Another Christian Christmas No.1 campaign

Mouse is giving this one the chance of an average sized snowball on a particularly warm day in hell.

Those good folk over at Christian Concern have been campaigning under the "Not Ashamed" banner for a little while.  The idea is that being a Christian in public is increasingly being seen as something to be embarrassed about.  The campaign is asking Christians to be more open about their faith in public.  In principle, not bad thing, but Mouse finds the whole thing just a little negative in outlook.  "Not Ashamed" is a rather negative way to think about being proud, comfortable and happy in your faith.

Nevertheless, the campaign has inspired 18 year-old student "singer-songwriter", Josh Anderson, to compose a track in support of the camapign.

Mouse draws his readers attention to His Grace's campaign to get Cliff to No.1.  Given the undoubted competition from the X-Factor, it looks like His Grace's campaign does not have sufficient momentum at this time, with only 1,234 having signed up to the Facebook page at time of writing.  It remains to be seen how well Josh Anderson will fare, but his single is available from 6 December, but Mouse does not give him much of a chance.

Apple remove "anti-gay" Manhattan Declaration app from iTunes App Store

Mouse reported over a year ago about the Manhattan Declaration.  The statement of belief that was drawn up by conservative Christians in the US to put down a marker ahead of the presidential election has since drawn almost half a million signatures.  Mouse suggested at the time that it was rather narrow, and that inclusive language used was really code for an anti-abortion and anti-gay agenda, which leads to a very narrow understanding of what the gospel is about.  Mouse really doesn't understand why a discussion about gay sex would be part of a statement of core Christian beliefs.

Since then, the folk behind the declaration thought it would be a good idea to create an iPhone app which allows users to read and sign the declaration, and share it with others.  The app was duly created and released in the iTunes App Store, with a rating of 4+, meaning "no offensive content".

This drew criticism from many campaigners who believe that the declaration is "anti-gay", in that it denies gay marriage is legitimate and describes gay sex as "immoral"and "wayward".  This drew the attention of a number of leading tech and other publications in the US, and a campaign of writing to Apple CEO Steve Jobs and a petition emerged.

The latest news is that the app has disappeared from iTunes.  The Manhattan Declaration people say on their website that they are "perplexed".  However, it is known that Apple has previously supported gay equality charities, so it shouldn't be a surprise.

The Westminster Declaration was a UK version of the Manhattan Declaration, although it has drawn significantly less attention.  It will be interesting to see whether this is targeted by gay campaigners now.

Mail describes +Pete's suspension as "monstrous over-reaction" after calling for his head on a plate

Perhaps one of the things that Bishop Pete Broadbent said on his facebook page that ultimately caused him the most trouble was his attack on the "hypocritical" gutter press.  He claimed that they would be "fawning" over the royal couple during the wedding celebrations, but predicted that they would be attacking them soon after.

He pointed out that they had been attacking the royals very recently, and that their current state of support was a rather rapid U-Turn.  But surely even he did not expect the most dramatic and sudden reversal of direction from the Daily Mail that occurred yesterday.

In an article by Suzanne Moore in the Mail on Sunday, Bishop Pete was defended to the hilt.

Similarly, the remarks on Facebook by the Bishop of Willesden, the Right Reverend Peter Broadbent, would have ‘offended’ only those who read his Facebook page.

He doesn’t like the ‘nauseating tosh’ surrounding the Royal Wedding. I didn’t know joy unconfined was now compulsory. Nor did I think a bishop’s job was cheerleading for the monarchy.

Broadbent has been suspended for saying what many think. What a monstrous over-reaction – a storm in a cheap commemorative tea cup.

Unbelievable.  You will remember that it was the Mail who ran a front page splash last weekend which broke the story.

In other developments, nearly 800 people have signed up to a Facebook page called "Support Bishop Pete Broadbent", and Ruth Gledhill took the pulse of General Synod in the video below, showing broad opposition to the action taken by the Bishop of London.

Christians in the Lords

Amongst the latest batch of appointees to the House of Lords this week were a number of Christians.  Amusingly, it was the National Secular Society who were amongst the first to highlight this, so lets look at who they are:

Bob Edmiston, multi-millionaire car dealer who founded Christian Vision
Sir Richard Dannatt, formerly Chief of General Staff in the British Army
Elizabeth Berridge is the retiring director of the Conservative Christian Fellowship
Sir Patrick Cormack, a long-serving Tory MP
Sir Reg Empey is a former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party


Now, you may think that a former head of the British Army, successul businessmen, and highly experienced politicians are exactly the kind of people we would want in the House of Lords, but clearly for the NSS there is another over-riding criteria which trumps all this experience - you must not be a Christian.


Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: “As if there wasn’t enough zealotry in the Lords we now have more in the shape of these proven religious agitators – and not the benign sort, either. A fully elected second chamber is long overdue.”

Mouse doesn't doubt that the completion of Lords reform is over-due, but he is glad that these people have been appointed in the mean time.  It would be scandalous if otherwise highly experienced and qualified individuals were excluded from the upper chamber on the basis of their Christian faith, and surely even the NSS would not argue for that.

Global poll says religion is not a force for good

Whilst many were distracted by the bright shiny lights of the Blair Hitch project, with Tony Blair debating Christopher Hitchens on the topic of whether religion is a force for good, the much bigger news story underneath it seems to have been largely missed.  This is a poll conducted by Ipsos in 23 countries, involving 18,000 people, asking the same question.

The headline from the debate was that Hitch won, with 67% of vote from the 2,700 people present.  When you bread down the numbers, you see that there was barely any movement from the pre-debate poll, with those undecided before the debate splitting evenly for and against the motion.

The headline from the poll is that 52% said that religion was not a force for good.  Of course, there is massive bias in that headline number depending on which countries were surveyed.  The most religious nations, such as Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, India and Brazil were most strongly of the view that religion has a positive impact, whilst the most secular nations were of the opposite view.  So far, so unsurprising.

What is, perhaps, a little more surprising is the number for Great Britain, with only around a third believing that religion is a positive force.

Many people of faith would argue that the question has some bias in it already.  Many Christians would say that they are not fans of "religion", but are fans of Jesus.  Religion is a loaded term.  Yet, the overall message cannot be explained away by semantics.

Unfortunately Ipsos are only making the undrelying poll data available to paying subscribers, and Mouse is not prepared to become one, so he can't unpick the detail.  However, the overall message is stark enough.

Guest post: Reflections on my first Synod, by Sam Follett

Sam is the youngest member of the General Synod, and represents St. Albans Diocese. Here, Sam reflects on his first experience of the Synod process.

-----------------------------------
Just six days ago I was on my way to my first ever meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England, nervous but excited. After a weekend at home in St Albans with the family (I’m studying Physics at the University of Nottingham) I made my way to London for Monday’s induction. The day aimed to teach us newbies the basics of how Synod works and even included a dramatized debate! I found it really put me at ease about the system and, coupled with a previous visit to Synod and a brilliant meeting with the other members from St Albans Diocese, I felt I was suitably prepared for my first day of the ‘real thing’.

The following day brought the opportunity to do one of my favourite things: wear a suit! We all dressed up smart and had the service at Westminster Abbey with the Queen. I caught a glimpse of Her Majesty’s hat floating past then we kicked off with the service of communion. I think the thing I enjoyed most about it was the beautiful music. The choir seemed on top form and I felt drawn into worship by it all. It’s not often I get to hear a choir in church. I nearly laughed out loud when I discovered the passage chosen for one of the readings was one from Acts that I have been reflecting on when praying about my involvement with General Synod (Acts 15). I find the decision made by the council in this passage very interesting as they relax many of the rules, but still ask some to be upheld by the Gentile believers, almost out of respect to the Jewish believers rather than anything else.

We then moved into Church House where we had what felt like a more intimate meeting where the Archbishops and the Queen spoke. I thoroughly enjoyed hearing what they all had to say. I thought it clear that Her Majesty was speaking from her heart with real affection and oversight of the Church of England. Archbishop Rowan made a clear appeal, like he has (as far as I am told) never done before, to the Synod to for us to follow his leadership and trust him on the matter of the Anglican Covenant. Having already spoken to others close to him about this matter, I knew that he is desperate to hold the Communion together, but this covenant is the only way he can see it being possible. His speech clearly echoed this and therefore there was great relief when, following the debate the next day, Synod voted in favour of continuing the process of consideration of the Anglican Covenant.

Throughout Tuesday afternoon and the majority of Wednesday we had a number of debates around such matters as the ‘Big Society’ (a great one to get us freshers started with the debating process), common tenure and marriage legislation. After getting into the swing of how the debates worked I found it very interesting listening to the different perspectives people brought to the discussions and making a decision of how I would vote. Aside from the debates I had a chance to meet lots of new people, which was great. It was really good to meet up with a couple of other members who are also in their early 20s (though I’m only just in my 20s!).

Overall, it has been a very good but exhausting few days. Now I just have to catch up with my Physics!

Phew! - CofE weddings since 1980 are valid after all

One of the strangest items at this week's General Synod was the intervention of the Rt Worshipful Timothy Briden, Vicar General of the Province of Canterbury, a senior judge.  This contribution was to reassure Synod that there was not a catastophic technical error in the form of announcement of banns of marriage which had invalidated huge numbers of weddings since a change was made in 1980.

The assurance was given following a Daily Mail (pah) article which claimed that Church lawyers had admitted an error made in 1980 in changes to the wording of banns had meant that millions of Church weddings were technically invalid.  The claim was that the new form of wording for banns was never given legal authority, so was technically unlawful.

It turns out that on this occasion the Daily Mail is not correct.

Synod was told:

Whichever form of words you use, it still makes absolutely clear to those present that it is some substantial objection to the marriage which needs to be brought forward if it is to be halted. The fact that many marriages have taken place using the more recent form of banns, I assure Synod, does not in any way invalidate the publication of the banns, neither does it invalidate the marriage taking place on that basis.

Well that's a relief.  Although the mischievous side of Mouse was have rather liked it if it had turned out to be true.

Update: It has been pointed out to Mouse that the announcement at Synod came before the Mail article, so we have a small "oops" for Mouse for getting the timings wrong, and a huge "oops" for the Mail for getting the story wrong after the facts had been so clearly explained.
 

Praise for Street Pastors who have contributed to huge cut in crime

Mouse has been desperately searching asking on Twitter for some good news this week to blog about.  He finally found some on page 44 of yesterday's Evening Standard.

Kingston Street Pastors have been praised by Council Chiefs and the police, saying that they played a "vital role" in reducing crime in the area.

Between 2004-5 and 2008-9 there was nearly a 50% reduction in violence against the persons offences, and a 25% overall drop in crime in the Grove ward, which includes the town centre, and it was announced that the Street Pastors had helped more than 12,500 people over the past five years.  Around 200 volunteers  have removed more than 5,000 bottles and glasses from the streets, spoken with over 2,000 people and handed out 464 pairs of flip-flops in the last year alone.

Superintendent Paul McGregor at Kingston police station said, "There has been tremendous work by the Street Pastors over the past five years and they have undoubtedly contributed to making Kingston a safer place.  They have won the respect and gratitude of both myself and other police colleagues."

The Standard says that the whole operation costs £25,000 per year to run, which has to be pretty good value in anyone's book.

Mouse heard last week's Sunday Program on Radio 4 in which Steve Chalke argued that churches could play a huge part in the Big Society.  Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society, however, argued that whilst Steve Chalke may be very nice, but religious organisations shouldn't be allowed to do anything for anyone in case some of them turn out to be nasty.  Their main concern is that the Big Society will involve handing over government functions to faith groups, who will then be discriminatory in the way the provide services.

Street Pastors are a stunning example of not just how Christians can serve their communities in a way which does not leave them open to accusations of favouring one group or other, or of 'proseletysing'.  It is also obvious that the service they provide is something which is not provided by anyone else.  It is not a case that they are trying to take over police functions to cut crime, but that they operate with official support in a way which compliment's the government's objectives, but through a uniquely Christian act of service.

Now if that's not good news, Mouse doesn't know what is.

Friday round up

Here's my round up from the blogosphere.  Ten of the best from the blogs this week.

1. Significant Truths proclaims liberty

2. The Jubilee Centre blog on The Importance of Teaching

3. The Urban Pastor on the issue of whether he should raise his hands in church

4. Phil Ritchie collects some views on people's favourite Bibles

5. Twurch of England have an interview with the Natwivity

6. Will and Testament on what the Pope really said, looking forward to the next clarification on condoms and the Catholic Church

7. Nick Page wants to start an Extraordinariate

8. Gavin Drake and Clayboy are two of many to comment on Pete Broadbent's comments about the royal wedding

9. The Vernacular Curate has some blogging etiquette advice for priests

10. Dave Walker had Mouse chuckling away with his unique perspective on the opening of General Synod

The covenant is rubbish - let's vote for it!

One synod member summed up the debate over the controversial Anglican Covenant at Synod yesterday 'all the bishops stood up and said "This is rubbish. Let's vote for it!"'

The day started with the strange sight of Synod applauding speeches against the covenant, then voting by a huge majority in favour of the covenant.  But any relief that Rowan Williams may have had that all the "No Covenant" campaigning seemed to have come to nothing, must have been tragically dashed by the GAFCON Primates who put out a statement saying that they will not sign the covenant, and that they will boycott the Primates meeting in Ireland.

Oh dear.

Mouse really doesn't know how Rowan musters up the strength to plough on sometimes.

TwurchCast on the Natwivity

New over at the Twurch of England:

TwurchCast Five is here and it’s brilliant! We chatted to Huw Tyler, one of the team behind the Natwivity project which this advent is putting the story of Christmas out to the masses in full Web 2.0 technoglory! We talked about why it was happening in the first place, who he’s trying to reach and what’s next for the creative brains behind all this.

+++ Bishop Pete Broadbent NOT suspended +++

Mouse has now had it confirmed that Bishop Pete has not been suspended and will continue in his role as Bishop of Willesden.  However, he will not be performing public events until further notice.

Mouse's instant reaction to all this is that it is a terrible shame.  Mouse feels it is an unnecessary action by the Bishop of London, for the reasons Mouse set out yesterday.  Mouse's prayers are with Bishop Pete, for whom this must be a very difficult time.

+++ Bishop Pete Broadbent 'suspended' +++

This has just gone out from the Bishop of London.  Mouse is seeking to clarify what "withdrawing from public ministry" means.



Dear Colleague,

I was appalled by the Bishop of Willesden’s comments about the forthcoming royal marriage. In common with most of the country I share the joy which the news of the engagement has brought.

I have now had an opportunity to discuss with Bishop Peter how his comments came to be made and I have noted his unreserved apology. Nevertheless, I have asked him to withdraw from public ministry until further notice. I have also been in touch with St James’s Palace to express my own dismay on behalf of the Church.

Arrangements will need to be made in Bishop Peter’s absence and further details will be given in due course.

With thanks for your partnership in the Gospel.

The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Richard Chartres KCVO DD FSA

Synod reform: Guest Post from Synod Member Alastair Cutting

There are some who feel, and I am amongst them, that doing church business in this way may not be the best. The General Synod has served well since its introduction in the 1970s, but is it fit for purpose now?

On the inauguration of the new Synod, Mouse is delighted to kick off a conversation about how General Synod could be reformed with a guest post from General Synod number 96, Alastair Cutting.

Alastair is Vicar of Henfield and Rector of Shermanbury & Woodmancote. He blogs at the General Synod blog, and on his own personal blog.
--------------------------------------------------

Alastair writes:

The General Synod of the Church of England commences proper with the inauguration service in Westminster Abbey in the presence of the Supreme Governor, Her Majesty the Queen later today. The 480 or so members of Synod gather bright and early in all their finery, as the security arrangements for any major event dictate, especially one with royalty in attendance.


Clergy synod members are required to wear preaching bands with their academic gowns and hoods over their cassocks (most of these robes originating several centuries ago). Preaching bands? Whipple’s will be busy with last-minute sales on Monday, I guess, as it is rare to see clergy wearing them these days. Though directions for dress amongst the lay members are rather less prescriptive, a good number of hats are likely to be evident amongst ladies.


Isn’t there something rather quaint about all that finery & royalty? Or does it just make the Church look anachronistic and out of place for a Church in the 21st century global culture? The start of the new synod allows the opportunity for raising all the usual questions over maintaining a constitutional hereditary monarchy at the heart of the established church, with even some bishop holding republican views.

General Synod is often referred to as ‘the Church's parliament’, a nomination that does not always fit very easily, even though it clearly is the Church of England’s primary legislative body. The epithet sometimes used is: Episcopally led & Synodically governed (or managed); which, as you can imagine, humorous wags have turned into a number of variants, not all quotable on Facebook.


Yet even the layout of synod is different from parliament - in contrast to parliament’s ‘two sword distances apart’ members confrontationally facing opposing parties, the Church House chamber is designed in the round. Members may sit anywhere, though convention suggests that the bishops sit towards the middle of the circle (“enfolded with our love” as the ex-chair of the Business committee puts it), though in recent years the deaf community, and their signing interpreters have brought a graceful illumination, and a very different focus to what is being debated, sitting at the heart. Also, at voting, synod is no longer instructed by the chair to ‘divide’ - but rather ‘decide’; a positive, rather than a negative response to the debate.


There are some who feel, and I am amongst them, that doing church business in this way may not be the best. The General Synod has served well since its introduction in the 1970s, but is it fit for purpose now? Well actually, quite good at it - but it could be better... How about, for starters:


Elections - there are possibly some flaws in making the Deanery synod members (often the last positions to be filled at the Annual Church Meetings) the electorate for such an important role. Improving electoral processes will help in making sure the best people become members of the synod.


Process - the episcopally led/synodically governed bit sometimes comes a little off the rails, as the House of Bishops meets regularly outside Synod, and so can move things on - or prepare to stop - items on the synod agenda. This often is episcopal wisdom; but occasionally synodical folly. Also, perhaps not so much of synod processes need be quite so legalistic and formal in operation and execution. Simplifying these processes would make things speedier, and probably less expensive too.


Purpose - the impression most people have of synod, is that it is generally the Church of England disagreeing with itself over sex. This caricature does not account for so much of synod’s more inspirational but less newsworthy work. A church governing process that could demonstrate more of synod’s real passion for mission; and working more within consensus, as one body, would demonstrate a more wholesome purpose.


Governance - the Church of England may be ‘synodically governed’, but the Supreme Governor remains the Queen. She makes a speech at the start of each new synod, after the inauguration service. The Queen’s personal faith remains a hallmark; perhaps that is one reason that disestablishment isn’t currently seriously on the agenda of the church at the moment.


So however anachronistic the inauguration ceremonies may look, or be reported; and however much better things could yet be changed to become; even as they are now, they are not without some merit, dignity, and faithful purpose. Pray for the synod, in its current and future incarnations.

Bishop Pete Broadbent apologises to Charles, William and Kate

Bishop Pete was more gracious than Mouse had recommended, and lays no blame at the door of the Daily Mail, which he could easily have done.


From the Diocese of London website:

A statement from the Rt Revd Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willesden.

"I have conveyed to Prince Charles and to Prince William and Kate Middleton my sincere regrets for the distress caused by my remarks and the subsequent media attention about the forthcoming Royal Wedding. I recognise that the tone of my language and the content of what I said were deeply offensive, and I apologise unreservedly for the hurt caused.

"It was unwise of me to engage in a debate with others on a semi-public internet forum and to express myself in such language. I accept that this was a major error of judgement on my part.

"I wish Prince William and Kate Middleton a happy and lifelong marriage, and will hold them in my prayers."

World's most successful pre-book launch hype generated by Pope Benedict XVI

There are many ways to sell a book.  Announcing that the Pope has changed his mind on the use of condoms has generated massive headlines around the world, ahead of the book launch on Tuesday.  No doubt the publishers are salivating.

Mouse's perspective is that he won't attempt to analyse the contents of a book which was written in German and has not yet been published.  There has already been a huge amount of back-tracking on the headlines that were rushed out to avoid missing the story, then had to be sorted out once the actual text had been read.  The current position of the press seems to be that of confusion.

Mouse suspects there will be further 'clarification' once the book comes out.

All of the headlines so far have been about condoms, but to Mouse's mind some far more significant things appear to have been said by the Pontiff.

For example, the Pope is quoted as saying that had he known that Bishop Williamson was a holocaust denier he would not have lifted his excommunication.  This is a major development, and goes much further than previous admissions that the Vatican did not know about Williamson when it acted to unite his SSPX group of ultra-conservatives with Rome.

The Pope is also quoted talking about his ailing health.  This is a huge story, which has been totally missed in the scamble to say something about condoms.  The Pope said that he would resign if he didn't have the capability to do the job fully, and that his "forces are diminishing".

Oh well.  It was perhaps rather foolish of Mouse to expect journalists to read the comments in full, think and then comment.  Better to just launch yourself head-long into the scrum to understand whether the reference to condoms was a u-turn or not.

Bishop Pete Broadbent suffers Facebook foot-in-mouth syndrome

Mouse has got to know Bishop Pete as @pete173 - his Twitter name.  He is great value to be connected with on Twitter, even if he does tweet rather too much about his beloved Tottenham Hotspur.  He is knows as someone who speaks his mind, and who despises the tabloid media and their dumbing down of Britain's culture.  Coming from the left of the political spectrum, it is no surprise that he is a republican, something which Mouse does not think contradicts the oath he took on becoming a bishop to serve the queen.

Bishop Pete's comments have now been picked up by pretty much every newspaper in the UK, after having been featured in the Daily Mail in an attack piece, as well as news outlets in the US, Australia and elsewhere.  Bishop Pete is in the headlines being accused of an unprovoked attack on Prince William and Kate Middleton, of being rude and of being a hypocrite.  Cranmer has called on him to resign.

Mouse does not share that view.

First up, Mouse observes that many, if not most, of the commentary on this event seems to have been made without having read Bishop Pete's actual words.  Please bear with Mouse as he quotes the words, which ran through a conversation thread on Facebook, after Bishop Pete tweeted a comment which was automatically copied into his Facebook page.  Mouse has excluded other people's comments, so you can't quite see what Bishop Pete is responding to, but the context is pretty clear.

Need to work out what date in the spring or summer I should be booking my republican day trip to France...

I think you'll find that God and the Bishop of London are my bosses. I am a citizen, not a subject!

The Windsors and their predecessors don't have a good track record on the permanence of marriage. But their marriage is their business. I don't know them, and have no part in celebrating it. I just wish we weren't paying for it.

I think we need a party in Calais for all good republicans who can't stand the nauseating tosh that surrounds this event. Never underestimate the capacity of the media to descend into the most fawning deferential nonsense and to rake up trivia and irrelevance until it comes out of their every orifice. I managed to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll, and hope to avoid this one too.

Yes, but the wedding belongs to the family. It's their celebration. Not some piece of national flim-flam paid for out of our taxes, for a couple whose lives are going to be persecuted and spoilt by an ignorant media. I wish them well, but their nuptials are nothing to do with me. Leave them to get married somewhere out of the limelight and leave them alone.

(a) I don't care about the Royals. I'm a republican.
(b) History: more broken marriages and philanderers among these people than not. Count them up, back through the ages.
(c) They cost us an arm and a leg
(d) Talent isn't passed on through peoples' bloodstock. The hereditary principle is corrupt and sexist.
(e) As with most shallow celebrities in our society, they will be set up to fail by the gutter press, who don't care about them unless they sell newspapers. And that means hounding them to death.

What's to like?

I give the marriage seven years.

Pathetic gutter press now trying to make this thread into a story. But watch their hypocrisy when they go for the Royals later on.

It's the gutter press. You can bet your boots they won't quote anything I've said about their responsibility for persecuting the Royals. It'll be partial quotes and out of context journalism.

Yes, that would be the same Daily Mail which described the Royal family only last week as "notoriously dysfunctional". Interesting double standards - but what can you expect from journos?

Let's just look at a few specifics.

1. Bishop Pete repeatedly wishes the couple well, and says that their marriage is their business.  It is clear that his objection is to paying for it, and being subject to the mass hysteria of the British press on the subject.

2. Bishop Pete does not call the couple 'shallow'.  He refers to the way the press pursue them in the same way they do shallow celebrities.  Big difference.

3. Bishop Pete does use some language that is a little intemperate.  In particular, calling Charles and Diana "big ears and the porcelain doll" was a mistake.

4. Bishop Pete's comments about philanderers in history were in response to a previous comment on the subject, and were just that - about history and not about current royals.  The comment about them is "The Windsors and their predecessors don't have a good track record on the permanence of marriage. But their marriage is their business."  Hardly condemnation.

In response to this, Lambeth Palace said last night: ‘Bishop Broadbent is entitled to his views but we would reiterate our great delight at the news and wish the Royal couple every blessing.’

So what to make of all this.  Mouse's view is that the Bishop has be a bit harsh in expressing a pretty legitimate view - i.e. that he would rather not pay for the wedding, which he sees as essentially a private matter, and that he does not want to suffer the tabloid frenzy which the event will cause.  This is not a sackable offence.

Bishop Pete is an excellent Bishop, who has personally done a huge amount for the Church of England. He is a character and has opinions.  Good.

Mouse does not agree with the Bishop on this matter, and on some others, but the Mail have clearly taken a conversation on Facebook out of all proportion and turned it into an attack on Bishop Pete, using the hysteria over the royal wedding to grab a new headline.

Mouse would like to suggest a way forward on this.  Bishop Pete should leave the thread visible so that people can read it for themselves.  He may want to apologise for any offence caused, but point out that he has been misquoted, and repeat his wishes of goodwill to Prince William and Kate Middleton.  Otherwise he should just stick it out.

The CofE should stand by their man, and say that he has been quoted selectively and that he is an excellent bishop, with lots of work to do, which he is focused on getting on with.

It would also be helpful if one or two other bishops came out with this line.  His immediate boss Bishop Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, would be a good start.

YouVersion Bible App reaches 10m downloads

Sometimes the simplest things are the best.  Back in 2008 the US mega-church LifeChurch.tv put out the Bible for smartphone, and called it the YouVersion.  It has a number of reading plans, and a basic Bible with over 40 versions in 20 languages.

It has recently passed 10m downloads, marking a pretty big milestone for a Christian app.  The app has had over 50,000 5* ratings on the Apple AppStore.  Good work chaps.

The App now has the functionality to connect with social media and sent friends your favourite passages, giving the app much wider use than simply a Bible in your pocket.

It seems odd in some respects that this innovation, as simple as it is, has come from an individual church rather than a denomination or Bible organisation.  I guess it shows that innovations can come from any source, particularly from rich American churches.  Perhaps the role of the Church is not to try to develop a monopoly on innovation, but to encourage and enable others to innovate themselves.

A cunning strategy from the CofE media machine?

Spare a thought for the men and women with the toughest job in the good old CofE - the Media Relations team.

Yesterday the Catholic Church announced details of the ordinariate scheme which will see five CofE bishops and 50 clergy leave the church, taking something in the region of 500 worshippers with them.  It was all over the papers.  The CofE issued no statement.

Rowan Williams was being widely misinterpreted after his comments about the practical challenges of implementing the scheme to the Vatican Radio.  He was playing down the issue as merely a practical challenge of replacing a few lost priests, rather than being a major strategic issue for the church.  But he was interpreted as "admitting" that some churches would be without priests, as if that never happens in any other circumstance.  The CofE issued no statement.

Meanwhile, the debate over the Anglican Covenant had been hotting up throughout the week, with an on-going debate in the Guardian and at Fulcrum seeing some strong opinions expressed.  The CofE issued no statement.

So Mouse was rather surprised to see the headline on the CofE News site on Friday: "Lifting the curse of plastic sheeting".  No mention of the big issues of the day, but instead a story about bats in churches.

Truly bizarre.

Mouse is hopeful that the CofE media team are much cleverer than Mouse and that they are playing a more subtle and sophisticated game.  Perhaps Mouse's confusion is simply caused by his small brain being unable to comprehend the genius of their media strategy.

Friday round up

Here's my round up from the blogosphere.  Ten of the best from the blogs this week:


1. Will and Testament has Confessions of an Academic Cheat, who makes good money from cheating for seminarians

2. Mark Driscoll has some Christmas tips for Dads

3. FaithWorld on the announcement from the Catholic Church on the establishment of the ordinariate

4. Toby Young on how religious people are nicer than atheists

5. Revising Reform asks if Messy Church is church

6. BRIN has some data on religious broadcasting by the BBC

7. Bishop Paul Butler discussing sanitising the Bible for children

9. Riazat Butt has a Hajj special edition of her Divine Dispatches.  She is also doing sterling work tweeting from the Hajj.

10. Phil Ritchie was one of many to post this lovely clip of Armstrong and Miller going to the Alpha Course as vampires

Catholic Church announces launch of ordinariate

Mouse is posting this from his phone, so can't manage the link right now, but the full statement is copied below.

The interesting bits seem to be:

1. the time table is pretty aggressive, with the aim of getting the scheme operational by Easter

2. the Catholic Church is putting £250,000 behind the scheme. Doesn't seem much to Mouse - certainly not enough to pay a stipend to 50 priests and 5 former bishops. Would be enough to get them a small flat in Tooting to run the operation from.

3. Press are still talking about 600 members in the first wave. Sounds a bit toppy to Mouse.

Update:  Should also have said another interesting point is that Archbishop Vincent Nichols said that he doesn't want any Anglican Churches as part of the deal.  The statement can be found HERE.

Here's the statement:

Much has been achieved over many years as a result of the dialogue and the fruitful ecumenical relations which have developed between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. Obedient to the prayer of the Lord Jesus Christ to His Heavenly Father, the unity of the Church remains a constant desire in the vision and life of Anglicans and Catholics. The prayer for Christian Unity is the prayer for the gift of full communion with each other. We must never tire of praying and working for this goal.

During his visit to the United Kingdom in September, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI was therefore keen to stress that the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus: “…should be seen as a prophetic gesture that can contribute positively to the developing relations between Anglicans and Catholics. It helps us to set our sights on the ultimate goal of all ecumenical activity: the restoration of full ecclesial communion in the context of which the mutual exchange of gifts from our respective spiritual patrimonies serves as an enrichment to us all.”i

It is now just over one year since the Apostolic Constitution was published. The Pope’s initiative provided for the establishment of personal Ordinariates as one of the ways in which members of the Anglican tradition may seek to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church. As the Holy Father stated at that time, he was responding to petitions received “repeatedly and insistently”ii by him from groups of Anglicans wishing “to be received into full communion individually as well as corporately.”iii Since then, it has become clear that a number of Anglican clergy and their faithful do indeed wish to bring their desire for full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church to realisation within an Ordinariate structure.

In collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in Rome, the Bishops of England and Wales have been preparing for the establishment of an Ordinariate early in January 2011. Although there may be practical difficulties in the months ahead, the Bishops are working to address these at a national and local level.

Five Anglican Bishops who currently intend to enter the Ordinariate have already announced their decision to resign from pastoral ministry in the Church of England with effect from 31 December 2010. They will enter into full communion with the Catholic Church early in January 2011. During the same month, it is expected that the Decree establishing the Ordinariate will be issued and the name of the Ordinary to be appointed announced. Soon afterwards, those non-retired former Anglican Bishops whose petitions to be ordained are accepted by the CDF, will be ordained to the Catholic Diaconate and Priesthood for service in the Ordinariate.

It is expected that the retired former Anglican Bishops whose petitions to be ordained are accepted by the CDF, will be ordained to the Catholic Diaconate and Priesthood prior to Lent. This will enable them, together with the Ordinary and the other former Anglican Bishops, to assist with the preparation and reception of former Anglican clergy and their faithful into full communion with the Catholic Church during Holy Week.

Before the beginning of Lent, those Anglican clergy with groups of faithful who have decided to enter the Ordinariate will then begin a period of intense formation for ordination as Catholic priests.

At the beginning of Lent, the groups of faithful together with their pastors will be enrolled as candidates for the Ordinariate. Then, at a date to be agreed between the Ordinary and the local diocesan Bishop, they will be received into the Catholic Church and confirmed. This will probably take place either during Holy Week, at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday or during the Easter Vigil. The period of formation for the faithful and their pastors will continue to Pentecost. Until then, these communities will be cared for sacramentally by local clergy as arranged by the diocesan Bishop and the Ordinary.

Around Pentecost, those former Anglican priests whose petitions for ordination have been accepted by the CDF will be ordained to the Catholic Priesthood. Ordination to the Diaconate will precede this at some point during Eastertide. Formation in Catholic theology and pastoral practice will continue for an appropriate amount of time after ordination.

In responding generously and offering a warm welcome to those seeking full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church within the Ordinariate, the Bishops know that the clergy and faithful who are on that journey of faith will bring their own spiritual treasures which will further enrich the spiritual life of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. The Bishops will do all they can to ensure that there is effective and close collaboration with the Ordinariate both at diocesan and parish levels.

Finally, with the blessings and encouragement they have received from Pope Benedict’s recent Visit, the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales are resolved to continue their dialogue with other Christian Churches and Ecclesial Communities on that journey towards the communion in faith and the fullness of unity for which Christ prayed.

Christians should stop bringing court cases for right to discriminate

The debate over anti-Christian discrimination has got out of control and should be brought back down to earth.

Some time ago, a rash of cases appeared in the press of Christians who appeared to have been discriminated against on the basis of their faith.  We had a nurse sacked for offering to pray with the sick, and another for suggesting it might be a good idea in a training course, a teacher sacked for offering to pray for a pupil, and a police investigation into an invitation to an Easter church service and a worker sacked for wearing a cross.  The list seemed to go on and on, and the injustice seemed clear.

Naturally a debate arose about whether there was a pervasive anti-Christian mood which was leading to discrimination against Christians.

But then something odd happened.  It soon came to pass that any Christian who claimed religious discrimination was not only all over the newspapers, but was also represented by the Christian Legal Centre in taking their fight to the courts.

However, the nature of the cases brought began to change.  Increasingly the cases involved Christians in public services professions who were refusing to do the job as everyone else would on the basis of their Christian faith.  And in many cases the nature of the conscious objection they sought revolved around homosexuality.

So this week we hear that the latest of these cases, that of Sheila Matthews, who worked in an adoption agency but refused to refer orphans to gay couples in contravention of the agency's policy and the law.  Ms Matthews was dismissed from her job, and has recently lost her appeal to an employment tribunal after she claimed religious discrimination, backed by the Christian Legal Centre.

The law is clear on this issue.  If you work providing the public a service, you cannot discriminate on the basis of the sexuality.  Regardless of your religious beliefs.

It was for this reason that Ms Matthews not only lost her case, but had it thrown out.  The judge said,

The complaints of religious discrimination fail and are dismissed. This case fails fairly and squarely on its facts. In our judgement, at least from the time of the pre-hearing review, the continuation of these proceedings was plainly misconceived... they were doomed to fail. There is simply no factual basis for the claims.

How on earth could the Christian Legal Centre not have seen that coming?

Repeatedly bringing this issue back to the courts has shifted the debate on this topic into a pretty bad place.  One of the early cases, where a nurse was sacked for wearing a cross, was notably backed by Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty, who argued that this piece of religious conviction could easily have been accommodated by the employer.  The issue of justice was simple.  Offering to pray with someone really does not do anyone any harm, and suggesting that it is intimidating doesn't really wash.  Not only that, but most (although not all) of the early cases were won by the Christians, with people who had been sacked or suspended being reinstated.  Click on the links above and see how many of those suspended or sacked who were then reinstated.

When the nature of the cases changed to Christians seeking the right to discriminate against homosexuals, they shifted onto the wrong side of the argument and the wrong side of the law.  Biblical arguments over homosexual acts have nothing to do with whether B&B owners should be allowed to stop two gay men from sharing a room.

The Christian Legal Centre should stop supporting these cases.  It gives false hope to the individual, and brings about a public perception that Christians want the right to discriminate against gays.  Most of us do not.

The nature of the debate over these discrimination cases has now radically changed.  The debate is now about whether noisy Christians are right to claim that Christians are being "persecuted", which of course they are not.  In fact, many of those who have been most vocal on the issue have tried to make clear that they are not claiming "persecution", simply a gradual marginalisation of Christianity in the public sphere.

The Christian Legal Centre have announced that they intend to take Ms Matthews case to the European Court.  Mouse is no lawyer, but suggests that the words of the judge in the employment court should not give Ms Matthews much hope of success.

Church Mouse congratulates William and Kate

So the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England has finally proposed to Kate Middleton.  Mouse congratulates the couple.

Mouse is not looking forward to months of tedious details of the wedding preparations in the newspapers, but he is pleased to see William and Kate looking happy and talking about how excited they are to be getting married.

For those worried about the potential implications for the established Church, Mouse is pleased to reassure you that Kate Middleton's faith is of the Anglican variety, so no need to repeal the Act of Settlement just yet.

There had been some talk from the previous government about repealing the Act of Settlement to remove discrimination against Catholics by preventing the heir to the throne from marrying one of them.  The marriage of William and Kate appears to punt that issue even further into the long grass.

Flogging the family silver - not a strategy for growth, but often essential

Mouse commented last year on the issue of bishops in palaces.  This came when it was announced that one such castle was to be sold by the Church Commissioners.  It became too expensive to maintain, and times were generally tough.  Mouse's take was that selling the family silver is not a strategy for long term growth, but it is pretty hard to justify bishops living in palaces.

So last week the debate came back round in a slightly different guise, as we learned that the Church Commissioners would like to sell of £15m+ worth of paintings which are currently adorning the walls of Auckland Castle, residence of the Bishop of Durham.  Apparently they are becoming rather expensive to insure, with the premium running to £60,000 per year.

According to the Church Times, this has caused quite a stir in the diocese, who are accusing the Church Commissioners of a "sneaky" smash and grab raid from the diocese.

However, to everyone else with an ounce of common sense it is pretty criminal to spend £60,000 per year insuring 12 paintings to hang on the walls of a bishop's palace.  Not to mention what could be done with the £15m+ which would be raised by their sale.

Of course, the former Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, is quite right when he calls this 'short termism'.  Then again, the alternative is to let the paintings hang in their current position until the rapture, which doesn't achieve much either.

It seems that the normally wise Dr Wright has said some slightly silly things to his local paper as well.  Presumably he is well aware that the Commissioners are looking at selling of Auckland Castle itself.  Complaining that copies of the masterpieces may be hanging on the walls instead of their multi-million pound originals will not garner support for the retention of the castle.

Primates meeting - where spirituality and comedy fall over each other

The Church of England Newspaper is reporting that Rowan Williams has proposed a change to the format of the upcoming Primates Meeting so that opponents on issues of sexuality don't have to meet face-to-face.

Extraordinary stuff, if true.

For those who are not aware, a Primate in the Anglican Communion is the head of one of the member churches.  Every now and then they meet up to have a chat.

The report states that Rowan has suggested having a series of meetings with only like-minded primates attending each session, rather than one big meeting with everyone.

Some may not be surprised at this development, as there has been a series of pronouncements from Anglican Primates across the world saying who they would and would not be prepared to sit down and talk to.  The Primate of the Indian Ocean has said he won't attend if the US Primate is there, and she has confirmed that she intends to attend.  There has been broad speculation about others who may choose to boycott the event.

The award for the most most bizarre suggestion on how to handle the situation goes to Bishop David Anderson from the American break-away church ACNA, who advised conservative Anglican Primates to attend but walk out of the room when the US Primate tries to speak.  Only the most generous souls in Christendom would not consider this rather childish.

So, if this latest report is true, it would seem to be an attempt to square the circle of making sure the event goes ahead, but avoiding a damaging split caused by a boycott.

The irony of this is that the Primates meeting is one of the "instruments of communion" for the Anglican Communion, which are supposed to be holding the whole show together.  This is one of the cornerstones on which the Anglican Covenant is based.

Mouse does not think this is a good advert for Anglicanism.  He also advises Rowan to tell us all what's going on with this.

50 clergy to join ordinariate - has the CofE been preparing?

It is once again being reported in the Telegraph that the next wave of announcements is imminent of folk who will be leaving the Church of England and joining the Catholic Church under the ordinariate.  This time, it is reported that 50 clergy will be announcing their intent.

Mouse has no inside word on this, but the report is from Jonathan Wynne-Jones who is very well connected, particularly with the Anglo-Catholic wing of the church, so Mouse assumes it is broadly accurate.

Last week's announcement from three serving and two retired bishops struck Mouse as part of a co-ordinated effort to get the ordinariate off the ground, and this announcement would appear to fit in with that.  It seems to Mouse that those who have been organising this scheme from behind closed doors are now making their play in public.

Once again it is being leaked in the press ahead of an announcement by the clerics and the Catholic Church, with the Church of England being bounced into a response.  Mouse hopes the CofE will be sufficiently co-ordinated this weekend to announce the departure of it's own employees.  If they're really smart, they can even take control of the media agenda by putting something interesting out about what they plan to do with the 50 parishes which will soon be without an incumbent.

Many of the news headlines will be focused on whether 50 vicars is a large number to be leaving now or not.  From Mouse's perspective it is a pretty small number, and we have yet to see who they are, so it may also be the case that some are non-stipendiary or retired.  However, this is not what the CofE should focus on.  It has been inevitable since the announcement of the ordinariate that some vicars would leave.  In fact, it is clear that the opposition to women bishops is far stronger amongst clergy than laity.  This report is simply the confirmation of which vicars will be the first to go.

The real issue for the church being left behind is what happens to their parishes when they do go.

There are potentially 50 new parish vacancies in the new year, although Mouse suspects that there will be a number of retired and non-stipendiary clergy in the number, so the number of vacancies may be lower.  There are two ways that these vacancies can be filled.  There will either be the usual process of having a vacancy while the Churchwardens, PCC and the parish go through the often painful process of selecting a new incumbent.  This is never an easy process at the best of times.  The process is complex and burdensome on the parish, which is often ill equipped for it.

However, if we consider the situation at St Peter's, Folkestone, we know that the PCC will also be leaving.  The parish which previously averaged around 40 worshippers will lose the majority of them to the ordinariate.  In situations like this, provision should be made through the local church authorities for the planting of new churches.

If the CofE has been planning ahead for this eventuality, a scheme could be announced where a team of church planters is ready to go, with central support, to establish new congregations.  Clearly there is a danger that this would feel like they are having someone imposed on them, but we must recognise the reality of the situation where a significant proportion of the existing congregation has left.  Even if they are capable of navigating their way through the bureaucracy of appointing a new incumbent, there must be serious doubts about the sustainability of the new parish, if a significant proportion of the congregation has now left.  What's more, parish vacancies often take many months to fill, and undoubtedly more so when 50 of them arise at once.  This means there is a serious danger that the remaining worshippers find somewhere else to join in the mean time, so the parish risks imploding before a new incumbent can be found.

So Mouse would like to see some kind of centralised provision of support for these situations.  Not only would it help with the practicalities of handling up to 50 vacancies, but it would put the Church on the front foot with this issue, and turn it into an opportunity to set out a plan for growth and mission in the face of what the press will undoubtedly seek to portray as a bad news story.

Attack on Iain Duncan Smith for simply using the word 'sin'

Iain Duncan Smith has been attacked for using the word 'sin'.  It is an astonishing article by Madeleine Bunting in the Guardian.

The story being reported under the headline, "Iain Duncan Smith lets his secular mask slip".  Bunting then goes on to argue that Duncan Smith's use of the word 'sin' reveals that his politics has a "sinister religious edge", and that it was a "very unnecessary own goal".

Here's the context, from Bunting's own description:

The work and pensions secretary was talking about the fact that one in five households in the UK have been without work during a long economic boom; he went on to say that 70% of the jobs created have been taken by foreigners because 4.5 million unemployed were not able to or capable of taking them. "That's a sin," he concluded.

Mouse reads this as a commentary on the way 4.5 million people were pushed by the previous government into a life of dependency on government hand-outs for a variety of reasons.  Mouse will not comment on the merits or otherwise of this argument, but it is clear that his comment was a sign of how strongly he felt about this situation.  He could easily have said, "it's a crime", or "it's a tragedy".  However, it seems to Mouse that he wanted to sum those up and lay the blame on the door of the previous government, so he said it was a sin.

Of course, if Nick Clegg had made the remark, no comment would have been made.  He has declared himself an atheist, so this term would simply have been taken as it was intended.  But if it is said by someone who happens to be a Christian, it clearly reveals that they are "sinister".

Bunting continues:

Iain Duncan Smith is a Catholic and many of his key associates are deeply Christian, including Phillippa Stroud, his special adviser, and Tim Montgomerie, the fellow-founder of Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice. Duncan Smith has admitted that his Catholicism "is integral to everything I do" and argues that the "organisations I see on the ground doing arguably the best work are often religious organisations".

The prejudice is clear and unavoidable.  Duncan Smith and two other people involved in the CSJ are Christians, so they must be religious fanatics.  What's more, the assumption is that only policies based on secular foundations have a valid basis.

What is utterly bizarre is that the article makes no argument whatsoever with the political positions being advocated.  It is simply a strange line that the policies must be suspicious because they originate from a Christian.

It is no wonder that Iain Duncan Smith argued recently that Christians in politics are made to feel like they should apologise for their faith.

Mouse has argued that Blair was wrong not to talk about his faith more, but perhaps he knew his own constituency better than Mouse.  If the Guardian publishes material like this, perhaps he was right to keep it quiet.

Bunting's sums up her reading of the impact of this interview by Iain Duncan Smith:

It will help reverse Cameron's work in detoxifying the Tory brand, reviving the stereotype of the nasty party, now with an added sinister religious edge. It was a very unnecessary own goal.

Mouse is astonished.  A politician has identified what he believes is a grave injustice.  He believes that millions of people have been pushed into a life of low attainment and expectation, with lasting impacts on their children's life chances, and blames the policies of the previous government for that.  This argument is acceptable.  But to call it a sin - well that's something that won't be forgiven easily.

What is most peculiar is that Bunting is not a casual observer of the religious scene, but a highly experienced one.  Nevertheless, this article is not a good one.

What is particularly amusing, however, is that another Guardian journo tells the left to give Iain Duncan Smith's policies a chance, and not to assume the worst.

Friday round up

Here's my round up from the blogosphere.  Ten of the best from the blogs this wee.

1. Phil Ritchie defends Fresh Expressions

2. Cranmer of the persecution of Iraq's Christians

3. Bishop Nick Baines on the real news

4. Lesley Fellows leads the campaign against the Anglican Covenant

5. The Ugley Vicar reckons the covenant is good for something

6. Vic the Vicar is not in a crisis

7. Clayboy on when flying bishops crash

8. Damian Thompson gets a little over-excited by the defection of the flying bishops

9. The Twurch of England blog has a fascinating interview with a Mouse

10. Heresy Corner reckons it is now illegal to be English

The Church Mouse speaks to the Twurch of England

For those who are interested to hear the Mouse's view on the state of the Twurch and it's future (including his views on the Reform the Twurch campaign), you can listen to his interviewed by Peter Ould over at the Twurch of England.

Mouse would just like to say that the Elton John music was not his idea.

Wallace Benn defends his comments, Gregory Cameron admits a mistake - but where's the magic word?

Bishop Walace Benn has taken part of Mouse's advice, in clarifying his comments where he compared the situation in the CofE with the situation in January 1939.  Many people who heard that, quite reasonably assumed that there was some implication that his group were in some way like the British, fearing attack by the Nazis.

Mouse's view is that this is not what he meant, and that he merely meant that he was fearful that "war" is imminent.

Now Bishop Wallace has written a letter to the Times to clarify this, making clear that he did not mean to imply his opponents were in any way analogous to the Nazis.

But why on earth didn't he apologise?  It's such a small word that would have shown great humility.  Sorry for chosing an analogy which could be interpreted in this way, which is absolutely not what was intended or even what was said?  Sorry for the unintentional hurt caused?  Mouse reckons that would have been a positive force in this largely negative war of words.

Similarly, we could do with hearing the magic word from Bishop Gregory Cameron, who compared opponents of the Anglican Covenant with the BNP.  This really was silly, and when interviewed along-side one of said opponents, he admitted that there had been an escalation of the language which was unhelpful.  But he didn't say sorry.

I know it is sometimes the hardest word, but Christians in particular must be able to show humility, and when people have been hurt by our comments - even if they have mis-understood them, we should say sorry.

Libel reform

Mouse spotted this on a number of blogs, and wanted to take part.


The Mass Libel Reform Blog – Fight for Free Speech!

This week is the first anniversary of the report Free Speech is Not for Sale, which highlighted the oppressive nature of English libel law. In short, the law is extremely hostile to writers, while being unreasonably friendly towards powerful corporations and individuals who want to silence critics.

The English libel law is particularly dangerous for bloggers, who are generally not backed by publishers, and who can end up being sued in London regardless of where the blog was posted. The internet allows bloggers to reach a global audience, but it also allows the High Court in London to have a global reach.

You can read more about the peculiar and grossly unfair nature of English libel law at the website of the LibelReform Campaign. You will see that the campaign is not calling for the removal of libel law, but for a libel law that is fair and which would allow writers a reasonable opportunity to express their opinion and then defend it.

The good news is that the British Government has made a commitment to draft a bill that will reform libel, but it is essential that bloggers and their readers send a strong signal to politicians so that they follow through on this promise. You can do this by joining me and over 50,000 others who have signed the libel reform petition.

Remember, you can sign the petition whatever your nationality and wherever you live. Indeed, signatories from overseas remind British politicians that the English libel law is out of step with the rest of the free world.

If you have already signed the petition, then please encourage friends, family and colleagues to sign up. Moreover, if you have your own blog, you can join hundreds of other bloggers by posting this blog on your own site. There is a real chance that bloggers could help change the most censorious libel law in the democratic world.

We must speak out to defend free speech. Please sign the petition for libel reform at http://www.libelreform.org/sign

Bad Faith Awards 2010

The New Humanist magazine has opened up the Bad Faith Awards 2010.  Nominations were open for those who "have made the most egregious contributions to irrationalism and superstition during the course of this year".

The finalists are:

Lauren Booth
Prince Charles
Pastor Terry Jones
Cardinal Walter Kasper
Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed

Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi

Baroness Warsi

Ann Widdecombe

All have made the fatal mistake of being religious, although some are more crack-pot than others.  It is clear to Mouse that the readers of New Humanist who nominated these people clearly feel that the biggest enemy of reason is religion, as that is the basis for all the nominations.  Mouse is not surprised that they have not nominated any non-religious people who has subverted reason for their own ends - there are plenty of non-religious examples.

Mouse offers up a few nominations for his own Bad Faith Award, for people who have done their best to drive a wedge between people of faith and people of no faith:

Julie Burchill 

Probably thought she was being funny with a truly awful attack on Catholics:

"if one is a Catholic, then surely double-speak and duplicity are second nature. A Church which rails against abortion and then spends decades covering up the most appalling degree of child abuse obviously has no problem with holding two opposing ideas at once – and at least the opposition to termination now makes perfect sense, with hindsight. All those unborn children that could have been molested – what a waste!"

The late Clare Rayner 

Wanted to "get rid of" the Pope before his recent visit:

"In all my years as a campaigner I have never felt such animus against any individual as I do against this creature [Pope Benedict XVI]. His views are so disgusting, so repellent and so hugely damaging to the rest of us, that the only thing to do is to get rid of him."

Phil Woolas

Put in a late entry for lying about religious extremism to help him win his seat in the election.

Terry Sanderson 

The President of the National Secular Society could have filled the nominations all on his own, but made himself look particularly foolish when he demanded religious education be banned from schools, a sure fire way to ensure better understanding between people of different faiths and people of no faith.

Richard Dawkins

No list would be complete without religion-hater in chief Richard Dawkins.  Mouse nominates him for this award for this particular tirade:

Should the pope resign?” No. As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly – ideally – qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch.

No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice – the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution – while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.

Bishop of London to set up Society for those who oppose women bishops

Yesterday Mouse tweeted that he expected some silly stories following the formal announcement today that two Church of England bishops are resigning to join the ordinariate.  At no point did he think the news agenda would miss the biggest story.

Firstly, it must be said that the CofE has failed to control the news agenda today.  The announcement from the bishops themselves has been allowed to dominate, with separate announcements from the CofE centrally (appears not to have made it onto the CofE website - unbelieveable, but it is on the Archbishop of Canterbury's website) and the Diocese of London.  Really those two should have been better joined up.

Overall, however, all the statements were well gracious and wished everyone else well, just as they should be.  It was a case of best behaviour all round, which makes a change.

It was good to see that Bishop Alan Wilson had clearly taken the initiative and got a piece to the Guardian's Comment is Free section in a very timely manner.  His piece is considered, well argued and generally good stuff.

One aspect that Mouse finds hard to understand is how the resignation of two bishops has turned into the resignation of five bishops.  The answer, of course, is that you add in one resignation already announced, and the conversion of two retired bishops - surely this can't be considered a resignation in any traditional sense.

So we heard formal confirmation today that bishops John Broadhurst, Keith Newton and Andrew Burnham are to resign and join the ordinariate, along with retired bishops Edwin Barnes and David Silk.

For Mouse the only unexpected piece was the announcement from the Bishop of London of a new society.

Earlier today I met with the College of Bishops to discuss the way ahead. With immediate effect the Bishop of Edmonton has agreed to assume responsibility for the pastoral care of those clergy and parishes who before today related to the Bishop Fulham.

In addition Bishop Peter will work on the constitution and other issues involved in establishing a Society both for those already identified as ‘Fulham Clergy and Parishes’ and for others, whatever their position on the churchmanship spectrum, who are loyal to the Church of England and share similar concerns about its theological direction alongside a commitment to growth in co-operation with the majority in the Church who support the consecration of women to the episcopate.

Now that really is new.  It begs a whole heap of questions.  Since Forward in Faith and Reform have already announced their intentions to start up societies, we run the risk of having more societies for Anglicans opposed to women bishops than we actually have Anglicans opposed to women bishops.

What will this society do?  How will it operate?  Will it just be for those in the Diocese of London?  Could this be the first example of a local arrangement, as envisaged under the proposed legislation for women bishops?  Well, who knows.

But it is rather typical that the entire media hoopla on the issue has missed this important development.

If you would like to read the many statements and news reports on this subject, Thinking Anglicans has the most comprehensive listing of statements and press reports.

Wikio rankings expanded

Last week Mouse posted the sneak peak of the new Wikio religious blog rankings.

The full rankings are up on the Wikio site, so it's worth taking a look at where the top religious blogs sit in the overall standings.  So Mouse has looked at the top 20 religious blogs and added their overall ranking.


1 The Church Mouse Blog (127)
2 Islam in Europe (135)
3 Bartholomew's Notes on Religion (155)
4 The Freethinker (182)
5 The hermeneutic of continuity (224)
6 Thinking Anglicans (268)
7 Bishop Alan’s Blog (270)
8 eChurchWebsites Blog (275)
9 Anglican Mainstream (IT'S NOT A BLOG! - 279)
10 The Cartoon Blog (318)
11 Nick Baines's Blog (346)
12 The Ugley Vicar (380)
13 Epiphenom (403)
14 Lesley's Blog (447)
15 Catholic and Loving it! (497)
16 An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy (499)
17 Adrian's Blog (559)
18 Apologetics 315 (575)
19 Will and Testament (586)
20 The Changing Attitude Blog (595)

So a few points to note.

1. Wikio have "tweaked" their algorithm slightly.  Matt Wardman explains, but essentially it takes slightly more account of re-tweets on Twitter.  This may be the reason why ...

2. The vast majority of religious blogs were up in the rankings overall.

3. It is also notable that the "mainstream media's" religious bloggers do not feature, with the exception of the rather lowly ranked Will and Testament from the BBC.  We don't have Daiman Thompson from the Telegraph or Riazat Butt from the Guardian, for example.  Ruth Gledhill is hidden behind the Times paywall, so won't register any more.  Mouse did drop the Wikio people a note letting them know about these significant blogs, but they don't seem to have registered yet.  Perhaps they will appear next month, as it does sometimes take a little while to filter through the system and get a rank.  Mouse hopes so.

4. Mouse takes his No.1 spot and hands it over gladly to Archbishop Cranmer, who at No.35 in the overall rankings is head and shoulders above all of the rest of us.  However, he is listed in the politics section and not the Religion section.  Mouse hopes they add him to both sections.

Fair trade savaged by Institute of Economic Affairs

The free trade think-tank the Institute of Economic Affairs has savaged the fair trade movement, branding it a distraction and claiming that Starbucks probably does more good for poor coffee farmers.

Philip Booth, Editorial and Programme Director at the IEA said:

Proponents of Fair Trade are guilty of overstating the impact of their movement. Fair Trade products can squeeze out from the market other socially labelled products and place heavy burdens on companies when it comes to certification. In the long term helping those struggling in the poorest countries requires much more radical reform from within. Fair Trade is a niche part of the trade system and it should not be the focus of so much attention. Lifting communities out of poverty means allowing free trade to drive development and growth.

Whilst this is not the first time the IEA have criticised fair trade, it is certainly the most comprehensive and most critical attack.

The IEA report, released last week, argues that fair trade is not a strategy for long term development and that the claims made by the fair trade movement are "seriously exaggerated".  This is pretty worrying stuff for those of us who support the movement, so these claims deserve serious attention.

The most important criticisms are as follows:

1.  Fair trade does not benefit the poorest countries, with certified producers being mainly located in "middle income" countries, like South Africa, Mexico and Columbia, rather than the very poorest;
2.  The poorest producers are excluded from fair trade due to heavy administration costs
3.  It is likely that producers see only a small fraction of the premium paid by consumers for the products

The Fairtrade Foundation have responded to these criticisms.  They have stated that the admin costs have been incorrectly stated, and pointed out that there are a number of collective schemes and subsidies which can be received.  They claim that 100% of the fairtrade premium goes to producers, and that they audit this to ensure it is fully applied.  They also argue that they do work in the poorest countries, although do not give stats on this.

The main criticism from the IEA is that fair trade is not a long term development strategy.  Mouse would agree.  Nor is it a perfect system.  But if it is all we can do right now, then Mouse reckons we should choose fair trade whenever we can.

Of course fair trade is not a comprehensive development strategy for the poorest countries and even continents.  Mouse has always seen it as a sticking plaster over a gaping wound.  Fair trade is needed, because otherwise trade is not fair.  Global trade rules simply are not fair.

Presumably the IEA, as a free trade organisation, would be amongst the first to condemn systems of domestic subsidy, which distort free trade and are often the root of unfair global trade practices.  These must be reformed, and the Fair Trade movement is amongst those leading this call.

But of course that is not all.  The twin scourges of war and corruption must be tackled.  A mammoth task in many countries, which may take decades to achieve.

In the mean time, Mouse is still very much up for adding a few extra pence onto the cost of his coffee and getting that through to some of the poorest people in the world.  Even if they're not the very very poorest, and even if there are administrative costs along the route.

Sunday reflection

With kind permission from devotionschopchop.com.

Pretense

One man pretends to be rich, yet has nothing; another pretends to be poor, yet has great wealth. Proverbs 13:7

Both of those statements intrigue me, though I generally fit into the first half of the verse. Growing up I pretended I fit in with a socioeconomic class that was above me. I saw those “below” me and didn’t want anything to do with it. I suppose a bit of that carried over into my adult life.

But for what purpose? Any number of feeble reasons, though only one stands out: to fit in with the crowd I associated with mainly. Other than that I can’t think of anything more logical.

It turns out it was – and still is – pride. Pride comes at us in various forms and quickly leads to arrogance. In my example, I had pretended to be something other than what I was. I’m still learning that lesson.

Two more CofE Bishops to resign tomorrow to join ordinariate

News has been spreading round the internet that Bishop Keith Newton and Bishop Andrew Burnham, two of the flying bishops, are to announce their resignation tomorrow to join the ordinariate.

This has been the subject of wide speculation for some time, and both bishops are currently on study leave.  Mouse got their take on things recently.

Mouse has had it confirmed by a well placed source that this news is true.

So, what impact will this have?

There are two questions to be asked.  Will this have any impact on the proposals for women bishops, and  what impact will it have on the development of the ordinariate project?

The legislation for women bishops will return to Synod for approval in 2012.  The most recent news was that conservative evangelical and anglo-catholic synod groups had compared notes and claimed that they had won enough places on Synod to establish a blocking minority on the legislation.  Without details, it's pretty hard to verify this, but it would weaken this position if any of the anglo-catholics decided to leave.  It weakens their position amongst the undecided on Synod, as the remaining constituency of opponents will be smaller in size, and will given opponents less leverage as there is a clear alternative for the Anglo-Catholic wing.  Perhaps more importantly the Anglo-Catholic movement is increasingly becoming split, impacting on their ability to organise and campaign.

As for the ordinariate, this marks the start of a new phase.  After a year of rumours and whispers we are now starting to have some firm details emerging.  Mouse hopes this will bring the whole thing into the open.  Rowan Williams' suggestion that some kind of joint working group be formed to work out how the ordinariate could be established is a good one.  It is not healthy for anyone for this whole scheme to be put together in secret.  Some have suggested that a working party could not be put together due to a lack of trust, but there are figures who would carry the respect of both sides.  Despite of that, Mouse doesn't think it changes much, as these two were very widely predicted to make this move.