Press release from Lambeth Palace
Monday 18th February 2011
Archbishop’s new Director of Reconciliation
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, is delighted to announce the appointment of Canon David Porter as Director for Reconciliation at Lambeth Palace. Canon David will work part time on the Archbishop’s personal staff, seconded by Coventry Cathedral where he remains Canon Director for Reconciliation Ministry – bringing first-hand knowledge of the Cathedral’s eminent and longstanding reconciliation work to Lambeth Palace and the wider Church.
The focus of Canon David’s role will be to enable the Church to make a powerful contribution to transforming the often violent conflicts which overshadow the lives of so many people in the world. His initial focus will be on supporting creative ways for renewing conversations and relationships around deeply held differences within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion.
Canon David brings extensive front-line experience in the area of reconciliation having served on the Northern Ireland Civic Forum, chairing its working group on peacebuilding and reconciliation, as well serving as a member of the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council. Since September 2008 David has been the Canon Director for Reconciliation Ministry at Coventry Cathedral, England. An experienced community relations activist, peacebuilding practitioner and community theologian he has thirty years experience in regional, national and international faith based organisations.
Speaking about his new position, Canon David Porter said:
“How we live with our deepest differences both within the Church and our increasingly fractured world, is one of the major challenges to the credibility of Christianity as good news.”
“It is a privilege to be asked to take on this responsibility for Archbishop Justin and I look forward to working with him in serving the Church in making reconciliation and peacebuilding a theological and practical priority in its life and witness.”
Speaking about the appointment, Archbishop Justin said:
“I am delighted to welcome Canon David Porter, Canon for Reconciliation at Coventry, who will join my personal staff part time as the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Director for Reconciliation. David brings a wealth of experience in reconciliation and peacebuilding from his work in Northern Ireland and through the Community of the Cross of Nails in Coventry. Conflict is an ever present reality both in the Church and wider society. Christians have been at the centre of reconciliation throughout history. We may not have always handled our own conflicts wisely, but it is essential that we work towards demonstrating ways of reducing destructive conflict in our world – and also to setting an example of how to manage conflict within the Church.”
Information about Canon Porter and the Coventry Cathedral Ministry of Reconciliation is below the fold.
9 CommentsOn Thursday, a retired priest, who had pleaded guilty last December to various sexual offences, was sentenced to prison, see these news reports:
Chichester Observer BREAKING NEWS: Former priest sentenced for child sex offences
Evening Standard Paedophile priest jailed for 1970s child abuse
BBC Retired priest Robert Coles jailed for sexually abusing boys
This prompted the following official statements:
Statements from the Diocese & Bishop of Chichester
Archbishop of Canterbury: Statement on the sentencing of Robert Coles
Yesterday, the following news report appeared:
BBC Retired Bishop of Lewes denies abuse cover-up
Today Anglican Mainstream has published Press Statement by Bishop Wallace Benn: “No ineptitude on my part and no cover up” originally issued on Friday.
This statement discloses that:
“the Complaint made against me personally under the Clergy Discipline Measure concerning Mr Coles has been dismissed on its merits…”
and the statement gives details of the process by which this happened:
16 Comments…In March 2012, the Chairman of the Safeguarding Advisory Group, Mr Keith Akerman, and the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor, Mr Colin Perkins, sought to make a complaint against me under the Clergy Discipline Measure, on the basis that it was misconduct for me (1) not to inform the Police directly of what Robert Coles had said, or to direct Mr Reade to do so; and (2) not to inform the Police directly of what I had been told about Robert Coles by the clergyman in another Diocese.
On 18 October 2012, the Archbishop of York concluded, at the preliminary scrutiny stage, that both complaints against me in respect of Robert Coles should be dismissed on the ground that they lacked sufficient substance to proceed.
In reaching that decision in relation to the first complaint, the Archbishop of York emphasised:
The Diocesan Child Protection policy of 1997, which required “any allegation of abuse against a church worker, clerical or lay, or any relevant incident in any way to do with the life of the parish or church organisation, should immediately be referred to the Diocesan Child Protection Advisor.”
The absence of any evidence to show whether Mrs Janet Hind had considered whether the matter should be reported to the Police and, if so, by whom.
The absence of any evidence that I had disregarded advice from Mrs Janet Hind in this matter.
The Diocesan Child Protection policy of 1997 also stated that: “The Diocesan Advisor, if appropriate, will make sure that a referral has been made to the local social services office and will liaise with that department and the police during any child protection investigation.”
I understand that a similar complaint by the same complainants was made against the Right Reverend Nicholas Reade, the recently retired Bishop of Blackburn. I understand that it has also been dismissed.In reaching his decision in relation to the second complaint, the Archbishop of York concluded that he was satisfied that I “had passed or discussed or shared” the letter from the clergyman in another Diocese with the Child Protection Advisor when I received it. He further concluded that there was no evidence that the Child Protection Advisor advised me to report the letter myself to the Police. The Archbishop of York dismissed the complaint against me on the ground that it lacked sufficient substance to proceed.
On 29 January 2013, the Right Honourable Lord Justice Mummery, sitting as President of Tribunals, dismissed an appeal by Mr Akerman and Mr Perkins against the dismissal of these complaints against me by the Archbishop of York…
The attitude we take to things says much about our attitude to God. That’s why temptation is a spiritual issue. Ken Dodd used to say there were only three basic jokes. There are probably only three basic temptations, that go back to Adam and Eve.
Number One. Let your appetites lead. Hungry? Curious? Go on! Eve saw that the fruit looked good, smelt lush. So she took the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Ever since, says the story, the rest of us have had hell to pay. We know so much, but much outruns our moral capacity. We know how to destroy the world. We know how to poison ourselves and trash everything. Some knowledge defiles. The fruit of the tree was good to look at and very tasty; but it pitched our primal ancestors in way beyond their depth.
Of course we all have needs and appetites. Jesus told his followers that their heavenly father knows they need things, food, clothing, friends, homes. But when the attainment of these things becomes our prime objective, we lose the script. Make God’s Kingdom of justice and truth the prime concern, and everything else will follow.
Temptation Number two. Adam and Eve took, and ate, and hid. Cover up. Pretend. Put on a good show. ‘Hypocrite’ was the word Jesus used for people whose whole lives were no more than frontage. Adam and Eve hid in the bushes. “What on earth are you doing there?” said God. “You were made for something better!” Adam and Eve held their figleaves tight and prayed he would go away.
We are much more civilised. We have all sorts of ways of covering up our truth. The masks we wear often take other people in. The fixed Christian smile, carefully applied with theatrical gum, can be rather tiresome. But it’s the face to give the world, when we’re too afraid to be ourselves. God’s Spirit helps people be themselves and be real.
Temptation Number three. Knowledge is Power. Adam and Eve grasped knowledge that would make the whole world theirs. They thought that when their eyes were opened they would be able to control everything. In fact, like Greek tragedy, the exact opposite happened. Their knowledge didn’t give them power or set them free. It made slaves out of them both, condemned to scratch the dust on their own, banged up in their own hall of mirrors.
In the desert Jesus confronts the whole corrupting reality of temptation. “Go on! Do the obvious!” No, said Jesus, for we cannot live on bread alone. God’s word alone can truly nourish us. “Oh, Go on,” said the enemy. ‘It is written…’ God gives the word, so that we need not finally be deceived. Next stop, the Temple, and whole world of religion.
“Go on!” said the enemy. “Jump! That’ll show them. Their longing for a bit of real proof to justify their faith. They’ll love you for it!” “No,” said Jesus. Outer Show is nothing. God, to whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid, looks on the heart. Hypocrisy is never enough. We look from the outside, then try to guess what is going on inside. God looks from the inside out, and until we aim to share his priorities, his way of looking at ourselves from the inside out, we are still probably lost in our sins.
Finally, the Big One. “Go on!” said the enemy. “It’s all yours; the world and everything in it. Time for the sack of firm government.” “No,” said Jesus. “It’s not.” When we play God we corrupt and destroy everything we touch. When we play control games, or allow our relationships to become self-serving, we wound the people who love us most, and make fools of ourselves. When we receive everything as we receive the bread of the Eucharist, with thanksgiving, we are blessed by everything we have been given. It’s as simple as that.
Alan Wilson is Bishop of Buckingham in the diocese of Oxford.
4 CommentsThere have not been many accounts of the hearings in the media this week, but here are a few:
Ed Thornton Church Times Fittall: gay marriage ‘not on horizon’
John Bingham Telegraph Gay marriage: no opt-out for Christian registrars
David Williamson Wales Online Gay Welsh cleric Jeffrey John gives fierce defence of same-sex marriage
Joseph Patrick McCormick Pink News Dr Jeffrey John: Allowing individual parishes to decide on equal marriage ‘more Christian’
BBC Minister clashes with MP over ‘gold standard’ marriage claim
Mark D’Arcy BBC Trench Warfare (and scroll to the bottom for link to his podcast report)
Isabel Hardman Spectator Exclusive: Tory MPs push government for French-style ‘civil union’ weddings
2 CommentsElizabeth Oldfield for ABC Religion and Ethics asks Does the Anglican Church really need a new Theologian-in-Chief?
Angela Tilby starts a regular column in the Church Times with Private and public: heal the rift.
Also in the Church Times is this feature article by Anna Drew: Anyone fancy a bevvy?
In the comment is free section of The Guardian
Joy Bennett writes that Many churches don’t talk about sex beyond virginity, virginity, virginity,
Mark Vernon asks Is love more real when grounded in faith?, and
Giles Fraser writes that Prayer is not pious. Like art, it simply needs attention to that which is other.
Two writers in The Huffington Post offer advice for Lent.
Mark Sandlin Don’t Get Caught In The Lent Trap.
Megan Cottrell Why Do We Give Up Things For Lent?
The following article appeared last week in The Tablet, and is reproduced here by permission of the editor.
Human rights and faith convictions
CONOR GEARTY
When the tide turned
Recently arguments over same-sex marriage have drowned out other legal cases where respect for religious conscience has prevailed. As debates rage over what constitutes human rights, secular society remains unpersuaded by the Church’s traditionalist stance
The rights and wrongs of their position notwithstanding, church leaders would surely be forgiven for feeling that they are being overwhelmed by the issue of gay rights. It seems to be everywhere, with even a Conservative Prime Minister leading the way on imposing a new definition of marriage in the UK, by incorporating same-sex partners, a move that would have been condemned on all sides as either idiosyncratic or extremist just a few years ago. How did this situation come about? Will it change any time soon? What can the Church do about it?
The first of these questions is the easiest to answer. The shift to a human-rights culture signalled by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 has put down deep roots in Europe, where it has been supported not only by the developing union between an ever greater number of states within the continent but also by the existence of a politico-legal mechanism to ensure the protection of human rights, in the shape of the Council of Europe and its flagship juridical rights champion, the European Court of Human Rights, based in Strasbourg. The latter body has been operating now for over 50 years and it would not have survived if it had regarded itself as merely a diviner of the exact intent behind the words used by the drafters of the European Convention on Human Rights – the 1950 document over which it has definitive authority. The terms of that rights instrument are general, as was the intent that lay behind it. So far as the court was concerned it was expand or shrivel, and like most institutions, its judges chose the former option.
This has had an impact across a range of European legal systems. The Scandinavians have found themselves compelled to allow judicial processes against which their social democratic instincts rebelled. The Italians have been repeatedly excoriated for unacceptable delays in their legal system. And recently, of course, the UK has had its collision with Strasbourg over the right of prisoners to vote. Most countries have similar stories to tell.
Then of course there have been the gayrights cases. The Strasbourg court operates by balancing a quasi-democratic sense of what human rights should require in the Europe of today against a desire to give states a degree of leeway, particularly on ethical and moral issues. But the fewer states there are that adopt a punitive moral position, the more likely the court is to take it on. In this way the criminalisation of homosexual acts has been picked off in a series of cases that began in Northern Ireland and went via Ireland to reach other bastions of tradition such as Cyprus. Restrictions on gay people in the military were next to fall, and since then a range of decisions have extended the rights of gay people in relation to succession to tenancies, child custody and same-sex partnerships.
The European Court of Human Rights has not brought about these outcomes in isolation. Indeed some have been the achievement of the indigenous British courts. All of these changes have gone with the grain of European culture’s consistent and now decades-long prioritisation of individual freedom and personal flourishing which, together with the imperative of non-discrimination, have superseded older, more morally prescriptive codes of behaviour. The Churches, however, remain wedded to these traditional ways even though they no longer appear persuasive to the great majority of secular-minded persons (and indeed others within the Churches themselves).
And so to the second question: will things change any time soon? It seems unlikely. After civil partnerships, how can British society be persuaded that marriage must still always be between a man and a woman so far as the state itself is concerned? Mainstream experts in human rights see gay rights as an essential component of what human rights are. This was evident after the minority report following the recent Strasbourg case of the Islington marriage registrar Lillian Ladele (who refused to conduct civil partnerships on the basis of her religiously rooted objection to them). Dissenting from the predominant view that the council’s disciplinary action against Ms Ladele had not breached her convention rights, judges Vucinic and De Gaetano wrote of what they called the “combination of backstabbing by her colleagues and the blinkered political correctness of the Borough of Islington (which clearly favoured ‘gay rights‘ over fundamental human rights)” which had “eventually led to her dismissal”. The borough had, they wrote, “pursued the doctrinaire line, the road of obsessive political correctness”. Writing about these dissenting dicta in the Ladele case, the University College London scholar Ronan McCrea has called them “extremely intemperate and disturbingly worded”. Meanwhile, the Vatican’s UN Human Rights Council representative Archbishop Silvano Tomasi has spoken of “a movement within the international community and the United Nations to insert gay rights in the global human-rights agenda”.
If gay rights are indeed here to stay, what should the Churches do about it? To start with, they should probably stop trying to explain themselves, since in the current climate of what constitutes common sense this seems only to make things worse: Tomasi’s likening of controls on same-sex relations to “forbidding practices like incest, paedophilia, or rape – for the sake of the common good” strikes many religious and non-religious alike as nonsensical. And saying that gay marriage destroys “the essence of the human creature” and that it is a “threat to world peace”, as the Pope has reportedly recently done in various messages and speeches, might well be thought to fall into the same hyperbolic category. But the Church can hardly go on the offensive either. It never occurs to anyone to call for a renewal of the criminalisation of homosexual conduct and a revoking of recent advances in gay rights – this must be because these are clearly now irreversible changes.
In truth, the Church is stuck, loyal to tradition, but a return to basics looks unlikely. If we look past the gay-rights issue, the recent European Court of Human Rights case which involved Ms Ladele (together with the successful applicant Nadia Eweida and two other disappointed litigants) has much of value to say about the importance of religious freedom and the need to protect religious conscience as far as is possible – allowing Ms Eweida to claim victory in her quarrel with British Airways over the wearing of her cross. But these important points about secular society’s sympathy to religious feelings are bound to be lost in the noise generated by arguments over same-sex marriage.
It blows down dry streets in eddies, dead. It gathers in corners. It forms into rich earth, and out of it sprout tiny seeds. It compacts into warm and rich clay, which can be cut and slammed and shaped by hands and wheel into pots, and bowls and little figures of stout women and tiny men. It blows in the stellar winds in furthest space. It is dust.
We are dust.
Do we read it as promise or as curse? As a cause for humility, or a reassurance? It is a complex image. We are dust, blown around for a moment on one corner of the planet Earth that we call home, and the next become ash and mud. Stand for a moment on any hill, and look down on a road, a city, to see how tiny each figure is in comparison to the great world we live upon. We are specks on the face of a mighty globe. It puts us firmly in our places: all the books published, the families reared, the academic recognition, the wealth earned, the tests passed, the career ladder climbed, all these are as nothing in comparison to the mighty Earth, still less in the face of the universe. Look at the dust eddying down the street. That is the totality of your achievements.
On the other hand, being dust limits our failures. The family row, the declining attendance at our churches, the catch dropped, the dead-end job, the constant grind to make both ends meet, well, that too is dust, insignificant, and unimportant. All of us are so tiny in the sight of the universe that it hardly matters. It is not that it will all be the same in a hundred years. It is all the same now. I struggle to imagine a universe so huge that the pinprick of light I see from my dark hillside, unpolluted by street-lights, is, in fact, an entire galaxy. Stand outside on a clear night and see the glittering dust in the sky and know that what you see as a speck of light is in fact not just a star but a galaxy of stars with their own planets. Let your miseries fall behind you and rejoice in being part of a dance of life so incredibly huge you cannot know all of it, indeed you cannot even imagine it all.
It is hard to believe that we, tiny little specks of dust, set on the face of a planet which is itself a speck in an immense universe, can be of huge value to God. That he can bend near us, and listen to our worries, and our anguish and our delight. Yet that is what we are taught. I pour out my joy for a new lamb born safely to one of my ewes, or my pleas understanding of the next steps that my path of life should follow to God, and this God is the same God who dances on the seas of some planet in that same bright speck of a galaxy. The sheer immensity of it all is what brings me my most agonising moments of doubt.
But then, I am dust. Dust is so limited. Our faith has always known that. As a liberal, I am frequently berated for trying to create a god who fits my limitations. Actually I don’t think I do. When I stand outside on a clear night, and compare myself to a speck in the mud on my wellies, I am acutely aware of the immensity of God. If the sheer scale of it all brings me doubt, it also brings me reassurance. No wonder there is so much I cannot get my mind around. No wonder the pain of the universe puzzles me. I cannot even understand how time and space can be the same thing; at least I cannot understand that intuitively. I know that there must be truths even more profound beyond my reach.
How then to make sense of it all? How to accept my intellectual limitations, and grasp both my lack of stature as dust, and also my belonging to God? I turn to that same One who dances on some distant planet as even now it comes into being, in the curved space/time continuum. Ah, that, then, is the worth God gives to dust: he becomes it. Dust may be limited but it can embody every value of God. My task is simple: to begin on the path of embodying those same values. Did I say simple?
16 CommentsUpdated finally on Friday morning
The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is now being scrutinised by a Public Bill Committee.
Today was the first day of taking evidence, and those appearing included representatives of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Church in Wales. The second day will be on Thursday.
A timetable of those appearing this week is at the bottom of this page. The same page lists the amendments filed to date. A PDF copy is also available here.
The evidence sessions can be watched via Parliament TV, at the following locations
Hansard written record of proceedings:
Tuesday’s notice of new amendments is here. The programme of future dates for the committee to meet is here.
The committee has started to publish memoranda submitted in written evidence. Of particular interest may be this memo from Lord Pannick QC.
Follow this link, and scroll down for others.
3 CommentsLast week the House of Bishops decided to give eight senior women clergy the right to attend their meetings. They stated that the “eight members would be elected regionally from within bishops’ senior staff teams (that include deans, archdeacons and others)”.
This article is an attempt to compile a list of the eligible women.
1) At present there are four women deans.
Deans
| Dean of | |
| Catherine Ogle | Birmingham |
| June Osborne | Salisbury |
| Frances Ward | St Edmundsbury |
| Vivienne Faull | York |
2) This list of women archdeacons is extracted from Wikepedia. I know of some acting archdeacons omitted from the Wikipedia list, but they are all men. It is possible that some women are also omitted.
Archdeacons
| Archdeacon of | Diocese | |
| Nicola Sullivan | Wells | Bath & Wells |
| Christine Froude | Malmesbury | Bristol |
| Sheila Watson | Canterbury | Canterbury |
| Penny Driver | Westmorland and Furness | Carlisle |
| Annette Cooper | Colchester | Chelmsford |
| Christine Wilson | Chesterfield | Derby |
| Jackie Searle | Gloucester | Gloucester |
| Jane Sinclair | Stow and Lindsey | Lincoln |
| Rachel Treweek | Hackney | London |
| Cherry Vann | Rochdale | Manchester |
| Jan McFarlane | Norwich | Norwich |
| Karen Gorham | Buckingham | Oxford |
| Christine Allsopp | Northampton | Peterborough |
| Joanne Grenfell | Portsdown (designate) | Portsmouth |
| Jane Hedges | Westminster | Royal Peculiar |
| Ruth Worsley | Wilts | Salisbury |
| Jane Steen | Southwark (designate) | Southwark |
| Dianna Gwilliams | Southwark (acting) | Southwark |
| Audrey Elkington | Bodmin | Truro |
| Anne Dawtry | Halifax | Wakefield |
| Sarah Bullock | York (designate) | York |
| Suzanne Sheriff | York (temporary) | York |
3) It is not clear to me precisely who the “others” will be. Diocesan websites do not usually give a list of the members of the bishop’s senior staff, and the Church of England Year Book never does.
It might be thought that Diocesan Advisors in Women’s Ministry (DAWMs) (listed here) would all be members of the bishops’ senior staff, but I know that this is the case in only some dioceses.
4) Readers are invited to submit (via a comment) the names of any women clergy (other than deans and archdeacons) who are members of their bishop’s senior staff.
24 CommentsIt was announced from the Vatican this morning that Pope Benedict XVI is to resign with effect from 28 February.
Press reaction has been swift. The new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, in a press release, has responded:
In his visit to the UK, Pope Benedict showed us all something of what the vocation of the See of Rome can mean in practice — a witness to the universal scope of the gospel and a messenger of hope at a time when Christian faith is being called into question.
In his visit to the United Kingdom, Pope Benedict showed us all something of what the vocation of the See of Rome can mean in practice – a witness to the universal scope of the gospel and a messenger of hope at a time when Christian faith is being called into question. In his teaching and writing he has brought a remarkable and creative theological mind to bear on the issues of the day. We who belong to other Christian families gladly acknowledge the importance of this witness and join with our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in thanking God for the inspiration and challenge of Pope Benedict’s ministry.
The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, writes
… the Christian world will miss a great theologian with great spiritual depth.
63 CommentsWe should remember Pope Benedict communicated the revelation of God in a characteristic way as a true successor of St Peter. He was unafraid to proclaim the Gospel and challenge a culture that is so self-referential, managing to lift our eyes to God’s glory.
Earlier in the year, opponents of the government’s plans to introduce same-sex marriage published selective extracts of a legal opinion written by Aidan O’Neill QC. The summary of this document can be found here. The full opinion has not been published as far as I know.
The government has now published two documents (PDF) which rebut these extracts:
The full text of the first document is reproduced below the fold.
10 CommentsAndrew Adonis has published this open letter: Dear Justin Welby…
Winckworth Sherwood’s John Rees arranges confirmation of election of new Archbishop of Canterbury.
Kelvin Holdsworth has The 10 Commandments of Using Images on Church Websites.
Douglas Murray writes in the Spectator: Atheists vs Dawkins: My fellow atheists, it’s time we admitted that religion has some points in its favour.
The Church Times reports on (Tropical) fish for Lent — young to give up most.
Giles Fraser writes his last column for the Church Times: Goodbye: I am letting anger drop.
But he continues his Loose canon column in The Guardian with The key to forgiveness is the refusal to seek revenge.
Earlier articles on this can be found here, and then here, next here, and also here.
First, there was an article in the Church Times by Mark Hill headlined Strasbourg marks a sea-change in tolerance that is only available to subscribers, but which takes a rather different line to his earlier article at the Guardian website.
The second guest post at the ECHR Blog was written by Hana van Ooijen and is available at Eweida and Others Judgment Part II – The Religion Cases.
Another second post at Strasbourg Observers by Stijn Smet is titled Eweida, Part II: The Margin of Appreciation Defeats and Silences All.
Iyiola Solanke wrote at Eutopia Law about Clarification of the Article 9(2) ECHR qualification? Eweida and Others v the UK.
Ronan McCrea wrote at UK Constitutional Law Group: Ronan McCrea: Strasbourg Judgement in Eweida and Others v United Kingdom.
Julie Maher wrote at Oxford Human Rights Hub Religious Rights in the Balance: Eweida and Others v UK.
James Wilson has written a series of three posts on Eweida and Others v United Kingdom: Introduction, then what the court ruled and finally some comments.
And Andrew Worthley wrote at Ekklesia Law and religion: happy marriage or estranged acquaintances?
1 CommentChurch of England press release: Consultation document issued by working group on women bishops legislation:
08 February 2013
A consultation document setting out a new way forward in enabling women to become bishops in the Church of England has today been sent to all General Synod members.The document draws on the facilitated conversations arranged by the Working Group on women bishops legislation held earlier this week and the meeting of the House of Bishops on February 7.
The consultation document can be read here. (PDF)
Notes
Statement following the meeting of the House of Bishops PR28.13
http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2013/02/statement-on-the-conclusion-of-the-meeting-of-the-house-of-bishops.aspxThe facilitation process referred to was set out in PR160.12 on 11 December 2012 http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2012/12/statement-from-the-house-of-bishops-on-defeat-of-women-bishops-legislation.aspx
Membership of the working group was set out in PR169.12 on 19 December 2012 http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2012/12/working-group-on-new-legislative-proposals-on-women-bishops-announced.aspx
We have made a webpage version of the consultation document available here.
28 CommentsFollowing yesterday’s decision by the House of Bishops to give eight senior women clergy the right to attend their meetings these reports have appeared in the press.
Madeleine Davies in the Church Times: Women dignitaries to be elected as Bishops’ ‘participant observers’
Sam Jones in The Guardian Church of England’s house of bishops to allow female clergy into meetings
John Bingham in the Telegraph Church of England to give women clerics ‘observer’ status in House of Bishops
BBC Women clergy to attend Church of England bishops’ meetings
WATCH has issued this statement.
8 CommentsWATCH (Women and the Church) welcomes House of Bishops’ Statement
WATCH welcomes yesterday’s statement by the House of Bishops endorsing ‘robust processes and steps’ towards preparing legislation to make women bishops in the Church of England ‘at the earliest possible date’. Any such legislation will need to be unequivocal in its affirmation of women as priests and bishops and provide an institutional environment in which women’s ordained ministry can truly flourish.
The news that eight senior women are to attend the House of Bishops’ meetings is also to be welcomed. The presence of women in this previously all-male group will be very helpful in preparing the House to receive its first female bishops and in the development of new enabling legislation.
The electronic voting results of the House of Laity meeting held on 18 January 2013 are now available. As usual these take the form of a pdf file, arranged by vote (for/against/abstain) and then alphabetically.
For convenience I have put the results into a spreadsheet arranged by synod number (which brings members together by diocese) and added absentees and vacancies. I have also provided a webpage version of the spreadsheet.
A verbatim transcript of the meeting is also available.
0 CommentsStatement on the conclusion of the meeting of the House of Bishops
11 Comments07 February 2013
The House of Bishops of the Church of England has today expressed its encouragement and support for new robust processes and steps in bringing forward to General Synod the necessary legislation to consecrate women to the episcopate.
At a special meeting at Lambeth Palace today, the House reviewed the progress to develop proposals to enable women to become bishops at the earliest possible date. The meeting also considered changes to future meetings so as to ensure that eight senior women clergy will be participants in all meetings of the House and its standing committee.
The House was briefed on the two meetings held in January by the working group under the chairmanship of the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. All 10 of the members of the working group attended the House of Bishops meeting. The House also received an account of the intensive, facilitated conversations held by the group with 15 others from a wide range of viewpoints on Tuesday and Wednesday this week.
The House was encouraged to hear of the constructive manner in which everyone had joined together in the search for a way forward. It agreed that the working group should shortly issue a consultation document that would give an outline of the discussions of the past weeks, set out some emerging ideas and provide General Synod members with an opportunity to have an input into that conversation prior to the working group meeting again on 4 March.
The House affirmed the nature of the facilitation process and encouraged opportunities which may be available to extend this process further at a diocesan and regional level. There was also support for the facilitation process to continue in parallel with the fresh proposals that will be brought to General Synod in July.
Following the discussion with the working group, the House went on to consider issues arising from its current all male membership. It decided that until such time as there are six female members of the House, following the admission of women to the episcopate, a number of senior women clergy should be given the right to attend and speak at meetings of the House as participant observers. The intention is that eight members would be elected regionally from within bishops’ senior staff teams (that include deans, archdeacons and others). The necessary change to the House’s Standing Orders will be made in May.
In addition, the House agreed to a special meeting on 19 September when the College of Bishops and a group of senior female clergy will meet to take forward the range of cultural and practical issues about gender and ministry in the Church of England arising from the ‘Transformations’ initiative that was launched at Lambeth in September 2011.
Notes
The facilitation process referred to was set out in PR160.12 on 11 December 2012 http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2012/12/statement-from-the-house-of-bishops-on-defeat-of-women-bishops-legislation.aspx
Membership of the working group was set out in PR169.12 on 19 December 2012 http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2012/12/working-group-on-new-legislative-proposals-on-women-bishops-announced.aspx
Updated again Tuesday morning
The House of Commons committee hearings will commence on 12 February.
The committee is inviting the public to submit written evidence. The closing date is 12 March, but earlier submissions are encouraged.
Amendments are being filed by MPs and updated lists of them will be published regularly. The first set of them is here.
Update 11 February A few more amendments are now here.
Update 12 February Further amendments and a list of witnesses for this week here.
Just before the Second Reading, ResPublica published this “Green Paper” by Roger Scruton and Phillip Blond: Marriage: Union for the future or contract for the present (PDF).
A shorter version of this paper is published at ABC Religion and Ethics under the title Marriage equality or the destruction of difference?
The speech made in the Second Reading debate by Sir Tony Baldry, Second Church Estates Commissioner, can be found here.
David Pocklington has written at Law & Religion UK an article titled Tenuous European links to same-sex marriage, which deals with claims made elsewhere that recognition of same-sex marriages will become a “European requirement”.
The Guardian has a detailed analysis of the Second Reading vote.
38 CommentsUpdated
The House of Commons held its first debate on this bill, known as Second Reading.
The debate in its entirety can be watched here [Debate commences at 12:47:47 on media player], or alternatively over here.
The Hansard record is now available here.
The vote on Second Reading was 400 in favour, 175 against.
According to the Press Association, as reported by the Guardian (and scroll for further details):
126 Conservatives voted for the bill, along with teller Desmond Swayne. 134 Tories voted against the Bill’s second reading, along with two tellers. That means 136 MPs opposed the bill. Another five Conservative MPs voted both for the bill and against it, the tradition way of registering an abstention. (Technically this means you could say 139 Tories voted against the bill, or 141 opposed it, but that would be misleading.) And another 35 Conservative MPs who did not vote.
217 Labour MPs voted in favour of the bill, 22 Labour MPs voted against and 16 did not vote.
44 Lib Dems voted in favour, four voted against and seven did not vote.
The BBC has voting lists here.
Subsequent votes were
Programme Motion 499 in favour, 55 against.
Money Resolution 481 in favour, 34 against.
Carry-over Motion 464 in favour, 38 against.
As the intensive facilitated discussions on legislation to allow women to be bishops start today WATCH has published these two articles, from which I have extracted a few key paragraphs.
John Gladwin: Some comments on where we go from here on the legislation for opening the episcopate to women
The issue in front of us is not primarily doctrinal. That hurdle was jumped in the 1970’s and the church has not retreated from its clear commitment that there are no theological principles in our understanding of the tradition preventing women entering holy orders.
The issue is, therefore, fundamentally about the order of the church. The order of the Church of England is that if you are ordained deacon you may be ordained priest after one year and if you are ordained priest you may be ordained Bishop after 6 years and if you are over 30 years of age. Canon C2 sets out the refinements of this. Driving a permanent wedge between the priesthood and the episcopate is destructive of our tradition and order.
That is one of the reasons why the language of reception was used when women were admitted to the priesthood. The experience of this ministry would seal the issue. There can be no doubt that the period is reception is long passed. When the Archbishop Rowan suggested that, in theory, it was possible for the church to reverse its decision to ordain women into the priesthood, he very quickly had to retract. There is no doubt reception time is done.
Jane Charman: Gender discrimination in the Church of England – why it matters and our response
44 CommentsWithin the Church of England defending the rights of some individuals and groups to discriminate against women currently has a high priority and is connected in many minds with upholding freedom and diversity. By contrast witnessing to the equal dignity and worth of women in society has a low priority. It is not a moral imperative for us. Opponents of women’s ministry have worked hard to alter our perceptions in this way, to present gender discrimination as a respectable alternative position within the life of the Church and themselves as victims of intolerance. This reversal of values seems perverse and incomprehensible, even morally repugnant, to those outside the Church.
I voted for the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure last November, having persuaded myself that it was the best of the options available to us. I wanted to respect the views of others and make gracious provision for those who tell us they are struggling with this issue for theological reasons. I particularly wanted to find a way for the Church of England to break out of the current impasse and move forward with the pressing missional task that is before us.
I have come to understand that what I did was wrong. I was supporting a lesser good at the expense of a greater good. We cannot place the needs and wishes of a small number of our own members above our vocation to declare a gospel of justice and mercy for all human beings. We cannot achieve our goal of having women in the House of Bishops on such terms.