Church Bishops Slammed for Skipping Crucial Lords Vote on Gay Regulations
Twenty-three Church of England bishops have been fiercely criticised this week for not attending a crucial House of Lords vote on controversial new gay rights regulations, which faith groups across the country have strongly opposed.
by Daniel Blake
Posted: Friday, March 23, 2007, 11:43 (GMT)
Twenty-three Church of England bishops have been fiercely criticised this week for not attending a crucial House of Lords vote on controversial new gay rights regulations, which faith groups across the country have strongly opposed.
In total 26 bishops automatically sit in on the House of Lords - a privilege which has come under media scrutiny over the past months - yet just three attended the vote. Christians across Britain have been left outraged by the meagre turn-out.
Anthony Archer, a Synod member of the Crown Nominations Committee had written to all 26 bishops encouraging them to vote against the Regulations (SORs), according to The Church of England Newspaper. He reported that the 23 bishops had not helped justify their purpose for sitting in the House of Lords.
"The bishops have to play their part and argue their case. Turning up to the debate would have helped," the letter read.
The second-most senior member of the Church of England, Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, is unlikely to be impressed with his bishops, after he aggressively fought against the new regulations - fearing they could lead to discrimination against those who hold traditional views on homosexuality and marriage.
In an address against the new regulations, Dr Setamu explained that under the Government people of faith were quickly becoming a "sub-category" in society.
Quoting William Wilberforce, the slave trade abolitionist, the Archbishop said: "The time is fast approaching when Christianity will be openly disavowed, in language as in fact it is already supposed to have disappeared from the conduct of men: when to believe will be deemed the indication of a feeble mind and contracted understanding."
Andrea Minichiello Williams, Public Policy Officer for the Lawyer's Christian Fellowship, has said: "In a week where the whole country celebrates the 200th anniversary off the Abolition of Slavery, brought about, by and large, through the determined efforts of William Wilberforce, we would do well to remember his driving force and motivation stemmed from his Christian conviction. History will record that...(the)...vote marked the increased secularisation of Britain confining faith to private thought, rather than public service."
"The consequences and implications of the SORs will unfold month by month. The result of the vote will mean that rather than balancing rights, the right to live a homosexual lifestyle will trump the right to live a Christian lifestyle."
Copyright © 2007 Christian Today. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Have your say on this article
The comments below are readers' personal opinions and are in no way intended to reflect the editorial opinion of Christian Today.
Added: Friday, March 23, 2007, 17:58 (GMT)
I'm with Sentamu on this. The absence of the bishops sends the message loud and clear that they support the measures. What else can one expect from our "national church" that has lost its way over the last half century?
RCD, Southend UK
Added: Friday, March 23, 2007, 13:26 (GMT)
In view of the Government and Liberal whips not allowing their MPs and Peers a free vote for this weeks passing of the new Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) as they were forced through the House of Commons and the Lords at unseemly undemocratic haste. Is this what the Government calls democracy? Using outrageous undemocratic and underhand tactics to force these unwelcome new rules on the majority. Should the silent majority now accept this so called democratic process and these unwelcome new rules?
I would like to ask the Government and its liberal supporters; democracy what democracy? You mean riding roughshod over the majority without debate to appease a 3% militant minority? What is it now, the 9th piece of gay rights legislation in nine years of New Labour Government. That sounds more like a Government obsessed with gay rights to me. Like so many liberals when someone dares to make a stand and say enough is enough. You make the 'cheap shot' of calling all Christians and people of other faiths who opposed these half baked SORs 'homophobic'.(liberals are only liberal when people agree with them). There was enough legislation all ready in place to protect homosexuals from discrimination. In any case I see no evidence of your so called 'homophobia' from Christians. Merely Christians saying we have rights too; the right to our beliefs, our values and conscience, the same values and beliefs that have been around since Christianity began. But perhaps you think all Christians should now in the name of liberal modernism ditch those and values and beliefs to fit in with trendy new liberal thinking?
As a BBC opinion poll revealed this week there is more discrimination against Christians than any other group in UK society today. If you want to talk phobias, maybe the 'liberal trendies' should address their real 'Christianphobia' before making false accusations of 'homophobia.'
The truth is if you are interested, as a Christian I love everyone and judge no one, as we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. The Lord will be the judge of us all one day, that includes you and me. Remember respect and tolerance cuts both ways. I don't ever remember any homosexual being forced to accept Christian beliefs and values, however, with the new SORs, Christians will be forced to accept homosexual 'values and practices' and act against their beliefs' or face being arrested.
Now is that what you call democracy?
Simon Icke, AYLESBURY UK
Added: Friday, March 23, 2007, 12:12 (GMT)
The Bishops who sit in the House of Lords are not the spokes-people of the 'Church of England' or any particular sub group within the Church of England.
Secondly, it is disingenous to quote William Wilberforce. He worked within the spirit of freedom for others, and,I am sure, would identify that 'freedom' within this Bill.
John Campling, London
