciate what I am saying. There are two main sayings that greet any newcomer to these communities : "You're not from round here!" and "That's not how we do it!"

( You can read an article about this by clicking here )

I Spy - another miracle!

Proof positive that God is everywhere, I took this picture at Isispynten on the island of Nordauslandet in Spitzbergen - or to put it another way, in the middle of nowhere!

The Vatican have dispatched a team of senior investigators on a luxury yatch to investigate...

I Spy - another miracle!

Proof positive that God is everywhere, I took this picture at Isispynten on the island of Nordauslandet in Spitzbergen - or to put it another way, in the middle of nowhere!

The Vatican have dispatched a team of senior investigators on a luxury yatch to investigate...

Is Christianity dying?

On the face of it, this might seem to many to be a ridiculous question, but there have been a couple of reports in the last week which beg the question.

Firstly, there was a report that in a secularised Europe, with the numbers of the Catholic faithful shrinking dramatically and a worsening economic situation, the whispered question from some governments is: is it still worthwhile, politically and economically, keeping an embassy to the Holy See? Here, in western Europe, the heart of Christianity, the crisis of Catholicism is an impressive one. Even in Germany, the pontiff's heartland, in 2010 for the first time the number of Catholics who left the church was higher than that of baptisms: 181,193 left Catholicism, 170,000 were baptised.

Secondly, there was the question of whether the United States was still a Christian country. It's obviously full of people who call themselves Christians; and certainly full of religious believers in a way difficult for many Europeans to understand or to accept. But is what modern Americans believe actually Christianity at all?

It has been suggested that what modern Americans worship is actually the embodiment of America itself which purports to be fundamentally Christian.

Crossing the two stories over reminds me that when Clinton was President, the Vatican pressed very hard for a non-Democrat ambassador - one who did not support the pro-life movement.

To make things worse, in the US, Christianity has been absorbed into a mishmash of self-help programmes and therapies, new age products and scraps of eastern religions. There are cults for every taste and circumstance. It seems incoherent and lacking a common direction.

So will Christianity as we know it survive? In some form almost undoubtedly, but perhaps not as we currently know it.

And whether this is for the better or worse only time will tell...

Is Christianity dying?

On the face of it, this might seem to many to be a ridiculous question, but there have been a couple of reports in the last week which beg the question.

Firstly, there was a report that in a secularised Europe, with the numbers of the Catholic faithful shrinking dramatically and a worsening economic situation, the whispered question from some governments is: is it still worthwhile, politically and economically, keeping an embassy to the Holy See? Here, in western Europe, the heart of Christianity, the crisis of Catholicism is an impressive one. Even in Germany, the pontiff's heartland, in 2010 for the first time the number of Catholics who left the church was higher than that of baptisms: 181,193 left Catholicism, 170,000 were baptised.

Secondly, there was the question of whether the United States was still a Christian country. It's obviously full of people who call themselves Christians; and certainly full of religious believers in a way difficult for many Europeans to understand or to accept. But is what modern Americans believe actually Christianity at all?

It has been suggested that what modern Americans worship is actually the embodiment of America itself which purports to be fundamentally Christian.

Crossing the two stories over reminds me that when Clinton was President, the Vatican pressed very hard for a non-Democrat ambassador - one who did not support the pro-life movement.

To make things worse, in the US, Christianity has been absorbed into a mishmash of self-help programmes and therapies, new age products and scraps of eastern religions. There are cults for every taste and circumstance. It seems incoherent and lacking a common direction.

So will Christianity as we know it survive? In some form almost undoubtedly, but perhaps not as we currently know it.

And whether this is for the better or worse only time will tell...

Not in front of the Muslims!

Emma Mitchell was preparing to feed her four-month-old son Aaron when a receptionist at Oldham Citizens Advice Bureau warned her it was a “multicultural building” and it would cause an 'uproar' amongst muslim visitors! She suggested that she should use the nearby public toilets instead.

Emma had a fuming row with the manager before being offered an empty room under supervision.

She said: “It was just awful. I felt humiliated, intimidated and guilty through the whole thing. We all live in Oldham and use this building and what I was doing was one of the most natural things a mum can do. I shouldn’t be made to feel it was wrong just because it’s not in someone’s culture.”

When her son started crying, she asked if she could use an empty corner of the room to breast-feed him in, offering to face the wall. But the receptionist told her it wasn’t allowed as “some gentlemen had complained in the past” and suggested she use the public toilets nearby.

Emma said: “You wouldn’t eat your dinner in the toilets, so why should my son? She rang the manager who said ‘You absolutely can’t do that here’.”

Emma’s friend Michelle Booth, who was with her, said: “They were implying breast-feeding was offensive to muslim sensibilities. It’s political correctness gone mad.”

Perhaps I'm just an old fashioned old git, but in my day it was not really the done thing to get your tits out in public to feed your baby. It was a simple case of manners, but I accept that times change - albeit not always for the better.

But the point is that it has sod all to do with religion, and I am sure most muslims would agree with me...

Not in front of the Muslims!

Emma Mitchell was preparing to feed her four-month-old son Aaron when a receptionist at Oldham Citizens Advice Bureau warned her it was a “multicultural building” and it would cause an 'uproar' amongst muslim visitors! She suggested that she should use the nearby public toilets instead.

Emma had a fuming row with the manager before being offered an empty room under supervision.

She said: “It was just awful. I felt humiliated, intimidated and guilty through the whole thing. We all live in Oldham and use this building and what I was doing was one of the most natural things a mum can do. I shouldn’t be made to feel it was wrong just because it’s not in someone’s culture.”

When her son started crying, she asked if she could use an empty corner of the room to breast-feed him in, offering to face the wall. But the receptionist told her it wasn’t allowed as “some gentlemen had complained in the past” and suggested she use the public toilets nearby.

Emma said: “You wouldn’t eat your dinner in the toilets, so why should my son? She rang the manager who said ‘You absolutely can’t do that here’.”

Emma’s friend Michelle Booth, who was with her, said: “They were implying breast-feeding was offensive to muslim sensibilities. It’s political correctness gone mad.”

Perhaps I'm just an old fashioned old git, but in my day it was not really the done thing to get your tits out in public to feed your baby. It was a simple case of manners, but I accept that times change - albeit not always for the better.

But the point is that it has sod all to do with religion, and I am sure most muslims would agree with me...

My kinda church!

Religion should be fun. I just can't believe that the Almighty put us here on Earth with the express purpose of making us miserable - however likely that sometimes feels!

So if I was going to build a temple, I'd want it to be like the one pictured above...

This is Ayah Pin's Sky Kingdom. The commune would not seem out of place in a Disney theme park. It contains an umbrella-shaped building about two storeys high, an ornamental fishing boat, strategically located faux Greco-Roman pillars, and the centrepiece - a pink teapot.

Ayah Pin and his followers - he claims to have several thousand in Malaysia, Singapore, Bali and beyond - say the two-storey-high teapot was inspired by the dreams of one of the cult's followers, and reflects a similar vessel in the sky which God uses to shower his blessings on mankind.

Followers who come to the village for the first time have to drink "holy water" pouring from a giant vase that is perpetually filled by the teapot.

The cult does not have any moral or religious strictures of its own. Instead, Ayah Pin, whose real name is Ariffin Mohamad, says members can follow any religion they like. He claims that all prayers will be answered by none other than himself, because he is God.

"All religions are basically the same," says Ayah Pin. "God teaches love. He is for anyone who wants to know about the world. You can choose whichever religion you want."

The Sky Kingdom is said to be a version of similar structures found in the sky. But the structures in the sky are apparently more aesthetically pleasing since they are decorated with diamonds, sapphires, and other gemstones. The teapot represents purity of water. There is a vase to accept water flowing from the teapot. The vase is said to have healing properties, and the giant umbrella is a place for people to take shelter beneath God.

God is, indeed, great...

(h/tip to the Malaysian Star for the story...)

My kinda church!

Religion should be fun. I just can't believe that the Almighty put us here on Earth with the express purpose of making us miserable - however likely that sometimes feels!

So if I was going to build a temple, I'd want it to be like the one pictured above...

This is Ayah Pin's Sky Kingdom. The commune would not seem out of place in a Disney theme park. It contains an umbrella-shaped building about two storeys high, an ornamental fishing boat, strategically located faux Greco-Roman pillars, and the centrepiece - a pink teapot.

Ayah Pin and his followers - he claims to have several thousand in Malaysia, Singapore, Bali and beyond - say the two-storey-high teapot was inspired by the dreams of one of the cult's followers, and reflects a similar vessel in the sky which God uses to shower his blessings on mankind.

Followers who come to the village for the first time have to drink "holy water" pouring from a giant vase that is perpetually filled by the teapot.

The cult does not have any moral or religious strictures of its own. Instead, Ayah Pin, whose real name is Ariffin Mohamad, says members can follow any religion they like. He claims that all prayers will be answered by none other than himself, because he is God.

"All religions are basically the same," says Ayah Pin. "God teaches love. He is for anyone who wants to know about the world. You can choose whichever religion you want."

The Sky Kingdom is said to be a version of similar structures found in the sky. But the structures in the sky are apparently more aesthetically pleasing since they are decorated with diamonds, sapphires, and other gemstones. The teapot represents purity of water. There is a vase to accept water flowing from the teapot. The vase is said to have healing properties, and the giant umbrella is a place for people to take shelter beneath God.

God is, indeed, great...

(h/tip to the Malaysian Star for the story...)

A Mosque? Not in my back yard!

With the race to unseat Obama in the upcoming Presidential elections in the States, it's really good to know that all the candidates support the right to freedom of religion set down in the constitution.

Republican hopeful, Herman Cain, for example has been criticised - quite rightly - for supporting the views of a bunch of local residents in Murfreesboro near Nashville, Tennessee who don't want a new Islamic Centre built in their back yards.

There have been a number of protest by Christians who say they do not want Muslims worshiping nearby. Former Godfathers' (sic) Pizza boss Cain supports them, insisting that his views do not amount to religious discrimination because the Muslims are trying to inject Shariah law into the USA.

He goes on "They are using the Church part of the first amendment to infuse their Mosque in that community and the people do not like it." Well, that's what the first amendment is for, isn't it?

Well, I'm an Englishman so I do not profess to be an expert on the US constitution. I also know that in the States there are areas where there are strong Christian communities that you cross at your peril, but it does seem to me that in the land that holds itself out to be the beacon of liberty, this man would not really make a great President?

A Mosque? Not in my back yard!

With the race to unseat Obama in the upcoming Presidential elections in the States, it's really good to know that all the candidates support the right to freedom of religion set down in the constitution.

Republican hopeful, Herman Cain, for example has been criticised - quite rightly - for supporting the views of a bunch of local residents in Murfreesboro near Nashville, Tennessee who don't want a new Islamic Centre built in their back yards.

There have been a number of protest by Christians who say they do not want Muslims worshiping nearby. Former Godfathers' (sic) Pizza boss Cain supports them, insisting that his views do not amount to religious discrimination because the Muslims are trying to inject Shariah law into the USA.

He goes on "They are using the Church part of the first amendment to infuse their Mosque in that community and the people do not like it." Well, that's what the first amendment is for, isn't it?

Well, I'm an Englishman so I do not profess to be an expert on the US constitution. I also know that in the States there are areas where there are strong Christian communities that you cross at your peril, but it does seem to me that in the land that holds itself out to be the beacon of liberty, this man would not really make a great President?

Matchings and Despatchings

Earlier last week with a great flurry on the BBC Breakfast programme, the CofE announced that it was going to put up the costs of weddings and funerals held in their - sorry, in God's - churches by as much as 50%. This would bring the cost of a church wedding up to £425. The cost of a funeral would rise from £102 to £150.

The reason for this is, apparently, that the church want to standardise the fees and get rid of what has been described as a 'Ryanair' charging system.

'Hidden' extras at weddings can include £100 for the Verger (even though under CofE rules this expense is supposed to be included in the basic fee), £100 for a choir, £100 for bellringers, £150 for an organist and even £70 to thank parishioners for arranging the flowers!

Administrative fees and charges for costs such as heating are also officially forbidden, but sometimes asked for. In all, these charges can mean a couple face a bill of close to £1,000 for the church.

Now bringing this all down to a standard all inclusive fee would, on the face of it, seem to be a sensible move, but the Synod has rejected the plan on the basis that it would penalise poorer families - although it was proposed that there would be exceptions made for the less well off. Whether it would have been practical for the church to means test families is another issue...

So at the end of the day the plan was rejected.

This decision, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that the cash strapped church makes £35 million a year from matchings and despatchings...

Matchings and Despatchings

Earlier last week with a great flurry on the BBC Breakfast programme, the CofE announced that it was going to put up the costs of weddings and funerals held in their - sorry, in God's - churches by as much as 50%. This would bring the cost of a church wedding up to £425. The cost of a funeral would rise from £102 to £150.

The reason for this is, apparently, that the church want to standardise the fees and get rid of what has been described as a 'Ryanair' charging system.

'Hidden' extras at weddings can include £100 for the Verger (even though under CofE rules this expense is supposed to be included in the basic fee), £100 for a choir, £100 for bellringers, £150 for an organist and even £70 to thank parishioners for arranging the flowers!

Administrative fees and charges for costs such as heating are also officially forbidden, but sometimes asked for. In all, these charges can mean a couple face a bill of close to £1,000 for the church.

Now bringing this all down to a standard all inclusive fee would, on the face of it, seem to be a sensible move, but the Synod has rejected the plan on the basis that it would penalise poorer families - although it was proposed that there would be exceptions made for the less well off. Whether it would have been practical for the church to means test families is another issue...

So at the end of the day the plan was rejected.

This decision, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that the cash strapped church makes £35 million a year from matchings and despatchings...

Courts to decide Catholic abuse liability

Is the Roman Catholic church liable if it's priests commit acts of sexual abuse?

That's the question which is being tested in the High Court which has been asked to decide if the relationship between a bishop and his priests is the same as that between employer and employee.

The case arose after a woman brought a case against the diocese of Portsmouth, alleging that one of its priests had abused her while she was a resident at a Catholic children's home. The hearing will focus on the issue of corporate liability.

Her cousel argue that "In effect, priests are carrying out their working assigned to them by their bishop and furthering the cause of the diocese. He was dependent on the bishop to assign him a post and to control when he moved from one post to another and even to control when he was permitted to retire. The degree of control was, if anything, in excess of that in the typical employer/employee relationship."

If the answer is "yes, there is a relationship", then was the priest carrying out the actions complained of in circumstances that were "closely connected" with his role and/or work as a priest?

If the answer was "no" there would be "no circumstances where the Roman Catholic church is liable for the actions of one of its priests whether deliberate or careless and however closely connected those actions were to the role of priest".

The diocese denies liability and is defending itself against the claim. A ruling in its favour would mean the church could avoid paying compensation to victims of clerical sexual abuse.

( You can read more about this story in the Guardian by clicking here )

Courts to decide Catholic abuse liability

Is the Roman Catholic church liable if it's priests commit acts of sexual abuse?

That's the question which is being tested in the High Court which has been asked to decide if the relationship between a bishop and his priests is the same as that between employer and employee.

The case arose after a woman brought a case against the diocese of Portsmouth, alleging that one of its priests had abused her while she was a resident at a Catholic children's home. The hearing will focus on the issue of corporate liability.

Her cousel argue that "In effect, priests are carrying out their working assigned to them by their bishop and furthering the cause of the diocese. He was dependent on the bishop to assign him a post and to control when he moved from one post to another and even to control when he was permitted to retire. The degree of control was, if anything, in excess of that in the typical employer/employee relationship."

If the answer is "yes, there is a relationship", then was the priest carrying out the actions complained of in circumstances that were "closely connected" with his role and/or work as a priest?

If the answer was "no" there would be "no circumstances where the Roman Catholic church is liable for the actions of one of its priests whether deliberate or careless and however closely connected those actions were to the role of priest".

The diocese denies liability and is defending itself against the claim. A ruling in its favour would mean the church could avoid paying compensation to victims of clerical sexual abuse.

( You can read more about this story in the Guardian by clicking here )

C of E loses plot on gay bishops

The man in the tea cloth is at it again - this time in relation to whether or not gay men can be ordained as bishops!

Apparently it is OK  - but only if they are celibate. Now it's obvious that the Church doesn't really want gays at all, but the problem is the Equality Act means employers cannot discriminate against someone on the grounds of sexual orientation, but provides for a "genuine occupational requirement" to be imposed.

This effectively allows the Church to exclude someone in a sexually active civil partnership, or to impose a requirement relating to sexual orientation to "avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers".

How convenient!

Unfortunately this effectively means that if the person in question conceals his sexuality and just carries on on the quiet, he can be ordained - basically because he is lying. If, on the other hand, he is open and honest and enters into a civil partnership then he is excluded.

And in any case, how exactly is the Church going to establish celibacy. After all, the Catholics take a solemnly binding vow with God and it doesn't stop them!

Seems to me that stable, loving relationships should be encouraged regardless of the sex of the persons concerned. The law has moved on and it seems a shame the Church cannot.

The CoE has clearly lost it's moral compass on this one...

(You can read more about this story in the Express by clicking here)

C of E loses plot on gay bishops

The man in the tea cloth is at it again - this time in relation to whether or not gay men can be ordained as bishops!

Apparently it is OK  - but only if they are celibate. Now it's obvious that the Church doesn't really want gays at all, but the problem is the Equality Act means employers cannot discriminate against someone on the grounds of sexual orientation, but provides for a "genuine occupational requirement" to be imposed.

This effectively allows the Church to exclude someone in a sexually active civil partnership, or to impose a requirement relating to sexual orientation to "avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers".

How convenient!

Unfortunately this effectively means that if the person in question conceals his sexuality and just carries on on the quiet, he can be ordained - basically because he is lying. If, on the other hand, he is open and honest and enters into a civil partnership then he is excluded.

And in any case, how exactly is the Church going to establish celibacy. After all, the Catholics take a solemnly binding vow with God and it doesn't stop them!

Seems to me that stable, loving relationships should be encouraged regardless of the sex of the persons concerned. The law has moved on and it seems a shame the Church cannot.

The CoE has clearly lost it's moral compass on this one...

(You can read more about this story in the Express by clicking here)