PC or not PC isn't the question.

Over the last few weeks the blogger Cranmer has been having a dig at the Church of England and has developed a particular narrative. During the European elections he attacked the House of Bishops for being too pro Europe in a piece entitled The Church must now reconsider its Europhile bent. I won't get into that particular debate as the bishops are more than capable of defending themselves as bishops Pete Broadbent and Nick Baines ably demonstrate.

Today Cranmer published a post entitled Why does the church preach a PC gospel of middle-class respectability? The simple answer is it doesn't. Cranmer's blog post is prompted by a report into the educational challenges facing white working class children and the Church of England's response. I don't know where Cranmer lives or in which church he worships but he is clearly detached from the reality on the ground in white working class parishes up and down the land. Why am I qualified to speak about this? I was born in white working class Kentish Town in 1960 where my father worked as a London City Missioner. I grew up on the streets of white working class Belfast in the mid 1960s. I've lived in Brixton, Hull and Durham. My title post as a priest was in a white working class parish in Thurrock. My second parish was a church plant on a white working class urban overspill housing estate. My third post was on the white working class Becontree Estate in Barking and Dagenham in the 1990s. I am still good friends with parishioners in these places. I have many close friends and colleagues serving as priests in white working class parishes today. They are often the only professionals working and living in these parishes, serving sacrificially and faithfully proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ. What Cranmer describes is a reality I simply do not recognise. The Church of England does not preach the gospel he claims.

What I do recognise is that there are particular challenges regarding the educational under-achievement of children living in some of the most deprived parts of our country and the church takes these very seriously. Cranmer has the grace to acknowledge this in his article. I am glad Cranmer recognises this commitment because through its church schools the Church of England is working hard and dedicating resources in some of the most challenging parts of our communities.

So what is Cranmer's real problem with the Church of England. I think he gives the game away in this revealing line:

While His Grace welcomes this development, he can think of one or two bishops who might find this sort of language a bit Ukippy, not to say BNP-ish or 'racist'. Funny - isn't it - how the Church permits matters of social justice to be determined and developed by ethnic identity, but those policy issues of considerable concern to the working class - such as immigration, housing and employment - may not.

For Cranmer the issue is all about ethnic identity and so he completely misses the point. The Church of England is concerned about the education of white working class children, not because they are white and working class, but because they are children precious in God's sight and deserving of the same life chances as anyone else. The tragedy is that many of these children have struggled generation after generation long before immigration was an issue. I hope and trust that if the report Cranmer refers to had highlighted that children of another ethnicity had been shown to be those struggling most educationally, then we would be committed to addressing those particular needs. The truth is that there are children in other communities, for example some Afro-Caribbean communities, who are also really struggling and the church is just as committed to meeting those needs through its church schools.

It is also wrong of Cranmer to claim the Church of England is not concerned about immigration, housing or employment. If you want to know how concerned the C of E is about housing and unemployment read Faith in the City published in 1985, look at all the work done arising out of that ground breaking report since and the real difference it has made to people's lives, including those from white working class backgrounds. Also check out who was most opposed to that report and you may be surprised to discover it was Cranmer's political party. So much for being concerned about white working class people.

Finally, we come to immigration. The Church of England is concerned about immigration as am I. I am particularly concerned about the way we seek to scapegoat and blame the other for the ills of our society; pandering to prejudice; stirring up hatred; fostering resentment and pretending that if only we could keep x, y and z out then all our troubles would be over. What Cranmer is concerned about is not that the Church of England isn't concerned about immigration but that it isn't concerned in the way that he wants it to be. Well, here's an example of how we have got into a mess as a society over immigration.

The Diocese of Chelmsford is linked with several Anglican dioceses in Kenya. We take groups of curates there regularly and greatly value our partnership. We are amazed at the welcome, hospitality and generosity of our brothers and sisters in Kenya, giving so much often from so little. This year we are holding a year of mission and outreach in our diocese and as part of that we invited a group of Kenyan Christians, including some ordinands, to come and share with us in mission during June and July. All of the ordinands invited have had their visas turned down and only two women invited have been granted visas. These people are not a risk to our country, they are not going to seek residence here because they are called to ministry in their own country. We wanted them to join us as our guests. Yet, despite all the assurances given and appeals for common sense to prevail, visas have still been refused. And so the Church of England in our diocese will be impoverished because of the pernicious application of rules which suggest we are a country that trades hostility for hospitality, rejection for welcome and suspicion for generosity out of fear. Of course the Church of England is concerned about immigration!

The Church of England is concerned about issues that affect all the people who live in our parishes and we address those issues day in and day out. That is not about being PC, it is about proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ to all people, whatever their ethnicity.

I could not bear being in my own head...

A few days ago Katharine Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury's daughter, wrote on her blog about her ongoing struggle with depression. Her blog post Hopeful Depression was picked up by the media and this morning BBC Breakfast ran a short piece in which Katharine speaks about her depression and what has helped her to cope. A powerful statement about the illness and a challenge to the church in how we support those facing this daily struggle. As Katharine wrote:

The church is the place where hope can be found, but this is only possible if the church is willing to accept that life is not always rosy. The stigma around mental health illness – of any kind, must be eradicated. The bible is full of people who screw up, who get miserable, angry, who hurt and who weep. Even Jesus, in the garden of Gethsemane found life a little too much to bear and pleaded with God.

 

Prophetic painting

This picture was painted by Alan Storkey over a year ago and the background to it is described by Alan’s son Caleb on his blog. I love Caleb’s description of the way his dad would turn the tables on Sky spam callers. I doubt if Alan, like most of us, can believe the speed with which the whole empire has begun to come crashing down around the feet of this latter day Ozymandias and his clan.

I posted some reflections on the News International and phone hacking scandal a few days ago in a post entitled The Thunderer Whimpers.

With thanks to Caleb for permission to post the painting.

Last one out turn off the light.

It’s been a strange time in the blogosphere as one by one my favourite blogs have disappeared or at least gone a bit quiet, except for a certain Archdruid. It reminds me of one of those Dr Who episodes in which the stars go out leaving a black void in the night sky. I’m not surprised. After an intense period of blogging people are taking a rest and I think I’ll join them.

My own blog output has diminished in recent weeks due to pressure of work. Not so much lack of time to blog but lack of time to reflect which is the prep for blogging; to be honest I’m just too knackered. This is what I expected having taken up a new role and needing to get up to speed with the organisational and administrative aspects of the job alongside the mission/ministry/vision stuff which I love. The most productive time for chewing over a possible blog post is walking the dog but that is also a good time to mull over a sermon. So I’m really acknowledging what has already begun to happen. I’ll post occasionally over the summer and see how things stand after the holidays.

Thanks to all those who read my ramblings and especially to those who take the time to interact through comments, Twitter and Facebook. I stand by all I’ve said about the importance of digital communication and social media networking in the life of the church but in the words of Lili Von Shtupp from Blazing Saddles ‘I’m Tired’.

Signing the Gospel

This post was inspired by an initial misreading of a post from the Archdruid over at the Beaker Folk blog. The good lady had written a piece about her experience of worship at a church service yesterday and her bafflement at why they sang rather than read the Gospel. I thought the post was called ‘signing the Gospel’ rather than ‘singing the Gospel’. You can read her musings for yourself.

I want to say a big thank you to all those who give their time, gifts and energies to serving the deaf communities of our parishes through the ministry of Signing. I have over the last few years been involved in training for lay and ordained ministry those who have a particular calling to this ministry and they have challenged and enriched the wider body of staff and students through this distinct vocation. Part of my role with Chelmsford diocese involved planning various major celebration and licensing services in the cathedral and we always made sure the preacher submitted a text well in advance for the signers to work with.

All the main events at Spring Harvest are signed by a fantastic team from Signs of God who make the worship and teaching more accessible for our deaf sisters and brothers. I sometimes sit with the signers in my sight line and am fascinated by way they interpret the speaker. +Pete Broadbent once set the signers a demanding task as he launched into a discourse with some heavy theological phrases around the theme of eschatology during his Bible readings. The signers coped brilliantly  and I’m tempted to say they made it more intelligible for me but I might want a ministry gig in Willesden one day so I will say no more.

Yesterday we celebrated Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the rich diverse multitude of people gathered in Jerusalem (Acts 2). One feature of that great event was that people of different tongues understood the disciples’ preaching in their own language. Signers have a Pentecost ministry as they enable those they serve to hear/see the Good News of Jesus Christ in their own tongue. I’m not sure what I think about singing the Gospel rather than reading it in worship but signing the Gospel is an essential work for the Kingdom of God.

Rowan round up

I delayed blogging about the Archbishop of Canterbury’s editorial in the New Statesman because I wanted to read what he had actually written and then I wanted to wait for the dust to settle after all the  ludicrous coverage in press, broadcast media and blogosphere. Now several acutely observed pieces have been published on the subject and rather than repeat what has been said much better by others I want to draw attention to those I found most helpful.

The Church Mouse did an excellent job of examining what Rowan had written compared with the reporting from The Telegraph who broke/hyped the ‘story’. Mouse has also posted the five silliest things said about the issue.

Graham Tomlin has pointed out that the attention given to the Archbishop suggest that the voice of a Christian leader in the public sphere is still important.

Nick Baines argues that when the feeding frenzy around ++Rowan’s words has died down then the more reflective will realise that the Archbishop is raising questions and challenges we need to address as a society.

Giles Fraser also argues that ‘the voice of the theologian is back in the public square’ while suggesting that the attention given to the Archbishop is because of the paucity of argument coming from the political opposition. Giles and the others have pointed out that ++Rowan’s critique of government is also a critique of the political argument in general.

My own additional comment is that I’ve been disappointed in those Christians, including some bloggers, who have taken the line that ++Rowan has no right to speak because they don’t like what’s happening over other matters in the Church of England and Anglican Communion. This suggests that these commentators are so blinkered in their outlook that everything is brought back to their own issues and they cannot help but see all through the prism of their agendas. The Archbishop is speaking out for the poor, marginalised and fearful in our communities and I would have thought that was a cause to support rather than sneer at or score petty party points over.

Phone box or mobile?

There was a very interesting observation made at a church leadership conference last week which I picked up via a re-tweet from Pete Phillips on Twitter:

We are standing at the phone kiosk in the age of the mobile phone.

This powerful image has been buzzing round my head for the last few days and triggering all sorts of thoughts. I realise that the image relates to the church’s relationship with modernity and post modernity, however, one thing in particular occurs to me and it is linked in with the season of Lent. In the lead up to Ash Wednesday I noticed several people on both Twitter and Facebook saying they would be giving up using these social media networks for Lent. The question that this raises for me is:

Do we still regard social media networks as optional, a luxury and an indulgence even, or are they an essential aspect of communication and community in the culture we inhabit?

This is a serious question because my impression is that many in the church still regard forms of digital communication as an add on, something extra that can be engaged with or not as a matter of personal preference.  I am amazed at how many people regard me as an oddity as a blogging, tweeting member of the clergy. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve had to preface comments in a meeting with an explanation of the main forums for social networking because people have that blank expression of incomprehension on their faces.

I understand why some are still suspicious of social media networks and forms of digital communication. I appreciate the reasons why some have decided to disengage for a period of time. Blogging can become an obsession; more about the blogger and their status, influence and statistics, than about what is being communicated or discussed. Twitter can come across as another form of displacement activity. There is a danger that Facebook looks like any other forum for frittering time away, gossiping and, sadly, even cruel bullying. I recognise that some people can become so caught up in their online relationships that they are in danger of ignoring those they are in physical community with, including family and friends.

Yet, these criticisms are not about the medium, they are about the uses to which these networks are put by the user. Why have people not considered giving up speaking, listening, reading and writing for forty days? Are the only valid forms of enrichment and refreshment during Lent verbal face to face contact and pre internet forms of communication and cultural expression? The questions sound flippant but they are sincere.

Proportional propaganda

I’ve been mulling over a blog post about the way in which Christians participate in debates online. This evening the MP Tom Harris, who has sadly stopped blogging, tweeted the following suggestion:

How about instead of accusing someone of being a "denier", you just point out that they disagree with you?

Tom hits the nail on the head about the tone of much public debate. Those who disagree with the government’s current economic policy are labelled ‘deficit deniers’; their opposition must mean that they refuse to recognise the state of the economy rather than that they might be offering an alternative solution. This is where we are with political discourse at the moment and it’s depressing.

What is even more depressing is that some Christians seem to be slipping into the same approach when discussing matters close to their heart. If you take a more traditional approach to issues of human sexuality you can easily find yourself labelled ‘homophobic’. If you take a more liberal approach then you are in danger of being dismissed as ‘unbiblical’.

The campaigns for and against the Anglican Covenant also play this game, pumping out a constant message in support of their cause and often caricaturing the position of opponents. The quality of the debate is therefore debased because people don’t listen to each other or engage with serious points made and issues raised. I followed the debate on the Anglican Covenant at General Synod and found myself exasperated by the contributions of some of the live online reporting. The line between informed commentary and misrepresentation was far too frequently crossed in support of one side of the argument.

But the most concerning example has been the conduct of the debate over the Alternative Vote referendum. I don’t need to go into details about some of the most recent contributions to this debate, the Church Mouse and Pete Phillips have both done an excellent job of summarising key issues for Christians. However, I have found myself increasingly wound up by the tactics of some contributors to the debate. It seems that blatant misrepresentation of opponents and the perpetual pushing of an argument without engaging with the concerns of others are regarded as legitimate tactics.

Here’s a definition of propaganda that I find quite useful:

Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.

As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further an agenda.

My question is this: At what point does robust debate and forthright argument become blatant propaganda?

I would offer this thought in considering the question. The method of winning an argument reveals a great deal about the merit of the argument and those employing the method.

Update: Very helpful contribution to the 'Christians and the AV' debate from +Alan Wilson. I'm also grateful to Dr Bex Lewis, for her link to other definitions of propaganda.

Personal or Professional?

An interesting issue has arisen for me about the character and purpose of my blog. On Sunday it was announced that I will be returning to parish ministry and I immediately noticed a large increase in traffic to my blog based on Google searches. I’m fairly sure much of this traffic is from future parishioners so I had a bit of a panic and quickly checked recent posts to make sure I had not said anything I was going to regret. The post about my random album with a naked woman on the front cover caused a slight wobble, but my wife thought it tasteful so I figured there was not a problem.

However, this has made me think about the purpose of my blog and how I will use it in the future. I’ve already noticed that almost subconsciously I post less about my family and tend to keep that information for my Facebook page where there is more control over access. I also notice that I have been putting up more work related posts, particularly in connection with Bible Year 2011. Nevertheless, my blog is still a place where I can fire off my own reflections and observations, not just about faith but about football, culture, politics and whatever else happens to catch my attention.

So the question is this:

Do I keep my blog for my personal thoughts and opinions and roll out a separate blog related to my parish ministry? Or do I merge the two together?

I can see strengths and weaknesses with both approaches and notice that blogging colleagues have taken different stances. I don’t want to lose the character of my blog, such as it is, but I will want to post material related to my work in the parish that may be of little interest to a wider readership. Yet, there is likely to be a certain amount of overlap in material and there may well be things relating to our specific parish context that resonate further afield. 

Thoughts please…

Any excuse!

Happy New Year 2011

‘In this the love of God was revealed among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him’.

1 John 4:9

Almighty God,

in Christ you make all things new;

transform the poverty of our nature

by the riches of your grace,

and in the renewal of our lives

make known your heavenly glory;

through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Not very original but a classic.

May you know God's peace and blessing throughout the year ahead.

20 for 2011

Grateful to The Church Mouse for including me in his blog list. I thought I’d mention twenty of the blogs I regularly read and others might find of interest in 2011. They are in alphabetical order.

1. Always Hope
2. The Banksyboy Brief
3. Between
4. Beaker Folk of Husborne Crawley
5. Big Bible
6. Bishop Alan’s Blog
7. The Cartoon Blog
8. Chrisendom
9. The Church Mouse Blog
10. Clayboy
11. Elizaphanian
12. Here Goes
13. Lesley’s Blog
14. Maggi Dawn
15. New Kid on the Block
16. Nick Baines’s Blog
17. Off The Post
18. Postmodernbible
19. Re-vis.e Re-form
20. The Ugley Vicar

And some absent friends. Those who have stopped blogging or have become very infrequent this year.

1. St Aidan to Abbey Manor (David Keen took a sabbatical and enjoyed it so much he stopped for good)
2. The Journey Home (Paul Trathen became Chaplain to Bishop of Chelmsford and called it a day)
3. The Friends Meeting House (Tim Goodbody more Facebook than blogger now)

Head down and mouth shut

Anyone involved in leadership in public ministry knows there are times when a decision has to be made that may seem on the surface to be wrong, unfair or unpopular. I can think of times in the parish and in my current training role, for example, when I have had to ask someone to step back or step down from ministry. It may be that the person’s personal or family circumstances have changed, or that they have done something which compromises their ability to minister or that they are suffering ill health, there are plenty of reasons. For the individual’s benefit and for the well being of the wider church a decision is taken.

The problem is that for very good pastoral reasons it may not be appropriate for others to know why the person has been withdrawn. To the congregation, parishioners or their colleagues in training, the action may appear arbitrary and unjust. I’ve known the frustration of seeing action taken against someone and feeling it has been unreasonable, though I may not have been appraised of the full facts. But I’ve also had to take action and keep my mouth shut, even when people are accusing me of being unreasonable at best or a ‘little Hitler’ to quote a more extreme response. I’ve wanted to say to the critic, ‘well if you knew this then you wouldn’t be saying that’ but I can’t and I won’t because it might be very damaging to the individual concerned. This is one of the responsibilities and challenges of leadership in ministry.

I learnt an important lesson early in ministry. When I was a curate and someone asked me something difficult or a challenging situation arose, I had the fall back position of saying ‘ask the vicar’. When I became a vicar I discovered that sometimes I had to say no or to make a hard choice, even if it made me unpopular. I could give plenty of examples but I won’t because it would not be appropriate. Those of you in positions of leadership can fill in the blanks.

So the next time I see a senior colleague, say a bishop in the metropolis, taking flak over a decision or a course of action and my temptation is to fire up the computer and express my righteous indignation in blog or tweet, I hope I can take a moment to remember the times I’ve been on the receiving end. It’s hard to keep one’s head down and mouth shut rather than indulge in bouts of self justification but that’s part of the job.

Bloggers Live!

I’ve now finalised the programme for our diocesan Lent and Eastertide Schools for 2011. I’m delighted to say that several eminent bloggers will be contributing to the programme. Although the Bible is an intrinsic part of our education and training programmes, for next year I have tried to include courses that link in with Bible Year 2011. Here’s a taster:

Maggi Dawn: The Writing on the Wall
2011 is the 400th anniversary of the publication of The King James Version of the Bible. But just how well do we understand the Bible, and its relationship to our culture? Maggi Dawn, author of The Writing on the Wall, will show how art, music, poetry, sculpture and film have been influenced by the Bible far more than we usually realize. But the arts do more than merely illustrate bible stories and characters: they also open up possibilities for interpretation. This day will open up some of the theological and devotional adventures that become possible when the riches of the Bible are recognized within the world of the arts, and offer all kinds of inspiration, for teaching, preaching and personal spiritual growth.

Elizaphanian (Sam Norton): The New Atheism
Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, A.C. Grayling… The aim of this module is to familiarise students with the main arguments and methods of the “New Atheists”, to understand where they stand in intellectual history, and to have renewed understanding of - and confidence in - the classical Christian intellectual tradition. Sam has blogged about his course here.

The Ugley Vicar (John Richardson): Revelation
Who's afraid of the book of Revelation? This course aims to show that Revelation is really not that difficult to understand, once we grasp the overall structure and see how it uses imagery from the Old Testament to address the situation of the Church in every age. The focus will be on teaching through the whole book, with an emphasis on interpretation and application. All you will need is a notebook and a Bible. John Richardson is the author of Revelation Unwrapped, and has been teaching the book of Revelation to church groups and courses for over fifteen years.

Phil's Treehouse (Phil Ritchie), Between (Jon Evens) & The Journey Home (Paul Trathen): Living the Story
Tom Wright has described the Bible as being like a five act play containing the first four acts in full (i.e. 1. Creation, 2. Fall, 3. Israel, 4. Jesus) and the writing of the New Testament as forming the first scene in the fifth act and also giving hints of how the play is supposed to end. We are then called to live in this story improvising our part in the play on the basis of what we know of the story so far and the hints we have of how it will end.  Living the Story is something that Christian artists and writers have tried to do throughout Church history and continue to do today. In this course we will be examining a selection of contemporary uses of the Bible and the Christian story in popular culture and considering whether or not they can be said to be 'living the story’.


For details about dates, times and venues of courses go to Lent Schools 2011 and Eastertide Schools 2011 for the full programme. Contact details for booking at Lent and Easter schools 2011.

Stop the Traffik

I read an interesting post by The Church Mouse earlier today. Mouse writes about one of the clergy who provided the inspiration behind the REV TV series.  According to a report in the Evening Standard the Rev Paul Turp is supporting a campaign to keep open lapdancing clubs in his parish, in the face of Hackney council’s ‘nil policy’ on such establishments.

I don’t know all the facts on the ground about this story and inevitably many press reports will present the story in the most sensationalist of terms. However, I am concerned about any impression or suggestion that lapdancing and strip clubs are harmless. The Revd Turp is quoted as saying:

I would prefer if it didn't happen, but Hackney council cannot impose a moral code on it citizens, it can only impose a criminal code. I've been here for 27 years and there have been no problems. They are not dodgy, back-street places where people are getting ripped off. They are well run and the council has done a good job at licensing them…

There are much bigger social problems that destroy communities for the council to be concentrating on than lapdancing clubs..

I’m not sure what is meant by there being ‘no problems’. The exploitation and degradation of women is a problem. The idea that women are commodities to be enjoyed for the cost of a tenner slipped in a G-string is a problem. The impact of the sex and pornography industries on our communities is a problem. A society in which 31 London councils have seen an increase in rape during 2010, while conviction rates remain pathetically low, has a problem. Eastern European women being enticed or forced to work in lap dancing and strip clubs across Europe including in the U.K. is a problem. Men, women and children being trafficked and traded across the world for the warped gratification of others is a problem.

Stop The Traffik is a growing global movement of individuals, communities and organisations fighting to PREVENT the sale of people, PROTECT the trafficked and PROSECUTE the traffickers. Those trafficked include those deceived or taken against their will, bought, sold and transported into slavery for sexual exploitation, sweat shops, child brides, circuses, sacrificial worship, forced begging, sale of human organs, farm labour, domestic servitude.

Now that’s a campaign well worth supporting.

Muslims - compare and contrast

I was appalled at the attack on MP Stephen Timms by Roshonara Choudhry during a constituency surgery earlier this year. This week Ms Choudhry was found guilty of attempted murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 15 years. Mr Timms is MP for East Ham in the Chelmsford Diocese and is well known for his Christian faith as well as being a hard working MP and former Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the last Labour government.

I’ve followed the events around the stabbing and subsequent trial with interest, not least because of the sensitive issues the case touches on with regard to faith and community relations in East London. Many of my friends and colleagues work very hard as ministers to foster good relations and positive dialogue against a backdrop of incessant rabble rousing by the BNP and other extremist groups. They are not naive about the problems associated with the radicalisation of young Muslims, however, they are greatly disturbed by the stereotyping and scape-goating that would characterise Muslims as the cause of all the ills facing local communities.

Today the papers and blogs are full of details and comments about the case and the content is all too predictable. To highlight the problem here are two examples of blogs commenting on the case and how it has been handled.

Cranmer has been clear about his reading of both the trial and the behaviour of Ms Choudhry and her supporters. Here is a flavour of his comments:

At the sentencing of Roshonara Choudhry, the trainee teacher who attempted to murder Stephen Timms MP, the public gallery erupted with cries of 'Allahu akbar' ('God is great'), 'British go to hell' and 'Curse the judge'.

Quite why they were not immediately arrested for contempt of court is unknown.

Praising their God in a court of law?
Just about acceptable.

Passing opinion on the limited soteriological options of the British?
Well, it might be ‘racist’, but we’ll call it ‘freedom of expression’.

But ‘Curse the judge’? How did that pass without immediate intervention by the Judge?

Miss Choudhry appeared by video-link because she 'refused to accept the jurisdiction of the court'. Why was this permitted? Are all ‘citizens’ of the UK granted this option? Are we not all subjects of Her Majesty, and therefore all subject to the Crown in Court, on whose behalf the Judge presides and dispenses the Queen’s Justice for the maintenance of the Queen's Peace? More 

Contrast Cranmer’s account with that of Minority Thought commenting on press coverage of the same events:

The front page and main story of today's Daily Express is a clear and unsubtle attempt at maintaining the "us and them" mentality which is so often levelled by that paper against Muslims:

MUSLIMS TELL BRITISH: GO TO HELL

The headline refers to the shouts from "a group of men" (according to the Mail) who were sitting in the public gallery during the trial of Roshonara Choudhry, the woman convicted of stabbing Stephen Timms MP earlier this year.

Rather than leading with the story at hand, the sentencing of Choudhry to "life" imprisonment, the Express has chosen to focus on the deranged rantings of a few nutcases in a courtroom instead. Both the Daily Mail and The Sun have also gone with this angle, but neither has chosen to put it across in as brazen a way as the Express.

That there are Muslim extremists who say such things is beyond a doubt. However, the Express' decision to make this the key focus of the story, along with the language used in the headline, is an attempt to imply that these shouts are in some way an expression of what every Muslims thinks about the British.

Can you imagine, for example, what the Express would have done if the men who broke into shouts of "Go to hell, Britain" were Christians? Would the Express have replaced "Muslims" with "Christians" in the headline? Would they even have mentioned it so prominently in the first place? More

Now I am not for a moment dismissing or diminishing the real problems of extremism, violence and terrorism. My family come from Belfast; I grew up there in the mid 1960s and regularly visited family there throughout the troubles. Yet, despite the generalised picture created by media coverage of blood splattered streets, I learnt from personal experience that not all Catholics were out to murder me in my bed and not all Protestants were frothing at the mouth preachers of hate.

What concerns me is the narrative slant that commentators choose to give to particular stories concerning matters of great sensitivity like the Choudhry case. What is it that these commentators are hoping to achieve? What attitudes are they seeking to foster in their readers? What reaction are they hoping to elicit? What values underpin the choice of their words and presentation of the story?

In recent years we have run a course in the diocese as part of our Lent and Eastertide Schools. Living With Other Faiths helps people explore why we should engage with other faith communities and how we can go about doing so. The course objectives are to identify biblical principles for engaging with other faith communities; to develop an understanding of the beliefs and sensitivity to the practises of other faiths; to consider a range of ways of engaging with other faith communities and to identify particular approaches appropriate to participants’ situations.

Approaches like Living With Other Faiths may be dismissed by some, sadly including some Christians, as a typical P.C. response to the issues raised by our multi-faith society. I prefer to see it as just one of many positive responses to our calling as Christians to seek the common good.

Grant, O God, that your holy and life-giving Spirit may so
move every human heart [and especially the hearts of the
people of this land], that barriers which divide us may
crumble, suspicions disappear, and hatreds cease; that our
divisions being healed, we may live in justice and peace;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Who’s the Nazi?

The Pope had hardly landed in the country and opened his mouth and the secularist and atheist commentariat were up in arms. This is the line from Benedict  XVI’s speech at Holyrood Palace that caused so much offence:

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” (Caritas in Veritate, 29).

In minutes the offended issued their rebuttals. The British Humanist Association responded with:

The notion that it was the atheism of Nazis that led to their extremist and hateful views or that it somehow fuels intolerance in Britain today is a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God. The notion that it is non-religious people in the UK today who want to force their views on others, coming from a man whose organisation exerts itself internationally to impose its narrow and exclusive form of morality and undermine the human rights of women, children, gay people and many others, is surreal.

Of course the high priest of atheism, Richard Dawkins, could be counted on to go in to full rant mode, which he did both in his speech at the Protest the Pope rally and on his website where he accused the Pope of being the enemy of humanity. Highlights include:

Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, was respected by some as a saintly man. But nobody could call Benedict XVI saintly and keep a straight face. Whatever this leering old fixer may be, he is not saintly. Is he intellectual? Scholarly? That is often claimed, although it is far from clear what there is in theology to be scholarly about. Surely nothing to respect.

At first I was annoyed by the Pope’s disgraceful attack on atheists and secularists, but then I saw it as reassuring. It suggests that we have rattled them so much that they have to resort to insulting us, in a desperate attempt to divert attention from the child rape scandal.
It would be unkind to prolong this point, but Ratzinger’s speech in Edinburgh on Thursday was so disgraceful, so hypocritical, so redolent of the sound of stones hurled from within a glass house, I felt that I had to reply.

Joseph Ratzinger is an enemy of humanity.

He is an enemy of children, whose bodies he has allowed to be raped and whose minds he has encouraged to be infected with guilt. It is embarrassingly clear that the church is less concerned with saving child bodies from rapists than with saving priestly souls from hell: and most concerned with saving the long-term reputation of the church itself.

He is an enemy of gay people, bestowing on them the sort of bigotry that his church used to reserve for Jews.

He is an enemy of women – barring them from the priesthood as though a penis were an essential tool for pastoral duties. What other employer is allowed to discriminate on grounds of sex, when filling a job that manifestly doesn’t require physical strength or some other quality that only males might be thought to have?

He is an enemy of truth, promoting barefaced lies about condoms not protecting against AIDS, especially in Africa.

He is an enemy of the poorest people on the planet, condemning them to inflated families that they cannot feed, and so keeping them in the bondage of perpetual poverty. A poverty that sits ill with the obscene riches of the Vatican.

He is an enemy of science, obstructing vital stem-cell research, on grounds not of morality but of pre-scientific superstition.

Less seriously from my point of view, Ratzinger is even an enemy of the Queen’s own church, arrogantly endorsing a predecessor's dissing of Anglican Orders as “absolutely null and utterly void”, while shamelessly trying to poach Anglican vicars to shore up his own pitifully declining priesthood.

Finally, perhaps of most personal concern to me, he is an enemy of education. Quite apart from the lifelong psychological damage caused by the guilt and fear that have made catholic education infamous throughout the world, he and his church foster the educationally pernicious doctrine that evidence is a less reliable basis for belief than faith, tradition, revelation and authority – his authority.

Amidst the general offense taking, ranting and abuse there were some who offered considered commentary and reflection. On the meaning of the Pope’s comment is this from Andrew Brown in The Guardian: Pope Benedict XVI was talking about the Nazis, not Richard Dawkins, where he makes the following observations:

We're not used to Germans coming here to talk about the war, so many people have jumped to entirely the wrong conclusion about Pope Benedict's attack on atheist extremism. He didn't mean us. He didn't even mean Richard Dawkins. He was talking about the Nazis, who, he said "wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live."

For him, a nation that turns away from God entirely has nothing to keep it from treating people as disposable means, rather than ends in themselves. The liberal appeal to reason, to choice, and to human rights doesn't go far enough. He believes in all three, but he thinks they must be derived from something else. That something else was once generally understood to be Christianity. If that is no longer true, Benedict believes we are all shrunken and impoverished: "Let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a 'reductive vision of the person and his destiny'."

So he believes that what gave Britain the strength to resist nazism was its long Christian heritage, in which the powerful and effective were animated by their faith.

Where secularists see religion as a divisive force, and their own beliefs as the self-evident and true base on which a healthy society can be built, Benedict sees that secularism itself can be challenged. Human rights are not self-evident. What rights we have depend on what kind of people that we think we are, and that is exactly the kind of question which social change and multiculturalism sharpen. It's not a question to which there is any agreed answer in Britain today.

The second piece is a comment on Dawkins’ response to the Pope and comes from Stuart Sharpe on his blog Sharpe’s Opinion. Stuart writes as an atheist but his critique of Dawkins is devastating. Here are a few excerpts and the whole post is worth a read:

I watched this video of Richard Dawkins speaking at the ‘Protest the Pope’ rally with a mixture of disappointment, alarm and brewing anger. Disappointment at the way he failed utterly to use reason, or logic, or rationality in his speech, preferring instead emotive platitudes and fallacious diatribes. Alarm at the crowd of protesters cheering his every sentence, reserving their loudest jeering for his portrayals of the Pope as ‘an enemy’, and for his characterisation of ‘them’ as running scared from ‘us’. Brewing anger at the way the name ‘atheist’, which I have identified with ever since I first heard it, has been dragged through the mud over the last weekend by both the Pope’s ridiculous taunting and by Dawkins’ brawling mob of ‘secular humanists’ or whatever it is they’re calling themselves now.

When the Pope told us, during his overly-expensive-but-otherwise-mostly-harmless State Visit, that Hitler was an atheist and secularism is the root cause of the Holocaust, my first reaction was to laugh. I mean, Hitler? Really? Obviously, it’s unlikely the Pope’s ever been on a Usenet discussion group (though HM The Queen was sending email in 1976, so anything’s possible) but have none of his speechwriters, helpers, aides or support staff ever heard of Godwin’s Law? Whether Hitler was an atheist or not makes no odds, so apart from a little light ridicule, who gives a damn?

Apparently Dawkins does. Not only that, but he’s hell-bent on proving to you that Hitler not only wasn’t an atheist, Hitler was a Catholic. He devotes some five minutes of his speech to this – nearly half of the video. It’s still utterly fallacious; still pathetically stupid, still pretty much playground debating (‘you’re a Nazi!’ ‘No,you’re a Nazi!’) but nevertheless, the crowd aren’t saying ‘now hang on a minute’, they’re going bonkers for it. Yeah! The Pope’s a Nazi! And a kiddy fiddler! Woo!

Is it merely the existence of religion which so gets his goat? I’m as versed as anyone in the atrocities carried out in the name of religions, but is Dawkins really so certain, so absolutely sure, that religion itself is the very root of these problems, rather than merely being itself a symptom of a deeper problem with humanity? If Dawkins really believes that atrocities like the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, the Holocaust, the 9/11 attacks or the abuse of children by figures of trust and authority couldn’t possibly have happened without religion, where is his evidence for this? He does believe in the need for evidence, doesn’t he?

And yet looking at Dawkins now, I see not a defender of rationality, not a beacon of light in an dangerous world of faith-based stupidity. I’ve begun to see a figurehead of a new and somewhat sinister religion. One which cares not at all about those genuinely positive things which have come from faith on a personal or global level. One which isn’t interested in introspection, or analysing the faults in the arguments on which it is based. One which is built on a foundation of hatred towards the members of all other religions, which is willing to persecute Catholics on the basis of atrocities they didn’t commit, and which sees all of this as a battle between ‘us’, the enlightened forces of good, and ‘them’, the irredeemably evil ones. The enemy.

I don’t know what that is, and I don’t know what to call it, but I’m certain that it isn’t the atheism I grew up with.Star Wars seems to be about as close to a religion as the people I’m closest to have ever had, and strangely enough I feel like Star Wars has a lesson which can be applied here – Anakin Skywalker fell from grace because he began to hate, and to see others as his enemy. This sermon could end on no better note than with the words of Master Yoda – “fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate; hate, leads to suffering.”

From where I’m sitting, Dawkins already seems to have lead us to hate. I dearly hope that’s as far as his new crusaders go.

The Pope’s visit was bound to stir up emotions. I had serious reservations and believe there are legitimate questions to ask about the nature of the visit and about the conduct and teaching of the Roman Catholic church under the present Pope and indeed his predecessor. But one thing the Pope’s visit has achieved is to highlight the fallacy that some of religion’s most vociferous opponents are either rational or enlightened in their opposition.

Update: I missed Andrew Brown's excellent follow up article on the subject: Pope Benedict and Nazism.  Here's a taste:

To recruit the unimaginable and almost incredible horrors of the twentieth century into the service of internet flame wars is a kind of blasphemy against humanity. Shouting "nyah nyah, Hitler was on your team!" is pissing on the corpses – or the ashes – of the dead.

Anyone seriously thinking on how to derive their morals from their beliefs must of course work out how it is that their own beliefs and morals are incompatible with totalitarianism. To that extent the pope must always conclude that true belief in God is incompatible with Nazism; and Bertrand Russell would have to conclude that true humanism was. But this exercise is necessary precisely becasue neither atheism nor faith in themselves protect us from inhumanity. No one should take the apparently logical next step and conclude that those who disagree with us theologically are therefore morally inferior or closer to evil. Certainly no Christian should, who believes in the reality of sin.

Andrew had to switch off the comments on his column 'for obvious reasons' which tells us all we need to know about some of the vitriol doing the rounds on the subject.

Pope spam

Today the Pope has sent a message to the people of Great Britain. You can read the full text here and the Church Mouse has posted about it on his blog.

However, this morning I also received another message related to the Pope’s visit. The message popped into my office inbox and informed me:

Within 2 weeks from now the Holy Father will visit the UK! Looking forward intently to these historic days? Extraordinary and affordable bespoke religious articles will help you to commemorate the Pope’s visit and to enhance your living faith and devotion. Go to the official UK Papal Visit on-line store to order your bespoke religious gifts and rosaries.

A quick glance at the items on offer didn’t exactly entice me; I don’t want a cup with Cardinal Newman’s mug on it, nor an essential, yet bespoke, handmade, glass rosary and I’m not really in the market for a ‘hot items’ spiritual bracelet.

I was intrigued to discover that my work colleagues had also received this message from Stadelmaier Italia purporting to be the ‘official merchandise exclusive supplier’ for the Pope’s visit. Now this email was unsolicited, sent to multiple recipients pushing commercial products and by any reasonable definition therefore qualifies as spam. So I’m afraid it now resides in my junk e-mail folder alongside other emails offering me the delights of viagra, dodgy financial schemes and other products promising to improve my performance. I’m not really sure that’s the company the Pope wants to keep but then I remember Jesus did spend his time amongst dodgy tax collectors and sinners.

Pickfords – the sequel

Yesterday I wrote a post about the unpleasant experience of a clergy family using Pickfords for their recent move. Today I am pleased to post the following comment that was left on my blog by a representative of the company:

My name is Charmaine Watts, I am responsible for Customer Service at Pickfords.

I noted with concern, your blog and the photographs that have been posted onto Twitter by our customer. On behalf of Pickfords, I apologise unreservedly for the incident, it was the individual failing of one person within our organization and is not representative of the service we deliver to thousands of families on the move each year.

I did not hear of the concern from the Reverend directly, but we have reacted quickly to your blog and have investigated the case this morning and interviewed the crew.

We were very disappointed with the conduct displayed by the concerned individual who has been immediately suspended for gross misconduct pending investigation and formal disciplinary action.

I will make contact with the Reverend directly to extend my personal apologies for this regrettable incident.

It is good to see the company responding so promptly and interesting to note that they monitor Twitter and the blogosphere. I wait to hear if their unhappy customers receive the promised apology and some appropriate recompense.

7 links challenge

A few days ago The Church Mouse posted his response to the 7 Links Challenge and I was amazed to discover that he had mentioned one of my posts, having a punt, in his response. Anyway, I though I’d take up the challenge and have a go.

1. Your first post – My first post was entitled Lawnmower Reflections and explained the title of my previous blog. Sadly, for me if for no one else, the blog is no longer accessible so I can’t link to it. From memory I explained how the title was prompted by the fact that I seem to do my most creative thinking while mowing the lawn (so not very often) and that one of my favourite Genesis songs contains the classic line: ‘Me I’m just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk’ (Genesis: I Know What I Like from Selling England By the Pound). The first post on this blog was called Moving Home.

2. A post you enjoyed writing the most – I didn’t enjoy writing this post but it came together in the way I wanted it to and had the impact on some readers that I had intended. A tale of two homecomings contrasts the return of the failed England World Cup Squad with the arrival home on the same day of the bodies of seven soldiers from Afghan. I wept as I wrote it and several people commented that it had the same effect on them.

3. A post which had a great discussion – I try not to let outrage drive my blogging but with this post I couldn’t help it. UKBA Christmas Card was my response to the outrageous Christmas card sent out by the Border Agency boasting about their work in 2009. It was just plain offensive and a complete contradiction of what Christmas is about. I had a huge number of hits and many links from other sites, both Christian and secular. My blood still boils when I think about that card.

4. A post on someone else's blog that you wish you'd written – There is so much excellent material out there and I am continually challenged and inspired by other people’s blogging. However, I have gone for someone who does something I could never do. Dave Walker is a cartoonist responsible for the Cartoon Blog, as well as drawing for the Church Times. He is able with one picture to sum up some aspect of church life in a way that a post full of words could never do. He is funny and incisive, often making for uncomfortable reading and he has been known to wind up the most hard bitten hack; one Telegraph journo called him ‘the world’s worst cartoonist’. Here’s one of many I could have linked to: The Welcomers.

5. A post with a title that you are proud of – I’m not very good at thinking up titles and I get annoyed with blogs that have posts with arresting titles that don’t really relate to the post. I’ve gone for U-bend Theology my review of Slumdog Millionaire. I wasn’t very impressed by the film but one scene did remind me of an important theological truth.

6. A post that you wish more people had read – Palestinian Walks: notes on a vanishing landscape. This was a review of a book I read following my sabbatical visit to the land of the Holy One. The book by Raja Shehadeh tells the story of his love affair with the landscape of his homeland against the backdrop of the unfolding events in Israel and Palestine. It’s very powerful and anyone who wants to understand more of the situation should read the book.

7. Your most visited post ever – I’ve already listed the most visited post which was the UKBA Christmas card (see 3). In second place was Gossip: cancer of the community. This post was about the press coverage of the process for appointing the Bishop of Southwark. The post seemed to touch a raw spot because a well known journalist at the Telegraph responsible for breaking the story started attacking me via Twitter!

That’s me done. I enjoyed looking back and reviewing the posts I am proud of and those that in retrospect didn’t really work. I look forward to other bloggers’ responses.

I’ll tag Sam Norton, Jonathan Evens, Maggi Dawn, Steve Griffiths, and Dave Walker for this one.

Gossip: cancer of the community

Earlier this year a new Bishop of Chelmsford was announced. I can’t be bothered to go through all the steps in the process of the appointment, which started last summer and hasn’t finished yet, but want to make some general comments in the light of recent publicity over the appointment of the Bishop of Southwark. If you want the details of the process for appointing a diocesan bishop go here. I ought to declare an interest; my godfather Roy Williamson is a former Bishop of Southwark so not surprisingly I’m interested to see how things turn out the other side of the Thames.

Anyway, what I want to say is that the process for appointing a diocesan bishop involves a great deal of consultation but is also confidential. I was one of over 140 people who met individually with the Prime Minister and Archbishops’ appointments secretaries as part of the consultation and there was also an open meeting that anyone could attend. Because of complaints about lack of publicity for this part of the process, which coincided with the school holidays, the consultation period was extended to ensure anyone who wanted to contribute had an opportunity to do so. By the end of this process no one could complain that they hadn’t had their say.

Then the Crown Nominations Commission began its series of meetings to consider possible candidates. Two things need to be said about this part of the process. Firstly, I have no doubt that those serving on the CNC committed themselves to prayerfully seek the right person, guided by the Holy Spirit. Secondly, these meetings were confidential and those who served committed themselves to keep that confidence. In the case of Chelmsford I believe that confidentiality was honoured. I happened to meet two members of the CNC on the train after what turned out to have been their final meeting and they said not a word about their deliberations.

However, the confidentiality of the process didn’t stop the gossip. I remember sitting in meetings where someone would declare that they knew who had been appointed. Bit of a surprise really as I happened to know that the CNC hadn’t finished meeting at that stage. Try as one might to point this out some were insistent that they knew what was going on and what the outcome was. Others intimated that they had the inside track from other ‘sources’ about who was still in and who had been ruled out.

The process ran its course and I turned up to work in the Diocesan Office one morning to learn that there was to be a press conference an hour later at which the new Bishop of Chelmsford would be announced. That was the first time I was aware an announcement was to be made; those  who of necessity had prior knowledge maintained the confidentiality. I was delighted to attend the conference where Bishop Stephen Cottrell was introduced as our new bishop. I blogged about his appointment here.

And so to Southwark and the process of appointing another diocesan bishop. Over the last few days we have been treated to a constant stream of press reporting based on leaks and speculation. Bloggers, Twitterers and other commentators have picked up on these stories and shared their opinions on the basis of what they have read. I have a general rule with press reports like this; if they are based on a leak or unattributable source I ignore them because they are likely to be even more inaccurate or slanted than the less publicised speculation that did the rounds over the Chelmsford appointment. If someone has been leaking from the CNC then they will have to answer to God for their dishonesty and to their colleagues on the commission for their betrayal of trust.

Some brief reflections:
The press do not appear to have the best interests of the Gospel at heart. They have a story to tell and the more salacious the material the more likely they are to get it passed their editor and into the pages of whichever chip paper they work for. Even the more respectable are not averse to sinking to the despicable. If they depend on gossip, the breaking of confidences and title tattle for their information then that speaks volumes about the quality of their work.

Too many Christians have been quick to dash to comment on the basis of gossip and speculation. I am particularly dismayed with the comments of some clergy, so quick to judge without the facts and in some cases quite clearly with little knowledge about the processes. Of all people they should know the damage that rumour mongering causes a Christian community. They will have been on the receiving end of it enough in their own ministries; if not yet then they will be in the future. The process may not be great but that’s no excuse for some of the bile that has spewed forth.

No one has been well served in this story. Certainly not Jeffrey John whose life and ministry have been hijacked as a cause celebre by some and used as the excuse for ecclesial infighting and point scoring by others. Certainly not ++Rowan Williams. I have only spoken to the Archbishop briefly, though I have heard him speak on quite a few occasions. When I read the stuff that’s written about Rowan, I think of how Jane and the children must feel. I’m sure they feel the same as any of us would feel when witnessing their loved one being lambasted on the basis of innuendo. What is even more galling is that some of the vitriol is piled on by the very same people who on Sunday will lead prayers for the church and for her leaders, including the Archbishop. How can we pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ on Sunday and then slag them off mercilessly on Monday?

As for the Gospel of Christ. Well we can’t expect the press to treat the precious Good News with respect when we are so poor at doing that ourselves. In what way has what has been said and written on this affair commended the mission and ministry of the church to the wider community? The press have every right to turn round and say to us ‘don’t complain about our splinters when your chucking your own logs at each other’.

Update: Excellent article in The Guardian by +Nick Baines on the process of appointing a diocesan bishop.

Update 2: Very poor article in The Guardian claiming that Bishop Stephen Cottrell could be the next Bishop of Southwark. Difficult as he was appointed Bishop of Chelmsford back in April. A sad refelction on the quality of journalism covering religion in the national press.