Updated again Thursday morning
The Primate of The Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East , Bishop Mouneer Anis of Egypt has announced his resignation from what used to be called the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council, but which has now been restyled as the “Anglican Communion Standing Committee”.
His statement is available as a PDF from the website of the Diocese of Egypt which summarises it:
“I have come to realize that my presence in the current [Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion] has no value whatsoever and my voice is like a useless cry in the wilderness.” However, he assured the Anglican Communion that he would not stop his commitment “for the present and future of our beloved Anglican Communion and the greater Christian witness.”
This has prompted the Anglican Communion Institute to issue a paper titled The Anglican Communion Covenant: Where Do We Go From Here? which contains a summary of itself:
In summary, and on the basis of our continued conviction that the Covenant itself as currently formulated is a positive, faithful, and necessary basis for the renewal of the Anglican Communion and its member churches, we argue that:
1. The final Covenant text envisions a Communion of responsibly coordinated Instruments, ordered episcopally, that the current ACC-led standing committee is in fact undermining;
2. The current ACC standing committee is not necessarily the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” indicated by the Covenant text, and cannot therefore automatically claim the authority it seems to be assuming;
3. The current ACC standing committee has little credibility in the eyes of a large part of the Communion and ought not to be claiming the authority it seems to be assuming;
4. Those Churches of the Communion who move fully and decisively to adopt the Covenant must work with a provisional and representative standing committee, continuous in membership with the other Instruments, that will direct the implementation of the Covenant in a way that can eventually permit a Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion to be formed as envisioned by the Covenant text.
There is a discussion of this at titusonenine where Stephen Noll has written this comment. (number 5 on the blog).
Other comments: Jim Naughton here, and Andrew Gerns over here.
Updates
The Archbishop of Canterbury issued a brief statement.
Doug LeBlanc reported in the Living Church on an interview with Bishop Mouneer, see Bp. Mouneer: Talks Prompted Resignation.
ENS has MIDDLE EAST: President Bishop Mouneer Anis resigns from Standing Committee.
Thursday morning update
There is a further comment by Ephraim Radner “The Anglican Covenant: Where Do We Go From Here?”: A further comment.
26 CommentsThis is the title of a publication from the Chicago Consultation.
As the press release says:
Earlier this month, diocesan standing committees and bishops with jurisdiction were formally notified of the election of the Rev. Mary Glasspool as bishop suffragan in the Diocese of Los Angeles. Bishop-elect Glasspool is the second openly gay, partnered person to be elected bishop in the Anglican Communion.
The 2009 General Convention of the Episcopal Church affirmed, through Resolution D025, that God calls partnered gay and lesbian people to all orders of ministry in the Episcopal Church. The Chicago Consultation believes that this position is consistent with traditional Anglican polity and theology. To aid standing committees and bishops with their role in the consent process, we have published a collection of essays by eminent theologians across the Episcopal Church…
God’s Call and Our Response is available as a PDF file.
It is is edited by the Rev. Dr. Ruth A. Meyers, Hodges-Haynes Professor of Liturgics at Church Divinity School of the Pacific. It includes essays by:
More about the Chicago Consultation here.
7 CommentsThe Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has a press release:
Today Common Pleas Court Judge Joseph James accepted a Special Master’s report detailing the properties the Judge has previously ruled should be controlled by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.
The Special Master compiled his inventory following the Judge’s order of October 6, 2009, in which he ruled that a 2005 Stipulation agreed to by former diocesan leaders prevented them from continuing to hold diocesan assets.
Today’s order contains provisions intended to make it clear to the financial institutions holding the assets that they should now take their instructions only from designated representatives of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. The order, which takes effect immediately, also requires former diocesan leaders to provide ongoing cooperation to the Diocese to implement the provisions of the Order.
The Diocese plans to quickly make arrangements so that all parishes may again have access to their investment funds that were frozen by financial institutions during the legal proceedings.
A PDF of Judge James’ January 29th order and the public version of the Special Master’s report can be viewed by clicking here.
Lionel Deimel has additional information here, and more here. And even more here.
24 CommentsMonday was revision day 4. Wednesday was day 5 and this was originally supposed to be the final day, but now an additional day has been scheduled for Tuesday 9 February (during General Synod, so not so convenient for bishops, perhaps.)
On Monday, following the previously reported debates on Clause 2, amendments to Clause 3 were also considered. Both the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Winchester took part in this debate.
The Hansard report of that starts here. Monday’s PDF is here.
Then, on day 5, the Hansard report of the debate starts here. The PDF file for the day is over here.
Official news report of Day 5.
The day began by consideration of the mandatory retirement age. The Bishop of Chester spoke on that.
Then, amendments relating to faith schools were considered. That part of the debate starts here.
And there was a debate on amendments relating to whether or not the public equality duty should be extended to cover Religion or Belief. That debates starts here.
The Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Liverpool both spoke in these debates. No votes were taken on anything.
4 CommentsToday’s Church Times has three mentions of the bill.
There is a full news report of Monday’s debate, written by me, Bishops win in Equality Bill fight.
There is a leader, titled Opportunities not yet equal.
And there is comment on the secular press coverage of it in the Press Column (subscriber only until next week) by Andrew Brown.
THE Government’s defeat in the Lords over the Equality Bill was covered on remarkably simple left/right lines: for the right-wing papers, the issue was simply one of the freedom of the Churches from the oppressions of Harriet Harman and the European Union; for the Left, it was just as simply the freedom of gays to be employed…
The Church of England Newspaper devoted its entire front page to the bill. The main news story is reproduced over here.
Catholic Herald Anna Arco Government suffers Equality Bill defeat
More to follow.
3 CommentsThe text of the House of Bishops amendment to the ACNA motion is now available:
36 CommentsItem 14 Anglican Church in North America (GS 1764A and 1764B)
The Bishop of Bristol (the Rt Revd Mike Hill) to move as an amendment:
Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:
“(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”.
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 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 CommentChurch 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 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:
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 CommentsAndreas Whittam Smith writes in the Independent about POWER2010. See Here’s one way to reconnect voters and see what he is talking about at the POWER2010 website.
Roderick Strange writes in The Times that Water into wine teaches us about transformation.
And Rosemary Lain-Priestley writes there about Being a mother, wife and priest.
In the Guardian Riaz Ravat writes in the Face to Faith column that amid a slew of negative coverage, we must all work at challenging how Muslims are seen.
The Brookings Institution has published a paper by Alex Evans and David Steven titled Hitting Reboot: Where Next For Climate After Copenhagen? (The paper itself is a PDF download from that page.) (Hat tip: Richard Chartres.)
Giles Fraser wrote in the Church Times that Science is not neutral.
And his Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4 on Friday, about Theodicy is available here to listen to, or here as a podcast. The text will also be on the BBC website later, but is available now below the fold.
10 CommentsPat Ashworth reports in the Church Times today, Women face another delay as committee misses deadline.
THE draft legislation on women bishops will not be coming before the General Synod for debate next month as scheduled. Instead, the revision committee is expected still to be working on it after Easter. It will not now be debated till July…
This became public knowledge by the issue of the draft agenda, a little over a week ago.
Also, Jane Hedges writes about women in senior clergy posts, A little encouragement is all it will take.
This contains the results of a survey which showed that women clergy were less likely to respond to open competitive advertising than they were to respond to a personal approach. But what we don’t learn is whether this is the same or different for male clergy.
And there is a Church Times leader, Women bishops delay (scroll down).
10 CommentsTHERE are two sorts of waiting. One is the wait while a family comes to a decision about whether it wants to journey to a particular place. Time can pass during consultations and preparation, but it is generally considered well spent in order to reach a proper agreement. The second sort of wait is when, having decided on its journey, the family stands on a snowy platform awaiting a scheduled train that the rail company has just taken out of service.
Churchpeople are entitled to feel irritated that the revision committee charged with taking forward the draft women-bishops legislation has missed its February deadline. The next stage of the process must therefore be delayed till the General Synod meets again in July. It is, though, important that the Synod comes up with the best possible legislation to introduce women to the episcopate without reservation while, at the same time, seeking not to unchurch those who object. This was the Synod’s express wish, and it cannot be any surprise that the revision committee has struggled to fulfil both sides of this task. Returning to the analogy above, there is no point in the train’s arriving in the station if the whole family is not on the platform. The committee now needs to be more open about its deliberations in order to curb the Synod’s impatience.