Mark Broadway writes: It is sometimes remarked that it is uncouth to discuss religion and politics. Throw into that mix money, sex, and death, and you begin to set the bounds for the precise discussion that takes place within Danny Kruger’s 2023 manifesto-of-sorts, Covenant: The New Politics of Home, Neighbourhood, and Nation. This is a book designed to spark debate.
My interest with the work begins on the cover. Covenant is a word with which theologians and biblical scholars wrestle. It informs our understanding of God, ourselves, and how these two disparate entities relate. Covenant shapes our understanding of what God has said, and how he chose to describe it. Covenant is the basis of so much that we take for granted, and yet, outside of the occasional sermon, very little of this is given articulation. The only place where I find myself talking about covenants on a regular basis is with slightly bemused prospective wedding couples.
They sit patiently through my explanation of the 2010 Church in Wales Marriage Rite which says that marriage “is given so that a man and a woman my pledge themselves to one another in a covenant of love”. “A covenant”, I offer, “is like a contract—but one that creates new relationships”. Going deeper, in the brief and sacred moments of marriage preparation, can be difficult. Complexity is increased as the only analogies that spring to mind are restrictive covenants, which some couples have encountered through the purchase of old houses. Covenant was, perhaps, a brave choice for the title of a book which is not an academic tome addressing the minutiae of presbyterian soteriology. Perhaps brave, possibly foolish.
I purchased Kruger’s Covenant having become somewhat enthralled by him, after watching his contribution to the Assisted Dying debate. Kruger, who has previously chaired an All Party Parliamentary Group on palliative care, spoke with dogged persistence, and also clinical precision. He challenged the scope of the act, the lack of support from various stakeholders, and even the language being used to discuss the matter. Part of the commentary around Kruger’s contribution to this debate concerned his Christian faith—a faith which has, on occasion, been mentioned by him publicly. It formed part of his Maiden Speech and featured on a recent thread on X (Twitter). There, whilst laying bare his own religious perspective, Kruger challenged the proponents of Assisted Dying to acknowledge their religious commitments to the human right to play God. Kruger speaks as a parliamentarian, but he also speaks distinctively as a Christian parliamentarian.
It would be hard, therefore, for his Covenant, not to be a theological text—and indeed it is. Although Kruger doesn’t use the book to talk about his faith explicitly (perhaps he will do so elsewhere; I would be delighted to read it) it is nonetheless a deeply theological work. It is theological not in the passing references that Kruger makes to England’s foundational Judeo-Christian values, nor in his, sometimes vague, comments around the utility of ‘faith communities’. It is theological in his attempt to offer a political vision that unites the givenness of our physical world (and physical bodies) with our metaphysical experience of it. Kruger wants a fleshed-out philosophy that takes seriously what embodied life is like, and what is needed to make it work. He is wary of disembodied ideas of self, which he decries as heretical, even labelling them gnostic. At times reading Kruger feels as though you’ve slipped into a chapter of some Ante-Nicene Church Father. I am not sure this was his intention, desirable as it may be.
Kruger wants to ask, and begins to answer, what might it mean for us if we were to replace the ‘Social Contract’ that governs our political life with the older concepts of ‘Covenants’ and ‘virtue’. A quick survey of social media prompts me to suggest that some, perhaps many, people believe the reigning Social Contract is not bearing up under the strain. Left and right have different explanations: mass migration; unfettered capitalism; the welfare state; Brexit—you name it, someone has blamed it. Few are arguing that ‘everything is fine’. From the perspective of many on the conservative right, the breakdown of the Social Contract is what is leading to the growth of hitherto fringe parties like Reform. The consequences of changing the narrative, and building a covenantal understanding of our civic life, could be far reaching, he asserts. Beginning with our family life, our local communities, and our nation, everything could be different. Everything could be better. Kruger argues for ressourcement of traditional, conservative, priorities and approaches—traditional yet reimagined for the postmodern, technological, global world we now inhabit.
Kruger roots his reading of the situation, and of the tea leaves, within the Christian political tradition, even posing the occasional eirenic offer of political hospitality. He puts it well in his introduction when he says:
That is why, for all we are fighting a culture war, we are not fighting to the death. We are one country, one civilisation, with a common root, the classical Christian worldview that gave life to both conservatism and liberalism, the two great traditions that contest for power in our politics.
But he goes much further, identifying a philosophical “parasite” within western liberalism, which has distorted and misdirected one half (and more) of the political spectrum. His, then, is a rallying cry to “conservatives of left and right” who long to see the stability and prosperity of the old order, albeit with the benefits that come from nuance and progress as any settlement incorporates the best voices from the vanquished foe.
The problem, as Kruger articulates it, is that we have shifted from an old Order of covenantal ties, responsibilities, duties, and virtues, to a corrupt and corrupting Idea of personal, atomised, individual autonomy. This, we read, changes everything—from the way that the state does taxation, to presumptions around childcare, to our sexual mores, and more. Kruger argues that the Idea dangerously takes the historic language of rights and freedoms, once organically grown within the Common Law to act as a shield to protect the Average Joe from interference from those with power, and shifts it to become a sword to invade the lives of those who are trying to go about their own lives and business. We must reinvent, or retrieve, the concept of Covenant to restore Order in three sequential areas of life: family; community; and nation.
Kruger begins with the family, or the household. He invites us to learn a little Greek, as we consider the role of the oikos. Connecting the family unit, the household, and the life of the nation through enterprise, shared struggle, and procreation, Kruger is quick to point out that it is within the family that many of the most damaging effects of the Idea are felt. Atomisation, pornography and the de-sacralising of sex, as well as the pressing financial needs and the cost of living, have made it harder and harder for young people to find joy and stability in marriage—and the rewards of this estate of life have been successively undermined. His desire is to see not a ‘living wage’, that enables a given individual to live a life free of dependency, but a ‘family wage’ that enables the flourishing of households—creating more opportunity for familial care (of children and of the elderly) even if it doesn’t result in more GDP.
A crucial part of this puzzle is housing. It is hard to build a household, if you can’t get a house—or, indeed, if over half of your income goes on paying for rent. Building more houses is essential for Kruger’s vision, although he doesn’t argue for the state to swallow up this responsibility. Kruger wants to see more power given to Community Land Trusts, so that people can hope to live within the communities they call home—indeed, building covenant communities, is Kruger’s second priority. As the family has to do with sex, so the community has to do with place. The argument seeks to recapture something of the life of the ancient parish, where families look beyond themselves, in mutual support and trade, bound together by covenant of place. Kruger’s language, which includes a theology of dominion, sits easily with the rural communities I serve in my parish life, and reflects the givenness of agricultural life. But Kruger is no luddite; he proposes the utilization of technology to make the idyllic profitable.
The final scale on which he wishes to see the notions of Covenant reign is our national life. Here are some of Kruger’s most revolutionary ideas: dismantling the current form of the NHS; changing how schools are funded and delivered; massive welfare reforms aimed at paying people to care for their own family. All of these and more can be summarised in Kruger’s words here:
The reform programme we need starts with the dismantling of the priesthood which governs the thinking and management of the public sector. The acute paradox that cripples the system, ever increasing budgets and permanent shortages on the front line, can be resolved by stripping away the hierarchies of impervious bureaucracy to make public services that are more local, more human, and more cost-efficient.
This, surely, is the dream of every conservative?
Covenant is an important book for Christians to read—not necessarily because they will agree with the solutions that Kruger offers, but in part because he is willing to offer them. Reading the way Kruger artfully nail his colours to the mast will make the reader wonder what their priest, pastor, or bishop thinks on a matter—and wonder why they haven’t been so clearly expressed. Kruger talks coherently, and passionately, drawing a pen portrait of a nation built on covenantal family bonds, and tied together with virtue. Kruger is willing to talk about sex and marriage, human dominion and stewardship of land, and the state monopoly of violence, in a way that would not be unfamiliar to students of St Paul. Would that Christian leaders articulate a similarly coherent vision for the moral, social, and civic life of the Church and those individuals and families of whom it is comprised.
No doubt, Kruger’s determined opposition to abortion, assisted dying, and the Trans movement, will make his vision unpalatable to many on the progressive left—and I wonder if his argument for Same Sex Marriage will disappoint others on the Christian right. Politics is often about compromise, in a way that theology is perhaps not. I wonder if Covenant is more likely to affect pulpits than Parliament.
Mark Broadway is Ministry Area Leader in the Ministry Area of Penybont ar Ogwr in South Wales. He is Honorary Assistant Chaplain in the Princess of Wales Hospital, and is an operational member of the crew at RNLI Porthcawl. His book, Journeying with God in the Wilderness, is available from IVP.
Buy me a Coffee
The Twitter thread from Danny Kruger is here https://x.com/danny__kruger/status/1936142392467300664 It’s notable that he says that the people pushing for assisted suicide are ‘militant anti-Christians’. He recognises that this Bill is not really about doing good and a-theist but being anti-good – anti-God. That’s a pretty strong. He also attacks the insinuation that having religious/Christian faith make you hardened rigid and blinkered and thus someone whose arguments can be dismissed. He points out that their ‘faith’ is just as real but actually a fantasy given the truth of human nature. John Lennox seems to have been inspired by the same thought in his address to the National Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast last week (https://www.youtube.com/live/ScvKE372mhM). It’s good to see these arguments, truths, more boldly expressed. From my perspective though its our preachers who need to see what the Holy Spirt is saying to the churches. Many are in a different place altogether.
‘It’s notable that he says that the people pushing for assisted suicide are ‘militant anti-Christians’. He recognises that this Bill is not really about doing good and a-theist but being anti-good – anti-God. ‘
He might claim that but is it true? Perhaps it is true amongst some MPs, but is it true of those in the general population who agree with assisted dying? Is it really anti-God to wish to end severe human suffering? Many Christians, although an unwanted decision, would prematurely end the life of their dog if the vet said there was no hope of recovery but just more, and probably worse, suffering until they finally die. That decision comes from compassion, not being ‘anti-God’.
I also return to the point I made on a previous blog, that Jesus prematurely ended his physical life. Why did he do that? I would suggest it was because he had accomplished what he had come to do, and there was no point to his suffering continuing. Is there not something to learn from that?
I pose these questions not because I am pro-assisted dying, but I dont like how the ‘other side’ is sometimes painted, and I think Christians against it often have a mindset of ‘we cant intervene as we have to let nature take its course cos that’s God’s design and will’. Imagine this life if humans didnt intervene.
An interesting exprapolation has taken place in the article, when Equitable principles of shield and sword is used for Common Law as opposed to Statutory law.
Nevertheless, it is a point well made especially in the checks and balances that Lord Denning sought to apply in determining the scope of delegated and Administrative law.
Central to covenants is their legal status, with rights and responsibilities which may be symmetrical, a mutuality, or asumetricalwhich does not exist in social contracts, which as a political construct is not a legal contract at all.
Thanks for the comment – the mingling of the Courts of Equity and Law over the last two hundred years is much to be regretted, (he says laughing).
Denning was, of course, a favourite of mine when reading All England Law Reports.
To misapply the famous Harry Vaisey “A gentleman’s agreement is an agreement which is not an agreement, made between two people neither of whom are gentlemen, whereby each expects the other to be strictly bound without himself being bound at all.”
We might say “A social contract is a contract which is not a contract, made by no one in society; whereby each expects the other to be strictly bound without himself being bound at all.”
In the late 1970s as the accord between the Unions and the Labour government progressively broke down, I remember one opposition parlimentarian saying that “the social contract isn’t worth the paper it isn’t written on”.
Good grief, I didn’t know that the best Christian in Westminster had argued for same-sex marriage! What did he say?
I’m not sure that he argued for SSM in parliament- but in his book, he argues that his definition of marriage doesn’t exclude SSM
I wasn’t suggesting he had argued for SSM in parliament. I’m interested in why he is for it in his book, which I don’t have. Information is received gladly.
Kruger’s book is a good (and fairly easy) read, and now in paperback – I recommend it.
He doesn’t dwell on same-sex marriage at all. He just doesn’t see how his arguments in favour of marriage change when you apply them to gay people. Kruger’s key point is that we’ve lost the Order (which is about building community and therefore bonding people together in relationship, a key one of which is marriage, but it flows out into institutions, civic duties, wider family etc.) and allowed it to be replaced with the Idea (which grew out of Christian regard for the dignity of the individual, but has arrived at an atomised and nihilistic endpoint. So Kruger cannot have a class of people which are placed outside of the Order and forbidden from forming the stable relationship of marriage.
Then, I don’t think he has an understanding of the full biblical sweep of covenanants played out in covenants/ treaties between nations, people groups. Not all were approved by God, contrary to his will and purposes.
He did a degree in history Edinburgh and a PhD at Oxford so that’s where his emphasis comes from. But it would be good to have more Biblical depth. There may also be the view that that battle, politically speaking, is lost – so work with what we have, ‘the art of the possible’.
It’s called a DPhil at Oxford. On Burke.
Is not the whole point of being a politician that, when faced with an ‘art of the possible situation’, he or she resolves to change what’s possible? While we all know there are precious few such people like that in today’s politics, should we not expect every Christian to be in that group?
Yes, if it enables same sex attracted to commit to life long stable committed partnerships rather than moving from one sexual partner to another why would it? After all he wants to encourage strong families and committed married couples who care about each other and their children and parents and wider families and community too
But if God designed woman as a suitable partner for man (as Genesis 2 states) then another man would not be suitable, and so a man seeking fulfilment in another man would not find it, and would move on.
Not if they were same sex attracted primarily
Such people should recognise the difference between God’s design and their own feelings. Just like I do when I feel the desire to commit adultery with a married woman. Just like Sam Allberry and Vaughan Roberts do with men. I gladly acknowledge them as brothers in Christ.
If you are in a heterosexual marriage you can fulfil your sexual desires there with your spouse, without needing to commit adultery. If you are same sex attracted denied the possibility of a same sex marriage or partnership inevitably you will either be celibate, which only a few dedicated people could do whatever their sexual orientation (including the best Roman Catholic bishops, priests and nuns) or you will just move from sexual partner to sexual partner. Hence UK law now enables same sex marriages and the C of E now has PLF and the Church of Scotland and Methodists and Quakers perform same sex marriages in their churches
UK law can do what it likes, but Christians ought to adhere to what the Bible says is right and wrong, which believers have accepted as the word of God for 3000 years.
T1’s logic escapes one. If you are not able to marry, he says there is no other option than being promiscuous or being celibate: no chance of being mono’gamous’.
Obviously a non sequitur. For if being mono’gamous’ is what they want, then that will be what happens. However, it rarely does happen. Therefore it must not be what human nature, left to itself, ‘wants’.
You are allowing heterosexuals to be monogamous and to get married but denying same sex couples the chance to be monogamous and get married or enter a civil partnership
That was exactly the same illogic I already highlighted.
They can, if they wish, be just as faithful/mono’gamous’ whether they are married or not. Why are you firstly being so illogical and secondly ignoring the flagging up of your illogic so that I have to repeat it?
No they can’t, being monogamous requires you to be in a marriage or civil partnership to be monogamous to. Otherwise you are just saying they should be celibate
What makes you think that God recognises same-sex marriage, T1?
Saudi Arabia doesn’t recognise SSM certificates issued by the British State, nor would it recgnise them if issued by a future Church of England. What makes you think that God recognises them?
No, bodily union happens sometimes within and sometime outside marriage. In both cases, not just sometimes but regularly. But you knew that.
The Church of England is established Church for England and interprets what God thinks via Synod. Saudi Arabia is not even a Christian nation but Muslim and the C of E is not established church of Saudi Arabia so what Saudi Arabia thinks of SSM is utterly irrelevant to the C of E.
In England however, the only nation relevant to the Church of England, same sex marriage is legal and the C of E via PLF now recognises same sex married couples by prayers within services
‘The Church of England is established Church for England and interprets what God thinks via Synod.’
Nope.
Are you saying that the Church of England is incapable of error in its interpretations, T1? I’ve heard that one before…
Christians in England who are members of the established church will respect the law of the land, as with PLF now approved by Synod
Yes. It is highly unlikely that Christians in England will want either to obey Christ or to please Christ.
The chances are, of course, infinitesimal that out of the many thousands of laws there will be any that go against the divine law.
But if there should by accident be any such, it will be far preferable to disobey the divine law than to disobey ‘England’. Right?
That’s what being a Christian is all about, and that is why it is so many people’s chosen way of life above all others.
The Church of England is the established church of England, if you want a church which takes every word of the Bible literally from Genesis to Revelation there are plenty of non established churches you can join
Simon/T1, it is very odd that you dismiss those you disagree with as wanting ‘literal’ interpretation of the Bible. I don’t know why you do this.
I don’t think I have ever met anyone who believes in the ‘literal’ meaning of scripture, if you could even define what this is.
But the CofE does believe that Scripture is the ‘word of God written’, and that no-one in the Church has the authority to vote for anything which is ‘contrary’ to that. If you don’t like that, perhaps you should find another church…?
The fact that that is your constant reply to everything (and yet you act as though no-one has ever heard it before!) shows how few are your ideas. We listen to those who have many ideas and who can see many dimensions of a picture.
Your elevating England above Christ would in any case be an obvious reason to pay no more attention to the proposed theory.
In the Church of England what Synod votes for goes, tough. Don’t like it, get out of the established church!
Spoken in the true Spirit of Jesus (a well known Establishment figure).
Is a ”literal interpretation” of the 66 books without differentiation something likely to be enthusiastically embraced by people with relevant higher degrees, I wonder? And is it not possible that the people in the pews sometimes know a lot more than those who lay down the law about what a denomination groupthinks?
Wherever we have groupthink we have mindlessness and also we have lies, because it is not possible that people without exception actually think the same as each other nor think without exception what they are ”supposed” or ”required” to think.
And yet it is groupthink that you Orwellianly prescribe. Belong to denomination X? Believe Y. Or else. As though people can help what they believe.
As you well know a third of votes at Synod are given to the house of laity, the same as the house of bishops. The house of laity also voted by majority for PLF. not just the house of bishops and house of clergy
Yes and how the C of E interprets scripture as the word of God is decided by Synod
“no-one in the Church has the authority to vote for anything which is ‘contrary’ to that”
We just disagree about what is contrary to Scripture. For example, I think Lambeth 1.10 is quite clearly contrary to Scripture, but lots of other people think differently.
I list nineteen different problems with the literal vs metaphorical binary in What Are They Teaching The Children.
Yes and the Church of England is supposed to encourage it to be within marriage, heterosexual or same sex
Simon/T1 nope: the Church believes marriage is, ‘according to the teaching of our Lord’ between one man and one woman.
You do seem to have a problem with what the C of E actually believes. Are you in the right church?
And the nation of which the C of E is established church of now performs legal same sex marriages and the last Archbishop said sexual intimacy for both heterosexual and same sex relationships should take place in committed unions. PLF of course now enables prayers within services for same sex couples in C of E Parishes married in English law
‘and the last archbishop…’
A well known authority and scholar.
Certainly should trump whatever Jesus said?
When did Jesus forbid same sex unions and say same sex couples should be promiscuous instead?
Lol. That point was already made. T1 is claiming that anyone who cannot marry is ‘forced’ to be promiscuous. The poor things. They would not – the thinking goes- have been remotely promiscuous otherwise, but if you are forbidden to marry what else is it possible to do? The said promiscuous demographic deserve our deep sympathy (or possibly that David Lammy fly their bespoke flag in solidarity). The intense suffering and marginalisation that they suffer in their imposed promiscuity will be overcome one day.
Jesus, remissly, never mentioned this 21st century issue. What could he, in the first century, possibly have been thinking, that could have caused this oversight?
In Church of England terms yes, what is the will of Synod is the doctrine of the C of E
I have no idea where you get this idea from.
The Articles and Canons of the C of E. Any of its doctrine can be changed and new services introduced by 2/3 majority vote of Synod
The Twitter thread from Danny Kruger is here https://x.com/danny__kruger/status/1936142392467300664
Not being on X, but pushing the covenant aspect, just who is the state in Parliament seeking to covenant with, in its pursuit of sacrificial blood, pre-cradle to grave?
Given that a crime is an act against the State and its significance and substance is to be weighed, not as an individual act, but as a collective act against the State, that the State is seeking to sanction death, is a crime against itself, where the individual is sovereign.
Paganism in the guise of sophisticated progressivism Rules.
It is that we worship, pay homage to.
God is dead. No he isn’t we have replaced him: Nietzsche.
It’s notable that he says that the people pushing for assisted suicide are ‘militant anti-Christians’. He recognises that this Bill is not really about doing good and a-theist but being anti-good – anti-God. That’s a pretty strong. He also attacks the insinuation that having religious/Christian faith make you hardened rigid and blinkered and thus someone whose arguments can be dismissed. He points out that their ‘faith’ is just as real but actually a fantasy given the truth of human nature. John Lennox seems to have been inspired by the same thought in his address to the National Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast last week
I think this sentiment is an old one; but one which is beginning to be easier to express
(https://www.youtube.com/live/ScvKE372mhM). It’s good to see these arguments, truths, more boldly expressed. From my perspective though its our preachers who need to see what the Holy Spirt is saying to the churches. Many are in a different place altogether.
Absolutely superb article – and as a matter of interest, I pray for a number of Christian MPs every day, including Danny Kruger. My list changes after every election – sadly a number dropped off last time, including my own beloved MP Lewes, Maria Caulfield. I am so grateful that Danny remains on the benches. His cautious opposition to Assisted Dying is one reason.
…..Assisted Dying? Sounds ok – what’s the fuss about?
Supporters gently call it the “Assisted Dying Bill”. Ok, so when the Bill is passed, here’s what will happen: You’ve got incurable cancer, you’re scared of dying with intolerable pain (or in similar distress), you’re seen by 2 independent safeguarding doctors, they certify you’re mentally competent to decide to kill yourself, they prescribe the medication, and off you go. Legally this is Assisted Suicide, a term which many now use.
…..Does it always work?
No, very occasionally, in which case a doctor has to finish you off.
…..But doesn’t the Hippocratic Oath tell you not to kill your patients?
Yes, Hippocrates wrote in the 4th century BC… “Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion”. In view of this and my own simple faith, I have opposed assisted dying since Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying Bill in 2003. My letter was quoted by Lord Patten in the House of Lords on 6th June 2003 in Hansard (page down to column 1612). Hansard Column 1612:-
“I did not spend 9 years of my life … training to be a GP … only to be told I can now legally kill my patients”. I would therefore urge my own MP to follow suite and oppose this Bill.
…..Oh – so what if Parliament decides to allow assisted dying for intolerable pain etc?
Fine – but don’t change the whole face of millennia of medicine. Keep assisted suicide away from physicians and set up a totally separate judicially supervised department to handle it. It has nothing to do with medicine.
…..Doesn’t Palliative Care stops you dying with intolerable pain etc?
Correct. But there’s a postcode lottery – some UK areas have poor local palliative care. Sorting this out urgently is the answer to the whole problem. In 1982 just before starting as a GP in Peacehaven, I worked with Dame Cicely Saunders for a very short time at her hospital, St Christopher’s Hospice, the first one in the UK. Briefly working with her transformed my experience of palliative care, and for some years I was the practice lead GP for palliative care, which included caring for the 11 patients at a hospice in Peacehaven (Fourways Nursing Home). We found no end-of-life problems that proved totally unsurmountable either at St Christopher’s, or during my 32 years in general practice. This was entirely due to our access to palliative care of the highest possible standard. Thus assisted dying was not on the horizon at any point during this time.
…..And people who are fed up and want to die, or feel under pressure from relatives, or feel they are a burden??
Yes – this is the “Slippery Slope”. Whenever a country passes assisted dying, there is a slow shift of reasons from the original one of “intolerable suffering” to a whole raft of “excuses” to die, even including children. Only yesterday, 13th November 2024, the Netherlands passed a new provision for healthy over 75s simply to arrange death on a whim. “Just have 6 months counselling”, and then get your doctor to give you a lethal poison. Not in my backyard, thank you very much. I was trained to save life, not to kill………….
Best wishes, and every blessing,
John Etherton MRCGP. Founder, HavensHealth, Peacehaven (now with 17 GPs)
Contact: 07753631883 or 01273477606 – please leave a message
Address: 8 South Way, Lewes, East Sussex BN7 1LU, UK
God bless you for speaking out. It is heartening and gives hope to know that good people like you are fighting for true Christianity
Outstanding palliative care is obviously the answer to all of this. Sadly, no one wants to finance it while Mammon rules this Godless world. We must all keep opposing this evil in whatever (even small way) we can. Thank you and the other genuine Christian believers for your efforts.
It strikes me that Danny Kruger tackling this problem in the context of England is to be taking on more than one problem. People much more easily claim Scottish or Welsh identity than English. It’s the complications of British history which have brought this about. For instance, if we use the US version of his three measures, family, faith and flag, which is the English flag? Most English folk wave the Union flag ( apart from at football matches) which is a composite identity. I’m half-Italian: am I English, British or Italian?
I find hangups with the hijab odd in that we don’t notice Sikh headwear for instance. A hundred years ago every Englishman wore some kind of hat outdoors. I always think someone is ‘British’ when they can speak English fluently in their local dialect. I worry that sharp political differences may prove one of our greatest divides such as the political viewpoints of young men and women becoming divergent to a degree that stops people meeting, marrying and starting families.
The state in Parliament is seeking to declare its Godless morality and ethics.
It also represents God’s present day judgment.
John Owen puts it so clearly:
“In Christ, the patience, forbearance and longsuffering of God leaves unrepentant and unbelieving sinners without excuse, so that his power and wrath against sin might be shown in their just and righteous destruction (Romans 9:22).
Therefore, God allowed ‘them to walk in their own ways,’ which is shown to be a most dreadful judgment (Acts 14:16; Psalm 81:12).
To be given up to our own hearts lusts and walk according to our own ideas is as dreadful a condition as a creature is capable of falling into in this world.”
John Owen, Communion with God: Banner of Truth.
Thanks for this fascinating article about Kruger’s book. I’m left wondering who he thinks needs to read it. Above all, surely members of his own party, which for the past 45 years has worshipped at the altars of so-called ‘free markets’, individual choice and deregulation in many areas of life. It’s good to hear that he advocates, “stripping away the hierarchies of impervious bureaucracy to make public services that are more local, more human, and more cost-efficient.” But the trend since 1979 has been away from local decision making and towards centralisation, e.g. the massive removal of LEA powers in education and housing to central government. And is he in favour of a ‘post code lottery’ in the provision of services? There’s so much in his approach that needs to be unexplored.
Similarly, there’s a good deal in the claim that, ‘we have shifted from an old Order of covenantal ties, responsibilities, duties, and virtues, to a corrupt and corrupting Idea of personal, atomised, individual autonomy.’ But when does he date this from? A great deal of this has happened since c1980. So he seems to have more in common with people such as Wes Streeting or Gordon Brown than the dominant ideas of his own party.
It’s great to hear you say that his vision, ‘sits easily with the rural communities I serve in my parish life, and reflects the givenness of agricultural life.’ That’s my experience of rural life and ministry, too. In rural communities we have the privilege of learning our theology among them and allow it to be shaped by their insights dialectially rather than the common approach of taking an objective package of theology we work out in abstract that we then give to them. Ministry should change the minister as well as others. Rural congregations can also be more diverse than many urban gathered churches – people go to their local church more. So people of different church backgrounds, theological traditions, personalities, educational and social backgrounds jumbled together. It’s the pastoral task of the clergy to work with that given range of people and views. There’s so much that urban churches could learn from here.
Finally, you say that, ‘Politics is often about compromise, in a way that theology is perhaps not.’ But theology can also be about good compromises e.g. the compromise over the full inclusion of women in all orders of ordained ministry, the nature of Holy Communion. It would be very easy to divide the church on those issues as they are so fundamental, but we agree not to do so.
How about addressing the topics, rather than the politics, Tim.
It seems to be clear that your theology bends to subjective pastoral influences.
Theologically how do you address the topics. As a Minister with a ‘free vote’ how would you do so, or would you follow the majority of your parishioners?
Jons above is more interested in how you would preach/teach than in politicians. I would be too.
Thanks for the comment, Geoff. But I think you miss my point which assumes that politics is the topic and is as spiritual as the theology; both are about how communities of people shape their lives according to values, traditions and beliefs. Kruger makes some fascinating and important points some of which I agree with, but they need to be put in context as he is writing as an MP from within a specific political and theological tradition. I simply can’t see how his views align with the overall approach taken by his party since c1980 and that is a spiritual issue about integrity and truthfulness in public life. I wonder how he sees it. And engaging with local people and their varied concerns and working out how to understand and address them in context is a pretty standard dimension missional theology; it’s a different task in rural settings than in urban ones where congregations very often seek out the type of theology they want. It needn’t mean just following others’ views and accepting them passively but it does mean being open to learning with them, including those we disagree with, since it may, just may, be that they know something we don’t or have insights we need to learn from. I’m certainly thankful for the things I’ve learned from the congregations I’ve been part of. The educator needs to be educated. Unless we think we have all the truth and others are there to receive it passively from us. Sorry for a rather lengthy response.
But Tim,
It isn’t a response as you, as a minister, have not answered my questions, nor points in relation to the topics. As a leader, how would you ‘vote’, how would you give a theological, scriptural steer?
They are not matters of theological indifference, adiaphora.
Thanks, Geoff
Tim is right, rural churches have Catholics and Evangelicals, Liberals and Conservatives in them, whereas urban and suburban churches would likely be one or the other. Rural C of E churches though are often the only church in the village or hamlet and indeed normally the only church of any denomination present in the village, whereas in cities and most towns you would also have Roman Catholic, Methodist, Baptist and Pentecostal and independent churches as well. So the Vicar has to include all those of differing theological views and be broad minded to keep the congregation together. Hence rural Vicars tend to be more middle of the road, where conservative evangelical and liberal Catholic priests tend to prefer churches in cities or large towns where they are more likely to find churches with solely conservative evangelical or liberal Catholic congregations
Yes, that analysis is right, T1. So just when the rural parishes are on their knees, a proposal comes in to divide them all. (Into five people against three, typically?)
You can’t really divide rural churches, not least as normally the Church of England church is the only church of any denomination in most villages and hamlets in England. Unless you alternated Sunday Worship so only evangelicals could worship one Sunday and Anglo Catholics the next which is not viable
Well – maybe the one Anglocatholic who believed in marriage could worship on Wednesday, and the one who did not could worship on Friday.
Which is rather pointless as it would be exactly the same Communion service on both days. There is no compulsory requirement to attend prayers of love and faith within a service if ever held for a same sex couple anyway
The only point was that
the congregations that were already the most doctrinally hybrid
were also the smallest
and would now become more fundamentally split
just when they least needed that.
Because after all, more ‘sex talk’ is a far higher priority than saving the parish principle. It should devour even the time not originally allocated to it, at the parish’s expense. As proven a couple of years ago by the reallocation of synod debating time.
No the point was you have not a clue about rural ministry in England.
As I have already pointed out in rural ministry the ONLY churches of any denomination in villages or hamlets are Church of England. There are no Roman Catholic, no Baptist, no Methodist, no Pentecostal churches as rivals too as there are in cities or towns. Thus by definition both Catholic and Evangelicals mix together in the same churches. There will be NO split as there are NO alternative churches to go to in rural areas. As a percentage of population of course most rural churches are also actually higher than they are in most city and town churches.
PLF is what a majority of Synod voted for, the Save the Parish movement takes no position on it either way, it had supporters for and against it but it was passed by majority so that is that. What it does care about is putting more funds into Parishes, especially rural Parishes and as it grows in strength on Synod and looks likely to get a more sympathetic Archbishop it can start to push its agenda further. Starting with axing central church plant funding and funding for grand schemes and putting the savings into Parish ministry
There is only allowed to be one single point? Says who?
All these topics can be discussed, and it is suspicious to avoid them.
It is certainly odd to say (inaccurately) that I do not understand rural ministry when I was for some years a rural organist, and, as I go through the points you make, I was aware of all of them. But how would you know that I was not?
I was (to repeat) just being a bit facetious but was making the true point that it is ironic that it is going to be precisely those congregations which are already numerically challenged which are MORE likely than the average to be doctrinally divided, even at a level which would be widely felt to need structural provision. That one point was mine.
Not really. Firstly, as there are no other churches in rural areas other than the C of E church for them to go to. Second as most residents of rural areas tend to be farmers or pensioners with a few families, the numbers of services having prayers for a same sex couple within them in a rural church would likely be once a year at most. With attendance entirely voluntary at it anyway
No, I meant that there would be objection to even belonging to a church that did and affirmed such things.
Well I can tell you we have over 50 members of our rural church and not a single one has said they won’t remain a member of it, even if they don’t want to attend any services with PLF (not that we have had any yet anyway). Given the Church of England church is the only church of any denomination in most English villages and hamlets it is either attend that church or go to no church at all!
I don’t think you listen to the points made, but just repeat your own same points ad infinitum. Which we have already heard and answered.
The issue is not whether people would be forced to attend a service! How could they be forced to attend? There are no services that people are forced to attend.
Thanks Tim for your (as usual) thoughtful and deeply ‘theological’ questions and comments.
Looks like the Bishop of Leicester’s chances of being Archbishop of Canterbury are near over after this BBC news story this morning. The Bishop of Chelmsford now likely favourite to succeed Welby and become the first female Archbishop
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3velqy9rzo
Well, Geoff, I’m not quite sure what the topics are that you want me to give my views about, since the original article was a book review . But in any specific instance I’d respond by using the combined resources of our Scriptures, the vast inherited wisdom of previous generations of Christians, the insights of other relevant areas of human knowledge (e.g. social psychology or history) prayer, discussion, listening and time. I can’t see any other way we can respond as human beings with all our gifts and limitations. But even then we don’t work with total 100% certainty; as all of us know we sometimes change our minds about topics, even very important ones. And I agree with you that the full inclusion of women in ordained ministry and holy communion are not minor matters as some claim. So how in practice do we worship and minister alongside those with whom we disagree? Splitting isn’t usually a holy option and many past splits now look like tragic mistakes that should never have happened.
Topics: full term abortion; assisted dying.
Thanks for clarifying that, Geoff. I didn’t refer to those two topics because it seemed to me that the wider issues raised by the article and his political position were more significant and opened up a very interesting debate. I’m opposed to very late abortions except in very rare circumstances in which the other’s life is seriously at risk. And I don’t support the recent legislation on assisted dying. But I have no direct experience of being with someone who is terminally ill and in extreme and uncontrollable pain, so I’m willing to learn from those with more experience than me and possibly change my mind. However, I find the experience of those with disabilities who oppose the legislation very compelling. But as I said, ‘even then we don’t work with total 100% certainty; as all of us know we sometimes change our minds about topics, even very important ones.’ And that can happen as we get older: somehow things that seemed so very important and clear in our youth, look rather different in later years; of course, that can happen with political views as well as theological ones. So not changing our views may (but only may) be a sign that we’re not learning from experience and making full use of one of the key resources for theological wisdom.
What do you think about the value of learning from rural churches with their often theologically diverse congregations?
Should, of course, be ‘mother’s’ life in my third sentence.
Tim – this all depends on what you mean by ‘theologically diverse’, because there are some base lines for being Christian. The bottom line is conviction of sin as in Luke 18:13, the offense of the cross ‘Blessed is he who is not offended in Me’ (Matthew 11:6), believing in Him (John 3:16) and that He loves me despite everything that would contradict it (my sinfulness).
Those for whom this is true belong to the Saviour’s family, we have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us transforming our hearts and minds (which basically solves all problems of lack-of-‘intimacy’ described in a previous blog, since we’re in communion with each other and with God) and, provided it is within this framework, yes – there is great value in learning from others.
Sadly, from what I have seen, ‘theologically diverse’ is almost invariably used as an excuse to airbrush out conviction of sin and the offence of the cross.
On the subject of the blog post, great if Christians are going into politics, trying to ensure that the legislature reflects Christian values. The whole business of ‘covenant’ looks suspicious. When we come to believe, we are transported out of the community to which we belonged and into the community of ‘forgiven sinners’. We find ourselves ‘aliens and temporary residents’ (Hebrews 11:13). We see that when God made a ‘covenant’ with the Israelites, it collapsed like a pack of cards (end of 2 Kings and end of 2 Chronicles).
Thankyou T1
I t does seem that the B of L has queered his own pitch somewhat.
You suggest the B of C might have been presented with an open goal.
Knowing nothing of the prospective candidates I googled “Critique B of C”
I came across one of her speeches discussing “Vision” [the set topic]
From a family of asylum seekers and member of a remnant church, still going through the “fires of affliction.” She does seem to have a very clear vision for the church to prosper and flourish.
See a transcript of her plenary lecture at the Church Times Festival of Preaching, on Monday 16th September 2024 at Great St Mary’s Church in Cambridge. savetheparish.com/2024/10/03/bishop-of-chelmsford-challenges-the-churchs-vision-and-strategy/
Yes as of today I think Bishop Guli is now odds on to be next Archbishop of Canterbury. As you say she has a clear vision for the Church of England and would also be more Parish centred, a much needed shift
T1 – do you remember 2012 – when betting on the next Archbishop of Canterbury was *suspended* when a bunch of ecclesiastical figures *with insider information* started planting a bundle on Justin Wellby?
Indeed, though there has been no recurrence of that as yet the momentum is now all for the first woman Archbishop after Usher declined to put himself forward and Snow has likely lost his chance after the BBC report today. On that basis the main rival to Chelmsford is now probably the Bishop of London
Simon, you know it was a hit job by the Gay-obsessed BBC (13% of BBC staff identify as homosexual) and the story is weird and makes no sense – a bearded man who says “I’m gay and also trans” – he clearly failed the second part! But the BBC is full of gay and trans advocacy.
Martyn Snow was given an impossible job, a poisoned chalice even, and it’s no wonder he chucked the ridiculous job of selling the absurdity that is PLF to the Church of England.
The C of E is now racing to collapse and we will see huge upheavals in the next two years. The immediate reason: the enormous falloff in ordinations. Only 350 in training now when 650 are needed to cover those retiring or dying.
The reason: no confidence in the Church of England, largely over the sexuality wars.
The result: massive church closures, especially in the countryside.
Your constant advocacy for homosexuality is an own goal.
You are only looking at those training for stipendiary ministry. The Church is also seeing an increase in self supporting ministry as many train for ordination after retirement from often lucrative private sector careers or public sector senior positions with fat pensions and can fill in the gap, especially in rural churches where many posts are part time.
The anti gay obsessed evangelicals you also talk about are almost entirely found in urban areas and hardline conservative evangelical churches in cities and large towns, they are non existent in the countryside where liberal Catholics and traditional Anglo Catholics and conservative evangelicals all mix together in the same C of E churches. Of course one good thing about the death of Snow’s campaign for Archbishop today is it also finally sounds the death knell for ever more merged rural benefices or church closures and church planting as his evangelical wing has been pushing. Guli by contrast is the Save the Parish backed candidate and if she wins far from church closures in the countryside the reverse will happen. With a more sympathetic Archbishop Save the Parish will aim to take over Synod, scrap central C of E funding for any new evangelical church plants (beyond those self funded by the likes of HTB) and instead push the commissioners to push the hundreds of millions from C of E investment income into rural ministry and churches especially
For those with any experience of dirty tricks campaigns, this bears all the hallmarks of one (leaving aside the bishop, neither protagonist behaves remotely like a church leader, but the relevant one does behave just like a selective storyteller). BBC and media in general are riding the crest of a wave in their luck in shooting down bishops (one lifetime strike – or more probably alleged strike – and you’re out is their self-made rule), and they can, they hope, clear the ground so that only liberal and or female supposed-candidates remain standing within the public purview (since they are increasingly becoming the arbiters of this). If they can nab a gay-interest/gay-innocent slant too, that will further the chances of the story’s making their headlines.
If the Bishop of London became archbishop, so would someone who thought a mum who killed their child at birth and buried it in the garden secretly was an innocent.
The Bishop of London’s response to decriminalisation of abortion seems reasonably measured if she does become next Archbishop. ‘Sarah Mullally, said:
“Women facing unwanted pregnancies are confronted with the hardest of choices. Ultimately, they require compassion and care in order to support them fully in the heart-wrenching decision they must take. They should not be prosecuted.
“However, decriminalising abortion can at the same time inadvertently undermine the value of unborn life. The amendment passed to the Crime and Policing Bill may not change the 24-week abortion limit, but it undoubtedly risks eroding the safeguards and enforcement of those legal limits. Women suffering from coercion, or those who are victims of sexual or domestic abuse, would be the most vulnerable to the proposed change, which does not consider improvements to abortion care, nor address the inadequacies of the ‘pills by post’ assessments. These concerns are well set out in the letter signed by over 200 clergy published in the Telegraph this morning.
“Considering any fundamental reform to this country’s abortion laws should not be done via an amendment to another Bill. There should be public consultation and robust Parliamentary process to ensure that every legal and moral aspect of this debate is carefully considered and scrutinised. We need a path that supports women, not one that puts them and their unborn children in the way of greater harm.”
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/abortion-law-changes-comment-bishop-london
She swallows whole the secularist lie that women are a vast undifferentiated bunch (though of course the secularists also say that this bunch has its chief interest as the killing of its own young. On this I do not exaggerate, as there are different lines of evidence.). Being undifferentiated, they must either all be innocent or all be guilty. So it is impossible for any one specific individual ever to be regarded as guilty, no matter if she kills her infant in cold blood or not. This is the end game of the trajectory that says that certain groups in society can never be wrong about anything. A church leader should be far, far too intelligent and critical to fall for something like that.
Midwife: You baby is about a minute from being born, Madam. Shall I kill it or deliver it?
That question is now entirely legal.
I am tired of hearing calls for God’s mercy on this country. Don’t people realise that we have it at present, and it means only the continuing abortion holocaust?
If you want to know what is coming, read Daniel Hannan’s weekend warning about the UK’s impending sovereign debt crisis, now unavoidable since Keir Starmer’s U-turn on benefits.
Wrong Anton. That question is not legal at all, and the medical staff would open themselves to prosecution. What the decriminalisation amendment would do (rightly or wrongly) is stop the mother being prosecuted. This sort of confusion over what is being proposed is partly this isn’t a good idea. Bishop Mullaly makes some excellent points that in their haste to remove women entirely from the possibility of prosecution, the MPs are failing to think enough about women who are victims of abuse or coercion, or the problems with the “pills by post” approach.
I’m willing to believe you AJB, but under what legislation is the question illegal?
Under the Abortion Act – the question you’ve suggested is a midwife proposing an illegal abortion. The medical staff who perform that termination would be acting illegally and subject to prosecution. What the Antoniazzi Amendment would do is ensure that the woman whose pregnancy is terminated could not herself be prosecuted.
You seem far more concerned about whether they are acting ”illegally” than about whether they are acting either cruelly, immorally, or both!The law is always changing from time to time and place to place. it is obvious that there is nothing solid about it whatsoever. The central concept ‘viable’ does not even make sense, having relevance only to the premature, who are not the majority that are under discussion. To read what you say, one would not think that bad laws existed, or laws made in the lawmakers’ self interest.
In a factual conversation about how the law is proposed to change, don’t be surprised if there’s a legal focus…
Has anyone noticed the strange parallel between the resignation of the Archbishop of Wales with the resignation of thr Archbishop of Canterbury? Both men resigned over their serious safeguarding failures: not that they are accused of criminal conduct themselves but rather the failure to uphold the basic requirements of their jobs and allowing very serious abuses to go undealt with.
In Andy John’s case, according to this week’s ‘Anglican Unscripted’, homosexual promiscuity and drunkenness were occuring frequently among the clergy associated with Bangor Cathedral, John had also appointed a totally unfit man to be the Dean of the Cathedral, a man of mininal ordained experience who was also the CEO of the diocese, an obvious conflict of interests.
The Church in Wales has now largely disappeared from most of Wales: a terrible failure to live out the Gospel by its own leadership.
And John himself is a graduate of St John’s College Nottingham! A very far cry from evangelical faith. The harm caused to faithful believers is immense.
The accuracy levels on Anglican Unscripted are often quite low, and are a good demonstration of the theory that stories get spicier in the retelling. As for the situation in Wales, it was bad enough without the inaccuracy, but it would be crazy to be surprised by that, because their theology/thinking on sexual matters made it inevitable. Where harm is inevitable, the conditions that made it so should never remotely have been put in place.
But the strength of Anglican Unscripted is that they have moles here and they are not subject to our libel laws.
Quite so. There are inaccuracies in their stories (e.g. sating that Westminster College is in Oxford instead of Cambridge), but they rarely amount to much of substance. Anglican Unscripted is a shoestring operation but it is from America and therefore free from the absurd censorship laws of Britain which exist to protect the rich, and from the institutional walls of silence that the Church of England and the fast disappearing Church in Wales draw around themselves to protect senior clergy from scrutiny.
We know from the interminable sagas surrounding Welby, Dakin, Sentamu, Carey, Croft etc that C of E bishops do everything they can to keep people in the dark over safeguarding and other failures, so we should be glad that Anglican Unscripted talks sbout these things, even if they make some errors of fact.
The errors of fact are legion. Generally, they are not loth to treat allegations as fact. Also sensationalist resuscitated allegations are treated as of more worth than earlier ignored judgments, as in the case of the Bishop of Liverpool.
In the case of Makin and Welby, the AU knowledge was just too vague, and there was plenty of ‘of course Welby knew earlier’ even in instances where most judges disagreed; where the evidence against was not cited; and where no-one asked exactly WHAT it was that he was supposed to have known and WHEN.
James, when people have made 920 episodes, it is hard to generalise to such a degree.
What is good about avoiding the tort, law, of defamation?
Are not the defences sufficient? Truth being one.