Bishops and the riots

I can't make up my mind. What has been the most helpful reaction to this week's events from the Church of England?

On the one hand, there's this from the Archbishop of Canterbury:-


(hat tip: Damian Thompson)

On the other hand there's this from the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, who is not merely Bishop of Southwark but Bishop for Urban Life and Faith:-

"The images of violence and destruction on our screens do not represent the strong, hopeful and vibrant communities I know so well. I want to appeal to those responsible for the disturbances to stop.

"Today, as many in our Diocese count the cost of the disturbances, I am deeply saddened to see the images of destruction in familiar places. I will in the days ahead visit those communities that have been at the centre of trouble and I continue to promise my support for, and solidarity with, all who seek to build positive and constructive engagement.

"The Christian message is one of hope, love and peace and I know that the churches of Southwark Diocese stand ready to play their part in bringing healing and hope to the places they serve. I am asking them to offer special prayers for the healing and peace of our cities when they gather for worship this Sunday and week by week, remembering especially those who have been personally affected and have lost homes and livelihoods.

"Southwark Cathedral, along with many other churches in the Diocese, remains open as a place of prayer and reflection."

Much as he knows and loves those strong, hopeful and vibrant communities, they'll have to wait a day or two for that positive and constructive engagement, then...
 
This is an institution which, at its higher levels, can hardly be bothered any more to even pretend it is relevant. Dr Chessun, one assumes, is well aware that out on those vibrant streets right now "I'm your local bishop" means less than nothing. Rowan Williams occupies the highest post next to the Queen in the Established Church: it is a civic role, not just a spiritual one. He has at length spoken - on Day Five. Not to the nation, but to the House of Lords. As usual, he sounds as if he was delivering an academic paper.
 
I don't want to be scoring sectarian points here, and goodness knows there are some wishy washy Catholic bishops, but in this company Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, sounds like Jeremiah. I would have liked him to offer explicit support to the police. But, where most of the Bishop of Southwark's statement sounds as if he was reacting to a natural disaster, Archbishop Nichols speaks plainly of wrongdoing and its consequences, in language which stands some chance of touching the hearts of those in the thick of it - anxious parents, kids tempted to go along with their mates. His appeal for prayer is, of course, one that should be heeded.
 
If good can come out of this mess it will be through the application of some very tough love at all levels of society. There are many in the Church of England crying out for leadership. A country with good reasons for cynicism about the worlds of politics and media desperately needs a lead from its Established Church. But the Church's leadership is not fit for purpose.

Have I got this right?

'This is not helped by a quiet resurgence of the seductive language of "deserving" and "undeserving" poor, nor by the steady pressure to increase what look like punitive responses to alleged abuses of the system.'

- Ed Miliband

'those at the top and the bottom who were not showing responsibility and were shirking their duty to each other [...] some of those on benefits who were abusing the system because they could work - but didn't.

'Labour - a party founded by hard-working people for hard-working people - was seen by some, however unfairly, as the party of those ripping off our society.'

- The Archbshop of Canterbury

No, wait...

On the murder of 21 Christians

In the first place:-

'intermarriage between Coptic men and Muslim women is illegal.'

- from Time magazine



In the second place:-

The Laws for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour
(September 15, 1935)

Entirely convinced that the purity of German blood is essential to the further existence of the German people, and inspired by the uncompromising determination to safeguard the future of the German nation, the Reichstag has unanimously resolved upon the following law, which is promulgated herewith:

Section 1

Marriages between Jews and citizens (German: Staatsangehörige) of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.

(source: Wikipedia)


In the third place:-

'We know the long and honourable history of co-existence of Christians and Muslims in Egypt and are confident that the overwhelming majority of Egyptian people will join in condemning this and similar acts.'

- the Archbishop of Canterbury, from his statement on the Alexandria church bombing.

Now I'm not expecting Rowan Williams to say something inflammatory. But waffle as mendacious as this is worse than silence.

There's some good background stuff at the Guardian, to give it its due - here and here. Another sample of that honourable co-existence:-

'Egypt's Christians have played as big a part in the recent demographic explosion as their fellow Muslims, but whereas new mosques are built and renovated freely, Christians have to navigate a bewilderingly web of bureaucracy to secure permission for construction. There are an estimated 2,000 churches in Egypt today, alongside 93,000 mosques.'

So 1 church for every 46-and-a-half mosques. One Egyptian in ten is Christian.

'Pontiff: Christians are most persecuted'

- so runs the front page headline in the Christmas edition of the Catholic Herald, over a report on the Pope's World Peace Day message, dated 8 December. Can we agree that Pope Benedict is not quite as out of touch as he's often painted? It's good that this is said, not because it's good for Christians to be trying to face down others in a game of victimhood poker, but because it's manifestly true.

Both the Pope and Rowan Williams have been at pains to further Christian-Muslim dialogue, and that is also a good thing. But only one of them seems prepared to say plainly that there can be no dialogue where one party is holding a pistol to the other's head.

As for the BBC and its talk of sectarian tensions...

When I entered "Islamophobia" into the BBC News search engine it offered me 171 hits in the blink of an eye. Then I tried "Christophobia"; I thought I would have to give this up as a bad job after it had pondered for five minutes, but eventually it dredged up three hits from 2004 and 2006.

Those who have introduced "Islamophobia" into our political discourse have been spectacularly successful in framing the terms of debate about the relationship between British Muslims and the rest of society. This has happened in spite of our Muslim communities never - thank God - having had to face anything remotely comparable to the Alexandria church bombing. If a bomb ever did claim 21 lives at a British mosque, can there be the slightest doubt that for the BBC it would be an "Islamophobia" story and not a "sectarian tensions" one?

A Canterbury Tale

Fouer and Twyntie theye came to seke
The Arche-Bishop, wyse and meke
Labouryte and hippye, Gaye and Greene
Anti-warre and libertyne
All sondry folke urbayne and progressyve
Vexed by Musselmans aggressyve.
Hie and thither to the Arche-Bishop's manse
The pilgryms ryde and fynde perchance
The hooly Bishop takynge tea
Whilste watching himselfe on BBC.
Heere was a hooly manne of peace
Withe bearyd of snow and wyld brows of fleece...

I was planning to post one or two more thoughts on the ABC, but now I must admit defeat: there's no way I can cap this (hat tip: Laban).

Among friends

The kind of Curmudge folk who turn out to hear a lecture from the Archdruid must be 90% Grauniad and Indie readers. In other words, he was among friends - even if many of them feel he's sold out on the gay issue. As visual confirmation of this, there were some people dotted around the audience clad in orange boiler suits, who'd evidently been on an anti-Gitmo demo earlier in the day. Nothing wrong with that in itself, you just have to wonder whether any of them has ever demonstrated against terrorism.

One telling little indicator of his natural rapport with this kind of audience. One of the questions pitched at him was whether Sharia was an instance of what he'd called 'terrible religion'. He agreed that some of the ways in which it is implemented are indeed terrible - as, for instance, in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, ally of the Evil Empire, so bash it as much as you like and collect a political brownie point. He could, of course, have cited other examples of terribleness - the Taliban, or Iran, maybe. But these are enemies of the E. E., not to mention Iran's role as sponsor of the heroic anti-Zionist resistance ('We are all Hezbollah', remember). No brownie points to be picked up there, so no name checks from the Archdruid.

Still alive

The masses seem to be getting impatient. Or at least two of them. Bless your 'earts, guv'nors.

So, greetings to the world from the fine city of Curmudge (from OE 'Grumpabrica'). We thank our well-wishers, and can report a generally satisfactory move. We are substantially unpacked, though the process does seem inevitably subject to the law stating that the final 10% of boxes will create 90% of the headaches.

Contact with the blogosphere has been re-established. In setting up our broadband access I suffered the mortification of realizing only several minutes into my call to the tech support wallah that I had conjured up the scary error message merely by dropping a digit when I entered my PIN. Grumpy the idiot user - oh, the shame of it! Well, such humbling experiences make for a good Lenten discipline; plus, who says us blokes no longer have a role in the home?

Anyway, back to the serious stuff. Thing is, I haven't really been able to concentrate on the news properly, so am still a little hazy about what's been going on. I did pick up on a story about my Spiritual Leader saying it's no good expecting our local Sicilians to have that warm included feeling if we don't give proper legal recognition to the cultural traditions embodied in Omertà. Or something to that effect.

Some people seem to have got their knickers in a twist over this, but they must be the ones who weren't paying attention when he was speaking. Otherwise they'd know that he was only talking about family conflict resolution and the like, all strictly subject to universally accepted human rights and nothing whatsoever to do with concrete overcoats, Gats in violin cases, etc etc. Honestly, these journalists, eh? And don't get me started on bloggers...

I'm reminded of an anecdote about the eminent Victorian theologian James Martineau. A leading light in his congregation was asked if she had understood his latest sermon. 'I would not presume to understand Dr Martineau' was her poker-faced reply. Truly, an example to today's scribblers.*

Coincidentally, I had the opportunity to experience the S. L. at a live gig last night. He delivered a lecture which resolutely avoided the topic of Omertà, but inevitably it came up when questions were invited from the audience. When it did, he basically offered a repeat of what he said in his address to Synod last week. Superficially, the stance is wryly apologetic, but the substance is a non-apology: sorry for being so clever, I should have realized that I needed to say it in words of one syllable for the benefit of those dreadful oiks in the media. And since Curmudge is of course a place where the entire pecking order is founded on perceived cleverness, he got a handsome round of applause for this. I couldn't help finding him likable on a personal level; there is a real air of holiness, and when he sticks to theology there are nuggets of genuine wisdom buried among the woolly verbiage. But I'm afraid that non-apology again betrayed the touch of intellectual arrogance complained of here.

OK, the Sun gave us the inevitable 'Bash the Bishop' headline over a picture of the S. L. next to one of a woman in a burqa. That's an easy target. But some of us have read the speech, have managed to unscramble what he's getting at, and think it's dangerous nonsense. To use an expression of which the S. L. is fond, we would like him to engage with us.

*Martineau's prose can be sampled in, of all places, one of the Jeeves stories. In fact it's the one where the demigod first makes his appearance, 'Jeeves Takes Charge' from 'Carry On, Jeeves'. 'Types of Ethical Theory', the indigestible tome foisted on Bertie Wooster by his terrifyingly brainy fiancee Lady Florence Craye, is one of Martineau's efforts. 'Quite unsuitable', thinks Jeeves, and the only thing to be said in its favour is that the prospect of being started on the 'fundamentally unsound' Nietzsche is even worse.

Did you hear the one about the Archbishop, the Muslim and the Good Samaritan?

Better late than never department: that Rowan Williams interview again. The Times report has a 'Read the interview in full' link which actually just gives you the cover of the Muslim magazine which published it. This is the correct link, though it still isn't 'in full', just a fuller version as editorialized for the mag (the link has an impermanent look to it, so catch it while you can).

Actually, I would very much like to read/hear the thing verbatim, since that would allow me to judge how far the Archbish is the innocent victim of a stitch-up by his interviewer.

For Sarah Joseph is, I fear, a distinctly slippery customer. Take her reference to:-

'the Danish legislation that banned its citizens who are under 25 from marrying a foreign national, and other such repressive moves throughout Europe'

Well, I couldn't believe that, so I googled it and came up with this, which, whilst it contains more than enough nonsense, is quite sufficient to convict Ms Joseph of not letting the facts get in the way of a good victim whine. I'd like to know whether the Archbishop, too, smelled a rat, or whether he took her claim at face value.

This is plainly pure editiorializing on Ms Joseph' part:-

'Indeed, Israel’s "security fence" is made up of a triple layer of concrete and metal, equipped with electronic sensors and patrolled by army jeeps, ostensibly to keep out the terrorists, but in effect keeping ordinary civilians caged.'

No quotes, so the Archbishop certainly didn't say it, and I have not quite abandoned the hope that, if she had said it to him, he might not have let that supercilious 'ostensibly' pass. It would be nice to think that he might have queried whether it was meant to imply (a) the absence of a genuine terrorist threat or (b) that physically keeping terrorists out is a wholly ineffective way of preventing them from killing people or (c) that the Israeli government are too depraved to be capable of a sincere concern for the lives of their fellow citizens. Hope, I remind myself, is a theological virtue.

So I also hope that this does not represent the totality of the views he expressed about the security barrier (you see, there's really no need to choose between "wall" and "fence"):-

'He condemns the wall which cuts in half that most special of places where the Christian narrative says Christ was born. "Whatever justification given for the existence of the wall, the human cost is colossal. We saw that for ourselves." He is adamant in calling it a wall and not a fence, "I haven’t seen very many fences of that size and thickness."'

I hope that he also pointed out the not insignificant human cost paid by hundreds of Israeli civilians for not having a barrier, and that this bit was quietly excised by Ms Joseph. That is to say, I hope that he is, at the level of basic moral judgment, fit to be the leader of the Anglican Communion.

I leave others to tackle his effusion of nostalgia for the Raj; this post does the job well, despite the slight whiff of Spartishness, and this one covers the same ground from a different angle. I digress, but a particular worry about Bob from Brockley's post is that a book entitled Late Victorian Holocausts has already committed a cardinal sin on its front cover. There has only been one Holocaust, and the only events which have a claim to be like it are instances of the systematic extermination of an entire ethnic group - to which Imperial Britain's guilt over famines in India, however great, does not amount.


I will just observe that, although the 100% Muslim people of Afghanistan are so far from being misty-eyed about the Raj that they still have mixed feelings about us Brits, a whopping 71% of them are glad to have American troops defending them, and the government which even more (84%) want to see running the country, against the Taliban. Does the Archbishop have any inkling that this is the case? If he does, you wouldn't guess it from the article.

And with that I pass on to one more source of annoyance - this time theological rather than (or as well as) political:-

'I ask him if Christians have become tame. He agrees, "We listen to the most extraordinary and outrageous things in the New Testament and we doze through them." He cites the example of the Samaritans, a people reviled at the time of Christ, but who we now associate with righteous deeds. "To get the full force of the parable of the Good Samaritan we have to use another word: the good asylum seeker, the good Muslim, the good teenager in a hoodie. You have got to get the sense of the unexpected, the despised. That’s what the parable is about."'

So, His Archdruidliness's idea of "extraordinary and outrageous", in the context of a cosy chat with a Muslim journalist, is to raise the suggestion that Muslims are capable of good deeds. Wouldn't it have been just a little more incendiary - if not for Ms Joseph, at least for some of the readers of Emel magazine - to have made the same suggestion about, for instance, gays or Jews?

It's a variation on a trope which one hears regularly from liberal preachers: the congregation are invited to bask in self-congratulation over their inclusiveness towards people they've never particularly felt like excluding. Which is simultaneously an invitation to construct an Other - the racists, the homophobes, the Islamophobes, the nasty, non-inclusive Christians - which becomes the object of actual exclusion.

'And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.' (Luke 18:9-11)

In the interview, likewise, there's an Us and a Them being constructed. 'All those people out there who could never imagine a Muslim doing anyone a good turn - thank goodness you and I know better!' Not just comfortable complicity between Rowan and Sarah, but encouragement to her and her readers to feel misunderstood and victimized by the Other - encouragement which (cf. Ms Joseph on Danish marriage law) tends to be superfluous.

The parable is abused here because it is not about Jesus expounding the post-ethical pseudo-ethic of multi-culti political correctness. Note first that he doesn't say that the Samaritans had a great religion that was just as valid as that of the Jews. In John 4:22 we see that, whilst Jesus has no qualms about talking to a Samaritan, he is forthright about the shortcomings of Samaritan religious practice. We need only recall how central the Psalms and Prophets are to Jesus's faith to realize how mutilated a religion which accepted only the Torah as Scripture must have appeared to him.

And the punchline of the parable is not (as reading the ABC might tempt one to suppose) "think respectful and inclusive thoughts about Samaritans". It's "Go, and do thou likewise". That's the bit that's always too radical for us. Much, much easier to think those respectful and inclusive thoughts - and tell ourselves what splendid people we are for doing so.

In the deepest and truest sense

As my spiritual leader speaks out, the Teddy Mo affair continues to render satire redundant:-

'ABC: Well as I’ve said I don’t think the Sudanese government has done itself any favours with this, as indeed with other policies of theirs in recent years. It would be very good if this sentence were in some ways set aside, if Julie [sic] Gibbons were allowed to return home promptly. I think everyone here is bound to be thinking with enormous compassion and sensitivity, and indeed some indignation about her situation. I hope she knows how strongly she’s supported and how many people are bearing her in mind at this time.'

The Archbishop and what should not need saying

I suppose if I was a really dedicated blogger I'd envy those Stakhanovites who've carried on meeting their production quotas over the holidays. But I must admit to having enjoyed the break.

The world has of course not taken a break from producing bloggable news. For example, the Archbishop of Canterbury has made a characteristic contribution to the festive season by declaring that Middle Eastern Christians are being victimized... by George Bush and Tony Blair. As well as applying ethical reasoning of similar quality to the Israeli security barrier. I have much more to write about/to the Archbish than I can manage just now. But be assured that he won't escape. To keep you going for now, Mick Hartley has a round-up of some excellent reactions from the Times. And Frances Waddams of Anglicans for Israel (no stranger in these parts, methinks) has been quick off the mark with a letter to Rowan W.

The final paragraph of Stephen Shaw's letter to the Times bears quoting, not because it says anything new but because it says what should not need saying:-

'My experience during many visits to Israel is that most Israeli Jews, as well as Israeli Arabs and Christians, dislike the fence. It is ugly, expensive and bad for Israel’s battered image. But they dislike even more being blown up as they travel on buses or eat in restaurants. The sad fact is that the fence has saved lives.'

Dear Rowan Williams, dear Bishop John Gladwin, dear Christian Aid, dear Episcopal Church, dear Anglican Peace and Justice Network, dear Ekklesia, dear Tablet readers, please do one thing for me. Simply read, mark, learn and inwardly digest that last sentence. You may think that using the barrier to slice off a chunk of Palestinian land is a shabby trick. You may have fifty good reasons why it should be dismantled. But there is only one thing that needs to be said in response: the fence has saved lives. And if your reaction is any kind of paraphrase on 'Yes, but...' or 'Well, actually, we don't particularly care about those lives', your self-image as people moved by a concern for peace and goodwill to men stands revealed as so much humbug.

A very happy New Year to one and all, and I'll be back on or after the 12th.

No but theoretically maybe

What's to be done about Rowan Williams?

An interviewer asks him if the C 0f E might have a rethink on women priests. The correct and comprehensive answer: 'No'. Interviewer has another try. The correct answer: a polite variation on 'Which part of "No" didn't you understand?' The hopelessly wrong answer: a rambling excursus on 'No' which cries out to be misunderstood by eventually veering off into 'No but theoretically maybe'.

This is, it seems to me, a man with some serious people-pleasing issues. The interview was for the Catholic Herald (you can read it all here if you're quick), and he is off to Rome next week. Did he imagine that, having read his copy of the CH, the Pope would be nicer to him? If so his hope was in vain, since Benedetto is well-briefed and knows perfectly well what the score is in the C of E. There will be some tough talking to be done on this question, and hinting at an ambivalence which he then promptly has to disown will not have altered that one jot.

Try to please everyone and you please nobody. Can you imagine how this has played with the by now thousands of women whose boss RW is? He is a long way from being Frau Grumpy's favourite prelate right now, I can tell you.

Anglican news, mostly good

Anglicans for Israel bring the wondeful news of the joint Declaration signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the two Chief Rabbis of Israel. AFI have issued a statement welcoming the Declaration which I heartily endorse. It is enormously to the Archbishop's credit, notwithstanding my past criticisms of his stance.

It is tempting to write that one of the best things about the declaration is that it has made Bishop Riah Abu al-Assal hopping mad. The temptation is to be resisted because actually it's pretty tragic that the Bishop of Jerusalem, of all people, can't be looked to to play a positive role in Anglican-Jewish dialogue. But his reaction makes it very clear why it was right and necessary to bypass him.

It would be good to hear a more welcoming response from Anglicans across the pond. The Episcopal Church's history of anti-Israel bias is documented here (via). Once again I'm staggered by TEC's double standards. This the church which is prepared to risk schism in the name of a stand of principle on gay rights. And yet it is repeatedly laying into the one country in the Middle East where gay rights exist in any shape or form.

A country where they emphatically don't exist is Iran. But that's apparently no reason why former President Mohammad Khatami shouldn't be an honoured guest of Washington's National Cathedral. I'm glad to see that some TEC liberals have drawn the line at this.

The Archbishop speaks

In writing my last post I didn't particularly have the Archbishop of Canterbury in mind, but the statement he issued yesterday turns out to be a good example of what I was complaining about: the cheap occupation of the moral high ground without confronting the moral issues.

The fact that the conflict began with an unprovoked attack by one side on the other is apparently of no significance to the Archbishop at all. The basic moral questions are dodged. Does Israel have the right to defend itself? Is that right circumscribed by the imperative never to risk killing civilians? If so, does it meaningfully exist at all?

Critics of a different persuasion would doubtless object that he has dodged the issue of proportionality, and I think they would have a point too. If he would first say clearly that the Hezbollah attack was indefensible and that Israel has right on its side in seeking to remove a serious threat to its security (and ultimately its existence), he would then be fully entitled to express concern about the way the exercise of that right is working out in practice. But nothing rises above the easy platitude of 'six of one, half a dozen of the other'.

There's one passage in the Archbishop's meassage that particularly bothers me:-

'I offer you every support in your efforts to bring it to an end and allow Lebanon to be, once again, a living message of co-existence and solidarity between different religious communities.'

A living message of what? This about a society in which an organization committed to wiping out the Jewish state not only has seats in the government but is permitted to maintain a private army, equipped with missiles to fire at Israel courtesy of a state headed by a Holocaust denier.

And what about the place of Lebanese Jews in that 'living message'? Lebanon had an estimated 20,000 Jews in 1948. Now there are a handful of old ladies. One of the final nails in the coffin of the Jewish community was the kidnapping and murder of prominent Jews in the 1980s by... Hezbollah. (source here)

Of course Lebanon has suffered an appalling setback in the past few days, but the Archbishop's view of what came before is absurdly rose-tinted. To have earned his encomium, the country would need to have summoned up the will to confront Hezbollah. To offer it regardless to a nation in which anti-Semitic violence is institutionalized is insensitive, to say the least.

The pattern has become familiar to me. On Holocaust Memorial Day Dr Williams says all the right things. But then he turns to his big project of Christian-Muslim dialogue, and they seem to get forgotten. On the one hand he is happy to help the project on its way by liberal application of the airbrush to Islamic realities. And on the other hand Jews become invisible except when they are tiresomely getting in the way. I just wish Dr Williams would spend a bit more time trying to put himself in Jewish shoes.

PS There's some good sense on the ethical issues here. And a good fisk of some nonsense from someone who should know better here.

The Archbishop, Sudan and Israel

"The mechanisms by which international aid is delivered are so slow that the people of war-torn Southern Sudan, even a whole year after the peace agreement, are still waiting for basic aid, and too few voices are raised in the wealthy world to protest."

“In Darfur, neither national nor international forces have found a way of breaking the cycle of brutal violence and terror. Too many of us human beings, it seems, are content that death should be at work in others so long as our own life is unaffected.”

I suppose you could just about detect a criticism of the Sudanese government wrapped up in the second sentence. Though the implication that they are interested in even trying to break a cycle which they are in large measure responsible for setting in motion gives them a wholly undeserved benefit of the doubt. And though the really clear-cut denunciation is reserved for the 'rich world', charged with failing to throw enough money at a problem for which it bears essentially no direct responsibility at all. And though the last sentence promptly lets the Khartoum regime off the hook by expanding the sphere of blame to embrace human nature in general. We're all to blame!

Any reader enjoying even a passing acquaintance with the Church of England will not be surprised to learn that the quote emanates from an Anglican prelate. To be precise, it's from an Eastertide Letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

How should the C of E react corporately to the injustices of this world? Far be it from me to deny it its historic prerogative of well-meaning hand-wringing over human frailty. Equally, there is a place for fearless denunciation of specific misdeeds on the part of specific organizations, even accompanied by the threat of sanctions. But every time the horrors of Darfur call forth the former response, the singling out of Israel's war against terrorists for the latter approach becomes still more grossly offensive. Is there somewhere in the Archbishop's formidable brain an ethical big picture in which this contradiction is reconciled? If so, it really is time he shared it with the rest of us.

Genocide? It's just so nineties

The United Nations tried to suppress a report that named the alleged war criminals of Darfur, in a way that it would never have suppressed the names of alleged torturers at Guantanamo. On the blacklist was that friend of freedom, Mr Hussein. While he was ranting at the journalists, he said that if the UN sent troops to protect the people of Darfur, al-Qaeda would flood the country. ‘Darfur will become the graveyard for the United Nations,’ he promised with what sounded like inside knowledge.

Isn’t that an extraordinary threat for a UN member to make? Why isn’t every liberal newspaper and liberal party fulminating? Because genocide is out of fashion, dear. It may make a retro return in 2008, say, or 2009. Books called We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed will win literary prizes. Lachrymose documentaries will appear on BBC2, probably narrated by Fergal Keane. The Church of England will apologise, as it invariably does. They will all cry: ‘Never again!’ And at that precise moment, it will be happening again.

- from Nick Cohen's blistering commentary on the Archbishop of Canterbury's softly softly visit to Sudan.

This was in Sunday's Observer. I've written a lot about the Archbishop, and I really, really don't want it to degenerate into a personal vendetta. I thought if I waited a few days I might read something that would persuade me that Cohen was being unfair to him.

What I did read was his interview with Sir David Frost, conducted while he was still in Sudan, in which he found it possible to utter a clear-cut condemnation of Guantanamo Bay. The 'radical Christians' of Ekklesia are orgasmic. Sudan? No interest at all at the moment, but perhaps they will eventually find some way of blaming it all on George Bush. Whilst over at Thinking Anglicans the thinkers are not to be deflected from the Real Issues. Sudan? Isn't that on the same continent as that country where the Anglicans are so beastly towards gays?

Here is what the Archbishop told David Frost about Darfur:-

Darfur is still clearly a running sore. Nobody has a quick formula for sorting it out. I think the difficulty many people find, or sense they find here in Sudan, is a feeling that some of the donors outside Sudan are waiting for Darfur to clear up before they can fully deliver on promises for the south and although that’s not a completely accurate percentage, it’s sort of skewing things a bit here, I think.

...followed by this exchange:-

DAVID FROST: And what do you see as the future thus far, for Sudan – do you see it mainly as construction rather than reconstruction.

ROWAN WILLIAMS: It’s bound to be a future of construction, as I say infrastructure has to be put in place and there has to be, I think trust, in the national government. Because of the feeling of decades that basically the government has been run from the north for the north...

The Anglican Communion News Service, to its great credit, follows its lengthy report on the Archbishop's visit with some 'background notes', incuding this:-

According to STAND (Students Taking Action Now: Darfur),* the ethnic conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan has resulted in an estimated 400,000 deaths, 200,000 refugees in Chad, and 2.5 million internally displaced persons (IDPs). The vast majority being ethnic-black African Darfurians, many from the three largest ethnic tribes of the Fur, Masaalit, and Zaghawa. Recent cycles of violence that the above statistics result from, began in February 2003 when two ethnic-African rebel groups, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) attacked government outposts. The government of Khartoum (led by the National Congress Party, formerly the National Islamic Front) and its proxy Arab militias (the janjaweed) responded by targeting civilians, in addition to clashing with the rebel groups.

The US Government and others labelled the Sudanese government’s counter insurgency strategy as "genocide", while the UN and others determined Khartoum’s actions to be "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity". Amid this terminology, the international community has only meagrely addressed the issue of Darfur. Efforts have been made in three main areas in attempt to manage the conflict, heavily relying on the young African Union: peace negotiations, peace monitoring troops, and diplomatic, symbolic action. STAND believes that approximately 10,000 civilians continue to die each month due to violence, malnutrition and disease. The measures taken by the international community, who are the most capable, experienced and responsible actors in stopping the conflict - have been too little, too late.

That is the measure of what the Archbishop failed to say. The Telegraph is not my paper of choice, but on this question its Africa correspondent David Blair says it all:-

Sudan has precious few independent voices able to speak out about the horrors of Darfur. As a religious leader, Dr Williams has a licence to do so.

The fact that he chose to keep silent means that he has done the people of Sudan a great disservice.

Rowan to Jonathan: you've got it all wrong

Friday 10th February. Make It Up with Jonathan Day.

The Archbishop, bless him, continues his attempt on the world record for number of directions faced simultaneously. He has now written to the Chief Rabbi to reassure him that when we said disinvestment we didn't really mean disinvestment and of course we're all desperately concerned about terrorism even though we didn't feel it necessary to mention it in our resolution.

Furthermore,

'No-one in the Synod would have an instant’s sympathy with any such hostility to the Jewish people or the State of Israel as such'

and indeed,

'I must repeat that no-one in the Synod would endorse anything that could even appear to endorse terrorist activities or anti-Semitic words or actions. But there is a real concern which we hope our Jewish and Israeli colleagues will help us address honestly and constructively.'

I'm not sure exactly how many hundred delegates attended Synod, but I'm impressed that the Archbishop knows them all so intimately. Or is it simply inconceivable - and certainly unprecedented - that these nice, well-meaning Christians should harbour anger and hatred towards Jews in their hearts?

Melanie Phillips calls the letter weaselly. Terribly uncharitable of her, but you might like to have a read anyway.

With Archbishop Rowan through the Church Year (an extract)

‘The more fashionable a cause, the more likely that the crucified God has moved on’

- Rowan Williams, Speech at the opening of the International Bonhoeffer Congress, University of Wroclaw, Poland, 3rd February 2006.


Tuesday, 24th January. Be Nice to Muslims Day. This new festival is already one of the PM’s favourites, and rightly so! On this day we remember the Muslim world’s sense of vulnerability. Bearing this in mind, we avoid any possible unpleasantness by not using that ‘J’ word.

Thursday, 26th January. Be Nice to Jews Day. One of the special ways Muslims like our friend Mr Bunglawala show how much they love God is by boycotting this festival, so it gives us a chance to say some things that might be offensive in other contexts. We remember that Jews are really great and that what Hitler did to them was dreadful, and we deplore the nasty things that are happening to them now, though of course it would be unfair to single anyone out for blame.

Sunday, 5th Febrauary. The Dietrich Bonhoeffer centenary. An all-round good egg, and what a wonderful example he set by standing up for the poor Jews when so many Christians sided with their enemies. Let’s all try to follow his example, and if there’s any more Hitler-assassinating to be done, let there be no doubt where the Church of England stands!

Monday, 6th February. It’s Synodtide, so it must be Hate Israel Day. We sometimes get quite cross with each other during this season, so it’s good to have this opportunity of joining together and reminding ourselves that we’re all one big family. No, of course it’s not about Jews. We really, really, really love them. It’s just that some of them still haven’t learnt what Jesus taught about turning the other cheek. Bulldozers and fences and all that sort of thing, it’s just not on, is it? Let’s pray that they learn from the example of their Palestinian neighbours and become civilized and law-abiding like the rest of humankind (well, maybe not the Americans!), and above all that they come to realize that the Church of England will always be there for them.


Do you remember the character in the Fast Show who, when his mates in the pub were having an argument, always agreed with the last one to speak? I wonder if by any chance he and our Archbishop could be related.

The intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Church of England

Lord Carey says he feels ashamed to be an Anglican. Count me in, and add a little extra shame at having taken my eye off the ball – something to do with some cartoons, for heaven’s sake – so that I am now reacting retrospectively to General Synod’s vote to disinvest from Caterpillar.

I don’t have much to add to what I said last year when the Anglican Consultative Council paved the way for this decision (here is my initial reaction and here is my open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury). Though we have moved on from the ACC resolution, appalling as that was: now there is not even a pro forma allusion to ‘violence against innocent Israelis’. Israeli house demolitions have become totally contextless acts of gratuitous beastliness.

Can anyone explain to me what is going on inside the Archbishop’s head? He showers sympathy and solidarity on Muslims faced with assault by cartoon. Jews under attack from terrorist murderers get exactly the reverse of sympathy and solidarity: an attempt to make life easier for the people who want to kill them.

Well, today is the last day of business, and it’s wall-to-wall navel-gazing: ‘Women in the Episcopate’ and ‘The Church’s Built Heritage’ So I think I am safe in predicting that the following will not have emerged by close of play:-

• An equivalent gesture of practical opposition to Palestinian terrorism.


• Any interest in finding out who provided Robert Mugabe with technical backup for a house demolition campaign which dwarfed all the Israelis’ efforts. That’s Africa, and any condemnation of a black African ruler by General Synod would be neo-colonialism, a revival of the attitudes which led to the export of the vile Hymns Ancient and Modern. Our role in relation to Africa is strictly limited to banging on about unfair trade rules, and forking out for humanitarian assistance after Mugabe and Co. have screwed up sufficiently to leave their subjects facing starvation.


• Any move to complement the apology for the slave trade with disinvestment from countries in which Africans are still being enslaved by other Africans. Or any concrete measures whatsoever to put pressure on their governments. Or even the naming of the countries concerned. See above remarks re Africa.


• Any resolution, even of the purely hand-wringing variety, on the human rights catastrophe in Sudan. See above remarks re Africa, and add concern to avoid Islamophobia.

Oliver Kamm has a quote from the late Canon Ronald Preston:

“It is impossible to conceive of any particular moral or Christian responsibility in politics . . . without involving ourselves in technical problems which are rarely simple and clear.”

Are there still people in the C of E who understand this? The most optimistic view one can take is that they just don’t make it to Synod. It’s the old Labour Party Conference syndrome, of course: who volunteers to sit through four solid days of tedious speeches? There tends, let us say, to be an over-representation of self-righteous souls eager to peddle their simple and clear solutions to the world’s problems. Cue T S Eliot quote, ‘The best lack all conviction’ etc. etc.

The gloomy view is that on Monday the C of E definitively ceased to be either a national or a catholic church - that the ‘broad’ church I thought I had joined has turned into a narrow sect for Guardian Readers who like their political certitudes laced with a little spirituality. On that reading, the Church richly deserves to be split in two over gay priests, and split again over women bishops. As an institution it is not worth defending.

The Archbishop and Christian-Muslim dialogue

He likes to be liked, does our Archbishop Rowan, and this will surely have melted the stoniest of hearts at the inauguration of the Christian-Muslim Forum:-

It’s easy to talk about these things abstractly so I’ll end by quoting to you a story I came across recently from a most unlikely quarter. The book I’m reading from is an excellent book by Brian McClaren, an American Evangelical, pastor of a large independent church in the Washington DC area. The sort of Christian pastor who arouses a certain amount of anxiety in the breasts both of Muslims and of more liberal Christians, not to say columnists in some of our newspapers. The book is entitled, though, ‘A Generous Orthodoxy’ and it ahs a long and extraordinarily moving chapter on his approach to people of other faiths. Towards the end of this chapter McClaren quotes from another writer from the same background telling a little story about an encounter in the Washington DC area not long after September 11th. One day my daughter saw a woman walking towards us covered in a veil and asked the inevitable ‘What’s that, Mummy?’ ‘Emma,’ I answered, ‘that lady is a Muslim from a faraway place and she dresses like that and covers her head with a veil because she loves God. That is how their people show they love God’. My daughter considered these words, she stared at the woman who passed us, she pointed at the woman and then pointed at my hair and further quizzed ‘Mummy, do you love God?’ ‘Yes’, I said, ‘I do; you and I are Christians and Christian ladies show their love for God by going to church, eating the bread and drinking the wine, serving the poor and giving to those in need. We don’t wear veils but we do love God’.

After this Emma took every opportunity to point to Muslim women during our shopping trips and telling me ‘Mummy, she loves God’. One day we were getting out of our car in our driveway at the same time as our Pakistani neighbours. Emma saw the mother beautifully veiled and pointed at her and shouted ‘Look Mummy – she loves God’. My neighbour was surprised, I told her what I had told her what I had taught Emma about Muslim ladies loving God, while she held back tears this near stranger hugged me saying, ‘I wish all Americans would teach their children so, the world would be better’.

Reading this in the context of the cartoon affair, my feelings are profoundly mixed. I have no doubt that this woman ‘wrought a good work’, defusing the potential for distrust and fear created by an encounter with a disconcerting Other. And yet I can’t help feeling that the Archbishop’s retelling of the story in this context exudes a sickly odour of wishful thinking, if not plain dishonesty.

Of course there is such a thing as innocent deception where children are concerned. ‘Because traditional patriarchal authority allows her no choice’ would have been an unsatisfactory reply even if it could have been made comprehensible to the little girl. Who, after all, can say which explanation, or what combination of the two, applies to any given veiled stranger we pass in the street?

But when the story is retold for an audience of adults, Tony Blair included, who are thus being invited to agree with the Archbishop that ‘we have to get out of any remnants of a mindset which thinks in terms of a clash of civilisations’, naïf surely becomes faux naïf. Everyone in the audience will have been perfectly well aware that in a Western context the hijab crystallizes complex and deeply controversial issues to do with Islam and the status of women. But here is the Archbishop dropping a broad hint to the Christians present that in the name of dialogue they must pretend they know only what Mummy told little Emma. It is as if the precondition for dialogue which he has accepted is that the Christians take, or behave as if they took, the Muslims at their own self-estimation. There is more of diplomacy here than of true dialogue. There is no chance of a robust and meaningful dialogue developing when dishonesty is built in from the start. It is more like the forced smiles of warring relatives submitting to their annual close encounter at Christmas.

How can anyone look at the cartoon affair, with its burning embassies, and deny that a clash of civilizations is going on (or at least a clash of value systems, which to my way of thinking is ultimately the same thing – for the record I don’t mean a clash between ‘the West’ and ‘Islam’, but between those who believe in the freedom of the individual to believe and speak as he/she chooses, and those who don’t)? If this isn’t such a clash, what else has to happen before we admit that we have one on our hands? There is one easy way to keep up the Archbishop’s stance of denial, and that is to say ‘well, free speech was never really such a big deal for us anyway’. There are doubtless plenty of individuals who can say this with perfect sincerity (and the Guardian is always happy for them to say it in its comment pages), but I do not believe that the Archbishop is one of them. To bow to violent intolerance in the name of tolerance is to uphold no value at all, and he surely knows that very well. Is he simply in denial? The more likely explanation, I suspect, is that he really means ‘the idea of a clash of civilizations is appalling, so let’s all say it isn’t happening and then maybe it really will go away’. Well, he was in Berlin over the weekend for the Bonhoeffer centenary (his German is impressive, by the way), and one would hope that has given him a reminder or two that evil does not go away when it is not confronted.

The way Rowan Williams could exercise genuine Christian leadership is not by pretending that there is no clash of civilizations, but by drawing a clear line between that clash, which surely cannot be avoided, and a war between peoples, which we must all do our utmost to prevent. There really are incompatible value systems at war here, but no human being can be reduced to a robot driven by a fixed ideology, good or bad. The West has many faces and Islam has many faces. The encounter between the two is being processed in innumerable different ways by Muslims in the West, and our concern that some of those ways are manifestly unacceptable must never lead us to forget that they are not the only ones.

Archbishop's Holocaust statement

'He emphasised the significance of the 350th anniversary of the Resettlement of the Jewish community in the country:

“As a nation we should celebrate this anniversary, marking as it does not only an attempt to right some of the terrible wrongs earlier inflicted on Jewish people but also as an opportunity to celebrate the quite remarkable contributions of Jewish people to every aspect of the life of this country. Without the resettlement, it is hard to imagine what our history, culture politics or economy would be like today. Without doubt we would have been greatly the poorer.”'

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, released a statement for Holocaust Memorial Day last week. Anglicans for Israel have posted a qualified welcome which I would go along with. I would, however, give a wholly unqualified welcome to the section quoted above, particularly since it addresses concerns I raised in a post a while ago - on this point I am very glad to be proved wrong. That the Jewish presence in Britain is something to celebrate is a message that needs to be heard a lot more often. I'd urge the Archbishop to find more opportunities of saying it, and especially at events which have not (unlike Holocaust Memorial Day) been boycotted by the Muslim Council of Britain.

Anglican miscellany

More on the Anglican disinvestment resolution...

A letter to Rowan Williams from the International Council of Christians and Jews:-

HE The Most Rev. Rowan Williams
Archbishop of Canterbury
Lambeth Palace
London
Great Britain
28 September 2004

Dear Archbishop Williams,

I write in the name of the Executive Board of the International Council of Christians and Jews (ICCJ) to express deep concern about the report that the Anglican International Justice and Peace Committee will recommend disinvestment from Israel along the lines of the declaration recently adopted by the Presbyterian Church in the United States.

We at the ICCJ feel that such a step by the Anglican Communion would undercut its ability to engage constructively in the Middle East peace process. The ICCJ has strongly supported the Alexandria Declaration process in which your church has played such an important role.

But should the Anglican Communion support the disinvestment proposal it would be undercutting its role as a genuine peacemaker in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Justice and Peace Commission's report strikes us as extremely one-sided. It discusses only injustices against Palestinians without in any way raising criticism of the actions of the Palestinian leadership which has supported terror attacks against Israel. And the Commission's report did not involve any substantive conversations with Israeli representatives, including several of the ICCJ's leadership such as Vice-President Rabbi Ehud Bandel and Honorary President Rabbi Prof. David Rosen who have worked tirelessly over the years on the peace process.

We at the ICCJ are not saying that there must be no criticism of concrete Israeli Policy. But if the Anglican Church hopes to serve as an authentic peacemaker that criticism has to be extended to the Palestinian side as well. The recent book by Middle East peace negotiator Ambassador Dennis Ross is one example of a balanced critique that also proposes constructive actions towards a peaceful settlement.

We at the ICCJ urge you to exercise leadership in this situation and prevent this extremely one-sided assessment from becoming policy for the Anglican Communion. Only in this way will the Anglican Church be able to maintain its important record on constructive Christian-Jewish relations as well as continue its leadership role in Middle East peacemaking.
Sincerely yours,

Rev. John T. Pawlikowski, OSM, Ph.D.
President International Council of Christians and Jews


I find it incomprehensible that Rowan Williams did not take these views on board - or that, at best, he thought they could be accommodated by minor changes to the wording of the APJN resolution. Its symbolic force has not been changed.

In my source for the letter it is followed by a document from two ECUSA bigwigs in which, astoundingly, they refer to the APJN as 'representing the full 77 million member Anglican Communion'. Reverend Sirs, it most certainly does not represent me (nor, as she has asked me to add, my wife)! And if it has any mechanism of accountability to the Anglican Communion as a whole, neither the Anglican Communion website nor the ECUSA site appears to know anything about it.

Lastly, an item from the CaNN blog:

Friday, July 08, 2005

Compare and Contrast: Griswold & Benedict XVI

PB Griswold -My prayers and those of the Episcopal Church in the United States embrace all who have died and have been injured in yesterday's attacks in London. We pray as well for their families and friends. Through this tragedy we are put in mind once again of our common vulnerability.

In order to win the "war on terrorism" we must address its underlying causes and win peace in the Middle East. The three Abrahamic faiths are called to be the servants of God's peace which embraces all people and alone can overcome the fears and hatreds that divide us and prevent us from regarding one another as God's beloved children. May all who call God Father and the Compassionate One be drawn together in a renewed commitment to peacemaking for the sake of God's world.

Pope Benedict -"Deeply saddened by the news of the terrorist attacks in central London the Holy Father offers fervent prayers for the victims and for all those who mourn. While he deplores these barbaric acts against humanity he asks you to convey to the families of the injured his spiritual closeness at this time of grief. Upon the people of Great Britain he invokes the consolation that only God can give in such circumstances."

Note well the date: 8th July. Presiding Bishop Griswold is so sure he knows what the 'underlying causes' are, and so keen to tell us that we are All To Blame, that he could make this statement before anybody had any idea who the bombers were or where they come from. Is he still so certain?