As over 9,000 ex-service personnel and civilians marched past the cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday, two Anglican bishops were questioning the Government’s policy in Afghanistan.
On the Wednesday before, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, the Rt Rev Peter Price, asked Baron William Brett in the House of Lords if he agreed “that the counterinsurgency and counterterrorism strategies have resulted in serious civilian casualties and the alienation of the population, producing angry recruits for terrorism, and that together with the Americans we should now, with development, using our military resources, provide security exclusively to protect the strategic rebuilding of the country that is urgently needed?” Lord Brett replied: “I cannot agree with the first part of his question; I do not think there is evidence that the vast majority of Afghans are alienated by what the United Kingdom and its allies seek to do. There is broad support.”
The rationale behind the campaign was further undermined by the Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt Rev Jonathan Gledhill, in his Remembrance Sunday sermon in Stoke Minster. The Bishop questioned whether the values the UK had sent its troops to uphold in Afghanistan were in fact valued domestically.
Bishop Gledhill said: “We are throwing our soldiers at a nation where the structures are endemically corrupt. We are trying to train up police in a society which is divided and where terrorism reigns. That is a difficult task for our troops and we salute them….”
Does anyone find arguments for disestablishment here?
On this point, no. Challenging the reasoning of the speakers is one thing, maintaining that as established bishops they have no right so to speak is quite another. There [b]is[/b] a case for disestablishment, but this isn’t it.
Of course, it was suggested in 1945 that Geoffrey Fisher was translated to Canterbury to succeed William Temple because Bell of Chichester had made the mistake of speaking against saturation bombing and Churchill had never forgiven him for it.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Being a thorn in the side is something our bishops practice regularly when not being a pain in the neck, or so it seems. But we probably get what we deserve. They don’t have enough to do to keep them busy, now that they don’t bother preaching the Word of God…..and there are so many things for them to expertly opine on: Afghanistan, banking, climate change, carbon footprints, the environment, the government, the opposition, how we spend our time, how we would spend our money [if we had any which the govenment hasn’t spent]…..so many topics, so little time. What a blessing they are; it saves us from having to think for ourselves.
Pageantmaster.
Tom Wright [b]both[/b] preaches the Word [b]and[/b] opines politically. For that matter, Peter Akinola recently preached against corruption in high places (a topic to which African bishops are going to have to devote increasing amounts of time in the coming century).
What the appropriate balance is between preaching and opining (80-20 or 90-10?) we can debate, but Anglicans have never been quietist in their practical theology. Should bishops refrain from speaking out on political issues? Well, for most of us, I suspect it depends whether what they say coincides with what we happen to think. I have no problem with Rowan Williams enunciating the pro-life case when hostile legislation is before Parliament, but you could just as easily argue that that’s a political intervention.
#4 Jeremy Bonner – well indeed you may have a point, but it is probably a question of balance. I expect that if you looked at AB Akinola’s use of time it would be no more than 5% talking on political topics and I suspect for Bishop Wright, 20% at the most. A lot of the rest is preaching, writing and presumably diocesan work. However if you read what regularly comes out of other bishops and archbishops you do not hear much about the Christian message. This is true of what you read on Rowan Williams’ site, although it is hard to tell given the fog which settles even there on the internet.
Is it something about wearing a purple shirt and living in a palace that convinces one that the world is just waiting to hear your every thought on every topic, that somehow you have special knowledge and insight over and above those who deal with these matters every day including generals and government ministers and civil servants in the foreign office? Who knows, however what is pretty evident to us is that there is a lot of talk going on not matched by action. To find out for example that the Bishop of London spends £27,000 a year on limousine drivers to transport him around even though he has been telling us all to cut our fuel expenses and not to fly is extraordinary. There are three London tube stations within a hundred yard walk of his home and buses passing every few minutes within 40 feet of his front door. Mind you I don’t suppose a crozier is the easiest thing to carry on a tube train – you would have to be careful not to trap it in the closing doors, but you see my point? I felt the same way listening to Rowan Williams instructing us all to grow our own vegetables while he has the use of two palaces…..and then there is the endless nannying and droning on and on about the environment and climate change ad nauseum. If there was even a perception of 5% of the time of some bishops spent preaching the Good News, that would be some encouragement.
But don’t mind me – there may be something about being a blog commenter that convinces one that the world is just waiting to hear your every thought on every topic
Back to the subject………
WHAT “strategy” ??
Grandmother
[blockquote] there may be something about being a blog commenter… [/blockquote] One free pass to the Laffin’ Place to the Loquacious Pageant Master.
#7 Thanks Brer
Meanwhile as if to make my point there is news from Planet Zog: the Archbishop of La-La-Land reckons we should pay more taxes:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6919607.ece
He ignores the fact that we live in what is now one of the most highly taxed countries in Europe [and that is saying something].
One despairs.
Now, it just may be that your archbishop campaigning for higher taxes does actually make a point for disestablishment. An elected representative would at least more circumspect.
But what do I know? After all, it was someone from my side of the pond–rather than yours–that said, “Taxation without representation is tryanny.”
#*: Ah, if I could upding you, I would. If they want to be politicians, they should do so. But on matters of political and economic punditry, they have no more competence than the rest – which isn’t saying much.