Fathomless Riches

Most of the popular tunes and fashionable beat combos of the 1980s are a closed book to me. But I do remember the Communards. Jimmy Somerville had the voice of an angel, and a rather spotty chest - I really don't like V-neck tops on men with nothing underneath - and that high-camp yearning they went in for spoke to me. That was the decade when it became OK to be gay and a pop star, among other things. It was also the decade when to be a gay man quite often meant you were dead, rather soon. I didn't remember the other half of the Communards, Richard Coles, at all. But he does have a rather good twitter feed, and now those tweets have been made into a book, which is his memoir. @RevRichardColes, which gives you a clue as to what he is doing now. Like most memoirs the good bits are at the beginning, about his childhood and family, and the dramatic moments in the middle. When he was a drug-addled star, he says, he might have bought a speedboat. He might have, but he isn't sure, and he doesn't know where it is now, if he did. I liked quite a lot in this book. It is relentlessly honest, as Coles has to be, at least now that he is an Anglican priest. He even admits that at one time he pretended to be HIV-positive - that shocked me. He said later in an interview that it was only his sexual timidity that kept him alive. Although I must say I don't think it is particularly sexually timid to drive out into the countryside and have sex in laybys with men you have never met before. Coles lives, allegedly, a celibate life these days, as the Church of England says its gay ordained must (impertinently, in my view). For me there wasn't quite enough in his book about his life in the Church (which came after the drugs and the stardom), but I guess he thought his pop-picker readers wouldn't be interested in that. On the contrary, I contend. I hope Coles writes another book. Oh and nice reference to Gilbert and George (isn't it?) on the cover.

do we do God?

David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister, had a reception for Christian leaders in the UK just before Easter. His speech there was reported in the Church Times, as you might expect, but quite widely elsewhere too. He said he appreciated Christian values, which he characterised as hard work, humility, giving and social action. Nothing out of the ordinary there. Perhaps slightly more crowd-pleasingly, he said "Jesus invented the Big Society". Alarm bells sound. Jesus did no such thing. The notion of the Big Society (not a new one of course) may to some extent have been informed by what are described as Christian values. I would suggest that subscribing to such notions is in culturally various ways part of all faiths, and that those of no faith also very often live by a similar moral code - which David Cameron did say. He also, and this is a little more worrying politically, described himself as a "member of the Church of England". Well, fine. So am I. Although it's not a body you really "join", other than to be baptised and confirmed. I am never sure how much you are a "member" if you have been baptised and confirmed but never go into a church.

Where I would question Cameron's wisdom in this speech is in his including mention of his own faith. That is a matter between him and God, as it is for us all. It is not, and never should be, part of any political strategy, still less a plank of an election platform. Cameron came dangerously close to making it so in that speech. Alastair Campbell famously said "We don't do God". Tony Blair of course does very much do God, though even he does it quite politically - he waited until he was out of office to go over to Rome. But maybe that is because there is an established church in England, something I personally would like to see abolished - any political leader has to work with that, and so there is an MP who is the member for God in the Commons, and there are bishops in the House of Lords. Anyway, David Cameron talked about Christian values and praised his local vicar, as well as indicating that the Church had helped him when his son died some years ago. Nothing wrong with that. David Cameron has a reception for Eid and for Diwali, and nobody thinks there is anything wrong with his doing so. At those receptions he does not describe the UK as a Muslim country or a Hindu country, even though there are millions of adherents to both those faiths in the UK.

Now a "group of 50" cultural luminaries have written a letter to the Daily Telegraph in which they bemoan, as they put it, Cameron's designation of the UK as a "Christian country", which they call divisive and wrong. They say he should not appropriate Christianity as representative or descriptive of the UK. You may agree with them. (I always wonder how these open letters get produced so quickly. Do the luminaries all text each other and get together in an Islington wine bar the same night to thrash out a text? I fancy not. Perhaps one of them would like to get in touch and tell me how they do it). But David Cameron did not call the UK a Christian country. What he did was allude to the extent to which Christianity has been woven into the fabric of British life, and to refer to the unique liturgy of the Church of England, the beauty of its churches, and so on. So, luminary brothers and sisters, what you did was set up a straw man "We are a Christian country!" and knock it down "Oh no we're not!" A venerable political tactic, but not a very respectable one, and thus not much respected by the voting public.

It has been reported that Cameron's "Christian" focus is intended to win back the mostly older demographic which has moved from the Tories to UKIP. I do not imagine that that demographic is especially devout. Listen to Nigel Farage's utterances,and look at his personal style, and you would take his constituency to be an utterly materialist ("He's after your job!") and a frivolous ("Mine's a pint!") one.

In short, I think all this "controversy" is just rubbish. Manufactured. Dreamed up. And the public Do Not Care. So, "group of 50", you have wasted your time. No one cares what you think about what Cameron thinks about the Church of England.

Oh, by the way. I am an Anglican. I attend the Anglican church in Strasbourg, France. At one time I didn't like some of the things that were being said and done there. This happens in all organisations. Not all members are pleased with everything they do all the time. So I thought, could I go somewhere else. Not being a Roman Catholic, I could have gone to one of the French Protestant churches, which in this part of France are quite numerous. But I am not a Protestant. "The Church of England by law established" is a reformed Catholic church. So there. Not a lot of people know that.

Anthony Trollope, 'Barchester Towers'

I have read 'The Warden', the first in the Barsetshire series, and thought it was OK, a good taster. This however is hilarious. Here is my Goodreads review:

Splendid stuff. Hilariously funny at times, superbly plotted, highly political. Sexy too, a bit to my surprise. No way of understanding the Church of England without reading this - even though it was written well over a century ago. I loved it. His editorialising took some getting used to to begin with - he indicates from time to time that such and such a character is expepcting this or that to happen but is bound for disappointment - but I grew to expect and enjoy it.  This is one to come back to. But not least, I shall be reading on. There should be a Facebook quiz "Which 'Barchester Towers' character are you?" I want to be Madeleine Neroni or Bertie Stanhope.

broadly Christian

Most of my adult life, and indeed my childhood and growing up years, have been spent not going to church. I wasn't brought up that way. Although I was baptised in the Church of England, my younger brother and sister were not (they both did it on their own initiative later) because my parents thought it was hypocritical to have them baptised when they themselves were not churchgoers. I now think my parents were wrong, although when I heard this when I was  growing up I was rather proud of them. Because baptism involves godparents, and it is they who take the responsibility, or should. Parents only have to promise to do their best, and that is what all parents want to do anyway. I go to church these days, have done so for the past few years, and every Sunday it strikes me that although there is much I have had to learn about worship in the Church of England over the past few years, a great deal in the liturgy is entirely familiar to me. This is because every morning, when I was at school, we had assembly, and these forms of words were used. We had grace before lunch int he school canteen. We joked about "the piece of cod that passeth all understanding" on Fridays, thinking we had invented it, but it is in the Molesworth books, which portray a generation a bit older than my own, so it must have been current in many schools. I hadn't read Molesworth at the time that phrase was being used by my contemporaries, and neither I think had they.  Most people my age or older know, at least from school assemblies, the words "we have left undone that which we ought to have done" and some of us remember, or think we remember (this is an urban myth I believe) being at an assembly when the trousers of the teacher intoning these words were in precisely that condition - cue hilarity.

Anyway, I got to wondering how they taught trainee teachers to do these assemblies, back in the day. That requirement, for an assembly of a broadly Christian character, is still there today - in fact the provision in the 1944 Education Act was strengthened in the 1988 Education Reform Act, which I remember well. Not all teachers are Christian, in fact I suspect that most of them are not, and assemblies no longer use the Book of Common Prayer and other bits of Anglican liturgy as they did in the 1950s and 1960s when I was going to school. I remember thinking in secondary school that the headmaster, who took most of the assemblies, didn't believe a word of what he was saying, and despising him for it more than I did already. Quite possibly he didn't. If he had had a dog-collar on we might have made the assumption that he did. But there is still an issue now. So how then, and now, do teachers of non-Christian or no faith manage with this stuff? Can anyone tell me?

letter to women clergy

this is a letter to the women clergy of the Anglican Diocese of Europe (who are many), sent out following the vote that there shall not be women bishops.  I thought it was worth reproducing, and I thank Bishops Geoffrey and David for sending it.  I got it from Bishop David's blog

Letter to the women clergy of the Diocese in Europe

Following on the failure of the proposed legislation to enable the consecration of women as bishops to gain necessary approval in the final consideration vote in the General Synod, Bishop Geoffrey and I have sent the following letter to the women clergy of our diocese: 

21 November 2012

To the women clergy of the Diocese in Europe

  

Dear Sisters

As a result of the vote in the General Synod yesterday,
there is deep sadness and disappointment felt by so many in our Church, and
bewilderment in the world we are called to serve. For both of us, yesterday’s
pattern of voting raises questions about the processes of the General Synod in
considering this kind of legislation. We know from the results of the diocesan
synods across the Church, including our own, that the Church of England does
want women bishops. The size of the majority which voted in favour of the
legislation at the General Synod yesterday confirmed this. However, as we know,
the hurdle to attain 2/3 of the votes in each house of the Synod is a high one,
and rightly so, when we need to decide on important matters which touch upon
the unity of the Church. In the house of laity there were 6 votes short of this
requirement.

We have to remember that what was defeated yesterday was a
particular and quite complex piece of legislation. A great deal of work has
gone into this and much of that will not be wasted when, in due course, a new Measure
comes before the Synod to enable the consecration of women to the episcopate
and to make proper provision for those with theological reservations about this.

In the face of the widely shared disappointment resulting
from the Synod vote, we both want personally to affirm and uphold the valued
place that women priests and deacons have in this diocese. As an international
part of the Church of England, very much the Anglican Communion in miniature,
we in the Diocese in Europe are already aware of the blessings that women in
all three sacred orders of ministry bring to Churches of the Anglican Communion
in the Americas, the Pacific and Africa. Moreover, we observe very closely the
fruitfulness of the ministry of women bishops in our sister Churches of the
Porvoo Communion in Iceland, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden, even while some
other partner Churches do not accept this development.

Let us pray earnestly for a healing of our strains and
divisions and that God will help us to find a way through these difficulties,
with wisdom and with generosity towards each other.

May God also grant us strength to continue to witness
with integrity to the Gospel of love, justice and reconciliation.

Your brothers in Christ

 +Geoffrey                                                                 +David

 Bishop Geoffrey                                                         Bishop
David

.

back to the kitchen

the Church of England says no to women bishops, and this issue may not be reintroduced for another five years, unless various chairs and vice-chairs call for it. Which I would be very surprised if they do.  Very sad, very disappointed, very much a backward step, it wasn't by much, but it was a democratic vote. The people have spoken.  How I wish they wouldn't, sometimes.  But there you have it.

Anglicans and the Grand Order of Moose

there is a fun piece in Anglicans On Line this week drawing comparisons between the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church,  and the Grand Order of Moose (no, me neither, but I should have), with particular reference to the ability of women to hold office and to the response to ill-doing within the ranks of those bodies.  You can read it here, and while it is amusing in a way, the point it makes is serious.  In particular, it refers to the "angry old men" who (this last is my own view) hate women, and cover their hate with supposed "arguments" against allowing women to hold office.

Just look back a little, you don't have to go far back, and remember that until 1961 female civli servants in the UK had to resign when they married.  Until at least the 1950s most female teachers were unmarried, not because they were dedicated spinsters married to their vocation, but because if they married they very often lost their jobs.  Many of them pretended to be single, and lived covertly with a partner to whom they were not married.  Women were not allowed to be ordained in the Church of England unti lthe 1990s.  There was a furious row at the time, but the Church remained strong, there are a great many women priests, and no lightning bolt came from heaven.  I am no theologian, but it is worth noting that according to the Gospels the first apostle was a woman.  Mary Magdalene.  Look it up.  Apostle to the apostles.

consider yourself bound

Norm reproduces the text of a letter to the Jewish Chronicle, to which he is one of the signatories, as follows:

Here is the text of a letter to the Jewish Chronicle:

It is a matter of great regret that Lord Sacks has chosen to make a statement in his official capacity opposing the right of gay and lesbian men and women to marry. Even if same-sex marriage is contrary to Jewish law, it does not compromise the position of Orthodox Jews to let others marry as they wish. Lord Sacks has sought to influence how the generality of the population leads its life.

Further, and contrary to the submissions of the Beth Din, the change in the law will not force religious officers to officiate same-sex marriages against their wish. The law will apply only to secular ceremonies of marriage over which, by necessary definition, religious officers do not preside.

Jewish law may prohibit same-sex relations and among those Jews who consider themselves bound by Jewish law it operates as a restraint on how they may otherwise live their lives. But Jewish law can play no part in a modern secular society in restricting the lives of non-Jews - and Jews - who do not accept its restraints. The proper response to the consultation should have been: it is not our proper business to comment. Speaking when silence is required is no virtue.

The letters signatories are: Simone Abel, Lisa Appignanesi, Jeremy Brier, Professor Josh Cohen, Daniel Finkelstein, Stephen Fry, Eve Garrard, Jonny Geller, Professor Norman Geras, Caren Gestetner, Professor Simon Goldhill, Richard Hermer QC, Dr David Hirsh, Julia Hobsbawm, Anthony Julius, James Libson, Karen Mattison, Lord Parry Mitchell, The René Cassin Organisation, Dr Felix Posen, Dinah Rose QC, Clive Sheldon QC, Dina Shiloh, Katy Showman, David Toube, Paul Usiskin.

Seems spot on to me.  If you operate within a theology that binds some of the choices in how you live your life, as Orthodox (and many other) Jews do, then that is your choice,  Of course, if you live in a society in which you are not allowed to choose (Iran and many others) that is a whole different matter.  But no canon law of any faith can or should attempt to regulate the lives of those who are not of that faith, still less the activities of secular state bodies.  If you practise a faith then you accept the restraints it may place upon your activity and behaviour.  My nephew is a member of a Catholic lay order which requires celibacy.  That is one kind of restraint, which he has chosen.  In email conversation with a noted Catholic theologian of my acquaintance (OK, it was my brother) he described himself as "taking very seriously" the disciplines and dictates of the Catholic Church over the centuries.  Nobody made him do that.  Unless, you may say, God made him do it.

My point here is not a theological one.  I am not qualified, nor would I wish, to debate theology.  My point is that the dictates of faith rub up against secular laws quite often in the "free" Western societies, and there is no need for them to.  Faith groups should just leave it alone.  Where there is an established church it gets a bit more problematic, as in England.  But I am against the established church.  And I am, these days, a practising Anglican, and I wish, wish, wish the Anglican Communion would leave it alone too.

not one of us

this is a guest post from Flashing Blade, reposted from his site with his permission.  Interesting that this is the phrase automatically chosen, hein?

I return to the despicable, desperate, ‘dog-whistle’ racist leaflet produced by John Howarth’s Public Impact Ltd for Reading Labour Party.

On my twitter feed the chief political commentator of the Independent on Sunday, John Rentoul retweeted an article in the Sunday Telegraph religion section about the favourite to be the next Archbisop of Cantebury, Dr John Sentamu. It was retweeted by Mr Rentoul to highlight the use of language in the piece but I noticed something separate:


Reading Labour racist dog-whistle



“At its best, the besmirching of John Sentamu has revealed that strand of snobbery which views outsiders as lacking class, diplomacy or civility — in other words ‘not one of us,’” said the Rev Arun Arora.

“At worst, it has elicited the naked racism which still bubbles under the surface in our society, and which is exposed when a black man is in line to break the chains of history.”

The last paragraph won the Daniel Hannan award for mixed metaphor of the day. The use of ‘one of us’ in the first paragraph quoted is interesting as showing that what is meant by the use of the phrase are “outsiders” lacking “class, diplomacy or civility” that it has highlighted “the naked racism which still bubbles under the surface” Whereas the Reading Labour Party agent tries to justify the use of the term “one of us”, in terms of a white woman candidate ‘born and bred’ on the other side of the town, in drawing a distinction with a Pakistani born, local-living candidate:

“Labour voters in Church Ward are entitled to know that their candidate is not likely to abandon her party and that she understands the issues that matter to them. In other words, she is ’one of us’,”

And the school-girlish Sarah “No Councillor” Hacker tries to justify the term thus:

“As for the statement ‘one of us’. Again, how is this racist? Who is defining ‘us’? Reading Labour are defining it as a resident, a family…”

Both of the defences mentioned above fail totally to address the racist aspect of the use of the term, the drawing of ‘the us’ against the other in the use in Church ward highlighted by the quote from the paper.

he's off

as imagined by Matt in the Daily Telegraph

non-existent? my arse

the Normster draws our attention to a piece by the Rev. Dr. Peter Mullen, who is a Church of England cleric, about Syria.  The Rev. Dr. Mullen appears to be trying, as a number of commentators have in recent days, to justify leaving the Syrian regime to slaughter its people.  Note, however, this:

I’m afraid we have to repeat the old lesson again and again. Nations act in their perceived national interests. Sometimes the consequences are benign, but it does no good at all to imagine that they will always be so. A particular state may even sometimes take an internationalist stance. But – if its leaders are in their right minds – it will not do so out of a sentimental attachment to non-existent universal values, but only from what it calculates as its own interest.


Nations act in their perceived national interest.  Yep.  But where does Responsibility to Protect come from?  Whose national interests are served by that?  It's likely that Russia at least prefers to retain a client in the Middle East, and sees Syria as precisely that, and that both China and Russia do not want their own minority nationalities to get ideas.  (Sorry chaps, they already have).


Jolly good.  I am no theologian, but Peter Mullen has been ordained and does not believe in universal values?  Who does the Gospel apply to then?  The Ten Commandments?  Only nice people who read the Guardian?  Not a bunch of stone-throwing brown-skin Ay-rabs?  And if what I write here offends anyone, good.


The piece quoted from is to be found in the Telegraph.  Peter Mullen is:

The Rev Dr Peter Mullen is Rector of St Michael, Cornhill and St Sepulchre-without-Newgate in the City of London. He is Chaplain to six Livery Companies of the City of London and has written for many publications including the Wall Street Journal.