Why do we pay so much attention to bishops?

****

No, dear reader, I'm not launching into an anti-religion rant merely trying to apply some context. And the reason for this started, as things do, at a Shipley Area Committee meeting. We we discussing proposals to institute further parking controls and a residents only parking scheme in the roads behind the Old Main Street in Bingley. The local residents had - we were told - been plagued by problems with people parking on their streets both in the general cause of business in the town centre and more specifically as a result of a popular car boot sale at the former Auction Market a few hundred yards in the direction of Keighley.

There were a number of objections to the scheme from members of the congregation at Bingley Parish Church (around which some of the parking changes were to be instituted). I'm not here to explain why we made the decision that we did but rather to build on the report, from the church that the congregation on a typical Sunday is just 84 people. Fewer than 100 people in a parish with perhaps as many as 10,000 residents actually attended the church in anything like a committed way.

This brings me to the recent letter from Church of England bishops:

The Church of England has published a 52-page letter outlining its hopes for political parties to discern “a fresh moral vision of the kind of country we want to be” before the general election in May. In it, leading English bishops address themes such as the church’s duty to join the political debate in an increasingly consumerist society, welfare reform and Britain’s role in the world.

Again my intention here isn't to discuss whether or not I like the contents of the letter (for the record, it is very much a curate's egg - which means, of course, that the bad stuff ruins the whole letter but I'm too polite to point this out in case the bishops get upset). Rather I want to ask why so much national media attention is given to the interesting but really rather predictable ramblings of some bishops.

Church attendance has been declining in the UK for decades and is now significantly below one million:

The Church's figure for 'usual Sunday attendance', the method used since the 1930s to measure congregations, found CofE churches had 795,800 worshippers on Sundays in 2012. The numbers were 9,000 down on the previous year.

This has been the steady pattern - a gradual decline in attendance year on year. A small enough decline for the Church of England's number-crunchers to pretend that the picture is more or less stable. It's also true that the decline in the Church of England's flock has been less marked than for non-conformist churches and for the Roman Catholic church.

Anyhow the bishops' letter was addressed to those 700,000 or so folk who loyally attend the established church's services on a Sunday. But it was also given a degree of attention far beyond this as the national media, politicians and commentators all saw it as something more important than just some guidance to churchgoers on the minefield of politics. Here's Labour MP and official policy-wonk-in-chief, John Cruddas:

It is a profound, complex letter, as brutal as it is tender, as Catholic as it is reformed, as conservative as it is radical. It draws upon ideas of virtue and vocation in the economy that are out of fashion, but necessary for our country as we defend ourselves from a repetition of the vices that led to the financial crash and its subsequent debt and deficit. It invites us to move away from grievance, disenchantment and blame, and towards the pursuit of the common good.

It's always fascinating how worldly politicians slip so easily into the self-important pomposity of pastoral literature - Cruddas sounds here like the Bishop in Trollope's The Warden, I even zoomed to the bottom of his piece to discover whether he finished with the opening lines of Ecclesiastes. Sadly he didn't. In truth, for all the grumbles about leftie bishops, the letter is deeply conservative - something that shouldn't surprise us given the Church of England's over-riding imperative of maintaining its established status.

It is this established status that leads to the bishops opinions getting the attention rather than the numbers of people who worship every Sunday. My question is why we continue to pay such attention to bishops simply because we give their church a formal role in our civic life. To be fair, nearly all of those 700,000 or so churchgoers won't read anything beyond the headlines of the letter (it is 52 pages long for heaven's sake) and the rest of the population won't read it either.

The problem is that we credit bishops with a special insight into the choices facing society, choices around the economy, around how we live together and around the idea of liberty. And those bishops present an answer filtered through the prism of Christian theology rather than via economics, sociology or, indeed, the application of common sense. If you are convinced of Christianity's central message this is a perfectly fine approach but this simply isn't the case for over half the population:

Less than half of the British people believe in a God and from 2009 the annual British Social Attitudes results has revealed that over 50% of us say we're not religious and a 2014 YouGov poll saw 77% of the British public say they're not very, or not at all, religious. Comprehensive professional research in 2006 by Tearfund found that two thirds (66% - 32.2 million people) in the UK have no connection with any religion or church.

We see here a case of a declining - deeply traditionalist - minority having an influence beyond its numbers. The leaders of just 700,000 folk presuming to speak for the whole nation and, worse, being granted that privilege because nobody is pointing out that the Archbishop has no clothes.

This isn't to deny the bishops the right to publish letters about the world but to argue that it is time to end the privilege afforded to those bishops on the basis of history rather than their relevance to modern Britain.

....

Mandates (and how the Archbishop is talking nonsense again)

****

The Archbishop of Canterbury has been talking - in the context of the gay marriage debate - whether the government has a "mandate" for this proposed regulation:

“The basis of the mandate for changing the state’s understanding of marriage given the lack of any commitment in the election manifestos of the main parties has been one of the many issues raised in those discussions.” 

Which rather begs an important question. Or rather indicates Dr Williams to be displaying a degree of constitutional ignorance that doesn't become his standing. True, it is commonplace for people engaging in debate to suggest that a government doesn't have a "mandate" for something. But this is just blather - there's an acceptance that proposals based on manifesto promises aren't nobbled by the House of Lords but nowhere in all this does it say that the government is limited in its actions by the contents of a manifesto published before an election.

The government has every right to propose changes to the law regardless of whether the matter being considered (gay marriage in this case) was or wasn't within a political party's election manifesto. And I'm pretty sure that Dr Williams knows this to be so, which makes his statement merely political roustabout rather than a serious constitutional point.

....

In which I try to explain truth and reality to an archbishop

****

I am worried. I appreciate that some may not see it my way but I really do prefer my bishops – when they comment on the political world – to have at least some connection to truth and reality. Sadly the Archbishop of Canterbury has lost this connection somewhere in his beard.

"With remarkable speed, we are being committed to radical, long-term policies for which no one voted," he writes. "At the very least, there is an understandable anxiety about what democracy means in such a context."

There are two ways to respond – the first one is to point out that, in our electoral system we vote for people not policies.  But I suppose that might get the riposte – “why do political parties have manifestos then?”  So there is a second response which is to ask – “so tell me, Your Grace, what policies did people vote for then?”

The Archbishop cites some policies – such as education:

"[T]he comprehensive reworking of the Education Act 1944 that is now going forward might well be regarded as a proper matter for open probing in the context of election debates."

Strangely enough Your Grace, by this very statement you have undermined your own argument. The idea of ‘free schools’ was in the Conservative Manifesto as was the need to do something to support schools in maintaining discipline and to make changes to the national curriculum. As to the continuing academy programme – that was legislation passed by the previous Labour Government, of course.

While the “we didn’t vote for this” line can be argued, the Archbishop’s comments on education policies are simply wrong. The proposed changes were probed “in the context of election debates”. For example here between “experts” and here between politicians. So you’re talking rubbish, Archbishop.

And then welfare. Here the Archbishop simply invents a straw man and attacks it with vigour:

Williams also launches a sustained attack on the government's welfare reforms, complaining of a "quiet resurgence of the seductive language of "deserving" and "undeserving" poor". In comments aimed at the Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, the Archbishop criticises "the steady pressure" to increase "punitive responses to alleged abuses of the system"

I admit to listening closely to the debate about welfare – after all, welfare reforms are very popular:

A new YouGov poll for Channel 4 News yesterday found strong public support for many of the government’s planned cuts to benefits. 73% of respondents supported the idea of making the long term unemployed do compulsory work placements or risk losing benefits, 66% supported withdrawing jobseekers allowance from people who turn down job offers or interviews, 69% supported more stringent testing of people claiming disability living allowance and 68% supported capping housing benefit at £400 a week, “even if this means people are forced to move house if they live in an area where the rent is high”. In all these cases the policies weren’t just popular amongst Conservative and Liberal Democrat supporters, they were also backed by a majority of Labour voters.

I appreciate that popular doesn’t equate to right but that polling – whatever you think of opinion research – does indicate something of a popular mandate for the policies being pursued. And making up opinions for Iain Duncan Smith (who I’m sure can arrive at an opinion without ecclesiastical assistance) simply doesn't look well on a bishop.

Finally, there’s the “Big Society”:

The Archbishop also questions David Cameron's "big society" agenda, a phrase which he describes as "painfully stale". He writes that the policy is viewed with "widespread suspicion" as an "opportunistic" cover for spending cuts, adding that is not credible for ministers to blame the last Labour government for Britain's problems.

Yet again we see the bishop simply parading his ignorance. Perhaps this is because he wasn’t listening when David Cameron first talked of the “Big Society”. However, the Archbishop has changed his tune just a little. Last September he had this to say on Newsnight:

"The positive side of the big society agenda in the present Government's language is I think not just about saving money or cutting corners - it's about some kind of effort to get hold of a strong sense of civic responsibility".

Maybe also the Archbishop spends too much time with the great and good rather than among ordinary people. On Tuesday evening I was at a Neighbourhood Forum in Denholme witnessing the big society:

·         The Town Council were recruiting volunteers to run the library – not just taking over from the Council but extending the hours and the services

·         A call was made for more volunteer drivers for the community transport scheme – taking the infirm, disabled and isolated to appointments, shopping and to the hospitals

·         The Community Association briefed the meeting about plans – at an early stage – to take over running the Mechanics Institute from the Council

This, dear Archbishop, is the ‘Big Society’ – it really is that simple. Perhaps you should get out of Lambeth Palace and into the real world once in a while – you might just learn something about people. 

It seems to me that the Archbishop should check his facts and try to adopt a logical approach to argument.  Or maybe just stick to god-bothering and marrying princes.

 ....

Thoughts upon reading a church newsletter....

Because I have a day off today, I’ve read the newsletter that dropped through my door from the local branch of the Church of England. Now, as my regular readers will know, this local branch and I have differences – mostly over the knocking down of fine old vicarages so the church can get a new vicarage for free (or rather realise a load of cash from it’s asset). That and the church misled me and its local boss wrote me the rudest letter I have ever received in my capacity as a councillor.

As we speak the new vicarage (described on the big sign outside as “A New Vicarage for the Community” – and there was me thinking it was for the vicar) is under construction. A big, ugly, square modern detached house slap in the middle of the village. Does make me wonder why the vicar (or “resident priest” as I gather he will now be dubbed) can’t live in a semi like most of the rest of the folk round here. There’s plenty for sale.

But back to the newsletter. This is a stark reminder of how rapidly the Church of England is declining. It starts with this:

"Rev’d Bob Evans was licensed on the 15th March as the new priest in charge of Cullingworth, Harden, Wilsden and Denholme. He is based at the Harden Vicarage and has overall responsibility for the four churches in three parishes."

So at present this population of 15,000 or so has just one vicar. This suggests to me that there aren’t very many folk attending the churches on a Sunday. And this is confirmed by two further comments:

“Bob has a real heart for the local church and wants to welcome a more diverse age range by providing a variety of styles of worship.”

…and:

“The resident priest role will also include a new role working with Harden, Wilsden, Denholme, Cullingworth, Haworth, Crossroads and Oxenhope in their development of mission and outreach to the local communities.”

So Bob is going to create a new funky product and the new “resident priest” will go out and drum up the business for it. I wish them well but am even more firmly of the opinion now that, for most people most of the time, the church is a complete irrelevance. It serves no substantive role in the community other than to have a great big, quite attractive building right in the middle of the village.

The picture in my village just reflects the latest polling on religious belief as reported in UK Polling Report:

“As might be expected from a Theos poll, the other questions dealt with the role of religion in public life. 27% said they had no religion, 33% that their religion was cultural and didn’t really affect their lives. 22% said their religion was important and had some impact on their lives, 16% that it was very important and had significant affect upon their lives.”

This says that 60% of the population aren’t bothered about the church and that more people don’t believe than see religion as important.

....