Brexit and the Church of England: a correspondence

I received this email yesterday. My reply to it is below. I have anonymised it and publish it here because I hope it echoes a wider concern about the failure of the Church of England to engage at an institutional level with Brexit. This was always regrettable, but is especially so now that a No Deal Brexit is a real threat facing this nation. My reply says nothing that I haven't rehearsed on this blog many times before. And I do recognise that Church leaders have been active behind the scenes in debates and discussions about our future in relation to Europe, not least in a recent symposium held at Lambeth Palace. 

However, when it comes to speaking in the "public square", entering the political fray, reframing the debate so that it is not dominated by self-interest, and not least, helping to shape at least the questions its own membership ought to be asking, I'm afraid I find a lot that falls short of a truly prophetic and wise contribution to this crisis that will go on dominating our lives for many years to come. 


Dear Michael, N and P

Forgive my temerity in writing to you all. 

I am quietly going mad on the subject of Brexit and noticing how few prophetic Christian theological voices are being raised against the forthcoming national disaster. 

All my political education is now coming from Twitter but sadly there is virtually no overlap between my political life and my church life. 

You three are the only senior people I’ve read speaking out strongly positively with a pro-EU vision and warning of the dangerous territory we are entering.

So I thought I’d write to you all and ask if you know if there is any big hitting “Christians Against Brexit” type of grouping that I haven’t yet found. 

And if there isn’t, to ask if you would consider starting one. 

And if you do, please count me in as first follower. 

I’m a newbie activist and currently limited to Twitter and supporting crowdfunding of the major legal cases. Would be willing to put a few personal ££ behind setting up a wee website as a repository of good writing worth sharing, and linking to all the other Remain campaigns. 

I don’t even know why I’m writing this because the day job is already way too big, but just feel I can’t stand by and do nothing. 

Best wishes – and thanks for your voices. 

S

********

Dear S,

Thank you for writing. As you know I share your concerns entirely. 

However, I’m at a loss to know how to reply with any ideas. As you know I’ve blogged regularly about Brexit (http://northernwoolgatherer.blogspot.com) and what I perceive as the failure of the Church of England to engage with it at a public, institutional level (which is different from individuals including the Bishops of Europe and Leeds among others who have regularly spoken personally about it). 

My argument has been that as Brexit profoundly affects national identity, both of the UK as a whole and of the four nations that comprise it, it is properlye the concern of the two national churches of the UK. The Church of Scotland has consistently spoken up for our EU membership, while recognising that there is room for debate and dissent because not all its members will see things that way. But the Church of England has not done so, despite the fact that Brexit is predominantly an English phenomenon. It has observed a studied neutrality and our Archbishops have taken the line (which is deeply questionable in my view) that because the referendum delivered a Leave result in 2016, we are bound to respect that vote and should not question it. There was no General Synod debate when it might have made a difference before the referendum. I was assured there would be a debate in the House of Bishops at that time, but I don’t believe this ever happened. How could these opportunities have been passed by as if Brexit were a thing indifferent, and not the proper business of the national church in England to discuss?

I can’t deny how deeply disappointed I am in the church I’ve served as an ordained minister all my adult life. I believe it has behaved in a cowardly way during the greatest crisis to face England and the UK since the last war. It’s not too much to say that I’m ashamed of its performance and am afraid that history will demonstrate that the national church stood back when it ought to have been engaged in a critical national debate. I think it has forfeited its role as an established church, though that’s perhaps a different matter from the one you’re raising in your email.

I convened an online forum called “Christians for Europe” which was (in a non-overt way) hosted by the LibDems and had a presence on FaceBook and Twitter as well as a website. It was active during the referendum campaign and can still be found online, though I discontinued actively tweeting a few months after the referendum. I’m not inclined to reactivate it unless there is clear institutional support from the Church of England - which there won’t be.

I know that there are a great many Anglicans in England who are profoundly worried about the nation’s future. This includes, I believe, the great majority of its leaders, particularly the bishops. It’s for them to speak up now. A superannuated jobbing priest like me has a much diminished influence. I’ll continue to be a campaigner against Brexit, especially in any No Deal form. I am a European through and through. But I am not hopeful it can be averted. And I’m ashamed that our church has not done more to point to the threats that face us and, at the very least, try to reset the terms of the debate not as a matter of self-interest and economic prosperity only, but of loving our neighbour and building global communities of peace, friendship, reconciliation and justice for the world’s voiceless and poor. 

Sorry I can’t be more positive! 
Best wishes
Michael

********

And here is another response received on 12 August.

I can only echo what you have written. I too feel pretty helpless. After my letter in the Church Times (which I shared with all my contacts) the Guardian published another, saying much the same in a different way. The latter was largely talking to the converted. It should probably have been in the Mail or Telegraph. All this has led to a lot of follow up. I've had some moving, even heart-rending responses. I have totally kept clear of social media... and that has left me some space to think and write.... A very few bishops are doing their best. but only corporate action could have done some good. In response to the CT letter Justin [Welby] said it was no use shouting at poiticians. I replied that what I hoped for was  leadership, signs of the kingdom, for his 'little flock'. I'm afraid my former NSM curate writing to me was right when he said 'most of the bishops know the score but are afraid of the dwindling number of churchgoers who voted leave'. The same lot mutatis mutandis who in 1933 thought Hitler was a godsend. It is small comfort to know we are nowhere near alone.and probably even a majority. At Peterloo the state sent in the cavalry. The mood now seems to be 'keep calm and drink strong tea'. If not even our genocidal submarines will bring Christian people on to the streets, this near coup d'etat will not either. Optimistic?  No. Hope, however, is on another plane.

P

********
And another....

The more important issue now is to imagine and envisage some vision for a post-Brexit UK. I have not hidden my views about Brexit, but we still have to offer hope for beyond an outcome we don’t want and even think will be seriously damaging. We also have to be hard-nosed about some of this: speaking out is not always good leadership – especially if it is an exercise in salving our own conscience by having ‘done something’. Our primary task now is to keep asking the questions, making the case and holding the government to account, but the reality is that Cummings/Johnson populist communication is likely to be more effective and emotive than rational recourse to reality or facts – something I think is appalling, but I also think is real. Doing this at local level is as – or more – important than at national level.

I think it generally unwise and inappropriate to compare Brexit to Germany in the 1920s and ‘30s (despite some apparent populist parallels), but, if such comparisons are at all useful, then the need for people to look beyond the immediate and have some vision for the future (in exile?) is essential. It seems to me that this is the prophetic calling, too.

N

********

And here is a further comment from the person who originally wrote to me and to others.

Really appreciate you taking the trouble to respond – it’s tough stuff and given me lots of food for thought. I was reaching out feeling particularly Gloomy and Despondent on the subject and this conversation has encouraged and disheartened me in approximately equal measure. I think my own path has to be to continue to campaigning at least to block no deal, and although revoke/referendum hopes are now vanishingly slim I do want to feel I’ve tried even if I have to accept the charge of a degree of self-indulgence in that. And if we fail then I’m glad people like N are doing the thinking ahead. And maybe the case does just have to be made politically now and theology is not relevant. No, it must be there between the cracks so I guess I keep looking. I do feel sad that there isn’t a consolidated Christian voice regardless of whether that’s the established church or an informal grouping. Will keep reading your respective blogs/articles for inspiration and maybe it even challenges me to be more serious in trying privately to articulate this theologically for myself too…

S 

After the Vote: a Church of England Statement?

After the Commons vote on Mrs May’s Brexit deal on Tuesday, the Church of Scotland was quick to issue a statement.

I’ve been tracking the Church of England’s media feed since the vote, thinking that at a time of national crisis, Britain’s other national church would be bound to say something that could help people of faith - maybe others - try to reflect on the position our nation is now in. I’ve been surprised, and I have to say disappointed, that so far, there has been no official comment.

So in the absence of any statement, and conscious that it’s hard to improve on the Church of Scotland’s wise words, here’s my own attempt. The Church of England is welcome to adopt it without attribution if it wishes. And while my personal view of Brexit is well-known to readers of this blog, I’ve genuinely tried to make this comment as inclusive as possible.

The Church of England is dismayed that following this week’s vote on the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal in the House of Commons, our nation now finds itself in an impasse. And this just ten short weeks before the date we are due to leave the European Union. We cannot exaggerate the dangers this poses to the United Kingdom. 

Our Church is privileged to serve one of its four nations, and this means that we care deeply about the welfare of England, its destiny, and its contribution to the flourishing of the United Kingdom, Europe and the world. Because of that, we would like to offer a comment on the position our nation is now in.

Our Church is probably no more united on Brexit than the population as a whole. This is one of many matters where the Church of England needs to live courteously with difference. But we believe, as we think most parliamentarians and most of the British public believe, that to leave the EU without any deal in place would be profoundly damaging to the UK. And we are afraid that it is the poorest and most dependent of our society who would be damaged the most. Our present paralysis is therefore a cause of great concern.

We say this out of concern not only for our future trading relationships with the EU, but also for the many other ways in which our collaboration with the European Union will continue to be of immense importance to this nation. We mean our shared concern for human rights, justice, employment practice, the alleviation of poverty, security, peacemaking and the conservation of the environment. We also mean our participation in scientific, medical, cultural and educational programmes that have benefitted all the EU nations and which we believe most people would want to see continue in some form. The UK has shown leadership in all these areas, and we would not want to see these opportunities vanish on 29 March. 

We are also deeply aware of the predicament Brexit poses to our friends from overseas EU nations who have made their home in the UK, and for British people living in those EU27 nations. A “no-deal” Brexit would have a severe impact on them and on their livelihoods. We owe it to them to make sure that they have security about their future, and this lends urgency to the task of negotiating an acceptable divorce settlement and future relationships as nations. 

We urge our Parliamentarians to put the nation’s welfare above party loyalties by finding every possible way of working together to find a way forward that can win consensus. This is not a time for taking up doctrinaire positions. It is not only vital that Parliament rediscovers a sense of common purpose. It is now very urgent indeed that we emerge from this current paralysis.

It has often been said that leaving the European Union does not mean leaving the continent of Europe. So we urge all the peoples of Britain to continue to be good friends, neighbours and allies to the nations of our continent, in whatever ways our future relationships are configured. This is unknown at present. But despite so much uncertainty, we urge our leaders at least to have regard for the many values the European family of nations has in common. 

What can the Church of England offer at this critical time? 

First, as our neighbours in the Church of Scotland have already said, we can try to model respect and courtesy in the way we ourselves as church members handle issues that deeply divide people. Archbishop Justin Welby has coined the phrase “good disagreement”. Our national conversation about Brexit has become violent and abusive at times. We must resist this, and instead embody what it means to treat one another as humans who are created in God’s image, whatever our political or religious convictions. We make our plea to all politicians and those in public leadership roles to take great care in the ways they express themselves. And this of course extends to all of us, not least in our use of social media. 

Secondly, we can promise to say our prayers. This isn’t about finding answers to our political dilemmas so much as holding the nation in our hearts and offering our present cares and concerns to the God who, we believe, cares as much about continents and nations as he does about individuals. And even if prayer is not everyone’s instinctive response at such times as these, perhaps there are more people than we imagine who find comfort in the knowledge that prayer is being offered in the cathedrals and churches right across our land on behalf of us all.

Thirdly, if there are concrete ways in which the Church of England can act as bridge-builders or reconcilers at this time of uncertainty, or beyond, we stand ready to contribute in any way we can. In this, we believe we speak for Christian leaders of every tradition and in every part of the kingdom. And for all people of goodwill, whatever their faith, politics, culture or origin. Together, we can find find possibility and hope even in the most troubled of times. We pray so.

UPDATE. As I was publishing this, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York released a short statement supporting the call to prayer issued by Churches Together in Britain and Ireland (CTBI).

How shall we mark Brexit in Church?

I posted a tweet today. It was a question, addressed to the two national churches of our island, the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. I also copied in Westminster Abbey because they know about these things too. My question is, will there be church services to mark Brexit Day? 

You may laugh. With the nation so hopelessly divided about Brexit, and the negotiations themselves mired in difficulties, how on earth can we contemplate marking the 29th March 2019 liturgically? Everyone agrees that it will be a momentous event in our history, but that’s about it. Remainers and Brexiters will want to tell entirely different stories about how we got to this threshold and what we believe, or hope, or fear, lies on the other side. One side will look for celebration, the other lament.

But let’s think a little more deeply. For one thing, it would seem very strange not to hold public services around Brexit Day when we are used to marking other big national events in this way. Liturgy is one of the ways we gather up and ritualise the events that are shaping our collective lives, whether it’s the centenary of the Great War, the end of the Falklands War, celebrating a royal jubilee or in the aftermath of terrorist attacks and natural disasters. By doing this in public, high-profile ways, we hold up a mirror to our common life and understand the place we occupy within the larger story of our peoples.

And of course, we offer our story to God. That’s primarily why people of faith have a strong instinct that we should gather together at times of transition. At every threshold, especially when we are at our most febrile, we need to pause to look back as well as look forward, try to discern where God is in the events we are passing through, ask ourselves what he is calling us to be and do in the future, and above all, offer our lives afresh to him in faith and hope. 

If ever we needed to do this, it is going to be next March as one chapter of our nation’s life comes to an end and a new one begins. Yes, this process has been and still is controversial, divisive and extraordinarily painful. But that’s precisely why we need to try to find words and ritual actions that will help carry us across this threshold as we pray for whatever awaits us beyond. 

And they need to be actions that we can perform, and words that we can say together. It will be far too soon in the spring to talk about the healing of memories. It could well be that things will become more bitter and fractious before they begin to mend. But if there is going to be healing, then the memory that we came together at a time of division and tried to reach out to one another could sow a seed of reconciliation that we can build on in the years ahead. And yes, a seed of forgiveness too, for many things have been said and done in this Brexit journey for which we shall need to say we’re sorry.

There could be two approaches to a Brexit liturgy. One would be to construe it as a vigil of prayer on the eve of crossing this threshold, offering what we are about to do - for better or worse - to God’s wise and loving providence. Many of us remember the vigils of prayer that were held across England before the General Synod vote in 1992 in relation to the ordination of women to the priesthood. People of utterly different convictions recognised in one another a common, God-given need to call upon God to help us at a time of deeply divided opinion. I could see us doing something like this as we contemplate a future none of us can yet foresee. Might a national day of prayer and fasting be appropriate?

The other approach would be to ritualise the transition we shall be negotiating. This would be harder to do in an inclusive way, but that shouldn’t stop the church from trying to interpret it in the light of what we as Christians believe about nationhood, about our place in the wider Europeans and worldwide family of peoples, about our commitment to the enduring values of peace, justice, inclusion, collaboration, honour, loyalty and truth. We need to articulate a vision of the kind of society we want to become, a vision for the kind of world we want to live in. It would include thankfulness for all that has been good in the past, penitence for what has fallen short, and the offering of our nation’s life in the future with as much confidence and hope that we can muster. The register will need to be humility not self-congratulation, reticence not assertiveness, acknowledging that there is so much that we cannot know about where this Brexit Road will lead us. But equally, in the spirit of St Paul in the midst of his ordeals, we must confidently affirm that we do not lose heart.

I’ve made no secret about how very disappointed I was that the Church of England ducked the challenge of holding a debate about Brexit before the Referendum, both in the General Synod and, I’m told, in the House of Bishops. The Synod debate, when it happened, took place after the Referendum - too little too late. It was such a lost opportunity: the national church in England ought to have contributed as an institution to a big conversation about what we believed at that time England’s place in Europe should be. It still should. But it seems afraid to. Sadly.

Now, once again, our national churches have the chance to help us as we reach a historical crossroads. Yes, of course the context will be continuing disagreement, opposing views that are passionately held. But this is precisely where our churches can make a real contribution - by naming our conflicts and divisions, the difficulty of the process we are in, and then by ritualising this painful collective journey in ways that signal what Justin Welby calls “good disagreement”. I’d say that it was not only desirable but necessary. And possible.

As readers of my blog know, I’m a heartfelt Remainer. I admit that I am deeply afraid of what is going to happen in six months’ time.  I am angry and frustrated about Brexit and I dread turning over the page in the 2019 calendar that will tell me that March 2019 has arrived when that fateful threshold must be crossed. I can’t see anything that may happen before then that will change my mind. For me this is not a good night and I don’t want to go gently into it. Raging? Well, yes.

But that’s precisely why I recognise that the church must try to speak into our confusions and help us see our hopes and fears in the larger context of God’s wisdom and care for humanity. Churches are at their best, not when they preach moral sermons but when they stand with our people so that they can weep or rejoice with them - or both. Especially is this true at the liminal places of life, when we are more than usually aware of our human fragility and our need of one another and of God. Churches are good at entering into the flow of public and personal history. It’s what’s needed now.

March 2019 will see us journeying towards Passiontide and Easter. The gospel of death and resurrection will furnish us with all the spiritual resources we need as we ask how best to mark our departure from the European Union. So I want to ask our church leaders: what will we do to help the people of our nation at this time of change? How could our cathedrals and greater churches play a role in regions and localities? How could local churches become places of prayer, resolve, hope, even healing? 

There’s an abundance of liturgical and spiritual imagination to draw on in every part of the church. Wouldn’t it be a terrible failure to be defeated by this challenge on the grounds that it’s just too difficult? I admit that it will be hard. But perhaps the nation is looking to us to respond, as it often does at times of uncertainty. I hope and believe that we will prove equal to the challenge. But we need to be thinking about it now. What are we doing to prepare? That’s my question. 

The EU referendum: should the churches take a view?

This week I put in an appearance on the BBC's Sunday Programme on Radio 4. I was invited, as convenor of "Christians for the EU" to take part in a discussion with my opposite number from "Christians for Britain". I suppose we are both campaigning organisations though I'm not sure I like the label much. What we are both trying to do is to apply a Christian mind and Christian wisdom to the EU referendum. We hold entirely different positions on whether the UK should remain in or leave. But I think the debate is worth having between Christian people who want to make a decision informed by good theology, ethics and practice.

Later that morning, I was surprised to find that a number of people had been listening. (Why weren't they enjoying a lie-in on Sunday like other civilised folk? I quipped.) Some said they agreed with what I'd said, some were clear that they disagreed wholly or in part, while yet others were carefully saying in an Athenian sort of way "we will hear you again about this" (Acts 17.32). But they all seemed to welcome the airing the EU referendum was getting on a religious news programme. Once upon a time some might have said that the church "shouldn't mess with politics". Not now.

On the radio we were asked what role the church should play in the debate. Here's what we agreed on (I'm expanding a little here, but I'm pretty confident the loyal opposition wouldn't dissent). 1 - That the churches absolutely must not tell anyone how to vote. 2 - That churches should urge their members to think hard about the issues, offer them to God in prayer and reflection, and discuss and debate them with others, whether Christians, people of other faiths, or those with no particular religious commitment. 3 - And that the churches should set up events of all kinds - public fora, study groups, vigils for prayer and meditation - so that lay people and clergy are given all the resources they need when it comes to casting their vote on 23 June.

But what about the churches giving a lead by coming to a view and saying so publicly? Let's be a bit controversial for once.

I keep being told that there is no possibility of the Church of England, which is what I know best, declaring for one side or the other. Its bishops are being hesitant in telling us what they think: some episcopal bloggers believe that "taking sides" on a political matter like this doesn't belong to their public roles as church leaders because it would be construed as directing people what to think. At a time of division, the church should be there as a place of healing and reconciliation, not division and disunity.

Why don't I altogether agree with this line of argument?

By way of answer, let me quote a statement issued by the Church of Scotland in February, just before the referendum date was announced.

The Church of Scotland has called for a positive debate on the EU that considers its role in promoting peace security and international cooperation. The Church recognises that:

1. A referendum will be held and that could be in as little as four months.
2. The Church of Scotland General Assembly has supported remaining in the EU since 1996.
3. In this time of huge international challenge it is crucial to work together across national borders.
4. In deciding how to vote on this momentous decision we should consider issues of peace, security and international cooperation.

Rev Dr Richard Frazer, Vice Convener of the Church of Scotland's Church and Society Council said:
"Since last year's General Election, we have known that there will be a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the European Union. There is likely to be a very short timescale to discuss such an important set of issues. It will be a decision which will shape our country, our communities and our lives for generations to come. It is vital that there is now a respectful, engaging, but above all positive debate which will focus on important issues.

"Since its report in 1996 "The European Union – Crisis or opportunity" the Church of Scotland has repeatedly affirmed the work of the European Union in promoting peace, security and reconciliation amongst European nations. As recently as 2014 the General Assembly stated its opinion that 'it is better for Scotland, Britain and Europe for the United Kingdom to remain in the EU.'

"At a time when there is great conflict in the world, when we are faced with millions of desperate people seeking refuge in Europe and where climate change is wreaking havoc, there is a need to work internationally and globally. We need a bigger picture of the world, not a smaller one. The decision on which way to vote in June is one for each individual to reflect on and make with integrity, but it is in working together, across national borders, that real progress will be made."

This statement seems to me to be exemplary in every way. It's clearly not telling its members how to vote but it does offer guidance about the issues involved. In particular, it urges Christians to think beyond their own interests and their own country into a 'bigger picture of the world' and to have regard for social justice, peace, security and international collaboration. Its tone is measured, restrained and eirenical. If someone dissents with its content, there is space to do so without any loss of integrity or standing. And it invites people to engage seriously with the debate as a matter of urgency, whatever their personal convictions. It allows for "good disagreement".

I ask myself: why could not the Church of England make a similar statement? After all, the Kirk is the national church of Scotland and has a vocation to speak for the Scottish people. The Church of England is similarly placed. In the past, it has not been afraid to take a stand in the face of considerable unpopularity in some quarters: Faith In The City and The Church and the Bomb are just two well-known precedents. Where the EU debate is similar is that it is not dividing the nation along party-political lines. If it were, the church would indeed want to promote debate but would wisely not commit to a particular party line - precisely how it plays its part before each election.

Of course the Church of England General Synod has not debated the EU referendum, nor has it come to a common mind about the European Union in the way that the Church of Scotland General Assembly did in 1996. The General Synod doesn't now meet again until after it's all over, so we have lost a golden opportunity (even though we've known since the general election that a referendum would be coming down the slipway). Even the February Synod would not have been too late. But nothing was said as far as I know, apart from a question about how church members would be helped to think about the issues raised by the referendum. (The written answer was along the lines of my third paragraph above. It was fine as far as it went. But I longed for much more, a proper Synod debate at least.)

But there is nothing to stop the C of E's Mission and Public Affairs Committee coming to a view and declaring it: it's already energetically promoting EU discussion and debates in English dioceses and cathedrals (for which, thank you!). The Archbishops' and Bishops' Councils and Diocesan Synods could do the same. There is nothing to stop bishops coming out with their views, whatever they are, in presidential addresses to synods, in papers, blogs, broadcasts, Parliament (if they are in the House of Lords) and social media. I said on the air waves that I hoped preachers would take up these themes in the run-up to June 23rd. (Unless church members regularly visit social media feeds like this one, they may well not hear Christian insight into the referendum anywhere else but in their local church.)

Let me add this. Not to take initiatives like these in relation to this once-for-all decision would look as though the church was not greatly interested. That would not play well in an environment where "public faith" is now rightly the expectation placed on a national church. The C of E is one of the leading Christian voices that speaks for England as its established church out of an extraordinarily rich theological and spiritual wisdom. That's a hugely privileged position to take, but it's also a big responsibility. There is a vast resource of Christian social theology written by Church of England theologians and others which, coupled with an accurate instinct for the Zeitgeist of our people, is uniquely placed to make a vital contribution to the discussion enlightened and enlivened by the gospel's grace and truth.

So here's my plea. Let's take a modest risk here and be brave enough to speak in a prophetic and wise spirit. I'd love it if the national and diocesan Church of England bodies I've mentioned could emulate the Church of Scotland's exemplary lead, not just in what it says but the skilful way it says it. I'd love it if other churches across the UK did the same. Even when views differed, it would still be very good for the quality of the debate. It would be marvellous if it helped mobilise the UK population to be as politically engaged with the EU referendum process as the people of Scotland were before the independence vote in 2014. That would be to perform a really important service for church and nation. Its effects would, I believe, far outlast the outcome of the referendum itself.

You can follow Christians for the EU on Facebook and on Twitter @Xians4EU.