About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Brown would end PM's hand in choosing bishops -19/02/06

From Ekklesia

In a move that will be welcomed by Christian campaigners against the establishment of the Church of England, Gordon Brown is reportedly planning to return the power to choose bishops to the Church of England for the first time since the reign of Henry VIII. The chancellor has told colleagues that if he becomes prime minister he will reach agreement with the church to give up Downing Street’s role in the selection process, reports the Sunday Times. Brown has won favour with more radical Christians through his support for cancelling debts in the developing world, and was recently liked to the biblical prophet Micah by US Christian Jim Wallis.

It is understood that Brown believes Downing Street’s control over appointments is anachronistic. Returning the role to the Anglican church would also fend off criticism that Brown, a member of the Church of Scotland, should not be in control of English bishops’ appointments. Such a move might also pave the way for the scaling down or removal completely of bishops from the second chamber under House of Lords reforms, if the PM no longer has a say in who they are. Radical Christians have pointed out that having bishops in the House of Lords appears to be at odds with the Christian message of justice and identification with the marginalised.

Currently, when a diocese becomes vacant, the prime minister receives two names from the Crown Nominations Commission — formerly the Crown Appointments Commission. He forwards one to the Queen for approval. He can also refuse both names. Blair reportedly used this veto in 1997 to turn down both candidates proposed for the diocese of Liverpool. Brown’s reforms would retain the commission and the role of the Queen, but would remove the prime minister from the process. Instead, he would simply pass the commission’s choice to the palace for approval.

Colin Buchanan, former Bishop of Woolwich and an outspoken supporter of a full severing of the links between church and state, said: “Anything that enables the church to function without the interference of parliament and government is to be welcomed.” The prime minister’s role in choosing bishops dates back to when Henry VIII took control of the church away from the papacy by a series of statutes in the 1530s. A source close to Brown said changes could be made without legislation: “He is simply altering convention.” It has been suggested that disestablishment of the Church of England would have the support of most of the country’s non-Christian faith groups and Christian denominations. The religious thinktank Ekklesia is amongst those who advocate disestablishment.

4 comments:

dbackdad said...

Wow, I didn't realize that the PM had that role. No church/state problem there ... huh? It's the opposite here, our religious leaders pick our President. :-)

CyberKitten said...

Wierd isn't it. Here we are in one of the most secular countries in the world... and we have the leader of the political party in power chosing & appointing Bishops in the State religion who then sit in the House of Lords and influence the law of the land.

I'm guessing that some US religious leaders would LOVE our system. Picked by the President and having an automatic right to a seat in the Senate (or is it Congress - I'm not too sure which is your 2nd house). What would they do with that kind of legsilative power?

Yes, we have no State/Church separation here. Seem to work for us - but then again religion here seems to be pretty much in terminal decline.

dbackdad said...

Maybe your system would be preferable. At least you would know where the religious influence was coming from instead of all this back-alley lobbying we have here.

CyberKitten said...

I think that the difference here is that most people don't really care that much about religion. Religious figures are just as likely to be laughed at as ignored - and they're hardly ever listened to. This is true even when they talk sense which they often do.

I actually feel sorry sometimes for Christians over here. The general opinion seems to be that they are (mostly) harmless kooks. I'm not exactly sure why that is.