Updated yet again Tuesday evening
See earlier list of pro-ACNA items.
The Church Times headline is Synod holds off from ACNA.
THE General Synod declined on Wednesday afternoon to express a desire to be in communion with the Anglican Church in North Amerca (ACNA).
But, “aware of the distress caused by recent divisions” in the Anglican Churches of the US and Canada, it recognised and affirmed the desire of those who had formed ACNA to be part of the Anglican family, and “acknowledged that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further”.
Earlier in the week, Matt Davies of ENS had reported Church of England says no to full communion with breakaway entity.
Church Mouse For the avoidance of doubt – the CofE did not ‘recognise’ the ACNA yesterday
Simple Massing Priest “Just a flesh wound”
Lionel Deimel Declaring Victory and Moving On
Scott Gunn Parsing Synod — what have they done?
Jim’s Thoughts resolution
Colin Coward Lorna Ashworth’s motion about the Anglican Church in North America
ask the priest Synod, ACNA and the FCE – A narrowly-avoided theological misstep
Updates
More from Simple Massing Priest
SOMEBODY on the Anglican Right is lying
and
Another lie from the Anglican Right
Justin Brett ACNA-Related Ramblings
Stand Firm has discovered another document, Copy of TEC Memo Circulated at CoE Synod.
25 CommentsThe text of the speeches by Giles Goddard and by Simon Baynes are both published below the fold.
Colin Coward has commented about the debate: General Synod approves pension parity for Civil Partnerships.
Andrew Brown commented about it at Cif:belief in Recoiling from nastiness.
According to Christian Today in its news story
One Synod member, who asked to remain anonymous, said conservative Synod members had deliberately withheld from taking to the floor to speak against the motion for fear of reprisals.
“They didn’t dare to. There would have been screams of homophobia if anyone had dared oppose it,” he said.
Anglican Mainstream has already issued two memoranda:
AM comments on private member motion on pensions for civil partners
and a few hours later: Clergy Pension Scheme – what was and wasn’t decided at General Synod
And AM has also published “A briefing paper by Clive Scowen prepared for the Synod debate”, dated 18 January: Should civil partners be treated like spouses?
8 CommentsThe Comment is Free section of The Guardian has several General Synod related articles.
Christina Rees Faith in the future: This 35-year debate has become tortuous. But one day soon, women will become bishops.
Judith Maltby Synod: messy, imperfect, but ours: General Synod is a product of a tumultuous history. Flawed as it is, it is rooted in and reflects our traditions.
Andrew Brown Why is the Synod so boring? A reflection on this most urgent question; submitted for wider consultation.
Rosemary Hartill The adversarial model doesn’t help The General Synod suffers because of the way it replicates Parliament – it breeds factions, and disagreement.
Andrew Brown Recoiling from nastiness The General Synod has shown that the Church of England rejects homophobia even if it can’t accept gay people on their own terms.
Andrew Brown Are science and atheism compatible? Science brings no comfort to to anyone with dogmatic beliefs about world.
Dave Walker General Synod The general synod as observed from a lofty vantage point.
And here’s some comment on other topics and from elsewhere.
Giles Fraser in the Church Times Face to face with a man I’ve just had a pop at.
Roderick Strange in a Credo column in the Times We need a blessed filter to make sense of our lives How can wealth, comfort, pleasure and a good name be suspect?
Aaron Taylor in The Guardian A season of bright sadness For Orthodox Christians, the penitential season of Lent means much more than fasting.
Nick Spencer in The Guardian Cherie Booth, faith and religion Why it was reasonable for Cherie Booth to take Shamso Miah’s religious committment into account when sentencing him.
Christopher Howse in the Telegraph Our Sound Is Our Wound by Lucy Winkett: Hearing alarms, listening for angels What we can hear, or choose to hear forms a theme in the Lent book of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
And finally a leading article in The Independent The ignored gospel message
35 CommentsUpdated
The synod debate on ACNA has produced these reactions from Americans who support ACNA:
The following article was written by Brian Lewis for the Preludium blog of Mark Harris.
“We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language” (Oscar Wilde, The Canterville Ghost 1887).
I was alarmed but (bearing in mind Oscar’s witticism) should not have been surprised to hear that some in TEC and ACoC might misunderstand the full significance of the Church of England’s General Synod’s decision to reject the call to “express a desire to be in Communion with ACNA”.
But let us be clear it did just that, not once, but twice or perhaps even three times.
To follow through the sequence of events.
The original motion was:
That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America.
In a background paper circulated in advance of the debate the mover (Lorna Ashworth) made a number of allegations about TEC and the ACoC. This clearly established that though the motion was ostensibly only about ACNA it was intended to invite the CoE to condemn the behaviour of TEC and ACoC.
In response to that briefing paper I circulated to all members of synod two papers.
All synod members including the Archbishops were sent these papers (I believe they are now online at Thinking Anglicans). Members of TEC and ACoC are indebted to Simon; I know how hard he worked on the production of theses papers. I also know how grateful many members of synod were to receive them.
Mrs Ashworth duly presented her motion to Synod, the further allegations made in her opening address confirmed that this was indeed a motion inviting synod to condemn the actions of TEC and ACoC.
In response to the original motion the Bishop of Bristol put forward an amendment (with the support of the House of Bishops) entirely replacing it.
The amendment reads
That this synod
(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.
There are two key and essential things to recognise about this amendment (certainly recognised by everyone in the synod and why it was resisted by those supporting ACNA):
(Other finer questions about “affirm” and “remain” were not key to the understanding of this amendment and to my recollection not brought into the debate, indeed an amendment to leave out “affirm” was withdrawn; we could equally say that by saying the leadership had “formed” ACNA the Bishop was saying ACNA is a new church, but that was also not part of the debate nor probably part of the Bishop’s intention. )
The force of this amendment is in replacing OUR desire to be in COMMUNION with THEIR desire to remain part of the Anglican FAMILY.
Synod accepted this amendment.
Synod declined to express “a desire to be in Communion with ACNA”. That matters. Questions not asked are one thing but when a question is asked and the answer is politely No Thank You that changes where you are.
The No Thank You was polite, of course it was, but it was real. The amendment also asked our Archbishops for a report on the situation, and helpfully recognised the reality of the issues any future possible recognition would raise for the relevant authorities.
I find it difficult to see how ACNA could welcome any of this.
Further In case it was just possible that this was not a rejection of synod “expressing a desire to be in Communion with ACNA” the supporters of ACNA put forward again, as an amendment to the Bishop’s amendment, the original request “that this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”. Asking the Synod to say both things at once. A very Anglican fudge that would have been!
The Bishop of Winchester and other ACNA supporters spoke for this, needless to say I spoke against it.
This was the critical moment of the debate – you might just possibly maintain we had in the Bishop’s amendment acknowledged proper procedure – the role of the “relevant authorities” the role of the Archbishops etc, now we could add in the support of our persecuted brothers and sisters (as they were presented to us), and say we desired to be in Communion with them.
The synod carefully considered this and voted No.
That is the second time.
Then we were asked to add an amendment that expressed “our desire that in the interim, the orders of ACNA clergy be recognised and accepted by the Archbishops subject to their satisfaction as to such clergy being of good standing, enabling them to exercise their ordained ministry in this country, according to the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967.”
We said No. Recognising orders is a key part of being in Communion.
I’m afraid I consider that is No a third time.
It was hardly surprising however that nobody objected to the final amendment, an acknowledgement of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada – indeed I had referred to it myself when calling on synod members to support those who had remained faithful to their church.
I know the very existence of this debate raises questions about one part of the Anglican Communion interfering with another – and those questions were raised – but before we answer them, what of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Presidential address expressing “repugnance” of the “infamous” proposed legislation in Uganda, and the efforts he and other CofE bishops have made communicating directly with the Anglican Church in Uganda. It is also not improper for a synod to offer its view of who it hopes we will be in Communion with. But I recognise there are big issues at stake for the Communion generally – I would just reiterate, I see little cause for concern for TEC or ACoC in the outcome of this particular debate, and to be frank it is beyond disingenuous or bizarre for anybody connected with ACNA to pretend this is in anyway an affirmation of ACNA.
Brian Lewis
44 CommentsThis happened last Tuesday, 9 February.
The Hansard record starts here, or the PDF is over here.
The Archbishop of York took part in the debate. On this occasion, and in a different context to the previous one, he was in favour of the concept of proportionality.
His contributions are here, here, and here.
The Bill now moves to the Report stage, which will occur on Tuesday 2 March.
0 Commentsupdated Friday evening
Synod discussed the compatibility of science and Christian belief this morning.
Stephen Bates in The Guardian General Synod says religion and science not mutually exclusive
BBC Synod emphasises compatibility of religion and science
Press Association Religion compatible with science, synod told
Maria Mackay in Christian Today Science and religion are compatible, says Church of England
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Atheists are wrong to claim science and religion are incompatible, Church of England says
4 CommentsA further release from the Church of Uganda has been received.
See here for the most recent statement. Also here for an earlier statement.
Now this:
12 CommentsFor Immediate Release
12th February 2010Anglican Churches in America Not Part of Church of Uganda’s Position on Anti-Homosexuality Bill
The Church of Uganda does not have oversight of any Anglican churches in the United States. Member churches of the Anglican Church in North America that have been in partnership with the Church of Uganda in the past were not in any way involved in the Church of Uganda’s position on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. They were not consulted, nor was their support enlisted. The Ugandan context is different from the American context and it is likely that our American friends will have a different position from that of the Church of Uganda.
– END –
Last week’s issue of The Tablet had several articles on this subject, including:
Elena Curti Parliament in his sights – The Pope and the Equality Bill
An editorial: Deepest Human desire
and an article by Clifford Longley reproduced here below the fold, with the express permission of the editor.
8 CommentsA summary of Friday’s business at General Synod is online.
General Synod – Summary of Business Conducted on Friday 12th February 2010 AM
1 CommentInclusive Church
Press Release
11th February 2010
Inclusive Church welcomes the vote by the Church of England’s General Synod to extend pension rights beyond the legal minimum for civil partners.
The motion was carried by a clear majority in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity. The debate was characterised by a desire to show that the church can act justly and generously in support of those in civil partnerships.
Revd. Canon Giles Goddard, Chair of Inclusive Church said:
“This vote underlines Archbishop’s Rowan Williams’ earlier comments and clearly demonstrates that the Church of England is opposed to all forms of homophobia. I hope this will be the beginning of a new openness towards LGBT people in the church.”
Revd Mark Bratton, proposer of the motion said:
“This unexpected result will encourage those who have given their lives to supporting those in ministry that the church values their commitment and sacrifice.”
The motion:
“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 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.”
Voting:
| Bishops |
12 for
|
2 against
|
3 abstentions
|
| Clergy |
97 for
|
23 against
|
10 abstentions
|
| Laity |
78 for
|
59 against
|
9 abstentions
|
More information contact:
Revd Canon Giles Goddard 07762 373 674
Revd Mark Bratton 0754 060 4225
ends
26 CommentsSummaries of Thursday’s business at General Synod are online.
morning General Synod – Summary of Business Conducted on Thursday 11th February 2010 AM
afternoon General Synod – Summary of Business Conducted on Thursday 11th February 2010 PM
0 Commentsupdated Friday morning
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Methodists declare ‘we’re ready to merge’ with CofE
Maria Mackay in Christian Today Methodist Church ‘prepared to go out of existence’ for mission
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph General Synod: Methodists likely to merge with Church of England
Jerome Taylor in The Independent Leader signals end of Methodism
Steve Doughty in the Mail Methodist church ‘prepared to go out of existence’
Note The above items refer to an address by the President and the Vice-President of the Methodist Conference to the General Synod on Thursday morning. The Methodist Church of Great Britain have released this press release.
President and Vice-President address General Synod
The text of the address is available here.
Stephen Bates in The Guardian Church of England General Synod extends pension rights for gay partners
The BBC has Synod votes to give gay clergy equal pension rights
Maria Mackay in Christian Today Church grants full pension rights to gay clergy
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Partners of gay clergy win same pensions as spouses
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph General Synod: Church of England backs equal pension rights for gay clergy partners
Stephen Bates in The Guardian Anglican church calls for tighter regulation of violent computer games
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph General Synod: Church expresses ‘concern’ about effects of computer games on children
7 CommentsThis afternoon General Synod voted in favour of providing pensions to the surviving civil partners of clergy on the same basis as they are paid to surviving spouses. At present, and in accordance with the minimum requirements of the law, service before 5 December 2005 does not count towards the level of pension for surviving civil partners.
The private member’s motion, text below, was proposed by the Revd Mark Bratton, and was passed without amendment.
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.
The vote was taken by houses and all three houses voted in favour; here are the detailed voting figures.
| for | against | abstentions | |
| bishops |
12
|
2
|
3
|
| clergy |
97
|
23
|
10
|
| laity |
78
|
59
|
9
|
There were two unsuccessful proposed amendments. One, from the bishop of Ripon and Leeds, would have reworded the motion to:
That this Synod recognise that it will be some considerable time before surviving civil partners’ pension rights reach parity with those of spouses, and in the light of that note the helpful confirmation from the Pensions Board that surviving civil partners of deceased clergy are eligible to be considered for hardship grants if they meet the same qualifying conditions as apply to surviving spouses.
This amendment was defeated with 110 votes in favour, 154 against and 15 recorded abstentions.
A second amendment, proposed by Dr Philip Giddings, would have added a long list of dependent relatives, as well as civil partners, to those entitled to pensions; this was defeated on a show of hands.
Background papers
GS 1770A paper prepared by Mark Bratton
GS 1770B paper by the Rt Reverend John Packer, Chair of DRACSC (The Archbishops’ Council Deployment, Remuneration and Conditions of Service Committee)
Reports of Wednesday’s broadcasting debate are linked here and of the ACNA debate here.
On other matters there is this.
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Church of England warned against thoughtless criticism of Armed Forces by senior padre
4 CommentsOn 9 February, the Church of Uganda issued a statement on the proposed Uganda legislation. The full text of this is contained in a PDF file. It has also been copied below the fold.
According to the covering email:
18 CommentsThe attached document is the official position of the Church of Uganda as endorsed by the House of Bishops of the Church of Uganda.
Kindly ensure that it is represented in its entirety.
At Ekklesia there is some analysis of what Rowan Williams said on Tuesday, in Archbishop says sorry to gays but defends Church’s discrimination.
In Cif: belief Savi Hensman gets more explicit: Rowan’s apology falls short.
And, I wrote a piece for Cif:belief which is headlined Rowan’s speech and the equality bill.
Also, Kelvin Holdsworth has written Still Shocking.
4 CommentsUpdated Thursday morning to include more details of the motion and amendments and further press reports
Stephen Bates in The Guardian Church of England keeps distance from breakaway US conservative Episcopalians
Jerome Taylor in The Independent Church sidesteps gay issue at Synod debate
Avril Ormsby at Reuters UK Church stops short of communion with U.S. conservatives
For the record, the original motion proposed by Lorna Ashworth was
That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America.
Synod amended this to
That this Synod
(a) aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada;
(b) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(c) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(d) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.
The amended motion was largely the proposal of the bishop of Bristol, on behalf of the House of Bishops, but paragraph (a) was added on a proposal from the Revd Andrew Dow (diocese of Gloucester).
The amended motion was carried by 309 votes in favour to 69 against, with 17 recorded abstentions.
There was an attempt to amend the motion to read:
That this Synod
(a) express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America;
(b) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(c) acknowledge these aspirations, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raise issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(d) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.
This was defeated by 166 votes in favour to 223 against with 2 recorded abstentions.
During the debate there were two procedural motions, one to move to next business and one to adjourn the debate, but both were defeated. If carried either would have brought the debate to an immediate end without a vote.
11 CommentsSummaries of Wednesday’s business at General Synod are online.
morning General Synod – Summary of Business Conducted on Wednesday 10th February 2010 AM
afternoon General Synod – Summary of Business Conducted on Wednesday 10th February 2010 PM
The second of these will not be complete until after the close of business at 7.00 pm.
9 CommentsSynod debated this private member’s motion on religious broadcasting, proposed by Nigel Holmes, this (Wednesday) morning:
That this Synod call upon the BBC and Ofcom to explain why British television, which was once exemplary in its coverage of religious and ethical issues, now marginalizes the few such programmes which remain and completely ignored the Christian significance of Good Friday 2009.
An amendment was moved by the Bishop of Manchester, and carried by Synod, which reworded the motion to read:
That this Synod
(a) express its appreciation of the vital role played by those engaged in communicating religious belief and practice through the media, at a time of changes within the industry; and
(b) express its deep concern about the overall reduction in religious broadcasting across British television in recent years, and call upon mainstream broadcasters to nurture and develop the expertise to create and commission high quality religious content across the full range of their output, particularly material that imaginatively marks major festivals and portrays acts of worship.
The amended motion was carried by 267 votes in favour with 4 against and 2 recorded abstentions.
Here are some press reports.
Stephen Bates in The Guardian Synod rejects motion attacking broadcasters over lack of religious programmes
Martha Linden of the Press Association in the Independent Church concern over religious broadcast hours
Avril Ormsby of Reuters UK Church of England laments drop in religious TV programmes
The BBC has Church of England concerned by ‘religious TV cuts’
1 Comment