The purpose of this blog is to tell you about **The Eschatological Economy**. Reviews are beginning to appear.

In this ambitious book, Douglas H. Knight sets out to illustrate the way Christian theology can function not as one category of knowledge within a larger secular account of the world but as itself the site of open and rich thinking on anthropology, sociology, psychology, language, history, and politics. It is not the secular economy but Christian orientation toward eschatology that provides this openness to the new. Knight attempts to do profoundly theological work while renouncing the religious language by which theologians tacitly accept their marginalization.

This work offers much for theologians to celebrate, ponder, and engage. Knight's attempt to out-narrate anthropology and psychology challenges other theologians to take their own training more seriously and rather than cursing the darkness of modern anthropologies, to turn on the theological lights. He makes bold attempts to overcome spirit/body dualisms, so that "our theological concepts always remain in touch with the biological, chemical, and physical" (p. 203). His section on Israel's sacrifice as parody of the sacrifices of pagans was, for this reader, revelatory. His integration of Trinitarian theology with scripture studies (and the attendant argument about the nature of scriptural scholarship) deserves serious attention from scripture scholars and theologians alike.

Most significantly, Knight's flair for refusing to allow theology to be trapped in its own jargon without ever sacrificing the fullness of theological content marks out new territory in the sad old debate over the coherence and relevance of theological language in public. He argues that theology can and must be public and engaged, not by becoming less scriptural or Trinitarian, but by embracing the story of God's work with Israel and the movement of history towards its End. In academic accounts of the "human" as in politics, the job of Christian theology is not only to be faithful to itself nor only to be in service to human well-being, but to work for the well-being of all creation by being the people who know what God's work in the world means. The world is not to be abandoned, but to be brought out of its narrow and self-deceived economy, its paralyzing dualism of nature and action, and into the mutual giving that God is making humanity to be.

But it is not all praise

Given that one of the book's most interesting and well-developed themes is the modern inability to deal with the issue of unity and plurality, it is particularly disturbing that Knight's attempt to claim the physical as a site of the work of the Spirit never mentions female bodies. He discusses the work of the Spirit in reproduction in Israel, develops Adam theology, expounds at length on the nature of sonship, and provides serious theological consideration of semen and circumcision while never mentioning Sarah, Hannah, or Mary. A reader can only wonder what sort of authorial decision led to such an omission. The oversight seems a bit too glaring to have been accidental.

Kelly Johnson Modern Theology 24.1 2008

To write a review of this sort is a major undertaking. I am very grateful for this one in particular. It is wonderful and extraordinary to see how readers discover widely differing things in one book. I have found it difficult to write reviews myself because I never know how far to criticise a book for what it does not contain. One obvious criticism of this book is that there is too much in it: in reply I would just get autobiographical and start telling you about the vanishing context of theology in the UK.

Female bodies? Obviously there is one female body I am very fond of, two bodies including daughter, and I am a member of a third - that of St Mary, Stoke Newington - but I presume that there is something else here that I don't get.

Anyway, **The Eschatological Economy**. It is yours for $18.49 or £8.65.

It has become fashionable for politicians to extol the virtues of the family. Yet, in this economic analysis of family policy, Patricia Morgan shows how politicians have been at war with the family over at least the last 25 years. The family is an important vehicle for welfare provision and for income transfers to the most needy and dependent members of society. Yet the state, by providing extensive welfare provision, by financing child-care services and by taxing families on an ever-greater proportion of their income, provides strong incentives for families to break up rather than to hold together, and to form family relationships that are hidden from the authorities. Government policy has crowded out voluntary welfare within families and caused otherwise law-abiding people to commit fraud on a very extensive scale.

The author begins by showing the economic benefit of self-sustaining families. She then shows how government policy has increasingly taken over the role of the family in supporting children. It is clear from the evidence presented here that government policy has caused the breakdown of families: policy has not simply responded to autonomous changes in social behaviour. Patricia Morgan then examines changes to divorce laws and to tax and benefit systems that should help reverse the trend and once again make the family the building block of a welfare society.

The willingness of the state to take on the responsibilities of paying for the upbringing of children where parents choose not to take on those responsibilities themselves is at least partly responsible for undermining self-supporting family structures.

The tax and benefits systems have helped to determine family behaviour â?? the tax and benefits systems do not simply respond benignly to changes in social trends. Individuals within families are rational agents and have responded predictably to the tax and benefits systems in the UK, which are particularly hostile to families by international standards.

ï? Because individuals and families are rational agents who have adjusted their behaviour to perverse government policies, it is clear that policy changes can bring about a reduction in welfare dependency and a strengthening of the family as the primary vehicle for the provision of welfare. The family does not have to be favoured but discrimination against it must end.

Patricia Morgan The War Between the State and the Family - Summary

Since the 1950s most tax increases have fallen upon married couples with children, effectively driving women out of the home and into the work force. In the 1950s income tax would not be levied until a manâ??s income had reached half the average income, the assumption being that this was a â??family wageâ??. Now income tax is levied at a third of average income. A man can receive only one tax allowance even if his wife is at home full time caring for their children, while a couple, both of whom work outside the home, will receive two tax allowances.

thanks to Greg Gardner, Jane de Villalobos, Jackie Parkes and the Hermeneutic of Continuity

Love & Responsibility - Theological Lecture Series 2008

Due to the success of Catholicism for the Curious and Theology of the Body, the School of Evangelisation will be hosting a third series of lectures this year, commencing on Wednesday 27th February at supper & welcome at 6.15pm with talk starting at 7pm.

A series of high profile talks to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the encyclical Humanae Vitae. These talks will present a life changing message for a lifestyle of chastity that brings freedom, respect, peace and romance without regret. The talks will seek to unpack and explain the Church’s teaching on the truth and meaning of human sexuality in a way that is challenging, entertaining, encouraging and healing. The speakers will cover an abundance of compelling and uplifting reasons for embracing the virtues of chastity.

Wednesday 27th February - Fr Anthony Doe Call to Holiness & Communion with the Lord

Wednesday 12th March - Fr Stephen Langridge Aids, Condoms and the Catholic Church

Wednesday 2nd April - Fr Tim Finigan Humanae Vitae – A Challenge to the Culture

Wednesday 9th April - Fr Anthony Doe The Gift of Life & Christian Discipleship

Wednesday 16th April - Edmund Adamus The Genesis of Humanae Vitae – Memory & Healing

Wednesday 23rd April - Fr Richard Aladics Building the Civilisation of Love in a Media-Driven World

Wednesday 30th April - Bishop Alan Hopes Searching for Teaching Authority

Wednesday 14th May - Tommy Hughes Theology of the Body in a Glasgow Secondary School

Wednesday 21st May - James Parker Truths about Homosexuality & Contraception

Wednesday 28th May - Dr Jacqueline Laing The Reproductive Revolution

Wednesday 4th June - Nicole Parker A Practical Response: Natural Family Planning

Wednesday 11th June - Anne Hill The Gift of Life as a Woman and a Mother

Wednesday 18th June - William Newton Humanae Vitae & Contraception: Two Irreconcilable Concepts of the Human Person

Professor Walter Moberly of Durham University

Like any other book? How should the bible be read? The Ethel M Wood Lecture

6th March 5.30pm The Council Room, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS

The Zizioulas Lectures in Christian Dogmatics are on their way. That marvellous publisher, T & T Clark, has promised to get the book out in October (2008).

Here is something from the Editor's Introduction

Man was given the freedom of God to decide freely, and on behalf of all creation, for participation in the communion and life of God. Because all creation makes up his body, materiality gets to participate in man’s decision and so receive God's uncreated life in freedom. So man is able to unite created materiality to the communion of God that overcomes all limits, and so secure creation’s continued life. Christ is the one who is able to establish and sustain relationship with all men, and brings each into relationship with all others, and unites within himself all creation to God. He is the truth of man and creation, sustained through all limits by the invincible communion of God.

Although Christ is the whole reality of human being, he does not force himself upon us. He appears amongst us as one person amongst others, and so as someone we can reject or accept as we like. We can withhold our acknowledgment of him or, in faith, we can recognise him for who he is. When we concede Christ his otherness, and acknowledge that he shares the freedom of God, this opens the possibility that we understand that all persons are different from us, not our creatures but creatures of God. As we concede the otherness and freedom of every human being we gain our own true freedom.

Meanwhile the T & T Clark blog has a link to Liviu Barbu's review of Zizioulas's Communion and Otherness in the Heythrop Journal

You can find plenty more in The Theology of John Zizioulas. You can see the book at Google Book, but curiously mis-assigned to the title 'Paul's Necessary Sin'

Why not ask your college librarian to order a copy from Ashgate? You know one blogger who would be very grateful.

Third Sunday of Lent

Exodus 17.1-7 Psalm 95 Romans 5.1-11 John 4.5-42

In our preparation for Easter we have been looking at the different aspects of the resurrection that are presented to us in the Scripture readings for the five Sundays of Lent. We are thinking through here what we are doing when we gather in Church and spelling out some of what is going on, on Easter Sunday morning. We want to show when we say ‘Christ is risen’ we are referring to a question, and to a promise, about our own identity.

We said that the Christian confession of God helps us to hear the question of God, ‘Where is your brother?’ The Christian faith is a real listening, to the world and to God, and it prevents us from making ourselves secure without one another.

So far we have said that the Church is the fellowship created by the love of God for us and God's act of witness to the world. Next we have to say that the Church is the whole company of heaven, making itself felt here and now for us. This company are our servants, and together they make up the service of Christ to us. This company is also in disguise, so it is not obvious that this is what is happening.

Michael Spenser is concerned that the Chinese church is vulnerable to the 'Prosperity Gospel'

The Prosperity Gospelâ?¦.

A) is the presumption that God wants us to be rich.

B) is the assumption that the blessings of the Gospel are a guarantee of material and financial blessings now. (The mediation of Jesus makes all blessing possible, but it does not guarantee wealth or health, etc.)

C) is a denial and replacement of the true meaning of â??give us this day our daily bread.â??

D) is the replacement of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the New Testament with a method that causes God to bestow material and financial blessings on anyone who uses the method.

Why does the Prosperity Gospel appeal to American Christians?

a) American Christians are focused on money as a symbol of the â??good life.â?? b) American Christians tend to focus on God as a problem solver above any other role. c) American Christians have a strong preference for legalism and transactionalism.

Cultural factors cause some groups of the historically poor and economically disenfranchised to be very open the the Prosperity message.

Michael Spenser Monitor China

The absence of peace exacerbates the many long-standing problems as well as the poverty afflicting the region of the Holy Places. We must recognize that Christians who reside there are a priority for the attention of the entire Catholic Church, together with that of all other Churches and ecclesial communities. For even in their need, they embody the "living charism of Christianity’s origins."

In this way, the Latin community openly supports the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Franciscans who are Custodians of the Holy Land, and all those belonging to the Eastern Catholic Churches. The desire of the Holy See is that the charitable outreach by all Catholics will not simply be viewed as occasional, but as so continuous and profound that the future may be welcomed with hope. Nor is this program of charitable distribution based upon religious, cultural or political distinctions. Rather, it seeks especially to equip the younger generations to take their place in society in a manner which renders them competent and able to transmit the worth of their Catholic education and formation.

We cannot overlook, however, those numerous other challenges which are serious and urgent. For example, there is the ever present matter of immigration, bringing with it the risk that Christian communities can be deprived of their most important human resources. We must seek to safeguard Christianity’s historic legacy by striving to preserve those ‘living communities’ in which the Mystery of Christ, our Peace, is cherished and celebrated.

Leonardo Sandri Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches Collection for the Holy Land

Europe’s Man of Destiny is Geert Wilders, the 35-year-old leader of Holland’s tiny Freedom Party. He has provoked the world Muslim community in order to draw the violent jihadists out of the tall grass, and he seems to be succeeding. Call what Wilders has done nasty but necessary, and blame Europe’s so-called mainstream leaders for abandoning their posts, and leaving the standard in the hands of a young man with the courage to grasp it. At the moment the Dutch government is quaking over the consequences of a 10-minute film that Wilders plans to release in April denouncing the Koran.

Strictly speaking, I do not quite agree with Wilders that the Koran should be banned along with Hitler’s Mein Kampf as an incitement to violence. Nonetheless, he is doing precisely the right thing. A house divided against itself cannot stand, as Abraham Lincoln quoted the Gospels as he made ready to tear down the half that was misbehaving. No civilized state can abide a rival from within who contests the monopoly of violence of legitimate government. If governments refuse to act, the optimal course of action is pre-emptive: bring matters to a decision as fast as possible before the rot destroys the entire house.

Wilders has succeeded in getting the world's attention. "Should it come to riots, bloodshed and violence after broadcasting the Koran movie by PVV leader Geert Wilders, then Wilders will be responsible," the visiting Grand Mufti of Syria threatened the European Parliament in January.

Wilders lives under constant police protection. The courageous Ayaan Hirsi Ali, co-maker of the film that cost Theo van Gogh his life in 2004 and the author of a bestselling tract against Islam, remains in constant danger of assassination. Her predicament sets in relief the moral bankruptcy of Europe’s governments.

Spengler Blessed are the pre-emptors

Peter Rippon (editor of the World at One, which broadcast an interview the Archbishop before his lecture) forgets to mention (or completely misses) the following facts:

1. The story was trailed at the top of the news programme with the headline: The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the adoption of Sharia Law in some parts of Britain is inevitable. (No he didnâ??t, or not in the way that your headline was inevitably going to make people think.)

2. The BBC was running an article before it broadcast the interview under the heading: Sharia law in UK is â??unavoidableâ??, with the first paragraph: The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is â??unavoidableâ??. (ditto)

3. The BBC website is a key source of news for ALL the media, and has 13 million unique visitors per week.

4. Reactions from bloggers to the headlines were coming in before the 9 minute interview had even finished .

So it turns out that the Beeb was reporting inaccurate statements about â??ABC says Sharia is inevitableâ?? even before the interview was broadcast. Rowan (and a well-tempered debate) never had a chance.

Matt Wardman Archbishop Rowan Firestorm was started by the BBC

Cardinal Walter Kasper has been talking about the October 2007 Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, held in Ravenna, and explaining what's left in the process of achieving full unity.

The breakthrough, he said, was that "the Orthodox agreed to speak about the universal level - because before there were some who denied that there could even be institutional structures on the universal level. The second point is that we agreed that at the universal level there is a primate. It was clear that there is only one candidate for this post, that is the Bishop of Rome, because according to the old order - ‘taxis' in Greek - of the Church of the first millennium the see of Rome is the first among them. "Whereas the Orthodox must clarify more deeply the question of ‘primacy, 'protos,' on the universal level, we Catholics have to reflect more clearly on the problem of synodality and conciliarity, especially on the universal level," he said.

‘So we do not want to impose the system which today is in the Latin Church on the Orthodox Churches. In the case of the restoration of full communion, a new form of the exercise of the primacy needs to be found for the Orthodox Churches.’

Zenit

Life comes from outside us – we are ‘born from above’. We are not individually in charge of our own existence, means that life also come from outside us. This ‘outside’ John identifies with ‘above’, where God is.

Jesus answered, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.’ Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can anyone be born after having grown old? You are Israel’s leader. How can you not understand this? John 3.1-17

We are born, again and again, continuously. We are renewed continuously, from above. Our creation is not only a one-time event in the past – and so our relationship with God is not only a single event situated in the past, but it is also live now.

God is full of life and full of freedom and time, for us. He dispenses this life and freedom to us, gently, through time. God gives himself to us, slowly and piecemeal, always preparing us to receive more of him. The work of God is to ratchet us up into increasing participation in the economy of his life, in which new human action may continually come into being – the inexhaustible economy. The life we have comes from the Spirit, from above, our wellhead and headwaters, our source and provider.

On the way to Easter - Lent 2

My Archbishop was given the title Civil and Religious law in England: A Religious Perspective.

But my Archbishop did not say that 'some aspects of Sharia law "seem unavoidable"', as is widely reported.

He said that

‘a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters, so that 'power-holders are forced to compete for the loyalty of their shared constituents' (Ayelet Shachar Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women's Rights (2001) p. 122) – seems unavoidable.

and this introduces into our thinking about law what some would see as a 'market' element, a competition for loyalty.

But if what we want socially is a pattern of relations in which a plurality of divers and overlapping affiliations work for a common good, and in which groups of serious and profound conviction are not systematically faced with the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty, it seems unavoidable.

An element of competition between jurisdictions, or a 'market' of jurisdictions, for certain carefully specified matters – THIS ‘seems unavoidable’.

It seems unavoidable given that what we want is 'a pattern of relations...in which overlapping affiliations work for a common good'.

It is only unavoidable if we want the common good, mind.

Here are some more views on the Archbishop of Canterbury's speech on Civil and Religious law in England: A Religious Perspective:

Ali Eteraz comment at 'Sharia Subjects VI: Concurrent jurisdiction would be used to coerce average believers' at Our Kingdom

A majority of British Muslims are just fine with the legal system. They consider it an Islamic duty to obey the laws of the land. They have learned to balance the requirements of their personal faith with their public obligations and limitations. For example, when they get married they go to city hall and afterwards go to the mosque for a second ceremony. When they get divorced they go to court and then they do an Islamic divorce. If these Muslims find certain policies problematic, they participate in the political process to try and change them. This is, in my opinion, the easiest and most sensible position for Muslims to adopt. It also leads to better citizenship. The development of this position augurs well for the development of a â??minority fiqhâ?? - a jurisprudence for Muslims living in majority non-Muslim areasâ?¦.

Courts like the Islamic Sharia Council are outgrowths of local Muslim communities which, in turn, exert an enormous amount of what I call â??piety-pressureâ?? upon average believers. Subtle black-mailing and intimidation will become further entrenched if Islamic courts are given concurrent status. Sharia bullies will not only be protected by God, but by State as well, just as they are in Islamist regimes around the world. Concurrent jurisdiction for Muslims should be opposed. The position adopted by the vast majority of British Muslims is the correct one: Sharia should remain personal law. Those Muslims who do not adopt this position should be persuaded to change their views, not be compromised with.

And here is Andrew Anthony He ought to split his church from the state

If Dr Williams was seriously concerned about constitutional law and religious justice, he would look at the dwindling number of his followers in this country and call for the disestablishment of the Church of England.

Much of the grievance members of other religions and denominations currently feel stems from the privilege - state endorsement, parliamentary representation - that Dr Williams's church conspicuously enjoys. Who can deny that the church's special treatment looks increasingly absurd in our multicultural society? Even Dr Williams himself has acknowledged that Britain is not a Christian country in terms of "active churchgoers". Therefore the choice on offer is either to downgrade the Church of England, or upgrade other religions. Dr Williams has made his preference obvious.

And here is Andrew Copson The archbishop adapts to survive

But it must nag at you that there is a bit of a mismatch between the power and privilege your organisation holds and the public support it has; you may find it hard to justify the position of a national church when it doesn't any longer represent the nation. With an eye to the future, you really do need to find another way to shore up your church's position.

Judging by the outraged reaction of so many at Rowan Williams' comments on sharia law, there was considerable surprise that he said what he said. In fact, nothing could be less surprising. Of course Williams wishes to argue for the extension of at least some of the privileges enjoyed by his own church to other religions. [This] is the best defence the church today has for its own privileged position.

What would have been genuinely surprising would be for an archbishop to come out in favour of universal human rights and state neutrality in its dealings with each citizen, whatever their religious or non-religious convictions; for an end to the archaic privileges.

But 'universal human rights and state neutrality in its dealings with each citizen, whatever their religious or non-religious convictions' is just what the Archbishop did come out for. It is what the Christian faith comes out for.

To set out the secular sphere, by distinguishing between State and Church, is the privilege given to the Christian Church. It is the task which the Church has to perform for the nation as a whole. But this task is given to the Church by Christ, not by the State through 'establishment'. 'Establishment' and an 'established' Church merely indicate that the State acknowledges that the Church has this role, and that the State does not, which is simply to acknowledge that any State must be secular, by definition - unless it is to start making its own religious, ideological or totalitarian claims.

Clearly we still have some convincing to do. Time for a more robust account of the Christian contribution to secularity and the public square. Perhaps London needs an institute for the Church and the public square?

Rowan Williams comments would have been much better said by someone else. The trouble is that he's leader of the worldwide Anglican communion. His words therefore reflect on Anglicans in Pakistan, Nigeria and Uganda, whose churches are being firebombed by gangs of Muslims, whose leaders and their families are being attacked and murdered. Patrick Sookhedeo of the Barnabas Fund is pretty trenchant:

Furthermore for the many Anglicans and other Christians living in contexts where shari`a is being applied and causing untold misery and suffering, for example in parts of Nigeria and parts of Sudan, the Archbishop of Canterbury's suggestions are not just unwise, but insensitive to the point of callousness.

In many parts of the Muslim world, England is (mistakenly) seen as a 'Christian' country, so for the leader of global Anglicanism to suggest that Muslim law could possibly replace 'Christian' laws looks like a massive admission of defeat by Christians. The Ugandan church's decision today to disassociate from the Lambeth conference may, in part, be a damage limitation exercise. There is a cost to the mission and ministry of the church in Uganda of being associated with a global church which looks like it's lost confidence in the Christian faith. We haven't lost that confidence, it's just that a debate about culture, law and society within the UK looks very different when you're looking from Uganda. That's why, if this needed to be said (and the issue certainly needed to be raised, though maybe not this way), it would have been better said by a local, English bishop rather than AB of C. Symbolism is so important.

David Keen For what it is worth

On Thursday Gordon Brown’s spokesman denounced Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ claim that the introduction of sharia to the UK was inevitable. However, Gordon Brown himself has been quietly seeking to appease certain aspects of the agenda of 'peaceful' Islamist groups in the UK - including what amounts to a partial implementation of sharia.

In the 2005 general election Labour’s share of the Muslim vote collapsed from its normally rock solid 85% down to around 70%. It lost safe Labour seats to the Lib-Dems like Rochdale (5,650 maj), Hornsey and Wood Green (10,600 maj) – not to mention losing Bethnal Green and Bow (10,000 maj) to George Galloway – and nearly lost several other Labour seats. This was partly due to a Muslim Vote card campaign run by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), a Muslim umbrella organisation whose leadership was largely taken over by Islamists as soon as it was formed. Candidates of all parties were told to sign up to a range of Islamic issues – public funding Muslim schools, changes in UK foreign policy etc the MCB told Muslims told to vote against candidates who refused to do so. The MCB claimed it could swing the vote in at least 20 constituencies – as the Muslim majority was greater than that of the sitting MP – who was almost always Labour.

So whilst Labour’s record of appeasement may disappoint us, it perhaps shouldn’t surprise us. Labour has a similar relationship with Islamic organisations as it had with the trade unions in the nineties. It wants their votes – but doesn’t agree with all of their agenda. So, it appeases them by giving them some of what they want.

Cranmer Shari'a law and the hypocrisy of New Labour

Maximus views the liturgy thus: the first entrance of the bishop signifies the first coming of Christ and his saving passion; the bishop’s entering the sanctuary and mounting the throne is nothing less than Christ’s ascension into heaven and sitting on the heavenly throne; the reading of the Gospel signifies the end of this world, and the bishop’s descent from the throne his second and glorious coming; the dismissal of the catechumens is the final judgment; and all that follows belongs to the life of the future kingdom of Heaven. It is the eschaton made present: union of all with God as he is.

The ‘liturgical becoming’ reaches its fulfilment when the bishop-‘Christ’ makes the invisible future kingdom present to the faithful. He distributes, as it were, himself to the faithful in the sacrament, thus truly becoming inherent in them. The sanctuary becomes the actuality of the nave; and the future kingdom dwells in the temporal assembly of the faithful. There is, then, a ‘coinherence’, a simultaneous union and distinction of the nave and the sanctuary, of time and eternity, of man and God.

Melchisedec Törönen Union and Distinction in the Thought of St Maximus the Confessor

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are in Cambridge next week. This should become a roadshow. Thanks to Maggi Dawn.

The fundamental issue [Archbishop Rowan] was addressing is the relation between the law of the land and the religious conscience of the citizen. For 200 years it has been assumed that these operated in separate spheres: the law regulates my public life, faith or religion operate in private. This was always a dangerous half-truth, since many of the great world faiths, including Christianity itself, actually claim that all of life is included within religious obedience. As some of us used to be taught, if Jesus is not Lord of all, he is not Lord at all. In recent years various governments, including our own, have pushed the other way, to suggest that the secular state is itself master of all of life, including religious conviction. That’s why we’ve seen an airline worker sacked for wearing a cross, while in France the government has tried similarly to ban Muslim women from wearing their traditional head-covering. Because we haven’t had to address these issues before, our society has tended to slide round them by emphasizing words like ‘multiculturalism’, which often doesn’t actually mean that we celebrate our different cultures but rather that we subordinate them all to whatever the secular state wants. That is as much a problem for Catholic adoption agencies, as we saw last year, as it is for Muslims who want to follow their traditional teaching about (for instance) the prohibition of interest on loans while living within a society where the mortgage system is endemic. +Rowan was going to the roots of these problems and coming up not only with fresh analysis but fresh solutions, particularly what he calls ‘interactive pluralism’. The question of how we live together as a civil and wise society while cherishing different faiths is a deep and serious one and can’t be pushed away just because people take fright at certain misunderstandings. His point was precisely that neither the secular state nor any particular religion can ‘monopolise’.

Bishop Tom Wright Letter to Durham clergy on Religion and Public Life

The head of the Anglican church in Europe, Dr Geoffrey Rowell, was locked out of six churches in Turkey by their congregations after his controversial decision to ordain a local convert to the priesthood.

In an unprecedented step and amid fears that the ordination would endanger the lives of congregants in the mainly Muslim country, furious Christians denied the bishop access to any of his own churches to conduct the ceremony at the weekend. He was forced to carry out the ordination in a small Calvinist chapel in Istanbul.

It was the first time in the 430-year history of the Church of England in Turkey that a sitting bishop has faced such protests. A heady mix of nationalism, anti-western sentiment and Islamic extremism has resulted in Turkey's tiny Christian community being increasingly targeted.

Bishop locked out of churches over Turkish priest

Despite everything you’ve heard and read, the most striking thing about Rowan Williams’ lecture is that he mounts a serious and impassioned defence of ‘Enlightenment values’.

That is, he balances on the one hand a defence of one of the key achievements of the Enlightenment, freedom of religion, with on the other hand a strong call for public accountability in the ways that religions contribute to our public life. And my judgment is that it is the latter that is the stronger note in what he says.

Mike Higton on Rowan Williams

I have been asked to write some talks for Lent. I have followed the readings for the Sundays of Lent. Here is the first of them.

On the way to Easter - Lent 1

We are on our way to Easter. On Easter morning we will say that ‘Christ is risen’. Easter is the moment when the undying and indestructible life that God makes itself apparent. God has set out to bring us into relationship first with himself and then with all other human beings – he will raise us. When we say ‘Christ is risen’ we are pointing to the coming resurrection of all creation in him and so we are pointing to our own resurrection, which is the resurrection that is of real interest to us.

The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.

In other words, the reporting of this lecture was untruthful. Lambeth does understatement, I do understatement. Do you really need me to say 'They lied'?

So what did he really say?

In his lecture, the Archbishop sought carefully to explore the limits of a unitary and secular legal system in the presence of an increasingly plural (including religiously plural) society and to see how such a unitary system might be able to accommodate religious claims. Behind this is the underlying principle that Christians cannot claim exceptions from a secular unitary system on religious grounds (for instance in situations where Christian doctors might not be compelled to perform abortions), if they are not willing to consider how a unitary system can accommodate other religious consciences. In doing so the Archbishop was not suggesting the introduction of parallel legal jurisdictions, but exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience.

What did the Archbishop actually say?

The media is hostile here in the UK, to the Christian faith, but also simply to ideas. The Archbishop was invited by jurists to give a lecture, in the High Court, to the relationship of law and communities. The press headline was 'Archbishop says Sharia 'inevitable''. This is what you can expect from our press. They consider the Church easy meat, as indeed it is as long as we have no basic ecclesiology. It would be a pity if Christians around the world were unable to read our headlines of our media without any critical hermeneutic. When see the media stoning a Christian, you conclude that he must have done something wrong? Did you learn nothing from Regensburg?

My Archbishop said that more formal recognition of the range of jurisdictions is 'unavoidable'. There is a range of jurisdictions, so for example, two participants to a dispute are sometimes able to choose which tribunal they wish their (civil) case to be examined under. This is takes place now, has always taken place and is very basic to English common law. The only strange thing is that governments have been in denial about this in recent decades. This is part of a decay of civil society that is consequent on understanding our relationships to each other only in terms of rights (and never responsibilities) and understanding governments as service-providers and ourselves as consumers of their products. The result of this is that we believe that governments are to do everything and we are to do nothing: over the long term this makes for totalitarianism - and it is no less totalitarian because we are complicit in it.

The Archbishop believes it is 'unavoidable' that this denial, of civil society, by governments and people, should come to an end. He is right that it should come to an end, and I hope he is right that its end is 'unavoidable'. But if this sort of intelligent, and Christian, contribution to the public square is so vehemently jeered off by the media (BBC is no different from the Murdoch press in this) a smaller, stupider public square in which no one dare say anything intelligent (never mind anything Christian) is the only 'unavoidable' thing here. Like any Christian, an Archbishop can take a lot of flack from opponents of the Church, and it is his priestly calling to do so. But when you, a member of the Church, stand in judgment on him and so leave him to face this fury on his own – who will be there for you, when you are the one picked on?

The Archbishop of Canterbury gave a speech entitled Civil and Religious Law in England: a religious perspective

In contrast to what is sometimes assumed, we do not simply have a standoff between two rival legal systems when we discuss Islamic and British law...

If the law of the land takes no account of what might be for certain agents a proper rationale for behaviour – for protest against certain unforeseen professional requirements, for instance, which would compromise religious discipline or belief – it fails in a significant way to communicate with someone involved in the legal process and so fails in one of its purposes.

There is a recognition that our social identities are not constituted by one exclusive set of relations or mode of belonging – even if one of those sets is regarded as relating to the most fundamental and non-negotiable level of reality, as established by a 'covenant' between the divine and the human (as in Jewish and Christian thinking; once again, we are not talking about an exclusively Muslim problem). The danger arises not only when there is an assumption on the religious side that membership of the community (belonging to the umma or the Church or whatever) is the only significant category, so that participation in other kinds of socio-political arrangement is a kind of betrayal. It also occurs when secular government assumes a monopoly in terms of defining public and political identity. There is a position – not at all unfamiliar in contemporary discussion – which says that to be a citizen is essentially and simply to be under the rule of the uniform law of a sovereign state, in such a way that any other relations, commitments or protocols of behaviour belong exclusively to the realm of the private and of individual choice.

Anthony Bradney offers some examples of legal rulings which have disregarded the account offered by religious believers of the motives for their own decisions, on the grounds that the court alone is competent to assess the coherence or even sincerity of their claims. And when courts attempt to do this on the grounds of what is 'generally acceptable' behaviour in a society, they are open, Bradney claims, to the accusation of undermining the principle of liberal pluralism by denying someone the right to speak in their own voice.

The Archbishop is asking a single question, to two audiences – liberal secularists and British Muslims.

Can the State be truly secular? Can it provide the open stage for a variety of ways of life in one national community? Can the State avoid turning secularity into an ideological secularism that denies real pluralism? It denies real pluralism when it blanks out all our motivations, determining that they are merely private, interior to the individual, and may have no public expression. Our motivations relate to traditions of thought, religious and other. Is the State determined to make us all ‘citizens’, on the French pattern? Is the State able to allow any community to provide its own forms of arbitration? If not then, then we will have the courts ruling on every industrial dispute for example, because there can be no local forms of arbitration between employers and unions. We will have the courts deciding on divorces because the State cannot tolerate any panels, not instituted by law, by which couples could attempt their own reconciliations or settlements.

The same question, put to the Muslim community, might take this form:

Can the Muslim community support the secular public square? Can it concede that it shares the public square with non-Muslims? Can the Muslim community obey the whole law of the land, and allow, support even promote civil society? Civil society is a society made up of communities that promote many different, ‘non-islamic’, ways of life. Is Islam able to find within itself the resources to say that 'islam' must mean submission to the law of this country and thus to civil society, made up as it is of other religious traditions?

Citizenship in a secular society should not necessitate the abandoning of religious discipline, any more than religious discipline should deprive one of access to liberties secured by the law of the land.

A few weeks ago, I was chatting to a woman who works in an advocacy role for Muslim women in an area that, quite independently of the Bishop of Rochester, she described as a 'no-go area' for non-Muslims. Her clients were women in the process of being sectioned into mental health units in the NHS. This woman, who for obvious reasons begged not to be identified, told me: 'The men get tired of their wives. Or bored. Or maybe the wife objects to her daughter being forced into a marriage she doesn't want. Or maybe she starts wearing western clothes.There can be many reasons. The women are sent for asssessment to a hospital. The GP referring them is Muslim. The psychiatrist assessing them is Muslim and male. I have sat in these assessments where the psychiatrist will not look the woman patient in the eye because she is a woman. Can you imagine! A psychiatrist refusing to look his patient in the eye? The woman speaks little or no English. She is sectioned. She is divorced. There are lots of these women in there, locked up in these hospitals. Why don't you people write about this?'

Ruth Gledhill

One of Britainâ??s leading theologians has broken ranks with the ecumenical establishment by calling for Catholics to convert non-Catholics. Fr Aidan Nichols, the English theologian most closely associated with the thinking of Benedict XVI, has appealed for England to be â??re-madeâ?? as a Catholic country.

He set out his radical and comprehensive programme for Catholic renewal in a new book entitled The Realm: An Unfashionable Essay on the Conversion of England, published by Family Publications.

In his preface he says that Catholic Christianity should be put forward â??not as an occupation for individuals in their solitude but as a form for the public life of society in its overall integrityâ??. He admits that the conversion of England is â??an absolutely colossal agendaâ??, adding: â??It can only be brought into being, so far as it depends on us to do so, by a coordinated strategy for recreating a full-blooded catholicity with the power to... transform a culture in all its principal dimensions.

Fr Aidan Nichols's plan for renewal:

Firmer doctrine in our teaching and preaching Re-enchant the liturgy Recover the insights of metaphysics Renew Christian political thought Revive family life Resacralise art and architecture Put a new emphasis on monastic life Strengthen pro-life rhetoric Recover a Catholic reading of the Bible

Catholic Herald Convert England to Catholicism

On the articles page at Anglican Use, see Nichols 'Anglican Uniatism' (largePDF)

The mortal exodus that afflicts our community cannot be averted until the Iraqi Church itself takes a clear position on the political situation and constructs a courageous pastoral plan. The future of the Chaldean-Assyrian Church is in Iraq: this is its land, it is here that its history and heritage were formed, an important part of the wider universal Christian heritage. Church means mission. A Church in diaspora loses its identity. Over the course of history, the Christian presence has contributed greatly to the development of Iraq. Christians have been, and can continue to be today, an instrument of dialogue, peaceful coexistence, and collaboration with our Muslim brothers. Emptying the country of this community is a mortal sin.

The question that requires an urgent and decisive response is: "How can the Iraqi Christians be helped?". Our Church must reorganise itself and update not only its structure, but also its message. To survive these times, we need a strong Church, with a clear pastoral and "political" vision, with precise plans not only for protecting its faithful, but also for fostering reconciliation.

Louis Sako Chaldean archbishop of Kirkuk The future of the Church in Iraq

There are difficult and maddeningly slow formal attempts unfolding, yet unfolding nonetheless, within the Anglican Communion as a whole to begin to identify a means of getting through this adjudicatory impasse. It involves a host of synods, including the Lambeth Conference, and a proposed "covenant", among other things. Since no one has offered an agreeable alternative to these unfolding attempts, they remain the primary means, indeed the only means available to all parties in the dispute to move forward. They are, furthermore, in keeping with the long traditions of catholic order and deserve a presumptive respect. Yet because they are both slow, still imperfectly defined, and legally of untested strength, the ultimate usefulness of these unfolding attempts must depend on a host of other Christian realities that - most would agree - actually define the Church of Jesus Christ far more essentially, primarily, and profoundly than do simply the Constitution and Canons of this or that province or diocese (indeed, that latter are, in a Christian sense, legitimate only to the degree that they embody these prior realities). These realities touch upon the gifts and fruit of the Holy Spirit and the powers thereof that permit a clear following of the Lord Jesus Christ's own straightforward calling to specific forms of relational behavior. They touch upon matters of humility, patience, longsuffering, honesty and transparency, self-control, and much more. That is, both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion of which it is still a part and which it has, rightly or wrongly, so disturbed through its executive actions, have been thrown upon a complete dependence upon these gifts and fruit, in a way that must transcend, even while respecting for the sake of the world's order, particular rules and regulations.

Ephraim Radner Discipline and the Bishops in a Time of Confusion and Discernment

Damian Thompson’s readers’ choice for Cardinal after Cormac Murphy-O’Connor?

It’s Aidan Nichols, the UK's most published theologian, presently at Blackfriars Oxford

It is time someone took the Christendom Awake website in hand, by the way.

Some oddly non-Roman Catholic speakers have been chosen for

The Cardinal’s Lectures – Faith and Life in Britain

Westminster Cathedral, London April-May 2008

Groups like Catholic Charities do accept government funds, which they then pass through to the needy. In fact, one of the main reasons governments use nonprofits like Catholic Charities is because theyâ??re cost-effective. As a result, government gets much more for its dollar by working through Catholic Charities to reach the poor. But administering the support personnel, ministries and distribution of funds does cost money, and a portion of government money is retained to help pay expenses, including in some cases salaries. This is necessary. Itâ??s also fair and reasonable.

What I hope Catholics and the wider community clearly understand about HB 1080 is this: Catholic organizations like Catholic Charities are glad to partner with the government and eager to work cooperatively with anyone of good will. But not at the cost of their religious identity. Government certainly has the right and the power to develop its own delivery system for human services. But if groups like Catholic Charities carry part of societyâ??s weight, then itâ??s only reasonable and just that they be allowed to be truly â??Catholicâ?? â?? or they cannot serve. And that has cost implications that the public might prudently consider in reflecting on HB 1080.

Finally and quite candidly, one of the Catholic communityâ??s deepest concerns in regard to HB 1080 is the billâ??s source. Iâ??ve heard from quite a few Catholics over the past week; Catholics who find HB 1080 offensive, implicitly bigoted, and designed to bully religious groups out of the public square.

Archbishop Chaput How to write a really bad bill

Fulcrum Conference - Conflict and Covenant

Saturday 12 April 2008, 10am to 4pm

Dr Tom Wright Bishop of Durham and Member of the Lambeth Commission which prepared The Windsor Report

Dr Andrew Goddard Editor of Anvil, Member of the Faith and Order Advisory Group

Union Chapel, Upper Street, Islington, London