Ed Beavan has this news report, Embryology vote leaves lobbyists out in the cold and there is a Leader, In the wake of the embryo debate, which has harsh words for some:
The second observation is that, in the main, the debate has been conducted at a disappointingly low level. It was only to be expected that the different lobby groups would simplify the issues in order to attract support; but the ludicrous invocation of Dr Frankenstein at every turn has degraded the arguments, not least those of some Christian lobbyists. The Church has been justifiably scornful of Richard Dawkins’s efforts to construct a case against religion. Religious commentators ought, at least, to ensure they have a secure grasp on the scientific constraints contained in the Bill before dismissing them in such a cavalier fashion.
This is not the first time for such criticism, remember this earlier leader, Church fails its Biology exam, from 28 March this year. It ended with:
2 CommentsTheologians have been rightly dismissive of the ignorant forays that scientists have made into theology. They must beware of giving scientists the opportunity to return the compliment.
Some media reports were linked in this earlier article. When I read the BBC report linked there, Churches unhappy over father figures, I was a bit surprised at the strength of reaction attributed to the Church of England on the issue of the role of fathers in connection with IVF treatment, so did some checking on this.
In fact Robert Pigott is not misrepresenting the position of the CofE’s Mission and Public Affairs Council. Here’s the full text of the response provided to the recent vote:
A Church of England spokesman said: “The Church holds that a child’s right not to be deliberately deprived of having a father is greater than any ‘right’ to a child through IVF. There is a huge difference between a child who finds themselves in a single parent family through bereavement or breakdown of parental relationship, and those who find themselves in this situation by design, for which this Bill allows. We are extremely disappointed that the important role of fathers was not recognised in the Bill, and that we now have a situation where the perceived ‘right’ to have a child trumps the right for a child to be given the best possible start in life. This vote sends a signal that fathers don’t matter.”
That response is entirely consistent with the position taken earlier, and contained in a PDF document published in June 2007, titled Response from the Church of England Mission and Public Affairs Council to the Call for Evidence from the Joint Committee on the Draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill and which is available here. The section relating to this topic is reproduced in full below the fold. The press release issued by the CofE at that time was headed Church says IVF children need fathers.
And indeed, TA linked to this document in March this year, see more on the embryology bill. The focus of that TA article, and of the Church Times reports, was primarily on the apparent change of position by CofE bishops from the stance taken by the MPA Council concerning the use of embryos, see this Church Times report of June 2007, C of E: yes to hybrids.
1 CommentOnce again Dave Walker has a roundup of reactions to the voting in the House of Commons, see Abortion vote: blog responses.
If you want to know what the numeric outcomes of all the abortion votes were, Louise Ashworth has them summarised here (these figures appear in the deadtree Guardian but I can’t find them on the website). The IVF votes (there were two of these) are reported by the BBC here.
It appears that somebody (or maybe more than one person) has been giving out reaction quotes on behalf of the Church of England. See these reports:
Martin Revis Ecumenical News International via Episcopal News Service Religious leaders critical of vote to allow embryo research
Dr. Malcom Brown, director of Mission and Public Affairs for the Church of England, said, “Any erosion of the unique moral status of the human embryo opens the door — if only a crack — at the top of a ‘slippery slope’ to treating human beings as less than ends in themselves.”
Robert Pigott BBC Churches unhappy over father figures
But the Church of England has reserved its greatest ire for the decision of MPs to allow single women and lesbian couples to seek IVF treatment without having to consider the need for a father for their children.
Its verdict is stark.
“This vote sends a signal that fathers don’t matter,” it said.
“The Church holds that a child’s right not to be deliberately deprived of having a father is greater than any ‘right’ to a child through IVF.
“We are extremely disappointed that the important role of fathers was not recognised in the bill, and that we now have a situation where the perceived ‘right’ to have a child trumps the right for a child to be given the best possible start in life.”
…The Church of England focuses on how children end up without a father.
“There is a huge difference between a child who finds themselves in a single-parent family through bereavement or breakdown of parental relationship, and those who find themselves in this situation by design, for which this bill allows.”
By comparison the Church’s official reaction to the defeat of several attempts to cut the limit for abortion of 24 weeks’ gestation was mild.
A spokesman said that “abortion is used too freely”, but added that “the upper limit should be considered sympathetically on the basis of medical advances”.
The problem for the Church of England – a large organisation lacking strong top-down authority – is the wide range of strong views on abortion held by its members.
Update Thursday morning
The Bishop of Bradford has expressed his personal opinions see Bishop critical of abortion decision in the Bradford Telegraph & Argus.
32 CommentsAffirming Catholicism has published A Response to The Report of the Women Bishops Legislative Drafting Group (The Manchester Report).
The copy of this on their website is here.
The full text of this response is also reproduced here.
25 CommentsDave Walker has provided a full roundup of links related to this week’s major legislative event, also known as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
0 CommentsUpdated again Saturday afternoon
A demonstration against the Bishop of Rochester is planned at Rochester Cathedral on Saturday.
Kent Online reports as follows:
Bishop denies gay prejudice claims – but protest is planned
One of the county’s cathedrals will be the stage for a gay rights group’s demonstration this weekend.
International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO) is angry at the Bishop of Rochester’s opposition to an homosexual American bishop attending a key church meeting.
But the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali said he respected all people no matter their sexuality.
A spokesperson for the group said: “The Bishop can change his religion but, just as he cannot change his skin colour, we cannot change our sexuality.”
IDAHO also believes the bishop has opposed gay rights measures such as child adoption by gay partners.
The group will be protesting at Rochester Cathedral on Saturday.
Anglican Mainstream reports that the bishop has issued a statement, though I could not find it on the diocesan website. Here is what AM reports:
Bishop of Rochester’s statement about the demonstration planned against him on May 17:
A public notice of a demonstration against the Bishop of Rochester has been circulated (see below).
The Bishop of Rochester has responded.[ link to original of “public notice” ]
An IDAHO Day demo will be held outside Rochester Cathedral, Medway, Kent from 1200-1300 hrs. The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt. Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, has fairly regularly spoken out against LGBT rights. Late last year he spoke against civil partnerships and child adoption by gay couples. He has since apparently decided not to attend the forthcoming Lambeth Conference, due to be held in Canterbury (University site) in July/August 2008. Mainly it appears due to the gay issue and the position of Bishop Gene Robinson. Bishop Robinson is coming to the conference anyway and we will be challenging the Bishop of Rochester to stay in the UK an go and meet with and talk to Gene in Canterbury.
Further, the Bishop of Rochester has himself suffered and complained about abuse and even death threats because he converted from Islam to Christianity. Since he now knows exactly what such hatred is like, we will be asking why he still feels unable to make common cause with groups such as LGBT people who have are still suffering the same merely because of our sexuality including regularly from religionists. The Bishop can change his religion but, just as he cannot change his skin colour, we cannot change our sexuality. Neither he nor us, nor indeed anyone; should have to uffer abuse, threats or attacks because of such things. All will be welcome to join us whether LGBT or straight friends on the day. The gay run pub The Ship in Rochester High St- a few hundred yards away should be open for refreshments also. PLEASE NOTE THE EMAIL ADDRESS IS FOR USE WITH THIS DEMO ONLY.
Statement regarding the demonstration on 17 May 2008
I acknowledge and respect the equal dignity of all – regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. There is no place for the harassment or persecution of anyone for whatever reason.
We are thankful that in this country there is freedom of meeting and expression for all.
The Bible and the Church teach that the proper expression of our sexuality is in the context of marriage. This has to do with God’s purposes in creating us, respect for persons and the importance of the family as a basic unit of society.
+Michael Roffen:
Saturday morning update
The Medway Messenger carries a fuller report, Gay rights group set for cathedral protest concluding with this:
…Medway Police said they were aware of the demonstration. A spokesman said: “We are aware of a planned protest on Saturday and we will police it appropriately.”
May 17 marks the day the World Health Organisation removed homosexuality from it’s list of recognised mental illnesses 18 years ago.
The day will also see Kent Police relaunch a telephone line to report homophobic acts…
Saturday afternoon update
And now, there is a much longer report on Kent News headlined Gay rights campaigners to protest at cathedral. This includes a detailed account of how Kent Police are taking seriously the issue of homophobic behaviour. The article was on the front page of the Kentish Saturday Observer as you can see from this PDF file.
6 CommentsPress Release – 14th May 2008 for immediate release
Women Clergy Message to Bishops: “Yes” to Women Bishops, but not at any price
In an outspoken statement sent this week to all bishops in the Church of England, nearly half of all licensed women clergy called for no further delay on women bishops, but also, for no further discrimination written into the legislation.
The statement, drawn up by leading women priests, states: “We believe that it should be possible for women to be consecrated as bishop, but not at any price. The price of legal ‘safeguards’ for those opposed is simply too high, diminishing not just the women concerned, but the catholicity, integrity and mission of the episcopate and of the Church as a whole.”
It goes on to say: “We cannot countenance any proposal that would, once again, enshrine and formalise discrimination against women in legislation.” None of the 15 Anglican provinces which have voted for women bishops have included discriminatory legislation.
The statement challenges any suggestion that those who want the simplest statutory provisions do not care for those who remain opposed to women’s ordained ministry, and points to “strong relationships” and to the possibility of a code of practice that make “the passing of a single clause measure realistic in today’s Church, as well as theologically and ecclesiologically cohesive.”
The statement declares that “all bishops should work within clear expectations and codes of practice. The language of “protection” and “safeguard” is offensive to women, and we believe the existing disciplinary procedures are enough for women or men to be brought to account if they behave inappropriately.”
The covering letter, dated 11th May 2008, is signed by Jane Hedges, Canon Steward at Westminster Abbey, Rosemary Lain-Priestley, Secretary of the National Association of Diocesan Advisors in Women’s Ministry and Lucy Winkett, Canon Precentor at St Paul’s Cathedral and more than 500 other ordained women. Since then a further 213 women priests have added their names to the statement, representing nearly half of all ordained women in the Church of England.
CONTACTS:
Christina Rees (Chair National WATCH)
Tel: 01763-848-822
eMail: Christina@MediaMaxima.com
Revd Canon Lucy Winkett
Tel: 020-7246-8321
eMail: precentor@stpaulscathedral.org.uk
Revd Vanda Rowe
Tel: 01980-610-305
eMail: rev.vandarowe@gmail.com
Revd Canon Jane Hedges
Tel: 020-7654-4867
eMail: Jane.Hedges@westminster-abbey.org
The full text of the statement follows below the fold.
74 CommentsTomorrow the House of Commons begins debating the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, an updated version of the current legislation which became law in 1990.
See Embryology Bill: the key points at the BBC.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has written in the Mail on Sunday about the issues involved, see We condemn torture, rape – anything that uses another’s body for our own purpose – Shouldn’t we show embryos similar respect?
Update The same Daily Mail text is now on the Lambeth Palace site as well.
Here is the earlier TA report on what was said when the House of Lords considered this bill.
Rather surprisingly, the Medical Research Council is discouraging scientists from attending Parliament, see BBC Scientists’ protest discouraged.
29 CommentsUpdated again Friday evening
A body called Christian Research has made a number of claims that have been reported by newspapers:
The Times Ruth Gledhill Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour and also commentary at God-shaped hole will lead to loss of national sense of identity.
Daily Telegraph George Pitcher Practising Muslims ‘will outnumber Christians by 2035’
Daily Mail Ben Clerkin ‘More practising Muslims than Christians in Britain by 2035’
But are these claims true? And why are quotation marks used in the headlines?
The Church of England issued a statement Latest Religious Trends publication ‘flawed and dangerously misleading’. This says:
…Across Christian denominations and other faiths, the research does not compare like with like. The number of active Muslims, for example, is an estimated projection based on halving the number of people who said they were Muslim at the last national government census in 2001. The same process for those who said they were Christian at the last census would yield about 20 million active Christians of whom around 14 million are active Anglicans (based on recent national surveys).
Instead, this research estimates Christian ‘membership’ using, for example, the number of adults on the Church of England’s local parish based formal voting lists as the sole measure of its active ‘members’. Huge numbers of people worshipping every week and involved in their churches in all sorts of other ways are consequently missed…
David Keen has a blog post Why Christian Research is Wrong and Dave Walker has more at Is the church in decline?
Update Thursday evening
Andrew Brown has published an article on Comment is free titled Prayers for the fearful in which he criticises this research:
…These extrapolations are all based on present trends continuing, which tells us that they are certainly wrong. It is an absolutely safe bet that society will have changed drastically in the next 40 years and in ways that we can’t foresee. Present trends will not continue. They may get worse, of course, for Christianity, but I doubt it.
The real lesson of these figures is not that the Church of England may cease to exist, or even that Islam is on the rise. It is that religion does not exist as a distinct mode of thought or existence. Religious allegiance is not a matter of theology; it’s not even, really, a matter of spirituality.
What really drives it is its function of ritualising and dramatising moral values and stories about society. This means that any church, any mosque, and so on, serves as a focus for a particular community and is embedded with all sort of extra-religious cultural assumptions and practices. If the community disappears, so does the church. The community will disappear when it no longer has an economic or political function and when the cost of membership seems to exceed the benefits…
And now, the author of the original research is disputing the Ruth Gledhill article:
The Times has ran a double page feature from Ruth Gledhill on declining church attendance, and compares it to the rising number of Muslims and Hindus attending worship. Benita Hewitt is the new director of Christian Research Association, whose Religious Trends have been quoted, describes the article as very misleading. Church attendance once a week is compared to mosque attendance once a year, and no allowance has been made for once a month, once a year, midweek and FX church attendance…
Update Friday morning
David Keen has drawn attention in the comments to this sample article featured in the March 2008 issue of Quadrant, which contains data that doesn’t match the newspaper reports. See David’s own blog article about this here.
Update Friday evening
Ruth Gledhill has posted Latest religious trends which includes two tables taken from the report (click on the tables to enlarge them). See also the comments to this blog article for more information.
Letters to The Times can be found here.
Dave Walker has obtained more comment from Benita Hewitt which is available here.
29 CommentsLast week, the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered a lecture at the London School of Economics. The title was Religious faith and human rights.
You can read the full text of the lecture here.
Natalie Hanman has written at Comment is free about this lecture. Her article is titled Cross purposes. In the article she asks which comes first: gender equality before the law, or religious liberty?
This article also explains about the current UK legislation imposing a “public sector equality duty” and the proposals to extend this duty into more areas.
15 CommentsTheo Hobson wrote on Comment is free that
Church reformers must come to terms with the fact that it is a fundamentally reactionary institution…
Read O thou great irredeemable.
Andrew Brown wrote on helmintholog a piece unhelpfully titled Anglican Anorak post. It is in fact a discussion of the Manchester report including this:
5 CommentsThe real story is that the ordination of women priests was bought on credit, and the church can’t ever pay down more than the interest on the bill. When women priests were ordained, the Church of England was only held together, to the extent that it was, by both sides making solemn promises that they didn’t believe they would ever be called on and had no real intention of delivering. In particular, the supporters of women priests solemnly promised that there would always be an honoured place for their opponents within the church, even though they thought of the arrangements as entirely transitional; in return the opponents solemnly declared that women priests were legally and validly priests, even though they did not believe this could possibly be true. They still don’t.
Two articles by Pat Ashworth in today’s Church Times set out to explain what the Manchester report really says. See
Women bishops: choose path you want, says group
Manchester report: the conclusions summarised
8 CommentsUpdated again Friday evening
The Lead has published Williams won’t allow Robinson to function as priest in England in which it is said that:
…the Archbishop of Canterbury has refused to grant Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the right to preach or preside at the eucharist in England. Robinson received the news in an email yesterday morning.
Sources familiar with the email say Williams cites the Windsor Report and recent statements from the Primates Meeting in refusing to grant Robinson permission to exercise his priestly functions during his current trip to England, or during the trip he plans during the Lambeth Conference in July and August…
In the Church of England, the legal position on preaching is not the same as the position on “exercising priestly functions” and it appears that an overseas bishop would not necessarily need permission from anybody but the incumbent of the parish in order to simply preach there.
Nevertheless Bishop Robinson is respecting the wishes of the archbishop and is declining all invitations to preach in England.
Such respect is not to be found everywhere. The Lead continues:
Sources familiar with the email, which came to Robinson through a Lambeth official, say Williams believes that giving Robinson permission to preach and preside at the Eucharist would be construed as an acceptance of the ministry of a controversial figure within the Communion.
Williams has not denied permission to preach and preside to Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, who gave his support to a failed legislative attempt to limit the rights of Nigerian gays and their supporters to speak, assemble and worship God collectively. Akinola has yet to respond to an Atlantic magazine article which suggests he may have had prior knowledge of plans for retributive violence against Muslims in his country that resulted in the massacre of more than 650 people in Yelwa, Nigeria.
Williams has not denied permission to preach and preside to Bishop Bernard Malango, the retired primate of Central Africa and one of the authors of the Windsor Report. Malango dismissed without reason the ecclesiastical court convened to try pro-Mugabe Bishop Nolbert Kunonga for incitement to murder and other charges.
Williams has not denied permission to preach and preside to Bishop Gregory Venables, primate of the Southern Cone, who has now claimed as his own, churches in three others provinces in the Anglican Communion (Brazil, Canada and the United States). Nor has he denied permission to preach and preside to Archbishops Henry Orombi of Uganda, Emanuel Kolini of Rwanda, or Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya, all of whom have ignored the Windsor Report’s plea not to claim churches within other provinces of the Communion.
Ruth Gledhill has elaborated on the “banning” question in Bishop Gene ‘banned’.
The Living Church has an article about this also, No Pulpit Ban for Bishop Robinson by George Conger.
Episcopal Café has a quibble about this.
The Guardian had an item about it also, see here.
56 CommentsThe Bishop of New Hampshire is currently in England for the UK launch of his book, In the Eye of the Storm.
There has been extensive press and broadcast coverage:
BBC Williams criticised by gay bishop
The Hardtalk interview can be viewed here but only for a week after transmission date.
He was also interviewed on the Sunday radio programme:
Gene Robinson
The issue of homosexuality continues to tear the Anglican Communion apart in the build-up to the 2008 Lambeth Conference. In June the conservatives who oppose the ordination of gay priests will meet in Jerusalem, in what some see as an alternative conference. Many of these will refuse to go on to Canterbury for the main meeting in July.Meanwhile the gay Bishop, Gene Robinson, whose consecration brought this dispute to a head, shows no sign of backing out of the limelight. His latest book In the Eye of the Storm is published this week by the Canterbury Press. He explained why he wrote it.
Listen here (7 minutes).
Guardian Riazat Butt Williams disappoints God in not taking a stand, says gay bishop
The Times Gay rites; New Hampshire’s Bishop Gene Robinson is about to enter into a civil union
Daily Telegraph Gene Robinson: ‘It is a sin to treat me this way’
And the Church Times blog is following the story, here, and again in Can Lambeth bar Gene Robinson from preaching in England?
Bishop Robinson did speak in London, in a church, in 2005. It caused a fuss then, see here. And was reported fully in the Church Times as shown here.
About the book:
Read the preface by Desmond Tutu here.
Read three quotes printed on the back cover here.
5 CommentsIn the Daily Telegraph George Pitcher has written an article headlined Rowan Williams will not be driven out of office which is in fact about the Manchester report. It also rather debunks most earlier reports. (And it is not written by the newly appointed religion specialist.)
…As ever, the truth is somewhat different. Deeply considered (and, I might say, deeply boring) documentation has been published at Church House, morsels are torn from its body and partially digested, and those with corners to fight duly back into them, barking.
The Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Rev Nigel McCulloch, as chair of the numbingly named Legislative Drafting Group, has offered up a typically chewy tome.
In it, far from proposing a church like a Victorian playground, with gates marked in stone for Boys and Girls, he offers three approaches to the introduction of women bishops: a simple change in the law with no alternative arrangements for those who demur; legislation that would make some special arrangements for those “unable to receive the ministry of women bishops”; and, finally, legislation that would create structures for these conscientious objectors.
The group is at pains to say that it’s not offering a recommendation, but analysing the pros and cons of each approach.
To infer from this that the church is set to split itself along gender lines is, at best, ambitious. But what is important is the difference between what is said in this report, which is dull, and what is perceived to have been said…
The Times has some letters.
1 CommentUpdated again on 25 May
The Report of the Women Bishops Legislative Drafting Group is now available online.
Unfortunately, it is provided only as a series of separate, mostly .doc files. Perhaps the situation will improve later.
Update on this
An html copy of Chapters 1 to 6 can now be found here.
And Annex G the spreadsheet containing the January 2008 count of “Resolutions parishes” can be found here.
Additional html files now available:
Annex B, Measure 1 – Draft Bishops (Consecration of Women) Measure (No.1)
Annex D – Illustration of ‘Statutory Code of Practice’ option
Annex D, Measure 2 – Draft Bishops (Consecration of Women) Measure (No 2)
There is a press release which summarises the report, which can be found at Women in the Episcopate – Manchester Report published.
First reaction to this from Forward in Faith UK is here. Second reaction is here.
First reaction from WATCH is here.
First press reports:
Press Association Church faces ‘serious decisions’ on women bishops
Associated Press Church of England panel calls for decision on structures for including women as bishops
Daily Mail Church of England delays consecration of first woman bishop by four years
The Times Report sets out roadmap for women bishops and later ‘Gender havens’ to avert split in Church
Daily Telegraph Church plans ‘men only’ breakaway dioceses
60 CommentsThe Archbishop of Canterbury appeared on the BBC Radio 4 programme Today before giving a speech in the House of Lords.
The Lambeth Palace website has:
Interview with Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme on credit, debt & inequality including a full transcript and an audio recording of the interview with John Humphrys.
Archbishop – Protect the Poorest From the Effects of Economic Downturn a press release about the House of Lords speech.
1 CommentTwo items on this today in the Church Times, both by Pat Ashworth:
A detailed report of the Trumpington case is headlined Ambrose caused parish breakdown, says tribunal.
And there is a preview of the guidelines on bullying that are to be published soon by the Archbishops’ Council, Parish guidelines aim to end bullying.
Elsewhere Alan Wilson has written a highly informative article on his blog at Bully pulpit — On baiting of the Clergy. (The comments there are also interesting.)
19 CommentsLord Harries of Pentregarth, aka Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford had a discussion with Simon Jenkins in the Guardian last weekend, see Atheist versus Bishop.
6 CommentsAs religious objections to the embryology bill mark the latest skirmish between faith and reason, Simon Jenkins and Richard Harries confront their differences head-on.
Several press reports from North-East England about this:
Northern Echo Bishop’s warning over threat of BNP
Newcastle Journal Bishop joins fight against nationalists
Sunderland Echo Bishop warns people ‘giving up hope’ by voting BNP
Northumberland Gazette BNP voters disaffected with main parties – Bishop
Here is the full text of the email that Tom Wright sent to his clergy:
41 Comments13 April 2008
Subject: Local elections and BNP from Bishop TomDear Friends
With local elections coming up, we face again the unwelcome news of the BNP making potential inroads in our region. Splendid work has been done to counter this by several clergy working with local community leaders, for instance in distributing the pamphlet, ‘Hope Not Hate’. I want to urge all of you to get involved in this effort in whatever local sphere you can.
However, we should also be aware that the reason the BNP can even gain a foothold in people’s affections is because many people in our region feel so disaffected after the last thirty years of national politics that they are in danger of giving up hope in our regular main parties. This isn’t anybody’s fault in particular. But when a party like the BNP seems to be gaining ground we should all ask the question, Why is there a vacuum there that the other parties aren’t filling? What frustrations are there that the BNP are exploiting, and what are the wise ways of reacting to, or even meeting, those needs?
It is one thing to point out, as many have already done, the neo-Nazi tendencies of the BNP, and to warn with a shudder against our society even taking a small step in any such direction. It is another to say, How can we drain the swamp so that this kind of ideology won’t breed again?
None of us (in other words) can be complacent. Opposing the BNP isn’t simply a matter of saying ‘the status quo is working fine, so please reject these idiots’. It should be a matter of saying, What does a healthy society look like and how can we make it clear to our whole population that we are working in the best ways towards that goal? Part of the calling of the churches, following Jesus in his work of bringing God’s kingdom, must be to help communities ask that question and to work with them towards finding robust and positive answers.
Warm greetings and good wishes,
Bishop TomThe Bishop of Durham, Auckland Castle.