Resiting the UK’s Embassy in Israel
From the Rt Revd Michael Doe and the Very Revd Nicholas Frayling
Sir, — As trustees of the Balfour Project, we welcome the interventions by church leaders condemning the Government’s declared intention to consider moving the British Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, including Cardinal Vincent’s statement that it would go against the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, and the “concern” that has now been expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Church of England does not have a good record on such issues. Ever since our nation’s complicity in the betrayal of the Palestinians at the end of the British Mandate, we have said little, and done even less, with regard to the Israeli military occupation of 1967, and the current situation, which remains in direct contravention of international law and human rights.
With a few notable exceptions, such as the Bishop of Southwark in the House of Lords, we have stood by while the illegal settlements have grown and now gravely threaten the feasibility of a two-state solution. On anti-Semitism, our House of Bishops has signed up to the IHRA definition. Others who believe equally in universal human rights, including many Jews and Israelis, have advocated the alternative Jerusalem Declaration, which is clearer in defining legitimate criticism of Israeli Government policy.
We have lamented the departure of many Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land, but without acknowledging the oppression which has led to their leaving. We have been content with the Council of Christians and Jews restricting itself to interfaith matters, despite what both faiths say about justice and law.
Today, we need to show solidarity with all those in Palestine and Israel who seek peace with justice for all the people in the region. To move our Embassy to Jerusalem would be to condone the illegal activity of an occupying power, including its illegal annexation of East Jerusalem. We must urge our Government not to review its location, but, rather, to concentrate its energies on a lasting peace with equal rights for all. We have written to urge the Government to drop this dangerous and immoral proposal — and earnestly request that your readers do the same.
MICHAEL DOE, NICHOLAS FRAYLING
c/o 405 West Carriage House
Royal Arsenal, London SE18 6GA
Time for action over the state repression in Iran
From Parisa Pordelkhaki, Pauline Weaver, and the Revd Larry Wright
Sir, — Of the tens of thousands of Iranians living in the UK, a significant number are converts to Christianity. Our parish of Kings Norton, like others, provides a special ministry to Iranians. For them, the current upheaval in Iran is a cause of agony, anger and heart break. The appalling scenes of violent repression by the Iranian security forces are broadcast daily across the media provoking international condemnation. Iranians in the UK are looking to our national leaders to take actions to accompany their denunciation of the regime’s crackdown.
They are also looking for statements from religious leaders in the UK expressing concern for the situation in Iran, particularly from the C of E. To date, there has been none. This silence from church leaders has left Christian Iranians perplexed, angry and overlooked. It is not too late for statements of prayerful solidarity with the suffering, and hope for the future to be issued but our plea is they come soon.
PARISA PORDELKHAKI (Reader), PAULINE WEAVER (Lay Minister), LARRY WRIGHT (Rector)
c/o 81 The Green, Kings Norton
Birmingham B38 8RU
Reactions to second Past Cases Review report
From Rhona Knight
Sir, — It is good to see the publication of the national report on the second Past Cases Review of the Church of England (PCR2) (News, 7 October). It is also good to see more dioceses begin to engage with the issue of bullying which the report identifies, as exemplified by the July 2022 guidance from York diocese. The York diocesan guidance states: “In deciding whether conduct constitutes bullying or harassment, the following must be taken into account: the perception of the individual making the allegation; the other circumstances of the case; whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.”
It needs to be noted that bullying, including cyberbullying, often triggers traumatic responses. In such responses, memory and logical, linear, and rational processing can be significantly compromised, both about the bullying event(s) and also about context surrounding the event(s). The requirement in the York diocesan policy for the response to the alleged bullying behaviour to be deemed to be reasonable is likely to affect adversely the assessment of cases of those for whom the bullying has been traumatic. It also raises the questions who makes this judgement and with what professional expertise.
The York policy also requires the person to “describe the behaviour complained of, and the occasion(s) when it occurred in order for it to be considered and investigated”. If the bullying has resulted in a traumatic response, it should be recognised that the ability to do this may well be significantly compromised.
The 2022 National Theatre play Prima Facie powerfully demonstrates how organisations that default to apparent rationality do not enable spaces for the narratives of trauma to be given voice, understood and heard. It is important that all bullying policies in the Church of England are truly trauma informed.
RHONA KNIGHT
Charis, 5 Griffiths Close
Oakham, Rutland LE15 6FP
From Margaret Wilkinson
Sir, — Broken Rites is grateful to the authors of the Past Cases 2 (PCR2) report for recognising how few cases of domestic abuse they found during their search through church records. Our members have experienced the culture that they describe in which the Church has failed to recognise, has minimised, or has failed to respond appropriately to domestic abuse.
Many ex-spouses of members of the clergy have not reported their abuse to the Church, for a multitude of reasons. These include the fear that doing so will make a difficult situation impossible, or that they will not be believed. Others do not recognise that what they thought was “a difficult marriage” was in fact abusive until years later. Some remain silent because they have been groomed to believe that it was all their fault. Still others are so traumatised that they remain unable to put into words what they have suffered.
The Church’s policies do little to support spouses. Section 2.5 of the policy document Responding Well to Domestic Abuse states that clergy may remain in an abusive marriage for many years because of their ordination vows, but does not mention marriage vows. Spouses often remain in abusive situations because they take their marriage vows seriously, for better or for worse. Worse still, those who complain about domestic abuse by a member of the clergy through the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) will discover that the complaint cannot be heard until after the divorce has been finalised, which can distort the divorce proceedings.
When the complaint is eventually considered, sections 213-215 of the CDM Code of Practice come into play. These sections remind us that the bishop retains discretion at all times. Our experience is that the bishop rarely finds sufficient evidence to warrant imposing a penalty.
MARGARET WILKINSON
Chair, Broken Rites
27 River Grove Park
Beckenham, Kent BR3 1HX
From Mr Martin Sewell
Sir, — I have been pondering the implications of the second effort at a Past Cases Review which identifies a significant number of abuses that were known, recorded, but unactioned in various dioceses across the C of E. This raised an unscientific but troublesome thought.
I can call to mind the names of quite a few priests who have been disciplined or driven out of office and/or the Church, after identifying abusive or bullying behaviour. Less familiar are the names of those who have resigned or been disciplined for knowingly covering up such misconduct.
Between now and the next General Synod meeting, we are promised a slew of reports to add to PCR2. There will be the IICSA report, the long-delayed SCIE reports on Lambeth Palace and Bishopthorpe, the Devamanikkam report, the Makin review of John Smyth, and maybe one or two external reports throwing light on the bullying scandal at Christ Church, Oxford. This leads me to two troubling observations.
First, what exactly will it tell us about the moral state of the C of E and its leadership if we arrive at Church House next February without a single honourable resignation, or set of disciplinary proceedings being initiated against those who saw, knew, but chose to pass by on the other side?
Second, is it absolutely essential that those who “made mistakes” stay on board to “put them right”?
I do not seek excessive scapegoating, but a little honourable taking of responsibility would not go amiss.
MARTIN SEWELL
General Synod member for Rochester diocese
8 Appleshaw Close
Gravesend, Kent DA11 7PB
Distinctive voice for Christians in the tax debate
From Sarah Edwards
Sir, — Tax has indeed usually been framed negatively throughout history (Good Money Week feature, 30 September). ECCR’s Church Action for Tax Justice campaign was set up in 2018 as the Churches’ voice on tax justice — and part of our challenge has been to try to change that narrative. Besides working closely with our secular allies, we believe, Christians have a distinctive voice and contribution to this debate.
The Zacchaeus in the headline of this article was, of course, a tax collector who responded to the call of Jesus on his life by redistributing much of his wealth to the poor. The Bible is rich (pardon the pun) in teachings about money and wealth, which can inform a strong moral perspective on tax and wider economic justice, arguably now more needed than ever in these turbulent times.
There are also distinctive ways in which Christians and churches can respond to the challenge of tax justice. Besides leading the wealth tax campaign, our Church Action for Tax Justice resources (www.eccr.org.uk/church-action-for-tax-justice) include Bible studies, sermon notes, and prayers. Our Ethical Buying Guide gives advice to churches so that they can buy goods from companies adhering to the Fair Tax Mark, mentioned in the article.
SARAH EDWARDS
Executive Director, ECCR
61 Bridge Street, Kington
Herefordshire HR5 3DJ
Theories of atonement
From the Revd Dr Tom Ambrose
Sir, — Rupert Shortt (Features, 16 September) rightly points out that Judaism and Islam have no place for theories of atonement. But he refers to “orthodox belief”, from which readers might incorrectly infer that Eastern Orthodox Christianity holds to theories of atonement which were developed in the Latin-speaking West. Christians of Greek-speaking heritage hold firmly to belief in the resurrection, as proclaimed in the Christian creeds, without atonement. So, Mr Shortt’s listing of evidence of the resurrection does not in itself support any theory of the atonement.
Such theories are seriously undermined, first, by the “Steve Chalke” argument (the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse) in The Lost Message of Jesus (Zondervan, 2003). Second, ideas reliant on Milton’s Paradise Lost are inconsistent with scientific views of creation. There never was an original perfection, and human mortality is not the result of “Adam’s sin”, despite St Paul’s protestations in Romans.
F. W. Dillistone’s The Christian Understanding of Atonement (SCM Press, 1968, 1984) opens with this mistake when he writes: ‘‘The whole universe as originally created was perfect in conception and form. Yet through some primordial catastrophe . . .” Stephen Sykes (The Story of Atonement, DLT, 1999), unfortunately, copies Dillistone.
In contrast, the Gospel presents God’s forgiveness as free and unconditional, to the prodigal son, the paralysed man lowered through a roof, and even a thief on the cross. Orthodox Christians see no requirement for doctrines of the atonement. We all believe in “the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body”, and don’t have to claim that we know how.
TOM AMBROSE
229 Arbury Road
Cambridge CB4 2JJ
Reasons for majority verdict on climate change
From the Revd John Humphreys
Sir, — “The jury is out” on climate change, the Revd Ulric Gerry tells us (Letters, 30 September). That is only the case inasmuch as a small minority, many with a predetermined commitment to being unconvinced on this issue, and often with funding from polluting corporations, are still holding out and vociferously denying the case for human induced climate change.
The facts are that the theoretical basis of the link between atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration and global temperature was put forward many decades ago. In the period since then, we have seen atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration increase and global temperature rise. When a scientific theory makes a prediction and that prediction is fulfilled, the theory has to be taken very seriously.
This could, of course, be a correlation between two variables rather than causation of one by the other, but no alternative credible cause of either the increased carbon-dioxide level in the atmosphere or global warming has been identified — only the obvious fact that humanity is pumping vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and that is causing global warming, as theory predicts.
The only route to absolute proof of this causal mechanism would be if we had another earth without increasing atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels; but, as we haven’t, we would be well advised to heed the evidence and the understanding that we have, before the sort of disaster that Professor Allwood warns of in his article “Real Zero: Four Awkward Truths” (Features, 16 September), becomes unavoidable, if it isn’t already.
JOHN HUMPHREYS
61 Josephine Avenue
Lower Kingswood
Tadworth
Surrey KT20 7AB