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

Radical?

When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I tend

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th