There were three bishops present and voting last night, and one retired English bishop.
Lord Harries voted against the amendment.
The Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Winchester, and the Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham each spoke for, and voted for the amendment.
Lord Eames also voted for the amendment.
You can read their speeches here (in chronological order, scroll down as necessary):
Ekklesia has commented on this aspect of the debate: Bishops reject calls to vote on Sexual Orientation Regulations and also Bishop’s vote over Sexual Orientation Regulations.
The Press Association issued Kelly welcomes gay equality law
Zefrog has Sexual Orientation Regulations – Lords Vote and What the Christian Right Doesn’t Want You to See Anymore.
The Public Whip analyses the Lords voting in detail here.
10 CommentsThis project was pre-announced some time ago.
Lambeth Palace has now announced the use of YouTube by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Read the press release Archbishops online reflection – ‘Slavery still with us’.
This has been reported in The Times by Ruth Gledhill as Archbishop of Canterbury makes YouTube debut, and is discussed further on her blog at Archbishop goes live on YouTube.
Dave Walker has links to numerous related sites at Making our mark.
When this project was first announced, wannabepriest was concerned about whether this was a good idea. He now has Credit where credit is due…
What do other people think about it now?
3 CommentsPress Release
February 20, 2007
Meeting of Primates in Tanzania
We acknowledge the huge complexity of the issues which the Primates of the Communion brought to Tanzania and the fears and expectations which surrounded the meeting.
In that context we congratulate the Archbishop of Canterbury and his fellow Primates on their achievement of a united communiqué. We are acutely aware that compromises have been made by all sides. This is a sign of the great generosity of those present at the meeting.
There is a cost to discipleship and sometimes it is high. The cost demanded of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters is immense, and has been for generations. The continuing failure of the Communion to address the pastoral needs and receive the ministerial gifts and insights of the whole community is part of that cost.
The heart of the Gospel for us is not about sexuality. The continuing arguments are damaging the Church’s mission and undermining the Gospel. Anglicanism has in its DNA the ability to embrace diversity. For example we recognise diversity over the nature of the Sacraments, in worship, and in the interpretation of scripture.
Why then are parts of the church so obsessed by the single issue of homosexuality? It is not a defining issue nor can it be the benchmark of orthodoxy.
We are pleased that the ‘listening process’ called for by the Windsor Report is receiving serious attention from the Primates, as is the consideration of a common hermeneutical method. But the listening process must not be a sop to lesbian and gay people and their supporters. It cannot be undertaken without those involved being open to the possibility of change. So far there is little evidence of that openness.
As the debate becomes more disconnected from the reality of everyday life of those we serve, it is increasingly clear that TEC is becoming a scapegoat. For example, the demand for TEC to forswear same sex blessings ignores the reality that across the Church of England such blessings are happening right across the country as parish priests respond to the pastoral needs of their community.
We acknowledge the pain experienced on all sides and we would not wish to see those who disagree with us being driven from the church. If that happened all of us would be the poorer. Therefore we commit ourselves as members of an inclusive church to continue the process of dialogue and relationship to which the Primates have called us.
Overshadowed by the rest of the report, the Primates recommitted themselves to the Millennium Development Goals. It is clear to us that in a world riven by injustice and poverty we should be uniting in raising our voices to ensure that those goals are met so that the gospel can be proclaimed afresh for a new generation.
For further information and to sign up as a supporter of InclusiveChurch’s aims, go to http://www.inclusivechurch.net
Author: Giles Goddard (Chair) on behalf of the InclusiveChurch Executive
office@inclusivechurch.net
07762 373 674
The InclusiveChurch/Fulcrum joint project continues. There are now several letters from each contributor posted. You can see links to all of them, at either InclusiveChurch or at Fulcrum.
The latest letter from Giles Goddard starts here. (I’m sure it will be on Fulcrum as well, quite soon.)
11 CommentsRead about this in the Guardian today, University to ban gay marriages on campus by Jessica Shepherd.
The heads of a university closely aligned to the Church of England plan to ban civil partnership ceremonies on campus. The vice-chancellor, chair of governors and deputy pro-chancellor of Canterbury Christ Church University argue that the church’s position on homosexuality makes it wrong to conduct lesbian and gay “marriages” on the university’s premises…
…Canterbury Christ Church currently offers its premises for civil marriages at its campuses in Canterbury and Tunbridge Wells. From spring 2007, it is likely that new legislation will forbid institutions licensed for civil marriage ceremonies to refuse to conduct civil partnership ceremonies. There is unlikely to be a clause allowing them to opt out on religious grounds…
Earlier reports from the Guardian here, and from the BBC here.
34 CommentsThe Church of England has been reviewing the conditions of service of its clergy. General Synod has received and debated two reports and an implementation group has been set up to put the reports’ proposals into effect. This will involve legislation and a draft measure will be introduced when General Synod meets at the end of this month. This is scheduled for debate on Tuesday 27 February.
The Church of England has added a section to its website about the legislation: The Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Legislation. As well as links to the two reports and other material there is a very useful set of frequently asked questions which are well worth reading.
3 CommentsThe House of Bishops of the Church of England has indicated that it will move a substantial amendment to each of the two Private Members Motions scheduled for debate on Wednesday 28 February.
LESBIAN AND GAY CHRISTIANS
The Revd Mary Gilbert (Lichfield) to move:
700 ‘That this Synod acknowledge the diversity of opinion about homosexuality within the Church of England and that these divergent opinions come from honest and legitimate attempts to read the scriptures with integrity, understand the nature of homosexual orientation, and respect the patterns of holy living to which lesbian and gay Christians aspire; and, bearing in mind this diversity,
(a) agree that a homosexual orientation in itself is no bar to a faithful Christian life;
(b) invite parish and cathedral congregations to welcome and affirm lesbian and gay Christians, lay and ordained, valuing their contribution at every level of the Church; and
(c) urge every parish to ensure a climate of sufficient acceptance and safety to enable the experience of lesbian and gay people to be heard, as successive Lambeth Conferences in 1978 (resolution 10), 1988 (resolution 64), and 1998 (resolution 1.10) have requested.’
124 Signatures (February 2006)
ITEM 12 LESBIAN AND GAY CHRISTIANS
The Bishop of Gloucester to move:
Leave out all words after “this Synod” and insert the words:
“(a) commend continuing efforts to prevent the diversity of opinion about human sexuality creating further division and impaired fellowship within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion;
(b) recognise that such efforts would not be advanced by doing anything that could be perceived as the Church of England qualifying its commitment to the entirety of the relevant Lambeth Conference Resolutions (1978: 10; 1988: 64; 1998: 1.10); and
(c) affirm that homosexual orientation in itself is no bar to a faithful Christian life or to full participation in lay and ordained ministry in the Church.”
The background note issued by the House of Bishops concludes:
The House of Bishops does not believe that it would be in the interests of the Church of England or the Anglican Communion for the Synod to attempt to pass a motion that was either so ambiguous as to cause confusion and misunderstanding or so clear-cut as to exacerbate the polarisation that already exists. A member of the House will, therefore, be moving on behalf of the House a substantial amendment which, if carried, would enable the Synod to make a positive statement without creating fresh divisions.
Details of the second PMM are below the fold.
29 CommentsPaul Roberts has published a series of articles on his own blog under these headings
Three posts on clergy life (1) – clergy stress
Three posts on clergy life (2) – “If you meet George Herbert on the road, kill him”
Three posts on clergy life (3) – visiting
Three posts on clergy life – coda – you get the priests you plan for
In today’s Church Times Mark Hill, Chancellor of the diocese of Chichester and the diocese in Europe, writes that the Civil Partnership Act allows more government control of the Church.
The delicate constitutional relationship between the Established Church and the state has been dealt a body blow by the Civil Partnership Act 2004. It has nothing to do with homosexuality or the nature of marriage. Indeed, the media furore about gender orientation and its implications for Anglican unity has probably served to obfuscate an assault on the self-governance of the Church of England, which has been surreptitiously effected by two obscure sections in the Act…
Read Uncivil partnership with the state?
26 CommentsI do not know what exact question was asked, but the following was, according to a Lambeth Palace press release, the reply made by Rowan Williams:
In response to a question on the UK Government announcement on the implementation of Sexual Orientation Regulations:
“I’ll wait to see I think what the period of negotiation that lies ahead will bring, to see whether the concerns of the Catholic Church has raised are going to be addressed. But what we’d most want to do is to disentangle two things. There’s a particular issue on which the Catholic church has taken a stand, as other Christians have; and there’s a general issue about the rights of the state and the rights of conscience especially in voluntary bodies. Now that second question is one that, I think, is by no means restricted to this issue. And I think it’s not going to go away, so I would like to see some more serious debate now about that particular question – what are the limits, if there are limits, to the State’s power to control and determine the actions of voluntary bodies within it, in pursuit of what are quite proper goals of non-discrimination. So I hope there’ll be a debate about that.”
More on this later, maybe.
23 CommentsThe Church of England has published the text of a letter from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Tony Blair.
Dear Prime Minister,
The Church of England, along with others in the voluntary sector, including other churches and faith communities, have been in discussion with the government for some time over what has become known as the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Those discussions have been conducted in good faith, in mutual respect and with an appropriate level of confidence on all sides.
Last week that changed. Speculation about splits within government, fuelled by public comment from government ministers, appears to have created an atmosphere that threatens to polarise opinions. This does no justice to any of those whose interests are at stake, not least vulnerable children whose life chances could be adversely, and possibly irrevocably, affected by the overriding of reasoned discussion and proper negotiation in an atmosphere of mistrust and political expediency.
The one thing on which all seem able to agree is that these are serious matters requiring the most careful consideration. There is a great deal to gain. It is becoming increasingly evident, however, that much could also be lost, as the letter from Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor makes clear.
Many in the voluntary sector are dedicated to public service because of the dictates of their conscience. In legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups the government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights to have been ignored or sacrificed, or in which the dictates of personal conscience are put at risk.
The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.
On numerous occasions in the past proper consideration has been given to the requirements of consciences alongside other considerations contributing to the common good, such as social need or human rights – the right, for example, of some doctors not to perform abortions, even though employed by the National Health Service.
It would be deeply regrettable if in seeking, quite properly, better to defend the rights of a particular group not to be discriminated against, a climate were to be created in which, for example, some feel free to argue that members of the government are not fit to hold public office on the grounds of their faith affiliation. This is hardly evidence of a balanced and reasonable public debate.
As you approach the final phase of what has, until very recently, been a careful and respectful consideration of the best way in which to introduce and administer new protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in England and Wales, we hope you, and cabinet colleagues, will do justice to the interests of the much wider grouping of interests within the nation that will be affected. It is vitally important that the interests of vulnerable children are not relegated to suit any political interest. And that conditions are not inadvertently created which make the claims of conscience an obstacle to, rather than the inspiration for, the invaluable public service rendered by parts of the voluntary sector.
Yours faithfully,
Most Rev and Rt Hon Rowan Williams
Archbishop of CanterburyMost Rev and Rt Hon John Sentamu
Archbishop of York
Reference is made above to a letter from Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor. That letter can be read here.
Press coverage
Earlier reports from the Telegraph Jonathan Petre Gay laws would force closures says Cardinal and A bare fist fight.
Later reports from The Times Ruth Gledhill and Greg Hurst Anglicans back right to deny gay adoption and Tony Blair: torn between two loves.
49 CommentsJonathan Wynne-Jones has had two stories in the Sunday Telegraph lately on this:
14 Jan For YouTube, read PewTube
21 Jan Hug somebody for Lent
The latter was triggered by a Church of England official press release titled: Lent – now str8 2 ur fone about the Love Life Live Lent campaign. The associated website is not what you might expect, but rather is www.livelent.net.
Both these projects are subjected to some serious criticism, first by Dave Green at wannabepriest under the title Oi, Williams…. NOOOO! and then by Dave Walker at The Cartoon Blog. I agree with their comments. What do TA readers think?
10 CommentsA new joint project of Fulcrum and Inclusive Church has just started. Titled Goddard2Goddard it has as a strapline Waiting for Goddards: Corresponding Theologies.
Who are we?
Andrew Goddard is Tutor in Christian Ethics at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and Giles Goddard is Rector of St Peter’s Church, Walworth, South London. Giles is also Chair of Inclusive Church while Andrew is on the Leadership Team of Fulcrum and a scholar of the Anglican Communion Institute.
What are we doing?
We agreed just before Christmas to correspond with each other over the next few months on matters relating to the challenges facing the Anglican Communion and the Church of England and to publish our exchanges online. The correspondence will appear on both the Fulcrum and Inclusive Church sites although both of us are writing in a personal capacity. We do this knowing we initially come with different perspectives on many of the major presenting issues (the nature of Anglicanism, life in communion, the Windsor Report, Lambeth I.10 on sexual ethics etc) and eager to explore these together.
Why are we doing this?
The project is explained further both here and here.The initial pair of letters can be read on either site:
29 CommentsFurther letters will be posted both here and here.
The Fulcrum forum has a thread for discussion which you can read here.
I mentioned previously that the Church of England Newspaper would be carrying a defence of the so-called Covenant for the Church of England (CCE). It appears in this week’s edition and can be read at Anglican Mainstream.
The title given to the article there is A Covenant for a Confused Church. The author is Chris Sugden.
The list of signatories and the Questions about it can be found here. The full text of the document is here.
47 CommentsGiles Fraser writes in this week’s Church Times about Covenant theology for everyone.
67 Comments…The Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright — basically, Mr Covenant as far the present crisis is concerned — gets it spot on: “All those who believe in Jesus belong at the same table.”
Yet there are those for whom this new testament is not enough. They want a new new testament, creating a sub-division within the category “all those who believe in Jesus”. They want to write a new new testament that will distinguish first- and second-class Christians. And the sign of this unbiblical covenant is to be sound doctrine, as defined by a small coterie of conservative Evangelicals…
The Church Times reports that Bishop Pete Broadbent has disowned the “covenant” document. Read Pat Ashworth’s report here.
30 CommentsUpdated Saturday
The Church Times has this news report by Pat Ashworth ‘Covenant’ is a cynical stab in the side, says Wright. (A further report there is only available to subscribers. It deals with mounting anger this week over claims by the authors of the covenant document to be speaking for the whole of their networks.)
The Church of England Newspaper has two detailed analyses which can be read in full at Religious Intelligence.
The first is by Andrew Carey Analysis: The new Anglican ‘covenant’ proposal and the second is by Andrew Goddard of Fulcrum Analysis: Anglican ‘covenant’ needs prudence.
I understand the CEN also has a news article on this matter, by Andrew Carey, but it is not available on the web at present except to CEN subscribers. I also understand a further article, written specifically from the Anglican Mainstream perspective, will appear next week.
The Andrew Goddard article now also appears on the Fulcrum website.
Update
A further explanatory note has been published by CEEC:
25 CommentsStatement for CEEC members
I have consulted with the President, Wallace Benn, and would like to note the following in respect of the on-going debate regarding the recent ‘covenant’.
1 I have written to the Evangelical Bishops with my comments and observations
2 I have also written to the Bishop of Durham and asked him to meet with me to discuss the implications of his comments and also to address and take part in a discussion at CEEC
I have done this privately so as not to continue debate by email.
CEEC will continue to work hard at Evangelical identity and unity. My own book on this matter, Anglican and Evangelical?, will be published by Continuum in April 2007. I hope that the Bishop of Durham and other Bishops will be part of this debate.
CEEC remains committed also to representing the authentic voice of the constituency, parishes, colleges, societies and other networks and groups in ensuring a biblical and Anglican Evangelical voice in current debates. The recent ‘Covenant for the Church of England’ is simply one aspect of that witness from a range of networks and groups. The CEEC consented in October to the signatures of the President and Chairman being appended to this ‘covenant.’Richard Turnbull
Chairman
December 21, 2006
Anglican Mainstream has published a Signatories to A Covenant for the Church of England, and a Questions that may be asked document. Both can be read here.
These are preceded by the following comment (which itself raises an unanswered question):
61 CommentsThe signatories to “A Covenant for the Church of England” are now being made public together with some background explanation. Although it was our original intention to publish the list of signatories and the “Questions that may be Asked” at the same time as the Covenant, we have withheld them for one week at the request of Lambeth Palace. We are publishing them now in the hope that they will help people to understand the full context in which these conversations have been begun.
See Dave Walker’s take on The conservative evangelical ‘covenant’.
Update And I also want to second his commendation of the splendid comment about all this by Paul Roberts which you can find at A lament for Evangelicalism.
13 CommentsFollowing Fulcrum’s earlier initial response, now comes Bishop Tom Wright’s very detailed (over 6000 words) and very critical analysis of ‘A Covenant for the Church of England’. You can read it all here.
I am surprised that this document (‘A Covenant for the Church of England’, hereafter CCE) has been issued, and sorry that its clear grasp of some issues is not matched by clarity or wisdom on others. I fully understand what the Bishop of Rochester has referred to as the ‘strength of feeling’ which it demonstrates, but could wish that this had been matched by strength of thinking, both in the strategic decision to make this move at this time and in the detail of much of the document…
Fulcrum forum discussion here.
54 Comments