Leo Abse

I note a number of lengthy obituaries of Leo Abse, campaigner for reform of the moral law, in the Times, Telegraph and the Guardian

The Lady Chatterley trial

Have recently read a splendid article by Mark Roodhouse on the involvement of Anglican radicals in the Chatterley trial of 1960. It explores one of the early episodes in the turn towards liberalisation of the law in the Sixties, and the limits of Anglican acquiescence and/or co-operation with it.

It's in the Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 59; 3 (July 2008), 475-500 (available online, by subscription.).

Inter-faith marriage

A most interesting discussion on Radio 4's Beyond Belief programme on Monday this week. Christian, Jewish and Muslim voices explored the possibilities of inter-faith matches, without wholly avoiding the very real difficulties. It should be available until next Monday on the BBC's iplayer service, with some text information at the Beyond Belief page.

Evangelicals in the Church of England

This blog has noted much about the rise of the evangelicals in the Church of England, and the latest volume of Studies in Church History has several contributions of interest: Alister Chapman on the hopes for and use of the term 'revival' in the 1950s; Andrew Atherstone on the near collapse of Wycliffe Hall in the 1960s, and Mark Smith on the vitality of 1950s parish life.

See earlier post on evangelicals in politics.

Henry Chadwick

I note some recent obituaries of Henry Chadwick, scholar and leading figure in Anglican-Roman Catholic discussion. See Rowan Williams in the Guardian, and another in the Telegraph.

1968 and all that

I've been keeping an eye on the coverage of the anniversary of the events of May 1968, and have been struck by how little attention has been given to the religious aspects of the period. Hugh McLeod's recent book on the religious crisis of the Sixties has an excellent chapter on '68; see my review of it for Reviews in History.

Bishop Nazir-Ali

I note the recent article on 'Breaking faith with Britain' by the Bishop of Rochester, which appeared in the inaugural issue of the new conservative monthly Standpoint. For the purposes of this blog, it is most interesting for its view of the role of the 1960s in national moral decline. At about the same time, the Guardian carried a profile of the bishop, and a leading article, noting what it sees as the dangers of Nazir-Ali's case.
I'm sure this debate may continue, and shall post again at some point.

Mary Whitehouse

Hard on the heels of Permissive Night, BBC2 tonight screens Filth, a biopic of Mary Whitehouse, starring Julie Walters.

I shall be interested to see how it is handled, but some of the previews have already been ruminating on whether or not she was a Good Thing. Julie Walters, interviewed on BBC Breakfast News last week, admitted that whilst she had despised Whitehouse at the time, the experience of making the film had inspired a grudging respect [see also a mention in the Guardian]. The TV critic David Stubbs poses the question whether we should have listened to her, but concludes in the negative, in the Guardian TV Guide.

Permissive Night

An excellent series of programmes last night, on BBC Parliament (and not very well trailed), hosted by Joan Bakewell. It consisted of some very well chosen BBC archive footage of documentaries and debate programmes on several parts of the contentious social legislation of the 60s, including the reforms of the law on divorce, abortion, capital punishment and more. Some of them are available to watch again (for the next week) through the BBC iPlayer.

Geoffrey Fisher

I note a recent exchange of views concerning the recent study of Archbishop Fisher by David Hein: see a TLS review by John Whale, which is highly critical of Fisher, and a response by Andrew Chandler, also in the TLS.

The culture of US evangelicals

I note a small spate of interest in the loosening of the connection between US evangelicals and right-wing politics:
(i) Bernice Martin takes issue with Stephen Bates' recent God's Own Country, and with Charles Marsh's Wayward Christian Soldiers, in the TLS (April 16th).
(ii) Giles Fraser, no evangelical, wrote in the Guardian of his own surprising encounters in the US (Guardian, February 8th).

It strikes me that there are probably similar movements within British evangelicalism, but that they have not yet made it onto the media radar. The parallels are not exact by any means, but perhaps worth exploring.

[See also earlier post regarding Michael Lind on the US situation.]

War memorials after 1945

I'm bound to draw attention here to my own article on the Church of England and war memorials after 1945, which is now available online (to subscribing libraries), ahead of print publication in the Forum for Modern Language Studies. I've tried to explore the debates that took place between planners, artists, architects and clergy between 1940 and 1947, and the differing emphases on beauty and utility.
For the purposes of this blog, it is of most interest (I hope) in its examination of the ways in which the various sections of the 'establishment' interact in this period. A fruitful angle from which to view the processes of secularisation is the way in which the informal influence of clergy and lay Christians in the myriad committees in government and civil society changes. It is a theme that Ian Jones and I examined in one of our articles on "establishment" reactions to "pop" church music (in Studies in Church History 42), and also features in my own forthcoming piece on the "revival" in the visual arts (Studies in Church History 44).

George Bell, Bishop of Chichester

2008 sees the fiftieth anniverary of Bell's death, and there are two strands of academic events dealing with his legacy: Chichester Cathedral are holding a series of lectures, including one by Frank Field MP; and there is also to be a major conference in June, also in Chichester.

The Spiritual and the Religious: Is the Territory Changing?

I note Rowan Williams' recent lecture, given at Westminster Cathedral on April 17th, the full text of which is available on the Canterbury website. It is a very useful consideration of some of the broadest possible issues relating to religious association, and engages in passing with some of the work of David Martin and Grace Davie. See also his recent lectures on Faith and Politics, and on the blasphemy laws (and earlier post).

Law and Religion - the Temple debate

Last night I was able to attend this debate, part of the 2008 Temple Festival, at LSO St Luke's in London. The panel consisted of Professor A.C. Grayling, Professor Mona Siddiqui, Lord Justice Rix, and Robin, Lord Eames. I was slightly surprised that, given the background of the debate provoked by Rowan Williams, the event didn't attract greater attention, and it was conducted in a remarkably calm and collegial manner.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, much of the open debate was taken up with specific manifestations of the relationship between law and religion, and particularly concerning faith schools, which was perhaps the issue least germane to the more abstract question of their relation.

The clearest statement of principle came from A.C. Grayling, who argued that the churches ought to be treated in the same way as any other organisation in civil society, and thus called into doubt the position of the bishops in the House of Lords. The debate spent most time on the issue in relation to existing law: exemptions for faith organisations from employment law and the like.

What was missing was a consideration of the higher relationship: by what means are the values which determine law as it is made themselves derived ? All the religions, and also perhaps the British Humanist Association or the National Secular Society, are in the business of saying something about the meta-issues concerning the nature of the person and the order of society, which need to be established before laws can be made. Historically, in Michael Ramsey's time, there was little agitation from the other Christian denominations for parity in the Lords, but rather a sense that the established church was 'delegated' to put a general religious view (I can happily point readers towards specific examples of cooperation between the denominations if desired).

Since then, other faiths have of course grown in prominence, but I'm not aware of much pressure from that direction either for a change in the establishment. Part of Rowan Williams' purpose was, I think, to argue for some recognition within the secular state that a religious viewpoint is not purely that of one interest group among many, but that there are questions of overarching principle that a technocratic state is not able to resolve. Perhaps we might frame it this way: would a reformed House of Lords properly have fewer bishops, but additional representation from the Muslim Council of Great Britain, and the National Secular Society, in a way significantly different from the Football Association or the RAC ? The faiths are not simply civil society bodies in the same way.

The Act of Settlement

I note some recent discussion regarding the mooted repealing of the Act, allowing the monarch to marry a Catholic. See a recent article in the Telegraph, and Damian Thompson's take on the electoral politics involved. I suspect that this is inevitable, and I'm not aware of very much opposition from within the church to the change.
For information: see the Guardian's campaign for this change, begun in 2000.

Flat Earth News

I note a spate of attention paid to a recent book by the journalist Nick Davies, entitled Flat Earth News. From the various reviews, his central point seems to be that much newspaper journalism is what he christens 'churnalism': the recycling of Associated Press material and press releases from interested organisations and PR firms. Allied to this is a broader point: that this is mainly due to the commercial pressure under which newspapers operate. This pressure seems to issue in a reluctance, sometimes hardening into a aversion, to reporting complexity, and a predilection for disaster and conflict of opinion.

Davies' book is not a historical study, and two of its main critics have accused it of harking back to a never-existent 'golden age.' [see Peter Preston and Simon Jenkins, and John Lloyd on the debate.] It strikes me, though, that there is some interesting work to be done, for historians of religion at least. The conservative religious analysis of the media in the last 40 years has tended to see a decay in the mainstream media, due to a wilful, almost gleeful, pushing of the boundaries of taste and religious reference by broadcasters, and a corresponding decline in 'serious' coverage of religious issues. If Davies' analysis is correct, then we might need to think of the change in more two-way terms: for instance, the media storm that followed Honest to God in 1963 was not purely driven by the media organisations, but also reflected what it was that readers wanted. The signals from readers and viewers are by no means clearly channelled by sales and advertising revenue, but there is a relationship nonetheless, which we might need to take into account in thinking about the apparent secularisation of the media.

There may also be some food for thought here in relation to the reception to Rowan Williams' comments on sharia law a couple of months ago.

The law on blasphemy

I note the recent response of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Government's consultation on abolishing the blasphemy legislation (see the report in the Times. The closest thing to the full text I can find is on the Canterbury site.) It strikes me that it might have been wise, as they suggest, to take somewhat longer to assess the impact of the offence of incitement to religious hatred. It also seems inaccurate to suggest, as the National Secular Society has, that this is simply a delaying tactic on their part.

The debate in the Lords, during which the amendment was passed, may be found in Hansard, beginning at col. 1118. I've been struck by the general lack of attention to this in the press, especially when compared with the response to Rowan Williams on sharia. There is probably some useful historical work to be done on the reasons that have been advanced for having retained the legislation for so long, since the last prosecution was nearly a century ago.


For background: Christian Voice's case against Jerry Springer, the opera was defeated in the High Court and finally had a proposed appeal refused by the House of Lords.

Charles Taylor

I note a small spate of attention being paid to the work of Charles Taylor and his A Secular Age (2007). Reviews have appeared in: the Guardian (8th December); a profile in Prospect (February, with an additional interview on the website ); New York Times (December 16th), and from Edward Norman in the Spectator back in October.

Amongst the blogs, see in particular The Immanent Frame, a Canadian site to which Taylor himself has posted.

The employment of organists

I note a landmark ruling on the status of church organists as employees, and thus attracting full employment rights (Times 20th Feb and subsequent letters). From some of the reporting of this, one might form a picture of the Church of England of being at best incompetent and other-worldly, and at worst, exploitative of its organists over the years. It’s worth noting that, whilst the matter of employment has always been between organist and incumbent locally, the bishops and the Royal School of Church Music have been advising from at least the 1940s that a written agreement ought to be arrived at the beginning, particularly in the pamphlet, Organists in Churches.

Rowan Williams and sharia

Now that the dust has settled a little, I thought it worthwhile to gather together some of the more interesting contributions to a debate generally characterised by hysteria and a steadfast refusal to engage with detail. Any other contributions to this compendium gratefully received.

The lecture itself
I happened to be in the audience for Dr Williams' lecture, the text of which may be found on his own site, along with his subsequent address to the General Synod. It was (unfortunately) trailed by an interview on the BBC earlier that day. At the time I thought the lecture to be carefully argued and, whilst dense, only so far as is necessary to deal with a complex matter.

The Archbishop and the media
Much has been made of Williams' supposed naivety, and the quality or otherwise of his press officers' advice. I agree with Madeleine Bunting (Guardian 9th Feb) and Giles Fraser (Guardian 12th Feb) that, whilst he and his staff were reported as being taken aback at the ferocity of the reaction, he was well aware (as he hinted in the questions after the lecture) of the possible reactions, but that he is (rightly in my view) unprepared to succumb entirely to what a Guardian editorial described as the 'simplicity complex' in our media (9/2/08): difficult issues need to be addressed, and it will take time and patience to do so properly. Not everything can be boiled down into simple slogans.

Church and state
On the issue itself, I note a number of commentators who detected a manoeuvre on behalf of all faiths in a lecture ostensibly about Islam, which led all three in various ways to call for an equalisation downwards before the law - by means, explictly or implicitly, of the completion of the disestablishment of the Church of England: [Andrew Anthony, Guardian 12/2/08; Matthew Parris, Times 9/2/08; Janet Daley, Telegraph 11/2/08.]
One of the more interesting engagements with the detail of what was proposed came from Thom Dyke on the Prospect website.

The Archbishop and the church
Much was made of the calls for Williams to resign, but it is clear that these came mostly from those who have been unhappy about him from the beginning. On the response from his predecessor: George Carey's article for the News of the World is actually more supportive than was widely reported, but the key word he used was 'disastrous', and was the News of the World really the place for his intervention ? (now on the website under the strapline 'Hapless prelate's Sharia views condemned by Lord Carey')
There have however been some more favourable evangelical responses: see Jonathan Chaplin and more tangentially Andrew Goddard on the 'open evangelical' Fulcrum site.

America still works

Some interesting comments on the US religious situation from Michael Lind in Prospect. His article sets out to dispel some myths about the future of the US, one of which being the idea that America is likely to be taken over by ‘fundamentalists’. He sees the religious right as ‘as much an ethnic and regional movement’ in the white south, and detects longer term trends likely to take the US in a European, secularised direction.
This seems to me to be a useful piece of deconstruction of some of the more doom-laden predictions, and sits usefully alongside the job done by Philip Jenkins in his God’s Continent, (Oxford, 2007) which examines the prospects of an Islamic takeover of Europe with a similarly sceptical eye.

Who owns the cathedrals ?

Another example of the tension between the historic importance of the cathedrals as buildings and the present-day priorities of the communities that use them: recent disquiet expressed by the Dean of Salisbury over English Heritage guidelines (Times, 9th February, and a reply from Simon Thurley)
There is some useful background to the relationship between the cathedrals and EH in an obituary of Raymond Furnell, Dean of York.

Crown appointment of deans

I note that Prospect (Feb 2008) noticed the quiet announcement of the government that it is to withdraw from the appointment of cathedral deans, thus removing one of the last planks of the establishment of the Church of England. A brief check suggests that this hasn't been picked up by the main press. (See some comments from the Dean of Guildford back in October, and the Church Times on the matter back in July.)
The article notes the concern among some that allowing the bishops to appoint their deans would lead to appointments in their own image, and thus a more factional church. Whilst that is of course possible, it has always seemed to me that deans operate in a relatively isolated way, and if the parishes want to ignore their cathedral, they can. Much more powerful in this respect is the appointment of the archdeacons, which (I believe) has long been in the bishops’ hands.
The writer also suggests that an end to the ‘dependency culture’ might be a positive change from the church’s point of view, and I broadly agree. Although crown appointments have rarely been very proactive, and generally haven’t foisted an unwelcome candidate on the church, it is an important symbolic change nonetheless.

Media and Values

An interesting new book on Media and Values has appeared, which looks to be a blending of focus group research on, and historical background to, the demise of the Reithian idea that the media were a ‘pilot’ through moral and social uncertainty. I’ve yet to see a copy, but it is reviewed in Prospect (Feb 2008). It makes some mention of Mary Whitehouse; a figure on whom rather more research is probably needed.

New blog under construction

Posts should begin to appear here over the next few days.