Brexit and the Angelican Tradition

                Transcript - Brexit and the Anglican Tradition

Welcome to this webinar hosted by the Center for English Identity and Politics at Southampton University.We're going to be discussing issues raised by this book, the future of Brexit Britain debate in the Anglican tradition I'm John Denham I'm the director of the Centre.Just briefly, for those who are joining us for the first time at one of our events, the Centre is interested in the links between national identity and political choices, and in particular the ways in which the extent to which we say we are more English than British.Equally English and British or more British than English have gained a political salience.Over the past 20 years, to the extent that it has become quite a strong predictor of which party we support or which way we went on Brexit and Brexit is the background to this webinar.There have been millions, probably hundreds of millions of words spilt on Brexit by politicians, academics, commentators, journalists.Actually remarkably few have looked out at how the arguments played out within the major organisations of Civic Society and the book gives us a chance to ask.About one of those, the Anglican church, and of course, few institutions are more deeply rooted in English history and ideas of Englishness.Yet the church also showed similar divides on Brexit as other parts of society.Tonight's webinar is in two parts.In the first half we concentrate on the book itself.The editors will outline the book and its contents, and we'll hear from 2 contributors, bishops Philip North and John McDowell, and have a response from Bishop Rose Hudson Wilkin followed by a discussion.We'll have a very short break.Stretch our legs and then reconvene at 7 and in the second-half we'll look more to the future and ask whether faith in the 21st century has a role to play in shaping national identity as it has done it in the past.And just to say that we hope, by the way to to host future events, engaging members of other faiths in the same discussion about faith and national identity.So just before we begin, please, during this session use the Q&A.Button normally at the bottom of your screen the Q&A button to put.Questions that you would like to put or like me to put on your behalf to the speakers. When you get there and you'll find under the Q&A that you can upvote questions that somebody else has put that you would also like to have asked.You can also use the chat function to share ideas, comments on what people have said during the discussion, so I hope that's that.That's fair enough.I'm going to start first by asking the two editors of the book to say a bit about the book and its background.The first is going to be Jonathan Chaplin, doctor Jonathan Chaplin.He's a member of the Divinity faculty at the University of Cambridge and an associate fellow at Theos Jonathan.So thank you very much, John, for that introduction and thank you for being willing to host this webinar on the themes raised in our book and also while I'm at it.Thanks for contributing a very interesting response piece to.The book itself.So I'm going to say a few words about the context and content of the book, and then I'll hand over to Andrew, who's going to say.Something about its tentative conclusions.So essentially the book arose from a silence.The silence of the Church of England.Which made no official statement on the merits of Brexit throughout the entire process, since the referendum was called early in 2016.That may surprise some, because several bishops, both archbishops and several other senior clergy, did make personal statements.The majority pro remain indeed three of our contributors charged.The churches leadership with exhibiting a clear remain bias throughout which is damaged.Church, you know?Actually, most bishops said nothing on the substance of Brexit itself, partly no doubt because their job description requires them to be a focus of unity in their diocese.And there was nothing more guaranteed to tear a diocese apart than delivering a strong partisan statement on this of all issues.But the Church of England itself offered no authoritative collective intervention.Neither the House of Bishops nor General Synod, nor the mission and Public Affairs Council, which is the lead agency in the Church on matters of public theology and the Church of England, was not alone in this.Neither the free churches nor the Roman Catholic Church.Took official positions on the merits of Brexit.By contrast, the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, both Anglican, did.Both came out clearly in favor of remain.Although without offering extensive reflection on why?The Church of Scotland also came out for remain.And we think it was the only denomination to have offered anything like a substantial statement on the merits to Brexit itself, which came in a report called our place in Europe, published in May 2016.Now, many would say that the official silence of the Church of England is surprising, given that its unique established status creates a platform for addressing major national issues such as this, and an expectation that it will do so as it has indeed done periodically on several other issues. For example in 2015.The House of Bishops issued a 70 page pre election letter.Who is my neighbour?Setting out a quite substantial Anglican public theology, and while it obviously didn't endorse any party, it could be read and indeed was read at the time as implicitly criticising both coalition and Labour government policies.And just let me add here that the chapter in our book by Malcolm Brown, who is the director of the Mission and Public Affairs Council and who may well be with us.Tonight offers an intriguing insider insight on the church's silence on Brexit.He reports that early on, a senior leadership groupUh, judged membership of the EU not to be a matter of fundamental doctrine and therefore not one demanding any official intervention.Now the fact that.The churches leadership reached a decision in this way, raises a number of interesting questions, such as why General Synod where a lay voices heard played no role in that process, or how the church generally comes to define what counts as fundamental doctrine.Since it's often spoken on controversial issues that many do not regard as such, such As for example, Universal Credit refugee policy or same sex marriage.In any event, the book seeks and the book seeks to speak into the discursive gap left by.That official silence.And we invited contributors to address 3 broad questions.First in the light of the multiple fractures exposed by Brexit.What kind of nation should Britain?Aspire to be, by which we mean what will be its defining moral and political commitments.Into the future.Taking into account its unique history, increasing diversity and unstable union.Second, how should post Brexit Britain continue to express appropriate solidarity and cooperation with its European neighbours in a context of escalating global and regional challenges and threats?That transcend national borders and.3rd, what role, if any, could Anglican or other churches play in a possible process of post Brexit national reconciliation, if there is to be one?Well, nobody will be blindsided by the fact that the book contains a huge variety of views on these three questions.22 contributors are Anglican, while six represent other denominations or non. There are remainers leavers and non committals clergy and laity, theologians and practitioners and voices from across all Four Nations of the UK.The book doesn't claim to be comprehensive or fully representative, and it doesn't pretend to speak for the church only from it and to it, and its aim is simply to fuel a better debate in Anglican churches and beyond on the issues.Painfully exposed by Brexit issues.That will certainly remain very much alive for a generation.And against a general scarcity of theological contributions to these specific issues.And while we're very grateful indeed to our authors for their insightful contributions, I think most of them would agree that the book, among other things, reveals how much intellectual and grassroots work there is still to do.If Anglicanism is to be able to offer weighty and salient interventions on these questions into the future.Well, thank you Jonathan.And can I echo your thanks to John for hosting this event and to everybody for taking part.Uhm, I mean, as you might expect of a book encompassing such a wide range of opinions on Brexit by Anglicans, it has no neat and tidy conclusion to offer.In many ways it reflects the passionate diversity of opinion in the country.Though we hope it shows that it's possible also to disagree well.That said, several points should be highlighted relating to the core questions addressed by the book, which Jonathan has just outlined in terms of visions of national identity that should guide Britain after Brexit.Several important themes emerged from the chapters first.Britain's economic and cultural divisions and several contributors explore the nature of these some, citing David Goodhart's categories of anywheres those who see themselves as global citizens, happy to live and work wherever and and somewheres those attached to the sustenance of their local community.Other contributors offered.Critiques of liberalism.Insofar as it denies citizens the the thick languages of faith and locality and nation by offering only the attenuating currency of rights and equality, and we wondered in our conclusion whether a new consensus might be emerging across the conventional left.Right divide on some of the fundamental pathologies afflicting British society and even perhaps a shared openness to a post liberal vision of nationhood.Secondly, how Britain past has been shaped by its history of colonialism and empire into which was of course interwoven and all be it sincere missionary endeavour involving the Church of England.One outcome of this has been the legacy of overt or covert racism, which many white British people including Christians.Still struggle to acknowledge and which Brexit brought to the fore.We cannot talk about British or English identities without acknowledging that past, including our shameful treatment of the Windrush generation.3rd, the need to recognize the distinctive experiences of the different nations constituting Britain.For example, while England and Wales voted leave, Scotland voted to remain, which has profound implications for Scotland relationship with the EU and the rest of the UK.Any talk?Of a British nationalism predicated on an US versus the EU will be forced to the Scottish ixp.Periods Northern Ireland also voted to remain and felt that its issues were sidelined during the Brexit debate. Only after the referendum did the significance of the only land border between the UK and the EU, after Brexit achieve any recognition and for the Church of Ireland, the future of the border, and the well-being of the people.Living and working along it remains a major concern.4th, the question of Englishness itself.How far is this informed by notions of manifest destiny and exceptionalism and did that underpin the Brexit vote?Is English nationalism or cause of embarrassment and shame?As some suggests, the leadership of the Church of England finds it to be.Why do most leavers predominantly there, somewheres identify as more English than British, while the Anywheres, who mostly voted, remain talk of being more British than?English should the idea of a legislature for specifically English matters be explored?Is it possible to identify an Englishness that most English people can be proud of, or must there always be a plurality of contending visions of English identity?And 5th what the last four years has revealed about the adequacy of our democratic institutions and practices, is Brexit about restoring democratic self governance to Britain?Or was this never actually lost?Is this a 0 sum game or is sovereignty always being limited and partly shared?And how far was the referendum?Actually the voice of the people?A second set of questions, as Jonathan mentioned, concerned what solidarity with Europe might mean post Brexit.So for example, how might the call to love our neighbor inform the UK's emerging relationship with the EU and Europe generally?As new visions of national community emerge in Britain, will they reflect a desire to be exclusive and inward looking or a confident preparedness to work cooperatively across board?Some of our contributors want the UK to remain to maintain close ties to the EU and to continue to work from outside for its success as a necessary instrument of the European and global common good.Others regard the EU as an illegitimate empire and emphasise the strategic goals.Britain should pursue through global rather than European engagement.Now these are divergent attitudes towards the EU and they may be impossible to narrow, but my protagonists at least worked for a better disagreement than was evident during the Brexit debate itself.And might the churches aid this process?Indeed, to come to the third set of questions?What might churches contribute to the issues just highlighted?This is another key strand of the book.Many contributors want Christian ethical principles.The common good concern for the poor creation, care, subsidiarity, relationality justice rather than mere economic prosperity to guide the direction of Britain after bread.As Jonathan has mentioned, several contributors asked why the Church of England took no official position on the referendum question, but it is worth asking whether it and other churches might have explored the possibility of offering a substantial diagnostic, theological, and ethical intervention intended to deepen.The national debate rather than a prescriptive one that simply took sides, and indeed, whether the church might do that during the conversations that will emerge in the future around a post Brexit identity.So to conclude, no single Christian still lack less Anglican vision for the future of Britain emerges from this book, yet contributors believe the Church of England can be a force for reconciliation in post Brexit.England, even that it's established status, could make it a focus for.English identity in a way not hitherto recognized.And some also see a challenge for the church in the task of renewing itself in the parishes, since it is at local level that the process of reconciliation will have to begin and reconciliation as one of our Episcopal contributors pointed out, is not just implied by the gospel, it is the gospel.Thank you.You're muted, John.Right, Andrew?Thank you Andrew.Andrew is the emeritus professor in the Department of Theology, Religion, and Philosophy at Winchester University, where we work for a time colleagues together.So we're now going to hear from 2 contributors to the book. Bishop Philip North will go 1st and he since February 2015 has been Bishop or Burnley.Bishop, PhilipThank you very much and good to be with you.I was brought up as a European holidays were taken in France and Italy, Mediterranean cookbooks lined the kitchen.We were instilled from a note from no aid with a love of European languages and culture. So in 2016 obviously I voted to remain in the European Union to leave would be an act of political and cultural.Suicide I thought.What made me?Rethink was not so much the outcome of.The vote but.The frenetic and furious reaction to it from leaders at every.Level of the Church of England.I was horrified by the attitude of incomprehension and condemnation towards those who voted to leave.They were portrayed as naive fools who believe the Lie machine of the Leave campaign.Or as anti immigrant racists or white nationalists?Some saw the voters and unthinking uprising of the poor against the London established.And in the years since I've heard comparisons drawn by church leaders between leave voters and those who supported the rise of Hitler, that meaningless word, populist quickly became another convenient way to dismiss the outcome of the referendum.Rather than stopping to reflect too many Anglican clergy and leaders echoed unthinkingly, the fury and the indignation of an establishment class that for once had not got its own way.It was not possible to react like that in Lancashire because every borough in the county voted by a big majority to leave and that included the large Asian heritage population in East Lancashire.If my own ministry were to have any credibility, I clearly needed to do some listening.Yes, of course. On the leave side, there are some vicious extremist racist voices who need to be rooted out and condemned, but they are, in my view a minority and do not characterize 52% of the nation.What became clear to me is that the lever was not a hate vote or a negative vote.Rather, that vote was about competing visions of nation and what it means to be English.Lancashire is a deeply patriotic place in an old fashioned way.People love their country.They love the monarch.They love the.Armed forces and for centuries they send their children off to serve.They love the flag and the football team.Now in some.European nations such as France and Italy, a strong pride and nationhood has been successfully combined with the vision for that nation within the European family.No politician, except possibly Tony Blair, has ever had the courage to articulate that kind of vision in this country.It's much more convenient.As a vote winning ploy to present Brussels as the enemy from which the bold politician wins concessions.The impression, therefore, has been given that it's impossible to be both patriotic and pro EU, so the lever was about standing up for a particular vision of nation when the people genuinely feared was being swallowed up by an ever expanding European project, there was reducing the UK to dependency.That's why many was especially infuriated by the suggestion from some Remainers that our nation wouldn't survive without the EU, as if the country that had once stood alone to defeat the hate politics of the Nazis had now been reduced to vassal them.A what should particularly cause us to pause as Christians?Is that this?Passion for a nation was such that the vote was, in effect, anti materialist.People knew that a vote to leave would have an economic cost.I've spoken to businessmen who knew it would cause them bankruptcy, but they saw that as a price worth paying.A vision of nation was for them more important than private wealth.These arguments cannot be easily dismissed, and it's wrong to misrepresent them as is still being done.Leave voters have called time on a supranational capitalist cartel whose existence is posited on an environmentally unsustainable model of unending economic growth, a model that has demonstrably made the poor poorer.And the rich richer they've shown us that there is more to human yearning than the thickness of 1's wallet. I rather admire that.The problem is that the ferocious reaction to the livre one that is alive and well demonstrates a much deeper cultural crisis of identity within the national established church.In my chapter I cite David Goodhart work and his compelling and well known division of the nation into somewheres and Anywheres.Though its claims to be a Christian presence in every community, the children England leadership has based itself very firmly on the anywhere side of that divide.If you place that in the deeper context of a church that for the past four decades has been slowly withdrawing clergy and closing buildings from the nation's outer estates, Wehrly voting was high and weakening its presence in rural areas where again Lee voting was high, the picture becomes pretty clear.The Church of England is taking a subconscious long term decision to be of and for a middle class graduate minority.The condemnation of the 52% shows us to be church for the 48%.This risks being a historic vocational failure because this is just the moment when we could be a voice for unity.The leadership of the Church of England, especially its clergy, might be predominantly Anywheres, but its lay people are predominantly somewhere.They live stable lives are committed to place, love their country and the majority voted to leave that bridging of the divide should surely place us in an ideal position to do some healing.There's some Eucharistic theology.That lies behind this.In the Eucharist we dwell simultaneously in two worlds.We bring these ordinary sinful bodies and leaving before the Lord under the signs of bread and wine.But as we.Do so, it caught up in the life.Of heaven weEnter a liminal space in which we citizens simultaneously.Two worlds.That should surely equip us to dwell simultaneously.In the two.Worlds that Brexit has opened up in our nation.As a national church, we are uniquely placed to interpret one to the other and build and grow that understanding that leads to reconciliation.The language of condemnation of criticism of misrepresentation that has characterized so much of the Anglican response needs to stop.Instead, it's time to start voicing a new and united vision of nation.A few weeks ago the archbishops published the report of their Commission into housing.It's a brilliant piece of work.It gives a theologically literate but strongly inclusive vision for housing as an integral part of national life.It means injustices and gives a voice to the poor.It provides concrete solutions to the housing crisis.And commits the Church of England to playing its part at implementing these.That piece of work for me symbolizes a much more exciting future, one in which Christians articulate publicly what our nation has the potential to be.And as they do so through pride in that nation.Many casually presume that post Brexit Britain can only be worse than now that it'll be more unequal that we will become a low pay offshore tax haven.Then we will use newfound freedoms to struck down immigration and become mean and insular and isolationist.There is absolutely no reason why that should be.So it depends on how we're governed and how we govern.Depends on how the people participate in policy and politics.If we want to be an established church, it's not enough to side with 48.Percent of the nation or.Even 52.Percent we need to be there for everyone, even those whose politics we don't much like, and that means.Learning to articulate a bold, uniting and Kingdom centered vision of 21st century Britain.Thank you.Philip, thank you very much indeed and some very powerful points made there. Could I just remind people who are participating to use the Q&A function?If you want to pose questions because when I come to take questions a little later on, I would.I'd like to reflect the issues that are most important to the audience rather than the questions that are already bubbling around in my own.Mind so please please use the Q&A function to do that please. I will go to the next second contributor to the book.Now, a Bishop.John McDowell.He's the current Church of Ireland, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, Bishop now.Thank you very much, John, and thank you for the invitation to be here.I mean, I, I appreciate that anything I'm going to say.Will be a little.Bit marginal to the main thrust of the debate, which is really about some degree Englishness.Anglicanism there is a tendency within Anglicanism.But when we say Anglican, we mean England, and of course, it's now much, much wider than that, and I think there are particular insights which perhaps other churches, including the Church of Ireland, which didn't distinguish itself, particularly during the Brexit debate, either one or two.People, including myself made some statements and they were driven by not so much conviction about the European Union, whether to come or go.It's their leave, but the impact which it was buying to have on the island of Ireland and in this sense the Church of Ireland, like all the churches in Ireland, are rather unique in that we are all island institutions.So from the Church of Ireland's point of view, 2.Thirds of our Members are now outside.The European Union 1/3 in inside European Union.And which gives a.I think a very particular perspective on how that can be managed.And as was said, Andrew said in the introduction, it was only very late in the day that the border.And despite the fact that a number of us had flagged it up from very early on, that the border was going to be a very difficult issue to resolve, particularly for the island of Ireland.As we go forward.And that wasn't.And taken into account at all, but it proved it proved to be the case, and unfortunately, and a place for a place where not very not very much happens very often, there's a lot has happened between the book being written and now, and the big thing that has happened is called the protocol.And and the protocol is, as you know, it's part of the withdrawal agreement.But a very.Late addition to the Withdrawal Agreement and attempts to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland.And that is how it manages a border between the United Kingdom and the European Union.And how that can be peacefully managed and what we in the in a very limited way.I've been trying to do to both parties to the Withdrawal Agreement and the protocol that is United Kingdom government.And the EU is trimming and this just this isn't simply a debate about a third country.It's a, it's a.It's a debate about a peace process.That has now been quite badly damaged, as was absolutely inevitable.And I could say a couple of things.About this may seem like very obvious things about borders, but the first obvious thing about a.Border is it has two sides.And if it has two sides, it has to be managed.And to think that it doesn't have to be managed constructively and in partnership is just about as silly as suggesting that you build a fence along the Mexican border.With the United States.And and wherever that border was going to be, it was going to cause trouble in our particularly within Ireland, and it has now in fact pretty well managed to, whether temporarily, hopefully temporarily, and is managed to destabilize what had been a low a rather start going.Process in terms of the building of peace.Nevertheless, it by and large was making its way forward.So those were always going to be issues with Brexit.Which were consequences of Brexit.Nobody died at that, even though those who voted for leave.Those who voted to stay and but unfortunately they weren't.Either at the centre of the campaign or at the center of the thinking about how the campaign would be would be put into place.So how Brexit would be put into place?And afterwards we have this situation in Northern Ireland, where just as it was beginning to look like.Other European democracies.Other European democracies began to look like Northern Ireland.And in terms of the degree of polarization that was taking place in politics, whether around the European Union on around other matters, and it was.Just the destabilizing thing which we which we didn't didn't need.The protocol is intended to, as they manage, the unique situation which exists in the island of Ireland and to protect the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts.Now at the time of the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement again.None of the churches took a position.Although and by and large, if you look at the figures the way it worked out was that most nationalists voted for it.And about half and half of Unionists voted for it, so there was a 30% minority against it.Which has been sufficient.To cause it to stumble very frequently.And the same will be the case with.And working out.Brexit through the protocol in Northern Ireland already.One party has said it's going to conduct guerrilla warfare against it.Against the the even handed implementation of the protocol.And there are a number of legal challenges now too as well, particularly from Unionist politicians.The role which the Church of Ireland will have and that is first of all, letting the dust settle for a while, and it will then be up to remind.To try to remind me.People as often and in many ways as gently as possible.That peace comes to Ireland when certain things are aligned and one of the very important alignments is that Anglo Irish relationships are good.And of course, at the minute anglicized relationships are anything other than good.And and in many ways what's happening in Ireland at the moment is exactly what happened in the 17th century where two warring empires clashed.And then left.And the consequences of that are still with us.So when the chapter in the book was written, it looked as though the people who were going to be.And most destabilized by with the nationalist population.So looked as though there was.Going to be a.Hard border on the island of Ireland.Then really crying out.Of the blue which nobody expected at all.The rabbit.The protocol was pulled out of the hat, which put the border down the Irish Sea.Now we have meeting earlier on this morning with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and who was going around for two or three months saying there was no border down the Irish Sea.Not in spite of the fact that there were big Gray ships with UK Border Force written on the side of them, sailing up and down Belfast.I am.What, uh, what it did?Was it further destabilized political debate and political society in Northern Ireland and and and has meant that a group of people who have equally legitimate interests, the unionist population.Now they feel that they are being sidelined and will be sidelined permanently because they've always seen their future with Britain rather than with Europe.And So what is needed and what?Again, the churches?What are our contributions?And there's a particular contribution of the Anglican Church in Ireland simply because of our demographic.It is.That we have 2/3 of our membership in Northern Ireland, 1/3 in the Republic of Ireland, so we aren't entirely associated with either jurisdiction.We aren't looked upon as a northern church on a southern church.Majority of our people are in the north or our headquarters are in Dublin and we and the Councils of.People from the Republic of Ireland and the.Church band still.Play a major part in our decision making processes in our synod's.And our role, I think, is to once again try to be persuadersThat there are a number of planets that need to be in alignment for peace to work in Northern Ireland.An essential one is angry wise relationship and another one is in the UK.US relationships.Because that also and bring a has a tremendous political bearing and weight within Northern Ireland.But above all, I suppose what's needed is that people begin to speak the truth a bit.And that the government recognizes the fact that the Good Friday Agreement, which now everybody wants to protect and you know you're in dire trouble when everybody wants to protect it, that the Good Friday Agreement allows people in Northern Ireland to describe themselves as British, Irish or British and Irish.It's a multiple identity.As solution as it worked to the problem and in fact we are should fund and others organize transcriptions are are just about through on the seven R Four Nations webinar to suggest to the other nations of the United Kingdom.That there's something in that multiple identity.Uh, idea that people should be allowed and should be consciously allowed to define themselves in.Many, many ways.Rather than have this binary question pricked us, which is what's happened in Northern Ireland.Again, what hasn't had finished now what has happened is that the border has come back into political life in the way that it hadn't been for 20 years, and that border doesn't just run from east to West, it runs through every village and every town.And pretty well, every community in Northern Ireland therefore has the has the potential to destabilize.The whole political.Settlement and our task is to try to speak calmly and to try to mediate and to model.How that need not be the case, he said.I'm sorry if that's a very particular viewpoint from Ireland.In any case, there it is.John, thank you very much indeed. I think it's very helpful to be brought up to date and not simply to be talking about events in 2016, but the engagement of the church.In the real political dilemmas and challenges that are in front of us now.So I think that's enormously helpful.Thank you, I'm going to go now for a response to those contributions from Bishop Rose Hudson Wilkin.Who is the Bishop of Dover and was of course previously the chapter into the Speaker of the.House of Commons.Thank you, thank you very much.These are relevant.I'm delighted to be with you and I'll be as quick as I can because I don't want us to to lose my connection, which seems to have been going and coming all day.Uhm, in response to Bishop North, you mentioned the the the reaction is one of fury.Come from the.Certain groups of people within the country I did also have a reaction and my reaction to the vote was deep sadness.Real genuine deep sadness.It was as though something had.I was being bereft.Of something and I I'm not a European traveler or any.Of those things.I I you, you talked also about the economic costs and people knew the economic cost and nevertheless decided that they would vote in a particular way.I I I would like to.To question and challenge that, UM.He asked the Bishop of Dover I have sanit in my patch.And I think for me the whole.Brexit experiments.I'm going to call it a Brexit experiment.I've got to ask the question, what started this experiment?What is it that started this experiment and not only what started the experiment, but also what fed it, what fed it?I was disappointed that the church and I say the church in inverted commas, not necessarily meaning the Anglican church, but the church.The people of God.Where were their voices and where were their voices in terms of giving?A picture of who we?Are first and foremost as.Uh, yes I I do want to say, uh world?Uh people who belong to the world.I'm I'm a Jamaican and I'm not afraid to say that I'm a Jamaican.I've also got British citizenship and and that's terrific too, but actually beyond that that is only part of the story.Beyond that, I belong in a much bigger.Way and wide away and it seems to me that as the church we had a responsibility.To say to folks yes, be proud.I'm really proud Jamaicans and the Jamaicans are really exceptionally thrilled, especially when they see their sprinter going down the tracks and winning left, right and center the 100 meter dash etc.But we are not afraid to say that we have other identities too, and so it seems to me that I've got to ask the question whether or not our identity as British or English.Does it preclude us from being?Something else and being equally proud of that something else.Uhm, I I think this.We we talked you talked to Phillip about the European project and I happen to have been in Parliament at the time when this project or this experiment was being.I'm going to use the term and I I I saw Dominic you're you're there on the on this.We'll be there.But I want to say when it was being played with.And it was a very costly play.Costly because I believe with my hand on my heart that had it not been for Brexit, that actually Jo Cox would still have been alive.I think the nature of the debate that we were having around Brexit.Caused her death, contributed to her death.And I am ashamed I am ashamed of.I'm going to use the term parliamentary colleagues own leaders within our society, whether they belong to the church or otherwise.For that contribution that ended up with someone losing their life.Myself for the first time, I have lived in this country now for more years than I have lived in Jamaica and for the first time during that whole heightened atmosphere of the Brexit debate, I was being shouted at in the streets and being told to go home.So, so I want to say that there was something really.There's nothing wrong in us exploring who we are, and actually I do think that and I hope you don't mind me saying this.I do think that the English the English does not know.Who they are.And they are not confident in who they are.And I think when you are confident in who you are as a people, then you give space and you can be content with other people being who they are and being in the mix.So there is something.Fundamentally wrong about us?In Britain, not feeling a sense of this is who I am and it's OK for me to be this.And it's OK for you to be who you are.The nature of the debate, the people that it targeted in terms of saying you belong and you don't belong the the borders.The emphasis that we gave to the borders, the emphasis that we gave to other people.In, I think skewered the debate, the debate in Parliament, I felt at the time was a very toxic environment and and I was heartbroken to see the friendships that were being pulled apart.Reconciliation has been mentioned by.My my Archbishop, John and and and I think you may have also mentioned it to Philip and others may have mentioned it.Reconciliation is key going forward.And and Archbishop John you mentioned.Anglo Irish relationship and UK US relationship for me. The keyword there is relationship.And how as a church?How, as Christians can we begin to model to model what it means, not just to speak about it in forums, but how can we model what it means?To be English.To be Jamaican to be British to be Irish.In a way that enables others to be who they are happily and breathe safely.I think that is important that for me this is about relationships.To be modeled and for us to stand at the point of being that reconciling figures figure in as the church in in that space.I think I might stop there.Rose, thank you very much indeed, and I I hope people agree that's been a stimulating set of contributions and let me try.To pull a couple of questions together from things that people have raised on the chat and in the Q and Q&A.I suppose one is about the focus of the church in this debate at my old parliamentary colleague Dominic Grieve makes the point that this was a Brexit.Was largely an English debate given the size of England, but the most serious consequences lie elsewhere in the relations with Scotland and with Northern Ireland.As we've been hearing.And Philip made a powerful.A contribution arguing for engagement in the in the nature of the nation.Malcolm Brown, though in a question if I can find it here, has put a slightly different twist on it, which is about the churches role.Is it essentially if I've understood this right?Uh, as a as a global church which has.The values internationally of Christianity or a church that really has to be rooted in the particular nation, the context that it came from.So it's really a question.Both questions I think raised a question about the extent to which the Anglican Church or the Church of England.Has ultimately to start from where it is.And has historically been in England and in the British Isles, or the extent to which it.It's a a broader global universal mission that now needs to take priority.I hope I've I've not mangled the questions that people were trying to make their, but Philip could I come to you?See, if you've got a reflection about how that balance?Is struck.I was intrigued by Malcolm question.I think I probably want to avoid his binary altogether.The church members part of the Catholic Church.I'd want to say.With the primary faithfulness to Christ and and to the Sacramento life of the church, it's then lived out locally I I think.There is an.Absolute, constant, implicit danger around national churches.And I, I think you know, the the.We've seen this all across Europe over many centuries.And if you if if you're too embedded in nation you you can go down all sorts of false ways.So I think our primary focus needs to be on what it means to be the Universal Catholic Church of God.What it means to believe faithfully and then that needs to be lived in the local.And there's a kind of basic incarnational principle going on there, isn't there?I think I think about what is universal, lived out in the local, and once our identity gets to tide up by nation and nationhood, that can lead to difficult dangerous consequences.FD Maurice has a lot to answer for in terms of this idea of identifying the church in the nation in a particular way.But if I and I I can't remember if I use this expression in the book or not, I shouldn't use it.I was very kindly invited to a meeting of the House of Bishops in the Church of England and to talk to him about.At the time.My Irish colleagues said I was coming to talk to like Brexit and God, but really mostly about Brexit and.And I think the question which Malcolm answers can be answered if there's another question.First of all, which is is the Church of England and English expression of Christianity, which takes in its catholicity, or is it a Christian expression of Englishness?And I think it has veered a little bit too much towards being a Christian expression of Englishness rather than this particular.The particular gifts which England as a nation brings to the treasury of the Catholic Church, which are quite distinct to them.Uh, not wholly different from everybody else, but nevertheless with different emphasis.So I don't see any any.Well, I certainly have tension there, but it's very creative, sort of attention, so I'll leave it with that rather gnomic uplands.You're muted, rose.I'm one of those people who believe that when the Church of England went on its missionary endeavors that it didn't just take the gospel, but that it took the gospel wrapped up in the cultural English culture as it were, and and sometimes we we fail to be.Able to to define what exactly is the message without the unnecessary package and and and.I think there was a lot of that in the Brexit debate, unfortunately.Thank you and Andrew.Jonathan, did you want to either of you?Want to come in at this stage?No OK.I I get it for the.Well, it looked to me like a a provocative question from Greg Smith.UM, says Bishop Rose has explored multiple nested identities.Well, it raises the question, is it possible to be English and not white?And it goes on to say, is it possible for anyone who is not white English to be Church of England even if they're Anglican?As a professor of English identity and politics, I would have myself answered unequivocally and pointed you to people who fit this mold.That yes, of course you can be black and English.My old colleague, David Lammy.In the House of Commons, being one until I saw the census form, which says that you're not allowed to say that you're black and English if you live in England, but you are allowed to be black and Welsh if you live in wealth.So the UK state has taken a view on this particular issue, even if even if.Some of usMight beg to differ in practice.But I think there's.A broader question here perhaps, and you touched on this, rose with the expressions of racism around Brexit.To what extent is the church itself?Actively healing in that process of the racial tensions that were heightened and the extent to which, even if as Philip said, it was a minority actually of those who voted, leave who were responding to the racist message.Nonetheless, there was a subcurrent of it there which we all recognized.Uhm, is the church sufficiently proactive in that area of reconciliation post Brexit?I think the church is trying to be, but we can't really do it in reality until we have named it for what it is examined.It and, uh.And and consciously intention.Really do something different and live something different because you are right, there are many who feel that you cannot be English and be black.So for example, when I asked in a rural part of England in in a gathered archdeaconry, and I said to them.If you have a vacancy and I apply for the role, would you consider me?A hand went up immediately, but why would we?We have no black people here.And I thought, wow.I said so.White people can go to Africa and Asia and our inner cities.White people can go anywhere but black people can only go where there are black people.How interesting, so I think.There is something deep in our psyche that we need to be expunged from.We need to take it out and look at it.Own it for what it is and then put it down and get on with living.And reconciling with each other.Thank you Philip or John.Do you have anything to add on that question?The church is 1,000,000 individuals and to say we've kind of sorted that out, it would just be, you know, absolute nonsense, wouldn't it?You know I can name churches where particularly multicultural areas where it's almost kind of white flight, where you go to be with your own type, and I can also name churches which are absolute.Patterns of tolerance and and where there's a a real wonderful vision of the Kingdom.Do what you see there.Yeah, I think it just ever thinks it's it's resolving that issue is just being nice.I I often think we've hardly begun to be honest.John, can I say a quick word on this topic?OK then yeah.Very important topic, which is that I just don't think that racism can be confined to 1 camp and the Brexit vote.Let me tell a story against my own profession. Academics voted remain 90% called as the Times hires poll, so we're incredibly remain constituency.How many black women professors are there in the whole of the UK 25?So if you think there's no racism on the remain side, wake up.I wasn't I wasn't trying to suggest that I and I think I just going to say that I think this discussion is is good because what Andrew and Jonathan have done in this book is to actually hold up a mirror to have this discussion to a particular institution.Having worked in universities since 2015, I think there's been a great deal less soul searching in universities as to why most people in universities assume the result would be remain.And today it's believe if if our claim to draw salaries is that we know more about what's going on in the world than people outside universities.So I think it's to the credit of Andrew Jonathan to get this discussion.I agree, agree.No, I I would like to thank the panel for.The first half.For it John Rose, thank you very much indeed.I hope if you have time you can stay with us. The second-half I promise people just a 2 minute break for panelists or for participants to stretch your legs and we will start again. Show up at 7:00 at 6:00 o'clock.Thank you.Welcome back everybody, uhm.That was a great first session.Uh, we're now moving onto.Although we've already started being forward-looking to have.A A more.Full or completely forward-looking session, which is to really look at the question of the Church and faith.And if there is one in shaping national or I guess indeed international identities in the future, we have 4 contributors to this panel.I'm going to start with.Bishop Robert Ennis, who has since 2014 been the.Bishop in Europe Robert.Thank you very much John up.I live in Brussels.I'm a citizen of the United Kingdom and a citizen of Belgium and I'm proud to be a European.I I was asked to address the question what is or ought to be the role of faith in shaping national or international institutions.The Old Testament gives an easy answer. Israel was a theocracy with a king whose throne was founded on justice and righteousness, whose rule was based on God's laws and who was called to account by the prophets.The New Testament can't give the same answer God's chosen people in our Roman subjects rendered to Caesar. What is Caesar's and to God?What is God says Jesus, acknowledging the separate realms of faith and political authority, a separation echoed in later centuries with different versions of two Kingdoms theology.But Emperor Constantine's conversion fused faith and political authority together.The Nicene Creed became the creed of the Empire, so also Thomas Cranmer's doctrine of the godly Prince when Cranmer preached at Edward the 6th coronation.He referred to Edward as a successor of Josiah, who should ensured God was properly worshipped and idolatry destroyed.Central casting, on the other hand, taught a separation between the city of this world and the city.Of God.Christians are pilgrims making their way through this world on route to the world to come.They use whatever peace political authority gives them, but their goal is the piece of heaven.Following a more radical reading, more of Augustine and the Baptists have accepted that the state has a role in providing order, but has no positive role in furthering the spread of Gulf Kingdom.So cursory examination of the Bible and Christian tradition indicates a range of answers to our question from those who see the state and the church mutually reinforcing each other in the pursuit of God purposes for the nation to those who see the best kind of relationship as disengagement with the state providing peace and security, but allowing the.Church maximal freedom to serve its Lord.But let's move from theology to practice, and from Christian history to the modern world.Europe emerged from world.War Two in a state of ruin.Its economies were either shattered or deeply in debt.Much of its infrastructure was destroyed.And after the war, Europe faced a rebuilding task of gargantuan proportions in this peacebuilding.The re creation of trust, prosperity and the formation of new institutions went hand in hand.European cooperation began with the Christian values of peacemaking, reconciliation and forgiveness.Yes, the key players in post war reckons reconstruction, Schumann, Adenauer, and De Gasperi were Roman Catholics who put their faith into practice in Christian democracy.Human believed reconstruction is only possible in the Europe, deeply rooted in Christian values and and in our saw the creation of new European structures as a real Christian.Together with the Catholic Claude Monet, they were the early advocates and architects of European Union.Winding forward to 1989 and the collapse of the Berlin Wall opened. New vistas of freedom and hope for millions of people.There was a sense of excitement about the future, the healing of wounds and division became the Central European story.The President of the European Commission enacted law envisaged a new European order.Europe reunited in diversity and the law invited the churches to strive with him for peace, justice and solidarity as the core values of a new Europe.The law thought.Europe should not just be about markets but about values and culture and so in 1990 told the churches we need a heart and soul. The doors now open for whoever can offer a heart and soul.The law offered regular informal meetings between churches and officials of the European Commission.And these eventually led to a legal commitment on the part of the European Union to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue.And I've taken part in several of those dialogues myself.The years following 1989 witnessed the widening and deepening of the European Community.Maastricht Treaty provided for a single currency treaties in Amsterdam and Nice paved the way for enlargements of the Community and the 2007 Lisbon Treaty gave the EU, a European Council President, but along the way the influence of the Christian roots in Europe weakened.In 2003, just goddess, tank chairman of the convention, or a new European Constitution, famously rejected reference in the preamble, not only to God, but also to the influence of Christianity on European history.And in 2014, Pope Francis, addressing the European Parliament expressed concern that Europe was no longer open to the transcendent dimension of life and was in danger of losing his soul.But today in 2021, we see a Europe in which faith is regarded with increasing suspicion.Whether for Anglicans in England or Catholics in Germany, safeguarding and child abuse has become a principal lens through which society views the church.In several countries, religion is associated in the public imagination with violence and terrorism.So we're witnessing new laws restricting religious freedom in France.Religious associations are being subject to additional financial controls restricting overseas donations.In Denmark, our proposed law is requiring sermons to be translated into Danish and vetted by the authorities in Switzerland visas.Religious ministers are now harder to obtain.In Belgium, traditional Jewish means of slaughtering animals abandoned and Nordic countries proposed bans on circumcision.And I find this restriction of religious freedom sad or even alarming.What ought to be the role of faith in shaping national and international institutions?Faith and faith communities ought, in my view, to adopt the posture of critical friend to our political institutions.Secular institutions and faiths have different goals.Politics is the art of the possible.The negotiation and compromise.Faith deals with ideals, transcendental hopes, visions that inspire.Faith needs to work with secular institutions to get things done on earth, but secular institutions without faith becomes soulless, failing to capture the hearts and imaginations of their citizens, as is the predicament of many liberal democracies today.But for this relationship between faith and political institutions to prosper, faith communities from our side have to rebuild public trust.We have to demonstrate through our diagonal action that we do make a massive contribution to public good.We have to demonstrate an ethic which is higher than the ordinary social ethic in key areas such as safeguarding and environmental concern.And we have to between us embody a spirit of cooperation, ecumenism, so that we're seen as a force for social unity and not social disharmony.Christian faith has been, in truth, a principal architect of European culture and values.It fostered the birth and growth of our modern pan European institutions.I don't wish to see the return of theocratic institutions, but I do long that our institutions might continue to be molded by the creative interplay of the church and the state.The religious and the secular.Thank you very much indeed.Uh, Robert, thank you, uh, move on to our next contributor to this session.Who's who's Linda Woodhead?Who's the professor of sociology of religion at Lancaster University, Linda.Thank you John.I'm going to share this, which I hope.You can see.Yeah, great, so I'm going to be talking about the Church of England, Brexit and Englishness.What's what's in a word?Uhm, I want to give you 2 words christening versus baptism.What's the difference?Actually, there's no difference, and both words are equally ancient, but as this lovely book by Sarah Lawrence shows, christening is the word ordinary people use, and baptism is the.Word that clergy.Use and often want to insist upon and one has got much more about an ethnic.Identity and one has got much more about a theological identity.And it's this some internal division that I want or come out of what a lot of what I'm going to say here within the church.Church women isn't one thing, but first of all let me start by making a a point that many of you may appreciate, which is that Anglicans do.Brexit Anglicans like Brexit.I just pay tribute to my colleague Greg Smith, who analyzed some data with me on this which was published as this article in Religion State Society in 2018.And what we showed in this article is what an enormous predictor of the Brexit vote identifying as Church of England was. So a full 2/3 of members of people who identify as Anglican or Church of England.Voted Brexit and you can see here if you compare it with the non religious Catholics, other Christian denominations.How high that is?Now you might be thinking, oh that's just because Anglicans tend to be older, which is true, and they tend to come from particular classes and parts of the country and so on, which is slightly less true.But actually none of this makes much difference.So here's a very simple way of correcting for those factors.And you will see that whatever you correct for gender class age where you live.Being Anglican is still going to make you more likely to vote Brexit.That's also true.I'll pause there 'cause there's quite a bit of information on that slide and rather small but.It's just a very simple way of correcting and showing that the effect remains whatever your.Also, voting preference if we ask about voting preference.In the 2015 general election.Come again.Being Anglican has an effect.So Anglicans as a whole.Self identified Anglicans are very strongly Brexit voting so much so because there are still a lot of of self identified Anglicans in the country that this had a, uh, a very significant effect.Without this Anglican vote, they would they would look the referendum would have had a different result, so we might think religion doesn't have a political effect anymore, but it certainly.'cause even even in the even in the UK.You might, you might ask.Well, that's just that's just as those who don't like.Traditional algorithms say just nominals as if they don't really matter.These are just nominals.What about church goes?Isn't it different for regular churchgoers?Yes, it is different.Regular churchgoers are slightly a somewhat less Brexit inclined, but they were still a preponderance was still.In favor of Brexit, so far as we can tell.There aren't many churchgoing Anglicans, so it's much harder to.Get clear picture there.OK, so Anglicans do Brexit.But clergy in the Church of England don't do.Brexit on the whole.We've already heard about the.Most senior church leaders.Saying very little, but what they did say, being supportive of remain.Uhm, but I've I've done big surveys of Anglican clergy of big samples.Uh, I didn't ask about the EU, but I ask questions like this one, immigration, which show a very significant difference.Very significant.Huge difference between what clergy clergy attitudes.And lay Anglican attitudes.So if you ask about immigration, the clergy are much, much more positive about the the effects of immigration than are Anglicans.Or the general population?And Anglicans are more negative from the general population as.You can see.So why do?Anglicans do Brexit, but clergy not do Brexit.Why this big disjunction, well?Can drill down a bit using polls that I've done previous. The referendum which showed very clearly in 2013, it was showing up very clearly the way the referendum would go isn't it's? It's not entirely true, John, but people didn't see it coming.Academics did see it coming.Who who asked the question?But I asked about what people thought were the advantages and disadvantages of EU membership as well in 2013 and up. Quite a big sample. I can break this down for Anglicans and and the general population and you can see that the biggest reason for everybody was there are too many EU laws and regulations.But for Anglicans that over over three courses are saying that's a reason why they don't like the EU, then come borders.Then too many people coming to work.Then British Parliament having less power and it's almost it's 2/3 of Anglicans thinking that. So 2/3 of Anglican were concerned about parliamentary sovereignty.Agriculture undermining British values at 58% of Anglicans worried about that?And and then come, you know, imports and something else.So that gives you some clue about why Anglicans voted Brexit.Uhm, I just wanted to put this up.This is a poll that came out just this.Month that the.Humanists commissioned because of the census, and it asked people who said they were Christian, why, they say they're Christian.This just gives you a good a good picture of what of who Anglicans are.What are the main reasons I was christened?I was brought up.I went as a child.I went to church Sunday school.My parents were Christian.OK now comes the religious reasons and they're much, much less.People don't aren't generally Anglican because of religious reasons and much lower down people are Anglican.For familial, you know, regional.Historic heritage, those types of reasons.So look at this one.I asked.This is a subgroup of people who said they thought the church thing of the positive force in society.So amongst them I said, why do you think the Church of England is a positive force?Completely different answers from clergy and laity.But for laity, culture, heritage values absolutely clear.That's what.Laypeople value, whereas for clergy it's about doing good for communities and God and support for the poor.But that's not what laypeople like about the Church of England.So there are two churches, the Church of Liberty in the Church of Clergy, and they are.Very very different in their priorities.So what I argued in this book that was the church that was which asks how did, how and why did the church women collapse so very quickly?After the 80s was that?The official church and the clergy and its leaders went in One Direction, but the English the self identified English and non religious cosmopolitan people went in the other direction.If there's anything approaching a culture war in England and it's very different from America, it's this.I think it's between ordinary people.Common sense shared understandings.Democracy, heritage and tradition and rootedness.And on the other side, elites specialist knowledge, including scientific.Law process rights, progress and a more cosmopolitan outlook and and and and and opinion polling does show that those those are clubbed different clusters really.So to conclude.Englishness nowadays English culture has been unchurched, the Church of England.The people who run it don't like it.And so it's been left without a church, and this is historically incredibly new and significant because as several people have said, English culture, whatever that is in its variety.Has always been very closely allied with that Church of England and it's not anymore.They've come apart and that will have big implications for what Englishness will mean in the future.And a final point, it's not this UN coupling.That has not affected all the national churches in Northern Europe.The one that is most closely coupled still to national identity.The Church of Denmark.As you can see from these figures, is a much, much more successful church and the Church of England, and I don't think that's a coincidence.So the UN coupling of English culture and the church.Has been very negative for the Church of England and it's going to have big effects on what Englishness means in the future as well I think.Thank you.Linda, thank you, thank you very much indeed, and there's a.Both those last two contributions have raised a seminars worth of issues just on their own.But we have two more speakers in in in this session.Next I'm going to go to Adrian Pabst.Adrian is the professor of politics at the University of Kent, and he's also the Deputy director of the National Institute of Economic.On Social Research, Adrian.John, thank you very much indeed.I want to pay tribute to all your work on on Englishness, which really I think has put that question on not just an academic map or really a public intellectual footing which is so sorely needed as we've just heard, because Englishness is perhaps the elephant in the room.The one thing that hasn't been debated and discussed.Enough, you know over the last.A few years and decades, and when I say Englishness and when I say a national identity really what I what I think is the case is that it it's something that mediates it mediates between the local and.The global.And I think all Christians, no matter what their denomination or even people who may not be charged, goes but still have a strong sense.Of the importance of faith in.Their private lives, and indeed in public life, will understand the importance of mediation.I mean, Christianity is all about mediation, and if you don't have the national, there mediates between the local and the global.Something is missing from both and that's I think where Englishness comes into all of this.It's not that the national is the most important.But without the national, you're going to struggle to hold the local and the global together.At least that's what I'd want to suggest.In my in my remarks, let me start with the there's I think quite the stark contrast between Brexit and COVID.So you know, as we've already heard, Brexit as they ought to become the symbol of division, right?Versus perhaps the first lockdown, where we had a sense of of of Union, again, right?A country that was trying to come together to deal with this terrible plague.Brexit is the you know, the symbol of elites versus the people.Which, as we've just seen with Linda's presentation, also plays into debates within the church around clergy versus laity.Whereas you know COVID again was the was the moment when people you know came together to try and stay home and and and and save lives and and you know Brexit was a symbol of of of conflict and hatred.That versus the 1st.Lockdown, there was a moment of sort of acts of sacrifice and love.For all those.Who were affected by bike?And so in many ways you know the question then is, well, how do we go from Brexit to covert?How can this be the same country and I think it's because perhaps we are too beholden to some of the binaries and it's already been mentioned in some of the contributions to the to the chat and to the discussions in the first part of this webinar, and of course up to a point.All binaries have some descriptor value, right, left and right.Makes sort of intuitive sense in terms of, you know our our own bodies and and and you know how we you know drive on the road and and all sorts of things.And politically we we still use that.Dualism very much where we also know its limitations, and I think the same is true for all the Brexit related binaries, some of which have already been mentioned.You know some words versus any words, but young versus old.You know urban versus rural.A university educated versus those without qualifications?As I just said, some of that has descriptive value to try and capture how that vote in 2016 went and what happened.Subsequently, but I think it's also the case that we mustn't be beholden to binaries, not least because the Christian faith.Would suggest that there's something always more than just binaries.I mean, after all crisis, both human and divine, and in that sense is a paradox that transcends any one of those two.Those two Poles and we definitely need to bear it in mind as we try and understand reality around.Now perhaps then Brexit has re defined some of the binaries away from your old left, right?Say towards you know liberal versus populist or perhaps away from the old working class versus middle class struggle to a new sort of opposition of the of the networked youth living in in sort of metropolitan areas versus the old left.Behind communities elsewhere, but again, even that doesn't capture the reality of contemporary England or Britain, because in any community in the UK you will have huge disparities of power, wealth and social status.Take one very urban area, the borough of Kensington and London.Where you know you have on the one hand a royal palace and lots of billionaires and within a 2 mile radius Grenfell Tower.And so no one is going to suggest that somehow London is all metropolitan, urban, incredibly affluent, progressive, and so on.This is not the case of any community really.Once we drill down.And go beyond these rather sterile binaries.Again, disparities of power, wealth, and status run through every community, sometimes every single St.And so really it is a secular logic that doesn't really do justice to reality.What we need to be thinking is what exactly it is that people seek.People don't seek power and wealth for their own sake.If by power we mean domination over others, all you know incredible amounts of abstract wealth.Of course everyone would like to be a little better off, no doubt.And everyone would like to have some agency, but that's very different from a quest for domination or for huge amounts of of financial wealth where people really seek much more mutual recognition to be recognized for your role.For your talents, for the contribution, you can make to your family to your neighborhood, to your community, and indeed to your country.And beyond.And in that sense, faith is always a reminder of how we seek something that is both material and immaterial at the same time.You know any kind of job should give us not just an income to cover the bills.It should also give us some self esteem, some sense of of of recognition.For our contribution, you know helping us with our self worth and the sense that we are part of something bigger, and so do we.The collective we of families of neighborhoods.Of nations you know always comes before the I before them.And I think faith is a is a reminder of.That, and even in political terms, when we think of what binds us together as a local community, a national community.But also as a family of nations in Europe and beyond, and in the case of the UK, of course, the Commonwealth, above all, it is actually not so much the eye.Or the me that that's that comes first as the we because even today political commitments and voting behaviors are much more driven by group ties and by social identities than just individual preferences.That's even true for voting behavior.It was already.Mentioned that people.In some sense voted against their immediate material interests when they vote.For Brexit, at least, that's what we were told by the by the remain side, and I kept on saying we should be voting for remain because we would all be better off by, you know, 4250 pounds to which. Of course, someone famously said in one of the BBC debates. That's just your GDP, meaning it's far too abstract, right? This is not reflective of people.Reality and of course the same was said about the vote for Trump and all sorts of other recent elections.It's not about people wallid really.It is about a sense of belonging.It is about a sense of belonging to particular places and and people, and so really I think what we come to is our faith is a reminder that belonging is both material and immaterial.And that we can be patriots as well as internationalists at the same time so very different from an abstract globalism where we only believe in transactions and endless travel and and rides.On the one hand or kind of ethnocentric, atavism and nationalism, on the other hand where?Somehow we don't.Like people of of another color or another language.Or culture.I think Oliver Donovan captures it well when he writes.This, you know, a very influential Anglican theologian.He writes, a true patriotism is the virtue of those who know where in particular time on Earth is spent and are conscious of what they owe to the discourse of that place.It is a virtue of concreteness, so loving your country.And respecting people love their country is something that comes to us very fundamentally.It's almost an anthropological given right?We are closer to people that we know that we share the same language and culture and neighborhoods with them.We are, you know, to to people we can't live every we can't live every.Equally, but that doesn't mean that we can't also love the stranger in our midst.And the Christian paradox is precisely that we can love both the stranger as our neighbor because we have come into contact with them because they are now part of our concrete reality.And I think what that means.For the church to conclude.Is that the church needs to take the parish again?Far, far more seriously.Has done not being managerial about and moving up.Priests around, in terms of you know money and so on.But actually thinking how it can reinvest the parish with meaning, you know, the concrete local parish weblogs, the parishes?Both are religious and of course a secular category.It is the most local of our administrative, political and cultural units, and it also has to reinvent social.So reinvest social, cultural, educational and economic activity not to withdraw just to a realm of caring for the soul, but also caring for the body.And caring for our overall integrated well-being and that means it has to drop its managerialism its middlebrow often very middle class language and needs to really speak to both high culture and folk culture.The things that really elevate us, not the things that kind of bring us down to, you know, spreadsheets and similar things that I think.Too much of the logical management is now using.I mean, ultimately it's about in the inclination, the resurrection of which testicular analogue is that we leave an embodied life in embedded life in relationships and institutions, and there's something redemptive in every.And that is, I think, what faith can contribute.And without the national, it's very difficult to hold the local and the global together.And if I can.Just finish on this point.The political community isn't just based on territory or people or laws or constitutions.It's essentially based on the common life held together by some sense of common truth.Even if that's debated and contested, but for that to happen, you actually need a sense that there is a universal truth that we somehow can glimpse.You know, the universal and.Body and blood of Christ that's instantiated in a particular bread and wine of Holy Communion as Christians.Would would believe it the word made flashed a globally universal church in the locally particular parish and that is mediated by the national and hence Englishness is so important to the future of the church.Without it it will lose both the local and the global, the patriotic and the international.Thank you.Adrian, thank you very much indeed.Uhm again, a lot of richness in there.I'm going to move straight on to David Muir, Reverend David Muir.He's the head of Whitelands College and senior lecturer in public theology and community engagement at the University of Roehampton David.Thank you, thank you John lot of arm rich contributions.Let me let me frame mark my conversation by saying that you know whether you are a remainer or a Brexiteer.If you were black, you probably felt that you were marginal to the debate in any case.And so I know that there was a very interesting article in the ethnic and racial studies in 2019, which looked at the experience of our black people in Europe, and they talked very much about everyday racism.And I know that you know there were times when people like Nigel Farage paraded uh a number of black people who he was saying a real BrexiteersAnd there, you know, Little Englanders.But for the majority of.Black people II guess there was a sense of foreboding.But it didn't really matter whether we remain or whether we wanted it.The everyday life of black folks were still going to be 1 dominated, punctuated with racism and discrimination.And therefore for me, both the kind of context, the content and the challenges of the Brexit, our debate was often framed around that and forcing my piece.It was also trying to ask some questions about the Church of England.We will just record as only a few years ago that Britain finally.Finished paying off.Uh, for the the the abolition of the slave trade, and we know that the Church of England through the corners of the state and other property holdings are profited and benefited enormously from from slavery.So the point I'm trying to make is this.You know, black.Folks know about the the triangular trade.On too many and too many of us that debate around, this was again about the same thing that one he and so whether you were David out on the soul of the historian or Anthony ready.The UM, the theologian, you very much mostly CERN about how the the debate was being framed.And we factored through issues of immigration and those horrendous posters that we saw, but also about colonialism and empire.And someone like David on this over this forum was basically saying that actually we just need to be very, very careful.That we don't, we don't.We don't get trapped.Into a past of English history, which is at best unhelpful and at worst a bit of historical.In Inexactitudes, and so when we were looking at the Church of England. Of course, many of us were very impressed with the archbishop's apology.In summer last year.And I've been around the Church of England.I spent my formative years, and many would argue that my political activism came out of my Church of England background when I was at Saint Marks and Kennington in the 80s with a wonderful vicar called Nicholas.Without Connor, he was running very much concerned about the poor.And how we, as Anglicans, especially Black and make sure that we do everything in our power to do something about some of the injustices that we saw in places like South London, especially after the riots of 1981. And then the riots of of 1985. But in respect of the.The Church of England and the apology.This will also tide up into the kind of Brexit Nexus, and you know if you were someone like Bishop Ward and the force, I'm Linda and others may remember Bishop Ward and of course she.Bishop was a very, very good friend of our dear Bishop worms. We should both said back in the mid 1980s.That the Church of England burn needed a Commission.That looked at.This is a you know, that's that's decades later.I'm now middle understand that they're going to be doing that.They're going to be doing that shortly.I hope the.Recommendations happen before I dearly beloved Bishop, who's gone back to Barbados is actually is actually still still with us.Well, what?Was fascinating for many Anglicans and longer things about the Brexit debate and it's optimal.Especially Albert was seen within the Church of England.Was the fact that.One of our academics.Uhm Paul Gilroy.Older book in the 80s and title there ain't no black in the Union Jack.And many people saw that as a fitting metaphor for the exclusion of black and brown people from the dominant institutions of our nation.And when we thought about the Church of England as one of those dominant institutions, and you measured the progress, we say from since 1985 faith in the city to now.Many people in the church.And outside of the dog, but although there has been some progress.There hasn't been enough and we know that you know recently Justin Robbie, along with Pasta, Ragu or one of the large black majority churches in the UK have become good soul mates.And they're trying to do a number of things, but I think there's something there's something truly abysmal.About an institution like the Church of England.That has to apologize to the Windrush generation after 70 years because it treated black people so appallingly from the time that they arrived 1948 onwards. That's not to say that the apology wasn't wasn't meaningful, but many would argue.The apology came too late.And men would also question the sincerity of the apology in my peace.I do actually raise that, but I think we're at a stage now, where Anglicans, especially Black Anglicans.I've got to ask themselves the embodied question and the embodied question is that old thing that you know the great.Historian Clr James I talked about when he was commenting on on dialectics and for someone like Clr.James Dialectics is the ability to and to anticipate the future.And if one were to anticipate what the future might look like, not just in our nation or also in the Church of England, people like Rose may have their own ideas.But someone like me, who is both an insider and an outsider, I'm going to ask myself those fundamental political questions.Now that we have the apology now, what we have seen, Anglican churches and other churches, namely black majority judges working closely.So what?And so last year December, the University of the West Indies, we no other person in its Vice Chancellor, the eminent Hilary Beckles, was asking questions about reparations.In other words, what is the Anglican church going to actually do?To make life in its church better for black and brown people.And also how the Anglican church worldwide going to use its resources.To hatch to actually empower and to enable its own black and even clergy to actually fulfill their God-given talents and destiny.I know those are those are questions there, they are not new questions, but it seems to me that there is an urgency and there is a radical attentiveness.That leaders in our church and other churches need to take seriously.If we're going to heal the fractured nation.In other words.People both inside and outside the church.May still be looking for symbols and signs of healing, reconciliation and redemption.I think the church is still the place that we're once you'd be able to see those signs.My fear is that we'll have more commissions.We have more inquiry.And very very little will be done since Bishop Wilfrid Wood back in 1987 in Synod was asking for the church to radically thing as to how it treats its black and its brand.The final thing I want to say is that towards the end of my teens, we let the book.I conclude with a very hopeful note, I think.When I'm talking about a need for a covenant to develop greater solidarity for our fellow sisters, brothers, and citizens within our church and nation.When I think about the debate we you know we had last week and we're still having now around Harry and Meghan and racism.Let me be frank, I'm not on board.Because I think we haven't really moved.Forward and a lot of the conversations we are having are so intellectually shallow and so historically naive. But it almost brings me back to the point when the Windrush folks land docked at Tilbury June 1948.11 I called him the 11 wise Man of Westminster.11 Labour MPs wrote a letter to coming at me complaining about these black people who had just finished a few years ago, dying for King and Country, saying that they were totally unsuitable.To come here and their presence would actually impair the harmony and the unity of the British people.I'm a Greenwich man.That's where I live.I see myself as British when I go to the Caribbean and Africa they make me feel that way.Maybe I love to queue.Maybe I walk fast.I don't know what it is, but I still feel a little uncomfort.People to think of myself as both.Uhm, English and black and so yes, the census needs to rethink some of those categories, but I think the Church of England has got a serious job to do.If it's going to hear in historic our memories and make black and brown people in spuge and in and in its leadership.Leadership feel comfortable about their role and in their place as men and women created in the image of God.I'm hopeful.I'm very hopeful and I hope that we can all make whatever contributions we need to make to challenge those with what the power and authority to maybe stop talking and actually to start to do stuff as they say.Thank you.David, thank you very much.Thank you very much indeed, and thanks to all the speakers for an incredibly stimulating set of contributions.If we can, I want to try to explore.Three issues that come out of those, to me at least, and I hope these are not too far away from things that interest other people and I won't try and bring everybody in on each issue, but a couple of questions were asked and I just would commend to people a comment made by Dominic.Grieve in in in in the chat about connectedness where he says the UN coupling that Linda talked about is very serious, a Christian expression of Englishness may be less desirable than an English expression of Christianity, but is likely to be more benign than a godless expression of national identity.Which is a a thought.I just wanted to start first with the question about establishment which was raised by Andrew W and Sarah Roland Jones in relation to two issues raised one by Robert and the other by Linda, a sort of paradox.In both cases Robert was talking about essentially institutions that.Historically had been shaped by faith, but now we're estranged from them, and Linda was describing as a church in which there's clearly around these issues and estrangement between people who identify as Anglicans and the leadership.But in both of those questions, is the establishment of the Church of England.A help or?A hindrance in the relationship that the church has with power, but particularly shaping institutions and shaping nation.Do either of you, or indeed the other two speakers want to come back in on that point.But could I?Yeah, yeah.I don't know about the protocols on this.I don't know if anybody gets sacked for trying to answer this question, so this is not my most familiar territory, but I'll pose the question anyway, yeah?The Church of England is England is rather unique in having bishops in the House of Lords.I think it's only Iran, it's the only other country that has that has religious figures in its legislature.But I I I run, I think that Rowan Williams or in his grace Grace Davies notion of the the importance of a weak establishment is is, I think you know, quite significant, that the Church of England isn't by any means, you know, a dominant controlling force in English national life.And I think Linda has made that clear.To us, if we didn't already think that.But I I think with with Dominic.Grieve, I would say that a weak establishment and a weak presence of a church in national life is better than pure secularism.And an absence of value, and I think.That the the.The Church of England, insofar as it still retains those connections at national level, can do some good.It it can make it safer for other minority religions as well to to be recognized and to have a place in national life.And so I I I, I'd be sad if it was lost, though it may be and and I would understand if secularists said, well, you you don't merit this position anymore.I I'd have a slightly different take on that John and Robert, which is that establishments been so weakened that now it was a very different thing when Parliament really took an interest in the Church of.England that kept them together.But the Church of England has its. I mean it's so this formation of Synod in 1970 something.Was the real break where the church becomes, in effect self governing and parliament just doesn't take any interest?And that's very very sad, really.And that's partly why the UN coupling has gone so far, and the church has exempted itself.Don't forget from laws binding on.The rest of society.It's not a public body, uh, it's it's the it's made itself.Its leaders have deliberately marginalized it, so it can't be controlled.So you get terrible.Scandals in the church.At the moment, like safeguarding where Parliament and the government can do absolutely nothing about it.So I think it's already gone.Actually, in in any effective.Why the establishment?So does that mean that the Church of England not just the whole of the Anglican church, was at the?Church of England needs to consciously rethink its relationship with political power and institutions of state.Yes, and it can't have it both ways.It can't have.It can't have the.Establishment privileges and not be bound to the common laws and those sorts of things.It doesn't make any sense.Thank you, anybody else want to come in on?That yeah, I would.I would definitely leave with Linda.But I think I think there's also something about about culture, and of course, you know tearfully, very concerned, but the kind of dialectical relationship between culture and faith.I often say to, especially my students.It's a bit like someone who's got a tattoo, you know, on their arm, you know, I.I love Jane.And of course, even Jane they come.Divorce 60 years.Possibly so those symbols and signs may still have some kind of a resonance, but I really have no no substance, so I think we need to ask ourselves, you know, we live in in a much more Democratic age, a pluralistic age and age which is not.Ah, who, whose sensibility two different as almost gone the question must.Be why do we need?The Church of England in the House of Lords constituted as it is, so unless we're going to have different cultural arrangements that actually morph to reflect the nation as it is, we're going to end up with historical institutions that are not only Acronis Lee.They may become offensive to some people.And therefore you know if we had a strong church that was truly independent, it may have a much more effective church.OK, thanks.I'd like now like to pick up.A question re one that's been posed by David was posed by Rose earlier, and it's against a background where, as Robert May want to come in in Europe there are political forces trying to redefine or re establish the idea of Europe as a Christian civilizational.A European Union, as opposed to a Union of nations, many of which all of which are now multicultural to some extent.What's interesting there clearly is on a day when Parliament is being asked to pass legislation with.I think 8 mentions of statues and penalties of up to 10 years in jail for defacing a statue.A real desperate urgency to find a new.Way of telling our National History that explains why we are the way we are today with the population we have today and explains the different experiences historically and now of people in this nation.And one of the questions.I suppose I have David talked about apology.Why is it that the church, which potentially is in a very strong position to lead the retelling of that national story, doesn't get more on the front foot in doing that?Because in a sense, part of the question this this this hour is about national identity, national identity.Our national stories.So if we don't have a shared national story, we can't have a shared national identity and I'm just interested in in what it is that holds the church back from trying.To to tell a history, as we now have a as a of a post Imperial nation baby could can I ask you what the obstacles are?Because you you you.Exposed the shortcomings, but what the obstacles are and I'd like to ask Robert about how the church should be responding to the people who are now invoking the idea of Christianity.In order to promote a very reactionary view of Europe and I might bring Adrian in.On that as well.He once said that history is a slaughterhouse.I think sometimes if you're going to be truthful about storytelling and historical storytelling, it might mean resurrected even big enough.Some of our past that that that we don't like the church being like all dominant institutions have.'cause that bed was a cheap barriers, possibly partner kind of educational function of history is to get us to have conversations about that thoughts and so you know some people are quite happy with sourcing our mythologise of their past.'cause that is very, very comfortable.But I think you know.We need to.We need to be mature enough and as we said confidently.Enough to be able to look at our past, even the bad bits I used to tell black radicals many, many years ago that you there are some groups who feel that all white people are devils, and of course we look at certain periods of history.A lot of the things that European did to black folks, the African was bellish.But when you compare.People like I'm Thomas Clarkson who did the groundwork to give to over force.You know, in his in his campaign against Avon you begin to see that you know it isn't as it isn't as simple as we say.Well there.Is a total dishonesty about looking at our past and history should not imprison us.You should actually liberate us and part of that is being honest about where we start and therefore the Church of England, you know needs to be honest about its its its history.What I'm saying I'm actually bored now.We had this conversation what I want to see.What are you gonna do about Sir?How are you going to make sure that men and women who want to be trained in the Church of England feel that they have got a safe space?How do you ensure that all of your legacy is all your fund, all the money back?You do something to help young black boys and girls who maybe are struggling.All I'm saying is that you know, by their fruit, said someone famous.We will know them and I'm not seeing a lot of fruits and seeing a lot of talk.Therefore, if I sound a bit cynical, believe you me I am.OK, thank you.Robert, yeah.Thank you very much John.I I do want to respond to some of the voices in in the chat around the fact that the Church of England does need to be appropriately modest about the fact that it is the Church of England and not the Church of the United Kingdom.And there are Anglicans in Wales and Scotland and Ireland who are not members of the Church of England, but are Anglicans.And and so I think if we're going to be talking about.Telling the national story well.You know that's got to be a partnership project, hasn't it?I mean no one religious body can can do that, but as far as as far as Europe is concerned, we do see forces, particularly in Europe and Hungary, might be the best example where Christianity is Co opted but.In into sort of national policies and aims of a right wing nature and and people are encouraged, you know, to to follow the the to to adhere to family faith and.Tag and and actually some of those developments are very sinister in in my view and highly reactionary and and there are, you know, here I want I want to be kind of more augustini and and say the church has to be a prophetic voice and not allow itself to be Co opted by the state as a way of propping up.National identity, so I'm I'm.I'm very nervous of that and of course.There is.There is tension within the Christian world between the east and the West.As to what sorts of social ethical values are Christianity stands for and and you you will see lively debates within the Roman Catholic hierarchy between different different Cardinals and bishops, where you know that those in the West are really pretty.Critical of of of what some of the east might be saying, so a pan European right wing Christian, you know identity is not something that I think we want to encourage by any means.Adrian, do you want to add anything?But I mean I, I think that's that's absolutely right, that that the church should never be at the service of state power and certainly not propaganda.And at the same time I think it is in line.I think we've created to try and transform the state and to really make it into a policy that is both, you know, local and global in in some sense, so that you know it.Reflects both the particularity's.In each culture.But also can speak to some universal standards of you know of justice and and and goodness, and indeed.Truth so it it is.A very difficult.Balance, but I think Wonder Church constantly has to try.And and get right and on on civilization.I think it isn't necessarily the case that all discourse on civilization has to be, you know, right wing or reactionary, or indeed should be, you know, just the opposite.You know left wing and progressive 'cause.I think these are all secular categories that the church really shouldn't have any preference for.I mean the the point about civilization.Is that it's often something which goes beyond national cultures and still binds us together.I mean when we speak the language of European identity, which I'm.In favor of then, I think we are saying something about a particular European civilization that is very plural.That doesn't come from itself.It's not self founded.It's really Crucible of civilizations, right?It's the end.Tons of of you know Indo European language to the influence of ancient Greece and Greece and Rome.It's in terms of Judaism.It's the influence of Islam of course, as well as our Christian tradition.So I think we can have a language of civilization that is plural and recognizes its different strands.But, you know, is also different from Chinese civilization or Indian civilization today.Or indeed different from from North America, you know, to to some extent, so I don't think civilization is necessarily, you know, a right wing reactionary project.I, I don't think it.We can quite give, you know, leave it to one side because we aren't just national cultures.We are national culture as part of a wider civilizational context, and I think it's to try and hold that in balance, which is a difficult you know project.But one, I think the church has to try and engage him.Thank you, Andrew.W politely pointed out that I didn't quite get his question right, but I hope what Robert has said and Andrew said about the relationship between the church and the state has gone some way to cover that ground.The last point I wanted to get him very quickly, and then I'm going to go to the panel to make any final remarks here.Is the issue?Of place which Adrian raised as the church mediating between place and global, Philip raised it earlier in terms of the response of the church.And Linda described a church where there's a quite a gap between the congregation and the clergy, and I suppose my question here is.Do the people on this panel agree about the importance of the churches role in the locality in place in shaping the identity of place as well as the nation and.Very briefly, is.The church, as it currently stands equipped.To play that role.Linda, can I?Tease you out on that one first.Yes, in rural areas John is the short answer.You know, the rural church is very very different from city and urban churches and police and church go together in the rural still, but the church is finding it incredibly hard to to staff those as as my clerical colleagues will know more about and and to finance those.But I think that's hopeful.I think we will see a returning of those churches and graveyards.To the local communities, as was the case in medieval times, and I think that may lead to a bit of a rejuvenation of things, but there's quite a.Lot of trauma to go through first.David, do the new links with the black majority churches provide a new scope for the presence of the church at local level.I think I think it does.That's one of the, you know, the kind of signs and symbols.Of hope that I see.But I also think that Anglicans have got to be serious about giving up some of their prestige and their power.If this, if this covenant, and it has to be, that is going to actually work, I think the church is a great force for good, but it just needs to reframe it.Strike our privileges.And be really honest about giving up some of the power that it holds, and that also includes financial power.Hey Ben.Then the short answer is John yes or no.Yes, place really matters and know the church is currently not equipped.I think to to to give expression to that fully, however.I think it.Has been said by both Linda and David.There's some very hopeful signs, I think, as part of COVID, and perhaps a slightly balancing between a sort of rural exodus and you know everything.Concentrating in urban areas.Some other parts of of the country might see you know some more.Uh, you know.Some more revival, you know, including numerical revival when it comes to to practice and churchgoing, I don't think that can be excluded, I mean.Often urban added to the.Other starting point for that, and of course in urban areas you know churches, not necessarily Anglican, but other Christian nations have been growing very quickly so.I think there.Is some sense in which you know even church ascendants.Church attendance might might recover, but I think it'll take a lot more than just hoping for demographic and other factors in the long in the long run.It will need a real cultural renewal of of the church I think 1 where again it engages with the lived realities on the ground.And that can't be done by having an old model of either sort of a post imperial church.All one where you know it's all about resources.I I appreciate the importance of resources, but I think that is a secondary question.The first question is what's the parish for?And I'm afraid I think you know fresh expressions and other recent issues have not helped, whereas you know, thinking around the parish and how it can be a center.For culture and education and welfare and even economic activity, that is, I think, the way for the church to go.Robert last word.Yeah, I would say that as a Bishop the local is of the highest importance for me and I think that the the church is either local or or isn't anything at all.Most of us identify most with the local expression of church I.I don't quite agree with Adrian that fresh expressions has nothing to contribute because fresh expressions is reaching.Communities that parishes don't reach, but.The church that my experience of church is its weakest nationally.We're essentially judging. There's a diocesan organization. Its bishops and clergy and people in a dicis in a county in a locality and and my my colleagues and I see ourselves as at the service of the local church, so I'm I'm, you know, 100% behind localness.Thank you very much indeed.Can I just say by way?Of closing to answer a question that's in the chat.The recording of this session will be made available within the next week or so.It'll be on the centers website, but we will send a link to everybody who registered to take part in this.I found this an enormously.For me, rich and valuable.A conversation if in case it wasn't clear, it probably was as I tried to lead you through the questions.I'm not a member of the church myself.I'm somebody who thinks that these debates in civil, society, civic, organized society organisations are actually critically important to the health of our society and of our democracy.In our Saints or sense of nationhood.UM, so I've come at this as a an interested layperson but have found it really grateful to people for the way that you've engaged with this discussion, as I said.We hope that the center will organize future debates of this sort, not just around the Anglican tradition, but broader faith traditions as well.Can I thank Andrew and Jonathan for bringing the book together which brought us all together and for all the people who've been on the call and all our speakers tonight?Thank you very much indeed.And I hope we'll see many of you again at future events.Thank you very much.