Providing a context
The archbishops tell us, in the concluding sentence of their letter to the communities secretary:
The relationship between Church and State, reaffirmed by the Government last July in The Governance of Britain, will continue to provide a context in which people of all faiths and none can live together in mutual respect in this part of the Realm.
What does that mean? Anything? Is it anything other than an obvious absurdity? What can it mean to say that a relationship between church and state will provide a context in which people of all faiths and none can live together in mutual respect? Why would it do that? What does a relationship between the state and one particular church have to do with providing a context for a whole lot of people who have no interest in that church to live together in mutual respect? What does it have to do with providing a context for a whole lot of people who dislike or hate or fear or are bored by that church to live together in you know what?
What can the archbishops mean? Let’s get real, dudes. The truth is, the ‘relationship’ between an official established Christian church and the state necessarily excludes all non-Anglicans – all atheists, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, non-Anglican Protestants. The relationship is one between the state and one specific group, not one between the state and everyone, so what kind of ‘context’ are they talking about? Are they just pointlessly announcing that if all goes well people can live together despite the existence of this ridiculous and anachronistic relationship? Or are they, more expansively, saying this relationship actually makes living together possible, or helps it along in some way? If it’s the first, it’s just blather; if it’s the second, it’s ludicrous.
That makes about as much sense as:
“The relationship between United States marriage laws and homophobic Christianity, as interminably reaffirmed through anti-gay marriage referenda among the states, will continue to provide a context in which people of all sexual orientations can live together in mutual respect. After all, gay people too enjoy the right to marry those of the opposite sex.”
The parsimonious explanation for all this churchly arm-waving is that they’re stark raving terrified. Never before has the COE’s privileged position been so credibly threatened. Never before have so many so openly acknowledged how irrelevant the COE is to civic life in Britain. I’m only surprised they’ve been able to confine themselves to churning out prissily worded non-sequiturs, instead of flinging themselves screaming from the nearest steeple (a more truthful demonstration, one suspects, of their level of anxiety).
In connexion with the Archbishops’ statement, perhaps a look at Gerd Lüdemann’s book “Intolerance and the Gospel” would make good reading. I put the address to a blurb about the text below. Clearly, anyone who has ever read Christian texts can say with some confidence that the relationship of Church and State does not open a context in which different religions (or none) can comfortably coexist. Why do the Archbishops not acknowledge their own beliefs? What do they gain by concealing them? Do they really think that no one can see the trick that is being played with words here? Talk about Zizuku! (See the Philosophy Mag Blog) Here’s the address:
http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~gluedem/eng/index.htm
O.B I dont think the arch bishop means anything by this, I think he is going to spout meaningless safe drivel like this after the sharia debacle it gets him in less trouble.
What is ‘the state’? It is a population; a collection of people, however defined, who hold and exercise power over the wider population within a precisely defined national boundary.
What is ‘The Church of England’? Another population which includes some of the population called ‘the state’, including the Queen, who is definitely a member of both.
Any ‘relationship’ between the two populations, taken as wholes, is meaningless outside a specific context. The British state decided to go to war in Iraq. As far as I know, the Church of England supported it, or at least, did not oppose it. Does this mean that the Church always supports the State and vice versa? Not necessarily.
On the individual level, does this mean that a copper on the beat will never arrest a vicar, even if the latter is loitering with intent? Probably not.
I could go on at length, following every worm in the can the archbishop has opened from head to tail, or more accurately, anterior to posterior.
But… So many worms! So little time!
Unless of course by ‘the church’ the archbishop means the leaders of the church, eg himself, and by ‘the state’ the Queen and Cabinet.
Does it even matter Ian?
Meanwhile in another part of the Realm Don & I are debating whether one would not better serve more than just tea in the break between 2 stages of a hugely complex debating event with as a prize the torched, then grounded, then urned papers on which archbishops usually do write “in this part of the Realm”.
My claim in the debate would be that a touch of Star Wars dialogues has taken over the Anglican communication, hence that it can’t be all revelation.
Richard: Yes, I think it does matter. Silence is consent, as the old saying goes. It is also agreement.
Only brooks should be allowed to get away with mindless babble.
What I think he means is something like
“People of faith can be glad that we have an established church, with all the priviliges that entails, because it gives them a stronger basis for calls for their own segregated schools, protection against disrespect, human rights get out clauses, seats in the house of lords etc…”
“People of no faith can be glad that our established church is the COE with all the wishy-washiness that that entails, and not one of these other more millitant religions that is calling for their own segregated schools, protection against disrespect, human rights get out clauses etc….”
You see why he tends to blather, because if you spell out what he really means it reveals it as the nasty little protection racket that it really is.
The mutual respect he is talking about is like that between the smooth talking mafia boss, the men with the baseball bats and the shop owner who keeps paying up.
“You see why he tends to blather, because if you spell out what he really means it reveals it”
Exactly. Just what I’ve been arguing on an earlier thread. They blather because if they spell it out, it’s all far too obvious. That applies to way more people and institutions than the churchy variety, of course.
“You see why he tends to blather, because if you spell out what he really means it reveals it as the nasty little protection racket that it really is.”
This is why I don’t post often any more – some people just nail it better.
It’s a shame Sentamu doesn’t practice what he preaches when it comes to respecting not only other faiths but other countries with their own independent government.
B&W readers might like to know that he recently insisted on chairing a committee which chose the new Bishop of Sodor and Man – who will be the last unelected political figure in the Manx parliament (the others in the upper house are at least voted in by the politicians of the lower house).
The ‘choice’ was Sentamu’s current personal chaplain at York.