Bishop and the danger of ‘hyper-fixation on Israel’

From Baroness Deech and Lord Farmer

Madam, — We write with deep concern after the words of the Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd Rachel Treweek (News, 2 February).

In an environment of such heightened antisemitism, we are troubled by what appears to be a persistent hyper-fixation on Israel. In particular, we are concerned by the casual use of terms such as “apartheid” and “genocide” in relation to Israel. These are words that describe some of the gravest crimes in human history. To deploy them loosely in polemical debates is to strip them of their true meaning and to cheapen the very real suffering of those who endured them.

The charge of genocide is especially serious. In both moral and legal terms, it rests not merely on the scale of suffering involved, but on the demonstrable intention to destroy a people, in whole or in part. That element of intent is what distinguishes the horrors of war, no matter how tragic and devastating, from one of humanity’s most heinous crimes.

Israel did not start this conflict; nor did it seek it. Its declared purposes have been purely to degrade Hamas’s military capabilities after the atrocities of 7 October 2023, which its own leaders have vowed to repeat, and to secure the release of the 251 hostages taken from their homes, some of whom had spent more than 700 days in captivity.

As the Chief Rabbi recently reminded readers of The Sunday Telegraph, drawing on the reflections of Professor Victor Klemperer: “Words can be like tiny doses of arsenic: they are swallowed unnoticed, appear to have no effect, and then after a little time the toxic reaction sets in after all.”

Many faith leaders act from a genuine moral responsibility to speak out against injustice and to highlight human suffering around the world, which is both important and honourable. The problem arises when that moral voice is applied selectively, when certain conflicts attract sustained condemnation while others are largely ignored. In doing so, instead of alleviating suffering or advancing peace, this approach can deepen divisions at home.

Christians understandably have a deep historical and spiritual connection to the Holy Land and concern for its conflicts, but the role of a faith leader should be to unite communities and to advocate consistently for all who suffer. If moral outrage is to be credible, where are the same cries for persecuted Christians in Nigeria, for the Uyghurs facing brutality in China, for those displaced and starving in Sudan, or for Iranians being killed simply for demanding freedom?

We are, we hope, approaching a turning point in Israeli-Palestinian relations, one in which Hamas plays no part in a future Palestinian state, and where diplomacy rather than armed struggle becomes the chosen path. After more than 800 days of profound suffering for both Israeli and Palestinian communities, the task now must be reconstruction: rebuilding lives, trust, and the possibility of coexistence. Yet, as we look toward that future, we must recognise that both Israelis and Palestinians are deeply scarred by violence, trauma, and mistrust.

Those same scars are keenly felt in our communities in the UK. In such fragile and divided contexts, the language that we choose matters profoundly. Words can either widen rifts or help to bridge them; they can inflame resentment or encourage understanding. At a time of such fragility, faith leaders should choose words that heal rather than harm.

DEECH, FARMER
House of Lords, London

Charge of idolatry over the fate of the LLF process

From the Revd James Grayson

Madam, — The Revd Benjamin Edwards writes (Comment, 6 February) that, in the debate about Living in Love and Faith, faithfulness must mean faithfulness to the love of the crucified Christ. How very true!

Nevertheless, the Church, on the basis of scriptural teaching, has consistently taught the importance of three related and connected matters: sexual behaviour, marriage, and the family. One third of the Ten Commandments focus on this issue; the Holiness Code (Leviticus 18) spells out the connection of sexual behaviour and marriage; Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) specifically spells out issues of adultery (the concern of Leviticus 18) and divorce; the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) affirms the importance of sexual ethics (inclusive of the three issues) for the Christian life of Gentiles; St Paul (1 Corinthians 5-7) in dealing with a case of incest and adultery affirms (using several different examples) that anyone can be transformed, redeemed from sin, through the love of the crucified and risen Lord.

Faithfulness is faithfulness to this teaching. Groups such as Living Out and X-Out-Loud have remained faithful to scriptural teaching and deserve to be supported.

JAMES H. GRAYSON
Sheffield

Madam, — I agree that institutional unity can be an idol, but I disagree with the logic and the conclusions reached by the Revd Benjamin Edwards. Were I, an ordinand, to submit this as an argument within an essay, I would not expect a favourable result from my lecturers.

He writes: “When the Church considers sacrificing, delaying, or denying a full blessing to a faithful same-sex couple — not because of a new theological revelation, but purely to appease a faction threatening to form schism . . .”. He fails to consider that the Church considers its actions in response to new theological “revelation” always in the light of that old theological revelation: the full counsel of scripture.

The Church must not simply obey the great command in a way that seems “right in our own eyes”, as if it were cherrypicked and divorced from its biblical context, but instead must listen to the voice of Christ as heard throughout the whole Bible, with all implications and applications that the love of God brings.

A telling question may be whether “the necessary cutting edge of the gospel” not only separates radical obedience from comfortable, institutional compromise, but also from comfortable cultural compromise. If the fear of schism dictates our theology, the institution has become our god. If the fear of societal rejection or earthly loss dictates our theology, then perhaps something else has become our god.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

Deanery feels effect of diverting a parish’s share

From Canon Christopher Hall

Madam, — Dr Gill Frigerio (Letter, 6 February) says that the tactics of the Ephesian Fund need calling out.

Drilling down further, Good Stewards Trusts are to be found in many dioceses, which share the aims of the Ephesian Fund. To these Trusts, parishes so minded are invited to divert some or all of their parish share. One strong eclectic parish has diverted 50 per cent of its share.

As a result, its deanery can no longer qualify for the refund offered by the diocese to deaneries that pay their full share on time. That refund has been used in the following year to help small parishes to pay their share, parishes that very probably are part of a multi-point benefice cared for by a single-handed stipendiary, or even by a priest on house-for-duty terms. (Meanwhile, a benefice in another deanery with three clergy applies to the same Good Stewards Trust for £3000 p.a. for three years towards paying its youth pastor.)

The trickle-up effect of such tactics is to straiten DBF budgets, some even nearing bankruptcy, and — who knows? — influencing decisions taken nationally.

Dr Frigerio calls this “a small number of wealthy parishes trying to push the rest of us around”. Such parishes send multiple members to deanery synods, who will vote this year for the membership of the new House of Laity.

CHRISTOPHER HALL
Deddington, Oxfordshire

Exeter’s SMMIB grant

From the Revd Paul Arnesen

Madam, — Am I the only one who felt profoundly disheartened and disturbed by your report “Plymouth plan to ‘double’ church attendance” (News, 6 February).

Apparently, the goals of the plan “include the growth of 2035 new disciples, and the establishment of 35 new worshipping communities in the next ten years”.

I wonder how the congregation in the synagogue in Nazareth would have responded had Jesus announced his mission in these deadly bureaucratic left-hemisphere terms rather than the inspiring and poetic right-hemisphere language of “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor . . . liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour”?

It is high time the bureaucrats got out of the driving seat of the Church of England, and allowed the Spirit to inspire prophetic leadership of our Church and nation.

PAUL ARNESEN
Torpenhow, Cumbria

Praise for C of E site

From Priscilla Bench-Capon

Madam, — Although I agree with much of the Revd Dr Christopher Landau’s article (Comment, 6 February), I must stand up for A Church Near You (ACNY). I update our parish pages each week, and find it thoughtfully designed and straightforward to use. We had 58,977 page views in the past year; so it is well worth the effort. It interacts well with Google Search.

ACNY looks after all the technical side, such as security, access, and software updates, provides quick helpful responses to editors’ queries, and is free. Useful new features are often added. Over the years, I have also had to maintain parish websites that we built ourselves, which were all much more problematic. ACNY is one of the things that the C of E does well.

PRISCILLA BENCH-CAPON
Address supplied (West Kirby, Merseyside)

Neurodiverse children

From Richard Crane

Madam, — The Revd Professor Jenn Strawbridge is right to highlight the experience of the neurodiverse in churches that confuse holy space with literal silence (Faith, 6 February). I look forward to the joyful noise of heaven with her delightful Hoovering son.

If I may offer a complementary perspective, the opposite challenge can also arise in Evangelical churches. Children and adults on the autism spectrum or with ADHD can experience sensory overload, triggered by amplified music or the buzz of conversation over coffee. In fostering a greater awareness of their experience, and providing suitable quiet spaces, may we follow the logic of Romans 15.7. “Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.”

RICHARD CRANE (ordinand)
Oxford

From Paulette Yallop

Madam, — Professor Strawbridge’s letter took me back to when I used to teach in a Sunday school more than 25 years ago. A lady complained about the children who made a noise, even though, as far as I was concerned, they were impeccably behaved. They appeared only for the last part of the service and to receive a blessing at the altar rail. I reminded her that Jesus said, “Let the children come.” Her response was “Oh yes, but he only meant the good ones”!

PAULETTE YALLOP
Address supplied (Norwich)

Church of the nation?

From Duncan Forbes

Madam, — The recently acquired habit of referring to the Church of England as the “national Church” is not only theologically misleading: it is also, in our current political context, dangerous. Please can we stop?

DUNCAN FORBES
Witney, Oxfordshire

Back to the life of prayer

From Canon Angela Ashwin

Madam, — I would like to thank the “Hopeful Ordinand” for a wonderful reflection on how the month of February reminds us of our calling to faithful “presence, prayer, and attention” (Faith, 30 January).

This draws us back into our total dependence on God rather than relying on our own big efforts and special occasions alone. The article encouraged me to rediscover the light even in the hard and costly aspects of perseverance and discipleship. I believe we need a fresh emphasis on the faithful, hidden work of quiet prayer, preparing the ground of our hearts and souls to receive, deep into ourselves, the life-giving seed of divine love (Mark 4.26-29) from which all true and lasting fruits come.

ANGELA ASHWIN
Southwell, Nottinghamshire