STUDENT REVIEW: Philosophy, Theology & the Bishop of Woolwich

When the Reverend’s invitation reached the ears of the Rt Hon Bishop of Woolwich (Michael Ipgrave) I doubt he truly was prepared for the incredible range of questions and topics that he would have to discuss with the Remove Philosophy and Theology. Everything was discussed from Hume and George Berkeley arguments from experience and perception respectively, Freud’s Oedipus complex, sexual guilt and repression arguments, the colour of Bishops and reverends shirts and the recent controversial vote of the synod on the future of women bishops. As the Bishop of Woolwich and having been a priest for 30 years this summer, he is in charge of around 105 churches and around 130 priests, an influential man to say the least, and in his own words he goes around, helping others to do good things. However as a father of three sons I think he was well prepared for our questions as he said he was very interested in hearing our views on our studies in New Testament theology and philosophy.

First up was a question from J who asked a question of religions such as Islam that might argue that people of other religious faiths are evil or lesser than those of their own particular religion. Surprisingly one couldn’t have asked a better man as before becoming a bishop our speaker was involved in Christian-Jewish and Christian-Muslim interfaith dialogue. He argued from the point that it comes down to ones interpretation of texts and how one perceives their meanings and what actions should come of those meanings, giving prime examples not only from the Qur’an by heart but from the book of Joshua in the Bible describing it as, some pretty blood thirsty stuff in there. Also mentioning an anecdote on meeting a Buddhist monk in Japan giving him a Bible and the next morning being told that the monk had never read such a bad tempered book in his life.

Next was an arguably more challenging question addressing the works of the founder of Psychoanalyses Sigmund Freud, specifically that argument that religion was a manifestation of trauma in the form of a collective neurosis? Having read a lot of Freud and Marx’s as an undergraduate (for maths?), he argued that the context of Freud’s life that his Jewish upbringing and life in middle Europe in the early 20^th century but none the less he argued that religion as a symbol to some people, especially those who suffer from mental instability can be a very destructive power and a very healing power referencing the arguments of Jung that religion can be beneficial.

Having battled valiantly through the troubles of the German psychoanalyst’s work on fear and funf and what lies in after, came the cosmological argument specifically the bishop was asked how he would rebuttal the argument from David Hume that God cannot exist as we have no experience of him as God is not able to be experienced through the senses. He argued through George Berkeley work on perception how to be is to be perceived and God though he cannot be arguably sensually experienced he can be perceived and therefore be. He further extended the argument to say that if the world must exist there must be an eternal entity, responsible for its existence and that must be God which quietened the praying thoughts of the philosophy class who had maybe underestimated their speaker.

Having briefly discuss the roles of preaching in modern society, Darwin’s theories on evolution and the legacy that has left on religion, the role of the Virgin Mary in the Anglican Church and why bishops and higher powers in society wear the colour purple, we moved on to discuss the so far avoided topic of the vote on women bishops by the Synod, he primarily came across emphasising the importance that it was, not a good thing to have happened, explaining the three groups of voting, (lay people, clergy and bishops) and how each one required a minimum 2/3’s majority he also emphasised the fact that the clergy and bishops almost all voted for the women bishops and in the house of laity it failed by five votes due to a particular piece of legislation that did not allow for women to become bishops. He went on to say that the Anglican Church had gone into a state of paralysis due to the failure of a system, which it had relied upon to result in women bishops coming to be.

To conclude having been almost interrogated by a philosophy class this humble and intellectually stimulating bishop had argued successfully for and against on the importance of acceptance of other religions, Freud’s arguments’ on religion, the cosmological argument and the role of women in the church and what is to come on that matter. One must say that it was a thoroughly enjoyable and stimulating discussion and one which neither the class or Bishop of Woolwich will forget any time soon.