The Archbishop of Canterbury addresses the General Synod

Archbishop Justin of Canterbury is a man of undoubted faith and of vision. His address to the General Synod needs to be read and considered by everyone who calls themselves Christian, and they need to be considered carefully. I am taking the liberty of posting it here in its entirety. My source is the Archbishop's own website.

Archbishop Justin's presidential address at General Synod

Archbishop Justin at York Synod today. (Picture: Keith Blundy | Aegies Associates)

Friday 5th July 2013

In his first presidential address to General Synod in York today, Archbishop Justin called on the Church to engage with sweeping economic, political, social and cultural changes and "be the answer that God provides". Read the full text below 

Before I begin I would like to thank all the staff at Lambeth and around the NCIs, and at Bishopthorpe and the Anglican Communion Office, who have been so effective and kind in dealing with the frightening and unsettling impact of a new Archbishop. Transitions are always very complex, and taking on a new Archbishop is as demanding as it gets. But there’s invariably been a warm welcome and extremely hard work, for which I am extremely grateful. Chief amongst those who have led the way through the process is Chris Smith, the Chief of Staff at Lambeth. After more than ten years of faithful service, working night and day and every weekend – he’s the biggest menace to my capacity to have a quiet evening in on a Saturday night because I get an email from him – after more than ten years of never stopping he is moving on to other things later this year. His contribution has been largely behind the scenes, but he has served the Church of England and the Anglican Communion – not only for a long time but with huge effect – and our debt to him is more than we can imagine. So on your behalf I would like to thank him.

As you know too from public announcements, Bishop Nigel Stock, Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, has with great generosity and considerable sacrifice, I’d imagine, agreed to become the Bishop at Lambeth, in a new configuration for the role, working alongside the new Chief of Staff. I could not be more grateful to have such a wise and experienced person, who will enable my many weaknesses to be compensated for more than adequately.

One of the things about this job is you tend to carry a lot of baggage – physical, metaphorical; probably more than I know. We arrived yesterday, the car having broken down en route – there’s a nasty metaphor there. But we did arrive – and we found ourselves with a ton of baggage to carry from one end of what seemed to be a much bigger campus than last year, to the other. And it reminded me – as I was staggering along with what seemed to be enough robes to rival Wippell’s – that we come to this session of Synod with a certain amount of baggage; and it’s good to find ways of getting rid of it. A friend of ours – of my wife and mine, from our days when we lived in Paris – worked for many years for an American company but living in Paris. We went to stay with them about six of seven years ago – he’s now ordained; there’s no connection – and he was still laughing about an experience at Kennedy airport the day before. It was a February and the weather in New York had been very bad, and he’d arrived and everyone was in a grump and the flights were late. And when he got one from the front of the check-in, the person in front of him was incredibly rude to the poor check-in operator. And John, our friend, is always gracious and polite, and when he got to the front he said, ‘I’m embarrassed to be a passenger when people treat you like that. I don’t know how you were so patient.’ And she said, ‘Well, sir. I shouldn’t really tell you this. There’s sort of bad news and good news. The bad news is he’s sitting next to you on the flight to New York. But the good news is I’ve sent his luggage to Tokyo.’

There are a number of obvious applications to that, one of which is we could do with some people like that at the beginning of a Synod session – for the baggage to go somewhere else.

You don’t want a lot of baggage in a revolution. And we live in a time of revolutions. And the trouble with revolutions is once they start no-one knows where they will go. Of the most serious type, the physical type, the practical type… Bishop Angaelos, Head of the Coptic Church in the UK, whom I met in Egypt last week, and who is sitting with us today, knows exactly about revolutions. While we were in Egypt, we heard much talk of what would happen this week – and we’ve seen. And the grace and leadership of Christians in that country is something to behold.  

But we live also in a time of many revolutions in this country. And as the Synod meets today, we are custodians of the gospel that transforms individuals, nations and societies. We are called by God to respond radically and imaginatively to new contexts – contexts that are set up by revolutions. I want to thank you, and to say what a privilege it is to share with you, in the ministry of shouldering the heavy burden of facing these changing contexts, and grappling with them in this Synod, now and over the years to come, and to thank you for your commitment in your work here you show to Jesus Christ and to His church. It is genuinely a privilege to be among you.

The revolutions are huge. The economic context and position of our country has changed, dramatically. With all parties committed to austerity for the foreseeable future, we have to recognise that the profound challenges of social need, food banks, credit injustice, gross differentiation of income – even in many areas of opportunity – pressure on all forms of state provision and spending: all these are here to stay. In and through the church we have the call and potentially the means to be the answer that God provides. As Pope Francis recalled so memorably, we are to be a poor church for the poor, however and wherever poverty is seen, materially or spiritually. That is a revolution. Being a poor church for the poor means both provision and also prophetic challenge in a country that is still able and has the resources to reduce inequality – especially inequality of opportunity and life expectancy. If you travel north from parts of Liverpool to Southport, you gain almost a year in life expectancy for every mile you travel. We are debating these questions in this Synod. But prophetic challenge needs reality as its foundation, or it is mere wishful thinking; and it needs provision as its companion, or it is merely shifting responsibility.

The social context is changing radically. There is a revolution. It may be, it was, that 59% of the population called themselves Christian at the last census, with 25% saying they had no faith. But the YouGov poll a couple of weeks back was the reverse, almost exactly, for those under 25. If we are not shaken by that, we are not listening.

The cultural and political ground is changing. There is a revolution. Anyone who listened, as I did, to much of the Same Sex Marriage Bill Second Reading Debate in the House of Lords could not fail to be struck by the overwhelming change of cultural hinterland. Predictable attitudes were no longer there. The opposition to the Bill, which included me and many other bishops, was utterly overwhelmed, with amongst the largest attendance in the House and participation in the debate, and majority, since 1945. There was noticeable hostility to the view of the churches. I am not proposing new policy, but what I felt then and feel now is that some of what was said by those supporting the bill was uncomfortably close to the bone. Lord Alli said that 97% of gay teenagers in this country report homophobic bullying. In the USA suicide as a result of such bullying is the principle cause of death of gay adolescents. One cannot sit and listen to that sort of reality without being appalled. We may or may not like it, but we must accept that there is a revolution in the area of sexuality, and we have not fully heard it.

The majority of the population rightly detests homophobic behaviour or anything that looks like it. And sometimes they look at us and see what they don’t like. I don’t like saying that. I’ve resisted that thought. But in that debate I heard it, and I could not walk away from it. We all know that it is utterly horrifying. to hear, as we did this week, of gay people executed in Iran for being gay, or equivalents elsewhere. With nearly a million children educated in our schools we not only must demonstrate a profound commitment to stamp out such stereotyping and bullying; but we must also take action. We are therefore developing a programme for use in our schools, taking the best advice we can find anywhere, that specifically targets such bullying. More than that, we need also to ensure that what we do and say in this Synod, as we debate these issues, demonstrates above all the lavish love of God to all of us, who are all without exception sinners. Again this requires radical and prophetic words which lavish gracious truth.

The three Quinquennial Goals of growing the church, contributing to the common good and reimagining ministry, are utterly suited to a time of revolution. They express confidence in the gospel. They force us to look afresh at all our structures, to reimagine ministry, whether it be the ministry of General Synod, or the parish church, or a great cathedral, or anything between all of those three. For that reimagination to be more than surface deep, we need a renewal of prayer and the Religious Life. That is the most essential emphasis in what I am hoping to do in my time in this role. And if you forget everything else I say, which you may well do – probably will do – please remember that. There has never been a renewal of church life in western Christianity without a renewal of prayer and Religious Communities, in some form or another, often different. It has been said that we can only imagine what is already in our minds as a possibility; and it is in prayer, individually and together, that God puts into our minds new possibilities of what the Church can be.

The Quinquennial Goals challenge our natural tendency to be inward looking, calling on us to serve the common good. That covers many areas, and between us all, not singly, we are able to face the challenge. May Synod rise to that. But the second of my personal emphases, within that goal, is reconciliation, within the church but most of all fulfilling our particular Anglican charism to be reconcilers in the world, in our communities, in families, even, dare I say it, amongst ourselves. Even if we do sometimes conduct our arguments at high volume and in public, to be reconcilers means enabling diversity to be lived out in love, resisting hatred of the other, demonisation of our opponents.  

The common good goes much further than that. Our unique presence across the country enables us to speak with authority both in parliament and here, and in every church and cathedral and synod and gathering place across the country. Our extraordinary presence across the world as Anglicans enables us to speak with intelligence from around the world. As Anglicans we are called to reconcile incredible differences of culture in over 150 countries. What an extraordinary heritage we have under God. So we seek to be renewed here and across the Communion, and to find the reconciling presence of God. This Synod meets in an era of revolution, but we have together the means and the courage to seize the opportunities that revolution brings.

The Quinquennial goals aim at spiritual and numerical growth in the church. That includes evangelism, the third of my emphases. The lead has been set by the Archbishop of York. Here again we need new imagination in evangelism through prayer, and a fierce determination not to let evangelism be squeezed off our agendas. At times I feel it’s rather like me when I have to write a difficult letter, or make an awkward phone call: even things like ironing my socks become more attractive. We treat evangelism too often in the same way. We will talk about anything, especially miscellaneous provisions measures after lunch on Sunday; and we struggle to fit in the call to be the good news in our times through Jesus Christ. The gospel of Jesus Christ is indeed THE good news for our times. God is always good news; we are the ones who make ourselves irrelevant when we are not good news. And when we are good news, God's people see growing churches.

Attitudes to hierarchy and authority have changed, and continue to change; there’s nothing new in that. And the more they do, the more we are perceived, often wrongly – but genuinely – to say one thing, about grace, community and inclusion, and do another.

And yet with all these revolutions, which raise such huge challenges to us in our lives as the Church, we see clearly that God is working a wonderful and marvelous revolution through the Church in the wind of the Spirit, blowing through our structures and ideas and imagination.
There is a new energy in ecumenism, not least shown by Pope Francis. There is a hunger for visible unity. Many churches across England are growing in depth and numbers. People are looking for answers in a time of hardship and when we show holy hospitality and the outflow of grace, we are full of people seeking us. There is every cause for hope. This Synod had a shock, depending on your view, good or bad, last November; but there is here assembled, in weakness or confidence, in all sorts of fear and lack of trust, people with the faith and wisdom who in grace will seek the way to the greater glory of God.

In some things we change course and recognise the new context. Revolutions change culture. In others we stand firm because truth is not set by culture, nor morals by fashion. But let us be clear, pretending that nothing has changed is absurd and impossible. In times of revolution we too in the church, in the Church of England, must have a revolution which enables us to live for the greater glory of God in the freedom which is the gift of Christ. We need not fear. The eternal God is our refuge and underneath are the everlasting arms.

There have been many times where the Church of England felt that change was in the air or this was a moment of crisis. Because we are not an organisation, let alone a business, or even an institution, but in reality the people of God gathered by the Holy Spirit to walk together in a way that leads to the greater glory of God, there are bound to be many crises and turning points.

So let us not imagine for one moment that because we are in revolutionary times what we are going through currently is either more dangerous, more difficult or more complicated than anything faced by the generations before us. We are in the hands of God; the eternal God is our refuge and underneath are the everlasting arms. We need not worry, but we must give all that we have and we are, for the uniquely great cause of the service of Jesus Christ.

So how we journey here is essential, and that is why during these next few days, certain things are being reimagined: not least what we do tomorrow. What is clear to all of us is that there exists, as we gather – and let’s be honest about it – a very significant absence of trust between different groups; and, it must be said – and the evidence of this is clear, though sad – an absence of trust towards the Bishops collectively.
One thing I am sure of is that trust is rebuilt and reconciliation happens when whatever we say, we do. For example, if, while doing what we believe is right for the full inclusion of women in the life of the church, we say that all are welcome whatever their views on that, all must be welcome in deed as well as in word. If we don’t mean it, please let us not say it. On the one hand there are horrendous accounts from women priests whose very humanity has sometimes seemed to be challenged. On the other side I recently heard a well-attested account of a meeting between a Diocesan Director of Ordinands and a candidate, who was told that if the DDO had known of the candidate’s views against the ordination of women earlier in the process he would never have been allowed to get as far as he did.

Both attitudes contradict the stated policy of the Church of England, of what we say, and are completely unacceptable. If the General Synod, if we decide, that we are not to be hospitable to some diversity of views, we need to say so bluntly and not mislead. If we say we will ordain women as priests and Bishops we must do so in exactly the same way as we ordain men. If we say that all are welcome even when they disagree, they must be welcome in spirit, in deed, as well as in word.

Lack of integrity and transparency poisons any hope of rebuilding trust, and rebuilding trust in the best of circumstances is going to be the work of years and even decades. There are no magic bullets.

So how we travel, and our capacity to differ without hating each other and to debate without dividing from each other, is crucial to the progress we make.

Integrity and transparency depend utterly on a corporate integrity and transparency before God, above all in our prayer and liturgy. I sometimes wonder if one of the drivers of our lack of trust is that we have lost from our experience and our expectation two of the great moods of liturgy: of lament and of celebration. The ability truly to lament, to rage at circumstances, at loss, at decline, at injustice, at our own sin or the problems we face, is one that enables us to find afresh the mercy and grace of God. Lament is a liturgical mood that builds our capacity to trust God in the face of change, and then we trust each other. Encountering the face of Jesus Christ in pain, grief or anger transforms us.

Equally the capacity to celebrate, to lift our hearts and voices in true and passionate praise and thanksgiving because the presence of God is known among, restores our perspective. Not only does it renew our faith and strengthen weary limbs in the long journey we are undertaking, but also the act of celebrating that which we share together cuts across our great barriers and difficulties. We celebrate because who can not be overwhelmed by the love of God?

Take for example the two Anglican Dioceses I saw a week ago in the Middle East, in Jerusalem and in Egypt. In the midst of terrible and confused situations, with unspeakable human suffering, tension and fear, they shine with brilliant light. And they are part of us. In each of them there is a profound commitment to the common good of the populations in which they live as a minority – populations of whatever faith and ethnicity. In each of them there are more schools, hospitals and clinics than there are churches. In each of them the Bishops have established confident and effective relationships with other churches, with Muslim leaders and with governments that enable them to speak frankly and truly and with great courage. And we need to remember that as what they do there affects us, lifts our hearts, shows us the grace and glory and power of God, even more so what we do here affects them and every other church in the Anglican Communion. We have great responsibilities.

We should do no less, be no less effective, no less bold than our brothers and sisters in Christ in those Dioceses; in Nigeria, in Pakistan, in places of persecution and suffering, of revolution, change and disruption. The eternal God is our refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.

Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your people and kindle in them the fire of your love. AMEN.

- See more at: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5098/archbishop-justins-presidential-address-at-general-synod#sthash.6XEDB9pl.dpuf

Confrontation on the Nile

Egypt seems to be very rapidly descending into an open war between the forces of ultra-conservative Islam and those who want a modern, more open society. The rhetoric of the Muslim Brotherhood and their increasingly inane accusations - one claim is that the interim President is actually a Jew - has drawn battle lines in the sand. As more than one commentator has noted, they simply fail to grasp the fact that democracy is far more than just holding elections. That is what the Muslim Brotherhood has failed to understand. To them, winning the election meant they could ignore all other voices and impose their agenda without restraint.

What is disturbing is the fact their leaders are now urging open warfare against Christians, the army and all those who oppose them. In Northern Sinai the army has declared a 'terrorist war' with insurgents armed by Libya and supported from Gaza's Hamas, and now the rest of the country seems to be being sucked in as well.

It is worrying that Morsi's supporters are already trumpeting that it is the Christians (about 10% of the Egyptian population) who are behind the ousting of their man in the palace. It is only a matter of time before they commit some atrocity in the name of Islam against the Coptic Christian community. Following the events of yesterday, it will be sooner rather than later as well. I was surprised to see that Al Jazeera, which I have long regarded as one of the saner news reporters in this troubled region, reporting the claim by one of the Muslim Brotherhood's spokesmen, that the interim President was a Jew on the basis that he had joined the Seventh Day Adventist Church, sought baptism from the Coptic Pope (which was apparently refused) and that this all made him a "Jew". As an example of the twisted and convoluted "logic" of these folk it would be hard to beat.

If western government's are wise, they will stay out of this conflict and allow the Egyptians to work it out for themselves. It will be difficult to do so, because of the impact a civil war will inevitably have on the Suez Canal and shipping, on the neighbouring states and the likelihood of a massive "insurgency" from Al Qaeda and all the other fundamentalist terrorist organisation operating in the Middle East. I suspect that this is going to be far more than just a struggle for political control, this is a struggle initiated by a significant section of the population of Egypt - representing large slices of similar people in all the other Muslim nations - for control of their lives and their freedom of choice. This is a war against the rule of the narrow interpretation of the Quran as the arbiter of every aspect of their lives - in much the same way the "Glorious Revolution" in Britain was a rebellion against the Theist domination of Parliament by the Puritans and Presbyters of Cromwell's twisted Christianity.

I suspect the Egyptian rebellion against the rule of the religious fundamentalists and their Mullahs is just the tip of a very large iceberg. I hope and pray the forces of moderation and inclusion can succeed, but I suspect there will be a lot of blood spilled before there is a settlement. In the meantime we can do little more than watch and pray for those caught between the factions.

When is Democracy not Democratic?

Egypt's 84 million people are causing a lot of hand-wringing in western political circles. The military ousting of the Muslim Brotherhood's President Mursi (or Morsi ...) has many western government's more or less trying to avoid being "hoist on their own petard" and desperately trying to work out how to respond. Probably not a good place to be either way. Even the Egyptians can't seem to decide, some think it worth celebrating the ousting and the crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, and others feel the military have damaged the democracy Mursi represented. It does seem to depend on whether you are an educated urban dweller from the Middle Classes, or a worker from the poorer or more rural areas, a 'liberal' or a 'traditionalist'.

As ever the situation is a complex one, far more complex than most news media or politicians admit. For one thing almost all major businesses are owned, managed or controlled by ex-military. The Muslim Brotherhood wants a nation subjected to Sharia Law and piety, with the religious scholars having more say in the law, the administration of justice and a scrapping of the peace treaty with Israel. A large portion of the population want more freedom of personal choice, speech and activity. The military want stability, and preferably no involvement in any "adventures" of conquest against their neighbour. Mursi, a civil engineer from a farming family in the Delta, seems to have fallen into the trap all those thrust unwillingly into positions of power get caught in - he mistook having won an election with a mandate for absolute power. The right to do as he saw fit without taking account of what the significant portion of the electorate who did NOT vote for him wanted and thought.

So he pushed ahead with the imposition of a Constitution written by his Muslim Brotherhood chums who removed the hard earned rights of significant groups and made provision for the imposition of Sharia Law. He ignored the Judiciary, and began issuing Presidential Decrees, removing the right of challenge from the courts to to any of his decisions. The Parliament, dominated by his Muslim Brotherhood, began pushing legislation that further endangered and disadvantaged the rights the people who sparked the anti-Mubarak uprising had fought for. Then he made the mistake of ignoring the legitimate objections of the crowds gathering in Tahrir Square to make their feelings known. It has certainly been inflamed by thugs from the Muslim Brotherhood roaming the streets and enforcing the wearing of headscarves by women, making demands from small businessmen and even beating up those who objected. This was not the "democracy" the people had ousted Mubarak to gain, nor was it the enlightened democracy the West thought would emerge.

To cap it all, the economy has all but collapsed thanks to the incompetence of Mursi's ministers. So the military removed him, and now we have the spectacle of the former Chief Justice as Acting President and the prospect of new elections. Plus, we have the Muslim Brotherhood diving for cover as the angry crowds burn their offices and centres and the military arrest their leaders.

Western leaders face a difficult choice here. The Muslim Brotherhood is a very well organised movement, but it is also very anti-western and fundamentalist. Yes, it won the last elections, largely, it appears, because it was better organised than anyone else, not because it was more popular. Its TV station has broadcast a stream of anti-Jewish, and anti-Christian hate material with impunity. That has undoubtedly incited a number of attacks on Christian families, businesses and churches. Several prominent Jews have been murdered and their deaths linked to blatant anti-Jew and anti-Israel propaganda from the Muslim Brotherhood's broadcasts. Is this really what we, in the west, would call a "democratic" movement or government? Probably not, but now comes the crunch, a military "putsch" isn't really anything to celebrate either.

So who should we support? In my view we should keep our noses out. This is a matter for the Egyptians themselves to resolve, not western governments, the UNO, NATO or the western media. We have to accept that their concept of government is not the same as ours, and that they are better placed to understand the problems and tensions within their own society than any outsider can ever be. This calls for a pragmatic approach, less rhetoric and a lot of diplomacy. Only the Egyptians can find the way to go forward and achieve the democracy they want and can live with.

Spring turns to Winter - or a new Spring?

Events in Egypt over the last few days are raising more than a few questions for the liberal western media and politicians who, only a year or so ago, where rejoicing at the overthrow of all the "Arab" dictators in North Africa. Apart from the fact that very few were "Arab", the outcome in most was not at all what they expected, in fact most were replaced by Islamic fundamentalists who, unsurpirisingly, had the support of the large rural populations of these nations. Now the first of those has been overthrown despite being democratically elected. President Mursi's policies of adopting increasinglz fundamentalist ideals and policies, his mishandling of the economy and his ignoring the wishes and desires of the large urban middle classes, has finally brought him down.

The military have imposed an "coalition" government and announced new elections. Who will win these is now an open question, since the Muslim Brotherhood enjoy huge support among the less educated rural populations and among the large student population of certain universities. It often amazes me how little our western media actually understand of the cultures, thinking and heritage of anything outside of the European/US environment. The idea that everyone is the same, therefore all cultures, all people and all nations share the same ideals, desires and religio/political aspirations  seems to dominate. There is often no attempt to see another culture from that people's point of view, much less to even begin to understand it.

There is a complete failure to understand the impact on "democracy" of the lack of education and the stress on religious issues in the Middle East. I have been astonished at the complete absence of any acknowledgement of the fact that there are large Christian populations in all these countries living under extremely difficult conditions, and often the victims of targeted and even genocidal persecution. It is reported that ten percent of Egypt's population is Christian, and the Muslim Brotherhood and the ex-President certainly didn't endear themselves to them. For the Middle Classes, the Christians and other minorities, Spring went direct to Winter in Egypt, with almost daily reports of Muslim Brotherhood thugs strutting about and imposing punishments, dictats and their wishes on ordinary people without restraint. Has the tide turned sufficiently to ensure a more 'liberal' candidate wins this time round?

I have my doubts, but I don't think the Summer has yet dawned. It may yet prove to be a very stormy Spring before the Summer finally arrives. In the meantime it is fascinatig and not a little disturbing to watch the handwringing of the media, and the writhing of the politicians as they dither about who to support and how to talk their way out of the trap their ignorance of any other culture and ideology than their own has dumped them in.

The Crisis In Politics

According to a news letter I subscribe to, the latest Opinion Poll on political beliefs among the voting public in four of Europe's major nations, the UK, France, Germany and Sweden, shows that what is referred to as the Centre-Left is losing ground rapidly. The reason for this is that people no longer believe the Centre-Left Parties are any more caring, compassionate or any more likely to solve the social problems than anyone else. Significantly, in all countries, the Centre-Left are seen as the least competent to manage the economy, and they are no longer seen as representing the interests of the wider population.

The survey looked at a wide range of things, and some differences in response emerged according to age group and social status, but the trend is, generally, downward in all groups for the Centre-Left. The biggest fall in confidence toward this ideological position is in Germany, with Britain a close second and Sweden third. Even in France, the only one of the four currently governed by a socialist party, the majority of those polled feel that they are over taxed for what they receive in services or benefits, and that government is too large. In all countries there is a strong trend of opinion that governments are inefficient in the way benefits, pensions and health care is provided. A majority of those polled felt they wanted lower taxes, and smaller, more efficient governments, neither of which are hallmarks of the Centre-Left.

In Germany, the poll revealed that the Social Democratic Party (Germany's oldest political party, founded in the 1850s on socialist principles as expounded by Marx et al, is losing ground, though it remains the second largest party in the Bundestag and holds a number of key Landestags and Mayoraltys. If the poll results are accurate, there is a strong chance the Party will not achieve the required majority it needs to form the next government here. There is an added element in Germany, since the Christian Democratic Union (and its sister Party in Bavaria, the CSU) are the only Centre-Right parties, the SDP, the Green/Bundes 90 and Die Linke are Centre-Left, Left or Far Left! I would place the FDP, currently the partners of the CDU/CSU in government as 'centre' (officially they are Liberal) and as for the National Socialist Party (Yup, they're still around, despite a strong desire on the part of almost everyone to outlaw them) the less said the better. There is, however, a new Joker in play. There is a recently founded, and as yet untried, Party which is the German equivalent of Britain's UKIP. They want the same agenda as the current UK government, renegotiation of the EU and national sovereignty, vetoes for the states that are net contributors and less interference from Brussels. There stance is that the Euro must go, national sovereignty must be respected, and EU Commissioners should be elected directly by the people, not the by the relevant 'Ministers' acting as 'electors' on behalf of the electorate.

In its present form the EU is very much a reflection of the centre-left thinking of the 1950s. The idea being that the "State" should be the driving and controlling force behind solving social issues, employment problems and almost everything else. The truth is that it has failed, simply because it is far too inefficient. There are too many duplications, far too many overlaps between Brussels, National Bureaucracies, and even down to Regional and Local Government. The mechanisms of government have taken on a life of their own, and become entirely self sustaining. Ironically, as they have expanded and grown, they have also become less and less efficient at delivering what they were set up to do.

If this poll truly represents the public perception, then, as the commentator suggest, the Centre-Left will have to accept that it is no longer the 'campion of the underdog' and find a new way to win votes. All Parties will have to become far more responses to real people and real issues rather than their current modus of listening only to the loudest lobby groups and the self-interests of the civil servants who inform them. They will also have to become far more visionary in their planning and thinking - as the poll discloses, few, if any, political parties think beyond a single term of office.

Overall the Poll shows why there is such a large loss of confidence in the political system in Europe and the West. Let us hope that somewhere, is a leader capable of taking this on board, and bold enough to act on it. Otherwise, we in Europe could soon be looking at the sort of upheaval currently visible in the Middle East.

Someone had to say it, and who better ...

There are times when you read something that simply resonates through you, and an article in The Spectator today does just that for me. Entitled "Chief Rabbi: Atheism has failed", I find myself nodding at almost every well considered sentence. A trawl through the many comments, most by those who claim to be atheists, shows the reasons why. They simply cannot get past their concept that 'religion is responsible for all the problems.' One even tries to claim that pre-Christian Europe had a better sense of morality, and another that Sweden having the highest rape count in the world is because their 'secular' society 'enables' the victims to report it.

In fact the level of commentary and opinion in the comments alone underscores exactly what the Chief Rabbi says -

A significant area of intellectual discourse — the human condition sub specie aeternitatis — has been dumbed down to the level of a school debating society. Does it matter? Should we not simply accept that just as there are some people who are tone deaf and others who have no sense of humour, so there are some who simply do not understand what is going on in the Book of Psalms, who lack a sense of transcendence or the miracle of being, who fail to understand what it might be to see human life as a drama of love and forgiveness or be moved to pray in penitence or thanksgiving? Some people get religion; others don’t. Why not leave it at that?

Ironically, those making these comments all consider themselves to be intellectually superior to anyone of faith. Once again, the Chief Rabbi says it far better than I can in his observation -

Richard Dawkins, whom I respect, partly understands this. He has said often that Darwinism is a science, not an ethic. Turn natural selection into a code of conduct and you get disaster. But if asked where we get our morality from, if not from science or religion, the new atheists start to stammer. They tend to argue that ethics is obvious, which it isn’t, or natural, which it manifestly isn’t either, and end up vaguely hinting that this isn’t their problem. Let someone else worry about it. 

That is the key. Don't worry about morality, it's someone else's problem. That is how Sweden has got where it is, with soaring rape statistics, major problems with immigrants not integrating, a loss of moral compass in many areas of public life. We should take note of his observation that humanity has been here before. In Ancient Greece in its decline and in First Century Rome as it started to slide. Epicurius of Greece and Lucretius of Rome were, in there day, the 'Atheists' and Secularists of our time. Ironic then that the Rabbi can quote Bertrand Russell to make his point -

These were two great civilisations on the brink of decline. Having lost their faith, they were no match for what Bertrand Russell calls ‘nations less civilised than themselves but not so destitute of social cohesion’. The barbarians win. They always do.

As we are learning, the barbarians are at the door, in fact they are among us, but exactly how do we fix it? The Chief Rabbi is right when he says the 'religious fundamentalists' of all faiths and none are the chief threat within, but there are others waiting without. It now becomes a question of whether we can - or wish to - pull back from the brink.

OK, I had to smile at this report ...

I'll admit it was an ironic smile, but still, it struck me as rather funny behaviour in a group that declares they don't believe in God, religion, or any form of Higher Power. Say what? Yes, the report in the Huffington Post says that a lot of Atheists pray. Under the title of "Atheist Prayer. Religious Activity Not Uncommon Among Non-Believers" the Huff Post reports on the interesting fact that many who claim to be atheists still resort to some forms of religious activity.

According to a survey reported in the Washington Post there are some 46 million people in the US (total population 349 million) who do not have any religious affiliation. This includes some 13 million who identify themselves as Atheists or Agnostics. According to the report a significant minority of those calling themselves Atheists 'pray' regularly, and the percentage is higher among Agnostics. It probably bears out my late grandfather's assertion from the First World War (he was seriously wounded on the first day of the Somme offensive and served the rest of the War in the Royal Garrison Artillery in various offensives along the Western Front) that "there are no Atheists in a shell hole or among the dying in the trenches."

It does smack of G K Chesterton's statement that the absence of faith does not mean an absence of belief. He added "it simply means they will believe in anything".

I confess that this report made me think of the retort made by an elderly priest I knew when he was confronted in a pub we had all resorted to after Evensong. The inebriated gentleman approached and loudly proclaimed himself an Atheist, saying, "I don't believe in any of this God nonsense - you lot are no better than anyone else." Our priest smiled sweetly offered the man a seat and replied, "You know, it's a funny thing, you're right about us, but, while you don't believe in God, He believes in you."

I think all of us go through periods when we look at what science is telling us and have our doubts about God. The thing is that when you look at what science can't explain, like how all the billions of atoms that make up the individual cells in our bodies take one form in us, another in other forms of life and even more miraculously actually manage to hold a shape and form, you have to ask some other questions. As the line from a show I recall from the 1970s on the Cosmos said, we are all made up of the dust of the stars. Fine, I don't have a problem with that, I know it to be true, because, under a microscope and in a laboratory with the right bits of kit, it can be demonstrated that my flesh and bone and even the liquid bits of me (around 80%) is composed of 'star dust'. And yes, we can say we believe it all holds together because of electronic and gravitational attractions between the atoms.

What we can't say is why one lump of 'star dust' is alive, and another inanimate.

As to the praying Atheists, I don't actually think God minds what the say they believe. He knows what they really do believe deep down, and when it suits Him, they'll probably get a surprise of the more pleasant kind. Keep praying people - it's good for you even if you aren't sure what or who is listening.