Today Jeremy Corbyn will make an important speech. He will point out that the broader Western policy of military dominance and war has contributed to the development of terrorism. This is not to gainsay the evil and grief of the attack in Manchester and other terrorist attacks, or the danger of ISIS, but to see a bigger picture. Western War in Afghanistan, Iran (by proxy using Saddam), Iraq and Libya has created failed states, chaos and trauma which has in part encouraged a terrorist response. Of course, a terrorist attack remains a wicked choice, but it is possible to draw lines from one to the other, from fighting and training in Afghanistan to 9/11 and now from the Civil War in Libya to the tragedy in Manchester. He will bravely suggest that militarism is not the best way.

Corbyn is not original. His point was made foundationally by Jesus two thousand years ago. Jesus words were: “Those who take the sword perish by the sword.” A recourse to arms brings an armed reaction in its wake. The military choice is itself doomed. The weapon route leads to revenge. Militarism is self-defeating. With these words Jesus walked to his pseudo-trial, crucifixion and resurrection, and the Christian faith started. So Corbyn’s warning against “the military solution” is not new.
But there is far more to Jesus’ teaching and insight in this area. He is “the Prince of Peace”. He articulates and blesses “peacemaking”. He deconstructs the mechanisms of quarrels, shows the possible good purpose of suffering and shows that loving enemies can work. More fully he teaches that the government of God, the peaceable Kingdom of God, spreads as peace rests on one and the other. So, as the Bible teaches and shows God’s forgiveness of us spreads as the Lamb is on the throne, the antidote to world-wide historical militarism. Christianity replaces the armour of militarism with the gentle equipment of faith. Some two billion people worldwide know something of this way of peace.

Yet, at this time, and in this election, the Church of England is particularly lost. Its ethicists have wandered through the labyrinths of when war might be just, influencing public policy not at all. Meanwhile it does a good pastoral job with the armed services, scarcely recognising the job is necessary because of PTSD, caused by the trauma of killing. Bishops look vaguely worried whenever a war arises and dress to reinforce the idea that they have nothing to say of import on any contemporary issue. Meanwhile, the West arms in a bonanza of weapons’ deals. Broadly, the Church of England liturgizes the business of war while the world descends into perpetual threat.

This requires no marginal adjustment. “Just War Theory” does not address militarism until it is too late. Trump has espoused the philosophy of the great Leviathan. Everywhere, talk of war is on the rise, and the Church of England and its bishops act mainly as an acolyte to the State rituals of militarism and practise a kind of liturgical angst in a failure of Christian faith. Islam is being dragged into the dilemma of terrorism. The Church of England seems impotent, incapable of acting in faith.

Yet, as Christ has shown, peace is possible and it works. Christians established it in Europe in 1945 and now European War is unthinkable in the EU. Peace is cheaper than War by trillions every year. The policy of militarism and War is the biggest failed experiment on the planet. But peace requires a War against militarism and war. It requires repentance from its present failure, and the recognition that the God of peace requires us to act in faith. It requires the shoes of peace, the breastplate of justice, the shield of faith and the march of salvation. It requires a clear vision of world multilateral disarmament and co-ordination with the Catholic and other churches, already willing to act. It requires some independent courage rather than pusillanimous support of the establishment. It requires, as Christ taught us, unfear of those who could kill us. It requires the deconstruction of enemies. It requires the Church of England and its bishops to wake up from supine slumber. It requires the Lamb on the Throne world-wide.

It is possible, in God’s purposes, that the Church of England could hear this need for reformation now and here. Its present mechanisms, without an Almighty jolt, will do nothing effective, but it can wake up and begin to act to make God’s peace.

This all voters need to know. More important than the Brexit trade deals is the UK trade deficit. It is sometimes called the “hidden deficit”. It is usually measured by the Current Account and is running at just under £100 billion a year, or about 5% of GDP. This is big money. Each household is spending £2k a year more on goods, services, holidays and companies from abroad than we are earning. Although these patterns can go on for a long while, they also have a habit of being called to account. It is not unreasonable to say that every household, to pay its way, should expect a fall in income of £2k to address this deficit. This, not Brexit, is the main trade issue we face.

How will it work out? It is likely to result in a fall in the pound much bigger than we have already had, raising the cost of living for holidays, food, clothes and most raw materials. But how will it actually happen? It may well be catastrophic. To see this we need a bit of history and economics.

This deficit has been going on for three decades, ever since North Sea oil in the Thatcher era hit our exports. In fact we have overspent an average of at least 2% of GDP for thirty years, or a total of 60% plus over the whole period. How have we coped? Some of this money has been used to buy shares in British companies. This was welcomed by Thatcher and the Conservatives since then. At the end of 2014 foreign investors owned 54% of UK domiciled companies, putting some £930bn, nearly £1trillion, into UK shares. It is somewhat ironic that at Brexit most of UK companies are owned by foreigners. Some of it holds UK Government debt. Lots of it has bought plush houses in London and elsewhere; Private Eye identified £170bn of such property in 2015. We are in hock. The effects are obscured by international banking centred in London, where, because of Conservative and New Labour deregulation, money sloshes in from around the world.

This is not stable. If foreigners withdraw from shares, housing or debt, the £ will fall. If bankers feel that the UK is no longer a good place to hold assets, a similar effect will take place. This seems likely during the next few years, earlier rather than later, and the only way of trying to hold it will be for the Bank of England to increase interest rates, which it cannot do without creating a housing and debt crisis. It will be a big crisis, which can only be addressed now by a sustained fall in the £.

That is what the politicians should be telling you, not the charade May and the Conservatives are presently mounting over Brexit .

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have written a three page letter about the UK election to be disseminated this weekend. Such letters, this one at short notice, can be mildly considered on a Sunday, or they can be studied. This review, or critique, chooses to do the latter and is longer than the original letter, simply because the English Churches must do better than this.
First, is the question of the audience. It is to “the Parishes and Chaplaincies of the Church of England”, but it is also vaguely and really predominantly to the general public and media. They are not the same. What the Church of England has to say about the election should be a national concern and then there is the question of where Christians stand. The first paragraph invites us to renew our love for God and our neighbour and pray for those seeking and in political office. It seems innocuous, but the problem is exactly that. It is innocuous. Actually a high proportion of the population do not love and trust God, and they do not feel beholden to their neighbours in a variety of ways and circumstances. Rather than a vague hope that this Christian faith and ethos is shared, the truth should be recognised that it is ignored or contended in UK life and politics. God does not get another mention in the letter. There is no suggestion that the government of God over human life, benign though it is, or Christian understanding of the state, should concern us politically.
The second paragraph suggests we have an obligation to set aside apathy and cynicism and to participate in the election, and encourage others to do the same. It could be by putting on a hustings, volunteering for a candidate or voting. If Christians are just cynics and apathetic, we start from a pretty poor base. The Archbishops invite us to participate without reference to any party or issue in a benign way; mere participation for any party seems to be enough and no particular views are challenged.

The First Three Values.
Then comes a typical sentence. “The Christian virtues of love, trust and hope should guide and judge our actions, as well as the actions and policies of all those who are seeking election to the House of Commons and to lead our country.” Well, is the country, “our country”, Christian or isn’t it? The idea that Christian virtues should guide all involved in politics, whether they are atheist, consumerist, Muslim or secular is either an affront to democracy, which suggests that people are free to be guided by their own set of values, or these virtues are vague, and vaguely meant. Probably it is the latter. And what is the content of Christian love, trust and hope? They are focussed on God, but now God is not mentioned. These virtues are not the same. Christians are not called to trust anyone. We are to be as innocent as doves and wise as serpents. Jesus warns against trusting all kinds of people. Herod is “that fox” and the prophets repeatedly expose those who are false in their political dealings. There are false prophets, wolves in sheep’s clothing, hireling shepherds who do it for the money rather than proper care. There are leaders who do not practice what they preach. Rather than a vague trust, Jesus teaches discernment, especially of political leaders. “Beware the yeast of the Pharisees;”it gets into the whole loaf. And hope? Yes, hope in God and Christ as the Way, but not hope in the nation, in things working out, in bad producing good. These values might not do the job they are supposed to.

The Next Three Values.
Then follows a call in relation to this election, vague, coded and written not to offend anyone. There are deep and profound (deep and profound?) questions of identity. This probably means identity as a state, because Great Britain and Northern Ireland are mentioned. “We are in such a time.” Ah, this is an oblique reference to Brexit, without daring to mention the word, because it might upset some. Then there is reference to our “shared British values.” which must have at their core “cohesion, courage and stability.” Of course, whether British values are shared is a core issue, and whether they are British, is similarly important, and whether cohesion, courage and stability are especially Christian is a further question. Perhaps the values coming from Christianity are not shared as the number of practising Christians falls. Perhaps many of our values, including the better ones come from elsewhere in the world, and even in Europe. Since far less than 1% of the world’s Christians are British, Britain is not particularly the source of Christian, values, principles or faith.
“Cohesion”, we learn, is what holds us together. It is cohesion which gives us concern for the weak, poor and marginalised, for the common good, aid and other things. This is not good enough. Cohesion is more problematic than that. The strong cohere against the weak, the rich against the poor and particular interests against the common good. Cohesion is not able to address the legitimate and illegitimate sources of interest. Further, rather than being Christian, this probably echoes Theresa May’s assertion that the country is united under her when it patently is not.
“Courage” is even weaker. We learn it “includes aspiration, competition and ambition”, an odd collection of values. Suddenly, under “courage”, trade, migration, peacebuilding, development, the environment, innovation, finance, education, productivity and helping the poor come in with a mish-mash of half-formed policy aspirations. Not only it is un-thought out, a kind of moral wish list, but often meaningless. “Courage demands”, we are told, “a radical approach to education” Is this Mr Gove, de-education or Leninism? We have no idea.
“Stability”, we learn, is a Benedictine virtue. However, it might have been resurrected to chime with Mrs May’s mantra of “strong and stable leadership. Again stability is presented as involving a mish-mash of reconciliation, setbacks, sustainability, housing, health, education, marriage and family. This presentation of values is not particularly Christian, vague, presents vast policy areas in a short phrase, is without diagnosis, evidence or informed reflection. It is of poor quality as political guidance.

“Religious” Belief.
We are then presented with the statement. “Contemporary politics needs to re-evaluate the importance of religious belief.” This seems a more positive direction, though it is perhaps time to be clear in public debate that “religions” are radically different, that secular faiths like capitalism, consumerism nationalism and even scientism have their own religious focus in forms of self worship, that Christianity and Islam have big differences of faith. But the next sentence is even more bold. “The assumptions of secularism are not a reliable guide to the way the world works.” This could be a critique of contemporary economic theory, or a wider debate. But it turns out to be the Church of England defending its own patch. We are told, “Parishes and Chaplaincies of the Church of England serve people of all faiths and none.” The letter moves on from religious “service-delivery”, a unnecessarily commercialised phrase, to seeking an improvement in religious literacy and then comes a very sad sentence. “The religious faith of any election candidate should not be treated by opponents as a vulnerability to be exploited.” What? Are we so much in retreat that election candidates cannot answer for their faith as part of their candidacy, indeed as often the main part. That is what the letter looks forward to, but why is it not here?
The event which prompted this comment may have been Tim Farron’s failure to answer the question, obviously set to trap him, of whether homosexuality is a sin. Tim responded with Sunday School level answers in a failure, matched within the Church of England, to address gender and sexuality properly. Our failure should not be protected, and given the Gospels are full of Jesus responding to questions asked to trap him, Tim Farron needs to wise up a bit.
The letter then continues with general religious reflection and worry about “further secularisation in the public realm”. The problem is that talking about religions in general makes this contribution vague. There is a nod at “religiously motivated violence” and addressing it, and the refugee “conversation” is addressed by looking at the costs than some incur, and equally sharing them. But this highlights the mealy-mouthed responses. We are having a “conversation” about refugees while perhaps ten or twenty thousand come, while the German Christian Democrats, led by Angela Merkel, welcome a million, because they are suffering, homeless and obviously need help, and Christianity requires us not to pass by on the other side when people need help. That signals the depth of our actual British Christian failure.

National Values.
Then occurs a sentence which sums up the failure of this letter. “These deep virtues and practices – love, trust, and hope, cohesion, courage and stability – are not the preserve of any one political party or worldview, but go to the heart of who we are as a country in all its diversity.” It does not matter what your views are, in party terms, or in terms of worldview, we as a country in all its diversity practising these virtues can hang together. There are some problems with this. First, parties and people disagree about these and other virtues. Second, the rosy picture of national unity conveyed by the Conservative Party at this election, ignores the disunities within the UK, over Brexit and among many different groups who for good reasons do not have trust or hope. More deeply, this sentence conveys that national virtues are the basis of British society. This is not true for much of British politics. The UK pursued an illegal war on the basis of a lie in Iraq which has contributed to millions of lives being destabilised. The poor are being impoverished while the rich get richer. Health and care services are threatened. We are arming and selling arms on a large scale, and corruption is appearing in our banking and other sectors. This vague hope in national virtue will not do. More than this Britain’s Brexit exit raises the problem of British Nationalism, or more accurately English nationalism, the idea that we really do have to be separate from our European neighbours. The Archbishops’ letter mentions no other countries and seems to participate in this British fixation.

Review.
Many Anglicans vote Conservative, are part of middle Britain and voted Brexit and this letter seems to reflect this “constituency”. It upsets no-one, raises no issues or contentious matters, smoothes with the rhetoric of the likely next government of the UK, mainly talks religion in general, and will soon be lost in the hurly burly of media election spin. Of course, the Archbishops are better than the letter. We all have off days. But the benign, middle of the road, general religious speak of this letter, which does not engage with any political issues with faith, conviction or analysis contributes little to public life. It is amateurish, marginal and locked in its own inoffensive language.
Sadly, it is a symptom of a bigger problem. The Church of England rarely engages politically. It is happy if it can have a few bishops in the Lords who can again marginally commentate on some ethical matters. Slowly it is being pushed into the irrelevant backwater that actually it has long occupied. Despite some courageous people it remains the liturgical support of the establishment, inoffensive but irrelevant to public life, and deeply committed not to confronting any issue which might offend anyone, especially the establishment.
This contrasts with the Christian faith. First, Jesus has, and insists on, a range of titles which have deep political significance – the Son of Man, the King of the Jews, Messiah, Prince of Peace, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Second, Jesus’ confrontations with the rulers of his day – Herod Antipas, the Sanhedrin, The Temple Party, Jewish nationalists, Pilate and the Roman Empire occupy much of the Gospels. Third, the Old Testament presents God’s interactions in the national formation of the Jewish people, the formulation of their laws, and with the empires of the eras. This is further emphasized by a tradition of prophets who spoke to the rulers and people of their own and other nations. Moreover, there is scarcely an issue – war or peace, poverty, the nature of law, healing and care, education and community about which the Old and New Testaments do not speak, albeit in different cultures from our own. More than this, the national and colonial leaders of Jesus’day found it necessary to get rid of him, because of his danger to their ideologies, ways and interests. Further, Jesus main message was of the gentle rule of the Kingdom of God, or the Government of God, in human life and states. These teachings and understandings have been reflected in Christian history worldwide in all kinds of ways we cannot explore here, and there is no suggestion that these emphases might be less relevant today. Yet they do not emerge from the Church of England establishment.
The Anglican Church at present addresses this deep Christian engagement with a few bishops who do politics in their spare time alongside their full-time pastoral jobs. It largely ignores those who do, think or work at politics unless they attain status. Moreover, it has allowed its own version of “religion and politics do not mix” to dominate its ethos. The Christian faith is pushed into church attendance and individual cultic belief, rather than full life Christianity before God including politics.
This might not matter immediately were this election not such a crucial one. We face poverty, refugees, acute personal and mortgage debt, an emerging housing crisis, health and care underprovision, the possible departure of Scotland from the UK, Brexit negotiations, our relationship with the Trump administration, a growing environmental crisis even now met by denial or indifference, difficulties in Europe and tens of millions in failed states, often without homes and as refugees. Electoral manipulation and corruption seems a problem in a range of so-called democracies Dangerous military moves are being made, along with a surge in the selling of arms. Earlier patterns of God denying politics included Fascism and State Communism, both inadequately addressed by the Christians of those eras in their early stages.
The time has come for the Church of England to be fully professional, in both senses of the word, its approach to politics. It needs to gather those who are thinking and doing Christian politics and articulate the needs of the times. This involves a radical shake up of personnel, far less reliance on the bishops and archbishops, and a recognition that the present hierarchy are handling sex, gender, political, economic and military issues far less adequately than the Church should. Address it now, or the legitimate marginalisation will grow worse.

My Dear Donald,

No sooner had I stepped carefully into the plane than I thought of writing to you to thank you for your hospitality and to cement our special relationship. I can still remember the thrill when your face appeared at the bottom of the soup bowl the right way up. The special relationship is deeply historical. It began with George III and Thomas Jefferson and carried on with Ronald Reagan and Mrs Thatcher, though you are younger and much more dynamic than Ronnie, Donnie.

About leading the world. We bring different things. You are the greatest. In fact I am passing legislation (you have to be careful with our Supreme Court and the Constitution, though we have an unwritten Constitution which you would like) to rename the United States as The GUSA, since you are well on your way to achieving your magnificent goal. You will lead from the front, and I will be three paces behind talking to your delightful wife about shoes. Where we go, the direction in which you lead, will depend on you, and really it does not matter, as long as you do it.

Of course, I am a strong woman, like Mrs Thatcher, and that is why I would like to say that I am against torture. It is unpleasant, and in England we do not knowingly do it. We have class. We are upper class and we intend to bring a bit of class to leading the world. That is our contribution, as long as it is not too expensive. And it is a matter of principle. To torture someone because they might be evil is a bit hit or miss, or actually a bit hit, because torturers usually do not miss when their subjects are tied up. Nevertheless, I admit you were right that most of the ISIS leaders were in Abu Graib prison and you could have finished off the business then. But we do not want to hear about torture, and I shall call it “persistent questioning” from now on. So now you know I am a strong woman and we have class. I shall decline your kind offer of some sneakers, though American shoes are among the finest in the world.

Thank you for self-destructing our wocket, made by the outstanding Lockheed Martin, before it could do any damage in The GUSA. No, we can manage without it. We will just buy another one to help your US exports. If you can straighten out the bend, it will help; we were aiming at Africa. I hear you are building some new wockets to fight the enemy. We are interested as long as they go up and along like the others and only threaten to kill millions of people and make the planet uninhabitable, which shows we leaders of the world are strong, but do not do it. We hope we can have the papier mache spares as with Trident. Thank you, Mr President.

One common theme in our discussions is the danger of care, especially health care. It can be a drain on public money, diverting it from the military and pipelines. I am pleased to see that you are cutting Obamacare, and talking about it. We cut, but do not talk about it. Like you, we are looking to companies which can run care for a profit. They are called Whocares and will make socialism in Britain disappear. Your suggestions of things you could do in Britain was interesting. We do not intend to extend tax avoidance, though I am in awe of your creative accounting. We will expand your golf course in Scotland, but not throughout Scotland, and I am not raising yet the pipeline to the West of London with her Majesty. Things are a little more complicated here with a monarchy, though you might like to think about it; they are elected without counting and carry on for life.

As this letter is read to you while you are signing more executive orders, I want to remind you that we need Danger, especially from Russia. Less than 20% of our people believe in attacks from outer space. You cannot have a special relationship with Russia when you have one with us. It is upsetting to us, and I do pique. We can have more than one enemy at a time and the aim is to expand the Danger. We are now fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and the Ukraine and the military is flourishing. We are punching above our weight, but usually behind your superb lead.

In times to come this letter will be known as The GUSA letter, though I am so glad that you are closing down free speech and it will not be leaked. Why have free speech when we believe in charging for everything? In GB when information leaks out, we just say, “No comment”, not directly, but through a spokesperson. Finally, I’m so glad that you are building a wall around The GUSA to keep out global warming, should it occur, and I am sure you are right it will not. Let’s remember you (and I) are leading the world. I have a month named after me and think you should change March. I hope this letter has your full attention but will resend in case.
Your faithful and obedient servant,
Theresa (Britain, your ally)

Can I just say how magnificent you were at your inauguration, Mr. President. I wish I had been part of the innumerable crowd. I am writing because we have lost a nuclear wocket. It went slightly astray. We were aiming at Africa, in case they get uppity in the future, but it veered off towards the Great United States of America. I am dreadfully sorry. I am not in any way blaming Lockheed Martin who made it with their great American workers, nor did the phrase “homing pidgeon” cross my mind. We love to pay Lockheed Martin billions for making wockets we will not use, unless you say so, so that we can stick the label “Independent” on them down in our submarines. Be assured, we sacked the Do-Not-Hit-America wallah in our sub, although the new nuclear submarine passed its test with flying colours, because the wocket went out of the right hole and it is now fit to kill millions in any area of the world we, or really you, Mr President, choose.

I was reminded recently of our hypocritical oath – to talk peace while selling weapons round the world to promote wars. The voters need fear of enemies and we must arm those enemies and promote fear. Since Brexit I am reassessing the dangers from Belgium, the French and the Dutch. The Dutch overran us with William of Orange and the French are gearing up for 2066. I am also building a wall opposite the Isle of Wight for the fight which is to come. I think we should congratulate ourselves on the fact that in Iraq, Libya and Syria, where they have been fighting with our arms, the enemies of democracy are being defeated and peace and prosperity is returning.

Could I remind you that we need Russia as an enemy. North Korea is remote from us, and we need an enemy the people can believe in. If you make friends with Putin, we are sunk, flush out of enemies. Mr Fallon, our Defence Man, will look out of a job, and the wockets, which we buy from you, will be useless even for fireworks. Remember, we need Danger, Mr President. You can only be strong, if there is danger. Cowboys need Indians. So, Mr President, as this letter is read to you, please wemember we are your craven ally. Think of us as a colony. We will make sure that intelligence is kept firmly under control. I hope that you will return our wocket. We will pay for it again. We enjoyed using it, and apart from the bend it worked well, manufactured by your superb Lockheed Martin. Thank you for your attention, but I will resend this letter in case.

Theresa (Britain, ally)