From Dr Charles Reed
Foreign Policy Advisor
Tel: 00 44 20 7898 1533
Thank you for your letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding recent media reports about the submission by the Mission and Public Affairs Council to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee’s Inquiry into the UK’s relationship with the EU. As the policy officer responsible for overseeing this submission I have been asked to reply on his behalf as he receives such a volume of letters that he is unable to answer many of them personally, much as he would wish to.
I would like to clarify that the comments about the EU that you refer to were not made personally by Archbishop Rowan: the press reports drew on a paper prepared by the Europe Bishops’ Panel, and then submitted by the Mission and Public Affairs Council, which is a sub committee of the Archbishops’ Council, to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee. While of course both Archbishops chair the Archbishops’ Council, it is important to understand that a considerable volume of work is done in the name of the Council which reflects the views of other networks, committees and grouping within the Church. I am sorry that inaccurate reporting in the media failed to distinguish between the Archbishops’ Council and the Archbishop himself. I hope that it is helpful to be aware of how this document was drawn up and the misunderstandings that resulted from the media coverage.
As regards the content of the submission, the submission starts from the premise that for the Church the primary purpose of politics – even European politics – is the promotion of human flourishing and the conditions that are necessary to make this happen. Positions adopted by the General Synod in 1972, 1990, and 2004 has led the Church to the position that while it has reservations over certain characteristics of European integration, not least its democratic deficit, our propensity as humans created in the image of God to be creative, productive and generous beings has the potential to be enhanced by pooling certain elements of national sovereignty in a common European project.
It is against this background that the submission expresses certain reservations regarding Britain’s negotiating strategy and the hope for a more informed public and political debate that might shape both a renewed vision for Europe as well as our own understanding of how we might best realise it. I am of course aware that this position and line of reasoning is not necessarily shared by all Christians, let alone those who make up the Church of England, but it is consistent nonetheless with the positions agreed by the General Synod, the Church of England’s parliament. Whether our human flourishing continues to be enhanced by this political arrangement is of course quite rightly open to continued debate. Unsurprisingly Christians will find themselves in good faith taking differing views on this matter.
