From the Lambeth Palace website:
Announcement of staff changes in the Archbishop of Canterbury’s staff at Lambeth Palace
Tuesday 25th June 2013
The Archbishop of Canterbury today announced the following changes in staffing at Lambeth Palace which will take place in October:
Chris Smith, Chief of Staff to the Archbishop since 2003, will move on to pursue other interests in October after 10 years of service at Lambeth. Archbishop Justin today praised Chris’s contribution in the role: “I would like to thank Chris on behalf of my predecessor and the many others who have benefited from his years of loyal service to the Church. I am particularly grateful to Chris for remaining at Lambeth during the changeover of Archbishops, ensuring a smooth handover during this period of transition.”
The Rt Reverend Nigel Stock, currently Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, will join the Archbishop’s staff in October as Bishop at Lambeth, with responsibility for supporting the Archbishop’s work in the House of Bishops, the Synod and the Archbishops’ Council, and being a key point of contact at Lambeth Palace for Bishops. Speaking about the appointment, Archbishop Justin said “I am delighted Bishop Nigel has agreed to come and join us at Lambeth to carry out this important new role and I look forward to working with him”.
Arrangements will be made in consultation with the Bishop’s Council to cover the vacancy in the Diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich until a new diocesan bishop is appointed to replace Bishop Nigel.
Kay Brock, currently Secretary for Public Affairs and Deputy Chief of Staff, will become Chief of Staff in October, implementing the Archbishop’s strategy, managing Lambeth Palace and having responsibility for the Archbishop’s engagement with public life.
From the St Edmundsbury diocesan website:
15 CommentsBishop Nigel set for new role at Lambeth
Bishop Nigel spoke of mixed feelings as he announced that he will be leaving the county he loves later this year to take up a senior role.
“The Archbishop of Canterbury has asked me to take up this role which will take effect in late October. The purpose is to support the Archbishop’s ministry with the Bishops and the National Church Institutions, General Synod and the Archbishops’ Council. This will mean being a collegiate member of the Archbishop’s senior team, which works with him to develop and implement strategies for every area of the ministry to which God has called the Archbishop.”
“As Bishop of Lambeth, I will be the main point of contact at Lambeth for Bishops of the Church of England, building and strengthening the Archbishop’s relationship with them. I will also be engaged with ecumenical and interfaith work, and have oversight for other sections of those working within Lambeth Palace. The Archbishop is aiming to work with a smaller staff at Lambeth, but is looking to make it a responsive, courteous and hospitable place from which to conduct his ministry.”
“The Archbishop is working on three priorities for his ministry: a renewal of prayer and the religious life within the country; reconciliation within the Church and the nation; and evangelism.”
“This will be a demanding, challenging, exciting, daunting and certainly unexpected prospect. I am of course only too well aware that this is a very awkward time for the Diocese to be without a Diocesan Bishop. Quite apart from the absence of a Suffragan Bishop there are also the centenary celebrations next year. However in consultation with the Bishop’s Council there will be an appointment of a bishop with full delegated powers to cover the vacancy and an announcement about that will be made shortly. This will be a temporary arrangement, and the processes for the appointment of the next Bishop will proceed as normal. In the light of this vacancy, the See of Dunwich will not be filled until a Diocesan Bishop is appointed…”
- Bishop Nigel, 63, has held the post of Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich since 2007 and entered the House of Lords as a Lord Spiritual during March 2011. He was educated at Durham University and studied for ordination at Ripon College Cuddesdon. From 1976 to 1979, he was a curate at St Peter’s Stockton in the Diocese of Durham. From 1979 to 1984, he was priest-in-charge of St Peter’s in Taraka in the Diocese of Aipo Rongo, Papua New Guinea. From 1985 to 1991, he was vicar of St Mark’s Shiremoor in the Diocese of Newcastle, moving to become Team Rector of North Shields from 1991 to 1998. He was also Rural Dean of Tynemouth from 1992 to 1998 and an honorary canon of Newcastle Cathedral from 1997 to 1998. He was a canon residentiary of Durham Cathedral from 1998 to 2000 and also Chaplain of Grey College, Durham in 1999 and 2000. He became Bishop of Stockport in the Diocese of Chester in 2000 before moving to Suffolk as Bishop six years ago this October.
Updated
The Hansard record of the committee proceedings on Monday 24 June starts here, and later continues here. The debate continued until 12.22 am!
The more detailed list showing speakers names is over here.
Three bishops made interventions:
The Bishop of Guildford starting here.
The Bishop of Ripon & Leeds starting here, and later continuing here where he moved Amendment 46B.
The Bishop of Leicester starting here where he moved Amendment 46C.
David Pocklington has published Same Sex Marriage Bill – Committee, 3rd Day Summary.
The text of the bill, as amended by the Committee stage, is now available here, and in PDF format here.
The dates for Report stage were announced previously as 8 and 10 July. The date for Third Reading has now been announced as 15 July.
4 CommentsThe General Synod will be asked next month to approve a proposal, from the Dioceses Commission, to unite the existing dioceses of Bradford, Ripon & Leeds, and Wakefield, to form a single new diocese, to be known formally as the Diocese of Leeds.
The draft legal document can be read: The Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon and Leeds and Wakefield Reorganisation Scheme 201-, and the usual explanatory memorandum is here.
Standing orders do not allow the synod to now amend the scheme as drafted. It can either approve it as it stands, reject it outright, or pass a motion for reconsideration of specific points in the scheme by the Dioceses Commission. The latter course of action will cause a significant delay before it comes back to synod.
The situation is not entirely straightforward because one of the three dioceses involved, Wakefield, voted in its diocesan synod to reject the scheme by a decisive margin. The other two dioceses, plus Blackburn and Sheffield (each of which is marginally involved due to proposed transfers of a small number of parishes out of either Bradford – to Blackburn or Wakefield – to Sheffield) all voted very strongly in favour of the scheme. The Archbishop of York was therefore obliged to make a decision whether or not to bring the scheme to the General Synod, despite the Wakefield rejection.
He did make a decision to do so, as explained in GS Misc 1050.
To understand what this dispute is all about, on the one hand there is a series of documents published by the Dioceses Commission. On the other hand the Diocese of Wakefield has a special website that contains another series of documents. The latter was announced in a dramatic full page advertisement on page 27 of last week’s Church Times.
Dioceses Commission background documents:
GS Misc 1049A – Moving Towards a New Dioceses for West Yorkshire and the Dales
GS Misc 1049B – The New Diocese and the Mission of the Church
GS Misc 1049C – Yorkshire Scheme for Financial EstimatesMinutes of diocesan synod meetings:
Blackburn
Bradford;
Ripon & Leeds;
Wakefield
Diocese of Wakefield background documents:
The leaflet: Why Wakefield voted against the proposals from the Dioceses Commission
The Minutes of the Diocesan Synod on 2 March when Wakefield rejected the proposals by 76 votes to 40 (same file as published by the Dioceses Commission)
Dioceses Commission – An Alternative Vision
An Assessment of The Dioceses Commission’s “Estimate of the Financial Effect of the Proposals” by the Chairs of the Boards of Finance of the Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon & Leeds and Wakefield
and there are several further papers linked on the Wakefield site.
Three further documents that are helpful in understanding the proposals:
Next month General Synod will consider a range of actions to improve Safeguarding of children and of vulnerable adults, mostly in direct response to the reports issued in August 2012 and in April 2013 by the Commissaries who conducted a visitation of the Diocese of Chichester.
The motion to be debated on Sunday afternoon has several parts. Here’s the full text:
‘That this Synod
(a) endorse the Archbishops’ statement in GS 1896 expressing on behalf of the Church of England an unreserved apology for the failure of its systems to protect children, young people and adults from physical and sexual abuse inflicted by its clergy and others; and for the failure to listen properly to those so abused;
(b) invite –
(i) the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council to pursue as a matter of urgency the programme of work set out in GS 1896 to enhance the Church of England’s safeguarding arrangements; and
(ii) the Business Committee to schedule First Consideration of the necessary draft legislation as soon as the responses to the consultation document have been assessed, with a view to its securing Final Approval in the lifetime of this Synod; and
(c) invite the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council to report back to the Synod by February 2014 on what action is to be taken to secure the more effective delivery of the ‘Responding Well’ policy across the Church in the interests of survivors.’
The document for this is GS 1896 (A PDF version of this is contained in the zip file for the first distribution of papers). This is a 16 page document, and it contains more detail on each of the items mentioned below.
Part (a) is uncontroversial. In GS 1896 the archbishops write:
…It is right, therefore, that the General Synod should… be able to identify with the apology that we wish to offer unreservedly for the failure of the Church of England’s systems to protect children, young people and adults from physical and sexual abuse inflicted by its clergy and others and for the failure to listen properly to those so abused. The sexual and physical abuse that has been inflicted by these people on children, young people and adults is and will remain a deep source of grief and shame for years to come.
As the Commissaries rightly observed: “All contemporary safeguarding policies and procedures in the Church should be a response to what we learn and see in Jesus himself… In witness to this faith and to our sense of obligation to children who are brought to Jesus through the care of the Christian community, the Church should set for itself the highest standards of care available to our society today. If that is true especially in relation to children, it ought also to be true for the care we offer to some of the most vulnerable adults in the modern world.”
We cannot overestimate the importance of responding appropriately today. Sadly for many this comes far too late. History cannot be rewritten, but those who still suffer now as a result of abuse in the past deserve this at least, that we hear their voices and take action to ensure that today’s safeguarding policies and systems are as robust as they can be. This work is an essential and prior Gospel imperative, for any attempts we make to grow the church, to seek the common good, and to reimagine the Church’s ministry.
Part (b) seeks synod approval for a comprehensive programme to improve the church’s safeguarding systems. The extent of these actions clearly indicates that the existing systems are inadequate in numerous ways. Several will involve spending more money than now, both at central and at diocesan level.
One part of this is to make a series of changes that require legislation, and to do so as quickly as possible, which in this case means bringing the legislation to the Synod in February 2014 and for the entire approval process to be completed by July 2015.
Before discussing the details of the legislative proposals, it should be noted that there are many other non-legislative actions planned, some of which will take years, and which can be summarised briefly as follows:
1 CommentFrom the Inclusive Church website:
The Annual Inclusive Church lecture was inaugurated in 2013, marking the 10th anniversary of the founding of Inclusive Church.
The lecture is part of Inclusive Church’s commitment to articulate a coherent gospel theology of inclusion.
The inaugural lecture entitled ‘On Being Together: the Possibility of Church’ was given by Martyn Percy at Southwark Cathedral, with 200 guests.
Some earlier parts of this paper were initially explored in Anglicanism: Confidence, Commitment and Communion (Ashgate, 2013), Thirty-Nine New Articles: An Anglican Landscape of Faith (SCM-Canterbury, 2013), a lecture given at St. John’s College, Auckland, New Zealand , April 2013…
The full text of the lecture can be downloaded as a PDF file, from here.
2 CommentsUpdated
The Hansard record starts here, and later continues here. The debate continued until 12.30 am!
The more detailed list showing speakers names is over here.
The Bishop of Guildford engaged in the debate. His interventions start here. And continue, late in the evening, here.
Updates
David Pocklington has again written up the day, in Same Sex Marriage Bill – Committee, 2nd Day.
Gavin Drake reports on Monday’s debate, and related events earlier in the week, in the Church Times Bishop seeks registrar opt-out.
The committee stage completes next Monday. And there is one more amendment filed.
A Third Marshalled List of Amendments is now here.
Two dates for the Report stage have been announced: 8 and 10 July.
4 CommentsUpdated again Wednesday morning
The Hansard record starts here, and later continues here.
The more detailed list showing speakers names is over here.
Two bishops engaged in the debate, the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Hereford.
The archbishop’s two interventions start here.
The bishop’s three interventions start here.
The debate continues on Wednesday. There is already a Second Marshalled List of Amendments here. There is now a Revised Second Marshalled List.
Updates
David Pocklington has listed out what happened yesterday to each amendment that was discussed, see Same Sex Marriage Bill – Committee Stage, 1st Day.
Andrew Brown has written John Sentamu and the Church of England’s slow retreat on gay marriage.
…The archbishop, John Sentamu, asked: “What do you do with people in same-sex relationships that are committed, loving and Christian? Would you rather bless a sheep and a tree, and not them? However, that is a big question, to which we are going to come. I am afraid that now is not the moment.”
No. It isn’t. That moment passed years ago, when civil partnerships were first brought in, and the archbishop’s was one of the loudest voices demanding that the Church of England have nothing to do with them. The bishops still don’t realise what damage they did then…
Paul Johnson has written at ECHR Sexual Orientation blog Same-sex marriage in England and Wales – more references to the ECHR.
David Pocklington has written again, Clarifications from withdrawn amendments, Same Sex Marriage Bill, Day 1 which adds a lot of useful explanation about the various amendments discussed.
Chris Sugden has written an Update for the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans.
35 CommentsThe Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.
The full text can be found here, as a PDF file.
The uncorrected transcript of oral evidence given to the committee is available here as a PDF file.
The Telegraph has a news article based on what is said in this report, here.
1 CommentUpdated Monday evening
There is a revised Marshalled List of amendments.
David Pocklington has written another very helpful article at Law & Religion UK entitled Same-Sex Marriage Bill – further legal issues. He comments:
… With the exception of the amendments relating to holding a referendum on the Act, (which would take place after the Act had gained Royal Assent, but before its other provisions come into force), the majority concern the clarification of issues specific to groups who are likely to be impacted by its provisions: followers of Judaism, [clause 5, amendment 21]; or Sikhism [clause 5, amendment 22]; or by challenges to their actions in relation to these and various equality provisions; publicly held appointments, [clause, amendment 5]; registrars, [clause 2, amendment 15 to 18]; teaching, [clause 7, amendment 23].
A number of amendments refer to “exercising a function that is a function of a public nature for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998”, one of the “grey areas” of particular interest to the Church of England which was discussed at length in the ‘Prayer to Annul’ debate on 15 December 2011 and is reported here. Other proposals seek to identify and protect the concept of “traditional marriage”, [clause 1, amendment 7], or “matrimonial marriage”, [clause 12, amendment 46].
In addition, potential new provisions include requirements for the Secretary of State to: create a statutory list of religious bodies owning or controlling premises that they do not wish to be eligible to undertake an opt-in activity, [clause 1, amendment 6]; and review the operation and effects of the Act to be reviewed, two years and five years after it is passed, [clause 15, amendment 47]…
The earlier article linked in the above extract, Same-Sex Marriage Bill – some legal issues, was included in our previous roundup.
Other comments, from different perspectives, can be found here (Colin Coward) and over here (Peter Ould).
Update
The Archbishop of York spoke in this debate, and has published his text here.
There is a news report in the Telegraph Archbishop of York: would the church rather bless sheep and trees than gay couples?
The Government Equalities Office has published a policy paper which sets out the terms of reference and timetable for a review of the operation and future of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA) in England and Wales.
See this announcement dated 13 June: Future of Civil Partnerships review to start in autumn 2013
3 CommentsTerms of Reference published for a formal review of the Civil Partnership Act 2004
The Government has today announced its intention to launch a full public consultation in the autumn to kick start a review of the future of Civil Partnerships in England and Wales.
During a debate in the House of Commons of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, concerns were raised by MPs over the issue of civil partnerships and their role in light of same sex marriage legislation.
To ensure these issues are fully understood the Government tabled an amendment to the Bill which would allow for a formal review of the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
Read the Terms of Reference for a formal review of the Civil Partnership Act. [Full text copied below the fold]
TA readers may recall that back in June 2011, a document was published by the Church of England, which was numbered GS Misc 992 entitled Choosing Bishops – The Equality Act 2010. We reproduced the full text of this document here at the time and it attracted some comment then.
In fact the identical document had been leaked to the Guardian newspaper the previous month when it attracted quite a lot of media comment.
Today, the Church of England released a new document, numbered GS Misc 1044, which is described as an update to the earlier one, but whose content is in some respects quite different. The cover note observes that the update has been made to take account of the decision taken by the House of Bishops in December in relation to civil partnerships and the episcopate.
We reported on that in House of Bishops decisions taken in December, and then again here, and finally, when in January the Church of England eventually issued a press release, in Civil partnerships and eligibility for the episcopate in the CofE.
The new document is now reproduced in full here.
The old document is still available here, and readers may find it instructive to look at the two side by side.
PDF originals are here (old), and then here (new).
John Bingham has written today in the Telegraph about this document, see Archbishops to ask clergy: ‘Are you having gay sex?’
Update Friday 21 June
Today, Gavin Drake reports on this for the Church Times in Assurances of celibacy may not be enough to qualify for a bishopric.
Updated Friday morning
Three days have now been allocated for the committee stage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, Monday 17th, Wednesday 19th, and Monday 24th June.
So far, three pages of amendments have been tabled, all can be reached via this page.
Update a Marshalled List is now available here. Several amendments include bishops as sponsors.
Update
David Pocklington at Law & Religion UK has an informative post: Same-Sex Marriage Bill – some legal issues.
Conservative Christian opposition to the bill continues, see The House of Lords, Church of England Bishops and the Same-Sex Couples bill by Chris Sugden at Anglican Mainstream.
The statement by the Convenor of the Lords Spiritual was reported here.
The Church of England Briefing Note issued for the Second Reading of the bill can be found here. It indicates the type of amendments that may be pursued by the bishops.
33 CommentsSome speeches in the Lords debate from peers who are not bishops also make instructive reading. Here are a few of them.
…Finally, I return to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. I hope that he will not feel it is unfair if I call him my “old friend”, as indeed he is. I have come to the firm conclusion that there is nothing to fear in gay marriage and that, indeed, it will be a positive good not just for same-gender unions but for the institution of marriage generally. The effect will be to put right at the centre of marriage the concept of a stable, loving relationship. As a practising Christian, perhaps I may make the point to the Bishops’ Benches, including to the most reverend Primate, that there is every reason why, in time, the Anglican Church should come to accept that, although I recognise that it may take some time. The character of love which marriage reflects—that it is faithful, stable, tough, unselfish and unconditional—is the same character that most Christians see in the love of God. Marriage is therefore holy, not because it is ordained by God, but because it reflects that most important central truth of our religion: the love of God for all of us.
My Lords, I am a passionate supporter of the Bill. I support it because I believe in the institution of marriage, which is the bedrock of society and should be open to all. I support it because I believe in the values of the family, and the Bill will, in my view, strengthen them. I support it because I am a Conservative. Respect for individual liberty is at the core of my being and this is a Bill that will add to the sum of human freedom. I support it because I am a Christian and I believe we are all equal in the eyes of God, and should be so under man’s laws. I support it because I am one of those people who I fear were rather glibly derided by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, as being part of a tiny minority and, I think, were praised by my noble friend Lady Knight as being delightful, in that I am gay. I am in a civil partnership with somebody with whom I have been together for nearly a quarter of a century. I love him very much and nothing would give me greater pride than to marry him. I hope noble Lords will forgive that personal pronouncement, but it seems to me that my experience goes to the heart of this debate…
Lord Blair of Boughton (formerly Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police)
11 Comments…It is rather odd that I am speaking between the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. Nearly 50 years ago, I sat in a room in Chester Cathedral taking my common entrance exam in order to go to Wrekin College, where the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, was a teacher. We are in a different country to that of 1965. No Member of your Lordships’ House could then have made the speeches that we have heard today about being gay. When I took that exam, abortion was illegal, capital punishment was on the statute books, homosexual acts in private were matters for criminal law, and there was no race relations legislation whatever. We are in a much better country, and the tide of history is running in only one direction.
The Bill represents a great and noble cause—what the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, described as a moral cause. I suggest that, for a non-elected House to object to the Bill in this way, particularly after the events of this last weekend, would damage the reputation of this House.
My last point relates to the quadruple lock. I received many letters—as did all noble Lords—one of which I have one in my hand. It is from a young Christian gay man and it is in ink, so I cannot imagine that he sent it to 850 people, though some other noble Lords may have had it. In it he wrote that he was unable to reconcile his Christianity with his sexuality, and the fact that the Bill was being considered at all was helping him combine those two facets.
St Paul wrote to the Galatians that in Jesus Christ there is neither male or female, gentile or Jew, slave or free. I do not think that that was a coded message that everybody was okay except gays. It was an inclusive statement. As a member of the Anglican world, I hope that one day, before I die, I will see the Anglican Church unlock that quadruple lock from the inside…
The Dean of Durham wrote on The Bishops and Same-Sex Marriage
…As to what the bishops say about marriage, I agree that the proposals are not nearly strong enough on marriage as a covenanted relationship of fidelity. In this respect, the Archbishop is right: same-sex and other-sex marriages would not be entirely equal. But for this reason, I don’t think it is correct to speak about the measure as ‘redefining’ of marriage. The public covenant between two people who love and wish to belong to each other can and should be precisely the same in both. It’s no more a redefining of marriage than the remarriage of divorced people. In some ways, that is the more radical step to take because it entails considering in what way a covenant that has been broken for whatever reason could be entered into a subsequent time with another partner. So if the church is (largely) content to bless and even solemnise such marriages, this next step of making the institution more inclusive should not necessarily pose new difficulties. To enlarge the scope of an institution is not the same as changing its essential meaning.
There is something worryingly familiar about the bishops’ statement however. It is too often the case that the church is on the back foot, at first resisting social change that is wanted by the majority, then coming round to it slowly and grudgingly. This was precisely the case when artificial contraception was being debated in the early 20th century. Lambeth Conferences were root and branch opposed to the idea that sex could be for recreation as well as procreation. It would have been better to adopt the Gamaliel position of saying ‘let us wait and see whether this might be of God’. Much the same can be said about women as priests and bishops in the church.
If you scroll down my blogs on this Woolgathering site, you’ll find my piece on Gamaliel and equal marriage. It’s clearer now than then which way history is moving. It’s not too late for the Church of England to be on the right side of it this time. Without grudge.
Michael Portillo is reported to have said this on a television programme:
“I think it is a good moment to reflect on the fact that whilst this has been presented as an issue that has caused enormous problems for David Cameron and splits within the Conservative Party – actually the problems are really with the Church of England and indeed with the Catholic Church.
“[They] just do not know how to deal with the issue of homosexuality and gay priests and gay bishops and so on. And that is where the division is and the churches are haemorrhaging membership like water disappearing from a bath and they don’t have any way of dealing with this problem.”
Savi Hensman wrote at Ekklesia Church of England’s stance on marriage and sexuality still unclear
Some people may be understandably confused about the Church of England’s position on same-sex partnerships and equal marriage. Official statements, the publicly-voiced views of senior clergy and broader opinions among church members point in different directions. Part of this is to do with realism, but shifts in understanding also play a part.
At the beginning of the week of a House of Lords debate on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, proposing marriage equality in England and Wales, it might have seemed that the ‘party line’ was clear. Policy and study documents suggest that, while lay Anglicans may conscientiously believe that physically intimate same-sex partnerships can be right, they are in fact wrong, and lifelong celibacy is preferable for those attracted mainly to the same sex.
Issues in human sexuality, a statement by the House of Bishops in 1991, took this line, and urged that clergy abstain from sexual relationships with members of the same sex, though hostility to lesbians and gays was deplorable and intrusive questioning about private lives was discouraged…
Gerry Lynch wrote A Farewell Discourse: The Hard Truths That Set Us Free
4 Comments…I’ll briefly review the Church of England’s record on LGBT issues, and then I’ll review Justin’s record, which is typical of most Evangelical clergy and pretty much every Evangelical bishop of his generation. I could write an equally critical article about Liberal Catholic bishops, but it would be involve different criticism and, let’s be honest, that’s not who has been driving the agenda on sexuality issues in the Church of England for a long time.
This is, unfair as it may seem, the sum total what you have managed to communicate to LGBTs over the past two decades. It may not be what you wanted to communicate, but it’s what you did.
Over the past 15 years, there has been a revolution in how same-sex relationships have been treated in law in the United Kingdom, as in most Western societies. The Church of England opposed nearly every step of that process, and in the few cases where it didn’t do so formally as a denomination, its Evangelical wing did so vociferously in the media, usually led in the public charge by Archbishop Carey and other senior bishops. And I mean every step – the equalisation of the age of consent; the abolition of the hateful Section 28; the granting of adoption rights to same sex couples; same-sex marriage. The introduction of civil partnerships was accompanied by an attempt to strip them of any social or spiritual meaning and constant denigration of gay and lesbian relationships; it remains forbidden to give civil partnerships any blessing in church. The outlawing of discrimination in employment saw the Church of England attempt to carve out as wide a scope as possible where it could continue to discriminate against queers. And, yes, it was about orientation rather than practice – ask Jeffrey John.
That is the record. There is no point in trying to minimise or obfuscate it. A couple of hours with Google and Hansard will reveal it in almost every detail…
Press release from Methodist Church House
07 June 2013
Bishops and Church leaders call on Government ministers to apologise
An alliance of Churches representing Christians from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland has written to the Prime Minister asking for an apology on behalf of the Government for misrepresenting the poor.
Church leaders, including the Right Revd Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester, and the Right Revd Nick Baines, Bishop of Bradford, pointed out that in recent weeks senior members of the Government have given out misleading and inaccurate information about people on benefits. Outlining the inaccuracies, they asked for them to be corrected and for an apology to be offered to those who were misrepresented.
“We are concerned that these inaccuracies paint some of the most vulnerable in our society in an unfavourable light, stigmatising those who need the support of the benefits system,” the letter states. “No political or financial imperative can be given to make this acceptable.”
April saw some of the most controversial and wide ranging changes to the benefit system in a generation. In their letter, Church leaders, including the leaders of the Methodist Church, the Baptist Union of Great Britain and the United Reformed Church, said that while they hold no common view on welfare reform, they all share the belief that that those in receipt of benefits are loved and valuable.
“What unites us is the belief that the debate around these reforms should be based on truthful information,” they write. “We ask you, as Prime Minister and as leader of the Conservative Party, to ensure that the record is put straight, and that statistics are no longer manipulated in a way which stigmatises the poorest in our society.”
ENDS
Notes:
The full text of the letter to the Prime Minister is available here.
Appendix one to the letter to the Prime Minister is available here.
Appendix two to the letter to the Prime Minister is available here.
9 CommentsFirst, a statement from one of the bishops who was not present in the House of Lords. The Bishop of Gloucester has issued this The Marriage (same Sex Couples) Bill.
… I accept that the bill has now received overwhelming support in both Houses of Parliament and that the task of the Church, through the bishops, is now to respect the view that has been so clearly endorsed and to argue for any amendments that might make the legislation more acceptable to those whose consciences are troubled.
I share the view expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the debate that the Church has not often served the LGBT communities in the way it should. I hope we shall be more affirming and supportive for the future and in particular that the House of Bishops Working Party on Human Sexuality, of which I am a member, will be able to help the Church towards a more positive valuing of committed and faithful homosexual partnerships.
In the light of the suggestion in the Telegraph that bishops had been put under pressure by Church of England officials to abstain from voting on the Bill, I need to say very firmly that no such pressure was put on me (nor, I think, on any bishop). The pressure that we have experienced has been an unprecedented campaign of letters, emails and phone calls from those urging us to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill…
And before the vote the Bishop of Lichfield had published this: Bishops in the House of Lords & the Marriage Bill.
Today, the Church Times carries a report of the debate by Madeleine Davies Bishops gather in Lords to vote against gay-marriage Bill which also notes that several Christian peers spoke in favour of the bill.
And there is a leader article, signed by Paul Handley, under the title More than one voice. This should be read in full, but it concludes this way:
11 Comments…No legislation framed at such a juncture is going to be perfect. But, whatever the flaws of this Bill, it is important that the present debate is seen for what it is: a test of the Church’s ability to address people who are, by and large, more compassionate and accepting than the Church is currently perceived to be. The general population sees marriages that do not look like marriages, cohabitations that do, and same-sex relationships that can look like either. For their part, many in the Church see only an ideal – which is odd, given the pastoral encounters that churchpeople have, and the range of relationships that exist in most congregations.
Once the legislation is passed, as we assume it will be, there will not be an opportunity for a clearer, more nuanced debate. This is it. Hereafter, the Church’s pronouncements on marriage will be coloured by the reputation it gains now. At present, this appears to be censorious, and out of touch with reality. Its criticisms of poor legislation are interpreted as simple prejudice. In reality, the Church is divided on this issue, and it is vital that those who have a more confident view of marriage, and a more open view of sexuality, make their voices heard.
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 CommentBefore 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 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