When every day is full of back-to-back meetings and events it is not easy either to keep up with what’s going on in the world or to write blog posts. Add to that a chest infection, the almost total loss of my voice and the fed up feeling that goes with it and blog silence becomes understandable. However, the cancellation of appointments today means that there is a bit of space for catching up.
Despite a certain pressure to do so, I have no intention of commenting on the on-going saga of St Paul’s Cathedral in London. There are two reasons: (a) it is someone else’s diocese and not my business, and (b) I don’t know enough detail to judge reality over against the assumptions, speculation and presumption flying around the ether. It is always amazing how confident some people can be about stuff they are not privy to. However strange the appearances may be, I still don’t know the detail and don’t intend to add my speculation to that of others.
However, there is one new fact on the ground: the resignation of Dr Giles Fraser as Canon Chancellor. This is bad news.
Some people love to hate Giles. He represents everything they hate about the Church not confirming their prejudices. But, whatever they think of him, they can’t ignore him.
Giles and I do not hold the same line on every issue. Why should we? (Why do some people find it so difficult to disagree or to allow disagreement? Being a grown-up means being able to own an opinion, argue for it, change your mind if so persuaded, but allow the integrity of the other. Giles is an adult who expects others to behave like adults. Perhaps that’s where the problems start?)
There is no one like Giles for naming the issue, arguing a case, listening to argument (and changing his mind), giving space to the opposing voice, setting up the conversations on the matters that matter, keeping the focus of the church on the world it is called to serve, asking the tough theological questions, commending consistency and not letting issues cloud relationships. In my experience over the last few years, he has been a great critical friend and one whose ‘let’s not pretend this spade is anything other than a bloody shovel’ approach has been refreshing, challenging, arresting and encouraging. I have debated with him, shared a platform with him and had beers with him. He has a great capacity for friendship – even with those who profoundly disagree with him.
I might not always agree with his conclusions, but Giles forces me back to the Bible and the ground of my own Christian faith. He is a formidable debater, a great lecturer, a brilliant communicator and (perversely) a Chelsea fan. (Apart from the Chelsea bit, of course) Giles is an honourable man of integrity. The Church needs prominent people who inspire, annoy and question – after all, the Gospels tell the story of one who wasn’t exactly a bland pacifier, don’t they?
When Giles went to St Paul’s I wondered how he would hold it all together. In describing his background, Stephen Bates helps us understand how Giles does, in fact, adapt. I wondered if his voice would really be allowed or if it would be compromised by the ‘establishment’ (whatever that is). It is a great credit to St Paul’s that Giles was given the freedom to develop conversations on the things that matter to real people and ask hard questions about the political and economic assumptions we make about the world. It is a great credit to Giles that he set up some excellent stuff at St Paul’s during his short time there.
The question now is how he might be enabled to continue to do this stuff outside St Paul’s.
The other question is how St Paul’s continues its good work in keeping these debates (on capitalism, justice, the financial system, etc) going, picking away at the uncomfortable sores and refusing to ditch the theological lens for something more comfortable.
It’s a pity the occupation outside St Paul’s couldn’t have been harnessed in order to ramp up that debate across the country. Those who think that by now the ‘story’ has relegated the ‘issue’ might be right.
Nick Baines's Blog 
October 27, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Well said, Nick.
I personally happen to agree with most things Giles says, but like you, I’m constantly learning from him. In my case, to be more humble in disagreement with people. His interview with Roger Piggot was a real lesson in Christian disagreement.
He’s one of those people who can hold opposing poles together that would otherwise flee apart.
My hope now is that The Church recognises the gifts Giles has and the affection so many hold him in. Whether one agrees with him or not, he’s a beacon for those who often find themselves marginalised in the church and in society and it would be terrible for him and for all of us if that uniting influence was reduced.
And… sorry to hear about your chest infection, that’s very unpleasant. And doesn’t get better by a punishing schedule… but then, I expect you have enough people nagging you:-)
October 27, 2011 at 7:51 pm
It’s an amazing story. ‘The Turbulent Priest’ as someone described him today, resigning on a point of principle, and not staying to fight on the inside.
The danger being of course, the compromise of his conscience and personal integrity. You have to totally respect that and feel for the position that he and his family now find themselves. Jobless, homeless, uncertain future, pretty much like Jesus on his journey.
He needs time, space, reflection and prayer to see where his next calling will be – perhaps it’s time we allowed him that. Although I suspect that it won’t be that easy.
October 28, 2011 at 8:52 am
So this is the Giles Fraser who sets up a group called “Inclusive Church” to push for gay priests and bishops, who lambasts evangelicals in the line of John Stott and Jim Packer as “bigoted fundamentalists”, and who appears to deny – on radio on Ash Wednesday – life after death (I struggled to understand him, and so did the people on the “Platitude for the Day” website). Who cares? Those who cheer him on are the usual Guardianista suspects who have twigged – because they are “brights” – that religion is a con, and they are pleased a cleric has made some small steps in their enlightened direction. Few would have heard of him if a sympathetic BBC had not given him a regular soapbox. He is not a man who has built the church in London as Stott and Sandy Millar and Nicky Gumbel have done.
He is, as you say, an adult who doesn’t need your apologia, Nick, he needs godly admonition where he has spoken wrongly in representing the Gospel of Christ. Like Richard Holloway before him (another favourite of the BBC), Giles is a rather predictable, opinionated man who prefers to polemicize in journalistic soundbites rather than engage with and understand the evangelical faith of thousands of Anglicans and others in London and beyond.
As for St Paul’s – I doubt most Londoners understand the purpose of that building. Most people see it as an expensive tourist spot, not a vanguard of the Gospel. The claim that it has lost £20k a day since the camp started will not excite much sympathy among many.
October 28, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Kieran, I think this will have to be my last response to you. You don’t know Giles Fraser – I do. I don’t agree with him on many things, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t go on talking. Or do you think the way to behave is simply to demonise anyone you don’t agree with and shout at them from a distance?
If I did to you what you do to others I would read your comments on this blog and conclude that you are a self-righteous, humourless, narrow-track, intense shouter who doesn’t listen, is not open to persuasion, stereotypes people, is pastorally insensitive, and occupies an uncritical right-wing position from a distance, willing to judge without knowledge. However, I doubt that sums you up or does justice to you. It might just be possible that you might just consider that your judgements on other people and situations might be similarly limited.
And just for the record, Giles Fraser grew a large church in Putney which paid an enormous parish share and didn’t spend all it’s time obsessing about sex and inclusivity. You might remember the Commandment that forbids misrepresentation of your neighbour’s case.
October 28, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Bishop Nick, with respect I think that ‘demonising people you don’t agree with’, ‘shouting at people from a distance’ and ‘misrepresenting your neighbour’s case’ are precisely the reasons that Canon Fraser is so unpopular among many, and I doubt it’s limited to evangelicals.
I have not met Canon Fraser, so my judgement (as for many) comes from his CT column and other media output. I am sure that personally he is very affable. However, his columns frequently see him misrepresenting the viewpoints of others, and using ‘straw man’ techniques – sometimes adding unpleasant ad-hominem barbs. Indeed so grossly does he sometimes distort opponents’ perspectives that one is forced to conclude that either he is not as intelligent as his CV would suggest, or that his desire to press his agendas sometimes overrides other ethical considerations (to be euphemistic).
To turn to the immediate situation, Canon Fraser resigned over the potential use of ‘violence’ (his words) to evict protestors. But does he not distinguish between ‘controlled force by legally-appointed officers as they enforce actions approved by magistrates within the law’ and other forms of violence? What does that say about our many police officers who have to use these powers on a daily basis? And is a man who seemingly does not understand such nuances really the right person to run a strategic debating forum in the heart of our capital city?
Just because you share a beer with your mate doesn’t mean they should be occupying a sensitive and strategic post in the church hierarchy.
October 28, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Peter, I take your point – although the journalistic game also shapes the form of the input. Regarding the ‘force’ argument, I actually think his reasoning is odd – I don’t know why he didn’t wait to see what might actually happen rather than what potentially might happen. Your distinction is an important one, albeit one that begs further ‘macro’ questions.
October 28, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Thank you, Bishop Nick. Yes I do understand that journalism does often means being provocative and using broad brush-strokes, but Canon Giles crosses the line too often, certainly for my liking.
And as you say, at his best he can be very good, keeping people engaged with engaging with ‘real world’ issues. I think his insights into the world of philosophy and atheism very helpful and refreshing. But when he’s on his hobby-horses……!
And yes indeed there are all sorts of wider questions – the whole episode has raised all sorts of issues about how power, faith and finance interact, and perhaps on a smaller level what the role cathedrals have in our nation.
More generally thank you for your blog – I’m not usually provoked to posting, if ever, but do read it regularly and with interest.
October 28, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Peter, thanks. I think it is also worth observing that Giles is frequently provoked by the same behaviour levelled against him by evangelicals. As an evangelical, I think we must be rigorous about not misrepresenting, whatever the provocation. Thanks for reading and responding.
October 28, 2011 at 7:02 pm
I shall confine my observations on Giles Frasser to the one area where I have some experience- the Law.
What distinguishes Law from any other form of social control ( eg custom/ tradition/ morality) is that Law is ” Normative, Institutional, and Co-ercive”. The latter is integral.
Oddly, I suspect that like many on the Left, he appeals to the idea of “International Law” from time to time, whereas I, on this same definition deny there is any such concept worth discussing in practical terms until a mechanism exists for enforcement against USA China Russia etc.
October 28, 2011 at 8:46 pm
I think there’s a difference between being polemical about what you perceive the views of another group of people to be (rightly or wrongly), and being polimical and abusive to individuals.
Giles Fraser has, to my knowledge, been highly critical of certain political views and of how they play out in church life, but he has never dismissed an individual person because of the views they hold.
As for “waiting to see what happens”… at what point do you jump ship when you already know that your own principles have been compromised?
Since Giles’ resignation the Cathedral has announced that it will take legal action against the protesters. If Giles had stayed, he would be implicated in that action, and if it later results in any kind of police force against the protesters, he would be implicated in that too.
I’d be surprised if he didn’t really understand the nuances of force. Isn’t it entirely credible that he does not approve of any kind of force used against people who exert their right to peaecful protest? That they may be violating the law because they have put up tents against the land owners express permission is one thing, it does not invalidate the peaceful protest. And it is entirely credible that a priest would object to any kind of police force in this case. He doesn’t even have to agree with the opinions the protesters support.
October 28, 2011 at 11:29 pm
“Or do you think the way to behave is simply to demonise anyone you don’t agree with and shout at them from a distance?”
Nick, I’m not a public figure, journalist or broadcaster, so my opinions matter little or nothing, and are unknown to almost everyone. But whatever else I am, I don’t think I’m “humourless”, at least if satire counts as humour!
I think Peter K has rightly represented how a number of people I know do perceive Giles Fraser, and the constant targets of his criticism, especially in the Church Times, are conservative, traditional Christians. Fraser’s campaigning has always been clear: when Gene Robinson was excluded from Lambeth by Rowan Williams, Fraser saw he had a pulpit in Putney.
Where is his love for the body of Christ in his public utterances? Perhaps somewhere he has denounced Islam, atheism and humanism as unfaithful to the Gospel, but if so, I haven’t come across this. That was the point of my reference to John Stott and Sandy Millar, who remained faithful to the Gospel and irenic in their manner. I have no problem with someone being a socio-political polemicist, but that isn’t the calling of a Christian minister.
October 29, 2011 at 9:18 am
Erica,
In such cases, I recall the examples of Gandhi and MLK whose political approach was to break the law – but respected and submitted to the lawful consequences. That latter aspect ( like Christ’s example) was a neccesary component of transforming a law breaking act into a moral/reconciling one. Think how this contrasts with many of the anarchic-Eco-SWP components within the currentvprotest. The clue is in the title -” Occupy” (unlawful) not ” Protest ” (lawful).
I have not refreshed my knowledge of this area of law but suspect GF made a legal error given his position by refusing to allow the police to prevent settlement. By making the protesters’
” invitees” the Cathedral Authorities adopted them – with all the legal/ insurance/ H&S consequences . If the occupation had been
” hostile” the protesters would have been liable, but once invitees the Cathedral had been placed in a dreadful bind – responsibility without power.
October 29, 2011 at 10:26 am
just to lighten the mood.
Swampy is taken to hospital from St Paul’s protest with chest pains.
He wakes up with Giles Fraser gently telling him,
” I’m sorry mate, but you’re going to have to have a by- pass!”
October 29, 2011 at 10:10 pm
I think your refusal to comment on the detail from 250 miles away is exceedlingly wise.
I find myself agreeing with Kieran on a number of points – thought provoking he may be, but I’ve always found GF combative rather than eirenic in print and on radio, and on occasion personally rude about opponents.
Though I expect that he may well have been excellent in positions as – for example – his role as Honorary Chaplain to the Worshipful Company of Chartered Accountants.
An alternative interpretation of GFs statement is that rather than placing the cathedral in a position of responsibility without power (which it probably does) is that in giving permission for the camp he has actually created a situation where that permission can simply be withdrawn – which is a strength, whether intended or no.
My one clear call would be for those giving what seems to be pretty uncritical support to do some serious homework, and carefully circumscribe support – what will happen when people start complaining that a normal arrest for obstruction is declared to be ‘political policing’? I think I feel a piece coming on about this, because it is important.
These are not all peaceful herbivorous classical anarchists, even though they may look like it for a few days. Nor do many of them do shades of grey, or take where Western democracy (rejected), policing (political when it doesn’t do what is demanded) or the church (bankers lackeys when they are not being positively supportive).
My PR take is that both the Cathedral and GF probably reacted too quickly, and have ended up in the soup.
October 30, 2011 at 10:18 am
I agree with much of what you say about Giles Frazer. But what is to be done? I hope he will receive many offers of “employment” from you and other bishops in the next few weeks before a University snaps him up.
David
October 30, 2011 at 3:04 pm
The debate above, and the blog which led it, reminds me a little of a fabulous episode of ‘Father Ted’, in which Father Jack, the old grumpy drunken priest, is trained to reply ‘That would be an ecumenical matter’ to whatever question he might be asked.
The protest outside St Pauls is not a local, nor ecumenical matter. It is a social, economical, political, international matter. It started (I think) in Wall Street, and has spread to many cities across the world.
I do think that senior members of the Christian church should be able and willing to express their personal views on this issue, even if it does not directly affect their own back yards, or diocese.
I know nothing about Giles Fraser, I am sure he is a very fine man.
KK
October 30, 2011 at 11:46 pm
Kieran
The fact that you don’t know that Giles Fraser has denounced atheism shows how little you know about all of this. It is the subject he has written most about. It is more important to be informed than to rush to judgement.
Nick
Thanks for your comments – wise as ever. But lack of comment from senior church figures on this does look a little like keeping heads down. There are important debates to be had across a range of topics that Occupy and St. Paul’s raises, so let’s have it.
October 31, 2011 at 12:19 am
I think we need to look more broadly at this issue than what we think about Giles Fraser or other staff at the Cathedral and the minutiae of the situation. It seems that this is an issue about which the people who are protesting have a clearer prophetic imagination and sense that there is an injustice which should be righted, than the church who should be the place of the clearest prophetic imagination, being holders of a promise of a better future that we are to work towards now.
The bible is full of Jesus talking about money, justice and identity, and how our attitudes to money show something of who we really are at heart. That is truth that needs exposing, in each of us as individuals and as organisations, and yet oddly we hear that the St Paul’s institute is witholding a report about the City’s attitude to money because the truth contained in it could be a little too ..well, truthful? If this is the case, it means that the promise made by +Richard to represent the views of the protesters to the banking community is laughable.
I don’t imagine for a moment that any of this is easy to deal with, but what should surely be able to happen is that the church staff should sit down among the people and listen and examine the good book to see what is says about these issues. This seems a good moment for leadership with a prophetic edge rather than a legalistic one.
October 31, 2011 at 8:58 am
Well ,that’s exactly right. I couldn’t agree more. I went down to St. Paul’s on Saturday afternoon and was impressed by the sense of there being an intellectual forum for the exchange of passionately held ideas. It is is creative and in some respects disturbing.
Of course Occupy has been slidelined by the issue of closure or opening of St. Paul’s but whilst some are getting involved in the church politics side of it, the people I spoke to were thinking on a much bigger cnavas about the nature of society, the exercise of power and social justice. Even the press are beginning to report that.
This is an important moment in time to reflect together about how money is made, who has it and who doesn’t and what it should be used for. The Church does need to get with that agenda more clearly.
November 1, 2011 at 5:52 pm
“Kieran
The fact that you don’t know that Giles Fraser has denounced atheism shows how little you know about all of this. It is the subject he has written most about. It is more important to be informed than to rush to judgement”
I know what he said about life after death, on an Ash Wednesday broadcast this year. It was totally bewildering and confused.
November 1, 2011 at 11:32 pm
What a difference a day makes. So brilliant to see breakthrough today, especially +Richard leading the folks from St Pauls out to meet the protesters face to face. Once human contact and mutual recognistion happens, everything becomes possible. God bless and strengthen them all.