From the Lichfield Diocesan Website
Lichfield Diocese approves Anglican Communion Covenant
Date 19/03/11
The Lichfield Diocesan Synod has become the first in the Church of England to approve the Anglican Communion Covenant with overwhelming votes in favour in all three houses (bishops, clergy and laity).
The vote at today’s meeting in Longton Hall near Stoke on Trent is in response to the General Synod’s decision to refer the matter to the dioceses. All 44 dioceses in the Church of England are being asked to “approve the draft Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant.” Last week the diocese of Wakefield voted to reject the motion; and the diocese of Hereford voted to refer the matter to deanery synods for wider discussion.
An attempt to adjourn the debate in Lichfield diocese so it could be referred to deanery synods was rejected with 47 voting in favour of an adjournment and 60 voting against.
Before the debate, members heard from the Revd Dr Andrew Goddard, lecturer in ethics at Trinity College, Bristol, who introduced the Covenant and outlined some of the arguments for and against it.
The idea behind an Anglican Communion Covenant – the closest thing to a constitution for the worldwide Anglican Communion – was first proposed in the Windsor report of 2004, following developments in relation to same-sex partnerships in North America. It was envisaged that the Anglican Covenant would “make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection” which govern the relationships between the churches of the Anglican Communion.
A text of the Covenant was sent to all the Provinces of the Anglican Communion for their approval in December 2009. Each Province has different governance structures and it is expected to be a number of years before all the Provinces complete the process for acceptance or rejection. The Anglican Consultative Council will discuss progress at its meeting expected in November 2012.
In the Church of England, the House of Bishops agreed in May 2010 to commend the Covenant to the General Synod and a draft Act of Synod was debated by the General Synod in November last year and referred to diocesan synods. If a majority of dioceses agree to the draft Act of Synod it will return to the General Synod for final approval, possibly in 2012.
The Anglican Communion is not a single church or a federation of churches but a collection of 44 different churches made up of 34 Provinces, four United Churches, and six other churches, spread across the globe; with an estimated 80 million Christians.
The tensions in the Communion which arose as a result of the liberalising actions of the Episcopal Church of the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada in the area of sexuality highlighted that there were no formal structures or agreements for handling disputes when they arise. The Covenant is designed to balance the need to define how the churches of the Communion formally relate to each other without creating a formal constitution or federation; continuing to hold the Communion together through mutual relationships.
The Diocese of Lichfield has formal mission partnerships with the Dioceses of West Malaysia, Kuching and Singapore in South East Asia, Matlosane in South Africa and Qu’Appelle in Canada. Churches within the diocese enjoy individual relationships with churches across the Communion.
The result of the vote in the Lichfield Diocesan Synod were:
| House | For | Against | Abstain |
| Bishops | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Clergy | 39 | 11 | 1 |
| Laity | 57 | 9 | 1 |
| Total | 100 | 20 | 2 |
The audio of the Synod debate will be available on the Lichfield Diocesan website on Monday afternoon: lichfield.anglican.org/chadnet/synod.
69 CommentsHugh Muir in the Diary column of today’s Guardian, is straplined A sensible move by the Church of England – will wonders never cease?
25 CommentsChurchill said the Americans do the right thing when all other avenues have been exhausted – but he could just as easily have been talking about the Church of England. Little is achieved without muddle and controversy. And this sadly characterises the way the powers have handled the future deployment of the Rev Nick Holtam, capable vicar of St Martin-in-the-Fields, who would have been a bishop by now were it not for the fact that his wife of more than 30 years was previously married and divorced. Conservatives on the bench of bishops used the “taint” of the spouse’s divorce to effectively veto Rev Nick’s elevation. The fact that he’s a liberal didn’t help. But God might well reflect that the Church of England works in mysterious ways. Sometimes that’s good. For it does appear that Rev Nick is going to get a mitre after all. We are told to be watchful of Salisbury. And it is probably no coincidence that the next-door bishop Michael Scott-Joynt of Winchester – the church’s arch Tory bishop who spoke out against the appointment of bishops with divorced wives last year – is imminently for retirement. We’ll miss him but everything may progress more smoothly in his absence. And we’ll get along just fine with Bishop Nick.
Updated
The Diocese of Birmingham voted last Saturday in favour of women in the episcopate of the Church of England.
Press Statement Monday 14th March 2011 from Women and the Church (WATCH)
Massive Support for Women Bishops Legislation in Birmingham
WATCH is delighted by the result of the first Diocesan vote on the law that will allow women to become bishops in the Church of England. In Birmingham on Saturday the Diocesan Synod voted by 75 to 4 in favour of the legislation with its accompanying provisions for those who will not accept women as bishops. To make that endorsement even more clear, two motions that asked for even more provisions for those opposed were defeated, with only a small minority of people voting for them.
Hilary Cotton, WATCH Vice Chair and Head of Campaign, said, ‘This indicates two things to us: firstly, that people in Birmingham want the Church to get on with making women bishops as soon as possible and, secondly, they are satisfied with the provision that this legislation makes for those who will not accept women bishops.’
Hilary Cotton: Campaign Co-ordinator – Home: 01483856827 Mobile: 07793817058
Sally Barnes: Media Officer – Home: 020 8731 0960 Mobile 07759343335Notes for Editors
WATCH (Women and the Church) is a voluntary organisation of women and men who are campaigning to see women take their place alongside men without discrimination and at every level in the Church of England. This requires the removal of current legal obstacles to the consecration of women as bishops. WATCH believes that the full equality of women and men in the Church is part of God’s will for all people, and reflects the inclusive heart of the Christian scripture and tradition.
The Church Times carried a report on 18 March, Women: yes-vote taken in Birmingham.
12 CommentsUpdated Friday morning
Press Release from Modern Church, Inclusive Church and the No Anglican Covenant Coalition
First English diocesan vote rejects Anglican Covenant
Modern Church, Inclusive Church and the No Anglican Covenant Coalition are pleased with the result of the first diocesan vote on the proposed Anglican Covenant.
Both clergy and laity (the latter overwhelmingly) rejected the Covenant at the Wakefield Diocesan Synod meeting on Saturday 12th March.
While recognising the need to avoid the bitter controversies of recent years, we are glad that this Synod does not believe the Covenant is the way to do it.
We believe we should retain the traditional Anglican openness in which provinces govern themselves and disagreements are resolved by openly debating the issues free from threats of sanctions or schism.
The proposed Anglican Covenant offers instead a process for suppressing disagreements by establishing a central authority, with power to pass judgements and penalise dissident provinces by excluding them from international structures.
We trust that other Church of England Dioceses will have the courage to follow Wakefield’s example.
Further information:
Rev Giles Goddard, 07762 373674, www.inclusivechurch2.net
Rev Jonathan Clatworthy, 0151 7276291, www.modernchurch.org.uk
Rev Lesley Fellows, 01844 239268, www.noanglicancovenant.org
Friday update
The Church Times has a report, Wakefield synod votes against the Covenant.
25 CommentsTHE first English diocesan synod to debate the Anglican Covenant has rejected it. On Saturday, in Wakefield diocese, the vote was lost in the Houses of Laity (10 for, 23 against) and Clergy (16 for, 17 against, 1 abstention). Both Bishops voted for its adoption…
Updated to include Committee for Ministry of and Among Deaf and Disabled People result.
The Church of England has released more results of elections to General Synod boards and committees. I have listed the names of the successful candidates with links to the detailed results below the fold.
0 CommentsA new edition of the Church Representation Rules of the Church of England has been published: Church Representation Rules 2011. The previous edition was dated 2006, and since then changes have been made to the rules by the Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure 2007 and the Church Representation Rules (Amendment) Resolution 2009.
I have listed below the fold a summary of these changes.
It is important to note that there is no fully up-to-date copy of the Rules available online.
The Rules originated as Schedule 3 to the Synodical Government Measure 1969, but they have been amended many times since then. Although the online text of the Measure is updated to incorporate amendments, there is a timelag, and the notes at the beginning of the online text of Schedule 3 list changes dating back to 2003 that have not yet been made.
It should also be noted that the rules in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not necessarily the same as in England.
266 CommentsAccording to a news release from the Diocese of Ripon and Leeds: Ripon and Leeds votes yes to a new ‘super-diocese’.
The Synod (or ‘parliament’) of the Ripon and Leeds diocese which met this Saturday March 5th at St Aidan’s Church High School in Harrogate ‘agreed in principle’ to the creation of a single diocese for West and North-west Yorkshire, but called for a full financial risk analysis of the costs involved before such a scheme could go ahead.
The meeting rejected proposals, contained in the 120 page Dioceses Commission report, concerning the name for the new diocese and the choice of the new diocesan bishop…
The proposals are explained by the diocese here.
Also, the Diocese of Bradford considered the proposals, see Synod Discusses Proposals for a New Diocese.
the Synod heard the different responses to the proposals by the Dioceses Commission last December to create a larger diocese covering the whole of West Yorkshire and a large part of North Yorkshire. The Synod agreed to a draft scheme being produced, which is the next stage in the process, and it proposed that the scheme should be drawn up with the help of all three dioceses. The Synod did not, at this stage, vote on any of the specific proposals, including the principal one of creating one larger diocese out of all three dioceses.
The Archdeacon of Bradford, the Venerable David Lee, says, “This is still very much an enquiry and consultation stage; we were not obliged to vote on anything at this point, simply to let the Dioceses Commission know whether we think it is worthwhile for them to go ahead and draw up a draft scheme. So Synod is saying that the diocese is open to change, but we think that more work needs to be done, including a financial analysis, before we can begin to vote on any specific proposal. Once the consultation period is over the Dioceses Commission will be able to see what sort of draft scheme can be produced.”
I can’t find any information on the Diocese of Wakefield website about its Diocesan Synod. But I am told that the Wakefield process involves a joint meeting with the two other Yorkshire dioceses, further consultations, and then a special synod in early May to respond to the proposals by 9 May.
2 CommentsDamian Thompson asks: Catholic bishops mount ferocious attack on gay weddings. So why don’t they want to talk to the press about it?
The National Secular Society thinks that Church-state confrontation over gay marriage could be solved with disestablishment.
Giles Fraser says I don’t see a threat in gay blessings.
Benny Hazlehurst has written: Towards a Theology of Gay Marriage.
And there was a letter in the Guardian published under the headline Toilets, insects … but not civil partnerships.
16 CommentsThe Church Times today has a news report by Ed Beavan Pentecostal couple find no comfort in the High Court.
A COUPLE’s views on homosexuality are relevant to whether or not they can foster children, the High Court ruled on Monday. The court also ruled that to ban them on these grounds would not be discriminatory, even when their views are informed by religion…
And there is a Leader: The Johns judgment: a useful corrective
8 Comments…Some Christians — we do not know how many — would agree with Mr Johns’s view that, were a foster child to express the view that he or she was possibly gay, an attempt should be made “gently [to] turn them round”. Others would disagree. Neither side could claim that theirs was the exclusive “Christian” view, and thus, even within the Church, an appeal needs to be made to authorities other than the Bible. For Anglicans, these are tradition and reason. Another quote from Lord Justice Laws: “The general law may, of course, protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves.”
This important point is repeatedly overlooked by those who cite scripture (or their interpretation of it) and then feel hard done by when they are ignored. It is not a new requirement that the Church, or a section of it, marshall evidence to demonstrate that what it proposes or defends is for the general good. This is the day-to-day task of bishops in the House of Lords. What is new, perhaps, is the laziness of Christians when it comes to reasoning their case, with the result that rationality is now thought, erroneously, to be the preserve of secularists. In such an atmosphere, the lack of investment by the Church in research and education has severely weakened its intellectual centre, leaving the field to be occupied by lobby groups of various persuasions. When these go to law, it is no surprise when their emotive, partial arguments are given short shrift. This is emphatically not the defeat of Christian principles or teaching. A few more press releases and a little more lazy journalism might, however, convince people that it is so.
The Evangelical Alliance has issued a press statement: Response to Derby City Council Fostering Case.
It is not true that Christians are being prevented from fostering and adopting children in spite of increasing evidence that they are being marginalised in public life, says the Evangelical Alliance…
…While the outcome is unhelpful for Christians and other religious believers with orthodox beliefs, it is unlikely that the case will carry any major landmark implications.
It is highly questionable whether British courts of law should be used as forums for debating the pros and cons of conflicting human rights created by equalities legislation. Instead, they should only be used to resolve disputed points of law based on evidence.
The Evangelical Alliance expresses doubt about the wisdom in bringing such cases to the High Court in the first place. While there is no doubt that equality laws appear increasingly controversial in the way they seem to disproportionately impact against Christians, there is a clear need for a more cautious and strategic approach when deciding to take matters to court…
Andrew Brown comments on this at Evangelicals reverse the ferret.
The Evangelical Alliance has disowned the tactics of the Christian Legal Centre, the fringe group which brought a case against Derby Council on behalf of a Pentecostal couple who feared that their views on gay people would prevent them from fostering children.
The Evangelical Alliance’s statement stands in sharp contrast to the hysterical coverage in some right-wing papers. Many reported without question the claims of the CLC that the ruling meant that orthodox christian views were now enough to bar anyone from fostering children…
The position taken by the EA is very clear. Less clear but also interesting was the distancing from the CLC that the Christian Institute took in its full statement earlier:
7 CommentsThe Johns’ case was supported by The Christian Legal Centre, an entirely separate organisation to The Christian Institute.
Updated again Wednesday afternoon
Stephen Bates reports for the Guardian Anti-gay Christian couple lose foster care case
John Aston and Jan Colley, PA via Independent Anti-gay Christian couple lose battle to become foster parents
The Telegraph has huge coverage, including this Leader Foster parents defeated by the new Inquisition
Tim Ross
Foster parent ban: ‘no place’ in the law for Christianity, High Court rules and
Foster parent ban: ‘extreme distress’ of ‘anti-gay’ Christians’ over ruling
and the following additional articles:
Foster parent ban: ‘this is a secular state’, say High Court judges
Foster parent ban: ‘we have not received justice’
Fostering row commentary: would-be parents must be non-judgmental
Foster parent ban: Lord Justice Munby ‘avid supporter of open justice’
Foster parent ban: Mr Justice Beatson ‘UK’s best academic lawyer’
Updates
Peter Ould has written Breaking – Christians with Traditional Moral Views can still be Foster Parents
Cranmer has written “…the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form”
Ekklesia has written Court rejects foster couple ‘Christian discrimination’ claim and Misleading claims about discrimination against Christians
The Christian Institute has published Christian Institute responds to foster carer court case and there is a fuller statement available as a PDF over here in which the Christian Institute is at pains to note that it is a completely separate organisation from the Christian Legal Centre.
Ruth Gledhill has posted a video on UTube which contains comments from Eunice and Owen Johns and also from Andrea Minichiello Williams of the Christian Legal Centre. See it here.
Symon Hill has written at Left Foot forward Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore
Melanie Phillips has written for the Spectator The judges’ atheist inquisition
The UK Human Rights Blog has an analysis by Rosalind English Analysis: the place of religion in foster care decisions
23 CommentsAn open letter to the Prime Minister regarding Homosexual Marriage and the registration of Civil Partnerships in places of religious worship has been sent by three organisations, The Council of the Protestant Truth Society with the support of the Council of Church Society and the Management Committee of Christian Watch.
The Living Church has an article by John Martin Erastianism Debate Rears its Head.
The British Humanist Association published Church of England’s opposition to gay marriage highlights need for disestablishment.
At Episcopal Café Jim Naughton is still trying to unravel What exactly is Rowan Williams saying about the new civil partnership bill?
Cranmer has The Government are NOT about to force ‘gay marriage’ on the Church of England.
Andrew Carey wrote for the Church of England Newspaper Redefining what marriage means.
8 Commentspress release from No Anglican Covenant Coalition
LONDON —The No Anglican Covenant Coalition has criticized church officials for attempting to suppress honest discussion of the proposed Anglican Covenant.
“Instead of fostering a free and open discussion, church officials are trying to ensure that this radical document is endorsed without serious debate,” according to Coalition Moderator, Dr Lesley Fellows. “Unfortunately, this is entirely consistent with what has been happening throughout the process.”
The idea of an Anglican Covenant was first proposed officially in 2004 as a means of addressing divisions among the member churches of the Anglican Communion on matters ranging from human sexuality to the role of women. The current draft, which has been unilaterally designated as “final”, has been referred to the Communion churches for adoption. The proposed Covenant establishes mechanisms that would have the effect of forcing member churches to conform to the demands and expectations of other churches or risk exclusion from the Communion. The draft must be either accepted without amendment or rejected entirely; no other options are allowed.
A series of decisions demonstrate a pattern of bias and manipulation designed to facilitate Covenant adoption:
“In the history of General Synod, we know of no instance where such an important matter (designated as Article 8) has been referred to diocesan synods without the case for both sides being clearly set out,” according to Jonathan Clatworthy, General Secretary of Modern Church and a member of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition. “Both sides were represented regarding the most recent plans for unity with the Methodists. That was the case at every stage of the debate over the ordination of women as priests, and now, as bishops. The material concerning the Covenant falls far short of the ideals of justice, of the Anglican tradition. Even in the House of Commons, all sides of an issue are allowed to be heard.”
The No Anglican Covenant Coalition website, noanglicancovenant.org, provides a wealth of resources for those seeking to understand the proposed Anglican Covenant. Material specifically designed for use by Church of England dioceses is also available from the Modern Church Web site at modernchurch.org.uk/resources/mc/cofe.
“Diocesan synods in the Church of England deserve to hear all sides of the debate,” said Dr Fellows. “We are not afraid of an open, fair, and honest debate. If the supporters of the Covenant had a stronger case, perhaps they wouldn’t be either.”
4 CommentsThe Guardian has published a strongly worded editorial, which criticises both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, for the public statements made by some of their leaders.
Read it (and follow the excellent links) at Civil partnerships: bluster in bad faith.
The heart sinks at the prospect of another battle between faith and the state, in which the churches wring their hands and find themselves sustaining discrimination against gay and lesbian couples. But such a dispute has begun with the government’s confirmation that it plans to lift the total ban on holding civil partnership ceremonies in religious buildings. First, the Church of England warned of “unexplored impacts”, “confusion” and “difficult and unintended consequences for churches”. In sum, because the church can’t make up its mind, everyone else ought to hold back. Now the Catholic church has joined the fray, railing against the proposal in even more strident terms…
It concludes with:
8 Comments…This is a proposal which the Church of England – whose own bishops split on the issue in the Lords last year – should find unexceptional. Equality, one bishop claimed in that debate, is not the same as making the laws for everyone the same. But nor should the principles of some faiths be imposed on others. The blanket ban on religious institutions hosting partnership ceremonies is a lawful infringement of their liberty. It must be swept away. Doing that will not eradicate every ancient prejudice or protect everybody from them, it will merely give progressive believers the right to do things in new ways. As such, it will strengthen and not compromise freedom of conscience. Claims to the contrary are illogical bluster.
Updated
Jonathan Wynne-Jones reports in the Sunday Telegraph that Archbishop says the Church will resist Government moves on gay marriage.
…Dr Rowan Williams has refused to be drawn on the issue publicly, but has broken his silence to tell MPs he is not prepared for the Coalition to tell the Church how to behave.
He told a private meeting of influential politicians that the Church of England would not bow to public pressure to allow its buildings to be used to conduct same-sex civil partnerships…
And in more detail:
…Challenged by Simon Kirby, the Tory MP for Brighton Kempton, to explain what he would say to a same-sex couple wanting a church union, he said that the Church is welcoming to homosexuals and permits its clergy to enter civil partnerships.
However, he stressed that it would not countenance weakening its teaching on marriage and said that it would not be dictated to by the Government.
But Mr Kirby said that the Dr Williams’s comments threaten to alienate homosexual churchgoers and would give rise to accusations that the Church out of touch with society.
“I hoped he might be more measured in his response and reflect on the cases for both sides of the argument more evenly, but he was very one sided,” he said.
“Public opinion is moving faster than the Church on this issue and it is increasingly in danger of getting left behind.
“Obviously it is a difficult issue for the Church, but it has many gay men and women who want to be treated the same way as everyone else.”
Doug Chaplin has written a detailed analysis of this story on his blog, see A politician’s PR, or, stitching up the Archbishop. And I have commented there.
80 CommentsJudith Maltby writes in the Guardian today (in the Face to faith column) that Churches should celebrate bringing God into civil partnership ceremonies.
…Some leaders in my own church, the Church of England, as well as the Roman Catholic church have described this as an assault on religious liberty – and no doubt there is an aggressive secularist agenda to embarrass the churches, though aggressive secularists should note that we are pretty good at doing that ourselves without their help. Indeed, the religious liberty defence has a patronising and hollow ring to it when Quakers and Reform Jews are asking precisely for the liberty to register and bless civil partnerships in their own places of worship. They do not need Anglican or Roman Catholic bishops to “save them from themselves” – especially since both our churches have a shameful history of persecuting these very same faith groups.
So why does the liberty to introduce God into civil partnership ceremonies devalue marriage? It would appear that there just isn’t enough of God to go around. One cannot, apparently, honour and bless one pattern of living a faithful and committed life, without somehow devaluing another. It is the theological equivalent of printing too much money…
Some other opinions that we failed to report earlier:
LGCM LGCM welcomes another step towards full marriage equality
Peter Tatchell Religious civil partnerships welcome, no progress on gay marriage
Quakers Quakers welcome government move on civil partnerships
Cutting Edge Consortium Cutting Edge Consortium asks Government to press ahead with Marriage Review
1 CommentA new set of documents has been published by Modern Church as Church of England resources intended for use in forthcoming diocesan synod debates on the proposed Anglican Covenant.
The resources can all be found at this page which notes that:
2 CommentsOn 24 November 2010 the General Synod of the Church of England voted to consider adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant. As this would constitute
“a permanent and substantial change of relationship between the Church of England and another Christian body”
it may not receive final approval unless first approved by a majority of the dioceses at meetings of their diocesan synods.These documents have been produced as resources for presenting the case against the Covenant in these debates.
Will churches really be sued for not allowing civil partnerships? is the title of an excellent, detailed analysis by Matthew Flinn at the UK Human Rights Blog.
Matthew provides a detailed explanation of the wording of all the relevant sections of the applicable statutes and regulations, with links to the text. I may reproduce some of that detail in a later article here.
He then goes on to discuss whether or not there is any risk of a successful discrimination claim being brought against anyone for refusing to make religious premises available for such an event. His conclusion:
In the round, the concerns of religious institutions that the changes will, in themselves, require them to facilitate civil partnerships are probably unfounded. Although this is certainly not the only question posed by the changes; there are other dilemmas which may arise pursuant to the operation of ecclesiastical law. For example, the Church of England, which has made clear it will forbid its churches to be used to facilitate civil partnerships, may face difficulties in preventing rectors who have freehold title to parish property for using their premises for that purpose, and there may be issues in disciplining a clergyman who invites a civil registrar onto his premises to conduct a civil partnership ceremony.
And he ends by saying:
19 Comments…In the meantime, it is possible that some religious institutions are really more worried about the ever closer prospect of full marriage equality for homosexuals, than of the risk of being sued.
Updated Wednesday
Ruth Gledhill has interviewed Giles Fraser on YouTube, watch Canon Giles Fraser tells Ruth Gledhill why Church should celebrate gay marriage.
Austen Ivereigh has written a further article about this for America see Bishops to challenge UK laws allowing gay marriage in churches.
Colin Coward has written about Changing Attitude England’s campaign for civil partnerships to be held in Church of England churches.
Michelle Hutchinson has written at Practical Ethics about Civil Partnership, Religion and the BNP.
Updates
Riazat Butt reports in the Guardian the remarks of RC Archbishop Peter Smith, in Catholic archbishop accuses coalition over gay marriage in church move
The Catholic church is on a collision course with the government after declaring it will oppose in the “strongest terms” changes to the Equality Act that will allow gay couples to register civil partnerships in places of worship.
A statement from the archbishop of Southwark, the Most Rev Peter Smith, said it was neither “necessary nor desirable” to allow gays and lesbians to have civil partnership ceremonies in religious premises and accused the government of “considering a fundamental change to the status of marriage”.
You can read the full statement made by the archbishop over here.
Austen Ivereigh has continued (see link above) to defend the archbishop’s position on this, at Cif belief, see In marriage we trust.
32 Comments…But civil partnerships are not marriage. The last government made that clear when it said they could not be religiously solemnised. Implicit in that restriction was a final vestige of recognition that marriage is a natural institution, beyond the state or churches to redefine. Now a Conservative government (committed, now there’s the irony, to restoring the vigour of civil society) wishes to use the power of the state to refashion the primary cell of civil society. Allowing churches to solemnise gay marriages is one of the most statist acts ever attempted by a government, and an assault on religious freedom.
The fact that Quakers and Unitarians are happy to host this government’s totalitarian fantasy is neither here nor there; they have no more right to redefine marriage than has the state…
The Economist has published I thee bless.
BRITAIN took a small step this week towards eroding the legal distinction between gays and straights in the matter of matrimony. The civil partnerships that came into force in 2005 grant same-sex couples essentially the same legal rights (over property, pensions, inheritance and parenting) as opposite-sex marrieds; but the law stipulates that the ceremonies must be secular. Last year, after fierce opposition, Parliament voted to remove the prohibition on civil partners tying the knot in churches, synagogues and other religious settings. On February 17th the government said it would begin consultations on implementing that decision—with a view to changing the regulations this year…
Fulcrum has published a statement: On the Use of Religious Buildings for Registration of Civil Partnerships.
The Evangelical Alliance has this statement: Religious liberty must be guaranteed – Alliance responds to proposals to enact section 202 of Equality Act 2010 and also Government proposes allowing civil partnerships in religious settings.
The Tablet has this editorial: Marriage a La Mode.
Throughout the West, the issue of gay marriage has been used as the spearhead of a secularising agenda, propelled by those who want to rid modern civilisation of all traces of its Christian roots. Paradoxically, within the gay community itself the most vociferous supporters of gay marriage have been gay Christians, who want to be given an equal place in the life of Christian institutions rather than to overthrow them. Both these views are reflected in church reactions to government proposals in response to gay pressure, for instance for allowing a religious element in civil partnership ceremonies – at present forbidden by law – and even allowing a partnership or marriage ceremony in a church or synagogue. The Quakers, some liberal synagogues and the Unitarian Church would welcome that permission…
Austen Ivereigh has written in America The Church will have to fight this attempt to redefine marriage.
It’s hard so far to see the tempest behind the first clouds and hastening winds. But an announcement yesterday by the UK government that it intends to lift the ban on civil partnerships being celebrated in places of worship is set to unleash a storm which could well redefine the relationship between Church and state; and have profound long-term consequences — especially for Anglicanism…
The Plymouth Herald printed Will gay church marriages end up in the courtroom?
71 Comments