International relations and the conduct of warfare
From Miss Vasantha Gnanadoss
Madam, — Professor Andrew Chandler (Comment, 22 August) encourages Anglican thinkers to follow the tradition of the Lambeth Conferences and apply themselves to the ethics of international relations. He takes inspiration from the example of Bishop George Bell, for whom “the conduct of warfare itself must answer to international law.”
As Professor Chandler points out, the need for such moral teaching in the present day is all too evident in the wars in Gaza and in Ukraine. These wars have aroused strong feelings in various quarters, and the situation calls for a sustained response from the Church of England.
Bishop Bell’s stance on warfare is held in high regard, and this was surely a significant factor in bringing together a wide range of people, some of whom would perhaps agree on little else, to resist the tarnishing of his lasting legacy some years ago.
VASANTHA GNANADOSS
242 Links Road
London SW17 9ER
From Mr Philip Belben
Madam, — Regardless of the truth of the Revd John Powell’s assertions about the Ukrainian war (Letter, 22 August), he misses one very important point: atrocities perpetrated by one side in any conflict never justify atrocities committed by the other.
Whatever Ukraine may have done in the Donbas, it does not justify the Russians’ indiscriminate shelling of civilians in Ukrainian cities, any more than terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israeli targets in 2023 justify the atrocities now being committed in Gaza (an excuse that British politicians repeatedly made in debates on Palestine in the early months of that conflict).
PHILIP BELBEN
The Chapel, Maitlands Close
Nettlebridge, Radstock BA3 5AA
From Canon Philip Cousins
Madam, — Surprised as I was to read the letter from my old friend and colleague the Revd John Powell, I have to applaud his courage in seeking to point to an alternative (and possibly unpopular) view of the Ukraine-Russia impasse.
What distresses me, above all, is the weaponising of Orthodox Christianity by both sides, blatantly by Moscow and slightly less so by Kyiv.
Unfortunately, Orthodoxy, with its network of autocephalous national Churches, not all of them in communion with one another, lends itself to this kind of distortion of the gospel. Where, oh where, are the spiritually minded leaders who can break the mould?
PHILIP COUSINS
17 Chalfonts
York YO24 1EX
From the Revd Jonathan Frais
Madam, — The Revd John Powell questions Ukrainian moves to curb the Orthodox Churches of the Moscow Patriarchate. This is as nothing compared with the brutalities of the Russians, as reported in March by Forum 18’s Religious Freedom Survey on the Occupied Territories.
JONATHAN FRAIS
11 Coverdale Avenue
Bexhill-on-Sea TN39 4TY
From Mr Richard Myers
Madam, — The letter from the Revd John Powell does not mention that the Ukrainian forces were shelling the Donbas in 2014 because pro-Russian separatists there had commenced hostilities. These separatists were widely thought to have been supported and funded by Russia. This is what ChatGPT tells me, and it makes a big difference, assuming it is correct. He may, none the less, be right that there is much that we have not been told about this war.
RICHARD MYERS
11 Hillside Lane
Farnham GU9 0LB
Response to the verdicts in the Chris Brain case
From the Revd Mark Edwards
Madam, — I write with reflections prompted by the conviction of Chris Brain (News, 22 August).
Back in the early 1990s, while training for the priesthood at Durham, I remember seeing images of the Nine O’Clock Service (NOS) on television, which drew considerable media attention. In a tutor-group discussion at university, I expressed my shock and dismay. I was particularly disturbed by young girls dressed in provocative clothing dancing around the altar, serving at holy communion, and by the casual manner in which the Blessed Sacrament was carried down the aisle by dancing girls. The nightclub-style lighting and atmosphere struck me, as a more conservative ordinand, as irreverent and inappropriate. I recall feeling that Jesus was scarcely mentioned in the service.
My tutor and many of my contemporaries shared similar concerns. We sensed that NOS was attracting young people less because of the gospel and more because of its entertainment style and the charismatic personality of Chris Brain. At the time, any apprehension that we expressed was dismissed. Senior clergy and bishops publicly praised NOS for drawing young people, and were seemingly unaware — or wilfully blind — to underlying issues.
When the abuse finally came to light, the silence of these same senior bishops and clergy was deafening. Rather than take responsibility, they back-pedalled and sought to distance themselves from NOS, leaving survivors feeling abandoned and silenced. Their initial fawning praise had lent legitimacy to a deeply abusive environment, and their subsequent disavowal does nothing to absolve them. Those who held positions of authority at the time should also be held accountable for their part in allowing this abuse to continue unchecked and ignoring the whistle-blowers.
Sadly, this pattern is all too familiar in the Church of England: concerns raised about inappropriate behaviour are often ignored or dismissed. I have personally experienced the frustration of raising the alarm only to be disregarded. In this context, the tragic outcomes of NOS come as no surprise.
As a survivor of clergy abuse myself, my thoughts and prayers remain with all those affected by NOS. I hope that they may find healing and closure, and that the Church will take seriously the lessons of this painful chapter — ensuring that the voices of those raising concerns are heard and acted upon, not silenced.
MARK EDWARDS
The Vicarage, 2 East Acres
Dinnington
Newcastle Upon Tyne NE13 7NA
What cuts the mustard with Generation Z
From the Revd Professor Ian Bradley
Madam, — I am puzzled by Canon Angela Tilby’s recipe for engaging with Generation Z (Comment, 22 August). She states: “The truth is that well-meaning Christian liberalism of the kind that still permeates much of the C of E” — would that it did! — “no longer seems to cut the mustard.”
Of the three examples that she goes on to give of this supposedly spent force, two, HTB-style worship and the Alpha course, come firmly from the Evangelical fold and are anathema to most liberals, and the third, “pulpit moralising” about immigration and climate change, addresses fundamental concerns of the young and is not confined to any one branch of the Church.
She then goes on in her final paragraph to sketch out a new kind of apologetic which addresses “both the mystery of suffering and the hope of heaven” and “does not scold us for wrong attitudes”. This seems to me to be as good a definition as any of classic liberal theology as it has long been held and practised within the Church of England.
Liberal Christianity, grounded in vulnerable generosity and deep pastoral concern, and embracing mystery and doubt, surely has just as much to offer to young people searching for meaning and faith as Charismatic Evangelicalism and Anglo-Catholicism.
IAN BRADLEY
4 Donaldson Gardens
St Andrews, Fife KY16 9DN
The Editor reserves the right to edit letters
