Respect for every person

Friday 10 November 2006

Archbishop's Address to the Readers of the Diocese of Newcastle, Friday 10 November 2006

It's a great pleasure to be with you here tonight. Not only is the company excellent and of the highest quality, but the food and wine is pretty good too.

I have heard recently that the makers of wines such as Pinot Grigio and Pinot Noir are looking into marketing a new grape for those folk with weak bladders who complain that too much wine drinking leads to too many visits to the bathroom during the night. I understand the new grape is to be called Pinot More.

I wanted to take this opportunity to honour and give due recognition to all of you who give so much to the Church through your service as Readers.

From the uncertain beginnings of Reader Ministry in 1561 when Readers were forbidden to preach or interpret the word of God, through to today where there are now around 10,000 Episcopally licensed Readers in the Church of England, the ministry of Reader has undergone some transformative changes.

In 1561 Readers were permitted to read the appointed service "plainly, distinctly and audibly" in those "poorer parishes destitute of incumbents". They were required to read a chapter of the Old Testament and of the New Testament daily, to move "men" to quiet and concord and not to give them reason for offence. They were to be sober in apparel, especially in church. You only need to look at some of the gear worn by readers these days to see how much things have changed !

By the 20th Century a number of "classes" of Reader had emerged: Parochial Readers, nominated by the incumbent of a parish and licenced by the bishop to minister in that parish; Diocesan Readers commissioned by the bishop to officiate in any parish at the request of the incumbent; Scriptural Readers and Catechists also came to be granted Reader licences, in time. The most numerous group were the Lay Evangelists or Lay Preachers who developed alongside Reader Ministry until they were brought under the Reader licence.

Preaching by Readers after Evensong, after a suitable pause, became common following World War I, but Readers were not formally permitted to use the pulpit until 1941. This was not a great problem in earlier years as much preaching by Readers was conducted in the open air as Evangelists !

But whilst some things have changed, other parts of the Readers' role have remained constant. Speaking in 1884 at the Canterbury Convocation the then Bishop of Bangor said readers were:

"Christians who can bridge over the gap between the different classes of society; who by being in close communication with the clergymen on the one hand and the industrious masses on the other, can interpret each to each."

In the engagement between World and Church Readers are in the front line of engagement, the first to hold a conversation on what the Church might say about the news last night, about the Da Vinci Code, or about what God might do to sort out the current depressing form of Newcastle United. Whay ai Man !

But the grounds upon which that engagement take place are in the midst of flux. As the recent cases of veil wearing and cross wearing in the workplace demonstrate there is a clash of traditions, perceptions and aspirations between those who want to see faith privatised and those of us who see a proper role for faith in the public sphere; in our schools, in our workplaces and in our politics.

This clash can be seen most readily in the actions of public authorities and can be seen as cases of "Wintervalitis" after the actions of Birmingham City council who in 1998 tried to rename Christmas as "Winterval" in an attempt not to offend anyone. Such was the outcry, led by the then Bishop of Birmingham Mark Santer, and supported by the other faith communities in the City, that the Council dropped the idea.

But in the eight years since Winterval there have been many other instances and decisions where Christianity is being systematically eroded from public view – more often than not in the fear of offending those who would not be offended in the least or because of the mistaken belief that Christianity has no role to play in the public arena.

This systematic erosion is subtle, with minor changes which drip by drip erode centuries of Christian heritage and identity. Examples can be seen all over officialdom: the change in official Government cards from "Happy Christmas" to "Seasons Greetings", the change to the asking for a "first name" instead of a "Christian name", the slow chipping away at the foundational heritage that gave birth to those values we all share.

And then there are the policy decisions: Torbay Council's decision to remove a cross from the wall of a crematorium, Royal Mail's decision to go with Santa and not Jesus on Christmas stamps and this week the actions of Plymouth City Council who introduced car parking fees on Sundays for worshippers at two city centre churches. Explaining their actions the council said, "The current free parking on a Sunday morning is discriminatory to other faiths and religious praying days". The people of Plymouth corporately need to make a robust but peaceful response. Longstanding traditions can not be simply swept aside by a stroke of a pen. Sunday, in this country, is a day of rest. Why does not the Council come clean that their worship at the temple of Mammon is exacting a heavy price instead of the weasel words that "the current free parking on a Sunday is discriminatory to other faiths and religious praying days." We do need to keep Sunday special.

Plymouth's only synagogue is in the city centre a short walk from the churches at the centre of the parking dispute. The City's Buddhist temple, the Ashoka Buddhist Centre, is a mile outside the centre. It's mosque, the Islamic Centre, is on the outskirts of the city. Are these faith groups the one that are complaining ? Or is it the estimated parking fees of £36,000 a year, if Church attendance remains the same, a price worth paying for the creation of bad feelings where there was none before. Has the council simply dismissed the voluntary work and civic work which these Churches undertake every week ?

And then there are those examples in the workplace that never quite reach the headlines. I heard only the other day of a solicitors firm in Leeds where the starting of a prayer group amongst Christians became an agenda item during national partners meeting of the firm as to whether such things should be allowed.

In the fear of not offending someone the illiberal atheists under the cloak of secularism end up offending everyone, acting out of the mistaken belief that Religion should be a private matter and that faith itself should be privatised. There are places in the world where this remains the case. For minorities in China, in Burma, in Pakistan, in Belarus, in Eritrea, in all of these places some Christians are in prison because of their desire to worship Jesus Christ.

Faith should be seen and should be heard in public. Not oppressively, not dictatorially, not so that we ram it down peoples' throats. But, in the words of a book review I read recently, so that people understand that religion can be 'sanely, sensibly and patiently defended with both courage and courtesy.'

The claim of the Christian Church to make its voice heard in matters of politics and economics is very widely resented, even by those who are Christian in personal belief and in devotional practice – "We don't do God," the cry goes up. It is commonly assumed that religion is one department of life, like art or science, and that it is playing the part of a busybody when it lays down principles for the guidance of other departments such as politics, business, science or the arts.

In an age when it is tacitly assumed that the Church is concerned with another world than this, and in this with nothing but individual conduct as bearing on prospects in that other world, hardly anyone reads the history of the Church in its exercise of political influence. It is assumed that the Church exercises little influence and ought to offer none; it is further assumed that this assumption is self-evidence and has always been made by reasonable people.

A survey of history, however, shows that the claim of the Church today to be heard in relation to political and economic problems is no new usurpation, but a reassertion of a right once universally admitted and widely regarded. But it also shows that this right may be compromised by injudicious exercise, especially when the autonomy of technique in the various departments of life is ignored.

Religion may rightly censure the use of artistic talents for making money out of peoples baser tastes, but it cannot lay down laws about perspective or the use of a paintbrush. It may insist that scientific enquiry be prompted by a pure love of truth and not distorted (as in Nazi Germany) by political considerations. It may declare the proper relation of the economic to other activities, but it cannot claim to know what will be the purely economic effect of particular proposals. It is, however, entitled to say that some economic gains ought not to be sought because of the injuries involved to interests which are higher than economic ones; and this principle of the subordination of the whole economic sphere is not yet generally accepted.

The primary principle of Christian ethics and Christian politics must be respect for every person simply as a person.

If every man and woman is a Child of God, whom God loves and for whom Christ died, then there is in each a worth absolutely independent of all usefulness to society. The person is primary, not the society; the state exists for the citizen, not the citizen for the state. The first aim of social progress must be to give the fullest possible scope for the exercise of all powers and qualities which are distinctly personal; and of those the most fundamental is informed deliberate choice.

Consequently society must be so arranged as to give every citizen the maximum opportunity for making deliberate choices and the best possible training for the use of that opportunity. Freedom must be freedom for something as well as freedom from something. It must be the actual ability to form and carry out a purpose.

Finally, I should give a false impression of my own convictions if I did not state that there is no hope of establishing a more Christian social order except through the labour and sacrifice of those in whom the Spirit of Christ is active, and that the first necessity for progress is more and better Christians taking full responsibility as citizens for the political, social and economic system under which they and their fellows live.

Related LinkDiocese of Newcastle

back to top

Accessibility | Sitemap