Trying to celebrate civil partnerships
Sir, On February 23 you published our letter, signed also by several senior Anglicans, urging the House of Lords to support Lord Alli’s amendment to permit civil partnerships to be held on the premises of Quakers, Liberal Judaism and Unitarians. You also published a powerful leader, “Equal before God”, in support of our letter.
Lord Alli’s amendment was carried in a free vote by 95 to 21 in the face of opposition from both front benches. Several speakers quoted our letter or your leader. The Government has now accepted it, but if the Equality Bill is incomplete at the dissolution of Parliament, it goes into what politicians call “wash-up”. Only the parts acceptable to both main parties survive; the rest fall.
We hope that, as they start to campaign for the general election, they will all give an express promise to protect the amendment.
Iain McLean, FBA
Professor of Politics, University of OxfordDiarmaid Macculloch, FBA
Professor of the History of the Church, University of Oxford
Previous letter and leader article are here.
New amendments have today been filed, for consideration at Third Reading in the House of Lords on Tuesday 23 March.
First, here is the main new amendment filed:
Clause 202
LORD ALLI
BARONESS NOAKES
BARONESS NEUBERGER
Page 125, line 25, at end insert—
“(2B) Provision by virtue of subsection (2)(b) may, in particular, provide that applications for approval of premises may only be made with the consent (whether general or specific) of a person specified, or a person of a description specified, in the provision.
(2C) The power conferred by section 258(2), in its application to the power conferred by this section, includes in particular—
(a) power to make provision in relation to religious premises that differs from provision in relation to other premises;
(b) power to make different provision for different kinds of religious premises.”
Page 125, line 29, at end insert—
“(3B) “Civil marriage” means marriage solemnised otherwise than according to the rites of the Church of England or any other religious usages.
(3C) “Religious premises” means premises which—
(a) are used solely or mainly for religious purposes, or
(b) have been so used and have not subsequently been used solely or mainly for other purposes.”
Now, here is the wording of Clause 202 as already amended, and showing in bold the effect of the above new amendment on that Clause:
Civil partnerships
Civil partnerships on religious premises
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is amended as follows. 20
Omit section 6(1)(b) and (2). In section 6A, after subsection (2), insert—“(2A) Regulations under this section may provide that premises approved for the registration of civil partnerships may differ from those premises approved for the registration of civil marriages.” 25
(2B) Provision by virtue of subsection (2)(b) may, in particular, provide that applications for approval of premises may only be made with the consent (whether general or specific) of a person specified, or a person of a description specified, in the provision.
(2C) The power conferred by section 258(2), in its application to the power conferred by this section, includes in particular—
(a) power to make provision in relation to religious premises that differs from provision in relation to other premises;
(b) power to make different provision for different kinds of religious premises.”In section 6A, after subsection (3), insert—
“(3A) 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.”(3B) “Civil marriage” means marriage solemnised otherwise than according to the rites of the Church of England or any other religious usages.
(3C) “Religious premises” means premises which—
(a) are used solely or mainly for religious purposes, or
(b) have been so used and have not subsequently been used solely or mainly for other purposes.”
And finally, below the fold is the wording of the amended clauses of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, to show where it would end up, if this new amendment is passed.
There are two other minor amendments filed:
Clause 216
LORD ALLI
BARONESS NOAKES
BARONESS NEUBERGER
Page 134, line 9, after “sections” insert
“202 (civil partnerships on religious premises),”
Schedule 27
LORD ALLI
BARONESS NOAKES
BARONESS NEUBERGER
Page 234, line 24, at end insert—
“Civil Partnership Act 2004 Section 6(1)(b) and (2)”
Civil Partnership Act 2004 as amended
Section 6 Place of registration
(1) The place at which two people may register as civil partners of each other—
(a) must be in England or Wales,
(b) must not be in religious premises, and
(c) must be specified in the notices, or notice, of proposed civil partnership required by this Chapter.
(2) “Religious premises” means premises which—
(a) are used solely or mainly for religious purposes, or
(b) have been so used and have not subsequently been used solely or mainly for other purposes.
(3) Subsections (3A) and (3B) apply in the case of registration under the standard procedure (including that procedure modified as mentioned in section 5).
(3A) The place must be—
(a) on approved premises, or
(b) in a register office.
(3B) If it is in a register office, the place must be open to any person wishing to attend the registration.
(3C) In this Chapter “register office” means a register office provided under section 10 of the Registration Service Act 1953.
Section 6A Power to approve premises
(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer may by regulations make provision for and in connection with the approval by registration authorities of premises for the purposes of section 6(3A)(a).
(2) The matters dealt with by regulations may include—
(a) the kind of premises in respect of which approvals may be granted;
(b) the procedure to be followed in relation to applications for approval;
(c) the considerations to be taken into account by a registration authority in determining whether to approve any premises;
(d) the duration and renewal of approvals;
(e) the conditions that must or may be imposed by a registration authority on granting or renewing an approval;
(f) the determination and charging by registration authorities of fees in respect of applications for the approval of premises and in respect of the renewal of approvals;
(g) the circumstances in which a registration authority must or may revoke an approval;
(h) the review of any decision to refuse an approval or the renewal of an approval, to impose conditions on granting or renewing an approval or to revoke an approval;
(i) the notification to the Registrar General of all approvals granted, renewed or revoked;
(j) the keeping by registration authorities of registers of approved premises;
(k) the issue by the Registrar General of guidance supplementing the provision made by the regulations.
( ) Regulations under this section may provide that premises approved for the registration of civil partnerships may differ from those premises approved for the registration of civil marriages.
(2B) Provision by virtue of subsection (2)(b) may, in particular, provide that applications for approval of premises may only be made with the consent (whether general or specific) of a person specified, or a person of a description specified, in the provision.
(2C) The power conferred by section 258(2), in its application to the power conferred by this section, includes in particular—
(a) power to make provision in relation to religious premises that differs from provision in relation to other premises;
(b) power to make different provision for different kinds of religious premises.
(3) Without prejudice to the width of subsection (2)(e), the Chancellor of the Exchequer must exercise his power to provide for the imposition of conditions as mentioned there so as to secure that members of the public are permitted to attend when two people sign the civil partnership schedule on approved premises in accordance with section 6(3A)(a)
(3A) 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.”
(3B) “Civil marriage” means marriage solemnised otherwise than according to the rites of the Church of England or any other religious usages.
(3C) “Religious premises” means premises which—
(a) are used solely or mainly for religious purposes, or
(b) have been so used and have not subsequently been used solely or mainly for other purposes.
See earlier article here.
From Cif belief Goodbye to the bishops by Polly Toynbee:
Today an ICM poll for Power2010… shows that 74% of voters think unelected bishops should have no place in the legislature, and only 21% believe that they should. Even more persuasive is that 70% of Christians want the bishops gone, and only 26% are in favour of keeping them.
And, from Ekklesia ICM Survey of attitudes to bishops in Parliament and religion in public life:
The population of the UK is equally split over the importance of institutional religion in public life, but three-quarters believe it is wrong for bishops to have reserved places in the House of Lords.
The findings come in an ICM poll commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, as part of the Power 2010 initiative of which the religion and society think-tank Ekklesia is a member.
They are the first major survey of public opinion with regard to the place of bishops in the House of Lords. It was carried out on 10-11 March 2010.
Findings included:
- 43% of people believe it is important that institutional religion plays a role in public life, whilst 41% feel it isn’t important.
- Many more Muslims (84%) than Christians (50%) believe that it is important that ‘organised religion should play a role in public life’.
- 74% of the population - including 70% of Christians - believe it is wrong that some Church of England Bishops are given an automatic seat in the House of Lords.
- 65% say it is important that anyone who sits in the House of Commons or House of Lords and votes on laws is elected
- Support for the place of Church of England bishops in the Lords is least in Scotland, where only 20% of the population believe their presence is significant.
Read the full survey results here: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/survey_on_bishops_icm.pdf
There is a leader today, Legal protection for clerical consciences.
A LITTLE historical perspective might help those who are alarmed at the consequences of the amendment to the Equality Bill passed in the House of Lords at the end of last month. The effect of it, if the Bill survives intact, would be to permit same-sex partnerships to be solemnised in Quaker meetings, Unitarian churches, and Liberal synagogues. Much attention was given last week to the fears expressed by the Bishops of Winchester and Bradford that clerics would be compelled to register civil partnerships, under threat of legal action for exercising discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Political parties are considering the possible consequences on votes in the forthcoming election. There is even a petition being got up to have the amendment thrown out.
Two points are perhaps worth bearing in mind…
The article mentioned in the leader Quakers seek liberty for gay couples is subscription-only until next Friday. So also are several letters, and a discussion of newspaper reports in the Press column.
The Church of England has published a note entitled Lord Alli’s amendment - civil partnerships. I am told that this was published on 5 March.
Key points regarding Lord Alli’s amendment to the Equality Bill:
- the legislation has not yet completed its passage through Parliament so may not yet be in its final form
- even once Royal Assent is achieved Ministers have to decide when each of its provisions are brought into force
- and in this case there will also have to be fresh amending regulations before there is the possibility of places of worship becoming locations for civil partnerships
- so, there is much that remains unclear for the moment and will remain so for quite some time yet.
Lord Alli’s amendment inserts a new clause into the Equality Bill that would remove provisions in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 that prevent all ‘religious premises’ being approved for the registration of civil partnerships. It does not, however, mean that anyone who wishes to do so will now be able to register a civil partnership in church - the legislation has not yet completed its passage through Parliament.
First, the Government need to consider whether the amendment, as drafted, is adequate or whether further amendments are needed to achieve what it intends; including the intention that it should not place “an obligation on religious organisation to host civil partnerships”.
Secondly, the new provision, if contained in the Bill as enacted, would not have effect until it was brought into force by order made by the Secretary of State. Given that existing Regulations make it impossible for religious premises to be approved for civil partnership registration, those Regulations would have to be amended before the new provisions could be brought into force. Amending those Regulations will, itself, require careful consideration.
As matters currently stand it remains the case that civil partnerships cannot be registered on religious premises. Precisely how that position may change remains to be seen.
The Mission and Public Affairs Division of the Church of England has updated its guidance note on “Countering far right political parties, extremist groups and racist politics”. You can read the January 2010 version here: Countering Racist Politics. (PDF also available)
Churches Together in Britain and Ireland has very comprehensive information at general election churches getting ready including two resource documents:
These can both be downloaded from here.
And there is a Find a Hustings page.
CCFON has announced that the former Bishop of Rochester, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali is to host a series of General Election Hustings across England in order to help local Christians question candidates for Westminster seats.
Ekklesia has a press release, Bishops urged to play leading role in reform of House of Lords.
The religion and society think-tank Ekklesia has today teamed up with democracy campaign Power2010 in an initiative to urge Church of England bishops to take a lead in reforming the House of Lords.
Local churches and others are being encouraged to contact bishops, and ask them to continue in their support for the ‘bottom up’ campaign to reinvigorate democracy, which saw 100,000 votes cast, many in support of a reformed Second Chamber.
Several bishops have previously spoken favourably about Power2010, which aimed to identify five key political reforms.
A public vote, which finished on 22 February 2010, saw an all elected second chamber supported as the third most popular reform…
And a further article is titled Come on board for Lords reform, bishops urged.
From today, people are able to email all the bishops with a fully customisable message set up through the Power2010 website: http://www.power2010.org.uk/faith Hundreds have done so already, say organisers.
(At the time of writing this article, over 16,000 emails have been sent.)
From the Power2010 blog, there is Join our call for Bishops to back reform of the Lords.
Updated Tuesday evening
In our latest weekend round-up of opinion we linked to an address by James Jones, the bishop of Liverpool, to his diocesan synod about allowing a variety of ethical conviction in the church.
The diocese has issued a press release: Bishop of Liverpool calls for Anglicans to “accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality”.
Ekklesia has reported the address as Evangelical bishop “in sympathy” with same-sex partnerships.
Colin Coward of Changing Attitude has welcomed the bishop’s address in James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool calls for Anglicans to “accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality”.
But Andrew Goddard at Fulcrum does not agree with most of what the bishop has written: Accepting Ethical Diversity?: A Critical Appraisal of the Bishop of Liverpool’s Presidential Address.
And Anglican Mainstream has Bishop James Jones muddies the waters again.
Update
Colin Coward has written a response to Andrew Goddard’s article: Reactions to the Bishop of Liverpool – Andrew Goddard on Fulcrum.
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.
Update
The Quaker position is admirably explained in a booklet, available starting here: We are but witnesses: same sex marriages (also there is a PDF version linked from there).
Ekklesia has two items:
Symon Hill writes about Scaremongering and religious liberty and he concludes:
…Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester, has predicted (with no evidence whatsoever) that the Bill will lead to clergy being sued for refusing to carry out such ceremonies. It is frustrating that the media should pay so much attention to such an unfounded prediction, let alone that a national daily paper should lead with a headline wording this prediction as fact.
Since the vote in the Lords, those who are afraid of religious same-sex partnerships have latched on to Scott-Joynt’s wild warnings as an excuse for opposing the legislation. Knowing how mean it would appear to refuse religious liberty to others, they claim instead that it is their own religious liberty which is under threat.
It is sad that some seem to think that a thing must either be prohibited or compulsory, and cannot be optional. It says a great deal about their world view that they are unable to envisage a situation of real religious liberty, in which different groups can promote their views and values through dialogue and persuasion rather than coercion and the misuse of law.
Iain McLean A reply to Michael Scott-Joynt over religious civil partnerships and here is an extract:
…The issues which still divide us seem to be:
Does passing the Alli amendment send us down a slippery slope? The Times and Telegraph reports on what you say about this are, I think, rather uncritical. I am surprised that the Government Equalities Office has not commented on them, since, as you know, Lord Alli and the three denominations that sought his amendment all insist that it is designed to apply only to those denominations that request it, hence the ‘for the avoidance of doubt’ clause that he added in the version that was carried in the Lords.
Neither the Quakers nor the Church of England are congregationalist. Our Yearly Meeting decided to seek what is now the Alli amendment. It is, presumably, for your Synod to discuss the same subject and come to its own view. If it does not wish to offer civil partnerships in church, how might your (and/or Lord Tebbit’s) nightmare unfold?
Case 1: an incumbent conducts a civil partnership ceremony in defiance of his/her bishop. But the ceremony would have no legal standing unless the incumbent had applied to be a ‘religious organisation’. I am sure the regulations can be drafted so as to ensure that applications to conduct civil partnerships are only entertained from the highest judicatory of the denomination.
Case 2: a militant same-sex couple apply to a church for a partnership purely in order to sue the vicar after the application is refused. First, I deplore the efforts of Ben Summerskill, Peter Tatchell and others to use the Alli amendment as a wedge to drive civil partnership into an unwilling Church of England. Nor was the letter to The Times that some of your colleagues signed so intended. I drafted it to make clear that it was not about the Church of England.
Second, I cannot see how such an action would get anywhere in a UK court in the face of the clear wording of the Alli amendment. In recent discrimination cases, the courts have been unsympathetic towards politically motivated anti-discrimination claims.
Case 3: a loving same-sex couple do the same, in sorrow rather than anger. It would be very peculiar for them to put their litigiousness ahead of their love. If they are comfortable with the usage of Friends and willing to follow the (quite onerous) requirements laid down in Quaker Faith and Practice to test their commitment, then I hope they would choose that route. I am sure the Unitarians would also welcome them.
In none of those three cases do I see any road to Strasbourg.
Maintaining the distinction between civil partnership and marriage….
Updated
First, the Church Times has this report, written by me, on this week’s debate in the House of Lords, Religious bodies can host gay ceremonies, say peers.
Last week’s report, also by me, is now available to non-subscribers, see Civil partners: call for religious option.
This morning, Martin Beckford reports in the Telegraph that Harriet Harman could kill off ‘gay marriages in church’ plan.
In the same paper, Norman Tebbit writes about Why I tried to stop Lord Alli forcing through same-sex church ‘weddings’.
Update
Church Society has a press release, Religious Ceremonies for Civil Partnerships.
Changing Attitude has Changing Attitude’s goals and bishop’s changing attitudes.
Jonathan Bartley has Gay Church blessings and a crisis of faith: Fisking Damian Thompson.
There’s some more writing about this. Earlier items here.
Ruth Gledhill Gay marriage plan threatens churches says Bishop of Winchester
Martin Beckford and Heidi Blake Clergy could be sued if they refuse to carry out ‘gay marriages’, traditionalists fear and later version Vicars could be sued if they refuse to carry out gay marriages
Bradford Argus Kathie Griffiths Concerns are expressed over gay partnership debate in Lords
ENS House of Lords backs civil partnership ceremonies in churches
Ekklesia Campaigners and faith groups welcome same-sex partnerships vote and Simon Beard How can I keep from singing? and Jonathan Bartley “It’s all about us”: Ethnocentrism over religious civil partnerships
Christian Institute Clergy may face court over civil partnerships
Dave Walker has the answer:
Cartoon: What the bishops were doing whilst civil partnerships in church were being voted on
Updated again Wednesday afternoon
The amendment proposed by Lord Alli was passed in the House of Lords by a vote of 95 to 21.
News reports:
PA Civil partnership church ban lifted
The Times Peers vote for church civil partnership ceremonies
Daily Mail Gay couples now able to marry in church after House of Lords lifts ban
Telegraph Peers vote to allow homosexuals to marry in church
Ekklesia Parliament votes to recognise religious same-sex partnerships
BBC Church gay ceremonies ban lifted
The Bishop of Bradford spoke against the amendment and voted against it.
The Bishop of Newcastle voted in favour of it.
Others voting in favour included Lord Harries of Pentregarth, who also spoke.
Others voting against included Lord Eames.
Updates
Hansard report of the debate on this amendment starts here. For the PDF version go over here.
For the official news report see this page.
And for an official analysis of the voting patterns see this.
Afternoon update
Reuters Gay activists welcome vote on religious civil partnerships
Independent Gay weddings to be allowed in church
Ruth Gledhill Bishop of Winchester slams gay marriage in church ‘fudge’ headline changed to: Bishop of Winchester warns clergy could be sued over gay marriage
Andrew Brown Civil partnerships win in the Lords
George Pitcher Lords vote for “gay weddings” – so what?
Peter Ould Lord Alli’s Amendment Passes
Evangelical Alliance Churches must be free from fear of lawsuits over civil partnerships, says Evangelical Alliance
Stonewall House of Lords votes by majority of 74 for civil partnerships in religious premises
Ekklesia Same-sex partnership change highlights need to overhaul marriage law
Quakers in Britain Quakers welcome debate on equality
Christian Institute Homosexual unions allowed in churches
CCFON House of Lords vote to allow Civil Partnerships to take place in Church
Updated twice
Several articles opposing the Equality Bill amendment proposed by Lord Alli have appeared.
Fulcrum has an article by Andrew Goddard Civil Partnerships and Religion:Some Cautions and Questions.
Andrew Carey has written in the CEN and republished by Anglican Mainstream Bishops facing real issues.
Peter Ould has written Blessing Civil Partnerships in Church.
All of these were written before the revised amendment text was published, although Andrew Goddard has made some changes to take account of it.
Peter has now also commented on the new amendment here.
On the other side of this debate, Colin Coward has written Civil Partnerships in religious buildings - at last, ‘moderate’ dissent among the bishops, and dishonesty from one who should know better.
Second Update
Gavin Drake has weighed in with Let’s all play ‘Pin the tail on the law’ with Lord Alli.
There was a letter in the Guardian this morning from the three denominations seeking this change: Church partnerships.
Richard Harries has written an article, now available at Cif belief Commitment we should encourage. Here is part of what he says:
…Some Church of England bishops, who were hardly enthusiastic about civil partnerships in the first place, fear that if this is allowed it would blur the distinction [between] them and marriage. But this is a fundamental issue of religious freedom. On what grounds can any body claim religious freedom for itself but deny it to others? The bishops may or may not approve of what Quakers, Liberal Jews and Unitarians want, but that is beside the point. What these bodies want would harm no one, and it accords with their deepest religious convictions. Religious freedom is indivisible. The only reason for denying it must be that of John Stuart Mill, namely if some public harm would result.
The harm to be taken into account need not be only physical, as race relations legislation shows. So it could be argued that allowing some faith communities to perform civil ceremonies on their premises was harmful in the sense that it undermines the institution of marriage in our society. But just the opposite is true. If we accept the argument that we need to retain both the term marriage and the term civil partnership, and that they are not identical, it seems to me clear from a Christian point of view that a ceremony in which two people commit themselves to a faithful, lifelong relationship before witnesses, partakes of the nature of a marriage. As such, from a Christian point of view, it can also express the biblical truth that such a relationship reflects the undeviating faithfulness of God towards us and which, according to St Paul, has its prototype in the relationship of christ to his church…
The remainder of the detailed Synod reports from the Church Times are now available to non-subscribers. We linked to the first batch here.
Anglican Church of North America: Synod affirms ACNA desire to be in the fold
Legislation: Two jobs completed
Bibel Anniversary: ‘What looks dead and dusty can give you a shock’
Military Chaplains: ‘Support us; respect our work’
Violent Games: Members speak out against ‘inferno’ of computer games
Science and God: The scriptures ‘are not a scientific textbook’
Children and Youth: ‘Connected’ youth strategy welcomed
Farewell: The Bishop of Southwark
Civil Partners: Synod agrees to backdate pension rights
Mission Initiatives: Support, money, training needed for fresh expressions
Church Buildings: Help us care for listed buildings, State is urged
Lectionary: Long tussle over the first lesson
Methodism: Methodists urge more joint work and worship
The detailed results of the electronic voting at this month’s General Synod are now available. These include the votes of each member who took part.
Here are the details for the two controversial items.
Anglican Church in North America
This is the final version of the motion (Item 14 as amended by Items 55 and 59):
That this Synod, aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada:
(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.
It was carried by these votes:
In Favour Against Recorded
abstentions309 69 17
Here are the electronic voting results for this item.
Parity of pension provision for surviving civil partners
This is the motion (Item 22):
That this Synod request the Archbishops’ Council and the Church of England Pensions Board to bring forward changes to the rules governing the clergy pension scheme in order to go beyond the requirements of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and provide for pension benefits to be paid to the surviving civil partners of deceased clergy on the same basis as they are currently paid to surviving spouses.
It was carried by the following votes after a Division by Houses.
In Favour Against Recorded
abstentionsBishops 12 2 3 Clergy 97 23 10 Laity 78 59 9
Here are the electronic voting results for the above motion.
There was an amendment (Item 64) moved to the above motion:
Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:
“recognise that it will be some considerable time before surviving civil partners’ pension rights reach parity with those of spouses, and in the light of that note the helpful confirmation from the Pensions Board that surviving civil partners of deceased clergy are eligible to be considered for hardship grants if they meet the same qualifying conditions as apply to surviving spouses.”
This was lost by the following votes.
In Favour Against Recorded
abstentions110 154 15
Here are the electronic voting results for the amendment.
Other electronic votes
The other electronic votes are linked here.
Updated further on Thursday morning
Back on 5 February, Iain McLean who is Professor of Politics at Oxford University, wrote An open letter to the Bishop of Winchester at the Open Democracy website.
Stuart White wrote a follow-up to this What about my freedom of religion? at Next Left.
This led to today’s letter which you can find via here.
Today, Ruth Gledhill reports all this, and a lot more, on her blog at Gays could soon ‘marry’ in churches, synagogues.
See also the two articles in The Times
Anglican bishops back end to ban on gay civil partnerships in church by Ruth Gledhill and Rosemary Bennett
Civil partnerships have made gay couples just like everyone else by Rosemary Bennett
Ekklesia also has a roundup of these events, which notes that:
Hardline religious activists opposed to any extension of rights for LGBT people are already lobbying vocally against the change.
Updates
Other media have repeated the story, see
BBC Clerics call for gay ceremonies at religious venues
Daily Mail Steve Doughty Liberal bishops call for gay couples to be allowed to marry in church
Telegraph Heidi Blake Senior bishops want gay weddings in churches
CIf belief has an article by Andrew Pakula Bishops shouldn’t block equality.
And Diarmaid MacCulloch has also written there, see Bishops act the bully in parliament.
Aaron Goldstein Why equality matters to us
From the other end of the spectrum, ex-CofE minister Charles Raven writes about this, When will Gay Couples be able to take vows in the Church of England?
The following letter will appear in The Times tomorrow. It is on the newspaper’s website now.
It’s discrimination to stop gay couples taking vows in church
It is inconsistent to affirm the spiritual independence of the CofE but also deny the spiritual independence of three small communitiesSir, The Civil Partnership Act 2004 prohibits civil partnerships from being registered in any religious premises in Great Britain. Three faith communities — Liberal Judaism, the Quakers, and the Unitarians — have considered this restriction prayerfully and decided in conscience that they wish to register civil partnerships on their premises. An amendment to the Equality Bill, to allow this, was debated in the House of Lords on January 25. It was opposed by the Bishops of Winchester and Chichester on the grounds that, if passed, it would put unacceptable pressure on the Church of England. The former said that “churches of all sorts really should not reduce or fudge, let alone deny, the distinction” between marriage and civil partnership.
In the same debate, the bishops were crucial in defeating government proposals to limit the space within which religious bodies are exempt from anti-discrimination law. They see that as a fundamental matter of conscience. But it is inconsistent to affirm the spiritual independence of the Church of England and simultaneously to deny the spiritual independence of the three small communities who seek this change for themselves (and not for anybody else).
The bishops’ “slippery slope” argument is invalid. Straight couples have the choice between civil marriage and religious marriage. Gay couples are denied a similar choice. To deny people of faith the opportunity of registering the most important promise of their lives in their willing church or synagogue, according to its liturgy, is plainly discriminatory. In the US it would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise . . . of religion.
The amendment will be re-presented by Lord Alli on March 2. We urge every peer who believes in spiritual independence, or in non-discrimination, to support it.
Iain McLean, Professor of Politics, Oxford
Diarmaid MacCulloch, Professor of the History of the Church, Oxford
The Right Rev David Stancliffe, Bishop of Salisbury
The Right Rev John Gladwin, Former Bishop of Chelmsford
Lord Harries of Pentregarth, Former Bishop of Oxford
The Right Rev Bill Ind, Former Bishop of Truro
The Right Rev Peter Selby, Former Bishop of Worcester
The Right Rev Kenneth Stevenson, Former Bishop of Portsmouth
The Very Rev Nick Bury, Dean of Gloucester
The Rev Jeremy Caddick, Dean, Emmanuel College, Cambridge
The Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans
The Very Rev Colin Slee, Dean of Southwark
Canon Dr Judith Maltby, Chaplain, Corpus Christi College, Oxford
Canon Brian Mountford, Vicar of the University Church, Oxford
Canon Jane Shaw, Dean of Divinity, New College, Oxford
The Rev Sarah Coakley, Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity, Cambridge
Sarah Foot, Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History
Alec Ryrie, Professor of the History of Christianity, Durham
Stuart White, Director of the Public Policy Unit, Oxford
Jill Green, Quakers
There is also a leading article, Equal before God.
This Government has done much to bring the law into line with modern attitudes towards homosexuality. It scrapped Section 28 , equalised the age of consent and ended the ban on gays in the Armed Forces.
Now it must resolve the legal asymmetry that prevents homosexual civil partnerships from taking place on religious premises. In a letter to The Times today, a distinguished group of mostly Anglican clergy correctly point out that “straight couples have the choice between civil marriage and religious marriage. Gay couples are denied a similar choice”. That clearly discriminates against homosexuals who are also believers, and three faith communities — Liberal Judaism, the Quakers and the Unitarians — now wish to register civil partnerships on their premises. A legal amendment permitting them to do so is expected to be debated in the House of Lords next month.
The Church of England has so far resisted change, arguing that if some religious groups are allowed to hold civil partnerships then the pressure on the C of E to follow suit will become intolerable. It is a feeble argument. No one is arguing that any church should be forced to conduct a civil partnership. But willing churches should not be precluded from doing so.
Benjamin Disraeli believed the Church of England to be “a part of our liberties, a part of our national character”. If it has any hope of continuing in that role, the Church — and the Government — must recognise that our liberties today should include the right of homosexuals to register the most important promise of their lives in a church.
Updated again Tuesday
Next Monday, FiF UK is observing a Day of Prayer in relation to Anglicanorum Coetibus. Bishop Andrew Burnham’s pastoral letter for February is here.
But Bishop Paul Richardson hasn’t waited, see Martin Beckford’s news story Bishop who predicted death of Church of England converts to Rome.
Meanwhile FiF Australia has already made its decision on this. See this news report in the Telegraph Australia’s traditional Anglicans vote to convert to Catholicism.
Andrew Brown reported in Cif belief on “an email from an Anglican ‘flying bishop’ to a Catholic bishop in Australia” in The cloak and dagger Catholics.
Austen Ivereigh commented on this in America in Romeward Anglicans: a case of too much politics?
Damian Thompson has written in the Catholic Herald It does not matter if the Ordinariate is small at first (also copied over to his Telegraph blog).
Update
A new website, Friends of the Ordinariate, has been launched. This website has been commended by Forward in Faith UK. The Church Times blog has some further tidbits.
Riazat Butt has commented at Cif belief Who’s in the Foto?
Audio recording of the whole debate
Text of lay Synod member Lorna Ashworth’s speech proposing her motion
anglican.tv video coverage:
Press conference held on Tuesday
Lorna Ashworth’s opening speech
Text of speech by Archdeacon Norman Russell
Text of speech by the Bishop of Winchester
Transcript of the Tuesday lunchtime presentations to synod members (press were not admitted to this event)
Reflections on Synod vote for C of E to be in Communion with the ACNA by Bishop Henry Scriven (written before the debate)
An article by A. S. Haley criticising the paper that I edited about ACNA: A Vestry Member Returns the Favor
A criticism written by Marc Robertson (no relation) of the paper by Canon Chuck Robertson.
Colin Coward The Future of the Anglican Communion - a Big Question and After a week of Big Questions – the Communion still survives
The first batch of detailed Synod reports from the Church Times are now available to non-subscribers.
Women Bishops: Women: the direction of travel
Terms of Service: Synod approves code for ‘hard cases’
The Archbishop of Canterbury’ Presidential Address
Religious Broadcasting: Speakers channel their TV concerns
Clergy Pensions: Retire later for full pension, clergy told
The remaining reports will be available next week.
Updated yet again Tuesday evening
See earlier list of pro-ACNA items.
The Church Times headline is Synod holds off from ACNA.
THE General Synod declined on Wednesday afternoon to express a desire to be in communion with the Anglican Church in North Amerca (ACNA).
But, “aware of the distress caused by recent divisions” in the Anglican Churches of the US and Canada, it recognised and affirmed the desire of those who had formed ACNA to be part of the Anglican family, and “acknowledged that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further”.
Earlier in the week, Matt Davies of ENS had reported Church of England says no to full communion with breakaway entity.
Church Mouse For the avoidance of doubt - the CofE did not ‘recognise’ the ACNA yesterday
Simple Massing Priest “Just a flesh wound”
Lionel Deimel Declaring Victory and Moving On
Scott Gunn Parsing Synod — what have they done?
Jim’s Thoughts resolution
Colin Coward Lorna Ashworth’s motion about the Anglican Church in North America
ask the priest Synod, ACNA and the FCE - A narrowly-avoided theological misstep
Updates
More from Simple Massing Priest
SOMEBODY on the Anglican Right is lying
and
Another lie from the Anglican Right
Justin Brett ACNA-Related Ramblings
Stand Firm has discovered another document, Copy of TEC Memo Circulated at CoE Synod.
The text of the speeches by Giles Goddard and by Simon Baynes are both published below the fold.
Colin Coward has commented about the debate: General Synod approves pension parity for Civil Partnerships.
Andrew Brown commented about it at Cif:belief in Recoiling from nastiness.
According to Christian Today in its news story
One Synod member, who asked to remain anonymous, said conservative Synod members had deliberately withheld from taking to the floor to speak against the motion for fear of reprisals.
“They didn’t dare to. There would have been screams of homophobia if anyone had dared oppose it,” he said.
Anglican Mainstream has already issued two memoranda:
AM comments on private member motion on pensions for civil partners
and a few hours later: Clergy Pension Scheme – what was and wasn’t decided at General Synod
And AM has also published “A briefing paper by Clive Scowen prepared for the Synod debate”, dated 18 January: Should civil partners be treated like spouses?
Speech to the C of E’s General Synod 11th Feb - Giles Goddard, Chair, Inclusive Church and member of General Synod
I support this motion. But to explain why, I would like to talk first about the wider context in which we find ourselves. Coming to the end of my first Synod I’ve been honoured and humbled to be part of such a wide range of debates. But it does, nevertheless, seem to me that there’s a sort of cancer affecting the Church of England, something which is running through our life and debilitating all that we try to do. It’s not the presence of lesbian and gay people in loving relationships throughout the church, nor is it the opposition to that - no, it’s the argument around all this. It’s been going on for thirty years now, and it comes out in all sorts of different and unhelpful ways. It comes out, for instance, in the agitation in the House of Lords about the Equalities Bill. Whatever the bishops may have intended , and I acknowledge the very real concerns about religious freedom, the result of their activities was to reconfirm in the public mind the connection between Christianity and homophobia – not surprisingly, because the churches do have a history in this area. It comes out in tensions within the Anglican Communion. It was clearly the elephant in the room in our debate yesterday about ACNA, and we might have had a more realistic debate if we’d been able to acknowledge that. It comes out again and again in the lives of those of us trying to do good work in local parishes – I’m based just across the river in Waterloo, and we struggle to engage with institutions like the National Theatre and the South Bank Centre largely because of the church’s attitudes to human sexuality.
We are forfeiting our right to speak on any moral question or question of justice, as anything we say is undermined by the public perception of the church’s attitude on these matters. To be clear- the perception of homophobia in the church is deeply impeding our mission.
This motion gives us a chance to make a fresh start; to act with generosity, and to begin to undo the damage which has been done. We’re all getting tired of this discussion, and I honour the Archbishop’s words on Tuesday. But it’s not going to go away until we find a way of making progress. At the moment we’re locked in an uneasy stalemate, for which we must all bear some responsibility. So we need to find a new way – a way based on much deeper respect for one another’s views, for acknowledgement of their Biblical and faithful roots and the sincerity and deeply known Christianity across the spectrum.
We certainly need, now, leadership from the House of Bishops, reflecting the various views which I know are there but which we hear very little. Above all, we need to rediscover, in this area, the notion that Anglicanism is a community of civilised disagreement.
It’s a question, in the end, of mission. About the face we present to the world. There’s nothing clever or countercultural about resisting the love of God – and that’s how it comes across.
So, now, turning to the motion - I know that there are people in this room for whom civil partnerships are an anathema. There are others whose lives have been transformed by the ceremony, and who are deeply regretful that the church does not yet offer a way to celebrate that before God. This motion isn’t about approval or disapproval of civil partnerships - it’s about justice, generosity and care. If we pass it, we won’t be giving approval to these relationships, but we’ll be reflecting and celebrating the Anglican way for the sake of mission.
On so many other issues – the remarriage of divorced people, for example, or the admission of children to communion, or worship, or the wording of the Lord’s Prayer – over and over again we’ve learnt how to live alongside each other, as I hope we will over women bishops. It’s the parable of the wheat and the tares – both grow until we know the truth. We in Inclusive Church, of which I’m chair, are deeply committed to making that happen. One of my delights is speaking to some- distressingly few but some - evangelical and conservative brothers and sisters, and acknowledging the depth of our mutual attachment within the same church.
And so I will vote for the motion. First, because it’s right. There is no justification for our treating the permanent, stable and faithful partners of clergy any differently to how we treat their spouses, and it’s important to acknowledge that.
And, second, because this gives us an opportunity to be generous, and to send a message to those we serve. We are, as I say, undermining our mission at the moment – we need to demonstrate that we do want to live and work alongside one another for the Reign of God and in the name of justice and love. We’re not talking about very much money; and the symbolism of this would far outweigh the monetary value. So I urge you to support the motion.
General Synod: 11th February 2009: Civil Partners Pensions Debate SpeechSimon Baynes, 394, St Albans
Mr Chairman,
I am the new boy on the Pensions Board. I was elected at the tail end of last year and look forward to my first meeting later this month. After this week’s debates I can see that I shall be very busy! I’m deeply grateful to those who voted for me… and humbled by the size of the vote that came my way.
And, what I say in this speech is a personal view that I shall be taking to the Board when we meet. A personal view of someone who works as an Independent Pensions Trustee.
We all know there are two issues which are certain to fill the press gallery here at Church House. One is the issue of Women Bishops and the other is anything to do with Gay Clergy.
I am sorry to disappoint the ladies and gentlemen up there - there is no debate on Women Bishops in this group of sessions and there is no debate on Gay Clergy either. This is not a debate about Gay Clergy. It is a debate about pensions and the unfairness that we have allowed to be built into our system.
I have been struck by the case of Jeffrey John, who is Dean of the Cathedral where I regularly worship. On realising how he and his partner are treated under the present rules, compared to married clergy, my wife and I were simply appalled.
If Jeffrey died, then his partner for over 30 years would receive £3,370 per annum.
But… if instead of being in partnership for 30 years, had Jeffrey been married for just a few days before he died then his widow would receive £7,550 per annum. That’s more than double!
I commend Mark Bratton for his motion. If there was ever a case of treating one group of clergy unfairly compared to another, this is it.
Mr Chairman, let’s cast our minds forward 38 years. This debate would not be necessary because 43 years would have passed from the Civil Partnership Act becoming law. The discrimination that clergy in civil partnerships face today would have gone away, simply because the clock has ticked forward. We have already accepted the principle of equality. It exists today, except we’re saying it can’t happen fully for 38 years.
Put another way…. How would we feel if slavery had been abolished but existing slaves had to carry on being slaves for another 38 years? The analogy is exactly the same…. and remember, some Christians were against the abolition of slavery even when it happened.
To continue as we are, is tantamount to saying the Church of England will pay “as little as it can get away with”, irrespective of whether it is right or wrong. Employers who pay as little as they can get away with are, in my experience, some of the nastiest employers around and the Church should not be amongst them.
And, we’re not talking about much money in the greater scheme of things. This is not a debate about whether we can afford it. It is a debate about fairness and whether we wish to be in the pursuit of justice.
To vote this motion down would make the Church look, at best very mean, and at worst a laughing stock – We really must avoid this. When I raised this issue with the Policy Director of the National Association of Pension Funds he wrote to me to say “We are in favour of common sense”.
Mr Chairman, I hope that Synod will vote to show that we are all in favour of common sense. I support the motion unamended.
Updated
The synod debate on ACNA has produced these reactions from Americans who support ACNA:
The following article was written by Brian Lewis for the Preludium blog of Mark Harris.
“We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language” (Oscar Wilde, The Canterville Ghost 1887).
I was alarmed but (bearing in mind Oscar’s witticism) should not have been surprised to hear that some in TEC and ACoC might misunderstand the full significance of the Church of England’s General Synod’s decision to reject the call to “express a desire to be in Communion with ACNA”.
But let us be clear it did just that, not once, but twice or perhaps even three times.
To follow through the sequence of events.
The original motion was:
That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America.
In a background paper circulated in advance of the debate the mover (Lorna Ashworth) made a number of allegations about TEC and the ACoC. This clearly established that though the motion was ostensibly only about ACNA it was intended to invite the CoE to condemn the behaviour of TEC and ACoC.
In response to that briefing paper I circulated to all members of synod two papers.
All synod members including the Archbishops were sent these papers (I believe they are now online at Thinking Anglicans). Members of TEC and ACoC are indebted to Simon; I know how hard he worked on the production of theses papers. I also know how grateful many members of synod were to receive them.
Mrs Ashworth duly presented her motion to Synod, the further allegations made in her opening address confirmed that this was indeed a motion inviting synod to condemn the actions of TEC and ACoC.
In response to the original motion the Bishop of Bristol put forward an amendment (with the support of the House of Bishops) entirely replacing it.
The amendment reads
That this synod
(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.
There are two key and essential things to recognise about this amendment (certainly recognised by everyone in the synod and why it was resisted by those supporting ACNA):
(Other finer questions about “affirm” and “remain” were not key to the understanding of this amendment and to my recollection not brought into the debate, indeed an amendment to leave out “affirm” was withdrawn; we could equally say that by saying the leadership had “formed” ACNA the Bishop was saying ACNA is a new church, but that was also not part of the debate nor probably part of the Bishop’s intention. )
The force of this amendment is in replacing OUR desire to be in COMMUNION with THEIR desire to remain part of the Anglican FAMILY.
Synod accepted this amendment.
Synod declined to express “a desire to be in Communion with ACNA”. That matters. Questions not asked are one thing but when a question is asked and the answer is politely No Thank You that changes where you are.
The No Thank You was polite, of course it was, but it was real. The amendment also asked our Archbishops for a report on the situation, and helpfully recognised the reality of the issues any future possible recognition would raise for the relevant authorities.
I find it difficult to see how ACNA could welcome any of this.
Further In case it was just possible that this was not a rejection of synod “expressing a desire to be in Communion with ACNA” the supporters of ACNA put forward again, as an amendment to the Bishop’s amendment, the original request “that this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”. Asking the Synod to say both things at once. A very Anglican fudge that would have been!
The Bishop of Winchester and other ACNA supporters spoke for this, needless to say I spoke against it.
This was the critical moment of the debate - you might just possibly maintain we had in the Bishop’s amendment acknowledged proper procedure - the role of the “relevant authorities” the role of the Archbishops etc, now we could add in the support of our persecuted brothers and sisters (as they were presented to us), and say we desired to be in Communion with them.
The synod carefully considered this and voted No.
That is the second time.
Then we were asked to add an amendment that expressed “our desire that in the interim, the orders of ACNA clergy be recognised and accepted by the Archbishops subject to their satisfaction as to such clergy being of good standing, enabling them to exercise their ordained ministry in this country, according to the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967.”
We said No. Recognising orders is a key part of being in Communion.
I’m afraid I consider that is No a third time.
It was hardly surprising however that nobody objected to the final amendment, an acknowledgement of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada - indeed I had referred to it myself when calling on synod members to support those who had remained faithful to their church.
I know the very existence of this debate raises questions about one part of the Anglican Communion interfering with another - and those questions were raised - but before we answer them, what of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Presidential address expressing “repugnance” of the “infamous” proposed legislation in Uganda, and the efforts he and other CofE bishops have made communicating directly with the Anglican Church in Uganda. It is also not improper for a synod to offer its view of who it hopes we will be in Communion with. But I recognise there are big issues at stake for the Communion generally - I would just reiterate, I see little cause for concern for TEC or ACoC in the outcome of this particular debate, and to be frank it is beyond disingenuous or bizarre for anybody connected with ACNA to pretend this is in anyway an affirmation of ACNA.
Brian Lewis
updated Friday evening
Synod discussed the compatibility of science and Christian belief this morning.
Stephen Bates in The Guardian General Synod says religion and science not mutually exclusive
BBC Synod emphasises compatibility of religion and science
Press Association Religion compatible with science, synod told
Maria Mackay in Christian Today Science and religion are compatible, says Church of England
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Atheists are wrong to claim science and religion are incompatible, Church of England says
A summary of Friday’s business at General Synod is online.
General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Friday 12th February 2010 AM
Summaries of Thursday’s business at General Synod are online.
morning General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Thursday 11th February 2010 AM
afternoon General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Thursday 11th February 2010 PM
updated Friday morning
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Methodists declare ‘we’re ready to merge’ with CofE
Maria Mackay in Christian Today Methodist Church ‘prepared to go out of existence’ for mission
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph General Synod: Methodists likely to merge with Church of England
Jerome Taylor in The Independent Leader signals end of Methodism
Steve Doughty in the Mail Methodist church ‘prepared to go out of existence’
Note The above items refer to an address by the President and the Vice-President of the Methodist Conference to the General Synod on Thursday morning. The Methodist Church of Great Britain have released this press release.
President and Vice-President address General Synod
The text of the address is available here.
Stephen Bates in The Guardian Church of England General Synod extends pension rights for gay partners
The BBC has Synod votes to give gay clergy equal pension rights
Maria Mackay in Christian Today Church grants full pension rights to gay clergy
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Partners of gay clergy win same pensions as spouses
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph General Synod: Church of England backs equal pension rights for gay clergy partners
Stephen Bates in The Guardian Anglican church calls for tighter regulation of violent computer games
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph General Synod: Church expresses ‘concern’ about effects of computer games on children
This afternoon General Synod voted in favour of providing pensions to the surviving civil partners of clergy on the same basis as they are paid to surviving spouses. At present, and in accordance with the minimum requirements of the law, service before 5 December 2005 does not count towards the level of pension for surviving civil partners.
The private member’s motion, text below, was proposed by the Revd Mark Bratton, and was passed without amendment.
That this Synod request the Archbishops’ Council and the Church of England Pensions Board to bring forward changes to the rules governing the clergy pension scheme in order to go beyond the requirements of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and provide for pension benefits to be paid to the surviving civil partners of deceased clergy on the same basis as they are currently paid to surviving spouses.
The vote was taken by houses and all three houses voted in favour; here are the detailed voting figures.
| for | against | abstentions | |
| bishops | 12 |
2 |
3 |
| clergy | 97 |
23 |
10 |
| laity | 78 |
59 |
9 |
There were two unsuccessful proposed amendments. One, from the bishop of Ripon and Leeds, would have reworded the motion to:
That this Synod recognise that it will be some considerable time before surviving civil partners’ pension rights reach parity with those of spouses, and in the light of that note the helpful confirmation from the Pensions Board that surviving civil partners of deceased clergy are eligible to be considered for hardship grants if they meet the same qualifying conditions as apply to surviving spouses.
This amendment was defeated with 110 votes in favour, 154 against and 15 recorded abstentions.
A second amendment, proposed by Dr Philip Giddings, would have added a long list of dependent relatives, as well as civil partners, to those entitled to pensions; this was defeated on a show of hands.
Background papers
GS 1770A paper prepared by Mark Bratton
GS 1770B paper by the Rt Reverend John Packer, Chair of DRACSC (The Archbishops’ Council Deployment, Remuneration and Conditions of Service Committee)
Reports of Wednesday’s broadcasting debate are linked here and of the ACNA debate here.
On other matters there is this.
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Church of England warned against thoughtless criticism of Armed Forces by senior padre
At Ekklesia there is some analysis of what Rowan Williams said on Tuesday, in Archbishop says sorry to gays but defends Church’s discrimination.
In Cif: belief Savi Hensman gets more explicit: Rowan’s apology falls short.
And, I wrote a piece for Cif:belief which is headlined Rowan’s speech and the equality bill.
Also, Kelvin Holdsworth has written Still Shocking.
Updated Thursday morning to include more details of the motion and amendments and further press reports
Stephen Bates in The Guardian Church of England keeps distance from breakaway US conservative Episcopalians
Jerome Taylor in The Independent Church sidesteps gay issue at Synod debate
Avril Ormsby at Reuters UK Church stops short of communion with U.S. conservatives
For the record, the original motion proposed by Lorna Ashworth was
That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America.
Synod amended this to
That this Synod
(a) aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada;
(b) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(c) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(d) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.
The amended motion was largely the proposal of the bishop of Bristol, on behalf of the House of Bishops, but paragraph (a) was added on a proposal from the Revd Andrew Gow (diocese of Gloucester).
The amended motion was carried by 309 votes in favour to 69 against, with 17 recorded abstentions.
There was an attempt to amend the motion to read:
That this Synod
(a) express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America;
(b) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(c) acknowledge these aspirations, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raise issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(d) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.
This was defeated by 166 votes in favour to 223 against with 2 recorded abstentions.
During the debate there were two procedural motions, one to move to next business and one to adjourn the debate, but both were defeated. If carried either would have brought the debate to an immediate end without a vote.
Summaries of Wednesday’s business at General Synod are online.
morning General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Wednesday 10th February 2010 AM
afternoon General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Wednesday 10th February 2010 PM
The second of these will not be complete until after the close of business at 7.00 pm.
Synod debated this private member’s motion on religious broadcasting, proposed by Nigel Holmes, this (Wednesday) morning:
That this Synod call upon the BBC and Ofcom to explain why British television, which was once exemplary in its coverage of religious and ethical issues, now marginalizes the few such programmes which remain and completely ignored the Christian significance of Good Friday 2009.
An amendment was moved by the Bishop of Manchester, and carried by Synod, which reworded the motion to read:
That this Synod
(a) express its appreciation of the vital role played by those engaged in communicating religious belief and practice through the media, at a time of changes within the industry; and
(b) express its deep concern about the overall reduction in religious broadcasting across British television in recent years, and call upon mainstream broadcasters to nurture and develop the expertise to create and commission high quality religious content across the full range of their output, particularly material that imaginatively marks major festivals and portrays acts of worship.
The amended motion was carried by 267 votes in favour with 4 against and 2 recorded abstentions.
Here are some press reports.
Stephen Bates in The Guardian Synod rejects motion attacking broadcasters over lack of religious programmes
Martha Linden of the Press Association in the Independent Church concern over religious broadcast hours
Avril Ormsby of Reuters UK Church of England laments drop in religious TV programmes
The BBC has Church of England concerned by ‘religious TV cuts’
updated Wednesday lunchtime
We covered most of these last night, but here are a couple looking forward to some of today’s business.
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Anglican Church in North America ‘should be in communion with C of E’
The BBC has BBC accused over a lack of religious broadcasts
The Guardian has BBC religious coverage to come under fire at Church of England debate
updated Thursday morning
We link to the text of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s presidential address here. Here are some early press reports of what he said.
Stephen Bates in The Guardian Archbishop of Canterbury appeals for unity over gay clergy and women bishops
update The Guardian has issued a correction to the above article. The online version appears to be correct.
A story reported Rowan Williams’s appeal for Anglicans to show mutual tolerance over issues of gay equality and female bishops. The story also noted a statement put out by the head of the church in Uganda, Henry Orombi, supporting his country’s proposed anti-gay legislation. Contrary to our headline – Archbishop’s plea for tolerance undermined by attack on gay people at General Synod, 10 February, page 4 – the Orombi statement was issued in Kampala. The statement also insisted: “The church is a safe place for individuals to seek help and healing.” This was changed in editing to “Williams’s church”, when the Ugandan archbishop was referring to his own.
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Relaxing assisted suicide laws a ‘moral mistake’ - Archbishop of Canterbury
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Rowan Williams issues ‘profound apology’ to gay Christians
Steve Doughty in the Mail Archbishop of Canterbury says changes to assisted dying laws will ‘cross a moral boundary’
Avril Ormsby at Reuters UK Archbishop warns over restricting religious freedoms
updated Tuesday evening
Summaries of Tuesday’s business at General Synod are online.
morning General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Tuesday 9th February 2010 AM
afternoon General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Tuesday 9th February 2010 PM
The Archbishop of Canterbury gave his presidential address to General Synod this afternoon. A press release is online, followed by the text of the speech.
Archbishop’s Presidential Address
In addition there is Word document of the speech linked from here.
The Archbishop delivering his address.
Stephen Bates in The Guardian New split in Church of England over women bishops
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph General Synod: Church of England exodus feared unless women bishops plans changed
Andrew Hough in the Telegraph General Synod: Church of England suffering from ‘testosterone deficit’
George Pitcher in the Telegraph The Church is full of women – so obviously what we don’t need is women bishops
Jonathan Wynne-Jones in the Telegraph Church of England is ‘living in the past’, says BBC’s head of religion
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Dr Rowan Williams to challenge infighting over gays and women bishops
Steve Doughty in the Mail Where have all the men gone? asks the Church of England
Jerome Taylor in the Independent Evangelicals in warning over women bishops
Many of these articles refer to this press release from Reform Reform highlights ‘huge practical problems’ with women bishops and an attached letter sent to Synod members.
A critical view of the ACNA resolution is contained in an article published on Fulcrum and due to also appear on Religious Intellligence written by the Bishop of Sherborne, Graham Kings.
Read General Synod Motion concerning the Anglican Church in North America.
The Church of England Newspaper reports that one episcopal signer of the original resolution has had new thoughts. In Controversial American vote defused by House of Bishops it is reported that:
The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, said: “My name is on the original motion of Lorna Ashworth’s, and I’m happy that it was and is, but I realise that it is more practical to ask the Synod to do something that it really is in a position to do. “It is not in fact the role of the Church of England to make these kind of decisions, nor is it for Synod to make these kind of decisions. Therefore, to enable the archbishops and the bishops and others to vote positively, there needs to be an amendment like that which the Bishop of Bristol will be bringing.
“It does two things. It brings the motion in line with the constitutional role and the canonical realities as to who actually makes these decisions. At the same time it is a clear and positive affirmation of the character and intentions and standpoint of the ACNA.”
Somebody who left the Church of England quite a while ago, Charles Raven, now a major force in the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans says this, in a piece published on Anglican Mainstream titled The English General Synod: The Centre Cannot Hold:
…it is as much about the English Church as the Church in North America.
She poses precisely the sort of question that the Church of England’s leadership wants to avoid because the ACNA represents a choice which must be made between two incompatible forms of religion – historic biblical Anglicanism and that pseudo- Anglicanism being promoted by TEC and its allies which derives its energy from the spirit of the age rather than the Spirit of Christ.
Tobias Haller has composed some pithy questions that member of General Synod might care to ponder about ACNA:
Please consider the following for a moment:
1) What would be done in the Church of England if a bishop from the convocation of Canterbury were to announce one day that he no longer considered himself to be under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and had transferred his allegiance to the Archbishop of Tanzania, but intended to remain in his present location and exercise episcopal functions as a representative of his new archbishop?
2) What would be done in the Church of England in the case of a priest who announced that he no longer recognized his diocesan bishop as having any authority over him, but refused to relinquish his cure? And if he invited bishops from other dioceses or provinces to do parish visitations there?
3) What would be done in the Church of England if the clergy and parish council of a parish in, shall we say, Dibley, announced that it was no longer part of the Church of England, but considered itself now to be a congregation of the Church of the Province of the Sudan, altered all of their signage and other public information to reflect this change, purporting now to be part of “The Anglican Church in England” and invited bishops from the Sudan to function in the parish, refusing to have anything more to do with their C. of E. diocese or its leadership?
These are the kinds of things The Episcopal Church is having to deal with, as facts on the ground. Any depositions, inhibitions, or lawsuits are a result of and in response to precisely these sorts of actions. Consider carefully how you vote on the motion to come before you. You may soon be dealing with just such situations yourself.
A summary of Monday’s business at General Synod is online.
General Synod - Summary of Business Conducted on Monday 8th February 2010 PM
There are links to audio of the proceedings.
The questions to be asked at General Synod next week are now online.
General Synod February 2010 Questions
The answers will be given in the last item of business on Monday 8 February.
Today’s Church Times carries a news report by Pat Ashworth Accuracy of briefing paper on ACNA challenged.
This mentions a press release from the American Anglican Council, which you can see here: AAC Tracks Episcopal Church’s Canonical Abuse - Plight of Orthodox Anglicans.
This article from almost a year ago may be useful: 16 February 2009 ACNA publishes statistics.
And there is this one from earlier, 12 December 2008 ACNA: 700 congregations?
Also, 12 December, revised 19 December 2008: church press covers ACNA
And there are other articles from last year:
April: ACNA does not expect recognition
June: more about ACNA
July: General Synod: Questions about ACNA and ACNA and FCA
The Church Times today carries my report of recent events under the headline: Churches to keep their exemption from equality law, Harman confirms.
THE LAW covering church employment will stay as it is, the Minister for Women and Equality, Harriet Harman, said on Tuesday. She was speaking after the defeat in the Lords of an amendment to the Equality Bill (News, 29 January), which sought to clarify the exemption for religious bodies from the existing legislation, to ensure that it applied only to church ministers…
This report also includes two sections on more of the House of Lords debates from Monday and Wednesday of last week, including the one on Civil Partnerships venues.
Earlier on Monday of last week, the House considered a proposal from Lord Alli to to amend the Civil Partnerships Act to allow religious venues to be used.
Lord Harries, the former Bishop of Oxford, spoke in support. He said: “The Government were absolutely right to respect the religious sensitivities of the Church of England when the Civil Partnership Bill went through Parliament, but since that time a new situation has emerged. The Quakers, liberal Jews, and other religious bodies have made it quite clear that they want permission to conduct these ceremonies in a religious context with religious language. This is a fundamental issue of religious freedom…”
Cif: belief yesterday carried a comment article by Riazat Butt headlined More Catholic than the pope.
There is still much anger over the pope’s comments about UK equality laws. Part of me wonders why people are surprised by the nature of his observations – they are exactly what one would expect – and part of me also wonders why people are focusing on the equality bill, which was more about Anglicans than Catholics. The Catholic bishops did not turn a blind eye to the proposed legislation, but it was the Lords Spiritual who went to war over it. They won. Well done them. That the established church is trying to shut out people whose lifestyle is at odds with Christian ethos brings the words “stable”, “door” and “bolted” to mind. Their attempts to legitimise “sexual cleansing” also reminds me of the time that Katharine Jefferts Schori accused the C of E of double standards…
and she concludes:
While I accept the pope was out of order for passing judgment on equality legislation and UK attitudes towards homosexuality, the same level of anger and outrage must be directed at those Church of England bishops who fought tooth and nail to keep the status quo, to preserve their right to discriminate against gays and lesbians and to institutionalise and legitimise prejudice against anyone they deemed to be unfit for purpose because of their lifestyle.
Steve Bell in the Guardian had a cartoon, see Your equality laws are unjust, pope tells UK before visit.
Listen to Archbishop Peter Smith of Cardiff, speaking on Vatican Radio in Rome on Tuesday.
The Guardian published this editorial comment on Wednesday: Equalities legislation: The pope protests.
The Question of the Week at Cif:belief has been Does faith trump equality? (This was started on Monday, before the Pope spoke.)
In response to the Pope incident, Martin Pendergast wrote at Cif: belief All of us deserve equality.
And Simon Jenkins wrote An odious view, indeed. But I’m with Pope Benedict on this one.
The Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks wrote in The Times The Pope is right about the threat to freedom.
The Archbishop of York gave a lecture, in Newcastle, titled Gracious Magnanimity vs. Tolerance. You can read the full text of that here.
Updated again Tuesday morning
The Pope has commented on British equality legislation.
Cif belief has republished an address delivered to the Catholic bishops of England and Wales by Pope Benedict on 1 February 2010.
The key paragraph is this:
Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed. I urge you as Pastors to ensure that the Church’s moral teaching be always presented in its entirety and convincingly defended. Fidelity to the Gospel in no way restricts the freedom of others – on the contrary, it serves their freedom by offering them the truth. Continue to insist upon your right to participate in national debate through respectful dialogue with other elements in society. In doing so, you are not only maintaining long-standing British traditions of freedom of expression and honest exchange of opinion, but you are actually giving voice to the convictions of many people who lack the means to express them: when so many of the population claim to be Christian, how could anyone dispute the Gospel’s right to be heard?
There has been a speedy British media reaction to this:
Telegraph Damian Thompson Pope tells English and Welsh bishops to get their act together and Has the Pope declared war on Labour?
Martin Beckford Pope Benedict XVI criticises ‘unjust’ effects of Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill
Press Association Pope confirms he will visit Britain Headline changed to Pope attacks equality laws in UK
The Times Ruth Gledhill Pope Benedict XVI confirms first state visit to UK and Pope: Britain’s equal rights legislation ‘violates’ natural law and Pope Benedict XVI attacks Labour’s equality push
BBC Pope Benedict confirms first papal UK visit since 1982
Guardian Riazat Butt Pope condemns gay equality laws ahead of first UK visit
Independent Jerome Taylor Pope: I’ll visit but I don’t like your equality laws
Monday evening additions
Government Equalities Office press statement:
“The Pope acknowledges our country’s firm commitment to equality for all members of society. We believe everyone should have a fair chance in life and not be discriminated against. The Equality Bill will make Britain a fairer and more equal place.”
Telegraph Editorial Opinion Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill should be laid to rest headline changed to The Pope, Labour and religious freedom.
The Times Ruth Gledhill Pope Benedict XVI misses the point in his attack on UK equality law
Guardian Andrew Brown Papal aggression
Catholic Herald Mark Greaves Pope Benedict condemns Equality Bill
Reuters Philip Pullella Pope confirms Britain visit, attacks equality bill and second version of this story
Telegraph Martin Beckford Pope Benedict XVI attacks Labour’s ‘unjust’ equality laws ahead of UK visit and later version Pope attacks Labour laws on equality
Tuesday morning updates
Daily Mail Simon Caldwell Pope condemns Harman equality drive as ‘violation of natural law’
Mirror POPE SLAMS RIGHTS BILL
BBC Pope Benedict attacks government over Equality Bill
Herald (Scotland) Outrage as Pope attacks UK equality laws ahead of state visit
Press Association Anger as Pope slams UK equality law
Also Martha Linden of PA, via Independent Anger after Pope slams ‘unjust’ UK equality laws
Guardian Riazat Butt Your equality laws are unjust, pope tells UK before visit
Today’s Church Times has three mentions of the bill.
There is a full news report of Monday’s debate, written by me, Bishops win in Equality Bill fight.
There is a leader, titled Opportunities not yet equal.
And there is comment on the secular press coverage of it in the Press Column (subscriber only until next week) by Andrew Brown.
THE Government’s defeat in the Lords over the Equality Bill was covered on remarkably simple left/right lines: for the right-wing papers, the issue was simply one of the freedom of the Churches from the oppressions of Harriet Harman and the European Union; for the Left, it was just as simply the freedom of gays to be employed…
The Church of England Newspaper devoted its entire front page to the bill. The main news story is reproduced over here.
Catholic Herald Anna Arco Government suffers Equality Bill defeat
More to follow.
Comment is free: belief has today published an article written by me, see
Churches panic over equality bill.
The bishops say in their press release that they are supporting three specific amendments to Schedule 9 Clause 2 of the Equality Bill. Here is the detail of the third one. As before, please remember two things:
- this clause does not deal with discrimination on the grounds of Religion or Belief, that is covered in Clause 3.
- this clause deals with a variety of other requirements as listed in paragraph 4.
Amendment 100 is sponsored by Baroness O’Cathain, Lord Anderson of Swansea, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, and Baroness Butler-Sloss.
This removes paragraph 8 entirely, thus:
(8) Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if the employment wholly or mainly involves— (a) leading or assisting in the observance of liturgical or ritualistic practices of the religion, or (b) promoting or explaining the doctrine of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).
There is no such wording in existing legislation.
Before that amendment is considered, Amendment 99A will be moved by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, on behalf of the government. This amendment inserts the following wording at the end of paragraph 6, leaving paragraph 8 unchanged. However, Baroness Royall has stated that if Amendment 99A is passed, the government will accept Amendment 100.
”( ) Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if—
(a) the employment is as a minister of religion, or
(b) the employment is in another post that exists (or, where the post has not previously been filled, that would exist) to promote or represent the religion or to explain the doctrines of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).”
The government says that this is only a clarification of the existing law, and does not constitute any change. It refers to the statement made by Lord Sainsbury of Turville in the House of Lords in 2003:
“When drafting Regulation 7(3), we had in mind a very narrow range of employment: ministers of religion, plus a small number of posts outside the clergy, including those who exist to promote and represent religion.” [Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 2003; Vol. 649, c. 779.]
The bishops say “the current limited exemptions for organised religions are balanced and should not be further restricted.”
What they ask is for candidates for “a small number of lay posts”, or more exactly “certain senior lay posts that involve promoting and representing the religion” to be required “to demonstrate an ability to live a life consistent with the ethos of the religion”.
There are two other amendments being proposed to Clause 2.
In Amendment 97E Lord Alli proposes to delete paragraph (4f) thus
(f) a requirement related to sexual orientation.
In Amendment 100A Baroness Turner of Camden proposes to insert three words in paragraph 8, thus:
-(8) Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if the purpose of the employment wholly or mainly involves etc.
The bishops say in their press release that they are supporting three specific amendments to Schedule 9 Clause 2 of the Equality Bill. Here is the detail of the first two. Please remember two things:
- this clause does not deal with discrimination on the grounds of Religion or Belief, that is covered in Clause 3.
- this clause deals with a variety of other requirements as listed in paragraph 4.
Amendments 98 and 99 are sponsored by Baroness O’Cathain, Lord Anderson of Swansea, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, and Baroness Butler-Sloss.
These amendments have the following effect:
(5) The application of a requirement engages the compliance principle if the
application is a proportionate means of complyingrequirement is applied so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion.(6) The application of a requirement engages the non-conflict principle if, because of the nature or context of the employment, the
application is a proportionate means of avoiding conflictrequirement is applied so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers.
The wording that they seek to delete was not in Clause 7 of the 2003 Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, nor was it in the The Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005 amending Clause 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, both of which are to be replaced by this Schedule.
The proportionality principle is however a requirement of the European Employment Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000.
Article 4
Occupational requirements
1. Notwithstanding Article 2(1) and (2), Member States may provide that a difference of treatment which is based on a characteristic related to any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out, such a characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement, provided that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate.
2. Member States may maintain national legislation in force at the date of adoption of this Directive or provide for future legislation incorporating national practices existing at the date of adoption of this Directive pursuant to which, in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, a difference of treatment based on a person’s religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out, a person’s religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation’s ethos. This difference of treatment shall be implemented taking account of Member States’ constitutional provisions and principles, as well as the general principles of Community law, and should not justify discrimination on another ground.
Provided that its provisions are otherwise complied with, this Directive shall thus not prejudice the right of churches and other public or private organisations, the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, acting in conformity with national constitutions and laws, to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation’s ethos.
Or in other words, the Directive contains a strict test which must be satisfied if a difference of treatment is to be considered non-discriminatory: there must be a genuine and determining occupational requirement, the objective must be legitimate and the requirement proportionate. No elements of this test appear in Regulation 7(3).
Church of England press release received at 11 am Saturday
Equality Bill: ‘Churches must not face further restrictions’
23 January 2010
A statement issued on behalf of the Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt, Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Michael Langrish, Bishop of Exeter and Chair of the Churches Legislation Advisory Service and the Rt Revd Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester, as bishops who have taken a keen interest in the progression of the Bill:
“This Monday, as Peers meet to consider the Government’s Equality Bill, they will be asked to vote on an issue of great importance to Christians and all people of faith. At stake is how we, as a liberal democracy based on Christian values, strike the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of different groups to be protected from harassment and unfair discrimination and the rights of churches and religious organisations to appoint and employ people consistently with their guiding doctrine and ethos.
“The Christian Churches, alongside many other faiths, support the Equality Bill’s wider aims in promoting fairness in society and improving redress for those who have suffered unjust treatment.
“However, unless the present drafting of the Bill is changed, churches and other faiths will find themselves more vulnerable to legal challenge than under the current law. When regulations on employment discrimination were passed as recently as 2003, churches and other faiths were granted certain limited exemptions by parliament to be used when recruiting ministers of religion or others to a small number of lay posts. These enabled religious organisations to apply requirements that candidates for certain senior lay posts that involve promoting and representing the religion are able to demonstrate an ability to live a life consistent with the ethos of the religion, as well as sharing the faith.
“The government have said that they share our view - that the current limited exemptions for organised religions are balanced and should not be further restricted. Yet they are proposing to modify them. They have produced no convincing case for change. They have now offered to amend their original proposals in the Bill but instead of reverting to the status quo have produced words which will still create difficulties for churches and religious groups. This despite our raising the problem many months ago and offering various ways of resolving the issue.
“We must conclude therefore that the only way to maintain the status quo in exemptions for religious organisations is for Peers to support amendments 98, 99 and 100 on Monday, tabled by Baroness O’Cathain and the Bishop of Winchester, over and above the Governnment’s compromise amendment 99A.”
updated Friday evening and Saturday morning to include more press reports
The Church of England has released provisional attendance figures for 2008: Provisional attendance figures for 2008.
There is a press release summarising and commenting on the figures. The full text of the press release is reproduced below the fold.
The think-tank Ekklesia has published its views on the figures: Church of England sees greater decline in church attendance.
Andrew Brown writes in his blog in The Guardian Church statistics: not many dead.
Riazat Butt writes in The Guardian Church of England attendance falls for fifth year in row.
Andy Bloxham and Martin Beckford in the Telegraph write Average age of churchgoers now 61, Church of England report finds.
Ruth Gledhill writes in the Times Church of England congregations fall again, and half are pensioners.
Also published today is research surveying of the diversity of Church of England congregations: Celebrating Diversity in the Church of England.
Provisional attendance figures for 2008 released: attending a local CofE church is part of a typical week for 1.1 million people
22 January 2010
The latest local church attendance figures from the Church of England show that around 1.7 million people continue to attend Church of England services each month, and around 1.1 million attend church as part of a typical week – and not just on a Sunday.
Regular attendance
The total number of adults, children and young people regularly attending local churches has dropped two per cent overall in the six years since 2002, with the 2008 figures showing a drop of one per cent against the number attending on an average week in 2007. The number of under 16s increased by three per cent over the year, returning to two per cent below their 2002 level.
People continue to attend church on other days than Sunday. For every 50 people attending church or cathedrals on a typical Sunday, another 10 attend during the week and an extra 37 in total over a month.
The Revd Lynda Barley, the Church of England’s Head of Research and Statistics, comments: “The figures released today, covering regular local church attendees, give an important but inevitably partial snapshot of today’s Church. They paint a mixed picture for 2008. Alongside some encouraging signs, such as the number of under 16s in church increasing and growth in church attendance in 14 out of 44 dioceses, are some disappointments, with further small declines in traditional attendance measures. Excluded from these figures are Fresh Expressions, chapel services in hospitals, education and other establishments, some international congregations and the projects funded by the Youth Evangelism Fund.
“It is important to see these trends in the context of wider changes in a society where fewer people are willing to join and take part in membership organizations. Political parties have seen their memberships fall by around 40 per cent in recent years. Even in a General Election year, almost double the number of members of the three main political parties taken together will attend a Church of England parish church on Sunday.”
Marking life events
The total number of baptisms remained stable, with increases in the number of ‘child’ and ‘adult’ baptisms (those aged one year and older). The number of ‘infant’ baptisms (under one year old) fell by two per cent. The number of Thanksgivings for the birth of a child fell by five per cent.
The number of marriages taking place in parish churches fell by three per cent to 53,100 (significant changes to marriage law which widened the number of churches where couples are eligible to be married did not take effect until October 2008 and their effect is not, therefore, fully reflected in these figures). Blessings of marriages following a civil ceremony fell (by three per cent, to 4,400). The total number of weddings in the UK in 2008 has not yet been published, although numbers have been falling by around three per cent each year in recent years.
The total number of funerals conducted by the Church of England also dropped (by three per cent, to 188,100), particularly those taking place in crematoria (by five per cent, to 93,600); this is against a backdrop of a falling UK mortality rate (the number of deaths fell by 1.4 per cent between 2007 and 2008).
More than nine in ten Church of England parish churches completed attendance counts, representing the highest participation rate ever. These have been verified across all 16,000 Church of England churches by the Research and Statistics Department of the Archbishops’ Council. The provisional figures can be seen on the web at: www.cofe.anglican.org/info/statistics/2008provisionalattendance.pdf.
Celebrating festivals
The trend detected in recent years whereby attendance dips when Christmas Day falls on a weekday continued in 2008, with attendance over Christmas Eve and Christmas Day remaining similar to that in 2007. Attendances and those receiving Communion on Easter Sunday fell by around four per cent against 2007.
The number of adults on the electoral roll of local parish churches remained stable, as expected following the major revision reported in 2007’s statistics. The historic ‘usual Sunday attendance’ measure (see note below for definition) fell three per cent to 845,000 (2007: 868,000; 2006: 871,000).
Separate research published today surveying the diversity of Church of England congregations, called Celebrating Diversity in the Church of England, is available at: www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/feb2010/gsmisc/gsmisc938.doc.
Notes
* Fresh Expressions is a movement led by the Church of England and the Methodist Church to nurture contemporary forms of church life alongside traditional ones (www.freshexpressions.org.uk). Fresh Expressions are being formed in a variety of ways, from new congregations targeting particular groups such as Goths, to café churches and skateboard parks.
** The Youth Evangelism Fund is supported by the Archbishops’ Council (50 per cent), the Henry Smith Charity, the Laing Family Trusts, and the Jerusalem Trust. It aims to enable more young people to connect with the Gospel and develop faith within the life of the Church by allowing young people to share faith with their peers in ways that make sense to them. Each year for five years, eight to 10 dioceses are receiving YEF support to resource new ideas for mission.
Membership of the three main political parties has fallen from a total of c.781,000 in 2000, to c.476,000 in 2008. Taken from House of Commons Library research paper, August 2009: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-05125.pdf.
Definition of terms
Average Sunday attendance: the average number of attendees at Sunday church services, typically over a four-week period in October.
Average weekly attendance: the average number of attendees at church services throughout the week, typically over a four-week period in October.
Each of the above measures is provided separately for adults and children/young people aged under 16 years. The highest and lowest counts over the four-week period are calculated as follows:
Highest Sunday/weekly attendance: the sum of the highest Sunday (weekly) attendances over the four-week period. The ‘highest’ figures on the accompanying tables are proxies (in fact under-estimates) for monthly attendance levels.
Lowest Sunday/weekly attendance: the sum of the lowest Sunday (weekly) attendances over the four-week period.
Attendance figures are only included where local churches held at least one church-based service (which included adult presence) during the week under examination.
The traditional usual Sunday attendance (uSa) measure is interpreted differently across the dioceses and is therefore not regarded as statistically accurate as a comparison.
The Church Times reports on the agenda for February, Margaret Duggan writes Synod’s ‘full agenda’ to include pensions, Fresh Expressions, and religion on TV.
And, in a separate article, Pat Ashworth writes Synod to debate the ACNA. More details of that motion with full copies of the two background papers (and our main discussion of it) can be found here.
The BBC reported Anglican dissidents put back decision on Vatican offer.
In connection with the preceding item, the Church TImes also has an article by Bill Bowder on a meeting earlier this week at Westminster Abbey: Rome not ‘escape hatch’ Abbey conference hears.
And the Carlisle-based News and Star reports Retired Cumbrian producer attacks BBC over religious coverage.
General Synod members have been sent the following paper outlining how the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant will be considered for adoption by the Church of England.
GS MISC 934
THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION COVENANT
1. I received on 18 December from the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion the final text of the Anglican Communion Covenant, approved for distribution that day by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, for formal consideration for adoption. The full copy of the text is available at http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/final/text.cfm.
2. The approval of the text by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion comes at the end of a long process flowing from the publication of the report of the Lambeth Commission - The Windsor Report - in October 2004. Synod has subsequently discussed governance issues in the Anglican Communion and the possibility of the draft Covenant in February 2005, July 2007, February 2008, July 2008 and February 2009.
3. GS 1716, which was prepared for last February’s debate, gave some indication of the synodical process which would need to be undertaken to adopt the Covenant, though it made clear that certain matters could not be resolved until the final text of the Covenant was available.
4. What happens now is that the Faith and Order Advisory Group, which has led the work on earlier Church of England responses to drafts of the Covenant, will consider the text and offer an assessment which will be available to the House of Bishops when it next meets in May. In addition the Legal Office will consider whether the text means that the Synod’s process of adoption will need to follow the Article 7 and or 8 procedures.
5. Once the House of Bishops is satisfied that the Covenant should be commended to the Synod for adoption it will be for the Business Committee to decide when to schedule the initial debate. As noted in GS 1716 it is likely that, from receiving the final text the Church of England will need “at least 18 months to 2 years to come to a final decision.”
WILLIAM FITTALL
12 January 2010
WATCH (Women and the Church) issued this statement this evening.
WATCH PRESS STATEMENT
Tuesday, 19th January 2010 – for immediate release
FURTHER DELAY FOR WOMEN BISHOPS
Following the publication this week of General Synod’s February agenda, WATCH notes with deep regret that there will be no debate on the draft legislation for women bishops. The Revision Committee set up to prepare the legislation which will open the Episcopate to women has failed to complete its task in time for February’s synod, as requested in a synod motion one year ago. Although not explicitly asked to do so, the Revision Committee considered a range of options for the legislation, including models already rejected by General Synod.
Despite this disappointing setback, WATCH would like to thank those members of the Revision Committee who have worked hard and with dedication in their attempt to achieve the aims of the General Synod to create something that offers a moment of transformation of historic proportions in the life of the Church.
“At least no one can say that any stone has been left unturned” said Christina Rees, chair of WATCH. “We now expect the very best legislation to be presented well in advance of the July meeting of General Synod. We hope to see a clear, workable and straightforward set of proposals, which are closely aligned to what Synod requested in July 2008, namely legislation making it possible for women to be bishops within the existing structures of the Church. Perhaps all the extra time this is taking will help the Revision Committee to reach the simplicity that lies beyond complexity.”
WATCH is pleased to see that the Bishop of Manchester, as Chair of the Steering Committee, is to give February’s Synod a report on the process so far and hopes that he will provide a full explanation of the reasons for the delay. WATCH also hopes that he would agree that it would be unthinkable if their report is not brought to the July 2010 meeting of General Synod. This matter is of such ecclesial and public importance that should the Church fail to honour its decisions to allow women to be bishops, especially as women account for nearly 40% of the Church’s active clergy, it risks becoming an object of ridicule. WATCH therefore hopes that the Bishop of Manchester will provide assurances that the report will indeed be brought to the July 2010 meeting of General Synod without suffering further prevarication and delay.
Further, WATCH believes it is now incumbent upon the Revision Committee to produce a comprehensive report that will obviate the need for past models and options to be considered yet again in July 2010. Along with doubtless many members of General Synod, WATCH would also expect the Revision Committee’s report to be available well in advance of the July meeting, so that proper consideration and consultation may take place.
WATCH also hopes that the Business Committee will make every effort to ensure sufficient time and flexibility is scheduled at the July Synod to complete all the stages necessary for the draft legislation to be sent to the dioceses.
CONTACTS:
Christina Rees
(Chair)
01763–848-822
Revd Hugh Lee
(General Synod member)
01865-316-245
Revd Rachel Weir
(Vice-Chair)
07815-729-565
Revd Dr Charles Read
(Vice-Chair)
07910-128-265
Next month’s meeting of General Synod will be debating this private member’s motion, proposed by The Revd Mark Bratton, on Thursday 11 February:
“That this Synod request the Archbishops’ Council and the Church of England Pensions Board to bring forward changes to the rules governing the clergy pension scheme in order to go beyond the requirements of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and provide for pension benefits to be paid to the surviving civil partners of deceased clergy on the same basis as they are currently paid to surviving spouses.‟.
Here are the papers for this debate.
GS 1770A Background paper by Mark Bratton available here as a PDF, and also here as a web page
GS 1770B Background note from the Rt Reverend John Packer available here as a PDF, and also here as a web page
Next month’s meeting of General Synod will be debating this private member’s motion, proposed by Lorna Ashworth, on Wednesday 10 February:
“That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with
the Anglican Church in North America”.
Here are the papers for this debate.
GS 1764A Background paper by Lorna Ashworth available here as a PDF, and also here as a web page
GS 1764B Background note from the Secretary General available here as a PDF, and also here as a web page
Some early reports on next month’s Synod business.
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph BBC’s ‘marginalisation’ of religion to be criticised by Church of England’s governing body
Riazat Butt in The Guardian Religion on TV either marginalised or freak show, clergy complain
Jonathan Wynne-Jones in the Telegraph Church to vote on greater rights for partners of gay clergy
Riazat Butt in The Guardian Delay hits ordination of women bishops
Martha Linden (Press Association) in the Independent Key debate on women bishops delayed
The General Synod of the Church of England will meet in London from 8 to 12 February 2010. The following press release was issued a short time ago.
See our adjoining item for links to online Synod papers.
Full agenda published for February’s General Synod
18 January 2010
Debates on children and young people, mission, TV coverage of religion, science and religious belief, church buildings, relations with the Anglican Church in North America, clergy pensions and legislation feature in sessions of the Church of England’s ‘parliament,’ the General Synod, to be held in London from February 8th to 12th.
Children and young people
Synod will debate the report Going for Growth, on the Board of Education’s new strategy for children and young people. This offers both a theological framework and practical proposals, and is a sequel to the debate at the July 2009 Synod on the major inquiry into childhood commissioned by The Children’s Society, A Good Childhood.
Mission
The report and motion from the Mission and Public Affairs Council will follow up the 2004 Synod debate on ‘Mission-shaped Church’ and will encourage action in training and deployment; the making of Bishops’ Mission Orders, and research on the growth of the ‘mixed-economy Church.’ Bishop Graham Cray (Archbishops’ Missioner and Fresh Expressions Team Leader) will give a presentation on the current programme and future plans for Fresh Expressions.
TV coverage of religion and ethics
A Private Member’s Motion from Mr. Nigel Holmes (Carlisle) invites the Synod to ask the BBC and Ofcom to explain why British television marginalises TV coverage of religious and ethical issues.
Legislation
Synod will be asked to complete several items of legislative business – chiefly the Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure, which will put in place a new framework for the making of orders for parochial fees. Synod will also be asked to approve two codes of practice issued by the Archbishops’ Council, which set out the capability and grievance procedures that will apply to the clergy under the new common tenure arrangements.
Clergy pensions
An Archbishops’ Council report sets out the reasons for the proposed changes to the Clergy Pensions Scheme. These include increasing the pension age for future service to 68 and increasing the accrual period for future service to 43 years. There is a separate report on changes being proposed in relation to ill-health retirement.
There is also a Private Member’s Motion from the Revd Mark Bratton (Coventry) which asks the Archbishops’ Council and the Pensions Board to bring forward changes to the pension scheme’s rules, to provide pension benefits for surviving civil partners.
Science and religious belief
Synod will debate a Diocesan Synod Motion from Manchester, expressing concern at the perceived need to choose between the claims of science and belief in God; and urging the House of Bishops to promote a better public understanding of the compatibility of science and Christian belief.
Church buildings
The Cathedrals and Church Buildings Division will give a short presentation on what the Division has achieved since the publication five years ago of Building Faith in our Future, and the challenges that cathedrals and church buildings face today. This will preface a debate on the Ripon and Leeds Diocesan Synod Motion, which seeks to increase substantially the amount of money available for the repair of listed church buildings.
Relations with the Anglican Church in North America
A Private Member’s Motion from Mrs. Lorna Ashworth (Chichester) asks the Synod to express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America (which includes churches which have separated from The Episcopal Church in the United States, and the Anglican Church of Canada).
Other Private Members Motions and Diocesan Synod Motions
There will be a debate on a Private Members’ Motion from Mr. Tom Benyon (Oxford) which expresses concern about the potentially desensitising and damaging effects on children and young people of computer games containing violent and sexual content; and seeks changes to the classification system for video games and a review of the regulatory system for advertising video games.
There are two other Diocesan Synod Motions. One from Chelmsford asks Synod to request dioceses, deaneries and parishes to adopt some symbol of the Church’s confidence in the Bible for the nation, bearing in mind that 2011 is the 400th anniversary of the Authorised Version of the Bible. The other is from Coventry diocese, which asks for the case for legislation conferring incorporated status on deanery synods to be considered.
Women bishops
The Revision Committee on Women in the Episcopate has reluctantly concluded that it still has too much to undertake in order to conclude its work in time for the February Synod. The Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Revd. Nigel McCulloch, as Chair of the Steering Committee, will make a statement.
Other business
Synod will be addressed by the President and Vice-President of the Methodist Conference (the Reverend David Gamble, and Dr. Richard Vautrey) as an expression of the Covenant relationship between the Church of England and the Methodist Church. There will be an opportunity for questions and contributions from the floor.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, will give a Presidential Address. There will also be a presentation on the role of armed forces chaplains in the current military operations overseas.
There is also one item of liturgical business: the Revision Stage of the Additional Weekday Lectionary; and some business relating to Synod’s Standing Orders, and the forthcoming Synod elections.
Communicating Synod
Parishioners can keep in touch with the General Synod while it meets. Background papers and other information will be posted on the Church of England website ahead of the General Synod sessions. A live feed will be available courtesy of Premier Radio (accessible from front page of www.cofe.anglican.org), and audio files of debates, along with updates on the days’ proceedings will be posted during the sessions.
Many papers for next month’s meeting of General Synod are now online. The list below will be updated as the remainder become available. Papers are also listed when they are known to exist but are not yet online.
Updated 20, 25, 26, 29 January
Agenda
GS 1756 Full Agenda
Outline Agenda
Papers for Debate
The scheduled day for debate is appended.
GS 1639B Draft Amending Canon No 29 [Tuesday]
GS 1639C Petition to the Crown
GS 1639Z Report of the Steering Committee
GS 1715B Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure [Tuesday]
GS 1715Z Report of the Steering Committee
GS 1724A Additional Weekday Lectionary and Amendments to Calendar, Lectionary and Collects [Wednesday]
GS 1724Y Report of the Revision Committee
GS 1727A Care of Cathedrals Measure [Tuesday and Thursday]
GS 1740A Mission and Pastoral Measure [Tuesday and Thursday]
GS 1740Y Revision Committee Report
GS 1757 Report by the Business Committee [Monday]
GS 1758 Clergy Pensions: Task Group Report [Tuesday]
GS 1759 Clergy Pensions: Ill-health retirement [Tuesday]
GS 1760 General Synod Elections 2010 [Tuesday]
GS 1761 Mission Shaped Church: Follow-up [Tuesday]
GS 1763 44th Report of the Standing Orders Committee [Wednesday]
GS 1766 Fresh Expressions [Thursday]
GS 1767 Realising the missionary potential of Church buildings [Thursday]
GS 1769 Going for Growth (covering note only) [Thursday]
Going for Growth report
GS 1774 and GS 1775 Codes of Practice under Section 8 of the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure 2009 [Tuesday]
GS 1774-5X Explanatory Memorandum
Private Member’s Motions
GS 1762A and GS 1762B (Mr Nigel Holmes): TV Coverage of Religious and Ethical Issues [Wednesday]
GS 1764A and GS 1764B (Mrs Lorna Ashworth): Anglican Church in North America [Wednesday]
GS 1770A and GS 1770B (The Revd Mark Bratton): Parity of pension provision for surviving civil partners [Thursday]
GS 1771A and GS 1771B (Mr Thomas Benyon): Violent computer games [Thursday]
Diocesan Synod Motions
GS 1765A and GS 1765B (Chelmsford): Confidence in the Bible [Wednesday]
GS 1768 (Ripon and Leeds): Repair of Church buildings [Thursday]
GS 1772A and GS 1772B (Manchester): Compatibility of Science and Christian Belief [Friday]
GS 1773A and GS 1773B (Coventry): Deanery Synods [Friday]
Pat Ashworth reports in the Church Times today, Women face another delay as committee misses deadline.
THE draft legislation on women bishops will not be coming before the General Synod for debate next month as scheduled. Instead, the revision committee is expected still to be working on it after Easter. It will not now be debated till July…
This became public knowledge by the issue of the draft agenda, a little over a week ago.
Also, Jane Hedges writes about women in senior clergy posts, A little encouragement is all it will take.
This contains the results of a survey which showed that women clergy were less likely to respond to open competitive advertising than they were to respond to a personal approach. But what we don’t learn is whether this is the same or different for male clergy.
And there is a Church Times leader, Women bishops delay (scroll down).
THERE are two sorts of waiting. One is the wait while a family comes to a decision about whether it wants to journey to a particular place. Time can pass during consultations and preparation, but it is generally considered well spent in order to reach a proper agreement. The second sort of wait is when, having decided on its journey, the family stands on a snowy platform awaiting a scheduled train that the rail company has just taken out of service.
Churchpeople are entitled to feel irritated that the revision committee charged with taking forward the draft women-bishops legislation has missed its February deadline. The next stage of the process must therefore be delayed till the General Synod meets again in July. It is, though, important that the Synod comes up with the best possible legislation to introduce women to the episcopate without reservation while, at the same time, seeking not to unchurch those who object. This was the Synod’s express wish, and it cannot be any surprise that the revision committee has struggled to fulfil both sides of this task. Returning to the analogy above, there is no point in the train’s arriving in the station if the whole family is not on the platform. The committee now needs to be more open about its deliberations in order to curb the Synod’s impatience.
The outline agenda for next month’s meeting of General Synod is now available online and is copied below.
Note: In the agenda DSM stands for Diocesan Synod Motion, and PMM for Private Member’s Motion. The texts of the private members’ motions are online.
GENERAL SYNOD: FEBRUARY 2010Outline Agenda
Monday 8 February
Afternoon
[ 2-4pm: Meetings of the House of Clergy and House of Laity ]
Tuesday 9 February
Morning
Afternoon
Wednesday 10 February
Morning
Afternoon
Thursday 11 February
Morning
Afternoon
Friday 12 February
Morning
Amended again Monday afternoon
My report in last week’s Church Times on the December debate in the House of Lords, can be now be read at Religion is more than this, say peers.
The consideration of the Equality Bill will resume next week, when the House of Lords considers the bill in Committee. The following five dates have been allocated: Monday 11 Jan, Wednesday 13 Jan, Tuesday 19 Jan, Monday 25 Jan, Wednesday 27 January.
Numerous amendments have been proposed, see the new marshalled list of amendments to be moved in committee, starting here.
Monday And now this revised marshalled list starting here.
The Conservative party spokesperson, Baroness Varsi, together with Baroness O’Cathain, Lord Anderson of Swansea, and the Bishop of Winchester have put down an amendment to strike out the whole of the new definition of the purposes of organised religion. Amendment 100. The latter three have also put down an amendment to remove the word “proportionate” in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 9 clause 2. Amendments 98, 99
Baroness Varsi and Baroness Morris have also put down an amendment which would remove the word “philosophical” from the definition of “belief”. Amendment 20
The Bishop of Winchester had put down an amendment dealing with religious marriages and gender reassignment discrimination. This is not in the current list because it has been withdrawn for redrafting.I am told it will be resubmitted shortly.
The Bishop of Chester has put down an amendment to insert the words “under medical supervision” into the definition of gender reassignment. Amendment 10
Baroness Turner of Camden has put down amendments to ensure that the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 will have to be read in light of Schedule 9 (3). Amendments 124, 125 and 137
She has also put down amendments:
- to modify paragraph 8 so that it reads (addition in bold):
Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if the purpose of the employment wholly or mainly involves—
Amendment 100
- to qualify Clause 3 of Schedule 9 (Other requirements relating to religion or belief) to add:
(d) A is not operating as a public authority, on behalf of a public authority or operating in relation to a contract with public authorities.”
Amendment 101A
Lord Alli has put down amendments:
- to allow civil partnerships to take place on religious premises Amendment 119A
- to delete the clause in Schedule 9 paragraph 2(4) which reads “(f) a requirement related to sexual orientation.” i.e. the transposition of the 2003 SO Regulations paragraph 7(3). Amendment 97E
Lord MacKay of Clashfern has put down this amendment:
“Conscientious objection
Nothing in this Act shall have the effect of requiring a person (A) to provide a good or service to a person (B) when doing so has the effect of making A complicit with an action to which A has a genuine conscientious objection.”
Amendment 57A
Michael Foster MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Equalities has today announced that the Government will propose an amendment:
Contrary to some reports over the weekend, the Equality Bill will still allow churches to hire only male clergy and will let faith-based charities continue to recruit people of the same faith where this is a requirement of the job, such as care staff who may also be asked to pray with the people they look after. We have been absolutely clear on this throughout the Bill’s passage, but as there has been some misunderstanding around our intentions we will amend the Bill to make this clear beyond doubt.
The former Bishop of London, Graham Leonard, died on Wednesday.
Telegraph The Rt Rev Mgr Graham Leonard
Guardian Alan Webster Monsignor Graham Leonard obituary
The Times The Right Rev Mgr Graham Leonard: Bishop of London, 1981-91
The Ecclesiastical Committee recently met, and a report of its proceedings is available on the Parliament website. As it says here,
The Ecclesiastical Committee is not a committee of Parliament, but its reports and their associated Measures are, for convenience, made available here. Papers in these categories are printed by order of both Houses.
Members of the Ecclesiastical Committee are appointed by the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919. Reports on proposed Church of England Measures are made by the Committee under the provisions of section 4 of that Act.
The terms of reference and the current membership of the committee are listed here.
Ecclesiastical Committee - Two Hundred and Twenty Eighth Report
This page has further links to:
The Crown Benefices (Parish Representatives) Measure
Ecclesiastical Committee - Minutes of Evidence leading finally to:
Deliberation - Wednesday 25 November 2009 (this transcript is the most interesting part)
There is also a report about this in Private Eye but that is not available online. However, it makes the point that:
Desmond Swayne MP, who objected strongly - and revealed that David Cameron did too. “As the leader of the opposition’s PPS, I did ask him about this today and he is not content that this should be done.” Although the prime minister has always chosen the first of two names submitted to him, “that does not mean that the choice was automatic”.
And Mr Swayne is reported to have voted against the measure.
Stephen Bates wrote in The Guardian yesterday (although it was only published online today):
With some leading Anglicans calling for gay people to be killed (and the archbishop staying quiet), we visited one congregation to see if they’re still proud to be CofE.
Diarmaid MacCulloch writes in today’s Observer:
Why we should be thankful for Rowan Williams and his church of common sense
The Church of England has taken a pounding from critics, but Rowan Williams has reasons to be cheerful as Christmas approaches, says a leading Anglican historian and commentator.
You can read the entire debate here at Hansard and continued here, or at TheyWorkForYou it starts here, and then continues here (the debate was interrupted for a discussion of the Defence Statement).
The following individual speeches are interesting:
Archbishop of York and also this.
Bishop of Chester, and also this.
Lord Alli
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen (questions about women bishops)
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, summing up the debate for the government.
More about this later.
This one by George Pitcher in case you missed it yesterday.
On the one hand, there is the bit about Uganda:
Andrew Brown Rowan denounces Ugandan law
There is a passage a long way down in the Daily Telegraph’s interview with Rowan Williams which deserves celebration and quotation:
“Overall, the proposed legislation is of shocking severity and I can’t see how it could be supported by any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades,” says Dr Williams. “Apart from invoking the death penalty, it makes pastoral care impossible – it seeks to turn pastors into informers.” He adds that the Anglican Church in Uganda opposes the death penalty but, tellingly, he notes that its archbishop, Henry Orombi, who boycotted the Lambeth Conference last year, “has not taken a position on this bill”.
On the other hand, there is the bit about politics:
What would he like to see from politicians in the coming general election year? He responds that we “curiously have three party leaders, all of whom have a very strong moral sense of some spiritual flavour”. David Cameron may have conceded that the Church of England is in his DNA, but Gordon Brown is a son of the manse who is notoriously secretive about his faith or lack of it, and Nick Clegg has declared his atheism. “But he takes it seriously,” replies Dr Williams. “And with all of them I think if you can get them off the record or off the platform, these convictions will come through quite strongly.”
Is the problem “we don’t do God” spin doctors? “I think it’s important for politicians not to be too protected, to be able to establish their human credentials in front of a living audience.” So our leaders need to be more open about their faith? “I don’t think it would do any harm at all. Part of establishing their human credentials is saying ‘This is where my motivation comes from … I’m in politics because this is what I believe.’ And that includes religious conviction.
“The trouble with a lot of government initiatives about faith is that they assume it is a problem, it’s an eccentricity, it’s practised by oddities, foreigners and minorities. The effect is to de-normalise faith, to intensify the perception that faith is not part of our bloodstream.”
Theo Hobson What’s Williams whinging about?
Ok, Williams is right that there is a widespread perception that religion is “a bit fishy”, but I don’t see how the government can be blamed for this. MPs who raise secularist concerns are only echoing a major sector of public opinion, and I haven’t noticed many senior ministers denouncing religion. He is fuelling a crass culture war by complaining that poor Christians are persecuted by nasty secularists. If religion is now widely mistrusted maybe he should ignore the speck in the government’s eye and consider the beam in his own.
Bishop Nick Baines has more about the interview here.
Bishop David Hamid reports from Copenhagen on something other than climate change.
Read The Church of Denmark agrees to sign the Porvoo Agreement
…the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Denmark (ELCD) has decided to join the Porvoo Communion of Churches. A press release from the Church of Denmark has gone to all the constituencies of that Church and to the general public in Denmark, announcing this landmark decision by the state Church. Arrangements for the public signing of the Porvoo Declaration are still to be settled. The ELCD was a full participant in the theological discussions leading to the Porvoo Common Statement in the 1990s, but in the end did not sign the agreement, so the news today is a major ecumenical breakthrough. Once signed the agreement will extend the Porvoo Communion of Churches to embrace the 12 dioceses and over 2000 parishes in Denmark.
We reported yesterday on the release of the latest Church of England finance and ministry statistics.
Riazat Butt writes about the statistics in the Guardian as Church of England issues cash call to the faithful. Her report highlights “that churchgoers were still giving 3% of their disposable income, compared with the 5% recommended and requested by the General Synod”.
David Keen writes about the statistics in his St. Aidan to Abbey Manor blog Latest CofE stats on giving and ordinations: More is Less, Less is More.
The Church Mouse writes in his blog Church statistics - can someone create a database please. He draws attention to how long it has taken to publish these data (the finance figures are for 2007) and their “almost unusable format”. He offers suggestions for improvement and ends with this offer:
So here’s Mouse’s offer to the good old CofE. Mouse will gladly build a website for them to do these tasks, on the condition that they promise to use it.
PRESS RELEASE
LOS ANGELES AND UGANDA
The LGBT Anglican Coalition warmly welcomes the election of two new suffragan bishops for the Episcopal diocese of Los Angeles, and notes:
It is most encouraging to see that the elections have been conducted without regard to the sexual orientation of the candidates. The election of a lesbian bishop, following on so soon after the consecration of the new Bishop of Stockholm, gives heart to the many LGBT clergy and lay ministers in churches around the world.
In the light of this, we are gravely disappointed to see the Archbishop of Canterbury rush out a statement within twelve hours of the announcement suggesting that the Episcopal Church should not confirm this election. His repeated intervention in the affairs of that province contrasts embarrassingly with his complete unwillingness to speak publicly about the Church of Uganda bishops’ support for what is universally seen as oppressive and homophobic legislation in that country. That support is in direct contravention of recent resolutions by the Lambeth Conference and the Primates’ Meetings.
If the Archbishop is to retain any credibility at all he needs to reconsider. This double standard of justice is frankly perverse. It appears to most people in Britain to be a disgraceful acquiescence in the demands of homophobic pressure groups both in England and in the Communion.
LGBT Anglican Coalition partners look forward to working with the Diocese of Los Angeles and all others across our Communion in the service of Christ who are committed to a church which includes and welcomes all.
The LGBT Anglican Coalition - including
Revd Benny Hazlehurst - Accepting Evangelicals
Revd Colin Coward - Changing Attitude
The Clergy Consultation
Jeremy Marks - Courage
Mike Dark - The Evangelical Fellowship of Lesbian and Gay Christians
Canon Giles Goddard - Inclusive Church
Revd Sharon Ferguson - Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement
Revd Dr Christina Beardsley - Sibyls
The LGBT Anglican Coalition is a new network of groups working for the full and equal inclusion of LGBT Christians within and beyond the Church of England.
The Equality Bill that was passed in the House of Commons recently is now before the House of Lords. The first debate, i.e the Second Reading, will occur on Tuesday 15 December, starting soon after 2.30 pm.
Earlier reports of the Commons debate can be found here.
My own report is in today’s Church Times at Attempt to remove ‘religion’ clause in Equality Bill fails. That is currently available only to subscribers, but the full text is below the fold.
Meanwhile, the RC bishops have issued a briefing, which has been reported in a somewhat alarming tone in several places:
Catholic Herald Equality Bill threatens integrity of the priesthood, bishops tell Harman by Simon Caldwell
Catholic News Service English, Welsh bishops say Equality Bill redefines who can be priest also by Simon Caldwell
There is also a less sensational report by Isabel de Bertadano in the Tablet but that too is subscription-only.
More on this topic to follow.
Church Times 11 December report
Attempt to remove ‘religion’ clause in Equality Bill fails
by Simon Sarmiento
AN ATTEMPT to remove a clause in the Equality Bill defining the “purposes of organised religion” was defeated in the House of Commons on Wednesday of last week. The Church of England had raised objections to the wording (below) when it first appeared (News, 20 November).
The Bill received its Third Reading, when only eight MPs voted against, and it now passes to the House of Lords. A Second Reading debate there is scheduled for next Tuesday.
The amendment, proposed by David Drew, MP for Stroud (Labour), sought to delete the new definition entirely. Speaking in support of Mr Drew, Mark Harper, MP for the Forest of Dean (Conservative), argued that the phrase “wholly or mainly” was too narrow. Many full-time ordained Christian ministers would be excluded, since only a small proportion of their time was spent leading worship or teaching doctrine.
When voted upon, the amendment was defeated by 170 votes to 314.
On 26 November, the Bishop of Ripon & Leeds, the Rt Revd John Packer, had also spoken about this clause during the debate in the House of Lords on the Queen’s Speech. He said: “I cannot imagine that any Christian would recognise their faith in those descriptions. . . In practice, especially in smaller churches or faith groups, many employees play a multi-tasked role which could fall foul of the requirement that their employment wholly or mainly involve leading worship.”
During the Commons debate, several MPs referred to a “reasoned opinion” that the European Commission had issued to the UK government on 20 November. The Commission stated that the exceptions in current UK law to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for religious employers are broader than permitted by the EU directive.
The EU Commissioner for Equal Opportunities, Vladimír Špidla, said: “We call on the UK Government to make the necessary changes to its anti-discrimination legislation as soon as possible so as to fully comply with the EU rules. In this context, we welcome the proposed Equality Bill, and hope that it will come into force quickly.”
The Government has not yet released the full text of the opinion, but Mr Harper, who had obtained a copy from Brussels, told the Commons that it said: “The UK Government has informed the Commission that the new Equality Bill currently under discussion before the UK Parliament will amend this aspect of the law, and bring UK law into line with the Directive.”
Two other amendments sought to permit religious care-homes for the elderly and religious adoption agencies to restrict their services on the grounds of sexual orientation. They were not adopted.
During the House of Lords debate, an amendment is expected to be tabled to allow religious buildings to be used to hold civil partnership ceremonies. Ben Summerskill of Stonewall, a gay-rights group, said: “We are very clear that this is an issue of religious freedom, and if faiths want to celebrate the ceremonies of two men or two women, it’s not for someone else to say you can’t do that.”
(8) Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if the employment wholly or mainly involves —
(a) leading or assisting in the observation of liturgical or ritualistic practices of the religion,
or
(b) promoting or explaining the doctrine of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).
The Church of England has announced the publication of its latest finance and ministry statistics with the following press release.
Latest finance and ministry statistics published on web
11 December 2009Parishioners’ tax-efficient planned giving averaged more than £9 a week for the first time in 2007, while the total income of parishes increased by £70 million to £898 million, well above inflation, according to the latest statistics from the Church of England. Total voluntary income rose to £485 million or £8.02 per electoral roll member per week. At the same time, total parish expenditure rose to £838 million, with £50 million of this donated by parishes to external charities.
“Data for 2007 shows that giving to parishes by individuals continues to increase year on year, with the landmark figure of £500 million being reached for the first time. We have more than 630,000 people giving in a regular way, with nearly 90 per cent given through Gift Aid enabling parishes to reclaim £78 million from HMRC,” said Dr John Preston, the Church’s National Stewardship and Resources Officer.
“In a time of significant economic pressure, the Church is grateful for the committed support given by so many to their local church. Our givers on average donate more than three per cent of their incomes to the Church, and we estimate that a similar proportion is given away to other causes and charities. However, this remains short of the five per cent of disposable income recommended again by the General Synod in the summer of this year.”
Another 490 candidates were accepted to train as future clergy in 2008, bringing the total in training at the end of the year to 1411. In total, 574 new clergy were ordained in 2008, 19 more than in 2007 and 87 more than in 2006. Of those, 321 were entering full-time paid ministry, compared with 267 in 2007 and 226 in 2006.
While clergy numbers across 2008 remained buoyant, the number of retirements remained high. Revd Preb Lynda Barley, Head of Research & Statistics for the Archbishops’ Council comments: “The large number of clergy retirements reflects the changing age profile of our nation. Parishes continue financially to support clergy in active ministry and in retirement.” Taking retirements and other losses into account, there was a net loss of 112 full-time paid clergy, compared with 192 in 2007 and 182 in 2006.
At the end of 2008, there were some 28,000 licensed and authorised ministers, ordained and lay, active in the Church of England.
Since 2000, the proportion of those under 30 years of age recommended for training has increased slightly to 17 per cent. Further to encourage young vocations to the priesthood, the Ministry Division of the Archbishops’ Council has developed the Call Waiting campaign including the website, a glossy magazine with essential information for prospective clergy, and a series of eye-catching posters. Audio interviews with young trainee priests, curates and vicars on the Call Waiting website chronicle the journey from initial sense of calling through discernment to training and ministry.
The latest statistics have been added to the Church of England website, alongside attendance statistics published in February.
There are links to statistics for earlier years here.
Andrew Brown has been talking to the Bishop-designate of Peterborough.
See Donald Allister on the Bible.
On behalf of religious writers everywhere I think should welcome the choice of Donald Allister to be the next Bishop of Peterborough. He will be good for business…
Open letter to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and the Bishop of Los Angeles
Dear Bishop Katharine and Bishop Jon,
We congratulate you and the people of the Episcopal Church on the electoral process which has led to the election of the Revd Canon Diane Jardine Bruce and the Revd Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool as Suffragan Bishops of the Diocese of Los Angeles. We are aware that the process was carried out with great care and prayer, as will the decisions of Bishops and Standing Committees who consider whether to confirm the elections. We wish the elected candidates all joy in their ministries and assure them of our prayers.
The Anglican and Episcopalian tradition is, at its best, one which celebrates the breadth of human experience and welcomes the many ways in which we, as Christians, try to live out our vocations under God. We are therefore deeply sorry that the reaction from the Church of England to the election of Mary Glasspool has been at best grudging and at worst actively negative.
While it gives us no pleasure to dissociate ourselves from the sentiments expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose wisdom in so many areas we deeply respect, we greatly regret the tone and content of his response, particularly in the context of his failure to make any comment on the seriously oppressive legislation being proposed in Uganda.
We wish you to know that there are a great many within the Church of England who like us are unequivocally supportive of TEC in being open to the election of bishops without regard to gender, race and sexuality. We pray that the Communion at large will grow in confidence and maturity, so that it can learn to celebrate both those things which hold us together and those things over which we disagree. In that context we greatly welcome the Theological Round Table recently announced by the Churches in India.
We urge you and your fellow Bishops and diocesan Standing Committees therefore not to be persuaded by responses from outside your province in considering the request to confirm these elections, and urge those who disagree to approach the Episcopal Church with a renewed and reinvigorated sense of trust in the actions of the Holy Spirit. As a Communion we are called to be an example to other Christians and those who have no beliefIn a diverse and global world threatened by much, it is time now to move on from these questions which divide us and focus on responding to the huge challenges we face together.
Yours sincerely
Giles Goddard
Chair,
Inclusive Church
The UK Equality Bill passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons on Wednesday, and has now moved to the House of Lords, where the Second Reading is scheduled for 15 December.
The Hansard record of the debate on Wednesday starts here, or TheyWorkForYou has it in a rather different format here. Only 8 members voted against the bill at Third Reading.
An amendment to delete entirely Schedule 9, Clause 2, Paragraph 8, was proposed by David Drew Labour MP for Stroud, who made this speech in support of it. But when put to the vote it was defeated Ayes 170, Noes 314.
The debate on the religious exemptions and related topics starts at this point.
There has been some comment about the bill on blogs. For example Cranmer has written EU forces Government to put gay equality over Christian conscience and also European Commission ‘lobbied Parliament’ to pass Equality Bill which refers to the debate on Wednesday.
The full text of the EU Reasoned Opinion has not been published by the Government, but the Conservatives have obtained a copy from Brussels (they said) so it is surely only a short matter of time before it is available. Meanwhile, according to Mark Harper Conservative MP for the Forest of Dean it does say this:
“The UK Government has informed the Commission that the new Equality Bill currently under discussion before the UK Parliament will amend this aspect of the law and bring UK law into line with the Directive.”
Earlier in the House of Lords, the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds had used the occasion of the Queen’s Speech to speak there about the Equality Bill. You can read his speech in full here.
Inclusive Church has issued two documents, which were compiled in response to the letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury last August, entitled Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future.
These responses express grave concern about the content and implications of “Our Anglican Future”. They were written after consultation and are intended to reflect a variety of responses to the Archbishop’s paper.
There is a short paper here.
And a much longer paper here.
(Both in PDF format.)
Earlier IC responses are here.
26 November 2009
Dear Bishop,
In July, during the first wave of the Swine Flu pandemic we issued national advice with regard to the administration of Holy Communion.
This advice was based on information and guidance received from the Department of Health which was geared to the situation at that time and the projected levels of risk suggested by the potential course of the pandemic. Since then the scientific understanding of the Swine Flu virus has advanced, further experience of the course of the epidemic has been gained, and the first stage of a vaccination programme, targeted at those most at risk from the virus, is nearing completion.
Throughout this period, our advice has been driven by the interests of public health, particularly for the protection of the vulnerable.
In the light of continuing consultation with the Department of Health, and with updated information on the course of the Swine Flu pandemic, we believe that we can now advise that the normal administration of Holy Communion ought to resume. This recommendation is subject to the guidelines issued in June (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/swineflu/communion.doc) which sets out good hygiene practice for public worship and which allows for local discretion in the event of outbreaks of pandemic flu in particular centres of population. We shall also continue to monitor the situation.
We wish to thank you for your patience and cooperation during this challenging period for both Church and Community and we are thankful that the pandemic has so far proved less severe than was feared.
Please pass this on to your colleagues in the diocese.
With every blessing,
+Rowan Cantuar +Sentamu Ebor
An Open letter from the LGBT Anglican Coalition* to the Archbishops of Uppsala and Canterbury has been published.
As Anglican clergy and lay people, we were dismayed to see that there was no official representation from the Church of England or any other Anglican Church from the British Isles at the service of consecration of Bishop Eva Brunne of Stockholm and Bishop Tuulikki Koivunen Bylund of Härnösand.
We do understand that, as the Church of England has not yet finalised plans for the ordination of women as bishops – though we hope and pray that will happen soon – it might not have been possible for an Anglican bishop to have laid hands on the ordinands as part of the consecration. But that should not have prevented a bishop from attending and representing the Archbishop of Canterbury at the consecration on November 8th in Uppsala…
*The LGBT Anglican Coalition is a new network of groups working for the full and equal inclusion of LGBT Christians within and beyond the Church of England.
Updated Friday 27 November
Church Leaders in Liverpool have issued a joint statement condemning homophobia. The statement has come from the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, United Reformed and Baptist Churches and the Society of Friends (Quakers).
So far the statement has only been reported by Pink News, having apparently been overlooked or ignored by the local and national press.
Church leaders in Liverpool release ‘groundbreaking’ condemnation of homophobia
Here is the statement as quoted by Pink News.
The church leaders condemn this latest homophobic attack and extend their sympathy to James Parkes’ family.
We are concerned by the number of homophobic incidents on Merseyside.
The leaders of the churches in Liverpool believe it is wrong for anyone in the community of which we are all part to be victimised, or threatened with victimisation, on account of their race, creed, colour or sexual orientation.
We affirm our commitment to work with others to build a community where all can have their place of belonging, feel welcome and live in safety.
As church leaders, we represent a rich variety of Christian traditions, with different perspectives on some issues, but we stand together in condemning the use of violence and other forms of intimidation against minority groups who are especially vulnerable.
The city of Liverpool has a long tradition of welcoming people of difference. In the past we have discovered, sometimes painfully, the importance of learning to live peacefully together. This lesson we must never forget.
The Liverpool church leaders include the Rt Revd James Jones (Bishop of Liverpool, Anglican), the Most Revd Patrick Kelly (Archbishop of Liverpool, Roman Catholic), the Revd Jim Booth (Methodist), the Revd Howard Sharp (URC) and the Revd Phil Jump (Baptist).
Update The statement is now online at the Diocese of Liverpool’s website: Statement from the Church Leaders in Liverpool. This makes it clear that the statement came from the Presidents of Churches Together in the Merseyside Region, ie the five church leaders listed above plus the local Salvation Commander, Major Michael Highton.
Today’s Church Times carries a report, written by me, about the CofE and the Equality Bill.
See Committee rejects C of E proposal on Equality Bill.
THE parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) disagreed strongly with the Archbishops’ Council over a proposal to modify the Equality Bill, it emerged this week. The Bill awaits the Report stage before its Third Reading in the House of Commons…
Links to the various documents mentioned can all be found at this earlier TA article JCHR report on Equality Bill.
Those coming late to the Equality Bill can catch up by reading the House of Commons Library Research Paper, Equality Bill Committee Stage Report, just published, and available here as a PDF file. This summarises all the activity of recent months, and explains what amendments have, and have not, been made to the bill as originally published.
David Phillips, General Secretary of Church Society has written Women Bishops - what sort of provision?
Fulcrum has published a statement ‘Making way for Women Bishops’.
The series of papers from WATCH was first reported here.
More papers are now available as PDF files from here:
Reform has issued a press release:
The decision of the General Synod’s Revision Committee to back away from proposals to give opponents of women bishops a way of staying in the Church of England has “overturned the will of Synod, created the spectre of confrontation, and risks extending the controversy for another five years,” according to the chairman of Reform, the Rev’d Rod Thomas.
Responding to the announcement made on Saturday 14th November that the Revision Committee had failed to approve the transfer of jurisdiction from female to male bishops where parishes could not accept their oversight, Rod Thomas said:
“At last February’s General Synod there was a clear desire to provide legislative safeguards for those who could not, in conscience, accept the oversight of women bishops. This has now been overturned by the Revision Committee. Whereas there was a prospect of agreement, the Revision Committee has now set the General Synod on a course of confrontation. It has served the Church badly.
“There has been much speculation about Anglo-Catholics leaving the Church of England for Rome. What has been overlooked is the number of large evangelical churches which the Church of England now risks losing – not to Rome, but to independence or alternative Anglican affiliations.
“Within the General Synod there will be many who will be deeply unhappy at the bullying tactics being used to dismiss opponents of the proposed new legislation. Some evangelicals who do support the introduction of women bishops will nevertheless vote against proposals which have the effect of excluding other evangelicals. This means that by the time the proposals have finished their tortuous progress through the General Synod, they will be likely to fail, since they will be unable to garner the two thirds majority support needed.
“It may be that in the providence of God, the result of the Revision Committee’s decision may be the reverse of what they intend: that this unbiblical move to put women in positions of headship in the church will fail. Reform will now renew its commitment to work towards this outcome.”
The Modern Churchpeople’s Union has written about Women Bishops and the Revision Committee:
MCU has published a paper that welcomes the Revision Committee’s change of policy. However, it questions the emphasis on seeking to satisfy the opponents of women bishops while showing no comparable concern for the majority appalled by the continuing gender discrimination.
The paper argues
- that the proposed proliferation of different classes of bishops (women, men consecrated or not consecrated by women, men who do or do not ordain women, etc) should be resisted;
- that church leaders should resist the influence of magical views of the sacraments, treating priests and bishops as if the value of their ministry depended on whether their appointment followed precise rules;
- that the ‘theology of taint’ - the idea that a bishop who has once ordained a woman priest is no longer an acceptable bishop - is not acceptable and no allowance should be made for it;
- that resistance to change, while characteristic of many reactionary religious campaigns, is unrealistic since churches do, and need to, make changes;
- that the increasing appeal to the individual conscience as though it were a basic unchanging fact, rather than an expression of what the individual currently believes to be true, should be resisted;
- and that the current reactionary mood among church leaders is in danger of being made permanent by the proposed Anglican Covenant.
Read the whole paper, either on the web, or in a PDF file.
Updated again Saturday evening
The Church of England issued the press release below this morning.
The essential parts are the third and fourth paragraphs.
Revision Committee on Women in the Episcopate
14 November 2009The Revision Committee met for its third scheduled meeting yesterday (13 November) since 8 October (see earlier statement). It concluded a substantial exploration of ways in which the draft legislation could be amended to enable certain functions to be vested by statute in bishops who would provide oversight for those unable to receive the episcopal and/or priestly ministry of women.
After much discussion, the members of the Committee were unable to identify a basis for specifying particular functions for vesting which commanded sufficient support both from those in favour of the ordination of women as bishops and those unable to support that development. As a result all of the proposals for vesting particular functions by statute were defeated.
The effect of the Committee’s decision is therefore that such arrangements as are made for those unable to receive the episcopal ministry of women will need to be by way of delegation from the diocesan bishop rather than vesting.
There remain important issues for the Committee to determine at its forthcoming meetings over the shape of the proposed legislation in the light of this decision, in particular whether to retain a statutory code of practice or adopt the simplest possible legislation.
The work of a Revision Committee in scrutinising draft legislation, and in considering submissions to amend it, is only part of a longer legislative process. The Revision Committee on this draft legislation will report to the full General Synod at the conclusion of its work and the Synod will debate its proposals and have its own opportunity to support, amend or invite further reconsideration of the legislation by the Revision Committee. Further stages in the legislative process would require consideration of any legislation by the Diocesan Synods of the Church of England, final approval by the General Synod, Parliamentary approval and the Royal Assent.
Updates
Bishop David Thomson has published some very interesting additional material, see here. A copy of it is also here, below the fold.
WATCH has already published a press release.
WATCH PRESS STATEMENT
Saturday, 14th November 2009 – for immediate releaseWOMEN BISHOPS LEGISLATION NOW ON RIGHT TRACK
WATCH is delighted to hear that the Revision Committee on Women in the Episcopate has decided that legislation for women bishops will no longer include proposals for the mandatory transfer of authority - the vesting of particular functions by law – in bishops who would provide oversight for those unable to receive the Episcopal and/or priestly ministry of women.
WATCH commends the recent work of the Revision Committee, which met yesterday to explore how the previous proposed arrangements could be made to work. WATCH is aware of the huge outcry from members of General Synod and from other Church members to the earlier announcement of the Revision Committee to make changes in law that would have resulted in a two-tier episcopate.
WATCH Chair, Christina Rees said: “This is a real breakthrough. I am delighted that now we can look forward to having women as bishops on the same terms that men are bishops. Women will bring valuable different perspectives and ways of doing things and will also bring a sorely needed wholeness to the Episcopal leadership of our Church. The House of Bishops will cease to be the ‘men only’ club it has been and will be more representative of the people whom the Church exists to serve. Now the Church will be able to draw on the experience and wisdom of many gifted women. We know from 15 years of having women as priests that they are often able to reach people and approach situations in ways that are creative and empowering for many others.”
WATCH is pleased with the outcome on two counts: first, and most importantly, the new proposals express the theological understanding of the Church about the status of baptised Christians and about the relationship between men and women and God. Secondly, the Revision Committee has shown that it has heeded the will of General Synod to draft legislation that would not have arrangements in law that would differentiate between male and female bishops.
WATCH continues to urge to Revision Committee to bring proposals to General Synod in February 2010 which adopt the simplest possible legislation, so that the Church of England can proceed to opening the Episcopate to women in such a way that the nature of the Episcopate is retained and the Church can best communicate its belief that women and men are equal in the eyes of God.
Ed Tomlinson has blogged about this, see Church of England’s response is forming….
Bishop Alan Wilson has written, Revision Committee: Tough Salami.
Jonathan Wynne-Jones writes for the Sunday Telegraph about a Snub to traditionalists over women bishops.
Questions and Answers for Comms. Office use
What does this mean?
It means that the Committee could not identify which functions or powers they thought should be given by law to the bishops who would give oversight to traditionalist parishes, so the idea essentially falls. They now have to decide whether to return to the idea of a statutory code of practice or to adopt a solution that would set out no provision in the legislation itself for those who object to women bishops. But whatever this Committee decides, it remains for the full Synod to debate the matter fully.
What’s the difference between delegation and vesting?
Delegation means that functions would be exercised on the authority of the diocesan bishop, who in future may be female. Vesting would have meant certain functions being exercised as of right by those bishops providing oversight for traditionalist parishes.
What do you mean by ‘functions’?
Functions in this context mean episcopal activities such as conducting the ordination of priests, and providing pastoral oversight of parish clergy.
Is this the result of the Pope/the Westminster Hall debate/anger from women?
The 19 members of the Committee spent a lot of time exploring possibilities in some detail and were unable to find a basis for vesting which commanded sufficient support. What influenced individuals to vote as they did on particular proposals can only be a matter of speculation.
Why issue statements when the decisions keep changing?
Synod members coming to speak to amendments that they have submitted have the right to know when there has been a major change affecting their proposals. Since such decisions will quickly become widely known the Committee concluded that it was best to put the facts on the public record.
How did people vote?
The voting figures will be included in the Committee’s report to Synod.
Will the report be ready for the February Synod?
That has always been the Committee’s aim, but the timetable is now extremely tight. The Committee has three further meetings scheduled between now and early January.
Isn’t this decision simply going to push many Catholic Anglicans to go to Rome?
There are many further stages yet in the legislative process (see 8 October statement) and nothing is certain until the draft Measure has secured a two thirds majority in each House of Synod on final approval and then secured parliamentary approval and Royal Assent. It will be at least 2012 before the Synod has concluded its own consideration.
The Church Times has Vatican publishes text of Anglicanorum Coetibus
and a Leader, Checkpoint Charlie for Anglicans.
The Tablet has Vatican issues constitution for Anglicans by Robert Mickens
and What were they thinking of? by Nicholas Lash (2 more articles are subscriber-only for another week)
and an Editorial, The other path to Rome.
In response to a request from a regular commenter, here also are two items from the Catholic Herald:
Rome opens arms to world’s Anglicans by Anna Arco
and an Editorial, Pope Benedict has called the Anglicans’ bluff.
Updated
We previously reported the appointment of a new Bishop of Peterborough.
This got noticed in the Diary column of the Guardian.
The Church Times has a news report today, but that is subscriber-only for another week. However, the appointment is also discussed by Giles Fraser in his column, Liberals on the front line.
…All of this is why I had my head in my hands when I read the words of the new Bishop of Peterborough, the Ven. Donald Allister, currently Archdeacon of Chester. “Liberalism is one of Satan’s greatest weapons against the Church,” he wrote a few years back.
To be fair, at the press conference to announce his episcopate he did what all new bishops do and said that he found labels “unhelpful”. But that cannot have been his view when he wrote: “I am very happy to work with Anglo-Catholics in fighting battles against liberalism, but the day must come when we need to fight against the ritualism and sacramentalism which they have introduced into the Church of England.”
Why do people so consistently fail to understand the idea of liberalism? Liberalism is not a wishy-washy style of biblical interpretation, or an indifference to biblical truth — although the Bishop’s advice here is pretty amazing: “If in doubt what a passage means or how it applies we will believe it literally and obey it absolutely.” What about Psalm 137 verse 9?
No, liberalism is a commitment to human freedom and a hatred of authoritarianism. That is why many of us celebrate the Reformation as an emancipation from the abuses of Roman authority. To describe liberalism as satanic is to align oneself with flag-burning ayatollahs who chant against the United States as the “great Satan” and against Israel as the “little Satan”…
Source for the quotes is this PDF file at Church Society.
More writing by the new bishop can be found in this series on the Thirty-nine Articles.
And there is also a paper on Lay presidency at the Lord’s Table on the Reform website.
Update
Earlier there were two posts about this by John Richardson see
The new Bishop of Peterborough said what?
and also
The Bishop of Peterborough said what else?
(h/t Toby)
The Hansard record of the adjournment debate on “The Application of the Sex Discrimination Legislation to Religious Organisations” is now available, starting here.
TheyWorkForYou version is now also available here.
Video of the debate is available at BBC Democracy Live, over here.
Update
Riazat Butt has written a report, now on the Guardian website, The church of England: above the law?
Back on 16 September, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York issued an update statement to the whole College of Bishops.
In this they said they would review the policy again at the end of October. They have now issued a further statement, which once again is tucked away on the CofE website (left hand column of this page). The text of the latest statement is reproduced in full below the fold.
It again makes no change to the original policy issued in July and says the policy will be reviewed again in one month’s time.
30TH October 2009
SWINE FLU : STATEMENT FROM THE ARCHBISHOPS TO THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS
Following our statement in September this year, we have reviewed the situation in light of the latest advice from the Department of Health.
Their latest update, issued last night, shows that the number of new cases has risen. There were 78,000 new cases in England this week with 751 people currently hospitalised. The additional information now available confirms earlier guidance that children under 16 are significantly more susceptible to the virus, and up to 30% may fall ill during this second wave. Deaths worldwide have increased by 12% this week. The Health Protection Agency (HPA) believes that about 520,000 people have been infected by swine flu in England since the outbreak of the pandemic.
The vaccination programme in this country has started this week. The plan is to offer it to all at risk groups by the end of November.
In the light of this, our recommendation, made on 22nd July 2009 to those presiding at Holy Communion in parishes and dioceses, remains unchanged.
It remains important
a) to encourage everyone to recognise that the Church has a responsibility to take public health considerations seriously and
b) to ensure communication around the Church is good so that we don’t appear at sixes and sevens, and
c) to remember that responsible practice in these areas is not primarily about protecting ourselves but about avoiding transmitting infection unwittingly to others.
In the light of this rapidly changing situation, we do not believe this is the time to issue fresh advice. We are keeping in regular contact with the Department of Health and will continue to consider all relevant information.
We will review our own advice in a month’s time. Until then, we would encourage you to continue to show patience and to pray for all those affected.
+ Rowan Cantuar + Sentamu Ebor
On Wednesday 11th November at 3.30pm in Westminster Hall, Robert Key, MP for Salisbury, has arranged for a debate to take place on:
“The Application of the Sex Discrimination Legislation to Religious Organisations”.
WATCH has more information here.
More information about Westminster Hall debates is available here. Debates are open to the public.
Here is the announcement from Downing Street:
The Queen has approved the nomination of the Venerable Donald Spargo Allister MA, Archdeacon of Chester, for election as Bishop of Peterborough in succession to the late Right Reverend Ian Patrick Martyn Cundy, MA.
Notes for Editors
Donald Allister (aged 57) was educated at Peterhouse, Cambridge. He trained for the ministry at Trinity College, Bristol. He served his curacy in the Diocese of Chester at Hyde St George, Chester from 1976 to 1979, and at Sevenoaks St Nicholas, in the diocese of Rochester from 1979 to 1983. From 1983 to 1989 he was Vicar at Birkenhead Christ Church, in the diocese of Chester. From 1989 to 2002 he was Rector at Cheadle in the Diocese of Chester, and from 1999 to 2002 he was Rural Dean of Cheadle. Since 2002 he has been Archdeacon of Chester.
He is married to Janice and they have three grown-up children and one grandchild. His interests include hill walking, science fiction and medical ethics.
The much longer press release from the diocese is here. Do read it all.
The Church of England website has this press release.
Here is the new bishop’s Press Conference Statement.
Affirming Catholicism issued the following letter on 30th October to individual members of the General Synod Revision Committee on Women Bishops:
To the Members of the Revision Committee
Dear
Affirming Catholicism has noted with dismay the Press Release from the Revision Committee indicating the Committee’s decision to review General Synod’s support for the adoption of the simplest form of legislation enabling the admission of women into the episcopate in the Church of England coupled with a statutory code of practice, as expressed in July 2008.
We believe that the suggestion that certain functions should be vested in bishops by statute rather than by delegation from the diocesan bishop under a statutory code of practice runs counter to the principle that the diocese is the fundamental unit of the Church. In practice, this means that the Diocesan Bishop is and must be recognised to be Ordinary in his / her Diocese. Consequently, as we have argued consistently in our submissions to the Bishops of Guildford and Gloucester and to the Legislative Drafting Group, any designated special Bishops who exercise a ministry in a Diocese where the Ordinary is a woman must share in the ministry of the Ordinary in order that the unity of the diocese – and with it the Church of England – be preserved.
The original motion as passed by the General Synod includes a reminder “that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans”, and asks that “additional legal provision consistent with Canon A4” be prepared in order “to establish arrangements that would seek to maintain the highest possible degree of communion with those conscientiously unable to receive the ministry of women bishops.” Despite the questions raised about the interpretation of Canon A4, this clause constitutes a requirement that provision for those who feel themselves in conscience unable to accept the ministry of a bishop who is a woman may not call her orders into question. We believe that the removal of certain functions by statute from women who are consecrated bishops can carry no other inference than that it is legitimate to deny that they are truly ordained. We are therefore of the opinion that the vesting of certain functions in another bishop by statute in the case where the diocesan bishop is a woman would be contrary to the motion passed by Synod in July 2006, as well as discounting the recommendation made by General Synod in July 2008.
We therefore ask that the Revision Committee reconsider its decision.
The Revd Jonathan Clark
For The Board of Affirming Catholicism
Updated
Colin Coward has posted a progress report, Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill challenges all in the Communion and also Fulcrum and a gay Ugandan journalist comment.
The Anglican Communion and its leaders have reached a critical moment of judgement in its attitude to homosexuality. It is now 19 days since the Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009 was tabled by David Bahati, the MP for Ndorwa West in Uganda but the leaders of the Communion have remained silent. The only Anglican groups to have responded are those working for the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people…
And he has published the text of the letter which he has proposed sending as a joint statement, see the text of the proposed open letter sent by Changing Attitude and Inclusive Church to Anglican Mainstream, Fulcrum, the Church Society and Reform.
…Anglican bishops in this country have long-standing relationships with the Bishops of the Church of Uganda. They have participated in Lambeth Conferences where the bishops committed themselves to speak out against capital punishment (Lambeth 1988 33:3b), and to condemn the irrational fear of homosexuals (Lambeth 1998 1:10d).
While it is well known that, as organisations, we stand on opposing sides over the controversies about homosexuality and the Church, on this occasion we set aside our differences and call on the Church of Uganda to make her voice heard in protest at this draconian legislation and in defence of the civil liberties and dignity of an oppressed minority of the population of Uganda. We further call on our Primates and the English bishops of the three dioceses linked with the Church of Uganda to use their friendship with the Primate and bishops to urge them to publicly oppose the bill.
There is also the statement from the Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law which you can read here.
Warren Throckmorton has a number of posts on his blog about this. He also has a Facebook group (h/t PO).
WATCH PRESS STATEMENT
Friday, 30th October 2009 – for immediate release
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: STOP THIS CHARADE!
WATCH has a message for the Revision Committee as it meets on Tuesday to continue its task of preparing draft legislation to bring to General Synod in February: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
WATCH has received an unprecedented number of emails from normally quiet and patient members of the Church of England. They have expressed their disbelief at the Revision Committee’s announcement earlier this month that it has decided to prepare legislation for an option the General Synod has already rejected!
Instead of doing what General Synod asked of them, namely drafting simple legislation for women to be allowed to be bishops, with arrangements for those who remain opposed to women’s ordinations to be contained in a statutory Code of Practice, the Revision Committee decided to “provide for certain functions to be vested in Bishops by statute rather than by delegation from the diocesan bishop under a statutory code of practice”.
This would result in a two-tier Episcopate, with every female bishop, and potentially all male bishops who ordain or consecrate women, having their authority diverted on request to another male bishop acceptable to those opposed to women bishops. A senior clergywoman and General Synod member has written of her dismay at the proposals, making the point that for those who want to stay in the Church of England, in spite of their difficulty with women’s ordination, it is precisely this Church they love, not the damaged and divided one that would result from the proposed arrangements. She says, “We can and will make it possible for them to stay…not through rules but through Christian care.”
The Revision Committee’s decision has produced widespread shock among Church members, not to mention disbelief and derision from wider society. People are confused about the role of the Established Church, which exists to serve all in the land and which is supposed to give Christian leadership on matters of ethics and justice. For the Church to be equivocating on the ability or desirability of women to hold positions of leadership is to send out a damaging message about all women, and one which is at odds with the Church’s understanding of humanity.
A clergy woman writes: “How am I supposed to try to explain this sort of mess to my parishioners? It’s acutely embarrassing. I want to grow the Church, not bring it into disrepute.”
A lay member writes: “I am really shocked at the inhumanity of this latest backward step.”
Another writes: “I am appalled at this dreadful idea which is unspeakable in its implications of the second-class nature of women in general. “
Other messages include comments like “unacceptable” “idiocy” “highly insulting” “tragic” with one clergywoman describing the revision process as a “charade.”
WATCH is asking the Revision Committee to think again and bring the legislation it was asked to bring to the next Synod.
Christina Rees, WATCH Chair said the outcry was unprecedented. “I have never before witnessed such outrage and anger. Most people in our Church do not want to distinguish in law between male and female bishops. People are interested in bishops, whether male or female, who have a heart for the priests and people in their dioceses. They do not want to see the historic Episcopate of the Church of England destroyed in order to appease less than 2% of clergy who do not believe women should be ordained. In the light of the overwhelming will of the Church, tested repeatedly, the Revision Committee needs to think again and prepare the legislation that General Synod has asked for – without any further delay.”
Contacts:
Christina Rees Tel: 01763-848-822 Email: Christina@MediaMaxima.com
Revd Dr Miranda Thelfall-Holmes Tel: 07981–459-479
Sally Barnes Tel: 020–8731–9860 or 07759–343-335
Timeline on women’s ordination in the Church of England
1975 General Synod (GS) agrees there are ‘no fundamental objections’ to ordaining women to the priesthood
1978 GS debates ordaining women as deacons, priests and bishops and wins overall majority but vote is taken by Houses and it falls in House of Clergy
1986 GS votes for women to be allowed to be deacons – the first of the three historic orders
1987 First female deacons ordained
1992 GS votes for women to be allowed to be priests
1994 1,500 female deacons ordained as priests
2000 GS asks House of Bishops to “initiate further theological study on the episcopate, focussing on the issues that need to be addressed in preparation for the debate on women in the episcopate in the Church of England” (Rochester Commission – House of Bishops’ Working Party on Women in the Episcopate established.)
2004 Publication of Rochester Commission Report
2005 GS (Feb) debates Rochester Commission Report
2005 GS (July) votes to start process of removing legal obstacles to having women as bishops (The Bishops of Guildford and Gloucester are asked to start the process)
2006 (Jan) Guildford and Gloucester Report published
2006 GS (July) agrees that having women as bishops is ‘consonant with the faith of the Church’. Legislative drafting group set up to prepare the draft measure and amending canon necessary to remove the legal obstacles to the consecration of women as bishops
2007 (no consideration in GS)
2008 GS (July) Report of Legislative Group debated and sent back to be completed. GS votes to “affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests” and “affirm that these should be contained in a national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard.” GS asks the Revision Committee to prepare the draft measure and code of practice.
2009 GS (Feb) Legislative Drafting Group final report considered and the legal provisions sent for revision in committee
2009 Revision Committee (8th October) decides to reject arrangements in a Code of Practice and to prepare legislation with statutory provision.
Cif belief has published The Vatican thirst for power divides Christianity and damages Catholicism by Hans Küng
The astonishing efforts to lure away Anglican priests show that Pope Benedict is set on restoring the Roman imperium…
In the Sunday Times David Starkey weighed in with The Pope wants his church back.
In the Sunday Independent Peter Stanford asked After 500 years, has the Pope outfoxed the Archbishop?
In the New York Times A.N.Wilson wrote Rock of Ages, Cleft by the Pope.
In the Telegraph George Pitcher says Sex is a stumbling block for Anglicans on the road to Rome.
Cif belief has started a Question of the Week series, So long and thanks for all the priests?
First up is Austen Ivereigh with A boost for Catholic-Anglican dialogue.
The Observer has published a full-page article by Diarmaid MacCulloch which has been headlined Pope Benedict opens new front in battle for the soul of two churches.
…There has been a great deal of excited talk about this move: one hysterical front-page headline in the Times proclaimed that 400,000 Anglicans were poised to head for the Tiber. This turns out to be the self-estimated membership of a faction calling itself the Traditional Anglican Communion.
Equally extravagant claims that this could be the end of the Protestant Reformation need to be taken with several fontfuls of salt. It is in the interests of various discontented groups on the margins of Anglicanism to talk up the significance of the latest piece of papal theatre, while ignoring its wider context.
This much broader struggle within Christianity at first sight appears to be about sex. Throughout the world, the most easily heard tone in religion (not just Christianity) is of a generally angry conservatism. Why? I hazard that the anger centres on a profound shift in gender roles traditionally given a religious significance and validated by religious traditions.
The conservative backlash embodies the hurt of heterosexual men (or those who would like to pass for being heterosexual men) at cultural shifts which have generally threatened to marginalise them and deprive them of dignity, hegemony or even much usefulness. What they notice amid their hurt is that the sacred texts generally back them in their assumptions, and they therefore assert the authority of sacred scripture…
By coincidence, the same issue has a review by Christina Odone of A History of Christianity by Diarmaid MacCulloch.
Updated Sunday evening
Forward in Faith UK has been holding its annual assembly this weekend, Friday and Saturday, 23 and 24 October. There are podcasts of a number of the addresses at the assembly on FiF’s website here.
Reporting on the assembly Jonathan Wynne-Jones in the Telegraph writes that Senior Anglican bishop reveals he is ready to convert to Roman Catholicism.
The Rt Rev John Hind, the Bishop of Chichester, has announced he is considering becoming a Roman Catholic in a move that could spark an exodus of clergy.
The BBC reports this as Anglican group mulls Rome switch.
Here are some blog posts on the assembly.
Reflections on the Forward in Faith National Assembly, Day One
Early Anglican Responses
Back from FiF National Assembly
The Best Speeches of the FiF Assembly
Update
The Bishop of Chichester has issued this statement:
Statement from the Bishop of Chichester, the Right Revd. John Hind
October 25, 2009
An article has been published today in the Sunday Telegraph asserting that I have announced that I am about to become a Roman Catholic.
This is not the case.
The report appears to come from a misunderstanding of an answer I gave to questions from the floor at the recent ‘Forward in Faith’ assembly, at which I spoke.
A questioner had asked about the Papal condemnation of Anglican Orders. I responded by speaking about the subtlety of the position. I referred to the moment when it seemed as if the issue of how the Roman Catholic Church sees Anglican orders might be reopened but how the ordination of women to the priesthood and other developments have now made that impossible.
In the light of that I stated that in the event of union with the Roman Catholic Church I would be willing to receive re-ordination into the Roman Catholic priesthood but that I would not be willing to deny the priesthood I have exercised hitherto.
This is clearly a contentious and complex issue and one where it is easy to misunderstand the nuances of the debate. I think I made my position clear in my address at the Forward in Faith assembly. The text is available below and a podcast may be found on the Forward in Faith website.
+ John Cicestr:
25.10.2009
Link to PDF containing text of speech.
Press release from the Society of Catholic Priests and Affirming Catholicism
Saturday, 24 October 2009
NOT ALL CATHOLICS ARE TRADITIONALISTS
The current debate about the implications of the offer made by his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to make provision for Anglicans who wish to join the Roman Catholic Church ignores one important fact. The majority of catholics within the church are in favour of women’s ministry and wish to remain loyal to the Anglican tradition within the Anglican Communion.
The Society of Catholic Priests, which has over 500 members in this country and is about to establish chapters in the American Episcopal Church and in Australia, and Affirming Catholicism which draws together clergy and laity in this country and throughout the Anglican Communion, are committed to the catholic nature and teaching of the Church of England. We are actively working to see women ordained to the episcopate and hold that this is entirely consistent with the teaching of the church and the historic nature of our orders. We are also convinced that the issues of human sexuality should not be ones that divide the church.
To suggest that the departure from the Church of England of those who hold more conservative views will remove the catholic wing and tradition from the church is entirely wrong. Churches and parishes which have a catholic tradition and are served by priests, both male and female, are growing and flourishing and look forward to the future with enthusiasm.
We welcome the offer made by the Pope to those of our brothers and sisters who no longer feel that the Anglican Communion is their spiritual home. We hope that this will not impede swift progress in the Church of England towards the ordination of the first women bishops in this land.
Fr Andrew Nunn
Rector General
The Society of Catholic Priests
Fr Jonathan Clark
Chair
Affirming Catholicism
Four items available today:
Be Anglicans with us, Rome tells traditionalists by Bill Bowder (Scroll to the bottom for a sidebar of Q and A)
Traditionalists “warmly welcome” Vatican move by Pat Ashworth and Bill Bowder
Leader: On the road to Rome
…For Anglicanism to work in the absence of authoritarian sanctions requires tolerance of, and respect for, the many ways in which believers interpret the central tenets of Christianity. Without this tolerance, as history has shown repeatedly, separations are hard to avoid. Given the drift towards interrogation and confrontation within the Communion (the production of the Anglican Covenant is part of this process), the hierarchy has rejected quasi-separations — parallel jurisdictions, alternative oversight, and the like. But suddenly this proposal is on the table, and from a Church that supposedly brooks no interference with its pattern of authority. The ordinariates in question appear to be nothing less than parallel jurisdictions set up to protect the integrity of the majority as well as the minority, but this time over the issue of priestly celibacy rather than women bishops…
And, an analysis by Christopher Hill, Bishop of Guildford: Look at what it says on the box.
…What does the Apostolic Constitution, about to be finalised, entail? What is a “Personal Ordinariate” for former Anglicans? What is clear is that it won’t be all that such individuals or groups have been looking for. It is not a diocese or Anglican-rite Church in communion with Rome.
A Personal Ordinariate is a pastoral provision in juridical form which will allow some continuing Anglican heritage to be expressed. But it is what it says on the box: it is personal, that is to say, for a network of individuals and groups rather than the norm of a territorial diocese…
This analysis is also available on the Church of England website. See Commentary on ‘Personal Ordinariates’ by the Rt Revd Christopher Hill.
Updated Tuesday lunchtime, afternoon and evening
In a joint statement issued today the Archbishop of Westminster and the Archbishop of Canterbury have said
Today’s announcement of the Apostolic Constitution is a response by Pope Benedict XVI to a number of requests over the past few years to the Holy See from groups of Anglicans who wish to enter into full visible communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and are willing to declare that they share a common Catholic faith and accept the Petrine ministry as willed by Christ for his Church.
Pope Benedict XVI has approved, within the Apostolic Constitution, a canonical structure that provides for Personal Ordinariates, which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of distinctive Anglican spiritual patrimony.
There is also a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury to “the Bishops of the Church of England, and the members of the Primates Meeting of the Anglican Communion”.
Read the full statement and the letter below the fold.
Damian Thompson in the Telegraph reports this as Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert en masse.
Also in the Telegraph George Pitcher has Pope throws a lifeline to the Church of England for women bishops.
Yet again in the Telegraph Martin Beckford and Nick Squires have Pope Benedict XVI paves way for thousands of disaffected Anglicans to cross over to Rome.
Reuters has Pope approves document on Anglicans joining church.
Associated Press has Vatican creates new structure for Anglicans, and, more extensively, Vatican creates new structure for Anglicans.
John Hooper in The Guardian has Roman Catholic church to receive Anglicans.
Also in The Guardian Riazat Butt and John Hooper write Roman Catholic church to receive Anglicans.
Austen Ivereigh in America has Rome offers new home to Anglican trads.
Ruth Gledhill in her Times blog has Pope unity move ‘not act of proselytism or aggression’ says Rowan Williams. This includes the text of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter, and also a letter from the Bishops of Ebbsfleet and Richborough (two of the “flying bishops”).
Update - Ruth Gledhill has updated her blog with video and audio from this morning’s press conference.
Ruth Gledhill and Richard Owen have the Times news article on this story: Vatican moves to poach traditional Anglicans.
Forward in Faith UK has issued a brief statement FiF reacts to Statement from Rome.
At The Guardian Andrew Brown writes in his blog about The end of the Anglican Communion.
Jim Naughton at Espicopal Café writes Vatican offers home to traditional Anglicans
Catholic blogger Rocco Palmo at Whispers in the Loggia writes For Canterbury Exiles, Rome Builds a Bridge.
Episcopal Life Online has Pope announces special provisions to accept former Anglicans in Roman Catholic Church.
The US Episcopal church has issued this statement From The Episcopal Church on the recent statement from the Vatican.
The Catholic Church in England and Wales also has the statement on its website along with a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) press release: Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering the Catholic Church.
There is a longer version of the CDF press release here.
Joint Statement by The Archbishop of Westminster and The Archbishop of Canterbury
Tuesday 20 October 2009
Today’s announcement of the Apostolic Constitution is a response by Pope Benedict XVI to a number of requests over the past few years to the Holy See from groups of Anglicans who wish to enter into full visible communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and are willing to declare that they share a common Catholic faith and accept the Petrine ministry as willed by Christ for his Church.
Pope Benedict XVI has approved, within the Apostolic Constitution, a canonical structure that provides for Personal Ordinariates, which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of distinctive Anglican spiritual patrimony.
The announcement of this Apostolic Constitution brings to an end a period of uncertainty for such groups who have nurtured hopes of new ways of embracing unity with the Catholic Church. It will now be up to those who have made requests to the Holy See to respond to the Apostolic Constitution.
The Apostolic Constitution is further recognition of the substantial overlap in faith, doctrine and spirituality between the Catholic Church and the Anglican tradition. Without the dialogues of the past forty years, this recognition would not have been possible, nor would hopes for full visible unity have been nurtured. In this sense, this Apostolic Constitution is one consequence of ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion.
The on-going official dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion provides the basis for our continuing cooperation. The Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) and International Anglican Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM) agreements make clear the path we will follow together.
With God’s grace and prayer we are determined that our on-going mutual commitment and consultation on these and other matters should continue to be strengthened. Locally, in the spirit of IARCCUM, we look forward to building on the pattern of shared meetings between the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales and the Church of England’s House of Bishops with a focus on our common mission. Joint days of reflection and prayer were begun in Leeds in 2006 and continued in Lambeth in 2008, and further meetings are in preparation. This close cooperation will continue as we grow together in unity and mission, in witness to the Gospel in our country, and in the Church at large.
+ Vincent + Rowan
To the Bishops of the Church of England, and
the members of the Primates Meeting of the Anglican Communion
20 October 2009
The Vatican has announced today that Pope Benedict XVI has approved an ‘Apostolic Constitution’ (a formal papal decree) which will make some provision for groups of Anglicans (whether strictly members of continuing Anglican bodies or currently members of the Communion) who wish to be received into communion with the See of Rome in such a way that they can retain aspects of Anglican liturgical and spiritual tradition.
I am sorry that there has been no opportunity to alert you earlier to this; I was informed of the planned announcement at a very late stage, and we await the text of the Apostolic Constitution itself and its code of practice in the coming weeks. But I thought I should let you know the main points of the response I am making in our local English context – in full consultation with Roman Catholic bishops in England and Wales – in the hope of avoiding any confusion or misrepresentation. I attach a copy of the Joint Statement that I agreed to make alongside the Archbishop of Westminster, the President of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. It can also be found on my website.
It remains to be seen what use will be made of this provision, since it is now up to those who have made requests to the Holy See to respond to the Apostolic Constitution; but, in the light of recent discussions with senior officials in the Vatican, I can say that this new possibility is in no sense at all intended to undermine existing relations between our two communions or to be an act of proselytism or aggression. It is described as simply a response to specific enquiries from certain Anglican groups and individuals wishing to find their future within the Roman Catholic Church.
The common heritage of the achievement of the ARCIC agreed statements, and the IARCCUM principles for shared work and witness (in Growing Together in Unity and Mission, 2007), remain the solid ground both for our future co-operation as global communions, and our regional and local growth in common faith and witness. For those who wish to enter into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church in the near future, this announcement will clarify possible options, and we wish them God’s strength and guidance in their discernment. Meanwhile our ecumenical relationships continue on their current cordial basis, regionally and internationally.
+ Rowan Cantuar:
Updated Saturday
Pat Ashworth reports for the Church Times on the revision committee’s decision: Synod’s women-bishops committee draws back from code of practice.
SUPPORTERS of women bishops have expressed shock at a decision by the revision committee for the draft legislation not to go further down the route of a statutory code of practice. Traditionalists say that the change of direction proposed does not go far enough…
Scroll down that page for responses from David Stancliffe Bishop of Salisbury and from David Houlding Pro-Prolocutor of the Convocation of Canterbury.
Stancliffe:
THE news that the revision committee has chosen not to explore the option of the single clause with a statutory code of practice any further, and has gone for “certain functions to be invested in bishops by statute” will strike despair into the hearts of many. What the committee is proposing takes a step back from the position Synod thought it had reached in July 2008.
My concerns are on several levels. First, these proposals appear to institutionalise mistrust in legislation: the opponents of women’s ordination do not trust the bishops to make proper provision. Is that really what we have come to?
Second, it destroys the ecclesiology of the Church of England, making it legitimate to “choose your own bishop”. Are there to be any limits as to the grounds on which you might petition to do this?
Third, it seems wildly impracticable: something very similar, Transferred Episcopal Authority, has already been found wanting, and it must remain doubtful whether such discriminatory legislation would pass parliamentary scrutiny or stand up to challenge by judicial review…
Houlding:
…The Act of Synod, despite its imperfections, has given space to many to flourish and grow. Embracing the principle of “reception”, it provides for extended episcopal care, under the Ordinary. Once a woman is ordained a bishop, there is correspondingly a much higher degree of impairment of communion. We have never had to face this situation before. This is why, I suggest, it is proving so hard for us to get our minds around the new solution required.
The decision last week of the revision committee to provide by means of law for the transfer of episcopal authority is, therefore, a real turning point in helping us reach the decision that will need to be made. Anything by way of code of practice or delegation can only lead to a diminution of a woman’s ministry. To provide for both positions to co-exist alongside one another by statute rules out the possibility of any further wrangling. By creating proper space and the necessary boundaries, the Church is including everyone.
Women in the episcopate remain a contested development in the wider Church, and therefore the principle behind the nature of provision must be inclusion for all. The Archbishop of Canterbury has enunciated this more than once in speeches to the Synod: “the others (whoever they may be) are not going away.” Our task is to hold the Church together for the sake of its mission and to ensure that we live together in the highest degree of communion possible
Giles Fraser writes about it in his column, Let Synod’s ‘yes’ be ‘yes’.
I admit that I have never been a huge fan of the General Synod, even when I was a member. But to see a representative body treated with such contempt ought to make everyone who gives up their time and money to support synodical government wonder why they bother.
In July 2008, the General Synod voted clearly that it wanted women bishops with no small print that made them into half-bishops, and no further institutionalisation of the sexism that keeps them out of the episcopate.
Some did not like this clarity, and sought to protect the consciences of those who are against women bishops by securing legal no-go areas where women in purple would not be welcome. After a comprehensive debate, where all shades of opinion were represented, the Synod said no…
The Church Times leader column is titled Revision committee deserves a hearing.
…Until the committee reveals its deliberations in a final announcement, probably in January, it would be wrong, therefore, to condemn it. It might be wise, though, not to be over-enthusiastic, either. There are several examples where a small group runs ahead of the people who commissioned it, finding agreement where none exists outside. A case in point was the Final Report of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), which was ignored and then rejected by the Vatican. A General Synod that is, in the main, sceptical about any agreement over women bishops can overturn any of the committee’s recommendations. The committee knows this perfectly well, and yet believes, clearly, that its preferred solution is worth fielding. It deserves an opportunity to make its case.
Update
Two letters to the editor on this topic are now available without subscription, see St Thérèse of Lisieux and women bishops.
The annual report of these costs has been published as a 24-page PDF.
Read the press release.
The 2008 office and working costs of bishops in the Church of England are published today. Figures for individual bishops were first published, for the year 2000, in December 2001. Bishops’ office and working costs were previously published as a total figure.
Read the full report.
For reports on previous years, go here.
The Fawcett Society promotes 30 October as Equal Pay Day.
Ekklesia has published an article Women’s dignity and the church’s tainted love by Fran Porter which discusses the relationship between this and the Church of England, including, but not limited to, the issue of women as bishops.
…For those who argue that opposing women bishops is not about the secular discourse of equality but about the theological discourse of faith, the two issues of the gender pay gap and women’s potential inclusion to the episcopate do not speak to each other. Indeed, it may be possible to support the former while opposing the latter.
The Church of England has excluded its own governance and practice from equality legislation by claiming the Section 19 exemption for organised religions in the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, which already means women clergy (deacons and priests) are not covered by the legal employment protections of that Act.
In particular, a Parochial Parish Council (PCC) can advertise for male clergy only to apply for vacancies of incumbent, curate or non-stipendiary minister and may also ban a woman priest from celebrating the Eucharist within parish boundaries. [3]
More generally, the language of equality is not a first language for theology or more specifically theological anthropology; Christian understanding of human beings and how they relate to one another is expressed in language of human personhood created in the image of God more than it is through modern sensibilities of equality. Equality is not irrelevant, but it has a derivative value.
Hence, for Christians, the equality that human beings have with each other comes from their commonality in being creatures of the one Creator. The dignity of each human person comes from our being made in the image of God. Similarly, the inalienable rights that human beings possess without distinction, for Christians, are rooted in the understanding of God as Creator who bestows innate worth on humanity.
Yet this framework of personhood that enables those opposed to women bishops (and women priests) to argue that their position is one of theology and faith (Jesus ordained and gave authority only to men) and not one of secular equality or justice [4], is the same framework in which those who support women’s ordination live and breath…
There have been several reactions to the lecture by Bishop Peter Selby that is reported here.
Adrian Worsfold wrote An Exocet - At Last and later Criticised.
Mark Harris wrote Bishop Selby tells it like it is: Resist the Anglican Covenant.
Tobias Haller wrote Peter Feeds His Sheep.
Fr Jake wrote The Emergence of the Hidden Wisdom of God’s People.
James Richardson wrote Anglican update: Rowan Williams asked to stand against homophobia.
And Colin Coward has begun a series of posts, starting with these:
Archbishop accused of abrogation of responsibility in gay debate
No truth in the House of Bishops
Rejecting the Covenant
Update
Listening, conversation and dialogue
Reuters has published an article by Miranda Threlfall-Holmes Proposed legislation on women bishops falls short.
Daily Episcopalian has published I am not a nobody by Lauren R. Stanley.
Maggi Dawn has written Women Bishops Are Tainted? And Tainting The Church?
Inclusive Church Press Release
12 October 2009
The Decision of the Revision Committee
Inclusive Church is deeply disturbed by the recent announcement of the Church of England’s Revision Committee. It has moved away from the expressed will of General Synod in July 2008 - that there should be legislation to consecrate women as bishops on the same terms as men with an additional code of practice containing arrangements for those who do not accept the authority of bishops who are women.
Their decision reflects a further undermining of the Anglican understanding of the role of the Bishop as the pastor of, and focus of unity in the Diocese. If implemented it will inevitably create a two-tier institution with little prospect of long-term unity.
The impact of this on those within and outside the church will be immense. The bias shown against women in this proposal will mean that the church continues to be seen as institutionally discriminatory towards them. The impression given is of an organisation which perpetuates injustice, undermining its ability to witness to Christ in the world. It ignores the considerable gifts ordained women have to offer within the Episcopate. Men and women should be present on the same terms.
We urge the Revision Committee to reconsider its decision and prepare legislation, as it was requested, to open the Episcopate to women with a national code of practice to be drafted separately.
www.inclusivechurch2.net
Revd Canon Giles Goddard
The parish of St John with St Andrew Waterloo
Chair, Inclusive Church
Secker St
London SE1 8UF
07762 373 674
Updated
WATCH is publishing a series of papers on Preparing for Women as Bishops. All are PDF files.
First, there is Introduction to the papers: Preparing for Women as Bishops by Christina Rees. Her paper is titled Preparing for Women as Bishops –Legislating in Fear or in Faith?
The Church of England is in the process of drafting the legislation that will make it lawful for women to be bishops. After debating the issue of women’s ordination for over 40 years, WATCH is delighted that the General Synod has agreed that having women as bishops is ‘consonant with the faith of the Church’. We are concerned, however, that certain proposals have been put forward which would result in a two-tier episcopacy and a fracturing of the historical Anglican understanding of orders. Further, we are alarmed that the flawed theology of the Episcopal Act of Synod 1993 may be absorbed in the legislation permitting women to be bishops.
Several members of WATCH have written about their hopes and fears for the women bishops legislation and we offer this series of papers as a contribution to the on-going discussions about the way in which the Church will legislate for the Episcopal ministry of women…
The first paper is available here, and is by Dr Judith Maltby.
The prefatory material says:
Introduction to the Revd Dr Judith Maltby’s essay in Act of Synod –Act of Folly? edited by Monica Furlong, SCM Canterbury Press 1998.
One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, but Two Integrities?
On 11th November 1992, after many years of debate and discussion at all levels in the Church, the General Synod voted to make it lawful for women to be ordained as priests. Almost exactly one year later, with only two debates a day apart, the General Synod passed the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod, creating provision for three separate ‘flying bishops’ to minister to those opposed to women’s ordained ministries.
Five years after the Act of Synod was passed, the late Monica Furlong edited a collection of essays entitled Act of Synod –Act of Folly? Canon Dr Judith Maltby, Fellow of Christ Church College, Oxford, has given WATCH her permission to use her contribution to Monica’s book. We are grateful to Judith for her essay, which traces the theological and ecclesiological flaws inherent in the Act and the damaging precedent it has set, not only for the Church of England but for the entire Anglican Communion. 16 years on, the Act is still in place, although only 2% of parishes in the Church of England have signed Resolution C, the resolution calling for the extended Episcopal oversight created by the Act.
As the Church prepares to open the Episcopate to women, WATCH continues to work for the rescinding of the Act of Synod and for the simplest and most straightforward legislation for women bishops.
The second paper is now also available: Walls of Suspicion, Hatred and Taint by Jean Mayland.
To put the recent press release from the revision committee into context, it may help to review what actually happened on 7 July 2008.
The order paper is here, listing the full text of all the amendments. The pertinent amendment is number 72 in the name of the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds.
Peter Owen’s report of the voting is here.
Here is the rollcall of the bishops votes.
And the rollcall of the clergy votes.
And subsequently, I wrote an analysis, Bishops give a clear lead. I wrote about amendment 72:
Finally, ten of them [i.e. conservative bishops listed earlier] voted for the Bishop of Ripon & Leeds’s amendment to keep open the possibility of “statutory transfer of specified responsibilities”. Altogether 21 bishops supported this, but amazingly both Chichester and Birmingham opposed it, leading to a 21-21 tie