Riazat Butt with coverage of the Church of England's General Synod meeting in York
Welcome to the third General Synod live blog. While there wasn't that much in yesterday's agenda to get worked up about there is still a fair bit of coverage of what's been happening in York.
The Daily Telegraph says the Church of England is urging the coalition to protect Christians from the 'chilling' effect of equality laws.
It also has two articles about tonight's landmark/groundbreaking series about Muhammad, a television first in the west. One from Christopher Howse, who has seen the first episode because he was at the preview of the first episode that I also attended, and writes about why Islam forbids images of Muhammad. The other is from Toby Dantzic who wasn't at the preview. It's not clear whether he's seen it. Both pieces are weirdly reverential. I find it unsettling.
Back to Synod, the Daily Mail has gone the extra inch to claim the church is demanding the legal right to wear a crucifix:
Church leaders revealed that they have held talks with Coalition ministers about attempts by employers to suppress Christianity and how these are supported by judges and courts.
General Synod member Jeremy Fletcher has written a fairly comprehensive account of Sunday including the Anglican-Methodist covenant. The diocese of Bristol has this report on higher education funding.
Something really odd has happened this morning. The bishop of Dover, Trevor Willmott, has asked not to chair the business committee because of grumblings behind closed doors, leading Ro-Ro to give Synod a very mild bollocking.
Twitter has become rather animated about the wrist-slap from Ro-Ro. Including charges of him being manipulative and being hoisted by his own petard. Not so much Ro-Ro as ruh-roh.
petespurs Pete Broadbent
Achbp's Council out of touch with grass roots in Synod. Bus Ctte should'nt be chaired by any bishop. Rowan's speech manipulative #synodjustinbrett Justin Brett
All very well ++Rowan telling us off, but he needed to talk about next steps too, not just vent! #synodjackytheluddite Jacky Taylor
"@markrusselluk:#synod hasn't treated +Trevor very fairly" ABCouncil not treated +Dover well by ignoring Feb decn and put him in situation.NedLunn Ned Lunn
Find it difficult to know what is actually occurring in #synod through the conspiracy and HoB negativity. Someone give a balance, please!simonsarmiento Simon Sarmiento
#synod Abps Council was manipulated: elected members excluded from decision on Bus Comm chair; ABC hoist on own petard
The bishop of Willesden (who was the first tweet in the above selection) has given an insight into the whys and wherefores of the business committee.
The bishop of Willesden, by the way, was the chap who said Kate and Wills' marriage would be over in seven years.
Here's an extract from his blog about why bishops and business committees should not mix:
The point is that the chair of the Business Committee has to be independent and be seen to be independent. they have to steer the business of synod. They have to defend the rights of the back bench members. They have to say no to Church House, the House of Bishops, the Archbishops' Council and to retain control of what comes on the Synod agenda - something they have lamentably failed to do of late, leading to a creeping centralisation and a number of very thin Synod agendas.
Right now, Synod is debating Eucharistic prayers for children. Here's a line from the bishop of Wakefield, Stephen Platten.
To talk of Christ's blood being shed, summons up images of wooden buildings in gardens and allotments and not obviously the tragic effect of a cruel death through crucifixion
ooh someone on Twitter has asked
rosieswiss rosie harper #synod - does synod feel different without ++Sentamu?
A chap called Clive Scowen has proposed to shake up the way people are elected to the house of laity (at national and diocesan level). There is also an amendment tabled, from Dr Mark Beach, suggesting there should be full representation and reflection of the Church of England's membership. Clive Scowen asked:
When we look around us we need to ask, where are the younger people. There are a few but certainly not a proportionate number. And do the number of minority ethnic Anglicans here reflect the proportion who belong to our churches?
This hasn't gone down terribly well so far but not for the reasons you might think. Simon Baynes said the church should be concentrating on mission not costly reviews and that Synod spends far too much time on internal matters, especially one that was thoroughly investigated 12 years ago.
There's apathy about the PCC [parochial church council not press complaints commission] and an almost total lack of knowledge about General Synod. We have got to get people interested in the government of the Church of England. It's all very well saying let's have a new method of electing them but until we can get candidates who are prepared to put themselves forward, it seems pointless having a new system.
Here's someone else voicing their concern about engineering the system to make synods racially diverse.
I feel offended with the implication that minority ethnic electors would not be able to bring objectivity to the process and not vote for the most suitable and able people.
The subject of diversity and representation in the C of E will crop up again after lunch today.
So Synod voted for a review of how laity are elected at diocesan and national level - the motion also included an amendment "ensuring that the diverse membership of the Church of England is fully reflected and and represented". Well done!
Breaking for lunch - see you then.
I'm feeling dangerous so I'm typing this straight into the live blog generator. When the spinning pizza wheel of death allows me. We're listening to a debate on ethnic minority clergy - or rather the lack of it in Synod.
The Ven Daniel Kajumba, archdeacon of Reigate, is saying:
If the Church of England is the national church, it is important it reflects the society it serves. Look around this chamber, this synod's ethnic minority membership has increased by one between 2005 and 2010, from 14 to 15.
Racism is still a live issue in its various forms, blatant or subtle.
He said the r word. Let's see what happens.
Is anyone really going to disagree that the make-up of the Church of England clergy should remain pale, male and stale? The Rev Stephen Pratt, from Lichfield, says:
Before I was ordained I moved to London to be a teacher in Forest Gate. The church I went to was 90% black, the PCC was 100% white. I knew the system so I started nominating some people and that caused all out war. Now after decades we have got a black woman churchwarden. Positive intentionality is what it took - someone who knew the system to start pushing people forward.
Ro-Ro is speaking. He says people should bear in mind the "whole spectrum" of ethnic minorities in terms of engagement and evangelisation.
The Roma community. Oh yes.
There are a lot of ethnic minorities, among them groups that we seldom think of in terms of evangelisation. They are often as not neglected and looked down on.
Nobody has voiced concern about having positive discrimination in place - I know the C of E is calling it positive intentionality but it is what it is and it gives preferential treatment to one group over another - and it's difficult to see why they would. The bishop of Dudley said the church was "pale, male and stale" and the report presented claims that "people from ethnic minorities will tend not to see the Church of England as their church and will look for a church elsewhere.
What are they saying on Twitter?
@markrusselluk: "#synod is White middle class and old..." yep. But it's a quasi-parliament & so you need to love all THAT, & most don't
@amber32002 #synod Wonderful to hear of speakers talking about us celebrating diversity and benefiting from it, not seeing it as a chore or burden
Given the earlier excitement about Christians demanding the right to wear the crucifix in the workplace (see 10.27 am) the Equality and Human Rights Commission has proposed that "reasonable accommodation" for religion or belief is needed.
In a press release the EHRC says:
Judges have interpreted the law too narrowly in religion or belief discrimination claims. In its application to intervene in four cases at the European Court of Human Rights it will say that the courts have set the bar too high for someone to prove they have been discriminated against because of their religion or belief.
Apologies for the massive pasting about to follow but the Equality Commission hasn't stuck its statement online. So here it is in full:
Judges have interpreted the law too narrowly in religion or belief discrimination claims, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has said in its application to intervene in four cases at the European Court of Human Rights involving religious discrimination in the workplace.
If given leave to intervene the Commission will argue that the way existing human rights and equality law has been interpreted by judges is insufficient to protect freedom of religion or belief.
It will say that the courts have set the bar too high for someone to prove that they have been discriminated against because of their religion or belief; and that it is possible to accommodate expression of religion alongside the rights of people who are not religious and the needs of businesses.
The Commission is concerned that rulings already made by UK and European courts have created a body of confusing and contradictory case law. For example, some Christians wanting to display religious symbols in the workplace have lost their legal claim so are not allowed to wear a cross, while others have been allowed to after reaching a compromise with their employer.
As a result, it is difficult for employers or service providers to know what they should be doing to protect people from religion or belief based discrimination. They may be being overly cautious in some cases and so are unnecessarily restricting people's rights. It is also difficult for employees who have no choice but to abide by their employers decision.
The Commission thinks there is a need for clearer legal principles to help the courts consider what is and what is not justifiable in religion or belief cases, which will help to resolve differences without resorting to legal action. The Commission will propose the idea of 'reasonable accommodations' that will help employers and others manage how they allow people to manifest their religion or belief.
For example, if a Jew asks not to have to work on a Saturday for religious reasons, his employer could accommodate this with minimum disruption simply by changing the rota. This would potentially be reasonable and would provide a good outcome for both employee and employer.
John Wadham, Group Director, Legal, at the Commission, said:
"Our intervention in these cases would encourage judges to interpret the law more broadly and more clearly to the benefit of people who are religious and those who are not.
The idea of making reasonable adjustments to accommodate a person's needs has served disability discrimination law well for decades. It seems reasonable that a similar concept could be adopted to allow someone to manifest their religious beliefs."The intervention follows a report for the Commission which found that many people do not understand their rights around religion or belief. The Commission is concerned that this could be preventing people from using their rights.
The four cases that the Equality Commission has asked to intervene in are those of Nadia Eweida, Lillian Ladele, Gary McFarlane and Shirley Chaplin. The Daily Telegraph ran this report on their legal challenge last month. Very disappointed/surprised at the lack of reaction from the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association. In the words of Paxo on University Challenge, come on!
Separate but related (well, in that they involve Christians) here are two different reactions to Ro-Ro's presidential address on Saturday. Synod member Rosie Harper loved it. Anglican pundit Savi Hensman didn't. Ro-Ro, like Marmite. Who knew?
Not strictly on the subject of Synod but sort of relevant because it's about God innit. On Twitter:
His_Grace Archbishop Cranmer
Rupert Murdoch is a Papal Knight of the Pontifical Order of St Gregory the Great. Should His Holiness be petitioned?
The issue of Rupert's papal knighthood was explored in this blog on the Catholic Herald last Friday.
Last year, prior to the papal visit to the UK, Rupert Murdoch gatecrashed a lunch with the RC archbishop of Westminster and Times editor James Harding. Say what you like about the C of E but at least they've said something on the News International scandal. The silence from Ecclestone Square is deafening.
Amid the excitement of News International and Christian rights I clean forgot about Synod. We're on the last debate before dinner - Generous Love for All, Presence and Engagement for the New Quinquennium. In non C of E jargon this basically means facing up to other faiths. How does the C of E carry on being the C of E when it is surrounded, some might suggest overwhelmed, by other religious groups and is already contending with a changing spiritual landscape? The Venerable Richard Atkinson from Leicester, in his opening speech, says:
The 2011 Census will reveal the growth of multi-faith Britain; the international agenda will continue to bring the best and worst religion into the lives of all; the very pressing challenges before some of the churches in areas of significant other faith populations will require all of us to identify and support appropriate models of presence.
It is a problem for the C of E - the increased confidence of religious movements and non-religious movements. It is no longer the only voice or focal point of community activity but, unlike other groups, it remains damn close to being ubiquitous. Omnipresent even.
More telling is this paragraph from the report itself:
Over the next few years the multi-religious nature of British public life will present some of the most extensive challenges for the Church of England's credibility in its established role. Its ability to serve the whole community of this country, whilst remaining true to its aim of growth, will depend upon being able to sustain its claim to be present everywhere and to engage constructively with the whole population. The Church's responsibility to serving the nation and to its evangelistic mission will have increasingly to learn how to engage effectively with people from other faith backgrounds whilst retaining the trust of the nation.
I've got the text of Ro-Ro's intervention this morning (see 11.24 am) following the business committee chair debacle.
The Bishop of Dover has spoken very movingly of his perception of and experience of this process. I do want to remind Synod that the proposal of his name was in no sense an infringement of any standing order or rule of this synod. Therefore it's bound to be felt, whatever is intended, as in some degree to do with a perception about the either House of Bishops corporately or the Bishop of Dover individually. A perception that in some sense renders someone incapable of discharging such an office with effectiveness and integrity. If it is the view of Synod that membership of the House of Bishops precludes someone from taking an office like this then Synod needs to say so, after a proper and open discussion. I think we've been quite properly embarrassed by what we've just heard - and so we should be. If it's assumed that the perspective of a bishop is inimical to the interests of the Synod as expressed through the Business Committee - that is a perception that needs dealing with I think rather seriously. I suggest to those who think it might be the case they should perhaps read the ordinal and remind themselves what bishops should be there for. It's also rather disturbing if it's assumed somehow that not not only a bishop's perspective is inimical to the interests of Synod but that House of Bishops or the presidents of the Synod would habitually seek to interfere in the proper business of the Business Committee or the Synod. If that is the perception then again I would like that to be said openly rather than privately.This morning at the eucharist we heard an extremely powerful sermon from the Bishop of Chelmsford on the subject of trust among other things for which I and others are very grateful, we've spoken quite a bit over this weekend about the need to build trust within Synod - I don't think that we build trust very effectively by acting on the assumption of suspicion.
I'm seeing the spinning pizza wheels of death again so this may well be my last post. Today we have learned that:
?Ro-Ro is "deeply embarrassed" by synod.
?Synod doesn't like being told what to do by men in hats.
?The Equality and Human Rights Commission thinks judges have set the bar too high in religious discrimination cases.
?The Church of England sees other religious communities as a threat.
?The Church of England is hideously white.
I'm sure there was other stuff knocking around and if my laptop allows I'll update before the end of play and if I can't or don't then thanks for stopping by.
Source: http://feeds.guardian.co.uk/~r/theguardian/commentisfree/rss/~3/6baS1BPH1hI/general-synod-live-blog
Higher education England cricket team Soap opera Iran Christmas Northern Ireland
No comments:
Post a Comment