NationStates Jolt Archive

Taken from The Guardian

CofE bishops criticise US over foreign policy and war on terror

Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent
Monday September 19, 2005
The Guardian


A group of Church of England bishops issued a report today criticising American foreign policy, the US war on terror and some American Christians' use of biblical texts to support a political agenda in the Middle East, and accuses the US of using illegitimate and dangerous rhetoric.
The attack comes in a 100-page report issued by the church, drawn up by a working party of four diocesan bishops for the church's executive archbishops' council, exploring ways to counter terrorism in the post 9/11 world.

It argues that churches have a vital role to play in combating the threat and promoting Christian principles in a world characterised by power and violence.
The bishops are also critical of European and American policy towards Iran and its nuclear development, saying that the EU ought to offer a "suitably attractive incentive package" in order to dissuade Tehran from developing a nuclear weapons capability.

The report argues that respect for human dignity should be an underlying moral principle for relationships between states just as much as between individuals: "It is a moral principle that is expressed through the establishment of international law and its observance."

The report continues: "So international order is to be built not on brute power and fear but on law that is ultimately grounded in the divine wisdom ... When national interest is interpreted in a narrow or short-term way that excludes or ignores the flourishing of other communities, this is incompatible with a proper understanding of what is in our interest."

The four bishops - of Oxford, Coventry, Worcester, and Bath and Wells - are all on the liberal wing of the church. They did, however, receive advice from defence specialists and military experts in drawing up their work.

The report, drawn up since the July terrorist attacks on London, is particularly critical of the US and the effect of what it says are misreadings of biblical texts by some Christian groups in shaping some American attitudes, describing some millennialist views as deeply worrying and illegitimate: "The Book of Revelation, far from being a justification of American expansionism, is in fact a fierce critique of the imperial enterprise."

The report calls for the United Nations to be strengthened as the legitimate authority for all military intervention and opposes democracy being imposed on any other country by force, saying it must be adopted by a nation in culturally appropriate ways. It describes talk of a "war on terrorism" as a piece of dangerous rhetoric and warns of the danger of governments such as Britain's imposing laws which restrict hard won civil liberties.

The bishops argue that both the US and EU need to adopt more flexible policy approaches to Iran and accept the country's nuclear energy programme, while seeking to provide safeguards by which it can be properly monitored - though they accept that the Iranian government has not accepted such a strategy in the past.

In laying out 13 Christian theological and ethical principles for conduct in a world characterised by power and violence, the bishops say in their report: "The tendency of some religious groups, both Christian and Muslim, to give an oversimplistic reading of current events is harmful."



This is why I like the Church of England - although i'm an atheist. It is not dominated by right wing fundamentalists and neither does it have a firm line on "moral issues" such as sex before marriage and birth control. Personally I think it is the most enlightened faction of christianity, and probably the one which is closet to Jesus' teachings, although i'm sure that I am in the minority there. So, what does everyone else think about the Church of England?

So, what does everyone else think about the Church of England?


I'm also a fan of much of the Church of England (Or Episcopals as they are known here) A couple of my favorite theological writers (Marcus Borg and Bishop Spong) are Episcopal and I have rarely been made to feel like an outsider when I have attended with friends or for weddings, baptism, etc. The Chuch of England, like just about all churches, has a Conservative side, but they relly more on scholarship and well thought out arguments than the threats of Hellfire and Damnation that eminate from Falwell and the like.

They're not true Christians! Why? Because they don't like Bush! Because they don't support Bush, they are not true Christians like he is. Jesus would have supported the war in Iraq.

Wooo. Go us.

Sometimes... not having a firm stance on Abortion, Contraception etc etc (although I'm pretty sure that Sex before Marriage is a no-no right across the board) is good, because there's reasonable arguments for both. Sometimes though, the amount of times I get told "there's no definite answer to that, you'll have to figure out where you want to stand yourself. Pray! Read Bible! Talk to people!" is annoying, because, well, it's a lot less easy (and takes a lot more effort) to argue the grey argument then a black or a white one.

For things like Abortion however, the way I see it, is that the decision is up to the mother. I'd not advise it, unless going full-term strongly risked the life of the mother, but I'd let the mother choose for herself. Whichever decision she makes though, I'd do my absolute most to be as helpful and supportive as I could be.

The last thing a gal who's decided to terminate their baby* needs is people pointing their finger at them, let alone people waving boards angrily or trashing the clinics.

*I don't say "terminate the foetus" or "kill the baby", they're too loaded.

oh boy *bangs head on wall* another one of these posts... *Sits next to flameing post pulls out hot dog*

I attach as much weight to this as I do to any other religious institution.

This is why I like the Church of England - although i'm an atheist. It is not dominated by right wing fundamentalists and neither does it have a firm line on "moral issues" such as sex before marriage and birth control. Personally I think it is the most enlightened faction of christianity, and probably the one which is closet to Jesus' teachings, although i'm sure that I am in the minority there. So, what does everyone else think about the Church of England? Really? That's why I'm not particularly fond of it. That is to say, I don't bear any grudge - in fact, that's the problem, there isn't much to bear a grudge about. It doesn't really have any firmly held convictions about anything… which is what a church is supposed to have.
Also, it was set up to get a tyrant a divorce… although I don't really hold that against it, any more than I hold the Crusades against my church.
It's biggest problem is that it is fractured and weak - both by its lack of conviction, and its melding to the State. It doesn't have much of a young attendance anymore… it really is not doing too well.

oh boy *bangs head on wall* another one of these posts... *Sits next to flameing post pulls out hot dog*

Actually, I don't want this post to descend into another argument about US foreign policy, but about the difference between christianity in the UK and the US. I've being thinking about it for a while ever since I read that a lot of the CofE were critical of the tories for their right wing policies, and simply saw this article as a perfect example.

Really? That's why I'm not particularly fond of it. That is to say, I don't bear any grudge - in fact, that's the problem, there isn't much to bear a grudge about. It doesn't really have any firmly held convictions about anything… which is what a church is supposed to have.
Also, it was set up to get a tyrant a divorce… although I don't really hold that against it, any more than I hold the Crusades against my church.
It's biggest problem is that it is fractured and weak - both by its lack of conviction, and its melding to the State. It doesn't have much of a young attendance anymore… it really is not doing too well.

I don't think it lacks convictions, just has different ones to most Christian churches. It focuses more on the compassion, tolerance and charity aspects of Jesus' teachings. Sure, it doesn't have a firm stance on many "moral" issues, but that is because they see religion as more of a personal thing. I think religons which are basically just a long list of rules which invariably become outdated as time goes on are just stupid. For example, the Islamic and Jewish belief in not eating pork - why? It was originally a simply practical rule - because pork does not keep well in the desert heat, but why on earth should Jews and Muslims not eat it now?

The general message of the CofE is that as long as you live a good life and treat people as you would like to be treated, then you will go to heaven. Seems fine to me.

I don't think it lacks convictions, just has different ones to most Christian churches. It focuses more on the compassion, tolerance and charity aspects of Jesus' teachings. Sure, it doesn't have a firm stance on many "moral" issues, but that is because they see religion as more of a personal thing. I think religons which are basically just a long list of rules which invariably become outdated as time goes on are just stupid. For example, the Islamic and Jewish belief in not eating pork - why? It was originally a simply practical rule - because pork does not keep well in the desert heat, but why on earth should Jews and Muslims not eat it now?

The general message of the CofE is that as long as you live a good life and treat people as you would like to be treated, then you will go to heaven. Seems fine to me. Yes, but one must have organisation and unity within an organised religion. I wouldn't have any problem with the CoE's libertarianism if it was unified in that, but unfortunately it's not. There are so many different voices within the church - for instance, that article was only a group of bishops, not the voice of the entire church. The faith of the congregation is in decline… no way am I saying that any CoE-ers here aren't true Christians - but overall, it's undeniably declining, especially amongst the young.
Also, as far as I know, Christianity doesn't have any rules like the porky one, because they were declared outdated by Jesus.

oh boy *bangs head on wall* another one of these posts... *Sits next to flameing post pulls out hot dog*

*cracks open a cold beer*

*toasts marshmellows*

*waves CoE flag*

go go CoE, at last a non zealous Christian group, still not gonna be christian but go go CoE anyway.

*cracks open a cold beer*

*toasts marshmellows*

*waves CoE flag*

go go CoE, at last a non zealous Christian group, still not gonna be christian but go go CoE anyway. Roma, Roma über alles…

Yes, but one must have organisation and unity within an organised religion. I wouldn't have any problem with the CoE's libertarianism if it was unified in that, but unfortunately it's not. There are so many different voices within the church - for instance, that article was only a group of bishops, not the voice of the entire church. The faith of the congregation is in decline… no way am I saying that any CoE-ers here aren't true Christians - but overall, it's undeniably declining, especially amongst the young.
Also, as far as I know, Christianity doesn't have any rules like the porky one, because they were declared outdated by Jesus.

It is true that the Church of England is in decline, but that does not mean it is a bad religion - it could well be that it is in decline simply because most people in Britain nowadays have no strong belief or disbelief in God either way, so are apathetic. I see it not as "lack of unity" but a more democratic form of church where different clergymen can study the bible and come to their own conclusions - after all, it is a vague text, and very much open to interpretation.

Christianity does indeed have stupid "moral" laws comparable to the no pork one, such as declaring homosexuality to be a sin, which affects no one else negatively and thus is perfectly moral. It was my understanding that the new testament was supposed to be a revision of the old testament, and it is only in the old testament that homosexuality is demonised. Indeed, this was one of the arguments from a gay priest in the CofE who I heard talking on a chat show a few years ago.

It's funny how European Christians are often so relativist, while American Christians act like they have a direct line to God.

It's funny how European Christians are often so relativist, while American Christians act like they have a direct line to God.

Not really all European churches - just look at the Catholics.

It's funny how European Christians are often so relativist, while American Christians act like they have a direct line to God. Therefore, the Christian Church should be based in the mid-atlantic ridge.
It is true that the Church of England is in decline, but that does not mean it is a bad religion - it could well be that it is in decline simply because most people in Britain nowadays have no strong belief or disbelief in God either way, so are apathetic. I see it not as "lack of unity" but a more democratic form of church where different clergymen can study the bible and come to their own conclusions - after all, it is a vague text, and very much open to interpretation.

Christianity does indeed have stupid "moral" laws comparable to the no pork one, such as declaring homosexuality to be a sin, which affects no one else negatively and thus is perfectly moral. It was my understanding that the new testament was supposed to be a revision of the old testament, and it is only in the old testament that homosexuality is demonised. Indeed, this was one of the arguments from a gay priest in the CofE who I heard talking on a chat show a few years ago. First of all, religion isn't meant to be democratic. Well, the Abrahamic religion's aren't. God's word is law - and nothing can change that. As Benedict said: "truth is not determined by a majority vote".
About the homosexuality one… I won't get into that, but sinning against yourself is also a sin, since your bodies do not belong to you. That's the reason drugs are a no-no in most of Christianity.
Also, it is true that there is a religious decline in Britain. However, the Catholic churches and the Muslim mosques have a far greater youth following than the CoE… something they need to address.

Therefore, the Christian Church should be based in the mid-atlantic ridge.
First of all, religion isn't meant to be democratic. Well, the Abrahamic religion's aren't. God's word is law - and nothing can change that. As Benedict said: "truth is not determined by a majority vote".
About the homosexuality one… I won't get into that, but sinning against yourself is also a sin, since your bodies do not belong to you. That's the reason drugs are a no-no in most of Christianity.
Also, it is true that there is a religious decline in Britain. However, the Catholic churches and the Muslim mosques have a far greater youth following than the CoE… something they need to address.

It is democratic in the sense that people study the bible and make their own determinations. Like I said - it's a vague text so trying to get the exact meanings out of it is tough. Still, I reckon that compassion, tolerance and charity are far closer to what Jesus was talking about than the fundamentalists in America, who seem to have managed to justify greed, inequality of opportunity and forcing other countries to become democratic through biblical texts. Like I say - you can interpret the bible many ways, depending on what you concentrate on.

I believe the reason the more extreme religions have a greater youth following is because they offer more sensational and magical beliefs in an overly rational world, which appeals to people inclinded to be religious in general. Besides, I think the views of the CofE reflect the views of British people far more than any other religion - it is just because people do not attend church and are apathetic - it is only the more extreme people who get actively involved in religion.

My parents used to go to a C of E church every sunday, but a couple of years ago they stopped going. My dad said it was because the church these days is spineless and unwilling to take a firm line on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, the ordination of women and tolerance of Islam. They have a very strict interpretation of it and they now go to an evangelical church. While I'm not really a christian now, I'm inclined to agree that in recent years under Rowan Williams the church has sold itself out and ignored important christian principles.

Not really all European churches - just look at the Catholics.
My best friend is a self-professed relativist Catholic, and he's actually very devout.

So, what does everyone else think about the Church of England?
I find their ongoing attempt to co-opt Phillip Pullman to make themselves look more ecumenical distasteful. I also wonder why Pullman puts up with this, given that he makes such a big deal of being an atheist.

I believe the reason the more extreme religions have a greater youth following is because they offer more sensational and magical beliefs in an overly rational world, which appeals to people inclinded to be religious in general. Besides, I think the views of the CofE reflect the views of British people far more than any other religion - it is just because people do not attend church and are apathetic - it is only the more extreme people who get actively involved in religion. Um… I wouldn't really define Catholicism as extreme, and I was talking about Islam in general.

Um… I wouldn't really define Catholicism as extreme, and I was talking about Islam in general.

Catholics in general are certainly less extreme than they used to be, which I think is a great thing, but the Vatican does have some very strict views on things like homosexuality, sex before marriage and birth control. Hopefully this will change from the ground up - I found it particularly good to see catholics in Germany protesting about the anti birth control stance of the vatican when the Pope visited.

Catholics in general are certainly less extreme than they used to be, which I think is a great thing, but the Vatican does have some very strict views on things like homosexuality, sex before marriage and birth control. Hopefully this will change from the ground up - I found it particularly good to see catholics in Germany protesting about the anti birth control stance of the vatican when the Pope visited. When my friends visited, they saw people taking condoms from activists, and throwing them on the floor.
I don't think the Roman church is going to change. It just doesn't. Also, orthodox does not equal extreme - I'm orthodox, but I really wouldn't describe myself as extreme. Extreme implies taking things beyond the rules.

one must have organisation and unity within an organised religion

Speaking as a young, American Anglican (Episcopalian) who is also a member of a rather sizable, vibrant group of young, American Anglicans, I've always felt that the main benefit of the Anglican Church vis-a-vis Rome is our belief of "Unity in Diversity." In fact, I think that the success of the Anglican Church has largely been a result of our acceptance of local differences throughout the world. Go to Japan and ask for the "Holy Catholic Church," and they will point you to the nearest Anglican Church. If you want a Roman church, you have to ask for the "Roman Mission." Why? You may wonder. Well, the Japanese didn't take too kindly to the fact that the stuffy Romans insisted on holding Maess in Latin all the way up to the 1970's, so they outlawed it. On the contrary, the Anglicans permitted Maesses in Japanese from the start; so, they were much more welcome.

On a more local level, I've always loved the fact that we can sit around as a youth group and literally have a room where half of the people are Bush-loving conservatives and the other have are total commies and still get along on account of our shared faith tradition. I feel as though the rest of the Christian Church could take a page or two out of our book.

Cheers,

Ryan D. Partovi, JD, MIFHI
SGUSOM, '09

When my friends visited, they saw people taking condoms from activists, and throwing them on the floor.
I don't think the Roman church is going to change. It just doesn't. Also, orthodox does not equal extreme - I'm orthodox, but I really wouldn't describe myself as extreme. Extreme implies taking things beyond the rules.

It's extreme in the sense that it is in conflict with the generally univeral (At least in western countries) view that birth control is a positive thing, as it reduces unwanted pregnancies and allows two people to get harmless pleasure.

In other contexts it would not be extremist whatsoever, but in this day, age and area of the world, it is.

It's extreme in the sense that it is in conflict with the generally univeral (At least in western countries) view that birth control is a positive thing, as it reduces unwanted pregnancies and allows two people to get harmless pleasure.

In other contexts it would not be extremist whatsoever, but in this day, age and area of the world, it is. The Catholic Church has never been afraid to go against the flow of popular opinion… that's one of the things I respect about it. Just because it goes against mainstream opinion doesn't make it extremist, it makes it unpopular. (just for reference, I follow the birth control mandate… or, I would.)

Also, it was set up to get a tyrant a divorce…

Um, I hate to be a bore, but not really. The major reasons why the English reformation happened were that the King would gain a lot of additional power, wealth and prestige by doing so (Mainly by gobbling up the former Church lands and taxing the hell out of the clergy), that many of his ministers and advisors had strong reformist tendencies and that during this time the idea of England as an imperial empire was being floated around. (i.e. that no foreign ruler should exert any influence within Henry's domain, not even the Pope)

Certainly getting rid of Catherine was a factor, but not a huge one. Henry could have quite easily gotten a 'back door' annulment, if he'd been patient, without breaking with Rome.

(Yeah I know, I'm still excited that I'm studying this at College... :))

Um, I hate to be a bore, but not really. The major reasons why the English reformation happened were that the King would gain a lot of additional power, wealth and prestige by doing so (Mainly by gobbling up the former Church lands and taxing the hell out of the clergy), that many of his ministers and advisors had strong reformist tendencies and that during this time the idea of England as an imperial empire was being floated around. (i.e. that no foreign ruler should exert any influence within Henry's domain, not even the Pope)

Certainly getting rid of Catherine was a factor, but not a huge one. Henry could have quite easily gotten a 'back door' annulment, if he'd been patient, without breaking with Rome.

(Yeah I know, I'm still excited that I'm studying this at College... :))

I disagree - Henry was obsessed with the idea of being a 'great' monarch, and a great monarch needed a male heir to continue his legacy - hence his long string of wives. It was becoming less and less likely that Catherine was going to give him a son, so he was quickly looking for ways to get this. He initially tried to get an annulment, but the Spanish had by then invaded rome and were basically operating a puppet pope. Since Catherine was related to the Spanish royal family, there was not a chance in hell Henry would be given a divorce, so he was forced to break with Rome.

Sure, money, power and love for Anne Boelyn (Or lust, more likely) were contributing factors, but it is my belief that he was mainly doing it so he could get a male heir. Of course, no one can really say for cetain either way because only Henry VIII knows the absolute truth, and he ain't telling.

I studied the reformation at A level, and that's the conclusion I came to - it probably depends a lot on how you are taught.

Christianity does indeed have stupid "moral" laws comparable to the no pork one, such as declaring homosexuality to be a sin, which affects no one else negatively and thus is perfectly moral. It was my understanding that the new testament was supposed to be a revision of the old testament, and it is only in the old testament that homosexuality is demonised. Indeed, this was one of the arguments from a gay priest in the CofE who I heard talking on a chat show a few years ago.

Actually, the homosexuality thing appears in three different New Testament books:

Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it. The Anglican/Episcopal church(es) is the most traditional liberal Christian denomination I know of. A lot of traditional ceremony. The head is officially an unelected monarch. Yet, almost nothing is definitive. I hear that the Church of England is one of the closest to Roman Catholicism (after Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutherism), but that's based primarily on ceremony. In terms of actual belief and practice, Catholics are much closer to sola scriptura Southern Baptists, or whatnot. Or am I mistaken?

You're right about the homosexuality thing. But I do reckon that it's important to note that all the references are to "practicing homosexuals" (or along those lines). Does this mean that being gay isn't a sin, but that gay sex is? I'm not certain on it, but that's my conclusion. One of those Love The Sinner/Hate The Sin things.

Church numbers in Britain may be in decline, and the average age may be rising, but we are one section of the C of E church. It wouldn't surprise me if it was flourishing in parts of Africa and the Far East. In fact, it's quite possibly growing faster in the countries where religion is outlawed then countries with official faiths.

Cahnt, there's no official line on whether His Dark Materials are "good" or not (just like with Harry Potter...). I like them myself, Pullman's an ace writer. And I hope that the film... if they ever get around to making it... stays as true as it can. 'Tis another one of those grey areas; where you're free to make the choice for yourself.

You're right about the homosexuality thing. But I do reckon that it's important to note that all the references are to "practicing homosexuals" (or along those lines). Does this mean that being gay isn't a sin, but that gay sex is? I'm not certain on it, but that's my conclusion. One of those Love The Sinner/Hate The Sin things.

That's exactly what I think most Christian churches teach (I know Catholicism does, for sure). Unfortunately, so many individual ChristIANS extend it to the people.

The reason the Episcopol church took so much criticism from the overall Christian community (including several other Churches of England) was not because the ordained priest openly claimed to be homosexual. It was that he had no problem with an openly homosexual lifestyle; wasn't it something along the lines of "we are all sinners"? If so, then yes: we are all sinners. The solution is repentence from a behavior, not acceptance of it.

I think a lot of Anglican congregations recognize this.

Oh, and incidentally! Concerning the initial topic of this thread, I and my church agree. I'd almost forgotten to mention that.

Personally I think it is the most enlightened faction of christianity, and probably the one which is closet to Jesus' teachings, although i'm sure that I am in the minority there. So, what does everyone else think about the Church of England?

I remember an Alexei Sayle sketch which was slightly sacriligeous, and he followed it with the following announcement:-

"After the last sketch, the Church of England has issued it's own equivalent of a fatwa on Mr Sayle, calling on all vicars everywhere to pop round his house, have a nice cup of tea and a little chat. Mr Sayle has gone into hiding, and his Rich Tea biscuits are under police protection"

Whilst it was someone poking fun at them, i must say that as an atheist, i prefer that sort of religion, yeah.