Skip to main content

Jews and Unitarians dropped from Churches Main Committee

The Times reported today that Jews, Unitarians, Christian Scientists, and Seventh Day Adventists are being dropped from the Churches Main Committee. This is not the same thing as Churches Together. I can understand the reasons for being exluded from Churches Together, but this body deals with non-theological things like tax, charity law and child-protection where clearly it is much better to work together.

Well done to Steve Dick, and presumably the new communications consultant, for getting a good quote in there which manages to give a good sense of what Unitarians stand for. We seem to have a good relationship going with the Times now. We just need to develop that kind of relationship with the Guardian to get some coverage in there.


Naomi said…
Although the final descision on Unitarian and others' membership of the Churches Main Committee has now been deferred, it would do no harm to consider our response to any future discrimination against other churches and religious groups.

This is a copy of a Comment I sent to Ruth Gledhill's Times Online Blog:

"Writing as a Unitarian, I suppose one way of looking at the report of the proposals before the Churches Main Committee, would be to say 'Yet another example of the exclusivity of Christians and the sidelining of everyone else...'

Since most of us are not orthodox Trinitarian Christians, it might be more useful to regard this apparent slight as an opportunity to think about how members of any and every religious or spiritual group or community might be encouraged to meet to discuss matters of common concern. If this led to positive and effective political lobbying and also provided an effective means of communication between government and the various religious groups, so much the better. But if at the very least it gave members of different faiths the opportunity to talk frankly to each other and maybe come to understand each other a little better, this could be a very positive outcome of apparent ostracisation. I know such dialogue is already very important in some areas, but it would be good to see it developing into a more widespread and national happening.

The Churches Main Committee web site says of itself:
‘Its primary role is as a vehicle for conveying to the Government the views of the churches on legislation and other matters which directly affect them and likewise as a channel through which the Government can consult the churches as a whole on such matters.’

No reason that I can think of why the rest of the ‘faith communities’ should not aspire to such a role.

Naomi Linnell
Robin Edgar said…
Do you think The Guardian might cover this U*U news? ;-)

Popular posts from this blog

From liberalism to radicalism

I've been reflecting recently on the journey I've been making from liberalism to radicalism, and how I'm beginning to see it as a necessary evolution if you're not going to get stuck in a kind of immature liberalism that fails to serve both you and the world. By liberalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise personal freedom and not being restricted by the patterns of the past. By radicalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise justice, solidarity, and liberation from oppression. Yes, I'm using broad categories here. Let me give an example. Let's talk about sexual liberation in a Western context for example. We can talk about women getting more agency over their bodies; gay and bi people being able to have sex with one another and marry one another; we can talk about the work of overcoming shame around sexuality. All of that is liberalism. It's good stuff. It's still ongoing. So we might ask the question "where next for sexu

Am I an activist?

  I remember being at some protest outside the Senedd once, and someone introduced me to someone else, and said, "Stephen is an activist." I remember thinking - am I? I don't know. What does it mean to be an activist? Who gets to use that title? Am I an activist because I turn up at a few protests? Or do I have to be one them organising the protest to be an activist? Do I have to lead? Do I have to do the organisational work to be an activist? Because the truth is that since I moved to Cardiff I have kept myself at the periphery of a lot of activist groups. I go to meetings, I hear about things, I turn up at protests, but I have rarely got really fully involved. Why is that? It's not for the reason that I don't have time. I do, in fact. But often I sit in these meetings and protests and think "Is this effective? Is it worthwhile? Is it going to produce something at the end of it all that is worth the effort?" I suppose, coming from the world of church I

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