Ekklesia has today teamed up with democracy campaign Power2010 in an initiative to urge Church of England bishops to take a lead in reforming the House of Lords.
The “religion and society think-tank” Ekklesia is heavily promoting a campaign called Power2010, which is an initiative to urge Church of England bishops to take a lead in reforming the House of Lords.
Just for clarification purposes, this “reforming” would effectively banish Bishops from the House of Lords. Ekklesia are pushing for an ‘all elected’ second chamber, and are opposed to the “special positions” reserved for Bishops.
These are the 5 principles for reform that they advocate:
people of faith participate alongside others in public life through civic action, free debate and good example – not through special reserved places and exemptions
members of the second chamber are elected, publicly accountable and recallable – not based on the appointed status and privilege for a few
legislation is scrutinised for its impact on the most vulnerable in society – not primarily the rich and powerful
membership is open to independent and minority elected voices – not dominated by the big party machines
Parliamentary business is discussed and voted upon in ways that encourage common action, co-operation and understanding of differences – rather than division and confrontation.
The reality well known by most commentators, is that if the House of Lords becomes an elected chamber, then we would see an end to Bishops in the house of Lords, as in reality they would not be able to garnish enough support.
As you can imagine the Bristish Humanist Association are fully behind this campaign also.
Some time ago I received a request to post something about an upcoming debate relating to the issue of the existence of Bishops within the House of Lords, which I did:
In this debate, arguing that Bishops should be evicted from the House of Lords was Polly Toynbee, President of the British Humanist Association; and Jonathan Bartley, Co-director, Ekklesia.
I wasn’t particularly flattering towards Jonathan Bartley in my post and he kindly took the time to comment, here is a snippet:-
I said:
….it saddens me terribly to watch such an influential figure as you, join forces with groups that are actively opposed to Christianity, such as the humanists.
Jonathan responded:
I am not aware that I have “joined forces” with anyone. I am however prepared to work with people where I believe they are working with, and toward truth.
I do not drive a wedge between sacred and secular and believe that all people who are made in God’s image, have a sense of what is right and wrong. I do not agree with humanists on many things, but where I see them working for justice and equality, which are to me eternal Christian values which resonate with the character of God, and they know what they are because of God (whether they recognise it or not) I will encourage them in that, and debate and discuss with them.
On reflection, as I observe Ekklesia’s preoccupation in ridding the House of Lords of Bishops, I would say that Ekklesia are in fact very much about driving a wedge between sacred and secular.
This Power2010 campaign encourages participants to email the Bishops and they provide a convenient form on their website, with a fully customisable message and every Bishops email address already inserted for you.
Ekklesia have just posted that they are thrilled with the uptake of 20,000 emails sent to the bishops in one day.
In terms of the validity of a campaign strategy of this nature, I am in agreement with a commentator on Twitter who noted the following:-
Not keen on these mass-auto email all the MPs / MEPs / Bishops at once scripts. Smacks of spam techniques.
and
….I’m sure the bishops can handle it! – Missing the point. a) Does it work? b) Do we want click-box politics?
Indeed.
Overall I confess that I am somewhat uncomfortable with Ekklesia’s determination to eradicate Bishops from the house of Lords, and I am certainly uncomfortable with their choice of bedfellows, and I am uncomfortable with their current campaign technique, namely, overwhelming Bishops email inboxes.
I know many will disagree with me, but there you go.
Tags: Christianity, Church Life, Politics
March 12th, 2010 at 10:53 am
But you are not uncomfortable with 26 men, from one part of the UK, from one denomination, within one religion, having places reserved in Parliament by right, and appointed by an external, undemocratic, institution, all defended in the name of Jesus Christ?
March 12th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Although they are highly educated intellectual men, with a wealth of experience and wisdom. So why not?
March 12th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
a) It is a terrible Christian witness and suggests that the gospel is about status and privilege b) It is contrary to religious liberty c) they can and do vote in their own interests representing the interests of their own denomination (against those of other Christians as well as other religions) and d) because they have substantial financial interests which they also represent, in terms of their £5 billion investments in mining companies, banks, supermarkets, commercial property etc… e) Their authority is based on historical status, not merit. f) It undermines any claim they can make to promoting democracy, fairness and justice.
If they want to be in Parliament they should be appointed or elected like everyone else, not rely on special arrangements.
March 12th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
a) It is a terrible Christian witness and suggests that the gospel is about status and privilege
No it doesn’t. Bishops are not born bishops.
b) It is contrary to religious liberty.
Not sure what you are on about here. Perhaps you meant contrary to secular liberty?
c) they can and do vote in their own interests representing the interests of their own denomination (against those of other Christians as well as other religions) and..
So you are suggesting that not one of them adhere to our Lord teachings, but seek *only* their own interests.
d) because they have substantial financial interests which they also represent, in terms of their £5 billion investments in mining companies, banks, supermarkets, commercial property etc…
See my above answer to c.
e) Their authority is based on historical status, not merit.
As previous said, Bishops are not born Bishops.
f) It undermines any claim they can make to promoting democracy, fairness and justice.
That is dependant upon one’s criteria of democracy, fairness and justice. Also they do not necessarily have to adhere to any political partyline or ideology.
March 12th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
A few confusions here, Caral: privilege does not derive from personal heredity alone, but from institutional position and preferment (as is the case here); liberty is not divisible between the ‘religious’ and the ‘secular’ – privileging some over others compromises it, whatever label you or they wear; many bishops speak faithfully on many issues, but they do not need reserve places in the legislature to do so; none of this gainsays the fact that they have also voted for the vested interests of an institution.
We are not trying to ‘evict’ anyone, merely suggesting that they should get their by merit and the usual channels, not preferment. Democracy – and in the context of the democratic apparatus, fairness and justice – means ‘for and by the people’, not for and by whoever the Crown or the PM prefers. This initiative (which is not click-box, by the way — people have a choice to adapt or devise their own message and addressee) is bringing people together across the supposed sacred/secular divide, and far from ‘bashing bishops’ is inviting them to play a part in a creative reform process: one in which their current privileged status will decrease, certainly … but in which their standing could actually increase considerably if they are seen to want to be heard for what they have to say, not from a claim to decide public issues without public accountability because they belong to an Established church (whereas others do not).