17/5/08 07:10:09, “Come, Let Us Reason Together” — The Future of a Useful Covenant»»
Sarah Hey
Friday, May 16, 2008
The problem with that appeal is that those who have determined that the church’s blessing upon same-gender sexual activity is a core part of their gospel need a reputable host to carry their ideas forward and they cannot produce such an original or creative entity on their own. The strategians among them are deeply conscious that they cannot "go it alone" — they must have a viable Trojan Horse to carry their ideas into culture and into Christianity. This is, in fact, what the progressives are doing with TEC — hollowing out the core, but maintaining the facade of the church in order to move their ideas into the broader Anglican Communion and into the culture as a whole.
I appreciated this piece from the ACI about the covenant process, and I agree with its central thesis, which appears to be that the covenant committee needs to write a document that addresses the reality of two different visions of "Communion".
I am going to trot off on a bit of a rabbit trail, however, about my one quibble and thus I am placing this in the Features section of the blog — but such a quibble does not detract from the essay’s purpose and eloquence, so please don’t read my extended rabbiting as decrying the piece.
My main small quibble with the piece is its appeal to those in TEC and Canada who value "local autonomy and cultural context" to "‘take courage in both hands’ and declare their intention to develop a form of Anglicanism stressing federal arrangements, based upon commitments to new teaching in the area of human sexuality." The problem with that appeal is that those who have determined that the church’s blessing upon same-gender sexual activity is a core part of their gospel need a reputable host to carry their ideas forward and they cannot produce such an original or creative entity on their own.
The strategians among them are deeply conscious that they cannot "go it alone" — they must have a viable Trojan Horse to carry their ideas into culture and into Christianity. This is, in fact, what the progressives are doing with TEC — hollowing out the core, but maintaining the facade of the church in order to move their ideas into the broader Anglican Communion and into the culture as a whole.
They certainly are not going to give up the Anglican Communion — a much broader, deeper, and more viable potential host for their ideas — in order to develop some misguided attempt at integrity or honesty or originality. Those are not part of their "core values." Revolution is their core value, and revolution using the ideas and concepts and artifacts and symbols of tradition, though appropriately scooped out, of course.
17/5/08 05:06:16, Bristol event: Getting to grips with what is happening to the Anglican »»
WHAT: Seminar with question time and breakfast
WHEN: 14th June from 9.30am until 12.30pm
WHERE: Downstairs at Christ Church Clifton
WHO: Dr Philip Giddings
Dr Philip Giddings is Vice-Chairman of the General Synod’s House of Laity, Member of Archbishops’ Council, Chair of the Church of England’s Mission and Public Affairs Council, Convenor of Anglican Mainstream and Chair of its trustees. Philip is also head of the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Reading; writer and commentator on constitutional and parliamentary affairs.
This seminar is vital for anyone who wishes to develop an understanding of the difficulties currently faced by the Anglican Church. All welcome, please contact the church office if you wish to attend.
In order for a belief to be considered delusional, argued the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers, it must be held with absolute conviction and not be changed by compelling counterargument to the contrary. The determination with which the British government has pursued embryonic stem cell research, despite its failure to deliver new therapies, fulfils this definition.
CMF has long opposed embryonic stem cell research as unethical on the basis that, by destroying human blastocysts in order to extract stem cells, it uses embryonic humans as a means to an end. But the evidence is growing that embryonic stem cell research is also unnecessary, as ethical alternatives to embryonic stem cells yield more treatments each month. [1]
The government, on the basis of the (long outdated) 1999 Donaldson Report, has consistently argued that embryonic stem cells were more versatile than adult or umbilical cord blood stem cells and could potentially be used therefore to treat a greater range of diseases. In order to overcome the problems with immune rejection of donor cells, it further recommended that embryonic stem cells be harvested from embryos produced by cell nuclear replacement (’therapeutic cloning’), the same technique used to produce Dolly the Sheep. The patient’s own somatic cell nuclei were to be placed into enucleated eggs.
The main problem with this technique was the low success rate (it took 277 attempts to produce Dolly). Difficulties in obtaining the large number of eggs and the highly publicised risks to donors of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) have now led to a change in strategy; the use of animal-human hybrids produced by the same cloning technique.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, currently before Parliament, seeks to legalise this practice, although in a flagrant abuse of the democratic process, the HFEA recently granted two licences for producing animal human hybrids even before the bill had passed. [2] Ironically, on the very day the House of Lords was debating the issue, researchers in both Japan (Yamanaka) and the United States (Thomson) announced that, by inserting four genes, they had successfully reprogrammed human skin cells into cells with all the properties of human embryonic cells, [3] leading Dolly’s creator Ian Wilmut publicly to say he was abandoning cloning technology. [4]
To date, not a single embryonic stem cell line has been produced from cloned human embryos, whilst there are over 70 diseases that are currently being treated successfully using adult or umbilical cord blood stem cells. [5] David Burrowes MP, in introducing a recent bill to improve the harvesting and use of cord blood stem cells has further highlighted the fact that the government has its eggs in the wrong basket. [6]
As the truth continues to emerge, there will no doubt be many suffering from degenerative diseases who will be asking why they have not been told the truth and why the government, backed by self-interested biotechnology companies, continues, against the evidence, to drive down a scientific blind alley.
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, speaking a day after a California court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, firmly restated on Friday the Roman Catholic Church’s position that only unions between a man and a woman are moral.
Benedict made no mention of the California decision in his speech to family groups from throughout Europe, but stressed the Church’s position several times.
"The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions," he said.
The pope also spoke of the inalienable rights of the traditional family, "founded on matrimony between a man and a woman, to be the natural cradle of human life".
On Thursday, the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriages in a major victory for gay rights advocates that will allow homosexual couples to marry in the most populous U.S. state.
Last year, Italy’s powerful Catholic Church successfully campaigned against a law proposed by the previous centre-left government that would have given more rights to gay and unmarried couples.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is not sinful but homosexual acts are, and is opposed to gays being allowed to adopt children.
The California court found laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples are at odds with rights guaranteed by the state’s constitution.
U.S. President George W. Bush, who is opposed to gay marriage, prayed "for the family" with the pope at the White House last month during the pontiff’s visit there."
THE ANGLICAN Communion’s divisions over doctrine and discipline are a hindrance to Christian unity, a top Vatican official said last week. In an interview with the Catholic Herald, Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity, urged Anglicans to put their house in order.
The Roman Catholic Church would “work and pray” for clarity from the Anglican Communion on the divisive issues of doctrine and discipline that were dividing the church, he said. He urged this summer’s Lambeth Conference, where he will address the gathered bishops, to settle its disputes over homosexuality as it was “not sustainable to keep pushing decision-making back because it only extends the crisis.”
Cardinal Kasper said the divisions within Anglicanism were theological and structural. “It is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?”
"Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium — Catholic and Orthodox — or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions,” he said.
The Deputy Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council, Canon Gregory Cameron commented that “most Anglicans have come to believe that it is part of the spirit of Anglicanism to be faithful both to the ancient tradition of the undivided Church and to the insights of the Reformation.”
“In every age, there have been those who have challenged us to come down on one side or the other. We need to take those challenges seriously because they point to real tensions arising from the quest for such a balance,” Canon Cameron told ReligiousIntelligence.com.
Cardinal Kasper’s comments follow up on a speech given on Jan 13, 2006, at Ushaw College in Durham. While the traditional doctrinal divisions between the Christian Churches were rapidly being resolved, Cardinal Kasper said that new approaches to ethical questions were pushing the churches ever farther apart such that “we are not able to speak with one voice on these issues to a world that needs to hear.”
"The dividing lines which have unfortunately become evident on ethical issues since the latter half of the last century are therefore not secondary or irrelevant for an understanding of the nature of the church," he said, as in “touching on holiness, they touch on the essential nature of the church itself.”
The decision by some Anglican Churches to ordain gay clergy and bless same–sex unions in the belief that they are prophetic actions that demonstrate God’s love and acceptance to all people, was not in conformity with the faith of the Gospel and the early church, he said. "We should not imagine that we possess more of the Holy Spirit today than the church of the early church fathers and the great theologians of the Middle Ages," he said.
By posing the question of what constitutes Anglicanism’s core, Cardinal Kasper asked the Communion whether it can be an ecumenical partner with the Roman Catholic Church. The goal of ecumenism, Cardinal Kasper told the Durham Conference was “a spiritually renewed church, in which the church in its concrete form becomes to the fullest degree that which in its undeveloped nature it always has been and always remains: the one, holy church we profess together in the Apostles’ Creed."
If Anglicanism cannot add to the Catholic Church’s fullness by speaking with a common voice on hitherto universally agreed ethical standards, its value as an ecumenical partner was questionable, he said. However, Canon Cameron told ReligiousIntelligence.com the quest for balance within Anglicanism was not an impossible one, “since it is about taking both the history of the Church and the primary authority of scripture seriously,” and Anglicans do not wish to relinquish their “faithfulness to either of them.”
Three events in the recent past have posed a serious question. Does the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (TEC) know what she is doing? The possible answers to this question have raised even greater concern than the question itself. For, I have concluded, if, on the one hand, she does not know what she is doing then TEC is without effective leadership at perhaps the most crucial time in its history. If, on the other hand, she does know what she is doing, she is leading TEC in directions for which she has no warrant.
To be specific, her decline of an invitation to greet the Pope on his present visit calls into question her understanding of the office of Presiding Bishop. The canonical irregularities surrounding the specially called convention in the Diocese of San Joaquin and the actions to depose Bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan raise questions about the way in which she understands and deploys the Constitution and Canons of TEC. Finally, her Easter Message to TEC raises a question about the adequacy of her grasp of the Christian Gospel.
When first I learned that the Presiding Bishop was not going to greet the Pope, I wondered if, because of her gender and her controversial positions on a number of issues, she had not been invited. I was relieved to learn that she had been invited, but troubled by the fact that she sent regrets because of scheduling conflicts. Upon further enquiry, I learned that the scheduling conflicts involved visits to the parish of Bethesda by the Sea in Palm Beach and the Cathedral in Miami and the Episcopal Diocese of Utah (where she was scheduled to dedicate a new diocesan center).
I confess that this decision produced in me a degree of amazement. First, at an ambassadorial level, regrets based on "scheduling conflicts" are always interpreted as a "diplomatic" excuse meant to send a negative message. Second, central to the office of Presiding Bishop is the responsibility to represent TEC in its relations with the Anglican Communion and with other churches. The Anglican Communion has no more important ecumenical partner than the Church of Rome. Why would dedication of a building have priority over an opportunity to greet the Pope in the name of TEC? If there was some reason to give it priority, why was that reason not made public so that the members of TEC and the Anglican Communion would know that the reason for sending regrets was of serious consequence? Further, a more lengthy explanation might prevent Roman Catholic observers from concluding that she thought it for a number of reasons proper that she absent herself. Third, many of us have struggled for years to insure that women take their rightful place within the leadership of TEC and the Anglican Communion. Given the negative reception by Rome of TEC’s decision to ordain women as priests and bishops, why would an opportunity for the Pope to meet a Presiding Bishop who is a woman be passed up?
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that if the Presiding Bishop knew what she was doing, she knew also that she would be sending a negative message to the Pope and to the Roman Catholic Church-a negative message that would not be lessened by sending, as she did, two envoys in her place. I find it hard to believe that she actually intended to slight the Pope. It is easier in this case to conclude that she has failed to understand perhaps the central aspect of her office, namely to represent TEC in its inter-Anglican and ecumenical relations.
The decision not to greet the Pope is I grant a prudential one that must, sadly, be judged imprudent. More serious is her aggressive interpretation of the Constitution and Canons of TEC in the cases mentioned above. In each instance, either the Presiding Bishop does not understand the Constitution and Canons of TEC or she is trying to expand the power of her office in a way contrary to the clear meaning of the Constitution and Canons and without due authorization by the General Convention.
The most serious of the irregularities concern her interventions in the Diocese of San Joaquin. As one commentator has stated in a private communication, though in the cases of Bishops Cox and Duncan the violations on the part of the Presiding Bishop pertain to individual Bishops, those with respect to the Diocese of San Joaquin "subvert the governance of an entire diocese and go the heart of TEC’s polity as a ‘fellowship of duly constituted dioceses’ governed by bishops not under a metropolitan or archbishop."
The specific violations laid at the feet of the Presiding Bishop are reasonably well known so I will list briefly only a few. In violation of Articles IV and II.3 of the Constitution and in repudiation of her duty under Canon I.2.4 (a) (3) she refused to recognize the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin. In violation of Article II.3 she appointed representatives and vicars in the Diocese of San Joaquin. Without the consent of the House of Bishops as required by Canon IV.9.2 she deposed Bishop Schofield. In violation of Article II.3 and the applicable canons of the Diocese of San Joaquin, she convened a convention. Contrary to the plain sense of Article II.3 and Canon I.2.4 (a)(6) she consulted with clergy and laity of the Diocese of San Joaquin and, finally, she appointed a provisional Bishop in violation of Article II.3 and Canon III.13.
This is quite a list, and it concerns very fundamental aspects of TEC’s polity-a form of polity, incidentally, to which the Presiding Bishop has herself on many occasions made reference as a constraint upon her freedom to act. If she has failed to understand that her actions are in fact irregular, she needs at a minimum to seek more adequate advice. If, however, these actions have been taken with the knowledge that she is reaching beyond the limits imposed by TEC’s Constitution and Canons she is trying by the creation of an unchallenged precedent to expand the powers of the Presiding Bishop and in so doing convert the office into that of a Metropolitan. Such a move amounts to a sea change and runs directly contrary to the original constitutional purpose of having a Presiding Bishop rather than an Archbishop."
At a minimum, the House of Bishops, or members thereof, ought to register a formal objection to these highly questionable moves. They do indeed threaten to subvert the way in which TEC’s dioceses are governed, and they do indeed strike at the heart of TEC’s polity as a ‘fellowship of duly constituted dioceses’ governed by bishops not under a metropolitan or archbishop."
The process by which Bishop Cox was deposed provides but further evidence of a serious threat to the orderly governance of TEC that TEC’s Bishops ought not to ignore. Again, the accusations of irregular procedure are well known so I will list them briefly and only in part. The Presiding Bishop failed to seek the inhibition of Bishop Cox as required by Canon IV.9.1. In pursuing the inhibition, the Presiding Bishop failed to gain consent to inhibition by senior bishops as required by Canon IV. 9.2, and she failed to give requisite notice. Moves such as these in fact create new procedures for deposing bishops-procedures that remove the procedural protections afforded to a charged bishop. Finally, the Presiding Bishop deposed Bishop Cox without the required consent of the "whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" as required under Canon IV.9.2. and explained in Article XII of the Constitution.
Noting the extent of these irregularities it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they demonstrate a pattern of willful violation. One must conclude that in this case the Presiding Bishop does know what she is doing. What she is doing is attempting to change the way in which TEC is ordered and governed without the requisite action of General Convention. One can only hope that the Bishops who are responsible for TEC’s good order will not acquiesce in what must be understood as a radical change in the powers of the Office of Presiding Bishop that is ultra vires.
In one way the last of my questions and concerns may seem the least serious, namely, the content (or lack thereof) of the Presiding Bishop’s Easter message. However, this concern is in fact the most serious and anxiety producing of all. If, in this instance, she did not know what she was saying, then one must conclude that she does not understand the central tenets of Christian belief, namely, the meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection. If, however, she does understand what she is saying, she is suggesting a novelty that forces one to ask if her version of Christian belief is in fact recognizable as what Christians through the ages have believed and professed.
It is hard to miss the fact that there is but one reference to the resurrection in her entire message. In this reference Episcopalians are urged to become "the sacrament, the outward and visible sign, of the grace that you know in the resurrected Christ." This means for her that each member "consider how your daily living can be an act of greater life for other creatures." This one can do by living in a way that allows others to live more abundantly. Indeed, it is by living in this way that one fulfills the promise of TEC’s baptismal covenant to respect the dignity of one’s fellow creatures. Concretely, a commitment such as this means paying attention to "the food we eat, the energy we use, and the goods and foods we buy, the ways in which we travel."
I note only that the significance of the resurrection of Christ is here presented in entirely moral terms. One might note as well that the office of The Presiding Bishop posted during Lent a new series of Stations of the Cross that called attention not to the passion of Christ but to the Millennium Development Goals. It would appear that both the cross and resurrection are understood in moral terms and in moral terms alone.
The point is this. If the Presiding Bishop in fact knows what she is doing, she is proposing a moral understanding of the Christian Gospel that appears to ignore or reject the fact that the cross and resurrection of Christ have through the ages been understood as having to do first of all with the conquest of sin and death and so reconciliation with God and redemption from the great enemies of human kind. One can only celebrate the Presiding Bishop’s concerns for the environment and the alleviation of human want and suffering. However, for Christians these concerns serve as a witness to a more fundamental belief. In the cross and resurrection God has bridged the gap that separates us from the true source of our life and in so doing has opened for us a new way of life. The Easter message is first of all that sin and death have been defeated and that God in Christ has proved to be faithful to his promises.
It is this confession that is missing in the Presiding Bishop’s Easter Message and in the new version of the Stations of the Cross her office is making available to TEC. It is, however, this confession that gives Christians their identity. It is also this confession that many Anglicans throughout the world fail to hear coming from TEC’s leadership. It is silence on this matter that worries Anglicans in the Global South far more than the new sexual ethic that TEC now seems in the process of adopting. It is silence in respect to the central Christian confession that may make our Presiding Bishop an ineffective representative in the councils of the Anglican Communion. It is also silence on this matter that may have led the Pope on his recent visit to express to an ecumenical gathering at which the Presiding Bishop was not present concern about "so called prophetic actions that are based on a hermeneutic not always consonant with the datum of scripture and tradition." One can only say that the Pope’s concern is widely shared, and that the absence of the Presiding Bishop from the gathering at which these words were spoken serves only to isolate further both her and TEC from the voice of the church catholic.
LONDON, May 16, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Anglican Church is the perfect vehicle for creating a new “gay” Christianity by virtue of the fact that it is the only church that accepts the logical contradiction of asserting both the sanctity of human life and the existence of a right to abortion.
Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson, whose ordination to the episcopate has precipitated the ongoing schism between traditionally Christian Anglicans and its ultra-liberal, secularized branches, is in London to talk about his vision for the homosexual future of the Anglican Church. He was visiting and promoting his cause in preparation for the upcoming Lambeth Conference in July.
He told an admiring audience in Putney, in southwest London, that Anglicanism is uniquely suited to the establishment of the contradiction of homosexual Christianity. “The Anglican tradition is uniquely capable of holding two seemingly contradictory ideas together. Its position on abortion, for example is that all human life is sacred. And, that no one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Both are true,” he said.
The logical principle of non-contradiction, a basic philosophical concept identified by Aristotle, is defined as the idea that two opposed things cannot both be true. Aristotle put it that, “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.” It is not possible, for example, for a person to both be in a room and not in a room at the same time. This principle is regarded by philosophers as one of the three first principles of rational thought, without which no assertion of any truth is possible.
Many Christian philosophers have noted that the moral chaos in western societies has stemmed from the 20th century’s abandonment of this principle as the guiding force of politics and religion.
Robinson is a long-time supporter of abortion. In 2005, he addressed Planned Parenthood’s fifth annual prayer breakfast in Washington. He said then that the only way to defend the pro-abortion mindset is to reach out religiously, saying, “Our defense against religious people has to be a religious defense. … We must use people of faith to counter the faith-based arguments against us.”
He told Planned Parenthood, “We have to take back those Scriptures.”
He spoke of “the need to teach people about nuance, about holding things in tension, that this can be true and that can be true, and somewhere between is the right answer. It’s a very adult way of living, you know. What an unimaginative God it would be if God only put one meaning in any verse of Scripture."
In his talk in London and in a later interview with the Spectator’s Theo Hobson, Robinson laid out the precepts of gay Christianity in which homosexuals, as an oppressed minority, are more capable of Christian charity than heterosexuals.
To lend biblical credence to his assertions, Robinson cited a passage in John’s Gospel in which Jesus tells his disciples they were not ready for all of Christian teaching. Robinson asserts that the acceptance of homosexuality was part of the teaching that the Holy Spirit was to give the Church later.
He said that the growing acceptance of homosexuality in the churches “is all ultimately about is patriarchy — the beginning of the end of it. The strength of the resistance tells us we’re on to something.”
His book, "In the Eye of the Storm", reiterates the homosexual lobby movement’s doctrine that homosexuality is the equivalent of race or sex. He said it gives him a “little window into some of what it must be like to be a woman, or a person of colour, or a person in a wheelchair — and countless other categories the dominant culture has controlled, diminished and oppressed”. This naturally leads to a greater capacity for “Christian empathy”.
“Just as surely as Jesus called to his friend Lazarus to ‘Come out!’ of his tomb, Jesus called me to come out of my tomb of guilt and shame, to accept and love that part of me that he already accepted and loved.”
The Exodus story, he said, is “one of the greatest coming-out stories in the history of the world”.
He admitted that it is possible for heterosexuals to sympathize with the oppressed, saying, “It’s not impossible, but it’s harder.”
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Homosexual Episcopal Bishop Out to Claim Bible for Abortion-Rights Activists
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/apr/05041802.html
Homosexual ‘Bishop’ Attempts to Deflect Attention from Worldwide Anglican Schism
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/sep/04091408.html
SACRAMENTO, May 16th, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Liberty Counsel, a non-profit organization dedicated to the protection of religious freedoms, human life, and the family, will file a motion asking the California Supreme Court to stay its opinion pending the outcome of a vote in November on a state constitutional amendment that could preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman and overturn the Court’s opinion
The Court’s ruling yesterday, permitting same-sex “marriages”, was in direct opposition to Proposition 22, an initiative to preserve marriage as a union of one man and one woman that was passed in 2000 by more than 61% of California’s voters. The 2000 initiative was not a constitutional amendment. Rather, the people passed a "super statute" that is higher than legislative statutes but lower than the constitution.
Californians may have the chance to overturn the Court’s order by amending the state constitution. Over one million signatures in favor of the California Marriage Protection Act are being certified and voters will soon know whether more than 700,000 are valid so that the Act will appear on the November, 2008 ballot.
A stay of the Court’s order is needed so that California does not create confusion by recognizing same-sex "marriage" for five months and then suddenly stopping after the amendment passes and the Court loses jurisdiction over the issue.
An Employment Tribunal in Abergele has today unanimously found in favour of a former employee of a Christian charity who was claiming constructive dismissal and discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.
The Tribunal heard that Prospects, a Christian charity which receives public money for its work with people with learning disabilities, and which had previously employed a number of non-Christian staff and volunteers – including a number who were transferred to them under TUPE Regulations – acted illegally when in 2004 it began recruiting only practising Christians for almost all posts, and told existing non-Christian staff that they were no longer eligible for promotion.
Mr James Boddy, Barrister from 11 King’s Bench Walk Chambers, representing the claimant Mr Mark Sheridan, declared: "This is an important decision because it is the first time an employment tribunal has been called on to decide the extent to which an organisation with a religious ethos is allowed to discriminate on grounds of religion or belief."
Mr Mark Sheridan, the claimant, said" "I am really very pleased with this result. When I worked for Prospects I felt that what they were doing was wrong. Winning this case now, justifies my claim."
Mr Sheridan’s legal costs were paid by the British Humanist Association (BHA). The organisation’s chief executive, Hanne Stinson, who has herself worked in the equalities field, commented: "[This] has proved to be a landmark case in the area of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. The Tribunal’s decision will undoubtedly have far-reaching repercussions for religious employers, as faith-based organisations will have to be much more stringent when they wish to … attach a ‘Genuine Occupational Requirement’ to their jobs. A clear message has been sent out by this decision: that blanket discrimination in employment policies and practices on grounds of religion or belief is simply unacceptable, and that an instruction to discriminate against someone on the basis of that person’s religion or belief will be unlawful."
She continued: "The Tribunal’s decision confirms many of the concerns about contracting out public services to religious organisations that we set out in our recently published report on the subject, including the concern that since the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 came in, which has exemptions for religious organisations allowing them to discriminate, religious organisations are actually discriminating more in their employment practices than before the law was enacted and that this can actually damage the quality of services provided."
Ms Stinson added: "The Tribunal’s judgment makes clear that a court will make an objective assessment of what a ‘religious ethos’ is, and states that it is not for the religious organisation itself to define its ethos, where this does not accord with reality on the ground. Hopefully the Government, which is considering contracting out large parts of the welfare state to religious organisations, will reconsider its policy in light of the Tribunal’s judgment."
Mr Sheridan, a Christian, thanked the BHA for its support. He resigned when he had to tell non-Christian staff they were not eligible for promotion. Another non-religious former staff member has been taking a case against Prospects, backed by the trade union Unison.
In his witness statement, Mr Sheridan claimed that his management job became increasingly difficult as the policy was implemented, and that being forced to work within such a restrictive employment regime was highly detrimental to his mental and physical health.
Simon Barrow, from the religion and society think tank Ekklesia, said: "This judgement ought to make religious charities sit up and think - not just about their legal responsibilities and the morality of non-discrimination, but about the impact of their behaviour on their image with the public at large."
He continued: "Leaders and entrepreneurs in many faith organisations seem reluctant to embrace a comprehensive equalities agenda, or to recognise their culpability in issues of discrimination. Yet they are often the first to seek exemptions from legislation accepted by others and to complain that they are being ‘attacked’ when criticisms are raised."
"The Christian message of love and justice is undermined by poor employment and equalities practices in the Christian organisations. This is an opportunity for the churches to get their house in order."
Seven in ten women think the abortion time limit should be decreased given survival rates of babies born before 24 weeks, a new poll shows.
60 per cent of the general public, and 70 per cent of 25-34 year-olds, agree.
Unsurprisingly, the overwhelming majority of women - 92 per cent - want those considering abortion to have a statutory legal right to be warned of the mental and physical health risks associated with abortion before going ahead.
The poll was conducted by polling company ComRes on behalf of The Christian Institute.
The results come as MPs prepare to consider the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in a Committee of the Whole House next week. Attempts to change the abortion law for better or worse are expected.
Commenting on the figures, Colin Hart, Director of The Christian Institute, said: "Women want a lower abortion limit, and MPs should think carefully before ignoring their views on this sensitive issue.
"When told of actual survival rates of babies born before 24 weeks people back a lower abortion limit. Three in four women also want a limit of 20 weeks or lower to be more in line with other EU countries."
15/5/08 12:03:00, The Anglican Old Catholic International Co-ordinating Council - Communi»»
The Anglican - Old Catholic International Co-ordinating Council (AOCICC) met in Schloss Beuggen, Germany, from 14 to 18 April 2008. The Council welcomed the new Old Catholic Co-chair, the Rt Revd Joachim Vobbe (who also served as the Co-chair from 1998 to 2003), and the new Old Catholic member, the Revd Henriette Crüwell, both appointed by the Old Catholic International Bishops’ Conference (IBC).
13/5/08 09:41:00, Archbishop of Canterbury's Pentecost Letter to the Bishops of the Angli»»
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has sent an open letter to the bishops of the Anglican Communion, in advance of the Lambeth Conference. The Feast of Pentecost is a time when we give thanks that God, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, makes us able to speak to each other and to the whole world of the wonderful things done in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
13/5/08 09:32:00, The Diocese of Lichfield has issued an Emergency Appeal for Myanmar»»
The four bishops in the Diocese of Lichfield have issued an emergency appeal for prayers and money in response to the disaster in Myanmar (Burma). They say: Like us, you are no doubt watching the pictures from Myanmar (Burma) with a feeling of helplessness and asking 'What can I do to help?'
7/5/08 13:01:00, Archbishop of Canterbury - Prayers for Burma»»
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has written to the Anglican church in Burma following the devastation of Cyclone Nargis in the area of the Irrawaddy River Delta. In the letter to Archbishop Stephen Than Myint Oo, Dr Williams assures the church of the prayers of the Anglican Communion and commends the rescue operation now underway
6/5/08 17:03:52, The Network’s Ministry Initiatives»»
In the coming weeks, we will be marking a bittersweet transition at the Network. On May 15, we will be officially “spinning off” our very successful Good News Initiative and the Young Anglicans Project. Read more..
6/5/08 13:06:00, Archbishop of Canterbury - 'friendly meeting' with Pope Benedict»»
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams has described his private meeting with Pope Benedict XVI yesterday in the Vatican as ‘friendly and informal’. They spent almost half an hour in the Pope’s study discussing matters of common interest.
Some New Zealand Anglican leaders are against a plan to overhaul the global church, which is split over letting gays become bishops.
Supporters say the plan - known as a covenant - will unify a church ''in crisis'' and beset by huge internal differences, but some influential Anglicans oppose it, saying the plan will give a central body new authority that will harm diversity and local autonomy.
The idea would lead to more power concentrated in the global Anglican Consultative Council, including the ability to cut off more extreme churches.
It follows years of internal ructions over how to respond to churches that ordain gay priests and even bishops. The Anglican General Synod of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia is meeting in Wellington at the James Cook Hotel this week before a 10-yearly gathering of the world's bishops.
Church leaders said the discussions were a free and frank exchange. They also spoke of their own hopes for unity.
Tony Fitchett, New Zealand's lay representative on the council and a supporter of gay ordination, said the covenant worried him. "What I do feel uncomfortable about is the process to eject people ... deciding that a church should be ejected." Such sweeping authority could spell a split with the entire Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada, he said. "I think [the power] would be likely to be used in that sort of way."
This website is being redeveloped with a new version of Joomla over the next week. Please be patient as items are tested.