You can always gauge how sensible ones comments are on Europe by the furore they create in certain quarters. The more sensible the comments, the more severe the tongue lashing. The Telegraph’s reaction today to the recent submission from the Church of England’s Mission and Public Affairs Council to the Parliamentary inquiry into the UK’s relationship with the EU is no exception.
Rowena Mason, the Telegraph’s political correspondent, covered the submission in her blog this morning. It was an unusually balanced piece of factual reporting from the Telegraph spiced up by a few juicy quotes from Conservative MPs from the more eurosceptical wing of the party. As is the norm today subsequent journalists, like Ian Martin, leap in with secondary comment based on Rowena’s reading of the submission rather than their own.
Martin’s central complaint stems from Rowena’s reporting that the Church has made this submission on the grounds that it was speaking “by virtue of its history as a European Church. “Good grief” Martin writes, “If the Church of England doesn’t even understand the circumstances of its birth, then how can it expect anyone else to care about what it says?” What then follows is a Telegraph version of ecclesiastical history stretching back to the reformation.
If Martin had stayed true to his journalistic profession and actually read the piece that he was reporting on he would have realized that the full sentence that Mason only partially reported read as follows:
“The Church of England is a Church established by law in the UK but it is also by virtue of its history a European Church. It recognizes that to have any influence in Brussels it needs to work in partnership with others. To this end it has invested time, energy and resources inbuilding appropriate bilateral and multilateral relations with key strategic partners across Europe.”
If Martin had spent even five minutes to delve into the folds of the submission he would have learnt that ever since the creation of the Diocese in Europe, the Church of England has been active in all the member states of the European Union. It counts among its worshipping members nationals of all the member states and many others. It is from this broad and diverse grass roots base of relations and contacts that the Church engages with European affairs both here in Westminster and in Brussels. It does so on behalf of all its members – even those who aren’t resident here in the UK.
Hi Charles,
I am a C of E churchgoer and reader of the Telegraph and Iain Martin.
Immediately on reading Iain’s piece (please note the spelling, which suggests you don’t normally read his blog) I read Rowena’s piece. I then wanted to find out who is on the Mission and Public Affairs team, to see who had prepared the report and to discern any particular “leanings”.
I discovered that you appear to be the lead on foreign affairs. I discovered your blog and read your (rather defensive) piece regarding the articles by Iain and Rowena. I personally thought it interesting to read, on the C of E website, that you have previously worked for the European Commission and would have liked that to have seen that communicated as part of the report (I don’t, of course, know whether you wrote the report or not, but it seems likely; nor whether or not you are biased towards the Commission, having worked for them – we are sometimes pro and sometimes anti previous employers) with some sort of explanation as to whether or not there was any favourable bias occasioned by your previous employment, or not.
I note the three papers which support the Church of England’s thinking on Europe. I have not read the report prepared by the C of E for the Foreign Affairs Committee.
I think it is important that none of us, as individuals or collectively, take the church or, more importantly, the mission of Christ, into areas where they might bring it or, more importantly, him, into disrepute in any way. This is why I write to you.
Unfortunately, Charles, and without wanting to throw any stones, knowing how sinful I am, I am a tad disappointed with the tone of your blog above – and that it is disrespectful of those with whom you disagree.
I think it is always too easy, far too easy, to put people into boxes, as you do here. Assuming, for example, that your views are sensible and that those who react against them are not – and, indeed, measuring the level of how sensible your views are by the extent to which you get a reaction.
I also understand that blogs can be edgy and that free speech is important. But is it really fair for a – supposedly impartial – adviser to the C of E – to maintain that Rowena’s piece was unusually balanced? Have you read all of her pieces and weighed up her views? How do you decide what is balanced – and then judge who is or is not?
It used to be the case that people read the authors and papers which supported their own position – a fairly normal human approach, the same as friendship perhaps?
You reflect on how sad it is that journalists don’t do their job as you might wish.
I am just a little sad that you did not explain the thinking behind the report, ie. putting your arguments, rather than playing the man/woman.
As it is I am none the wiser as to why the C of E (or its advisers) think as they do (and yes, if I am that interested I can read the report). The problem is that I, like many others, will only get to see what Iain and Rowena (and others who pick up on what they write) are likely to say.
In that way we also tend to inform our opinions on second-hand knowledge. I have, thus, to confess that my views on climate change or the Lisbon treaty are not based on the reports produced by the IPCC and the treaty itself; surely we must acknowledge that this also applies to the Bible, read by very few, but commented on by far more.
All of us who love the church and its saviour are called to present our case with kindness. I do hope you can redress the balance with another blog.
With all good wishes,
Simon
Dear Simon,
Many thanks for your thoughtful response. I feel suitably chastised by your comments regarding the defensive tone of my post earlier today. You are quite right. If its any consolation I do read the Telegraph on a regular basis – although admittedly not on a daily basis. At the heart of the submission is the case in favour of an informed debate as to our relations with the EU. In that sense the submission is neither pro or anti Europe – it merely stresses that the lack of any national debate creates its own policy dilemmas. Given the important contribution that the EU has made to peace and reconciliation in Europe as well as human flourishing this is hardly a controversial suggestion.
Thanks again for taking the time to contribute to the conversation,
All best wishes,
Charles
I appreciate your inclusion of the full quote in your post Charles, because I do think Rowena’s reporting took the “by virtue of it’s history a European Church” too far out of context. However, I agree that although there may be significant grounds for the Church of England to call itself such based on a significant membership of Europeans in the church, I am still troubled why the top Archbishops feel it necessary to assert their opinions about the PM’s handling of the situation with the EU. I agree with MP Mark Reckless, who was quoted in Rowena’s report saying “it sets the church against. . .the gospel to ‘give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”. Yes, it is perfectly alright for the Archbishops to have an opinion on this issue, but isn’t it feel a bit out of place for church leaders in charge of the spiritual well-being of their members to spend their efforts advising the PM on his policy toward an economic union? Such an interpretation of the purpose of the office of Archbishop does seem to me like too close of a marriage between church and state that goes I have always thought is meant to be kept separate. Furthermore, I would assume the Archbishopric to be concerned about the faith of members, their attendance at meetings, and their understanding of basic principles that were taught by Christ that helps society be a better place. A Christian church is a living church after all if it is actively teaching it’s members to become more like Christ and to serve each other, and to replace wickedness with righteousness. How will do the policy suggestions of the Archbishopric given today fit into their role of nurturing the faith and virtue of their congregations? That’s what I would like to know.
Thanks for this helpful comment. One small correction followed by an explanation.
The submission was from the Church of England’s Mission and Public Affairs Council – a sub-structure of the Archbishops’ Council – rather than from the two Archbishops.
As far as I understand it, for the Church the primary aim of politics – even European politics – is the promotion of human flourishing and the conditions that are necessary to make this happen. On the whole, the Church has over the years held that, while it has reservations about certain aspects of European integration – not least its democratic deficit -, our propensity as humans created in the image of God to be creative, productive and responsible and generous beings is enhanced by pooling certain elements of national sovereignty in a common European project. It was that Christian vision that inspired the works of Schuman and other European politicians immediately after the 1945 war. It is that same vision that runs through this submission and provides the basis for the church’s critical engagement in European affairs today.
Although what you say is logical and accurately reflects the intentions of the leaders of the Church of England, in practice in Europe the actual influence may be more a function of the affiliations of those in charge. For example I would doubt the politicians and the people of Spain or Greece are the slightest interested in the position of the Church of England on their debt crisis, and given the number of Germans who attend Church of England services I would have thought that there, in Germany, the only significant Church influence would be via the Lutherans and the Catholics. As a distant observer even Lutheran and Catholic influence appears to have little significant influence over recent years.
Quite agree with you. The submission makes clear that while the Church of Engalnd might be the established Church in the UK it is a minority Church in Europe. This might explain why it is has invested so much time and energy building up bilateral and multilateral relations with other European Churches so that when it does enagge in advocay in Brussels it is not alone. This modus operandi is not unique to the Church of England – even the Church of Greece works in this way. Obviously, the way the Church models its relationships in Europe contrasts with the isolationist and unilateralist approach of successive British governments.
Pingback: This and that « Nick Baines's Blog