Today, the Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill issued its report, which can be read in full, starting here.
The report makes the following recommendations:
More from the official summary can be found here.
The section dealing with the Lords Spiritual is Section 17, which can be found here.
The conclusions of that section are:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
288. The Committee agrees that, in a fully elected House, there should be no reserved places for bishops.
289. The Committee agrees, on a majority, that bishops should continue to retain ex officio seats in the reformed House of Lords.
290. The Committee agrees, on a majority, with the Government’s proposal that the number of reserved seats for bishops be set at 12 in a reformed House.
291. The Committee recommends that the Appointments Commission consider faith as part of the diversity criterion we recommend at paragraph 249.
292. The Committee recommends that the exemption of bishops from the disciplinary provisions be removed, as requested by the Archbishops.
293. The Committee recommends that any approach to the Government by the Church to modify the provision on the named bishops be looked upon favourably.
294. The Committee recommends that Clause 28(4) be left out of the Bill so as to allow greater flexibility in transition arrangements so that any women bishops and the wider pool of diocesan bishops can be eligible for appointment in the second transitional parliament.
The Church of England has issued a press release, Statement on report from Joint Committee on the Government’s Draft House of Lords Reform Bill.
…The Lords Spiritual welcome the Joint Committee’s endorsement of the Government’s proposals for continued places for Church of England bishops. We are grateful too that the Committee has accepted the Archbishops’ suggestions on how the Bill could be changed to allow more flexibility in how Lord Spiritual are chosen to serve, and to bring the bishops in line with other members on the disciplinary and tax measures.
Whilst it is disappointing that more has not been made by the Committee on how to deliver a greater breadth of representation across civil society, the recommendation to increase membership from 300 to 450 is to be welcomed, as this will provide better opportunity for those with outside professionalisms and experiences to bring those interests more to bear in the work of the House. The Church of England does not have a declared view on the merits of a referendum on House of Lords reform, though as both the Joint Committee and the Alternative Report have both recommended one, we trust that the Government will look very seriously at the suggestion…
The alternative report mentioned above can be found here. The Bishop of Leicester is one its authors.
1 CommentThe Telegraph has a report this morning: Archbishop of York to be considered for Canterbury by Jonathan Wynne-Jones and John Bingham.
Dr John Sentamu has repeatedly refused to confirm whether or not he would be throwing his hat into the ring to lead the Church of England when Dr Williams steps down later this year.
But last night it emerged that he had stepped down from the body responsible for the appointment – meaning that he can formally be considered.
It follows mounting speculation that the 62-year old archbishop would not stand as a candidate due to his age and recent bouts of poor health.
The Ugandan-born prelate has also been the target of a whispering campaign since Dr Williams announced his resignation, which some supporters claim is partly motivated by racism within the Church.
His decision to stand aside from the Commission, the group of clergy and churchgoers who secretly choose bishops and archbishops, confirms him as a front-runner for the most senior job in the Church of England…
Yesterday the Sunday Telegraph had reported this: Archbishop of York victim of ‘naked racism’, claims ally by Richard Eden, and Edward Malnick along with this editorial comment: Toxic whispers in the Church.
…People from many different backgrounds have reached high office in the Church in recent years. But these charges are given some credence by the unfortunate phrases employed by two senior churchmen interviewed by one of our reporters. They both referred to Dr Sentamu’s ethnic background in a way which made it appear that they thought it would cause problems were he to become the Church’s primate. One suggested that Dr Sentamu had the temperament of “an African chief”.
It is an unhappy truth that allegations of racism sometimes surface during an appointment process, and can be deployed as a crude form of blackmail: “Pick this candidate, or be branded a racist.” We hope that is not happening here. But the Church of England needs to establish that the process of choosing its most senior prelate is not going to be distorted by corrosive allegations, and also that it is genuinely free of the taint of racism.
The original article by Arun Arora to which reference is made was previously reported here.
Other media reactions today to these reports:
Independent Church plays down racism claim
…A spokesman for the Church of England said: “The blog from Arun Arora quoted in the story is a month old and has already been widely quoted in a range of publications.”
Northern Echo Archbishop says he has never experienced racism
THE Archbishop of York says he has never experienced racism from fellow clergymen, despite comments from a retired bishop that he would be “unsuitable for the church’s top post because he is quite tribal and the African chief thing comes through”.
Dr John Sentamu says he will not comment on speculation following a story in a Sunday newspaper in which two bishops questioned his suitability to be the successor to Rowan Williams as the next Archbishop of Canterbury…
The Yorkshire Post has Church bids to allay racism fear over Sentamu’s hopes of top job.
…The Church of England confirmed it was aware of Mr Arora’s blog, and added: “There is a comprehensive process for selecting the next Archbishop of Canterbury, details of which are available online, and involves an extensive consultation process.”
17 Comments…An aide said: ‘He would like to make it clear that he has never experienced racist views from within the Church – and no one within the Church has made such comments to him publicly or privately before.’
The allegations mean that the race to succeed Dr Rowan Williams as leader of the CofE and the worldwide Anglican Communion has descended into harsh abuse in little more than a month…
From a Church in Wales press release:
Christians need to show how the Gospel of Jesus is good news for gay people, the Archbishop of Wales said today (WEDNESDAY APRIL 18).
Dr Barry Morgan said he was concerned about the welfare of gay people whom he feared could feel uncomfortable and unwelcome in churches over the coming months as Government proposals for same-sex marriage are debated nationally.
In his presidential address to members of the Church in Wales’ Governing Body in Llandudno, the Archbishop said same-sex relationships was a moral issue facing the Church and the world, on which there was no single Christian opinion. His concern, however, was that the Church should offer gay people pastoral care and support…
The full text of the address by Archbishop Barry Morgan is available here.
Also from the press release:
12 CommentsDr Barry Morgan said the Church would not be able to ignore the new legislation on civil marriage proposed by the Government, despite the fact that the legislation would not allow gay couples to marry in church. He called on the Church to discuss how it would respond.
He said, “If the legislation to allow civil marriage is passed, I cannot see how we as a church, will be able to ignore the legality of the status of such partnerships and we ought not to want to do so.
“The question then as now is, will the church protect and support pastorally, faithful, stable, lifelong relationships of whatever kind in order to encourage human values such as love and fidelity and recognise the need in Christian people for some public religious support for these. As Helen says in the novel “Nightwatch” by Sarah Walters – a novel written in 1947, ‘what could she do to say to the world that Julia was hers?’ She could have gone on to ask ‘what can the church do to show that this relationship is not simply something between my partner and I but that somehow God is in our midst as well and longs for our wellbeing?’ It is a discussion we need to have.”
Press release from Church House Westminster: Director of Communications appointed.
The Revd Arun Arora has been appointed to serve the Church of England as Director of Communications at Church House, Westminster, following a competitive process.
The Communications Office, previously led by Peter Crumpler, provides direct support to the Archbishops’ Council, Church Commissioners and Pensions Board, and works closely with Lambeth and Bishopthorpe Palaces, other bishops’ offices, diocesan communications officers and cathedrals. Arun will take up the Director’s post in the summer.
Welcoming the appointment, the Rt Revd Graham James, Bishop of Norwich and lead bishop on communications, said: “Arun Arora is a person of great and varied talents. His skills as a communications professional are matched by the insights he has gained since ordination. I know his appointment will be warmly welcomed within the Church of England and well beyond it, too.”
Arun currently serves as the Team Leader of Wolverhampton Pioneer Ministries, a fresh expression of church based in Wolverhampton City Centre. Prior to his move to Wolverhampton, Arun served his curacy in Harrogate where he also served for three years as Director of Communications to the Archbishop of York and prior to that for four years as Bishop’s Press Officer and Director of Communications in the Diocese of Birmingham…
Here are two recent articles written by Arun Arora:
The Besmirching of John Sentamu
Why Sentamu Was Right to Write for the Sunday Sun
18 CommentsThe Dean of St Albans, the Very Reverend Dr Jeffrey John, has written a letter to the Editor of the Guardian.
The text of the letter is at Church should track down source of leak. It concludes:
…Following Colin’s death and the publication of this memorandum, the journalist who received the leak was honourable enough to publish a statement that Colin was not his source. The archbishop of Canterbury set up the Fritchie inquiry with alacrity when it was suspected that Colin Slee was the leaking member of the CNC. It would be good to know that steps are being taken to identify the real culprit and ensure that he will not be involved in nominating the new archbishop or in any further appointments.
There is a news article about it, see Stop Church of England leaks before choosing archbishop, says gay cleric by Matthew Taylor.
14 Comments…An inquiry into the 2010 leak was carried out by Lady Fritchie, a crossbench peer, but its findings were never published. A Church of England spokesman said on Sunday the report was never intended to be made public and was “a private document for the archbishop and CNC members”.
The spokesman added that there were no plans to start a fresh investigation into the 2010 leak. “In these sorts of situations anyone on a committee could theoretically have spoken to a third party who then passed it on. That means we are talking about potentially hundreds of people,” he said…
Updated twice Sunday morning
Jerome Taylor at the Independent has this: Christian group to sue Boris Johnson over ‘gay cure’ bus advertisements
The Christian group behind the recent attempt to place “gay cure” adverts on London buses have instructed lawyers to sue both the Mayor of London and the company that initially agreed to host the adverts after they were banned at the last minute, the Independent can reveal.
Aughton Ainsworth, a Manchester based law firm with a long track record of taking on controversial religious cases, have been hired by Anglican Mainstream to issue legal proceedings against both Boris Johnson and CBS Outdoor…
Savi Hensman has written for Ekklesia ‘Gay cure’ advertising proves misleading.
‘Ex-gay’ movement advertisements which were to have appeared on the sides of London buses have been blocked by the Mayor of London, to the relief of many. Mayor Boris Johnson is chair of Transport for London. However Mike Davidson of the Core Issues Trust, which placed the ads with backing from Anglican Mainstream, accused him of “censorship”.
Tension can sometimes arise between freedom of expression and protection of sections of society from discrimination and the wider public from offence. Getting the right balance in such instances can be difficult.
What is surprising in this case, however, is that the Advertising Standards Authority had apparently cleared the ads in the first place. These read “Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!” This implies that, if one is attracted mainly to the same sex, changing one’s sexual orientation is possible and desirable.
This is borne out by Core Issues Trust’s commitment to “support men and women with homosexual issues who voluntarily seek change in sexual preference and expression”. The Anglican Mainstream website, announcing the advertising campaign, claims that “sexuality is far more fluid than has hitherto been thought”.
So the claim touches on science, as well as religion and ethics. And on this basis, since matters of fact as well as opinion are involved, this campaign would have fallen foul of the rule that ads must not mislead.
Channel 4 News had an excellent report on Friday night, including video interviews with representatives from Stonewall, Index on Censorship, Core Issues Trust, and Anglican Mainstream, see Transport for London bans ‘anti-gay’ adverts.
…TFL found they had breached two clauses of their advertising code: firstly that it was “likely to cause widespread or serious offence to members of the public” and secondly that it contained “messages which relate to matters of public controversy and sensitivity”.
TFL’s spokesperson told Channel 4 News: “We have an advertising code over what we are comfortable with. In this case we felt it would be offensive to parts of our customer base.”
“We have decided that it should not run on London’s bus or transport networks. We do not believe that these specific ads are consistent with TFL’s commitment to a tolerant and inclusive London.”
‘Context and audience’
Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the lesbian, gay and bisexual charity Stonewall, whose advert was mimicked, told Channel 4 News: “On balance I think Boris [Johnson, London’s mayor] has probably got it right, but whether the advert of itself should automatically be banned – that’s an argument about context and audience.”
Mr Summerskill argued freedom of speech is a nuanced issue. “It’s a question of balance,” he said. “It’s probably right it shouldn’t be on London’s iconic buses, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be published in, say, the Spectator.”
“If they’re seen in the wider public space, where clearly they do undermine young people who are growing up to be gay, that is a serious issue – the mental health of young gay people is often significantly overlooked,” he added…
The BBC Radio Sunday programme also had a discussion of this, with representatives from Changing Attitude, Core Issues Trust, and Anglican Mainstream. Go to this page for downloads of the audio file. The item is at the end of the programme, go forward about 34.5 minutes…
38 CommentsGiles Fraser writes in the Church Times today about his concerns, see Can orientation really be changed?
Professor Glynn Harrison is very careful with his words. He does not believe in the concept of a “gay cure” or “gay conversion”, he says. Rather, he thinks that “there is evidence that some people with unwanted same-sex attraction can achieve significant change.”
The True Freedom Trust, on whose council of reference Professor Harrison sits, was founded in 1977 by Martin Hallett. The website explains: “Martin was involved in a homosexual lifestyle for over nine years before Jesus dramatically changed his life in 1972.”
The fact that Professor Harrison is one of those chosen by the General Synod to help to choose the next Archbishop of Canterbury is what has brought his approach under the spotlight. His views may be similar to those of a significant minority in the Church of England, but they do not seem to be those of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, of which he is a Fellow…
Colin Coward writes at Changing Attitude about Dr Glynn Harrison’s views on homosexuality and his membership of the Crown Nominations Commission.
Last week a Guardian reporter phoned me to consult me about Dr Glynn Harrison’s membership of the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC), the body that will select the next Archbishop of Canterbury (and appoints other diocesan bishops). The Guardian was concerned about Glynn Harrison’s CNC place because of his beliefs about gay people…
Dr Harrison’s own views can be found at the website of the Christian Medical Fellowship, which published the booklet Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction: Issues of pastoral and counselling support he authored jointly with Andrew Goddard, mentioned by Colin Coward in the article above. Three other articles are available here.
Dr Harrison is connected with the True Freedom Trust, as shown here.
17 CommentsThis article was originally written for publication by Ekklesia.
The Cutting Edge Consortium will hold its third national conference on Faith and Homophobia on Saturday 21 April, at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL from 10 a.m (register from 9.30 am) until 5 p.m.
This year’s conference is titled LGBT Lives: Achieving our Equality, Challenging Faith-Based Homophobia and Transphobia.
Quite a mouthful, and the daylong programme is packed too. There will be three keynote speakers, two plenary discussions each with a panel of speakers, and two separate workshop sessions with about six events running in parallel.
The full spectrum of Cutting Edge’s membership is reflected in the programme: faith organisations, secularists, trade unions, and LGBT groups.
The cost is very moderate, for individuals, no more than £15 for the day, and that includes a lunch. But advance booking is essential for the caterers to plan!
The keynote speakers are:
Updated again Friday morning
The Guardian reports that an attempt to run a bus advertising campaign by Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues Trust has been stopped by the Mayor of London. see Anti-gay adverts on London buses blocked by Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson, the Conservative mayor, has pulled an “offensive” Christian campaign advertising “gay conversion” which was due to appear on London’s buses next week.
Revelations that adverts asserting the power of therapy to change the sexual orientation of gay people were due to be driven around the capital came as Johnson, who is seeking re-election in May, was due to appear at a mayoral hustings organised by the gay campaigning group Stonewall on Saturday.
The mayor immediately put the wheels in motion to halt the campaign after being alerted to the plans by the Guardian, and made clear that such advertising had no place in a tolerant city.
A clearly angered Johnson said: “London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.”
And the earlier story was Christian group books anti-gay ads to appear on buses.
London buses have been booked to carry a Christian advertising campaign expected to start next week, which asserts the power of therapy to change the sexual orientation of gay people.
The full length advert, which will appear on five different routes in the capital, is backed by the Core Issues Trust whose leader, Mike Davies, believes “homoerotic behaviour is sinful”. His charity funds “reparative therapy” for gay Christians who believe that they have homosexual feelings but want to become straight. The campaign is also backed by Anglican Mainstream, an worldwide orthodox Anglican group whose supporters have equated homosexuality with alcoholism.
The advert will say: “Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!” Post-gay and ex-gay are terms used by Christians and some psychotherapists and psychiatrists to refer to homosexual people who have undergone spiritual or pastoral therapy and, according to an Anglican Mainstream definition, have “now left a homosexual lifestyle [and experienced] an increased emotional and sexual attraction to the opposite biological gender and possibly a reduction in or loss of same-sex attraction.”
Earlier Stonewall’s Ben Summerskill had responded to the announcement of this campaign as follows:
“It’s sad that any self-styled “Christian” group promotes voodoo “gay cure therapy”, which has been discredited by the BACP, the UK’s leading professional body for counselling psychotherapists. Life would be much easier if these organisations just admitted that they don’t like gay people.”
Updates
The Guardian has two more articles:
Does the scientific support cited by anti-gay campaigners add up?
Conservative Christians are becoming more confident in the political arena
Further reports from Press Association, BBC, Independent, Telegraph.
87 CommentsUpdated with additional links
The Guardian has published an article by Robert Booth headlined Archbishop panel member believes gay people can ‘change’ sexual desire.
A leading member of the Church of England who believes some gay people can be counselled to suppress or possibly change their sexual orientation is helping to select the next Archbishop of Canterbury.
Glynn Harrison, emeritus professor of psychiatry at Bristol University, is on the powerful Crown Nominations Commission (CNC), which will chose a successor to Rowan Williams to be approved by the prime minister and the Queen.
Harrison’s role on the 16-strong panel has triggered alarm among liberal Anglicans who fear it could deepen existing divisions over homosexuality in a church already riven by the issues of holding gay civil ceremonies in churches and the ordination of gay bishops…
A lengthy statement (quoted in the news story) issued by the press office at Church House, Westminster, on behalf of Dr Glynn Harrison can be read in full here (PDF).
Professor Glynn Harrison does not believe in concepts of ‘gay cure’ or ‘gay conversion’ and has never been involved in offering any formal counselling or ‘therapy’ in this area himself. Such descriptions, because they depend on inappropriate notions of ‘sickness’, convey simplistic and stigmatising views. In addition, as he has made clear, all bullying and prejudice toward people, whatever their sexual interests and attractions, is a violation of the inclusive call of the Christian Gospel and the way of Jesus Christ.
Professor Harrison, who supports the current teaching of the Church of England in Issues in Human Sexuality, began investigating the area of faith and human sexuality when asked by the Anglican Communion Office in 2007 to contribute to a forthcoming book (‘The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality’). This was being prepared for the 2008 Lambeth Conference as part of the ‘Listening Process’. Since then he has written other articles on faith and human sexuality. A recent example, written with Dr Andrew Goddard, was published in the Church Times on December 9th 2011 and accompanies this statement…
The Church Times article mentioned is now behind a paywall again, but for subscribers the link is here: Now for the ‘B’ picture.
The book mentioned in the statement was reviewed in 2008 by Dr Michael King and this review can still be read here: Is the Church Listening?
…Trailing at the end is the “witness of science” on the biological basis of sexuality. As scientists, we might welcome such an approach but before the Church changed its mind on slavery or women priests did it debate the biological basis for race and gender? I suspect not. It appears here because of homosexuality’s persisting image as a deviation from nature’s heterosexual plan. But never mind. Just what have these chapters to tell us? The first by David de Pomerai and Glynn Harrison is a reasonable enough summary of what neuroscience and genetics can tell us about homosexuality and is fair to the literature. The second by Glynn Harrison is of much lower quality. Here we have an academic psychiatrist bending over backwards to suggest, on the basis of the weakest sort of evidence, that sexual orientation can be changed. I suspect if he were reviewing evidence of similar quality for the efficacy of a new medication he would dismiss it out of hand. And so unsurprisingly, he finds what he sets out to find – namely that given enough willingness there are treatments out there to make homosexual people into heterosexuals, or at the very least stop them wanting sex…
Dr King has today commented on the most recent statement about Dr Harrison linked above as follows:
Updates
The Royal College of Psychiatrists, of which Dr Harrison is a Fellow, has these statements on its website:
and this:
Anyone who is interested in Dr Harrison’s own research may find this useful: Publications for Professor Glynn Harrison.
69 CommentsThe Observer reports today on a new research report from Demos under the headline Religious people are more likely to be leftwing, says thinktank Demos . Research undermines commonly held view that faith group members are more conservative.
The report itself titled Faithful Citizens can be found on the Demos website as a PDF file. Demos itself summarises the report thus:
Religiosity has always been closely associated with conservatism: the Church of England is sometimes described as ‘the Conservative party at prayer’. In the United States, the Republican party and the religious right have become increasingly interdependent, but a similar trend has not occurred on this side of the Atlantic. This report, based on original analysis of the Citizenship Survey and the European Values Survey, investigates the different relationship between religion and politics in the UK and Europe.
The report presents two key findings. First, religious people are more active citizens – they volunteer more, donate more to charity and are more likely to campaign on political issues. Second, and more counter-intuitively, religious people are more likely to be politically progressive. They put a greater value on equality than the non-religious, are more likely to be welcoming of immigrants as neighbours and when asked are more likely to put themselves on the left of the political spectrum.
Based on this, Faithful Citizens recommends that progressive politicians should work with faith groups on issues which they are particularly engaged, including immigration, women’s rights, international development, the environment and youth work. Faith group members, the report argues, will be key to any future, election-winning, progressive coalition.
Mary Reid has already blogged about this report here.
28 CommentsThe Archbishop of Canterbury’s Easter Sermon is available here: Archbishop’s Easter Sermon 2012 – God raised Jesus to life.
The Archbishop of York has three video messages. See Archbishop’s Easter Video Messages. And he wrote this column for the Sun: Archbishop’s Easter Joy.
The Anglican Communion News Service has published a roundup of several other Easter messages, including one from the Archbishop of Uganda.
We will add more when we find them.
6 CommentsUpdated to add clarification
A press release from the Anglican Communion Office states:
Members of the Anglican Communion around the world are, for the first time in history, being invited to share their views on the ministry of the next Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Crown Nominations Commission of the Church of England—the body that nominates the next Archbishop of Canterbury—traditionally asks for the views of all Primates and Provincial Secretaries of the 38 Provinces of the Anglican Communion.
On this occasion, however, not only has a Primate been invited to join the Commission, but a letter has also been sent to Provinces to be read in Anglican Communion churches inviting everyone to share their thoughts about the ministry of the next Archbishop.
The letter, sent by the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion* Canon Kenneth Kearon on behalf of the Commission, states: “The Archbishop of Canterbury exercises many roles—he is Bishop of the Diocese of Canterbury, Primate of the Church of England, and Focus of Unity for the Anglican Communion.
“The process of seeking the next Archbishop is led by the Crown Nominations Commission of the Church of England and extensive consultations within the U.K. have begun with various representatives of the Church of England, other Christian denominations, other faiths and wider church life. Members of the Church of England are also invited to share in this process.“The Commission wishes to offer the same opportunity to other members of the Anglican Communion. It is seeking your views on the priorities for the ministry of the next Archbishop to enable the members of the Commission to have as rich a picture as possible as they begin their work.”
The hope is that clergy will receive the letter (translated in several languages) from their Primate or bishop and read it out in church so Anglicans and Episcopalians around the world know of and can respond to the Commission’s request.
Anglican Communion members will be able to contact the Commission via both electronic and traditional means before 30th April. All views that are received will be collated and included in a report to the Commission.
Notes to Editors
*The Secretary General of the Anglican Communion is a non-voting member of the Commission
For more information about the procedures for appointing a new Archbishop of Canterbury visit: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2403/outline-of-procedures-for-appointing-a-new-archbishop-of-canterbury
The Anglican Communion Primate who joins the Commission is elected by the Standing Committee. As the Standing Committee is not scheduled to meet in person until May, the whole procedure, both nomination and election, occurs by email.
The Anglican Communion comprises around 85 million members in 38 regional and national member churches around the globe in more than 165 countries. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/
Update
Episcopal Café reports receiving the following:
30 CommentsUPDATE: Clarification from The Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, Secretary General of the Anglican Communion Office:
The letter from the Secretary General to members of the Anglican Communion seeks opinions on the priorities for the ministry of the next Archbishop. The responses to that will be available to the members of the Crown Nominations Commission. This is the first time this has been done.
In a separate letter to all Primates and Provincial Secretaries the same question about the priorities for the ministry of the next Archbishop is asked, together with a request for nominations, as on previous occasions.Sincerely,
Kenneth.
The Telegraph published a news report by John Bingham headlined Rowan Williams: fixation with gay rights, race and feminism threatens society. A fixation with gay rights, feminism and separate racial identities is threatening to “fragment” British society, the Archbishop of Canterbury has claimed.
Subsequently, Comment is free published Is Rowan Williams right to warn about excessive identity politics? with contributions from Reni Eddo-Lodge, Sunny Hundal and Peter Tatchell.
Lambeth Palace has transcribed the comment that these articles refer to, from the audio recording, all available here.
100 CommentsIdentity is a very slippery word, as everybody has brought out. I heard some voices raised, I think very importantly, against what people now often call ‘identity politics’: this is who I am, these are my rights, I demand that you recognise me.
Identity politics, whether it’s the politics of feminism, whether it’s the politics of ethnic minorities, or the politics of sexual minorities, has been a very important part of the last ten or twenty years. Because, before that, I think there was a sense that diversity was not really welcome. And so minorities of various kinds and – not that it’s a minority – particularly a group of women, began to say ‘well, actually we need to say who we are in our terms, not yours’. And that led to identity politics of a very strong kind and the legislation that followed it.
We’re now, I think, beginning to see the pendulum swinging back, and saying: well, identity politics is all very well but we’ve got to have some way of putting all that together again, and discovering what’s good for all of us, and, as I said at the beginning, sharing something of who we are with one another so as to discover more about who we are.
That’s just one point that struck me in listening to this excellent conversation – identity isn’t just something sealed off and finished with. Identity is something we bring to the task of building up a fuller identity all the time. It’s always a work in progress, always a project, never something done with. Once we start saying ‘This is my identity and that’s it,’ then I think we’re in danger of really fragmenting the society we belong to.
Updated
The Church Times reports that the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform has recommended retention of 12 seats for bishops.
See Bishops’ dozen in reformed Lords.
…The draft Bill proposes that the bishops are to remain able to claim allowances as other peers do. In matters of the “serious offence provision”, the draft Bill assumes that the bishops would be “subject to the disciplinary procedures established by the Church of England”.
The General Synod would need to reconsider how bishops were appointed to the Lords in future, he said, and in particular whether it kept seats for the two Archbishops, and the Bishops of Winchester, London and Durham, as has always been the case.
Last year, the Archbishop of Canterbury told the joint select committee on the draft reform Bill that the House of Bishops accepted the need for “a proportionate reduction”, but he said that bishops “would have to face how we best facilitate the participation of smaller numbers of bishops in a more demanding regime” (News, 2 December).
Dr Williams said that the bishops “are not there to represent the Church of England’s interests: they are there as bishops of the realm, who have taken on the role of attempting to speak for the needs of a wide variety of faith communities.”
Not everybody is pleased about this, including the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association.
Today’s Observer has an article by Catherine Bennett titled Lords reform: Will nobody finally rid us of these bumptious buffoons? and a strap line: As bishops remain in the upper house, hopes of any substantial change in this antiquated chamber are dying fast.
Yet more evidence for the power of prayer: Anglican bishops are to remain in a newly legitimised House of Lords. How else do you explain it? It seems unlikely, anyway, that popular, sublunary opinion was involved in this decision by the joint committee on House of Lords reform. Polls indicate that three out of five think these religious professionals should not have seats in the legislature. Last week the BBC reported that there would be, contrary to previous reports, room for 12 bishops in a reformed house, down from the current 26. Not so much a reform then, as an economy.
Guaranteed places for a dozen male prelates who are guided by religious laws and selected by a church hierarchy which denies equal rights to women and gay people and the dying, but incapacitated: if this is any measure of the democratic zeal of the joint committee on House of Lords reform, you wonder if they shouldn’t just give up now to save disappointment, or legal challenges, later. If the churchmen, with only historic precedent to justify their seats, can survive in a much smaller, reformed house, then a similar case can be made – and apparently is being made – for the continued existence of the Lords’ vast numbers of bumptious hereditaries, placemen, poltroons, soaks, spongers and, in a smaller yet equally tenacious way, perjurers and thieves? Not forgetting a host of eminent appointments from the world of telly. Brown’s protege, Lord Sugar, for example. He has voted 14 times out of a possible 273. And now Lord Fellowes, who appears to have spoken four times in the last year (keen for a lord) since being honoured for his services to Downton Abbey…
According to the Observer last week though, those who attend least frequently will be the first to be ejected, see Lazy peers to face axe first in Lords reforms.
Chris Bryant writing in the Indendent yesterday though the bishops should go:
…There’s a lot of moaning in the Lords, and it’s not just the threat of the Lords Reform Bill that is causing coronetted coronaries. There’s also the matter of their lordships’ recess as there is a threat that they will rise early before the new session. This is going down badly as peers lose £300 every day the House is not sitting. This includes the bishops, even though they are paid full-time stipends by the Church of England and are provided with rent-free palaces, cars and chauffeurs (or a chaplain).
Last October, for instance, bishops claimed £15,300 in attendance allowance, including the Bishop of Chester’s £2,700, Leicester’s £2,250 and most extraordinarily, London’s £900. Which brings me to the joint committee on Lords reform, which has voted to keep 12 of the 26 bishops. I just don’t get it. How can a national legislature have the representatives of just one church from only one of the four nations?
Wouldn’t it be kinder to release them from their rochet and chimere duties so that they can tend to their dioceses? After all, the Catholic Church seems to make a far more effective political splash than the CofE and its clergy are not allowed to sit in a parliament.
George Pitcher, writing in the Mail thought otherwise, see Our bishops have been handed a God-given chance in the House of Lords to end religious bickering.
Update
Andrew Copson has just published Getting the Bishops out.
18 CommentsI’ve just come back from a series of local BBC radio interviews on the place of Bishops in House of Lords reform. This is following the disappointing news that the parliamentary Joint Committee on Lords Reform is to recommend Bishops remain in a reformed chamber. I gave oral evidence to the committee last year but obviously they liked Rowan Williams’ evidence more.
I can’t think of a single good argument for automatic places for bishops remaining in a reformed chamber. We don’t know what the committee (one of the members of which is himself a bishop) will give as the rationale for its poor decision but it’s bound to be one or more of the following fatuities (all of them were made by the Bishop of Hereford at some point this morning)…
Link to advertisement added
Consultation opens on the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury
30 March 2012Announcements in the Church Times, Church of England Newspaper and The Times have started the consultation process ahead of consideration by the Crown Nominations Commission as to who will follow Dr Rowan Williams as the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury.
This is the first time the process for nominating a new Archbishop of Canterbury has begun with such an announcement, following changes to introduce more transparency in the appointment of bishops.
The Most Revd and Rt Hon Dr Rowan Williams will be stepping down from the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury on 31st December 2012.
Any person wishing to comment on the challenges and opportunities that should be taken in to account in considering the appointment of his successor or who wishes to propose candidates should email, by Monday 30th April, to abc.vacancy@churchofengland.org .
Comments and proposals can also be sent in writing to one of the following:
Sir Paul Britton,
Prime Minister’s Secretary for Appointments
c/o Honours and Appointments Secretariat
Admiralty Arch
The Mall
London
SW1A 2WHMs. Caroline Boddington
Archbishops’ Secretary for Appointments
The Wash House
Lambeth Palace
London
SE1 7JU
The linked press release gives more detail on the procedure. The same material can also be found here.
This link shows the advertisement.
8 CommentsThe Church of Ireland Gazette has this editorial opinion: Anglican Covenant, Anglicanism and The Church of Ireland.
It might well be said that the unthinkable happened last weekend, with the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant coming to grief in the Church of England of all places (report, page 1). Yet, that is precisely what happened, and it will surely go down in the annals of Anglican history. The Covenant had been intended as an agreement with procedures that would help keep the Anglican Communion in one piece when facing contentious issues. Undoubtedly, it arose as a result of the inter-Anglican same-sex relationships controversy that has now seen its own fraught manifestation in the Church of Ireland playing out since last autumn and occasioning, earlier this month, a unique Bishops’ Conference on the topic for General Synod members.
One aspect of the Church of England débâcle that no doubt will be the subject of careful consideration in the relevant quarters is the fact that in some of the diocesan synods the voting was very close. In theory, following reflection at the English General Synod on what has transpired, the Covenant could be put back on the table in the Church of England after a lapse of three years, but there are at least two reasons why this is unlikely: first, as the No Anglican Covenant Coalition has pointed out, the Covenant is facing difficulties in some other parts of the Communion and, second, in any case, the passage of time and considerable disagreements about it have left the Covenant unable really to deal with the differences in the Communion over same-sex relationships. Other divisive issues could, of course, arise, but it is difficult to see all the requisite superabundance of energy actually now being summoned to recover and progress the Covenant (perhaps).
The moral of the story has at least two dimensions. First, from a practical perspective, when faced with a divisive crisis, setting up a bureaucratic procedure that is going to take years to get anywhere, if it is to get anywhere at all, is hardly a good idea. If anyone thought that ‘buying time’ would allow the same-sex relationships imbroglio to subside, that was a very mistaken notion, and we in the Church of Ireland do need to take note of that as we face our own difficulties over the issue.
Second, from a more conceptual perspective, we now know, as surely as we can know, that Anglicanism is set to remain a Communion of wholly autonomous Churches, bound together by ‘bonds of affection’. It should be added, however, that such mutual affection is far from a weak ideal; it is, in fact, a considerable calling and it is surely true that at times we do have to work at loving one another. There has been talk about being in communion implying ‘interdependence’ and thus justifying central regulation, however light, but that interdependence argument is actually quite vague because everything in the world is interdependent and, from an ecclesiological perspective, all Christians of whatever denomination, in communion or out of communion, are interdependent. Thus, as Anglicans, we are all, across the globe, now challenged to ponder our affection for one another and, where it is waning, to seek to nurture it carefully and prayerfully….
The Church Times has this leader: After the Covenant.
ANYONE offered a welcoming doughnut and a seat near the projector on arrival at church on Sunday would probably have guessed that it was one of the growing number of Messy Church services. But even if things looked normal, they weren’t. After the diocesan votes on the previous day, it is all Messy Church. The Anglican Covenant — an attempt to introduce order to the Communion — was tipped into oblivion, at least as far as the Church of England goes.
Without the Covenant, it was argued, national Churches had no formal obligation to consider the “relational consequences” (a coinage of the Covenant text) of their actions on other Churches in the Communion. Dr Williams warned that, without the Covenant, he found it “hard at present to see another way forward that would avoid further disintegration”. One of the troubling aspect of the Covenant debates — such as they have been — is the impression given by critics that they can not only live with disintegration but positively welcome it, if it means not having to relate to people with whom they disagree fundamentally.
In the end, Anglicans have discovered what another ecclesial body might have told them from the start: in the present age, a text cannot hold Churches together in the way that a person can. Given that no text will be perfect, a degree of affection is needed to persuade people to subscribe. An individual can earn that affection; a text (poetry excepted), never — especially a text monitored by a standing committee that few understand and none recognise. Time and again in the General Synod, affection for Dr Williams carried members along; but he was absent in the diocesan synods, and the link was broken…
Giles Fraser writes Covenant is dead. Long live unity.
I WILL not disguise my joy at the death of the Anglican Covenant. And death it is — despite the fact that some people will inevitably try to give its corpse the kiss of life. The idea that the Church of England has given it so emphatic a thumbs-down, especially in the face of huge episcopal and archiepiscopal lobbying, is evidence of how unpopular the idea is in the pews.
Here, the majority of bishops have shown themselves to be completely out of touch with the centre of gravity of the Church of England. It is not that we do not care about our brothers and sisters in other parts of the Communion. It is simply that we want our Christian solidarity to be expressed through our Anglican heritage, our common baptism, and the development of friendships — and not through a treaty that can be haggled over by church politicians, the purpose of which was always to isolate those Churches that had a different view of sexual ethics…
And there is a news report by Ed Thornton Challenges remain, Primate warns, after dioceses block Anglican Covenant.
31 Comments…Speaking on Monday, Dr Williams said: “This is, of course, a disappointing outcome for many of us in the Church of England and many more in the Communion. Unfortunately, the challenges the Covenant was meant to address will not go away just because people vote against it.
“We shall still have to work at vehicles for consultation and managing disagreement. And nothing should lessen the priority of sustaining relationships, especially with some of those smaller and vulnerable Churches for whom strong international links are so crucial.”
The Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Revd John Pritchard, a patron of the Yes to the Covenant Coalition, said on Tuesday that he was “disappointed”; but “we have to trust the mind of the Church. I simply hope that the Anglican Communion can flourish a different way, without what I thought was its best hope.”
The Bishop of Buckingham, Dr Alan Wilson, who voted against the Covenant in Oxford diocesan synod, said that its defeat in the C of E was an “opportunity to grow up, to take stock, and to get real. It’s very sad that a large number of bishops were out of touch on this one.”
Church of England press release:
9 CommentsGroup on human sexuality appoints advisers
29 March 2012
The group chaired by Sir Joseph Pilling to advise the House of Bishops on the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality has appointed three advisers. They are the Revd Dr Jessica Martin, Priest-in-charge of Duxford, of Hinxton and of Ickleton, Dr Robert Song, Head of Durham University’s Department of Theology and Religion, and the Ven Rachel Treweek, Archdeacon of Hackney.
Jessica Martin reflected on and wrote about the House of Bishops statement Some Issues in Human Sexuality in her former role as a Cambridge academic. Robert Song is a Senior Lecturer in Christian Ethics and President of the Society for the Study of Christian Ethics. Rachel Treweek has been an Archdeacon, first in Northolt and now in Hackney, since 2006.
The House of Bishops announced on 1 July, 2011, that it intended to draw together material from the listening process undertaken within the Church of England over recent years in the light of the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution. It also committed itself to offering proposals on how the continuing discussion within the Church of England about these matters might best be shaped in the light of the listening process. The task of Sir Joseph’s group, announced in January, is to help the House discharge its commitment to produce a consultation document…
George Pitcher wrote an article for last week’s edition of the New Statesman which is now available to the public.
See How Rowan took on the establishment – and lost. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, longed to take risks but was thwarted by Church courtiers and cronies more concerned with their own survival.
The article should be read in full, but here is a sample:
6 Comments…There is now an opportunity for renewal. Rowan has announced his departure at the end of the year. The chiefs of staff at Lambeth Palace and Church House, too, will soon be on their way. The new Archbishop of Canterbury has a golden opportunity to streamline and to make the support structures of the Church of England and, by extension, the Anglican Communion, more effective for and better suited to the 21st century. Something similar has already been achieved in the civil service; it’s high time that the administration of the English Church underwent another reformation.
Here are my suggestions, born of bitter experience but offered without rancour. The new archbishop should sweep away the top-heavy management of Lambeth Palace, discarding the courtly structures in favour of a small personal staff. He probably needs no more than a diary secretary, a chaplain and a junior press officer. All other executive functions would move to Church House in Westminster, where the Archbishop has an administrative office. There would be a single chief of staff, with oversight over both the Archbishop’s and the Church of England’s staff. The next most senior position is another single post that could merge all functions – call her or him, say, director of strategy and communications – to which all public affairs and media functions would report…
Recently, there were claims in the British press that the European Court of Human Rights had issued a new ruling to the effect that “same sex marriage is not a human right”. These claims appeared in the Daily Mail, and in the Telegraph, though the latter subsequently amended its article to remove the errors that had been brought to their attention.
The situation was well explained in this article at The Blog That Peter Wrote titled The Case Against Same Sex Marriage.
…The Mail today reported on the Strassbourg case of Gas/Dubois v France. It relates to a lesbian couple in a French civil union, who complained that they were discriminated against because they could not adopt as a couple. The ruling is in French and is here. My French is no longer fluent, but I waded through it and also looked at the English summary which can be downloaded here if you are interested. The court found against the couple and expressly recognised (as it has done before) that a signatory state has to the right to discriminate against same-sex couples by not allowing them the right to marry if it so chooses.
The Mail, and the Telegraph [See Footnote] in a near virtual copy of the original article curiously reported that “the ruling also says that if gay couples are allowed to marry, any church that offers weddings will be guilty of discrimination if it declines to marry same-sex couples”. That is a pretty startling aspect that would drive a horse and cart through the government’s statement to the contrary.
It is also, as far as I can see, entirely wrong. There is nothing that I can find in the French ruling or the English summary to this effect. It is important to note that if there had been, of course, it would have been obiter in the sense that the court was looking at whether the couple had the right to adopt under a civil union, not considering hypothetical situations that do not exist. Further, the English law doctrine of binding precedent does not apply to ECHR judgements, so it would additionally have provided persuasive guidance rather than hard case law to be followed. But again, let’s get back to the point: it’s not in the ruling…
And he concludes:
Let me summarise: the Gas/Dubois ruling expressly confirmed the right of ECHR states to discriminate against gay people in matters of marriage. It did not discuss what I think is a key question of the interplay of the Article 9 Right of Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion with the right of a gay person not to be discriminated against, where a state does have same-sex marriage. The Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, Norway, Belgium all have full same-sex marriage. Any court actions in these countries attempting to force a clergyman to marry against his conscience in these countries would, I am sure, have been widely reported. Certainly nothing has reached Strassbourg.
This is only my opinion, but I think it is widely fanciful to suppose that, in the light of its repeated view that gay people can be discriminated against by their countries, Strassbourg would currently take on the church in this way and rule that the rights of a gay person to get married in church outweigh Article 9 rights. It is scare-mongering, it is conjecture, and it is not based on any jurisprudence I am aware of to pretend it is fact this would be the case…
Links:
Court judgment (only in French)
English summary of court judgment
Telegraph article as amended
Daily Mail article (has not been corrected)
And just today, there is a detailed discussion of this case, and its press coverage at UK Human Rights Blog titled Can a homosexual person adopt his or her partner’s child? The case of Gas and Dubois v France.
12 Comments