The Evangelical AllianceThe Evangelical Alliance, which was founded in 1846, is the umbrella body that brings together a majority of Britain’s 1.39 million Evangelicals. The 1998 English Church Attendance Survey revealed that 35% of Anglicans, 87% of Baptists, 78% of Independents, 35% of Methodists, 93% of New Churches, 93% of Pentecostals, 21% of URC members, 63% of those attending other churches identified themselves as Evangelicals.
The Alliance exists to promote unity and truth amongst these churches, individuals and evangelical organisations and to represent their concerns to the wider Church, State and society. We seek to work with and through our members rather than to duplicate or compete with them. Thus, this response seeks to represent the Alliance in its widest sense and is the product of consultation amongst specialist member societies. We are particularly grateful for the advice received from CARE, Tearfund and the YMCA.
Support for anti-discrimination measuresEvangelicals take human rights very seriously. Human dignity, equality and freedom are core ideals in the discussion of human rights and our biblical faith has important things to say about them all. We hold that all human beings are inherently worthy of respect, regardless of their abilities, status, race, religion, age, gender or sexual orientation.
Against that background, we strongly support anti-discrimination legislation and warmly welcome measures that enable churches and religious organisations to preserve their distinctive identities and ethos.
Concerns about the draft regulations on religion 3.1 There is, however, increasing suspicion and anger in our membership arising out of perceived threats in the draft Regulations to the freedom of churches and religious organisations to preserve their Christian ethos. We were encouraged by the way in which the Employment Directive respected our right to do this but there is suspicion that this right will be undermined by the draft legislation and by the way in which it will be implemented and subsequent disputes handled.
3.2 The principal cause for concern is a perceived fault line running through the draft legislation. This relates to an incompatibility between the religion and sexual orientation provisions. Orthodox, mainstream Christians hold to the biblical teaching that monogamous heterosexual marriage is the form of partnership uniquely intended by God for full sexual relations between people. At the same time, we affirm God’s love and concern for all humanity, including those with an orientation towards people of their own sex, but believe homoerotic sexual practice to be incompatible with his will as revealed in Scripture.
3.3 It will be noted that our concern is in relation to practice, not orientation and we repudiate homophobia and encourage churches to welcome people with a same sex orientation. Our purpose is to remain faithful to the above historic teaching of the Church. This applies equally to heterosexual activity outside marriage. For that reason we do not see this as a form of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation which would breach the provision in Article 4 of the Employment Directive that a difference of treatment "should not justify discrimination on another ground". We recognise, however, that a religious organisation will need to make clear to all its employees and applicants for posts the nature of its ethos.
3.4 We recognise that the "gay lobby" does not accept the distinction between orientation and practice, which is so crucial for us. We note that Mrs Roche told a TUC conference last July that the religion/belief provisions "will not allow a religious organisation to justify dismissal of an employee simply because of his or her orientation". But if that orientation gives rise to behaviour that is incompatible with the organisation’s ethos, will that constitute grounds for dismissal? If it does not, the new legislation will have created a hierarchy of rights in which the rights related to sexual orientation take precedence over the rights related to religion and belief. The Minister has said in the past that this was not the Government’s intention. Has that now changed?
3.5 In this context we are particularly concerned about indirect discrimination and Regulation 3/1b. It is expected in Christian organisations that one is either married or celibate. However, to formally require this in a code of conduct could leave the organisation open to challenge in the Courts for breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
3.6 These concerns have been heightened by the omission of any reference in the draft Regulations to the provision in the Employment Directive (Article 4/2) to allow religious organisations "to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation’s ethos". We understand that from a legal perspective it is not necessary to make such an express provision on the face of the Regulations because a contract of employment implies a duty to maintain trust and confidence through co-operation and to act in good faith towards each other. Since this is the law, however, we see substantial practical and symbolic value in making this explicit on the face of the Regulation for the guidance and reassurance of those without legal expertise.
3.7 In a similar vein, we would welcome an explicit reference in Part V of the Draft Regulations on Religion or Belief Discrimination to the exemptions given to faith-based schools in the School Standards and Framework Act and the Education (Scotland) Act, to continue with employment policies needed to preserve their particular religious character.
3.8 We should also welcome an amendment to Regulation 19 (Providers of vocational training) to cover the peculiar needs of Bible Colleges and Seminaries that are not also institutions of further and higher education. They train people for specific types of work as pastors, evangelists, missionaries and youth workers in Christian ministries. There is no point in their training a student who is ineligible to go on to such posts because they do not belong to the appropriate faith community. We note that Regulation 23 gives institutions of further and higher education an exemption to cover this situation (23/3) and urge that this provision also be applied to Bible Colleges etc. In relation to Regulation 10 (Office-holders, post-holders etc), we are aware that this is currently a very sensitive issue, especially in relation to independent Black churches and we would urge the Department to act with great caution. Ordinarily, Trustees are not employed by their charity and may not benefit from their trusteeship. However, the Charity Commissioners have special provisions whereby founder pastors or spiritual directors of independent churches (black or white) can be trustees and employees of their church. The aim of this is to preserve the foundation ethos of the church. If the founding (employed) pastor is not also a Trustee, the Trustees could make key decisions without his/her agreement.
Concerns about sexual orientation regulations Sexual orientation discrimination is the other side of the fault line we see running through the draft Regulations. Our general position in relation to sexual orientation is outlined in 3.2 above. We have specific concerns in relation to the following matters:
4.1 REGULATION 5 and the balance between subjective perceptions of being harassed and the intentions of those thought to be causing the harassment. In particular we wonder why the perception of ‘B’ has been heightened in 5/2 by the inclusion of "in particular" in the penultimate clause?
4.2 We are also sensitive about the interpretations that will be given to 5/1b and wonder whether guidelines will be prepared to help people from different cultural backgrounds understand what might be perceived as creating an "intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment"?
4.3 We would observe, as a general conclusion, that the apparent fault line between the Regulations on Religion or Belief and those on Sexual Orientation mostly arises because they have been addressed separately. Whatever we might think of Lord Lester’s Equality Bill, it at least has the merit of handling both within the same framework.
Advice and guidanceOur final concern is that although the ‘religion team’ within the Department of Trade and Industry have made every effort to understand the special needs and characteristics of religious organisations, those responsible for "Equality and Diversity: The way ahead" have given insufficient thought to how best to help churches and religious organisations to get to grips with the implications of the draft Regulations.
Many of these bodies are small and heavily dependent on volunteer labour. They typically lack the resources to employ professional personnel managers. They will need help in understanding the implications of the new Regulations and in reviewing the ethos of their organisation and its personnel policies and practices but their limited income may be insufficient to afford professional fees.
We regret, therefore, that the list of advisory bodies in Annex B includes none with a track record in handling issues relating to religion and belief. Even if it was not intended, this fuels the suspicion that religion has a lower priority in this process than the other equality strands.
We see the pragmatic case for "a single statutory commission to deliver integrated advice, guidance and support across all the equality strands" rather than six commissions. Nevertheless, it will be essential for the new Commission to be seen to be adequately equipped to handle issues of religion and belief as competently and fairly as the rest of the equality agenda.
