The Church of England must stand up in the face of terror

I am a committed atheist. I subscribe to Christopher Hitchens’ view that ‘God is not great’, though I would not agree with him that anyone who believes in religion ought to be distrusted. A common misunderstanding is that one must be religious in order to recognize the role religion can play in making society a better place in which to live. This is not true.

In a recent article in Standpoint magazine, the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, complains that Christianity’s marginalisation in Britain has created a ‘moral and spiritual vacuum’, and warns radical Islam may fill this void. Nazir-Ali argues the increasing secularization since the 1960s is to blame as religious faith has been replaced by ‘endless self-indulgence’, of which I presume he is making reference to social evils, like the consumer driven society in which we now live.

Nazir-Ali argues Christianity helped create the British identity and values such as freedom, equality, the rule of law, and hospitality, and is still capable of standing for these. Yet he seems unwilling to recognize the failure of the Church of England in providing any form of defence for these values, to help halt the tide of the liberal counter-culture he warns against. To combat a ‘moral and spiritual vacuum’, moral and spiritual leadership is needed, which the Church of England has proved increasingly reluctant to provide in recent years. I would argue this has greatly contributed to the retreat of Christianity in Britain, over society’s addiction to the latest I-phone or widescreen television. Nazir-Ali recognizes the problem - the vacuum, yet he, like most Church leaders is unwilling to acknowledge the Church’s role in enlarging the vacuum, and making it easier for others – notably Islamists, to fill.

The Church of England is emblematic of many in Britain and the world today - in that they consciously endorse relativism. By this I mean they increasingly believe that they have no moral authority over those whom present a challenge to theirs, and society’s prevailing beliefs. Relativism universally prioritizes the oppressor over the victim. For example, in the 1990s the then Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey argued no one under 18 should be held in custody, even though it was argued by those with knowledge of the subject that it was often a necessity for the protection of the general public. Yet Carey’s tenure as Archbishop is now perceived as the good old days in contrast to his successor - Rowan Williams.

Williams’ liberal worldview has led him to, among other things, call for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised from 10 to 16, as well as apologising for bringing Christianity to the world. Yet it is his views on Islam which have caused most controversy. Williams has called for Brits to embrace Sharia law by saying its partial adoption into British law is ‘unavoidable’. With reference to al-Qaeda, he argued terrorists often have serious moral goals. Views like these have been typical of the Church’s response to the terrorist threat in Britain. When the head of the Church espouses such views, is it any wonder the secular ‘vacuum’ exists and is growing? It amounts to nothing more than pandering to the threats we face, in the hope that following the liberal, multicultural, relativistic sickness that plagues society, the Church’s reputation will somehow be enhanced, when it is this very sick society which must be cured of its terminal illness.

In Britain, after the London terror attacks, Christian leaders, instead of speaking out in defence of the victims of the atrocities, empathised with the community of the faith which carried out the attacks, and mistakenly denied they were religiously driven. Whilst Church leaders in the US sought to defend the Christian faith against a common enemy post 9/11, the Church of England crumbled after 7/7 when confronted with the terrorist threat. As one critic says, the Church has consistently ‘appeased the forces of secularism’ since. Given this, Nazir-Ali has no right to criticise increasing secularization, because the Church of England has done to little to discourage it.

What Church leaders, like many in society, appear unwilling to accept or believe however, is that the end point of relativism (and the nihilism their appeasement creates) is that the views of their opponents, i.e. Islamic radicals, ultimately begin to appear valuable, and are given equal respect to their own views. Ultimately, it is agreed the opposing views are superior to the prevailing ones, and that our opponents must defeat us, and we have no moral right to do anything about this, as there is no ‘right’ and ‘wrong’; no ‘true’ and ‘false’.

Clearly my own atheism leads me to reject any form of religious dogmatism. But the Church of England has now become so far removed from doing this, that to hear more dogmatic views on television from Church leaders is the preferable option. Yet their rhetoric need not be dogmatic, as they would be merely representing those citizens who wanted a future where freedom, equality and respect for the rule of law, were protected, the very values Nazir-Ali argues Christianity helped create. To be silent and watch while these established values are slowly eroded would be a fatal mistake. Yet it is this which we see occurring at the present time.

This is what I mean when I say religion can play a role in making society a better place, for both the religious and non-religious. The Church of England can encourage the religious and the rest of society to stand up to extremism by speaking out for what they believe in. Leaders must stand strong in the face of relativism, liberalism and often multiculturalism, and refuse the temptation to play the demagogue. The Church needs courageous leaders who are willing to make a stand and express their beliefs with moral clarity and absolutism. Do this, and the Church would receive far more respect, and the size of the ‘vacuum’ Nazir-Ali rightly warns against would be reduced, as would the likelihood of radical Islam filling the gap. The outcome of which being something Hitchens would certainly argue beneficial.