An explanation is not an excuse.
Let me repeat that: an explanation is not an excuse. So, what I am about to write is an explanation of why bishops have not been willing to comment in public on the events at St Paul’s Cathedral in the last couple of weeks. The structure of the Church of England is such that episodes like this current one are unsurprising. (But, two resignations is not exactly great.)
Before doing that, and in this context, I draw attention to a story behind the story. The Independent on Sunday concludes a report on St Paul’s with a list of bishops (who they speculatively think might one day move to Canterbury) and their non-response to journalists’ attempts to wrest a comment from them. Apparently, they were all away, unwilling to comment or not contactable. I seem to have been ‘away’. [See update below.]
I wasn’t. I was in bed with a chest infection and a total lack of a voice. In fact, Jerome Taylor – a fine journalist with the Independent – phoned me and I texted him back to say I couldn’t talk. I texted a comment on another question he asked me and I said I would be happy to discuss that matter with him when my voice returned. He came back to me with his own ‘take’ on the St Paul’s situation and agreed we’d talk again.
But, the real problem for journalists (and just about everybody else in the country, to say nothing of all the foreigners who keep asking me about it) is a fundamental lack of understanding of how the Church of England works. That is not a criticism of journalists; if anything, it is a criticism of people like me that we have not adequately explained ourselves.
Basically, it looks like this. The Church of England is not the Roman Catholic Church. We do not have a Pope. The 43 dioceses in England (I am leaving out the Diocese in Europe for obvious reasons) are autonomous and the diocesan bishop in each is the one who ‘orders’ (that is, brings order to) his diocese. The Archbishop of Canterbury is one of the diocesan bishops – a primus inter pares. No bishop has the right to interfere in the doings of another diocese. Given the fact that we never quite know the real story of what happens elsewhere, it is wise not to intrude in or comment on (a) what is not anyone else’s business or (b) what we don’t actually know about. In other words, if a story breaks about Bradford Cathedral, I don’t want any other bishops offering their opinion when they don’t know the detail and aren’t involved.
I hope that is clear. The business at St Paul’s is a matter for the Diocese of London.
Well, actually, it isn’t. A cathedral is autonomous and responsible for itself. This means that the Bishop of London has no direct remit in its affairs unless invited. Hence the hesitation (I imagine) on the Bishop’s part to comment on something for which he is not responsible. It is for the Cathedral itself to handle its affairs and it’s PR.
Now the problem will be obvious. Events at St Paul’s in the last couple of weeks have exposed the weakness. These events affect not only St Paul’s, but (clearly) the Diocese of London… and the rest of the Church of England. This crisis is not a parochial or diocesan matter, but has become a national story which affects the reputation of the whole Church of England. But, no one will comment because it is not our remit to do so. The Archbishop of Canterbury cannot – it is not his diocese and he has no jurisdiction in the Diocese of London. He is not a Pope.
And where does this leave us? A church that is internally and ecclesiologically coherent, but so structured as to appear incoherent to everybody else. In the modern media world it is mad that the Church of England does not have (or cannot work up) a common national communications or PR strategy. We keep trying – within the current polity – but the gap has been ruthlessly exposed by the situation at St Paul’s.
Having written the above explanation while in Cambridge and without wifi, I now see that the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury have spoken. The Archbishop of Canterbury issued a statement which says:
The announcement today of the resignation of the Dean of St Paul’s, coming as it does in the wake of the resignation of Canon Giles Fraser last week, is very sad news. The events of the last couple of weeks have shown very clearly how decisions made in good faith by good people under unusual pressure can have utterly unforeseen and unwelcome consequences, and the clergy of St Paul’s deserve our understanding in these circumstances.
Graeme Knowles has been a very distinguished Dean of St Paul’s, who has done a great deal to strengthen the pastoral and intellectual life of the Cathedral and its involvement in the life of London. He will be much missed, and I wish him and Susan well in whatever lies ahead.
The urgent larger issues raised by the protesters at St Paul’s remain very much on the table and we need – as a Church and as society as a whole – to work to make sure that they are properly addressed.”
When I get the chance I will move on from St Paul’s to the issues that caused people to camp there in the first place. But, I will say (as the Dean and Chapter of St Paul’s have said) that the questions raised by the protesters, the fundamental impatience with a system that rewards greed while the poor get poorer, need a much more coherent and intelligent response than they are getting so far. The fundamental questions about the unsustainability of the current system (who and what caused the current financial crisis?) need more urgent attention than they are currently getting from governments or the City. It is a crisis of credibility – on the day the ILO warns of social unrest following the likely world recession we now face. The current system isn’t exactly working, is it? Yet, the people running it do not seem to have alternatives to offer. That’s why the debate is urgent.
The attention needs to move away from questions about the propriety of camping on the highway and back on to what provoked such camps around the world.
And isn’t the Church well placed to ask those questions and push those debates? Er… it should be.
[Update 3 November: I have just been shown the print version of the Independent on Sunday piece. Not only do they get the quote wrong, but they also print a photograph of my predecessor who left office eighteen months ago or more.]
October 31, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Well, one has to be very careful and diplomatic Nick- well done.
To me it reminds me of that wonderful sit com – All Gas and Gaiters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Gas_and_Gaiters
I do hope you feel better very soon.
October 31, 2011 at 8:37 pm
I found it inappropriate for the Bishop of Buckingham to be found on the steps of Saint Paul’s uttering criticism of the Dean and Chapter to the watching tv audience. He is in the Diocese of Oxford – not London !
October 31, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Thanks for this. I’ve wanted to respond to some of the ‘why isn’t ++Rowan doing anything’ statements I’ve been seeing and hearing today, and you’ve just saved me the job of describing the way the CofE ‘works’.
You’re right that we need a better way of handling the press and PR though. We look amateur, reactionary and weak through this whole affair.
October 31, 2011 at 9:09 pm
When the debate begins on the substantive issues I hope it will be equally balanced and factually based.
I hope we might recall that two weeks ago
Smith Kline Benson released an anti malarial drug which will save the lives of over 800,000
toddlers each year. They will have been working on this for years, patent rights last only 12 years and many many millions in research funds expended. Despite this they are selling the drug at cost price.
Unlike those ” calling on” others to do something, this portion of “Big Pharma” has been quietly getting on with helping the poor and the outcast.
Surely, Jesus has a record of using the disliked and improbable, whilst denouncing the self righteous as ” whited sepulchres”.
We should not assume
October 31, 2011 at 10:36 pm
“These events affect not only St Paul’s, but (clearly) the Diocese of London… and the rest of the Church of England.” Yes, but it is the London-ness of St Paul’s which has led to this: people imagine it somehow to be Head Office. Had it been elsewhere, this event would not have had such nation-shaking quality. I think, incidentally, that you are too generous to the press: correspondents ought to have a working knowledge of their brief; Anglican cathedrals and dioceses are pretty basic to the religious life of England; the Cathedrals Measure is not such a long document that it cannot be read in an evening. But thank you very much for this resume.
October 31, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Nick, thanks for this. I understand the reluctance to comment on the situation at St Paul’s, but what I find harder to understand is the lack of comment about the financial situation overall.
My personal view is that seeing 50% increases in remuneration amongst directors, whilst even in the UK median incomes are flat, let alone considering what is happening in most of the world, is nothing short of evil.
The fact that so few bishops can articulate this gives a strong sense that the C of E is theological compromised by its relation with the Establishment.
Having said that, evangelicals in wealthy London churches have fared no better.
October 31, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Nick
I get it. Sort of. But it is pure madness. Are Rowan and John really sat there thinking “I wish I had the authority to speak about this, as I could really make a difference. Shame, I’ll have to just sit by and watch as the church suffers this damage to its reputation and several fine clergymen.”. If so, then shame on them.
I understand that it is not their patch, but when the brown stuff hits the fan, it is time for the big boys to turn up and make a difference. What is the worst that could happen? +Richard could get in a huff? They might actually help him!
The tragedy is that in reality the church is way ahead of the protestors on these issues, and milions of Anglicans are involved through Christian Aid, Church Urban Fund, numerous other local and national organisations, as well as in local poverty initiatives up and down the country. If only someone could point to the bigger picture…
I’m not blaming Rowan at all, but it is time for the church’s national media team to get involved and for someone to start driving the narrative in a different direction.
November 1, 2011 at 12:18 am
At last a coherent and valuable contribution to what has quickly turned into a disaster area for the Anglican church nationally and gift to a cynical press and country.surely oh surely this must lead to synod moving to have a policy that at least shows the church to be able to dialogue with the media and nation without huge explanations of the internal structure and workings Of the
organisation.
Please let this be a catalyst for change and not another opportunity lost.
November 1, 2011 at 1:00 am
Explanation appreciated – thankyou for taking the trouble.
November 1, 2011 at 1:53 am
That all seems pretty reasoned and thoughtful. I’m sure, though, that if you wanted to comment on the threatened eviction of the Occupy Bradford camp in your own diocese, your thoughts would be welcome. You’re welcome to drop by the camp in Centenary Square any time you like. General Assemblies are at 6pm week days and 2pm weekends.
November 1, 2011 at 7:16 am
One aspect of the Church’s relationship with the financial institutions, which might have been missed, is that the Church Commissioners are heavily involved through their investments. Without them, the Church’s income would be heavily diminished and would threaten the viability of things like Clergy Pensions, Mission and the work of the Church through agencies such as The Church Urban Fund to support the poor, deprived and vulnerable in our society.
This relationship creates a tension between the need for stewardship and to conserve resources to advance the work of the Kingdom and the practices and procedures of the financial sector, which might not be as ethical and are dedicated to the enrichment of a few and global domination, rather than the greater good. I am aware of the policy of Ethical Investment held by the Church and can see that they do good work, but without the overall financial sector prospering, the church will suffer financially as a direct result.
I am not sure whether this has anything to do with the silence from Church senior leadership, and would hope that it wouldn’t influence their ability to speak out against the way that the financial sector works – after all they are called to be Prophetic Witnesses in our world and our times, so have a duty to speak out, and to positive action.
Giles Fraser seems to me to have done the positive action, only to be overwhelmed by the unfortunate reactions of both the Cathedral Chapter, the Bishop of London and the media frenzy that ensued. I was really sad when he resigned, believing that he should have stayed and fought his corner from within, perhaps the outcome might now be very different.
November 1, 2011 at 7:57 am
I agree with Ian.
We will probably have to leave the church to be itself and to twist itself in it’s own structures. There Is No Alternative to the procedures and methods we operate…. it’s almost an extension of what Occupy is about, this strange sense of sclerosis that no-one can effectively question anything because it offends against some cast iron protocol.
Whether the Bishop of Buckingham should have spoken out or not depends, like the whole St Paul situation, on what you perceive the role of Christians to be.
I am glad, Nick, that you say that the Church is well placed to ask the questions Occupy is throwing up and that it should push those debates.
I sincerely hope that translates into more than publishing learned reports and discussing these things among the chaps but that it includes treating the protesters with respect and seeing them as part of the groups to talk with.
First signs are not hugely encouraging – the tone being one of “we’ll make sure that some of you get to talk to some really influential people and when you’ve had your say you can go home nicely”.
With so many hot button issues the church appears, on the whole, to be better at talking about people rather than to people.
Here’s hoping and praying that it will really get it this time and help to facilitate a genuine dialogue between the various groups in society.
November 1, 2011 at 8:12 am
Thanks for all the responses and questions. I am in meetings from 8.15am till 5pm and licensing a vicar this evening. I will try to respond properly and will write later (if possible) about the issues behind the protest. But, one question for now: why has no one (that I can detect) linked what the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote (and got ridiculed or attacked for) in the New Statesman just a few months ago to what is happening now? Silence isn’t a vacuum. More anon.
November 1, 2011 at 9:07 am
The Church of England will go on having intermitent PR disasters like the St Paul’s debacle until it restructures itself, alas in a way, into a more hierarchical organisation with rising levels able to ‘trump’ lower levels. Canterbury should be able to say what s/he likes, whenever and wherever – and on the big issues of the day would be expected to. The current situation has more than a few parallels with the Labour Party of the 1980s until Messers Kinnock, Mandelson, Gould etc sorted the shambles out. Maybe the CofE could learn a thing or two from the ‘Labour Rebuilt’ saga.
November 1, 2011 at 9:28 am
Nick, some of us strongly supported the Archbishop’s article in the New Statesman and did so publicly.
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at – that we should not now criticise him for being silent because he has previously spoken?
Or that the silence since his article has been creative? I would love to think that he has contributed to the situation where more and more people are showing (more or less intelligently) their discontent.
We know that the St Paul’s Institute too was poised to publish a report criticising the current system. It’s heart is clearly in the right place. The question now is how the church and St Paul’s in particular follows through in practice.
My personal difficulty with the stance of The Church is that it is too often either theoretical (and the New Statesman article falls into that category, as does the St Paul’s Institute report) or left to the often cited heroic priests at the coal face of parish life who are rolled out frequently when people complain that The Church is out of touch.
To (over-) generalise, in The Church it is “about” people, down at parish level it is “with” people.
To my mind, that’s the gap the church absolutely must bridge. And yes, it will be roundly criticised for bridging it, just like the Archbishop was criticised for his article. We must be prepared to give up popularity. The long term alternative is irrelevance and being compared quite unfavourably with the ideas of the one we claim to be following.
Right now, it looks as though Rowan Williams had set a theoretical benchmark against which St Paul’s responses to the protest must be judged. To my mind, this was the key sentence in his article: “To acknowledge the reality of fear is not necessarily to collude with it. But not to recognise how pervasive it is risks making it worse.”
Can The Church itself now live up to that?
November 1, 2011 at 9:41 am
A good article Nick and well done for making the comment. Now that the Bishop of London is acting at the helm of the Cathedral, it adds an extra risk to the whole situation. From now on, nobody can argue that it was an act of a single church/cathedral/chapter, as the action will be taken by the bishop of the diocese, irrespective in what capacity. Furthermore, despite our practical conventions of bishops not interfering with each other’s dioceses, as an episcopal Church in the historic catholic tradition, bishops (and their actions) represent the whole Church of God, not just their diocese. As such, and because he is a bishop, any action by +Richard will be taken as an action by the Church as a whole. (Unless the whole Church dissociates itself from him using the Usual Methods). This is so, both because of the way journalism and the media work, and also because of good Catholic tradition.
So a lot now hangs on the Bishop of London’s actions and decisions. As I have already said on Facebook, I think forcibly evicting the protesters, with the resulting media images featuring the Cathedral in the background, would be – in terms of the Church’s residual public moral authority and its mission – an act of “mutually-assured destruction” with implications for years to come. The question for me is, is +Richard the sort to press such a red button? If not, then why continue to pursue legal action when the whole thing is just a bluff?
November 1, 2011 at 9:44 am
The Anglican Church looks amateur, reactionary and weak through this whole affair. – oh yes and Bishop Richard wont ordain women at least the diocese of london is consistent or is it? does it have a press officer – ro preach te gospel
November 1, 2011 at 10:18 am
@TheChurchMouse There is no national media team. There might be some people who have the job title, but nobody is actually doing the job. It’s a shame, because just one competent individual would make such an incredible difference!
@Nick – thanks for the useful explanation. It is interesting that nobody has made the connection with ++Rowan’s N.S. article – short-term outlook on the part of the media perhaps, interested only in the immediate sound-bite rather than the big picture?
November 1, 2011 at 10:32 am
interesting article… i find the whole situation baffling! I have to say though i’m glad you went back to the real reason the protesters are there… What has got my back up is that the fact that in main the only thing the church comments on is its self! The fact that you start with the church as well just shows the kind of place we are in… why not start with the protest? why not try to get the issues raised in a wider forum?
It seems to me that the church becomes more irrelevant when all ‘we’ do is talk about ourselves!
Yes i think the situation is a sad one for the St. Paul’s… lets get on to that in due time… but the protest is now… the time to get some dialogue going on some of the key issues we all face is now… anyway… rant over!
November 1, 2011 at 10:59 am
[...] Nick Baines, (Bishop of Bradford), discusses some of the issues about why the structures of the church seem incomprehensible to those outside. This as he points out does raise questions regarding how the church communicates itself, i.e. how it communicates within the public square. He ends by saying, “The attention needs to move away from questions about the propriety of camping on the highway and back on to what provoked such camps around the world.And isn’t the Church well placed to ask those questions and push those debates? Er… it should be.” [...]
November 1, 2011 at 11:02 am
Thanks +Nick – a very thoughtful response & explanation – I would echo the response from James above : ” I’m sure, though, that if you wanted to comment on the threatened eviction of the Occupy Bradford camp in your own diocese, your thoughts would be welcome. You’re welcome to drop by the camp in Centenary Square any time you like. General Assemblies are at 6pm week days and 2pm weekends.”
It would be good for you to be seen engaging with this at local level…I wonder if you & Rev.Chris Howson could work together on a prophetic stance which would be pertinent for media consumption.
Rev. David Austin
November 1, 2011 at 11:11 am
Last night I spent an evening with my church home group, we discussed how Paul showed love to the Thessalonians, love beyond the call of duty. Of course
Paul followed the example set by Jesus. This is where the bar height is set, this is the calling of Christians. It goes beyond and outside the structures and understanding of mankind.
However society, believers and not, look to the Christian church for a response to man made problems (as Laurel and Hardy would say ‘that’s another fine mess you got us into’).
Therefore society cannot understand that the Church, and in this case the good old C of E has created such a structure that it cannot respond with clarity and love speak to the issues of the day. Not only that, it gives rise to personalities being hurt and having to resign appointments for which they are eminently suited – where is love in this? No wonder western Christianity is shrinking when it is so hamstrung that it looses connection with God’s people.
Every one of the C of E clergymen started from the same place, that is to say God called them to love his people through servant hood. Everyone served as a curate and then led His people as a Parish priest. How then can the clarity of the calling transform itself in to administrating and maintaining church structures that prevent the love of God to be shown to His people?
Let us pray that the sacrificial love of God may be revealed through our actions.
November 1, 2011 at 11:11 am
Thanks for the helpful explanation of how the C. of E. is structured in a way that appears incoherent to everyone else. I think the lack of a national PR strategy is a major weakness. I looked at the C. of E. website today to see what what news was on the homepage. The top news (posted 27 October) was about bishops’ expenses!
November 1, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Who or What caused the crisis? On the surface it seems a good question to ask. We do need a better understanding of the causes of the current situation to get the right solutions and safeguards in place. The trouble is we all want an answer which runs roughly, “not me. It was the bankers, or the Greeks, or the Chinese, or….”. In other words it is a blame game. What we need to do is find a way dealing with the issues. Easily said, not at all easy to do or to begin to understand what might be done.
The market or capitalism could find a solution to this but it is unlikely to be a just or palatable. Markets efficiently allocate resources, they don’t do justice. That does not mean the answer is to overthrow capitalism. Leaping out of the frying pan almost always lands you in the fire. It seems to me that the issues for a solution centre on debt and growth at both a national and a personal level: our personal and national bank balances are in debt because we expect there to be sufficient extra money in the future to repay them. We are no longer certain of this.
The current solutions being proposed do hit the weak again both at an individual and a national level. The current “occupy the stock exchange” movement is inspired by the “indignados” who occupied the centre of Madrid earlier in the year. Of the 16m unemployed in the EU nearly 5m live in Spain. Half of all people under 25 in Spain are without work. The European rescue plan announced last week will make this worse. Of the 106bn euros required to “recapitalise” the banks 26bn will need to be found by Spanish banks. Money which will no longer be available to invest in job creating enterprises. In the UK we are seeing benefit cuts, less state provided social support and growing unemployment and the debt is still going up and will continue to do so for some years.
In many counties coming elections will give people a voice. Spain has a general election this month, Germany has one next year. France and the USA have presidential elections next year. Greece will have its referendum. But there is no “solution” to vote for. People and Nations will express their indignation and despair. Why should the Greek people be impoverished for generations? Why should Germany always foot the bill? Why should Spain and Italy and Portugal pay their debts when Greece does not?
All of this says that none of us has the answer or at least not all of the answer yet. The market will try to find an answer and politicians will need to “manage” it as best they can. I do not think this is the time for the church to try and explain its internal structures or to worry too much about its PR. The priority is to speak up for the poor and disadvantaged and to do it with humility and passion. A humility which admits we do not have the answers but a passion that demonstrates a commitment to a universal and common humanity.
November 1, 2011 at 1:37 pm
According to a repoirt in today’s ‘Guardian’ the St Paul’s venue was a second best.
The paradox is, of course, that however seemingly diversionary, the focus on church matters has ended up being a PR coup for the camp in some ways. While a smaller, spillover outpost in Finsbury Square, further east in the City, has been largely ignored in recent days, the seemingly never-ending dithering of cathedral officials – especially the much-criticised decision to close St Paul’s for a week on never-fully-explained health and safety grounds – has kept the main camp continually in the news.
The decision to pitch 200 or so tents on a small triangle of paving slabs in the western shadow of the cathedral was apparently accidental. The camp, as befits its name, had initially targeted Paternoster Square, a modern business and retail development which contains the London Stock Exchange. As protesters gathered 17 days ago the privately-owned square was sealed off by police, funnelling them instead towards the adjoining cathedral.
But speaking privately, some camp members say the site had been informally discussed as a possible end point for two reasons. Firstly, its joint ownership by St Paul’s and the Corporation of London promised a legal minefield for eviction court cases. Additionally, the cathedral draws big crowds of visitors.
Whatever the intention, the location of the camp has drawn the Church of England into the debate, ever since the now-departed canon chancellor of St Paul’s, the Rev Giles Fraser, asked police to leave the steps rather than remove the protesters.
So who in the City arranged for the police to be at Paternoster Square and owes a very deep apology to all at St Paul’s especially the two who have resigned?
November 1, 2011 at 1:41 pm
I did not state in my post above that the Guardian article ending at from which I quoted was by Peter Walker. Also I omitted quotes at “The paradox is…” and ending at “remove the protestors.”
November 1, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Looks as though the bishop has taken the wise move and counselled the chapter to pull out of legal proceedings against the protesters. If so, disaster has probably been averted.
November 1, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Many thanks, Nick for an excellent blog – look forward to the continuing debate with the CofE taking an appropriate lead.
November 1, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Regarding number 2: it’s not inappropriate for Alan Wilson to be commenting on this issue, nor for him to be interviewed on Channel 4 News about it – where he made it quite clear he was speaking in a personal capacity.
@alantwilson should be applauded for what he has done, for providing some well thought out leadership – albeit in a personal capacity – when others in the Church were unwilling or felt unable to do so. Had someone taken a similar lead at an earlier stage, then the whole PR disaster and consequent damage to the reputation of the Church in the wider community *outside* might well not have needed to happen.
He is a top bloke. We are lucky to have him.
November 1, 2011 at 5:46 pm
I think “explanation not excuse” is a fair description, but I’m amazed none of the other commenters have pushed further into this and demanded more reform.
The Independent’s view was a fair one. Equally, just as you said, I can see exactly why all the bishops refused to comment, given our current structure; they were scrupulously not treading on someone else’s toes.
But this structure has left us critically voiceless just when the country, yes, the country, is genuinely wanting us to say something: it’s like they are crying out for the Church to take a lead against greed in the financial markets (which we would like to do) and we’ve just been saying “ah, well, it’s not my jurisdiction” and then the painful “it’s a matter for Chapter” when who on earth outside the Church understands what “Chapter” is.
And then, to cap it all, Rowan (who essentially I utterly admire) says let’s not forget the ‘urgent’ issues the protestors are talking about.
If they are really ‘urgent’, then surely Rowan should have spoken out in the previous two weeks at a time when the press was crying out for him to do so, and we’d have led a fascinating and penetrating debate into finance, riding on the crest of a phenomenal publicity wave that we could not have dreamt of in our wildest fantasies. But I guess he was scrupulously allowing the independence of the Cathedral, following the apppropaite structures. Frankly, that’s a shame; he had a great window to say something fundamental, and he has missed it. We have missed a golden opportunity.
I’ll float an idea: can’t we create something equivalent to the government’s Cobra committee which is strictly for sudden, unforeseen events (e.g. the foot and mouth crisis, the petrol crisis etc.) and that can help meet demand of both Press and also the wider country. Wouldn’t the Dean of St Paul’s have actually appreciated some clear-cut centralised support at a time when things were very difficult. I felt in the Church’s scrupulous desire not to tread on his toes, the Church rather hung him out to dry.
No one was being nasty or malicious. Rather, our structures critically let us down in our engagement with the country at large. We can’t just say “Oh well, we’re Anglicans, we don’t have a Pope system”: that’s just being deliberately disfunctional.
And did someone really suggest the Press should read a brief about the ecclesiology about Anglican Cathedrals? Or was that a joke?
What they want, and it’s a healthy want for once, is a real debate about money, who has it, why do so few have it, and when is earning too much really earning too much?
What it got was a muddle of chapter and worry.
We need urgently to adjust our systems in order to communicate the Gospel better.
November 1, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Giles Fraser showed a serious lack of judgment in intervening when the police would have moved the trespassers on. Now the whole cathedral has suffered, and the dean has lost his job over the turmoil thereby created.
November 1, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Robert, my own view is that it is much more fundamental than that: a theological failure to engage with this issue. I don’t think asking Ken Costa to be involved is going to help here either.
November 2, 2011 at 7:54 am
Keiran @ 31 – i believe the opposite to be true. Because Mr Fraser showed an understanding of the Gospel and had the police stopped from intervening, it has allowed the work of the Holy Spirit to get us to this point, where the situation is being debated, the people are being heard and the Church is stepping up to the moral leadership it is called to in the nation.
A few resignations to allow this to happen is what was required – and I say that with the utmost concern and respect for those individuals and families who are now affected by the effects of that. But they saw the moment to make a sacrifice for the benefit of something bigger and it will pay off, I’m sure of it. The whole Church will grow in confidence and its role will expand. Although it is painful, it seems like a time of hope.
November 2, 2011 at 8:17 am
“A few resignations to allow this to happen is what was required – and I say that with the utmost concern and respect for those individuals and families who are now affected by the effects of that. But they saw the moment to make a sacrifice for the benefit of something bigger and it will pay off, I’m sure of it. The whole Church will grow in confidence and its role will expand. Although it is painful, it seems like a time of hope.”
Yes, I think “Bomber” Harris said something similar. I hope you will back up your fine words and send Dr Knowles some money for rent, and something extra if he has any kids still in higher education.
This is an absurd farrago and farce. These unemploy-ed/-able day campers have no more business being in the square than they have in my garden, and a loose canon pandering to them with cheap populism only makes things worse.
November 2, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Ah we will have to disagree. I’m sure Dr Knowles will not be out on the streets any time soon but will be able to use his acknowledged talents elsewhere in the Church and society and I do hope and pray that for him and the others who have resigned. It seems the best opportunity that has happened to the Church and the nation for some time and we will all benefit from it.
I guess at the crux of this is what do you think the Church is for? What is its (what is our) purpose? This doesn’t seem like cheap populism to me, but a defining moment of prophetic significance.
November 2, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Great article.
I don’t want to comment on the substance of the issues, but the whole business does suggest yet again that we need to give some more coherent thought to communications and media relations at a national level. I realise there are structural difficulties (such as the respective jurisdiction and sometimes different opinions of archbishops, bishops, and chapters), and we don’t want to ape the worst of the 24-hour media culture (with its tendency to the short-term and the soundbite, and its reluctance to acknowledge nuance and complexity). But the professional presentation of the CofE in the web and the media is clearly important, and more work needs to be done on this.
November 2, 2011 at 2:36 pm
I see that the Bishop of London has appointed Ken Costa, a Christian investment banker, to ‘reconnect the financial with the ethical’.
Meanwhile, it has taken the courage of Rowan Williams to step outside the narrow limits of his own diocese and suggest a ‘Tobin Tax’ on banks. I wonder how Mr Costa will react. I look forwards to his report.
February 2, 2012 at 5:52 pm
I welcome Bishop Nick’s article. It affirms the propriety of respecting each diocese’s decisions, without unwelcome and inflammatory interference. I do concur that it might be a good idea to have a national PR respeonse ready to respond to events such as this.
But it would be dangerous to encourage the church to get more and more involved in political disputes. Politics divides people along ideological lines, and it makes it harder for legitimate power to assert itself for the common good.
Church leaders making political and partisan statements risks inflamming opinoin and hardening the stance of poluisits, cynics, and the pitifully enraged and antagonised in their expression of blame. The public is further encouraged to blame bankers while, in partisan fashion, ignore other causes of the present problems around capitalism, bankers, and sovereign debt crises.
Those duped by this will only become more dissatisfied with church leaders and politicians as they can never go as far as they would like. At the same time, a Christian perspective has not been put forward and none of this helps the problem of falling church attendance.
I am refering to Dr Rowan Williams lamentable remarks on the coalition, and on focusing exclusively on bankers and on cuts, showing himself to be partisan and on side of a centre left or even further to left, therefore alienating more than half the population. Meanwhile the other half would not be likely to be influenced by church or go to church , particularly in the absence of any Christian message.
Im afraid he was jumping on a populist band wagon, dangerously mixing politics and religion, and treating his own church’s congregation as though they were or should be subscribers to a certain ideology.
In particualr, the one sided attack on cuts and limits to welfare in that it discriminates the workless as though deserving, while saying nothing of overworked, overtaxed families who often earn less or live in less wealthy suburbs than those getting out of work benefits. This again alienates a huge proportion of people who might otherwise have been church attendees.
It was a sharp observation that Bishop Richard would act reflecting the reputation of the whole of catholic churches including the CofE. But should he feel restrained by the public opinion of only one side of an increasingly ideologically divided part of society. rather than worrying about that, they should have much better Pr of appeasement and focus on the needs of the Westminster Cathedral and its congregation and services.
If anyone wants an illustratration of how dangerous it is to mix using ones religious position to acheive political power then I recommend readers to visit the site of http://www.westernshugdensociety.org to find out about those Tibetan religious groups who have been ostracised and expelled from their communities for continuing an ancient spiritual practice for developing compassion and wisdom.
In a similar way, some are blaming bankers and scapegoating them deliberately to divert attention from the main cause of the nations financial crisis. The Tibetan Shugdenpas have been scapegoated fro the Dalai Lama’s failure to make progress on issues such as Tibetan independence and gross inequalities within Tibetan society.
As a shade of grey, if you like, in comparison to the horror of human rights abuses inflicted on an innocent minority, Dr Rowan Williams is setting a dangerous historical precedent that threatens to undo the constitutional separation of religion and politics.