03.03.2005

Rowan's respect problem

Even a communist might be forgiven for feeling just a little sympathy for Dr Rowan Williams, the besieged Archbishop of Canterbury. February was not a good month for the spiritual leader of the Church of England, with the prospect of schism not only looming in the church at home, but from also within the worldwide communion of anglican churches. First, there were the botched arrangements surrounding the marriage of Charles, Prince of Wales, to Camilla Parker Bowles. To the outcry of conservatives within the church, who unsuccessfully tried to debate the matter at the recent meeting of general synod, Williams has given his approval for a civil wedding to take place and will personally bless the marriage of these 'self-confessed' adulterers. If being seen to tolerate adultery in this way has put this 'liberal' priest on the defensive, then the fact that he has consented to a civil marriage which some constitutional experts deem to be illegal has further added to his woes. There are, thus, concerns that his backing for Charles Windsor to become the next supreme governor of the church will bring anglicanism further into disrepute and accelerate its decline. Yet it is another issue which threatens to blow the 77-million-strong anglican federation apart. Last week, primates from across the globe met in Northern Ireland and stated in a communiqué: "We request that the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth conference" (the 10-yearly meeting of all Anglican bishops, due next in 2008). Essentially, this amounts to 'sending to Coventry' these two North American churches prior to a complete and permanent severing of relations with them at some point in the future. Now what have the two churches done to merit such harsh punishment? Have they endorsed the extreme rightwing protestant evangelism sweeping the United States? Or have they insisted that the ideas of the New American Century are endorsed by the other 36 churches that make up the anglican communion? Far from it. Their 'crimes', in fact, amount to this. The US Anglicans have appointed an openly gay priest, Gene Robinson, as a bishop and the Canadians have agreed to bless same-sex unions. Uncontroversial to progressive-minded people, but heresy for many of the leaders of anglicanism. The liberals say the church must interpret the Bible in the light of modern knowledge, accepting that people are born with their sexuality and should not deny it. The conservative anglicans say simply that the Bible requires gay and lesbian christians to 'repent' and to abstain from homosexual acts. Although reputed to be in the liberal camp on such matters, Williams, nevertheless, decided to take the side of the conservatives, who are led, in particular, by the African churches. Preserving the church's unity has traditionally been a key concern of successive archbishops of Canterbury, the 'first among equals'. Yet out of those polar opposites even Solomon himself would find it hard to forge a united church and Williams might well have to shed his liberal reputation if anglicanism is to avoid disintegration as a global federation. How then should Marxists react to these developments? Some will no doubt be a little embarrassed. The Socialist Workers Party has recently had to drop a number of former principles - not least secularism - in its attempt to cement its alliance with the Muslim Association of Britain, which acts as the largely phantom right wing of Respect. Lindsey German, who infamously pleaded with others not to make gay rights a "shibboleth" at the SWP's 2003 Marxism school, will perhaps be feeling a certain empathy with the plight of Dr Williams. Yet is not difficult to recognise that MAB have a similar agenda, on these issues, to the reactionaries within anglicanism. In 2004 MAB issued a press release stating: "MAB Scotland have welcomed comments by the head of the catholic church on the Scottish executive's proposals for sex education. The plans are said to include, amongst other things, sex education for nursery children, and contraceptives freely available for teenagers without knowledge of parents. "Cardinal O'Brien has warned that the plans may now provoke an outcry even bigger than that surrounding the section 28 protests, labelling the proposals as 'state-sponsored sexual abuse of children'. The muslim community undoubtedly share the same concerns and will back opposition to any such plans" (see http://www.mabonline.info/english/modules.php?name=News&file=art-icle&sid=116). Such statements make clear the reactionary types the SWP is prepared to ditch its principles for. Yet, if this would be an outrageous view for a Marxist to hold, then there is another view which, whilst more forgivable, would be profoundly mistaken. Clearly, there will be many Marxists who regard these issues not with embarrassment, but instead with a sort of mocking indifference. They will point out, no doubt, that the Church of England has a long and inglorious history of taking the side of reaction and that nothing has changed. Viewing Britain as a largely secular society, they regard the church as an increasingly marginal force and an institution unlikely to drastically affect the balance of class forces. Such a view, however, seriously underestimates the role played by the Church of England. It is not, after all, any old christian sect. The anglican church is the state church (at least in England) and possesses powers and privileges that are unique to it. Of course, Marxists should support the right of gay priests to be ordained as bishops (only last year Canon Jeffrey John had his nomination as Bishop of Reading withdrawn at the request of Williams). This should be ABC. But we should not simply leave it there. It is an affront to democracy that one particular church is able to exercise so much political, financial and ideological power. The Church of England remains at the heart of the anti-democratic constitutional monarchy system of the UK state. This is an institution that has historically been, and still is, deeply enmeshed in the relations of power and privilege that flow from the crown and the state. Since the reformation, with the sole exception of the catholic queen Mary (1553-1558), its titular head or 'supreme governor' has been the reigning protestant monarch, who among other titles rejoices in that of 'defender of the faith'. Not only do 26 bishops of the church have their own special places reserved for them in the House of Lords - the Archbishop of Canterbury is second only to the monarch in terms of rank in that venerable institution. Only a member of the Church of England can be the head of state. Its ideological tentacles extend through a large number of its own schools - primary and secondary, state and private. It is no wonder that the media take a special interest in the goings-on of the church and frequently give its clergy the opportunity to 'speak for Britain' at moments of national tragedy or celebration. Yet this is not all. As well as being hugely wealthy in its own right, the church is the recipient of state handouts. When it comes to class relations, we should not forget, for example, that it is a major institutional shareholder, including in property - assets derived ultimately from tithes and from the benefactions of generations of believers who hoped thereby to effect their passage into paradise. This is why the Communist Party of Great Britain makes the following demands in our draft programme: "Separation of the Church of England from the state. End all state subsidies for religious institutions. Confiscate all Church of England property not directly related to acts of worship "¦ End all state-sponsored religious propaganda and acts of worship. Religion is a private, not a state matter. Religion can be taught as a subject of academic study, not as a means to indoctrinate children." Whilst communists are for the right of all believers to practise freely, we are not indifferent to the role all religion plays in capitalist society, even when church and state are separate. Our programme also notes: "Unlike previous oppressed classes in history religion can play no progressive role for the working class in its struggle against today's ruling class." This may take some readers aback. After all, have there not been many good socialists who have openly espoused religious beliefs? Of course there have, and communists are happy to cooperate with them. Indeed, there is no bar on religious believers joining our party - as long as they accept the party's programme (which is of course guided by Marxism, which is necessarily atheist. Leon Trotsky put the Marxist view of religion very well: "I once visited, together with Lenin and Krupskaya, a 'free church' in London where we heard socialist speeches interspersed with psalms. The preacher was a printer who had just returned from Australia. He spoke about the social revolution. The congregation begged god in the psalms that he establish such an order where there would be neither poor nor rich. Such was my first practical acquaintance with the British labour movement nearly a quarter of a century ago (1902). What role, I asked myself at the time, does a psalm play in connection with a revolutionary speech? That of a safety-valve. Concentrated vapours of discontent issued forth beneath the dome of the church and rose into the sky. This is the basic function of the church in class society" (see http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/britain/intro03.htm). Religion, therefore, cannot be a working class ideology, however much it can inspire workers to dreams of a new kind of society. Contradictory it certainly is, but religion in capitalist society attempts to reconcile antagonistic classes to one another. Ultimately, religion is the ideology of the bourgeoisie, which seeks to mask the class divisions imposed by private property. This is why the likes of the Church of England, Roman catholicism, methodism, Quakerism, etc do not have a problem with the capitalists exploiting workers. It is the same for all non-christian religions too. Of course, there will be many revolutionary-minded workers who will remain under the influence of religion, this side of the socialist revolution and beyond. The job of communists is not to be indifferent to these beliefs, but to patiently explain to workers about the counterrevolutionary role of religion in capitalist society. Once again, Trotsky explained this eloquently: "It is completely indisputable that the revolution will find a good share of the Welsh miners still in the grip of religious prejudices. It cannot be doubted that despite this the miners will do their job. From some prejudices they will free themselves in the heat of the struggle, while from others only after victory. But we categorically deny that the Welsh miners and the British proletariat in general can be shown the correct path by people who have not separated themselves from infantile nonsense, do not understand the structure of human society, do not grasp its dynamics, do not understand the role of religion in it and to one degree or another are ready to subordinate their actions to the precepts of ecclesiastical morality which unites oppressors with oppressed. Such leaders are unreliable. From them the working class can expect capitulation or direct treachery - justified by the Sermon on the Mount - at the most crucial hour" (ibid). Cameron Richards