Lambeth Diary: 'When did you last beat your wife, Bishop?'

Context counts for so much. New York suffragan bishop is pictured here, speaking at the daily Episcopal Church briefing. The subject was domestic violence. Our resulting story is here. We also report today on Cardinal Kasper's address yesterday to the bishops, in which he said any hope of Rome recognising Anglican orders was 'finally at an end.' A translation of the speech in full can now be read here.

You would think from this picture that anyone who took on British Catherine would be brave or foolish. But you would be wrong. Scroll on down.

As this picture by George Coner shows, Bishop Catherine is tiny. Any man or bishop who hurt this or any other woman would be despicable in his cowardice.

We report today what Bishop Catherine said to a journalist from The Lambeth Witness, the daily journal from Integrity.

This is a text of the report:

Why do men beat women? Because they can. That comment by a victim of gender violence shocked and focused Bishop Catherine Roskam, (Diocese of New York, USA). “Violence against women, and violence against children for that matter, is violence against the defenseless. With women, it goes hand-in-hand with misogyny,” Roskam said. In two trips to Sudan with her diocese’s ongoing relationship with the Diocese of Bor, Bishop Cate Waynick (Indianapolis USA) learned what a visitor can about gender violence as a cruel companion to warfare and genocide. But even more sinister and pervasive is the terror that is fueled by lack of education and access to power, exacerbated by the weight of what male-dominated cultures will tolerate.

In many places, Waynick said, “there is a sense that beating children, and perhaps women, is necessary in order to provide correction for someone.” It is part of social ordering that keeps people - and specifically
women—in line, with deadly consequences. “What I observed in going into villages was that women had babies in their arms with syphilis sores. And they don’t know what is causing that. The women are kept in ignorance. They are told that this is something caused by insect bites or by something in the water. They
are not given the truth: that this is a sexually transmitted disease, that it can be fatal for them and their children, and that there are ways to protect themselves,” Waynick said.

In all three dioceses – Indiana, Bor, and Brasília—Waynick has witnessed the link between gender violence and the economic vulnerability of women. “In Sudan, the women do not have access to the kind of training that will help them become economically stable,” Waynick said. “In Brazil, it is the generalized poverty and economic [challenge] that always falls harder on women. In the cities, there is prostitution and the violence that goes with it.”

“Economic downturn increases violence toward women,” Roskam added, “but you also find violence against women in the richest of households. You can’t say it’s only the poor who do it.”

“Violence is done in many ways,” said Bishop Gayle Harris (Massachusetts, USA). “Emotional scars can come from physical abuse but the scars that are emotional are always worse than any
scars on the body.”

The three bishops agree that raising the issue as partners in the Anglican Communion is essential—and that most likely the concern would not have surfaced but for the growing witness of women among the
male bishops of the Anglican Communion.

Roskam said: 'We have 700 men here. Do you think any of them beat their wives? Chances are they do. The most devout Christians beat their wives... many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife. In that regard, it makes conversation quite difficult.'

Riazat's take on this is excellent. She writes:

Delegates at Canterbury have been upset at her suggestion that bishops beat their wives, with some saying it is impossible for a man of the cloth even to consider such a thing. But this counterclaim is equally ridiculous: holy orders are no bar to perpetrating violence against others.

What bishops should be more concerned about is her insinuation that a non-white culture leads to domestic violence and that white, western culture is too civilised and too advanced to allow such atrocities to occur. Roskam fails to recognise that domestic violence affects people regardless of their class, ethnicity, religion, gender or geography.

She takes this futher in a later analysis.

I was blessed to run into the Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu when out looking for comment on all this yesterday. He was out looking for his wife Margaret.

He told me: 'I have never beaten my wife, although I can't talk about other people. There is a danger of stereotyping people because of the culture they come from and assuming they must surely be doing it. Another thing is the throwing up of ghosts and aunt Sallies which become very divisive. Does she mean Africa, Asia or England? As far as Africa is concerned, she needs to be wary of the damage that has been done by [Bishop] Spong and his twelve theses."

[The retired Bishop Spong declared in his theses that Christianity must change or die, and that every central Christian doctrine, including theism, Christ's divinity, the Virgin  Birth and the Resurrection, was impossible and must be redefined. He was also forced to apologise at the last Lambeth Conference after implying that African religion was based on superstition.]

Dr Sentamu said: 'I hope Bishop Catherine has got figures and numbers and people. Because if not, she is in danger of causing unnecessary rumpus. Also what I find very difficult is this guilt bu association. Because you are a man, surely you must be responsible for beating your wife. You have to be extremely careful. Just as it is quite wrong for people from Africa to make assumptions about all of The Episcopal Church, so people should stop putting labels on members of their family without evidence.'

Comments

[Malcolm+]

Obviously you're having trouble following rational discourse, "saint." I'll try to type more slowly.

"Chances are."

That is a significant phrase, "saint."

"Chances are.

As to the other point, "many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally acceptable to beat your wife" is simply a statement of fact. It does not inherently follow that the HYPOTHETICAL abusers who MIGHT be present therefore MUST be from among those bishops.

Bishop Roskam was very clear that she had seen examples of domestic abuse in all societies at all income levels.

But perhaps that's just another one of those pesky facts that get in the way of your incoherent screeds.

[George Parr]

Curiouser and curiouser Saint... Have you spent your entire life making assunptions? Assumptions about other people; how old they are, the colour of their hair, how they cope, what they think, what their rationale is, etc. etc.

There you are, defining everyone else from your one perspective, with an innate ability to decide how long others should spend - of all things - blogging! So why are you here?

You are hilarious Saint, unopposed 'fodder for mirth'! You wrongly define what you presume is a crusade, which you criticise and dismiss as pointless and then deliver the ususal dogmatic rhetoric beloved of Christians worldwide! Ho! Ho! Ho!

Tell me about your despair and I will tell you mine?

Polycarp of Smyrna? One surviving text - Letter to the Phillipians.

Wild assumptions, the usual presumptions and rote-learnt rudery.

Why do YOU bother? The world doesn't need 'saving' 'Saint'; but it is made considerably worse by religious obsessives, who avoid personal responsibility by supernatural outsourcing, whilst busily interfering with everyone else.

OK, we've all heard the guilt and fear plan for saving your own arses. Now try living in the present?

[Kate]

"Or do you count yourself and your kids more worthy of living, having some superior right to life than all those nasty promiscuous Africans that you carry on about?"

Saint I have already replied to a similar question of yours on 'Pastoral forum' thread. One can only compare like with like.

Africa, of which you so approve, condemns its children from birth to abuse and deprivation.

A culture of violence which conservatives, tactically, ignore; despite all statistical and documented evidence - even from Africans.

On BBC Thought For The Day, journalist Clifford Longley mused: "African culture has always lacked a developed sense of common humanity", before going on to say that Africa suffered from a propensity to "turn to massacre and genocide".

Dear God! Hear the conservative screams. No genocide has ever occurred in Africa! The mass murders in Rwanda, the Congo, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and countless other African countries are actually the fault of the West. People like me!

Indeed. Longley's "insensitive comments" led to the BBC's Black and Asian Forum complaining that this was "racist and xenophobic" as well as 'hurting people's feelings'.

Just one flaw -- Longley was actually quoting a NIGERIAN theologian. Woops...

[David Cohen]

Your latest waffle, Malcolm, neatly avoids what Roskam actually said.

Roskam said: 'We have 700 men here. Do you think any of them beat their wives? Chances are they do. The most devout Christians beat their wives... many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife.

Which places was she referring to?

She did not say that it was a statistical possibility that might apply to any of the bishops present: but to

places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife.

She knew what she meant. The African bishops knew what she meant. The reporters knew what she meant.

Strangely, you don't.

[Malcolm+]

Actually, "saint," in my secular work I do spend some amount of time doing certain types of statistical analysis. No statistician, certainly. But then, your grasp of statistics seems to be pulled right out of your nether regions.

It is entirely possible that not a single individual at Lambeth has ever perpetrated an act of domestic violence. Possible, but highly unlikely, given that (depending on the study) between 10 and 30% of male adults have done so.

That is not an accusation against any individual. It is merely an observation about probabilities.

It WOULD be a statistical fallacy to say that, based on X study of domestic violence one may conclude that y number of men at Lambeth have committed acts of domestic violence. Would the y individuals please come forward. There would be a number of problems with such a statement, including a) it does not allow for natural statistical variance and b) it incorrectly assumes that the 700+ men at Lambeth are a random sample of the world's men.

But it is perfectly logical for someone with even a moderate grasp of both statistics and reality (neither of which seem to be in your posession) that, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely that there were men at the Lambeth Conference who had perpetrated such acts.

The rest of your post is, like most everything you write, a raging, blustering ad hominem with a soupcon of ad absurdum and a healthy dose of things you've made up whole cloth.

In other words, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[saint]

Dear Kate, one more time with feeling.
It's not all about you. Not everyone in your cohort was a hippy, no matter how broadly you define it, unless you want to own up to being part of that destructive minority in your part of the world.

I note that you are extremely proud of your children, which is fantastic to hear. As I said on the other thread to you, do you expect me to see you as threatening world security? Or do you count yourself and your kids more worthy of living, having some superior right to life than all those nasty promiscuous Africans that you carry on about?

Maybe you do need to rethink that grammar school education after all.

[saint]

Or are you now trying to convince somebody, in accordance with the staggeringly erudite Australian notion of associating grey hair with wisdom and respect, that either of your posts concerning Bishop Roskam demonstrate this in any way?

Clearly you missed the part about being white-haired and a fool George. I'm guessing that's because you have white hair like Roskam.

You do not know what coping mechanisms I possess

Clearly I do not. I can only surmise not many, given how much time you spend on a blog about religion trying to convince everyone you really are OK - indeed better than anyone else - because you have no religion but yourself.

And that my friend, is the saddest thing about you. To expend all that effort, all that energy, to carry the heavy burden of saving the world, all alone, only to know that your personal crusade won't make a jot or tittle of difference.

God is not dependant on you George. He is not threatened by what you say, do or think; nothing you can say, do or think will thwart Him. In the time I write this comment even more people have responded to His call. He still calls. He still calls you. And waits for you, patiently.
But for how long even you do not know.

On the day Polycarp of Smyrna was led to his martyrdom he was given the opportunity to save his life by reviling Christ, to which he famously replied:

Eighty and six years have I served Him and He has done me no wrong. How then can I speak evil of my King who saved me?

That testimony has been echoed by millions upon millions upon millions throughout history who know Christ: "He has done me no wrong."

And yet here you are, George, all alone with your coping mechanisms, on a blog, shaking your fist at the God who will do you no wrong, in a futile effort to save the world from Him. While you can't even save yourself.

[George Parr]

Ho! Ho! Saint, your explosive commentary on aging is neither here nor there; its only relevance in your original post was to signal an inability to be unable to discuss anything without being disrespectful or 'taking the piss'. Or are you now trying to convince somebody, in accordance with the staggeringly erudite Australian notion of associating grey hair with wisdom and respect, that either of your posts concerning Bishop Roskam demonstrate this in any way?

Your amazing revelations over the human attitude to personal mortality are banalities of the most pedestrian kind.

You do not know what coping mechanisms I possess. Equally, you have no idea whether or not Malcolm or I possess a sense of humour. My attempts at satire on other threads clearly failed to impress you - sorry about that. Your innate rush to judge others however, simply through the restrictive medium of posting on a religious blog, says a lot.

It might help you to know that I am uninterested in 'dishing it out' and quite indifferent to how others, particularly religionist obsessives respond.

Your idiomatic post appears replete with soundbites, pseudo-psychology, contrived imaginings, self-fashioning and indicators of how streetwise you consider yourself to be. Moreover, your false one-dimensional claptrap appears to possess a built-in irrelevance which, for me, displays neither intelligence nor curiosity.
If you are interested in identifying other human beings you can take the piss out of Saint - loosely euphemised as 'fodder for mirth', I shall presume that you are sadly limited in that you regard it as a worthy or worthwhile undertaking.

Please feel perfectly free to define others through your own beliefs; although that doesn't make rational sense. Most atheists, non-believers, or humanists would not relate to it.

Thanks for letting me know how you feel. Don't bother to respond to any more of my posts. I really couldn't care less. The pleasure has been all mine etc.

[Kate]

Saint: 'British education'. A thing of the past, I agree. However, you 'gloss'. I said MY generation (those "ageing hippies" you despise) benefited from the Grammar Schools.

In today's Britain, unless one is willing to bankrupt oneself, there is little hope for future generations. 'All shall have prizes'!!

However, we did - bankrupt ourselves - ergo nine graduates, all making a meaningful contribution to society.

My 'point' is: generalisations are meaningless and prone to alienate; it is a simple fact that crude, derogatory speech does not earn RESPECT; the 'cause' is lost somewhere in waves of invective.

[saint]

By the way Malcolm , while I would suggest, for the sake of the church, that you give up your day job I do suggest you don't try pretending you are a statistician or that you understand how stats work.

But feel free, as Sentamu suggested, to name names. If you can't you are making groundless accusations. In which case, look in the mirror and cry slander or something.

[saint]

It would seem that you George - so quick to dish it out on this blog yet so sensitive when anyone returns the favour - are unable to cope with the reality that all of us age, some people are old and yes you too, one day will die. Indeed, it seems that in your world, using the word "aging" is a crime. So let me guess: having a problem dealing with your own mortality their son?

Life's tough without God isn't it. Deal with it.

In my culture (and given I'm an Aussie, I'll let you guess which one that is), grey hair commands respect; older people are sought for their life experience and wisdom. But that itself is not because of their grey hair alone. It's because people value wisdom, and people seek wisdom and wish to pass something of value onto the next generation and because the next generation itself values such life experience and wisdom and wishes to learn from the older generation.

But you can still be white-haired and a fool. Or young and stupid.

And you will be called what you are.

What is even more hysterically funny and makes you and Malcolm such fodder for mirth, is that both of you have no sense of humour, no imagination and can't cope with any colour...for all you two are the types that hyperventilate over literalist fundamentalist Christians, albeit for different reasons, you both are far worse than even the most extreme Christian fundie one is ever going to come across.

Malcolm for example, thinks me taking the piss, is being racist or something.

I can only imagine how Malcom plus size deals with lectionary readings from the prophets. Fancy Malcolm chokding as he reads, God through Amos, calling women "cows of Bashan" - effectively "fat cows" - a description that would be appropriate for a fair portion of our tyranical western feminista sistas today.

I wonder what Malcolm would do with John the Baptist addressing the crowd as a "brood of vipers" or Paul suggesting certain men should go castrate themselves.

Heaven forbid Jesus calling the scribes and Pharisees whitewashed tombs, blind guides and children of hell who make others twice the children of hell that they are.

If Jesus was around saying that today, Malcolm would have him up before the Canadian kangaroo courts of the CHRC crying "my feelings are hurt" or lodging vexatious libel suites crying "slander!" and "Pharisaism!" and then be baying with the crowds for Jesus to be publically crucified. He'd be there driving the nails in I'm sure.

Or do you think Malcolm would, unlike Jesus' contemporaries, recognize Jesus? Reckon you would?

Reckon Malcolm would be the sort of Pharisee who would come creeping to Jesus asking what He must do to be saved, what did Jesus mean by being born from above?

Malcolm, asking for an explanation? Or Malcolm tying millstones around people's necks?

Malcolm can tell you what you think, will dictate to you what you should think, and police your every intention. I'm going for Malcolm Millstone. That plus sign stands for jumbo size.

P.S. Kate, did I address you? Did I address any woman here? Well unless you think George and Malcolm count.

But while I have your attention, it's likely a 'pity' to you that most westerners, male and female, Anglican or otherwise are educated - very well educated if you live down here. (It's only elitist snobs like Schori who think Anglicans are better educated and have less children then oh, say "Cathlicks"). And given what I read about British education these days I wouldn't be bragging about it either. (That's the legacy of the aging hippies again: no sensibilities, just promoting hypersensitivity...).

But what exactly was your point.

I do however, congratulate you for raising nine children - you are blessed to have had so many.

[Malcolm+]

"Yay Georgy George Parr. Looky looky at picture. Them's grey colour of the hair. Yes she no nubile bwana. No chillun left in her. She like to pretend hip-hop gangsta like, and still living in 60s. But she old. One day pushing up daisies. One day, should the Lord tarry, you pushing up daisies too. Huggy huggy. Yo."

It says a great deal, Saint, that you find minstrel show racist diatribe to be amusing.

It also says a great deal that you find fault with facts - the FACT that a gathering of 700+ men is unlikely to be free of domestic violence and the FACT that bishops come from cultures in which attitudes to domestic violence vary.

Given your affection for racist claptrap and your contempt for truth, I can only presume what \i have long expected.

[Kate]

'Saint': "...You're probably another one of those aging hippies or their spawn ...."

Perhaps such discourse as yours is seen as 'manly' in Australia 'Saint'. Here in Ireland it is regarded as the language of the gutter.

I, being of that generation you despise as a monolith, have reared nine children - six of them boys.

Were any one of my (now adult) sons to speak of ANY woman (or indeed any HUMAN BEING) as you do across this blog - sexual innuendo and contempt - I would know I had failed as a mother and a teacher; that the communion in which they were nurtured had failed in carrying Christ's message.

It's likely a 'pity', from your point of view, that a great number of western Anglicans (including women) have been educated to actually 'think' for themselves. Were they not, the bullying intemperance of so many here would surely win the day. BUT, thanks be to God for the grammar schools!!

Intelligence, as a poster pointed out on another thread, has little to do with academic degrees or even rote learning of immutable text; it is grounded in natural curiosity, the need to question, examine, and reach rational conclusions.

It requires that 'givens' be challenged and informed choices made. It is as far away from rigid value systems, rudeness and bombast as Canterbury is from Akinola.

[George Parr]

Keep it up Saint! You are doing wonders for the cause of rationalism. Few would deny however that your own approach leaves something to be desired in polite company. (You may have difficulty understanding this concept however...)

Does your argument surround the idea that since death is inevitable all discussions are pointless, or are you implying that women who can no longer bear children are unable to articulate a view...?

[Blair Radford]

Some jollity amid all the problems and, well, it is Saturday. Enjoy!

[saint]

William,

Roskam said:

'We have 700 men here. Do you think any of them beat their wives? Chances are they do. The most devout Christians beat their wives... many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife. In that regard, it makes conversation quite difficult.'

If despite her grey hair, she is still dumb enough to make such statements and not expect to be called on it, then perhaps both she - and you - should grow up and join the 21st century.

And that's right, the Bishop of Pittsburgh was troubled. And what did he do?

Well is this good?

The Bishop of Pittsburgh Robert Duncan, however, was nonplussed by the singing of a Buddhist chant at the close of the sermon and asked the conference organizers to provide a translation of the chant.

Subsequent inquiries made by the ReligiousIntelligence.com revealed that while the tune was that of a traditional Buddhist mantra from Ceylon, the words sung by Bishop de Chickera were a paean to the Trinity, calling upon God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for protection of those present.

Or bad?

In his sermon, the Bishop of Colombo, the Rt Rev Duleep de Chickera spoke of the need for social and political activism from the church. He also called for the Anglican Communion to “resuscitate the challenge of unity in diversity.”

That's right the church is only a tool for cause junkies who need to self-actualize. Norman Vincent Peale meet Dag Hammarskjöld. Bring your boyfriend.

“In Christ we are all equal,” Bishop de Chickera said, there is “space for all” within the Anglican Communion regardless of “colour, race, gender or sexual orientation.”

Nope. First will be last and last will be first. Many are called, few are chosen. Only One get's to do the picking.

The Anglican Communion must exercise its “prophetic voice” and be the “voice of the voiceless,” calling into “accountability those who abuse power.”

"Prophetic voice" is one of the code words for screaming loony lefties.

The bishop ended his sermon by offering a “Buddhist chant” in Sinhalese as a bell tolled in the background. A spokesman for the conference organizing committee stated Dr Williams had selected Bishop de Chickera to preach.

Williams of course, being a self-professed "hairy-lefty", and as ungroomed as the rest of them.

An advocate of Liberation Theology, last October Bishop de Chickera’s diocesan synod pledged to follow the path of Christian Socialism and foster “a synthesis between the teachings of Jesus and Karl Marx,” to become a “Jesus community with shared resources, shared decision-making, and shared activities.”

All hail Mr. Marx. Whose philosophies were taken up by the atheocracies of the 20th century, atheocracies which were responsible for the biggest blood-letting in recorded human history. Millions upon millions dead. Thousands upon thousands of Christians martyred in Russia alone.

No wonder you're not deeply troubled. You're probably another one of those aging hippies or their spawn who still own a Che Guevara t-shirt and think that murderous thug was some sort of hero.

[saint]

Yay Georgy George Parr. Looky looky at picture. Them's grey colour of the hair. Yes she no nubile bwana. No chillun left in her. She like to pretend hip-hop gangsta like, and still living in 60s.

But she old.

One day pushing up daisies.

One day, should the Lord tarry, you pushing up daisies too.

Huggy huggy. Yo.

[KM]

Oh, is that what you have to do to be snipped?

I always wondered.

[William]

Gentle readers,

Please note that my most recent post (2 Aug 2008 at 11:15:35) was cut by the Times editorial staff because of my criticism of Ms. Gledhill's reporting standards. You will note that the post contains the following [snip] and away my words went.

[George Parr]

"ageing let-me-play-the-race-card-hippy with daddy issues"

"A cookie-cutter loony lefty or as some Americans say, "another loopy lady bishop".

So no ageism, sexism or ad hominem there then! Just a charitable, even-handed and truly Christian approach from Saint who, apparently, is also able to decide for us all who to take seriously at the click of a mouse!

And the 'faithful' wonder why there is a credibility gap...

[William]

Dear Ruth,

Have you bothered to report on Bp. Catherine's statement to the bishops in which she addressed this and other articles by saying what she actually said....she did not say that African bishops beat their wives. Perhaps your journalistic ethics might stretch so far as to reporting her statement to the bishops and their responses....this sounds very much like the furor over the 'Buddhist Chant' at the opening Eucharist. Have your reported that it was actually a hymn to the Trinity in Sinhalese, the language of Sri Lanka, but because the Bishop of Pittsburgh doesn't speak Sinhalese, he concluded that it was Buddhist and was 'deeply troubled' by it. His 'deeply troubled'-ness was widely reported in conservative circles but NOT the truth of what the chant said. The same is true of the story about Bp Catherine.

[snip]

[Davep]

Ok, I understand what "beating the bishop" is a euphamism for. So what sexual perversion is "beating the bishop's wife" really about, then?

Andon't tell me you don't know. You Anglicans MUST know. You never stop talking about what consenting adults are getting up to behind their bedroom curtains.

[Rick Beekman]

Ruth;
The Thread question is;
"When did you last beat your wife Bishop"?

Bishop Says; "Let's see your Worhipship I beat her at Chess three out of Five nights last week. I beat her out of Bed everymorning..Beat her to the bath every morning..beat her to the bank to deposit my payroll check. Why am I not supposed to beat her? DUH! Oh yes And I still play "Beat it" from my Jacko CD! DUH!

[saint]

Roshkham is just another ageing let-me-play-the-race-card-hippy with daddy issues who thinks Jesus is her homie and Malcolm X is da bomb. Or something.

Google her up. There she is with all the usual suspects. A cookie-cutter loony lefty or as some Americans say, "another loopy lady bishop".

Given her own pews are empty, no reason for anyone else to take her seriously either.

[JCarlson]

To Jane Stranz:
You might actually want to have a look at the books you mention, and find out what the author means by "beat". I googled the author (Steve Ogan) and it would appear that (at least in the preview I could find) you are can "kill with kindness" as it were. Just a thought.

[Matthew Williams]

Who can deliver Bishop Roskam from the charge of racism? She has moved from a general problem that must be taken seriously, to a smearing assertion about a specific group of people, and her fellow bishops, no less. If she had any interest in encouraging people to address this very important issue, she would not start with alienating and accusing people because they belong to other countries - the very people who need to provide leadership on the issue in their contexts. Either she is using this issue for malicious point-scoring and is unconcerned about the results for the actual victims of domestic violence, or she is really not very smart - the sort of 'friend' victims of domestic violence could do without.

[jane stranz]

On domestic violence it's interesting that the Anglican churc in Kenya has a publiching house which publishes books called how to beat your wife, how ot beat your wife 2 (It also has how to beat your husband etc) scroll towards the bottom of this link
http://www.ackenya.org/uzima_press.htm

Clergy suffer from and perpetrate "domestic" violence and ratehr like sexual abuse the church tends not to speak out about it much. And as the Kenyan example shows - and I'm sure you could find similar examples in the UK or US - the church through the centuries has used traditional biblical interpretations to justify such violence - if women are lesser in sometheological way then they can be beaten...
Thanks for all your struggles against the lack of media access Ruth - my husband is also a journalist in Canterbury and it is driving him mad
Maybe if the communion is still around in 10 years it will be better

[Christopher Johnson]

It's a real bear when the **** forget their place, isn't it, MM?

[Lawrence]

Regarding Bishop Spong's being "forced to apologize" for his comments about African religion being highly superstitious, you may want to check his autobiography, in which he maintains that he did not apologize for the statement, and that he was furious with the church press for presenting his statement as an apology for his comments as opposed to regret for pain the comments caused.

[KM]

This is a really interesting issue and it exposes all sorts of fissures in the nature of what it means to be an Anglican and our ethnicity and gender.

It's odd, but I feel that both Roskam and Sentamu are making good points.

[Malcolm+]

So, what did the bishop say?

1. That in a group of 700+ men there is a strong chance that at least some of those men have perpetrated domestic violence.

Well, it is possible that the number is zero - and she left room for that possibility. Possible, but highly unlikely.

2. That some of those present come from cultures where domestic violence is seen as tolerable.

That is simply a fact.

Did she say that conservative bishops or African bishops are more likely to beat their wives?

No.

Did she say that there is no domestic violence in North America?

No.

Seems to me the most of the upset over her remarks is from misogynists who felt the comments were a little too close to the mark.

[Jamie MacNab]

Good evening, Ruth. I'm wondering when the Church of England is going to go out of its mind and come to its senses.

So the suffragan bishop of New York has done a mind experiment. Very cleverly, she has reasoned that, since it is men who beat wives, and since it is mainly married men who are currently bishops, then by hypothesis some bishops must be in the habit of beating their wives. Well, so far, so dull, as hypotheses go. Now we await the inquiry into what actually goes on the the real world.

But why wait for that inquiry? Why doesn't she home in at once on a far greater (by numbers) injustice that she could verify by mere reference to published facts? If she were to come to her senses, she could observe that some two-hundred-thousand unborn children are being summarily killed by their mothers every year in this country alone ; and most are killed for what is euphemistically called 'social reasons'.

Has any bishop (male or female) spoken out against this medical trade? Do any propose to do so?

Does any bishop have the yen to do a thought experiment on this? - in relation to women priests, for example?

[Neal in Dallas]

One study I ran across found that in America 32% of men in a homosexual relationship either abuse their spouses or are abused by their spouses. Might we infer that there is a one-in-three chance that +Gene Robinson is living in an abusive relationship as either abuser or abusee? That might be statistically correct, but the point would be . . .? And is it pertinent to anything?

[Robert Ian Williams]

A bit of trivia... John Wesley was regularly assaulted by his wife , who dragged him around the room by his hair. I kid you not.

It can work both ways you know..also nagging can be psychological bullying more hurtful than physical violence.

[Fr. Van Windsor]

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church came to Trinity Church, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, soon after her elevation (she had acted as Chief Consecrator of Larry Benfield as our bishop the day before, Saturday, January 6, Epiphany). The Church was packed, and all gathered were impressed with her sermon, and with her ability to seemingly take time with everyone before and after the service to listen. She is intelligent, with a great sense of humor. We were honored to have her here. And even though we are considered very conservative (old-line Prayer Book Catholic) parish, with some still opposed to the ordination of women, her visit was a huge success. In fact, many of those who were opposed to women's ordination changed their opinion as a result of her visit. Many clergy would have/and have balked at using our high eastward facing altar, but she didn't. She was gracious and lovely the entirety of her visit. She wanted only to celebrate as was our custom. Since then I have found myself at odds with her over a number of issues, but I do not doubt the sincerity of her love for our Lord, nor her dedication to reach out to her neighbor. Most attacks upon her are unwarranted (even some of my own), born out of petty, misogynist, and hate-filled anti-Episcopalian minds. Yet, she is strong and will stay the proper course, ultimately (I pray). Don't believe the caricature.

[saint]

Oh great here comes Merseymike. Yet another one with daddy issues.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Most of the comments dealing with the Lambeth Conference are honest, interesting and useful, but a few have been rather "distasteful". Faith, hope and charity are recognised as the Three Graces, or theological virtues. Many Anglicans are losing faith and hope in the ability/lack of ability of their leaders to get to grips with the issues, instead of groping around in the dark on them. Silly PC statements don't clarify anything, since they merely make people more confused than they already are, or are vainly intended to "keep the masses quiet".

What seem to be some personal attacks on Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori are particularly unfortunate. She is a well-educated and accomplished professional biologist, specialising in oceanography, which demonstrates that one can be a good scientist and a practising Christian at the same time. I do not personally agree with her opinions on the ordination of women to the priesthood or their possible elevation to the episcopate. As a fellow biologist and practising Christian, however, I can only hope that applied teuthology (the study of the Class Cephalopoda - from the Greek kefalópoda = "head-foot", a Class which includes the squids) will not become a norm in the matter of Anglican/Episcopal ordinations. I would sincerely ask Dr. Jefferts Schori to forgive those who may have offended her as a lady and as a person.

Many correspondents have advocated/predicted a "mass migration" to Rome by those who may be disappointed if the "final vote" goes against retaining the historical practices and traditional tenets of the Anglican Church. That is not a viable "Final Solution", since the position of the Church of Rome is on "stony ground", to say the least. Christ referred to Peter as the "Rock" upon which His Church would be built, using the term "pétra" as per the demotic Greek form in which the Gospels of the N.T. were recorded. In Latin, the word "petra" means stone, rather than rock.

Some temporary migrants who believed that "all roads lead to Rome" became quickly disenchanted and disillusioned (as many of my friends have told me) by their decision. They thought they were joining a monolithic institution in which everything was cut and dried, and where any internal dissent - if it ever existed - was authoritatively shattered from on high (the "Liberation Theology" movement in South America is evidence of such dissent in modern times). The problem of the various "popes" and "antipopes" in the wee internal schisms within the See of Peter during the Middle Ages is another example of "internal dissent".

"Monolith" means one stone (Gk. "líthos" = stone), so perhaps "unipetrified" or "unistoned" (Latin "petra" = stone) might be a more acceptable latinised term for the aforementioned Church ?; a bishop might be invited to function as an "episcopulus" (Latin "scopulus" = rock) rather than as an "epíscopos". Friendly relationships between the Anglican Church and the Roman Church should certainly be maintained and strengthened, but without involving unconditional surrender and submission of the former to the latter.

Lambeth Conferences were established to provide counsel and guidance on moral issues to the sister churches of the Anglican Communion. For this reason, many of the issues currently under discussion will have an enormous impact (one way or another as much on the Anglican Communion itself as on its future relationships with other churches). Anglicanism of all "shades" teaches the 3 Creeds, and recognises and accepts the authority of the 7 Ecumenical Councils of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (prior to the Great Schism between the Western and the Eastern Churches of 1054, when Rome excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, and got itself anathematised in return: neither side has fully "recovered" from that horrendous event).

A forward-looking, overtly charitable and truly Christian approach towards resolving the matters under consideration would be to for all to convene/convoke an 8th. Pan-Christian Ecumenical Council to formally make decisions on matters of "discipline" and "doctrine" which would be binding on all participants (with suitable local "customs" being approved for use within specific individual churches, as the case may be). Such a Ecumenical Council could also benefit by the presence of representatives of other credible historical churches (e.g. the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Presybterians) who could contribute much of value re their working experience.

Christ told us that: (a) the only sins for which NO forgiveness is possible are those against the Holy Spirit; (b) in the House of my Father there are many mansions, and (c) I am alpha and omega (= all things to all men). An Ecumenical Council of the type proposed might help put a brake on many of our human frailties, and enable the whole lot us to get the work done. We can all say the Lord's Prayer together, so if the presence of the Holy Spirit could be invoked to oversee the work of such a Council, the whole Church and the whole world would benefit. If something serious can not be done as a matter of urgency, then we are left reliving the old "Byzantine dispute" on the sex of the angels...a topic on which I believe no concrete resolution was ever reached.

I am a University Professor in the biological sciences and (although now "wavering more than a little") a practising Anglican in the generally-accepted "High Church" tradition. I am becoming sorely tempted to set one of my post-graduate students on preparing a doctoral thesis to "compare and contrast" the definition of "Primates": First option would be Order: Primates; Suborder: Haplorrhinii; Infraorder: Simiiformes; Parvorders (i) Pheityrrhini (= New World Monkeys) and (ii) Catarrhini (= Old World Monkeys), which latter Parvorder includes the Superfamily Hominidoidea and the family Hominidae (= humans and other great apes); Second option would be: title of rank afforded to some bishops, either as a mark of "authority" or as a mark of "honour". The results of such a learned enquiry could be more than interesting !.

My respectful greetings to all readers.

[Julia]

Ruth,
That is not a "tiny" woman. Short, perhaps, but look at the size of those arms! Useful, I'd imagine, for slugging some "sense" into us conservatives who don't believe as she does.

Sorry, but you simply don't assert something derogatory about a group of people as she did. Can you imagine the outcry if a conservative told a mag that there MUST be pedophiles in a gathering of homosexuals?

[Merseymike]

Oh, get real and face facts. John Spong was absolutely right, and we should not pretend that many countries are anything other than patriarchal and lacking social development. All this pussyfooting for fear of upsetting the premoderns.

[saint]

Scratch a liberal find a fascist. First order of self-justification from a fascist: play the race card.

If only they weren't so predictable.

Up next: Joseph Fritzl for PB and ABC

[Fr. Van Windsor]

Ruth! I've got a great idea (a rare occurrence). Tomorrow, before the bishops get to their seats, early in the morning, sneak in, under the fence (electrified by now), swim the mote (shark infested), walk the gauntlet, carrying, say, several hundred soap boxes (the name of a bishop placed on each one). Place one soap box under the seat of each bishop. Sneak to the rostrum and write on the agenda "at the sound of the tone, in unison, each bishop will stand upon said soap box and scream out their pet issue. Following this exercise we will begin, and stay with, the business of Lambeth, and not refer back to our soap box issues."

Perhaps this is something that you, and other journalists could do as a service for all of Anglicanism, and your own sanity? Say, Ms. Butts from the Guardian? You could save the Church. Not only that, but if you time it well enough, you could grab a bunch of food off the bishop's dining table (I hear it is a regenerating cornucopia), enough to share with the other starving members of the 4th Estate. Imagine, a modern day Robin Hood (You could entittle the article about your adventures "A little Hood went Robbin')...

[Anglican Guy]

One of these wife-beating bishops has been tracked down by yours truly. Here's an interview he gave us. (Satire, of course):
http://anglicanguy.blogspot.com/2008
/07/wife-beating-animists.html

[Rev. John M.]

LOVE this woman. +Roskam for PB!

[David Cohen]

Thank goodness for Sentamu - we would be even more blessed if he was running the Conference.

[David Craford]

Maybe the real issue in 2008 is not about listening. Did any of the Bishop's come here not knowing the issues ? Where have they been for the last five years ? We keep hearing that we need to listen and keep talking. If any of those Bishop's ran a company or family like this they would be in the welfare line. Is the truth in the middle ? Why have we come to see that as a possibility ? Rowan keeps trying to put new clothes on a pig in the hopes we won't know it is still a pig. Perhaps the real honest question we need to ask is how to split up like adults and move on. This would require real truth but at least we would be honest. There is nothing new to discuss after all these years so let us do something truly new and seperate. Let us get on with the commission of bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to the world.

[David Crawford]

There is no wife beating in America. We have promised the communion to refrain from beatings. They are only done by the savages in Africa. The pity is that this is how the liberal American church really see's things. Give them long enough to talk and you will surely see just what an arrogant group of people they are. Wake up Rowan , are trying to keep this group on the same page ? Never !!!!

[Fr. Van Windsor]

I think that the bishop's point is a good one. On paper I did not read it as being against the, let's say, African culture, but, rather, pointedly against western culture's double standard and cover up of domestic violence. The USA, England, Canada, for instance, are places where this kind of behavior is prevalent---in the USA we even have shows like "Cops," reality shows, chuck full of visions of such for all to see. Children suffer silently, because they have to, once again, on television predators are shown actively using the Internet to go after children for sexual gratification, over and over again.I'm glad she made her point. I am even more happy that it has made some uncomfortable.

[Lapinbizarre]

Your July 18th "Nigerian bishop flees" post suggests the question to ask may not be "do you beat your wife?" but "do you beat the wives of other bishops?".