Category Archives: culture

HTR: some key principles of righteous resistance

Posted on by

My last post was a bit of a screed, sorry, I just needed to vent. This one is a little more considered.

I have spent a lot of time in my life thinking about questions of violence, pacifism and non-violent resistance (see here). I first engaged with these questions properly at university, where I studied Gandhi in particular, but in the long run I have probably been most influenced by Stanley Hauerwas on this question. I love his comment “Why am I a pacifist? I’m a pacifist because I’m a violent son of a bitch.” I understand that comment. I consider his ‘Peaceable Kingdom’ to be the best primer for Christians on this question, though there is much else, and of course there is an immense political literature, from Augustine to Wink, that needs to be taken account of. What I want to do in this post is share a quick over-view of what I see as four key principles for righteous resistance1, which have to be held to no matter what it is that is being resisted.

1. Violence is fallen, and only tragically necessary
In God’s intentions there is no violence, all the violence is in us. The violence is a product of the fall, of our departure from Eden, and every resort to violence represents a failure of humanity. The aim of all resistance is fundamentally spiritual, to change the ‘hearts and minds’ – the souls – of those who are being resisted. Violence is not just the use of physical force as the various social and psychological harms (eg coercive control) are also actions that qualify as violence. Violence is a reduction of a person to person struggle (I-Thou) to a contest of forces (I-It). Gandhi taught that it is an article of faith for every satyagrahi2 that nobody is beyond the reach of ahimsa3. Where violence is resorted to it is always and everywhere to be regarded as a sin. That is not to say that sometimes it isn’t a just choice, it is to insist that when we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils, the only way to prevent further corruption is to recognise that the lesser of two evils remains an evil. Righteous resistance insists upon the shared humanity of those who are being resisted. We do not hate the human for nothing human is foreign to us. In most cases it is more righteous to receive suffering rather than to give it, for this is the way of Christ on the cross, and unless we carry our own crosses we are not worthy to be counted as his disciples.

2. Imagination is primary
This is a point I take from Hauerwas, that we are conditioned by our imaginations long before we come to the consideration of specific situations. If our imaginations are filled with violence, if, in particular, such violence is held up as worthy, then we are all the more likely to indulge in a lust for violence (and yes, it is a lust, a deadly sin). This is why it is essential for our imaginations to be formed on Christ, for Jesus to be the principal source of our mimesis (Girard). In particular much of what is seen as ‘based’ Christianity seems to me to be drinking from imaginatively corrupted wells, where worldly success – military victory – is seen as righteous in an unqualified sense. Such approaches seem to me to have accepted the devil’s bargain from the mountain top. The Kingdom of Christ is not of this world, and whilst Tolkien may have overstated things with his perspective of ‘the long defeat’ it is imperative that we do not think that anything is achieved in this world from our own effort. Cromwell: trust in God and keep your gunpowder dry.

3. Never undermine the rule of law
The rule of law is the basis of civilisation, it is what I refer to when I mention ‘the King’s Peace’, and it is far more important than things like human rights or democracy – for those depend upon the rule of law in order to have any effect at all. The rule of law is the bulwark against barbarism, it is the only thing that can keep the bullies of all forms in check, it is our principal defence against σάρξ4. What this means is that even when a specific law is being opposed, as that specific law is seen as unjust (eg a racist law in 1960s Alabama) then the resister must, absolutely must, not resist the operations of the law in dealing with the resistance. The resister must cooperate with being arrested, must plead guilty in court for the offence (if they are guilty under the existing law) and must humbly accept the duly administered punishment – Martin Luther King in Birmingham jail5. Most especially the resister must not physically harm or fight with the appointed officers of the law. Righteous resistance affirms the importance of the thin blue line, righteous resistance loves the police and needs to show it. Which means that the lawless ones (eg the rioters, those who push burning bins at police behind riot shields) have no righteousness and stand condemned.

4. The struggle is spiritual
Jesus says, “What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world but loseth his own soul?” In the same way, what would it profit a righteous resistance if a cause ‘succeeds’ and yet simply sows greater alienation and division within a community? The path of righteous resistance cannot be reduced to a particular change of law or regulation; rather it is about the establishment of community and fellowship in place of division, strife and accusation, all the hallmarks of the realm of the enemy. The greatest problem that we face is the spiritual vacuum at the heart of the West, the soul death that preceded, caused, the civilisation death that we are living through. Yet resurrection! It is a good thing that Christianity teaches the conquering of death and we are not without hope. The most important task is to use the tools of righteous resistance to clarify what is at stake spiritually in the struggle. To bring things into the light, so that all might live in the light.

I’ll write further about what these mean in terms of our present distress.

After Southport: Secularism, Scapegoating, Starmergeddon

Posted on by

I put off writing this for a while, for all sorts of reasons, much of which boiled down to feeling immensely depressed and despondent about it all. That, however, is faithless. The virtue of Christian hope is all about not giving in, about keeping on keeping on – and yes, I’m re-reading Lord of the Rings at the moment, which has that as a major theme. So, for what it’s worth, here is my take, it’s not very cheery, but when I despair I remember that it is to God that we look for salvation, and that we put not our trust in princes.

The rioting and lawlessness that followed the foul attack in Southport must be dealt with by the law, without fear or favour. On the King’s Peace does civilisation depend. Thus far I agree with Starmer, but no further. Most especially the absurd disproportion on display between the sentences given to angry working class white people, and those given to other categories, has become darkly comic. Starmer has quite clearly chosen a side against the white working classes – and, I guess following a government briefing, Mr Welby has done the same. Such things are catastrophic, and the consequences are going to be grim.

Attention has been paid to the rumours that the attacker was Islamic, which led to the attack on the Mosque, and all the consequent disorder. So there has been a crackdown on bad speech, not just incitement, but all that might be considered ‘legal but harmful’ – watch what you post says Big Brother. What this ignores is that the bad speech, the rumour, was simply a match tossed upon kindling soaked in petrol. If it hadn’t been this event and this story then it would have been another one. The firm hand of the law managed to suppress the disorder this time, but it will not always be able to do so. Indeed, the success of that suppression, and the manner in which that suppression was carried out, has added more fuel to the pile. The eventual conflagration will be more severe. In the end something will give.

Our elite supports an ideology of multiculturalism, what I, as a short-hand, tend to call the secular. The secular mindset is premised on the superiority of the WEIRD understanding of the world, within which religious belief is something that can provide all sorts of interesting colour to life, but is not of practical consequence, and best conducted in private. Secularism is in fact intensely Protestant (I might write more about that at some point – the Protestant Grammar of Wokery) and one of the most harmful elements of the secular approach is the way it is unconscious of its own theological premises and biases. After all, every world-view worthy of the name contains theological premises and biases, the point is only to uncover them and bring them into the light to see if they are good, true or beautiful, or simply to be discarded.

So our public order is structured on the dismissal of the validity of religious belief, most especially Christian belief. You can believe what you like so long as you keep it to yourself, and in the meantime the public square will support the values of tolerance, diversity and equality driven principally (this often goes unmentioned) by the need to feed more human fuel into the great maw of Mammon (industrial capitalism). Religious belief is inefficient…

Which leads to our present challenge, and the choice that will inevitably have to be made, publicly, clearly and committedly: do we preserve the freedoms and tolerances that have been granted to those hitherto treated poorly (most especially women and sexual minorities, but also ethnic and religious minorities), or do we tacitly sacrifice those freedoms and tolerances in order to appease one particular religious group? How does multiculturalism cope with a constituency that radically rejects multiculturalism? Secularism, sadly, lacks the philosophical – spiritual! – resources to cope with such a question. It is a vehicle that has been running on empty for some time, and the engine has started to sputter.

As I touched on before, this is the tragedy of the modern left. Cultural conflict is not supposed to happen in a multicultural society, we’re all supposed to just get along. Yet where there are egregious offences committed by one group against another, and where, not only are the criminal group protected by the state, but those crying out against the crimes are themselves criminalised, and oppressed, and victimised even further by the people that are meant to protect them (protect everyone) – this is not the path to peace.

One of the most heartbreaking stories I have read about the child rape gangs was of one father who went to the local police station to raise the alarm, because he was concerned about his daughter, and who was rejected by the police for being a racist. The Jay report put such truths in language accessible to (acceptable to) the authorities, but it is the specific and individual stories that need to be felt in order for what happened at the hotel in Rotherham to be understood.

Secularism cannot cope with this. Multi-cultural ideology is a cruel fiction that abolishes the possibility of peace and friendship across cultural divides. Violence inevitably follows.

Which brings me to scapegoating. The particular cultural conflict that Starmer et al are trying to suppress is a distinctive of the problems that we face in our country in our time. The underlying dark dynamics however are of much more ancient and universal character. When a society is stressed – and so many of our left-behind communities have been dealing with decades of increasing stress – and when that society starts to break down within itself, so that there is conflict with the society, then that society will eventually find a scapegoat. The scapegoat will be blamed and the previous tensions will be consumed in an orgy of newly created unity against that scapegoat. At which point that scapegoat will be purged from the group, either by expulsion or by elimination.

Now that Starmer has committed himself against a path of reconciliation (with Welby, ironically, in tow) the only question is: who will be the scapegoat?

A brief interjection: for nearly twenty years now I’ve been warning about this in sermons, and I’ve assumed that it will be the Islamic community, and I’ve said that the Christian community has to be ready to protect the Muslims (mosques and curry houses and so on) but one reflection from the last few weeks has been that I could have gotten this wrong. There is actually a group that is much smaller in number than the Muslim community, and which is much more widely resented and despised – and that is the ‘new elite’ political class itself. It’s possible that what we are headed towards is less a National Socialist scapegoating of a religious minority than a Revolutionary period of Great Fear and guillotines.

What I know is that there is an immense depth of sheer rage in the country, with insults being piled upon injuries by our clueless political class. We are in an immensely precarious position. There will be an inciting incident. Perhaps it will be something nakedly evil but essentially random like the Southport attack, but more likely it will be an Islamic terror attack, along the lines of all the ones before. Then the scapegoating will start, and the devilish mobs will whip themselves up with self-righteous fury, and shouts of ‘Crucify’ will fill the air, and only the Prince of this World will regard the outcome with joy.

This is what I have begun to think of as Starmergeddon. It is the logical end-point of the mainstream mentality of this country, it is what happens when God is abandoned: violence, disorder, hatred, the collapse of all human fellowship and friendship. I don’t know what it would take to shake the elite out of their mind-set. For when the first tremors are seen – as in Southport – then the secular view is not yet shaken in its certainties. For these are bad people doing bad things, have we not always said as much? Aren’t they revolting? And the elite continue, convinced of their rectitude. How bad might it have to become before they recognise the unsustainability of their path? How many mosques will be burned, how many asylum seekers will be lynched, just what would it take to bring them to a better acquaintance with reality? How big must the catastrophe be? Is it even possible for them to ask ‘are we the baddies?’

In my book I talked about the ‘accumulating crises of our time’ – well, the crises are now starting to crescendo. Ecological overshoot, resource wars, migrant flows, ethnic strife, economic stagnation if not collapse… such are trends that have been in place for so long that we have become accustomed to them, yet ‘if something cannot go on forever then it won’t’. I believe that in so many areas we have now reached the ‘won’t’! I do rather suspect that Peak Oil is going to knock loudly on the door and say hello too.

Which is why I have been feeling so despairing. Cassandra mode, however, is not a fit state for a Christian to occupy. Yet this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope…

God is not mocked. Reality is one of the names of God, and we are driving head first at great speed into the brick wall of reality, on so many fronts. I cannot help but think that the revival of a religious sensibility, which is the only element that might enable us to navigate the furies effectively, has already started. There are enough people, and their number is growing, who see that the tools we used to create these problems are not the ones which will enable us to solve the problems. Deep down we know the truth, and the truth is a person.

Moses only really started to make headway when the court magicians could not keep up with the signs of YHWH. I look for the day when our court magicians run out of words; that is when the divine speech will be heard: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

How to resist: a decision made on holiday

Posted on by

I have been in Cordoba, pondering the Reconquista. One interim conclusion of my reflections is that I’m going to drop the word ‘Islam’ from the title of this sequence, and I’m going to go back and edit it out of previous elements. This is for three reasons.

Firstly, I have no wish to be arrested for airing opinions that are ‘legal but harmful’. On the whole I find the present political situation in the UK unbearably toxic, and I have much that I would like to share – look out for something long called ‘After Southport’ which I’ll finish writing once I’m back from Greenbelt – but I’m not going to be reckless in what I write. I’d never support rioting or attacking mosques or refugee centres, but I don’t trust the bubble and the servants of the bubble to see that, so I’m going to try to be exquisitely precise and clear. In particular nothing that I shall be writing is ever to be taken as advocating a breach of the King’s Peace. The preservation of the King’s Peace, the maintenance of the rule of law applied to all without fear or favour, it is on this that our whole civilisation (British and Christian) is built.

However, if that was my only concern then I might not change things. So the second element in wanting to remove the word Islam from the title is that I don’t want to do anything which adds to the scapegoating process. As I have said repeatedly the logical endpoint of the path that we have embarked upon is inter-ethnic and inter-religious strife when it will be the task of the Christian to defend the ones that society will scapegoat. I’m expecting that to be the Islamic community. I thought the way that Bristol residents surrounded the Mercure hotel (to defend it) was a good demonstration of what we will need to do, when the crises come. And come they will, increasingly, and more violently, for so long as the tragedy of the modern left plays out. I remain convinced that as an ideology, Islam is pernicious – but in a situation of civil conflict those concerns (and I will still write about those concerns) are beside the point. We protect the vulnerable.

Which leads to the third thing, and what I was most conscious of whilst in Cordoba. Islam is expanding in Britain because it is expanding into a spiritual vacuum. What I most want is to renew the historic spiritual centre of this land. England has only ever been a Christian nation (that is, Christianity in England predates the establishment of England as a nation). If we were spiritually robust then we would have no need to fear Islam, our spiritual immune system would be able to cope. So I am more persuaded that the locus of ‘resistance’ needs to change. It is the Starmtroopers, both physical and spiritual, that we need to tackle as a higher priority.

Spelling out what that means remains the burden of this sequence.

~

I’ve been saying this for a very long time. In searching for something else I came upon this Remembrance Day sermon from 2010:

20101114 Remembrance Sunday

We have gathered together today to remember before God those who have gone before us, who gave their lives in war in order that those whom they loved would be saved.

In the news this morning the newly appointed Chief of the Defence Staff is alleged to have said that defeating Islamic militancy – the enemy against whom our armed forces are presently fighting – that defeating them was “unnecessary and could never be achieved”. Now I know that the Telegraph cannot always be trusted in its reporting, so I don’t want to focus my remarks upon General Richards himself. I would however like to say a few words about the attitude that those words express, because, even if they are not a faithful report of General Richards’ views, I’m sure they do reflect the views of other people in this country.

To begin with, it is, of course true, that an ideology cannot be defeated on the battlefield. Particular expressions of an ideology can be – as was the case in the Second World War – but an ideology itself cannot be defeated by physical force. So in that sense of ‘can never be achieved’ I understand the point that is being made. Yet what is missed, so it seems to me, is the truth that ideologies can be defeated in their own terms; that is, they can be shown to be false if they can be shown not to achieve what they claim to achieve – and it is that, so it seems to me, which is our task.

In the case of Islamic militancy, the central claim is that the Western world is in a state of barbaric ignorance, cut off from God, as a result of which people cannot flourish. In contrast to that, those who have embraced Islam, most especially through accepting Sharia law, are able to flourish in their lives. The armed struggle is undertaken as a struggle to advance human liberty and happiness – throwing off barbaric regimes that destroy people physically and spiritually, and exchanging that state for one in which true human freedom is established. The argument is not, therefore, between one side that seeks freedom and well-being, and another that resists those things, but rather a struggle between different visions of what human freedom and well-being actually are.

Islamic militancy is a view which has very deep roots, going back at least two hundred and fifty years to the Reform movement in Saudi Arabia known as Wahhabism, and taken forward by others. It long predates the establishment of Israel, or the Western invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, and we would be gravely mistaken if we ever thought that withdrawing from Afghanistan, or abandoning Israel, would solve our problems. Most importantly Islamic militancy is not a trivial ideology, and we must not dismiss it trivially, nor is it one which does not contain any truth. In criticising the West, they are right to point out the ways in which we fall short of God’s intentions for us – because we do – and there is in fact a very great deal of overlap between the critique of our society given by the Islamist militants, and that given by faithful Christians. There is also, of course, a very great deal of difference between what is seen as the solution.

For we do still live in a place where we are free to pursue a Christian faith, even if that freedom is starting to break down at the edges. Whatever our concerns about being allowed to wear a cross if you are working for British Airways, or whether you will lose your job as a nurse if you offer to pray with a patient, we are not like the church in Baghdad that was recently attacked by Islamic militants, with great loss of life. And we have that privilege for the simple reason that people have struggled for it – struggled with force of arms, and struggled spiritually. The greatest victories for Christian faith were won by the martyrs of the first centuries, who would rather have been fed to the lions than renounce their Saviour. They were the ones who demonstrated the true nature of freedom, who demonstrated what it meant to live an abundant life, and it is their spirit that we need to emulate.

The only lasting victory over Islamic militancy will come from demonstrating that we are not a Godless society, and that, in pursuing God to the best of our abilities, as we have known him revealed in Christ, we show in our lives what it means to live as free and flourishing human beings. And what does that mean in practice? What is it that I am actually saying we need to do? To answer that, I would like to share with you a passage from St Paul’s letter to the Romans. St Paul writes:

“Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is noble and right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

We will not overcome the ideology of Islamic militancy by simply fighting suicide vests with cluster bombs. We will overcome it by remembering what it is that those we remember today fought for, remembering it and renewing our commitment to it – that is, the values of a Christian civilisation – which is one that takes those words of St Paul seriously. Let us not be overcome with evil, but let us overcome evil with good. Those we remember today fought and died in order that we might enjoy the freedom to pursue a Christian life in peace – so let us honour their sacrifice by renewing our commitment to our Christian inheritance, trusting in the God who sent his Son, not to condemn the world, but that the whole world might be saved through Him. Amen.

Strengthening the centre

Posted on by

I’m more and more convinced that the most urgent political task of our time is to strengthen the centre against extremes. Which means people of good will coming together, not just affirming where they agree but also clarifying where they disagree, and the nature of that disagreement, and the bounds within which that disagreement functions.

In other words, a process to ‘de-demonise the Other’.

An example – I sometimes refer to myself as a ‘deep green climate sceptic’. The latter two words tend to trigger extreme responses, that eclipse the weight of the first two – which is why I’m persuaded that the argument is basically a religious one (recently bought this, but haven’t read it yet). Yet there is so much that might be agreed upon, and worked towards (eg around transport). Same applies to Brexit of course.

It’s as if we need to re-establish good disagreement (a nod towards Psybertron here, who has been saying this for quite some time) and the rules of civilised discourse. It’s OK to disagree. Of course I could be wrong. And so on.

Just today’s thoughts. I’ll do my best to work towards it.

The only mercies in war

Posted on by

In the context of present crises I keep coming back to the thought that there are only two mercies in war: speed and clarity. In other words, a decisive victory for one side or the other. The worst thing in war is a conflict that never resolves, like a wound that never heals, that continues bleeding and suppurating for years.

So – however barbaric and detestable it might be – the removal of Armenians from the Karabakh region due to the swift military victory of Azerbaijan back in September, that was merciful. There are people alive now who would not have remained alive without the swiftness and certainty of that military victory. Life will carry on.

The opposite end of the spectrum is, of course, Israel. I wonder what would have happened if – at various points – the Israeli government had simply said ‘sod it’ and genuinely carried out some ethnic cleansing, in the way that Azerbaijan has. I rather suspect that the overall suffering would have been less in recent decades, for all sides. Instead, in an attempt to be ‘good’ and to win the good graces of all interlocutors, the great un-endable conflict increases and immiserates all involved.

Perhaps Israel needs a bit more of the Old Testament Heart…

Inner turmoil

Posted on by

I am in a weird place at the moment.

I haven’t been well – and am still not right – I suspect that after three years of avoiding it I have finally had a dose of Covid. My immune system seems to be ‘cycling’ several times a day, which is why at first I thought it was allergic (gluten or dust or feathers or what-have-you) but it has been nearly three weeks now. I seem to only have about half of my normal energy.

Also, though, and what is taking up much of my attention at the moment, is the situation in Israel and, even more, the protests in London celebrating Hamas (and I think that is a fair description). I’ve thought a lot about Islam in the last couple of decades. I did some academic study of it in Cambridge, and then in my curacy I was in a Muslim majority area at the time of 9/11, and that was rather formative for me. There is a heart of darkness there, and when I ponder it I start to worry that I’m Islamophobic. “What can men do against such reckless hate?”

We are facing a fundamentally spiritual crisis and – channelling MacIntyre – it is our unawareness of the nature of the problem that is the most important part of the problem. Secular thinking has run aground, the only question is what will take its place.

Such horror.

We need to be Reformed from our new works-righteousness

Posted on by

I enjoyed Paul Hackwood’s two articles critiquing the centralising tendencies of the Church of England, but amidst much agreement there was one element that I vigorously disagreed with. Hackwood writes:

“This idea of general welfare is gaining traction as our culture changes; “well-being” is increasingly spoken of in the workplace and in civil society. Not coincidentally, this is what most clergy in the Church of England see as their purpose, and the horizon of their mission, and it gives meaning to what they deal with every day. Well-being and welfare are a strong foundation for evangelism and growth.”

I do not see well-being or the idea of general welfare as my purpose, or the horizon of my mission, and I suspect – I hope – that I am not alone in this. To me, this comment encapsulates all that has gone wrong with the Church of England, and it is why Hackwood’s recommendations, commendable though they are, will not ultimately bear the necessary good fruit of evangelism and growth.

For me, the principal purpose of ordained ministry is to feed the faithful through word and sacrament. There are other purposes too, of course, but that is the beating heart of the ministry. Mission, in so far as it falls specifically to the ordained in distinction to the purpose of the whole body of Christ, is fulfilled when new believers are enabled to share in the worship of the Body of Christ. This is what it means to love God with all that we have and all that we are, which is the most important commandment that we are given to obey.

The second commandment comes second – to love our neighbours as ourselves. All that can be considered as general welfare is an expression of that second commandment. Important, yes, but less important than the first commandment. We must insist upon the priority of worship in our self-understanding of who we are; we are most truly ourselves when we can come together in the presence of Christ.

To set aside the priority of the first commandment is a product of the unacknowledged materialism that so conditions the public language of our church. There is a story to be told of how and why the Church of England has come to be seen as lacking in faith, but a component of that must be the reluctance to talk about matters of faith. What we must surely do at this moment is talk about the priority of worship, and that means not trying to justify our worship in terms that the wider culture finds acceptable. We need to declare the priority of worship for its own sake.

Which is why the contentious decision to close churches during the first lockdown was so disastrous. It was the perfect embodiment of the priority given to the second commandment over the first. Love of neighbour was given priority over love of God; physically gathering for worship was optional, reducing the risk of infection was essential. As an act of prophetic drama this decision could not have more clearly communicated the theological wrong-headedness that governs our church. This is why we are dying.

What gives me hope is that there are enough church members who instinctively recognised the wrongness of that decision, both the substance of it and the way in which it was enacted. The capitulation of our leadership to the imperatives of the state, marked by an absence of theological perspective, is only to be expected from a church that has so systematically, over many decades, sought to make itself acceptable to society through accommodating itself to what it thinks the society wants. Please like us – see what good works we are doing! We no longer need to be Reformed from a works-righteousness in relation to God, we need to be reformed from a works-righteousness in relation to our wider society.

I believe that the only path towards evangelism and growth starts from unapologetic apologetics. The gospel is the truth, our primary need is to proclaim that truth – everything else will then fall into its proper place.

The sound of an idol toppling

Posted on by

Like most of the world around it, the Church of England is so caught up in busyness and anxious make-work that it has ceased to attend to what is truly happening in the world around it; and as attention is simply another word for prayer this is a grievous fault.

If the Church were to pay attention, I believe that it would perceive one immensely important fact in particular: the great idol of our time is toppling. The idol is science, or, more particularly, the idol is a particular form of scientific and technical expertise that has been shepherded by a priestly class of laboratory-coat wearing men (well – in the story that is told, mostly men) who have journeyed into the greater mysteries and emerged bearing gifts and blessings for the people.

This idolatry, this white coated religion, has its foundation myths (Galileo!) and rituals (the scientific method!), its seminaries and its churches just like any other faith. Walter Brueggemann, in writing about the prophetic imagination, notes that when Moses, the archetypal prophet, seeks to inspire the people of Israel with a belief that things do not have to be the way that they are, that it is not an eternal truth that the Israelites must be enslaved by the Egyptians, a crucial step comes when the technocrats of the Pharaoh contend with the technocrat of YHWH – and they come up short (see Exodus chapters 7-9). Each time Moses and Aaron take a step to demonstrate the power of YHWH the magicians of Egypt are able to match the demonstrations using their own powers – until they cannot. There comes a point when the powers of the establishment are no longer sufficient to provide for the people, when they are shown as no longer omnipotent and omniscient, all wise, all benevolent.

There comes a point when the god bleeds.

Which is where we are now in the West. We have experienced an immense crisis, whose ramifications are still rippling through our lives. Rippling? Maybe a rip-tide. Covid 19 – from whence did it come? Almost certainly from gain of function research in a scientific laboratory in Wuhan. From the place of expected blessing has come a curse. The cure for the curse? A white coated woman in a laboratory achieved something amazing (Sarah Gilbert) yet the issues with the mRNA style vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna) seem to only grow with time. We have embarked upon an immense social experiment, whereby fear of a contagious virus has been deliberately stoked in order to justify unprecedented levels of social control. People in England, from where I write, have for the most part gone along with this. It’s what we tend to do, this is the land of the obedient queue. Yet there comes a point when that obedience comes to an end and the Anglo-Saxon plants their feet in the ground and says ‘No’. Then the authorities have to navigate around a new reality.

(It’s what happened with Brexit.)

So the apparatus of science and the religion of technological expertise is wobbling, it is uncertain – but why am I so sure that this wobbling is in fact an incipient toppling? Because of climate change. Not so much climate change itself but the scientific and technical apparatus that surrounds it, that has been so on display in Glasgow in the COP negotiations when we do not simply see the expected hypocrisies from the great and good who jet in from overseas in order to lecture the peons on the virtue of doing without, but also in those one might reasonably expect to know better – such as the Green politician from Brighton who flew to Glasgow rather than taking the train. The gap between the ritual intonations of ‘climate change’ and the people who are being lined up to change their patterns of life is becoming increasingly large. The people are noticing more and more, and are paying more and more attention, and some time soon the tipping point will be reached and the underlying science behind the rhetoric will be brought out blinking into the light.

At which point there will be much anger. The poor are being asked to pay for the choices of the rich; I am thinking parochially – the poor in post-industrial England are being asked to change their patterns of life (gas boilers, cars), all the things on which they rely, in order to… what exactly? The claims will be of seas rising, and nations vanishing, and mass migrations and so on and so forth – yet because the cost of the changes being demanded of the poor will be so great upon the poor, the poor will rightly say ‘prove it’, and the naked panjandrums will stand blinking and mumbling and Greta will denounce the blah blah blah and the Anglo-Saxon will say ‘No’.

For the IPCC itself no longer foresees disaster under the heading of climate change. The ‘consensus’ of 97% of scientists – which is itself a falling away from the true faith, for true science has no place for ‘consensus’ – will be shown as not very interesting. The climate is warming – yes – but how dangerous is the warming, what is the best way to respond to the warming, adaptation or mitigation and most of all, with Brueggemann in mind but as Rowan Williams once phrased the single most important question in Christian political thought: “Who pays the price?”

The rich will ask the poor to change their ways but the poor will once again vote for their own betterment, and the climate will shift, in earth as in politics, and as above so below the idols will topple. The rich will use the inherited rhetoric of the scientific and technological hegemonies and they will be rejected, and the idol of science will topple with them. No longer will science be seen as the repository of blessings and wisdom; instead the intertwining of science and technology and capitalism will be rejected as a whole, from pharmaceutical exploitations to farming interventions the fundamental wrongness of the apathistic stance will be perceived and rejected – for it will be asking people to be cold in the winter, and it will have lost its power of persuasion.

I hope that we don’t face a Butlerian Jihad, for those in white coats have indeed given many blessings to the people, but for so many reasons the thought patterns of scientific and technological rationality need to be, have to be, incorporated into a larger, wiser, deeper understanding. Theology must become the Queen of the Sciences once again. In one of those little ironies of history, if in the long run we are to ensure a safe place for the Richard Dawkins of this world, it will likely only be if a recognisably Christian culture is re-established.

Else there shall be war and famine and pestilence and death – and Hell shall follow.

The idol hasn’t toppled yet, but it is moving, and wobbling, and in another year or ten or twenty it will fall, and great will be the falling of it. Then, once again, the communities of the faithful will start to pick up the pieces and seek to preserve as much as possible of the good, whilst seeking to ensure the practice of virtues that might inhibit a return to the bad. The world will continue to turn, the tides will rise and fall, and human follies shall remain inescapable.

Kyrie Eleison.

Synod: Incarnational Integrity, or why I support the blessing of same-sex relationships

Posted on by

This is the second of my planned three emails unpacking the soundbites from my election address.

Our conversation around the blessing of same sex relationships (SSRs) has become increasingly fraught. I support the Living in Love and Faith process wholeheartedly – I think it is one of the most impressive things to come out of our central institutions for many years.

Most especially, the seven ‘voices’ giving different understandings of Scripture are a useful short-hand for understanding the different perspectives and assumptions about Scripture (see pp294-297 of LLF). I would place myself very much in the middle of these voices, and dependent on the issue, would be somewhere between 3 and 5. I consider myself to have a high view of Scripture; I would want to talk about the authority of Scripture, and I would want to flesh that out with some description of what it means to live under the authority of Scripture. So I would want to say that Scripture is a) the principal witness to the Incarnation – and thereby an irreplaceable source for how we know Jesus (and that not being restricted to the Gospels, or even the New Testament); b) independent of my own preferences; and c) something which has the capacity to question and interrogate me, and overthrow my own self-delusions. Yet what is often missed is that Scripture testifies about itself that it refers beyond itself. The point of Scripture isn’t that we get to know Scripture, it’s that we get to know Jesus, that we get to know the God who is revealed in Jesus – and that by believing we have life in His name.

In the Anglican tradition this insight has been captured by making Scripture our highest authority, but also, as explicitly taught by Hooker, that Scripture needs to be interpreted using the insights of the tradition (especially the early church) and the right use of reason. In saying this Hooker was not being especially innovative as the Scholastic tradition had been pursuing just such an approach for many centuries – and still does.

What this tradition means with regard to Scripture is that it is always legitimate to ask of Scripture ‘why?’ Not with a view to disregarding Scripture but with a view to seeking to journey more deeply into the mysteries of faith that Scripture can disclose to us. The prohibition on slavery is the fruit of just such a journey.

So if we take as a starting point that Scripture prohibits same-sex relationships, what is the answer to our question ‘why?’ The answer given in the tradition is essentially a ‘natural law’ argument, that has two components. The first is that same sex activity is ‘contrary to nature’; the second is that sexual activity is only licit when it is undertaken in the context of heterosexual marriage and is open to procreation – for procreation is the fundamental purpose of sexuality (here the tradition is using a framework derived from Aristotle – procreation is the telos of sexuality).

To take the latter point first, our Anglican tradition has expanded the understanding of the purposes of marriage to three. Hence the Book of Common Prayer outlines the purposes of marriage as being 1) procreation; 2) the avoidance of fornication and 3) the mutual society and help given within the relationship. This understanding led directly to the acceptance of contraception in the 1930s – which was incredibly controversial at the time, and was a major innovation to the inherited tradition – as it recognised that there was more to our sexuality than procreation. The first thing that God says is not good in creation is that Adam is alone.

To return to the first point, what does it mean to say that same sex activity is contrary to nature? As I understand it, the framework used to understand what Scripture is saying is one that considers heterosexual desire as the universal default, and the pursuit of same sex relationships as necessarily perverse. That is, for a person to pursue a same sex relationship is a failure of integrity. It represents a collapse into sin, whereby a pursuit of a bodily pleasure undermines the harmony of body and soul and fullness of life that we are called to in Christ. There is a contradiction within the person.

The core reason why I think it is possible for the teaching of the church to change can now be simply stated: I am not persuaded that it is necessarily the case that when a person pursues a same sex relationship that it is a failure of integrity in the way understood by the tradition. On the contrary I am convinced that for some people it is a fulfilment of integrity to pursue such a relationship, an incarnational integrity – allowing something to be expressed that is inherent in the creation of that person by God.

Scripture’s prohibition of same sex relationships has a particular behaviour in view – that it is a violation of purpose and integrity for those involved in it. It sees things in this way because of an assumption about universal heterosexuality. I don’t believe that we see things in this way any more, for all sorts of reasons (see the later parts of LLF).

One way to characterise the difference that I am trying to describe here is to talk about sexuality being chosen or received as a gift (and I recognise that I am drawing two points of a much more complicated spectrum). Scripture sees same sex desire as something which is chosen by a heterosexual person for perverse reasons, and it (rightly) prohibits such behaviours. Yet what of those who do not experience their sexuality as something chosen, but as something received, something given? I am not persuaded that Scripture teaches anything specifically on this, in the same way that it does not contain any specific teaching about the internal combustion engine, to take something morally problematic that is distinctive in our own time. In other words, that which Scripture prohibits is not what those who support the blessing of SSRs are advocating.

Put simply: it is possible to have a high view of Scripture as an Anglican, yet also to support the liturgical blessing of SSRs. I emphasise here ‘as an Anglican’ because there are some views of Scripture which reject the Hookerian approach outlined above (perspective number one in the LLF list is certainly not an Anglican understanding).

If what I am describing here is true, the question then becomes – what is the legitimate context for the expression of incarnational integrity in those who are not heterosexual? Surely it is through some form of regularisation and public affirmation of a relationship, emphasising the non-procreative grounds for marriage; to enable the avoidance of fornication, and for the mutual companionship, help and support that the one offers to the other… and to do so in the sight of God.

This is why I support the liturgical blessing of same sex relationships.

A more personal postscript

In the argument above I have tried to be very precise in my language; in particular I have not entered into the conversation around non-heterosexual marriage. This is for many reasons, not least that it is a discussion that is logically distinct from the one above, is much more complex, and can only reasonably be entered into by Synod if an argument akin to the one I make here is accepted.

Yet I find this talk of linguistic precision, logical distinctions and political practicalities – however essential it might be for our common labour – I find that it draws me too close to a Pharisaical spirit, and so I would like to finish with something more personal and real:

“I realized that the opportunity for him and me to say any more than we already had said was limited, so when he was more or less conscious I asked to be left alone with him. I got onto the bed and held him as gently as I could, and told him I loved him and he had brought gifts and goods, and frustration and testing, that I had never imagined would come my way, and I was so grateful for him, and then I stroked his hair and sang him ‘A Case of You’. I don’t know if David heard what I said, or knew what it meant, but I did know that he loved me and that I loved him, and that nothing could have separated us apart from what was separating us, so I did not fret too much about leaving anything unsaid.”
(from The Madness of Grief, by Richard Coles)

Resist with love and laughter

Posted on by

My beloved Church of England is having another spasm of ambition and vision, with an aim, not just for 10,000 new church plants but 20,000 new plants! Saul has his thousands but David has his tens of thousands….

I think this is the latest manifestation of a severely deficient theology and ecclesiology, on which I have written many times before. I have come to the point of thinking that our leadership has now jumped the shark. The level of disconnect between the people on the bridge pulling levers, and the people sweating in the boiler room trying to respond, has simply become too large.

So we need to resist, which for most of us will look like trying to ignore so far as practicable yet another central directive. We need more though – for all the activity poured into fruitless endeavours is energy wasted, and if we are creative it may be that we can open up more fruitful areas for our leadership to work in. I do believe, sincerely, that the problem is not that we have bad people in our positions of authority; no, I think the problem is not with individuals but with the institutional identity within which they serve, most especially, it is in the institutional narrative (‘panic!!’) that seems to shape all the decisions. We need to attend most of all to questions such as these: how did we get here? is this God’s will? how has our activity supported God’s will for the Church and how far has it frustrated that will? We need to get spiritually serious again.

I will write more about this as time goes on.

For now, what is most on my mind and heart is that we need to resist with love and laughter. With love for our leadership, and an absolute resolve not to scapegoat or cast blame upwards – we all share in our responsibility for the predicament we now face. We also need to resist with laughter. The emperor has no clothes, but all the courtiers have been stitched up into a false narrative, and the clothing may not be on the emperor but it is covering their eyes. Sometimes we need to laugh – it might just be that laughter brings people back to themselves, and the truth can then be realised, and the masks can be taken off and then, together, seeking the truth in love, we can work out where to go.

It is in that spirit of love and laughter that I have put together this little video. The song is Babel, words by Trevor Carter, sung by Pete Coe: