Updated Thursday afternoon
Church of England press release
Statement from the Convenor of the Lords Spiritual on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
05 June 2013
“Both Houses of Parliament have now expressed a clear view by large majorities on the principle that there should be legislation to enable same-sex marriages to take place in England and Wales. It is now the duty and responsibility of the Bishops who sit in the House of Lords to recognise the implications of this decision and to join with other Members in the task of considering how this legislation can be put into better shape. The concerns of many in the Church, and in the other denominations and faiths, about the wisdom of such a move have been expressed clearly and consistently in the Parliamentary debate. For the Bishops the issue now is not primarily one of protections and exemptions for people of faith, important though it is to get that right, not least where teaching in schools and freedom of speech are concerned. The Bill now requires improvement in a number of other key respects, including in its approach to the question of fidelity in marriage and the rights of children. If this Bill is to become law, it is crucial that marriage as newly defined is equipped to carry within it as many as possible of the virtues of the understanding of marriage it will replace. Our focus during Committee and Report stages in the coming weeks and months will be to address those points in a spirit of constructive engagement.”
Rt Revd Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester
Convenor of the Lords Spiritual
The statement published above has been reported in the Telegraph by John Bingham in this way: Church of England gives up fight against gay marriage
56 CommentsThe Church of England has effectively accepted defeat over gay marriage signalling that it will no longer fight against a change in the law.
In a short statement, the established Church said that the scale of the majorities in both the Commons and Lords made clear that it is the will of Parliament that same sex couples “should” be allowed to marry.
The Bishop of Leicester, who leads the bishops in the House of Lords, said they would now concentrate their efforts on “improving” rather than halting an historic redefinition of marriage.
It represents a dramatic change of tack in the year since the Church insisted that gay marriage posed one of the biggest threats of disestablishment of the Church of England since the reign of Henry VIII.
And it comes despite a warning from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, that the redefinition of marriage would undermine the “cornerstone” of society……And he [Bishop of Leicester] made clear that the bishops would look not only at strengthening opt-outs for those who oppose a new definition of marriage but at the future practicalities for people in same-sex unions.
He signalled that bishops would seek to introduce a notion of adultery into the bill and extend parental rights for same-sex partners.
Under the current bill people in a same-sex marriages who discover that their spouse is unfaithful to them would not be able to divorce for adultery after Government legal experts failed to agree what constitutes “sex” between gay or lesbian couples.
The bishops are also seeking to change a provision which says that when a lesbian woman in a same-sex marriage has a baby her spouse is not also classed as the baby’s parent.
The result is that in some cases children would be classed as having only one parent…
Press Release
Comment on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill’s second reading in the House of Lords
The House of Lords has spent two days debating the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. On Tuesday, 4 June, the House rejected an amendment tabled by Lord Dear, a crossbench peer and former West Midlands chief constable, opposing the Bill – 390 votes to 148.
A spokesman for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales said:
“The Church’s principled objection to the legal re-definition of marriage is consistently and clearly set out.
“Following the Bill’s second reading in the House of Lords, the Church’s aim is to ensure the Bill, as it goes to committee stage, is amended so that it effectively delivers the protections that the Government promised to provide for schools, religious organisations and individuals.”
1 CommentReform have today issued their response to the bishops’ proposals in GS 1886 under the heading “Reform says Women Bishop Proposals may bar many evangelicals from parish ministry”. Here it is in full.
66 CommentsReform says Women Bishop Proposals may bar many evangelicals from parish ministry
New proposals for introducing women bishops run counter to the Church’s desire to see those on both sides of the debate flourish in the Church of England, according to Reform, the evangelical Anglican campaigning network.
Speaking after a meeting of the Reform trustees, chairman Prebendary Rod Thomas said today (5th June) that the paper which will be considered by next month’s General Synod, contained some very encouraging sentiments, but these were not reflected in the substance of the proposals.
Preb. Rod Thomas welcomed the vision articulated in the paper for mutual flourishing; the re-iteration of the Lambeth1998 statement that both those in favour of women bishops and those who had theological objections to their introduction were loyal Anglicans; and the recognition that it would be wrong to make such meagre provision for opponents that they would see themselves as being treated on sufferance. He said that Reform members would also be likely to welcome the proposal that provision for opponents should be consistent across all dioceses and that there should be a clear process for dispute resolution.
However, by presenting a motion to next month’s General Synod that committed the future legislative process to the least generous of the options outlined in the paper, the legitimate concerns of many evangelicals were likely to be overlooked. In particular, the proposal for unqualified changes in both legislation and canon would leave many evangelicals in an impossible situation. Clergy who believe the Bible teaches male headship would be unable to take vows of canonical obedience to female bishops and this would effectively prevent them from undertaking much parish ministry.
Other concerns identified by Reform were:
- The requirement for General Synod to vote on a way forward without having sight of the proposed provisions for those who were opposed on theological grounds to the Episcopal oversight of women;
- The insecurity of the proposed methods for making provision (ie either an Act of Synod or a declaration by the House of Bishops) which can be changed at any stage in the future by a simple majority vote of the General Synod or House of Bishops; and
- The proposed removal of the current legislative provisions by which parishes can request the appointment of male priests. This could leave them vulnerable to legal challenge under Equality legislation in the future.
Prebendary Rod Thomas, who took part in the facilitated discussions with the House of Bishops Working Group earlier this year, said that the Church’s synodical process left little room for substantive changes to the proposals. The majority, who favour the introduction of women bishops, are likely to vote the proposals through by simple majority until the time comes for a vote on final approval. Only then, when the majority required in each House of Synod is 2/3, will the views of the minority really count. ‘I have to hope that Synod agrees to amend the motion before it in July’, Preb Thomas said. ‘Failure to do so will make our efforts to find an agreed way forward very much more difficult to achieve.’
Before the voting yesterday Andrew Brown had written at Cif belief The rump church opposition to gay marriage is naked patriarchy with the strapline:
It’s not the bill but evangelical opposition to it that weakens the status of the church and diminishes Christianity’s role in society
Andrew concludes this way:
…The fiasco over gay marriage is part of a general defeat for conservative Christians right now. The other wing, often involving the same people, is the collapse of resistance to women bishops in the Church of England. When I read that Conservative evangelicals are outraged at the prospect of admitting that women are lawfully bishops and their superiors and feel that they will have to lie or leave the church, as a recent press release stated, I want to break out the world’s smallest violin and play a jig on it.
All of their arguments have broken down into naked patriarchy, and that really isn’t an attractive sight, as the story of Noah makes clear.
There will always be conservative Christians, of course; and there will always be silly liberal policies which they are right to resist. But for the foreseeable future there won’t be any credible conservative Christian organisations to voice their fears.
And Paul Johnson had written on his ECHR Sexual Orientation Blog about UK Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill and the ECHR:
…At the heart of legal arguments made by religious opponents of the Bill is the now regularly expressed fear that the rights of religious organizations are being trampled on by homosexuals in Strasbourg. Yet the reality is the opposite of this and the Court has repeatedly held that, in the sphere of relationship rights, it is for the member state to determine its own legal landscape. In this respect it is worth recalling the opinion of David Thór Björgvinsson (judge for Iceland, a member state that permits same-sex marriage) in Burden v the United Kingdom which, in reflecting on the development of civil partnership legislation in the UK, stated:
…it is important to have in mind that each and every step taken in this direction, positive as it may seem to be from the point of view of equal rights, potentially has important and far reaching consequences for the social structure of society, as well as legal consequences […] It is precisely for this reason that it is not the role of this Court to take the initiative in this matter and impose upon the Member States a duty further to extend the applicability of these rules with no clear view of the consequences that it may have in the different Member States. In my view it must fall within the margin of appreciation of the respondent State to decide when and to what extent this will be done.
After the vote, there were some positive religious responses;
Some other comment articles:
Savi Hensman at Ekklesia has written Christians divided as Lords back equal marriage Bill.
Damian Thompson wrote at the Telegraph Gay marriage is not a faith issue, says Archbishop of Canterbury. That sounds like a pretty big concession to me.
Stephen Hough writes in the Telegraph Equal marriage: could Justin Welby’s support save the Church of England?
4 CommentsThe Prime Minister’s Office has announced that the next Bishop of Manchester is to be the Rt Revd David Walker, the suffragan Bishop of Dudley in the diocese of Worcester.
Approval of the nomination of the Right Reverend David Stuart Walker, MA, Suffragan Bishop of Dudley, for election as Bishop of Manchester.
The Queen has approved the nomination of the Right Reverend David Stuart Walker, MA, Suffragan Bishop of Dudley, for election as Bishop of Manchester in succession to the Right Reverend Nigel Simeon McCulloch, MA, on his resignation on 17 January 2013.
Notes for editors
The Right Reverend David Walker (aged 56) studied theology at Queen’s College, Birmingham. He served his first curacy at St Mary Handsworth, Sheffield from 1983 to 1986. From 1986 to 1991 he was Team Vicar and Industrial Chaplain at Maltby Team Ministry, Sheffield. From 1991 to 1995 he was Vicar of Bramley and Ravenfield, Sheffield before becoming the Team Rector of Bramley and Ravenfield with Hooton Roberts and Braithwell. He was made Honorary Canon of Sheffield Cathedral in June 2000. Since 2000 he has been Suffragan Bishop of Dudley in the diocese of Worcester. He has held a number of significant governance roles within the social housing movement as well as serving on Equality and Diversity Panels for the Homes and Communities Agency and the National Policing Improvement Agency.
David Walker is married to Sue and they have two children. His interests include politics, cricket, rambling, mathematical puzzles, reading and communications. He is an active researcher, using statistical methods to investigate the beliefs and practices of churchgoers.
The Diocese of Manchester has its own announcement here, which is copied below the fold.
John Bingham of the Daily Telegraph anticipated the official announcement by several hours with this piece: Outspoken cleric set to become Bishop of Manchester.
Charlotte Cox of the Manchester Evening News writes that New Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Rev David Walker, is outspoken critic of Government reforms.
Ed Thornton of the Church Times writes that Bishop of Dudley to move to Manchester.
12 CommentsThe vote in the House of Lords on Lord Dear’s fatal amendment was 148 in favour of the amendment, i.e. to deny the bill a Second Reading, and 390 against the amendment. Accordingly, the bill was approved on Second Reading by a voice vote.
There were 14 Church of England bishops present and voting, of whom 9 supported the Dear amendment and 5 abstained. We will publish the names of the bishops as soon as they are available.
Bishops who supported the Dear amendment:
Birmingham
Bristol
Canterbury
Chester
Coventry
Exeter
Hereford
London
Winchester
Bishops who abstained:
Derby
Guildford
Leicester
Norwich
St.Edmundsbury & Ipswich
The Hansard record of the second day of debate begins here. An index of Tuesday’s speakers is here (scroll down to 3.06 pm). The Division occurred at 6.24 p.m.
The official analysis of the voting can be found here:
33 CommentsContents: 148 | Not Contents: 390 | Result: N/A
Contents Total: 148
Bishops 9
Conservative 66
Crossbench 46
Labour 16
Liberal Democrat 2
Other 9Not Contents Total: 390
Conservative 80
Crossbench 68
Labour 160
Liberal Democrat 73
Other 9
Affirming Catholicism has today welcomed the bishops’ proposals in GS 1886. There is this brief press staement
The Board of Affirming Catholicism issues a strong welcome for the House of Bishops new legislative proposals to admit Women in the Episcopate of the Church of England (GS1886): simplicity, reciprocity and mutuality – and support for Option One.
and an accompanying paper setting out their views in detail. This is copied below.
Affirming Catholicism
Statement on the new Legislative Proposals to admit Women in the Episcopate of the Church of England (GS 1886)
Affirming Catholicism welcomes the publication of the new Legislative Proposals to admit Women in the Episcopate of the Church of England and the associated Report from the House of Bishops
(GS 1886).
We believe that the five elements of the underlying vision (laid out in § 24 of the proposals), as amended by the House of Bishops (presented at § 12 of their report), offer a very good basis for the drafting of new legislation:
Affirming Catholicism particularly welcomes the first and second of these general principles, which make it clear that there can be no ambiguity over the ordination or consecration of women. We also endorse the continued commitment to the minority within the Church of England who cannot recognise these ordinations, expressed in the fourth and fifth, and share the concern for the ecumenical context expressed in the third.
This vision is helpfully elaborated in §§ 32-43 which set out the underlying principles which must govern any legislation: simplicity, reciprocity, and mutuality.
The principle of simplicity affirms that “the existing, already complex, structures of the Church of England will not be changed” and in particular that “the position of each diocesan bishop as Ordinary will remain unaltered.” In consequence, “all licensed ministers will continue to owe canonical obedience to the diocesan bishop in all things lawful and honest and take an oath to acknowledge this duty” (§ 33).
In our view, this principle ensures the preservation of the Church of England’s catholic ecclesiology; it is vital that should underlie any proposals for legislation. We note the similarity of the oath “of canonical obedience to the diocesan bishop in all things lawful and honest” to the oath of allegiance sworn to the Queen (arguably a consecrated woman!) at ordination.
The principle of reciprocity affirms the willingness of all members of the Church of England, regardless of their views, to cooperate in mission and ministry (§ 35). It also recognises the importance of – where necessary – making special arrangements both for those who cannot receive the priestly or episcopal ministry of women, and for those who affirm that ministry.
We welcome the assertion that “once the Church of England has admitted women to the episcopate … there should no longer be any dioceses where none of the serving bishops ordains women as priests” (§ 39) and the suggestion that “In dioceses where the diocesan bishop does not ordain women it will be particularly important that a bishop who is fully committed to the ordained ministry of women is given a role across the whole diocese for providing support for female clergy” (§ 40), noting however, that support for laity and male clergy who affirm the ordination of women may also be appropriate and necessary.
The principle of mutuality “will mean that the majority and the minority will be committed to making it possible for the other to flourish”; it articulates an ongoing commitment to the appointment of traditionalist clergy to senior posts, including as bishops (§§ 41, 43).
We applaud the recognition of the need for an on-going relationship between those who hold the majority and the minority opinions, which we believe to be vital to the mission of the Church of England.
Taken together, these principles reveal the Church of England’s strong commitment to holding all groups together under common episcopal authority whilst respecting their differences. This seems to us a very positive set of principles on which to proceed.
Affirming Catholicism also welcomes the suggestion that the legislation should “deliver new Canons C 2 and C 4 which deal with the episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate without the need for separate canons which are gender specific” (§ 54) whilst offering provision for the minority which allows them to continue to flourish. The precise form of this provision will depend on the way forward agreed by General Synod.
The working party suggests four possible ways forward:
1. This, the simplest way forward, would involve: a measure and amending canon which would made it lawful for women to become bishops; the repeal of the statutory rights to pass Resolutions A and B under the 1993 Measure, together with the rescinding of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod; a formal declaration by the House of Bishops and/or by the making of a new Act of Synod making provision for those who do not recognise the sacramental ministry of women; and provision of monitoring body and a dispute resolution procedure to ensure fair treatment under these provisions. (§§ 79-88; HOB Report §§ 14, 28)
2. This would look like option 1, but would include a provision in the Measure to couple it with an Act of Synod agreed by the Synod before final approval of the Measure; it might also include a requirement requiring that neither the Act of Synod nor the Measure could not amended or repealed without two-thirds majorities in each House. (§§ 89-95)
3. This would put in place a House of Bishops’ declaration or Act of Synod in relation to episcopal ministry and would also retain some elements of the 1993 Measure in relation to priestly ministry. (§§ 96-109) The working party is uncertain of the wisdom of this way forward, and in the House of Bishops it found only limited support.
4. The final option is to include more detail in the measure, as in the draft measure which was defeated in November. (§§ 110-120) Neither the working group nor the House of Bishops favours this route.
The House of Bishops has indicated its preference for the first of these options. Affirming Catholicism strongly endorses that preference. We recognise that the details of the provisions for the minority through an associated Act of Synod and/or declaration by the House of Bishops, still need to be worked out, and these must be clear before General Synod is asked to proceed. While we note that in law there is little distinction between an Act of Synod or a Declaration by the Bishops, and that neither can create “enforceable rights and duties”, we would welcome the provision of a dispute resolution procedure overseen by a monitoring body; this, we believe, would guard against failure to comply and against divisive use, whilst fostering trust. Moreover, we believe that Option 1 will best preserve the catholic nature of the Church of England, by encouraging all groups to recognise each other and to work together in a spirit of trust and generosity.
Finally, Affirming Catholicism applauds the bishops’ sense of urgency. Much damage has been done by General Synod’s rejection of the draft legislation in November 2012 and it is important to find a way forward before more people leave the Church of England. For the well-being of the church, we would not wish to cede the initiative to Parliament.
Affirming Catholicism, June 2013
28 CommentsThe Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Forward in Faith have issued this statement on the House of Bishops report GS 1886 Women In the Episcopate – New Legislative Proposals. They do not like the bishops’ proposals.
WOMEN IN THE EPISCOPATE: NEW LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
STATEMENT FROM FORWARD IN FAITHWe are grateful for the work of the working group whose report is annexed to the House of Bishops report GS 1886 (‘Women in the Episcopate – New Legislative Proposals’). We strongly welcome the House of Bishops’ endorsement of the group’s five-point vision (para. 12 of the House’s report).
However, we are puzzled by the conclusions that the House has apparently drawn from the working group’s report.
We continue to believe that a solution to address the new reality of women bishops will need to build on the existing framework which has enabled us to live together in the Church of England over the last twenty years. We agree with the view that there can be ‘no cheap trust’. Our future can only be based on a mutually trusting relationship. The proposal of legislation which sweeps away existing legal security damages trust.
In November, an attempt to push through a Measure with legal provisions which no representative of the minority recognized as remotely adequate failed – after much prayer and invocation of the Holy Spirit. We are puzzled as to why the House of Bishops apparently believes that its new proposals, which would involve no legally binding provision at all, are more likely to gain the necessary majorities.
As an organization whose members are overwhelmingly lay, the fact that the House of Bishops’ proposals would involve a significant shift of power in favour of incumbents and bishops is of particular concern to us. So too is the fact that the proposals would expose lay representatives, as well as incumbents and priests in charge, to the risk of incurring significant costs in defending themselves against legal challenges.
We still hope that the ‘new way forward’ promised in February will involve prayer, reconciliation, mutual respect and consensus. We welcome the facilitated conversations as a means of moving towards this end. We do not believe that the House of Bishops’ preferred option (Option 1) represents the mind of the whole Church of England.
We therefore hope that the General Synod will choose a way forward which builds on the existing arrangements rather one which destroys them. Such legislation would be far more likely to secure final approval in the shortest possible time.
Our comments and questions are set out in more detail in the document which accompanies this statement.
+ JONATHAN FULHAM
The Rt Revd Jonathan Baker, Bishop of Fulham
ChairmanLINDSAY NEWCOMBE
Dr Lindsay Newcombe
Vice-Chairman4 June 2013
The comments and questions are below the fold.
36 CommentsThe Church of England issued this briefing note to members of the House of Lords in preparation for the Second Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. It includes a Q and A section which goes into a number of details.
For convenience of comparison, here is a link to what was issued at the time of the Report/Third Reading in the House of Commons.
6 CommentsUpdated Tuesday lunchtime
The Hansard report of the first day of debate is now available starting here at 3.10 pm, and continuing at 6.01 pm, after a half hour interruption for other urgent business, over here. The debate adjourned at 10.46 pm. It will resume today at around 3 pm.
A full index of speeches by speaker is here (scroll down).
Links to speeches by bishops and former bishops:
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s own record of his own speech can be found on his own website.
In his speech Hansard says he said that:
…Although the majority of Bishops who voted during the passage of the Civil Partnership Act through your Lordships’ House were in favour of civil partnerships a few years ago, it is also absolutely true that the church has often not served the LGBT communities in the way it should…
Whereas in his own transcript he says that he said:
Although the majority of Bishops who voted during the whole passage of the Civil Partnerships Act through your Lordships’ House were in favour of civil partnerships a few years ago, it is also absolutely true that the church has often not served the LGBT communities in the way it should. [emphasis added]
Update Hansard has been modified, and the word “whole” has been [re-]inserted in the sentence in the official record. Those who have studied the analysis linked below will see why the inclusion of this word is so significant.
TA readers will recall that back in June 2012 we published this detailed analysis of how the bishops spoke and voted on this matter, prepared by Richard Chapman: The Lords Spiritual and Civil Partnerships Legislation.
14 CommentsUpdated Thursday 6 June
The Church Times is reporting: Traditionalists saddened by latest women-bishop proposals. The traditionalists referred to are the Catholic Group in General Synod.
THE House of Bishops preference for the provision of women bishops, “option one” (News, 31 May), has been severely criticised by the Catholic Group in General Synod as a “step backwards”.
In the first detailed traditionalist response, the group’s chairman, Canon Simon Killwick, says that they are “saddened” by the Bishops’ preference, accusing them of “closing down debate before it has started”.
The statement is not yet on the Group’s own website, but can be read at the end of the Church Times article.
Update
The Group has now sent us a copy of their statement and this is copied below the fold.
9 CommentsBishop Alan Wilson has published an analysis of the constitutional implications of bishops supporting Lord Dear’s fatal amendment under the title Perils of the Aristocracy: A Political Scientist Writes…
The political scientist in question is Dr Iain McLean, Professor of Politics at Oxford University, Fellow of Nuffield College, and Vice President for Public Policy of the British Academy.
His analysis is reproduced in full below the fold.
Meanwhile, the parliamentary advisers to the bishops who tweet at @churchstate have denied that any advice to abstain etc. has been issued to bishops as described by John Bingham in the Telegraph.
9 CommentsOliver Wright in the Independent has an interview with Labour peer Lord Alli: Lord Alli: ‘I was called sinful and dirty. And that was in a Lords debate’. It includes the following comments on the bishops:
5 Comments…He divides the opponents of gay marriage into two distinct categories. “There are those who have deeply held religious views and then there is a second group who oppose now but will probably repent later.
“They were the type of people who voted against the equalisation of consent and regretted it. They are the people who voted against civil partnerships and regretted it. And I’ll believe they’ll vote against gay marriage and they’ll regret it in five years’ time.
“I telephone them, I write to them I text them I try and make them turn up. I try and discuss the issues that worry them. It’s all the things you would expect me to do.”
But he is also attempting to persuade the Bishops – 26 of whom have seats in the Lords – not to present a unified front against gay marriage and to recognise that they do not speak for the whole Church when they oppose it.
To this end he recently had a meeting with the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, that led to a rather remarkable public letter from the Bishop of Salisbury that challenged Church of England orthodoxy.
“I said that I knew there were people in the Church – such as the Bishop of Salisbury – who were supportive of gay marriage and I asked him [that] if I went to see him and asked him to do a piece would he have your blessing? He said ‘Absolutely. And that goes for any bishop.’”
So that’s what Alli did; leading to a 1,200-word letter from the Bishop, now being sent to every peer, in which he explains why he does not agree with the current orthodoxy.
Alli thinks there are more who share the view of the Bishop of Salisbury but for political reasons find it harder to speak out. “You go to a meeting and they give their position and their eyes almost roll as they are leaving the room,” he says.
“Some of them don’t fundamentally believe their own position on this.”
He also points out the inherent contradiction in the Church of England’s position – that while they are protected from having to conduct gay marriages they don’t want to give other groups the freedom to do so.
“They argue religious freedom except where they don’t like it. They don’t want gay marriage – so that means the Quakers can’t have it or the liberal Jews can’t have it. They’re in a pretty hypocritical place.”
John Bingham reports in the Telegraph Bishops under pressure to abstain in gay marriage vote.
Despite vocal opposition from the Church to the Government’s plans to allow same-sex couples to marry, it is understood that senior officials have personally urged bishops to stay away from this week’s vote.
They fear that a large bloc of clerics turning up to vote down the bill could rebound on the Church, reopening questions over the right of bishops to sit in the Lords and even raise the prospect of disestablishment.
They have also told bishops privately that they are convinced the bill, which includes legal “locks” to prevent clergy being forced to carry out same-sex weddings against their beliefs, is the “best” they could hope to achieve…
And this:
12 Comments…In a letter to be handed in to Lambeth Palace this morning, 30 leaders of independent churches, including a string of so-called “black majority” churches, warn that the church of England faces a “defining point” over the issue of same-sex marriage.
It is understood that the Archbishop intends both to speak and vote against the bill. But officials are anxious not to be seen to be taking on the Government over the issue. Last night Lambeth Palace confirmed that Archbishop Welby would attend but declined to comment on how he would vote.
A recent Church of England briefing note to MPs warmly praised the Government for introducing legal protections for clerics.
A total of 26 bishops are entitled to sit in the Lords – although the bishops’ bench is currently reduced with the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, recovering from a cancer operation, and the see of Durham left vacant by Archbishop Welby’s promotion to Canterbury.
But under current convention they take turns to sit in the Lords, with usually only two bishops in attendance for most debates.
Officials in Church House are said to have urged bishops to limit their numbers to around six at the most for the controversial debate. It is thought that up to 10 of them could defy the advice and vote against the bill.
The officials are said to be afraid that were the bill to be defeated by a handful of votes, the bishops would be singled out for blame.
One senior source said that officials in the Church had begun to “call the shots more and more” during the last 10 years, under the tenure of the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Williams.
“What they are scared of is that this goes down by a few votes and then the bishops are seen as having swung the vote,” said one…
Theo Hobson writes the first of two articles for The Guardian: Eureka! My quest for an authentic liberal Christianity.
And Dave Marshall of Modern Church also writes about liberal theology in No need to whisper.
Nick Duerden of The Independent interviews the Rev Richard Coles: ‘I don’t have any concerns that God is cross with me for being gay and eventually the Church won’t either’.
T M Luhrmann writes for The new York Times that Belief Is the Least Part of Faith.
Giles Fraser writes for The Guardian that Wickedness, allied to the ‘truth’ of religious belief, can lead us to evil acts.
3 CommentsCivitas has published a set of essays from a very wide range of viewpoints. See Gay marriage: the debate for an explanation.
With the row over gay marriage set to reach the House of Lords on Monday, Civitas today publishes a wide-ranging collection of essays from the leading figures on both sides of this most polarised of debates.
The Meaning of Matrimony: Debating Same-Sex Marriage is edited by our deputy director Anastasia de Waal who, while herself strongly in favour of the reform, has sought to bring under one roof all of the arguments – for and against – to provide a definitive guide to the debate.
Most striking is the vehemence of opinion among so many intelligent, rational people with such different – often diametrically opposing – views…
The essays are in this PDF file: The Meaning of Matrimony.
Also, Andrew Goddard has written Misrepresenting same-sex marriage: The Bishop of Salisbury.
On the other hand, the Chief Executive of Barnardo’s is urging peers in the House of Lords to support the Marriage (Same Sex Couple) Bill and says “equal marriage will have a positive effect for children growing up in a gay household.” See this article by Anne Marie Carrie.
Update
There is a commentary on one of the Civitas articles in this piece at Ekklesia by Savi Hensman Carey’s scaremongering on equal marriage, polygamy and incest.
15 CommentsThe Archbishop of York announced yesterday that he had undergone surgery for prostate surgery.
Statement From The Archbishop of York
The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu.
Thursday 30th May 2013
Following an operation today, the Archbishop has released the following statement…
I am thankful and grateful for Mr Bill Cross, and his surgical team at St James’ Hospital Leeds, who today operated on me for a locally advanced cancer of the prostate. I am also grateful to the nursing staff who are caring for me.
I am thankful, too, for all of you who regularly pray for me and support me, especially my staff at Bishopthorpe Palace.
I will be out of action for some time, and will continue to value your prayers. I look forward to resuming my ministry as soon as possible.
As I have often said, during the most trying times, I have derived great comfort from the words of the Taizé chant, ‘Aber du weißt den Weg für mich’, adapted from a passage in Letters and Papers from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, (a German Pastor and Theologian executed by the Nazis in 1945):
“God, gather and turn my thoughts to you. With you there is light, you do not forget me. With you there is hope and patience. I don’t understand your ways, but you know the way for me.”
I wish you all joy in the Lord.
+Sentamu Eboracensis
on the Feast of Corpus Christi
The many press reports include these:
Ed Thornton in the Church Times Dr Sentamu treated for prostate cancer
Press Association (in The Guardian) John Sentamu, archbishop of York, has surgery for prostate cancer
Tim Ross in The Telegraph Archbishop of York has prostate cancer surgery
BBC News Archbishop of York treated for prostate cancer
Kevin Rawlinson in The Independent Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, treated for prostate cancer
4 CommentsDr Alan Wilson, the Bishop of Buckingham, has written this Letter to a Saloon Bar Moralist.
7 CommentsThank you for your letter. The more people apply their first principles to this question, the closer we will come to a way forward so thank you for trying. I am sure many people, especially those of a certain age will share it instinctively, driven by a primal feeling of disgust about gay sex.
What I am finding also, however, is that your views appear anything but natural to vast numbers of people who simply see gay people as people, not defined by their sexual practices. The opposite answer is as clear to them, as yours is to you and the minority of my correspondents your letter represents…
Updated Friday morning and evening and Friday 7 June
Today’s issue of the Church Times has several articles about the latest proposals from the House of Bishops. Ed Thornton and Glyn Paflin report on them in Next step proposed on women bishops.
In Bleak outlook, says opponent Madeleine Davies reports on several responses to the proposals, in particular this one:
WHILE it might be “difficult for anyone to claim outright victory”, the way forward to women bishops mapped out by the House of Bishops, looked like “outright defeat”, the chairman of Reform, the conservative Evangelical network, Prebendary Rod Thomas, said on Tuesday…
And there is this Leader comment: No cheap trust.
Update
Yes2WomenBishops has issued several tweets including the following:
Church Times Leader gets a couple of important facts wrong. (1) senior women clergy were not at the last House of Bishops meeting and …
(2) proposal is NOT to pass the measure then develop the provisions for opponents – will all be done at the same time
So essentially the whole basis for the article is wrong!Here’s an excellent legal briefing on the oath of canonical obedience and why it is essentially meaningless http://ecclesiasticallaw.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/canonical-obedience/ …
Subsequently the Church Times has published a correction to its leader in response to point (1).
The paper copy of the Church Times dated 7 June 2013 carries this correction on page 8: ” The official women observers were not present at the last House of Bishops’ meeting, as we stated in last week’s leader comment. Also, “option one” allows for the provision for those who object to women bishops to be decided before final approval of the main Measure.”
0 CommentsUpdated again Sunday afternoon
The Second Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples Bill) in the House of Lords will now be scheduled over two days, Monday and Tuesday, 3 and 4 June.
Updated The list of those who have asked to speak in the debate now stands at 90, about two-thirds of whom will speak on Monday, see list here. Only three active bishops (Leicester, Chester, Exeter) are listed, along with two retired bishops (Carey, Harries). There are however reports elsewhere that the Archbishop of Canterbury intends to speak.
The BBC has this news report: Late night votes on gay marriage could be a headache for Cameron which was written before the announcement relating to continuation on Tuesday. In his more recent post, Mark D’Arcy writes:
…Then the main business is the Marriage (Same Sex Couple[s]) Bill – with 86 peers now listed to speak. The Coalition business managers have responded to pressure from all sides (see earlier post) to rejig the debate to avoid sitting beyond midnight – and the vote will now be taken on Tuesday. Some peers may not like that, so watch out for complaints that this isn’t quite cricket…..Overshadowing proceedings is the rarity of a motion to decline to give the bill a second reading, from the Crossbencher, Lord Dear…
See this earlier article for links to the bill text and explanatory notes as it left the House of Commons.
There is a House of Lords Library Note about the bill, see here.
Read the transcript in Today’s Lords debates three hours after the debate.
2 Comments