The press

iAnatomy of an epistle

aul Johnson

The story is told that, on one

, i

occasion when Randolph Churchill was holding forth in characteristic fashion — t wa-s a weekend party in the country — a sTall girl, gazing in awe at this noisy Puenomenon, tugged at her mother's sleeve and asked:'Mummy, what is that man for? `1 good question, to which there was no answer. I often feel like asking the same question when I examine the activities and Pronouncements of today's bishops, both Anglican and Catholic. What are they for? 1111_ ere can be no body of men in the country Whose moral and practical authority has ehned so precipitously in recent decades. '1,1ey no longer rule their dioceses and keep their el - erg), in duty and subjection. They do ri.ot dispense, ex cathedra, the moral and dogmatic theology of Christianity, at any rate with any degree of conviction. Indeed, tth)eY cannot agree on what it is. Professor 8avid Jenkins, about to be consecrated

,,18, i

h0P of Durham (once ruler of a "„alatinate and one of the greatest princes n Christendom) is accused of denying — I 911. ote from the Guardian — 'the virgin oirth and the resurrection as historical events '. He is also said to maintain that f.Dellef in the incarnation was not necessary ,..°t someone to be a Christian'. But if Jesus %..hr.ist was neither God made man, nor rose again

, what is there left of Christianity?

However that may be, there is one thing that bishops tend to do in moments of Pre.rPlexitY, and that is to write letters to the Tres. There was a prize specimen last T ursdaY, on the subject of the pit strike. 0 begin with, it was notable for being sign- ed not just by one bishop but by three. Not, to be sure, absolutely first-eleven bishops, °ut Southwell, Derby and Sheffield, all comparatively recent creations. All the s arne, three bishops! The letter was corn- Dosedin _ that curious blend of contem- porary fashion and self-conscious obscurantism one associates with the higher ranks of the Church of England. That is to say, it was mainly couched in the horrible jargon of New Society ('deeply

divisive..., re-establishing relationships') and contrived to use the word 'com- munities' no fewer than eight times. But the letter ended with those little crosses beloved of Anglican bishops, and two of the trio signed themselves Denis Southwell and Cyril Derby. The signature David Lunn, was not (as I first thought) some kind of contraction of the Latin name for Shef- field, but his actual surname. The letter came from 'Bishop's Manor, Southwell'; comforting address, that.

What did the letter say? Well, nothing, actually. You would not expect one Anglican bishop, let alone three of them getting together in the Manor, to say anything specific. The letter expressed con- cern, a good, useful episcopal word, the im- plication being that none of the rest of us cares tuppence about what is happening in the Nottinghamshire coalfield. I should have thought that if the three bishops were really concerned, and if they had taken the trouble to think seriously about expressing their concern, they might have done one of two things. They might, on the one hand, have said that, in order to restore peace, the NCB should concede Arthur Scargill's claim that pits, however uneconomic, should be worked until the coal runs out, and that the Government should provide the money to keep 200,000 miners in- definitely in the manner to which they are accustomed. An expensive solution, but a genuine one, which makes some kind of sense. Alternatively, the bishops could have said that the NUM's case was economic nonsense and ruinous to the long-term future of the industry; that the high-cost

pits would have to be closed down sooner or later anyway, and that this should be done through a process of negotiation and generous compensation, rather than a war of attrition. In either case the bishops would have made their mark; readers would have sat up and taken notice. The letter

might have made people think `so that's what bishops are for'. It might conceivably have had some influence on the course of the strike.

In fact, of course, all the bishops did was waffle. The letter said nothing whatever other than to urge everyone `to enter now into a process of consultation' (I suppose they mean 'talk') aimed at finding 'a just and speedy solution'. If that is all they have to say, they might have saved their little crosses and the Bishop's Manor writing- paper. Their suggestion, such as it is, was preceded by a self-depreciatory disclaimer: 'We do not have the knowledge to judge the technical details of policies'. In that case,

why are they writing a letter to the Times? What have they been doing, as coalfield

bishops, in failing to possess themselves of the knowledge? The problems are not very abstruse. They can be easily mastered by studying the Plan for Coal and the NCB an- nual reports. They are common to every coal-producing country in Europe. Anyone who does not possess a reasonable grasp of the technical problem of modernisation, which is the essence of the dispute, has no right to express an opinion on the pit strike.

Were the bishops, then, offering moral guidance? No. They expressed no pastoral opinion about the rights and wrongs of what is happening in the Nottinghamshire pit villages. They did not say it was morally wrong — as it clearly is — for striking miners to harass the wives and families of miners who choose to go on working. That would have taken courage, and courage is not a commodity in plentiful supply among the episcopate. Nor, in sorting out the moral rights and wrongs of the dispute, did they ask the obvious question, which must be in the minds of most people: if Arthur Scargill were not the president of the NUM, would there be a coal strike today? No, there would not. If bishops are going to ask people to be reasonable, they must be prepared to point the finger at those who are unreasonable. All the bishops had to offer, by way of moral suggestion, was the wish that, whatever the settlement, 'care must be exercised to meet the needs of those communities most affected by changing patterns in the coal industry'. Well: we

could have thought that up for ourselves, could we not? We don't require a bishop, let alone three of them, to tell us things that obvious.

No doubt bishops will continue to write to the Times; and the Times will continue to

print their epistles. But I beg these Right Reverend Sirs: before you put pen to paper, and especially before you prescribe that lit- tle cross to your signature, whether it be Ebor or Cantuar or even Lunn, remember the wartime railway adage and reflect — 'Is my letter really necessary?'