Women Bishops: Why is it Newsworthy in a Secular Age?

Canterbury Cathedral: (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Since only around 10% of the British population attend church regularly, and within that small group, only a proportion are practising Anglicans, I have been genuinely surprised at the amount of British media comment on this week's Synod decision to keep the current status of Anglican bishops to men only. 

At issue here - quite apart from what anyone may think of the Synod's decision - is the passion which it seems to have engendered among those who disagree with it on grounds of sexual equality.

This example is not atypical from my Twitter time line:

"In these times the church has a useless f**** debate about women bishops. COE is f**** redundant and morally and spiritually dead"

(from Martin a  "Personal Coach, Failure Consultant and Responsible Business Auditor" based in north London)

Meanwhile, a frustrated David Cameron speaking in the House of Commons urges the Church of England to "get with the programme" and push through the changes, while receiving a "sharp prod" from the government to that end.

 

On Thursday's Question Time on BBC, Yvette Cooper was advocating that Parliament should consider taking legal action to force the Church of England to allow women to be ordained as bishops.

In the anger about the Synod's decision, I have not so far read a single comment reminding us that the Church of England is a voluntary society. No-one is forced to join it. Those who dissent from its doctrine or practices are entirely at liberty to leave and set up their own church if they want. 

With salaries of between £30 - 40,000, Anglican bishops can hardly be said to be following their vocation out of a desire to get rich. It is not a typical career, in that sense. And with 44 dioceses, the number of bishops is limited (generally, one per diocese), so we are not talking about a vast number of women or men who will occupy these positions in the church establishment.

So, why the rage from so many who never darken the door of a church?

Part of the issue, I think, is that the Church of England is the official state church, with the monarch as its head, and with its bishops occupying seats in the upper chamber of the British Parliament. In this capacity, so the argument goes, the church must conform to the social norms of the wider society which it "belongs" to. One comment on Question Time argued that this was important since "the church does coronations, royal weddings and Remembrance."

If the official status of the Church of England is one factor explaining the media backlash to the Synod's decision, there is also a more general issue at stake. Paradoxically, in a secular age, society appears to want the church to affirm it in its values. My friend Steve Smith expressed it perfectly when he tweeted:

I think it's partly about secularists wanting Christians and Xtian establishment to conform, reinforce & justify [the] former's values.

It is worth pondering that, whereas in all the talk since the Synod's vote, most critics are quick to claim that they believe in diversity and freedom of religion, in practice, many of them become incandescent when such diversity actually finds expression in ways that challenge the dominant discourse. 

Is Britain occupying the role of an easy-going parent, who encourages its children to grow, explore and discover their own way in life, only to balk when one of the children does just that and adopts a way of life as an adult at odds with its apparently tolerant parent?

Is the idea of non-conformity in fact a threat to the secular agenda (or "the programme" as the Prime Minister has described it)? It makes me wonder whether, in the end, secularism, for all its grand claims, actually demands conformity - not diversity as it so loudly proclaims.

 

   

  

 

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Related articles

• Church of England votes against allowing women bishops
• Beyond Synod: Church and state need to be set free
• Women bishops: rejection harms Church of England's mission
• Women will be bishops - Sentamu

Lamentable Media Coverage and State Deception: the Scandal of NHS Legislation

Speaking at the NHS Confederation Annual conference and exhibition in Manchester on 8 July 2011 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Health and Social Care Bill has just passed through Parliament. A huge step towards privatising the NHS has been taken. The most cherished of UK public institutions is being dismantled and large private providers are already signing contracts. All this is against the wishes of a large majority of the public and an even larger majority of health-care professionals.

A big question is why did the national news media fail to cover the issue clearly, honestly and accurately? Their failure to hold David Cameron, Andrew Lansley and their colleagues to account, or to adequately represent the views of professionals and the public was, at times, very frustrating. It demonstrates the weakened state the UK news media. If hacking reveals the deficits of tabloid journalism, this failure represents the deficits of ‘serious’ broadsheet newspapers and national broadcasters.

In many respects, one should look to the actions of the political class first. David Cameron had a seven year career in corporate public relations. The Conservative Party went to extremes to manage its image on the NHS, to obscure its true intentions, and used every trick in the media management playbook to do so. The Conservative-led Government went well beyond spin as it regularly and blatantly misled and now misleads the public about the NHS and the bill.

The very weak opposition from the Labour Party and the leaderships of the BMA and many professional bodies added to the problem. The Department of Health had already been infiltrated by McKinseys consultants under New Labour (see Player and Leys, 2011 ^↑ ). For most of the last year, Labour was unclear on its own policy direction ^↑ and thus was virtually silent. Equally importantly, the leaderships of the BMA and several Royal Colleges, bypassed their memberships and were in active dialogue with the Government. Few initially were prepared to condemn the bill publicly. So, without authoritative and high-profile opposition, why should journalists have been concerned to investigate and cover the large, highly complex details of the bill?

However, these are now chronic problems in political journalism generally. An over-dependency on Westminster sources, and a general unwillingness to cover detailed policy matters, are two important failings of UK news (see Davis, 2010 ^↑ ). Far too often, actual legislation is not considered newsworthy enough to report unless there is internal party conflict or scandal attached. There is also a problematic hierarchy for newsgathering that ensures government sources dominate, with the official opposition trailing behind. Far too often other smaller bodies, groups of professionals and the wider public are excluded altogether from the reporting beat. These problems are common across the UK broadsheet press, whether they be from the left (Guardian ^↑ ), centre (Independent ^↑ , Times ^↑ ) or right (Telegraph ^↑ , Mail ^↑ , Express ^↑ ) of the UK political spectrum. They are also too apparent in national news broadcasters including the BBC ^↑ .

This was all too apparent for much of 2011. Professional opposition was widespread. Keep Our NHS Public ^↑ , 38 Degrees ^↑ , Spinwatch ^↑ and others began scrutinising the bill and campaigning at an early stage. New local BMA groups sprang up all over the country in an attempt to force their leadership to engage with its ordinary members about their concerns. Numerous articles and blogs appeared, written by health professionals who had scrutinised the bill in far more detail than politicians or journalists[i]. Public meetings took place regularly - and across the UK, not limited to England. Many demonstrations took place. Marathons were run. Barely any of this was reported or drawn upon in the early stages, or appeared in smaller pieces and letters buried within. Opposition stories focused primarily on disgruntled Liberal Democrats.

Under such circumstances, far too often the Government was given too much space to set the reporting agenda and to define the debates themselves. Serious concerns at all levels were ignored until very late. Perhaps the most concerning of these was the Conservative Leadership’s total disregard for democratic institutions and practices. On Andy Coulson’s advice, Lansley and Cameron’s long-term privatisation agenda was completely obscured in opposition and during the election. The headline pitch was about securing the NHS: ‘cutting the deficit not the NHS’ and ‘no more top-down reorganisations’. The plans were not part of the published Coalition Agreement. Lansley’s long term links and dialogue with private health care lobbyists and providers was barely mentioned (see Spinwatch ^↑ ). The same went for the part played by McKinseys. It was also clear to all professionals on the ground that many parts of the bill were already being implemented all through 2011. Civil servants repeatedly blocked the publication of their own risk assessments. Why wasn’t this disdain for democratic process challenged in media reporting?

Similarly, lies and misrepresentation were regularly reported on front pages without challenge. The NHS was portrayed as being inefficient and having comparatively poor health outcomes ^↑ in comparison to other countries. But much of the evidence used was certainly debatable (see Roy Lilley ^↑ ). Cameron and Lansley regularly stated that the majority of doctors supported them ^↑ . But, from an early stage polls showed that two thirds of doctors were very concerned and critical. Towards the end it was over 90%.

That GPs were already forming themselves into Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) was promoted as a sign of positive embrace ^↑ . But GPs were given no choice as they watched PCTs being dismantled and new funding structures imposed. News coverage continually reported the line that doctors would be in charge of the budget and that this was about doctor empowerment and patient choice. As doctors in the newly formed CCGs have already found out, their influence over the NHS budget is actually more controlled by Whitehall than ever. CCGs are also having to look to private consultancies to take on key management roles. GP power looks like it will be no stronger than
before.

All along, Lansley, Cameron, Clegg ^↑ and then Shirley Williams publicly stated there was no privatisation taking place. The word ‘reform’ is the most common description. But, plain and simple, this is a large step towards privatisation. Bupa, currently flooding the UK with advertising, knows this. So do Virgin, Sainsbury’s, United Healthcare, Circle, and Care UK.

What is happening is ‘reactionary’ and ‘regressive’ and threatens to take the UK public health system back to its pre-1945 state. £20 billion of ‘efficiency savings’ are really £20 billion of ‘cuts’. Again and again Government words and phrases have gone unchallenged - until the last months of the bill. When they were, professional association objections, were all too easily discounted as the calls of ‘self-interested unions’. Labour’s challenge, now led more convincingly by Andy Burnham, was dismissed as ‘opportunistic’. Lansley was chastised for failing to clearly explain the Government’s case to the public ^↑ . His real failure was his inability to mislead as convincingly as Cameron.

In the last months, Labour, the BMA and most of the Royal Colleges joined in publicly condemning the bill and demanding its withdrawal. That was widely reported.  General coverage and editorials, even in the Conservative-supporting press (Telegraph, Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday ^↑ ), became more critical. Some journalists, such as Polly Toynbee of the Guardian, objected loudly and regularly. But, by then, the bill had progressed too far and too publicly for the Conservative Leadership to be able to pull back.

Commentators have suggested that this might be the current Government’s Poll Tax moment. A far more appropriate parallel is Iraq 2003. Then, and now, the Prime Minister and a small cabal, forced through a momentous policy decision through a mixture of stealth, threats and lies. They did it with utter disregard for democratic processes, Parliament or public opinion. Far too many journalists failed to ask questions or seek alternative opinions over a protracted lead-in period (see account in Davis, 2010 ^↑ ). Unfortunately, this is set to continue. We have an under-resourced news media, incapable of critical self-reflection on its out-dated practices and failings. They are little match for a ruthless administration with a media management operation as slick and determined as any peace-time government we have ever witnessed.

Aeron Davis ^↑ is Professor of Political Communication at Goldsmiths College. He is the author of Political Communication and Social Theory ^↑ (2010). His partner is a London GP.

This article is published by Aeron Davis, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. 

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Getting What We Don't Deserve

Image via Wikipedia

There I was sitting in a former theatrical storage building in Bristol this evening, part of a crowd of around 300 people, when up gets John.

Here's what John had to say, paraphrased:

He is a recovering alcoholic who fell off the wagon two weeks ago and was walking home drunk. 

In his anger, frustration and shame, his emotions poured out  and, clenching his fist, he smashed his hand into a glass bus shelter. Despite modern shelters being made of safety glass, the impact resulted in John breaking three fingers in his hand.

Later in hospital, John's hand was put into a hard plaster and he was sent home. 

The following Saturday (last week), John went to church. Actually, he went to a meeting called urban healing, where Christians will pray for anyone who is sick or injured and needs to be healed.

Two guys prayed for John and, as they were doing so, the fingers on his hand started to move rapidly and involuntarily. John believed that his hand was being healed.

Back at the hospital, John asked the orthopedic surgeon to cut off the plaster on his hand. The doctor, quite understandably, told John that it was against his professional judgement to comply with the request. When John announced that he would cut the plaster off himself if the hospital would not do so, the doctor reluctantly agreed. Having removed the cast, the surgeon bound John's three fingers together and told him to leave the binding in place for several weeks.

Ever compliant, John removed the binding at home the next day. He experienced complete freedom of movement, and an absence of any pain. At a follow-up appointment this week, the examining doctor performed a number of tests on John's hand. The doctor's conclusion, as John recounts it, was that the bones in the hand had been "healed." He also said that he would normally have expected the hand to take about eight weeks before the bones were properly fused together again, with a cast on. The doctor pronounced this all-clear at the follow-up examination two weeks after the initial break.

What struck me as I was listening to John's story, and watching him freely move, bend and stretch his fingers, was not so much the evidence that a healing had occurred in response to prayer.

Rather, in a week in which the Prime Minister has called for absent fathers to be "shamed" by society,  the contrast of a man doing something foolish (smashing his hand into thick glass) who then received a healing from God, made me realise that at the heart of the faith of these Christians is the idea of mercy: people getting what they don't deserve.

If we're honest, I guess many people find mercy an unsettling idea, turning on its head some of our cherished notions of justice and accountability.

But there is is anyway.

John's happy about it.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

NHS: Cameron's Rhetoric is Wearing Thin

Image via Wikipedia

NHS: Cameron's rhetoric is wearing thin | openDemocracy

Speaking on the Today programme yesterday the Prime Minister claimed to be committed to what he called our ‘precious’ NHS. He said he wanted it to go on succeeding, free at the point of use. But unless he is still not paying attention to what is in Lansley’s Bill (which is possible, as Cameron often seems curiously indifferent to the detail of his government’s policies) he is being completely disingenuous.

The crucial point is this: the Bill relieves the Health Secretary of his existing responsibility for providing a universal and comprehensive health service, and doesn’t allocate it to anyone else. It leaves it up to unaccountable local GPs grouped in Consortia to decide what services their particular patients will be entitled to, and what they will have to pay for, and how much, and this can vary from one consortium to another – goodbye both comprehensiveness and universality. It leaves an unaccountable healthcare market regulator (Monitor) to decide what private companies can offer NHS patients, and whether they can underbid NHS hospitals on price, and it mandates Monitor to promote competition – goodbye free care at the point of delivery.

The whole thrust of the Bill is to create a competitive market with a large expansion of provision by companies focussed on shareholder value. To pretend otherwise is, frankly, to insult the public’s intelligence. And it doesn’t make it any better to declare, as Cameron did, that because the population is ageing, the NHS ‘has to change’. That sort of rhetoric has lost all traction with the growing number of people who have woken up to what is going on. Change is constantly necessary in all services. The question is how handing over the NHS to market forces is supposed to improve it. The evidence points decisively against competition in health care and by now everyone knows it.

In March the BMA came very close to declaring outright opposition to the Bill. The nurses at their Liverpool conference in April repudiated the Bill and Lansley with it – by a majority of 478 to six. Unison and Unite are massively opposed. Cameron now says he would like ‘more full-throated support’ from the NHS workforce. Even his capacity for spin is getting seriously overstretched.

The name of the game for Cameron and Lansley now is to appear to be making ‘substantive changes’ to the Bill which will in fact leave its aims intact. The patently deceptive Future Forum ‘listening’ exercise with its Panel of five, chaired by a notoriously pro-market GP, plus 40 handpicked medics and managers, is designed to give a fig-leaf of legitimacy to what will actually be a behind-the-scenes search for amendments that look major but are not. These will not include the ‘essential amendments’ proposed by the Lib Dem rank and file after the Sheffield conference; those amendments are incompatible with the aims of the Bill and Lansley will not be accepting them. Whether the Lib Dems will tolerate yet another abandonment of their principles remains to be seen.

The task for everyone who is genuinely committed to the principles of the NHS is to ensure that the true aim of the Bill is kept clearly in view, and to insist that the media don’t collude in the lazy sort of misrepresentation that Cameron is hoping to get away with.

This article is published by Colin Leys, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.