The Occupy saga shows why the Church is becoming irrelevant


10:40 am - March 1st 2012

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

contribution by Joseph Cottrell-Boyce

The role of St Paul’s Cathedral in the Occupy London saga, especially by the final weeks, can best be described as farcical.

While publicly making vague noises expressing regret that it had all come to this, Church authorities were quietly colluding with the Corporation of London. At the final hour they authorised police to forcibly remove protesters from the cathedral steps; outside the scope of the Corporation’s eviction order.

Earlier this month, the Bishop of Exeter Michael Langrish complained to the BBC that his Church was threatened by a secular agenda to “drive religion out of the public sphere”.

So why, when a public forum for discussing the most pressing social and economic issues of our time landed literally on its doorstep, did the Church decided it didn’t want to get involved?

Turn on the news and debates over the role of the Christianity in public life are being shaped by the Christian Institute and its gay bashing campaigns or figures such Tory MP Mark Pritchard bemoaning “Christianophobia” at the hands of the “politically correct brigade”.

It’s an ugly picture; a bunch of conservative nasties fighting for the right to be bigoted. But I don’t believe it’s a representative picture.

There are scores of Christians of all denominations tirelessly working for social justice, some of whom were themselves part of the Occupy presence at St Paul’s.

The leader of the Church of England, Dr Rowan Williams, is himself a man who’s record is hard to fault: he was arrested at 1980’s CND demos, publically opposed the Iraq war, said future interventions in Iran or Syria would be “criminal, ignorant and potentially murderous folly”, condemned the “radical, long-term policies for which no-one voted” of the government, and expressed concern over the “quiet resurgence of the seductive language of ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor”.

He’s right on. But his Church’s stance is flaky and confused.

If the Church of England wants a place in public life then it has to earn it. It has to be relevant. In matters of social and economic justice its leadership will have to go beyond making nice statements and start using their considerable resources and influence to fight for the most marginalised in society and against corporate greed and spiralling inequality.

They need to get their hands dirty.

The Church recognises Martin Luther King and Oscar Romero amongst its 20th century martyrs. If it wishes to stay relevant in the modern world it would do well to follow in their footsteps and adopt a coherent and uncompromising line on social justice.

Failing to do this would pose a far greater threat to its survival than the forces of ‘aggressive secularism’ or ‘Christianophobia’.

—-
Joe Cottrell-Boyce is a Policy Officer at the Irish Chaplaincy in Britain’s Traveller’s Project

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Civil liberties ,Religion

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


I wish churches were only becoming irrelevant,
but unfortunately they are becoming dangerous: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2011/12/29/church/

2. Flowerpower

I think the whole #Occupy stunt was mistaken, but this is by far the most sensible, intelligent, gentle and civilized OP I have read on LibCon in a long time.

More of this chap, please. I’m now keen to hear what he has to say on his special subject – Travellers.

It’s an ugly picture; a bunch of conservative nasties fighting for the right to be bigoted.

Of course you have the right to be bigoted. Perhaps not to express your bigotry in certain contexts, but being bigoted in and of itself is not actionable.

4. Matt Wardman

This seems to me to be a little incoherent, Joe, and I’m not sure what you are saying.

Mark Pritchard is a Roman Catholic unless he’s converted recently – what does that have to do with the CofE?

Here, see his blog:
http://markpritchard.blogspot.com/

You’ve found one CofE Bishop (the ABC) you agree with, and one, Exeter, you disagree with. That’s fine – Anglican Bishops are allowed to have their own opinions.

>He’s right on. But his Church’s stance is flaky and confused.

The official positions of the CofE are defined by the General Synod, and you haven’t addressed a single one of these.

>”secular agenda to “drive religion out of the public sphere”

That’s just a statement of what secularist campaigners keep telling declaring to be the objective, so I don’t see a problem there.

At one time the Occupy people declared that their greatest achievement has been caring for the homeless for a few weeks – who do you think has been doing most of that in London for the last half-century, along with the RCs?

I think the CofE gets it’s hands exceedingly dirty, and you haven’t noticed.

5. Matt Wardman

While I’m at it – yes I agree St Paul’s response has been chaotic, but that was a series of St Paul’s Cathedral Chapter cockups (and some tactical PR from the Occupy people).

There’s a range of opinions about the occupation; some supportive (see Ekklesia and Giles F), some not – that’s what I’d expect.

My take is that it became untenable when they started to pretend that the occupation
was a ‘protest’, while having very little to say.

“There are scores of Christians of all denominations tirelessly working for social justice, some of whom were themselves part of the Occupy presence at St Paul’s.”

This. I’m a Catholic but would describe myself as a liberal Christian. It really irritates me the way that religion in general and especially Christianity is increasingly being portrayed as the domain of nutters.

It’s the fault of both the vocal right, those outside the church who tar everyone with the same brush, and of course (probably most of all) the church itself. Every day I find myself shaking my head at the comments of some ill-informed bishop getting their news from the Daily Mail.

For me, the central core of Christianity is treating people the way you’d like to be treated and making the world a better place – ideals much more aligned with the left in my opinion, but lately we seem to be going down the track of the USA where our religion is being hijacked by the bigoted right.

Very interesting article.

I was disappointed to see Rowan Williams attacking the Government’s plans to legalise gay marriage, but I’m grateful to you for reminding me that he’s usually been a force for good.

This is just terrible, the evil Socialist atheists, trying to destroy religious freedom. Thank God for the Christian Right; who else would defend this woman from the evils of militant secularism?

http://news.google.com/news/search?q=carer%20forced%20to%20work%20sunday

Thank God for those people who have DEMANDED that Christianity be recognised and defended…

…Hang on, where are the commentators? Two weeks ago the Tory press were demanding action, but this story got under the radar, why?

Good post. As a Christian who has been following all this with interest I think it’s so important that we don’t let organisations like The Christian Institute define the agenda of Christianity in public life. They very rarely have anything positive to say about anything at all and instead run the risk of making UK Christians appear, to others, to be little different from the much-derided US Christian Right.

The Church of England is the 1%.

They run a tax avoiding 5 billion investment fund and pay a top salary of 300K + benefits: http://bit.ly/y7xznW

Worse, they take profits from poor countries that the tax payer gives foreign aid to and avoid paying taxes on them: http://bit.ly/xQbmyM

11. Chaise Guevara

@ 6 Dave

“For me, the central core of Christianity is treating people the way you’d like to be treated and making the world a better place – ideals much more aligned with the left in my opinion, but lately we seem to be going down the track of the USA where our religion is being hijacked by the bigoted right.”

I suspect that’s perceptual. The genuine nutters are much noisier and more likely to get attention, and the conservative backlash following 9/11 and 7/7 probably pushed them into the spotlight to some extent, as they can be depended on to complain that Muslims get more respect than Christians, and to bang on about the decline of morality in youth today.

As an atheist I find that almost every Christian I actually meet has roughly the same morals as me, and doesn’t want to outlaw homosexuality or install a theological government.

Hear, hear. Well said! We’re all let down by all hierarchies though..

13. Shatterface

The leader of the Church of England, Dr Rowan Williams, is himself a man who’s record is hard to fault

Apart from his support for Sharia law. Frankly, he can suck my balls. Just remember that everytime you elevate a religious figure as a spokesperson to a political cause you are giving him authority to speak his brains on all kinds of bullshit.

Not that I’m a fan of the #Occupy movement either, which elevated itself above anything do oiky as commitment to any actual political cause or pragmatic course of action.

The campaign against Workfare has shown how to protest. Narrow the focus to a particular cause, isolate the causes of the problem, boycott the assholes causing the problem till they change their behavious.

Farting around in tents outside an institution which has nothing to do with the problem you haven’t even defined clearly is just onanistic.

14. Shatterface

As an atheist I find that almost every Christian I actually meet has roughly the same morals as me, and doesn’t want to outlaw homosexuality or install a theological government.

I find the same with other religions. The problem is that the spokesmen for communities – and I include Christians here – speak on behalf of institutions, not their individual members, and should not be given authority to speak on by behalf of a progressive cause because they’ll come back and bite you in the arse.

If the Pope comes out against GM crops, for instance, don’t cite him as an authority otherwise you then grant authority to his other opinions.

15. Chaise Guevara

@ 12 Shatterface

“Apart from his support for Sharia law.”

He didn’t support Sharia law, unless I’m misremembering. He said we should continue to allow people to voluntarily use Sharia *within* the law to resolve disputes. Banning that would be a) tyrannical and b) totally unenforceable.

“Not that I’m a fan of the #Occupy movement either, which elevated itself above anything do oiky as commitment to any actual political cause or pragmatic course of action.”

They’re a grassroots organisation. Any “leaders” are self-identified and have no mandate to represent the entire group. From my POV their main error was to claim to represent 99% of the population; it’s hardly reasonable to accuse them of snobbery just because they managed to avoid making that same mistake in other areas.

What would you have preferred? For a self-styled King of Occupy to declare the One True Political Viewpoint and demand that all non-adherents pack up their tents and go home?

16. Chaise Guevara

@ 13 Shatterface

“The problem is that the spokesmen for communities – and I include Christians here – speak on behalf of institutions, not their individual members, and should not be given authority to speak on by behalf of a progressive cause because they’ll come back and bite you in the arse.

If the Pope comes out against GM crops, for instance, don’t cite him as an authority otherwise you then grant authority to his other opinions.”

Agreed. And obviously a related problem is people who try to speak for everyone in their demographic, using the widest definition of that demographic available to make it look as though they have mass support. The most common one in my experience is “X% of people describe themselves as Christian” = “X% of people believe in the Christian god” = “X% of people share all of my religion-based opinions”.

The role of St Paul’s Cathedral in the Occupy London saga, especially by the final weeks, can best be described as farcical.

That’s not fair. In the final weeks, the Occupy thing at St.Paul’s had seriously degenerated …. had it not? I only saw it once, over New Year one evening, and it looked miserable and forlorn even back then, with very few people around it seemed.
So why should the church have had to put up with that? It was less about the message (because the media was no longer paying attention) and more about the people involved themselves.
We saw some of the idiots on TV doing their ”last stand” the other night, resisting the police and baliffs and being drama queens. Just like they did at Dale Farm actually.

The Church of England is a silly crusty old institution. They are by their very nature like that. Who cares what they think or do?

I saw that latest big fat gypsy wedding btw. It didn’t seem particularly ”racist” but showed a shocking view of education amongst those communities.

18. Shatterface

What would you have preferred? For a self-styled King of Occupy to declare the One True Political Viewpoint and demand that all non-adherents pack up their tents and go home?

Call me a wierdo, but maybe they could have gathered around a pre-existing cause rather than simply have gathered together first before discovering they have nothing in common.

Start with the aim, then move on to the tactics. It doesn’t require ‘leadership’ if they are united in something more than numbers.

Shatterface,

Start with the aim, then move on to the tactics. It doesn’t require ‘leadership’ if they are united in something more than numbers.

You do realise that is sounding something very like a religion…

21. Chaise Guevara

@ 17 Shatterface

“Call me a wierdo, but maybe they could have gathered around a pre-existing cause rather than simply have gathered together first before discovering they have nothing in common.”

It did, it’s just that the cause was very loose, and lots of people (members of Occupy, enemies of Occupy, political commentators both for and against it) were quick to try to claim what *specific* beliefs they had. Hence them being called anarchists and so on. This is true of any such event: if you’d interviewed people at the anti-war marches before and during Iraq, you wouldn’t have found a single common thread of opinion, even in terms of attendents’ general views on preventive war and the like. But I bet you could find people claiming that everyone there was a pacifist.

It wasn’t formal, that’s the thing; people turned up to protest and obviously developed a certain amount of camaderie for their fellow protesters. Alternatively, you could organise a regimented group with everyone signing up to specific beliefs about exactly what we should do about X, Y and Z… possibly under the name of the Judean People’s Front.

And there’s middle ground too, of course, but the point is that it’s unreasonable to dismiss a group like Occupy for failing to be something it never needed to be in the first place. They were expressing widely held public anger at the role of the banks in the financial crisis, and nearly all of them probably resented the continuing bonuses and the government complicity. That’s enough for short-term co-operation, I think.

22. Chaise Guevara

@ 18 ukliberty

It is, on its own merits, but were you intending to draw my eye to a particular point or other?

Great article! Well said!

24. Frances_coppola

I think the Occupy LSX protest was diverted from its original aim by the intransigence of the Dean & Chapter at St Paul’s Cathedral. It ended up serving perhaps an equally important purpose, which was to challenge the Church of England to come off the fence and declare where it stands on matters of peace and justice: does it side with authority, wealth and vested interests, or does it stand against those and in support of the poor and marginalised? The challenge that it offered shook the Church of England to its core. The protest itself may be over, but the Church of England is still mulling over the implications.

Not that I’m suggesting that Occupy LSX protesters were necessarily poor and marginalised. I suspect most were comfortably middle-class. But it was what they represented that mattered, as far as the Church of England was concerned. The image of “tent city” outside the closed doors of the largest Christian cathedral in the UK is uncomfortably reminiscent of shanty towns outside opulent cities, isn’t it?

CG @ 10:

“As an atheist I find that almost every Christian I actually meet has roughly the same morals as me, and doesn’t want to outlaw homosexuality or install a theological government.”

Yeah, me too – well p’raps. Funny fing this ‘ere liberal tolerance. Y’know, might even fuckin’ work…Like I’m C of E, born ‘n’ bred….And ‘ad this Muslim in the cab once and ‘e was very tolerant, too…(cont’d p.94)

Chaise, I was attempting to form a point about heirarchies and inclusiveness and whatnot… then I realised I didn’t know where I was going with it.

27. Shatterface

It did, it’s just that the cause was very loose, and lots of people (members of Occupy, enemies of Occupy, political commentators both for and against it) were quick to try to claim what *specific* beliefs they had. Hence them being called anarchists and so on. This is true of any such event: if you’d interviewed people at the anti-war marches before and during Iraq, you wouldn’t have found a single common thread of opinion, even in terms of attendents’ general views on preventive war and the like. But I bet you could find people claiming that everyone there was a pacifist.

The difference is that one movement marched under banners like Stop the War, which identifies them, first and foremost, with a cause, while the other calls itself Occupy, which identifies them in terms of a tactic.

Occupy committed itself to a specific course of action (or inaction) in an ill defined cause, while the anti-war movement left open a variety of options, such as legal challenges, press campaigns, etc.

FC @ 23:

Putting aside the truth or falsity of the particular claims of all faiths, what you say is true of all institutionalised religion, I’m afraId. However, compassion is not the preserve of our established Church, nor of camping protestors. Meanwhile, individuals – drawing on one or many religious traditions (or even none) – can still find the peace that passeth understanding.

29. Just Visiting

Shatterface

>> As an atheist I find that almost every Christian I actually meet has roughly the same morals as me, and doesn’t want to outlaw homosexuality or install a theological government.
> I find the same with other religions

You can’t judge a whole group by a few samples.

I was at a University lecture last week, part of Islamic Awareness week – the theme was secularism and Islam.

In the chat afterward I had a chat with a group of 6 or 8 Muslims, mostly haed-scarved young women.

They were very nice and charming.
They were keen to persuade me that stoning for women caught in adultery is an OK wrong punishment, saying that the woman Mohammed punished that way, had wanted that punishment; that polygamy is not outlawed in islam, but has lots of rules so most men would not be allowed it.

In their few there is no Islamic country in the world today. Not even Saudi, the reason Saudi doesn’t count? Because it has a king, they said. One of the guys in the group was from Saudi.
They wanted a worldwide Caliphate.

All lovely friendly people, doing their best to be welcoming in their Awareness week.

So I hard to find parallels between Islam and Christianity if you scratch the surface.

Incidentally, the C of E, like it or loathe it, is the largest voluntary organisation in England, if not the UK, which suggests it will long out-live spasms of well-meaning, adolescent protest like ‘Occupy’.

31. Charlieman

@6. Dave N: “This. I’m a Catholic but would describe myself as a liberal Christian. It really irritates me the way that religion in general and especially Christianity is increasingly being portrayed as the domain of nutters.”

As an atheist, I sympathise (is empathising valid in this case?). I indulged in a period of militant atheism but, happenchance, I spent more real life time with Christians and Jews talking about their faiths. I listened to them about their beliefs rather than talking about my disbelief.

I didn’t always agree, but I didn’t hear anything that offended me. I know that there are religious extremists who are offensive and wish me ill. They are a minority who should be challenged for their homophobia, sexism or racism, not for their religion. Listening to Christians and Jews did not change my own desire for a secular society, but it reminded me that secular society must provide personal space for theists to express their beliefs.

I am sorry, Dave N, but sometimes debates on LC are very rough for theists. A militant atheist may argue that a political choice based on religious belief should be over ridden by Absolute Rationalism. At that point, you should make yourself a cup of tea and see if there is anything on the telly.

32. Chaise Guevara

@ 25 UKliberty

“Chaise, I was attempting to form a point about heirarchies and inclusiveness and whatnot… then I realised I didn’t know where I was going with it.”

LOL, I know the feeling. Hey, d’you think that’s how Bob B feels all the time?

33. Chaise Guevara

@ 26 Shatterface

You’re coming down to a name there, though, and the UK Occupy was naming itself after the US version anyway. I see your point, but I don’t think it’s a big deal. They were there to object against rampant capitalism. The devil is always in the details, but it’s a message worth getting across even in vague form.

34. Chaise Guevara

@ 28 JV

Yes, ok. Muslims bad, we get it. Give it a rest.

35. Chaise Guevara

@ 29 TONE

“Incidentally, the C of E, like it or loathe it, is the largest voluntary organisation in England, if not the UK, which suggests it will long out-live spasms of well-meaning, adolescent protest like ‘Occupy’.”

You’re using “volutary organisation” as a very broad, well, church there. I don’t think anyone doubts the CoE will outlive Occupy. No doubt it’ll outlive the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. But they’re far from comparable, for all that Occupy attracts faithful believers and the CoE works to alleviate injustice. I’ve got things I like and dislike about both organisations (more accurately, about members of both organisations), but I don’t think a head-to-head comparison will tell you much.

36. So Much For Subtlety

Earlier this month, the Bishop of Exeter Michael Langrish complained to the BBC that his Church was threatened by a secular agenda to “drive religion out of the public sphere”.

So why, when a public forum for discussing the most pressing social and economic issues of our time landed literally on its doorstep, did the Church decided it didn’t want to get involved?

Because the protests were not a religious issue but a secular one. Those militant secularists with an agenda to push religion out of the public sphere camped out on their door step and demanded that the Church co-operate with them. And hence with their campaign to destroy the Church.

Why would the Church side with them precisely?

The Church recognises Martin Luther King and Oscar Romero amongst its 20th century martyrs. If it wishes to stay relevant in the modern world it would do well to follow in their footsteps and adopt a coherent and uncompromising line on social justice.

Martin Luther King was a Southern Baptist and Romero was a Catholic, at least in theory. Just how the Church claims either of them as their martyrs I am not sure. They certainly were not members of the CoE.

The Church’s job is not to be relevant to the modern world. It is to proclaim what they believe. Even if, like Noah, they are a tiny minority destined to be saved. If the Church tries to interpret the Bible in light of passing social fancies they are doomed to extinction. If they insist that social mores should follow the Bible, they may survive. Their choice.

So Basically what the OP is saying is that left-wing Christians like Carey are OK, but right-wing ones aren’t….

@31 Charlieman:
“I am sorry, Dave N, but sometimes debates on LC are very rough for theists. A militant atheist may argue that a political choice based on religious belief should be over ridden by Absolute Rationalism. At that point, you should make yourself a cup of tea and see if there is anything on the telly.”

True maybe… but I wouldn’t take it too much to heart because I think there are equal numbers of theists and atheists with a swaggering arrogance that their group has all the answers.

To be honest, I wouldn’t say I’d make a political choice based on religious belief, more that a general set of values would lead myself and others in certain directions politically and religiously. Infact I’m all for the separation of church and state in an official sense, but the church is of course as entitled as any other group of people to weigh in to these sorts of debates

Occupy was militantly pacifist, which is why it was doomed to failure. People who refuse to fight get walked over.

You’d never believe it’s been 153 years since Darwin explained it all to us. People may come round eventually but many will be in mumbo-jumbo land, basing their values and actions around a quaint myth and holding us back for years and years to come.

Don’t beat yourselves up to much, the Occupy farce was largely irrelevant and will not be the point at which coherent, co-ordinated political opposition to the establishment will re-emerge from.

Apart from liberal hacks and some exhusted left wingers, most people dont care about occupy and cannot politically or socially relate in anyway to it, so there was no boat to miss.

42. Matt Wardman

>Those militant secularists with an agenda to push religion out of the public sphere camped out on their door step and demanded that the Church co-operate with them.

Did they?

I’ve watched it closely online and haven’t noticed a thing.

Militant secularist campaigners know as well as the rest of us that Occupy @ St Pauls was going mainly in ever-decreasing circles, and are too sensible to take that sort of gamble.

With this timely re-statement from the Gospels of Christian doctrine, I really don’t see how it can be claimed that the Church is in anyway irrelevant or out-of-date:

“For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.” Matthew 25:29
http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew+25:14-30

That seems to me to be a fairly accurate and timely statement of what the Occupy protest movement is claiming about reality: The 99pc versus The 1pc. Try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-LLXAahb_w

44. Just Visiting's Twin

I just wanted to post some crap I made up …. oops, sorry, bit of a typo there … I just wanted to let you all know about a real discussion I had with a group of completely real muslims this week who definitely, actually exist and are in no way a complete fabrication.

Anyway, they were all very polite, nice young people even though they were dressed a bit outlandishly, especially the women (I’m not sure what relevance this has to the shit I’m making up, sorry, the factual account I’m presenting but I feel it’s important that you know they were dressed strangely). Anyway, they were very welcoming and, over tea and hal’al fairy cakes, explained to me that their one aim is world domination, preferably by violent means, followed by the imposition of sharia law and forced conversion of all christians. Now, obviously this is anecdotal but it definitely means that all muslims are evil. And I haven’t made any of it up.

For reasons that must surely be illuminating, this earlier post of mine was censored out so I’ll try again:

With this timely re-statement from the Gospels of Christian doctrine, I really don’t see how it can be claimed that the Church is in anyway irrelevant or out-of-date:

“For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.” Matthew 25:29

That seems to me to be a fairly accurate and timely statement of what the Occupy protest movement is claiming about reality: The 99pc versus The 1pc. Try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-LLXAahb_w

46. Chaise Guevara

Just Visting’s Twin, how the hell do people tell you two apart?

47. Just Visiting

Chaise 34

You yourself have called others up for ‘not addressing the issue’ side comments – but didn’t you just do exactly that?

I do wonder if you’re not applying double standards here.

I was responding with my anecdotal experience, to someone else quoting theirs.
They, not me first introduced muslims, into what was a church issue.

Why do you feel that I should ‘give it a rest’, but not those sharing opposite anecdotal evidence?

I don’t hide the fact that one of the issues I’m interested in from a liberal perspective is religion, and particular how Christianity and Islam fit or don’t fit liberal values. There’s a need for a calm sensible discussion to be had on that topic among liberals.

You’ve agreed elsewhere that LC and Sunny do have a bias – they criticise Christianity on a regular basis, but on the whole avoid criticism of Islam.

So I was surprised by your put down, which seemed to be in the Sunny-line.

48. Chaise Guevara

@ 47 JV

“You yourself have called others up for ‘not addressing the issue’ side comments – but didn’t you just do exactly that?

I do wonder if you’re not applying double standards here.”

I’ve called people on whataboutery, which isn’t quite the same thing.

“I was responding with my anecdotal experience, to someone else quoting theirs.
They, not me first introduced muslims, into what was a church issue.

Why do you feel that I should ‘give it a rest’, but not those sharing opposite anecdotal evidence?”

If it was a one-off I wouldn’t have said anything. As I’ve said before I feel you tend to use any excuse to complain about Muslims. However, reading back you were on-topic, I jumped the gun. Apologies.

49. Just Visiting

Chaise

gratefully accepted : < )


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    The Occupy saga shows why the Church is becoming irrelevant http://t.co/5n5fH12t

  2. Nemesis Republic

    The Occupy saga shows why the Church is becoming irrelevant http://t.co/5n5fH12t

  3. Steve Hynd

    The Occupy saga shows why the Church is becoming irrelevant | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/mtN2arD9 via @libcon

  4. Benjamin M. A'Lee

    The Occupy saga shows why the Church is becoming irrelevant http://t.co/5n5fH12t

  5. Jason Brickley

    The Occupy saga shows why the Church is becoming irrelevant http://t.co/aHhGEz3K

  6. Sam Morris

    The Occupy saga shows why the Church is becoming irrelevant http://t.co/5n5fH12t

  7. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – The Occupy saga shows why the Church is becoming irrelevant http://t.co/Gh9HGeAR

  8. Patron Press - #P2

    #UK : The Occupy saga shows why the Church is becoming irrelevant http://t.co/rfEHjRWt

  9. Suzy Franklin

    #UK : The Occupy saga shows why the Church is becoming irrelevant http://t.co/rfEHjRWt

  10. Joe Cottrell-Boyce

    My thoughts on the Church's role in #Occupy? @OccupyLSX | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Tqq3qzDp via @libcon

  11. Ian 'Cat' Vincent

    The Occupy saga shows why the Church is becoming irrelevant http://t.co/Uz95fDIo

  12. Phyllis Abebreseh

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/03/01/the-occupy-saga-shows-why-the-church-of-englands-is-becoming-irrelevant/

  13. roifield brown

    The real role for the church in the state http://t.co/vyy67I4a

  14. John Boy

    @Christiansvcuts @Ekklesia_co_uk @SymonHill My thoughts on the Church's role in #Occupy @OccupyLSX http://t.co/Tqq3qzDp

  15. Phyllis Abebreseh

    RT @libcon: The Occupy saga shows why the Church is becoming irrelevant http://t.co/X4xsESYv

  16. Martin

    The Occupy saga shows why the Church of England is becoming irrelevant http://t.co/ApZIlvPA says @JCBoyce85

  17. Peter Pink

    The real role for the church in the state http://t.co/vyy67I4a

  18. Salma Yaqoob

    The Occupy saga shows why the Church of England is becoming irrelevant http://t.co/ApZIlvPA says @JCBoyce85

  19. Ian Martin

    Bishop of #Exeter mentioned RT @sunny_hundal: Occupy saga shows why Church of England becoming irrelevant http://t.co/MyHU2BL4 . @JCBoyce85

  20. elpida george

    The Occupy saga shows why the Church of England is becoming irrelevant http://t.co/ApZIlvPA says @JCBoyce85

  21. Jonathon Hayes

    The Occupy saga shows why the Church of England is becoming irrelevant http://t.co/ApZIlvPA says @JCBoyce85

  22. Vorian

    Of course it prioritised its own narrow interest. It's a #religion:
    http://t.co/jnGBzAqj
    #occupylsx #atheism #obvious





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.