26th January 2023
Now here is a curious thing.
The Church of England seems more accountable on the floor of the House of Commons than most government ministers.
This week there was an urgent question about the position of the Church of England on same-sex marriages.
And as in England, we have an established church there is a member of parliament charged with answering questions on behalf of the Church of England – from the backbenches:
Here is @AndrewSelous answering the UQ on same sex marriage and the C of E https://t.co/5GUTZX8EyD pic.twitter.com/Wc4HA9Qdxh
— PARLY (@PARLYapp) January 24, 2023
In contrast to this exercise in parliamentary accountability, we have this week had the Prime Minister refer the Zadawi tax matter to the ethics adviser and the BBC mount an internal investigation into the relationship of its chair with a former Prime Minister.
This is in addition to the King’s Counsel looking at allegations against the Lord Chancellor.
There are various other inquiries and investigations, some now almost-forgotten.
And the thing is about these inquiries and investigations is that they are often exercises in political deflection and delay – deft manoeuvres so that there is no actual practical accountability of ministers, at least not immediately.
The consequence is that we are now in the extraordinary situation where the bishops of the Church of England are generally more accountable to members of parliament than the ministers of the crown.
****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
I would appreciate your thoughts regarding the apparent over-reach on the part of Mr Selous in his presumption that the Church of England speaks on behalf of “all Christians and denominations”, which would seem to me to be entirely in breach of the Methodist Church Act, 1976, which set up the Trustees For Methodist Church Purposes and confirmed the constitutional supremacy of the Methodist Conference in all matters of doctrine and practice.
I am ignoring for the purposes of this question my own rage at the sadly all too usual “effortless Anglican superiority” displayed by the Church of England’s spokesperson in Parliament…
Very true. They show up thd government for the crooked lying chsrlstand tgstvthdy are. I still don’t like the idea of an established church
Being pssrt of the government!
A very low bar to jump.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner conducted themselves with commendable competence and integrity. They had grasped their brief and answered well.
Ben Bradshaw MP’s questions were a master class of incisive and sharp.
It was notable that there was progressive support across the main political parties.
The argument from “freedom of conscience” in this matter is spurious. Marriage is not an Article of Faith. Nor is it a touchstone of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is defined by the writers of the three Ecumenical Creeds. None of these make any reference to marriage.
In the 1820s and 30s Britain was deeply divided by the debate about the abolition of slavery. People who called themselves Christians argued from the texts of Scripture for the preservation of slavery.
It has been noted that those who argued against the Ordination of women as Deacons, Priests and Bishops interpreted Scripture in a manner that paralleled how people argued from Scripture for the preservation of slavery.
The same exercise is happening today on the matter of same sex marriage. Evangelicals in General Synod are arguing from Scripture in the same way that their predecessors argued for the preservation of slavery. They are seeking to put an argument about morality above the primary of truth and justice.
Members of the LGBTQ+ community are being treated as Second Class Citizens of both earth and heaven by the Bishops of the Church of England.
If the Bishops are not prepared to marry everyone then they should not be allowed to marry anyone. We need to review the freedom of the Church to marry people. As MPs across the House have noted we also need to revisit Bishops having a vote in the House of Lords and the exemption from the Equality Act 2010 by the Church of England.
If tomorrow every LGBTQ licensed Minister (lay and ordained, stipendiary and volunteer) was to walk out on strike then the ministry of the Church of England would grind to a halt. And it would grind to a halt in the poorest Parishes and Wards (urban and rural) in the country.
The days are over when those of us who are members of the LGBTQ+ communities sit in fearful silence while the Bishops Second Class us.
Thank you Ben Bradshaw. And the Second Church Estates Commissioner is to be commended. If only a few Government Minister could display such integrity and skill in The House.
(And apparently it is rare for The Speaker to Summon the Second Church Estates Commissioner in this manner).
The neatest solution I have heard suggested is to separate entirely the registration and recognition of marriage as a civil or state matter from the celebration of marriage as a religious or social matter (in much the same way that registration of birth or death is separated from a church baptism or funeral).
For example, as I understand it, in France, a couple must register their marriage at the town hall for it to have any legal effect, and then they are free to arrange whatever church or other ceremony they wish.
The Church of England is on a journey in respect of LGBT+ rights, much as the rest of society has been for decades. It will get there eventually, but the entire Anglican communion is not moving at the same pace and may not end up at the same destination.
This is a sensible proposal.
Thanks, but I can’t take any credit. I think I first took notice when Mary Beard suggested it some years ago – effectively, a couple must get a civil partnership for their binding long-term relationship to be formally recognised by the state and granted whatever legal, tax, etc, consequences that follow, and separately they may have whatever other celebrations or ceremonies they want – but I can’t immediately find a link to the place I saw it, and in any event I suspect she was not the first.
The Church of England web site https://www.churchofengland.org/about/church-parliament says:
In the Commons, an MP is chosen by the party in Government to speak officially on behalf of the Church of England. This is the Second Church Estates Commissioner – current office holder Mr Andrew Selous MP. The Commissioner makes sure that the established Church is accountable to Parliament by answering questions from Members, and guiding church legislation through the House.
What a strange system – like so much of the British constitution
question rather than a comment – who is the question addressed to ? The Church of England is well represented in the other place, but in the House of Commomns , they only Is that minister in any position to do anything about the deliberations pf the
You refer to deflection and delay in the way Government ministers are dealt with. I wonder if you have any thoughts on the appeal to “due process” a concept which seems to have been somewhat stretched: what due process is involved in sacking a minister known to have lied? I don’t remember any process when Michael Howard sacked Johnson for lying to him.
Nice to see an organisation that does not matter giving a good account and an organisation that does matter not giving an account of itself. An enjoyable symmetry.
On reflection, claiming to channel the will of the people is more obviously absurd than claiming to channel the will of the Almighty.
There is no solid evidence that the Church’s claim is false. In contrast, we’re governed by the half of a duopoly that a minority of the public vote for. Any connection between the ‘will of the people’ and the actions of government is so tenuous that claiming one is absurd in the majority of cases you can test.
God help us.
It’s not really very surprising that the Church of England is more accountable than ministers. One form of power is freedom from accountability, and nowadays religion is weak while the government is strong, so it merely reflects this difference in power.