The No Anglican Covenant Coalition has issued a news release: Momentum Shifting in Anglican Covenant Debate. (Full PDF version is over here.)
With one-third of English dioceses now having voted on the proposed Anglican Covenant, leaders of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition are detecting a significant shift in momentum. With last weekend’s clean sweep in Leicester, Portsmouth, Salisbury and Rochester, ten dioceses have rejected the Covenant while only five have approved it.
“When we launched the No Anglican Covenant Coalition just 16 months ago, it seemed like we were facing impossible odds,” said the Coalition’s Moderator, the Revd Dr Lesley Crawley. “But now the tide appears to be turning. The more church members learn about the Covenant, the less they like it.”
“I’m glad to see how perceptive the diocesan synods have been once well-rounded arguments are put to them,” said Coalition Patron and Oxford University Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch. “There were two Covenants in the Church of England’s seventeenth-century history, and in combination, they destroyed episcopacy until wiser counsels prevailed. It appears the dioceses are not interested in helping present-day bishops making it a hat trick.”
“It is heartening to see the dioceses rising up to their responsibilities instead of delegating their discernment to the House of Bishops and the archbishops,” according to former Oxford Professor and General Synod member Marilyn McCord Adams, who now teaches at the University of North Carolina. “Churches come to better decisions when parties feel free to disagree.” Professor McCord Adams is also a Patron of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition.
To date, the proposed Anglican Covenant has been approved by five dioceses of the Church of England (Lichfield; Durham; Europe; Bristol; Canterbury) and rejected by ten (Wakefield; St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich; Truro; Birmingham; Derby; Gloucester; Portsmouth; Rochester; Salisbury; Leicester). Approval by 23 diocesan synods is required for the Covenant to return to General Synod. Rejection by 22 dioceses would effectively derail approval of the Covenant by the Church of England.
Some historical background to the coalition can be found in this post by Malcolm French We happy few.
The current state of voting in the 44 Church of England dioceses is being tracked weekly by Modern Church at this page.
11 CommentsFour dioceses in the Church of England voted today on the proposal to adopt the draft Anglican Covenant. Earlier results are reported here.
In Leicester the voting was:
Bishops: 2 for 0 against
Clergy: 15 for, 21 against, 3 abstentions
Laity: 21 for, 14 against, 4 abstentions
It appears that there was confusion at the synod in the interpretation of this outcome, but we believe that the defeat in the House of Clergy means that the motion is defeated, and that this will be confirmed in due course.
In Salisbury the voting was:
Bishops: 1 for, 1 against
Clergy: 11 for, 20 against, 2 abstentions
Laity: 19 for, 27 against, 0 abstentions
In Portsmouth the voting was:
Bishop: 1 for, 0 against
Clergy: 12 for, 17 against, 0 abstentions
Laity: 13 for, 17 against, 2 abstentions
In Rochester the voting was:
23 CommentsBishop: 1 for, 0 against
Clergy: 8 for, 30 against, 3 abstentions
Laity: 14 for, 26 against, 7 abstentions
Earlier today I linked to the electronic voting lists from this month’s Church of England General Synod. I have now consolidated the three votes on various aspects of the women bishops legislation into a single spreadsheet. This is available as a web page and as an xls spreadsheet.
My consolidated list includes all voting members of Synod and shows whether they voted for or against the motion, or recorded an abstention. A blank indicates that the member did not vote (perhaps because he/she was absent).
These were the motions before Synod on Wednesday 8 February.
The Manchester motion
13 That this Synod call upon the House of Bishops, in exercise of its powers under Standing Order 60(b), to amend the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure in the manner proposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York at the Revision Stage for the draft Measure.
The Southwark amendment to item 13
35 Leave out all the words after “That this Synod” and insert –
“(a) noting the significant support the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure has received in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity of diocesan synods, and
(b) desiring that the draft Measure be returned to the Synod for consideration on the Final Approval Stage substantially unamended so that it can be seen if the proposals embodied in it in the form in which it has been referred to the dioceses can attain the level of support required to achieve Final Approval,
request the House of Bishops not to exercise its power under Standing Order 60(b) to amend the draft Measure.”.
The Spiers amendment to item 35
36 Leave out all the words after “request the House of Bishops” and insert –
“in the exercise of its power under Standing Order 60(b) not to amend the draft Measure substantially.”
The motions were voted on in reverse order.
Item 36 was carried in a vote by houses.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 40 5 1 Clergy 122 70 1 Laity 107 85 4
Item 35 (as amended by 36) was then carried in a vote by house.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 26 16 5 Clergy 128 64 0 Laity 111 85 1
Item 13 (as amended by 35 as amended by 36) was then carried on a show of hands.
The motion before Synod on Thursday 9 February was
502 That the Synod do take note of this Report
where the report was that about final drafting. In effect the motion was asking Synod to approve the final drafting of the legislation. The motion was carried in a vote by houses.
6 Comments
For Against Abstentions Bishops 28 0 2 Clergy 149 14 8 Laity 132 37 10
The voting lists from the electronic votes taken at this month’s General Synod of the Church of England are now available as pdf files.
Women bishops legislation
item 35 results – Southwark amendment to Manchester motion
item 36 results – Spiers amendment to Southwark amendment
item 502 results – final drafting
Other matters
item 8 results – Assisted Dying
item 12 results – Archdeacons
item 17 results – Health care
item 34 results – Nigeria
item 37 results – standing orders amendment
Each pdf file also includes the full text of the motion being voting on.
Also available is the official summary of the business transacted at the Synod: Business Done.
0 CommentsThe Reverend Mark Sharpe has lost his case against the Bishop and Diocese of Worcester.
Gavin Drake reports: Former Rector loses employment tribunal claim against bishop.
…The Revd Mark Sharpe, former Rector of the Teme Valley South benefice near Tenbury Wells, alleged that the bishop and diocese had failed to protect him from parishioners in his “toxic parish”. He claimed a catalogue of abuse and bullying, saying his dog had been poisoned, excrement had been smeared on his car, and his tyres had been slashed.
The diocese rejected his claims and, at a five-day preliminary hearing at the Birmingham employment tribunal last November, argued that Mr Sharpe had no right to bring a claim to an employment tribunal because, as a Church of England parish priest with freehold incumbent status, he was an office holder, and not an employee or a worker.
In a reserved judgement, published today, Employment Judge Alan McCarry agreed. He said: “I do not see that within the complex statutory structure of the Church of England it is possible to imply that any relationship between a freehold rector in the Church such as Mr Sharpe and any identifiable person or body which could be said to be consensual and contractual. Certainly, Mr Sharpe has failed to demonstrate to my satisfaction that such a relationship existed with either of the respondents.”
The judge said the Church of England, as the established church, “has occupied a central position in English Society for several hundred years.” He added: “Despite that, it has no legal personality. It cannot sue or be sued…
Diocesan press release: Result of the pre-hearing review for the Mark Sharpe Employment Tribunal
For earlier reports, see here, and also here.
Update Worcester Standard ‘Bullied’ vicar loses tribunal claims
5 CommentsGiles Fraser has written in this week’s Church Times about the Anglican Covenant.
…To recap: the Anglican Covenant is an international treaty, championed originally by the Bishop of Durham at that time, Dr Tom Wright, among others. It was a response to the threats by conservative Anglicans that they would walk away from the Communion if other provinces became more gay-friendly. It is rather like bankers’ saying that they would walk away from the City of London if they had to face the Tobin Tax. This sort of blackmail ought never to be pandered to.
Of course, the Covenant never was the only game in town. This is the type of emergency rhetoric that is often used to push through otherwise unpopular legislation. But the fact that the Anglican Communion has not fallen apart — it is just a bit dented — shows that a great deal of the huffing and puffing about walking away was just empty threats and so much posturing.
The idea that all the different Churches of the Communion can be held together only by signatures on a page rather than years of tradition and common baptism and liturgy is an unnecessary bureaucratisation of theology and fellowship.
If you allow one province a quasi-legal mechanism for pushing out another province, then you are providing a context for acrimony, not for reconciliation. Reconciliation comes when those divided by differences learn to see Christ at work in each other. Mostly, this is achieved through patient friendship and listening….
In other Anglican Covenant news, the No Anglican Covenant Coalition has announced another prominent academic Professor Marilyn McCord Adams has become a patron. See full press release here (PDF).
3 Comments“The proposed Anglican Covenant was conceived in moral indignation and pursued with disciplinary intent,” according to Professor McCord Adams. “Its global gate-keeping mechanisms would put a damper on the gospel agenda, which conscientious Anglicans should find intolerable. The Covenant is based on an alien ecclesiology, which thoughtful Anglicans have every reason to reject.”
The Telegraph had this leader comment on the speech by Baroness Warsi: Faith must not be driven from Britain’s public life
Baroness Warsi, the chairman of the Conservative Party, today leads a heavyweight ministerial delegation to the Vatican to mark the 30th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher’s decision to restore full diplomatic relations between our two states. She has used the opportunity to urge people to be far less timid about their faith and to challenge what she calls “militant secularisation”. It is unsurprising that it has taken a Muslim member of the Cabinet to speak out clearly and forcefully on the importance of faith in the life of the nation; followers of Islam tend to be less mealy-mouthed about their beliefs than many Christians.
Lady Warsi argues that society will be healthier if people “feel stronger in their religious identities and more confident in their creeds”. That means “individuals not diluting their faiths and nations not denying their religious heritages”. She makes an important point. Our history and culture are formed by the Christian faith. The way we are governed is linked directly to the schism in the Church almost half a millennium ago: in England, we have an Established Church of which the head of state is the Supreme Governor…
Andrew Brown wrote at Cif belief that Militant secularists fail to understand the rules of secular debate.
Reading Julian Baggini’s lucid defence of secularism in the light of three years of comments on Cif belief, the point becomes obvious that among the people who most misunderstand it are the militant atheist secularists. But who are they?
There are three kinds of people in Britain today who might be taken for militant secularists: that is to say people who are not just themselves unbelievers, but have an emotional investment in the extirpation of religious belief in others. There are the adolescents who have just discovered “rationality”; there are gay people who feel personally threatened by traditional monotheist morality; and, in this country, there are parents frustrated by the admissions policy of religiously controlled schools…
Catherine Pepinster interviewed Baroness Warsi for the Tablet: Slaying the secular dragon.
8 Comments…speaking to The Tablet the day before she left, she made it clear that problems with the place of women or sex in the Church was not on her agenda.
“Whenever we talk about faith, the debate always comes back to religion versus sexuality. But when we go to the Vatican that is not the important issue. There are so much more pressing ones,” she said. So forget the hot-button issues of the domestic agenda such as same-sex marriage. Instead she and her delegation spoke about climate change, poverty in the developing world, the environment and inter-faith dialogue.
But above all, Baroness Warsi was using the two-day visit to express her conviction that religion must have a clear role in public life and must not be pushed to the sidelines. In a speech to the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, the school for papal diplomats, she endorsed Pope Benedict’s call for religion to have a place in society’s discourse. But the language she used was far more sensational than his, talking of “militant secularisation” gripping Europe. The day before, in her office at the House of Lords, though, her language was a little more thoughtful when she said: “I’m arguing for faith to have a seat at the table, for it to be a voice amongst other voices. More and more other voices are heard and the voice of faith is not heard.”
Lambeth Palace reports: The Queen attends multi-faith reception at Lambeth Palace
Archbishop Rowan Williams hosted a multi-faith reception today for Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh at Lambeth Palace.
His Grace The Archbishop of Canterbury and Mrs Williams received Her Majesty The Queen and His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh at the Main Doors of the Blore Building at Lambeth Palace. The Archbishop accompanied Her Majesty, and Mrs Williams accompanied His Royal Highness, to meet guests first to the State Drawing Room and then to the Pink Dining Room.
The royal couple met representatives of the eight non-Christian religions – the Baha’i, the Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, and Zoroastrian communities – as well as Christian representatives. Each group of faith leaders was gathered around a sacred object selected by them for display at the Celebration as an object of particular significance to the faith or practice of their community, or their life in the United Kingdom…
Scroll down for the full texts of the speeches, and there are audio links as well.
The text of the Queen’s speech is also here.
And see also Sacred objects displayed by faith communities to the Queen.
Media reports:
Press Association Queen says the Church of England is misunderstood
Telegraph The Church is under-appreciated says the Queen and Value the Church’s role, says Queen
Guardian Editorial: Faith and the state: turn the other cheek
Mail Queen stands up for Christianity: ‘Church of England is misunderstood and under-appreciated’
BBC Queen highlights Church of England’s duty to all faiths
New Statesman Nelson Jones Defending the Faith
10 Comments…In such a context, it becomes politic for the monarch — whose own role is supposed to embody unity rather than division — to assert that the established church has been responsible for Britain’s tradition of religious tolerance and pluralism. Historically, however, this is at best misleading, at worst a deliberate distortion.
In truth, the Church of England fought for centuries to preserve, first its religious monopoly and later its privileged position in society. The right to worship — or not to worship — freely was wrested piecemeal from unwilling Anglican prelates. Well into the nineteenth century Roman Catholics and Jews had limited civil rights. Until the University Tests Act of 1871 — that’s 1871 — non-Anglicans were barred from fellowships at Oxford and Cambridge (though not at University College London, which was founded in 1826 on the radical principle that higher education need not be a monopoly of the established Church)…
Today the focus of media comment has moved to a speech given by Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who is leading the largest ever UK Government delegation to the Vatican, to mark the 30th anniversary of the establishment of full diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and the Holy See. In it she claimed that “a militant secularisation is taking hold of our societies”.
The full text of the speech is published by the Cabinet Office, and is also available here.
In advance of the speech, she also published this article at the Telegraph We stand side by side with the Pope in fighting for faith.
Channel 4 News published this FactCheck article: Is militant secularisation taking hold in Britain? And last night’s news broadcast had further coverage of the story.
Telegraph Baroness Warsi attacks ‘liberal elite’
Guardian Lady Warsi gets rapturous reception at Vatican for speech on faith
Some of the reactions to this:
Guardian Julian Baggini Is religion really under threat? and also
Giles Fraser Richard Dawkins and Lady Warsi should live and let live
Independent Mark Steel If religion is ‘marginal’, I’m the Pope
Spectator Douglas Murray Why Baroness Warsi has it wrong
Cranmer What kind of idiot does Baroness Warsi take the Pope for?
Mail Online George Pitcher Thank God for Baroness Warsi – a Muslim with the courage to defend our Christian nation
12 CommentsThere was a great deal of comment in the media on Tuesday about a poll undertaken by Ipsos MORI for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.
You can read the survey results for yourself. Here is the Ipsos MORI summary:
A poll carried out by Ipsos MORI for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) in the week after the 2011 Census focused on the beliefs, attitudes and practices of UK adults who say they were recorded as Christian in the 2011 Census (or would have recorded themselves as Christian had they answered the question).
Attitudes
UK Christians are overwhelmingly secular in their attitudes on a range of issues from gay rights to religion in public life, according to new research.
Religion and government
Three quarters (74%) strongly agree or tend to agree that religion should not have special influence on public policy, with only one in eight (12%) thinking that it should.
More oppose than support the idea of the UK having an official state religion, with nearly half (46%) against and only a third (32%) in favour. The same pattern is repeated with the question of seats being reserved for Church of England bishops in the House of Lords: 32% of respondents oppose, with only 25% in favour.
There is overwhelming support for religion being a private, not public, matter. Asked how strongly they support the statement that governments should not interfere in religion, 79% strongly agree or tend to agree, with only 8% strongly disagreeing or tending to disagree…
For full details, see the survey topline, and the full computer tables (both PDF).
Some informed comment about all this comes from Linda Woodhead in Richard Dawkins has uncovered a very British form of Christianity.
There’s nothing new in Richard Dawkins’s findings about the British way of being religious. But it’s always good to be reminded of the findings of a poll commissioned by his Foundation for Reason and Science: that most of us are not “true believers” in either religion or in secularism, and that Britain is neither a religious country nor a secular one, but an interesting mix of both. That doesn’t make us muddled, or woolly, or confused – it just makes us British.
We have always been instinctively wary of the bright-eyed, fanatical enthusiast, of whatever hue. We don’t really do big ideologies or revolutions – and when we do, we never see them through to their conclusion. We prefer modest proposals, pragmatic solutions, and a bit of muddle – so long as it works. As Kate Fox rightly observes in Watching the English, our natural response to anyone who believes in their own propaganda too much is: “Oh come off it.”
And see also Ekklesia ‘Census Christians’ not very committed, opinion research suggests.
18 CommentsWATCH Press Release 12.15pm Monday 13 February 2012
71 CommentsTo the Bishops: ‘Keep faith with the Dioceses’ – do not amend the draft legislation for women bishops.
We urge the House of Bishops not to make any change to the draft legislation that would further discriminate against women bishops and those male bishops who ordain women: if they do this then the Measure will be at serious risk of being voted down in July.
Over and over again last week speakers urged General Synod, and the House of Bishops in their deliberations in May, to acknowledge the huge majorities across the dioceses and not amend the draft legislation which already contains substantial provision for those opposed to the ordained ministry of women.
We trust that the House of Bishops has heard this message and in its discussions will leave the draft Measure unamended and in the form that the dioceses have debated and approved.
Reasons for standing by the present compromise
In WATCH’s view, anything in either the Code of Practice or the Measure that tries to spell out what kind of ‘male’ bishop should be offered to parishes that do not accept female bishops would be unacceptable. This is because it would set in law two strands of bishops in the Church of England: those who have had sacramental contact with women, and those who have not. On no other issue about which Bishops disagree (sometimes profoundly) has such a structure been written into law, indeed it is the essence of Anglicanism not to do so.This debate is about the place of women
The opposition to women bishops is based on their being women – whether that is about an interpretation of the Bible which maintains that women are forbidden to have authority over a man, or about following the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches in not recognising that women can represent Christ at the altar.Synod agrees that the Archbishops’ Amendment is not the right way forward
We are very pleased that the Archbishops’ Amendment has been fully debated by Synod for a second time, and that Synod has decisively voted not to follow that route.Women lead the debate
It was particularly significant to see two women leading the debate: surely a foretaste of the way that women will lead as bishops – with wisdom, grace and understanding for those who have difficulty in accepting their ministry.
The Church Times will publish its detailed reports from General Synod next week, but today they publish these news items.
Ed Thornton and Glyn Paflin Women vote now rests substantially with the Bishops
Madeleine Davies Synod condemns ‘outrageous’ attack on the sanctity of life
Gavin Drake Dr Williams issues warning on Nigeria
All three are available to non-subscribers.
And The Lead asks What really happened in the Church of England’s debate of female bishops?
In Christian Today is Bishop defends presence in House of Lords
0 CommentsJohn Bingham in The Telegraph Women bishops a step closer after Church of England vote
Ruth Gledhill in The Australian Leaders lose on female bishops
Trevor Timpson for the BBC Women bishops law must not be changed, say campaigners
7 CommentsThis page will be updated during the day.
The final day’s business of this group of sessions started with worship led by the Deaf Anglicans Together representatives.
Synod then moved onto Additional Eucharistic Prayers. These are prayers intended for use when many children are present, and were being returned to Synod from the revision committee. Synod accepted the committee’s report and did not ask for any further revision.
These prayers will not be authorised for liturgical use unless and until they receive final approval at a later meeting of Synod.
Papers for Additional Eucharistic prayers
GS 1822A Additional Eucharistic Prayers
GS 1822Y Report by the Revision Committee
Synod then moved onto the final drafting of the draft legislation to allow women to become bishops. The only proposed amendments were Drafting Amendments (amendments where only the wording of the Measure is altered and not its substance) which are supposed to be non-controversial.
There was a vote by houses and the final drafting was passed by all three houses.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 28 0 2 Clergy 149 14 8 Laity 132 37 10
It is likely that those who voted against were voting against the general principle of the legislation rather than against the final drafting.
Papers for final drafting
GS 1708B Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure
GS 1709B Draft Amending Canon
GS 1708-9Z Report by the Steering Committee
The morning’s business ended with a presentation on Higher Education Funding Changes
Background paper for this item
GS Misc 1008 Higher Education Funding Changes
Here is the official summary of the morning’s business.
Summary of business conducted on Thursday 9th February 2012 AM
The afternoon session opened with a debate on Reform of the House of Lords.
The debate was on this motion moved by Professor Anthony Berry (Chester)
That this Synod request that the Archbishops’ Council establish a working group with members from each House of the General Synod to prepare the Church of England’s official response to the Government’s consultation on the reform of the House of Lords and that any such Church of England response should be tabled at General Synod in February 2012 for debate and approval.
Mrs April Alexander (Southwark) moved an amendment, which was accepted by Synod and which reworded the motion to read:
That this Synod, welcoming both the Archbishops’ submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the draft Bill on House of Lords Reform and the extension of the Episcopal group on Lords Reform to include members of the other two Houses of Synod:
(a) invite the extended group to bring to the February 2013 group of sessions
(i) an assessment of the implications for the Church and nation of any Bill to be brought forward by the Government, and
(ii) recommendations for changes in custom and practice to accommodate any new requirements placed on the Church; and(b) recognising the unpredictable nature of the passage of any such Bill through parliament, request that the extended group allow Synod members to contribute to published statements by alerting them in advance, by email where necessary, and inviting comments.
Synod voted on parts (a) and (b) separately. Part (a) (and the preamble) was passed, but part (b) was not. So the motion, as passed, was:
That this Synod, welcoming both the Archbishops’ submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the draft Bill on House of Lords Reform and the extension of the Episcopal group on Lords Reform to include members of the other two Houses of Synod invite the extended group to bring to the February 2013 group of sessions
(i) an assessment of the implications for the Church and nation of any Bill to be brought forward by the Government, and
(ii) recommendations for changes in custom and practice to accommodate any new requirements placed on the Church.
Papers for this item
GS 1856A and GS 1856B
Synod then moved onto a debate on Health Care and the Church’s Mission. The motion before Synod was:
That this Synod, mindful of Our Lord’s ministry of healing and his charge to his disciples to heal the sick in his name:
(a) affirm the ministry of all who promote health and wholeness in body, mind and spirit, and call upon Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that chaplaincy provision remains part of the core structure of a National Health Service committed to physical, mental and spiritual health;
(b) call upon Her Majesty’s Government to apply as the test to any proposed changes to the NHS whether they are best calculated to secure the provision throughout the country of effective and efficient healthcare services provided free at the point of delivery and according to clinical need;
(c) commend the work of mission agencies and the networks of the Anglican Communion in embodying the churches’ contribution to health and wholeness and promoting fairer sharing of health resources worldwide.
One amendment to the motion was carried (to add some words to paragraph(a)) so that the motion became:
That this Synod, mindful of Our Lord’s ministry of healing and his charge to his disciples to heal the sick in his name:
(a) affirm the ministry of all who promote health and wholeness in body, mind and spirit, and, recognising in particular the role of chaplains in the NHS as an expression of the Church of England’s commitment to minister to all in the community, whether as patients or healthcare
workers, call upon Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that chaplaincy provision remains part of the core structure of a National Health Service committed to physical, mental and spiritual health;(b) call upon Her Majesty’s Government to apply as the test to any proposed changes to the NHS whether they are best calculated to secure the provision throughout the country of effective and efficient healthcare services provided free at the point of delivery and according to clinical need;
(c) commend the work of mission agencies and the networks of the Anglican Communion in embodying the churches’ contribution to health and wholeness and promoting fairer sharing of health resources worldwide.
The motion (as amended) was carried by 208 votes in favour with none against and one recorded abstention.
Background paper for this item
GS 1857 Health Care and the Church’s Mission: Report from the Mission and Public Affairs Council
The Archbishop of Canterbury then paid tribute to John Hind, the Bishop of Chichester, who will be retiring before the next meeting of General Synod.
Here is the official summary of the afternoon’s business.
Summary of business conducted on Thursday 9th February 2012 PM
That completed the business of this group of sessions. General Synod next meets from 6 to 10 July 2012 in York.
2 CommentsMichael White in The Guardian Fratricidal tensions at the Church of England Synod
Riazat Butt in The Guardian Church of England reaches compromise on women bishops
Avril Ormsby for Reuters Church of England takes step towards allowing women bishops
Christian Today Church of England nears consensus on women bishops
Nelson Jones in the New Statesman When is a bishop not a bishop?
Torey Lightcap for The Lead Another step in female-bishop process in Church of England
[The last part of this appears to be copied from my article here on Thinking Anglicans.]
And two that I missed earlier.
Christian Today Archbishop seeks greater provision for opponents of women bishops
Christian Today India Church of England’s legislation on women bishops ‘needs more work’
12 CommentsThe Archbishop of Canterbury spoke during this (Wednesday) morning’s debate on women bishops. There is a video, an audio file, and a transcript of what he said on his website.
Archbishop Rowan speaks in Synod debate on women bishops
In his remarks the Archbishop spoke about at two things.
First then – I’d like to pick up some of the questions that were asked yesterday about this question of ‘derivation’ and ‘delegation’, and see if that can be clarified at all for members of Synod.
and
3 CommentsNow, the second point relates to the second principle that I enunciated at the beginning – provision for minorities that respects theological integrity and pastoral continuity.
Update Thursday night I have corrected the voting figures on item 35; the number of bishops voting against was 16 (and not 15).
This page will be updated during the day as business proceeds.
The day started with a service of Holy Communion.
Synod then moved onto this motion on Recent Violence in Nigeria proposed by the Bishop of Durham
That this Synod, gravely concerned at the desperate plight of Christian communities in parts of Nigeria, as described in GS 1861, request the British Government to do all it can to support those in Nigeria seeking to protect religious minorities of all faiths and enable them to practise their religion without fear.
There is a brief background paper (GS 1861).
The Archbishop of Canterbury made this contribution to the debate.
The motion was carried with 344 votes in favour, none against and one recorded abstention.
Synod them moved onto the first of two items of business on the legislation to allow women to be bishops. This was the report (GS 1847) of the Business Committee on the reference of this legislation to the diocese. A couple of items were omitted from the report, and are listed in Notice Paper 10.
The motion before Synod was ‘That the Synod do take note of this Report’. Motions of this type allow a general debate on the report. Synod duly took note of the report and then adjourned for lunch.
Here is the official summary of the morning’s business.
Summary of business conducted on Wednesday 8th February 2012 AM
Synod resumed at 2.30 pm.
The Diocesan Synod Motions on this topic, taken after lunch, are below the fold.
Initially the motion from Manchester was moved. The proposers of the other two motions have spoken, but will move their motions later. This procedure allows a general debate to be held on all three, before Synod moves onto debating and voting on each one specifically in turn (in the order 36, 35, 13).
4.50 pm All motions and amendments have now been moved. Voting will take place shortly.
5.05 pm Pete Spiers’ amendment (item 36) was carried on a vote by houses, voting figures below.
For Against Abstentions Bishops 40 5 1 Clergy 122 70 1 Laity 107 85 4
Following this amendment, the text of item 35 (a proposed amendment to item 13), became:
35 (as amended by item 36) Leave out all the words after “That this Synod” and insert –
“(a) noting the significant support the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure has received in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity of diocesan synods, and
(b) desiring that the draft Measure be returned to the Synod for consideration on the Final Approval Stage substantially unamended so that it can be seen if the proposals embodied in it in the form in which it has been referred to the dioceses can attain the level of support required to achieve Final Approval,
request the House of Bishops in the exercise of its power under Standing Order 60(b) not to amend the draft Measure substantially.”.
5.25 pm Item 35 (as amended by item 36) was carried on a vote by houses, voting figures below
For Against Abstentions Bishops 26 16 5 Clergy 128 64 0 Laity 111 85 1
5.30 pm Item 13 (as amended by item 35) was then carried on a show of hands. Here is the final text of the motion as passed by Synod.
13 (as amended by item 35)
That this Synod,
(a) noting the significant support the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure has received in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity of diocesan synods, and
(b) desiring that the draft Measure be returned to the Synod for consideration on the Final Approval Stage substantially unamended so that it can be seen if the proposals embodied in it in the form in which it has been referred to the dioceses can attain the level of support required to achieve Final Approval,
request the House of Bishops in the exercise of its power under Standing Order 60(b) not to amend the draft Measure substantially.
Synod then took a ten minute break before moving onto a debate on its standing orders. There was then a delay as too many members had taken the opportunity to have a cup of tea, and some had to be called back to make up a quorum.
The only item requiring debate was a proposed change to standing orders to make the Chair of Synod’s Business Committee an elected position, rather than a position appointed by the Archbishops’ Council and subject to confirmation by Synod.
The Bishop of Willesden proposed an amendment to restrict the position to members of the houses of clergy and laity (ie not a bishop). This was defeated with 99 votes in favour and 103 against, with 9 recorded abstentions.
The original proposal was then carried on a show of hands.
There was not time to take a following motion, so this concluded the day’s business.
Here is the official summary of the afternoon’s business.
Summary of business conducted on Wednesday 8th February 2012 PM
Ekklesia C of E General Synod hears of climate change chaos in Bangladesh
Mark Hennessy in The Irish Times Church of England synod to decide on women bishops
Christian Today Church of England’s legislation on women bishops ‘needs more work’
BBC General Synod discussing women bishops compromise bid
Lancashire Evening Post Are we ready for a female bishop?
Richard Vernalls in the Worcester News Women should be bishops, says city’s top churchman
Matthew Davies in Episcopal News Service Church of England resumes women bishops debate
John Walsh in The Independent Church debate: Who’d be a bishop?
2 CommentsRiazat Butt in The Guardian Church of England votes to increase marriage and funeral fees
Press Association C of E wedding fees to rise by 40%
The Guardian offers this Head to head between Rosie Harper and Adrian Furse: Should the Church of England allow female bishops?
The Telegraph CoE synod: Cost of weddings and funerals to dramatically rise
1 CommentThere were a number of questions asked relating to the two recently announced House of Bishops working groups dealing with sexuality issues. None of these questions were reached during the session, so here are the written answers that would have been given.
Judith Maltby asked
Q. Given the inclusion of a man who is not a bishop in the group to advise the House of Bishops on the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality, are there any plans to include some women members in order to achieve at least a partial gender balance on this currently all-male group addressing the complex issue of human sexuality?
The Archbishop of York to reply:
A. The Archbishop of Canterbury and I made the appointments to this group, after consultation with Standing Committee of the House. It was, like the parallel group on civil partnerships, established as a small episcopal group. We concluded, however, that there was advantage in inviting a distinguished and independent outsider to chair and facilitate the process.
We do not intend to enlarge the membership of the group but it will be open to the group to consider how others can help it in its work, including, if it so decides, through inviting individuals to serve as consultants or assessors.
Giles Goddard asked:
Q. In the interests of transparency and of gaining the confidence of the Church of England in their reports, how are the terms of reference for the House of Bishops’ working groups on human sexuality and civil partnerships to be agreed and when will they be published?
The Bishop of Sodor and Man to reply on behalf of the Chairman:
A. The 1 July statement from the House of Bishops constitutes the terms of reference for both groups.
Stephen Coles asked
Q. What provisions are being made to ensure that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Anglicans are consulted by both the group reviewing the Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships and that advising the House on the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality.
The Bishop of Sodor and Man to reply on behalf of the Chairman:
A. Before Christmas I wrote on behalf of the civil partnership group to a number of groups inviting them to submit representations and have now received replies from them all and some submissions from others. These include a detailed submission from the LGBT Coalition and some of its associated bodies. I understand that the group on human sexuality is to have its first meeting shortly and will be considering then how it is going to go about its task.
Stephen Coles asked:
Q. To what extent were the provisions of the Equality Act taken into account by the House of Bishops when they declared a moratorium on the appointment of clergy in civil partnerships to the episcopate?
The Bishop of Sodor and Man to reply on behalf of the Chairman:
A. On this as on other matters where legal issues are at stake, the House had the benefit of support from its Legal Adviser who had been involved both in the preparation of the relevant papers and was present at the discussion which took the decisions set out in the 1 July statement.
April Alexander asked:
Q. Recent press statements (5 January 2012 and 1 July 2011) on human sexuality and on civil partnerships indicate that the appointed working groups undertake to “draw together material from the listening process”. Can further information be provided about this process, including such matters as who has listened to whom (in broad terms), when they listened, what they heard and how they overcame the difficulty that homosexual priests do not feel free to declare themselves in order to participate?
The Bishop of Gloucester to reply on behalf of the Chairman:
A. The House of Bishops’ mandate for drawing together material from the listening process was set out in its statement of 1 July and given to the group of which I am now a member. We have a more extended timescale than the group reviewing the 2005 statement on civil partnerships and are just about to have our first meeting. So I can’t say much today about how we shall be setting about our task. But I can give an assurance that we shall certainly want, among other things, to assemble and reflect on the very considerable range of material and experience that has emerged from the listening process around dioceses since 1998.