The discussions here about the presence of bishops in the Lords – and the parallel debate in the media about disestablishment of the Anglican Church, sparked by the Archbishop of Canterbury – have reminded me of a simple but largely ignored fact: the bishops were NOT originally included in the great councils of the nation to provide moral leadership, but to acknowledge that they were great landowners, feudal barons and powerful regional leaders in their own right. No question of “Lords Spiritual” then, merely recognition of the Monarchy of their temporal significance. No doubt they were as anxious to preserve that power as their lay colleagues at Runnymede, as King John was forced to sign Magna Carta.
The only reason they survive in our present Parliament is because Henry VIII (wisely) did not wish to take on unnecessary extra opposition to his nationalisation of the church. Just as the “Established Church” has a purely political origin – and I write as a practising Anglican – so the presence of the bishops here is a feudal accident and anachronism. All Parliamentarians should surely exercise their consciences, rather than offloading that duty onto the occupants of the ecclesiastical bench ?
I am due to meet Archbishop Williams in the next few days. Do you think I should mention this to him ?
I didn’t know that about the Lords, like everyone else I assumed they were placed there for the main reason of providing ‘moral guidance’ to the nation.
However, the Bishops can function as a ‘Spiritual Bloc’, even if it is simply by being able to request more time to speak on an issue which they all hold too.
As for the disestablishment of the Church, part of me is against it; it is after all, killing the C of E, and thats a good thing.
Archbishop is the vapid, hand-wavy type, so whatever he says I wont be paying much attention. But by all means, if you think that it might be fruitful to engage him on this matter, Lord Tyler, then please do so.
If we were to remove “fuedal accidents” from our constitution I wonder what we would have afterwards. Our constitution has evolved over the past 1000 years and its something almost unique in a state that has had such a significant international role. Which can be both a source of pride, and I am sure, frustration also.
I’d certainly understand calls to remove the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the face of rising pressure over the appointment of religous officials in a legislative body, or to the weakening relationships between the population and the Church, but given the nature of our consitution being a fuedal accident not per se a bad thing.
With our constitution branding institutions or Parliamentary structures ‘fuedal accidents’ is probably a very dangerous charge in more than one respects, especially if the reformers were hear you!
Talking of ‘moral dilemmas’…
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/01/ex-labour-minister-african-private.html
I agree with Lord Tyler, just as I agree with Noodles’ words about the meaning of some peculiar elements in the Constitution. But, as far as I am concerned, a political role, in history, can change. Not only in England, to mark an anachronism does not mean to display the will to erase everything, but just to be aware that the role of the Parliament is one thing, and that the role of the Church is, without the shadow of a doubt, another.
The bishops were referred to as “Lords Spiritual” from an early date I believe. As for why they had a place in the formal councils of the king, one might add that laicisation of government administration was only a growing trend even in the late middle ages, and one might add that the bishops could have stirred up a good deal of popular hostility to the king if they so wished, on account of the spiritual authority that their positions gave them. All of this is fairly irrelevant – the purpose of the presence of the bishops has evolved, and saying that bishops should be removed from the Lords because the original reasons for the presence of bishops do not work today is like saying that the Commons should have no Speaker because the original purpose of the Speaker was to represent the Commons before the king, which is no longer the case today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7777906.stm
Reading the article above, Lord Tyler, I am wondering when you will be following the example of various bloggers, and offering ‘Tyler T-shirts’ ?
Although the original reason for the Lords Spiritual has gone, it may be worthwhile considering them as a prototype for a portion of the reformed House of Lords. I was an ardent supporter of a fully elected House of Lords but I have been impressed, through several articles on Lords of the Blogs, by the arguments in favour of an expert, unelected House.
It seems like the bishops could be the model for the best of both worlds. When the House of Lords is reformed to be an elected body, I would welcome about 30% of its membership actually being unelected. This portion should replace the bishops and should be intended to include religious (and atheist) moral and charitable leaders as well as leading scientists, doctors, lawyers, artists and industrialists (and others, no doubt). Members should be encouraged to remain as long as they like but to resign when they feel they wish to retire from the role or are unable to continue.
Part of what I take from Lord Tyler’s post is the question: What exactly is a ‘moral leader’ anyway?
Without wishing to get too deeply into the relationship of religion to morality in the first place, it is at least worth noting that there are many supposedly “moral” positions which it is right and proper that a religious leader should have an opinion on but which have no place in a representative legislature. I can choose to be a member of the Church of England, and should Archbishop Williams’ strictures become unpalatable for me I can choose to leave again. I am, however, significantly constrained by geography into being bound by our national law. It seems only fair and decent that this lack of choice be reflected in the kinds of laws that I am expected to follow – that they should be not too much of an imposition on me provided that I do not impose myself too strongly on others seems to be quite reasonable.
That is so much of a muchness by itself, but it does rather pose the question as to what the bishops are supposedly providing moral leadership on by virtue of their position in the Lords that they could not be providing by virtue of their position as, say, Bishops. Even provided that they could recuse themselves on matters such as homosexuality where their religious views may come into conflict with the broader necessities of national secular governance, what is the point of keeping them around? Religion seems to be neither necessary nor sufficient for any given moral position, with the breakdown of public religious figures over, say, the Iraq war falling mostly as you’d expect given class, education, political affiliation and other tell-tale demographic markers. Indeed many religious leaders provided “moral leadership” by staying out of the debate altogether, which while laudable on certain levels also rather flies in the face of the role of a national legislature.
The flip-side of the coin, of course, is that while the Lords Spiritual might not have any rationale for their existence, as with all anachronisms we should still have some kind of justification for getting rid of them. They may not be much use but they are at least ornamental. If a case can be made that a positive good will result from putting them back in their cathedrals (and I believe it can, just not all the time and in every context) then that should be done. Otherwise, why change for change’s sake?
Lord Tyler: I am sure you are familiar with Dr Rowan Williams’s views on the spiritual nevertheless I have included the link below.
Have you ever considered that unknowingly many have rediscovered the eclectic Epicurean one that bases their life purely on seeking pleasure and avoiding pain without knowing of the downside to such spirituality?
We have become what we once were and without the concept of sin.
Ref: The Spiritual and the Religious: Is the Territory Changing?
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/124
Teachings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus