ESL #3: Political

Another of the books I'm reading on my ESL is Justin Welby's Reimagining Britain. A couple of days ago the Archbishop fronted the publication of a report by the IPPR Commission on Economic Justice having served on the Commission. You can read ++Justin's remarks at the launch of the report here. ++Justin has copped quite a bit of flak for his involvement in the report, however, he isn't backing down and he explained earlier in the year why he is involved in politics in an article entitled Is Mixing Faith and Politics Worth The Risk? The Archbishop's argument is summarised in this paragraph:

We need to face our challenges today with a fresh vision that is confident, practical and outward looking. We need to be witnesses to the good news of Jesus Christ in word and deed, as the churches often are (although the also often get things wrong) and also by speaking of a vision for society. I passionately believe it can be done.

Ian Paul has written an interesting blog post reflecting on the Archbishop's involvement with the IPPR Commission. I always find Ian's blog posts well considered even if I don't always agree with him. In this piece Should Christian Leaders Pronounce On Political Positions? Ian raises some important questions for those of us who are Christians in positions of leadership to reflect upon. Ian concludes his piece by commenting:

I think Christian leaders should avoid making pronouncements that align themselves with particular economic or political policies. I cannot remember anyone ever saying ‘Oh, I see that that bishop votes Labour—I think I had better find out more about this person Jesus’.

My concern is that as Christians we may end up with a pietism which limits our faith to the private and personal and abandons whole areas of public life and policy to others. As Christians I believe we have a responsibility to speak into the public square about the values and priorities of the Kingdom of God and we have a responsibility to make concrete proposals about what that means in practice. It's all too easy to sit on the sidelines criticising the proposals of others, but if we aren't prepared to put our necks on the line and take responsibility for the sort of society we want to live in then we forfeit the right to speak.

I remember very well the criticism the Church of England received when it published the Faith in the City report in 1985. At the time the usual arguments telling the C of E to keep its nose out of politics were plentiful; Normal Tebbit denounced the report as Marxist and inadvertently ensured it became the C of E's best selling report! However, the report was a considered response to the plight of the urban poor at a time of turmoil in our nation and made practical proposals for both Church and State to implement. Despite the initial hostile reception, in subsequent years many of the proposals were adopted by both the government and the C of E. The report certainly had a big impact on me as I embarked on ordained ministry. Should Archbishop Runcie, who commissioned the report, have kept out of politics and public policy, I don't believe so. I regard the Faith in the City report as a prophetic document that challenged both Church and State and helped shape debate, policy and action regarding the plight of our inner cities at the time. By the way, to those who responded to the recent IPPR report by saying the Church should put its money where its mouth is, by 2005 the C of E had invested more than £55 million supporting nearly 4,500 faith based projects in some of the poorest parts of our nation. This money was distributed through the Church Urban Fund set up in response to the Faith in the City report.

One final comment. The Taxpayers' Alliance responded to ++Justin's involvement with the IPPR commission with the following tweet:

The Archbishop seems to have forgotten Jesus' command to ‘render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s’. He should stick to his important theological work and keep out of politics!

In context Jesus is telling those questioning him to pay their taxes, which is both a political and theological statement, and one which goes against everything the TPA seem to represent.

I agree with George...

The Daily Mail seems to be having a bit of a thing about people named George at the moment. It has got itself in a pickle with George Clooney by running a completely false story about his future mother-in-law. When George challenged The Mail they offered an extremely rare apology. This apology turned out to be another piece of journalism which George has rejected as disingenuous if not dishonest. George Clooney deserves great credit for being prepared to take on a newspaper that trades in this type of journalism, particularly on-line, on a daily basis.

Today the Mail has published another article, this time penned by George. However, in this case it's George Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury. This George is making a bit of a habit of dropping bombshells on the Church he used to lead at the most inappropriate of times. So while General Synod meets in York, George takes the headlines with an article explaining why he has shifted his position on the issue of Assisted Dying. It just so happens that George has decided to take a position on the Assisted Dying Bill before Parliament at the moment which is diametrically opposed to the official position of the Church of England on the issue. So no surprise what took the headlines in the media this morning. Let's set aside the complexities of the arguments about this sensitive and important issue for a moment; I have blogged on this in the past and will do so again and you can read about my views here and here. And before anyone lectures me, as has happened today, that this is an issue about compassion verses cold theology, I can assure you that this is an issue that directly affects my own family circumstances. I would simply make the point today that it is unhelpful and inappropriate for a former leader of the Church of England to make life so difficult for the present incumbent of that office. George Carey was fortunate to be preceded by an Archbishop who, upon retirement, on the whole held his counsel on contentious matters affecting the Church; George Carey's successors have not been so blessed.

So to be clear: I agree with George about The Daily Mail article. George Clooney that is, not the other one.

Update: Some good responses to George Carey's article being posted today. I found +Nick Baines' critique particularly lucid: Dying matters.

P.S. I tried to find an unflattering picture of Clooney so as not to unduly influence this post but to be honest I couldn't find any!

Fan Dancing and the Archbishop

It would have been more edifying for the new Archbishop of Canterbury’s name to have been revealed by Dita Von Teese fan dancing on the steps of St Paul, than for the complete omnishambles that the Church of England has managed to concoct. For months we have been encouraged to pray for those charged with discerning God’s will on this matter only for the news to have seeped out through leaks to favoured journalists and betting at the bookies. I don’t know who has done this but the whole set up seems to have been devised to make it likely this was the way the news would come out.

Anyway, enough of the rant, here are a few of my thoughts on the new Archbishop.

1. I didn’t want the last one to go but I wish Rowan and Jane well in the next stage of their journey with God and give thanks for all they have so sacrificially given in serving him and us.
2. We should give thanks for those who have borne the burden of discerning who should be appointed Archbishop of Canterbury.
3. I hope the new Archbishop will make a priority of finding a new way of appointing his successor so we don’t have to endure this nonsense again.
4. It doesn’t matter how hard the Church tries to mess up God’s will for our lives, he has a habit of fulfilling his purposes even through our screw ups. That is as true for the people he raises up to positions of leadership as it is for the rest of us.
5. I really don’t care what accent he has, what school he went to or how much money he has. All I want to know is that the Archbishop is someone with a heart to serve God in the place where he has been called to minister. God looks on the heart not the outward appearance.
6. The new Archbishop needs, and has a right to expect, our prayers and support. Too often we have prayed for our church leaders on Sunday and proceeded to slag them off mercilessly the rest of the week. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be held accountable but the attacks on predecessors have usually been about our own preferences and prejudices that we have convinced ourselves must be God’s will.
7. Throughout this post I’ve referred to ‘he’ for ‘he’ it will be. I look forward to the day when that is no longer the case.

Now where did I put that betting slip?