I am in York for the General Synod of the Church of England – a session that lasts from this afternoon until next Tuesday. The agenda was varied in order to allow for a debate on a motion proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the wake of the EU Referendum. The Synod was encouraged by the Archbishop to look forward, not back.
I stood throughout the substantive debate, but was not called to speak – a little odd and frustrating given that I lead on Europe for the bishops in the House of Lords and chair the Meissen Commission, whose new German co-chair (Landesbischof Ralf Meister of Hanover) had just addressed the Synod.
Much of the debate was good, some was predictable. What was obvious, however, was how few of the ills attributed to the decision by 17million people to vote to leave the EU actually have/had nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. At some point this has to be named. If people wanted to express alienation for the political discourse or protest at the behaviour of Westminster, then the EU should not have been the target.
That said, the vote is a fact on the ground and we now need to get on with the consequences of the result.
Had I spoken in the debate I would have drawn attention back to a less introspective place. The European project had distinctively Christian origins and emerged from a Christian-driven post-war drive to create relationships that would prevent intra-European conflict in the future. Schumann did not dream up his vision from nowhere. So, the debate going forward has to do not only with economics, markets, jobs and currency values, but also with culture, education, hope and integration.
It is not insignificant that a group of German and British Christians exchanged visits as Europe “sleepwalked” (Christopher Clark) its way towards what was to be the First World War. As the world collapsed around them within a few years, the relationships continued. Enemies knew that they were friends because they were untitled by the cross and resurrection of Christ. In the run-up to what became the Second World War it was also relationships between Christians that held while the nationalisms screamed their allegiances. It wasn't just Bishop George Bell and Dietrich Bonhoeffer who kept the fires of love burning amid the conflagration of an 'Enlightened' continent.
So, in looking forward to what might come next for the UK and its place in Europe (if not in the EU), we might just learn from such a brief look back. It is the relationships that matter. And they matter more now, perhaps, than they did three weeks ago.
Church of England dioceses often have strong partnerships with Anglican dioceses around the world – often in exotic or 'other' places. Quite right, too, and very important. Trying to get links with European dioceses has proved more difficult because there is an assumption that “they” don't need us and, anyway, we know them already. But, this is simply wrong. There has never been a greater need for us to build strong relationships and partnerships with European Christians and churches than there is today. It is the relationships that sustain when everything else collapses – and the future of Europe looks more fragile today than it did just a few weeks ago.
I would say this, wouldn't I? After all, I am a europhile. I speak several European languages. I have strong friendships across Europe. I co-chair a European ecumenical body (the Meissen Commission). But, at risk of repetition, I say:
- Now is not the time to diminish our investment in European ecumenical work, but to grow it.
- Now is the time to create, build and strengthen sustainable relationships with European churches and Christians.
- Now is not the time to look just at what is happening in our own islands, but to look through the lens of those on the continental mainland.
- Now is the time to ask what we can contribute to the future of Europe and not just what we can gain from it (or from leaving the EU).
- Now is the time to do the step-by-step, hard work of building relationships and making reconciliation a reality – not just in the divided communities of the UK, but also across the continent.
Posted with Blogsy
July 8, 2016 at 6:56 pm
In a FB response to a thoughtful commentary on the Brexit vote by the historian Margaret Macmillan, I wrote, “…one observation in particular stands out for me: “The campaign has also underlined the failure of Britain’s political classes. The Tories and Labour have spent as much time fighting each other as talking about the referendum.” The same can be said of the Church of England over recent decades, where a potential prophetic voice, discomforting the smug and amoral movers and shakers and providing a consistent appeal on behalf of the marginalised has been squandered by domestic quarrels about gender and sexuality. The nation has been the loser.” Of course there have been all sorts of faithful actions by Anglicans at various levels to act out the demands of Matthew ch.25, but one can only wonder what might have been achieved had all the time and passion devoted to sexuality over the years in General Synod been directed differently.
July 8, 2016 at 8:05 pm
Typical of the church to ignore the experts on any subject – far more fun to allow people their ignorance and prejudice than real enlightenment!
July 8, 2016 at 9:11 pm
Trying to get links with European dioceses has proved more difficult because there is an assumption that “they” don’t need us and, anyway, we know them already.
Not entirely true, and you know it. If you want a relationship with the Germans or Scandinavians there are sizeable bodies to make ecumenical hay with (I know Gloucester were working towards a relationship with Vasteras in Sweden at one time). But try and convene a meeting with (say) a Protestant church in Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, and your choices are sects on the lunatic neo-pentecostal fringe or the Diocese of Europe’s expat implants who are already part of the C of E.
July 8, 2016 at 9:47 pm
It does seem a little strange that you were not called in this debate; and a little disappointing too.
I was reminded this morning of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s last recorded words that made reference to a universal Christian brotherhood. Surely, if anything, the shock delivered by the EU Referendum vote calls once again for a re-examination of the ecumenical movement as you highlight in your final comments.
By the way, I am so glad that you mention George Bell here. A burying of his memory carries with it the danger of burying the history of the ecumenical movement in the period either side of the 2nd World War. I also remember your introduction of Lesslie Newbiggin when he gave a lecture to us in Bristol.
I could not help but be struck by the lack of anxiety in the Pope’s remarks following the vote. I wonder if he has a Latin American perspective that makes him see Europe differently from those of us who are Europeans, or is it a Roman Catholic position that sees Christendom as a more authentic European movement than the EU? Surely it could be argued that the EU has travelled a fair distance from Schumann’s post war vision.
July 9, 2016 at 6:20 am
I would echo Iain Wallace’s remarks, on both points – the squandering of that prophetic voice, as much as the failure of the political classes to enunciate clearly the pros and cons of the EU referendum. The very personal abuse, and ‘destruction’ of individuals, went unchecked: and (I think) became a real contribution to the referendum result. As you rightly note, this was not by any means a well-informed debate on the EU itself. Is there any mechanism in mind, I wonder, whereby the House of Lords can act – in this and other fractious discussions – to moderate the political debate? This will become ever more urgent as the electorate continues to distrust, and dislike, their representatives. Burke urged that we trust their judgement, but for true credibility, this requires some mentoring from the House of Lords.
Best wishes LF Buckland
>
July 9, 2016 at 6:24 am
I would echo Iain Wallace’s remarks, on both points – the squandering of that prophetic voice, as much as the failure of the political classes to enunciate clearly the pros and cons of the EU referendum.
The very personal abuse, and ‘destruction’ of individuals, went unchecked: and (I think) became a real contribution to the referendum result. As you rightly note, this was not by any means a well-informed debate on the EU itself.
Is there any mechanism in mind, I wonder, whereby the House of Lords can act – in this and other fractious discussions – to moderate the political debate? This will become ever more urgent as the electorate continues to distrust, and dislike, their representatives. Burke urged that we trust their judgement, but for true credibility, this requires some mentoring from the House of Lords.
July 9, 2016 at 5:25 pm
“That said, the vote is a fact on the ground and we now need to get on with the consequences of the result.”
This is of course indisputable. It is what is to be done as a result of the vote that is the bone of contention. No matter what spin is put on the result by media and leave supporters, the vote was not decisive. Far from it. All it indicates is a very troubled nation, very far from ease with itself. New politics and economics, the sort as if people mattered (thank you EF Schumacher) are needed. I read with much interest George Monbiot’s recent blogs “Roots in the rubble” and “Labour Savers”. I hope that the Anglican Communion in the UK recommends that MPs vote to not invoke Article 50, if just for the sake of keeping the United Kingdom together. Think of the young people, most of whom voted to remain. They are the ones who are actually going to have to face the consequences of the future that evolves from Brexit. The EU referendum was ill thought out, and was an incredibly unwise move on the part of the PM. I say again something I have said before, and which also Bishop Nick has alluded to I think (correct me if I am mistaken, please). My own belief (and I am far from alone) is that referenda are profoundly undemocratic, and all the more dangerous because they have the illusion of democratic process (marking Xs in boxes). People have no say in when referenda are called, and on what issues; they have no say in shaping the question; the question itself reduces reduces immense issues with many nuances and grey areas to a simple yes-no / black-white answer. One cannot vote conditionally, such as “yes, if such and such is satisfied”. I think politicians use referenda when they want to avoid the responsibility if being wise leaders.
July 9, 2016 at 6:21 pm
Reblogged this on hungarywolf.
July 9, 2016 at 6:27 pm
Well said, Nick. There’s no discouragement shall make him once relent, his first avowed intent to be a pilgrim. This is just a brief sojourn on the pilgrimage of European pilgrimage to reintegrate Europe, with or without the current/ future governments of the United Kingdom.
July 9, 2016 at 6:29 pm
…pilgrimage of European Christians, that is…
July 9, 2016 at 6:59 pm
Possibly you weren’t called because people there were had already heard enough from you from other channels. But then again perhaps it was just an oversight.
July 10, 2016 at 5:22 am
Prophetic.
July 10, 2016 at 8:58 am
It is a bit odd that you were not called and perhaps it continues to reflect the antipathy towards those who actually know what they are talking about. I agree that we must do what we can to strengthen all our relationships with friends and churches across the EU. But I think that we need to be cautious about too easily ‘accepting’ the result of the referendum. Quite apart from the closeness of the result, the misrepresentations and deep divisions, there is the democratic principle that requires those who believe an election or referendum result to be wrong against the common good, to continue to oppose it. After a General Election we continue to have an Opposition whose duty it is to oppose. So now, I believe that there needs to be a continuing opposition, not just to mitigate the worst effects of Brexit, but to work democratically to remain in the European Union
July 10, 2016 at 9:43 am
[…] In his blog, the Bishop of Leeds, the Rt Rev Nick Baines commented: […]
July 11, 2016 at 9:52 am
In response to James, in Italy there is a well-established Waldensian church, ‘native’ protestantism in Italy, who also work closely with Methodists and Baptists here. With regard to the Diocese in Europe Churches you could describe them as ‘ex-pat’ churches, but many, if not most, of our congregations are now made up of ‘ex-pats’ from , alongside ‘natives’ of our host countries, and a good number of recent arrivals, including large numbers of refugees.
July 11, 2016 at 9:11 pm
There is indeed now an urgent need to “name” the underlying causes of alienation and disaffection that seemed to underlie the Brexit vote as these causes spring not from the EU but UK government policies. Urgent because we need to be contributing strongly to the public debate about what kind of country we think we are and what values we want to inform our future role in the world. Urgent too because the “fear of the other” and the permission that parts of the leave campaign gave to express xenophobia directly needs to be addressed.
We also need to be using all the powers we have to see the future of Eruope through our continental cousins’ eyes to be asking them how we can continue to help build peaceful cooperation and delight in cultural diversity. Strengthening, continuing and developing new partnerships and “twinning” across the continent is one way of helping to sustain the bonds that should be binding us.
July 12, 2016 at 2:13 pm
I agree with guy wilkinson on the need to continue the opposition to Brexit given the egregious leave campaign. The question is by what means?
July 13, 2016 at 11:22 pm
In Salisbury we are gathering a steering group across the parties and no party of those who continue to support the idea of Remain. We shall be gathering support using the lists from the StrongerIn campaign and will be aiming to be a ‘resistance’ locally until we see more clearly the shape of things nationally, hoping that there will be an emerging movement which will see that the decision was mistaken and that those responsible must be held accountable (and the appointments from Brexit of Johnson, Davis and Fox are helpful in this respect). We need to keep the idea of European partnership not only alive, but reinvigorated to the point that in due course the national mood will change