The Policy Exchange think tank has published a report entitled What’s In A Name? Is there a case for equal marriage?
The synopsis reads:
The Government’s proposals to introduce civil marriage for same-sex couples have provoked controversy and a wide-scale debate. The public consultation, which concluded in June sparked more responses than almost any other Government consultation. The debate has, in many ways, been more diverse, impassioned and wide-ranging than previous debates around ‘gay rights’. In particular, a ‘conservative case’ in favour of reform has emerged.
Supporters of equal marriage suggest that allowing same-sex people to marry would be an important act to ensure that gay and lesbian people have equal rights under the law. It’s also suggested that marriage is a beneficial institution, encouraging commitment and stability and that these benefits should not be denied to gay people, with some suggesting that marriage could be particularly beneficial to gay people.
Opponents argue that the change would redefine the nature of marriage and weaken the institution as a whole. They also argue that it could lead to a ‘slippery slope’ that could see the likes of polygamous marriage legalised at some point in the future. Concerns have also been expressed by opponents that the changes could be detrimental to religious freedom.
This report adopts an evidence-based analysis of the arguments around marriage equality to consider whether there is a compelling argument to reform the law. It pursues a reasoned analysis of the equal marriage concept and its practical implications and evaluates the arguments on both sides of the divide. It also explores the experience of other countries where marriage equality is already a reality.
The report can be downloaded as a PDF from here.
24 CommentsThis article, which appeared in The Tablet last week, is reproduced here by kind permission of the Editor.
‘Nowhere is it written that a parish may excommunicate its bishop’
The Church of England has reached an impasse over the issue of women bishops. As conservatives blame the liberals and liberals blame the conservatives – and both blame the bishops – might a candid friend suggest that they would be more honest if they blamed themselves?
On 11 November 1992, the General Synod gave the required two-thirds majority to the decision to ordain women as priests. There were three hostages to fortune given that day. The first was to suppose a theological issue could be settled by such a majority as that. Not long before, the issue of unity with the Methodists had required a 75 per cent majority, which it failed to get. Two-thirds was chosen simply because the pro-women-priests side felt it could be achieved.
Secondly, the assumption was made that the issue of the consecration (i.e. ordination) of women bishops could be postponed to another day. Anything that might have alarmed the waverers was removed. Indeed, even this minimalist proposal was only secured by a margin of two votes, and there were more than that number of abstentions. But in the apostolic tradition, the priesthood is a unity. Priests exercise their ministry with their bishop; bishops with their priests. Theologically, one follows from the other. It is the attempt to separate them that is now coming unstuck, for the theological unity of the ordained ministry is deeply embedded in the Church of England’s structure, where it has survived since before the Reformation.
Thirdly, the two-thirds requirement guaranteed that up to a third of the Church would withhold its assent. The solution was to give the minority what was, in effect, their own Church-within-a-Church, with its own bishops who would not themselves ordain women (dubbed flying bishops because in effect they flew in when episcopal ministry was needed, and then flew out again).
This had two consequences. It meant abandoning any attempt to achieve a better consensus, to bring the Church to one mind on the matter. The Church proper and the Church-within-a-Church were henceforth destined to be rival and mutually incompatible versions of Anglican orthodoxy. It also implied that there was, in conservative eyes at least, a fundamental flaw in the episcopal credentials of any bishop who had ordained women, a “taint”.
By voting for the flying-bishop proposal as part of the minimalist package, furthermore, the liberal majority had colluded in this theology of taint, whether they meant to or not.
But it is not a doctrine known to the Catholic and apostolic tradition, to which the Church of England has pledged to be faithful. Nor is it biblical. It is a toxic novelty. Nowhere in the tradition is it written that a parish may excommunicate its own bishop and opt for another one, which is what the flying bishops idea amounts to. If a parish decided to reject the ministry of the local bishop if that bishop was female, it could arguably question her orders. But to reject it because a (male) bishop had, at least once, ordained a woman priest is contrary to the necessary (and Catholic) principle of ex opere operato – that the validity of a sacramental ministry is independent of the worthiness of the office-holder.
So the pro-women-priests majority may have set up this untenable situation by their eagerness to scrape up a two-thirds majority. But the anti-women-priests minority then made a grievous error by embracing the theology of episcopal taint that the flying bishops solution implied, contrary to the Catholic tradition. Henceforth they were sitting on a time bomb. If the Church decided to follow the logic of 11 November 1992 and ordain women as bishops, the minority’s position would become hopeless. Bishops often participate in each other’s consecrations: “taint” would become a sort of theological virus, transmitted by the laying on of hands. Sooner or later, none would be untainted.
The measure to ordain women bishops was adjourned by the General Synod this week because it entitled parishes by law to choose a bishop of the pure kind if their local diocesan bishop is tainted (or even more so, if the local bishop is female). The objection was made that this is deeply insulting to women priests and to any woman subsequently chosen as a bishop. So it may be, but this is an issue that is better dealt with by rigorous theological analysis than by indignant rhetoric.
Theological chickens have a habit of coming home to roost. The next step forward therefore needs to be a step back, to examine afresh what happened on 11 November 1992. And to be honest about – wherever that may lead.
——
Clifford Longley is an Editorial Consultant to The Tablet. He is a journalist who has been a religious affairs specialist since 1972, for The Times for 20 years and then until 2000 for the Daily Telegraph.
Updated Monday evening to add a webpage version of the spreadsheet.
The detailed electronic voting results for the vote on the motion
That the debate be now adjourned to enable the new clause 5(1)(c) inserted by the House of Bishops into the draft Measure entitled “Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure” to be reconsidered by the House of Bishops.
at General Synod last Monday are now available for download.
As already announced at the time of the vote the result was 288 votes in favour and 144 against with 15 recorded abstentions.
From the detailed electronic voting results I have calculated how the votes went in each house.
| for | against | abstain | |
| Bishops | 36 | 10 | 4 |
| Clergy | 136 | 54 | 6 |
| Laity | 116 | 80 | 5 |
| total | 288 | 144 | 15 |
From these figures it can be seen that there was a comfortable two-thirds majority in the houses of bishops and clergy. But the majority was only 59% in the house of laity. These figures may or may not be relevant to the vote on final approval in November when a two-thirds majority will be required in each house for the measure to be approved.
I have split the voting lists into houses in this spreadsheet, also available as a webpage. I have also added the names of those members who did not record a vote or abstention. They are marked as absent for convenience but at least one (the Archbishop of York, who was in the chair) was present.
14 CommentsDavid Keen writes about The Leading of the 5000: Redesigning the CofE.
And Sam Charles Norton says that The dying of a church is not a management problem.
Simon Barrow writes for Ekklesia about Why the church should back community schooling.
Alan Wilson blogs Overview and Inner View.
Peter Heslam writes for LICC (The London Institute for Contemporary Christianity) about Barclay’s Apology.
Giles Fraser writes on The guardian that An inclusive church is a fundamental gospel imperative.
14 CommentsLast November, we reported Court rules on RC priest/bishop relationship.
In the event, that decision was appealed by the RC Diocese of Portsmouth, and this week judgment was given in the appeal case. The panel of three appeal judges voted 2-1 against the diocese.
JGE v The Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust
The full text of the judgment can be found here (PDF).
A press statement by the diocese is over here (PDF).
Some press reports and comment:
Guardian Owen Bowcott Catholic church loses abuse liability appeal
Telegraph John Bingham Clerical abuse case ‘disastrous’ for charities, claims Church
Catholic Herald Mark Greaves Court rules that Diocese of Portsmouth is liable for clerical abuse and Alexander Lucie-Smith Yesterday’s Appeal Court ruling strikes me as a serious blow to religious freedom
Southern Daily Echo Diocese of Portsmouth loses appeal against liability for priests’ wrongdoings
6 CommentsOn Monday the General Synod voted to adjourn the debate on Final Aproval of the Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to enable the House of Bishops to reconsider the new clause 5(1)(c) that the House had inserted.
We propose to conduct a discussion here on Thinking Anglicans with the aim of making one or more suggestions to the House on the form that reconsideration might take. In order to make this as constructive, helpful and eirenic as possible, we will conduct this in a more formal way than we normally do.
We firmly believe and hope that a site named ‘Thinking Anglicans’ can and should be a place for this sort of debate: one of high quality, and high regard for other participants, as well as for those who are not participating, whether an individual agrees with them or not.
We will introduce this debate shortly.
Simon, Simon and Peter
15 CommentsENS reports Convention ‘declines to take a position’ on Anglican Covenant.
The House of Bishops concurred with the deputies July 10 to affirm their commitment to building relationships across the Anglican Communion, especially through the Continuing Indaba program, and to decline to take a position on the Anglican Covenant.
After considering eight resolutions, the General Convention’s committee on world mission recommended adoption of two resolutions on Anglican Communion relationships and the Anglican Covenant, a document that initially had been intended as a way to bind Anglicans globally across cultural and theological differences.
Connecticut Bishop Ian Douglas, chair of the world mission committee, told ENS following the vote that the resolutions are “a genuine pastoral response because we are not of one mind, and to push a decision at this time would cause hurt and alienation in our church on both sides and instead we chose to stay in the conversation.”
The No Anglican Covenant Coalition issued this statement:
13 CommentsThe wind has clearly gone out of the sails of the Anglican Covenant. There was not even a single dissenting vote when the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia declared itself unable to adopt the Covenant. While our Coalition would have preferred a clearer “no” from the Episcopal Church, the resolution passed in Indianapolis is scarcely more than an abstention – and the commitment to “monitor the ongoing developments” rings hollow when we consider that the same General Convention phased out funding for the Episcopal Church staff position for Anglican Communion affairs. Perhaps they will monitor the situation by following #noanglicancovenant on Twitter.
The next major step in the Covenant process will be at the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Auckland, New Zealand, this fall. We understand that there will be an attempt to introduce a ratification threshold and a sunset date to the Covenant process. Depending on the details, our Coalition is likely to be broadly supportive of both initiatives.
Here is the official summary of Monday afternoon’s business at General Synod, which concluded this group of sessions: General Synod – Summary of business conducted on Monday 9th July PM.
The Press Association carried this report of one of the debates: Schools ‘must keep spiritual core’.
0 CommentsUpdated again Sunday morning
Episcopal News Service reports: Blessing rite authorized for provisional use from First Advent
Same-gender couples soon can have their lifelong relationships blessed using a rite approved by General Convention July 10.
In a vote by orders, the House of Deputies concurred with the House of Bishops to pass Resolution A049, which authorizes provisional use of the rite “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant” starting Dec. 2 (the first Sunday of Advent). Clergy will need the permission of their bishop under the terms of the resolution.
The motion in the House of Deputies carried by 78 percent in the clergy order, with the clergy in 85 deputations voting yes, 22 no and four divided; and 76 percent in the lay order, with laity in 86 deputations voting yes, 19 no and five divided. The bishops had approved the resolution on July 9 with a roll call vote of 111 to 41 with three abstentions…
The text of the resolution, as amended, is here as a PDF.
The Diocese of South Carolina released a statement in opposition to this action.
Some other statements in reaction to this, and some press coverage can be found here.
Updates
Anglican Ink reports
12 bishops say no to gay blessings
A coalition of conservative and moderate bishops attending the 77th General Convention has released a statement denouncing the passage of Resolution A059: “Authorize Liturgical Resources for Blessing Same-Sex Relationships.”
The “Indianapolis Statement” joins declarations by the bishops and deputations of South Carolina and Central Florida in rejecting the authorization of provisional local rites for gay blessings as being contrary to Scripture, the Prayer Book, the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, and the undivided theological, pastoral and moral witness of the universal church for the past 2000 years…
and South Carolina walks out of General Convention
“Due to the actions of General Convention, the South Carolina Deputation has concluded that we cannot continue with business as usual. We all agree that we cannot and will not remain on the floor of the House and act as if all is normal. John Burwell and Lonnie Hamilton have agreed to remain at Convention to monitor further developments and by their presence demonstrate that our action is not to be construed as a departure from the Episcopal Church. Please pray for those of us who will be traveling early and for those who remain.”
and South Carolina not seceding from the Episcopal Church
Sunday Updates
Statement from Diocese of Central Florida
Statement from Diocese of Albany (PDF)
Updated Monday evening
John Bingham writes in the Telegraph Women bishops row is a ‘train crash’.
Stephen Lynas (a synod member) blogs Monday: delayed but not denied.
Avril Ormsby writes for Reuters Church of England delays women bishops vote.
A Statement from Forward in Faith
Forward in Faith is disappointed that the General Synod today resolved to adjourn the debate on final approval of the draft Measure to permit women to be ordained as bishops in order to give the House of Bishops an opportunity to rethink its recent amendments to the Measure. We call upon the House of Bishops to stand firm in the face of this unwarranted pressure and to return the draft Measure to the Synod in a form which will provide for the future of traditional Catholics and conservative Evangelicals in line with the clearly expressed mind of the Synod throughout this morning’s debate.
Reform comment on Women Bishops adjournment
Following today’s adjournment of the debate on women bishops, Rev’d Rod Thomas, chairman of Reform, said: “We stand ready to co-operate to find a solution if there is a genuine desire to see a permanent place secured within the Church of England for those who on theological grounds cannot accept women as bishops.”
Giles Fraser writes in The Guardian Women bishops amendment has been rightly thrown out.
George Pitcher writes for the Mail Online If some parts of the Church of England want women bishops, they must also satisfy those who don’t.
Updates
Jerome Taylor writes in The Independent Months of frantic lobbying expected as women bishops debate is temporarily stayed by Church of England .
Lizzy Davies writes in The Guardian that Church of England must reassure female clergy.
46 CommentsBBC Women bishops: Church’s General Synod delays vote
Jerome Taylor in The Independent Church backs away from women bishops debate
Lizzy Davies in The Guardian Church of England postpones vote on female bishops
Ed Thornton, Gavin Drake and Madeleine Davies in the Church Times Synod postpones final decision on women bishops
In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s contribution to this morning’s debate is now online, both as an audio recording and a transcript.
10 CommentsFollowing Synod’s vote to adjourn, the House of Bishops will reconsider its amendment to clause 5(1)(c) of the draft measure at its meeting on 12/13 September. The General Synod will meet in November (19-21) in London to resume the Final Approval debate in the light of the House of Bishops’ consideration.
There are two official press releases on this morning’s business and its consequences.
Latest on women bishops legislation from General Synod
General Synod – Summary of business conducted on Monday 9th July AM
Women and the Church (WATCH) has issued this press release.
Press Release 9th July 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Adjournment gives bishops opportunity for the House of Bishops to reconsider Clause 5(1)(c)
WATCH is relieved that General Synod has today adjourned the final vote on consecrating women as bishops in the Church of England. 288:144 with 15 abstentions.
There has been widespread opposition to the inclusion of an amended Clause 5 and this adjournment gives the House of Bishops the opportunity to reconsider.
WATCH hopes that the bishops will withdraw Clause 5(1)(c) so as to allow General Synod the opportunity to vote on legislation that is as close as possible to that which was approved by 42 out of 44 dioceses.
WATCH’s petition asking the House of Bishops to withdraw Clause 5(1)(c) has now attracted nearly 6,000 signatures after just over a week See link on our website.
The Reverend Rachel Weir, Chair of WATCH, said
5 CommentsWe are very relieved that the House of Bishops now has the chance to reconsider Clause 5(1)c and we hope that there will be a thorough consultation process over the summer so that whatever is presented to General Synod in November keeps faith with the dioceses that voted overwhelmingly for the unamended Measure.
General Synod has just voted to adjourn its debate on final approval of the legislation to allow women to be bishops. The vote was 288 in favour of the adjournment and 144 against with 15 recorded abstentions. The measure will now go back to the House of Bishops, and return to General Synod at a later group of sessions.
In more detail, immediately after the motion
That the Measure entitled “Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure” be finally approved.
was moved by the Bishop of Manchester, the Bishop of Dover proposed an adjournment to allow the House of Bishops to reconsider their amendment to clause 5:
That the debate be now adjourned to enable the new clause 5(1)(c) inserted by the House of Bishops into the draft Measure entitled “Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure” to be reconsidered by the House of Bishops.
It was this latter motion that was carried.
11 CommentsThe General Synod of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia today (Monday 9 July 2012) voted that it “Is unable to adopt the proposed Anglican Covenant due to concerns about aspects of Section 4, but subscribes to Sections 1, 2, and 3 as currently drafted to be a useful starting point for consideration of our Anglican understanding of the church.”
Anglican Taonga (the communications arm of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia) reports this as “Unable to adopt” covenant.
As expected, the General Synod said a final: ‘No’ to the proposed Anglican covenant today.
But it did so quietly, and the original motion was amended to stress this church’s desire to remain tightly knit with the Communion.
And to suggest that the early parts of the covenant – the non contentious bits about “Our Inheritance in Faith” etc – “are a useful starting point” for future Anglican thinking about their church…
Also available is the full text of the resolution as passed by the Synod.
5 CommentsThe General Synod debate on women bishops will start at about 10.00 am this morning. Here are some more predictions of what might happen.
BBC Women bishops: Church’s General Synod to delay vote
John Bingham in the Telegraph Women bishop vote set to be suspended
Avril Ormsby of Reuters Church of England seen delaying women bishop vote
And here are some reports on some of yesterday’s business
0 CommentsLizzie Davies in The Guardian Church report on riots warns about effects of cuts
Madeleine Davies in the Church Times Christians should show their faith in public, Synod says
Cal Flyn in the Telegraph Archbishop warns followers ahead of crucial vote
Lizzy Davies in The Guardian Church of England vote on women bishops likely to be postponed
Ed Thornton in the Church Times Don’t get depressed, Dr Williams tells Church of England
Here is the official summary of today’s business.
General Synod – Summary of business conducted on Sunday 8th July PM
Ed Thornton writes in the Church Times Whittam Smith ‘shocked’ by banking scandal.
Edward Malnick writes in the Telegraph: Women bishops must be given full powers, MPs warn.
Lizzy Davies writes in The Observer that Women bishops campaign approaches crucial synod vote.
BBC has Women bishops vote facing postponement at general synod.
The BBC Radio 4 programme Sunday this morning presented this special programme from General Synod in York.
The Archbishop of Canterbury gave this speech on Saturday in the debate on World-shaped Mission.
The Archbishop of Canterbury preached this sermon in York Minster this morning.
Lizzy Davies in The Guardian reports on the Archbishop’s sermon: Rowan Williams issues warning ahead of women bishops vote.
4 CommentsIt was announced at lunchtime today that the Steering Committee for the draft legislation on Women in the Episcopate will seek permission to move a motion to adjourn tomorrow’s debate to allow the House of Bishops to reconsider the amendment that they made to clause 5 of the draft measure. Here is the press release.
3 CommentsLatest on women bishops legislation – General Synod July 8
08 July 2012Permission to be sought to move adjournment motion
The Steering Committee for the draft legislation on Women in the Episcopate has indicated that it intends to seek permission from the Chair of the debate on the Final Approval of the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to move a motion adjourning the debate to enable the House of Bishops to reconsider the amendment made by the House to clause 5 of the draft Measure.
Permission will be sought to move the motion during the Final Approval debate on Monday morning (July 9).
If permission is given to move the motion, and the Synod passes it, the effect will be to adjourn the Final Approval debate on the draft Measure until the House of Bishops can meet (probably in September). When it does so it will have power to amend the part of the text of the draft Measure previously altered by the amendment it made in May to clause 5.
Following the reconsideration by the House, the Final Approval debate would be resumed at the next group of sessions of the General Synod – the earliest date for which would be in November this year.
Notes
The two amendments made by the House of Bishops in May (see press release).
The amendment made by the House to clause 5
The House accepted an amendment to express in the Measure one of the three principles which the House had agreed in December. This amendment adds to the list of matters on which guidance will need to be given in the Code of Practice that the House of Bishops will be required to draw up and promulgate under the Measure. It will now need to include guidance on the selection by the diocesan bishop of the male bishops and priests who will minister in parishes whose parochial church council (‘PCC’) has issued a Letter of Request under the Measure. That guidance must be directed at ensuring that the exercise of ministry by those bishops and priests will be consistent with the theological convictions as to the consecration or ordination of women which prompted the issuing of the Letter of Request. Thus the draft Measure now addresses the fact that for some parishes a male bishop or male priest is necessary but not sufficient.
Amendment to Clause 8
The House accepted an amendment making it clear that the use of the word ‘delegation’ in clause 2 of the draft Measure relates to the legal authority which a male bishop acting under a diocesan scheme would have, and is distinct from the authority to exercise the functions of the office of bishop that that person derived from his ordination. For example, when another bishop ordains someone to the priesthood he needs permission to do from the bishop of the diocese (“delegation”), but the power to ordain derives from his consecration as a bishop. The amendment also makes clear that delegation should not be taken as divesting the diocesan bishop of any of his or her authority or functions.
Diarmaid MacCulloch writes for The Guardian about Women bishops: Jesus was happy with female apostles. What is the CofE’s problem?
Madeleine Davies writes for the Church Times that Archbishop defends gay-marriage response.
Lizzy Davies writes for The Guardian that Church of England votes to ban clergy from discriminatory political parties.
Edward Malnick writes in the Telegraph: Archbishop of Canterbury: Government has no right to introduce gay marriage.
Gavin Drake writes in the Church Times: Ban on clergy in racist groups approved.
Official summary of Saturday’s business
General Synod – Summary of business conducted on Saturday 7th July AM
General Synod – Summary of business conducted on Saturday 7th July PM
On 3 July The Times published a letter from a group of bishops, led by the Right Rev Geoffrey Rowell, Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe, in which they write:
We are wholeheartedly committed to honouring those women whom the Church of England calls to the ordained ministry. We ask, too, for that proper respect for conscience which will continue to allow all traditions in our Church to flourish without detriment to one another.
The original copy of the letter is behind The Times paywall, but it has now been published elsewhere, including here on the Better Together website.
8 Comments