Jonathan Chaplin is always scrupulously fair in what he writes. He has led me to re-examine my own comments and assumptions at times. He right to challenge Ray Gaston’s use of the FAOC report, ‘God’s unfailing Word’, as if it defines (unfailingly?) Christians-Jewish relations and never needs re-examining in the light of history. Firstly, though an important document, the report (with its puzzling title) was a teaching resource, never voted on by Synod but commended for study in the wider church. There is an unfortunate tendency for such resources to take on the status and authority of doctrine. ‘Issues in… Read more »
For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not claiming infallibility for GUF, or indeed any official status or authority for that document.
Similarly, the views of Chaplin, Swan Clark or Gaston hold no automatic imprimatur IMO.
But the sharp divergences between them concerning the shortcomings and/or strengths of Kairos II do seem worthy of consideration.
Hearing the voices of Christians in the Holy Land can be done alongside hearing the voices of those, like the Chief Rabbi, who find some of their utterances problematical.
The Chief Rabbi’s voice is one, but there are many Jewish people in Britain who find the Chief Rabbi’s voice to be equally problematical. For example Michael Rosen pointed out the Chief Rabbi’s use of the phrase “our heroic soldiers” about the Israeli Defence Force.
There are many Jewish people in Britain who would agree with the tenor of the Kairos document. This is Michael Rosen’s poem about the problematical issue in the UK of focussing on Jewish pain whilst looking away from Gaza.
Perhaps the Chief Rabbi thinks that the IDF are heroic because if they did suffer the fate which some people call for ‘death, death…’, then so would Israel itself? Bluntly, I’m not sure that this debate is rational. If you’re given primarily to sympathising with Palestinian suffering, then Israel’s actions will always be presentable as despicable, and as the sole or main cause of that suffering, to which Palestinians surely don’t contribute themselves. If your instinctive empathy is with a Jewish nation under existential threat from would-be destroyers, there will always be intellectual ways to (largely) put the blame for… Read more »
It would be a bad reason for thinking that success in defending one’s own side against mortal threats made everything one did, regardless of methods and casualties, honourable or heroic. Moreover, for a British person to refer to the armed forces of another country as ‘ours’ also raises significant questions. It’s true that the debate often takes place on the basis of somewhat different moral presumptions. But it is not beyond the power of reason to examine these presumptions and assess them. If one says ‘a situation that inflicts so much suffering on non-combatant Palestinians cannot be right’ or ‘it… Read more »
Open mind, I agree that this question can be seen as a possibly irreconcilable conflict, but not in the same that you do. You seem to present it as a conflict between supporters of Israel and Gaza, both equally influenced by “irrational” ties to faith and family. That may be a valid position, but frames it as an irreconcilable “one side as bad as the other” debate. But I would prefer to see it as a conflict between such religious, faith and family views on the one hand, and hard empirical data and direct human experience on the other. Such… Read more »
They are indeed, though factual reports can well be influenced by the reporters’ wider views.
Contemplating the reports and the evidence what conclusions do you reach?
Taking a wider and longer term view of the evidence, that we deceive ourselves if we think this is anything other than a brutal expression of European colonialism, and that since about 1917 European powers, led first by Britain and then the US, have supported the forced dispossession of a people’s land and homes, in order to advance the strategic, financial and religious interests of European powers Much of the religious stuff is only a helpful cover for the politicians and strategists The UK and US wanted to create Israel for their strategic needs as a sort of advance base… Read more »
The situation after Oct 7 was a new and intensified phase of an existing and already horrible conflict, in whose face GUF seemed already quite bland. I thought that it argued that Israel’s position, if extended indefinitely, was or would be ‘morally indefensible’ but also that Israel was entitled to ‘secure possession’ of what it currently has. I thought at the time that this idea – of security in possession of a morally indefensible position – was paradox. Perhaps I missed some important and convincing distinction between the pre- and post-67 territories. Or perhaps the current events would make the… Read more »
An interesting comparison may be made with Reinhold Niebuhr, very influential Christian and more a supporter of Israel than ever as the story of Palestinian suffering unfolded
Malcolm Dixon
21 days ago
This comment is not directly relevant to any of the items linked in this thread, but it has some links to the issues of trust referred to by Fergus Butler-Gallie. I have been very surprised not yet to have seen any reference in these pages to the recent audit by INEQE of Safeguarding in the CofE Dioceses and Cathedrals, reported in the current issue of the Church Times (p4 Progress being resisted at high level – INEQE), which I found to be simultaneously deeply shocking and not even slightly surprising. INEQE have, in my opinion, given the CofE an easy… Read more »
Malcolm thank- you for raising this.I’m not a paying up member of the Church Times and as far as I can see none of the ordinary newspapers have picked it up – or they just think it’s same old same old and so not news. I hope the Charity Commission and a few MPs are looking. In any other organisation an urgent enquiry would be under way now
Come on Dame Sarah …..
Thank you, Susanna, for your support. As you will have seen, Simon has now opened a new thread on this issue. In Dame Sarah’s defence, she was not in office as ABC during the period to which this report refers. But she is now and needs to act!. In my view, this issue is more important, and certainly more urgent, than making a trip to Ghana in connection with slavery reparations. I do hope that she is not going to make the same mistake as her predecessor, of spending far too much time chasing after Anglican Communion issues and not… Read more »
Thank you for the link to Jonathan Chaplin’s article, and (via his) to Ray Gaston’s. I’m with Chaplin on this one, but it was good to see some of the concerns laid out carefully on both sides. (Not sure how well an issue like this which needs nuance and careful attention to language will play out on social media, but we can but hope…)
Last edited 21 days ago by Charles Clapham
Dr John Wallace
21 days ago
I agree with Fr Fergus. The church needs faithful leadership not management consultants (and I was one in my working life, focussing on HR issues in local government). We need bishops who are pastoral, theologically literate and can teach the faith. Archdeacons might do the consultancy but, supported by well-qualified diocesan officers with the aim of making the witness of the church more effective, especially in hard to-reach (inner-city and very rural) places. Sadly, the lure of pastoral reorganisation in the name of efficency, seduces many. We are supposed to be ‘in every place’ as a witness. Let’s do this… Read more »
Fr Fergus could also have mentioned how top heavy the CofE has become; more senior clergy than at any other time in our history but with far fewer clergy. The ‘crisis’ in vocations and the demographic time bomb that is an ageing body of clergy moving inexorably towards retirement, means the bishops can’t afford to put their hands over their ears anymore. No wonder the clergy are so disillusioned and vocations are drying up. The York diocese in which I hold a PtO at its clergy conference last weekend invited onto the platform Bishops Duff and Race who have repeatedly… Read more »
Bob
21 days ago
Surely Colin Coward is simply stating the objective that has been behind the LLF process all along. Just needs a two thirds majority in each of the three houses of General Synod.
Bob, the ultimate objective hasn’t changed. A two thirds majority in each house would be required when such a motion comes to Synod. What has changed for me is my awareness that the House of Bishops is simply employing delaying tactics to maintain control of the process under pressure from extremely well organised and potent conservative lobbying. It’s time we got organised to bring pressure to bear on the House of Bishops. If they change, it will be much easier to achieve two thirds majorities in the Houses of Laity and Clergy. The bishops cannot be trusted to achieve the… Read more »
Maybe it was a simple SNAFU. Maybe it was manipulated to appear like a SNAFU.
We don’t know.
After careful thought, and had I had a vote (which I never never will ) I would have abstained for the given motion, merely because I hate garbled incompetence. i would have voted for a half competent motion.
It happens too often to be SNAFU. Together for the Church of England do it avoid any discussion about theology.
Openmind
21 days ago
‘Eleven bishops voted in favour of the motion as amended in the course of the debate. Fourteen bishops voted against, four abstained. The Houses of Clergy and Laity both voted in favour of the amended motion with clear majorities. When the bishops voted on the amendment earlier in the debate, twelve voted in favour, eight voted against, and eight abstained. Why did they change their mind?’ asks Colin Coward. As noted elsewhere, this is a misunderstanding. To vote in favour of the ADOPTION of an amendment is simply to support the idea that THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD DEBATE. To… Read more »
Fr John Caperon
21 days ago
One can feel the frustration and pain in Fergus Butler-Gallie’s piece, and it’s doubtless shared by many in parish ministry or chaplaincy. And yes, as Dr John Wallace comments, ‘We need bishops who are pastoral, theologically literate and can teach the faith.’ Since I first met a bishop as a child in a C of E primary school, the image of the pastoral staff has seemed most important to me: bishops care, protect, lead. If I reflect on bishops I have known since being active in ministry, some stand out. Retired bishop Kenneth Cragg, the soul of care and humility;… Read more »
Realist
21 days ago
I yawned wearily at much of Fergus Butler-Gallie’s article – the same old false dichotomy between management and mission. The actual fault line has long moved on from that dichotomy, in my view, and like others I have a lifetime of professional experience in both, inside and outside the Church. The fault line lies in the central understandings of both being inadequate and so long out of date as to be embarrassing. A cursory look at the cutting edge in organisational studies or missiology would show anyone that. So we have a centre in the form of many national and… Read more »
The main point made in the report about trust in the C of E is that no one is really accountable for anything and young priests have little experience or competence of what it takes to lead a successful organisation. Managerialism tries at least to impose some discipline towards a common goal and Justin Welby had some limited success in investing in projects that are sustainable in the long term. But while memories of Christendom and a vibrant Parish system remain it will take a generational change and a ‘new wine skin’ to contain the quiet revival currently taking place.… Read more »
Realist
21 days ago
Where I do agree with Fergus is in his view of the new Report. Again, though, the fault line is in the Church being neither one thing nor the other – it has stopped knowing what it is and what it is for. If it had to run as a business, then senior operational leaders would be held to account – by shareholders, the Board, Trustees or whatever. Now we can all pretend things like General Synod, Diocesan Synods, Bishops Councils do those things. But the level of deference in all but the few precious examples (think Winchester) and the… Read more »
I have had a secular career, and of course there are many issues within secular organisations. But one distinguishing factor is between those who focus on the customer and those who do not. Who is the customer, what do they want, how can we help them. in private industry (where I have worked all my life) without a customer there is no revenue and the company collapses. In some organisations, divisonal managers seem to be more concerned with success as measured by the size of their staff rather than the satisfaction of their customers. They will eventually fail. So my… Read more »
Martin Hughes
21 days ago
I would define Zionism as the belief that people who are Jewish, and they only, have an inherent right – birthright – to a share of sovereignty over the Holy Land, others only by the grace and generosity of the true heirs’. Would that be acceptable usage to colleagues here? I think that those words reasonably capture the ideas that have been put into effect since the Zionist Congress of 1905 laid its claims to the Land. That said, I suppose we must continue to use the word since we are confronted with the corresponding practice and opposition thereto. But… Read more »
Do read Jason Swan Clark’s article signposted above. Unnuanced rhetoric about what ‘Zionism’ is – frequently employed by people convinced that it is a straightforwardly ‘bad thing’ – may likely be a key part of the intractability of this argument.
i should have asked whether you think that the definition I suggest should be modified in the light of any of JSC’s remarks.
We are all free to define terms as we like, definitions not being riight or wrong but clear or unclear. It’s often fine to work with a definition that someone else has provided
Jonathan Jamal
20 days ago
When the Kairos document was being discussed in General Synod, one of the respondents in the discussion of the document the Revd Dr Ian Paul described the State of Israel as the only “Democracy” In the Region. You may all be well to log into Piers Morgan interviewing two former Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak. Ehud Olmert is quite as is Ehud Barak that Netanyahu and his Government have departed from the Rule of Law, especially recently in departing from a Supreme Court decision of the Israeli Court by deciding to ignore it and Mr Olmert is… Read more »
Will Olmert and Barak end up hung from a tree, or with a bullet in the back of the head for what they have said against the current regime? Elsewhere that would be normal.
At least there will be elections in October – let’s seen what does happen afterwards rather than crediting speculation ahead of time.
Are you seriously saying that there is no essential difference between the polity prevailing in Israel, and those of the nations that surround it? Arab Christians and Muslims vote, speak and campaign in Israeli society. Jews, in the surrounding nations – not so much.
Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims may vote in elections, but are treated as second class citizens in that State and have to carry passes like the Native Black South Africans had to during the Apartheid regime. No amount of voting rights can make a Nation a democracy when there is a departure from the Rule of Law. They go together, when there is a departure from the Rule of Law, there can be no democracy, as we see in the anarchy of the Settlers, protected and aided by both the Police and IDF, who are supposed to upholding the Rule… Read more »
Just non Jews, and when I was in Jerusalem in January 1996, I saw a lot of Palestinian Arabs carrying these in their hands, they looked like the Old Red European Passports.
(NPCC) anti-racism guidance states that achieving fair outcomes “does not mean treating everyone the same or being colour blind”. We’ve got problems here about the application of the rule of law equally and without consideration of race of religion. Henry Nowak might have something to say about this were he alive. Clearly Israeli democracy and law enforcement are flawed. So are ours. But – and this is a matter of judgement, I agree – I believe that British and Israeli society are (flawed) democracies in a meaningful way, one not demonstrated by the polities of Israel’s neighbours. And I would… Read more »
Why is it important to discuss the ‘merits’ of Jordan or Lebanon in order to discuss the problems of Israel?
israel exercises supreme or sovereign power over the whole Peninsula, as Herodotus called it, but does not enfranchise, in respect of the power thus supreme over their lives, around half of those subject to it. This isn’t even constitutional government, let alone democracy, but military dominion. Like the Spartans and the Helots
Because Jonathan began his comment by critiquing Ian pauls’s claim that Israel was the only democracy in the Middle East.
And so I am going to ask you for the third time now, Martin and Jonathan, which are these counties in the Middle East that are more democratic than Israel?
As Owen Jones has rightly pointed out in his Broadcasts, Israel is an Ethnocracy that hides behind the farcade of a democracy. When Theodore Herzle in his State of the Jews and in his Diaries planned out the future State of Israel, he contemplated a Secular State, that was highly millitarised, where Religion was sunbordinate to the State. He advocated a Jew only State that was ethnically cleansed of all Palestinian Arabs , where they were completely dispossed of Home, Land and Property. He was quite clear contarty to the Balfour Declaration that the indigenous Palestinian Arabs, were not to… Read more »
I am not an expert here but a quick online search tells me that: Lebanon is a democracy in which all citizens are eligible to vote, unlike Israel. Iran was a democracy, but the US/UK did not like how the elected government did things so they organised a coup and imposed the Shah who abandoned democratic government. Both Gaza and the West Bank have held elections, electing Hamas and Fatah respectively, although the crisis in both areas had made recent elections impossible. As Jonathan Jamal might tell us. This part of the world has a record of being remarkably civilised… Read more »
Their assertions that Israel has ‘departed from the rule of law’ in certain respects are not less likely to be true because they can speak freely, more so perhaps
Jonathan Jamal began his comment, which referenced Barak and Olmert, by critiquing Ian Paul’s comment that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East – thereby directly making the comparison. Now Martin, are you prepared to tell us which countries in the Middle East are more democratic than Israel?
Israel is a democracy because it holds elections in which its population vote to determine government. That’s what democracy is. Given your reluctance to name any other democracies in the ME, we must conclude that Ian Paul’s comment – that Israel is the only democracy n the ME – is a statement of fact.
The question then is, why is the CofE criticizing this one country but none of the ones around it? Does the CofE need de-Nazifying?
I might hope, since you don’t now press that argument, that I’d convinced you that a statement of the form ‘X is not Y’ does not imply that something else actually is more Y than X is. But logically that is not so. If I say ‘That dog is nothing like a unicorn’ that doesn’t imply that something else that exists is more like a unicorn than that dog. If you wish to make comparisons concerning Israel, why is the region the only or the crucial source of comparators? Israel may be compared with other societies anywhere and perhaps found… Read more »
Israel is a democracy in the same sense Apartheid South Africa was – by designating most of the native population of the area under its control as non-citizens it creates a demos that sustains the system. South Africa also had regular elections.
Worth looking at Jason Swan Clark’s comments on Chaplin’s article, and also:
https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/a-cry-and-a-curriculum-reading-kairos-ii-before-using-it/
Jonathan Chaplin is always scrupulously fair in what he writes. He has led me to re-examine my own comments and assumptions at times. He right to challenge Ray Gaston’s use of the FAOC report, ‘God’s unfailing Word’, as if it defines (unfailingly?) Christians-Jewish relations and never needs re-examining in the light of history. Firstly, though an important document, the report (with its puzzling title) was a teaching resource, never voted on by Synod but commended for study in the wider church. There is an unfortunate tendency for such resources to take on the status and authority of doctrine. ‘Issues in… Read more »
For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not claiming infallibility for GUF, or indeed any official status or authority for that document.
Similarly, the views of Chaplin, Swan Clark or Gaston hold no automatic imprimatur IMO.
But the sharp divergences between them concerning the shortcomings and/or strengths of Kairos II do seem worthy of consideration.
Hearing the voices of Christians in the Holy Land can be done alongside hearing the voices of those, like the Chief Rabbi, who find some of their utterances problematical.
We need to hear a range of voices.
The Chief Rabbi’s voice is one, but there are many Jewish people in Britain who find the Chief Rabbi’s voice to be equally problematical. For example Michael Rosen pointed out the Chief Rabbi’s use of the phrase “our heroic soldiers” about the Israeli Defence Force.
There are many Jewish people in Britain who would agree with the tenor of the Kairos document. This is Michael Rosen’s poem about the problematical issue in the UK of focussing on Jewish pain whilst looking away from Gaza.
https://jewishvoiceforliberation.org.uk/article/prioritising-jewish-pain-while-gaza-is-in-ruins/
Perhaps the Chief Rabbi thinks that the IDF are heroic because if they did suffer the fate which some people call for ‘death, death…’, then so would Israel itself? Bluntly, I’m not sure that this debate is rational. If you’re given primarily to sympathising with Palestinian suffering, then Israel’s actions will always be presentable as despicable, and as the sole or main cause of that suffering, to which Palestinians surely don’t contribute themselves. If your instinctive empathy is with a Jewish nation under existential threat from would-be destroyers, there will always be intellectual ways to (largely) put the blame for… Read more »
It would be a bad reason for thinking that success in defending one’s own side against mortal threats made everything one did, regardless of methods and casualties, honourable or heroic. Moreover, for a British person to refer to the armed forces of another country as ‘ours’ also raises significant questions. It’s true that the debate often takes place on the basis of somewhat different moral presumptions. But it is not beyond the power of reason to examine these presumptions and assess them. If one says ‘a situation that inflicts so much suffering on non-combatant Palestinians cannot be right’ or ‘it… Read more »
Open mind, I agree that this question can be seen as a possibly irreconcilable conflict, but not in the same that you do. You seem to present it as a conflict between supporters of Israel and Gaza, both equally influenced by “irrational” ties to faith and family. That may be a valid position, but frames it as an irreconcilable “one side as bad as the other” debate. But I would prefer to see it as a conflict between such religious, faith and family views on the one hand, and hard empirical data and direct human experience on the other. Such… Read more »
They are indeed, though factual reports can well be influenced by the reporters’ wider views.
Contemplating the reports and the evidence what conclusions do you reach?
Taking a wider and longer term view of the evidence, that we deceive ourselves if we think this is anything other than a brutal expression of European colonialism, and that since about 1917 European powers, led first by Britain and then the US, have supported the forced dispossession of a people’s land and homes, in order to advance the strategic, financial and religious interests of European powers Much of the religious stuff is only a helpful cover for the politicians and strategists The UK and US wanted to create Israel for their strategic needs as a sort of advance base… Read more »
The situation after Oct 7 was a new and intensified phase of an existing and already horrible conflict, in whose face GUF seemed already quite bland. I thought that it argued that Israel’s position, if extended indefinitely, was or would be ‘morally indefensible’ but also that Israel was entitled to ‘secure possession’ of what it currently has. I thought at the time that this idea – of security in possession of a morally indefensible position – was paradox. Perhaps I missed some important and convincing distinction between the pre- and post-67 territories. Or perhaps the current events would make the… Read more »
Thanks very much, David. I agree.
The Church Times article on Maude Royden is equally pertinent, and gives useful and necessary historical background
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2026/24-july/comment/analysis/analysis-anglican-advocate-for-palestine
An interesting comparison may be made with Reinhold Niebuhr, very influential Christian and more a supporter of Israel than ever as the story of Palestinian suffering unfolded
This comment is not directly relevant to any of the items linked in this thread, but it has some links to the issues of trust referred to by Fergus Butler-Gallie. I have been very surprised not yet to have seen any reference in these pages to the recent audit by INEQE of Safeguarding in the CofE Dioceses and Cathedrals, reported in the current issue of the Church Times (p4 Progress being resisted at high level – INEQE), which I found to be simultaneously deeply shocking and not even slightly surprising. INEQE have, in my opinion, given the CofE an easy… Read more »
Malcolm thank- you for raising this.I’m not a paying up member of the Church Times and as far as I can see none of the ordinary newspapers have picked it up – or they just think it’s same old same old and so not news. I hope the Charity Commission and a few MPs are looking. In any other organisation an urgent enquiry would be under way now
Come on Dame Sarah …..
Thank you, Susanna, for your support. As you will have seen, Simon has now opened a new thread on this issue. In Dame Sarah’s defence, she was not in office as ABC during the period to which this report refers. But she is now and needs to act!. In my view, this issue is more important, and certainly more urgent, than making a trip to Ghana in connection with slavery reparations. I do hope that she is not going to make the same mistake as her predecessor, of spending far too much time chasing after Anglican Communion issues and not… Read more »
I have remedied this defect.
Thank you, Simon.
Thank you for the link to Jonathan Chaplin’s article, and (via his) to Ray Gaston’s. I’m with Chaplin on this one, but it was good to see some of the concerns laid out carefully on both sides. (Not sure how well an issue like this which needs nuance and careful attention to language will play out on social media, but we can but hope…)
I agree with Fr Fergus. The church needs faithful leadership not management consultants (and I was one in my working life, focussing on HR issues in local government). We need bishops who are pastoral, theologically literate and can teach the faith. Archdeacons might do the consultancy but, supported by well-qualified diocesan officers with the aim of making the witness of the church more effective, especially in hard to-reach (inner-city and very rural) places. Sadly, the lure of pastoral reorganisation in the name of efficency, seduces many. We are supposed to be ‘in every place’ as a witness. Let’s do this… Read more »
Fr Fergus could also have mentioned how top heavy the CofE has become; more senior clergy than at any other time in our history but with far fewer clergy. The ‘crisis’ in vocations and the demographic time bomb that is an ageing body of clergy moving inexorably towards retirement, means the bishops can’t afford to put their hands over their ears anymore. No wonder the clergy are so disillusioned and vocations are drying up. The York diocese in which I hold a PtO at its clergy conference last weekend invited onto the platform Bishops Duff and Race who have repeatedly… Read more »
Surely Colin Coward is simply stating the objective that has been behind the LLF process all along. Just needs a two thirds majority in each of the three houses of General Synod.
Bob, the ultimate objective hasn’t changed. A two thirds majority in each house would be required when such a motion comes to Synod. What has changed for me is my awareness that the House of Bishops is simply employing delaying tactics to maintain control of the process under pressure from extremely well organised and potent conservative lobbying. It’s time we got organised to bring pressure to bear on the House of Bishops. If they change, it will be much easier to achieve two thirds majorities in the Houses of Laity and Clergy. The bishops cannot be trusted to achieve the… Read more »
Your evidence for this?
Maybe it was a simple SNAFU. Maybe it was manipulated to appear like a SNAFU.
We don’t know.
After careful thought, and had I had a vote (which I never never will ) I would have abstained for the given motion, merely because I hate garbled incompetence. i would have voted for a half competent motion.
It happens too often to be SNAFU. Together for the Church of England do it avoid any discussion about theology.
‘Eleven bishops voted in favour of the motion as amended in the course of the debate. Fourteen bishops voted against, four abstained. The Houses of Clergy and Laity both voted in favour of the amended motion with clear majorities. When the bishops voted on the amendment earlier in the debate, twelve voted in favour, eight voted against, and eight abstained. Why did they change their mind?’ asks Colin Coward. As noted elsewhere, this is a misunderstanding. To vote in favour of the ADOPTION of an amendment is simply to support the idea that THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD DEBATE. To… Read more »
One can feel the frustration and pain in Fergus Butler-Gallie’s piece, and it’s doubtless shared by many in parish ministry or chaplaincy. And yes, as Dr John Wallace comments, ‘We need bishops who are pastoral, theologically literate and can teach the faith.’ Since I first met a bishop as a child in a C of E primary school, the image of the pastoral staff has seemed most important to me: bishops care, protect, lead. If I reflect on bishops I have known since being active in ministry, some stand out. Retired bishop Kenneth Cragg, the soul of care and humility;… Read more »
I yawned wearily at much of Fergus Butler-Gallie’s article – the same old false dichotomy between management and mission. The actual fault line has long moved on from that dichotomy, in my view, and like others I have a lifetime of professional experience in both, inside and outside the Church. The fault line lies in the central understandings of both being inadequate and so long out of date as to be embarrassing. A cursory look at the cutting edge in organisational studies or missiology would show anyone that. So we have a centre in the form of many national and… Read more »
The main point made in the report about trust in the C of E is that no one is really accountable for anything and young priests have little experience or competence of what it takes to lead a successful organisation. Managerialism tries at least to impose some discipline towards a common goal and Justin Welby had some limited success in investing in projects that are sustainable in the long term. But while memories of Christendom and a vibrant Parish system remain it will take a generational change and a ‘new wine skin’ to contain the quiet revival currently taking place.… Read more »
Where I do agree with Fergus is in his view of the new Report. Again, though, the fault line is in the Church being neither one thing nor the other – it has stopped knowing what it is and what it is for. If it had to run as a business, then senior operational leaders would be held to account – by shareholders, the Board, Trustees or whatever. Now we can all pretend things like General Synod, Diocesan Synods, Bishops Councils do those things. But the level of deference in all but the few precious examples (think Winchester) and the… Read more »
I have had a secular career, and of course there are many issues within secular organisations. But one distinguishing factor is between those who focus on the customer and those who do not. Who is the customer, what do they want, how can we help them. in private industry (where I have worked all my life) without a customer there is no revenue and the company collapses. In some organisations, divisonal managers seem to be more concerned with success as measured by the size of their staff rather than the satisfaction of their customers. They will eventually fail. So my… Read more »
I would define Zionism as the belief that people who are Jewish, and they only, have an inherent right – birthright – to a share of sovereignty over the Holy Land, others only by the grace and generosity of the true heirs’. Would that be acceptable usage to colleagues here? I think that those words reasonably capture the ideas that have been put into effect since the Zionist Congress of 1905 laid its claims to the Land. That said, I suppose we must continue to use the word since we are confronted with the corresponding practice and opposition thereto. But… Read more »
Do read Jason Swan Clark’s article signposted above. Unnuanced rhetoric about what ‘Zionism’ is – frequently employed by people convinced that it is a straightforwardly ‘bad thing’ – may likely be a key part of the intractability of this argument.
How would you define the term?
i should have asked whether you think that the definition I suggest should be modified in the light of any of JSC’s remarks.
We are all free to define terms as we like, definitions not being riight or wrong but clear or unclear. It’s often fine to work with a definition that someone else has provided
When the Kairos document was being discussed in General Synod, one of the respondents in the discussion of the document the Revd Dr Ian Paul described the State of Israel as the only “Democracy” In the Region. You may all be well to log into Piers Morgan interviewing two former Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak. Ehud Olmert is quite as is Ehud Barak that Netanyahu and his Government have departed from the Rule of Law, especially recently in departing from a Supreme Court decision of the Israeli Court by deciding to ignore it and Mr Olmert is… Read more »
Will Olmert and Barak end up hung from a tree, or with a bullet in the back of the head for what they have said against the current regime? Elsewhere that would be normal.
At least there will be elections in October – let’s seen what does happen afterwards rather than crediting speculation ahead of time.
Are you seriously saying that there is no essential difference between the polity prevailing in Israel, and those of the nations that surround it? Arab Christians and Muslims vote, speak and campaign in Israeli society. Jews, in the surrounding nations – not so much.
Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims may vote in elections, but are treated as second class citizens in that State and have to carry passes like the Native Black South Africans had to during the Apartheid regime. No amount of voting rights can make a Nation a democracy when there is a departure from the Rule of Law. They go together, when there is a departure from the Rule of Law, there can be no democracy, as we see in the anarchy of the Settlers, protected and aided by both the Police and IDF, who are supposed to upholding the Rule… Read more »
Do Jewish Israelis carry identity passes, or is this just non-jews?
Just non Jews, and when I was in Jerusalem in January 1996, I saw a lot of Palestinian Arabs carrying these in their hands, they looked like the Old Red European Passports.
(NPCC) anti-racism guidance states that achieving fair outcomes “does not mean treating everyone the same or being colour blind”. We’ve got problems here about the application of the rule of law equally and without consideration of race of religion. Henry Nowak might have something to say about this were he alive. Clearly Israeli democracy and law enforcement are flawed. So are ours. But – and this is a matter of judgement, I agree – I believe that British and Israeli society are (flawed) democracies in a meaningful way, one not demonstrated by the polities of Israel’s neighbours. And I would… Read more »
It would be helpful, Jonathan, if you could outline the merits of those governments in the Middle East which you consider more democratic than Israel.
Why is it important to discuss the ‘merits’ of Jordan or Lebanon in order to discuss the problems of Israel?
israel exercises supreme or sovereign power over the whole Peninsula, as Herodotus called it, but does not enfranchise, in respect of the power thus supreme over their lives, around half of those subject to it. This isn’t even constitutional government, let alone democracy, but military dominion. Like the Spartans and the Helots
Because Jonathan began his comment by critiquing Ian pauls’s claim that Israel was the only democracy in the Middle East.
And so I am going to ask you for the third time now, Martin and Jonathan, which are these counties in the Middle East that are more democratic than Israel?
As Owen Jones has rightly pointed out in his Broadcasts, Israel is an Ethnocracy that hides behind the farcade of a democracy. When Theodore Herzle in his State of the Jews and in his Diaries planned out the future State of Israel, he contemplated a Secular State, that was highly millitarised, where Religion was sunbordinate to the State. He advocated a Jew only State that was ethnically cleansed of all Palestinian Arabs , where they were completely dispossed of Home, Land and Property. He was quite clear contarty to the Balfour Declaration that the indigenous Palestinian Arabs, were not to… Read more »
I am not an expert here but a quick online search tells me that: Lebanon is a democracy in which all citizens are eligible to vote, unlike Israel. Iran was a democracy, but the US/UK did not like how the elected government did things so they organised a coup and imposed the Shah who abandoned democratic government. Both Gaza and the West Bank have held elections, electing Hamas and Fatah respectively, although the crisis in both areas had made recent elections impossible. As Jonathan Jamal might tell us. This part of the world has a record of being remarkably civilised… Read more »
That comparison with other countries has no implications for the truth of what Barak and Olmert are saying
If you don’t think assurance of freedom of expression without being murdered is an important aspect of what we mean by ‘democracy’, then yes.
Their assertions that Israel has ‘departed from the rule of law’ in certain respects are not less likely to be true because they can speak freely, more so perhaps
Jonathan Jamal began his comment, which referenced Barak and Olmert, by critiquing Ian Paul’s comment that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East – thereby directly making the comparison. Now Martin, are you prepared to tell us which countries in the Middle East are more democratic than Israel?
I didn’t say that there are any democracies in the ME. Israel isn’t shown to be the only democracy, or a democracy, because others aren’t
Israel is a democracy because it holds elections in which its population vote to determine government. That’s what democracy is. Given your reluctance to name any other democracies in the ME, we must conclude that Ian Paul’s comment – that Israel is the only democracy n the ME – is a statement of fact.
The question then is, why is the CofE criticizing this one country but none of the ones around it? Does the CofE need de-Nazifying?
I might hope, since you don’t now press that argument, that I’d convinced you that a statement of the form ‘X is not Y’ does not imply that something else actually is more Y than X is. But logically that is not so. If I say ‘That dog is nothing like a unicorn’ that doesn’t imply that something else that exists is more like a unicorn than that dog. If you wish to make comparisons concerning Israel, why is the region the only or the crucial source of comparators? Israel may be compared with other societies anywhere and perhaps found… Read more »
Israel is a democracy in the same sense Apartheid South Africa was – by designating most of the native population of the area under its control as non-citizens it creates a demos that sustains the system. South Africa also had regular elections.
And in any event being a democracy doesn’t give you any special right to treat others unjustly