Church of England preparing for war 'that involves the UK' amid fears over global conflicts
The Church of England is preparing for Britain to be drawn into a war due to the growing threat of global conflict, it revealed today.
For what is thought to be the first time, a serving member of the Armed Forces - who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan - will brief the Church's ruling body on the threats facing Britain when it meets next month.
While not yet on a 'war footing' and still 'praying for peace', the Bishop to the Armed Forces said the Church is now readying itself to play an important spiritual role during 'conflict that involves the UK'.
As part of preparations for this, the CofE's top brass is looking back to the leadership shown by senior religious figures during the Second World War for inspiration.
Reverend Hugh Nelson, Bishop to the Armed Forces, said the Church wants to 'take seriously' the potential challenges ahead and avoid being caught out like the nation was by the pandemic.
Revd Nelson said he had been hearing from military personnel for the past two years 'rising concern about the threat of very, very serious conflict, including conflict that involves the UK'.
During a briefing ahead of next month's General Synod, he referenced the Government's national security strategy, published earlier this week, which warned the UK must actively prepare for a 'wartime scenario' on British soil 'for the first time in many years'.
The upcoming meeting of the Church's ruling body will receive an address by Brigadier Jaish Mahan, Deputy Commander (Reserves) 1st UK Division, in what is thought to be the first time a serving member of the Armed Forces who is not a CofE chaplain or Royal has spoken at Synod.
Brigadier Jaish - a practising Christian who joined the army in 1994 and served in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan - will brief Synod on the 'global context and the challenges faced by the UK'.
A Synod agenda paper states: 'While a conflict directly involving the UK is not an immediate risk, given the very serious impact such a conflict would have on every person in the country, we must be prepared.
'The pandemic showed us the risks of being unprepared for a national crisis, and we must learn the lessons.'
Revd Nelson said today: 'As a Church, we want to take seriously those challenges, both to do everything that we can to pray for and work for and advocate for peace, because the kingdom of God is a kingdom of justice and peace, and to face the reality and to put in place, or at least to begin to have conversations towards plans about how the Church might need to respond and to be if there were to be a serious conflict.
'We do not want to be in the situation that we were all in - Church and wider society - pre-pandemic, when those that knew things said there will one day be a pandemic, and none of us had done anything in preparation for that. So we want to take that seriously.'
While he declined to go so far as to say the work was putting the Church on a 'war footing', he noted that consideration is being given to how religious leaders acted in previous wartime scenarios.
He said: 'We have looked back at some of the ways in which senior Church leadership - archbishops and bishops - led, the things that they said, particularly in the Second World War.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
24 minutes ago
- Reuters
Following NATO summit, Trump and Europe still at odds over Putin's ambitions
THE HAGUE, June 26 (Reuters) - For U.S. President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin is a man looking for an off-ramp to his bloody three-year assault on Ukraine. But according to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Russian leader may be just getting started. If the alliance does not invest in its defense capabilities, Rutte warned the annual NATO summit on Tuesday, Russia could attack an alliance country within three years. By most measures, this year's NATO summit in The Hague was a success. Member states largely agreed to a U.S. demand to boost defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product. Trump, who once derided the alliance as a "rip-off," said his view had changed, while a budding bromance blossomed between him and Rutte, who compared the U.S. president to a stern "daddy" managing his geopolitical underlings. But the summit, which ended on Wednesday, also highlighted the widening gap between how the U.S. and Europe see the military ambitions of Russia, the bloc's main foil. That is despite some lawmakers in Trump's own Republican Party hardening their rhetoric in recent weeks, arguing that while the president's ambition to negotiate an end to Russia's war in Ukraine is laudable, it is now clear that Putin is not serious about coming to the table. In a Wednesday press conference, Trump conceded that it was "possible" Putin had territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine. But he insisted that the Russian leader - buffeted by manpower and materiel losses - wanted the war to end quickly. "I know one thing: He'd like to settle," Trump said. "He'd like to get out of this thing. It's a mess for him." Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump's view in a sideline interview with Politico, saying the U.S. was holding off on expanding its sanctions against Moscow, in part to keep talks going. "If we did what everybody here wants us to do - and that is come in and crush them with more sanctions - we probably lose our ability to talk to them about the ceasefire," he said. The message from others at the summit was starkly different. A senior NATO official told reporters in a Tuesday briefing that Putin was not in fact interested in a ceasefire - or in engaging in good-faith talks at all. "Regardless of battlefield dynamics, we continue to doubt that Russia has any interest in meaningful negotiations," the official said. Russia's ambitions, the senior official said, go beyond control of "certain territories at their administrative lines," as Rubio put it. Putin is instead bent on imposing his "political will" on neighboring states. Rutte put the Russian threat in existential terms. "If we do not invest now," he said on Tuesday, "we are really at risk that the Russians might try something against NATO territory in three, five or seven years." The U.S. is not the only NATO member with a more optimistic view of Russia. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a longtime Trump ally and critic of European institutions, said Russia was "not strong enough to represent a real threat to NATO." Still, as the alliance's largest contributor and most powerful member, Washington's position is a central preoccupation in most NATO capitals. The White House, asked for comment, referred to Trump's comments at the Wednesday press conference. In response to a request for comment, a separate NATO official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, disputed that there were differing assessments within the alliance, pointing to a NATO declaration on Wednesday which referenced the "long-term threat posed by Russia." The Russian embassy in Washington referred to Thursday comments by Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, who criticized NATO for wasting money on defense. "It seems that only by invoking the fabricated 'Russian threat' will it be possible to explain to ordinary people why their pockets are being emptied once again," she said. The U.S. State Department and the Ukrainian embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment. The lack of a common understanding about Putin's goals will complicate future diplomatic plans to wind down the war, said Philippe Dickinson, the deputy director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council and a former British diplomat. "To reach a peace agreement, it's not just something that Trump and Putin can agree themselves," Dickinson said. "There does need to be European involvement. That needs to mean that there is some sort of sharing of views among allies on what Putin is trying to achieve." European leaders likely have not given up on trying to change Trump's views on Russia, Dickinson said. But they were always unlikely bring up thorny conversations at the NATO summit. The alliance's main goal was to simply get through it without major blowups, he said, an aim that was accomplished. Still, peace came at a cost - the lack of substantive discussion around Ukraine and Russia, he argued, was conspicuous. "The lack of a Russia strategy is a real glaring omission from what the summit could have produced," Dickinson said.
Times
35 minutes ago
- Times
No 10 gags civil servants to stop them speaking out in public
Sir Keir Starmer has gagged senior health officials, military leaders and even the head of the civil service from speaking openly in public, in a move that has been described as a 'chilling' attack on free speech. In an edict issued across Whitehall, Downing Street has warned public sector officials not to talk at open events where their comments have not been vetted in advance. They have also been barred from taking part in any public question-and-answer sessions — even if they are part of an industry event. The rules also apply to media briefings on issues such as public health, carried out by senior figures such as the chief medical and scientific officers. While these can go ahead they must be cleared in advance by Downing Street and have a minister or special adviser in attendance. Those affected include public sector officials working for arms-length bodies such as the media regulator Ofcom and the education inspectorate Ofsted, which have operational independence from the government. The rules also apply to senior health leaders, diplomats and military officers. The edict has already led to cancellation or curtailment of a number of public events where senior government officials were due to speak. The Whitehall think tank the Institute for Government (IFG) was forced to cancel an event on Tuesday which was due to discuss Labour's new approach to public sector spending after Nick Donlevy, a senior civil servant at the Treasury, was made to pull out. Last week the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) told journalists attending a land warfare conference that they would not be able to report on a speech by Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, the chief of the air staff, who is expected to become head of the armed forces. • No 10 gags military chiefs at events where a minister is present The think tank said there had been a change in 'reporting rules relating to speakers from the British armed forces'. It said that the majority of speeches and panel appearances by British personnel 'will not be for reporting', whereas those by individuals from foreign militaries will be. Sources confirmed that the change had been forced on Rusi by the new Downing Street senior Whitehall figure said the move had been made to prevent high-profile officials from causing 'problems' for the government by using speeches to 'lobby ministers in public' or criticising spending plans or government policy. However, it has caused unease both inside and outside the government with one senior source describing it as 'unnecessary' and heavy-handed. 'It's the usual desire of No 10 to control absolutely everything without thinking through the consequences,' the source said. 'The idea that even the cabinet secretary cannot take part in a public question-and-answer event is both misguided and counterproductive.' Another added: 'This is mad on so many levels.' Alex Thomas, programme director at the IFG, said the rules would have a 'chilling effect' on public debate. 'This will lead to a more closed government and less effective policymaking,' he said. • Foreign Office staff told to resign if they don't like Gaza stance 'Openness is one of the seven principles of public life and it cannot be a good thing that officials that are responsible for the day-to-day running of critical public services will no longer be able to attend, speak, and answer questions at events.' 'Ministers will always be the main public spokespeople for government activity but this is an overreach and will damage the quality of government and public discourse.' Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, described the move as 'outrageous'. He said: 'This unprecedented ban on civil servants speaking in public will damage public debate, politics, policymaking and the civil service itself. What are they thinking?' Baroness Spielman of Durlston, the former head of Ofsted and now a Conservative peer, said the restriction was 'astonishing and unworkable'. She added that it would force bodies like Ofsted to cancel interactive stakeholder events without a minister present and slow down communication. 'Government grinds too slowly and this will jam the works completely,' she said. Sir John Kingman, a former permanent secretary at the Treasury, said that when he worked for government he would participate in an event involving questions most days. 'It was quite an important part of the job because many people understandably want to know what the government thinks and why, and want a chance to discuss it,' he said. A Downing Street source insisted the guidance was not heavy-handed and would be looked at on a 'case by case' basis. But No 10 said it reflected the principle that ministers were responsible for representing the government in public — rather than officials. A Cabinet Office spokesman said that the rules around media engagement were 'longstanding and established'. 'It has always been the case, and a constitutional principle, that ministers are ultimately accountable for decision-making to parliament and the public — so it is right they are routinely scrutinised by the media and MPs.'
Times
35 minutes ago
- Times
British students hoping to study in US warned about online posts
Students applying to US universities should be extremely cautious on social media, experts have warned, amid reports of visas being rejected while immigration officials comb through posts. British sixth-formers accepted by US universities are reporting disruption in applications for student visas, which were suspended and then reinstated by President Trump. One consultant advised British school-leavers to consider starting degrees at branch campuses of American universities if visas were not processed in time. Applicants must now make their social media profiles public and officials have been ordered to scour through content dating back five years, meaning British students' posts from the age of 12 could be scrutinised for possible threats or 'hostile attitudes'. Education and legal experts said it reinforced the need for teenagers to be extremely cautious about what they post on social media. • I'm a Brit at Harvard — what Trump's doing is scary and dehumanising The US State Department says foreign nationals applying for student and exchange visitor visas should make their social media profiles public so it can comprehensively vet and identify visa applicants who 'pose a threat to US national security'. A federal judge has temporarily delayed issuing a ruling on whether the Trump administration can block international students bound for Harvard University from entering the country. Peter Adediran, digital media rights Solicitor at PAIL Solicitors, said that some students would self-censor or even not have social media, as a result. The measures risked infringing upon the right to freedom of speech enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and might also conflict with the Human Rights Act, he said. 'Students, being aware that sharing or being monitored for politically sensitive content may complicate their visa applications, are either not going to have social media accounts or will sensitise about what they discuss and post, which is extensive surveillance and a repression of international students,' he said. 'Intrusions into students' private lives could potentially lead to discrimination against international students due to their political beliefs or affiliations. 'Students should be removing any posts that could be deemed politically sensitive. Alternatively, they could have social media accounts that reflect a politically neutral position.' • Harvard can continue accepting foreign students, judge rules Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said: 'Everyone should be constantly aware of the fact that anything you put on social media is there for ever, even if you delete it. It's depressing if something you think at the age of 16 can affect your life and career'. He added: 'Telling people to delete social media to get a place at university is completely contrary to what higher education is about: letting people speak freely. It's utterly perverse. If you can't make mistakes when you're young, when can you?' Robert, a British student at Yale is back in the UK for the summer working at a school and helping students with US applications for next year. He said the application process was already complex without the added visa problem. 'It's been tough for students and for universities who are getting updates about visa changes only at the same time as the media, then trying to figure out what the government is doing,' he added. 'We're in the dark, Yale students were concerned because of comments made by the US government about current visa holders so there's a feeling that everything is falling under investigation. 'For those applying this year, it's been bittersweet, getting a place is an amazing opportunity then, bam! You can't get a visa. It's nerve-racking.' David Feinburg runs an education consultancy in New York that gives advice to overseas students applying to US universities. He said some universities were advising students to start their degrees at branch campuses outside the US if their visas were not processed in time. Boston and North Eastern universities both have branches in the UK. 'My advice to students is to be very careful on social media,' he said. 'You always want to be careful anyway.' This was echoed by Iain Mansfield, a former Department for Education adviser and head of education at Policy Exchange think tank, who said: 'When you go on social media, whatever you put up is there to stay for a long time and can be seen by future employers. And now by those considering your visa. It's an important lesson for young people. 'This may be a bit of a lifeline for British universities which are an obvious alternative and are very highly regarded, without the extra hurdles for the US. Some British students who thought of going to the US will be staying local.'
