Skip to main content

Time for bishops to leave the House of Lords

The Government has released plans to reform the House of Lords, replacing an entirely unelected chamber with a wholly or partly elected chamber.

The plans are that the House of Lords should be either 100% or 80% elected. I don't want to express an opinion about whether it should be 80% or 100%. But if we are going to appoint 20% I want to make sure that that does not include, as a matter of right, 26 Anglican bishops. Of course if some committee decides it wants to appoint any bishops, fine. And to be honest someone like Rowan Williams is probably the kind of person I would want.

But we cannot continue to have a constitution that deliberately favours one particular religion and one particular denomination. It should not be the right of 26 Anglican bishops to vote on national legislation.

Last year as part of the Power 2010 movement, over 50,000 people wrote emails to those 26 bishops asking them to support a pro-demoncracy reform that would include an elected House of Lords. I don't know if there was ever any official response from the bishops, but perhaps now is the time for another letter writing campaign.

It's frankly embarrassing and undemocratic to still have religious officials in our Parliament like this, and now is the time to get them out.

What a wonderful Christ-like witness it would be if they voluntarily left, rather than hanging on to their antiquated powers. But if they don't do it, the people should make it clear that we don't want them there.

Comments

Rich said…
Sadly, the bill makes it clear that if the 80% option is taken, 12 of the 26 bishops will be allowed to remain indefinitely, with the Church of England itself electing them each term.

I totally agree with you that they should leave, but this will be seen as a move towards disestablishment, which somehow England has resisted every time it's come up (although Wales and Northern Ireland were disestablished, and their Lords Spiritual were banished from the Lords accordingly).
sewa mobil said…
Nice article, thanks for the information.
Anna Trapnel said…
While we're on the topic of bishops, I'd love to hear your comments on this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/25/church-england-gay-clergymen-williams

I've been following your blog, Stephen, and find it really interesting; as I say, I'd be intrigued to hear your take on all this. I'm by turns inspired by, and dissapointed in, Rowan Williams. The poor old CofE. Who'd be an Anglican?
@Anna, not me! Which is kind of the point. The endless pursuit of "unity" does not work, as people on the left or right will vote with their feet and leave. And they have done. They've avoided an institutional schism so far, but schisms are happening all the time. You can't please everyone. You have to decide on what is right.

That whole article is very sad. It's not great for a confidential process to be leaked like that, and it is only from one person's point of view. Appointment processes can be difficult in all kinds of ways.

But the larger point is that the way the established church works makes it very difficult for anyone to stick to Christian virtues of honesty and integrity.
Yewtree said…
Hi Stephen, I agree it's crazy that there are still bishops in the House of Lords, and would personally support full disestablishment of the CofE.

I mainly dropped by to say how excellent I thought your article in The Inquirer, "Get Faith out of Government" was.

Popular posts from this blog

The dumbest thing about American Unitarian Univeralism

I'm glad Peacebang started blogging about this cos I was about to, and now it's like I'm joining in with a conversation rather than doing a big rant and having a go at Americans (though that is always fun ;-)). Why the hell do American (or is it just in New England??) UU churches take, like a quarter of the year off? In the summer they close. They CLOSE!! A church, closing. It's so bloody weird and wrong. Where does it come from? Why? Why? Why? Why do people need church less in the summer? Where are people supposed to go? Where is the Divine supposed to go? My church in Boston didn't close exactly, but moved to the smaller upstairs chapel, but the minister still had all that time off. Now I've spent most of my life around teachers and priests, both jobs where people think people don't put many hours in, when in fact they put in loads ('you only work Sunday mornings/9 to 3.25'). Teachers work hard and need their long holidays. Ministers work hard, a...

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with ...