Church Services after Civil Partnerships
20th June 2008
InclusiveChurch today publishes a paper by Revd Brian Lewis, a member of General Synod and of IC’s Executive Committee on the law in relation to services after Civil Partnerships. The paper demonstrates that under the laws of the Church of England – especially Canon B5 – clergy have far greater liberty in this area than is commonly thought. They are permitted to carry out services of prayer and dedication following a civil partnership so long as they are not deemed to be “Services of Blessing”. The paper is available here, or here as a PDF file.
Canon Giles Goddard, Chair of Inclusive Church, said “We very much welcome this long overdue clarification of the law. It makes the distinction between marriages and civil partnerships and sets out what is permissible within the terms of Canon B5. We hope it will be helpful for clergy wishing to provide public services which respond prayerfully and pastorally to the needs of their congregations.”
The Revd Brian Lewis makes the comparison with the Service of Prayer and Dedication following a Civil Wedding (popularly described as a “A Church Blessing”). In these services the individuals are blessed without the service becoming “a Service of Blessing”.
3 CommentsThe Church Times has this news report of the matter, Archbishops reprimand priest who blessed gays by Pat Ashworth.
And it has this leader: Let no man put asunder which starts like this:
THE ARCHBISHOPS are clearly worried about how Anglicans in different provinces might interpret the recent service at St Bartholomew the Great, Smithfield, at which the partnership of two gay priests was celebrated. This can be the only reason they produced their brief but erroneous statement on Tuesday that clerics in the Church of England are “not at liberty simply to ignore” the Church’s teaching on sexuality, which they define, interestingly, as: the 1987 Synod motion, the 1991 Bishops’ statement Issues in Human Sexuality, the 1998 Lambeth Conference motion 1.10, and the House of Bishops’ 2005 statement on civil partnerships…
and ends like this:
16 Comments…The service
is[in] Smithfield is a little thing, not deserving of pronouncements by archbishops. Its only political purpose is to show the impossibility of carving up the Anglican Church into conservative and liberal provinces or dioceses. Or even parishes: some of those interviewed at St Bartholomew’s at the weekend approved of the Rector’s actions, others did not. The challenge for the Lambeth Conference, and for GAFCON before it, is to demonstrate how Christians can disagree profoundly and yet recognise the working of the Holy Spirit in those with whom they disagree.
The New Statesman had A discreet wedding… by Brian Cathcart
The Economist has Two weddings and a divorce
America has A Turbulent Priest and the Anglican Headache by Austen Ivereigh
The Evening Standard had The Anglican ‘gay wedding’ and a distinctly turbulent priest by David Cohen
The Daily Mail had Gay priests, marrying, a smirking Prince and this insidious cult of self by Stephen Glover
1 CommentUpdated early Friday morning to add Church Times article
The press briefing for next month’s meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England took place earlier this week.
Here is the official press release.
July Synod Briefing: Key debates on women bishops, clergy terms of service legislation, climate change, church tourism, ecumenical relations, reader ministry and parochial fees
Here are press reports, although some stray into matters not on the agenda.
Glyn Paflin in the Church Times Women bishops issue may dominate Synod
Riazat Butt in the Guardian Church leaders fear summer of strife over women and gay clergy
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Church of England faces compensation bill over women bishops
Ruth Gledhill in The Times 500 clergy set to desert Church over ‘betrayal’ on women bishops
Here is our summary of the agenda and our list of online synod papers. The official list is here.
5 CommentsGuardian Riazat Butt Priest rebuked for ‘marrying’ gay vicars in church
Telegraph Martin Beckford Bishop of London issues stern rebuke to vicar who conducted gay ‘wedding’ and
Gay ‘wedding’ row reveals Church’s true source of conflict by George Pitcher
Times Ruth Gledhill on her blog has Gay blessing: ‘Four bishops in the sanctuary’
and later, Bishop of London Richard Chartres attacks gay priests’ ‘wedding’
8 CommentsSent: 18 June 2008 12:02
Subject: Communication from the Bishop of London re St Bartholomew the Great
To:
Clergy in the Diocese of London
Diocesan Readers
Churchwardens
PCC Secretaries
PCC Treasurers
Deanery Lay Chairs
Members of the Diocesan Synod
Members of the Bishop’s Council
Please find attached two letters which the Bishop of London has asked me to circulate.
With best wishes
Robert Hargrave
Diocesan Communications
———-
PDF original
18th June 2008
Dear Friends,
Many of you will have seen the publicity over the weekend around the service which was held at St Bartholomew the Great on May 31st. I attach a letter I have written to the Rector which sets out the situation as I understand it.
So much good work is being done both nationally and internationally by the Church as it seeks in the spirit of Jesus Christ to address some of the global issues of peace, justice and poverty that confront the peoples of the world. It would be a tragedy if this episode were to distract us from the big agenda.
With thanks for our partnership in the Gospel.
The Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres DD FSA
———
PDF original
18th June 2008
The Reverend Dr Martin Dudley,
St Bartholomew the Great Parish Office,
6 Kinghorn Street,
London,
EC1A 7HW.
Dear Martin,
You have sought to justify your actions to the BBC and in various newspapers but have failed more than two weeks after the service to communicate with me.
I read in the press that you had been planning this event since November. I find it astonishing that you did not take the opportunity to consult your Bishop.
You describe the result as “familiar words reordered and reconfigured carrying new meanings.” I note that the order of service, which I have now received, includes the phrase “With this ring I thee bind, with my body I thee worship”.
At first sight this seems to break the House of Bishops Guidelines which as I explained in my letter of December 6th 2005 apply the traditional teaching of the Church of England to the new circumstances created by the enactment of Civil Partnerships.
The point at issue is not Civil Partnerships themselves or the relation of biblical teaching to homosexual practice. There is of course a range of opinion on these matters in the Church and, as you know, homophobia is not tolerated in the Diocese of London. The real issue is whether you wilfully defied the discipline of the Church and broke your oath of canonical obedience to your Bishop.
The Archbishops have already issued a statement in which they say that “those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”
St Bartholomew’s is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence. I have already asked the Archdeacon of London to commence the investigation and I shall be referring the matter to the Chancellor of the Diocese. Before I do this, I am giving you an opportunity to make representations to me direct.
Yours faithfully.
The Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres DD FSA
53 CommentsBroadcast on Radio 4 this morning
A few weeks ago, two Anglican clergymen celebrated their civil partnership at a service in a famous London church. Newspapers last weekend called it a gay wedding. A number of friends of mine were at the service and told of a happy and wonderful occasion. But there are those who have been deeply upset; people who would quote scripture to argue that it threatens the very fabric of marriage itself.
So what, then, is the Church of England’s theology of marriage?
Back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as the Book of Common Prayer was being put together, marriage was said to be for three purposes:
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children …
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication ..
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
How do these three concerns relate to the prospect of gay marriage?
The third priority insists that marriage is designed to bring human beings into loving and supportive relationships. Surely no one can deny that homosexual men and women are in as much need of loving and supportive relationships as anybody else. And equally deserving of them too. This one seems pretty clear.
The second priority relates to the encouragement of monogamy. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has rightly recognised that celibacy is a vocation to which many gay people are simply not called. Which is why, it strikes me, the church ought to be offering gay people a basis for monogamous relationships that are permanent, faithful and stable.
So that leaves the whole question of procreation. And clearly a gay couple cannot make babies biologically. But then neither can those who marry much later in life. Many couples, for a whole range of reasons, find they cannot conceive children – or, simply, don’t choose to. Is marriage to be denied them? Of course not.
For these reasons – and also after contraception became fully accepted in the Church of England – the modern marriage service shifted the emphasis away from procreation. The weight in today’s wedding liturgy is on the creation of loving and stable relationships. For me, this is something in which gay Christians have a perfect right to participate.
I know many people of good will are bound to disagree with me on this. But gay marriage isn’t about culture wars or church politics; it’s fundamentally about one person loving another. The fact that two gay men have proclaimed this love in the presence of God, before friends and family and in the context of prayerful reflection is something I believe the church should welcome. It’s not as if there’s so much real love in the world that we can afford to be dismissive of what little we do find. Which is why my view is we ought to celebrate real love however and wherever we find it.
36 CommentsBBC Archbishops regret gay ‘wedding’ and also Robert Pigott What will Church do about ‘gay wedding’?
Guardian Riazat Butt Archbishops criticise gay clerics’ ceremony
Daily Mail Steve Doughty Archbishop of Canterbury warns clergy not to ‘disregard’ law of the Church after wedding service for gay clerics
Telegraph Martin Beckford Archbishop of Canterbury greatly concerned by gay ‘wedding’
Independent James Macintyre Anglican leaders attack ‘gay marriage’ priests
7 CommentsUpdated Wednesday morning
It’s hard to keep up with the flow of material on this topic.
Guardian Riazat Butt Priests in civil partnership blessing were reckless, says bishop
New Zealand Herald Gay New Zealand vicar lying low after exchanging vows
New Statesman Martin Dudley Why I blessed gay clergymen’s relationship
The Times Ruth Gledhill To any outside observer this gay marriage was a traditional church wedding
Daily Mail I’d do it all again, says vicar after row over Britain’s first gay ‘wedding’ in an Anglican church
For further links to commentary etc. please refer to Dave Walker’s article at the Church Times Blog The Anglican same-sex blessing service.
Waikato Times Bruce Holloway Gay cleric one of the city’s `best’
Letters to the editor of The Times Church bickering over gays is unchristian
2 CommentsSir, Christians who are not Anglicans are dismayed by the endless bickering in the Church of England (“Church in meltdown over gays and women”, June 16, and letters, June 17) because of what it is doing to the reputation of the Chistian faith. The issues which divide the established Church have nothing to do with the gospel we are all here to declare. Little wonder the pagan world looks on with cynical disbelief…
from Lambeth Palace and Bishopthorpe
Tuesday 17th June 2008
For immediate use
Joint statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York regarding St Bartholomew-the-Great
“We have heard the reports of the recent service in St Bartholomew the Great with very great concern. We cannot comment on the specific circumstances because they are the subject of an investigation launched by the Bishop of London.
On the general issue, however, the various reference points for the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality (1987 Synod motion, 1991 Bishops’ Statement- Issues in Human Sexuality- , Lambeth motion 1:10, House of Bishops’ 2005 statement on civil partnerships) are well known and remain current.
Those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”
ENDS
27 CommentsUpdated again Wednesday evening
The Liverpool Daily Post has Bishop was branded ‘a liar who dislikes Liverpool’
and also Tribunal judgment accepted – but claims against Bishop ‘completely rejected’.
Another version of the first of these articles is here.
Mr Johnston also worked as a priest in the Manchester diocese, so the story has been picked up by the Bolton News in Sacked Horwich vicar’s job appeal victory.
And Bishop Jones formerly worked in Yorkshire, so the story has been covered in the Yorkshire Post where the headline is Former Hull bishop branded ‘liar and hypocrite’.
The Times David Johnston, sacked vicar who called Bishop a liar, wins £14,500
The diocesan statement quoted in the paper is:
“It appears that our processes were in some way deficient, and we are looking into this as a matter of urgency.
“That said, we now want to put this matter behind us and concentrate on the important work of the Diocesan Board of Finance and support our clergy and congregations in their work pursuing the mission of God in the Diocese of Liverpool.
“Allegations made against the Bishop of Liverpool at the employment tribunal have been made by a former employee of the Diocesan Board of Finance. They did not form the basis on which the judgment was awarded.
“The Diocese rejects these allegations completely.
“As far as the Diocese is concerned, any close examination of the Bishop’s work over the last 10 years shows an outstanding level of commitment. Bishop James was, is and will continue to be a key voice in and excellent ambassador for the City and Diocese of Liverpool.”
The Liverpool Echo has two more articles:
Sacked cleric: Why I say Bishop of Liverpool must quit
and
Wednesday’s Guardian had this in the People column:
1 CommentFor a man of God, the Rt Rev James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, seems to be spending a lot of time conceding that institutions he heads have treated employees badly. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to lose one employment tribunal may be accounted a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness. Earlier this year Wycliffe Hall, the Oxford theological college whose governing council he chairs which under the new principal he appointed, conservative evangelical Richard Turnbull, has lost 11 of its 13 academic staff in a year admitted it acted unlawfully in sacking theologian Elaine Storkey, a fellow Radio 4 Thought for the Day presenter, for no good cause.
Now, it has taken another tribunal just 15 minutes to decide the way he cast off his Liverpool diocesan press officer, David Johnston, after false rumours about the break-up of his marriage also amounted to unfair dismissal. The bishop, who regards himself as something of a media operator, was said by Johnston to be a liar who did not like Liverpool – a clear calumny according to a diocesan statement. Johnston says there was “no grace or mercy; no humanity” in the bishop’s dealings with him. Jones joins Hereford’s Bishop Anthony Priddis in defeat: Priddis also lost a tribunal this year after refusing to employ a youth worker on the grounds he might one day enter a gay relationship. They’re costing the church a lot of money.
The Liverpool Echo reports Bishop’s former ‘spin doctor’ David Johnston wins unfair dismissal case.
The BBC has Diocese worker unfairly dismissed.
The Telegraph has Vicar wins £14,000 over relationship with colleague.
And there is an earlier Echo report, Diocese under fire at tribunal.
In an unusual approach to employment tribunal reporting, the Claimant has published a great deal of documentation at a purpose-built website, Thomas David Johnston vs Liverpool Diocesan Board of Finance, see here.
7 CommentsEarlier reports here and here.
Riazat Butt at the Guardian has Gay priest resigns after furore over church blessing.
The headline refers to the New Zealand priest, David Lord, about whom there is also this report from New Zealand on Stuff, NZ priest in gay marriage row gives up licence.
Concerning the legal situation in England, Riazat reports this:
38 CommentsDudley is the freeholder of St Bartholomew’s, making it virtually impossible for him to be ousted. But he could face procedures which would involve someone proving there had been an irrevocable pastoral breakdown or that Dudley had acted in a manner unbecoming of a clergyman of the Church of England.
Nigel Seed, a church lawyer, said there was no prohibition on having a service after a civil partnership, provided it was not contrary to church doctrine.
“If you do not purport it to be a service of blessing there is nothing to stop couples from having prayers, hymns or a service of prayer and dedication,” he said.
Updated again 11 pm Sunday
Further reports:
BBC Anger at Anglican gay ‘wedding’ and a full report on the radio programme Sunday. Interviewees include Martin Dudley, Colin Slee, and David Banting. Permanent URL now available: go here. (12.5 minutes)
Associated Press Anglican Church: Gay ‘wedding’ broke rules
Press Association Gay ‘marriage’ for Anglican priests
Reverend Martin Dudley, who led the ceremony, said he disagrees with the official guidance.
He added: “I was asked by a friend and colleague to bless their civil partnership. I said ‘of course I will’.
“Peter is a dear friend and I have gay friends and one respects them for who they are. It seemed perfectly reasonable.
“I certainly didn’t do it to defy my bishop or to make a statement, I did it as a matter of pastoral care for someone for whom I have a very high regard.”
Mr Dudley said the traditional marriage liturgy was significantly altered for the occasion, which he described as ‘glorious’.
There were around 300 guests, including a number of clergy and Cowell’s mother who read the lesson.
Dudley added: “I know about the bishops guidelines and I disagree with them. It just seems to me to be utter hypocrisy to deny the fact that there are significant numbers of gay men and women within the church and significant numbers of gay clergy.
“It seems to me that Jesus would have been sitting in the congregation.”
He said differing opinions in the church are fine as long as people disagree “in love and understanding”.“You can’t allow the cultural and theological prejudices of the Bishop of Uganda for example, to govern how we are going to go forward in a very diverse community where the law and society accepts homosexual relationships in civil partnerships.”
From the comments on the Telegraph site:
19. Posted by The Revd Dr Martin Dudley on June 15, 2008 08:54 AM
As the Rector of St Bartholomew the Great, who officiated at this service, I would like to add a little clarity to the story.First, it was not a wedding or a marriage but the blessing of a civil partnership. Mr Wynne-Jones was well aware of this from his conversation with me today. If others construe it as a wedding, than they do so deliberately in order to ferment division.
Second, it was not and was intended to be a provocative act. It was not undertaken in defiance of the Bishop of London and there was no plea from him that I should not officiate at the service.
Third, we should remember that this service celebrated the love that the two persons involved have for each other. I officiated at it because Fr Peter Cowell has been my friend and colleague for many years. 300 people joined in the service; nearly 200 received communion, and there were dozens of other clergy present. It was not a rally or a demonstration. If other people want to turn into a loveless battlefield for the future of the Church of England, then it is they who will carry responsibility for the consequences.
Fulcrum reports a communication from Lloyd Ashton, Media Officer to the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia which reads:
…News reports in the United Kingdom have described a London Anglican church blessing for two male Anglican clergy, one of whom is a New Zealander.
The New Zealand priest involved has felt it appropriate to lay down his clergy license, in the light of Anglican Communion processes and discussions in the area of same gender Blessings and ordination.
Both the bishops to whom the priests were licensed, one in New Zealand and the other in the United Kingdom, were not aware of the ceremony.
The Bishop of Waikato and the Waikato priest concerned have released this joint statement. They will make no further comment on this matter.
The Associated Press reports that:
London’s bishop said Sunday he would order an investigation into whether two gay priests exchanged rings and vows in a church ceremony, violating Anglican guidelines.
The priests walked down the aisle in a May 31 service at one of London’s oldest churches marked by a fanfare of trumpets and capped by a shower of confetti, Britain’s Sunday Telegraph reported.
The bishop, the Right Rev. Richard Chartres, said such services are not authorized in the Church of England. He said he would ask the archdeacon of London to investigate.
And also that:
Church of England spokesman Lou Henderson said the archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Communion’s spiritual leader, was unlikely to make any public comment about the controversy.
Channel 4 News had a report this evening, which you can watch by going here.
From New Zealand, the local angle in Anglicans incensed by gay ‘wedding’:
… The fallout for Dr Lord, who was ordained at Waikato Cathedral Church of St Peter in December last year, had been swift. In a joint statement with the Bishop of Waikato yesterday, he said he “felt it appropriate to lay down his clergy licence”. This means he is unable to work as an Anglican priest…
There are further stories on the newspaper websites:
The Times Anglican church in meltdown over gays and women
Daily Mail Rector faces the sack after holding Britain’s first gay ‘wedding’ in an Anglican church
Telegraph Controversial vicar investigated after Anglican church’s first gay ‘wedding’
Updated Saturday evening
The Episcopal Café reports on a Same sex wedding held in London church.
The complete order of service is available as a PDF file from there.
Update
From tomorrow’s Sunday Telegraph Jonathan Wynne-Jones reports:
Male priests marry in Anglican church’s first gay ‘wedding’
First gay ‘wedding’: Only the bride was missing
First gay ‘wedding’: All eyes on Archbishop of Canterbury
Some quotes from the Telegraph:
The Most Rev Henry Orombi, the Archbishop of Uganda, said that the ceremony was “blasphemous.” He called on Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to take decisive action if the Anglican Church were not to “disintegrate”. Archbishop Orombi added: “What really shocks me is that this is happening in the Church of England that first brought the Gospel to us.
“The leadership tried to deny that this would happen, but now the truth is out. Our respect for the Church of England will erode unless we see a return to traditional teaching.”
The Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester – a powerful conservative figure – said that the service represented a wedding “in all but name”. He said: “Strictly speaking it is not a marriage, but the language is clearly modelled on the marriage service and the occasion is modelled on the marriage service. This clearly flouts Church guidelines and will exacerbate divisions within the Anglican Communion.”
The bishop said that it was up to the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, to act, adding that it would become a high-profile test case of Church authority.
“Can we stand for the clear teaching of the Church of England or are we powerless in the face of these actions, which I regret enormously have taken place,” he said.
From the Mail on Sunday by Jonathan Petre:
Row as rector holds Britain’s first gay ‘wedding’ in an Anglican church and another copy with a slightly different headline here.
Some quotes from the Mail:
Tory MP Sir Patrick Cormack, a prominent Anglican, said: ‘This is extraordinary. I am surprised the rector of such an important church should act in apparent defiance of his bishop.’
Alison Ruoff, a member of the Church of England’s General Synod, said: ‘It is incredibly sad that people are prepared to sin against God and the Church.’
… Mr Dudley said he was unrepentant. He said he had written to Bishop Chartres 18 months ago for guidance on blessings for same-sex couples in civil partnerships, but was told the Church’s House of Bishops had not approved them.
‘Bishop Chartres asked me not to offer them and I do not offer them,’ he said.
‘But if close friends ask me to bless them, I do not say no.
‘It would be an act of hypocrisy to do anything else.
I was ordained alongside gay candidates of the priesthood and many of my clergy friends are gay, though I am not.’
He said he regarded the service as a blessing rather than a marriage and added that he was not worried about discipline because he had acted with integrity.
A Church spokesman said: ‘The Church of England is absolutely firm on the point that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
‘The Church has no liturgy for blessing same-sex unions.’
Agence France-Presse reports that:
30 CommentsA Church of England spokesman told AFP they had “no reason” to believe that the ceremony did not take place but added: “What we seem to have here is a fairly serious breach of the rules by an individual or groups of individuals.”
… The Church of England spokesman said he hoped the news would not affect relations between member churches, stressing: “The Church of England has not changed its rules (on the subject) at any stage.”
The Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, in whose diocese the ceremony took place, was unavailable for comment, his spokesman told AFP.
Simon Barrow wrote about it on Comment is free at Compass points.
Alan Wilson responded to this journalism with Middle Class whining from Dystopolis.
Today, the Church Times has this news report by Ed Beavan C of E volunteers ‘add civic value’ to the nation, and this leader: A patchwork cannot give blanket cover.
The Tablet has an article by a report author, Francis Davis titled ‘Damned if you do …’.
Unfortunately, two further articles, one in the Church Times by Bishop Stephen Lowe and one in the Tablet by Frank Field are both behind paywalls for another week.
Stephen Morgan has a review of the report here at Thinking Faith.
And, at Wardman Wire Simon Barrow writes again, in Churches and public service – Thinking Aloud. Matt Wardman writes:
0 CommentsOver the next several weeks, we will be publishing a number of articles from a range of viewpoints – aiming to get beyond the initial reactions which many commentators have felt obliged to publish without reading the document itself. Most of these initial reactions seem to be attempts to create narratives supporting existing positions. That is a criticism that I would extend to all over-rapid reactions – including those I agree with who have indulged themselves.
There is much there relevant to the policy research and formation process with respect to the Third Sector, as well as the position of Christian churches in the UK, and their relation to government. I’m hoping to obtain a very wide range of perspectives in this second “online symposium” (our first one back in February was about MP Pay and Expenses).
We start off with an overview from Simon Barrow…
A note to General Synod members, GS Misc 889, announces the latest appointments that the Government has made in relation to this area of activity. Here’s what it says:
Crown Appointments
1. In February the General Synod decided that the Government should be invited to agree that there should be a continuing and not merely formal, role for a senior civil servant, at the heart of Government in the selection processes for senior Crown appointments in the Church of England. The Synod also decided that it wanted the Government to continue to provide the necessary staff-work to support the Crown’s (including the Lord Chancellor’s) parochial patronage responsibilities.
2. Following discussions with the Archbishops the Prime Minister has invited Mr Paul Britton to be his Appointments Secretary for senior ecclesiastical appointments and his adviser within the senior Civil Service on Church/State relations. Mr Britton, who is an Anglican and lives in the diocese of Rochester, will remain Director General, Domestic Policy Group, Cabinet Office and Head of the Economic and Domestic Affairs Secretariat. He will work with the Archbishops’ Appointments Secretary on the consultations for diocesan bishop appointments and will attend meetings of the Crown Nominations Commission. In relation to Crown appointments to cathedrals he will be assisted by Ms Emma Boggis, another senior civil servant in the Economic and Domestic Affairs Secretariat, who is also an Anglican and will take part in the selection processes for the Crown deaneries. Work on parochial appointments will remain with Mr Nick Wheeler.
3. The Archbishops have welcomed these new arrangements.
William Fittall
Secretary General
Church House
Westminster SW1P 3AZ
June 2008
1 CommentThe Prime Minister’s Spokesman said:
Asked if the Prime Minister accepted that the Church of England had been marginalised in the last few years, and that it had not been listened to perhaps as much as voices from other faiths, the PMS replied that the Prime Minister would not accept that at all. The Prime Minister was obviously keen on engaging with all of the major religious groups in this country to ensure that their views were properly aired. We had worked very closely with the Church of England and other religious groups on a number of important policy issues such as the campaign on global debt reduction, which was very much lead by the Church, and which the Government responded to in a very significant way.
Francis Davis one of the report’s authors wrote this: ‘Moral, But No Compass’ – a challenge to every politician.
A Telegraph leader says: The Church of England sees sense.
And George Pitcher writes Labour has bungled religion.
The Times has David Aaronovitch saying The Church of England should drop its martyred tone.
And the letters page has several who disagree with the report: A grown-up Church should not need the State.
At Ekklesia Simon Barrow has written about A wonky church and welfare debate.
And there is a further news report at Church and welfare debate continues as new report is published.
And here’s a speech on the same topic, given last week by the Archbishop of York to the Institute of Jewish Policy Research: Archbishop’s Speech on The Role Of Religion In Politics.
1 CommentHere is the official Church of England press release on Moral, But No Compass: Von Hügel Institute: Government ‘moral without a compass’ says report into Church and Welfare.
The government is ‘planning blind and failing parts of civil society’ when it comes to faith communities in general and aspects of charity law and social policy in particular, concludes a report by the Von Hügel Institute, an academic research centre and think tank based at St Edmund’s College, Cambridge University. “The government has good intentions, but is moral without a compass,” the authors say.
The report, Moral, But No Compass – Government, Church, and the Future of Welfare, was commissioned by the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop for Urban Life and Faith, who officially received the report today on behalf of the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England. It was researched and written by Francis Davis, co-Director of the Centre for the Study of Faith in Society at the Von Hügel Institute, Elizabeth Paulhus, a researcher at the Institute, and Andrew Bradstock, co-Director of the Centre for the Study of Faith in Society at the Institute.
The Institute’s research involved interviewees from politics, churches, other faiths, the civil service and the voluntary sector. It ‘uncovered huge gaps in government evidence about faith communities in general and the churches in particular,’ according to the report.
“We encountered on the part of Government,” the report says, “a significant lack of understanding of, or interest in, the Church of England’s current or potential contribution in the public sphere. Indeed we were told that Government had consciously decided to focus its evidence gathering almost exclusively on minority religions. We were unsurprised to hear that some of these consequently felt ‘victimised’…”
And the CofE comments:
…Welcoming this report, Bishop Stephen Lowe said: “We had little information about our own capacity or indeed level of existing activity. We had only a sketchy idea of political aspirations for our involvement. We needed an informed and reflective assessment of the position for the Church to consider the nature and extent of its future participation…I am delighted with the outcome.”
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, called it a ‘fascinating and important report’.
“On the one hand it highlights and details some truly remarkable examples of public good delivered by the Church and faith based organisations – sometimes funded by the state, though mostly not – and a general picture of committed social engagement which if grasped imaginatively by the state could, indeed would, yield some extraordinarily positive results,” the Archbishops said.
“On the other it reveals a depressing level of misunderstanding of the scale and quality of contribution faith-based organisations make to the civil and civic life of our nation – our common good. This is particularly true in relation to the contribution of the Church of England, and its membership, on which the report focuses.
“In short, this report urges the Church, government and others, notably the Charity Commissioners, to sit up, take note and to better understand each others roles and intentions in order to make the most of one of this nation’s most diverse, creative and enduring assets – the Church..
“We all need to consider very seriously the report’s recommendations and take appropriate action – for the good of the nation.”
The press release includes the full list of recommendations made by the report. Some of those are addressed not to the government but to the church. These are reproduced below the fold.
0 CommentsSee below for earlier reports.
Here is the publisher’s website description:
Moral, But No Compass
Government, Church and the Future of Welfare
In the heyday of Thatcherism the Church of England and the Conservative government of the day locked horns over the principles, policies, and strategic direction of the welfare state. The ensuing public debate, fraught with emotion, led to fundamental shifts in the political climate, not least with regard to the poorest members of UK society.
This new major study for the Church of England, drawing on hundreds of interviews and survey questionnaires, describes the modern setting in which the Labour Party’s welfare and related voluntary sector policies often are experienced as “discriminatory”, inadequately rooted in evidence and at risk of failing the faith communities. The government is “moral, with no compass” and needs to recover a principled approach to public service reform grounded in gift, covenant, advocacy and justice. Such an approach also demands a richer appreciation of the “civic value” added to the life, identity and health of the nation by Christian institutions in partnership with the whole realm of civil society. The Church too must adapt to the changing times, overcoming its (mistaken) perception that it is well understood by society. If the crisis of evidence and conversation can be repaired, the Church is in a position, should it so wish, to engage in even more extensive social entrepreneurship, community activism and public advocacy.
The report covers:
• Historical background of welfare;
• Critical assessment of the Labour and Conservative Party’s policy positions;
• The failures of third sector evidence and policy design in Government and at the Charity Commission;
• Analysis of the assets and membership of social voices, both secular and faith-based;
• New data on the capability and potential of Anglican dioceses as social incubators;
• Fresh insights into the role of cathedrals as civic actors and economic hubs;
• New information on the civic contribution of bishops.
• The Church’s view of principles needed by Government for ethical commissioning, as well as its reservations about the present funding regime.ISBN: 978-1-898366-91-1
And here is further comment by Simon Barrow in Church Caught In A Spin Over Welfare.
3 Comments…The initial reporting about Moral, But No Compass has been rather selective, “well spun” and based on what was either a leaked document or a deliberately placed one. In any event, the full report was originally embargoed until a press conference in London tomorrow at 11am and will still be unveiled in full then, though the tone of reception and response has already been established. The archbishops of Canterbury and York will apparently issue a statement.
There is much more to be said about this (I’m respecting the embargo, even if the rush to summary judgment has already begun), but my opening comment on behalf of Ekklesia was as follows: “We believe a more careful, calm and critical evaluation is needed of the role of faith groups in public service provision. It is particularly important that the needs of the vulnerable and the reasonable expectation of all people (whether religious or non-religious) for equal treatment from public services should not be subsumed too readily in a ‘contracting-out’ culture that can put the interests of providers – government, voluntary and private agencies – ahead of those they are supposed to be helping. Research and thought is badly needed, but a confused ‘debate’ fuelled by sensational headlines and half-truths will not help anybody.”
