Church House, Westminster, the HQ of the Church of England, has for some years now been hosting the annual Land Warfare Conference, sponsored by various arms companies, including Lockheed Martin. Details of the conference can be found on the Fellowship of Reconciliation's page here.
This year Ven Martin Gorick, the Archdeacon of Oxford, attended the AGM of The Corporation (which runs Church House), and asked a question: ‘Is it ethical for the Church to profit from Land Warfare?’ He was told that the current policy had been approved by Lambeth Palace, that there was no evidence of widespread concern about it, and that it was ‘no different from a church hall hosting a scout group who were sponsored by BAE Systems'. It seems quite a few of us beg to differ. We've been writing to the CEO of Church House, Mr Chris Palmer. Here's my letter:
Dear Mr Palmer,
(cc: Lambeth Palace)
I imagine your email inbox will be somewhat inundated at the moment, so please forgive me for adding one more email to it.
I am writing regarding the Land Warfare conference that is hosted annually at Church House. In conversation with The Ven Martin Gorick, Archdeacon of Oxford, who attended The Corporation's AGM last week, I understand that (1) you see the Land Warfare conference as a positive booking in the conference centre diary, (2) you have said that on this specific booking Lambeth Palace have been consulted and have given their approval, and (3) you believe there is no evidence of widespread concern about this booking.
As I'm sure you're aware, there is a history of opposition to this, and similar bookings at Church House, including annual protests led by the Fellowship of Reconciliation. There have also, in more recent months, been questions raised at General Synod, as well as the Archdeacon of Oxford's question at The Corporation's AGM. Most recently, there has been an open letter, published in the Church Times, gaining at least 60 signatories. The contents of your Inbox over the last week will hopefully add significantly to the "evidence of widespread concern" that you have, up until now, not been aware of.
I want here to make just three points. The first is about the links - both legal and symbolic - between The Corporation and the Church of England. The second is about the principle of the CofE supporting warfare conferences. And the third is a pragmatic suggestion about balancing income to Church House and PR damage.
So firstly, it has at times been claimed that the link between The Corporation and the Church of England is distant - that the latter has little influence on, or responsibility for, the former, and thus decisions made by the former are largely autonomous of, and irrelevant to, the latter. Legally, the stated charitable purpose of The Corporation is that the buildings are "for use or letting … for any purpose connected with the Church of England", and all 467 members of the Church of England's General Synod are its Members. Symbolically, Church House is very obviously the "headquarters" of the Church of England, and thus even if the two organisations were legally entirely separate (which they are not), anything that happens at Church House looks very clearly like it is being hosted by - and, by extension, with the approval of - the Church of England.
Secondly, then, the question of the CofE supporting - or being seen to support - a Land Warfare conference. The Archbishop of Canterbury has repeatedly stated that the heart of the Christian gospel "is reconciliation". Warfare is, without needing to stretch any semantics, the precise opposite of reconciliation - and thus antithetical to the heart of the Christian gospel. To be sure, there is a long and respectable "just war" tradition within Christianity, but even that will only go so far as acknowledging that war can, in certain limited ways, be a "necessary evil" - never a "good". The Church of England's own ethical investment policy states that "[t]he NIBs do not invest in any company involved in indiscriminate weaponry. Moreover they do not invest in companies involved in conventional weapons if their strategic military supplies exceed 10% of turnover." At least one of the sponsors of the Land Warfare conference, Lockheed Martin, would quite obviously fall under this exclusion were this an investment. For the Church to take money from Lockheed Martin, however indirectly, is surely just as unethical by its own standards. Where it is obvious that companies like Lockheed Martin have been supplying weapons used to kill and maim civilians in Yemen, for example, this is surely a "no-brainer" for the Church of England. How can we possibly profit from companies that have a vested interest in the death of civilians?
Thirdly, I want simply to pragmatically suggest that, however much The Corporation, or the Church of England more widely, is in need of sources of revenue, this is not the way to find it. There is a movement growing in strength and voice to oppose this ongoing booking, and it will, I have no doubt, continue to draw in increasing numbers of clergy and laity to attend and ask questions at The Corporation's AGM, to communicate with members of The Corporation's Council, to ask questions and to propose motions at General Synod, to talk with the press, and to seek maximum attention for its protests outside Church House if this conference is held again. The Church of England is going through a sorry patch exposing its structural failures in public - it would be a desperate shame, in the most specific sense of that word, if this conference continued to expose to the public an institutional prioritising of lucrative income, however unethical, over its witness to the good news of the love of God in Jesus Christ.
I look forward to response in due course, and to hearing that The Corporation will reconsider its position on this issue.
Warmest wishes,
Revd Dr Al Barrett
No comments:
Post a Comment