George Pitcher wrote in the Telegraph that A good claret, Bishop, is a menace to no one.
Last week, in the Church Times Colin Buchanan wrote that The time is up for first past the post.
Paul Vallely also wrote about the recent election, see Not thugs so much as alienated.
This week, Giles Fraser writes that Art should point further than cash.
Theo Hobson at Cif belief wrote that We must separate church and state.
In answer to the question Can religion save the world? Parna Taylor writes that Religious literacy matters.
Nick Jowett writes in The Times that Great music can unite the sacred and the secular.
I think Paul Vallely should speak to George Pitcher; everything in the latter bears out the point he is trying to make about the sneering sense of dismissal of the socially inferior by their self-assessed and self-obsessed social superiors; curiously there’s also a hint of BNP-like eugenics in the analysis, with reference to the PR person who keeled over and died – ah, it’s congenital; not made of the right stuff.
Salmon and claret vs lager and kebabs – where is there any vision in this?
I thought Nick Jowett’s piece was excellent – especially as it used the example of Haydn – my favourite composer and – for me – the composer of the most intelligent religious music.
Salmon and claret?
Theo Hobson’s insightful article about the need for separation of Church and State in the UK is interesting to those of us who are Anglicans on the outside, so to speak, from other jurisdictions? The Church of England would appear to be the only Anglican institution which is bound by state regulation – a fact which still puzzles those Provinces of the Anglican Communion which are entirely free from interference by the state. It is surprising that, in this time of questioning the legitimacy of ‘theocratic statehood’, the Church of England is still tied to governmental regulation of its internal… Read more »
The only trouble is the C of E has shown itself to need the protection of the state. It needs the state to protect it from itself, and especially from certain extreme elements who want to turn it into an ‘Evangelical’ sect, with a reactionary theology and practice.
The state helps the C of E to be more godly. But that should come as no surprise to students of church history and human nature.
I omited to include (above) those who want a similarly reactionary ‘Catholic’ sect. Both groups seek power through excluding others from their holy inner circle, be it those whose paradigms differ within the ‘active ranks’ of ‘the Church’, or the general public seeking ministries at key moments in their lives. The two groups traditionally come together (a difficult feat) from time to time, to form unholy alliances which exclude others, or certain values and actions. (cf Anglican-Methodist unity on Michael Ramsey’s watch, and progress towards women’s ministry etc). Eames’ recent lecture on the poer struggle in the Anglican Communion explores… Read more »
Can we be clear about this: since Gordon Brown became PM the State has abandoned any claim to a voice in the appointment of bishops and of cathedral deans and canons (Green Paper, ‘The Governance of Britain’, July 3rd 2007). At the initiative of the ‘new’ PM, the arrangement now is that the PM’s office simply sends to the Queen the one name the Church has nominated and the Queen appoints that person. This is not perfect but it is no longer appointment by the Government. Creating new structures to fit this new reality is the next step. The Crown… Read more »
That’s not entirely accurate. See this Church Times news report from June 2008
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=58796
Also, the workload of Crown parochial appointments remains unchanged, there are around 600 or so parish livings for which either the Crown or the Lord Chancellor is responsible.
Bill Bowder’s CT article was written before ‘CROWN APPOINTMENTS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND: A CONSULTATION PAPER FROM THE ARCHBISHOPS’ http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/papers/consultation_on_crown_appointments.doc Since then the Church has begun to legislate for mechanisms to appoint deans and all cathedral canons, including the royal appointments. In all of these it is propsed (for better or worse) that the bishop takes the lead. I don’t remember where all that has got to but I understand it effectively removes the choice of the PM (who doesn’t want it!). Correct me, Simon, if necessary. Note also that the Downing Street official no longer does any interviewing… Read more »
“I omited to include (above) those who want a similarly reactionary ‘Catholic’ sect.” That’s so easy to forget. I keep going on and on about “Evangelicals”, but Anglocatholics make up part of that odd alliance, unstable in both status and makeup. Do they tend to be the ACs who consider the English Reformation a small spat and pray for “our Pope” as though the bishop of Rome was quite happy with the current set up, with, of course, some minor little quibbles? It’s just another manifestation of the insecurity that makes some people need a clearly spelled out code to… Read more »
No, that document is dated October 2007, i.e. well before June 2008.
See also this report of the February 2008 debate in General Synod.
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=51865
It is entirely correct that the Prime Minister no longer is offered two names to choose from. And that the removal of this option also removes the rationale for retaining bishops in the House of Lords.
However, I fail to understand how this sounds any death knell for the Crown Nominations Commission.
Quite right, Simon: my mistake. But doesn’t the point still stand that the PM is now, in effect, not involved in choosing people for senior church appointments.
I am not claiming that this sound the death knell for the CNC, I am suggesting that we’ve come a long way since Jim Callaghan’s premiership and I am guessing that we shall continue to evolve.
I agree we still have a way to go before the Church is free of the trappings of Establishment.
Thanks Rev L.