davidould.net

non angelus, sed anglus!

Britain

stuff about GREAT Britain

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Another Ould!

Hurrah! I’m an uncle!
Yesterday the long-suffering Gayle Ould suffered a little bit more and produced Reuben Johannes Hugh (David?) Ould.

Everyone doing well. Here’s a quick video to prove it:

click here to leave a comment

Posted by David Ould on 05/11 at 11:27 AM
Personal | Britain | (0) Comments | (0) Trackbacks | Permalink

Saturday, May 03, 2008

Boris Wins

hurrah!!!

Boris and David Cameron

Boris Johnson has won the race to become the next mayor of London - ending Ken Livingstone’s eight-year reign at City Hall.

The Conservative candidate won with 1,168,738 first and second preference votes, compared with Mr Livingstone’s 1,028,966 on a record turnout.

He paid tribute to Mr Livingstone and appeared to offer him a possible role in his new administration.

Lib Dem Brian Paddick came third and the Greens’ Sian Berry came fourth.

Mr Johnson is expected to stand down as MP for Henley, triggering a by-election.

The Tories are on quite a roll…

click here to leave a comment

Posted by David Ould on 05/03 at 09:33 AM
Britain | Current affairs | (0) Comments | (0) Trackbacks | Permalink

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Manchester Report: Women Bishops in the CofE

The Church of England has released the long-awaited Manchester Report - it’s evaluation of what is required to move towards the consecration of women as bishops. At the moment the document is available as a series of word (.doc) files.

The big questions addressed are

What legislative changes are required?
What provisions are necessary for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops, nor those that they ordain?

Women bishops are all but inevitable in the CofE and so the report, in its own words…

seeks to move the debate on from the ‘whether’ to the ‘how’.

Readers can go check out the meat of the report here (.doc file). The legislative changes are pretty standard stuff. The really thorny question which the group has grappled with is how to deal with conscientious objectors. This, however, raises its own issues:

12 ...there was a great deal of perplexity over how this could be done in a way which (a) had ecclesiological integrity; (b) left space within the Church of England for those who in conscience could not accept the priestly or episcopal ministry of women; and (c) avoided any flavour of discrimination or half-heartedness on the part of the Church of England towards women priests and bishops.

And there is the rub. As the group recognised, any move to have special arrangements for those who object may, in some way, indicate that the Church is not wholly committed to the matter. It’s a critical issue for,

22 ... far and away the most important question that the Church of England now has to face is the extent to which it wishes to continue to accommodate the breadth of theological views on this issue that it currently encompasses.

As an evangelical who could not accept the ministry of a woman bishop, the question is “do I still have a place in the Church?” And, if so, what does that place look like? We are not a small minority by any means. As the report itself notes the General Synod of 2006 had large numbers disagreeing with the statement:

The view of the majority of the House of Bishops that admitting women to the episcopate in the Church of England is consonant with the faith of the Church as the Church of England has received it and would be a proper development in proclaiming afresh in this generation the grace and truth of Christ.

22.5% of bishops, 23.9% of clergy and a whopping 35.6% of laity cannot agree with this move (para. 31, Manchester Report). What is to become of them? What place do they have?

I’m really grateful that the group recognised this massive issue and have made some steps towards solving it. Not least, they have recognised the need to have something for a lack of provision would provide great legal uncertainty (para. 60). Here’s what they suggest:

50. The three broad approaches are as follows:

the simplest possible statutory approach with no binding national arrangements;

legislation that would provide some basis for special arrangements for those unable to receive the ministry of women bishops, such arrangements to be made within the present structures of the Church of England; and

legislation that would create new structures within the Church of England for those unable to receive the ministry of women bishops.

...

90. [...] we have decided for the sake of simplicity to focus in this analysis on the structural solution that would involve the least innovation (though it would still involve quite a lot) in terms of the present structures of the Church of England. This is the approach that would involve the creation of a number of new, special dioceses, without a separate provincial structure.

Now, that quote obviously washes over a great deal of discussion of the alternates. The bottom line of the solution is this: not happy with your bishop? You can have another one. The advantage, the Report claims, is that this doesn’t require a new way of doing things, just a new diocese. That is certainly true and would cause the least disruption.

How would this work out for the dissenting portions? The Report makes some suggestions:

100. There are also some question marks arising from the differences between those who have difficulties over women’s ordination for reasons of sacramental theology and those whose position derives from a particular view of headship. For Catholics, issues concerning sacramental assurance and the collegiality of presbyters with their bishop are fundamental. As soon as the Church of England had admitted women to the College of Bishops many of them would find it necessary to be able to look to male bishops who had made it clear that they did not intend to ordain women to the presbyterate or participate in the consecration of women to the episcopate. If special dioceses had been created they would, therefore, petition to be part of it straight away.

101. For many Evangelicals, by contrast, the issues would be rather different. On headship grounds they might not be able to accept a female incumbent or direct oversight by a woman bishop. But, for so long as their incumbent was male, and the bishop providing oversight to them male, they would not necessarily see any compelling need to petition to move from the historic diocese, particularly if the special diocese was seen to have an ecclesial culture far removed from their own reformed convictions. It is perhaps partly for that reason that Conservative Evangelicals have put it to us that it would be crucial for one or more bishops within the new dioceses to be Evangelical. Whether that would in fact be sufficient to make the new structures stable is not entirely clear.

But this is not the whole of the matter. For how are clergy to relate to one another as women bishops begin to be ordained?

136. For many supporters of women’s ordination the crux of the current dilemma is whether any special arrangements for those who in conscience cannot receive the ministry of women bishops and priests would be tantamount to acknowledging a doubt on the part of the Church of England over the decision to ordain women as priests and bishops.

137. Moreover, since - irrespective of Canon A 4 - mutual recognition of orders has traditionally been one of the hallmarks of a Church, would it be tolerable to contemplate having within the Church of England people who retained doubts about each other’s orders? These have, of course, already been acute questions since 1994 in relation to women priests. They would assume even greater importance in relation to women bishops who would themselves be ordaining men and women to the priesthood.

This is, for me, the key issue. If I refuse to recognise the innovation then what will happen? Can I be considered truly Anglican? What will happen to my license, my orders?

138. This is undoubtedly one of the most difficult circles to square. Having pondered the matter carefully, we believe that any possible solution needs to incorporate the following elements:

a. A clear statement by the Church of England that, in admitting women into the episcopate, it is now fully committed to opening all orders of ministry to men and women;
b. An acceptance on the part of those who, theologically, cannot receive the ministry of women priests and bishops or those ordained by them that the Church of England has decided to admit men and women equally to holy orders and that those whom the Church has duly ordained and appointed to office are the lawful holders of the office which they occupy and thus deserve due respect and lawful obedience;
c. An acknowledgement by those in favour of women’s ordination that the theological convictions of those unable to receive the ordained ministry of women are within the spectrum of Anglican teaching and tradition and that those who hold them should, therefore, be able to receive pastoral and sacramental care in a way that is consistent with their convictions.

The Report goes on to be very clear what it means by “lawful”:

142. A formulation along these lines would go some way, we believe, to dispelling some of the confusion that currently exists in relation to the “validity of orders.” The ecclesiastical law of the Church of England does not admit any distinction between the lawfulness of an ordination and its validity. Thus, an ordination conducted fully in accordance with the various requirements of the Church of England as to matters such as qualifications of the candidate and of the ordaining minister and the rite employed, will take effect for all legal purposes.

143. It is not, therefore, open to any person, whether or not a member of the Church of England, to question the validity of the ordination in legal terms. The fact that some may doubt whether women may, sacramentally, be priests and bishops and/or exercise headship is a separate matter from calling into question whether, as a matter of law, the ordinations are valid.

Here, I think, is the great problem. The Report wishes me to recognise a distinction between the “lawful” and “sacramental” (whatever we understand by that word, and Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals will have some disagreement). I’m not sure that I can. Rather, it seems to me that for an ordination or consecration to be “lawful” it must also be “sacramental”. We would not (and do not) agree to this distinction with respect to Gene Robinson’s consecration. It is a stretch to suggest that since it was carried out in good order and according to the laws that I must, even in a limited way, recognise it as valid.

Now, this does not mean that we cannot respect those persons. I can well imagine having a diocesan bishop who is a woman and being very happy to abide by her administrative requests and procedures, to have her round for a meal to get to know her better, and so on. But I could not recognise her as a “bishop” in any sense other than as a courtesy and, surely, the proposed canons will require more of me.

Now, granted, the Report would make a provision for me to become part of a new diocese. I would in effect, have 2 bishops, albeit with 2 different relationships. Nevertheless,

149. We believe that an essential part of the effort “to maintain the highest degree of communion with those conscientiously unable to receive the ministry of women bishops” is to be accommodating on the subject of the duty and oath of canonical obedience and to provide for two separate duties, and possibly two oaths, one to each of the bishops in respect of that bishop’s functions.

150. We regard this dual allegiance as important both in substance and symbolically, and we recommend that if one of the approaches canvassed in this chapter is adopted, then work should proceed on the formulation of two distinct duties and oaths with consequential amendments to the relevant Canons.

So here is my dilemma. Even if I were to join a new diocese, what oath would I be required to swear in substance to my former diocesan? Surely not one that bent my conscience? But the Report, unless I have misread it, insists that I must recognise the canonical validity of the consecration.

And what if I don’t want to join a new diocese? What if I love the diocese that I’m currently in? Why must I move when others have changed? I don’t want to appear picky here but it really does seem that, ultimately, I will be forced to move in some way - once again finding that despite my theological position having not changed one iota, the playing field has and I am no longer on the centre spot where I thought I stood but somewhere near the touchline.

And there is another issue that the Report nodded to but didn’t address:

24 ...Full communion and collegiality within the House and College of Bishops has up to now been a central plank in Anglican ecclesiology. The prospect of a House of Bishops where there would no longer be full communion and collegiality between its members does, therefore, raise new and difficult issues.

As we noted above, almost a quarter of the House of Bishops could not agree to the measure. What is to become of them? Must they now be forced to acknowledge the validity of the consecration of their women colleagues? Collegiality is a big thing for the English House of Bishops, moreso certainly than TEC at this current time. Who do bishops go to for alternate arrangements? Will they be allowed to not recognise the place of the female bishop opposite them? There is certainly more work to be done here.

The Report closes:

165. Nevertheless, as will have been clear from this report, the Church of England now faces some very serious decisions. They go to the heart of what sort of Church it wishes to be. Far better that those issues are faced calmly, honestly and prayerfully now than that the Synod should set off down a road which may, ultimately, fail to command sufficient consensus.

The problem is that the Church of England does not have sufficient consensus. It is gratifying that the Report calls us all to take this very seriously but more than contemplation is required to make this work. It could be that those of us who protest are the main problem. But then, it could be that the real problem is requiring orthodox Christians to accept an unbiblical move. It may be that the innovation itself is what has brought us to this point of division.

click here to leave a comment

Thursday, April 24, 2008

dinner

It’s school holidays here at the moment and so our bible study group had a social night - extended seafood dinner. Various dishes; fish pie, mussels, squid etc were produced and a good time had by all.

One of the best things about this sort of evening is that you get to know each other a little better. Perhaps the best discovery was that Will can do this…

click here to leave a comment

Thursday, April 17, 2008

The Pope and the PM

big Benny and dubya its all too much for Gordon

Both Pope Benedict XVI and the UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown are visiting the US at the moment. As Cranmer points out, one of them is doing a far better job than the other…

If a picture speaks a thousand words, this juxtaposition is worth a thesis.

There is little more to be said. His Holiness is radiant and enthusing his audience; the epitome of courtesy and diplomacy. The Prime Minister is dull and patronising; and sufficiently discourteous to fall asleep during a UN meeting.

How one longs for a prime minister of standing, distinction, esteem, brilliance, influence…

Readers will know that I am no fan of the Pope, principally because of what he stands for. But let them be assured of this - he has one very strong thing going for him…

He’s not Gordon Brown

click here to leave a comment

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

other old favourites

It’s not just Jeeves and Wooster that I like. There’s a bunch of good British dramas of that period that also appeal. Not least, these 2 great Agatha Christie productions. First, Miss Marple with Jane Hickson playing the leading role. Miss Marple was always the more gentile detective and Hickson stole the show.

For me the opening titles are really important. They either transport one into the mood or they don’t. In this case see what you think…

I’ve just realised why this works for me. A couple of nights ago I sat with Charis reading to her from ”The Faraway Tree” by Enid Blyton. Blyton describes a comfortable world that doesn’t quite exist. Aside from Enchanted Woods and the like, we have kids by the name of “Dick” and “Fanny”. It’s just the right side of not real.

And Miss Marple is, I reckon, Blyton for grown-ups - at least the way that the BBC presented it. The village of St Mary Mead could quite easily be down the road from Kirrin Island.

Speaking of titles, the opening of Poirot (also from Christie) does an equally fine job of evoking a certain feel. This time rather than the dainty oboe for very English Miss Marple, we have a sultry sax for the Belgian Poirot. See what you think:

click here to leave a comment

Posted by David Ould on 04/16 at 03:06 PM
Personal | Britain | (0) Comments | (1) Trackbacks | Permalink

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

British cuisine at its finest

click here to leave a comment

Posted by David Ould on 04/15 at 06:23 PM
Britain | Silly | (0) Comments | (0) Trackbacks | Permalink

Monday, April 14, 2008

into the playoffs?

It’s an outside chance, but Sheffield United‘s recent run of form means they might now squeak into the playoffs.

A 2-1 win on Saturday has us tantalisingly short. Here’s what the Manager, Kevin Blackwell, has to say:

We’ve got to believe we have a chance of getting into the play-offs.

We’ve got to win every game, I’m well aware of that, but where we are now is a much more respectable position than where we were eight weeks ago.

We’re on everybody’s coat tails and I just wish we had four more games than we have.

One big final push and it will be time to sing again...

click here to leave a comment

Monday, April 07, 2008

Proud to be British

a golden moment I’m proud to be British today.

Yesterday London hosted the Olympic Torch. It was taken through the city by a number of the great and the good.

But that’s not what made me proud.

That, in fact, has made me rather ashamed to be British. Ashamed that the United Kingdom has done nothing substantial to protest about China’s handling of the recent protests in Tibet. Ashamed that the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has done nothing to express his disapproval of those actions. Instead, he stood there with the Olympics minister, Tessa Jowell, silently. For shame.

The BBC records the ongoing debate in the UK:

[Liberal Democrat Leader Nick] Clegg told the BBC on Sunday it was a “mistake” for Mr Brown to be involved with the torch ceremony and Britain had to be clear with the Chinese authorities that they needed to “play by the rules”.

“The cornerstone of those international rules is that we all respect those fundamental human rights to which we, the British, have always attached a great deal of significance,” he said.

“And that’s why it’s wholly inappropriate that Gordon Brown is participating in this torch bearing ceremony today.”

It’s quite staggering when one finds oneself siding with the Liberal Democrats. It seems I am not the only one:

Labour former minister Kate Hoey told the BBC the passage of the torch through London was a “complete farce” and said Gordon Brown had been “very, very mild” with China over its actions in Tibet.

“He’s not even coming out publicly and saying ‘I think what China has done inside Tibet is abhorrent’. He has got to do that. I am absolutely appalled by this,” she said.

But Olympics minister Tessa Jowell told the BBC: “It is absolutely not an endorsement of the Chinese government or any of the aspects of the Chinese government that in this country we find completely unacceptable.”

Which is, of course, naive at best for the Chinese know very well that this is a huge propoganda game and every single politician around the world who stands silent is a silent endorsement of their barbaric actions.

Conservative leader David Cameron later told Sky News: “I suppose the pictures tell a story which is that people in our country do have a right to peacefully protest - and that is absolutely right and people who feel they want to protest should feel able to do so, but they shouldn’t break the law.”

So why is this entry entitled “Proud to be British”? Well, because when the British protest they do so in unique and clever ways. The picture at the top of the entry is of protesters attempting to put out the Olympic Torch with a fire extinguisher!

Genius, pure genius. Makes me proud.

click here to leave a comment

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

BBC announcer has fit of giggles live on air

great little story...

Radio 4 news hit by giggling fit
Hundreds of listeners have contacted BBC Radio 4 after newsreader Charlotte Green dissolved into giggles while reading a bulletin on Today.

She lost control after playing a clip of the oldest known recording of the human voice.

Presenter James Naughtie intervened as she struggled to tell listeners about the death of screenwriter Abby Mann.

“I’m afraid I just lost it, I was completely ambushed by the giggles,” said Green.

She admitted a similar giggling fit besieged her about 10 years ago, also on the Today programme.

“I did feel slightly embarrassed, knowing I have this reputation that I am prone to getting the giggles,” she said.

“People have been very sweet and everyone has been coming up to me said how much it has cheered up their Friday morning.”

Today’s editor, Ceri Thomas, said most listeners who contacted the show had commented on “how much they had enjoyed the moment”.

He added: “When Charlotte loses it, she really loses it.”

Green’s hysterical outburst started after a studio member remarked that the 1860 recording of a woman singing the French song Clair de Lune sounded like a “bee buzzing in a bottle”.

Later on in the programme Green’s fit of the giggles was repeated as presenter Ed Stourton remarked they had been besieged with calls begging them to play it again.

“Apparently the BBC press office is in meltdown with calls about it,” he said.

“We hope that the family of Abby Mann will understand that it obviously wasn’t intended as any slight towards him.”

And, of course, here’s a recording of the incident. It’s brilliant:

click here to leave a comment

Page 1 of 8 pages 1 2 3 > Last »

Statistics

This page has been viewed 113990 times
Page rendered in 1.6358 seconds
Total Entries: 735
Total Comments: 3903
Total Trackbacks: 837
Most Recent Entry: 05/11/2008 07:29 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/09/2008 09:47 pm
Total Members: 4
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 28
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/17/2008 12:16 am
The most visitors ever was 96 on 07/01/2007 09:30 am