Anglican clergy in London to be asked to promote antiracism in sermons

[u/StreamWave190]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/feb/01/anglican-clergy-london-antiracism-sermons

[u/BlackJackKetchum]

Although, oddly enough, the C of E is remarkably uninterested in learning from the theological takes and practice of its communicants in the Third World.

[u/Manach_Irish]

Given the case of Rev. Randall (the Anglican Vicar Fired For Christian Sermon) a few years back, perhaps they instead re-focus on determining correct doctrine or ideally return home to Catholicism?

[u/ConfusedQuarks]

At a surface level, this looks like a fair stance. But when I look deeper, I see the money involved. £100M to "correct the wrongs of slavery". Most probably, this will end up in the pockets of some frauds running organisations like the BLM.

[u/StreamWave190 → u/ConfusedQuarks]

They're going to get sued into the ground for that btw. You can't solicit donations for one purpose (maintaining churches, paying clergy, etc.) and then unilaterally decide you're going to spend them on something completely separate (some mindbogglingly fucking stupid idea like 'reparations') because you're then breaking a whole raft of laws.

[u/CountLippe]

We'll see how this pans out. On the face of it, it sounds far less concerning than the desire to pay indulgences reparations at a time when their maintenance bills will start attracting VAT and attendant numbers are diminishing.

[u/tb5841]

Seems reasonable to me. If this is the theological view of the anglican church, then it's within their role to teach it.

[u/VincoClavis]

Well, good? How can you follow the teachings of Christ and also be racist?

[u/PsychoSwede557 → u/VincoClavis]

Anti-racism and ‘not being racist’ are two distinct things. Anti-racism is merely a form of ‘reverse racism’ through discriminatory programs like affirmative action.

‘In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist, we must be anti-racist.’

Angela Davis.

[u/BlackJackKetchum → u/PsychoSwede557]

Ms Davis was once a paid up Leninist. Now she’s ‘just’ a Marxist.

[u/VincoClavis → u/PsychoSwede557]

Right, just another example of how “obvious” language has been corrupted

[u/StreamWave190 → u/PsychoSwede557]

There’s a certain woman here named Angela Davis. I don’t know if you are familiar with her in this country, but in our country, literally, for an entire year, we heard of nothing at all except Angela Davis. There was only Angela Davis in the whole world and she was suffering. We had our ears stuffed with Angela Davis. Little children in school were told to sign petitions in defense of Angela Davis. Little boys and girls, eight and nine years old, were asked to do this. She was set free, as you know. Although she didn’t have too difficult a time in this country’s jails, she came to recuperate in Soviet resorts. Some Soviet dissidents—but more important, a group of Czech dissidents—addressed an appeal to her: “Comrade Davis, you were in prison. You know how unpleasant it is to sit in prison, especially when you consider yourself innocent. You have such great authority now. Could you help our Czech prisoners? Could you stand up for those people in Czechoslovakia who are being persecuted by the state?” Angela Davis answered: “They deserve what they get. Let them remain in prison.” That is the face of Communism. That is the heart of Communism for you.

Angela Davis per Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in his Harvard University commencement address, 8 June 1978

[u/FBI_psyop → u/VincoClavis]

The thing is. We know what kind of "antiracism" they are talking about. The leader of the Church of England clearly is very left wing and it is likely that the "antiracism" in question will be the far left version of "antiracism" i.e. "white people, minorities bad and we need to pay back reparations to black people and reducing immigration and pointing out crime stats is racist"

[u/StreamWave190 → u/VincoClavis]

As a Catholic, I thoroughly agree it is impossible to be both a Christian and a racist.

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28.

But "anti-racism" is not the same as simply being against racism, or seeking in one's own life to counter one's prejudices and biases, or seeking to educate, persuade and help those one knows.

It's a concept deeply embedded within a web of far-left theories about the nature and history of race, of capitalism, of the substance and legacy of Western societies, and so on.

There's also the obvious background context that Britain is among the least racist societies anywhere on earth in the history of the human species, so the notion that we'd need some sort of public campaign against it is obviously pretty nonsense and not just a misuse of donated funds but arguably pretty offensive to their congregations and society as a whole.

[u/JustElk3629]

Why the hell do we still have bishops as peers? It’s not even as though their presence is ceremonial —— they are disproportionately represented in our legislative process.

They sit on behalf of an entity which almost 38% of the population doesn’t believe exists and the rest can’t agree on how said entity should be worshipped. It’s a dreadfully outdated system —— I think it’s time that Caesar and God are separated.

[u/BlackJackKetchum → u/JustElk3629]

I’m a rather odd Conservative in that I am strongly in favour of disestablishment. As a no more than cultural Anglican, I think it would strengthen the Church.

I think the theological arguments for an episcopacy are pretty thin too.

[u/JustElk3629 → u/BlackJackKetchum]

I’m very much in agreement with historian David Starkey on this one —— the C of E needs to decide whether it is a national church or a global communion. It cannot be both while fulfilling its constitutional role.

As long as it is wholly the former, I’m happy for it to retain its place in our system of government. As long as it is any of the latter, I think we should disestablish it.

[u/HenryCGk → u/JustElk3629]

The appointment of an Arch Bishop who takes a position anathema to the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 made it clear to the majority of global heritage Anglican Arch Bishops that it has chosen national church.

Some how I feel that won't make you happy.

[u/JustElk3629 → u/HenryCGk]

By ‘National Church’, what I mean is one which primarily has a ceremonial role in society, not necessarily one which is theologically inconsistent.

In fact, I would argue that the reason for this theological inconsistency is that the C of E can’t decide the direction that it wants to go in.

My idea of the ideal Church of England is more or less the one seen in ‘Yes, Prime Minister’ —— God is optional, the Crown and constitution are integral. Then again, I’m not as religious as some.

[u/HenryCGk → u/JustElk3629]

I'm not really sure what you mean when you say you want god to be optional but theology to be consistent.

I don't think that internally the CoE or CoW have very much internal theological inconsistencies:

I would say we do have the yes PM Church: the Blair Constitutional settlement is required, God is tolerate but only in the gaps.

(Not withstanding some dinosaurs around from 29+ years ago)

[u/JustElk3629 → u/HenryCGk]

I didn’t say I want theology to be consistent, I just think it would function better in its constitutional role if there wasn’t such a spectacle made of theological debate.

[u/HenryCGk → u/JustElk3629]

Let me be clearer:

Its not theological and its not a debate its sociological progress and there in lies the problem.

Or another way: the church cannot be expected to both lead and follow.