Jews, Unitarians 'kicked off' main Church-State body

Writing in 2000, the Bishop of London, the Right Rev Richard Chartres, was characteristically munificent in his praise of the Churches Main Committee.  'In its work of conveying to the Government the views of the Churches on the legislation and other matters directly affecting them, [it] has the distinct advantage of Jewish representation,' he wrote in a booklet, Wrestling with Caesar. 'It is a personal view that this diversity could be developed to mirror the new religious culture of Britain in a field where faith communities have so many interests in common.'

Seven years later, the Churches Main Committee, set up in 1941 to liaise with Government over public policy and law making, has indeed examined its make-up with a view to developing it to bring it more in tune with modern times. The review was set up in 2005 and chaired by Tory MP Peter Bottomley.But far from expanding the membership of 39 religious groups, it is to restrict it to particular Christian bodies only.

Out will go the United Synagogue (Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks), the Unitarians, the Christian Scientists, the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, the London City Mission and the Seventh Day Adventists.

In will come... well.... nobody.

By the end of tomorrow afternoon it will be too late for the Unitarians, who are deeply distressed at what they regard as unacceptable and retrograde exclusion, to do anything about it. The committee's executive meets tomorrow, Tuesday 26 June, to discuss the draft scheme that has already been drawn up and will go to the Charity Commission. The committee's name is to be changed to the Churches' Legislation Advisory Service. Its membership is to be restricted to the members of ecumenical bodies such as Churches Together and the Evangelical Alliance.

The committee has been influential in areas such as VAT, community charge, employment, charity law, immigration, child protection and many others. Its remit does not include education or theological matters.

Steve Dick, Unitarian chief executive, said: 'We are deeply disappointed. It seems to be a very retrograde step, particularly when the NCVO has released a report about faith charities describing them as elitist and non-democratic. This is surely not the way for religions to address the 21st century. It speaks almost of a desperation, which seems sadly to be reflected in some of the other aspects of what is happening with our Anglican brothers and sisters, where they are tearing themselves apart over sexuality. What we need today is to find inclusive, common ground and to work towards a more inclusive society. It feels like a lurch to the right. We find in a number of ecumenical settings that Unitarians and others who do not fit the bog standard expressions of Christianity are no longer made to feel welcome.'

Regular readers might recall the story we broke last year, when the Unitarians were ejected from Chester Cathedral.

The Churches Main Committee is chaired by the Bishop of Southwell, the Right Rev George Cassidy. He declined to comment today. But it strikes me as odd, when one of the main defences advanced by the LordsSpiritual for their continued position of privilege in the establishment's upper circle is their ability to represent all faiths, that the main body for lobbying Government on the impact of secular legislation on faith bodies should actually be ditching the few representatives of other faiths it has.

Mr Bottomley, speaking exclusively to The Times from the House of Commons, was articulate in defence however. The thrust was an argument that had more spin in it than a fleckerl in the Viennese waltz. By diminishing its membership, will expand its benefit, he said. 'The committee is basically funded by the Anglicans, the Catholics and some others, not by the mass membership. I was concerned that, leaving aside details of how the secretariat worked, that the work of the committee should be available to all, and should benefit all.' If actual membership was expanded to include everyone, administrative costs would rocket. So the aim is to give a kind of associate membership to Unitarians, Jews, Muslims and other non-Trinitarian religious bodies. When a legislative topic comes up that affects one of these groups in particular, they will be brought into consultations. 'The purpose is to make it more useful to more people more often,' said Mr Bottomley.

The world's best-known Unitarian is Tim Berners-Lee, founder of the World Wide Web, who made this article possible. One of the aims in Mr Bottomley's review was to get more publicity for the work of the committee, which has remained little-known until now outside the world of church officials. I trust Mr Bottomley will appreciate my help to this end today. 

Comments

[Ian E. Wightman]

There is a real reason why the churches main council was set up in 1941, which concerned Judaism and Christianity. That reason still exists and is valid for the two groups. The churches council has since remained 'half-baked' due to Christian over-willingness to accomodate others.
If anyone else has a desire to participate then they ought to open their own 'council' and stop thinking that we Christians belong to some world-wide-web of religion. The Christian church is a faith, not a religion. Faith, if you will accept it, is 'making-love', whereas religion is 'pornography', it's all 'sex' but there is a correct manner it which it is respectfully done, and it ain't religion. God don't like that, in fact He even said it,.... "I desired mercy, lovingkindness and the knowledge of God more than sacrifice and burnt offerings."
Judaism since 1941 has abandoned God and created a democratic nation state in His honour. That is what 'Israel' under Likud & Co. is, the glory and therefore their worship is given over to man and not God. So that excludes them by their own desire.
All others to be quite frank, are regarded as 'puppies' to the Christians. If you read the passage concerning the Caanite woman in the Gospels you might understand and not be offended at being called a puppy. Besides, puppies grow into dogs and bitches and just like Pete was "young then and is old now", the 'pups' are all old now and don't get fed crumbs off our table anymore, therefore they don't belong in our Father's house.
Especially the Unitarians, they made up their own 'god' and our temple has no top shelf for porno.
bhd.

[Mike Homfray]

Unfortunately, religionists so often feel that their contribution towards influencing public policy is to discriminate against others.
No wonder they are regarded with such suspicion.

[Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)]

It isn't so. The draft proposals are being looked at again.

http://www.nufonline.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=34&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

Scroll down a bit.

[Naomi Linnell]

Writing as a Unitarian, I suppose one way of looking at the report of the proposals before the Churches Main Committee, would be to say 'Yet another example of the exclusivity of Christians and the sidelining of everyone else...'

Since most of us are not orthodox Trinitarian Christians it might be more useful to regard this apparent slight as an opportunity to think about how members of any and every religious or spiritual group or community might be encouraged to meet to discuss matters of common concern. If this led to positive and effective political lobbying and also provided an effective means of communication between government and the various religious groups, so much the better. But if at the very least it gave members of different faiths the opportunity to talk frankly to each other and maybe come to understand each other a little better, this could be a very positive outcome of this apparent ostracisation. I know such dialogue is already very important in some areas, but it would be good to see it developing into a more widespread and national happening.

The Churches Main Committee web site says of itself:
‘Its primary role is as a vehicle for conveying to the Government the views of the churches on legislation and other matters which directly affect them and likewise as a channel through which the Government can consult the churches as a whole on such matters.’

No reason that I can think of why the rest of the ‘faith communities’ should not aspire to such a role.

[Alan Marsh]

In a free society, Mr Wilson, the religious have as much a rightful place as anyone in seeking to influence debate, and that includes the right to meet and lobby collectively.

The churches are by far the largest voluntary organisation in this country, and the (old) Churches Main Committee was set up to deal with issues particular to the churches - how to maintain places of worship, the welfare and employment of ministers, charity law and such matters. It certainly has a right to be consulted and to make its views known on behalf of many millions of people.

Your view is somewhat curious. May we assume that you are in principled opposition to people forming associations of any kind, and that in your view only individuals should be permitted to speak to politicians?

[John Wilson]

Censorship, Mr Marsh?

What right does the church have to a privileged position to influence legislation?

Individuals within the electorate are perfectly capable of representing themselves, religious or otherwise, without selective groups churches and self-selecting church heads claiming an unrepresentative privileged position.

[Alan Marsh]

Censorship, Mr Allen.

What right do you have to influence legislation?

[Mark Allen]

So the membership has been reduced. It seems to me that that is a step in the right direction. Once the membership is reduced to zero, and the committee is disbanded, then religious groups will have exactly the amount of influence on legislation that they deserve.

[Josh]

"So the aim is to give a kind of associate membership to Unitarians, Jews, Muslims and other non-Trinitarian religious bodies."
Which doesn't explain why the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches and the London City Mission which are both firmly Trinitarian have been removed.

[Peter Kirk]

Is this supposed to be a body representative of Christian churches, or an inter-faith one? If the latter, it should be explicitly so, and not a half-baked one like it has been. But if it is supposed to be for Christians, it should indeed be for Christians who accept the historic definitions of the Christian faith.

But why have the FIEC and LCM been excluded? Surely these are theologically orthodox and Trintarian Christian groups? Or could it be that they have actually chosen to leave?

[Alan Marsh]

Trust Peter Bottomley to come up with twaddle like this!