Thinking Anglicans

Lord Alli replies to the Bishop of Winchester

Lord Alli has written on the Telegraph website about the amendment passed in the House of Lords last week, and the ensuing discussion, see A victory for religious freedom. It reads in part as follows:

…There was nonetheless huge concern from the Church of England and the Catholic Church that they would be forced – against their will – to host Civil Partnerships.

But we had included a specific provision in the amendment to ensure religious freedom which stated quite plainly: “For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host Civil Partnerships if they do not wish to do so.”

Religious freedom means letting the Quakers, the Unitarians and the Liberal Jews host Civil Partnerships: a decision that they had considered in prayer and decided in conscience.

But religious freedom also means respecting the decision of the Church of England and the Catholic Church – decisions also made in prayer and taken in conscience – that they do not wish to do so.

That is what we agreed during the debate, and trying to pretend otherwise is to entirely misrepresent the way which this decision was taken.

I was therefore saddened by the Bishop of Winchester, who tried to characterise this debate by suggesting that Church of England vicars will be forced to host Civil Partnerships in their building.

Let’s not pretend that this amendment forces anything onto anyone. Let’s not pretend that individual clergy are going to face litigation. Let’s not pretend that churches will have to close just for obeying Church of England law.

This amendment was all about allowing religious groups to obey their own law, and the Bishop of Winchester should be above sensationalising the issue.

I was also saddened that the Bishop of Winchester was able to condemn our decision in the press, but didn’t turn up to listen to the debate, or indeed to cast a vote.

Out of the 26 bishops entitled to be there, only two made the effort to join the discussion – despite it being an otherwise well-attended debate.

You have to ask the question: if it was so important, if the consequences of this decision were to be so catastrophic, why were they absent from a debate which had been on the diary for weeks?

So let me assure the Bishop of Winchester and all those concerned: unless their religious organisation wants it, or unless Parliament changes the law, there is absolutely no risk of being forced to carry out any ceremony if they do not wish to…

The newspaper edition reports the story in a separate article, see Lord Alli attacks bishops in ‘gay marriage’ row.

27
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
27 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
19 Comment authors
Perry ButlerFather Ron SmithMalcolm+MezzohelenJohn Roch Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Richard Ashby
Guest
Richard Ashby

‘Lord Ali, who is a homosexual…’ begins the Telegraph article. So what? Can anyone imagine the Telegraph beginning an article with ‘The Bishop of Winchester, who is a heterosexual…’? The Telegraph obviously thinks that the sexual orientation of a writer can only colour what he or she writes and thus their contribution is diminished or biased. Reminds me of an American evangelical booklet I once saw where a particular translation of the Bible was to be avoided as erroneous because one of the scholar translators was known to be a lesbian.

Charlotte
Guest
Charlotte

On the other hand, Richard Ashby, these religious groups insist on the use of a version based on Erasmus’ Greek New Testament and commissioned by King James I and VI! Go figure. But that isn’t what I was going to comment on. I was going to comment on the Church of England’s bishops not turning up for the debate over Lord Alli’s amendment, then denouncing it in sensationalistic terms in the press. It looks very much like the toxic and irresponsible politics indulged in by the right wing in the US, who have for years been getting major traction out… Read more »

Rosemary Hannah
Guest
Rosemary Hannah

What’s with ‘attack’?? He criticises them. Sheesh! Different thing, no?

Mezzohelen
Guest
Mezzohelen

Presumably Lord Alli would be neither a peer or overtly gay if he lived in Uganda – if we are to believe certain global reports.

How is it that Lord Alli manages to avoid a fatwa against himself when apostasy is a greater crime in Islam than it is in Christianity?

Or is he seeking to change the mind of Islam as well as the mind of Christianity?

Cynthia Gilliatt
Guest
Cynthia Gilliatt

Shouldn’t the Bishop of Winchester be ashamed of himself? Is he just that stupid or is he just that arrogant? A long time ago I took a college course in English constitutional development, and one of the things the professor said [and I can’t remember the context], was that the political cry of last resort to rally the troops was “Church in danger! Church in danger!” He was from deep in Louisiana, and I would not dare to try and render how he actually sounded. I bet if he were alive today, he’d say the same about “Marriage in danger!… Read more »

Dan
Guest
Dan

Richard – the point is simply that Lord Alli had a moral obligation to declare a personal interest in the issue.

Father Ron Smith
Guest
Father Ron Smith

“This amendment was all about allowing religious groups to obey their own law, and the Bishop of Winchester should be above sensationalising the issue. “I was also saddened that the Bishop of Winchester was able to condemn our decision in the press, but didn’t turn up to listen to the debate, or indeed to cast a vote.” – Lord Alli – Lord Alli is right when he suggests that the Bishop of Winchester ought, in future, to engage his brain before opening his jaws on this issue. His Lordship’s (+Winchester’s) preference for the theology of the global South and ACNA… Read more »

Father Ron Smith
Guest
Father Ron Smith

“Or is he seeking to change the mind of Islam as well as the mind of Christianity?” – Mezzohelen – I think, Mezzo, that Lord Alli was just being himself. Whatever that implies about his faith commitment, the noble Lord is acting from his innermost integrity – something which might just prompt other people, of whatever faith connection or none, to search themselves and their inner consciences on this diverse issue of sexuality. Obviously, Lord Alli is not about to compromise the reality of his own sexual orientation – a matter so important to him that he feels the current… Read more »

Malcolm+
Guest

My friends Fr. Ron is incorrect when he suggests +Winton’s statements have to do with a preference for the theology of the so-called “Global South.”

It has nowt to do with theology at all. It has to do either with stupidity or dishonesty. To have said what he has said, Michael Scott-Joynt must be either a fool or a liar.

peterpi
Guest
peterpi

Bravo, Lord Alli! The notion that granting freedoms to some diminishes liberty for me is laughable. And so is His Purpleness, the Bishop of Winchester. Mezzohelen, I don’t think Lord Alli has ever said he speaks for Islam. As a Lord in the House of Lords, I think it’s a safe bet he’s CofE. This may come as a shock to you, but some people of Arabic descent are Christian. And if he was outspoken in Uganda he might be dead. So what is your point? That he presumes too much by being gay and Christian in England? Because he’s… Read more »

Simon Sarmiento
Guest

Here is some information about Lord Alli’s background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waheed_Alli,_Baron_Alli

Spirit of Vatican II
Guest
Spirit of Vatican II

Would it be too optimistic to imagine that the absence of the 24 bishops was in part attributable to a desire not to block Lord A’s amendment?

While the Bp of Winchester’s outcry is on the face of it dishonest, what he really wanted to say — but couldn’t — may be this: “The amendment will put pressure on us to have these ceremonies in our churches to prevent gay couples from having recourse to Quakers, Unitarians and Jews.”

peterpi
Guest
peterpi

My sincerest apologies to Lord Alli. I should definitely have done some research before posting. I made a very bad assumption about his faith.
And to Mezzohelen, I also apologize. I don’t understand your pont, and made remarks where they perhaps weren’t warrented.
Just because Muslims (or Christians or Jews or whomever) behave one way in one country, doesn’t mean they will behave that way in another.

Malcolm+
Guest

I have noted several times that, for Bishop Scott-Joynt to have said what he is on record as having said, he would be either a fool or a liar.

While I do not dismiss the possibility that he might be both a fool and a liar, his Cambridge MA leads me to conclude he is not a fool.

Of course, I could be wrong.

evensongjunkie (formerly cbfh)
Guest
evensongjunkie (formerly cbfh)

“Or is he seeking to change the mind of Islam as well as the mind of Christianity? “

Yeah, probably is, and bully for him for doing so.

Really rare that you get a legislator that has integrity and conviction, you all should be proud of this man.

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

Lord Alli quoted in the Wikipedia article, from a 1999 debate in the House of Lords: “I have never been confused about my sexuality. I have been confused about the way I am treated as a result of it. The only confusion lies in the prejudice shown, some of it tonight [i.e. in the House], and much of it enshrined in the law.”

toby forward
Guest

Please could I take issue with Malcolm for saying that the Bishop of Winchester must be either a fool or a liar? I think that in the interests of fairness we should leave open the possibilty that he is both.

Richard Ashby
Guest
Richard Ashby

Dan said -‘the point is simply that Lord Alli had a moral obligation to declare a personal interest in the issue’.

Actually it is the Telegraph which is declaring Lord Ali’s personal interest to make the point to its largely elderly and Conservative-voting readers and thus immediately give its own particular veneer to the report. One can just imagine the sharp in-takes of breath in the drawing rooms across England as the paper is opened and the report read. ‘Daphne, the buggers are at it again…’

Richard Ashby
Guest
Richard Ashby

‘…his Cambridge MA leads me to conclude he is not a fool’.

I am not aware that an MA, from Cambridge or anywhere else for that matter prevents one from being a fool.

Perry Butler
Guest
Perry Butler

Fool or liar, Winchester is an increasing embarrassment.The Bishop of Liverpool’s speech to the Diocesan Synod reveals what we already know..that the House of Bishops is not of one mind.I cant imagine the Government, this or the next, will pay them as much notice as I suspect they think they deserve and as I said in a previous posting the bishops will probably go in the next round of Lords reform. There was no plan B when it came to the ordination of women. I think the Bishops need to start thinking hard about how a dis-established C of E… Read more »

Craig Nelson
Guest
Craig Nelson

I think there are serious question marks about Bishop of Winchester’s veracity and moral integrity. If he was honestly mistaken he has the opportunity to promptly correct himself and apologise for misleading people. The duty is especially clear as he is not only a bishop but a legislator. It is of course possible to believe in lying for a good cause. Or he may be a relativist and believe that the duty of veracity applies to others but not him. Perhaps when you’re a bishop these duties don’t apply so long as the intent is pure. Of course it pains… Read more »

Marshall Scott
Guest

You know, Dan, Bishop Scott-Joynt also has a personal stake. It may not be the same as Lord Alli’s, but he is certainly personally involved in decisions made about liturgy in the Church of England, including but not limited to his episcopate.

John Roch
Guest
John Roch

In the days when I knew a little about these things, the 26 “non-senior” bishops had a rota which meant that three of them would be on House of Lords duty each week, supplementing Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester. Full attendance would thus be eight. Attendance was taken very seriously and could add complications to diocesan calendars. I seem to remember that it was the convention that if a bishop wished to speak in a debate he would be there for the whole debate, and not just speak and leave. Perhaps someone could enlighten us about present practice and… Read more »

Mezzohelen
Guest
Mezzohelen

Thank you for apologies in my direction regarding Lord Alli – I had checked his credentials before posting. I do not regard the “Muslim” adjective as being indicative of race, just as I do not regard the “Christian” adjective as being indicative of being a citizen of the West, or even the kind of “cultural Christian” as Nigel Farndale does in this comment piece from the Sunday Telegraph – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/nigelfarndale/7386930/Is-the-Church-of-England-still-in-Gods-own-country.html Having said that, if people wish to identify themselves as “Christian” in this way, that is between them and God – and they are my “neighbours” who I am to… Read more »

Malcolm+
Guest

John Roch: “Perhaps someone could enlighten us about present practice and conventions.”

Judging from Bp Scott-Joynt’s behaviour, apparently the new standard is:
a. Avoid the Lords unless you think you can win the debate, and
b. Lie about the legislation you don’t like.

Father Ron Smith
Guest
Father Ron Smith

“Out of the 26 bishops entitled to be there, only two made the effort to join the discussion – despite it being an otherwise well-attended debate.” – Lord Alli – “You have to ask the question: if it was so important, if the consequences of this decision were to be so catastrophic, why were they absent from a debate which had been on the diary for weeks?” – Lord Alli – In this latest revelation of Lord Alli’s response to the scare-mongering tactics of + Winchester, one can only echo his concern that the importance of this issue to the… Read more »

Perry Butler
Guest
Perry Butler

Dear mezzohelen,
Christians and muslims tend to look at homosexuality in rather different ways.As a middle eastern gay christian once put it to me, ..”In christianity you can be it, but not do it; a muslim can do it but not be it”.