A few brief thoughts on Benedict’s visit

Didn’t get a chance to really share in it while it was happening, but followed at a distance and skimmed some of his speeches. I’m reasonably familiar with, and sympathetic to, his major themes. That being said, a few thoughts:

– Richard Dawkins has replaced Ian Paisley in his role as walk-on-nutter/rentaquote (see this);
– it was good to see Christians out in force, and we should do this much more often;
– I think the tide began to turn against secularism some time ago (in the academy, best part of 30 years ago) but often it takes a while for an event to crystallise understandings that have been brewing for a while. This visit may end up being seen, retrospectively, as the moment when ‘the tide turned’. He hasn’t got Gandalf’s voice, but I was reminded of this

(See also this)

And that’s all I have to say about that.
UPDATE: actually, reading this, I’m starting to think that his attitude is much more hostile than I realised. Hmmm.

Is Church necessary?

I’m having a lot of conversations (some of them in real time physically 😉 on the topic of whether church is needed or not. I made a comment on this earlier post giving my bottom line, which is basically that one part of the community can’t say to another ‘I don’t need you’ (1 Corinthians) which is still my basic stance. Yet more needs to be said, and thought. Here are four interim thoughts.

1. What is church? The church is certainly not the building; nor is it the institution called ‘The Church of England’ (or any other denomination), although it is much less of a mistake to think that than to think that the church is some ethereal, intangible entity (see next point). To my mind, the church is where baptised disciples gather in the name of Christ to be renewed and fed; it is also what those disciples do once they have been renewed and fed. It is the tuning fork which allows people to play their instruments well – separately and together. It is where the rough edges are worn off the immature personality, where discipleship is put into effect, where we show just how serious a disciple we are prepared to be. It is where our saltiness is scrutinised; it is where the world is challenged; it is where the kingdom is born. This is not and cannot be a solitary endeavour. It is of necessity communal. It is not true that “l’enfer, c’est les autres”; on the contrary, heaven is the full recognition and love of other people.

2. The idea that we don’t need other people – that they get in the way of our full realisation of ourselves, that they necessarily inhibit our self-expression, that they prevent us from becoming all that we can be because we’re worth it – this is simply the contemporary expression of old-fashioned gnostic heresy. That which is bodily, and messy, and confused – this is what was taken up by the Word made Flesh. What he has not assumed he has not healed. If we accept the Incarnation then the Body of Christ has substance – and the first thousand years was settled on the idea that the substance was your flesh and blood neighbour, whilst the mystical Body was how you met Jesus in communion. Not the least amongst the pernicious consequences associated with Corpus Christi is the notion that “church” is abstract and subjectively discerned. This is the privatisation of faith – incorporeal and anti-incarnational – it is not Christianity. If you cannot learn to love your neighbour (and enemy) within a church, you will never learn to love them without it.

3. The idea that church is there to meet personal needs, and that if those needs aren’t met it is alright to discard church, is just another manifestation of contemporary consumer culture. Having said that, there is a kernel of truth here which might sometimes be relevant. Calvin (I believe) said that so long as the gospel was rightly preached and the sacraments duly administered, there was no justification for leaving a church. That seems to me to be right. It also seems right to me that church should be where all the believers in a place are gathered together – and the reality of that is notable more by its absence than its presence. Discerning good motive from bad motive here is very knotty and problematic. The Spirit may well be calling out something new from the body of believers, and sometimes that something new is prevented from birth due to all sorts of more-or-less serious spiritual sickness on the part of the establishment. At what point can one say ‘Here I stand I can do no other?’ Part of the problem is that our culture has venerated the Lutheran stance to absurd levels – I am entitled to my opinion no matter how ignorant, incoherent and morally reprehensible it might be.

4. Thomas Merton writes in his ‘Notes for a Philosophy of Solitude’ that it is sometimes necessary for a person or a group of people to withdraw from the world and the church, not because of hatred for them (= you are blocking my self-actualisation etc) but out of love. If we take worldliness seriously, and our own complicities in sin seriously, then worldly idol-worship will inevitably contaminate the life of the church. It is then essential that there are people who represent the faith in stark purity and beauty, in contrast to the world – even if it is not the vocation of the church as a whole to be apart from the world. This is the eremitical vocation. Yet the hermit was someone accepted and endorsed by the wider community; this was necessary to ensure that the eremitic life was chosen for the right reasons, and not simply to avoid the hard spiritual labour of living alongside other people. I love the description of ‘Unfettered ones’ in Thomas Covenant. Truth be told, it’s something I have a hankering to pursue myself – but I’ll explore that another time.

Given that all existing churches are partial, and broken, and more or less deformed in myriad ways – is it wrong for someone to give up on a particular church (assuming that Calvin’s criteria are met)? I do not know. Still much to think about on this one.

A greenbeltish reflection

There seems to be a very large group of people for whom faith is a real and central part of their lives, but for whom the institutional church is a spirituality-killer – and for whom Greenbelt is their ‘church’.

Thought one: you can’t be a Christian on your own.
Thought two: you don’t need an insitution to be a Christian.
Thought three: how long before Greenbelt itself becomes an institution that ‘believers’ need to break away from in order to be authentic to themselves.

There is more here to be discerned…

Rev.isited

This is by way of a response to Jon who thinks I’m too harsh on Adam Smallbone and who argues “Smallbone’s ‘I’m tired of having to tell people what they want to hear all the time’ is something that I would guess most of us think at some stage in our ministry. Moments like those have been the basis for much of the comedy in the series and, in my experience at least, seem an authentic reflection on an aspect of being in ministry. In the context of the story told in the final episode, that comment was then deliberately undercut by the writers in the denouement to the episode where he says exactly what his dying parishioner wants and needs to hear and this is restorative both for the parishioner and himself.”

Trouble is, if that is the truth – and yes, all good art is open to multiple interepretation – but if that is the truth then, for me, the ending is denuded of all value. Let me explain.

I read the climax of the series, when Smallbone is collected by the police and taken off to do his proper work, as a moment of anagnorisis. In other words, in the midst of his drunken gropings, the overflow of self-pity and self-hatred, Smallbone is recalled to his essential vocation, a vocation expressed in ministering with truth and dignity in a sacramental fashion. In other words, there is a break with what has gone before – which, in retrospect, is seen unfavourably. That had great power for me – it is why I liked it.

If, however, Jon’s analysis is true, and Smallbone is still saying ‘exactly what his dying parishioner wants and needs to hear’ then there is a consistency between Smallbone’s behaviour leading up to this moment and what he then does. In other words, there is no anagnorisis, there is no crisis, there is no growth in self-knowledge. How dull!

The trouble is that I really could believe Jon’s analysis of the writers’ intention to be true. That is, I found the ending so wonderful because it undercut what had gone before, not because it was consistent with what had gone before.

Something else needs to be touched on.

The problem is that ‘saying what people want to hear’ is a consistent part of Smallbone’s nature, and it ties in with what I see as a lack of character. A previous moment that I felt was telling was when Smallbone half-apologises to his wife that they have never had children, and the wife responds that she already has one, ie him! Perhaps they should have called the character ‘Adam No-Backbone’ instead.

There is all the difference in the world between refraining from speaking the truth – out of pastoral concern and sensitivity to kairos, say – and speaking what people want to hear. The one is a prudent forebearance that keeps at least one eye on the main purpose, the other is a rootless drifting in the currents of the world. It is because Smallbone had seemed to be so much of the latter kind that I found the ending so wonderful a contrast.

I would not wish to argue, either, that this is a matter of strength of character. Indeed, that is to perpetuate the most fundamental theological error in the programme. God is more than happy to make use of weak vessels to accomplish his own ends, indeed, as St Paul tells us, this is in some ways the essential point in being a Christian. Again, this is what I found so wonderful and true about the ending – a weak man being the means of divine grace.

The trouble with Smallbone is that he lacked a place to stand outside of himself, somewhere that is not comprised of (and compromised by) his own narcissism. He lacked, so it seemed to me, any sense of the otherness of God, of that power greater than himself within which he found his own true calling and nature, which loved him and enabled him to be himself – to precisely not be a false self, presenting what other people wanted to hear. I don’t think it a coincidence that there was so little exploration of worship in the programme – perhaps they couldn’t, as it was a comedy – yet without that, any true presentation of priesthood collapses. I often felt that the programme could have been changed into a non-religious context without any serious alterations of character being required – Smallbone could easily have been a social worker or government bureaucrat, and much of the comedy would have remained.

To put it succinctly, Smallbone had no fear of God in him. That is why I shall continue to see him as the construct of the secular, liberal elite – they have no understanding of the fear of God, no sense of it as a living (and life-giving) reality – and their presentation of the faith shares that failing. They don’t understand it, therefore it doesn’t exist – other than as a quaint delusion shared by the uneducated or mentally deficient. Smallbone is a nice guy, doing his best.
Forgive me, but I believe that there is more to being a Rev. than that.

Rev.

Two brilliant things about that latest and last episode of Rev, which was watched late by me:
– the ending,
– the portrayal of what it is to be a fed up vicar, flopped on the sofa watching rubbish TV with beer in hand (‘I feel like a remnant of an illusion that people used to believe in’ – great line).

Could relate to both of those things.

What I really got frustrated with, however, was the continued lack of authenticity in the portrayal of the vocation, summed up when Smallbone says ‘I’m tired of having to tell people what they want to hear all the time’. Throughout the series he seemed to have no moral centre, no anchor – a representation of what the liberal elites think about faith. Gah!

I’ve enjoyed the programme – and I’d watch another series if they made one – but I still long for a portrayal of a priest that isn’t filtered through a secular mindset.

Tests of Anglican Orthodoxy

John Richardson – always an interesting read, and from whom I learn a lot, even in disagreement – has a post up outlining five tests of orthodoxy, taken from the 39 Articles. Herewith a commentary on his five tests, and an alternative list of five.

Give your response to the following statements (adapted from the 39 Articles):
1. “Christ … truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of people.”
2. “Original Sin … is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man … whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil … and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.”
3. “We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine.”
4. “Holy Scripture doth set out to us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.”
5. “It is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.”
What one would be looking for in the answers would be, amongst other things, an absence of ‘nuancing’…

Herewith my ‘nuancing’ 🙂
1. I would start to nuance at the point of the word ‘sacrifice’. What is meant or understood by it? A Pagan concept (like King Kong – appeasing an angry monster) or a fully Biblical concept? – by which I mean something much broader and richer than we’ve inherited from the Reformation era. I would understand the phrase ‘bearing our sins’ in a different way to that associated with penal substitution.
2. Wouldn’t want to nuance this much – perhaps just pointing out that we were originally created in God’s image, and that our sharing in divinity is more basic than our sin.
3. The nuancing would be about how to understand faith; I agree with the substance.
4. I don’t agree with this one; that is, I think that the emphasis upon the Name is not something that Jesus himself would recognise (and I think it undercuts a proper doctrine of the Trinity). I would, however, affirm that none can come to the Father except by Him.
5. This I disagree with (see discussion here), mainly because I think it is in itself incoherent and unScriptural (lurking behind it is, I would argue, a faulty understanding of what the Word of God means).

John suggests that those who disagree, substitute in other tests. I’m not averse to there being tests of orthodoxy. If the teaching ministry is essential to ordination (which I think it is) then there does need to be something to mark out what is acceptable and what is not. I think my five tests would look something like this (comments very welcome):

Do you accept:
1) the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as understood and expressed in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed?
2) that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead on the third day, and appeared to Peter and the disciples?
3) that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord of all, and the one to whom you owe your final allegiance?
4) that the Church of England is a part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church?
5) the discipline of the Church of England, and will you give canonical obedience to those in authority over you, in all things lawful and honest?

Obviously, my emphases are rather different to John’s!

Jeffrey John for Southwark?

Thought I’d say something about this story; put simply, I think it would be wonderful if John were to be appointed to Southwark.

Jeffrey John has, at (presumably) some personal cost, demonstrated what it means to obey a teaching that you do not agree with. I think we could do with more of that witness to the virtue of obedience, especially at the highest levels of the church.

It would put right a past injustice. The objections to John being made Bishop of Reading did not seem to be made with Christian charity or notions of ‘bearing each other’s burdens’ – rather there was an attempt to force the hand of the hierarchy, which succeeded, and, in my view, gravely damaged Rowan’s ministry.

Following on from that, an appointment of John would represent an affirmation of traditional Anglican inclusivity, and a rejection of homophobia. I think the charge of homophobia is easier to make with regard to John because of his celibacy – the real motivations become clearer.

Unless the motivation is with regard to his teaching re homosexuality – but then the totalitarian ideology is exposed. The spirit blows where it will, and Jesus has many more things to teach us that we can’t cope with yet.

Personally speaking, I had been getting quite gloomy about the way that developments in the church had seemed to be moving, and I had started to believe that a really quite profound split was likely to take place – mainly because what I generally perceive to be the ‘middle ground’ in the church was seeming to be on the path to being excluded. Appointing John would, in my view, make that tremendously less likely, and, at the same time, a different split more likely. This is a selfish point really – if John were to be appointed I’d personally feel ‘safer’ in the CofE than hitherto.

My one suspicion – my cynical side emerging – is whether the appointment of John is designed to ‘buy off’ opposition to the Archepiscopal fiddle with regard to women bishops. I hope that isn’t the case.

I shall follow the story with great interest, and if John is appointed, I shall cheer.
UPDATE: I thought it was too good to be true. How very depressing.

West Mersea church, c.1900


Some colleagues were clearing out a room in the church and came across this picture of St Peter and St Paul’s. It is undated, but has to predate 1905 as the East Window was re-ordered, and a stained glass window put in, at that time. This is (roughly) what it looks like at the moment:

It just proves that things which seem to have ‘been there for ever’ haven’t at all. The c.1900 picture shows a fairly Anglo-Catholic sensibility, which I’m quite certain wouldn’t have been there a hundred years earlier, maybe not even fifty years earlier.