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.