The bishops have not expressed any interest in Clause 3, the one which deals with discrimination on the ground of Religion or Belief. Here’s how it reads at present:
Other requirements relating to religion or belief
3. A person (A) with an ethos based on religion or belief does not contravene a provision mentioned in paragraph 1(2) by applying in relation to work a requirement to be of a particular religion or belief if A shows that, having regard to that ethos and to the nature or context of the work—
(a) it is an occupational requirement,
(b) the application of the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and
(c) the person to whom A applies the requirement does not meet it (or A has reasonable grounds for not being satisfied that the person meets it).
There are five amendments listed.
Amendment 101ZA Baroness Turner of Camden
in para (a) leave out “an” and insert “a genuine”
Amendment 101A Baroness Turner of Camden
at end insert—
“(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 101B Lord Lester of Herne Hill
at end insert—
“Paragraph 3 does not apply when A is operating—
(a) on behalf of a public authority, and
(b) under the terms of contract between the organisation and the public authority.”
Amendment 101C Baroness Turner of Camden
0 Commentsat end insert—
“The exception under paragraph 3 shall not be used to justify discrimination on any other protected ground.”
Comment is free: belief has today published an article written by me, see
Churches panic over equality bill.
8 CommentsThe 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:
6 Comments-(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).
1 CommentChurch 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.”
8 CommentsThere are further reports about this today:
In the Church Times there is a report by me, subscriber-only until next Friday, headlined Change fails to silence critics. A longer account by me is below.
In the Catholic Herald Simon Caldwell has a report headlined Equality Bill still a threat, say bishops.
On the other hand, the National Secular Society has a press release, NSS battles to minimise religious opt outs in Equality Bill.
A new Marshalled List of Amendments has been published. I will review the changes in a later post.
What follows is my full account of events of the past week.
The Government’s efforts to clarify the exemption for churches in the Equality Bill have not been welcomed by either the Archbishops’ Council or the Roman Catholic bishops conference. The Bill is due to complete its Committee stage in the House of Lords next week.
0 CommentsThe 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.
4 CommentsThere has been relatively little coverage of the religion aspects of this in the media until recently. A few items:
Telegraph Martin Beckford today has Bishop of Winchester warns Christians may have to give up public sector jobs because of secular agenda and last week had Equality Bill ‘dangerously’ trying to force religious belief behind closed doors, bishops warn.
The Sunday Telegraph also had a report by Patrick Hennessy headlined Catholic ban on women priests ‘illegal under Harriet Harman equality bill’ which earned a mention in the Church Times press column by Andrew Brown thus:
Full marks to CARE, the Evangelical pressure group, for getting the most completely bogus story of the week into The Sunday Telegraph, via its political editor, who solemnly informed the readers that Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill would force the Roman Catholic Church to abandon an all-male priesthood.
The Church of England Newspaper last week had UK promises amendments to controversial Equality Bill. I had a report in the Church Times last week which is subscriber-only until tomorrow, Move to erase doubts over Equality Bill and which takes a rather different view.
Today, the Daily Mail has Video urging protest against Equality Bill that ‘infringes Christian freedom’ to be screened in churches.
Press releases from conservative organisations:
On the other hand:
The Hansard record of day three can be found here as a PDF, or starts here in html.
The official news report of the day is here.
There was an interesting debate on an amendment proposed by Lord Alton of Liverpool. This starts here.
What the Bishop of Winchester had to say can be found here.
The article in The Times yesterday by Shami Chakrabarti referred to in the debate, can be found here.
The Bishop of Winchester’s amendment dealing with Gender Reassignment and the Marriage Act was accepted without any difficulty by the Government. The debate about that starts here (the Bishop of Southwark stood in as the Bishop of Winchester had to leave before this was reached).
A further exchange of religious interest occurred starting here. The topic being discussed was the content of television programmes. The Archbishop of York participated in this debate.
The amendments to Schedule 9 will now certainly be discussed on Monday afternoon. There has been a change to the texts of Amendments 98 and 99. New wording is here. The old wording was in both cases simply: leave out “proportionate”. The wording was not in the 2003 SO Regulations, but was put into the Equality Bill in order to make plain on the face of the bill the proportionality requirement of the underlying European Employment Equality Directive 2000.
3 CommentsAndreas Whittam Smith writes in the Independent about POWER2010. See Here’s one way to reconnect voters and see what he is talking about at the POWER2010 website.
Roderick Strange writes in The Times that Water into wine teaches us about transformation.
And Rosemary Lain-Priestley writes there about Being a mother, wife and priest.
In the Guardian Riaz Ravat writes in the Face to Faith column that amid a slew of negative coverage, we must all work at challenging how Muslims are seen.
The Brookings Institution has published a paper by Alex Evans and David Steven titled Hitting Reboot: Where Next For Climate After Copenhagen? (The paper itself is a PDF download from that page.) (Hat tip: Richard Chartres.)
Giles Fraser wrote in the Church Times that Science is not neutral.
And his Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4 on Friday, about Theodicy is available here to listen to, or here as a podcast. The text will also be on the BBC website later, but is available now below the fold.
10 CommentsPat 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).
10 CommentsTHERE 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.
Updated
The Government has proposed a new definition of when “Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion”.
Here it is:
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).
This would replace the current wording found in Schedule 9, Paragraph 2(8).
Update
In order to evaluate this, it may be helpful to recall that this clause is designed to cover a variety of issues, not only sexual orientation.
25 Comments(a) a requirement to be of a particular sex;
(b) a requirement not to be a transsexual person;
(c) a requirement not to be married or a civil partner;
(d) a requirement not to be married to, or the civil partner of, a person who has a living former spouse or civil partner;
(e) a requirement relating to circumstances in which a marriage or civil partnership came to an end;
(f) a requirement related to sexual orientation.
The House of Lords continued its examination of the Equality Bill yesterday. Amendments discussed covered clauses 10 to 29. Here is the news page with links.
The Hansard record can be found starting here, or the PDF file is over here.
Two of the amendments I had previously listed as interesting were debated.
Amendment 20 (Baroness Varsi and Baroness Morris) which would remove the word “philosophical” from the definition of “belief”, was debated, follow that from here.
At the end of the evening, Lord MacKay of Clashfern proposed Amendment 57A:
“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.”
Read the debate on that from here.
Also, yesterday there was a change in the list of peers sponsoring the amendment to delete Sch 9 Clause 2 Para 8. Baroness Varsi’s name was removed, and was replaced by Baroness Butler-Sloss. Lady Butler-Sloss also added her name to those sponsoring the amendment to delete the word “proportionate” in in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 9 clause 2.
5 CommentsThis week in the Church Times there is a report on this topic. The original is subscriber-only until Friday but meanwhile is copied below.
TAC members mostly in India by Simon Sarmiento
NINETY per cent of the membership of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) resides in India and Africa, information received by the Church Times shows.
The TAC was formed in 1990, and now includes former Anglicans in six continents. Its current Primate, Archbishop John Hepworth, is based in South Australia. Dialogue between the TAC and the Vatican, after a formal petition made by the TAC in October 2007, was cited as a significant factor in the decision by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to issue the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus (News, 13 November).
The secretary to the College of Bishops of the TAC, Cheryl Woodman, supplied the figures shown on the left. She said that they were “based on about 60 per cent of our communicant membership attending every Sunday”, and that “this would easily bring the [membership] figure to around the 400,000 that is regularly quoted.”
In India, the TAC is represented by the Anglican Church of India (ACI). The ACI was formed in 1964 by Anglicans who withdrew from the Churches of North and South India. It now has 15 dioceses. The Traditional Anglican Church in Britain lists about 20 parishes on its website.
|
Territory |
Attendance |
Proportion |
|
India |
130,000 |
54% |
|
Southern Africa (including Zimbabwe, Mozambique, |
65,000 |
27% |
|
Central Africa (including Kenya, Cameroon, Eastern |
26,000 |
11% |
|
UK and Europe |
1,800 |
0.7% |
|
Canada |
2,000 |
0.8% |
|
USA |
2,500 |
1.0% |
|
Central America |
7,000 |
2.3% |
|
Australia (inc Torres Straights), New Zealand, and |
6,500 |
2.7% |
|
|
240,800 |
|
See earlier article here which includes a list of some of the amendments of interest.
Yesterday’s committee hearings dealt with Clauses 1 to 9. No amendments were agreed. The Hansard record begins here. The Parliament website has this news report with links.
Amendments considered included one from the Bishop of Chester on gender reassignment. (The Bishop of Chichester spoke on his behalf.)
The latest (Tuesday morning) list of the remaining marshalled amendments (excludes those considered yesterday) can be found here. Committee hearings resume on Wednesday.
The Bishop of Winchester’s amendment relating to marriages and gender reassignment discrimination has now reappeared in much shorter form then before:
58A* Page 143, line 2, at end insert—
GENDER REASSIGNMENT
A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in reliance on section 5B of the Marriage Act 1949 (solemnisation of marriages involving person of acquired gender).”
Baroness Noakes and Baroness Neuberger have added their names to Lord Alli’s amendment relating to the venues for civil partnerships.
Meanwhile in the House of Commons, two questions were asked relating to the EU “reasoned opinion”.
5 CommentsEpiscopal Café has drawn attention in ABC’s visitors to Canada on “aberrations south of the border” to a report in the Anglican Journal on the recent visit to Canada of “two pastoral visitors from the U.K. who were deputized by the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams”. They were Bishop Chad Gandiya of Harare, Zimbabwe, and Bishop Colin Bennetts, the retired bishop of Coventry.
Rather surprisingly, the visitors appear to have included remarks in their report about a country they were not visiting, the USA. According to the Journal:
The visitors said they were also reminded frequently by bishops that “Canada is not the USA.” While the United States is seen as a melting pot culture where religious and ethnic groups are synthesized into “Americans,” Canadians “genuinely value and seek to live with diversity.” Differences between the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church were underscored, including the area of Christology. “We sensed that in Canada there was a general consensus on the nature of orthodoxy, with fewer extreme views of the kind that have led to some of the aberrations south of the border,” the report said. “Even the bishops who were strongly progressive in the matter of same-sex blessings insisted that they stood firmly within the creedal mainstream.” This, the report said, is “an encouraging sign that it allows for a more obviously Christ-centred approach to issues that currently divide the Communion, to say nothing of the wider church.”
Now read this article about the skills of Bishop Bennetts as a “bridge-builder”, Conflict resolution expert sent to observe at HOB.
198 CommentsAlthough he is now Hunkering down in the snow? Alan Wilson wrote last Sunday about the Rule of St Benedict, see It’s not what you say….
Giles Fraser wrote in the Church Times about Football in the wilds of Yemen.
John Cottingham writes in The Times that Our restless quest for God is a search for home.
David Bryant writes in the Guardian that A religion that is based on a code of moral injunctions should be approached warily.
Cif belief asked What are you frightened of this year? to which David Walker replied Spiders and authoritarianism and Mark Dowd replied The Pope’s visit.
Fulcrum published a sermon by Graham Kings on The Holy Spirit and the Magi.
12 CommentsAmended 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:
16 CommentsContrary 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.
Updated Friday morning
Malcolm whose earlier article at Simple Massing Priest The Anglican Covenant and Democratic Centralism was listed only in the comments on my previous roundup, has written again, this one is titled Rowan and the real revisionists.
Neal Michell has written Is the Anglican Covenant Non-Anglican? at Covenant.
Leander Harding has written Commentary on the Anglican Covenant 2009.
Ruth Gledhill has interviewed Gregory Cameron, see Confidence in the Covenant? at Religious Intelligence and also Church of England to consider communion with conservatives in US at The Times together with General Synod to be asked to recognise ACNA.
Retired archbishop Moses Tay doesn’t think much of the Covenant, see Anglican Covenant ‘Whitewashes’ Denomination’s Immorality: Retired Archbishop exclusively in the Christian Post.
In a related matter, Kenneth Kearon has provided an explanation of the current legal status of the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council. See this article at Episcopal Café Anglican Constitution is what it seems to be and also this note from Lionel Deimel Communion Transparency, Take 3.
Addition
Scott Gunn has published Anglican Communion woes? Be not afraid.
The Private Members’ Motion relating to ACNA can be found here. Scroll up for an explanation of how motions get selected for debate.
57 CommentsUpdated Saturday morning
John Denham announced yesterday the names of 13 new faith advisers who “will act as a ‘sounding board’ to advise on effective engagement with faith communities, and the impact of Communities and Local Government policy on faith communities.”
Read the full press release here.
The members of the panel are:
So far, there appear to be no newspaper reports of this.
Update
Heresy Corner has collected biographical information about the panel members, see The God Squad.
1 Comment