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.


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:

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

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