Saturday, 21 February 2015


Rose Hudson-Wilkin Christian Today What Christians get wrong about Politics

Angus Ritchie Huffington Post What Do the Bishops Know About Politics? More Than You’d Think…

Eliza Filby Church Times The Church, the ballot-box, and Mrs Thatcher

Economist Gender, violence and religion: When north and south agree

Linda Woodhead Theos What is the future for religion in Britain?

Giles Fraser The Guardian Give me hypocrites over cynics any time. At least they aspire to something

Antonia Blumberg Huffington Post Christians Celebrate Ash Wednesday Around The World [Photos From Around The World]

Posted by Peter Owen on Saturday, 21 February 2015 at 11:00am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Opinion

Thanks for photos of Lent around the world. This is a time for reflection and, for me, reading the Psalms.

Posted by: Pam on Saturday, 21 February 2015 at 9:04pm GMT

Could those responsible for posting what Rose Hudson-Wilkin has written explain why they have done so? I don't really understand fully what she is saying, nor the way in which she expresses herself - to me it is barely literate. The point seems to be that we should be concerned about the totality of people's lives because God is.
Could somebody please explain the 3rd paragraph - I have read and re-read it and can't understand what the point is? Also in the 4th paragraph, what is a set of political ideology?
This looks incredibly muddled to me, and I'm really confused about what the point is, and what Rose Hudson-Wilkins insights are.

Posted by: Neil on Saturday, 21 February 2015 at 11:58pm GMT

Neil, Rose Hudson-Wilkins thoughtful piece clearly springs from a warm heart - what more could you ask for? She is not a 'revd doctor' and frankly, all the better for it.

Posted by: jill Armstead on Sunday, 22 February 2015 at 7:20pm GMT

While services for Ash Wednesday are on topic: I spotted this morning a nuance that I haven't noticed in liturgy before: in the BCP, the Collect for Ash Wednesday is addressed to the Trinity as a whole; whereas the Collect for Quinquagesima is addressed specifically to the Father; and the Collect for the first Sunday in Lent is addressed specifically to the Son. It got my attention initially because of the beauty of the language used to deliver these points, but it also leaves an interesting issue to explore: are there particular types of prayer that are most appropriately addressed to particular members of the Trinity?

Posted by: Feria on Sunday, 22 February 2015 at 8:32pm GMT

Regarding the enquiry from 'feria' regarding the practice of address members of the trinity separately; there are many examples around, e.g.:

"Our Father......" (at the direction of Jesus)
"Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God...."
"Come, Holy Spirit....." in the Ordinal.

If God really is Trinity as well as One; then surely, one is not neglecting the other Persons when one addresses Father, Son, or Holy Spirit?

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Sunday, 22 February 2015 at 11:41pm GMT

Jill, Neil is making a point about clarity. You don't need to be a Revd Dr to be able to write. Rose's piece is either terribly written or terribly edited. Either way it is a poor piece not because it is not at all clear in several places.

Posted by: gareth on Monday, 23 February 2015 at 8:47am GMT

I suspect that Rose Hudson-Wilkin wrote it in a hurry and it was not edited with sufficient care. At the risk of sounding pedantic, I do not think copy-editing and fact-checking are always valued enough these days.

Posted by: Savi Hensman on Monday, 23 February 2015 at 12:27pm GMT

Gareth - I had no difficulty understanding it - I might not agree with her philosophy - she has been very rude about traditional Catholics for example - but I would not dream of criticising the quality and style of her writing - unkind and unnecessary in the circumstances.

Posted by: Jill Armstead on Monday, 23 February 2015 at 12:30pm GMT

Jill - could you please then explain the point in her third paragraph, and perhaps summarise what her insights are? I still don't 'get' what Rose H-W is trying to say - and guess it must be something, given she is writing about what Christians get wrong about politics. She is in a unique position in her job, and I would be interested to hear what you think is being said. I've read the piece yet again, and looked up the OT story, but am still really none the wiser. Given how unclear and muddled the contribution appears to be, I also asked why such a weak piece was posted here in the first place.

Posted by: Neil on Monday, 23 February 2015 at 5:27pm GMT

Jill, I agree with you. And here we have yet another situation where two people in one sense at the opposite ends of the spectrum agree on something important. And in that agreement - and disagreement - we find something essential - and admirable - about the Church of England.

Posted by: John on Monday, 23 February 2015 at 8:51pm GMT

I agree that the piece of R H-W is quite unintelligible. She may be a good person, a good priest and whatever else, but this is a piece of poorly written muddled thinking. It feels as the piece is building up to a point that is never made. Even after ignoring the poor grammar (something I find difficult to do) I can see nothing but strings of words, some of which are made into sentences.

Posted by: Disgraceful on Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 4:42am GMT

Dorothy L. Sayers wrote that Christian work is work well done. If, as Christians, we are preparing a piece for publication, it behoves us, to the best of our ability, to see that it is clear and accurate. Perhaps, in the present discussion, we are being reminded that in our day one form of Christian asceticism may be pausing to reflect before rushing into print?

Posted by: Barry on Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 10:17am GMT

To answer Neil's question, I chose the piece by Rose Hudson-Wilkin because I thought it might be of interest to readers. It looks as if that was true for some (but not all) of you. What more can one ask for?

Posted by: Peter Owen on Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 2:09pm GMT

I find it difficult to ignore the rude, patronising, and downright distasteful comments made on this thread concerning the article by Rose Hudson-Wilkin.

If these people are 'Thinking Anglicans' then I think I'm due a period of blissful ignorance.

Posted by: Stephen Morgan on Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 6:55pm GMT

I for one found Rose Hudson-Wilkin's article thought-provoking, warm-hearted and wise.

Posted by: John Bunyan on Wednesday, 25 February 2015 at 4:19am GMT

Having read Rose H-W's article, I'd say that it looks like a condensed version of a fuller argument that has been hastily reduced to 'main-points'. Sadly this kind of thing makes its way into print quite often, as intelligent and capable writers meet the implacable limitations of space. If Rose's article flows badly and is lacking in detail we might hope that her address at the Temple Church will provide opportunity for elaboration.

Posted by: rjb on Friday, 27 February 2015 at 7:16am GMT

"What do bishops know about politics?"
So, was Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott misguided when he broke off from his preparations to produce a new standard edition of the New Testament in Greek in order to interfere in the coal strike of 1892 bringing about reconciliation between the striking miners and the pit owners?

Posted by: Father David on Friday, 6 March 2015 at 5:35am GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.