Natalie Solent

Politics, news, libertarianism, Science Fiction, religion, sewing. You got a problem, bud? I like sewing.

E-mail: nataliesolent-at-aol-dot-com (I assume it's OK to quote senders by name.)

Back to main blog

RSS thingy

Jane's Blogosphere: blogtrack for Natalie Solent.


( 'Nother Solent is this blog's good twin. Same words, searchable archives, RSS feed. Provided by a benefactor, to whom thanks.
I also sometimes write for Samizdata and Biased BBC.)

The Old Comrades:

November 2001 December 2001 January 2002 February 2002 March 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 August 2007 October 2007 February 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 March 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 October 2009 January 2010 March 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 April 2011 June 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Monday, September 19, 2005
Not with a bang but a simper is the way the Church of England will end. I learn from the BBC that a new report is out in which some Church of England bishops suggest that Christian leaders should apologise to Muslim leaders for the war in Iraq. The BBC story says:
A report from a working group of bishops says the war was one of a "long litany of errors" relating to Iraq.

As the government is unlikely to offer an apology, a meeting of religious leaders would provide a "public act of institutional repentance", it said.

Here are my objections, in no particular order.

  • Let's face it, the bit of the apology addressed to the Iraqis would be ticklish to write. "Dear Iraqis, we are so sorry we in the West didn't spend even longer leaving you to the care of Saddam Hussein. [Look at the size of those body bags.] In our ethnocentric arrogance some of us failed to realise that massacres like this and this and this have to be allowed to continue in order to preserve world peace. Had we truly, humbly listened to those who speak for you we would have realised that people in your culture accept being treated like that and that you consider democracy an imposition."

  • OK, forget all that. Let's shovel all those dead Iraqis back into the sand and imagine for a moment that I and everyone else whose backside ever warmed a pew have unanimously decided that the bishops are right: the war was a bad thing.

    The bishops making a public apology for it would still be deeply dishonest. They didn't support the war. Everybody knows they didn't and they know everybody knows it. It's a fine bargain - you pay in a penny's worth of pseudo-repentance for someone else's alleged sins and get back a pound's worth of plaudits for your humility. Even better than that, you get to jab at your political enemies in circumstances where they can't jab back.

    Perhaps I am being too harsh. When in 1940 C. S. Lewis wrote a still relevant essay called "Dangers of National Repentance", he was kinder. (This post from Photon Courier describes how the essay came to be written.) Here is a quote from it:

    The first and fatal charm of national repentance is, therefore, the encouragement it gives us to turn from the bitter task of repenting our own sins to the congenial one of bewailing - but, first, of denouncing - the conduct of others. If it were clear to the young penitent that this is what he is doing, no doubt he would remember the law of charity. Unfortunately the very terms in which national repentance is recommended to him conceal its true nature. By a dangerous figure of speech, he calls the Government not 'they' but 'we'. And since, as penitents, we are not encouraged to be charitable to our own sins, nor to give ourselves the benefit of any doubt, a Government which is called 'we' is ipso facto placed beyond the sphere of charity or even of justice. You can say anything you please about it. You can indulge in the popular vice of detraction without restraint, and yet feel all the time that you are practising contrition.

  • Have these "working groups" of bishops no other work to do? Is the Gospel so widely followed in this realm that the Lords Spiritual can spare the time to waffle on about matters about which they are no better informed than the average middle manager? "The harvest is plenteous but the labourers few." Yea verily, and the few we have can't be with us at the moment because they are discussing sustainable energy, or the Ghanaian agricultural subsidy regime, or whether Jacksonian nationalism is a good influence on American foreign policy.

  • Which brings me to the next one. It's not obvious, guys. Even leaving out every other question about the Iraq war, it's not obvious that the deaths caused will outnumber the lives saved. It's not obvious that the Christian Aid/Oxfam line will actually help the world's poor. It's not obvious that the Kyoto accords matter. Not everyone agrees. Quite often, you know, even people of great goodness and wisdom disagree on this sort of thing. Quite often, looking back after a few years have gone by, propositions that seemed obvious to almost the entire educated class turn out to be wrong. I suspect, my lords, that sixty years ago a majority of the bishops of the Church of England believed in the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. I suspect that a few centuries earlier the vast majority of your predecessors believed in winning souls to Christ by force. I am pretty sure none of you hold the latter proposition now.

  • "Not in my name" is a slogan we hear much. Now it's my turn to use it. Jesus gave almost no specific guidance on politics. Christians are obliged to assume that He didn't just forget, He knew what He was doing when He left us to figure out what loving your neighbour as yourself meant in practice. The particular guesses some bishops make shouldn't dress themselves up as the voice of the church. With every pronouncement the bishops make in support of sectional and temporary currents of opinion a few more Christians decide that the bishops don't speak in their name and walk out through the doors of their local Anglican church for the last time. Some of them might find another church to go to; others won't. Is the faith of the latter group weak, that they drop away for such a peripheral reason? Yes. But where faith is weak the Church should be in the business of strengthening it, not weakening it further. This aspect would be as bad if the sectional opinion the bishops happened to hold was in perfect agreement with mine.

  • Be warned. This institutional repentance stuff is dangerous. When you proffer your apologies to the Muslim leaders (which ones, by the way?) for things that other Christians did, are you going to ask them to apologise for things that other Muslims did? If not, why not?

    I do not say there is no place for institutional repentance. It was a good thing, as the report says, that the Catholic Church apologised for the Inquisition and for pogroms against Jews and others, because these acts clearly were evil, were done in the name of Christianity, and in many cases were ordered by the direct predecessors in office of those giving the official apology. By all means say that a special duty falls on Christians to keep their religion free of inquisitions and pogroms in the future, just as a special - and presently more urgent - duty falls upon Muslims to get and keep their religion free of terrorism.

    But if you set a precedent of apology for acts not your own you also set a precedent that apologies can be demanded for acts not your own. You will encourage people to demand that their Muslim co-workers and neighbours must not merely disavow but apologise for 9/11 and 7/7 and whatever other pairs of numbers the Islamofascists are yet to give the world. Group repentance implies group guilt. That could get ugly.

ADDED MONDAY EVENING: I have added one or two connecting sentences to the post above. And here is a story in the Guardian about the same report. It said the working party consisted of four diocesan bishops, all from the liberal wing of the C of E.

Later post here.