Butler had refused to ordain them but Coekin was also protesting at Butler's stance on civil partnerships. Had Coekin lost his appeal, he would have become a martyr of the conservative right in the current battle over homosexuality. The appeal was heard by the Bishop of Winchester, Michael Scott-Joynt. As I write this, Scott-Joynt and Winchester are ensconced in a meeting of the House of Bishops in Liverpool. How I would love to be a fly on the wall at that meeting right now, partaking of their undoubted brotherly civility as they discuss matters of episcopal import, matters thought to include civil partnerships.

Winchester recommends that Coekin must give some undertakings, namely not to become involved in any more ordination services and, more importantly, 'strictly to abide by all general or specific directions given by the Bishop of Southwark concerning church planting or initiatives.' Dr Rowan Williams says however that he will not require any specific promise from Coekin because these undertakings are implicit in his ordination vows. He also says in his determination that Coekin's conduct 'merited censure'. You can see my original story on this debate here. Here and here are some useful links from the Thinking Anglicans archives and here is the Church Times story on the appeal. Here is the Anglican Mainstream statement from the time and also the Fulcrum discussion on the issue. This photo shows Richard Coekin, on the right, with Andy Fenton, one of the three curates ordained in the service that resulted in the revocation.

The Archbishop of Canterbury's statement is here . Dr Williams said: 'My hope and expectation for the diocese of Southwark and for the ministry of Dundonald church and its minister, the Rev Richard Coekin, is that they will now all be able to draw a line under the episode examined so thoroughly in the bishop's report, and commit themselves to renewed collaboration in the mission of Christ in the months and years ahead.' The full report and Dr Williams' determination are also published on his website.

In his determination, Dr Williams says: 'The Appellant must, however, understand that the restoration of his licence as a minister in the Church of England carries its own responsibilities. It leaves him bound to submit to the Respondent's episcopal authority and accountable for his actions to the wider Church. It remains only for me to emphasise the commitment of the whole Church of England to its mission as the national Church. It is right that this commitment should be worked out in a variety of forms within our dioceses (as the forthcoming Dioceses Pastoral and Mission Measure will emphasise), and inevitable that tensions will arise as different emphases emerge within the rich pattern of our life together.'

This prefigures the increased flexibility that is being brought to bear on the structures of England's parochial and diocesan system. The measure has been through revision committee and is going back to General Synod next month.

The judgement and the Archbishop's response also indicate clearly how Dr Williams' thoughts are progressing in his attempts to maintain the unity of his Church. The judgement as a whole gives room for hope that schism may not, in the end, be inevitable.

However, different interpretations are already being spun, and spun 'outrageously' according to one source. Dr Williams indicates in his statement that the reason the appeal succeeded was because 'the summary procedure followed by the Bishop was technically flawed.' But in the judgement itself, the phrase used is 'seriously flawed'. Attention is given to Coekin's 10 years of 'dedicated and energetic' ministry in Southwark. Winchester says that even taking into account Coekin's disregard for Butler's responsibility for decisions on ordination and his complicity in a breach of canon law, 'summary revocation was a disproportionate outcome in the circumstanes of the case.'

However, Coekin does not escape censure. Bishop Scott-Joynt indicates how, in their pleadings, both the warring parties muddied the waters. 'For his part the appellant sought to embark upon a challenge, from the standpoint of evangelical theology, to the House of Bishops' Pastoral Statement concerning Civil Partnerships.' In church law, doctrinal motives cannot be invoked to justify breaking the law. Scott-Joynt continues: 'On the respondent's side, matters were pleaded relating to the appellant's work in relation to church planting, which was said to have involved breaches of Canon Law.'

Winchester decided to exclude such 'collateral issues' that featured in the initial pleadings. I love the use of the word 'collateral'. Truly this is a Church at war.

END