AN UNWORTHY ARCHBISHOP

EDITORIAL

The TELEGRAPH

28/12/2003

It is a regrettable aspect of modern life, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, asserted in his Christmas Day sermon, that those who show religious faith should sometimes be treated as figures of fun. The nervous sniggering about the Prime Minister religious faith which ripples over the surface of the media from time to time, he asserted, is part of the same fear and unease towards religion that manifests itself in the proposal to ban the wearing of Muslim headscarves in French schools. Dr Williams would be wrong, however, to assume that when people show irreverence towards religious figures it is necessarily a scornful response to their faith. If Dr Williams feels personally the object of mirth, he should reflect on some of the secular aspects of his work. The leaking of his Christmas Day sermon, much of which was trailed in a newspaper last Sunday, is typical of the tawdrier political practices developed by the New Labour spin machine but is unworthy of the office of Archbishop of Canterbury. A sermon is supposed to be a private communion between the priest and his congregation, not a media event, leaked and spun in advance to favoured journalists.

Dr Williams has become adept at using the media to his own ends. Yet he does so not to offer spiritual guidance but to advance a soft-Left political agenda. A full page of the Daily Mail last week was devoted to a piece by Dr Williams proffering family financial advice. The credit explosion has made life a lot easier in all sorts of good ways, he wrote. But it is in danger of slipping out of control unless we have some better regulation and some new attitudes. The Archbishop would more likely find himself being taken seriously were he to render unto the Government the business of financial regulation and concentrate a little more on spiritual leadership.

Since Dr Williams became Archbishop of Canterbury the Anglican Church has been riven by the debate over homosexual clergy. It is not easy to see how politically-correct Episcopalians from Virginia can be reconciled with fundamentalists from central Africa who are driven to preach blood and hellfire whenever the word homosexuality is mentioned, nor to see how schisms can be prevented. Dr Williams approach to the problem, however, seems to be not even to try.

In June, during the controversy over the abortive appointment of Dr Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading, Dr Williams secretary for public affairs, Jeremy Harris, penned a memo worthy of Alistair Campbell. The issue of homosexuality, suggested the memo, has to be managed in media terms by seeking to take the sting out of it and displacing it in the public mind. The memo went on to suggest a number of attractive alternative stories by which the media might be deflected from the issue of Dr John. ABC, as the memo referred to the Archbishop, was advised to deliver a reading of his own poems, make a high-profile Lord’s intervention or announce a theological prize.

Unfortunately for Jeremy Harris, a former BBC journalist, the media turned out to be less gullible and less trivia-obsessed than Lambeth Palace imagined. Most newspapers stuck to the real story, the disquiet over the appointment of Dr John and into the circumstances of Dr John’s late decision to step down.

Dr Williams has been no less morally flabby on the issue of Islamic terrorism. On Christmas Day the Pope appealed to God to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism. The Archbishop of Canterbury, on the other hand, reserved his clearest condemnation for the Westcounter-terrorism campaign. Imprisoning terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay and Belmarsh prison, he complained, sends out the wrong message to Muslim societies. Those of the Christian faith, he said, should show themselves to be on the side of humanity by making sacrifices for the sake of justice.

The sacrifices to which Dr Williams refers presumably involve risking another terrorist attack on the scale of September 11. So far, the counter-terrorist campaign has been remarkably successful in preventing al-Qaeda attacks in Europe and America, in spite of that organization strikes elsewhere in the world. Moreover, this has been achieved without any curtailment of the rights of ordinary Muslims in Britain and America, who are free to practise their faith with a degree of freedom of which Christians in many parts of the Islamic world can only dream. Does Dr Williams really suggest that humanity would better be served by refusing to imprison those who, given the chance, would delight in making a nuclear attack on a Western city?

Dr Williams has yet to deliver a poetry reading in the manner suggested in the Lambeth Palace memo. But if he does treat us to his poetry we hope it will give us greater reason to take him seriously than many of his public pronouncements, which, thus far, have echoed Edward Lear rather than Alfred Lord Tennyson.

END