Anonymous Conservative’s Letter Exposes Deep Unease With Liberal Consensus in Church of England
While Canterbury Cathedral makes an exhibition of itself with “disruptive” graffiti expressing the religious doubts of members of “marginalised communities”, a highly intelligent conservative in the Church of England was too afraid to be named.
This anonymous letter, headed ‘Unite the Kingdom march and Christian symbols’, appeared in the October 3rd edition of the Church Times (7th letter down):
Madam, – I feel compelled to respond to your various articles about the Unite the Kingdom march in London. My son encountered the march on his way through London and commented on how ordered it was and the diversity of participants. The few incidents of violence are lamentable, but it was a tiny fraction of the whole: hardly the “far-Right” fracas so readily seized upon by your contributors.
Much is made by the Church’s liberal consensus of the Christian injunction to welcome the stranger; the Levitical Law and Christ’s teaching are clear. Neither the Law nor Christ’s parables, however, offer an unlimited provision. Even a parable such as that of the friend at midnight, ending as it does with “the whole meal if necessary”, implies a limit: the limit of the meal.
Far from hijacking Christian symbols, perhaps the march participants simply sought to reclaim a genuinely Christian perspective — that of mutual responsibilities over unlimited rights: genuine “old-school” liberalism?
But your contributors saw no need to engage, unlike the late Charlie Kirk. The failure of the liberal consensus isn’t simply to appreciate that there may be an alternative view; their failure is not accepting that hard decisions about rights have to be made. Cohesive societies are not built on rights: they are built on mutual responsibilities within the rule of law.
As a reader of the Church Times for about a quarter of a century, I wrote the following letter to the paper which it did not publish:
Why was the writer of one of the best letters (Unite the Kingdom march and Christian symbols) I have read in the Church Times in around 25 years anonymous? Was it because he or she is a licensed clergy person or lay reader and was afraid of the repercussions of such an intelligent challenge to the leftist consensus that prevails in the Church of England’s hierarchy? It is, of course, impossible to know the writer’s motivation for anonymity.
Being an unlicensed ex-vicar, I have no qualms in putting my name to wholehearted agreement that “the failure of the liberal consensus isn’t simply to appreciate that there may be an alternative view; their failure is not accepting that hard decisions about rights have to be made. Cohesive societies are not built on rights: they are built on mutual responsibilities within the rule of law”.
I hope if I were still on the payroll I would be willing to put my hand up, but in the current political climate perhaps it would be arrogant to be too categorical about that.
The Dean of Canterbury, David Monteith, had no hesitation in putting his head above the parapet to defend the graffiti on the Cathedral’s walls and pillars. He told the media:
There is a rawness which is magnified by the graffiti style which is disruptive. There is also an authenticity in what is said because it is unfiltered and not tidied up or sanitised. Above all, this graffiti makes me wonder why I am not always able to be as candid, not least in my prayers. This exhibition intentionally builds bridges between cultures, styles and genres and in particular allows us to receive the gifts of younger people who have much to say and from whom we need to hear much.
But a sane C of E conservative felt they had to be anonymous. Does that not speak more loudly about the state of free speech in the nation than the Canterbury Cathedral graffiti slogans do about religious doubt?
Julian Mann, a former Church of England vicar, is an evangelical journalist based in Lancashire.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
All my attempts to decipher accurately the hieroglyphics have failed. Could an Egyptologist please help me.
Who actually painted the graphics? Do we have any pictures of the culprits in action, or is it all an easily washable publicity stunt using pre planned designs?
It doesn’t look raw to me, it looks more like a Jaguar cars rebrand.
It was a non-binary agender goblin what done it. Tolkien called it. Pesky, troublesome things, goblins;
https://x.com/NicholasLissack/status/1977023086768930880
That Canterbury cathedral stuff is pathetic, cand the church leaders must be mental, certainly totally unfit for purpose.
The liberal consensus is now the Establishment. The Church of England is the established church. It is no surprise that they are singing from the same hymn sheet (groan).
Whether or not a faith should be part of the establishment is another question.
A questuion Reform Party might consider.
Mene mene tekel upharsin.
Looking at that photo, it suddenly struck me that the Church is deliberately showing their vision of a dystopian future, when the churches are all deserted and in ruins, desecrated with graffiti, like some parts of British cities already are…
Why doesn’t some individual just rip all these ‘stick-ons’ off the walls. It can’t be hard and there is no way removing vandalism can be called vandalism? However, this is bonkers Britain.
I’m so sick of being told to learn from the young. That’s the wrong way round. I thought it was cringe when I was a teenager in the ’90s (though of course I took advantage of it to share my uninformed opinions) and it hasn’t got any better since then. Every grown-up who applauded Greta Thunberg should have been fired on the spot, and organisations such as the Church should issue official guidance telling employees not to pander to young people who are by nature already sufficiently self-centred know-it-alls.
Yup. Learn from the young… almost in the territory of ‘minor attracted person’
One look at the little stain who did the graffiti tells you all: he’s a middleclass ponce, about as authentically ‘street’ David Attenborough
Welcoming ‘friends at midnight’, strangers to the house… where’s the parable about people who loathe you, your religion and your country, and have just come to take? The parable of the bad faith actor who abused the children of the village?
The parable of the town governors who ignored the cries of the raped children and women because they were stinking cowards acting out of self interest? Not heard that one either.
That graffiti is just desecration of a sacred space.
Those who authorised it should be ashamed of themselves; they have betrayed their (supposed) calling.
Have the Canterbury congregation cleaned this mess up already or is it still in place?
Get your buckets, soap and brushes.
This is the Crockford’s Preface replay, Gary Bennett wrote an anonymous critique of the liberal drift of the C of E, but now its far more profound. Liberalism for Christianity is supposed to be a peripheral questioning and restatement of truths about God and Jesus, it is not supposed to BE the centre of the faith with the received faith on the periphery. Now wokedom has gained control of the centre making life uncomfortable for orthodox Christians in the pews. As Richard Niehbuhr described the liberal ersatz faith: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”― H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America
Our new feminist ABC and our absurd Dean of Canterbury Cathedral might like to start a basic Christianity course. Otherwise they need to shift across to the Lib Dem Party and let the C of E return to the faith of the prophets and apostles.
More than one anonymous writer? “They”? Circumlocutions are needed to avoid the confusion. Meanwhile, the C of E reminds me of the lawyers to whom our LORD is quoted as saying, “…ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne.”