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.
32 CommentsThis 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 Sunday evening
A new and interesting online project has been launched today: Citizen Ethics Network.
The Citizen Ethics Network has been established by Madeleine Bunting (Associate Editor and Columnist for The Guardian), Adam Lent (Head of Economic and Social Affairs at the Trades Union Congress) and Mark Vernon (writer and journalist). The Network is an independent initiative of Madeleine, Adam and Mark and its activities and views do not reflect those of The Guardian or the TUC.
The first publication is a booklet, in PDF format, titled Citizen Ethics in a Time of Crisis.
Contributors include Rowan Williams, Michael Sandel, Diane Coyle, Philip Pullman, Carey Oppenheim, Jesse Norman, Nicholas Sagovsky, Julian Glover, Richard Reeves, Jonathan Rutherford and Jon Cruddas, Robert Skidelsky, Will Hutton, Oliver James, Polly Toynbee, Tariq Ramadan, Alain de Botton, Camila Batmanghelidjh, and Mary Midgley.
The Guardian has also published a four page insert in today’s edition, containing extracts from the booklet.
Cif belief has started a discussion thread, Can you make society more ethical?
There will also be an event at the British Museum, on Friday, 26 February.
Updates
Cif belief has now published: Out of the abyss of individualism by Rowan Williams
Towards a just society by Michael Sandel
The three virtues we need by Philip Pullman
To tackle the last decades’ myths, we must dust off the big moral questions by Madeleine Bunting
Do contribute to the comments at these articles if they interest you.
1 CommentUpdated 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?
24 CommentsThe Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) website has published the text of some reports by the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) concerning recent activities of Archbishop Peter Akinola.
See Law suits against traditional Anglicans demonic, says Akinola.
The full text of this is copied below the fold.
Scroll down even further for the full text of a second article titled Battle against unscriptural practices not over, says Akinola. Also copied.
So far, I have not been able to locate either of these reports at the website of NAN.
(h/t to Episcopal Café)
25 CommentsAudio 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
11 CommentsAn article with this title by Bishop Pierre Whalon appears this week at Anglicans Online.
You can read it here.
There is then further comment and response by Bishop Whalon at the Episcopal Café.
See the comments here, and the response here.
38 CommentsUpdated 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.
25 CommentsThe 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?
8 CommentsUpdated
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
44 CommentsThis happened last Tuesday, 9 February.
The Hansard record starts here, or the PDF is over here.
The Archbishop of York took part in the debate. On this occasion, and in a different context to the previous one, he was in favour of the concept of proportionality.
His contributions are here, here, and here.
The Bill now moves to the Report stage, which will occur on Tuesday 2 March.
0 CommentsA further release from the Church of Uganda has been received.
See here for the most recent statement. Also here for an earlier statement.
Now this:
12 CommentsFor Immediate Release
12th February 2010Anglican Churches in America Not Part of Church of Uganda’s Position on Anti-Homosexuality Bill
The Church of Uganda does not have oversight of any Anglican churches in the United States. Member churches of the Anglican Church in North America that have been in partnership with the Church of Uganda in the past were not in any way involved in the Church of Uganda’s position on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. They were not consulted, nor was their support enlisted. The Ugandan context is different from the American context and it is likely that our American friends will have a different position from that of the Church of Uganda.
– END –
Last week’s issue of The Tablet had several articles on this subject, including:
Elena Curti Parliament in his sights – The Pope and the Equality Bill
An editorial: Deepest Human desire
and an article by Clifford Longley reproduced here below the fold, with the express permission of the editor.
8 CommentsInclusive Church
Press Release
11th February 2010
Inclusive Church welcomes the vote by the Church of England’s General Synod to extend pension rights beyond the legal minimum for civil partners.
The motion was carried by a clear majority in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity. The debate was characterised by a desire to show that the church can act justly and generously in support of those in civil partnerships.
Revd. Canon Giles Goddard, Chair of Inclusive Church said:
“This vote underlines Archbishop’s Rowan Williams’ earlier comments and clearly demonstrates that the Church of England is opposed to all forms of homophobia. I hope this will be the beginning of a new openness towards LGBT people in the church.”
Revd Mark Bratton, proposer of the motion said:
“This unexpected result will encourage those who have given their lives to supporting those in ministry that the church values their commitment and sacrifice.”
The motion:
“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 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.”
Voting:
| Bishops |
12 for
|
2 against
|
3 abstentions
|
| Clergy |
97 for
|
23 against
|
10 abstentions
|
| Laity |
78 for
|
59 against
|
9 abstentions
|
More information contact:
Revd Canon Giles Goddard 07762 373 674
Revd Mark Bratton 0754 060 4225
ends
26 CommentsOn 9 February, the Church of Uganda issued a statement on the proposed Uganda legislation. The full text of this is contained in a PDF file. It has also been copied below the fold.
According to the covering email:
18 CommentsThe attached document is the official position of the Church of Uganda as endorsed by the House of Bishops of the Church of Uganda.
Kindly ensure that it is represented in its entirety.
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.
4 CommentsA 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.
2 CommentsThe 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:
9 Comments…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:
18 CommentsPlease 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.
The Episcopal Church
Office of Public Affairs
February 4, 2010
The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA)
The following is one in a series of talking points prepared as a resource for The Episcopal Church.
Talking Points:
The Episcopal Church and the ACNA
The facts about The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA).