back back to Synod previous previous story  |  next story next

CHURCH'S VOICE: Faith is ‘not a private matter’

Canon David Felix speaking © not advert
Trying to make a difference: Canon David Felix

CONCERN about “religious illit­eracy” in society found its voice in a debate on a Chester diocesan mo­tion on Tuesday afternoon.

The motion would have called for a report on what the Archbishops’ Council was doing about it. Instead, it was amended to affirm existing work that fostered an understanding of the Christian faith, urge church members to get involved, and ex­plore possible subjects of debate for future sessions.

The motion was not about asser­ting the exclusivity of the Christian faith, said Canon David Felix on behalf of the Chester diocesan synod. Nor was it about the place of the Church of England as the Estab­lished Church, or special pleading, born out of a feeling that Christians were feeling sidelined.

It came from acknowledging that attendance in church on Sunday was diminishing, but the Church owed a duty of care to the 41 million who claimed to be Christian, regardless whether they only appeared in church once or twice in their life­time.

He hoped that the motion would flush out examples of where the Church was engaging with civic so­ciety, regardless whether they had been successful. There were many examples where the Church had made a contribution to civic society, but they were not headline-grabbing, nor perhaps should they have been.

“And this is where some of the problem lies. I’m sure you have heard the complaint that the Church appears to be silent on a particular subject, whilst other faith groups appear to be getting all the attention. This is not helped when government ministers seem to have justified their financial support of one faith group as part of their security policy.”

This “religious illiteracy” existed in many public bodies, he said. There was a nervousness on the part of such institutions about engaging with religious bodies at a level below the surface. “Far easier to keep them at a distance, and accuse them of proselytising if things get difficult, without recognising that many religious bodies want to serve the community in its broadest sense. They find it hard to acknowledge that the Church of England exists for the benefit of all, if not just its members, howsoever defined.”

This religious illiteracy was like a cancer, he said, spreading from pub­lic institutions into many parts of public life. He didn’t think it was deliberate, but how should the Church redress the balance? “As Christians we believe our values should inform the values of society. Values are our business.”

Too often, church people were reluctant to get involved, perhaps because they had lost confidence in their message, or perhaps because the last experience was a waste of time. The motion was “an attempt to encourage all of us to get involved at whatever level we find ourselves. . . Not all of us have the opportunity to sit down with government ministers and senior civil servants, but the opportunities are there at all levels of society.”

It was not particularly glamorous or eye-catching, talking to parish councils, boards of hospital trusts, or councils for voluntary service, but “at least you can say, I tried to make a difference.”

The Bishop of Ripon & Leeds, the Rt Revd John Packer, welcomed the report’s and background paper’s affirmation of belief in a special Christian interpretation for the com­mon good. There was a fear of Christian “contamination” in such areas as university research which had to be countered: while he was delighted at the number of local councillors in Leeds who were ac­tive, known Christians, the problem was also evident that Muslim coun­cillors were welcomed while the Chris­tians aroused suspicion.

The document was not suffi­ciently robust. “If we fail to make clear our Christian commitment, we play into the hands of those who think Christianity is a private matter, and that Christians should not affirm their faith when they take action for the public good.”

The Revd Dr Jane Craske (Meth­odist Church) wanted to be sure who in the motion was being spoken to, and who was speaking. There were ways in which it would be and was being done ecumeni­cally: the impact of joint work like the Church Investors Group, for instance; the pattern of denomina­tions’ taking the lead on a particular issue, such as the Methodist Church on gambling; different patterns by which the Churches could work together.

There was a particular role for the Church of England as the Estab­lished Church, but tensions could sometimes arise from this position. It had a difficult balancing act to do, but this report was encouraging.

The Archdeacon of Leicester, the Ven. Richard Atkinson, drew atten­tion to Hazel Blears’s affirmation of the “huge contribution” that people of faith made to society, and the potential of faith to be an “immense force for good” in communities.

The opportunities and challenges raised deeper questions. His own trusteeship of the interfaith St Philip’s Centre allowed the Church to speak for Christianity, but the opportunity for promoting religious literacy could not simply be “us telling them our agenda”, but en­gagement with public priorities such as commitment to improving public services and community cohesion, and, most challengingly, in the debate on value and vision.

Nigel Holmes (Carlisle) said that the mass media were crucial in addressing the part played by the Church in public life. The BBC drama The Passion had attracted five million viewers; and the Religious and Ethics website was a huge resource. Most people obtained their information about the Church from non-church sources. It was vital to remain “vigilant and vocal” in the arena of religious broadcasting.

Canon Pete Spiers (Liverpool) spoke to and moved his amend­ment, concerned with how best to equip people in the Church to be ambassadors, to be “salt”. He thought the diocesan motion sought more than simply an Archbishops’ Council report. The amendment pulled together the belief that a more effective way was through the ordinary lives of Christian men and women. It was not about getting others to do the work, but to “get us back to our dioceses”.

The Revd David Primrose (Glou­cester) supported the amend­ment. He was very aware of the out­stand­ing extent of Christians exercising influence in public life, such as NSMs working as chief executives.

Anne Sloman (Archbishops’ Council) also supported the amendment, sharing Canon

Spiers’s “gut feeling that we should take on the work ourselves”, rather than another piece of work man­dated to the Council. People were squeamish about the Christian faith in a way that they were not about other faiths. Actual experience counted.

Canon Gordon Oliver (Ro­chester) said that the amend­ment hugely strengthened the theology and ecclesiology that the Synod had been hearing in the course of the day, and applied it to society.

“We have a strong record of solid­arity with asylum-seekers, of dia­logue with people caught up in the financial crisis. This amendment really helps us.”

Professor Tony Berry (Chester) also supported the amendment, which changed the motion from a lament to a celebration.

The amendment was carried.

Clive Scowen (London) said that the question was how Christians could intervene in institutions and change them. He told how local church young people themselves had devised an anti-bullying strategy that so impressed the local authority that it was widespread.

Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford) said it was a huge subject, and required the whole Church to become a necessary organisation in the nation and to allow its life to shine more frankly.

The amended motion was put to the vote and carried.

It read:

That this Synod, mindful of the ques­tions raised in public debate about the role of the Church in civic society and believing that the most effective way to communicate the role of Christian faith in public life is through the witness and service of Christian men and women in their daily lives:

(a) affirm the work of the House of Bishops and the divisions of the Archbishops’ Council in fostering the understanding of the Christian faith among institutions and organisations in society;

(b) request the Business Committee to consider how the issues raised in Moral, But No Compass might best be debated; and

(c) urge the members of this Synod actively to promote public engagement in their dioceses and parishes to reinforce the values of the Christian faith.



back back to Synod up back to top previous previous story  |  next story next


© Church Times 2006 - All rights reserved

Website by Baigent