UKIP candidate misleads voters on same-sex marriage

I have today sent the following letter to Winston McKenzie, the UKIP candidate in the Croydon North by-election (due on Thursday):

 

Dear Winston,

I am writing in relation to a misleading statement you have made in the course of your campaign in the Croydon North by-election.

Amongst your tweets opposing same-sex marriage, you sent the following on 17 November:

Why should churches be forced to go against their religion to marry same-sex couples? Other parties back it. VOTE UKIP + SAY NO GAY MARRIAGE”

The government’s proposal to give legal recognition to same-sex marriage includes an offer only of civil ceremonies, not religious ones. The Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties have policies of allowing faith groups to host same-sex marriage ceremonies if they choose to do so. However, no party of which I am aware wishes to force religious groups to host same-sex marriage ceremonies if they do not believe in them.

I am aware that certain groups, of which UKIP is one, have argued that giving legal recognition to same-sex marriage will lead to churches being forced to host them. I have long pointed out there is no evidence for this and that almost nobody wants it. However, it is one thing to argue that this will happen. It is quite another to state – untruthfully – that other parties want it to happen.

Your tweet refers to churches being forced to marry same-sex couples and then states “Other parties back it”. This is not true. It is a lie.

Will you please withdraw this comment and acknowledge that you have misled the voters of Croydon North and the public generally?

Yours sincerely,

Symon Hill

Queer Christianity at King’s College

A few days ago, I had the privilege of speaking about “Queer Christianity: The media and public perception” at King’s College, London. The audience were great. The questions and discussion were really interesting, encouraging and enjoyable. 

I spoke about the ways in which Jesus had challenged the gender and sexual conventions of his day. I encouraged an ethic that rejects both homophobia and individualism. The issues raised in questions ranged from the interpretation of particular Bible passages to same-sex marriage, polyamory and women bishops.

I was delighted with the diversity of views in the audience. The event was organised by the college’s LGBT Society. There were Christian, Jewish, Muslim and atheist audience members. Amongst the Christians were some who seemed largely to agree with me about sexuality, and others who didn’t. I don’t know if I’ve ever encountered such a diversity of religious and sexual attitudes among a small audience (there were about twenty-five people).

In particular, I was moved and encouraged by the comments of non-Christians who said they were pleased to have encountered a different image of Christianity to the ones they were used to. Several people said they had not previously seen Jesus presented in this way.

I was deeply encouraged by these sort of comments. Quite a lot of people who attend my talks or respond to my articles seem to be LGBT people who are not Christian but are pleased to encounter a form of Christianity that is not homophobic, that is positive about sexuality and that is firmly opposed to sexual abuse. Of course, there are many, many other Christians besides me who take such an approach.

I have no interest in “converting” people to Christianity, if that simply means persuading someone to give themselves a label and join a club. But when people respond positively to Jesus, I am encouraged and delighted.

When I began spending lots of time writing and campaigning on sexual issues, I had expected to be mainly talking with Christians about sexuality. That is happening, of course. But also (to put it crudely), I seem to spend lots of time talking with queers about Jesus. That’s something I had not expected. God works in mysterious ways.

UKIP: The respectable face of the far right

Members of the United Kingdom Independence Party must be rubbing their hands with glee today. They’re the subject of the day’s leading news story. The Education Secretary has described them as “a mainstream party”. The Leader of the Opposition has effectively defended them. They’re being portrayed as victims of discrimination, despite their own discriminatory policies.

According to the story that broke this morning, foster carers in Rotherham had non-British children removed from their care because they are members of UKIP. This is the claim of the couple concerned. Rotherham Council’s statements seem less clear, suggesting that membership of UKIP influenced the decision, but implying it was not the only factor. They have spoken of the children’s cultural needs not being respected.

Our primary concern in all this must be the needs of the children. I do not know whether Rotherham Council were right to remove the children. I have not been involved in the case. I do not know the children; I do not know the foster carers; I do not know about all the issues involved. Nor, of course, do the many people who have rushed to condemn the council’s decision. These include Michael Gove, who has already described it as “the wrong decision”.

It is utterly inappropriate and unprofessional for the Education Secretary to comment on the rightness or wrongness of a fostering decision on the basis of media reports, without thoroughly investigating the details. It is comparable to the Home Secretary commenting on the guilt or innocence of someone who is in the middle of a criminal trial. Gove’s behaviour is the real scandal in this story.

I am not arguing that UKIP members should be barred from fostering children. I am not even arguing that UKIP members should be barred from fostering children who are not British. I am not arguing that Rotherham Council made the right decision. But I do believe that it is legitimate to take foster carers’ beliefs into account when considering the needs of children. For example, it would be inappropriate to place children from a Muslim family with foster carers who were prejudiced against Muslims.

UKIP are using this case to portray themselves as a reasonable, credible, non-racist party. The reality is that they are a far-right party. On many issues, their policies are comparable to the British National Party. It is true that they do not share the BNP’s focus on skin colour, but their policies are similar on issues including immigration, education, criminal justice and climate change. On economics, they are way to the right of the BNP, calling for all sorts of policies that would benefit the richt at the expense of the rest.

I do not make these claims lightly. Two years ago, I analysed the polices of both UKIP and the BNP. I had expected some similarities but I was genuinely shocked by the extent of them. The article I wrote as a result can be read here.

UKIP want to end all permanent immigration for five years, and severely restrict if after that. In their own words, they oppose multiculturalism. They would abolish the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the UN Convention on Refugees. Their education policy includes the teaching of a pro-imperial view of British history. They want to increase military spending by 40%, reduce taxes for the rich at the expense of the rest of us and force all unemployed people to work without pay in order to receive benefits. They are keen to double the number of people in prison. Unlike almost every other party in Britain, they want to discriminate against gay and bisexual people by denying marriage rights to same-sex couples. Until 2010, they wanted to make laws about what people were allowed to wear in public, by banning the niqab. Their attitude to the environment seems to be pure fantasy, based on the claim that climate change is not caused by humans.

I have come across many people who have voted UKIP because they oppose the European Union, but who are unaware of the rest of their policies. I have no doubt that some UKIP members are decent individuals. Indeed, I dare say that some of them would make good foster carers. I have no interest in encouraging personal hostility. But UKIP as a party is a far-right grouping with a twisted image of Britain, a strong stream of prejudice and policies that would benefit only the super-rich. I’m appalled that Michael Gove and Ed Miliband seem to be trying to claim otherwise.

“Too good for a girlie”? Sexism and women bishops

When I was studying theology in the late 1990s, my fellow students included a clique of upper middle class conservative Anglo-Catholics. A major concern for them was their opposition to the ordination of women and their desire to reverse the Church of England’s decision to allow women priests.

On several occasions when I talked with them in the college bar, it was clear that for many of them, opposition to women priests was a natural extension of their general attitude towards women. I recall one occasion when a woman was appointed to be vicar of a nearby church. Several of these individuals were very disappointed; they admired the church’s architecture and were particularly envious of the attached vicarage. They commented that it was “too good for a girlie”. Indeed, the phrase “too good for a girlie” seemed to be one of their favourite expressions.

In public, they insisted “we’re not being sexist” and talked about the apostolic succession.

Several of these men are now Anglican priests. It was them, and people like them, who supporters of equality have spent years trying to appease. Ahead of yesterday’s vote on women bishops, these people were offered alternative pastoral care and episcopal oversight. Yesterday, they spat in the faces of those who sought to accommodate them.

Proposals to allow women bishops in the Church of England were thrown out by General Synod, even though 74% of Synod voted in favour. This is a much higher percentage than the proportion of the UK population that voted for either party in the current government coalition. But the Synod’s system requires a two-thirds majority in each of three “houses” – bishops, clergy and laity. In the House of Laity, only 64% voted in favour.

This issue is not, really, about bishops. It is about the nature of the Christian Church. Do we follow Jesus’ example of challenging gender norms and the early Christian belief that “there is no longer male and female for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3,28)? Or do we resort to sexism based on shoddy theology and an unholy alliance of conservative evangelicals and conservative Anglo-Catholics? (And I hasten to add that there are many Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals who passionately support women bishops).

As I expressed my own sadness and anger on Twitter yesterday evening, I wrote that the vote is another reminder that the future of Christianity lies in grassroots movements, not in denominational institutions. As the comment was retweeted, some replied that the “grassroots” had rejected women bishops, pointing out that it was the House of Laity who had voted against the proposal. I understand their point, but I did not mean to equate “grassroots” with “laity”. There are a number of lay Anglicans in senior positions who are firmly wedded to the social, political and economic establishment. And there are priests who work with people on the margins of society, seeking God’s guidance in prayer and in the community of others, who are not too concerned about institutional identity.

The distinction between grassroots movements and hierarchical institutions is about ways of doing things, not simply about types of people or who has which role within which organisation. Grassroots movements are more fluid, more adaptable, more messy, harder to define. It is not always clear who is in and who is out. Institutions by contrast tend to be hierarchical, or at least have rigid structures, with clearly defined membership. They often operate, at least in part, as if they exist for the purpose of maintaining themselves. My Ekklesia colleague Jonathan Bartley has explored this distinction in more detail in his book Faith and Politics After Christendom.

Of course, messiness of movements extends to their definition. The precise distinction between movements and institutions is not always clear. I accept that many institutions have positive features and make a good contribution to the world. Also, movements have their own faults and, indeed, often turn into institutions.

Nonetheless, history suggests that progressive change in society, politics and religion happens from the ground up, led by movements rather than institutions. I believe that nearly all Christian denominations in Britain contribute positively to society in a number of ways. But they are all institutions. As such, they all – at least occasionally – become more concerned with their own existence and identity than with living out the Gospel. As such, they sometimes allow their most reactionary members to restrain the rest of the ogansiation, for the sake of “unity”. I should make clear that I think this applies to those denominations that are supposedly less hierarchical, such as Quakers and Baptists, as well as to the Church of England and Roman Catholics.

At this point, I must express my thanks to Benny Hazlehurst, an evangelical Church of England priest and a founder of Accepting Evangelicals. Benny reminded me at a crucial moment that Jesus seemed to have little interest in the maintenance of religious institutions, appearing to be more concerned with those outside them. In this spirit, those Christians who reject sexism and homophobia can get on with campaigning for justice in society and demonstrating it in their own churches, not divert energy by trying to accommodate opponents of equality.

I respect the fact that some Christians genuinely believe that they can oppose the ordination of women without regarding women as inferior. In a similar way, some believe they can oppose same-sex relationships without being homophobic. I believe that such people are sorely misguided, but they have integrity. Behind them, however, are people of the sort I remember from Oxford, who are without a doubt sexist and homophobic. For such people, twisted theology and shoddy biblical interpretation are little more than a smokescreen for prejudice.

If any good things come out of this appalling moment at General Synod, perhaps one of them will be the realisation that the appeasement of sexists and homophobes is impractical as well as immoral.

Yes, we should respect those who disagree with us. Yes, we should accept we may be wrong. Yes, we should seek dialogue with those who genuinely want to struggle with the issues together. Yes, we should respect the fact that not everyone with a “conservative” position is motivated by prejudice. This does not mean that we can reach unity with people who have a fundamentally contrary understanding of the Gospel. Let’s not allow the enemies of equality to build up the barriers that Jesus tore down. The Christian Church is not “too good for a girlie”.

———-

The above article appeared as my latest column on the website of the Ekklesia thinktank.

Israelis against the bombing

I expected to be disappointed by Barrack Obama in his second term. I hadn’t expected it to happen so soon. Today, he backed the Israeli government’s vicious assault on the people of Gaza. UK foreign secretary William Hague was not so explicit, but he made clear where his sympathies lie.

Of course, some will try to portray those of us who criticise Netanyahu’s government as apologists for Hamas. The vast majority of us are not. I don’t support Hamas any more than I support Netanyahu. Many people have conveniently forgotton that Hamas was originally built up and encouraged by the Israeli government who saw it as a counterweight to the power of secular Palestinian independence movements.

In reality, the lives of innocent Palestinians and Israelis are being sacrificed by the Israeli government and Hamas on the altars of their long-term ambitions. It is vital that the Israeli government engages in dialogue with Hamas instead of attacking civilians and putting its own population at further risk of attack.

I was therefore very pleased to hear of demonstrations in Tel Aviv by Israelis opposed to the bombing of Gaza. I was also pleased to be sent a copy of the following statement, produced the The Other Voice, a group of Isrealis living near Gaza:

“We, members of the villages and townships in the Gaza-enveloping region call on the Israeli government to stop mucking around with our lives and immediately enter into diplomatic and political contacts with the Hamas Government! We are sick and tired of being sitting ducks who serve political interests.

“Rockets from there and bombardments from here do not protect us. We have played around with those games of the use of force and war for long enough. And both sides have paid, and are continuing to pay, a high price of loss and suffering. The time has to come to endeavour to reach long-term understandings which will enable civilians on both sides of the border to live a normal life.“The Other Voice describe themselvse as a group of residents of Sderot and other places in the Gaza -enveloping region who have maintained a continuous link with residents of the Gaza Strip. The group advances “neighbourly and communicative relationships throughout the South and the entire land”.

A statement expressing similar views has been released by the Da’am Workers’ Party, a left-wing party that includes both Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel. I admit that my knowledge of the party is minimal, but I heartily agree with their statement on this issue. Here it is:
“The military operations in Gaza are a direct result of four years of time-wasting by Netanyahu’s right-wing government, which persistently refused to negotiate an agreement to put an end to the conflict. During this time, this same government continued to build settlements in the occupied territories.

“This latest military operation will not solve the security problems of Israel’s residents in the south. On the contrary, the operation will merely grant legitimacy to the Hamas government and its claims that Israel is not interested in peace. The operation weakens the Palestinian Authority chairman, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), and makes his overtures to Israel the target of mockery and derision among the Palestinians. Israel is also putting Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood leadership in an awkward position, provoking President Mohammed Morsi. “Under cover of the warfare in Gaza, Netanyahu’s government is trying to marginalize demands for social justice and present the security issue as the only legitimate issue for public debate. Poverty, unemployment, the retrenchment of welfare services and of course the austerity programme and budgetary cuts planned by Bibi’s future government are presented as irrelevant.

“Furthermore, we must not ignore Defence Minister Ehud Barak’s manoeuvre in trying to use Gaza to win another term of office, as his prospects currently look poor.

“Two sides will benefit from Israel’s military action: the right-wing government in Israel and the Hamas government in Gaza. The extremism on both sides will continue to thrive while the two peoples, who seek peace and social justice, will pay the heavy price.”

Justin Welby and the chances for change

Like millions of other people, I’m praying for Justin Welby as he prepares to take up his new job at Canterbury. I wish him all the best. As the media go over every detail of his life and beliefs, there is a danger that we put our trust in a new archbishop to save the Church. This would be a problem whoever had got the job. 

In the Church as in politics, real change comes from below and not from above. The Church of England and other churches began ordaining women a long time after Christians at the grassroots began inviting women to preach. Church leaders spoke meaningfully of unity between denominations some time after local churches had started to work together on the ground. Christian leaders in late eighteenth century backed the struggle against slavery decades after individual Christians had become involved in grassroots campaigns on the issue.

In the same way, I hope that the many Christians who thank God for loving, committed relationships – regardless of gender – will celebrate same-sex relationships without waiting for approval from church leaders. 

Nonetheless, I hope Justin Welby will go at least some way towards supporting those Christians who would like to see British churches taking a more radically progressive stance. Admittedly, this seems more likely in some areas than others. 

He could make a big impact by rejecting the obsession with church “growth” and showing he is more concerned with living out the gospel by following Jesus’ example of siding with the poor. Having made encouraging criticism of the banking system, he could take a firm stance against the government’s vicious cuts agenda and even go so far as to back alternatives to capitalism. While I’m disappointed that he is opposed to same-sex marriages, I hope he will reject the approach of certain other church leaders who are scaremongering about churches being forced to host them – something for which nobody is calling.

I’m keeping an open mind about the chances of each of these things happening. Whatever happens, many Christians will continue to campaign for peace, economic justice and equality. I hope Justin Welby will be among them. 

Why is the Church of England hosting an arms dealers’ conference?

Every time that I think I can no longer be surprised by the behaviour of church institutions, I am proved wrong. Like many other Christians who campaign against cuts and war, I often find myself in conflict with church authorities as well as corporations and governments. I’ve been dragged from the steps of a church while praying, misled by the authorities of St Paul’s Cathedral, struggled with outright lies from homophobic Christian lobby groups and spent enough time looking into various denomination’s investments to leave me (or so I thought) with no illusions about the practices that they can sometimes engage in.

But even I was shocked to learn that on Thursday, a conference for arms dealers will take place in Church House, the Church of England’s administrative headquarters.

Since the story broke, church authorities have come up with frankly feeble excuses for hosting this event. First, they insisted that the conference centre was a separate entity from Church House. I have made some effort to look into this claim. The distinction is a legal technicality. The conference centre is a wholly owned subsidiary company of the Church House Corporation, whose president is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The church authorities now seem to be relying on the rather obtuse argument that the booking had been made by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), an “independent thinktank”. The CofE’s head of communications told me Church House would “probably” not have accepted a booking made directly by an arms dealer. However, “independent” does not mean “impartial”. Thinktanks have their own views and positions (including Ekklesia, who I work for). RUSI lobbies in favour of the arms trade and high military spending.

Church House are relying on a distinction between a booking made by an arms company and one made by a pro-arms lobby group to host a gathering of arms companies. This distinction is at best naive and at worst misleading.

The conference’s sponsors include some of the world’s largest multinational arms companies, such as BAE Systems, Raytheon and Finmeccanica, all of whom arm some of the world’s most vicious and repressive regimes, including several that have turned weapons on their own people. Many people now recognise that the arms trade is not a legitimate business. As arms firms move jobs out of Britain, the government could create far more skilled jobs in renewable industry if arms industry subsidies were reinvested. The National Gallery recently broke off a sponsorship deal with Finmeccanica in response to protests by artists and customers. So why is the National Gallery showing more moral leadership than the Church of England?

In recent decades, Christianity in Britain has moved from the centre of power and culture to being one option among many in a multifaith society. This is a welcome opportunity to turn away from Christianity’s collusion with wealth and power and look again at the radical life and teachings of Jesus. Many Christians – including several church leaders – are speaking out against the arms trade, Trident, homophobia and government cuts. Some of them will be praying outside the arms conference at Church House on Thursday. Sadly, other Christians cling on desperately to an ultra-conservative agenda, promoting homophobia and attacking Islam while overlooking the sins of economic injustice and environmental destruction.

Others simply carry on as before, ignoring the change and chaos around them and operating more like businesses or government departments than the followers of a radical messiah. A senior official at the Church of England told me that if an anti-arms group made a booking, Church House would host them as readily as it has hosted the arms conference. I think this was supposed to be an argument in their favour. It implies that they will host both sides, that they are neutral.

Jesus advocated love for all people, including enemies. But he did not teach his followers to be neutral. There can be no neutrality in the face of injustice. If I saw someone being killed and I did nothing, I would not be neutral, I would be siding with the killer. The government is cutting services for the poorest people in society while promoting the arms trade and ploughing billions into nuclear weapons. Churches have no business being neutral.

——–

This article appeared earlier today as my latest column on the Ekklesia website. Please see http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/news/columns/hill

There will be an act of prayer and witness outside the Church House arms conference, from 7.45am on Thursday 1st November. It will bring together concerned Christians of many backgrounds. It has been backed by the Campaign Against Arms Trade, Christianity Uncut, Pax Christi and Christian CND. For details and to join in, please click here for more details, or to join in

Knocking at the door of St Paul’s

In 1967, a year before his assassination, Martin Luther King preached a sermon about the parable of the man who knocks at his friend’s door at midnight to ask for bread. He said, “Millions of Africans, patiently knocking on the door of the Christian church where they seek the bread of social justice, have either been altogether ignored or told to wait until later, which almost always means never.”

He added, “And those who have gone to the church to seek the bread of economic justice have been left in the frustrating midnight of economic privation”.

A year ago today, the Occupy London Stock Exchange camp came knocking on the door of St Paul’s Cathedral. They were there because the police had prevented them from camping any closer to the stock exchange. After an initial welcome, the door on which they knocked was shut in their face. The cathedral staff were split and three clergy resigned, but the cathedral gave evidence in court in favour of evicting the camp. On the night of the eviction, occupiers retreated to the cathedral steps, which were not covered by the eviction order. The police insisted that they must leave the steps too.

Along with four other members of Christianity Uncut, I was dragged from the church steps as I knelt in prayer. The cathedral authorities dodged journalists’ questions about whether they had given permission for this. Then the City of London police commissioner stated in writing that they had indeed done so.

I have long been angry with the failure of Church leaders to follow Jesus’ example of siding with the poor, especially at a time of austerity measures that punish the poor for the sins of the rich. As a Christian, I seek to love my opponents. But I had generally not counted church leaders among my opponents. That all changed on that cold February morning, when it became clear that the leadership of St Paul’s Cathedral had finally taken sides in the economic crisis. They were siding with the rich.

Even then, members of Christianity Uncut were keen not to be diverted into attacking St Paul’s Cathedral. In internal discussions, we reminded each other that we should focus on challenging government, corporations and the systems that uphold them, and not put our energy into attacking the church. Any challenge we made to the Church must be about challenging them to join us in our struggles, not condemning them for the sake of it. The five Christians who had been dragged from the steps asked the senior staff at St Paul’s for a meeting “in a spirit of love and respect”. Our letter was counter-signed by twenty clergy. Michael Colclough, the cathedral’s Canon Pastor, wrote back, refusing to meet us.

Meanwhile, the cathedral broke its own promises about engaging with economic issues. They had appointed Ken Costa to lead an investigation into financial ethics. The fact that he was an investment banker undermined their claim to share many of Occupy’s views. But Costa has produced nothing in all that time. Nor has the leadership of St Paul’s managed to make clear statements about any specific aspect of economic transformation. To mark the first anniversary of Occupy London Stock Exchange, they allowed one occupier to read out one prayer in an afternoon service, a gesture whose tokenism speaks for itself.

In short, the act of witness that was carried out yesterday at St Paul’s Cathedral followed a year of intolerable behaviour from the cathedral’s leadership. It was organised jointly by Christianity Uncut and Occupy London, with a commitment to active nonviolence and a rejection of verbal abuse and personal hatred.

Yesterday, I joined with other Christians, and non-Christians, to display a banner on the steps of St Paul’s, depicting Jesus throwing moneychangers out of the Jerusalem Temple. Inside, four women – Siobhan Grimes, Alison Playford, Josie Reid and Tammy Samede – calmly and peacefully chained themselves to the pulpit and read out a statement about economic injustice and the need for the Church to challenge it.

They did not, however, do many of the things inaccurately reported in the media. They had not “stormed” into the cathedral, as the Daily Express alleged (storming would be hard, as you would have to get past the counters at which you have to pay for entry). Nor had they “invaded” St Paul’s (Daily Mail), as they peacefully joined evensong at 3.15pm. They did not prevent anyone praying or otherwise engaging in worship. They certainly did not interrupt a wreath-laying for a dead soldier (as the Daily Telegraph reported). Indeed, some of the soldiers who were at the cathedral for the wreath-laying – which took place later in the day – told the group of women that they were supportive of many of the Occupy’s movements aims. To be fair to the Daily Telegraph, they did at least point out that two of the women concerned belong to the Church of England. Much coverage did not mention that most of the protesters were Christians, nor that the action was organised by Christianity Uncut as well as Occupy London.

Alison, Josie, Siobhan and Tammy endured six hours in cramped positions, without eating or using a toilet. Their smiles to encourage and comfort each other were used in photos to illustrate “smirking anti-capitalists” (the Sun) and the claim that they regarded the protest as a joke (Daily Mail).

This was no joke. The economic crisis is no joke for the thousands of people made homeless by government policies (according to homelessness charities). It is no joke for unemployed people forced to work for their benefits rather than a proper wage, or for those who find it harder to find work because these workfare schemes reduce real vacancies. It is no joke for the hundreds of disabled people who have died shortly after being declared fit for work by Atos, for working class people priced out of higher education or for future generations who will reap the consequences of the environmental devastation sown by multinational corporations and the worship of economic growth. It may be more of a joke for the top one percent of the population, whose income tax has been cut, and whose tax-dodging practices have drawn nothing more than empty words from ministers.

In this situation, thousands of Christians are seeking to follow Jesus’ example of siding with the poor. Church leaders are amongst them. Sadly, other church leaders either defend the cuts or seek to remain neutral. But there can be no neutrality in a situation of injustice. As Desmond Tutu put it, if an elephant is standing on the tail of a mouse, and we say that we are neutral, it is the elephant and not the mouse who will appreciate our neutrality.

David Ison, the Dean of St Paul’s, responded to yesterday’s protest by suggesting that we should have engaged “constructively”. Our request for a constructive meeting was refused seven months ago. He said we were pursuing an agenda of “conflict” with St Paul’s. The cathedral had already pursued an agenda of conflict with us when it called in police to drag us from its steps. He accused of abusing the cathedral’s hospitality, as if a church belongs to its leaders rather than to Christian people as a whole. That magnificent building was, after all, built with our ancestors’ tithes.

In his sermon yesterday, the Dean said that people should work together to achieve economic change. I agree. But this cannot involve an alliance with people who are themselves driving exploitation, inequality and environmental destruction. I do not want to hate the rich, or to pretend that I am any less sinful than they are. I want to talk with them and listen to them. But if they are exploiting the rest of us, I will still resist them.

Jesus said he had come to “bring good news to the poor”. He challenged the rich to share their wealth. He did not encourage hatred for the rich and powerful. He talked with them and listened to them. But when the time was right, he used other tactics too. He was arrested and crucified following a protest in the Jerusalem Temple. His protest was against those who exploited the poor and justified it with religious hypocrisy.

Martin Luther King’s words of 45 years ago continue to resonate down the years. Millions of people are still knocking on the door of the Church, seeking social and economic justice. If church leaders such as those at St Paul’s Cathedral refuse to open the door, then other Christians must do it for them.

Can capitalism be made good?

The ethics of capitalism is this year’s topic for the annual Bishop of Salisbury’s Debate, which will take place this evening (Wednesday 19 September) in Marlborough. I’ve been asked to be one of the speakers.

The title is “Can capitalism be made good?”. My answer will be “no”.

I’m very pleased to have been asked to participate in the debate, which I hope will relate general issues of ethics and economics to concerns that affect everybody’s daily lives. Other speakers will include Stewart Wallis of the New Economics Foundation. Arguing in favour of capitalism will be Will Morris (chair of the CBI’s tax committee, tax policy director for General Electric and a Church of England priest) and Hugh Pym (BBC’s chief economics correspondent). Nicholas Holtam, Bishop of Salisbury, will be in the chair. I hope there’ll be plenty of time for audience engagement and discussion, as that tends to be the best part of any debate.

The event is free and open to anyone. There are details here. I’ll blog tomorrow about how the discussion went. Many thanks to people who have encouraged me so far!