Updated Wednesday evening
Telegraph Martin Beckford Gay couples should be allowed to ‘marry’ in church, Government minister says
George Pitcher The Church should bless civil partnerships – but they’re not weddings
At Cif:belief
Andrew Brown Secularism and bigotry and May church press officers be gay?
Savi Hensman Church leaders are wrong on equality
Terry Sanderson Let’s fight the church on equality
At Ekklesia
Lords vote to reduce protection for religious groups’ staff and Government to consider legal status for religious same-sex partnerships
Equality Bill and religious discrimination and Misrepresenting equality… and Christianity
What’s so civil about a civil partnership?
Also (this topic should be reached this afternoon):
Equality and employment in faith schools and Public bodies seek an end to religious discrimination against teachers
CARE Religious Liberty upheld in Lords vote on Equality
CCFON Praise God for the victory in the House of Lords!
Christian Institute Lords defeat Govt over church staff
Catholic News Service Britain’s House of Lords backs church arguments on Equality Bill
Catholic News Agency Religious freedom safeguards preserved by defeat of UK Equality Bill
20 CommentsUpdated twice Tuesday morning
All of the amendments proposed by Baroness O’Cathain and others were agreed today.
See here for what each amendment says.
Amendment 98 216-178 agreed by 38 votes
Amendment 99 agreed
Amendment 99A 174-195 disagreed by 21 votes (government amendment)
Amendment 100 177- 172 agreed by 5 votes
More details tomorrow. Eight bishops participated in these votes.
Updates
The Hansard record of the debate on the amendments of Baroness O’Cathain listed above starts here. The PDF version is over here.
Slightly earlier, the amendments of Lord Alli had been debated. That record begins here.
Voting details:
Amendment 98
Amendment 99 – no division
Amendment 99A
Amendment 100
Press reports on all this are sometimes inaccurate on the voting figures. But here they are:
Telegraph Equalities Bill: Church leaders defeat Government over gay staff
BBC Government defeated three times over church gay plan
Reuters Government loses its Equality Bill faith proposals
Daily Mail Lords defeat for Harman over forcing churches to hire gays
Independent Peers defeat Government on church gay ban
45 CommentsInclusive Church has a new course for new and established Christians: Living Christianity – Everyday Bread.
We are pleased to launch LIVING CHRISTIANITY, a five part programme (ideal for a Lent Course) that takes the shape of the Eucharist to introduce Christian faith in the Inclusive tradition. “Living Christianity is a course to nurture new Christians, to refresh old ones and to catch up with people asking questions about the Christian faith. It has been written by leaders in parish ministry in the Church of England who are concerned to celebrate the breadth and diversity of traditional Anglicanism.”
Available as a book or Digital Download from stores.lulu.com/inclusivechurch.
Participants’ notes cost £3.99 each, and the Leaders’ notes are £9.99 (or £5.99 to download in .pdf format.
There is an extract from one of the sessions on the web page.
The latest Inclusive Church newsletter is available here.
3 CommentsBBC Churches fear Equality Bill will conflict with faith
Guardian Afua Hirsch Equality bill: churches and campaigners demand clarity on religion’s exemption
Ekklesia Religion on the agenda as Parliament debates Equality Bill and Equality Bill addresses discrimination against Christians
Daily Mail Harriet Harman’s law ‘will force churches to hire gays’
Telegraph Half of older workers want to keep jobs past retirement age (this is not a story about bishops)
From the blogs:
Cranmer supports the amendments about Civil Partnerships, see Equality Bill: European Commission v the Church of Jesus Christ
6 CommentsThe bishops have not expressed any interest in Clause 3, the one which deals with discrimination on the ground of Religion or Belief. Here’s how it reads at present:
Other requirements relating to religion or belief
3. A person (A) with an ethos based on religion or belief does not contravene a provision mentioned in paragraph 1(2) by applying in relation to work a requirement to be of a particular religion or belief if A shows that, having regard to that ethos and to the nature or context of the work—
(a) it is an occupational requirement,
(b) the application of the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and
(c) the person to whom A applies the requirement does not meet it (or A has reasonable grounds for not being satisfied that the person meets it).
There are five amendments listed.
Amendment 101ZA Baroness Turner of Camden
in para (a) leave out “an” and insert “a genuine”
Amendment 101A Baroness Turner of Camden
at end insert—
“(d) A is not operating as a public authority, on behalf of a public authority or operating in relation to a contract with public authorities.”
Amendment 101B Lord Lester of Herne Hill
at end insert—
“Paragraph 3 does not apply when A is operating—
(a) on behalf of a public authority, and
(b) under the terms of contract between the organisation and the public authority.”
Amendment 101C Baroness Turner of Camden
0 Commentsat end insert—
“The exception under paragraph 3 shall not be used to justify discrimination on any other protected ground.”
Comment is free: belief has today published an article written by me, see
Churches panic over equality bill.
8 CommentsThe bishops say in their press release that they are supporting three specific amendments to Schedule 9 Clause 2 of the Equality Bill. Here is the detail of the third one. As before, please remember two things:
– this clause does not deal with discrimination on the grounds of Religion or Belief, that is covered in Clause 3.
– this clause deals with a variety of other requirements as listed in paragraph 4.
Amendment 100 is sponsored by Baroness O’Cathain, Lord Anderson of Swansea, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, and Baroness Butler-Sloss.
This removes paragraph 8 entirely, thus:
(8) Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if the employment wholly or mainly involves— (a) leading or assisting in the observance of liturgical or ritualistic practices of the religion, or (b) promoting or explaining the doctrine of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).
There is no such wording in existing legislation.
Before that amendment is considered, Amendment 99A will be moved by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, on behalf of the government. This amendment inserts the following wording at the end of paragraph 6, leaving paragraph 8 unchanged. However, Baroness Royall has stated that if Amendment 99A is passed, the government will accept Amendment 100.
”( ) Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if—
(a) the employment is as a minister of religion, or
(b) the employment is in another post that exists (or, where the post has not previously been filled, that would exist) to promote or represent the religion or to explain the doctrines of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).”
The government says that this is only a clarification of the existing law, and does not constitute any change. It refers to the statement made by Lord Sainsbury of Turville in the House of Lords in 2003:
“When drafting Regulation 7(3), we had in mind a very narrow range of employment: ministers of religion, plus a small number of posts outside the clergy, including those who exist to promote and represent religion.” [Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 2003; Vol. 649, c. 779.]
The bishops say “the current limited exemptions for organised religions are balanced and should not be further restricted.”
What they ask is for candidates for “a small number of lay posts”, or more exactly “certain senior lay posts that involve promoting and representing the religion” to be required “to demonstrate an ability to live a life consistent with the ethos of the religion”.
There are two other amendments being proposed to Clause 2.
In Amendment 97E Lord Alli proposes to delete paragraph (4f) thus
(f) a requirement related to sexual orientation.
In Amendment 100A Baroness Turner of Camden proposes to insert three words in paragraph 8, thus:
6 Comments-(8) Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if the purpose of the employment wholly or mainly involves etc.
The bishops say in their press release that they are supporting three specific amendments to Schedule 9 Clause 2 of the Equality Bill. Here is the detail of the first two. Please remember two things:
– this clause does not deal with discrimination on the grounds of Religion or Belief, that is covered in Clause 3.
– this clause deals with a variety of other requirements as listed in paragraph 4.
Amendments 98 and 99 are sponsored by Baroness O’Cathain, Lord Anderson of Swansea, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, and Baroness Butler-Sloss.
These amendments have the following effect:
(5) The application of a requirement engages the compliance principle if the
application is a proportionate means of complyingrequirement is applied so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion.(6) The application of a requirement engages the non-conflict principle if, because of the nature or context of the employment, the
application is a proportionate means of avoiding conflictrequirement is applied so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers.
The wording that they seek to delete was not in Clause 7 of the 2003 Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, nor was it in the The Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005 amending Clause 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, both of which are to be replaced by this Schedule.
The proportionality principle is however a requirement of the European Employment Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000.
Article 4
Occupational requirements
1. Notwithstanding Article 2(1) and (2), Member States may provide that a difference of treatment which is based on a characteristic related to any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out, such a characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement, provided that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate.
2. Member States may maintain national legislation in force at the date of adoption of this Directive or provide for future legislation incorporating national practices existing at the date of adoption of this Directive pursuant to which, in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, a difference of treatment based on a person’s religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out, a person’s religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation’s ethos. This difference of treatment shall be implemented taking account of Member States’ constitutional provisions and principles, as well as the general principles of Community law, and should not justify discrimination on another ground.
Provided that its provisions are otherwise complied with, this Directive shall thus not prejudice the right of churches and other public or private organisations, the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, acting in conformity with national constitutions and laws, to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation’s ethos.
Or in other words, the Directive contains a strict test which must be satisfied if a difference of treatment is to be considered non-discriminatory: there must be a genuine and determining occupational requirement, the objective must be legitimate and the requirement proportionate. No elements of this test appear in Regulation 7(3).
1 CommentGiles Fraser writes in the Church Times Repent of a theology of blame
Harriet Baber has a Face to Faith article in The Guardian Evangelical US megachurches like Saddleback are market-driven, with transcendence not on the menu
Ruth Gledhill writes in the Times about preachers Spreading the word of preaching, from the transcendent to the bumbling
and about cathedrals in MPs want crumbling cathedrals to get Government cash
Alan Wilson wrote on Cif belief about The media’s trouble with religion
3 CommentsChurch of England press release received at 11 am Saturday
Equality Bill: ‘Churches must not face further restrictions’
23 January 2010
A statement issued on behalf of the Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt, Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Michael Langrish, Bishop of Exeter and Chair of the Churches Legislation Advisory Service and the Rt Revd Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester, as bishops who have taken a keen interest in the progression of the Bill:
“This Monday, as Peers meet to consider the Government’s Equality Bill, they will be asked to vote on an issue of great importance to Christians and all people of faith. At stake is how we, as a liberal democracy based on Christian values, strike the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of different groups to be protected from harassment and unfair discrimination and the rights of churches and religious organisations to appoint and employ people consistently with their guiding doctrine and ethos.
“The Christian Churches, alongside many other faiths, support the Equality Bill’s wider aims in promoting fairness in society and improving redress for those who have suffered unjust treatment.
“However, unless the present drafting of the Bill is changed, churches and other faiths will find themselves more vulnerable to legal challenge than under the current law. When regulations on employment discrimination were passed as recently as 2003, churches and other faiths were granted certain limited exemptions by parliament to be used when recruiting ministers of religion or others to a small number of lay posts. These enabled religious organisations to apply requirements that candidates for certain senior lay posts that involve promoting and representing the religion are able to demonstrate an ability to live a life consistent with the ethos of the religion, as well as sharing the faith.
“The government have said that they share our view – that the current limited exemptions for organised religions are balanced and should not be further restricted. Yet they are proposing to modify them. They have produced no convincing case for change. They have now offered to amend their original proposals in the Bill but instead of reverting to the status quo have produced words which will still create difficulties for churches and religious groups. This despite our raising the problem many months ago and offering various ways of resolving the issue.
“We must conclude therefore that the only way to maintain the status quo in exemptions for religious organisations is for Peers to support amendments 98, 99 and 100 on Monday, tabled by Baroness O’Cathain and the Bishop of Winchester, over and above the Governnment’s compromise amendment 99A.”
8 CommentsThere are further reports about this today:
In the Church Times there is a report by me, subscriber-only until next Friday, headlined Change fails to silence critics. A longer account by me is below.
In the Catholic Herald Simon Caldwell has a report headlined Equality Bill still a threat, say bishops.
On the other hand, the National Secular Society has a press release, NSS battles to minimise religious opt outs in Equality Bill.
A new Marshalled List of Amendments has been published. I will review the changes in a later post.
What follows is my full account of events of the past week.
The Government’s efforts to clarify the exemption for churches in the Equality Bill have not been welcomed by either the Archbishops’ Council or the Roman Catholic bishops conference. The Bill is due to complete its Committee stage in the House of Lords next week.
0 Commentsupdated Friday evening and Saturday morning to include more press reports
The Church of England has released provisional attendance figures for 2008: Provisional attendance figures for 2008.
There is a press release summarising and commenting on the figures. The full text of the press release is reproduced below the fold.
The think-tank Ekklesia has published its views on the figures: Church of England sees greater decline in church attendance.
Andrew Brown writes in his blog in The Guardian Church statistics: not many dead.
Riazat Butt writes in The Guardian Church of England attendance falls for fifth year in row.
Andy Bloxham and Martin Beckford in the Telegraph write Average age of churchgoers now 61, Church of England report finds.
Ruth Gledhill writes in the Times Church of England congregations fall again, and half are pensioners.
Also published today is research surveying of the diversity of Church of England congregations: Celebrating Diversity in the Church of England.
13 CommentsThe Church Times reports on the agenda for February, Margaret Duggan writes Synod’s ‘full agenda’ to include pensions, Fresh Expressions, and religion on TV.
And, in a separate article, Pat Ashworth writes Synod to debate the ACNA. More details of that motion with full copies of the two background papers (and our main discussion of it) can be found here.
The BBC reported Anglican dissidents put back decision on Vatican offer.
In connection with the preceding item, the Church TImes also has an article by Bill Bowder on a meeting earlier this week at Westminster Abbey: Rome not ‘escape hatch’ Abbey conference hears.
And the Carlisle-based News and Star reports Retired Cumbrian producer attacks BBC over religious coverage.
4 CommentsThere has been relatively little coverage of the religion aspects of this in the media until recently. A few items:
Telegraph Martin Beckford today has Bishop of Winchester warns Christians may have to give up public sector jobs because of secular agenda and last week had Equality Bill ‘dangerously’ trying to force religious belief behind closed doors, bishops warn.
The Sunday Telegraph also had a report by Patrick Hennessy headlined Catholic ban on women priests ‘illegal under Harriet Harman equality bill’ which earned a mention in the Church Times press column by Andrew Brown thus:
Full marks to CARE, the Evangelical pressure group, for getting the most completely bogus story of the week into The Sunday Telegraph, via its political editor, who solemnly informed the readers that Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill would force the Roman Catholic Church to abandon an all-male priesthood.
The Church of England Newspaper last week had UK promises amendments to controversial Equality Bill. I had a report in the Church Times last week which is subscriber-only until tomorrow, Move to erase doubts over Equality Bill and which takes a rather different view.
Today, the Daily Mail has Video urging protest against Equality Bill that ‘infringes Christian freedom’ to be screened in churches.
Press releases from conservative organisations:
On the other hand:
General Synod members have been sent the following paper outlining how the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant will be considered for adoption by the Church of England.
19 CommentsGS MISC 934
THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION COVENANT
1. I received on 18 December from the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion the final text of the Anglican Communion Covenant, approved for distribution that day by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, for formal consideration for adoption. The full copy of the text is available at http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/final/text.cfm.
2. The approval of the text by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion comes at the end of a long process flowing from the publication of the report of the Lambeth Commission – The Windsor Report – in October 2004. Synod has subsequently discussed governance issues in the Anglican Communion and the possibility of the draft Covenant in February 2005, July 2007, February 2008, July 2008 and February 2009.
3. GS 1716, which was prepared for last February’s debate, gave some indication of the synodical process which would need to be undertaken to adopt the Covenant, though it made clear that certain matters could not be resolved until the final text of the Covenant was available.
4. What happens now is that the Faith and Order Advisory Group, which has led the work on earlier Church of England responses to drafts of the Covenant, will consider the text and offer an assessment which will be available to the House of Bishops when it next meets in May. In addition the Legal Office will consider whether the text means that the Synod’s process of adoption will need to follow the Article 7 and or 8 procedures.
5. Once the House of Bishops is satisfied that the Covenant should be commended to the Synod for adoption it will be for the Business Committee to decide when to schedule the initial debate. As noted in GS 1716 it is likely that, from receiving the final text the Church of England will need “at least 18 months to 2 years to come to a final decision.”
WILLIAM FITTALL
12 January 2010
The Hansard record of day three can be found here as a PDF, or starts here in html.
The official news report of the day is here.
There was an interesting debate on an amendment proposed by Lord Alton of Liverpool. This starts here.
What the Bishop of Winchester had to say can be found here.
The article in The Times yesterday by Shami Chakrabarti referred to in the debate, can be found here.
The Bishop of Winchester’s amendment dealing with Gender Reassignment and the Marriage Act was accepted without any difficulty by the Government. The debate about that starts here (the Bishop of Southwark stood in as the Bishop of Winchester had to leave before this was reached).
A further exchange of religious interest occurred starting here. The topic being discussed was the content of television programmes. The Archbishop of York participated in this debate.
The amendments to Schedule 9 will now certainly be discussed on Monday afternoon. There has been a change to the texts of Amendments 98 and 99. New wording is here. The old wording was in both cases simply: leave out “proportionate”. The wording was not in the 2003 SO Regulations, but was put into the Equality Bill in order to make plain on the face of the bill the proportionality requirement of the underlying European Employment Equality Directive 2000.
3 CommentsWATCH (Women and the Church) issued this statement this evening.
WATCH PRESS STATEMENT
Tuesday, 19th January 2010 – for immediate release
FURTHER DELAY FOR WOMEN BISHOPS
Following the publication this week of General Synod’s February agenda, WATCH notes with deep regret that there will be no debate on the draft legislation for women bishops. The Revision Committee set up to prepare the legislation which will open the Episcopate to women has failed to complete its task in time for February’s synod, as requested in a synod motion one year ago. Although not explicitly asked to do so, the Revision Committee considered a range of options for the legislation, including models already rejected by General Synod.
Despite this disappointing setback, WATCH would like to thank those members of the Revision Committee who have worked hard and with dedication in their attempt to achieve the aims of the General Synod to create something that offers a moment of transformation of historic proportions in the life of the Church.
“At least no one can say that any stone has been left unturned” said Christina Rees, chair of WATCH. “We now expect the very best legislation to be presented well in advance of the July meeting of General Synod. We hope to see a clear, workable and straightforward set of proposals, which are closely aligned to what Synod requested in July 2008, namely legislation making it possible for women to be bishops within the existing structures of the Church. Perhaps all the extra time this is taking will help the Revision Committee to reach the simplicity that lies beyond complexity.”
WATCH is pleased to see that the Bishop of Manchester, as Chair of the Steering Committee, is to give February’s Synod a report on the process so far and hopes that he will provide a full explanation of the reasons for the delay. WATCH also hopes that he would agree that it would be unthinkable if their report is not brought to the July 2010 meeting of General Synod. This matter is of such ecclesial and public importance that should the Church fail to honour its decisions to allow women to be bishops, especially as women account for nearly 40% of the Church’s active clergy, it risks becoming an object of ridicule. WATCH therefore hopes that the Bishop of Manchester will provide assurances that the report will indeed be brought to the July 2010 meeting of General Synod without suffering further prevarication and delay.
Further, WATCH believes it is now incumbent upon the Revision Committee to produce a comprehensive report that will obviate the need for past models and options to be considered yet again in July 2010. Along with doubtless many members of General Synod, WATCH would also expect the Revision Committee’s report to be available well in advance of the July meeting, so that proper consideration and consultation may take place.
WATCH also hopes that the Business Committee will make every effort to ensure sufficient time and flexibility is scheduled at the July Synod to complete all the stages necessary for the draft legislation to be sent to the dioceses.
CONTACTS:
Christina Rees
(Chair)
01763–848-822
Revd Hugh Lee
(General Synod member)
01865-316-245
Revd Rachel Weir
(Vice-Chair)
07815-729-565
Revd Dr Charles Read
(Vice-Chair)
07910-128-265
Next month’s meeting of General Synod will be debating this private member’s motion, proposed by The Revd Mark Bratton, on Thursday 11 February:
“That this Synod request the Archbishops’ Council and the Church of England Pensions Board to bring forward changes to the rules governing the clergy pension scheme in order to go beyond the requirements of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and provide for pension benefits to be paid to the surviving civil partners of deceased clergy on the same basis as they are currently paid to surviving spouses.‟.
Here are the papers for this debate.
GS 1770A Background paper by Mark Bratton available here as a PDF, and also here as a web page
GS 1770B Background note from the Rt Reverend John Packer available here as a PDF, and also here as a web page
5 CommentsNext month’s meeting of General Synod will be debating this private member’s motion, proposed by Lorna Ashworth, on Wednesday 10 February:
“That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with
the Anglican Church in North America”.
Here are the papers for this debate.
GS 1764A Background paper by Lorna Ashworth available here as a PDF, and also here as a web page
GS 1764B Background note from the Secretary General available here as a PDF, and also here as a web page
39 CommentsSome early reports on next month’s Synod business.
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph BBC’s ‘marginalisation’ of religion to be criticised by Church of England’s governing body
Riazat Butt in The Guardian Religion on TV either marginalised or freak show, clergy complain
Jonathan Wynne-Jones in the Telegraph Church to vote on greater rights for partners of gay clergy
Riazat Butt in The Guardian Delay hits ordination of women bishops
Martha Linden (Press Association) in the Independent Key debate on women bishops delayed
3 Comments