Picture courtesy of The Daily Mail
The Bishop of Rochester's latest take on Muslim presence in the UK receives the attention it does because of his status as a Bishop, his personal identity of Pakistani origin, and his role in inter-faith work at a national level. See a selection of coverage here
One would have hoped in the interests of the Church and the country that his views would therefore be so informed as to come across with real authority.
I take it as read that he sincerely believes what he has said, and that he has been accurately reported by the Sunday Telegraph. If either where not the case then he has had ample opportunity in other media to refute the published words.
Sadly what it does is raise is fundamental questions about his intentions, his sources and his perspectives.
It is important to read what he actually wrote for the paper, rather than the summaries, so that it is possible to get a feel for the nuances of what he wrote- read here.
1. It is the tone of the article which raises the first important question - "who" is the Bishop writing for - for this is the first and fundamental question of any episcopal contribution to a national paper. Did he think that it would have a positive impact on Muslim leadership? Is it aimed at the many Christian readers of the Sunday Telegraph who might gain encouragement from his views on Christianity? Is it a predominately "political" target audience trying to influence political decisions and progress.
Plainly no-one other than the Bishop and his immediate advisers can answer that - but it would interesting to know whether they feel they have achieved their objectives?
In practice it does seem to have gained support from the kind of xenophobic views which are the staple diet of the Mail and its right wing competitors. Does the Bishop regard it as a success that he gains support like this or this which are the more unequivocal responses to his words?
2. Much attention has been focused on his implicit claim that Muslim "no-go areas" exist - but this raises the question about where these no-go areas are other than in the Bishop's fearful perception. If they exists as he claims then he should say where they are and define what he means by the term no-go area. Is he talking about very localised streets, local neighbourhoods, ward sized areas or what. It is this claim that appears to provoke the strongest negative response from people living and working in the cities which CMS's Richard Sudworth among others neatly and very charitably sums up here.
3. The generalisations of the comment (even allowing for the brevity of a newspaper article) cause me to ask other questions - how much contact and real experience does the Bishop have with Muslim communities here in the UK. From his own CV it seems to be very limited which raises the question of how qualified he is to speak about British Muslim experience, given the very limited time he has lived here in the UK and the nature of his employment here which have been pretty rarified to say the least?
4. When he writes about the lost era of "Christian" Britain it frankly sounds like a wishful longing for a state of the nation which never really existed - but it does raise the question whether he regards it as a "way forward". What does his Christian Britain of the future really look like - does it have any place for people of other faiths and their contribution to the good of society.
5. When the Bishop writes of the changing nature of chaplaincies does he not yet realise that the call for a neutral "multi-faith" approach comes more from a secular " all faiths are the same" type approach rather than from Muslim calls for distinctiveness - indeed such practices work against the distinctiveness of all the faiths as they are lumped to together. To that extent Muslims are the allies of Christians not the opponents.
6. The most telling question comes from a friend and Muslim leader and theologian - a third generation Lancastrian British Muslim who is deeply fearful that the Bishop represents the kind of "Pakistan based thinking" that some Mosques are working so hard to rid their own leadership of. It is precisely this lack of British understanding which the Bishop is re-enforcing. That for me raises questions about whether the Church of England and the Bench of Bishops has offered undue credence to the Bishop and his views because he is "from" Pakistan ("and understands these things") when in fact Muslim experience is moving away from the perspective precisely because people "from" Pakistan struggle to understand what is happening here. Ahaz puts the question sharply like this "Is it inconsistent to demand British born and educated Imams so that they can understand and work within the culture, but at the same time give credence to the views of a 1/2 generation British/Pakistani Bishop". I would ask whether the Bishops particular background may lead to a Pakistani perspective on Islam which is fundamentally unhelpful when trying to understand British Islam - furthermore does this extend to his understanding of Christianity in Britain?
Can I finish by highlighting a sad irony: the story was launched on the Feast Day of the Epiphany when Matthew records that it was strangers of the east that reveal The Manifestation of Christ. Moreover he records that it was " the whole of Jerusalem" and not just Herod that was "troubled" by this - but he nevertheless points out that it was these strangers who were the first to worship and recognise "God with us" in the infant Jesus. The danger is that the Bishop's views as expressed or exploited, fuel a fear of the stranger, while contributing nothing to resolving the real issues that do exist for British Muslims such as challenging fundamentalism, for inter-faith understanding, or the Christian concern for prophetic justice of which the Bishop writes.
Has the article raised important questions that take forward our understanding of our Muslim neighbours? I fear not.
Recent Comments