|
The
Rt Revd Katharine Schori was elected as the next Presiding Bishop of The
Episcopal Church at the General Convention held in Columbus, Ohio on 18th June
2006.
TEXT OF
LETTER sent to The Rt Revd Katharine Schori by the Lesbian and Gay Christian
Movement.
The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement's Chief Executive, the Revd Richard
Kirker has sent a letter of congratulations to the Presiding Bishop elect, in
the letter he says:
"Your election as the next Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in the
United States of America is to be warmly welcomed by all who embrace the good
news of Jesus Christ."
"Coming at as it does during a time of crisis and opportunity for the Anglican
Communion your election is made even more significant and offers all Anglicans
who take their Bible seriously, rather than literally, great hope and
considerable joy."
"We continue to be alarmed by the increasing hostility to lesbian and gay people
throughout the world and in particular the support from parts of the Anglican
Communion for draconian new laws that will extinguish our liberty of speech and
association. We believe you will understand these deep concerns and will assist
us where you can. No one must be allowed to silence or criminalise those who
advocate justice and human rights."
"We also recognise that you come to office at a time when many would like to see
the Anglican Communion divided, we urge you to do all you can to resist the
spirit of schism and ensure that the real and complex differences that exist
within our Communion are not addressed by making a scapegoat of any section of
our Christian family."
"In all the media hype that has surrounded your General Convention we are sorry
to see that the great work on Baptism commissioned by The Episcopal Church has
passed almost unnoticed, we see such strength in this deep work and commend you
for it, we can only pray that as time passes what it offers will be a source of
healing to us all.
We look forward to working with you." ENDS
20 June 2006
MEDIA ENQUIRIES
Revd Sharon Ferguson
020 7739 1249
|
|
New
Poll Shows 50% of Gay Men Have Religious Faith . (16 March
2006)
With Christian church attendances falling and the Anglican Church literally
tearing itself apart over the position of gay people in it, a poll run on
www.gaytimes.co.uk has revealed that a massive 50% of respondents hold
religious beliefs. 2000 people cast votes.
The poll did not ask about the nature of these faiths, but shows a spiritual
well waiting to be tapped.
In the same issue, Gay Times spoke to gay men who are actively practicing in one
of the five major faiths - Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhism to
discover how they reconcile their homosexuality with their religions.
Revd Richard Kirker, General Secretary of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement
(LGCM) said: "We've always believed that spirituality is more important to
members of the gay community than their leadership would often credit. Not only
are gay people interested in religion, they are practicing it. They are filling
the churches. When will the church open its eyes to the huge resource of people
waiting to be embraced?"
Vicky Powell, Gay Times Editor, said: "We've never had such a large response to
our online survey and this shows the depth of feelings that this subject
generates for many gay people. Can religious organisations really ignore this
group any longer?"
For further information or comment, please contact the Rev. Richard Kirker on +
44 (0) 20 7739 1249 or email lgcm@lgcm.org.uk Or Gay Times deputy editor,
Joseph Galliano on + 44 (0) 20 7424 7419 or 07815 20 83 83 or email
joseph@gaytimes.co.uk
|
|
Canon
Derek Belcher on the revised opinion from Chancellor Behrens, Re: Civil
Partnerships. (10 Jan 06)
I am grateful that Dr. Behrens has corrected the misapprehension about his note
for Anglican Mainstream. We now all agree that clergy entering a Civil
Partnership will not be liable to discipline.
It was entirely my fault that LGCM published parts of an earlier draft of my
opinion that had not taken account of the House of Lord's ruling on the Aston
Cantlow v Wallbank case in The House of Lords decision, reported at [2004] 1 AC
546, that reversed the Court of Appeal decision. I apologise to LGCM for not
carefully checking the final document before publication.
We are in agreement of what is formal law, which does not contain Lambeth
Conference Resolutions. I agree that where no formal law exists case law may
establish a precedent. In this respect Long v. Bishop of Cape Town (1863) 1 Moo
PCCNS 411 at 465; 15 ER 756 at 776 (per Lord Kingsdown) is an important case.
Here the Privy Council decided that "the oath of canonical obedience does not
mean that every clergyman will obey all the commands of the Bishop against
which there is no law, but that he will obey all such commands as the Bishop is
by law authorised to impose". On this basis a refusal to give information about
a lawful Civil Partnership is not conduct unbecoming.
My final view agreed entirely with Chancellor Behrens that despite the judgement
of the House of Lord's, we have not seen the last of the Human Rights Act (and
other legislation) and further tests by other courts are inevitable. Bishops
may not yet take refuge in any hope that their immune status is decided.
On the matter of questioning clergy, I find the recent statements of the Bishop
of Chichester
http://www.diochi.org.uk and that of the Bishop of Durham available
here:
http://www.sarmiento.plus.com of particular interest. The degree of
questioning allowed and who judges this to be "unreasonable" is obviously a
matter the bishops must thoughtfully consider. While the Bishop of Chichester
is obviously aware he could be skating on thin ice the Bishop of Durham appears
to be about to don his blades and throw his not inconsiderable weight onto a
barely frozen surface. I believe that others will decide on what their
Lordships may lawfully ask and that they may find themselves unable to
discriminate between the behaviour of those who enter a Civil Partnership and a
Marriage.
The changes in law surrounding those in a Civil Partnerships giving them the
same protection as those in Marriage will yet have consequences neither
Chancellor Behrens nor I yet fully appreciate. I look forward to hearing more
from him as matters develop.
I have underlined the changes in my note and have asked LGCM to publish my
opinion as finally drafted.
Canon Derek Belcher
LGCM
Secretary of LGCM
The Reverend Richard Kirker
Chancellor James Behrens: Legal Note.
Revised Text
1. Introduction
1. You have asked me for my opinion on the advice given by
James Behrens, Chancellor of the Dioceses of Leicester and of Bristol for
Anglican Mainstream on the Disciplining of clergy living in same sex civil
partnerships, published on 30th June 2005. I have now revised my earlier text
in relation to his response. I have underlined the changes in Chancellor
Behrens revised opinion, which have been omitted from the published text.
2. Chancellor Behrens reaches his view from the main sources of
(i) General Synod Resolutions (GS) 1987 ; ( ii) The Bishops'
statement on Issues in Human Sexuality 1991; (iii) the Lambeth Conference 1998
and Canon B16. Reference is also made to the Primates' meeting 2005,
the Anglican Consultative Council 2005; the legal concept of Privacy,
Human Rights and the nature of Civil Partnerships and Marriage.
If same sex civil partnerships involve sexual activity, it is seen as contrary
to the two authoritative Church of England statements on the issue of
homosexuality, of 1991 and General Synod resolution of 11 November 1987.
3. Chancellor Behrens argues that Disciplining of clergy in genitally
active civil partnerships is lawful, and is not a breach of
clergy rights under the European Convention of Human Rights, because such
rights only cover 'marriage' and a civil partnership is not a marriage.
Although he acknowledges that entering into such genitally active same
sex civil partnerships is not contrary to statute law, he argues that it is
contrary to the ecclesiastical law of the Church of England so that clergy who
engage in such may be disciplined under Canon B16 and the Clergy Discipline
Measure. I append his full revised statement to the end of this argument.
4. This note further considers the issues in detail in order
that you are in a position to understand the canon law reasoning. My
conclusions are summarised at section 4 below.
2. Points of difference with Chancellor Behrens
5. I agree that same sex civil partnerships are not marriages
but differ from Chancellor Behrens in:
a) the status he gives to General Synod Resolutions used to support his
argument.
b) the status he gives to the Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth Conference 1998.
c) the status he gives to statements of the House of Bishops on Issues in
Human Sexuality1991.
d) the conclusions that he draws from the distinctive duties of the
clergy.
e) the status he gives to the Primates' meeting
f) the status he gives to the Anglican Consultative Council.
g) his conclusion that clergy can be disciplined for entering into a genitaly
active same sex civil partnership, by using Canon B16 and the Clergy
Discipline Measure, Such disciplinary action requires an interrogative approach
that goes against current sources of law in seeking proof.
h) his conclusion that there is no protection from the European Convention on
Human Rights for those who enter into same sex civil partnerships.
6. Chancellor Behrens does not clarify the distinctions between
all the issues at hand. Morally persuasive sources of law are given an
authoritative status unwarranted by their legal status. The Resolution 1.10 of
Lambeth also calls for a process of listening and thus discernment.
3. The Issues to be addressed
7. The status of Sources of Law: The
statements of General Synod must be set within their context. They are a lower
order of law than Measures, in that they express no more than an opinion of the
Synod. Statements which are not part of the positive law of the Church of
England only have a persuasive moral authority. Let us examine the sources
quoted.
8. According to the Constitution of Synod, GS Resolution of 11
November 1987 has only the status of an opinion1. Such a Resolution
is not positive law as in the case of a Measure or Canon2. It
addresses matters of concern and is the mind3 of the Synod at that
time. It is a view 'held as probable'4 .
9. Moreover Chancellor Behrens makes no mention of GS
Resolution July 1997. This 'opinion' of Synod is important because it
acknowledges that this was not the last word on homosexuality. Doctrine is not
easily defined as evidenced by the broad approach of Canon A5 and the
historical perspective on Doctrine given in GS 1554.5 Unlike GS
Resolution of 11 November 1987 this 'opinion' involved separate voting by
laity, clergy and bishops where there was unanimous support from the bishops.
This 'opinion' therefore occupies greater status and therefore broadens the
'opinion' of GS Resolution 11 November 1987.6 Resolutions of Synod
change and in this respect GS July 1997 clearly places 'homosexuality' in a
process of discernment. It is not the last word.
10. Resolutions of Lambeth Conference have never been seen as
positive law but only as having a persuasive moral influence and are not
binding on any members of the Anglican Communion unless they so choose to be
bound. This would require such resolutions to be formally taken into the law of
a national church.
11. The status of episcopal statements is one of quasi
legislation7 as they act as an ancient Synod as in Bland v
Archdeacon of Cheltenham.8 However such statements are not
law per se; rather their force is moral. Statements of the House of Bishops are
not part of the formal law of the Church of England, and can only be seen as
persuasive. This is not seen as a coherent source of jurisprudence.
12. Furthermore we do not know if there was any disagreement
amongst bishops on Issues in Human Sexuality because their policy is
to issue statements by consensus. The bishops' views expressed in Issues in
Human Sexuality 1991, still maintain a distinction between clergy and
laity in relation to homosexual activity.9 The necessity of
Repentance mentioned in the GS Resolution of 11November 1987, is not just
something to be singled out for genitally active homosexuals and must be set
within the possibility of a developing doctrine of sexuality for all.
13. GS Resolution of 11 November 1987 says nothing new about
sexual morality. It is arguable that although clergy have distinctive duties to
the laity that there should be a fairer approach to moral standards and
discipline that is inclusive of the ordained and non- ordained.10 Nevertheless
the present ecclesiastical law recognises a distinct class of clergy from the
laity that have higher standards of behaviour. It is arguable that the laity
should also be subject to the same standards.
14. In cases of trust law, as in re Allen, Faith v Allen
and re Barnes, Simpson v Barnes, membership of the Church of England
is defined as someone who is a baptised and confirmed communicant who conforms
to the church's discipline.11 The 1662 Ordinal also stresses that
the family of clergy should also be wholesome examples to others.12 This
is an argument for an equality of moral standards between laity and ordained.
The sensitive approach given towards laity should also be applied to the
clergy, in a process of discernment.
15. The Primates' meeting has no authority other than a
persuasive moral one. The Lambeth resolution 1.10 is liberally quoted with a
call by the Primates Meeting for it to 'command respect'.13 Lambeth
statements have only a persuasive moral force; they are not even quasi law
because they are not part of any recognised legal system. There is no legal
concept of commanding respect where there is no legal system.
16. Higgins in The Moral limits of law (Oxford 2004)14
whilst recognising respect is based on respect for persons which is guided by
conscience, starts from the premise that this is set within a legal system. A
Communion legal system does not exist and so it is not helpful to use the
phrase 'command respect' which can have no legal force unless taken into the
law of each national church of the Communion.
17. If the recommendations of the Windsor Report on Core
doctrine had been part of the discernment of Resolution 1.10 then there may not
have been such a significant majority in favour of the resolution because this
would have focused intentions and some who voted for a listening process to
balance their first vote may have voted differently in relation to Resolution
1.10. Each Primate is accountable to his own national church, and I am unaware
that any have canonical powers that give them an authority to make
authoritatively binding statements.
18. Although the Anglican Consultative Council has been legally
established as a charitable company with a formal constitution, it can exercise
no legal authority over member churches of the Anglican Communion.15
19. Naturally I agree with the Chancellor Behrens's opinion
that same sex civil partnerships are not marriages. This was not the intention
of the legislation. There is a presumption in law against civil partnerships
being seen as a marriage and the presence of any sexual dimension.16
In the case of same sex civil partnerships there is no religious dimension and
no declaration of consent or vows about love and faithfulness. The registration
cannot take place on church premises. Therefore those clergy who enter into a
same sex civil partnership that is a chaste relationship are not subject to any
ecclesiastical discipline. They are not 'living in sin' or an 'adulterous
relationships' and so do not come within the concern of Canon B16 or 'conduct
unbecoming' of the provision of the Clergy Discipline Measure. There is no
breach of duty. They would also not be in breach of Canon C18. There is a clear
distinction to be made to those who enter into a chaste friendship expressed in
a same sex civil partnership and those who enter into a sexually active one.
20. Here it is not the issue of marriage that is important, but
the discernment of whether or not clergy enter into a sexually active same sex
civil partnership. In Issues in Human Sexuality 1991 there is no
provision for the place of conscience for the clergy - only the laity.18
21. I now consider whether a bishop is entitled to enquire into
the life of a cleric. The oath of canonical obedience made at every licensing
requires the cleric to obey his or her bishop in all things lawful and honest.
It would be reasonable for a bishop to enquire into the consistency of the
personal relationships of a cleric with the definitive teaching of the church.
A cleric should always be honest and never seek to mislead their bishop in the
face of a justifiable enquiry. This is a matter not just for same sex civil
partnerships. However, the recent episcopal statement on civil partnerships,19
contradicts their previous view in Issues in Human Sexuality 199120
by now saying that a bishop can invade a cleric's privacy by asking if he or
she is in a sexually active homosexual relationship. Episcopal commands must be
lawful to require obedience. In Long v Bishop of Capetown (1863) 1 Moo
PCCNS 411 at 465; 15 ER 756 at 776 (per Lord Kingsdown), the Privy
Council decided that the cleric only had to "obey all such commands as the
Bishop is by law authorized to impose.21" Here Professor
Doe states that "clerics are obliged to obey only those episcopal directions
authorized by and not contrary to law." In relation to "honesty," The
Provincial court of the Church in Wales Re Petition Against Revd Clifford
Williams (1997) saw this as referring "to the constraints of natural
justice." 22I would therefore consider a cleric whose bishop asked
whether his partnership would be consummated, perfectly entitled to politely
tell his bishop that this was not his concern, without the response itself
becoming 'conduct unbecoming. In relation to the Human Rights Act 1998
the Church of England occupies a unique position in that it is considered a
'public authority.'23 Although the House of Lords did not uphold the
Court of Appeal in Aston Cantlow, at least as far as a PCC is concerned, the
wider application of the reasoning of this judgement are yet to be tested in
court. Even if a PCC is not a public authority a Bishop's powers are derived
from the Queen's ecclesiastical law and so both he and his Disciplinary
Tribunal are public authorities. Bishops are appointed by the crown
under letters missive or patent.24 As such they act as
representatives of a public authority and are subject to the Human Rights Act
1998 on matters of invasion of privacy.25 Boundaries are set as to
the invasion of a cleric's privacy. It is impossible to obtain proof of
homosexual genital activity without an invasion of privacy. Other forms of
affection are permissible unless they constitute 'conduct unbecoming' which is
a difficult concept to define.
4. Conclusion
22. There can be no assumption that civil partnerships are
sexually active. They are not marriages, either theologically or legally. Any
episcopal request for a cleric to divulge private information about their
personal life, without just cause, is unwarranted and unsustainable in law.
23. A cleric cannot be disciplined for entering into civil
partnerships or for refusing to divulge to his or her bishop any private
information that affects his or her human rights. Synodical opinions are of a
low order of law where both Lambeth Conference Resolutions and statements of
both bishops and primates only have persuasive moral force. They do not command
respect and observance as in the case of Measures Canons and Orders.
24. I am not aware of any compelling argument for the
disciplining of a cleric who enters into a civil partnership which is not
genitally active.
25. In view of the points that I have raised, I do not think a
Diocesan Bishop would be able to successfully make a legal case against one of
his clergy simply for entering into a civil partnership. Ultimately the courts
are the final arbiters.
26. The Judgement concerning Aston Cantlow was about PCC's and does not
argue against Bishops or their Disciplinary Tribunals as public authorities. I
do not therefore consider that Bishops can be safe from immunity if they
prosecute an unjustifiable case against one of their clerics.
The Reverend Canon Derek G Belcher LLM
APPENDIX
A Further Opinion regarding Civil Partnerships
Dr James Behrens, barrister
This further opinion is a response to a paper by Canon Belcher for the LGCM
which comments on my written opinion of 30 June 2005 published by Anglican
Mainstream. Canon Belcher and I are not as far apart as may be thought. Some
people have read my written opinion as saying that the mere fact of entering
into a civil partnership is a matter for ecclesiastical discipline. That was
not my intention, and it is not my opinion. I am sorry that confusion has been
caused. I make it clear now that it is active homosexual practice which is a
matter for ecclesiastical discipline, rather than the fact of civil partnership
itself. If the relationship between the parties to a civil partnership is
chaste, the matter is not one for ecclesiastical discipline.
I annex to this note a slightly revised text for my written opinion which, I
hope, makes my position clear. I have underlined the differences from the
original version for ease of reference.
I agree with Canon Belcher that the resolutions of General Synod, the statement
of the House of Bishops, and the resolution of the Lambeth Conference are none
of them formal law. But a matter does not have to be formal law to be a matter
for ecclesiastical discipline. There is no formal law that a priest shall not
get drunk. And yet this was one of the charges made against the Very Revd John
Methuen, Dean of Ripon, in the Consistory Court of the diocese of Leeds and
Ripon in 2005. There is no formal law that a married priest shall not make
sexual advances to an unmarried woman. And yet this was the charge made against
the Very Revd Dr Brandon Jackson, Dean of Lincoln, in 1995. Both of these
matters, if they had been proved at trial, would have amounted to 'conduct
unbecoming'. In the same way, there is no formal law to prohibit clergy from
engaging in homosexual activity; but this fact does not prevent such conduct
being charged as 'conduct unbecoming'.
Canon Belcher argues that a bishop is not entitled to enquire into the life of a
cleric. He does so in reliance on the Human Rights Act 1998, and by reference
to the decision in Aston Cantlow v Wallbank. With the greatest respect, Canon
Belcher makes a serious mistake in paragraph 22 of his paper. He says the
Church of England is considered a 'public authority' in relation to the Human
Rights Act. He refers (in footnote 20) to the Court of Appeal decision reported
at [2001] 3 WLR 1323. He says 'The PCC was considered a public authority. The
decision was upheld by the House of Lords.' The House of Lords decision,
reported at [2004] 1 AC 546, in fact reversed the Court of Appeal decision. The
House of Lords held unanimously that a PCC was not a public authority, and its
action in enforcing its rights under the Chancel Repairs Act 1932 was not
liable to challenge on human rights grounds. To quote Lord Nicholls of
Birkenhead:
'Historically the Church of England has discharged an important and influential
role in the life of this country. As the established church it still has
special links with central government. But the Church of England remains
essentially a religious organisation. This is so even though some of the
emanations of the church discharge functions which may qualify as governmental.
Church schools and the conduct of marriage services are two instances. The
legislative powers of the General Synod of the Church of England are another.
This should not be regarded as infecting the Church of England as a whole, or
its emanations in general, with the character of a governmental organisation.'
As Benjamin Franklin said, in the world nothing can be said to be certain except
death and taxes. No barrister with any experience would advise that any case is
certain, especially if the Human Rights Act is involved. That said, it is my
opinion that bishops may lawfully enquire whether or not their clergy are
engaging in homosexual activity; and clergy who are asked such a question must
give a direct and honest answer. A refusal to answer the bishop's question
could itself be grounds for alleging misconduct under the Clergy Discipline
Measure.
James Behrens Lincoln's Inn
Discipline of clergy living in civil partnership (Revised Text)
The Church cannot prevent two clergy entering into a civil partnership. If the
clergy do so, it is a valid civil partnership in terms of the law of the land.
However there is no reason why a church should not discipline its clergy who do
this if the relationship involves sexual activity. Active homosexual
practice is contrary to the two authoritative Church of England statements on
the issue of homosexuality, namely the 1987 General Synod resolution of 11
November 1987, and the House of Bishops Statement of 1991 'Issues in Human
Sexuality'. It is also contrary to Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference
1998, which is the official teaching of the Anglican Communion on the subject,
and which has been recently reaffirmed by the Primates at their meeting in
Ireland in February 2005 and by the Anglican Consultative Council at its
meeting in Nottingham in June 2005.
The 1987 General Synod resolution calls on persons in active homosexual
relationships to repent. The House of Bishops Statement says that because of
'the distinctive nature of their calling, status and consecration' the clergy
'cannot claim the liberty to enter into sexually active homophile
relationships'. Lambeth Resolution 1.10 rejects homosexual practice as
incompatible with Scripture.
To discipline a member of the clergy26 in these circumstances is not
a breach of the clergy's rights under the European Convention of Human Rights -
because that specifically refers to the right to 'marry', and it is clear that
a civil partnership is not marriage. Canon B16 allows a parish priest to refuse
Holy Communion to persons in 'grave and open sin without repentance' if the
diocesan bishop has given permission. As a temporary measure the parish priest
can refuse communion where there is 'grave and immediate scandal to the
congregation' - but he must within 7 days tell the bishop, and obey his
direction regarding the matter. This canon is most frequently 27used
to exclude from communion persons, using the old phrase, 'living in sin', or
who are in an adulterous relationship. Persons living in an open homosexual
relationship could likewise be excluded from communion where the relationship
is scandalous to the congregation.
Of course a bishop could exercise more serious discipline against clergy who
enter into a civil partnership involving sexual activity.28 Such
a partnership is clearly contrary to the official position of the Church of
England as set out above. It is therefore 'conduct unbecoming or inappropriate
to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders' under the Clergy Discipline
Measure.
The nearest one can get is Canon C 26, or adopting as precedent the cases in
which priests have been disciplined for drunkenness. The case was ultimately
settled without a trial. The case was dismissed after a trial as the evidence
of the complainant was found unsafe.29
Foot Notes
1Synodical Measure 1969 Schedule 2 article 6 and 7
2Positive law is the term given to legal rules adopted and formally
endorsed by the state or supreme authority of the church.
3See Oxford English Dictionary.
4See Oxford English Dictionary
5GS 1554 was a paper submitted to the GS to inform the debate on a
procedure for clergy discipline on doctrinal matters.
6See the requirement for Bishops to endorse motions in Synodical
Measure 1969 Schedule 2 article 6.
7Mark Hill in Ecclesiastical Law 2nd edition (Oxford 2001) sees this
as only having moral and not legal force.
8Bland v Archdeacon of Cheltenham [1972] 1 All ER 1012 at
1018, Ct of Arches.
9Issues in Human Sexuality. 1991 Section 5.23
10G.R.Evans Discipline & Justice in the Church of England
(Grace wing 1998).
11Re Allen decd, Faith v Allen [1953] 1 Ch. 810 and Re
Barnes, Simpson v Barnes [1930] 2 Ch 40.
121662 Book of Common Prayer.
13Anglican Communion News Service (ACNS) 3633
14Ruth C.A. Higgins The Moral Limits of Law; Obedience, Respect, and
Legitimacy (Oxford 2004).
15Norman Doe Canon Law in the Anglican Communion (Oxford
1998) ,p. 349
16See the Civil Partnership Act 2004 Section 2.
17Canon C18 requires ministers to 'set forth and maintain quietness,
love and peace among all men.' And to 'uphold sound and wholesome doctrine.'
Chaste relationships would not contravene this.
18Issues in Human Sexuality. 1991 Section 5.23
19Civil Partnerships - A pastoral statement from the House
of Bishops of the church of England July 2005
20Issues in Human Sexuality. 1991 Section 5.18
21Norman Doe The Law of the Church in Wales (University
Wales 2002) p 149 n 39.
22Ibid.
23See The Human Rights Bill [HL] 119 of 1997-98: Churches and
Religious Organisation House of Commons Research Paper 98/26 13
February 1998.
24Ecclesiastical Law Halsbury's Laws of England 3rd edition
p 73 ff.
25Although this has not been tested by the courts in relation to
Bishops, the following case law gives some guidance. Covert recording of a
private conversation PG and JH v. United Kingdom (25/12/2001) European
Court App. 44787/98.; Illegal to keep personal information on a data base, Amman
v. Switzerland [16/02/2000] European Court App. 27798/95.; Protection
of human autonomy and dignity- Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2001] QB 967,
1001 , key judgement of -Campbell v. MGN [6/05/2004] [2004] UKHL 22.
26Omits previous text 'if he or she enters a civil partnership is
also lawful.'- change now clarifies the context.
27Instead of 'This canon is regularly used'
28addition of 'involving sexual activity'
29additional text
|
| British
Medical Association (BMA) discrimination report
(29 June 2004)
'The British
Medical Association (BMA) has published the results of investigation into the
effect of discrimination on doctors, titled 'Career barriers in medicine:
doctors' experiences'. This looks into discrimination against doctors in
respect of their sexual orientation, gender, disability and race. The
investigation found significant barriers to career progression in all of these
groups.
The report admits that there has been very little research undertaken on the
experiences of lesbian, gay and bisexual doctors but says it is apparent that
homophobia exists throughout the medical profession. One gay doctor said:
'If I look at my friends who are gay doctors they don't have the freedom to be
open about their sexuality, partly because the risk of being open is so great
that they perceive it is going to stop their career progression. Or they are
going to experience discrimination in the workplace, or people aren't going to
communicate with them, and they would rather stay closeted at work than come
out'.
The report says complaining does sometimes work however. Another gay doctor
said:
'A local official...high up in the local BMA who is a GP, had written a sort of
newsy, chatty introductory article and it said something like "why doesn't this
government get on with sorting this, that or the other out, instead of wasting
their time with trivial issues like banning fox hunting and pro gay
legislation", something like that. So I phoned the most senior person on the
local committee and said, "what exactly are your complaint procedures, because
as a gay man I find that deeply offensive, I am not interested in the personal
views of this fuddy duddy, and I would also like to know how I would take my
complaint forward to BMA national because I am sure they wouldn't be
comfortable with supporting these views". Well, it took two or three tries but
basically I got a grovelling phone call from the GP concerned, light-hearted
you know, the usual rubbish. I was absolutely gob-smacked....'
The report's key recommendations include:
1. A comprehensive zero tolerance strategy for the National Health Service
covering all forms of discrimination experienced by doctors
2. All medical schools should include diversity and awareness in the
undergraduate curricula
3. Junior grades must have opportunities for career development
4. The BMA shold produce guidance on sexual orientation in the light of the new
Employment Equality (sexual orientation) Regulations.
This guidance is an urgent requirement for the BMA because the BMA is the
doctors' trade union, and the guidance is a service that lesbian and gay
doctors are entitled to expect from the Association. All other workforces
can also expect to have advice and help from their trade union, personnel
department or managers. The BMA, and perhaps other organisations, would
do
well to follow the recommendations of the Gay and Lesbian Association of
Doctors and Dentists, which can be seen at www.gladd.org.uk.
However if you work for a religious organisation, there may be no such
protection in your employment. George Orwell at his most cynical could
not
have conceived of such a bizarre situation - the churches, which exist to
uphold moral standards, officially reject a cornerstone of justice, in
not
accepting fellow-citizens among God's people, that is legally accepted by
every other group in our society.'
Dr Alan Sheard is a member of LGCM.
|
|
Policy
Statement from the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) 28 June 2005
The Lesbian
and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) will launch a wide policy review in the light
of recent developments within churches that serve many of its members: "While
some churches are moving to a more inclusive position with regard to their
lesbian and gay members, others are moving in the opposite direction." said
General Secretary, the Revd Richard Kirker today.
Deep divisions are opening between Christian communities in the West and their
co-religionists in many parts of Africa and Asia, often within the same
denominations: "While these divisions are many, including over divorce and
remarriage, women's ordination and how to read Holy Scripture, homosexuality as
the presenting issue has highlighted the cultural and theological differences
between us" said Mr Kirker.
The current debate within the Anglican Communion and the election of Joseph
Ratzinger as the Pope has sharpened the divide. The Revd Anthony
Braddick-Southgate, Chair of Anglican Matters (the Anglican Caucus within
LGCM), says he regrets the decisions taken by the Anglican Consultative Council
(ACC) meeting in Nottingham last week that effectively hand over a significant
measure of control of the Anglican Communion to doctrinal and biblical
fundamentalists.
Citing the ACC's shameful decision to ostracise the American and Canadian
Churches and to let the Primates of all 38 Anglican Provinces join the ACC Mr
Braddick-Southgate said he believed this would not only encourage the move to a
more fundamentalist position but also put the present diversity in the
Communion at risk. He had harsh words for the decision to discipline the
American and Canadian churches: "I have no doubt this decision will both
encourage the more homophobic elements of our society while making the church
look ridiculous to most sensible people."
"Anglican Matters is supporting the call for a radical review of our strategy.
If the suggestions contained within the Windsor Report are implemented
Anglicanism will fossilize. They have set the bar for change so high as to make
it impossible for those who wish to work for a fully inclusive church to be
able to achieve their goals," he said.
The Windsor Report has suggested that changes within Anglican doctrine and
practice should proceed only if they have the approval of the vast majority of
Anglican Provinces and be pleasing to our ecumenical partners. It has largely
gone unnoticed that in the case of some of our partners with which we are in
communion (ie, the Communion of Porvoo Churches) that their discipline and
doctrine in this area has more in common with the Episcopal Church of America
and the Anglican Church of Canada than it does with the Church of Nigeria or
the Church of England. And we note, with gratitude, that some Churches (ie the
Scottish Episcopal Church) have declined to endorse the Windsor Report.
Mr Kirker said that those Western Churches that have continued and increased
their homophobic assault on lesbian and gay people over the last decades have
seen an increasing decline in their membership: "You cannot make the Good News
of Jesus Christ dependant on forcing people to accept something they perceive
to be a lie, they are able to see for themselves that lesbian and gay people
and their relationships are not "intrinsically evil".
LGCM values being able to work in partnership with all those who are also
striving to make our Church more inclusive and who are explicitly prepared to
challenge homophobia within and outside the Churches. However, in the light of
the sustained and well-funded campaigns by traditionalists and conservatives
LGCM is now going to review how those partnership are working, and identify how
they can be improved and strengthened. "Lesbian and gay Christians are not
going to engage in fruitless, repetitive pious debate while their church
leaders attempt to rekindle the bonfires of hate. Our constituency are looking
to us for a lead - and we must be seen to be in a position that upholds the
holiness of our sexuality and the sanctity of our relationships and gives no
quarter to those who abuse or defame us or seek to reverse the gains we have
made in civil society and within faith communities," said Mr Kirker today.
The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) will now be consulting with its
membership, as part of its ongoing Strategic Review, and working with other
interested groups to develop a new approach to those churches determined to
continue to persecute and un-church their homosexual members: "We see no point
in further cooperation, through an increasingly discredited and vague
"listening process", with forces determined to see our exclusion; no purpose is
served in talking to those who have already repeatedly declared themselves deaf
to our experience and witness. There are different ways of approaching this
issue; our opponents have seen this as a "war". We are going to have to wake up
to the reality they have forced upon the People of God. In the face of this
relentless hostility we have to be ready to act prophetically, and be willing
to take the risks associated with fermenting the breakdown of the Anglican
Communion since it has reached the point of becoming an obstacle to the Gospel
under its current leadership. We will work to preserve the historic Anglican
values of diversity, where necessary by confronting the Communion with its
injustices" said Mr Kirker. ENDS
Further details: Rev Martin Reynolds, Press Officer 07795 162781
NOTE: The Communion of Porvoo Churches includes Churches from Estonia, Finland,
Iceland, Norway and Sweden www.porvoochurches.org
|
Civil Partnership Bill
Letter
from LGCM to Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury (16
April 2004)
As you know, the Government's Civil Partnership Bill comes to the Lords for
Second Reading on 22 April. I am writing, on behalf of LGCM, to ask you to
support the Bill, and the principle of parallelism between the responsibilities
and mutual obligations of marriage and of civil partnership on which it is
founded. But we also wish to share with you some major concerns which we, as
Christians, have about some aspects of the Bill, in the hope that you may help
to put things right.
We recognise of course that some of our fellow-Christians, including some of
your colleagues, believe that no public recognition should be given to same-sex
unions. But in the light of the widely favourable response from public
consultation the Government are on firm ground in advancing the new law, and
they have also calculated large economic and social advantages to society as a
whole from its passage. Since I think we sent you a copy of our own response to
the consultation, it will be no surprise that we strongly support most of what
is proposed.
"Issues in Human Sexuality", which was reaffirmed by its follow-up, accepts
that some Christians, in conscience, have more hope of growing in love for God
and neighbour with the help of a loving and faithful same-sex partnership than
in abstinence, and that their sexuality has the potential for fulfilment as a
sacramental expression of their relationship with the one they love ("Issues",
paras. 5.6 and 4.19). Our concern in LGCM is that couples benefiting from the
proposed new legislation should be able publicly to proclaim and celebrate that
sacramentality, and provide Christian role-models of faithfulness and
commitment for others in the lesbian and gay community (and especially those
who are young). One of LGCM's aims - often overlooked by others in the Church -
is to encourage members to witness to their Christian faith and experience
within that community. This evangelistic work will gain weight from being
conducted within a Christian, State-recognised union.
Our view has therefore been very much in tune with that of the Bishop of
Guildford, expressed during the Lords debate on Lord Lesterıs earlier Civil
Partnerships Bill on 25 January 2002. In particular, he said -
"[Its] great strength is the recognition of the need for public declaration and
acknowledgement of relationships based on love and friendship, and the
sustaining force that has for good Public recognition provides public
protection. If there is a need for appropriate secular or spiritual
declarations, these can and should be made."
The Bishop went on to describe, and commend, the ministry given by one of his
priests to a same-sex couple who wanted "an occasion on which to exchange
meaningful and deep-rooted hopes and dreams for their future together." His
priest had enabled them to achieve what they wanted, which was ministry and
dignity.
We strongly believe that same-sex couples wishing to be recognised as such
legally by the rest of society should be prepared to accept all the
responsibilities and obligations which are accepted by those entering marriage,
and to enjoy the associated rights. This is why we insist on the principle of
parallelism which informs the present Bill. We look to the consequent
reinforcement of society, and indeed of marriage, which this will bring.
But there are two major defects in the Bill which, if not changed, will
frustrate our own wishes and those expressed by the then Bishop of Guildford
(Rt Rev John Gladwin). The first is the Government's decision to rule out, by
statute, the use of any "religious" premises as the site for registration of
civil partnerships in either England and Wales or Scotland. Not only will this
deny to believing Christian same-sex couples the possibility of associating
their covenanted union with devotional ceremony, but it will snatch from the
hands of those religious authorities who own or control any premises the
freedom, right and responsibility to make their own decisions about their use.
This seems to us completely unacceptable in principle. In addition, it will
deny the freedom of those ministers of religion (and LGCM are aware of many
such) who are prepared, with their congregations and in accordance with
decisions made by their denominations and their own conscience, to host the
registration procedure and to offer a complementary sacramental celebration of
the civil contract made.
We are advised that the exclusion of "religious" buildings, which stems
historically from the development of civil marriage that was created largely as
an alternative to Anglican marriage, is indeed legally discriminatory, since
those marrying have the choice between religious and civil union, whereas civil
partners would be denied that choice. We are also advised that there is no
modern precedent for such an infringement of the rights of religious bodies and
faith communities within civil society.
It will be argued that the actual registration must be civil, and therefore
exclude any religious element. We do not question that. But there is no reason
at all why the civil registration procedure should not take place in church
premises (eg a vestry or church hall), with the church authorities, if they so
wish in conscience, arranging a complementary ceremony of celebration (not
registration) in close proximity with the civil procedure. This is in fact what
happens in some non-Anglican churches when the civil registrar attends to
register the marriage, while the celebrant organises the associated church
procedures. If, for instance, a same-sex couple wish the registration to take
place on the premises of the congregation to which they both belong, and the
church authorities are willing (possibly as an exceptional one-off case) to
entertain this, why should they be prevented from doing so by the law? It is to
be noted that the proscription in the Bill does not apply within Northern
Ireland.
The other major weakness is that there is no provision in the Bill for the
"appropriate secular or spiritual declarations", to which the Bishop of
Guildford referred. We believe the solemnity and importance of the contract
made requires a public declaration from each partner affirming their intended
mutual commitment.. But the only "solemn declarations" mentioned in the Bill
are statements about the legal competence and qualification of the two partners
to enter into the partnership. The Registrar-General requires specific
"Contracting Words" to be uttered by each party in all non-Anglican marriages
(both religious and civil). These are acts under which each takes the other as
spouse, and they contain no religious reference. We believe it is essential for
the law to require similar declarations from intending civil partners, even
though the formula will be secular rather than spiritual.
I hope you will forgive the length of this letter, but it is important to set
out clearly what is at stake. I enclose a summary note of our views on these
and other points in the Bill, which we shall be circulating more widely. You
will wish to know that we are writing similarly to several of your colleagues.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Kirker (Revd)
|
LGCM
Submission to the Anglican International Commission
(March 2004)
Summary
LGCM affirms the process for an Anglican ius commune, which aims at bringing
parity in addressing significant communion matters. Far from being restrictive
it allows for legitimate dissent within a canonical framework that recognises
diversity but affirms the difference between general and specific
issues of authority1. The issue is the nature of Law in the
Communion and the place of doctrinal development and legitimate boundaries for
dissent. Here a parallel may be draw between a Roman Catholic approach to
Definitive and Non Definitive Doctrine.
This approach recognises that we can live together with our differences where
validation is developed retrospectively through the census fidelium
and the doctrine of reception. We argue that there is an
authentic way for expressing theological development, which respects
differences, in a canonical framework that provides for permissive forms of
dissent that is consistent with the present custom of Anglican ecclesiology.
Sources of Canonical Development
All authority is derived from God, the Holy Trinityii, and uniquely
encountered in Jesus Christiii. Within an understanding of dispersed
authority, order is facilitated, first, through two approachesiv.
Such a structure will always involve tension in any decision making process.
The Lambeth Conference has made a statement on same sex relationships; which is
of a persuasive moral authority as indicated by the continuing debate in 'Some
issues in human sexuality.'v This concept of tension/anomalies is
also explores by David Trustin, in relation to the dialogues between Anglicans
and Lutheransvi. He argues for the legitimate right for tailor-made
solutions to each local context, whist keeping an eye on 'basic general
principles.'
Legitimate Development
Within the context of a Trinitarian dymanic of interrelated love expressed in
mutuality and complimentarity, we argue for a broader orthodoxy. The nature of
development, like the Reformation, is that it does not initially obtain
universal consensus. Moore ably maps out this area vii. Within first
and second order issue of doctrine, ethical issues are seen as not being
timeless but related to a cultural context. This in turn is related upon our
timeless understanding of God in Trinity. The Kuala Lumpur Statement is
wrong in seeing sexuality as a first order principle. The litmus test for
Orthodoxy does not lye in biblical fundamentalism that sees itself as a narrow
stream, but a broad river. Here Baum proposes a five point approach to
legitimate development where there is a creative cognitive dissonance between
doctrine and love. This is an active process that leads to a synthesis that
overcomes contradiction and doesn't reject an interactive scriptural authority,
interpreted by such guiding principles as the Summary of the Law, Beatitudes
and the creeds viii.
A legitimate course of action has been taken, when a member Church of the
Communion abides by Official (Definitive) forms of Anglican teaching and
exercises their own canonical norms for doctrinal development. This does not
invalidate either their Sacramental orders or inclusion in the Anglican
Communion ix. Historically this is evidenced in both the Ordination
of women to both the Presbyterate and Episcopate. Furthermore inclusion in the
world wide Anglican Communion has never been dependent upon a universal
recognition by all member churches but only by invitation of the Archbishop of
Canterbury. To date only the North American Anglican church is not in Communion
with Canterbury.
Legitimate Dissent
It is possible to have permissible legitimate dissent in world wide
Anglicanism, if a member church undertakes this mindful of both Official
teaching and due canonical process of law making. Comparisons with the RC 1983
Code of Canon Law are helpful. There are levels of public dissent, to
non-definitive doctrine where there are persuasive or sufficient reasons (ratio).x
The Anglican principle of gravamina (serious argument) reflects this. xi
A fuller development of this area is given in A Canonical Understanding of
Dissent. xii Where member churches of the Anglican Communion
obey all canonical norms in relation to both process and Definitive and Non
Definitive matters, there must be an implied right of dissent from issues that
are pan Anglican. The only possible exception could be where the particular
churches tie them to the definitive interpretation of Canterbury.
The Rev. Canon Derek G Belcher
End Notes
i Paul
Avis Authority, Leadership and Conflict in the Church (1992) p.7.
ii Lambeth Conference, Report, Part II, (1948) p.84.
iii K. Rayner 'By What Authority? A Reply', Theology, January
1987. p.8.
iv First, the episcopate and synodical government of clergy and
laity. Here the individual autonomy of member churches of the Anglican
Communion are bound together by their commitment to the Lambeth Quadrilateral.
(Lambeth Conference of 1888, Resolution II) Secondly, by many voices of
authority from each member of the Anglican Communion.( S. Sykes Authority in the
Church of England, in R. Jeffrey (ed) By What Authority (London
& Oxford, Mowbray 1987) ). The 1948 Lambeth Conference saw Definitive or
Official teaching as distributed between Scripture, Tradition (Ancient
Teaching); 1662 BCP, the witness of the Saints and the Consensus Fidelium and
the Lambeth Quadrilateral. Non Definitive Doctrine is of a persuasive authority
mediated through Lambeth Conferences, Synodical Government and the work of
Doctrine Commissions
v Lambeth Conference 1998- Resolution calling homosexual sex
"incompatible with Scripture."; Some issues in human sexuality guide to the
debate (CIO 2003)
vi David Trustin Anglicans and Lutherans move from Dialogue to Shared
Mission, Martin Memorial Lectures May 2001, College of Emmanuel &
St. Chad, Saskatoon.
vii Gareth Moore OP A Question of Truth, Christianity and
Homosexuality (Continuum 2003)
viii See Michael Ingham, Conference Address Reclaiming Christian
Orthodoxy (Accessed 2003
www.lgcm.org.uk/HalfwayToLambeth/Speeches/Ingham.htm.)
ix 39 Articles of Religion. (BCP 1662), Article 26.
x Sullivan F.A SJ 'The Response due to Non-Definitive exercise of
Magesterium, Canon 752' 23 Studia Canonica(1989) 267.; Doe N.
'Obedience to Doctrine in Canon Law: The Legal Duty of Intellectual Assent' Denning
Law Journal; Shafer I.H. Dissent and Dialogue in the Church (Association
for the Rights of Catholics in the Church Web Site, 1996)
xi Church of England: Canon H1 s3, s4.
xii Derek Belcher A Canonical Understanding of Dissent, A
short paper outlining some comparisons between the Roman Catholic Church and
The Church of England. 2004.
|
To: Rev Canon Gregory Cameron
Secretary, Anglican International
Commission
30 March 2004
St Andrews House
16 Tavistock Crescent
LONDON
W11 1AP
Dear Canon Cameron,
I am writing to you as Chair of LGCM's "Anglican Matters" enclosing a
submission we wish to make to the Commission.
Anglican Matters is LGCM's Anglican caucus. We are committed to working as part
of an ecumenical organisation for an Anglican Church in which human sexuality
in all its richness can be seen as a gift of God, gladly to be accepted,
enjoyed and honoured as a way of both expressing and growing in love, in
accordance with the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. Therefore it is [our]
conviction that it is entirely compatible with the Christian faith not only to
love another person of the same sex but also to express that love fully in a
personal sexual relationship. (the LGCM Statement of Conviction)
We acknowledge that some of our fellow Christians within the Anglican Communion
do not share this conviction. We, therefore, believe it is important that the
structures of our Communion allow for dissent and disagreement regarding
non-Credal matters whilst enabling us to recognise each other as belonging to
the Body of Christ and sharing the gifts of the Spirit. A Communion where
Christians struggle in faith and love with each other, God and the world to not
only belong to one another but also to discern where God is leading us as
individuals and as a Church is, we believe, a Communion remaining true to its
calling to be God's Pilgrim People.
We are as lesbian and gay Christians, lay and ordained, supported by people of
other orientations, seeking to be faithful, active and full members of the
Anglican Communion. We will remain a part of the Anglican Church; working with
our brothers and sisters throughout the world to seek the will of God and to
live that out in our lives both individually and corporately. We make this
submission as a token of commitment to the health and welfare of our Communion
under God and assure you of our continued prayers for your deliberations and
our co-operation should we able to help you in any further way.
Yours sincerely,
The Revd Anthony Braddick-Southgate
Chair, Anglican Matters,
LGCM, Oxford House, Derbyshire Street, LONDON E2 6HG
+44 (0)20 7739 1249
www.lgcm.org.uk E: lgcm@lgcam.org.uk
|
|
For many people in Europe who have no experience of the Anglican Church the
recent controversies in Anglicanism's world wide communion have left them
somewhat bewildered.
This article by
the Revd Martin Reynolds, LGCM's director of communications, published in a
Dutch Magazine, Vroom & Vrolik in December 2003, gives a brief assessment
of the then current position and gives some back ground to Anglicanism's
imperialist historical origins.
The
British Empire may have passed into history but, like many Imperial powers,
Britain left behind some rather strange legacies.
The Anglican Church is among the most enduring of those echoes of a past age.
This rather idiosyncratic and peculiarly English Church has not only survived
the Imperial era, but has flourished in many former British colonies.
Some say that as many as 70 million people throughout the world now worship God
as Anglican Christians. For the most part they constitute a loose confederation
of national churches that identify their communality by being "in communion"
with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Every ten years since the end of the 19th century the bishops of this communion
gather together at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This
meeting, called the Lambeth Conference, is a sign of their shared life, and
though it sometimes makes pronouncements, the character of Anglicanism has
never been to create central decision making bodies, and their deliberations
have only a persuasive force on any of the autonomous churches of the Anglican
Communion.
Indeed all the international organs of Anglicanism that developed to give some
structure to the Communion are similar in that their authority is persuasive.
This leaves the Anglican family in a position where, lacking any central
decision making body, its autonomous affiliates can, and do make decisions that
irritate, annoy and even infuriate each other.
The Mother Church, the Church of England, was in a period of intense activity
during the Imperial age. It had awakened from a long slumber in the mid 18th
century with the emergence of two groups within its ranks that engaged in a
divisive and sometimes bitter struggle for the soul of the Victorian
Church.
The two groups were the Evangelicals and the High Church parties. The
Evangelicals reflected a Protestant Bible based faith, while the High Church
party taught a Catholic, ritualistic faith. Both these wings founded separate
Missionary Societies and saw the growing Empire as fertile ground for their
particular brands of Church of England piety and what we see today in the
world-wide Anglican Communion, is the fruit of their labours.
Modern world-wide Anglicanism still, in part, bears the marks of their founding
fathers and while the battle grounds have shifted somewhat in the past 150
years or so, the Mother Church and its offspring are still engaged in a
struggle for the soul of the Church and the ordination of practicing
homosexuals is the most recent of the divisive issues that have torn at its
fabric of unity.
There have, of course, been gay
priests and bishops in the Anglican church from its inception. But the issue of
having openly lesbian and gay ministers of the Church is a relatively new
phenomenon.
The "liberal" agenda of Anglicanism has been fired by the Church in the United
States of America which was first to regularly ordain women to the priesthood
and episcopate, then openly lesbian and gay priests and now, the first openly
gay bishop.
While many of the autonomous Anglican churches throughout the world threatened
a break up over the ordination of women - and sizeable minorities left those
churches where it had taken place. - the promised fracturing of Anglicanism was
put off.
A Commission under the Primate of Ireland, The Most Revd Robin Eames, smoothed
the feathers and calmed the tempers and the disorderly family of Anglicans
clung together. Still, the women ordained to the priesthood and particularly
those ordained as bishops are unwelcome and unrecognised in the large majority
of Anglican Churches. The cracks had only been "papered over".
But for Anglicanism wall paper is a substantial part of its basic structure. It
is true to say that there is little agreement on most of the significant
ecclesiological or doctrinal issues within the Anglican Church. While those on
the extremes of the two opposing wings of Anglicanism, the Conservative
Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics, have together agreed to reject openly lesbian
and gay ministers, their understanding of Church, Sacraments, and Order remain
diametrically opposed.
The decision of the diocese of
New Westminster (Vancouver) in Canada to authorise same sex blessings earlier
this year also caused the tensions to rise to a new fever pitch.
The loose confederation that constitutes Anglicanism can occasionally extend
even into national Churches where separate diocese can take independent
decisions without reference to the national church. So it is within Canada
where New Westminster's authorisation of same sex blessings is unique (for the
time being) this leaves other, more conservative Canadian bishops deeply
troubled
Viewed alongside the fast moving changes to Civil Law in Canada allowing
same-sex unions, the proposed changes in Britain to register same-sex
partnerships and the striking down of the last anti gay sex laws in the United
States of America and the possible striking down of the Federal Law preventing
same-sex unions there, the Anglican Church in the West has found itself caught
up in a whirlwind of change.
With all these events on the horizon last year the post of Archbishop of
Canterbury became vacant.
The appointment of The Most Revd Dr Rowan Williams, a liberal, to take over
from the conservative evangelical George Carey was a crisis point for many
within Anglicanism, particularly for the extreme Evangelical wing of the Church
of England who almost immediately declared him a "false teacher" and began the
process of separation.
So the first of the cracks began to appear within the fabric of Anglicanism and
its proud boast to be a "broad church" began to look a little shaky.
Rowan Williams had been a
Professor at Oxford and a published theologian, his openness to lesbian and gay
people in the ministry well known and he willingly admitted ordaining a gay man
when a bishop in Wales whom he knew to have been partnered. He was the worst
possible choice for those who saw coming what seemed to them the final, and not
just another, battle for the soul of the Anglican Church.
All the many facets of Anglicanism had a variety of expectations of Dr
Williams, but it was events beyond his control that came to drive his agenda
over the last year. What emerged was a leader whose natural liberalism was
tempered by his traditional view of the church and authority. He found himself
in a place he did not want to be and making decisions he did not want to take.
His first major decision was to stop the ordination of Canon Jeffrey John as a
bishop. Canon John is an openly gay priest who, although he has a partner, had
decided to obey the rules laid down by the English Bishops in 1991 and had
ceased sexual activity. The rules allow only sex within marriage for the
clergy. Although John had been obedient he had not, according to the
conservatives, been repentant.
This sent a shock wave through the liberal wing of the Church of England and a
message of hope to conservative Anglicans, particularly in Africa, Asia and
South America, as well as the conservative elements within the countries where
the liberals were in control.
But it was the ordination of Gene Robinson, openly gay and living with his
partner that signalled a fracture point for many conservatives within the world
wide Anglican Church. The argument now rages over the place of the Bible in the
Church which the conservatives hold, forever condemns homosexual practice. A
new orthodoxy has emerged and the test of this appears to be where one stands
on the issue of sex.
Once again the Anglican Communion is on the verge of breaking up and once again
the Archbishop of Armagh Robin Eames has been given the job of a new Commission
to see if he can hold it together. It may prove an even more difficult task
this time.
The Anglican Communion has changed since Gene Robinson became a bishop, the
ties that held it together have been considerably weakened, that nobody can
deny. What happens next is of key importance for the lesbian and gay Christians
who are within it.
We will see fractures in the Anglican Church of the United States, and probably
in Canada. Two separate bodies will probably emerge in both those countries.
But the question is which will be recognised by the Archbishop of Canterbury as
the legitimate representative of Anglicanism.
In other countries like England,
Scotland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa the debate goes on
over the place of openly lesbian and gay people in the Church. Nothing is
decided, but what eventually emerges when the new Commission reports in twelve
months will have a great impact on the lives of lesbian and gay people
throughout the Church.
It seems to many that the price of an inclusive church will be the unity of the
Anglican Communion, it is a high price to pay. Lesbian and gay Christians are
themselves divided on the cost of this inclusivity, for many it means the loss
of influence on churches that will now go their own way confirmed in their
prejudice with little hope for the lesbian and gay people within, but for
others it will mean a safe home at last where they can live openly before God
and his Church.
|
|