Nick Baines's Blog

Following my post on the resignation of UK Government Minister David Laws (in the light of Bishop Margot Käβmann’s resignation in February), there are two types of resignation in the spotlight today. I had intended to write something funny today, but the news got in the way.

Horst Köhler, President of Germany, has resigned only a year after securing a second term in office. He caused offence last week after suggesting that there can be a justification for Germany’s armed forces being involved in operations away from home in order to secure particular interests. The Left accused him of supporting ‘gunboat diplomacy’ (he doesn’t) and the Right left him to stew in his embarrassment. Today he resigned, saying he regretted that his comments could lead to a misunderstanding about a difficult question for the nation – viz Afghanistan.

So, German politics loses as its figurehead a good man with a good record because people are too stupid to listen intelligently to a comment and debate it seriously. What he said is contentious, but that is no reason for not saying it – even for a Head of State who has the best interests of his country at heart. German military involvement in Afghanistan is a hot potato in Germany right now and Margot Käβmann herself got into trouble in January when, as head of the EKD (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland), she called for a renewed debate over the withdrawal of troops when there was a lack of vision for the conflict.

Köhler will be replaced in the interim by Jens Böhrnsen (SPD), speaker of the Bundesrat (Upper House). What is remarkably odd about all this is simply that the debate about Afghanistan will still go on, yet Germany will have lost a very good Head of State. And – as I have aksed elsewhere – who has gained what by this resignation?

However, the second resignation is arguably more serious for the wider world. This is the sense of resignation felt across the globe that Israel can do what it likes and get away with it – that in the end no one will hold Israel to account. They can build their illegal settlements, flout UN Resolutions at will, refuse to cooperate with the wider world (eg. nuclear proliferation negotiations) and commit atrocities against vulnerable people – and apart from a few sharp words, they can then carry on business as usual.

So, today they have intercepted (in international waters) the flotilla of boats taking aid to Gaza and lives have been lost. Ambassadors have been called in to explain events and protests have broken out around the world. Our own Foreign Secretary has issued a call for Israel to stop the blockade of Gaza forthwith. Whistling in the wind?

The tragedy of this is (a) that Israel’s security depends on the security of its neighbours and friends, (b) that original victimhood cannot justify making victims of others, (c) that Israel’s legitimate complaint about the violence of others towards Israel is drowned out by the horrified complaints of those offended by Israel’s own oppressive actions.

That said, however, I guess many people around a horrified world will once again be resigned to the fact that Israel will simply ignore protests and present itself as the aggrieved victim. Others, however, will now find in this action yet another sanction for further violence and less understanding.

Psalm 122.6 implores:

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem…

But the peace of Jerusalem is never seen in isolation from the call of the prophets for God’s people to love justice, exercise mercy and walk humbly with God (and, therefore, with everyone else).

It is a bizarre world out there.

Israel refuses to join in talks to rid the Middle East of nuclear weapons – which raises the temperature out there, but highlights the hypocrisy of those who are asking for the de-nuking of some countries while retaining the edge given by owning their own. US forces have been killing Afghans by mistake (some comfort) and the financial precipice on which the world stands continues to crack and wobble under the weight of contradictory pressures. A precarious world…

So, what are we obsessing about here in England? A gay government minister who felt compelled to file housing expenses in order not to let any snoopers into the reality of his sexuality. Had David Laws not filed for housing expenses in London, you can bet your life someone would have outed him as gay – something he didn’t want. And, at the point of writing this, it appears he has tendered his resignation to David Cameron – the first casualty of the new regime.

David Laws seems to have broken the rules on expenses. He should repay them. But, the other questions remain and they have to do with the culture we have come to accept:

• Why should he (and others) in the first place have to fear media intrusion into areas of his private life that have no bearing on his ministerial office? I know I have been here before, but why do we give the media the right to hold people in public life to ransom in this way? The Telegraph has said (creditably, in my view) that they had no intention of touching on his sexuality in exposing his expenses breach, but that he outed himself last night. I would love to know how the Telegraph would have exposed his breach without exposing his sexuality and identifying his partner.
• Who gains what from his resignation – other than another ‘story’ for the media? Why do we think the world benefits from resignations?

An interesting light is shone on this question by an article in the Frankfurter Rundschau (titled Enough repentance, Frau Käßmann) today regarding the former Bishop of Hannover in Germany. Margot Käßmann resigned in February after being stopped for crossing a red light while well over the drink-drive limit. Thousands of people – including journalists – pleaded with her not to stand down, but, like Martin Luther himself, she felt, “here I stand, I can do no other”. She went and was universally applauded for her courage, integrity and dignity in taking responsibility for her serious error.

Now, however, many people in Hannover want her back. This wasn’t her intention (she is about to go to the USA for three months to teach before leaving Hannover in time for her successor to be elected in November), but her popularity was in evidence in Munich recently when she was the main attraction at the Ecumenical Kirchentag. Now it seems even the media are calling for her to come back – she acted with complete integrity and paid a huge price and justice was done, but that does not mean she can’t come back. Her re-election would also solve the problem of what the church can do with such a charismatic and popular leader who is always going to attract attention and cannot help but overshadow her successor at both Landeskirche and EKD level.

Her authority was re-established at the precisely the moment it was most compromised. This also proved that the mistake of February did not overshadow her credibility.

[Contrasting her decison to resign with the reluctant sacking by the Pope of the RC Bishop of Augsburg after what the journalist called 'deception, lying and whitewashing'], Käßmann’s behaviour has shown her to have character and understand the gravity of her role… Käßmann resigned without a Plan B and this gives substance to her words of regret/repentance – even if she were to come back… Enough repentance, Frau Käßmann! Your return to office would be for the church the best evidence of what you preach. Credibility is not to be confused with infallibility. And: there is a second chance – not a cheap ‘business as usual’, but a reflective ‘now for something new’.

I wonder if we in Britain would have the courage to request the return of David Laws whose resignation has been forced by personal agony rather than greedy ambition? And how would the press have reported this story without outing him?

Earlier this year I led a group visit to Israel and posted reflections on a number of elements.

One that still haunts me was the couple of hours we spent being propagandised at the so-called City of David. You can read my thoughts and detect my discomfort in this and other subsequent posts.

Ahdaf Soueif does a comprehensively better and more incisive job in today’s Guardian. It makes for painful reading and will no doubt enrage those who think criticism of Israel amounts to criticism of God.

I still struggle to understand the incomprehension of people who quote the prophets’ cry for justice while kicking helpless people out of their homes and off their land for questionable archaeological reasons.

The Sandford St Martin Awards were presented at a superb ceremony at Lambeth Palace on Tuesday evening. I chair the Trust and had the privilege of presenting awards to winners whilst celebrating all shortlisted entries in the television and radio categories.

The Sandford St Martin Trust aims to reward excellence in religious broadcasting and  – despite fewer entries being submitted this year – the quality of submitted entries was very high. The winners were:

Television award

Winner: The Bible, Howard Jacobson’s episode on Creation and his loss of faith (Channel 4)

Runner up: History of Christianity, episode 1 (BBC4), presented by historian Professor Diarmid MacCulloch, also the winner of the Radio Times readers’ award

Merits: 1984: A Sikh’s Story (BBC1); Did Darwin Kill God? (BBC2)

Radio award

Winner: Two Sisters: Two Faiths (Radio 4)

Runner up: The Understanding (Radio 4)

Merits: Treasures out of Darkness, from the All Things Considered series (BBC Wales); Dear God (BBC Coventry & Warwickshire); Something Understood presented by Mark Tully in conversation with Jean Vanier (Radio 4)

The judges had worked hard (amid strong debate) to come to their final conclusions, but what was remarkable (to my mind, at least) was the fact that these programmes weren’t just examples of brilliant religious broadcasting – they were fantastic broadcasting per se. They were always intelligent, creative, imaginative, often moving, beautifully crafted and wonderfully produced and presented.

Maybe it wasn’t my place to do so, but I felt hugely proud to be presenting awards to such talented people who had made such excellent and (sometimes) provocative programmes. Clips from all of them can be listened to from the Sandford St Martin website.

Interestingly, it was the speech by BBC presenter (and chairman of the television judges) Roger Bolton that has provoked most of the press coverage today. (For a selection, try Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Mark Damazer‘s blog.) Introducing the Television Awards, he argued for a Religion Editor at the BBC. This is not special pleading for religious people to be given their own sad little mouthpiece (as some will no doubt represent it); rather, it was a serious claim based on the ubiquity of religion across global societies and the need for intelligent understanding and interpretation of both religious events and other phenomena (news, economics, politics, ethics, science, arts, culture, sport, etc) from a perspective that understands religion as a phenomenon.

This will doubtless irritate those who find religion irritating and inconvenient. But, the claim is not staked on any religious commitment, but, rather, on the sheer phenomenon of religion that has a powerful impact on and place in the world and demands intelligent comprehension if we are to better understand that world. What has worked well for business, finance, defence, etc. is needed for religion.

We’ll watch this space, though, and note that the BBC submitted a number of classy entries – whereas none were received from ITV, Channel 5 or Sky.

It is surprising what grabs the attention of the media. Yesterday the Church of England published our prayers for the World Cup. Today I have done a pile of radio interviews and have more booked for tomorrow.

Most have been fine and very positive. The funniest question so far has been: “Did you write them for a special occasion?” Duh…

But, it is amazing what some people read into them and how seriously some people (some atheists, to be precise) take them. They are written to help us express our hopes, but also widen our vision. The World Cup will be a massive event and we want it to go really well – especially for the people of South Africa. So, the first two prayers capture that hope:

Lord of all the nations, who played the cosmos into being,
guide, guard and protect all who work or play in the World Cup.
May all find in this competition a source of celebration,
an experience of common humanity and
a growing attitude of generous sportsmanship to others.
Amen.

God of the nations, who has always called his people to be a blessing for the world, bless all who take part in the World Cup.

Smile on South Africa in her hosting,
on the nations represented in competition and
on those who travel to join in the party.
Amen.

So far, not so bad. But, the third prayer was partly intended to be funny – giving words to those who dread three weeks of football, with all the mountaintop-valley emotions of their nearest and dearest football lovers:

A prayer for those simply not interested
Lord, as all around are gripped with World Cup fever,
bless us with understanding,
strengthen us with patience and
grant us the gift of sympathy if needed.
Amen.

It is slightly and gently ironic…

Thanks to those media organs who have joined in with enthusiasm, curiosity and some amusement. I would be grateful, however, for a translation of the following description from www.newsdatabase.us:

The Bishop of Croydon writes a primary program of prayers for the World Cup, as England fans calculate downbound to their prototypal correct in South Africa.

Sounds painful.

UPDATE (27 May 2010): Very funny addition by a Scot.

I once heard academic and journalist Timothy Garton Ash on BBC Radio 4 offering a mischievous definition of a nation:

A group of people united by a shared hatred of their neighbours and a common misunderstanding of their own past.

Original? Or did he nick it from someone else? I have no idea, nor do I care. But what he describes is the opposite of what happened to the beleaguered and frightened friends of the crucified and raised Jesus of Nazareth on the Day of Pentecost.

Instead of being united by a shared hatred of those who had put Jesus to death and now threatened them, they were empowered to go into the heart of the ‘neighbourhood’ and tell the story of Jesus in ways that could be heard and understood by all-comers. Fear of the neighbour (and what he might do to them) was transformed into a rather reckless and fearless openness about God loving even the crucifiers and opening to them a new door to freedom.

But, rather than simply obliterate the past and start a ‘new’ future, the Holy Spirit seems to have taken seriously what Jesus said about new wine and refreshed wineskins: you don’t dump the past, but renew and refresh it. So, the Spirit who moved on the waters of the world’s first day, who breathed new life into the dead bones of Ezekiel’s vision, who inspired the prophets to recall their original vocation (to give up their life in order to be a blessing to the world), and who anointed Jesus to fulfil what had always been the calling of Israel, now reminds the bereaved and surprised disciples that their story makes sense after all. Instead of being the aberration or even denial of God’s intentions, Jesus has made sense of them.

So, Pentecost isn’t about something necessarily new. It is about God’s people being reminded of their story and vocation and being empowered to live it out in a still-hostile world. Thrown together as a ragbag of saints and sinners, this new community re-members its past and unites in shared love for its neighbours.

Revolutionary.

The sceptical side of me kicked in the other day when I read that the new coalition government in the UK had proposed allowing the public to choose which laws ought to get dumped in the brave new ConDemNation. My scepticism is awakened any time I hear the word ‘choice’ used where there is no choice – or where the power of choice doesn’t lie where it sounds like it is supposed to be. Would any government really agree to dump laws such as those covering national security just because people wanted them to? I think we should be more honest. (And it is possible that the word ‘choice’ was a media interpretation of an idea in which the word itself was not used by the politicians themselves – but I have been away and am trying to catch up quickly.)

A good example of this is education. For thirty years we have been told that there is such a thing as ‘parental choice’ – that parents can choose the school to which their children should be sent. This has always been nonsense, but it has raised among parents expectations that cannot be met. The most parents can hope for is to ‘express a preference’. It is governors and the local authority who will choose. It isn’t hard to work out that if everybody wants their child to go to the best schools, some aren’t going to be able to get their way.

However, I have now read the BBC’s digest of the new government’s agreed programme and my heart is cheered in one or two significant respects: the banking levy, consumer protection, alcohol, energy, government transparency and so on. But, the most significant element of the programme comes under the header ‘Civil Liberties’. Mention the word ‘morality’ and everybody thinks of sex (especially in church), but I have argued elsewhere that one of the biggest moral issues facing us is the creeping surveillance culture we have allowed to grow.

One of the most interesting books about this is Timothy Garton Ash’s excellent The File. Having lived and worked in the German Democratic Republic, he decided to ask to see the file kept on him by the Stasi. The book is a record of his personal story of being spied upon and being asked to spy for the Brits (which he declined on more than one occasion). Towards the end of the book he grapples with the moral ambiguity of utilitarianism (ends justifying means) and whether spying on neighbours and friends can ever be justified – even when you think you are on the ‘right side’.

In the context of the recent judgement that an al-Qaida leader in the UK cannot be deported to Pakistan because he might get tortured there, this poses a very immediate dilemma. During his trial evidence from intercepted emails and phone calls was used, but neither the defendant nor his lawyer were allowed to know what that evidence was. Calls for intercept evidence to be used in trials will now get louder – on the grounds that security is not compromised by such disclosure, but a legal system designed to ensure justice must be transparently just.

So, given fears about the all-pervading and seemingly unaccountable surveillance culture in Britain (in London it is estimated that you get photographed around 350 times each day), we can only applaud plans to introduce a Freedom Bill (depending, of course, what it aims to do, how it aims to do it and how far it reaches), scrap ID cards, ditch the National Identity register and the ContactPoint database, and halt the next generation of biometric passports. However did a Labour regime ever allow such illiberal monstrosities to grow?  The finger-printing of children at school without parental permission is also to be banned – which begs the question of how it ever came to be allowed in the first place. Other plans include more protections for DNA database, protection of trial by jury, restoration of rights to non-violent protest, a review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech, introduction of safeguards against misuse of anti-terrorism legislation, regulation of CCTV, and a mechanism to prevent the proliferation of “unnecessary” new criminal offences.

The media will no doubt be pleased to see an expansion in the scope of Freedom of Information Act. Wrestling with the morality of exposing and naming those who spied on him, Timothy Garton Ash makes a warning comment in this respect also: that apart from intrusive, but clandestine, security services, the media also transgress the boundary between legitimate reportage and prurient snooping on individuals with the aim of exposing them to public shame. And this from a journalist.

Of all the books I have read on the intelligence world, Garton Ash’s is the best: personal, reflective, questioning and realistic – realistic about human frailty, the impact of circumstance on morality and the subjectivity of moral judgement that is shaped by assumptions of moral objectivity.

As we scrap ID cards and address the other matters of civil liberties, this is an accessible introduction to the issues at hand.

When the Tories claimed, before the election campaign proper, “we’re in it together”, I responded somewhat scornfully. It didn’t exactly go down well in all quarters… But, given the economic and financial problems facing the world (not just a previously Labour-led Britain), it is simply a statement of fact to say that no one can escape the challenges. Nevetheless, I still maintain that some are “in it” more than others to the extent that some are more financially cushioned and economically secure than others and the view looks different from the bottom.

However, that isn’t the point of this post. While in Germany at the 2nd Ecumenical Kirchentag (until yesterday) it became obvious that the vast range of Christians present in Munich really did think that we are all “in it” together. This presented itself in several different guises:

• Christians do not feel excluded from intelligent political, social and economic discussion and decision-making in Germany – and assume a common responsibility for the direction in which the country moves. The common ownership (despite variation of view) was striking.
• The abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church was not something to be gloated over by Protestants or regarded as a problem for the Vatican to solve; rather, it was seen as a source of shame for all Christians who are bound to stand together in repentance, prayer and support for victims. This was not only mature in terms of humanity, but particularly in terms of Christian theology. (Bishop Alan Wilson has had a go at this in his excellent post today.)
• The need for united Christian mission and service was heard to be almost self-evidently true. Again and again we heard the call (from all ‘parties’) for Christian churches to speak with one voice and work to overcome the scandal of denominational suspicion and division.

Whether this can be maintained is a real question. But, it reminded me of another place where it seems Christians have finally begun to recognise the need for and cost of being “in it together”: Zimbabwe.

The Anglican Dioceses of Harare and Manicaland in Zimbabwe have been subject to what can only be called manipulative persecution by the Mugabe regime. The Government has backed the ousted bishops who no longer have any standing or recognition in the Anglican Communion. Despite pleas for ecumenical hospitality from other churches (that is, allowing regular Anglican congregations to use Roman Catholic, Methodist, etc. church buildings for their services), the Anglicans have most often been left to suffer from this oppression alone. When you see the beatings and other pressures, you can understand why. At a roundtable meeting I chaired recently at Lambeth Palace I raised this matter and together we called for ecumenical identification with the Anglicans who had been picked off by Mugabe.

Last week Jennifer Dube wrote in the Standard:

… representatives of the Zimbabwe National Pastors Conference, Christian Alliance and Ecumenical Support Services who met recently in Harare, endorsed a multi-pronged strategy to help [Bishop Chad] Gandiya’s group, in a move that might mark a new twist to the conflict.

Bishop Ancelimo Magaya of the Grace Ablaze Ministries International said after the meeting: “We need to identify with our brothers and sisters in the Anglican Church. If we do not do that, we will be sinning and if we take time to do it, the evil that is happening in the Anglican Church will come to us… Christians must look at similar divisions in trade, students’ and lawyers’ unions among other sectors to understand the severity of the Anglican saga. For us here in Harare, when some of these things happened to the people of Matabeleland, we bought the dissidents’ story and ignored those people’s suffering. Then came the killing of people with the formation of the MDC and we sat back and said, ‘It’s politics’. The divisions continued with the farm seizures and we said it was for the whites. It came again with the destruction of people’s houses in 2005 and those in Borrowdale said it was for those in the ghetto. It swept through the business sector with the price slashes, continued with the 2008 violence and now, banks and so many other companies are at risk because of yet another divisive piece of legislation. We as the church should refuse to bow to this wave of divisiveness.

This has echoes of Martin Niemoeller’s Stuttgart Confession and represents a much-needed awakening to the fact that when one church suffers, all suffer. Christians can never ignore the suffering of others – whoever they are.

In 1987 I slept through the hurricane that tore across the United Kingdom. On 9/11 I was at a retreat house with no access to radio or television. I was tuck in an M1/M25 traffic jam while Liverpool were coming back from 3-0 down to win the European Champions League final in Istanbul. I always seem to be somewhere else when something interesting happens.

While I was in Munich for the 2nd Ecumenical Kirchentag (of which more in a later post) 2 deer and a fox turned up in our back garden in central Croydon. My wife called the RSPCA who seemed unperturbed by the news that busy main roads and a railway line come close to our house, maintaining that the deer would simply go back by the same route to wherever it was they came from.

We have absolutely no idea where they might have come from, how they managed to get into our locked garden or what it was that attracted them. The German neighbours (a dozen of them doing internships here in London) thought they should fetch their gun! Other neighbours were amazed. All I have to go by is a blurred photo:

The weather in Munich is terrible. So, all those who think I have come on a jolly will have to think again. I spent today meeting people and getting cold. But I was determined to hang around the enormous Messestadt (Trade Fair Centre) waiting for a unique opportunity to hear two old men have a conversation in the evening.

Hans Küng (82) and Jürgen Moltmann (84) are two giants of late-2oth century German theology. The former is a Roman Catholic who had his permission to teach in the Catholic Faculty of Theology at the University of Tübingen withdrawn by the Pope; the latter is a Protestant whose Theology of Hope breathed new life into german theology and inspired a generation of theologians and preachers. Both have never got stuck, but have developed and applied their theology to the realities of a changing world as they have aged.

This evening was remarkable. Thousands arrived early to ensure a place in the auditorium – I got there for 6.30pm thinking it began at 7pm only to find it was scheduled to start at 7.30pm and didn’t in fact get going until 8pm. More people were locked out than could get in. The excluded crowds chanted ‘Wir wollen rein’ (‘We want to come in’) to listen to these two elderly men talk together about church.

Can you imagine that ever happening in Britain? Most of the excluded were young people eager to garner the wisdom of these two theologians. Why? Because their theology is neither dry nor ‘merely academic’, but engages with the real world of economics, politics and culture. They bring to their subject the intellectual rigour that is associated with German philosophical thinking. Yet, they speak with simplicity, clarity and passion – eschewing theological cleverness in order to communicate accessibly with all-comers: they are remarkable men who show no sign of being ego-driven.

A critical but appreciative audience heard them address five questions:

1. Who are the laity?

2. Who are priests and pastors?

3. Who is the Church?

4. What is ‘ecumenism’ and where is it at today?

5. What does it mean to have fellowship in the name of Jesus Christ?

What ensued was a fascinating and impassioned plea for the Church to get real (in the light of the realities of the world in which we live) and recover its vocation (to be found in the Scriptures we have always had with us). This emerged from introductory statements which had Küng calling for a new Reformation in the Roman Catholic Church – one which unites the Church rather than splitting it further. Moltmann pointed out that the Kirchentag is a lay conference in which the role of bishops is to listen to the laity. I took this to heart…

It is impossible to summarise the contributions of the two men in a way that does justice to their contributions. Küng wants the Roman Catholic Church to change, embracing women priests, abolishing imposed celibacy and uniting the Christian churches in mission and sacramental ministry. For his part, Moltmann sees the future of churches in lay people taking responsibility for their own faith and organising the church in house groups that come together sacramentally. Christians are not ‘customers’, there to ‘visit’ the church, but members who take responsibility for the life of the church. As Küng put it:

A church for the people needs to become a church of the people.

Moltmann wants Christians to maintain a critical solidarity with the church whilst Küng sees exit from the Church as irresponsible (if understandable in the light of the current abuse scandal). Both think all churches need to be reformed in the light of the Gospel. Küng even went so far as to claim that the Pope’s title ‘Servant of the servants of God’ has become in practice ‘the Lord of the lords’ (Herr der Herren).

Both believe that there should be eucharistic hospitality between the churches – Moltmann claiming that generous hospitality is the hallmark of a real church, regardless of the role of the priest/pastor.

Perhaps the most interesting element of the conversation was their agreement that Christians belong together whether they like it or not. “What belongs together grows together” – as Moltmann put it. Jesus’ prayer for the unity (in love) of his people is being answered; the church needs to recognise this and make it visible. Baptism is the fundamental element in our common belonging.

Experience of interreligious dialogue has taught us that Christians need to speak with a single voice in a complicated world – a speaking that must follow on from and not precede genuine humble listening. Both agreed that there is no theological or doctrinal reason for continuing the lack of mutual eucharistic hospitality and both called for an end to the nonsense of ‘excommunication’. Moltmann spoke of the absurdity of mixed-confessional marriages in which at shared services eahc partner goes to a different priest to receive Communion:

What God has joined together let not man divide…

Küng very pointedly criticised the Pope for his recent ‘offer’ to Anglicans and noted that the younger Josef Ratzinger had taken part in eucharistic practices that are inconsistent with the line he now appears to follow. (They were academic and priestly colleagues for many years and still maintian contact.) Moltmann took the view that Christians should be like human beings: eat and drink together first, then discuss theology afterwards. It is a nonsense to do it the other way round…

Both made concluding statements of generosity towards the other’s church. But what will remain in my mind is Moltmann’s contention (not opposed by Küng) to the effect that Protestant should welcome ‘communion with Rome’, but not ‘communion under Rome’. Renewal and a new Reformation are needed as ever.

At the end the two elderly men stood on the stage looking bemused as people like me took photographs. We may never see their like again.