Credit: Luke Dray/Getty
“Retribution, it appears, is coming,” says the journalist Tom Newton Dunn. He is referring to the bishops in the House of Lords who had the temerity to collectively criticise the Government’s Rwanda policy. It “shames Britain”, the bishops said. Tory cabinet ministers are furious. “Only Iran also has clerics that sit in their legislature,” one told Newton Dunn. “They’ll go.”
They won’t, of course. The sort of constitutional changes that would be required to make this happen would make Brexit look like child’s play. And the public would have little tolerance for the months — no, years — of rancour spent defenestrating the British constitution. That the Conservative Party is even considering it shows how far out of touch the Tories are with the establishment — that cat’s cradle of interlaced institutions and social relations in which the country is held together. The Party used to value this historic legacy: it was created to conserve it. Chucking the bishops out of the Lords while leaving all those political appointments and Tory donors on the red benches gives off a clear message: King Boris doesn’t like to be crossed.
I used to think that the presence of unelected religious leaders in the Lords was an insult to democracy. It was bad for the country and, even more important, it was bad for the Church: it turned our senior clerics into pliant courtiers, who spent too much time raiding the 17th-century dressing-up box and camping about in pointless processions. It all seems a long way from the carpenter from Galilee. Absent from such deferential flummery, the Church would be free to become a more radical organisation, more aligned to its founding mission. In the US, the separation of church and state was not designed to protect the state from the church — but to protect the church from the state.
The glamour of power is a kind of spiritual kryptonite for clerics, and very few of us are unaffected by it. When I was at St Paul’s Cathedral, it was almost impossible for a sense of self-importance not to seep into your bones. It was all terribly insidious and corrosive; I don’t trust clerics who deny this. I well remember standing in the vestry at St Paul’s in my new canon’s cassock, adorned with a dashing row of red buttons to mark your status. Rowan Williams came into the vestry and looked me up and down, slightly mockingly. “Red buttons,” he said. “It always starts with red buttons.”
Power has a way of finding out your weaknesses. Like the rain, it gets into the cracks unnoticed, then splits you open when the freeze comes. Here is one example: some months before the red buttons comment, I was asked to chair a group that organised a large service for the livery companies at St Paul’s. The service ended with members of the livery returning to their halls for a huge slap-up lunch. I asked whether this was entirely appropriate, given that it was still Lent. Various reasons were given for why this was necessary, but I was marked up as a potential troublemaker.
That year, after the service, I was cleverly invited for lunch at one of the posher livery companies. I ate poached turbot and drank a delicious white burgundy; of the seven deadly sins, mine is probably gluttony. It was here they found me out. I never raised a serious question about the service again.
If you are a journalist and a priest, you can’t just say you disagree with the Rwanda plan. You have to tell us whether you are 1) OK with people arriving from France by dinghy and happy for them to stay here indefinitely? 2) Is there an upper limit to the number of people arriving this way you will tolerate? 3) If the public’s tolerance is lower than yours, what is your message to them? 4)If there is to be a limit, how would you enforce it?
Wish washy rubbish about “legal routes” or “international solutions” won’t fly. The Home Office has looked at all available solutions and decided the only one with a chance of working is the Australian-style offshore plan. Have you a better idea?
Giles would only “have to tell us” the answers to those questions if they were germane to the article. They’re not – the article isn’t about the merits or demerits of the Rwanda scheme. To have addressed them would have taken the piece off on an irrelevant tangent.
Maybe he should write a follow up piece. As an Anglican who is, after a lot of consideration over the last two years, very keen on this plan, I would like to see whether Giles can provide an alternative solution.
It is, as usual, a well written piece from Giles Fraser. But you’re quite correct, the subject matter is not the Rwanda policy. Better surely to look at his clever sleight of hand in how he presents some of his arguments, such as those framing arguments around whether religious officials should be included in government.
Watch it! For flaunting your oppressive logic and reason you’ll either get cancelled or labelled as a Russian bot.
”The Archbishop of Canterbury keeps on reminding anyone who will listen. We are given a central role in curating our national life because we aim to hold the nation together” says Giles.
Unfortunately by not representing the large number of Tory voters who welcome the Ruanda initiative as a means of stemming the tide of endless illegal immigration in their pronouncements they appear as a leftist political block rather than a force binding the nation together. Bishops who might have provided a more balanced appraisal have left the church or been sidelined. Even Giles recognises, albeit briefly, the danger. The answer is indeed not to banish them from the Lords – this will be controversial and make little practical difference – but to try to have clerics with both spiritual authority and a more practical and realistic cast of mind promoted.
Christianity does not require a belief that promoting the interests of people smugglers is God’s work.
Maybe we should fill planes on the return leg of the Rwanda flights with African Anglican clergy able to meet your requirement of spiritual authority and a practical worldview.
Certainly Sentamu and Ali Nazir are two clerics that showed some independence of thought and African clergy seem less captured by leftist ideology than are the native stock of clerics. The redoubtable Calvin Robinson was, of course, rebuffed from the ministry despite his diversity credentials because his views were not sufficiently leftist.
Very happy to. So long as the African bishops swap with our current lot diocese for diocese.
Nobody listens to the AB of C these days, not least because he fails to give any indication that he actually believes in God.
He only became ABofC because as a white male from an establishment background he was unlikely to get a columnist job at the Guardian
Progressive cultural leftism, the product of the 1960s, has taken all our institutions by storm. Our elites swim in these ideological waters perhaps without even being aware of how ideological they are. The sidelining of Calvin Robinson indicates their blind adoption of woke politics. He pointed out that it is odd that the bishops cannot always agree on religious issues but sing from one hymn sheet on political topics such as Brexit. And as David Starkey said it is strange that God appears to read the Manchester Guardian.
This imposition of political views is entirely top down and doesn’t represent the views of the public. The church then has become the mouthpiece of the regime. Who’s interests does it serve to preach the same progressive politics as big business, financial institutions, the EU and so on? Is it for the spiritual good of its congregations?
As for the tories they also have no real interest in sorting out immigration. They are making a song and dance about deporting a handful of immigrants to Rwanda while hundreds more arrive ever day and they have handed out more than 1m visas in 20/21. This is a containment tactic to give the impression they care but in reality the cultural and economic harm caused by mass immigration will continue. Again who does this benefit but big business?
Spot on
When the church’s message is the same as a global corporation’s HR policy then they are bending their knees to power. They are just mouthpieces for the elites rather than a individual moral power in their own right as Giles still seems to think. Conformists and shills.
Are those visas not mainly given out for travel/study purposes?
“That the Conservative Party is even considering it shows how far out of touch the Tories are with the establishment…”
Or perhaps how far out of touch The Establishment is? You can make an argument The Establishment is very difficult to dislodge because it is driven by the self interests of those within it. Reflect on how Trump failed in ‘draining the Swamp’ – the Swamp fought back. Reflect on how the Establishment have tried and are still trying to derail Brexit.
That the Bishops are part of the Establishment shows how pernicious the allure is.
“We are given a central role in curating our national life because we aim to hold the nation together;”
Is there even a vestige of truth in that anymore? The C of E was certainly a tangible presence in my youth, but my grandchildren seem barely aware it exists.
Quite apart from the trend to secularism across the West, it’s turning itself into a kind of national HR dept., full of management speak and Diversity drivel.
It seems to me the Bishops only have a voice via historical tradition. They are representative of a very small fraction of the, mainly elderly, population and their values, and those of their congregations, are diverging quite rapidly.
No, it is clearly not true.
Welby’s C of E is promoting policies that are actually divisive. They are completely out of touch with a huge segment – probably a majority – of the people in England.
I recently came across Churchill’s proposal for the reform of the House of Lords. He wanted to retain experts to scrutinise legislation from many angles – legal, scientific, administrative and, yes, moral. But he didn’t believe they should be able to get in the way of the business of the democratically elected House of Commons.
His solution was to create a large pool of peers – many thousands of them – men and women distinguished in their fields and rewarded for their service and bound to the establishment through the honours system.
But crucially, it would be the job of the government to select which 300 of the pool sat in the House of Lords for a parliamentary session. That way we would be able to select those peers (and Bishops) that are generally sympathetic to the aims of the government – which are a synthesis of the views of the majority of the people.
It is not the job of the Lords to stand in opposition to the elected government but to advise them the best way to improve the laws they pass. Opposing the government is the job of HM Loyal Opposition.
Sadly there is nothing left for the church except to slavishly adhere to the rules of woke. Unfortunately they seemed to have misunderstood it’s totalitarian oppressive true nature and have fallen for its “Be kind” cover story.
The Church’s property portfolio and investments are immense. It is sitting on a combination of ancient endowments and investments worth £8.3bn, which last year alone increased by £400m.
These earnings are enough to make the CofE by far the UK’s biggest charity, with an income more than three times that of Oxfam.
So, CoE, solve the world’s problems as you have the money.
Spend more time spending, less time lecturing.
Why do you think BLM activists are trying , aided and abetted by Welby , to take it over
You seem extremely comfortable with a huge cross-section of society having no voice and no real stake in society.
There is, without doubt, an attempt to banish from public life those who believe that immigration should be limited, those who believe in national self-determination, those who believe that our own right to basic home comforts such as heat and light at an affordable price is more important than bankrupting ourselves at the altar of an unproven global movement, and any attempt to enact any kind of policy that might reflect these mainstream views is stopped regardless of whether people have voted for them or the government of the day has made manifesto pledges.
For the clergy to support marginalising such a large cross section of society seems to run profoundly against Christian principles. Small wonder that congregations are dwindling when it’s clear 40% of us aren’t welcome.
I agreed with one point in the article; that the bishops show a suspicious and worrying conformity to a specific opinion, and if someone suggests that this is because they are united against an immoral policy, then I will take offence. (I take it that we still have equal rights to do so?) I see a stream of mostly young men setting off from one developed and free nation, France, and landing on our crowded island, presenting ever increasing problems in finding housing and everything else our own citizens expect as of right.
Giles goes on to say “…..shows how far out of touch the Tories are with the establishment — that cat’s cradle of interlaced institutions and social relations in which the country is held together.”
Until 2016, I, too, believed that a multiplicity of well-established institutions were as vital to our freedom as were monarch, both houses of parliament, and the law, but I have now discovered that many of these institutions have been captured by a single way of thought, including to some degree the Conservative Party.
And the phrase “leaving all those political appointments and Tory donors on the red benches” seems to imply that the CP dominates the upper house, when the evidence is to the contrary; the political appointees are overwhelmingly of the new establishment, and totally in line with those bishops.
But this government was elected, rather than achieving power through hidden paths, and what is surely of great constitutional concern is the existence of this new establishment which is increasingly out of touch with the people, despite controlling most of the sources of information, which increasingly resemble propaganda.
We all know that Johnson’s future is uncertain, and his power limited, yet we also know that the HOL, the bishops, the civil service, the schools, BBC, and most other unelected institutions will continue as before.
The C of E has for at least the last 70 years been the enemy of this country so as well as disestablishing the church how about putting the bishop’s on a plane to Rwanda.
Also, while it is very keen to burnish its credentials with the left by attacking conservative policies it remains remarkably quiet on other issues on which you would expect it to be very vocal. It is difficult to see how anyone who believes in a Christian God can remain silent on the issue of abortion yet silent the C of E remains. it must be the wrong kind of, for want of a better word, atrocity.
Whilst I’d be more than happy to see Giles Fraser elected to the House of Lords (he arguably could add value), I can see no case for unelected bishops to be in the Lords – not indeed any unelected respresentatives. The place is also massively overstaffed.
We could make a useful start by setting a term limit on Lords membership (and the ability of its members to claim expenses). Let’s say max 10 years and anyone already over 10 years needs to be out within 2 years. Then elect 1 new member for every 4 that are retired.
And no retirement pensions or severance packages for the leavers. They’ve taken enough already.
The idea that one particular religious lobby group deserves to be represented in government and the other competing religious lobby groups are largely happy with that (so says Giles) is ludicrous.
Finally, if the C of E operates a “universal service provision”, why does it charge me to enter Westminster Abbey ?
The C of E continues to try to have its cake an eat it. Time’s up !
You don’t have to pay to go into Westminster Abbey unless you are a tourist.
Surely one of the Bishops should automatically be the Prime Minister’s Ethics adviser. It should go with the job and strengthen the moral leadership of the country.
Nice idea!
The C of E is committed to telling white British people how disgraceful they are. Interestingly, the number of white British people attending C of E services has dropped like a stone.
There is no need to get rid of C of E bishops in the House of Lords. They would love the chance to proclaim how good they are. Leave them . The C of E itself will soon be finished.
All that the Tory government’s Rwanda plan is doing is to inform the people smugglers how successful their business is. The bishops might ask why don’t the French ‘rescue’ these people and return them to France? Doesn’t this shame France? Why is it a one-way street?
As for the carpenter from Galilee, He’s endlessly accommodating. If you’re troubled about fine clothes, despite His comment about those who wear soft raiment, He wore a garment that was at least valuable enough to be gambled over. If you’re troubled about a good meal with wine, He was noted to be a winebibber.
Don’t be troubled about being invited up to the high table, providing you’ve humbled yourself first. As with the man praying on the street corner, don’t be troubled with a reward, providing it comes from God, not man.
The depiction of the Carpenter coming from Egypt was firstly used to satisfy the requirement of the Messiah, and then in modern times has been used by Christians to imagine Him standing on the white cliffs at Dover, welcoming migrants.
The alternative view is provided by the absence of any mention by Him of the Greek colonist city in the hills above Nazareth. Daily visible to Jesus as he was growing up, it is never spoken of by Him in the Gospels, because, as with a similar example from medieval Tenby, the two very different communities probably never had anything much to do with one another.
As for the bishops in the House of Lords, if the republicans get their way, the bishops will have to go as well.
Shameless plug alert: I critique all these defenses of Establishment and more, in Beyond Establishment: Resetting Church-State Relations in England (SCM 2022).
Protestant Nonconformist that I am, I cannot see how an established church in any way comports with what the Bible says about the church.