British Religion in Numbers reported back in June on this:
…Church attendance in Greater London grew by 16% between 2005 and 2012, from 620,000 to 720,000, representing 9% of the capital’s population at the latter date, and thereby bucking the downward trend in most national religious indicators. The number of places of worship in London also rose during these seven years, by 17% from 4,100 to 4,800. Growth was especially to be found among black majority and immigrant churches, which together accounted for 27% of all Christian places of worship in London in 2012 and 24% of churchgoers. Black people were far more likely to attend services than whites (19% against 8%), and in Inner London 48% of worshippers were black.
This reliance upon ethnicity and migration also explains other facts revealed by the census, such as that 14% of all churches use a language other than English or that 52% of attenders are in evangelical churches (reflecting the evangelical proclivities of black Christians). By contrast, many traditional, smaller places of worship (with congregations under 200) are still contracting; they represent 50% of churches but just 22% of churchgoers. Overall, Anglicans are declining and Catholics only just growing. Moreover, the net increase of 100,000 worshippers from 2005 to 2012 disproportionately comprised women (82%), although the female majority in congregations as a whole was much lower (56%). The mean age of attenders was 41 years, ranging from 33 in the Pentecostal and New Churches to 56 for the Methodist and United Reformed Churches…
More recently Crossing London reported:
…The first findings from The London Church Census, commissioned by London City Mission and undertaken by the Brierley Consultancy in October 2012, indicate that 720,000 people in London attend church, nearly 100,000 more than the last time churchgoing was counted seven years ago. That’s an increase of 16% between 2005 and 2012.
“We are very encouraged to see from this census that many hundreds of thousands of people still consider ‘churchgoing’ as an important part of their lives,” said Andy Frost, Mission Director of Crossing London……A summary of the findings of the 2012 London Church Census can be found at http://www.brierleyconsultancy.com/images/londonchurches.pdf…
There are several interesting charts and tables in that last document.
5 CommentsThe News Service of the Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil reports:
After a long judicial battle that lasted for a decade, a Brazilian judge has this month finally decided that the actions taken by Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti in creating of the Diocese of Recife – DR, flagrantly violated Brazilian law as well as Canon law, the Doctrine & Discipline of the Episcopal Anglican Church in Brazil (IEAB), resulting in the suspension/demotion, and eventual dismissal of Bishop Robinson from his episcopal authority & legal legitimacy for such actions.
With the sentence, it was decreed that all the actions taken by Bishop Robinson were nullified, and all would be returned to the Anglican Diocese of Recife (DAR), including property, administration & all goods and rights which were illegally usurped, including amongst them five churches with all of their belongings. From now on, all of these parishes are under the direction and supervision of Diocesan Bishop Sebastião Armando…
For some background to this, a Thinking Anglicans report from 2005 may be helpful: Recife: a clarification.
Many of the links from that report are now broken, but the article from the Living Church is still available from the web archive Southern Cone Primate Annexes Brazilian Diocese.
There is also this 2005 report from the Church Times Venables takes Brazilian diocese under his wing. The current issue also has a news report, but this is only available to subscribers.
Anglican Ink has this report by George Conger: Recife loses court battle over church property to the IEAB.
5 CommentsUpdated
As noted in the Comments below, the text of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 is now available online here.
The Roman Catholic Bishops of England & Wales issued this statement: Statement on on the passing of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act
…The new Act breaks the existing legal links between the institution of marriage and sexual complementarity. With this new legislation, marriage has now become an institution in which openness to children, and with it the responsibility on fathers and mothers to remain together to care for children born into their family unit, are no longer central. That is why we were opposed to this legislation on principle.
Along with others, we have expressed real concern about the deficiencies in the process by which this legislation came to Parliament, and the speed with which it has been rushed through. We are grateful particularly therefore to those Parliamentarians in both Houses who have sought to improve the Bill during its passage, so that it enshrines more effective protection for religious freedom.
A particular concern for us has also been the lack of effective protection for Churches which decide not to opt-in to conducting same sex marriages. Amendments made in the House of Lords though have significantly strengthened the legal protections in the Act for the Churches. We also welcome the Government’s amendment to the Public Order Act which makes it clear beyond doubt that “discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to the marriage shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred”. Individuals are therefore protected from criminal sanction under the Public Order Act when discussing or expressing disagreement with same sex marriage.
In other respects, however, the amendments we suggested have not been accepted. We were concerned to provide legislative clarity for schools with a religious character. This was in order to ensure that these schools will be able to continue to teach in accordance with their religious tenets. Given the potential risk that future guidance given by a Secretary of State for education regarding sex and relationships education could now conflict with Church teaching on marriage, we were disappointed that an amendment to provide this clarity was not accepted. The Minister made clear in the House of Lords, however, that in “having regard” to such guidance now or in the future schools with a religious character can “take into account other matters, including in particular relevant religious tenets”, and that “having regard to a provision does not mean that it must be followed assiduously should there be good reason for not doing so”. These assurances go some way to meeting the concerns we and others expressed…
Christian Concern has issued this: Challenge issued to Archbishop over Lords vote on same sex marriage
…Mrs Minichiello Williams said in her letter: “I am surprised that the Church of England appears to be vacating the public square when it comes to the issue of marriage. Given the rich teaching of Scripture and strong tradition of marriage, this is something that the CofE should be able to comment on clearly, intelligently and winsomely.
“Marriage is something to be celebrated, promoted and, at this time, preserved. At a time when the nation needs to hear a prophetic voice on marriage, the CofE’s message is sadly mixed and, as a result, unclear.”Second Reading vote
A Church of England official replied on behalf of the Archbishop, in which he argued that the vote on the Bill at Second Reading had a detrimental effect on the chances of securing subsequent amendments to the Bill.
Lord Dear introduced a ‘wrecking amendment’ at Second Reading which, had it been successful, would have derailed the Bill.
The Church official said in his letter that this move went against House of Lords tradition and protocol and therefore was a serious misjudgement.
Precedent
But in her reply, Mrs Minichiello Williams referred to the clear precedent for voting at Second Reading as a means of voting on the principle of a Bill. She said: “It was very disappointing that the Archbishop himself said in the Second Reading debate that he was against the vote on Second Reading. In the event, of course, the Archbishop himself voted against the Bill, but his statement could well have dissuaded peers from voting with Lord Dear…
Media reports:
The Quakers have issued this press release: Quakers greet Lords’ support for equal marriage.
The Unitarians issued Unitarians welcome further step forward for Same Sex Marriage.
The Evangelical Alliance published Christians must model real marriage to society
The Christian Institute sent this email to its mailing list: Deeply disappointed, but utterly resolved to keep proclaiming the truth. And later it published Wrecking marriage will ‘come back to bite’ PM.
The Campaign For Marriage issued this: Party machines push Bill through.
Christian Concern has issued this: Peers approve same sex marriage bill.
20 CommentsThe House of Commons will shortly consider the amendments made to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill by the House of Lords.
Several documents have been published:
A list of all the amendments made by the Lords.
David Burrowes MP has proposed an amendment to one of those made in the Lords.
The House of Commons Library has published an analysis of the Lords amendments which can be found linked from this page.
The amendments have been marshalled for the Commons debate in this manner.
Two hours have been allowed for the debate which will start around 7.45 pm or so.
Update
The House of Commons voted to accept all the amendments, by voice vote.
The Hansard record starts here.
4 CommentsAs background to the following news reports, here is an Opinion article from the Nigerian website Leadership entitled Much Ado About The Return Of Death Penalty.
The return of death penalty in the country after a seven-year moratorium has been on the front burner of public discussion, while the trend has been heavily criticised by organisations in defence of human rights, many people believe it is a step in the right direction. Uche Uduma samples the opinions of Nigerians on the issue.
In a bid to tackle the problem of prison congestion in the country, President Goodluck Jonathan recently called on the 36 state governors to sign death warrants to facilitate the immediate execution of the over 900 death row inmates in prisons spread across the country.
Following the directive by the President, the Edo state Governor Adams Oshomole, signed the death warrants of four convicted prisoners in the state prison. The recent execution of four convicts in Benin put an end to a seven-year moratorium on death penalty in the country. The execution of a fifth condemned inmate, who was to be executed by firing squad was not carried out because the prison where the convict was incarcerated does not have facilities to carry out such execution.
Since 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted four resolutions calling on States to establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with a view to abolishing it. In line with this, about 150 of the UN’s 193 Member States have either abolished the death penalty or no longer practice it. The return of death penalty in Nigeria has obviously put a strain on the campaign by United Nations to eliminate death penalty as a form of punishment. However, other states in Nigeria are making steps to hand down more death penalties.
The United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, at the official opening of the 5th World Conference against the death penalty last week implored political leaders in countries that still have such laws in their justice systems across the world to abolish it. He pointed that the campaign to eliminate the death penalty as a form of punishment has mainly faced resistance from political leaders…
Now here are several reports about the Anglican Primate’s contribution to this debate.
34 CommentsUpdated yet again Tuesday afternoon
The Third Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in the House of Lords is scheduled for Monday 15 July.
The five new amendments marshalled for consideration are related to the issue of pension equalisation, and all have government approval.
The bill as amended so far is now reprinted and available as a PDF File here.
David Pocklington has provided an analysis of the numerous amendments that have been approved.
Updates
The bill has now passed at Third Reading in the House of Lords. Because of some amendments made during its passage in that house, it now returns to the House of Commons. Further action there is likely tomorrow or Wednesday.
The Hansard record of this debate starts here. PDF for the day here.
Intervention by the Bishop of Norwich here. Full text below the fold.
Media reports:
David Pocklington has again provided a detailed analysis of Monday’s proceedings.
43 CommentsUpdated again 28 July
Another Bed and Breakfast owner, Susanne Wilkinson, has lost her case at the Court of Appeal, but has been given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, where her case will be joined with that of Peter and Hazelmary Bull, and heard on 9 October.
Media reports:
Telegraph Christian B&B owner ordered to compensate gay couple takes fight to Supreme Court
Guardian B&B owner who turned away gay couple loses appeal
BBC B&B owner who turned away gay couple loses appeal
The full text of the judgment can be found here, or as a PDF file over here.
The earlier court hearing was discussed last October on the UK Human Rights Blog by Alasdair Henderson in The thorny issue of religious belief and discrimination law (again).
Updates
Frank Cranmer at Law & Religion UK has a detailed discussion of the new judgment, in Gay couples, B&B and human rights again: Black & Anor v Wilkinson.
Alasdair Henderson at the UK Human Rights Blog has Second Christian B&B case headed for the Supreme Court
6 CommentsUpdated Friday lunchtime
The following exchange occurred on 4 July in the House of Commons, when the Second Church Estates Commissioner was answering Questions:
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter, Labour)
What guidance the Church of England plans to issue to parishes and Church schools on pastoral care for same sex couples and their children.Tony Baldry (Second Church Estates Commissioner; Banbury, Conservative)
The House of Bishops issued a pastoral statement before the Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into force in 2005. I expect that the House of Bishops will want to issue a further statement before the legislation on same-sex marriage comes into force. The House of Bishops is due to consider this December a report on sexuality, chaired by former permanent secretary Sir Joseph Pilling. The work of that group will assist the House of Bishops in its deliberations.Ben Bradshaw (Exeter, Labour)
I am grateful for that reply, because I recently came across a case of a Christian couple in a same-sex relationship and with children in the local Church primary school to whom it was made clear by the local conservative evangelical church that they would not be welcome to worship in it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such intolerance and bigotry have no place whatever in the Church of England? When the Church issues guidance, it is very important that that is made quite clear to both parishes and Church schools.Tony Baldry (Second Church Estates Commissioner; Banbury, Conservative)
Of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that. If he would like to give me the details of that case, I will most certainly take it up with the diocesan education officer. Children in Church schools come from a wide variety of family backgrounds, and teachers offer the same compassion and care for all. Each child is valued as a child of God and deserving of the very best that schools can offer. I would not expect any Church school to discriminate against any child, whatever their personal or family circumstances. If any right hon. or hon. Member comes across any instance where he feels that a Church school is in any way falling short of the standards that this House would expect, I hope they will get in touch with me.
This led to a number of reports in the media of the underlying incident in Devon:
Church of England Newspaper Dean’s surprise as gay couple are banned from worship
BBC Exeter church in ‘gay couple worship ban’
Western Morning News Gay Christians ‘not welcome in West church’
Update
The Diocese of Exeter issued the following statement earlier this week:
46 CommentsPhilip Mantell, director of education for the Diocese of Exeter: “All our church schools work to serve the needs of all children and families in their communities and we recognize that families are very varied and we want all children to feel comfortable and flourish.
We fully support and uphold the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent statement on church schools addressing homophobia.
We have contacted Ben Bradshaw’s office to ask for details of the case to which he referred but have yet to hear back.”
The think tank, ResPublica, has published a report, authored by Philip Blond and James Noyes, entitled Holistic Mission: Social action and the Church of England.
The report itself can be downloaded as a PDF file.
The survey data it uses can also be downloaded from the Research by Design website.
The press release from ResPublica is here. The report makes the following recommendations:
The House of Lords completed Report stage on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill on Wednesday.
For a report on the Monday session, go here.
The Hansard record of yesterday’s debate begins here, and continues here.
The name index is here. The PDF file for the day is here.
The Bishop of Leicester introduced Amendment 95, designed to amend the Education Act 1996, and the debate on this starts here. In the end, he withdrew the amendment.
Updates
David Pocklington’s analysis of the day can be found here.
12 CommentsQuestion 65 Rachel Jepson to the Chair of the Board of Education
What progress has been made by the Board on developing recommended policies and staff-training materials relating to the bullying of LGBT people, and have any recommendations of the Board in those respects been implemented in any Church of England schools?
Answer from the Bishop of Oxford
The Board of Education/National Society, and indeed all Diocesan Boards of Education, are clear that any form of bullying is unacceptable in Church of England schools. If the Board became aware that existing tried and tested materials for both staff training and pupil activities were proving inadequate in developing relationships of respect and acceptance for all, the Board would take advice from the schools to determine appropriate action.
Question 66 Robin Hall
How many incidents of homophobic bullying were recorded in Church of England schools in the last school year (or the most recent school year for which statistics are available)?
Answer
No national or even diocesan figures are collected.
—-
Earlier in the day, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Presidential Address had said this:
11 Comments…The majority of the population rightly detests homophobic behaviour or anything that looks like it. And sometimes they look at us and see what they don’t like. I don’t like saying that. I’ve resisted that thought. But in that debate I heard it, and I could not walk away from it. We all know that it is utterly horrifying. to hear, as we did this week, of gay people executed in Iran for being gay, or equivalents elsewhere. With nearly a million children educated in our schools we not only must demonstrate a profound commitment to stamp out such stereotyping and bullying; but we must also take action. We are therefore developing a programme for use in our schools, taking the best advice we can find anywhere, that specifically targets such bullying. More than that, we need also to ensure that what we do and say in this Synod, as we debate these issues, demonstrates above all the lavish love of God to all of us, who are all without exception sinners. Again this requires radical and prophetic words which lavish gracious truth…
press release from Forward in Faith
WOMEN BISHOPS: FORWARD IN FAITH RESPONDS TO JULY 2013 GENERAL SYNOD DEBATE
Forward in Faith thanks the many members of the Catholic Group in General Synod, together with other supporters, for their excellent contributions to yesterday’s debate.
Naturally, we are very disappointed that none of the amendments which would have ensured secure provision for those unable to receive the ministry of women as bishops and priests was passed. However, we are encouraged by the significant minorities, especially in the House of Laity, which did vote for such provision. We are confident that these votes, and the commitment which they represent on the part of many to a genuinely inclusive Church of England, in which all may flourish, will not be overlooked as the process moves forward. The alternative, which we would deeply regret, would be to pursue unsatisfactory legislation, lacking the necessary breadth of support, with the strong risk of ultimate defeat.
More detailed comments are set out below.
We welcome the commitment to continuing the facilitated conversations.
We welcome the widespread affirmation of the five points endorsed by the House of Bishops (GS 1886, para. 12), and trust that the draft legislation will embody and reflect all of them together.
We welcome the fact that 49% of the Synod voted for provisions to reduce the risk of legal challenge in the context of parochial appointments, and the resulting commitment to further work on this.
We strongly welcome the proposal, endorsed by many speakers (including the Archbishop of Canterbury) that the Steering Committee should be representative of a broad spectrum of opinion, and should draft legislation to which all can subscribe.
We also welcome the strong support of a very large minority of Synod members for legislation setting out rights and obligations that would create a clear and stable context for our future life together. We note the preference expressed by 40% of the House of Laity and over 30% of the Synod as a whole for provision to be made by Measure or by regulations under Canon.
In later votes even larger minorities, especially in the House of Laity, rejected key elements of the approach preferred by the House of Bishops and by the most uncompromising supporters of women bishops. In the end, 25% of the Synod declined to endorse even the drafting of legislation on that basis. The logical conclusion is that to do so would result in a repeat of last November’s failure.
We feel bound to reiterate that, while we are not trying to prevent women from becoming bishops in the Church of England, we cannot support any legislation which removes the existing rights of the laity to a ministry that they can receive in good conscience and which fails to offer the minority what the working group termed ‘a greater sense of security’ than the previous draft Measure.
We are unconvinced as to how a ‘mandatory grievance procedure’ binding on bishops can deliver this in respect of parochial appointments by lay patrons and incumbents. We question whether replacing Resolutions A and B with this is the right way of going about the rebuilding of trust.
We remain committed to playing our full part in identifying a consensus that will command the necessary breadth of support to enable those who wish to receive the ministry of female bishops to do so in the near future. We hope and pray that further facilitated conversations and a more broadly-based Steering Committee will achieve this.
+ JONATHAN FULHAM
The Rt Revd Jonathan Baker, Bishop of Fulham Chairman
LINDSAY NEWCOMBE
Dr Lindsay Newcombe Vice-Chairman
9 July 2013
Updated again
The Hansard record of Monday’s debate starts here and continues over here. There is a PDF file for the whole day here.
An index showing individual speakers is available. Interventions by bishops:
Bishop of Chester: here, and also here and then here. Then later here and again here.
Debate continues on Wednesday and there is a new list of marshalled amendments available.
And a further revised amendment is here.
Update
David Pocklington’s summary of the proceedings is here.
1 CommentQ 46 Joanna Monckton to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops
As the Church of England is “episcopally led and synodically governed”, why did the House of Bishops not consult with the House of Laity and the House of Clergy before declaring that priests in civil partnerships who live in accordance with the Church’s teaching on human sexuality could henceforth be considered for episcopal appointment, as reported in the statement issued on 4 January 2013?
Answer from the Bishop of Gloucester on behalf of the House of Bishops’ Working Group on Sexuality
The House of Bishops issued its 2005 pastoral statement without prior consultation of the other two Houses and adopted a similar approach when clarifying one implication of it last December.
Q 47 Simon Butler
In the recent debates on same-sex marriage in the House of Lords, Lords Spiritual have spoken of the bishops’ historic and present support for the legislation enacting Civil Partnerships. In preparation for the forthcoming debate in Synod on Mr John Ward’s Private Member’s Motion on the registration of Civil Partnerships will the House of Bishops:
(a) take time to consider how best that support can be shown in the life of the church; and
(b) during the course of that forthcoming debate report to this Synod its conclusions?
Answer from the Bishop of Gloucester
In principle, yes, though that assumes that the Business Committee will be willing to give the House time to think through the implications of the same sex marriage legislation and consider the recommendations of the Pilling report before that private member’s motion is scheduled for debate.
Q 48 Judith Maltby
The House of Bishops’ Advice to the Clergy (GS 1449B, 2002) on the re-marriage of divorced persons states “While it would be unreasonable to expect that the couple should not even have known each other during the former marriage(s), was the relationship between the applicants – so far as you can tell from the information made available to you – a direct cause of the breakdown of the former marriage?” What is the position of the House of Bishops on the conduct of marriages in church in cases in which one or both of the couple has a former civil partner still living?
Answer from the Bishop of Gloucester
The House has given no specific consideration to this issue.
6 CommentsQ 55 (Rod Thomas) to ask the Secretary General
Why does this decision of the House of Bishops in December 2012 in relation to civil partnerships and the episcopate necessitate the removal in GS Misc 1044 of all the relevant factors which can properly be taken into account by the CNC in considering episcopal appointments which previously appeared in paragraph 29 of GS Misc 992 (with the exception of the factor relating to the existence of a civil partnership)?
Answer from William Fittall
Paragraph 29 of the Legal Office note of December 2010 set out various factors that could in principle be taken into account given the terms of the Equality Act and the lack of clarity at that point over whether what was said in the 2005 pastoral statement about priests and deacons also applied to bishops. The clarity created by the December 2012 statement enabled the revised note to distinguish more sharply between the test relevant to assessing the suitability of a particular candidate – the new paragraph 29 – and the criterion for imposing a requirement about civil partnership in the circumstances of a particular appointment.
Q 56 (Giles Goddard)
Why are the practices of undertaking enquiries into candidates for the episcopate involved in marriage after divorce, and of seeking assurances from candidates to the episcopate in civil partnerships (as described in paragraphs 22 and 29 of GS Misc 1044 respectively) not routinely extended to all candidates, to avoid even the slightest appearance of discriminatory treatment?
Answer from William Fittall
The enquiries made in the event of a marriage after divorce or marriage to someone with a surviving spouse are akin to those made under the Canon C4 faculty procedure. They are essentially to enable the Archbishop of the province to determine that there are no issues from the breakdown of the previous marriage that might constitute an obstacle to episcopal appointment. In relation to civil partnership the test is of a different character namely whether someone’s conduct is and will remain consistent with the teaching of the Church of England. To avoid the appearance of discrimination that assurance is in fact now sought in relation to all candidates for episcopal appointment.
3 CommentsAlthough there were several Questions on this topic, none were reached in the course of Friday evening’s General Synod session. The prepared Answers were however made public and may be of interest to readers. So they will be published here in a series of posts over the next day or so, starting with this pair.
Q 44. (Clare Herbert) to Chair of House of Bishops
In the light of the high regard expressed for Civil Partnerships by both archbishops and other bishops recently, such as when the Archbishop of Canterbury said in the House of Lords “It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same-sex relationships should, where those involved want it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage” when will the Liturgical Commission be tasked by the House of Bishops to begin work on an authorized rite for the blessing of civil partnerships for the use of those clergy who wish to conduct such services?
and
Q 45 (David Brindley)
In view of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s view expressed in the House of Lords in a speech on 3 June that faithful same-sex relationships should be ‘recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage’, when will the House ask the Liturgical Commission to produce proposals for appropriate liturgical recognition of those relationships?
Answer from The Bishop of Gloucester
The House of Bishops concluded in December that it didn’t at that point want to revise its 2005 pastoral statement on civil partnerships, which, among other things, had affirmed that clergy ‘should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership.’ That was because the Pilling report which the House is due to receive this December and the Same Sex Marriage Bill, which had only just been published then, were going to require us to do some more careful thinking before we said anything further.
The context in which we minister is changing very quickly not least with the real possibility that the number of people entering civil partnership will fall very sharply next year once same sex marriages become a legal possibility. The House will be considering the implications of all this very carefully but there is nothing further that I can usefully say at this stage.
11 CommentsArchbishop Eliud Wabukala, Primate of Kenya, has published a July message, in preparation for the forthcoming second GAFCON conference in Nairobi in October. The message includes the following:
While we give thanks for much that has been achieved, especially in the emergence of the Anglican Church of North America and our Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, we are painfully aware that the Episcopal Church of the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada continue to promote a false gospel and yet both are still received as in good standing by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Furthermore, the Church of England itself, the historic mother church of the Communion, seems to be advancing along the same path. While defending marriage, both the Archbishops of York and Canterbury appeared at the same time to approve of same-sex Civil Partnerships during parliamentary debates on the UK’s ‘gay marriage’ legislation, in contradiction to the historic biblical teaching on human sexuality reaffirmed by the 1998 Lambeth Conference.
An earlier attack from Archbishop Wabukala, also related to Civil Partnerships, was here.
16 CommentsFrank Cranmer has performed a detailed analysis of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill which you can read here. His commentary includes comparisons with the English and Welsh bill currently in the House of Lords.
He also draws attention to the points which Kelvin Holdsworth has raised in 10 Unanswered Questions about Same-Sex Marriage which are of particular interest to those in the Scottish Episcopal Church. Similar questions may also apply to members of the Church of England and the Church in Wales, in due course, but it seems very likely that the answers will not be the same as in Scotland.
0 CommentsUpdated again Saturday morning
The Report stage in the House of Lords for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill starts on Monday 8 July and completes on Wednesday 10 July. (The General Synod meeting will be considering Women in the Episcopate on Monday.)
The current revised marshalled list of amendments is available here. Those in the name of Baroness Stowell are Government amendments. Of the 136 amendments listed, there is only one in the name of a Bishop (Leicester, amendment 95, details below the fold).
The most recent text of the bill to which the amendments are proposed is available here, and in PDF format here.
0 Comments