Allegiance to the Queen and the Rejection of God

Eddie Izzard: A True British Queen to be proud of? 

I was gently challenged over lunch at the Anarchist conference to share my thoughts on how I can, without crossing my fingers, affirm an oath of allegiance to the Queen, "her heirs and successors" and continue to write, think, and act on anarchist ideas. 

So here goes. 

I first swore allegiance to the Queen on my ordination as deacon in the Church of England. However, every time an Anglican priest is given a new license, in other words appointed to a new role, the oath is renewed. I can only assume that the Queen doesn't think we really mean it. Ahem, perish the thought! 

This evening I'll be licensed as "Pioneer Associate Minister" at St Mark's Mansfield, and as Deanery Adviser on Seeking Justice. At the service at which this formally happens I will renew my oath. 

Before I first did this I was given advice by plenty of lefty Anglican priests: "cross your fingers," "think of a different Queen. Ru Paul? Eddie Izzard?" "Don't take it too seriously". None of these ideas struck me as satisfactory. I need to either not do it, or do it with some sort of theological integrity. 

Turning to the Jewish Tradition
There's plenty in the Old Testament that gives a view or ten on the place of the monarchy. From the hyperbole surrounding Solomon's reign to the brilliant satire against rulers in the book of judges. But the text that I chose that spoke to me most of my dilemma was Samuel's mediation between Israel and God on their desire to have a king "like other nations" (1 Sam. 8-9). 

Until this time the Bible describes Israel more as a confederacy of tribes. Occasionally a military leader, or Judge, will come forward but mostly, as described in the closing words of the book of Judges, "In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes." (Judges 21: 25). 

But as Samuel, the final 'Judge' reaches the end of his life the people get twitchy. A small people-group surrounded by Super-Powers they longed for some political security. 

Samuel Does not Want to Choose a King
Samuel is clear. If the people ask for a King they are, in effect, rejecting God as their King. Choosing Monarch is making a choice for idolatry. Samuel is dismayed at the idea. 

However, God is more easily persuaded. Sometimes it's easier to back down on your own behalf than for someone else, or perhaps it's just that God is an anarchist and refuses to stand in the way of human consensus. 

Give them what they want, says God, and give it them 'good and hard': "Now then, listen to their voice; only—you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them." (1 Sam. 8: 9). 

In Britain there is an established Church and a Constitutional monarchy. Both are idols and both represent a rejection of God as King. But God, I believe, is an anarchist, and blesses whatever is offered. For most of us what is offered is done so with the best of intentions and God longs to bless. 

So, following Samuel's example, and listening to God's desire to bless whatever the people of God offer. I will be renewing that hideous oath this evening. I choose to do so and no one is coercing me to do so. I would rather not make the choice and pray for a day when there is no monarchy so vain as to ask for my allegiance, and I'm sure that day will come. 

Meanwhile, we all need pay heed to Samuel's warning: 

‘These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; ¹²and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plough his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. ¹³He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. ¹⁴He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. ¹⁵He will take one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and his courtiers. ¹⁶He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work. ¹⁷He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. ¹⁸And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but theLord will not answer you in that day.’

(1 Samuel 8: 11-18).

Visions of tomorrow: This is what democracy looks like

Those involved in permaculture know that it's on the boundary between environments (e.g. hedge meets the meadow) that the most productive signs of life are found.

So creating boundary places and stepping back is often enough.

The OLSX camp at St Paul's Square is doing just that and those people on the boundaries (established church, activists, bankers) can't help but be drawn into it. It catches them off guard to be drawn into the real world in this way.

But it's not just boundaries. It's bridges as well. Activists over the last couple of decades have been rediscovering the 'internationale' of radical politics. A soldier, in uniform, stood outside St Paul's and declared the soldiers as 'the 99%' being exploited in wars that only benefit the wealthy. What a source of truth!

And the OLSX began as an act of solidarity with the Adbusters call to Occupy Wall Street. UK government policy is often little more than an arm of US foreign policy so the demands of Occupy Wall Street to 'take the money out of politics' as concrete and direct implications for UK political life.

As with all big social changes a combination of unavoidable factors and social pressure create great changes. Slavery was abolished in Britain because of a change in economics as well as social pressure. Women got suffrage because of the Suffragettes but the reality of it became unavoidable when after the war women found they had been skilled up to do paid work and extending women's right became near impossible to avoid.

The US is losing it's super-power status bit by bit. We saw it in the decision by UNESCO to invite in Palestine against US/Israeli wishes. We see it in the economic changes that are taking place around the world. There is no better time to demand global and local change.

Luke Bretherton, writer on Christianity and politics and a participant in London Citizens, offers a wonderful and simple analysis of what is at play in St Paul's Square.

If you've had to face down the irritating "they don't even know what they're protesting about" bollocks that some people are parroting from the mass media then this might be helpful document to turn to for a less than straightforward but an extremely helpful response. 

I don't want to summarise it because it's worth reading in full. So have a look here. 

Turbulent Priest

I visited an interesting bloke last week. An Anglican Priest, nearly 90, living in a middle-sized English village.

So far so good.

Of course he's not allowed to preach or preside at his local church and has been warned off by both Bishop and congregation for his unseemly outburst. Or as John Papworth himself puts it "I'm a an annoying old bastard, you see."

So what's so annoying about John? It could be his engagement in local politics. He organises a bread-making guild, maintains some common areas, and edits a village magazine among other things. It could be his engagement in global politics. John has written and campaigned extensively against the menace of 'Giantism' in all things and argues for a renewed localism in public life.

"Anything that can be done locally the national government should stop interfering with." John believes that the future is small and that small is powerful. And power needs wresting back from the powers.

Welcome to the village of Purton. Oh, and welcome to Purton University.

Bishops bash law against bigotry: some things are sacred!

The devil led Jesus to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours."Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'" (Luke 4)

This week the Bishops of the Church of England have been busy underlining the point that they shouldn't be in an unelected house holding positions of veto against the will of MPs who at least have a pretence of representing the will of some of the people.

The more conservative among them have been lobbying the other Lord's to vote against changes in the law would make it illegal for the Churches to continue some of it's most cherished bigotries: those against LGBT people.

Yes the poor persecuted church wouldn't be allowed to treat LGBT people like second class citizens anymore if the government had her wicked way and bishop's - poor persecuted people of faith and conscience - couldn't possibly have that.

Isn't it great that we have a second house in parliament to sit in patronising judgement on the first. (sic.). It just goes to show that Christians still can't be trusted with power and will ultimately use it to license abuse of others.

Imagine if everyone discriminated in the way the Church chooses to: no homosexuals would be allowed to earn a living in the UK: 1 in 10 people would be forced to live from handouts or through theft or just die. This is what the Church is asking the right to impose on LGBT people. It is saying, in effect that LGBT people should not be accorded the same opportunities as other people and that the example set by the Church is one that everyone should follow. It's hideous and shameful and these bigots need to grow up!

Isn't it in fact more fortunate that we are dead to sin and to the law of sin and free to live in righteousness. This means that whether the law of the land tells we can or can't be horrible to people just because they're in a sexual minority and we like scapegoating sexual minorities - we are free to love and include all, all, ALL .

Think Tank calls on Church of England to re-examine it's economic heart

The call comes after revelations that Church finance managers have been using similar tactics to the ones the Archbishops of Canterbury and York condemned City traders for, to maximise profits on the Church's £5 billion assets and investments.

"The key thing is not to apportion blame - either on traders or the Church - but to open up a realistic discussion about economic alternatives", says Ekklesia co-director Jonathan Bartley.

Jonathan has a good heart. How many of us are able to stand aside from Economics and criticise. The truth is we're all culpable and must work to undermine the system within ourselves.

Fellowship of Confessing Anarchists

I'm thinking of changing the tag-line to "Fellowship of Confessing Anarchists" in passing ironic homage to the GAFCON movement. This could also be an opportunity to broaden participation in the magazine to other faith groups.

This evening I went to a Changing Attitudes meeting where we were introduced to a new book from the Anglican Commuion's 'listening' to homosexuals agenda. It was rightly pointed out by a few that there is an assumption that heterosexuals are the norm and homosexuals are the 'Other'. This is implicit in the assumption that all readers of the book are straight folk trying to get their heads around this unusual queer phenomena.

At first glance there is nothing new added to the debate in this hastily compiled book but a reminder that the "issue" is not the real issue at all.

What are the economic and power issues at stake here, I wonder? Where are the books on sexual identity and political hegemony in Anglican ecclesiology? I know they're out there.