Bishop Eric Kemp was a canonist when such practice had yet to become fashionable once more. He was instrumental in the formation of the Ecclesiastical Law Society and served as its President from the creation of the Society until his death on the eve of Advent Sunday in 2009. He was a member of this Journal's Editorial Advisory Board from 1987 until 2002. The first issue of this Journal ran to 34 pages. The only substantive article, taking up more than half of its content, was by Eric Kemp. In celebration of the Silver Jubilee of the Journal and in recognition of its first President's contribution to its establishment and subsequent flourishing, this article is reproduced, lightly updated and annotated by the current Editor, who was pleased and proud to serve as Bishop Kemp's last chancellor in the Diocese of Chichester.1

The relation of religious law to theology is basic to any faith community. In this article, chiefly in terms of Roman Catholicism, but it is hoped of wider application especially within Christianity, the relation of canon law to theology is examined through papal allocutions to the judges and other members of the Church court known as the Roman Rota. There are significant British links to the Rota before and after the Reformation. The 2009 allocution by Benedict XVI is the focus for considering the theological and normative authority of such allocutions. Pius XII has been one of the few canonists to become Pope in modern times, and the co-ordinated set of allocutions from 1945 to 1949 given by him to the Rota is therefore taken as the focus for reflecting on the nature and functions of canon law today. This involves the consideration of both theology and law, including secular law. The ecclesiological character of canon law will emerge as central.

The study of law and religion has exploded around the world. This article, prepared in celebration of the silver jubilee of the Ecclesiastical Law Society, traces the development of law and religion study in the United States. Despite its long tradition of strict separation of Church and state, and despite its long allegiance to legal positivism and intellectual secularisation, the United States has emerged as a world leader of the new interdisciplinary field of law and religion. Hundreds of American scholars, from different confessions and professions, are now at work in this field, and two dozen major research centres and journals have been established at American law schools. After canvassing some of the main themes and trends in American law and religion scholarship today, this article concludes with a brief reflection on some of the main challenges before Christian scholars who work in the field of ecclesiastical law.1

The ecumenical movement seeks to achieve Christian unity through greater visible communion between the separated (or divided) institutional Churches of Christianity worldwide. The practice of ecumenism and ecumenical theology have developed principally at the doctrinal and theological levels. The juridical instruments of Churches have not thus far played a central role in ecumenical discourse – they are occasionally seen as the ‘missing link’ in ecumenism. This article examines for the first time, in a wide comparative compass, the treatment of ecumenism in the juridical instruments of separated Christian traditions and their institutional Churches worldwide. It proposes that these instruments should have a more prominent place in ecumenical practice and theology in so far as they tell us much about the scope of both the commitment of Churches to and their participation in the ecumenical enterprise. Juridical instruments define what ecclesial communion is possible and what is not, either enabling or restricting the development of greater visible communion between separated Churches in the quest for Christian unity. As such, this ‘juridical ecumenism’ offers both a theoretical and a practical framework for the global transformation of ecumenism to complement but not replace the current dominance of the doctrinal and theological focus in contemporary ecumenical method and practice.

This article reviews developments in ecclesiastical case law (interpreted widely) over the 25 years since the Ecclesiastical Law Journal was founded, focusing on four areas, in each of which, in the author's view, there have been significant developments: freedom of religion; the constitution of the Church of England; the protection of listed buildings; liturgy, ritual and doctrine. It notes the role of the Journal in reporting consistory court decisions and thus ensuring greater consistency of decision-making. It concludes by mentioning some of the leading cases in various other areas of ecclesiastical law.

This article considers some of the controversies that have troubled the Anglican Communion during the past 25 years, and some of the approaches that the Churches and central Instruments of the Communion have used to maintain communion in the face of threatened division. In particular, it looks in detail at the terms of the proposed Anglican Covenant, its provenance and its legal significance. It points out the usefulness of the Covenant as a mechanism for resolving disputes between the Churches of the Communion, but questions the assumption that its adoption as, in effect, a contract between the Churches would of itself turn the Communion into a ‘two-tier’ body, or change in a fundamental way the nature of the relationships between the Churches. Finally, it notes that communion between the Churches of the Anglican Communion, with or without the Covenant, consists (as it always has done) in a wide range of relationships at very many different levels, far beyond the central structures of the Communion as they have developed during the last 150 years.

This article examines two interpretations of the process of secularisation that can be traced back through European legal and political thought, and a more recent trend that challenges both of them. It does this through the prism of the public sphere, because in today's Europe one of the most debated issues is the place and role of religion in this sphere, understood as the space where decisions concerning questions of general interest are discussed. The article concludes, first, that the paradigm through which relations between the secular and the religious have been interpreted is shifting and, second, that this change is going to have an impact on the notion of religious freedom and, consequently, on the recognised position of religions in the public sphere.1

This article reviews the exercise of the legislative function of the General Synod of the Church of England over the last 25 years. Beginning with a summary of the principles of synodical government in the Church of England, it goes on to describe the establishment of the Synod, its composition and its functions. The different forms of legal provision available to the Synod in exercise of its legislative function are then considered, followed by an account of the impact of the Human Rights Act, the procedures applicable to the conduct of legislative business and the role of Parliament in the legislative process. After an assessment of the general pattern of synodical legislation over the last 25 years, the main areas of legislative change during that period are reviewed. The article ends with an assessment of possible areas for future legislative activity.

In recent years, the relationship between law and religion has been subject to increased scholarly interest. In part this is the result of new laws protecting religious liberty and non-discrimination, and it may be that overall levels of litigation have increased as well. In all this activity, there are signs that the relationship between law and religion is changing. While unable to address every matter of detail, this article seeks to identify the underlying themes and trends. It starts by suggesting that the constitutional settlement achieved by the end of the nineteenth century has often been overlooked, religion only appearing in the guise of inadequately theorised commitments to individual liberty and equality. The article then considers the role of multiculturalism in promoting recent legal changes. However, the new commitment to multiculturalism cannot explain a number of features of the law: the minimal impact of the Human Rights Act 1998, the uncertain effect of equality legislation, an apparent rise in litigation in established areas of law and religion, and some striking cases in which acts have been found to be unlawful in surprising ways. In contrast, the article proposes a new secularisation thesis. The law is coming to treat religions as merely recreational and trivial. This has the effect of reducing the significance of religion as a matter of conscience, as legal system and as a context for public service. As a way of managing the ever-deepening forms of religious diversity present within the United Kingdom, such a secularisation strategy is implausible.1

In recognition of the Silver Jubilee of the Ecclesiastical Law Society and this Journal, the Comment section in this issue is devoted to some personal reminiscences and reflections from two individuals who were very much involved at the time, and who have subsequently made their own distinctive contribution to the Society and the Journal respectively: Bishop Christopher Hill, the current chairman, and Michael Goodman, founder editor of this Journal.

The European Court of Human Rights has stated that Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights in its religious dimension is not only one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life but also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. In the past 20 years, the Court has been called upon to address the scope and content of the Article in a variety of key cases, involving matters as diverse as proselytism, the grant and refusal of registration of religious bodies, the refusal of authorisations for places of worship and prohibitions on the wearing of religious dress or symbols in public places. The Court's case law has not been without its critics, some complaining that the Court has interpreted Article 9 too narrowly and has given too little weight to the freedom to manifest one's religion in teaching, practice and observance. Others, in contrast, have criticised what they see as the excessive weight given to religion when in conflict with other ECHR rights, notably that of freedom of expression. Still others have charged the Court with failing to interpret Article 9 in such a way as to realise its full potential by not engaging with what is meant by the word ‘religion’. This article considers some of these criticisms, and the need for the Court to strike a balance between the effective protection of individual rights and the need to respect very different constitutional traditions among the Contracting States.1

The recent judgment in Re Holy Trinity Horwich in Manchester Consistory Court raises some interesting questions about the interpretation of mission in the application of the Bishopsgate questions. Thanks to the tests posed by the Bishopsgate questions, arising from the cases of Re St Helen Bishopsgate and Re St Luke the Evangelist Maidstone, the law governing faculty applications requires that the status quo be preserved in cases of church buildings with ‘special architectural and historical interest’ unless outweighed by the ‘necessity’ of ‘the pastoral well-being of the parish or some other compelling reason’.

In the Archbishop of Canterbury's Foreword to the findings of the Anglican Communion Legal Advisers' Network, Rowan Williams argues that law is a way of securing two things for the common good: equity and responsibility. Law is against arbitrariness and for knowing who is responsible for this or that. Law in the Church is also about equitable life in the communion of the Body of Christ and the mutual obligations of our interdependence. As Convenor of the Legal Advisers' Network, Canon John Rees observes that their work, which emerged as The Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion, is not a quick fix to the contemporary problems of the Anglican Communion. Nor is it a covert device for the introduction of a universal canon law for the whole Anglican Communion with an aim to impose covenantal sanctions for churches which do not toe the line.

In recognition of the Silver Jubilee of the Ecclesiastical Law Society and this Journal, the Comment section in this issue is devoted to some personal reminiscences and reflections from two individuals who were very much involved at the time, and who have subsequently made their own distinctive contribution to the Society and the Journal respectively: Bishop Christopher Hill, the current chairman, and Michael Goodman, founder editor of this Journal.

The spat at the 2011 Conservative Party conference between the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor showed how contentious human rights legislation remains. Although Theresa May portrayed the claimant as having won the Article 8 right to remain in Britain because of his relationship with his cat, the judge had simply accepted the cat as one piece of evidence that the claimant had a genuine family life with his partner. The Home Secretary's principal point was that the right to respect for private and family life under section 8.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) should be read in conjunction with section 8.2, which adds that such rights should not be overridden except where it is

The period under review began with a speech by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles to the Cinnamon Network, a faith-based charities group, in which he emphasised the Government's continued financial support and commitment to faith groups, while acknowledging with more than a touch of frustration that they can face barriers in terms of securing funding from local authorities: