Belief in Michael Nazir-Ali

Astonishing story around today about how a member of the Archbishop of Canterbury's staff referred to the Bishop of Rochester Dr Michael Nazir-Ali as an 'a***hole' in a private memo concerning appointments sent to all 43 diocesan bishops and to Downing Street. The perpetrator, who has not been named, has been sacked.  Anglican Mainstream has the details. Besides all the obvious things I could say about this crude, incredible and outrageous insult to one of the truest bishops on the bench, what really strikes me most is the depressingly low-grade nature of the abuse. It really is the kind of thing an illiterate oaf with an IQ of 60 might say in a Tesco queue. From someone employed at Lambeth Palace, a more sophisticated forms of bullying might have been expected. Coincidentally, Dr Nazir-Ali is showing the Christian stuff of which he is made in a broadcast tonight on BBC Radio 3's latest Belief series, presented by Joan Bakewell. I am honoured to be able to give you the transcript, below. I wonder if the person who wrote this has ever had to bury a baby in a fruit crate because the parents could not afford a coffin? Truly, the  Bishop of Rochester is a prophet for our times and a mark of this is that he is disdained.

NB One interesting footnote. Whatever Bishop Nazir-Ali said that was so upsetting to this particular aide was said before Lambeth 2008. Rumours were rife at Lambeth about the existence of a document with this very word in it being applied to this same bishop, but everyone we asked about it denied it adamantly.

‘Belief’ Transcript: BBC Radio
Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali Interview with Joan Bakewell

Q    My guest on Belief today is a religious figure, who’s featured prominently in the news throughout 2008.   Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali’s comments since the start of the year have startled many with their outspokenness.  He spoke of ‘no go’ areas, where extremists made non-Muslims unwelcome.  He also spoke out against some of the current leadership of the Anglican Communion, siding with its traditional wing, and going as far as to boycott the Lambeth Conference, which every ten years brings the Anglican bishops to Canterbury.  He speaks out because he sees the liberal leadership of the Church deviating from its age-old Christian faith and values.
As the youngest ever Anglican bishop, Michael Nazir-Ali was only thirty-five years old when he was appointed Bishop of Raiwind in his native Pakistan.  In 1987 the then Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie invited him to set up, ironically enough, the Lambeth Conference for the following year.  Michael Nazir-Ali became Bishop of Rochester in 1994, the first non-white diocesan bishop in the Church of England. He’s a Fellow of both his Oxford and Cambridge colleges, and Visiting Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Greenwich.
From 1997 until 2003, he chaired the Ethics and Law Committee of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.  He is also a lover of cricket.  Let’s start with cricket bishop, because I understand your sons cheer for England and you cheer for Pakistan.
A    Well yes, and my wife supports the underdog, so we failed at the Tebbit test comprehensively in all sorts of ways.
Q    (Laughs) Right, well that takes me to your Pakistan background, because of course you were born there, your parents fled Delhi at the time of Partition. They were both converts to Christianity – your father from Islam and your mother from Hinduism – so this is a very extraordinary background.
A    Well my father came from a Muslim family as you say.  My mother was not herself a convert, but she came from a family of converts from both Islam and Hinduism.  Her own family background was from the Anglican and the Methodist Churches, actually.
Q    So was there a tension within the family?  Because after all, living in a Muslim country for your father to have converted from Islam is apostasy in their eyes.
A     I have to say that in my early years I detected some tension but, but not very much.  There was also a great deal of cordiality er, and friendship and we certainly had close relations with many people in my father’s family…
Q    Who remained Muslim?
A    Who remained Muslim of course, including my grandfather, my uncles.  I was particularly close to an aunt of mine.  Yes, it was a mixture.
Q    So did you…grow up believing that there was a place for all faiths and none need attack the other, or…resent the other?
A    Well we certainly lived in a very mixed situation.  Most of my friends in my early years were Muslims, some Christians as well of course, Hindu, Jews.  I mean I was at school when there was still a Jewish Community in Pakistan and certainly thought that it was possible for people to live together without violence.
Q    And what was the observation of religion like in your home - prayerful, attending church?
A    Well my father had become a Christian and he was baptised in fact, in what we would call here an Anglo-Catholic church in Delhi.  Which has an interesting history because it was a church that had been built for Christians by a Muslim noblewoman who had been healed as a result of seeing a vision of Jesus.  And she never became a Christian, but she built the Christians a church called St James’s Kashmiri Gate, in Delhi.  So he was baptised there, but he never really appreciated - and I admire him for this – the sort of differences between Christian denominations.  And he would worship at whatever church he fancied. With my mother of course we went both to Anglican and Methodist churches, which were at that time in Pakistan already beginning to negotiate towards unity.  And in fact later on they did unite.
Q    So was there ever a time in your growing up when you might have been attracted to Islam?
A     Well we had as I say, close relationships with my Muslim relatives, and I do remember occasions – on Eid for instance if we were staying with them – that y’know, I would go along to the mosque with my uncles as I clearly remember such occasions.  And with my favourite aunt at the time, because the family were Shia, they would go to the Shia centre, which is called the Imam Bargar, and I remember going to that with her.
Q    Do you think at the time you thought of the Muslim God as being the same as the Christian God?
A    Well I still think and, and I did then, that there is only one God – the God who’s made the world and who’s made us –  and that human beings relate to that God in different ways.
Q    So you feel comfortable, in a sense, within both contexts?
A    Y…yes.  I mean I obviously now I see things very much as a committed Christian, and I would make sense of other people’s religious experience in, in Christian terms, that’s obvious.  Certainly to respect people’s experience, whatever it may be, and even if I disagree with them.
Q    At university you began to really firm up your ideas and be drawn towards a Christian vocation.  Not simply Christian belief, but to be drawn towards the Church.  How did, how did that happen?
A    Yes well when I was first at university, there were really three options for us.  There was radical Islam, which was already present on the university campus, there was Marxism, which was another kind of radicalism, and there was Christianity.  Now Marxism I’ve always felt difficult, because of its determinism, because it did not allow for the obvious sense of freedom that I felt human beings had, whatever the constraints.  In the end I was drawn to the Christian faith because of the figure of Jesus.  As a young person I wanted someone to follow, and Jesus as seen by Christians, but also seen by other people, was a very attractive figure to follow, to sort of order one’s life in the light of His life, and His teaching, and so forth.  So that’s what started it really.
Q    You came to Britain in the ‘70s as an Ordinand, and then went back to Pakistan and ordained a priest in Karachi.  After Cambridge where you came and studied, Karachi was a bit of a shock, wasn’t it?  Because you were given a very poor parish.
A    I was a student here as you say and er, did research here and taught here a little and em, I served as a curate in a parish in Cambridge, and then went back.  And the Bishop by then was wanting me to come back.  And he thought that it would be a good antidote, to put me in this very tough, slum parish, as you say.  Yes, it was a tremendous shock.
Q    What was the biggest challenge?
A    The first summer that we were there, cholera broke out in the, in the community.  The children, the babies get dehydrated first so they die first.  And so I was burying these babies in fruit crates, because the parents couldn’t afford coffins.
Q    What was the impact on you, on your faith?
A    It was a great shock – I can’t deny that.  And I sought relief  with friends and other people in other parts of the city. Em obviously in terms of culture and conversation and those sorts of things, that was necessary. 
Q    It didn’t shake your faith?
A    Burying children in fruit crates certainly brought me as near to the edge as it’s possible to get.  But I think in the end I felt that these families were being upheld at that time by their faith, and that caused me, I think, to be upheld as well.
Q    You didn’t question the cruelty of destiny in a world created by a loving God?
A    Well of course.  I mean one…constantly in the face of evil, asks those sorts of questions.  But then the very fact that we are able to ask those questions and to do something about what was happening, or what happens, er is itself a kind of an answer.
Q    Was there a Muslim community here in this parish?
A    Yes, it was a mixed parish…
Q    Mmm
A    …of Christians and Muslims – and of course cholera is not a respecter of persons.
Q    Er I just wondered if, how it was for you, being in a community where there are, was a, a Muslim element, and both of you are proselytising religions.  Whether you were kind of rivals for making converts to your faith.
A    Not particularly in that setting.  I mean, people had their defined areas and, and they worked in them.  But of course later on I was to encounter situations where there was, or there could have been rivalry.  Er actually as it turned out, there wasn’t, but em…
Q    This is at Raiwind when you were made Bishop, is that right?
A    Yes that’s right, because…
Q    Because that was an 80 percent Muslim area, wasn’t it?
A    Yes, and perhaps even more than that.  But the one thing that em, it was and is known for is that it is the centre of the International Islamic Missionary Movement.  And so we did encounter this kind of question about mission.
Q    But you were up against strong competition (laughs) in that case.
A    Well absolutely and we had reasonably good relations with one another, on the basis that we recognised that they had an obligation to invite people to Islam, and we wanted them to recognise that we had an obligation to invite people to follow Jesus Christ.  And on that basis we were able to co-operate in community matters er for instance.  On one occasion I remember arriving to preach at a church, and the front two rows were taken up by trainee Muslim scholars, who had come to hear what a Christian sermon sounded like so, so that was fine.
Q    (Laughs). You’ve been labelled over the years a conservative Evangelical – I don’t know whether you approve of that or not.  But your belief is in living a ‘biblical’ life.
A    Yes, I call myself a Catholic Evangelical, because Evangelical means someone who’s loyal to the Gospel.  That is what it means, and I hope I am – at least I try to be.  And Catholic means someone who believes in the Church, and I try to.
Q    So that we have a, a core of your belief – the core beliefs of the creed.  I mean the Virgin Birth, the divinity of Christ, er the resurrection of the body, life after death, life everlasting – an interventionist God, is that right?
A    I think the Bible gives us a framework for believing and knowing.  That is not this text or that, but it gives us what I call er, a comprehensive anthropology, a way of understanding the human condition and the world in which we find ourselves.  Now of course, that understanding and that framework has to be brought into relation to the world in which we live, to knowledge, and indeed to new knowledge.  And if you believe in the biblical world view that doesn’t excuse you from relating to change in the world.
Q    How does the biblical tradition interpret homosexuality then?  Because there’s certainly a great deal of evidence recently of the nature of sexuality and er homosexual bonds and many theories about it of course.  But you are rather rigorously disapproving – am I right?
A    Mm, I’m not disapproving of anything.  I g…I, again, I would go back to the anthropology of the Bible, which is that human beings have been made in God’s image.  But being in God’s image also has implications for how we behave.  And er, we have all sorts of inclinations for all sorts of reasons.  Nevertheless, practising giving as it were, in to our inclinations er is not always according to God’s purpose or for human flourishing, or indeed for social flourishing.
Q    And in that sense in biblical terms, homosexuals are not eligible for revocation to the priesthood?
A    It’s not to do with who people think they are, or their inclinations, but what their behaviour should be.  And that is also true of heterosexual people of course, that the Church demands the highest standards of belief, but of behaviour, from people and yes there are certain requirements for ordination for example.
Q    Let’s talk about GAFCON, which is the Global Anglican Futures Conference.  You took part in it.  Is this an insurrection within the Anglican communion?
A    No not at all – I mean I, I wasn’t there for the whole of it - I could only go for three days.  I did discover a tremendous spiritual atmosphere.  That was partly because it was in Jerusalem, of course, and that creates its own sort of evocativeness.  But I found people who were from an Anglican Catholic background, charismatics em, Evangelicals, from all over the world – Africa, America, Asia, Australia and from this country – all with a sort of singleness of purpose, which I wish sometimes we could say about the whole of the Church.
Q    And what was that single purpose?
A    To reaffirm traditional, Christian belief as the Anglican Church had received it.
Q    This was prompted of course, because the Episcopal Church in America had ordained a gay bishop – that was the kick off to this particular movement, wasn’t it?
A    I think the, er the gay bishop is just a, a presenting symptom.  I think it’s much more than that.  It’s a, a wide discarding, in many western churches, of traditional Christian believing…
Q    Such as?
A    Well for instance, in traditional language about the Trinity, or in requirements of baptism for instance, for full membership of the church, er on the grounds of inclusiveness.  Widespread er breakdown of marital discipline among the clergy for instance…
Q    Themselves?
A    Yes.  And what happened with the ordination of er, this particular bishop was only a symptom of a, a lot else that, that was going on.  But that nearly every kind of authority in the Anglican Communion that there is had begged the Episcopal Church not to do this.  And they still went ahead and did it, and it was not the first time er, that they had ignored the rest of the Anglican Communion.
Q    So wait a minute - how are the churches that belonged to GAFCON, because it is a belonging set up – how are they going to be different?  Are they going to be hard-line towards their congregations?  How will they treat homosexuals among the congregation?
A    Well, homosexuals like anyone else are welcome – that is not the issue.  I think what they want is the freedom to practise and to preach traditional Christian belief em…
Q    Don’t they have that freedom?
A    No.  They, they don’t because...
Q    Who’s stopping them?
A    Their bishop sometimes, em, this is the problem.  I mean er these people are being driven out of churches in which they have grown up, they have seen their own denomination as it were, change out of all recognition with all sorts of er, new-fangled beliefs about. 
Q    In…?  What sort of beliefs?
A    About marriage for instance, er about a doctrine of God, for instance, about em, membership of the Church, for example, the nature of the sacraments, sexuality er, as well.  Syncretism – which is an unprincipled combining of different streams of religious tradition – all sorts of things like that.
Q    What it seems to me has happened, just in political terms – political with a small ‘p’ – is that you have taken a har…er GAFCON have taken a hard line, which has put you at odds with the Anglican bishops of the Church of England, who you have called, I think, ‘wishy-washy’, and ‘too liberal, too vague, too abstract.’  Is that right?
A    Well em, er ‘wishy-washy’ – I mean I think there is a danger of Anglicans becoming ‘wishy-washy’ wherever that may be – in this country or America or, or Australia indeed.  What I have said is that we have to be on our guard against being ‘wishy-washy’, and that’s to myself as much as to anyone else.
Q    Well you went further – you boycotted the Lambeth Conference – well that’s pretty…not wishy-washy, saying ‘No’ to a Lambeth Conference is a very absolute statement of where you stand.  You are not going to stand with your fellow bishops of the Anglican Communion at this ten year event.  Was that a difficult decision for you to make?
A    Very difficult.  It would have been my third Lambeth Conference and as you say, for my first I had the particular responsibility for it.  I felt that because of the things that had happened, that we couldn’t just have another Lambeth Conference without resolving those issues, that I couldn’t stand with some of the bishops involved and teach the common faith, and stand with them around the Lord’s table at the Eucharist.  And what I would’ve preferred was smaller gatherings, smaller meetings, where these issues were discussed and resolved so that we could stand together.
Q    Isn’t there a situation in which some of these things can’t be resolved because they are not compatible?  That your reading of the ‘biblical life’ come, derived from the Bible, is simply not compatible with the liberal, more tolerant wishing to embrace gay bishops and so on?  There’s going, there’s no middle ground here, it’s going to be one or the other.
A    Well that may be so, but I think we have to discover whether it is so and I’m quite happy to, to explore that.  But of course it is not just Bible versus the twenty-first century, as it were.  It is also the common teaching of the Church down the ages – that is where the, the Catholic and the Catholic Evangelical bit comes in.  It is also the teaching of our ecumenical partners.  Anglicans have always claimed some kind of special affinity with the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches in terms of their ministry, for instance.  I’ve been a member of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission for seventeen years.  When er the ordination of this bishop happened, coincidentally it was also the occasion for a meeting of this commission.  And I remember that the Roman Catholic co-Chair simply refused to sit in the same room with the Anglican co-Chair, who was then also the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church.
Q    Oh, it doesn’t sound very Christian does it?
A    No it doesn’t does it?  But that is what happened, and what we can’t have is to jeopardise the very valuable work towards Christian unity that has been done in the last thirty or forty years.  But again, that is a distinct possibility.
Q    Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury did make a statement that startled er many people, which was to suggest that the Shariah Law, part of it might be included within English Law.  And you spoke out very strongly about that.  Are you still as adamant that it is not possible?
A    I don’t believe it is possible.  I think that Shariah Law and English public law proceed on entirely different assumptions. Now what I do think is that every religious community should be free to live according to its own law, if that is what they want. And at the same time, I also believe that in legislation for instance, governments should recognise conscience more and more. It is doing so less and less, but I think it should do so more and more.  Having said that, I believe there should be a common public law for, for everyone.  Introducing something like Shariah Law would introduce contradiction in the system of public law, if that is what is being suggested.  For instance, if you take matrimonial and family law, would bigamy remain a crime only for some and not for others - what about divorce and custody of children, laws of inheritance, laws of evidence?  All of these are different
Q    But within this country, there are communities which already acknowledge the Shariah Law, and indeed have councils and advisors to deal with their community in such matters.  D’you not want to see those operate?
A    No, no.  What, what religious communities do within themselves, that’s up to them.  But every citizen must have the right of access to common law, and to public law, and to the courts to right any injustices that they feel they have been subject to.
Q    You use the phrase ‘no go areas’ concerning parts of cities where non Islamic believers, or non believers at all, felt, were made to feel uncomfortable in an Islamic community.  D’you regret using the phrase ‘no go areas’?
A    Well, the first thing that I was talking about was the result of multiculturalism.  That multiculturalism perhaps em, without knowing that this would happen, had actually brought about isolated, separated and segregated communities.  And that cannot be the basis for a good society.  We need social capital by which we can live together.  Secondly, extremists have used this isolation and this segregation to foster their own agenda with the young, for instance, but also in putting pressure for example on Christian workers, on people who have changed their beliefs either to another faith or to no faith at all.  In a society that is committed to integration, which is different from assimilation - I’m not arguing for assimilation - we can’t have this kind of thing, because it will in the end be very socially divisive, and people will suffer because of it.
Q    D’you think faith schools also perpetuate a separation of different cultures?
A    They can do – it depends on what sort of faith schools they are.  I mean Church of England er schools for instance, are not faith schools in that sense at all, because they are open to the wider community, and their make up reflects the make up of the community in which they are set.  So we have em Church of England schools in my diocese, which are 60, 70 percent people of other faiths er, where parents choose to send their children er to a church school.  And that’s fine, and what we say is ‘Look, we’re a Christian school – that is to say we proceed on Christian assumptions, but of course everyone is welcome, as long as they, they recognise that.‘
Q    But d’you fear that the legislation that promotes faith schools across the board will be divisive?
A    I think such legislation has to be quite carefully drafted to make sure that faith schools are open to the wider community.  That schools co-operate with one another, that there is exchange er, er um between them, among them, and that children have wide exposure to issues that they will face as they grow up.  There are faith schools, as I say, not only Church of England ones that, that do this very effectively.
Q    Bishop Michael, you’ve always spoken out.  You always make the headlines, you’re always very clear when you oppose things, and what you support.  I wonder whether that suits your temperament as a, as a sort of missionary Christian.  Do you feel that in yourself, fulfilled by this role?
A    I think the role is the important point, that if I had not been a bishop in the Church, I may have spoken differently, or not spoken at all perhaps.  Or done other things, like er reading and writing poetry, or playing cricket.  But because I have this responsibility, I feel that I need to guide people in their personal, and their family, and their social lives, to the best of my ability, taking account of the teaching of the Bible and of the Church, and that is what I do.
Q    And you feel fulfilled by that?
A    I feel tested by it quite often, challenged by it.  I feel that I’m doing what I’ve been asked to do, if that’s what you mean.
Q    Sometimes I know in the past, and indeed currently, you have had death threats because of what you said, being spo…so outspoken. And that perhaps puts at risk those around you and those you love.  Is there an anxiety attached to the stand that you take?
A    Yes, I mean one of the reasons why we had to leave Pakistan when we did was because the children who were then very young, were being threatened.  I mean I’d been threatened and the car stopped on country roads and that kind of thing but I could take that to  some extent.  But I couldn’t at that time risk the lives of children who’d not done anything to, to deserve it.  I find now that it is happening here, and I think that is a matter of concern for us in this country, that it should happen here, and we should make sure that it doesn’t.
Q    But you are not going to soften your stand and yield to such threats?
A    I don’t want to speak promiscuously – I don’t.  I mean, for the one time that I speak, nine times I have said no, and I try and choose the moment to speak.  But some things have to be said, and they have to be said clearly so that people can understand what it is that is being said.
Q    So you think of it as speaking prophetically within the Church?
A    That sounds very sort of grand.  I mean I certainly don’t think of it in that kind of grand way.  I just think that for the sake of er people’s faith, for the sake of their safety, for the sake of this nation sometimes, er a nation that has given me a place when I didn’t have one, I have to speak the truth.
Q    Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, thank you for choosing to speak to me.  Thank you.
A    Thank you.
(End of interview)

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali Interview              ‘Belief’ – BBC Radio                 PAGE 1

Comments

[Theo Dexter]

Unless it is “Donald”.

[Malcolm+]

And maybe if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck.

[Theo Dexter]

Maybe just maybe the reasons people give are the real reasons for their actions and not some dark hidden motivation ascribed to them by their opponents.

[Malcolm+]

I'm quite happy to listen to alternative analysese. I'm just not big on hagiographic bumph being passed off as thoughtful analysis.

And I've never denied that Gene New Hampshire's attendance at Lambeth sought to make a political point. I have said it was not an attempt to destroy Lambeth - which Mike Roffen's boycott clearly was.

[Theo Dexter]

Malcolm

I do not think that you would listen to any analysis that would contradict your point of view on this topic.

So we are to believe that there was nothing “deliberate” in the timing of the visit and its associated fringe meetings, Services and media interviews that would undermine the conference and make things awkward for the ABoC.

The University of Kent is hardly the number one UK tourist destination in the UK is it? Come on.

I think it is your spin that is tired.

[ElizabethR]

Beg pardon Ruth - read right over the first 'Q' Far too quick and clever - me! Should have said 'Joan' eh!

Happy New Ear anyway!

[ElizabethR]

"Michael Nazir-Ali became Bishop of Rochester in 1994, the first non-white diocesan bishop in the Church of England." rg

This might be fact, but why make the point? It continues the notion of racial diversity as an issue surely?

"I think there is a danger of Anglicans becoming ‘wishy-washy’ mna

What is this - a warning against liberal interpretation - a statement which conjures up the stricture of the party whip via an uncompromising leader?

(rg writes: that wasn't me that was in the programme script - apologies i should have made it clear in the copy.)

[Malcolm+]

Those who boycotted Lambeth were engaged in a deliberate attempt to undermine the conference and the authority of the archbishop who called it. There is no other analysis that makes any sense.

Of course, there are any number of folk who come to Canterbury and the University of Kent at the time of the Lambeth Conference who have not specifically been invited. The UK, so far as I am aware, is still a free country.

Gene Robinson did not attempt to impose himself on any of the conference sessions nor even on the conference related church services. But even if he had, it does not change the fact that Nazir-Ali and the rest of the boycotters were deliberately undermining Cantuar. Your tired spin is rather like using my brother`s questionable manners at dinner to justify tossing the turkey on the floor.

Roffen is to the Bishop of Rochester as Cantuar is to the Bishop of Canterbury or Ebor to the Bishop of York. Ergo, Nazir-Ali is Michael Roffen as Williams is Rowan Cantuar.

[Theo Dexter]

Malcolm

BTW just to avoid any confusion I always understood that by “Roffen “you were really meaning “Nazir-Ali”. “Michael Roffen” I understand is actually Michael Turnbull.

[Theo Dexter]

Sound

“all bishops, apart from suffragans” therefore not all bishops.

“get to be in the Lords eventually....” not if they die before they are made members.

Malcolm

Why did he come when ABoC had not invited him? Was that loyal?

“Roffen's choice ref both GAFCON and Lambeth was a deliberate attempt to destroy the present incumbent so that he might win the office he covets.”

Good grief!

On what evidence do you base this allegation?

[Malcolm+]

Theo, the spin that Roffen is particularly holy won't fly. He has actively undermined Cantuar from the day he was passed over for the appointment. He's likely not the worst person among the bishops, but there are several bishops in England and elsewhere who have not engaged in deliberately destructive acts against those who have won preferment over them.

Nice attempt at diversion, raising Gene New Hampshire as though it were somehow relevant. New Hampshire had the integrity to obey Cantuar's strictures while in England. Roffen's choice ref both GAFCON and Lambeth was a deliberate attempt to destroy the present incumbent so that he might win the office he covets.

[sound]

Check your facts Theo.. all bishops, apart from suffragans, get to be in the Lords eventually.... and do take care to read what I actually said rather than what you think I said..

Have a great Christmas!

[Theo Dexter]

Sound

In the real world you will find that not all Bishops are members of the House of Lords. Not all Bishops put on airs.
Many are caring and compassionate. Yet you vilify them as liars. Now who is the one being disloyal here?

If what you allege is true about the Lambeth staff perhaps they should resign and speak their mind.

Do you think that your rant against the Bishops enhances the cause of the CoE and reflects well on the witness of the Faith?

[sound]

Alas Theo you don't seem to live in a very real world. A number of Bishops are difficult to work with and not very polite... I've worked with several of them! Much as I loved Trevor Huddlestone, he could, at times be both of those things. He knew it and apologised for it as well.
+Rochester is both disloyal and rather self righteous. Most staff at Lambeth are careful not to say it. One spoke the truth and lost their job for it. +Rochester doesn't seem to be losing his for being disloyal does he?
English Bishops operate in a world that is rather like a secret club. They sit in the House of Lords and take on airs. They send secret 'safe/unsafe to receive' notes about clergy in their diocese, and they don't always tell the truth in those notes. They get above themselves and think they can talk about things they don't really understand. For all +Rochester's waffle about homosexuality, he still has some actively gay priests in his diocese doing an excellent job and he does nothing about it.... so he is hypocrite as well. So what ...welcome to the real world of being a bishop.. but let's not pretend otherwise shall we?

[Theo Dexter]

Malcolm

In the UK the worst thing you can allege is that a priest is “difficult to work with” and impolite. Ask any Priest who has fallen foul of their PCC. Most other things you can get away with.

In what way do you think Bp Robinson's visit to the Lambeth conference bolstered the ABC’s position?

When have I ever tried to argue that any human alive today is free from the taint of human failing?

[Malcolm+]

Private conversations alleging that Mike Roffen can be hard to work with and occasionally rude would seem a rather half-hearted scheme to undermine him.

As opposed (for the sake of argument) various actions of Mike Roffen which have seemed to be deliberately designed to undermine his metroplitan and primate?

Really now, Theo, you do Mike Roffen no favours by trying to argue that he is free from the taint of human failings.

[Theo Dexter]

Sound

So “honest” and noble they cannot give their names when alleging the middle class crime of impoliteness?

How many pieces of silver were exchanged?

It is the Bishop that needs to be protected from those who seek to undermine him. I suggest he investigates this matter further.

[sound]

"Name and shame these back stabbing sources of yours or else be quiet.

They seem quite “unreliable” to me."

Pull the other one will you? At least Ruth will understand that one does not name sources. I am clear about their reliability thanks Theo, and they are close enough to the Bishop to need the protection of anonymity. And i don't think back stabbing is the word - honesty is a better one.

[Theo Dexter]

Andrew

In this season which brings hope afresh may I wish you and yours and Ruth and hers a Happy Christmas and peace and blessings for 2009.

[andrew holden]

"Do you think it is stoppable and by whom? How long do you think you have got?"

Yes I do - by us. We need to reflect more on our history and the historic compromise that is Anglicanism. If we retreat into sectarian bickering between catholic and protestant or between liberal and traditionalist then I think the country will show us the door and both we and they will be the poorer for it.

Anglicanism should be both the model and the protector of tolerant religious pluralism. If we can't be what we were established for then it would be understandable if society declared 'a pox on both your houses' and went towards a secularism which ignores and jettisons the best of our history.

As I've said elsewhere I don't think what we have is perfect by any means but I'd rather have reform instead of revolution - building on the past rather than starting again. Like the Archbishop I don't think that disestablishment now would be the end of the world but I think it would be a mistake for England.

[David Cohen]

I have always found Bishop Michael to be kind, gentle and courteous, and his addresses to be a source of wisdom and inspiration. A true teacher of the Christian faith.

It is indicative of the nature of those who disagree with him that they should resort to foul-mouthed abuse, and it sadly reveals the kind of world which they would like us to inhabit.

[Theo Dexter]

Sound

Name and shame these back stabbing sources of yours or else be quiet.

They seem quite “unreliable” to me.

[Theo Dexter]

Merseymike

Your intemperate unpleasant remarks against the persons you oppose do not disguise the fact you have no hope to offer.

BTW Although some denominations may be experiencing decline, many churches are growing. They do not despise (- begging bowl!) those in trouble rather they show love to those in need.

[Theo Dexter]

Andrew

“if we allow the present polarisation to continue.”

Do you think it is stoppable and by whom? How long do you think you have got?

I fear you may have past the point of no return already.

[sound]

"God bless Bishop Michael! A true Churchman of stature, one of the few prepared to stand up and deliver moral guidance to a broken society, despite the personal risk and inevitable howls of outrage from vested interest lobbies. A real leader!"

I wonder if you have any real experience of him Jill or Ruth? I've heard him in conference several times - found him extraordinarily dull in delivery and often incomprehensible in content. My (very reliable) sources, including two very close to him, say he is extremely difficult to work with and not always very polite himself!

[Merseymike]

Oh, stop being so prissy, Ruth. Nazir-Ali is a charlatan, a nasty, unpleasant bigot who sums up everything wrong with Christianity. I can think of a lot worse things to say about him!

With any luck he will leave the CofE and go off with the refuseniks, which will certainly do the church a favour - every time he opens his large and unattractive mouth, he says something else to alienate or offend.

But I guess you just don't get it. That's why the church is dying in the UK and becoming a Third world and immigrant activity - after all, they need that begging bowl, don't they?

[andrew holden]

"Rather undermines your claim to the “benign” and “tolerant” nature of the C of E does it not?"

Well it doesn't help - nevertheless it proves my other point about the dangers of sectarianism and it does show where we are heading if we allow the present polarisation to continue. I think rudeness from either side is a bad witness but it will only get worse if the centre doesn't hold.

"What poor witness to true Christianity this self destructing institution gives via this incident."

It's certainly self-destructive behaviour not usually seen in ordinary congregations but becoming too commonplace amongst those who are building their power bases for a future 'grab' at the reigns.

Quakerism becomes increasingly attractive with each new horror story - but we've not lost yet.

[Jill]

God bless Bishop Michael! A true Churchman of stature, one of the few prepared to stand up and deliver moral guidance to a broken society, despite the personal risk and inevitable howls of outrage from vested interest lobbies. A real leader!

By the way, Bishop Anthony Burton, until recently Bishop of Saskatchewan, was only 34 when he was consecrated.

And what is wrong with Tesco, pray?

[Jonathan]

Thanks for em the transcript :)

When I've heard Nazir-Ali on the wireless he's usually come across as a bit of a **** (no, not ****, ****). But this interview has broadened my view of the man.

One does hope for better from LP staff though :(

Cheers Ruth.

[Theo Dexter]

Andrew

“this individual has been sacrificed so publicly”

Rather undermines your claim to the “benign” and “tolerant” nature of the C of E does it not?

What poor witness to true Christianity this self destructing institution gives via this incident.

[J Pearce]

I usually find that illiterate oafs with IQ's of 60, are more likely to be found in Asda than Tesco.

You get a much better class of oaf in Waitrose, though.

[MH]

I do hope that there is no denial of our materiality in this reaction. We may be more than a***holes, but we are certainly not less.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"[snip] ...Christian witness to traditional, heterosexual marriage is a wonderful thing, provided you keep your mouth shut."
- Geoffrey Smith, 22 DEC 2008, 22:28:41

Or if you don't, the moderator will shut it for you.

[Stephen Marsden]

Context!

The perpetrator of this grubby little episode chose, as an act of free will, to append the expletive (if that's what it really is) against the words 'Bishop of Rochester' in the regularly circulated list of clergy seeking a move. Thus, it arrived on the desk of every bishop of the C of E, saying words to the effect of 'The a*s*h*l* Bishop of Rochester writes: "Fr Bloggs is a fine priest etc, etc, etc"'

If one assumes the merry jape was carried out during working hours, it's also safe to assume (one hopes) that the poor sap was sober at the time. The words 'lack' and 'judgement' come to mind.

Actually, though, the perpetrator should not have been sacked. It should not have been necessary. After all, if they'd had an ounce of decency, they'd have resigned, as soon as they were confronted with their unpleasantness.

And, by the way, +Michael is not an *r*e*o*e - as you say, Ruth, he is one of the best we've got.

[Peter Morris]

Shocked by this? Of course not. Where on earth have you lived for all the years of your life? Come on Ruth, let a touch of objectivity enter your assessment of the all too precious regions of the C of E.

[s a russell]

I only got as far as the comment on supermarkets; a rather cheap trick to get people to read on. Perhaps the paper should send its writers into the real world of shopping and meet a few 'oafs' - I am sure the Bishop would approve.

[andrew holden]

Gosh, someone must have had a rather sheltered upbringing to be shocked at this sort of comment - even aimed at someone sooooo nice as a favourite bishop! I'm pretty sure that journalism isn't such a sheltered world though - this blog certainly isn't, but thankfully the 'A' word wouldn't get past our esteemed moderator, would it?

Frankly if we are getting the whole of the story, which I doubt, the response was OTT. Many of us think such things about others and occasionally mutter them under our breath, but most of us are perhaps not rude enough to say them aloud or, worse, write them down. Certainly, despite Ruth's almost sanctification of the esteemed bishop there are plenty of other churchmen and women who appear to share the offenders views - and, in fact, even worse things have been said and written quite publicly about the Bishop of Rochester's chief protagonist the Bishop of New Hampshire. It's no real defence, and I'm not defending the rude behaviour on either side but this reaction is definitely OTT and I wonder why this individual has been sacrificed so publicly. Who needs placating?

An apology and a quiet disciplinary meeting with the boss should have been quite suficient. It is reported elsewhere that the individual concerned was contrite and apologised immediately - that should have been then end of the matter.

Perhaps the CofE has caught the BBC's OTT PC disease? Maybe the Daily Mail was about to start another populist campaign to get the poor man thrown to the lions like Ross & Brand?

[Robert Ian Williams]

Yes Ruth, one of the " truest" bishops who recognised that contraception is destroying Britain...and that professional women who have no children or only manage one are ruining the future of our country.

[eleutheria]

"It really is the kind of thing an illiterate oaf with an IQ of 60 might say in a Tesco queue."

Because only thick people who are too common to shop anywhere else say that kind of thing, right?

(rg writes: actually, I shop at Tesco.)

[Malcolm+]

Granted that Lambeth staffers shouldn't be writing "@*$*hole" on circulating documents next to the names of bishops.

But really, Ruth, the rest of the gushing hagiography about Mike Roffen is more than a bit over the top.

Nazir-Ali is an ecclesiastical politician much like any other ecclesiastical politician - less venal than some, more venal than many. His conduct toward Rowan Cantuar is more suitable to the back rooms of secular politics with his reprise of Brown v Blair (or, as a Canadian, Martin v Chretien).

[Joel]

Em, are they, er, well, always so literal in there, um, the, a, transcriptions?

[Bishop Ijaz Inayat Masih]

"She", the one who wrote these disgracing words about Bishop Michael was obviously listening to what people in the Lambath Palace were speaking about Bishop Michael. She only reflects the thinking of the staff of the LP.
Consideration of Blair's turning to Catholic Church further defines what ministry is left with the CoE.

[Peter Kirk]

Michael Nazir-Ali was not "the youngest ever Anglican bishop". My late relative by marriage John Dickinson, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dickinson_(bishop), was consecrated Assistant Bishop of Melanesia at the minimum canonical age of 30, and remained a bishop for more than 60 years. I have no idea if he holds the Anglican record, but Nazir-Ali certainly doesn't.

[Geoffrey Smith]

[snip] A resourceful insult, I would have thought. Christian witness to traditional, heterosexual marriage is a wonderful thing, provided you keep your mouth shut.