The bishops' letter: a 'voice above the roar of the guns'

Turbulent priests have long troubled power. Who is my Neighbour?, the bishops' letter 'to the people and parishes of the Church of England for the General Election 2015' is unlikely to give rise to murder in a cathedral, but it has produced some dispiriting knee-jerk political reactions.

Some of these were so silly that they condemned themselves. A claim that the bishops had “presented a shopping list of left-wing policies”, when the letter clearly states “This letter is not a shopping list of policies we would like to see”, suggests that the complainant had not read the document. Iain Duncan Smith's schoolboy sneers at the “relevance” of the Church of England were unfitting for a Minister of the Crown and a practising Catholic, while his comment that “The Church only really talks about suffering and the poor when the Tories are in power”, produced a good deal of understandable ripostes on the lines of “paramedics only drive fast when people are poorly.” Reflexive indignation is no substitute for reflective analysis and the comprehensive inability to stand back, read, discern and then engage on a level above that of playground insult simply points to a lack of capacity for the kind of approach which the bishops advocate.

That approach has been well judged. One of the greatest strengths of the Established Church is its presence in almost every community across the country. Its grass-roots engagement with issues of poverty, deprivation and loneliness gives weight to its witness and, at its best, the authority to challenge partisan politics.

It may be difficult for politicians to understand that for many people of faith, there are imperatives above and beyond the expediencies and sound bites of politics. The bishops write that the church does “not see the way forward as a choice between ‘right’ and ‘left’”. This encapsulates the challenge. To question Trident and the treatment of benefit recipients – to take two examples – is perhaps to hear, as did Corder Catchpool during WW1, “ a voice above the roar of the guns.” For those steeped in polemic and party-interest to the exclusion of all else, such a voice is unthinkable. Disagreement and implicit criticism must mean bad faith. We are left with no generous space where discernment and understanding may grow and where attack or defence are both redundant and obstructive.

It is troubling that the politicians who have commented – all of whom, it has to be said, are on the government side – have been either unable or unwilling to understand that the letter does not endorse any party. If they genuinely cannot see that conscience and the prophetic voice do not wear a party badge, it is evident that there is a lack of moral sophistication which must be addressed. If they choose not to see, then that lack of integrity must be challenged. These actions do not need to be the preserve of members of the Church of England. We can all raise questions, in our different walks of life, with legislators who show themselves hostile to the concept of “a fresh moral vision of the kind of country we want to be.”

In exploring that vision, it is right that the bishops should have pointed to the climate of division and scapegoating which has increased alarmingly since 2010. A hostile response from the party in power during these years does nothing to address the observable injustice of claiming “that anyone who cares about the impact of austerity on the most vulnerable members of society is … careless about the extent of national indebtedness”. Nor does it show any humility before the evidence that “the greatest burdens of austerity have not been borne by those with the broadest shoulders”, or that the less well off “have not been adequately protected from the impact of recession”.

Most important in the bishops' call for “a new politics”, is their recognition that all parties “have failed to offer attractive visions of the kind of society and culture they wish to see, or distinctive goals they might pursue. Instead we are subjected to sterile arguments about who might manage the existing system best. There is no idealism in this prospectus.” And lest we should get too much pleasure out of blaming politicians, we, the electorate, are reminded: “Unless we exercise the democratic rights that our ancestors struggled for, we will share responsibility for the failures of the political classes.”

It is easy to pillory the Established Church. It is a latecomer to equality for women; it handles the sexual orientation of both its laity and clergy with a heavy and sometimes brutal hand. It is defensive of its privilege, often displaying a tin ear for its place in a diverse society. It clings to the indefensible position of maintaining its Lords Spiritual – the unelected and as yet wholly male representatives of one denomination of one religion – in the upper chamber of our legislature.

Nonetheless, those Lords Spiritual have called to us all with a voice that should be heeded: “Religious belief, of its nature, addresses the whole of life, private and public”.

Read Who is my Neighbour? here: https://www.churchofengland.org/media/2170230/whoismyneighbour-pages.pdf

*More on the issues in the 2015 General Election from Ekklesia: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/generalelection2015

-----

© Jill Segger is an Associate Director of Ekklesia with particular involvement in editorial issues. She is a freelance writer who contributes to the Church Times, Catholic Herald, Tribune, Reform and The Friend, among other publications. Jill is an active Quaker. See: http://www.journalistdirectory.com/journalist/TQig/Jill-Segger You can follow Jill on Twitter at: http://www.twitter.com/quakerpen