Bigbulkyanglican

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor's lecture

The decision by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor to offer a lecture on the place of faith in the UK is an interesting one. The coverage which follows is even more interesting - IMHO even five years ago such an event would have gone unnoticed by the popular press being regard as an inside event for the faithful. There is much to be encouraged by this on both sides - that the Cardinal should choose to enter the public forum positively ( instead of only being heard to be against things), and that the press should choose to respond and cover it.

I was particularly enamored of the call by the Cardinal for Christians to talk in language suitable for a the secular country - but therein lies what I think is a confusion of language in what he was saying. In his lecture he appears to use the words secular and aetheist interchangeably - there is an important distinction which I am certain he knows - but was not always obvious from what he said.

I was also less than convinced by his argument for fideism - basically that faith is in itself the rationale for God and is not dependent on reason. This links with the call from the Papal Ecumenical spokesman for the Anglican Church to decide whether it is protestant or catholic. It is of course both - and it has always be an essential tenent of anglicanism that faith and reason both direct us to God.

I wonder whether this requires a more careful definition of our deistic terminology which might include this list:

Agnosticism The belief that one lacks the means of knowing whether or not there is a God or many Gods or no deities at all

Anthropotheism The belief that Gods are basically human in nature

Atheism The belief that there is no God

Autotheism The belief that one is oneself divine

Creationism The belief that each human soul is created individually by God or that God created the world in six days

Deism The belief that God created the world but does not act within it

Ditheism The belief in two Gods

Dualism The belief that cosmic history is a battle between the two great powers of divine goodness and malicious evil

Emanationism The belief that all things are outgrowths of, or emanations from God

Fideism The belief that religious faith confirms that there is a God without recourse to reason

Hecastotheism The belief that all objects have sacred power

Henotheism The belief that among several Gods one is supreme

Herotheism The belief in deified men

Kathenotheism The belief that among several Gods one is supreme at a particular time and that different gids can be supreme in succession at other times

Monotheism The belief that there is only one God

Myriotheism The belief that the number of Gods cannot be counted

Panentheism The belief that all things are in God

Pantheism The belief that God is in all things

Polytheism The belief that there are several Gods

Rationalism The belief that human reason is the High Court in which to decide what counts as knowledge (of God) or superstition.

Secularism whether God is God doesn't really matter

Theism The belief that there is a God

Trinitarianism The belief that there are three persons in the one God

Zootheism The belief in animal Gods

Press releases which accompany such events are always revealing for what the speaker intent - so read the official Westminster press release

Israel's 60th Anniversary

The nation and people of contemporary Israel celebrate their 60th anniversary today, and I personally reflect upon the extra-ordinary achievement - the remarkable individuals who emerged from the tragedy of the Holocaust to create a nation within a decade. I believe it is right to give thanks to God for a democratic Israel.

Haaretz records the hopes of the current leadership for a peaceful and just solution with their Arab and Palestinian neighbours - thoughts and ideals which cause me to be to myself at odds with many of the Christian leaders who I most respect in their wholly inappropriate sidetracking of the day for their own purposes, in their call for justice of the Palestinian people signatories - the cause is clearly right the timing is not.

What is distinctive about Christianity?

Brother John writes modestly and helpfully about distinctiveness here (click on the graphic to download the text.) which ends with Bonhoeffer's words

"The Church is not about religion, but rather about the figure of Christ and its taking shape in a multitude of persons. Are we sufficiently aware that, two thousand years ago, Christ came to earth not to start a new religion but to offer every human being a communion in God? "

There are two other short writings covering "unbelief" and "salvation" available in the right hand column.

I am delighted to read the new generation of Taize theologians writing with such clarity.

Israeli Perspectives on Jimmy Carter

It has been interesting to note how much critical comment has been made in both Israel and (more trenchantly) in the US of Jimmy Carter's decision to meet with representatives of Hamas.

His response has been simple - sometime somewhere Israel will have to talk with Hamas or the people with the views they represent - so rather sooner or later - he has also indicated some possible movement in Hamas formal view of the State of Israel and its future.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz has taken a more interesting editorial line:

"The government of Israel is boycotting Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, during his visit here this week. Ehud Olmert, who has not managed to achieve any peace agreement during his public life, and who even tried to undermine negotiations in the past, "could not find the time" to meet the American president who is a signatory to the peace agreement with Egypt. President Shimon Peres agreed to meet Carter, but made sure that he let it be known that he reprimanded his guest for wishing to meet with Khaled Meshal, as if the achievements of the Carter Center fall short of those of the Peres Centre for Peace. Carter, who himself said he set out to achieve peace between Israel and Egypt from the day he assumed office, worked incessantly toward that goal and two years after becoming president succeeded - was declared persona non grata by Israel.

The boycott will not be remembered as a glorious moment in this government's history. Jimmy Carter has dedicated his life to humanitarian missions, to peace, to promoting democratic elections, and to better understanding between enemies throughout the world. Recently, he was involved in organizing the democratic elections in Nepal, following which a government will be set up that will include Maoist guerrillas who have laid down their arms. But Israelis have not liked him since he wrote the book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid."

Israel is not ready for such comparisons, even though the situation begs it. It is doubtful whether it is possible to complain when an outside observer, especially a former U.S. president who is well versed in international affairs, sees in the system of separate roads for Jews and Arabs, the lack of freedom of movement, Israel's control over Palestinian lands and their confiscation, and especially the continued settlement activity, which contravenes all promises Israel made and signed, a matter that cannot be accepted. The interim political situation in the territories has crystallized into a kind of apartheid that has been ongoing for 40 years. In Europe there is talk of the establishment of a bi-national state in order to overcome this anomaly. In the peace agreement with Egypt, 30 years ago, Israel agreed to "full autonomy" for the occupied territories, not to settle there.

These promises have been forgotten by Israel, but Carter remembers.

Whether Carter's approach to conflict resolution is considered by the Israeli government as appropriate or defeatist, no one can take away from the former U.S. president his international standing, nor the fact that he brought Israel and Egypt to a signed peace that has since held. Carter's method, which says that it is necessary to talk with every one, has still not proven to be any less successful than the method that calls for boycotts and air strikes. In terms of results, at the end of the day, Carter beats out any of those who ostracize him. For the peace agreement with Egypt, he deserves the respect reserved for royalty for the rest of his life."

Rowan Williams and Sharia 2

One of the fascinating aspects of the Sharia episode is the whole issue of what he meant by what he said in his speech at the 2008 Temple Festival.

Somehow reading the words of the script do not convey the full meaning in quite the same way as hearing the words as they were spoken, so perhaps it is worth listening to what he said courtesy of the BCC who have now put the film on line.

I don't think you need to be a genius to understand that he was not advocating the wholesale adoption of Sharia law?

The whole lecture starts with a rather "tragic" joke about the acoustics of the hall and people already "knowing what he was going to say" being aloud to go off to sleep -

Sadly many of those who have commented (including his increasingly intolerant predecessor and several national press Religious correspondents) seem to have accepted the invitation, and leapt to conclusions without the benefit of understanding what he meant - while two ex-army officers and a headline seeking Synod member seem to be at the forefront of the "clamour" for his resignation.

From the religious correspondents and (three) General Synod members good Lord deliver us!

Rowan and Sharia law!

Just fascinating to see how this whole story has developed (out of control it has to be said).

The story starts with an apparently innocent lecture on "Civil and Religious Law in England: A religious perspective" - as part of The Temple Festival at which one would expect a typically informed and erudite lecture from RW with few other than those present taking much notice - see here for the entirely appropriate context for what was planned.

What makes this story different is that the real agenda is Islam in Britain a hot topic beloved of the British press and media - and of course to their delight "The World at One" managed to land one of those magic moments when RW was heard to suggest that sharia law might be an inevitable part of British law in the future - read here the script.

As I heard those words travelling in the car I could just imagine the flurry of activity around the world of press and media.

When what you have said produces this response from the Religions Correspondent of The Times, ( not noted it has to be said for her particularly informed coverage of Muslim affairs) and then read the comments which follow the post, then you should realise that you have lost your closest allies in the Press a bit, with the consequential misunderstandings which follow among the wider public who are "ill-informed" about the nature of an academic lecture to put it with generosity

So once again RW falls victim to the "academic thesis"  needing a "popular explanation" becoming the "popular headline" - I am relieved I am not one of his press team!!

Favourite "uninformed" coverage comes from the Sun's blogs with the headline:

Fruit cake in a frock Rowan Williams has declared that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is "unavoidable".

Some Distinctly Welcome insight comes here - but I fear Richard may be to optimistic about the outcomes from this episode, and that Rowan Williams may actually have re-inforced the fear and prejudice by his contribution - clearly the political classes have seen it necessary to quickly disown him.

The Bishop of Rochester and the Church Times

Just as I decide again not to extend my subscription to the Church Times ( I signed up again on the cheap rate at Greenbelt) as there have been some truly awful editions in recent weeks and the design layout continues to be a sad example of failed trendiness, then what do they do but produce a good couples of issues.

Last weeks edition had some excellent articles and three genuinely perceptive book reviews, and this weeks addresses the Rochester problem with perception and sensitivity.

There is the good coverage of the responses from other bishops and local clergy, and the equally predictable support from Patrick Sukdeho (who as another 1st generation arrival from a convert family seems to have the same blinkers as the Bishop).

But there is an excellent perceptive editorial which raises important questions about what the Bishop failed to say or understand - at risk of breaching copyright I include it here( if CT want to object then I'll happily replace this with a link)

"The Bishop of Rochester is uniquely placed in the House of Bishops to speak about the experience of Christians as a beleaguered minority in a hostile society, though not by virtue of his see in southern England. His continuing interest in Pakistan has shown him how Christians there are becoming increasingly anxious about the growth of intolerant strains of Islam. As a global observer, he is inclined to take the “clash of cultures” view of the relationship between Islam and the West, and the treatment of Christians in the Indian subcontinent and parts of the Middle East contributes to this view.

There are several surprising aspects about his attempt, in a newspaper article, to place the British situation in this context. It is perhaps unfair to criticise him for what he did not say: Dr Nazir-Ali tends to need a larger canvas to develop his views. None the less, there were three elements missing from his article which might have tempered the glee with which his comments about no-go areas were seized on in some quarters. The first was any reference to moderate Islam. Muslim adherence ranges from secularism to extremism, with a large clump of moderates in the middle. What they lack is a rhetoric with which to express their religious views, especially while the influx of imams from overseas continues.

Second, in his concentration on religion, Dr Nazir-Ali plays down other, more important factors that contribute to segegration. Traditionally, the clustering of immigrants has been based on ethnicity rather than religion. It is possible that the desire to be near a place of worship, mosque, temple, or synagogue has had a growing influence, but language remains the deciding factor in inhibiting the spread of first-generation immigrants. If non-Muslims feel uncomfortable in certain areas (the Bishop does not specify who shares this feeling), it is far more to do with language and appearance than with religious beliefs.

This leads on to the third omission. Dr Nazir-Ali does not feel the need to temper his praise of “the nation’s laws, values, customs, and culture”. The successful assimilation of newcomers depends on the readiness of the host nation to accept individuals from alien cultures. It is, moreover, a gospel imperative. He cites black-majority churches and Eastern European Roman Catholics as the salvation of certain cities; yet they, too, have struggled against British prejudice. It is this that most prevents immigrant communities’ absorbing British laws, values, customs, and culture. And it is this that, in most instances, feeds a fear of certain neighbourhoods when the balance of the population leans too heavily in one direction.

A final surprise in the Bishop’s article is the depressed view of British Christianity he puts forward. Evangelicalism generally encourages an optimistic, confident outlook. If Dr Nazir-Ali looked more closely at many of the church-mosque initiatives begun after 9/11, he might regain his cheerfulness. Instead of attempting to emulate John the Baptist, he might see that Britain was not yet a wilderness."

I think the penultimate paragraph is particularly telling. The existence of the black-led churches remains a telling commentary of the failure of British Christians to welcome their fellow Anglicans, Methodists and other denominations as they arrived from the Caribbean - and similar issues are already arising with RC arrivals from Eastern Europe.

The point being that the seperation is not religious - it is cultural whether expressed as rejection by the host communities or the desire of new arrivals to retain their national and cultural identity (as it seems with some Polish RC communities).

The article highlights two particular dilemnas for me : how do we come to common understanding about what is distinctiveness about inter-faith relations here in the UK, and secondly more mundanely is the Church Times really worth its subscription?

Powered by Qumana

Moderate Bishops speak!

It has been suggested that I have been a tad unfair in my previous post.

It has been pointed out to me that I have missed some moderate voices (in addition to Bishop Alan) from among the Anglican Bishops who have indicated their disagreement with the Bishop of Rochester comments and I am delighted to record their response and questions.

The most explicit of these is the Church of England's Bishop for Urban life and Faith Stephen Lowe who was put up as the "Church's official spokesman" to the BBC and others media agencies.

His BBC response is interesting and can be heard in this programme which also features Bishop Michael.

listen here

Note that Bishop Michael's comments were recorded before he published his Sunday Telegraph article.

This is the official response of the Church of England . . . well that is until we remember that Bishop Michael heads the House of Bishop's response on inter-faith matters?

Bishop of Rochester - where are the moderates?

If a senior Muslim leader says anything provocative or offensive there is sometimes a response along the lines of " where are the moderate Muslim leaders who stand up and challenge the views".

Thinking along the same lines there has been a noticeable "quietness" from the House of Bishops and some interesting reasons for not commenting which must be capped by the Bishop of Blackburn's " I haven't had time to read what the Bishop or Rochester has said yet" - which has been widely quoted with some incredulity in the press and on blogs.

Bishop Alan has offered this helpful post about what a "no-go area" - if nothing else the Bishop of Rochester should be pressed by his brother Bishops to define what he means by the phrase as a precursor to an informed discussion. It is surely impossible to say if "no-go areas" exist or are an issue if we don't know what they are.

There is a nice irony in that if you Google " Rochester + Muslims" the first choice is this American Muslim Centre

The aftermath of the Sudan teddy bear affair

With Gillian Gibbons back in the UK ( I resist the temptation to say safely because she has made it publicly clear that the Sudanese Government did everything they could to ensure her personal safety) It is good to hear her speak and react with such dignity and regret for the problems which her innocent actions have caused.

But there are some interesting responses - most of which contain some taunt at the Sudanese Government or contain a predictable anti-islamic slant.

Ruth Gledhill The Religions Correspondent resorts to the use of the word "Mohammedism" in her post on the subject - an offensive use of the adjective which has no place in contemporary religious dialogue - and which shows a noticeable lack of understanding in suggesting that it is an "older" name for Islam when in fact it is largely a 19th century western term which is perhaps the Christian equivalent of calling Roman Catholics "Papists". This is a disappointing lapse of journalistic standards to say the least.

The BNP with a similar lack of taste has launched a special Teddy Bear named Mohammed.

While few of the national papers gave any prominence to the large crowd of Muslim protestors outside the Sudanese embassy calling for Gillian's release who must have had their impact upon the Governments decision and which was featured in the Guardian. In fact The Mail only mentioned the two individuals who were calling for a stiffer sentence.