I have to say that I've actually enjoyed the past couple of days. Coverage of the annual Church of England Synod has been extensive in the media, and coverage of the debate over women bishops proves to be somewhat of an interesting insight for what may occur at the Lambeth Conference (where homosexuality is believed to be the key point of debate). I welcome this opportunity to discuss elements of the church's theology and maintenance in public, and I think that the views expressed from both sides have been very considered and founded in biblical wisdom. But today I was slightly set back by a comment in The Times today in which a 'traditionalist' priest accused the 'liberal' (and therefore automatically pro-women!) group of lacking Christian compassion and gloating over what he saw as a victory for elements that would destroy the Church of England:
"The synod has no legitimacy, and it should be dissolved forthwith, and an emergency steering body should be formed by the moderates on both sides, simply to save the Church from those these people who presume to speak for it"
The real controversy that I see on the ground is not surrounding the ordination of female/gay people within the Church. It is instead a refusal to see others as "real Christians". This is a pet hate of mine, and something that has challenged me fundamentally during my time at university. During a college Christian Union meeting, I was encouraged to pray that a friend would come to know Christ. However, I knew that she was a regular chapel-goer (if not a church-going evangelical!) and a self-confessed follower of Jesus Christ. My attempt to rectify this call for prayer however fell upon deaf ears. She was not "one of us", not a "real Christian". Our decision to dismiss and objectify people that we don't agree with theologically is the real challenge to the church in this country. I say "our decision" as this is something that I too am guilty of at times. We cannot assume that we have and understand "the truth" sufficiently, that we do not need to engage and converse with others. Nick Knisely argues that "conversation that is entered into with the presumption of knowing the final result is not conversation, but attempted conversion".
Over the past couple of years, people have tried to put labels on where I stand in the great Christian spectrum. I'm orthodox in some, liberal in others and borderline heretical at certain points! It was a strange experience being part of several Christian groups whilst at university. The groups differed in praxis and politics, despite sharing a similar doctrinal basis. I think that my rather strange views made it difficult for me to fit in/be accepted entirely by elements in both groups. In truth, this is because I am a moderate with a penchant for building community between groups. I think that we are all in the process of being transformed by God through the Holy Spirit, and as a result I believe that our futures and the ways in which these futures are to be attained should not to be limited by political views, but instead opened up to the Spirit.
For many I appear to be a "lukewarm" Christian, unwilling to really attach my flag to either of the two camps. The wisdom in the Church at the moment is that there are two camps within the Church of England, and that because these groups are deemed to be irreconcilable the only possible solution is the division of the Church - in to two distinct churches, a process that would completely isolate them and therefore avoid any sort of dialogue or cooperation. In other words, the current church happens to be a convenient container of radically distinct groups - a form, rather than a meaning.
I think that this description of the church goes against the many messages of St. Paul (think in particular of the idea of the church as a body made up of many parts, in 1 Corinthians 12). Indeed it is the deep foundation in biblical theology that shaped and allowed the church to grow across the world, reaching all continents and peoples. Yet Christians continue to be mocked and derided for what is seen to be a limited intellectual horizon, and sometimes an ill-defined authoritarianism. This same language is however evident WITHIN the church, reflecting our arrogance and contempt for some of those that we are currently in communion with. This lack of humility within our own internal dialogue results from our continued belief that we have no need for those with whom we do not agree.
This arrogance I fear is the deeper cause of any spiritual split within the Church of England. I am also guilty of it - my own "moderation" partly results from my belief that it is somehow a better place to be, a place from which I can point out and comment on the flaws of the others, without necessarily looking at my own (how many times I have wondered, "why can't they just be sensible?"). Maybe we should stop wondering about how "we" can make "them" see what we want, and maybe we should instead put our eyes and ears to the heavens to listen to what God actually wants of us.
Blygt.
"The synod has no legitimacy, and it should be dissolved forthwith, and an emergency steering body should be formed by the moderates on both sides, simply to save the Church from those these people who presume to speak for it"
The real controversy that I see on the ground is not surrounding the ordination of female/gay people within the Church. It is instead a refusal to see others as "real Christians". This is a pet hate of mine, and something that has challenged me fundamentally during my time at university. During a college Christian Union meeting, I was encouraged to pray that a friend would come to know Christ. However, I knew that she was a regular chapel-goer (if not a church-going evangelical!) and a self-confessed follower of Jesus Christ. My attempt to rectify this call for prayer however fell upon deaf ears. She was not "one of us", not a "real Christian". Our decision to dismiss and objectify people that we don't agree with theologically is the real challenge to the church in this country. I say "our decision" as this is something that I too am guilty of at times. We cannot assume that we have and understand "the truth" sufficiently, that we do not need to engage and converse with others. Nick Knisely argues that "conversation that is entered into with the presumption of knowing the final result is not conversation, but attempted conversion".
Over the past couple of years, people have tried to put labels on where I stand in the great Christian spectrum. I'm orthodox in some, liberal in others and borderline heretical at certain points! It was a strange experience being part of several Christian groups whilst at university. The groups differed in praxis and politics, despite sharing a similar doctrinal basis. I think that my rather strange views made it difficult for me to fit in/be accepted entirely by elements in both groups. In truth, this is because I am a moderate with a penchant for building community between groups. I think that we are all in the process of being transformed by God through the Holy Spirit, and as a result I believe that our futures and the ways in which these futures are to be attained should not to be limited by political views, but instead opened up to the Spirit.
For many I appear to be a "lukewarm" Christian, unwilling to really attach my flag to either of the two camps. The wisdom in the Church at the moment is that there are two camps within the Church of England, and that because these groups are deemed to be irreconcilable the only possible solution is the division of the Church - in to two distinct churches, a process that would completely isolate them and therefore avoid any sort of dialogue or cooperation. In other words, the current church happens to be a convenient container of radically distinct groups - a form, rather than a meaning.
I think that this description of the church goes against the many messages of St. Paul (think in particular of the idea of the church as a body made up of many parts, in 1 Corinthians 12). Indeed it is the deep foundation in biblical theology that shaped and allowed the church to grow across the world, reaching all continents and peoples. Yet Christians continue to be mocked and derided for what is seen to be a limited intellectual horizon, and sometimes an ill-defined authoritarianism. This same language is however evident WITHIN the church, reflecting our arrogance and contempt for some of those that we are currently in communion with. This lack of humility within our own internal dialogue results from our continued belief that we have no need for those with whom we do not agree.
This arrogance I fear is the deeper cause of any spiritual split within the Church of England. I am also guilty of it - my own "moderation" partly results from my belief that it is somehow a better place to be, a place from which I can point out and comment on the flaws of the others, without necessarily looking at my own (how many times I have wondered, "why can't they just be sensible?"). Maybe we should stop wondering about how "we" can make "them" see what we want, and maybe we should instead put our eyes and ears to the heavens to listen to what God actually wants of us.
Blygt.
No comments:
Post a Comment