I have been waiting to read the new biography of Russell Kirk by Brad Birzer for many months and am hopeful to read it very soon. Russell Kirk was one of the old style conservatives who wrote The Conservative Mind in 1953 which was a trend setter for the modern conservative movement. According to Brad Birzer, Kirk was rather disinterested in politics with two lone exceptions. The first was in the late 1950s and 1960s when he advised Barry Goldwater who was in his early terms as a senator for Arizona and supported his nomination for President 1964 which was unsuccessful. Dr. Birzer wrote a piece in the Imaginative Conservative that goes into detail on how Kirk supported Goldwater. The next time he involved himself in the political realm was toward the end of his life when he chided the neoconvervatives for their support of the First Gulf War. As Gerald R. Russello stated in 2004 in the New York Sun:
He did not believe that the complex of customs, traditions, and norms we know as constitutional democracy could be packaged and exported to other cultures, especially under force.
Kirk died in 2004, but not before he left us with a great legacy and a pile of wisdom that will take years to pore over. Brizer’s biography on Kirk is available from Amazon.com in hardback and Kindle formats. It is an essential read and I hope many will enjoy its pages.
Peter Hitchens, a columnist for the Mail on Sunday, has written a very able defense of George Bell, the former Bishop of Chichester in the November issue of the London Spectator. It is remarkable that the accuser in this incident has remained anonymous and the evidence against Bell has remained out of public view. Without collaborating evidence, the matter should not be brought out into the open. The Church of England has violated the Bible’s own standards of testimony by taking the word of just one witness. 2 Corinthians 13:1 states as follows:
Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
English Common Law is the foundation for our right to a jury trial where one is tried by due process with a jury of one’s own peers. In this day and age, the standards of common law in England have been under attack by professed “reformers” such as Simon Jenkins, columnist for the Guardian, who stated in 2013 “Juries should go the way of ducking stools and vestry duty.” It seems that fair hearings are going the way of the dodo and George Bell’s indictment and conviction on the testimony of one person without a jury seems to be a sign of the decline of liberty in the West.
A few years ago, I wrote a book review for Amazon on the life of Karen Carpenter. She was part of the Carpenters, a soft rock duo that was very successful in the 1970s. As with many groups in pop culture, the Carpenters were no different in encountering many trials in their lives that were a result of their fame. The pressure was too much for Karen as she starved herself and died at the age of 33. I still listen to her music and some people say that such music was only fit for a certain time and is “corny,” but it seems to me that such opinions are from people who cannot appreciate the harmonies of the music and the lyrics that seem quaint today. Hopefully her memory will carry on for years to come.
To many here in America, the Reverend George Bell is a mystery. Only those who have read the about the exploits of Dietrich Bonhoeffer come across the name. It was Reverend Bell, the Bishop of Chichester, who was Bonhoeffer’s greatest English ally in his battle of defiance against the anti-christian activities of the Nazi regime in Germany. Bell also conveyed to the British government that it should recognize a provisional German government in the event Hitler was ousted during the war with the help of Bonhoeffer.
Bell also was a humanitarian and spoke out against the aerial bombardment of civilian targets in Germany in a speech in the House of Lords. After the war, he spoke mainly on nuclear disarmament and was a pioneer of the Ecumenical Movement. Bell died in 1958 and he was remembered as a man who stood on principle even as his chances to become Archbishop of Canterbury diminished due to his unpopular criticism of aerial bombing.
Just a few days ago, an article appeared in the Guardian stating that George Bell engaged in the sexual abuse of a young child. The witness has remained anonymous and a sum of money was paid to that person. Without cross-examination of this person or defense given by a man who has been dead over a half century, the fact that Bell has been given the “abuser” label without any formal jury trial smacks of character assassination by a media which takes any sort of accusation as gospel truth. We may rue the day when an accuser comes after any of us without any collaboration and be branded an abuser for the rest of our lives. Peter Hitchens said it best in his October 25, 2015 column when he said:
I know the C of E [Church of England] has had real problems with child abuse in recent years, and has a lot of apologising to do. No doubt. But was it wise or right to sacrifice the reputation of George Bell, to try to save its own? Who defended the dead man, in this secret process?