The Bishop of Carlisle, Graham Dow has issued a statement, snappily entitled Statement from the Bishop of Carlisle clarifying remarks about the Government.
…While people are of course free to make choices, at the heart of the problem is the fact that our society is institutionalising these changes in marriage and sexual morality with legislation. In a meeting where almost all of those attending look to the Bible for moral teaching, I reminded those present of the difference attitude towards the Roman state between the Letter to the Romans and the Book of Revelation.
By way of clarification I would want to say that the Government has certainly been “God’s instrument for good” (Romans 13), for example in the promotion of the equality and in social inclusion, in its support for poorer nations and its emphasis on the environment. However in the last year or two it has been imposing its own moral agenda in a way that is contrary to long standing Christian morality and the significant voice of Christian churches…
Earlier reports about the event to which he refers can be found here.
A different view of the book which was being launched can be read here.
30 CommentsMy report published in last week’s Church Times is now available to the public: John Reaney awarded £47,000.
John Reaney awarded £47,000
by Simon Sarmiento
An Employment Tribunal in Cardiff published its final judgment last Friday, awarding John Reaney more than £47,000, but made no other recommendations. Last July, Mr Reaney won a case of unlawful discrimination against the Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Revd Anthony Priddis (News, 20 July).
The tribunal noted that: “the Respondents have accepted the need to provide equal-opportunity training to all of its individuals who are engaged in a recruitment exercise. Furthermore if a genuine occupational requirement does apply in a particular case then thought will be given by the Respondents to make that clear in any advertisement . . . we are satisfied that these matters have been taken seriously by the Respondents.”
The compensation includes £25,000 for future loss of wages, £8000 for future pension loss, £7000 damages for psychiatric injury, and £6000 for injury to feelings.
Alison Downie, Mr Reaney’s solicitor, said: “Given his comments [in the Temple lecture last week], the Archbishop of Canterbury should ensure that the Church of England and its bishops act in full and complete accordance with UK and European law now — otherwise we are likely to see more discrimination cases against the Church in the future.”Mr Reaney said: “I remain sad that the Church fought my case even after being found to have acted unlawfully. I would much prefer to be working as a Christian within the Church to promote and develop youth work, but was stopped from doing so because I am gay.”
In a press release, the diocese of Hereford said: “We are now aware that, when making such an appointment, we must make it clear if it is a genuine occupational requirement that the post-holder should believe in and uphold the Christian belief and ideal of marriage, and that sexual relationships are confined to marriage. This is the crux of the matter, not sexual orientation.”
A spokesperson for the pressure group Stonewall responded: “The crux of the matter is that discriminating against gay people in employment is unlawful. Let’s hope this is covered in the equal-opportunities training diocesan staff will be attending.”
The LGCM paid advertising supplement to last week’s Church Times also carried an article on the subject, written earlier. PDF file here,see top of page 3 or read html copy here.
15 CommentsHere are the four articles from last week’s Church Times that are now available on the public web:
Andrew Brown behind the ‘bonkers’ headlines
Paul Vallely Listen to the electronic alarm bells
Mona Siddiqui Why sharia is so misunderstood
Grace Davie Religion will be yet more hotly debated in future
0 CommentsMark Rice-Oxley of the Christian Science Monitor wrote Anglican Archbishop: too intellectual to lead?
When it comes to leadership in the Church of England, the former Bishop of Norwich once reportedly said: “If you want to lead someone in this part of the world, find out where they’re going. And walk in front of them.”
Rowan Williams, who celebrates five years as Archbishop of Canterbury next week, could never be accused of doing that…
Andrew Brown wrote at Comment is free that We need the Church of England:
7 CommentsThere’s no point now in kicking the corpse of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s career as a public intellectual. After the debacle of Rowan Williams’ speech on sharia, no one who has to make decisions will ever take seriously anything he says again. Nor will they take seriously the church he is supposed to lead. If you want to know what he is good at, there is a rather fine funeral oration online that he gave at the funeral of a Cambridge don in the middle of all the outrage. But nothing he says now matters to anyone who isn’t mourning.
It is time to look at the damage he has done to others, and not just himself; one of the things that his flameout has illuminated is just how dangerous disestablishment might prove. The last thought-provoking thing that I heard him say was at a radio award ceremony where he had to present himself, or at least his producer, with a third place prize for religious radio. He said that it was not true that religion must always lead to conflict, but almost always true that in any sufficiently serious conflict you would find religion.
I wish he had developed and made more explicit that line of thought, because it provides the beginning of a justification for the existence of the Church of England. The defenders of a place for religion in public life do not have to suppose that religious belief is true, and many of them don’t – in fact all of them suppose that most religious dogma must be false. The question is not whether irrationality is irrational; it is how it can best be managed…
Women and the Church (WATCH) has issued a press release. The headline is Women bishops “highly unlikely” for another five years.
At the recent meeting of General Synod, members were told by the Chair of the
Legislative Drafting Group that it was “highly unlikely” that the vote on women
bishops would be taken by July 2010.The Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch, chair of the group
preparing draft legislation for women bishops, outlined the process and predicted
the likely time it would take.The bishop’s statement shocked a large number of Synod members, who met and
expressed their outrage at the length of time the process was taking…
This release also includes these remarks of Professor Anthony Berry, a member of General Synod, from Chester diocese:
14 CommentsThe opponents of women priests and bishops argue that men and women were
created as complements to each other as a creative and creating sexual couple. But
such opponents then adduce that one of the sexes is, to borrow Orwell’s, phrase
“more equal than the other” in matters of authority. This argument surely cannot hold
in matters of the church spiritual for if it did, we Christians would have to accept that
the created order would place men or women subservient to the other.“Further if this equal but sexually different argument is driven into matters of church
order (the church temporal) then it sexualises the whole of my male human identity
and capabilities and claims that these are in all cases superior to the sexualised
identity and capabilities of all women. I find this profoundly offensive to my
understanding of human sexuality, identities and capabilities and also to my
relations with both men and women.“The business managers of the Church are probably right to have some sensitivity in
the run up to the Lambeth Conference, but in the Anglican covenant process it has
been legally confirmed that the Church of England has the right under the Queen in
Parliament to order its own affairs. Wisely, this ordering is done in the context of the
wider Anglican Communion, where a number of provinces do already have women
bishops.“It is inconceivable that the process of legislation to put into effect the
decision of General Synod to proceed to Women Bishops should take more
than a year and a half. Certainly the legislative process could easily be
completed by July 2010. It would be negligent of the General Synod to permit
the matter to drag on into the next decade. The business managers of Synod
should already be considering having additional meetings of Synod to ensure
that this business is accomplished.”
Church Society has published this: An open letter to the Primates and faithful Anglicans of the Global South.
And also this: Overview of the teaching of Rowan Williams on Scripture and sexuality.
Update
This item has been reported in the Guardian see today’s People column by Stephen Bates.
An article that I wrote recently has been included in the LGCM Anglican Matters newsletter that was also published as an advertising supplement to this week’s Church Times.
The entire supplement is available online as a PDF file here (900Kb).
The article is a summary of Anglican Communion events during the past six months or so. It was published with the title Has the Covenant already sunk? and an html copy of it is now here.
17 CommentsUpdated Monday afternoon
The Economist has a brief news item: The gathering storm and then a leader, headed Church and state Sever them.
The news item concludes rather interestingly with these paragraphs:
…Schism has been looming over Anglicanism since 2003, when American liberals ordained a gay bishop, Gene Robinson. And—a sign of how far apart the camps are—the conservatives’ worry is not that Lambeth will endorse homosexual relations among the clergy or anybody else; it is rather that decisions there will not provide clearly enough for the expulsion of churches which stray in a liberal direction.
In the latest move, Drexel Gomez, the conservative Archbishop of the West Indies, has started drafting a compromise that would allow old-timers to attend the Lambeth meeting, on the understanding that proper arrangements will be made for disciplining gay-friendly liberals. To people who are neither Christian nor Muslim, it must all sound a bit like sharia law.
The leader draws this conclusion from it all:
…Faced with this anomaly, the archbishop proposes to expand the privileges of all religions. It would be better instead to curtail the entitlements of his one. It makes no sense in a pluralistic society to give one church special status. Nor does it make sense, in a largely secular country, to give special status to all faiths. The point of democracies is that the public arena is open to all groups—religious, humanist or football fans. The quality of the argument, not the quality of the access to power, is what matters. And citizens, not theocrats, choose.
Cut it free
Disestablishing the Church of England does not mean that it has no public role to play. America’s founders said there should be no established religion, but religion shapes public debate to a degree that many in Europe find incomprehensible. Let religion compete in the marketplace for ideas, not seek shelter behind special privileges. One law for all, with its enlightened insistence on tolerance and free speech, is not a “bit of a danger”. It is what underwrites the ability of all religions to go about their business unhindered.
Ekklesia which had already expressed a view on this in Disestablishment may be back on the agenda as church feels pressure has now commented directly on the Economist response in The Economist calls for cutting the cord that binds church and state.
And Simon Barrow wrote about Giving up Establishment for Lent.
Here is a link to the BBC Sunday item (7 minutes audio):
21 CommentsDisestablishment
Controversy has surrounded the comments Rowan Williams recently made about Sharia. The religious think tank Ekklesia has now weighed into the debate with the suggestion that the Archbishop’s speech demonstrates the need for the disestablishment of the Church of England. Jonathan Bartley, the co-director of Ekklesia, and the Right Reverend James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, gave their views.
Both the Church Times and the Tablet have multiple articles on this topic. Unfortunately several are not available at present except to subscribers. When more becomes available, we will publish links.
Meanwhile, here is what you can read:
Church Times Lambeth endures protests and Page 3 girls in sharia row by Rachel Harden
Synod welcomes Dr Williams’s robust defence by Pat Ashworth and Margaret Duggan
Church Times leader: First, they came for the Muslims
Tablet
Quiet voice of modernity’s enemy by Theo Hobson
Tablet editorial: Crisis of identity
The primates of Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda, and the Southern Cone have issued a public response to the letter they were sent signed by 21 English evangelical bishops.
The full text of the response is here: GAFCON Response to Evangelical English Bishops. Part of it reads:
45 Comments… You will know that some of us have not been able to take communion with the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church since February 2005, – a period of about three years. The reason is that TEC took an action to consecrate Gene Robinson as Bishop in 2003 contrary to the resolution of the Lambeth Conference, an action of which they have not repented. The consecrators of Gene Robinson have all been invited to Lambeth, contrary to the statement of the Windsor Report (para 134) that members of the Episcopal Church should “consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion”.
You will know that some of those who objected to this consecration in the United States and have made arrangements for orthodox oversight from other provinces including ours have been charged with abandonment of communion. Their congregations have either forfeited or are being sued for their properties by the very bishops with whom you wish us to share Christian family fellowship for three weeks.
To do this is an assault on our consciences and our hearts. Further, how can we explain to our church members, that while we and they are formally out of communion with TEC, and provide oversight to these orthodox colleagues, we at the same time live with them at the Lambeth Conference as though nothing had happened? This would be hypocrisy.
We are also concerned that the invitation list reflects a great imbalance. It fails to address fundamental departures from historic faith that have triggered this crisis and yet excludes bishops of our own provinces, of Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda who teach and practice Biblical faith. As constituted, the invitations suggest that institutional structures are superior to the content of the faith itself.
We are also mindful of the press interest in the Conference, and in the presence in some form or other of Gene Robinson and his male partner, and of 30 gay activists. We would be the continual target of activist campaigners and media intrusion. In these circumstances we could not feel at home…
Updated Thursday evening and Friday morning
Official Reports: General Synod – Summary of Business Conducted on Thursday 14th February 2008 AM
General Synod – Summary of Business Conducted on Thursday 14th February 2008 PM
These include links to audio recordings of all the items.
Alastair Cutting (a member blogging from the floor of synod)
Synod
Church Times
Day four: Thursday
Episcopal Life Online
Synod calls for Guantanamo Bay’s closure, debates detention without charge by Matthew Davies
BBC
Church against terror limit moves
The Guardian
Synod warns of terror fears eroding liberty
Church Society
Synod Report Thursday 14th
In the morning Synod debated Crown appointments and agreed to the proposals in paragraph 58 of GS1680 by 290 votes to 16 with 16 recorded abstentions. Synod then debated a following motion calling for the chair of the Crown Nominations Commission, when it is considering the choice of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to be chosen by the Church’s appointments committee instead of by the Prime Minister as at present. This was defeated by 142 votes to 107 with 20 recorded abstentions.
Synod debated GS1673 Growing Together in Unity and Mission and passed the following motion by 258 votes to 10 with 5 recorded abstentions.
That this Synod, welcoming the work that has been done towards the Agreed Statement of the International Anglican – Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission and endorsing its stated aim of closer collaboration in unity and mission between our two communions:
(a) note the assessment of the Agreed Statement in GS 1673 as a contribution to the further development of the text and endorse the concerns of the Faith and Order Advisory Group set out in section 4 of GS 1673;
(b) affirm the further growing together in unity and mission will depend on common witness and the exchange of spiritual gifts, as well as clarity between areas where doctrinal agreement has been achieved and areas that require further work; and
(c) encourage Anglicans to implement, with Roman Catholics, the practical initiatives for bishops and people in Part 2 of the Statement;
(d) request that debates take place in Synod on all the documents listed in Appendix 2, Second Phase in Growing Together in Unity and Mission as the next stage in the process.
After lunch Synod debated GS1681 Detention without Charge and passed the following motion by 235 votes to 2 with 7 recorded abstentions.
That this Synod, mindful both of the Christian teaching that enforcement of law should be just in process and outcome, and of the challenge that the advent of suicide attacks poses for the general public and for those who bear responsibility for protecting the public from terrorism:
(a) emphasise the importance of society maintaining a careful balance between the liberty of the individual and the needs of national security;
(b) express grave concern that an extension to the current 28-day maximum period for detention without charge of terrorist suspects would, in the absence of the most compelling arguments, disturb that balance unacceptably;
(c) while welcoming the release of most UK prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, deplore the continued holding of prisoners there without charge or due process and encourage Her Majesty’s Government to continue to use all available means to press the United States administration to close the Guantanamo Bay facility and restore the full application of the rule of law; and
(d) affirm the desirability of an early review by the Government of the restrictions and other obligations that may be imposed on individuals under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the use of undisclosed material in control order proceedings.’
The amendment below was proposed to the above motion but it was defeated on a show of hands.
Leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
“(b) urge Her Majesty’s Government to adopt a more purposive approach to the problem of balancing the need for sufficient investigative time against the need to maintain the liberty of the individual through a process of holding suspects on a weekly basis under the review of a senior High Court Judge;”
This completed Synod’s business for this group of sessions.
1 CommentMatt Wardman is quite clear about the answer to this: he blames the BBC. Read Archbishop Rowan Firestorm was Started by the BBC before Interview was even Broadcast (H/T Alan Wilson)
News Sniffer shows you how the BBC’s own web reporting of the story changed over time.
There are others, though, who believe that what Rowan Williams said was wrong. See for example, Christopher Hitchens at Slate in To Hell With the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Theo Hobson has written Rowan Williams: sharia furore, Anglican future at openDemocracy.
And at ourKingdom Simon Barrow’s latest piece in the Sharia Subjects series is The real purpose of the Archbishop.
He also wrote A question of conscience on Comment is free.
More links to other opinions on all this on Ruth Gledhill’s blog at Sharia show shuts down? No it doesn’t. Bad luck Rowan. She includes this from Archbishop Akinola:
18 Comments‘We have received news of what the Archbishop of Canterbury allegedly said. If it is true that this statement about the inevitability of the introduction of Sharia law into the UK credited to Rowan Williams was actually said by him, it is most disturbing and most unfortunate. With what Christians are going through in Muslim lands around the world, it is unbelievable that any Christian leader – not to talk of an Archbishop – would make such a statement under whatever guise. This matter will be discussed at the next meeting of our House of Bishops.’
update Thursday morning and afternoon
The Bishop of Carlisle, the Rt Revd Graham Dow, spoke at the launch today of God, Gays and the Church. He may regret what he said.
Ruth Gledhill in her Times blog Graham Dow: UK Government a ‘Revelation 13’ Govt
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Bishop sees demons in Downing Street
Jonathan Petre in the Telegraph Brown Government ‘like a demonic beast’
BBC
Government like ‘demonic beast’
Riazat Butt in the Guardian has Archbishop tears up script to face critics
And also, Ayesha Khan on Sharia sensibilities
Jonathan Petre in the Daily Telegraph has Synod turns on Rowan Williams in sharia row
And also, here is what Lord Carey said yesterday in the Sunday Telegraph Are we promoting harmony or Muslim ghettos?. Today, Janet Daley has Removing the state from Dr Rowan Williams
Andrew Grice in the Independent says Williams resists calls to resign over sharia row
And Johann Hari has Rowan Williams has shown us one thing – why multiculturalism must be abandoned
See previous TA article for reports in The Times.
The BBC has Williams to face Anglican leaders and also Sharia row persists for Williams and Carey weighs into Sharia law row and later, PM praises archbishop’s integrity
The Press Association has Archbishop ready to defend himself
Reuters says Williams to speak out after storm
Here’s the timetable for today’s General Synod session:
3.15 p.m. to 7 p.m.
1. INTRODUCTIONS
2. PROGRESS OF MEASURES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
3. PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
4 and 5. REPORT BY THE BUSINESS COMMITTEE (GS 1676)
6. FORTY-SECOND REPORT OF THE STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE (GS 1677)
7. QUESTIONS
And the BBC has this helpful Q&A: The General Synod explained
10 CommentsTomorrow in The Times Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correpondent, and Philip Webster, Political Editor report that: Archbishop faces critics on his day of judgment:
An embattled Archbishop of Canterbury will confront anger within the Church of England as, on this most critical day of his five years in office, he tries to justify his remarks about Islamic law.
Dr Rowan Williams will open the General Synod in Central London this afternoon with a presidential address in which he will show that he can weather the storm over his recent remarks. He will attempt to set the record straight, insisting that he never advocated a “parallel jurisdiction” of Sharia.
The Archbishop, whose liberal stance has provoked fury among evangelicals, will face further pressure when a senior bishop launches a renewed attack on the Church’s approach to homosexuality.
The Right Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester and fifth most senior clergyman in the hierarchy, will give warning that the Church’s integrity has been “gravely undermined” by its implicit acceptance of same-sex relationships.
The issue of homosexuality and the Church is due to be debated by Synod when the Covenant, a new agreement on doctrine supported by Dr Williams, is examined on Wednesday.
In a forward to God, Gays and the Church, a book to be published this week and seen by The Times, Bishop Scott-Joynt attacks what he calls the “public advocating and vaunting of behaviour contrary to the teaching of the Church of England” at last year’s Synod, which was presided over by Dr Williams…
For more background to this book, see Anglican Mainstream’s announcement: God, Gays and the Church and also the announcement by The Latimer Trust God, Gays & the Church: Human Sexuality in Christian Thinking
Also the same journalists have this: Row over gay clergy threatens to divide a Synod still reeling over Sharia furore:
…In a new book, God, Gays and the Church, the Bishop of Winchester, the Right Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, attacks the acceptance of “alternative, revisionist teaching” on the issue of homosexuality.
Bishop Scott-Joynt, referring to a debate on sexuality at the synod last February, claims that there was a “public advocating and vaunting of behaviour contrary to the teaching of the Church of England”. Several priests in that debate spoke openly of the joy and fulfilment they get from being in openly gay relationships, even though official church discipline demands that gay clergy be celibate.
Bishop Scott-Joynt condemns the fact that personal experience appears to be given the same weight as Scripture, tradition and the Church in the debate over homosexuality…
And Ruth Gledhill has this comment piece: The intellectual arrogance that pervades the heart of Lambeth Palace wisdom:
…Dr Williams was advised before his speech on Thursday evening that the content could prove controversial. He heeded the warnings but went ahead anyway. He was “taken aback” by just how controversial it then proved but remains “chirpy” and unrepentant about his comments because he believes that they needed to be made.
Although he is a holy and spiritual man, danger lies in the appearance of the kind of intellectual arrogance common to many of Britain’s liberal elite. It is an arrogance that affords no credibility or respect to the popular voice. And although this arrogance, with the assumed superiority of the Oxbridge rationalist, is not shared by his staff at Lambeth Palace, it is by some of those outside Lambeth from whom he regularly seeks counsel…
Read the whole article for more on the Lambeth Palace scene.
31 CommentsUpdated
As a change from the secular media reports, here is what Ekklesia has published:
8 Feb Archbishop under fire over Sharia law lecture and interview
9 Feb Church of England head seeks a multi-faith settlement for the UK
10 Feb What lies beyond Lambeth’s Sharia humiliation?
And see also Real problem, wrong solution
10 Feb Catholics say their marriage tribunals do not seek civil law enforcement
And see also on Comment is free A multi-faith muddle
16 CommentsBBC
Archbishop defends Sharia remarks
Williams ‘shocked’ at Sharia row
Puzzled voices among Bradford’s Muslims
Guardian
Will Woodward and Riazat Butt Williams defiant over Islamic law speech
Clare Dyer Jewish Beth Din could be archbishop’s model
Riazat Butt Forget the beheadings, and think of settling marital disputes
Andrew Brown Misjudgment that made martyrs of others
Madeleine Bunting A noble, reckless rebellion
Guardian leader: The simplicity complex
Daily Telegraph
Jonathan Petre Rowan Williams faces calls to resign and Church members call on Archbishop to resign
Charles Moore Archbishop, with sharia it’s all or nothing
Simon Heffer Sharia courts? Get off your knees, archbishop
The Times
Ruth Gledhill Archbishop faces calls to quit over Sharia row
Frances Gibb Was Archbishop’s obscure phrasing and bad timing to blame for uproar? Don’t miss this one, well worth reading
Matthew Parris Williams is dangerous. He must be resisted
Times leader: A Devalued Faith
Independent
Colin Brown and Jerome Taylor Church moves to the defence of Archbishop
Deborah Orr Don’t be fooled… the archbishop wants to beat extremists at their own game
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown What he wishes on us is an abomination
Independent leader: The Archbishop has stepped into a political and intellectual minefield
The Bishop of St Albans wrote to his clergy and readers: Bishop of St Albans says Archbishop’s lecture raises major issue.
Justin Lewis-Anthony wrote The Archbishop and those who will not hear.
2 CommentsLambeth Palace has issued a statement headlined What did the Archbishop actually say?
13 CommentsFriday 08 February 2008
There has been a strong reaction in the media and elsewhere to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s remarks of yesterday on civil and religious law…
…The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.
Instead, in the interview, rather than proposing a parallel system of law, he observed that “as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law” . When the question was put to him that: “the application of sharia in certain circumstances – if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples’ religion – seems unavoidable?”, he indicated his assent.
A selection of further material:
The Church Times which went to press before this story broke has now published a website article by Paul Handley Williams provokes row over sharia law.
James Behrens wrote Legal opinion on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s interview on Shariah Law.
Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali wrote English law and the Sharia (PDF).
Bishop Alan Wilson wrote Abdul the Bogeyman.
Frances Gibb Legal Editor of The Times reported Lawyers: Sharia can’t trump English law. Meanwhile Ruth Gledhill has Archbishop of Canterbury ‘should resign’ over Sharia row and there is Sharia in Britain: the reaction.
The BBC has Reaction in quotes: Sharia law row and also Q and A: Sharia law explained and The end of one law for all?
The Daily Telegraph has Bishop: Impossible to have sharia law in UK by Jonathan Petre, Andrew Porter and Gordon Rayner.
The Guardian has Laying down the law: ministers cool on archbishop’s sharia suggestion by Will Woodward and Riazat Butt.
9 Comments