A line has been drawn in the sand by the Bishop of London's decision to ask Pete Broadbent, the Bishop of Willesden, to withdraw from public duties as a result of his facebook comments about the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton.
As several commentators on the decision have noted, bishops in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion "can refuse to attend the Lambeth Conference, criticise the Archbishop publicly, announce how much they hate the CofE and that they intend to leave it, even liken supporters of women's elevation to the episcopate to Nazis" (Alan Frazer) and "claim that married couples who choose not to have children are selfish (Michael Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester); that Muslims are creating “no-go” areas for non-Muslims in Britain (also Nazir-Ali); and that the Cumbrian floods were in part caused by God's judgment on civil partnerships (Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle)" (Symon Hill); all with apparent impunity. But, as Alan Frazer writes, "the one thing that finally provokes unequivocal condemnation and 'suspension' is a Bishop's semi-private moan about a royal wedding."
Together with Symon Hill I think it is clear that, through this decision, the Church of England has given the impression that it regards insults to members of the Windsor family as a more serious offence than those routinely traded in debating these other issues. It would be valuable, although probably unrealistic, to seek to eradicate the culture of insulting opponents in debate but, in the absence of such a development, seeking to establish a hierarchy of those who can and cannot be insulted, as the Bishop of London seems to be doing, is entirely the wrong way to proceed.
This whole incident also reinforces one of the main points made by the Bishop of Willesden in his original comments and that is the disproportionate power possessed by the media which can destroy reputations and careers (and, as the Bishop was predicting, marriages) with apparent impunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clash - Wrong 'Em Boyo.
3 comments:
Jonathan, although I'm sure your central point is right I would want to challenge the selectiveness of your list, which seems to come directly from the list posted by Ekklesia on their site. Unsurprisingly they went for comments from bishops on issues where they take a particular position and seem content to quote in some cases out of context.
What about bishops who have consistenty denied central credal statements on the divinity of Christ or the resurrection? What about the hypocrisy of those bishops who publicly take one stance on human sexuality while privately supporting and even encouraging a different practice?
As I say, your central point I have no problem with, but I think we need to be careful in picking and chosing which issues and comments we are going to take offence at.
I not trying, in this post, to take sides on any of the issues listed. But your comment does illustrate my point further, as in practice it seems that Bishops can say what they like on these issues including insulting their opponents and there is no real comeback but as soon as the royal family is criticised there is a comeback. That's my central and simple point - it's a case of one rule for you, one rule for me in the Church of England when it comes to criticising the monarchy. This is the only issue where discipline is the immediate response.
Going beyond that point I think we should also be able to debate without needing to insult those we critique.
Hi Jonathan, I think we are in full agreement on this. I probably should have posted my comment about the Ekklesia examples on their post rather than yours, which is why I didn't link to your blog in my own post on the subject.
When I went to publish the comment my connection went down and I didn't think my comment had posted to your blog. I wasn't going to repost it so was surprised when you commented on my post. Sorry about the confusion.
Anyway, as I say I agree with both the main point and your second point.
Post a Comment