The Gray Monk

Everyone, it seems, is taking a shot at the poor old Church of England these days. If the Archbishop of Canterbury (or his counterpart for the Northern Province – the Archbishop of York) dares to express an opinion, out come the media circus to pour scorn on everything he says. Yet they seem remarkably short of alternatives to what is actually said – in fact they never offer anything other than denigration or sarcastic abuse. This evidence of the way in which our society is slowly losing all sense of direction and seems incapable of sensible debate always saddens me.

The most complex issues are reduced to 30-second sound bites – and heaven help the Archbishop if the little fragment that the editors select from an otherwise perfectly rational answer becomes something vacuous or provocative. Sometimes, of course, this is deliberate. After all, there’s nothing like a whiff of scandal or controversy to stir up passions and sell newspapers. And the Church is such a soft target.

Therein lies the problem. The Church tries very hard in a society that now considers greed, envy and avarice to be laudable – indeed the entire philosophy of the socialist programme, as implemented in our present society, is driven by engendering envy of everyone else’s success – to provide an alternative view in which it is OK to be who you are and make the best use of what you have both in skills and physical abilities as you move through this life. It also tries to keep alive the view that we are all each others keepers and that it is not right to abuse, to deprive or to take what is not yours in any shape, form or manner. Precisely because it tries to give a moral lead, it is vulnerable to attack by anyone who wishes to show their own superiority, usually by highlighting the failures. And, yes, there are many.

The Church is, after all, like the nation, the people who do their best to follow its teaching and who may or may not be regular members of any congregation. It is not some amorphous extraterrestrial being having an independent life entirely of its own, it is the embodiment of its members and adherents. The Archbishop of Canterbury has to attempt to represent the views, not only of his Diocese, but also of every member of the Anglican Communion. Not because, he is some sort of Anglican Pope, but because his See is the senior one of the Worldwide Anglican Communion. This means that he is also speaking for the African, Middle Eastern and Far Eastern Provinces of the Church as well as for the Western ones. I think most people would find it far easier to cross the Niagara gorge on a tightrope.

Perhaps this also sums up the single most amazing thing about the Anglican Church. It is so wide in its usage and in its interpretation of received teaching and scripture, in its formularies and in its celebrations that it is nothing less than a miracle it is held together at all. Even within the Provinces of Canterbury and York there is a faultline that runs through it between “Evangelical” and “Anglo-Catholic”, and this is reflected between Parishes and often within the same Parish. There are those who want to adhere to the 16th Century idealism of the Protestant practices and those who want to move everything forward into a “happy-clappy, Jesus loves me” hymn sandwich environment at the one end of the scale and at the other those who feel that Vatican 2 should never have happened, that any relaxation of ritual should be fought tooth and nail. The Archbishops and their Diocesans have to hold all of this together. And here lies yet another problem. What may be acceptable to one group in this diverse set of understandings and traditions in the UK, may not be to another, and may have even more serious ramifications to the wider church in Africa and elsewhere. Here lies yet another dilemma, because, the church is growing – it is growing very rapidly in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa and in other parts of the world. One reason for this is that the Anglican tradition offers a less rigid line of spiritual direction than is available from the Roman Catholic tradition, but it also appeals to those from other faiths for very much the same reason, but with a recognizable structure.

We in Europe make a great fuss about the rights of humanity, but we forget that our priorities – recognition of women’s equality, human dignity, sexual expression and our concept of democratic governance, are not the experience or the priorities of anyone in the developing world. Indeed, for the average African, sexual freedom is a major issue, partly because of the massive spread of AIDS/HIV, but also because the sexual restraints which we accept as “the norm” do not apply universally in many of these tribal cultures. It is this that concerns the Bishop’s when you have a large portion of the Anglican Communion in effect telling another part of the Church where ignorance and sexual abuse is killing off a large part of the population, that the very practices which give rise to their problems is “OK”. It is very easy to pass judgement on the Bishops for being “conservative” in their views and to condemn the Church as a whole for this debacle, but there are issues here which are much wider than what one or two Provinces in a worldwide Church think or feel. It would also be stupid of me not to say that there is a very long tradition (2,000 years give or take a few!) of not accepting same sex relationships within the theo-philosophic understanding of scripture. It is not an easy thing to simply say that because society has changed that this must change as well. That is not to say, that people of that persuasion should be ejected or rejected, the Christian Gospel is for ALL God’s creation, not just a select few po-faced individuals with a holier than thou complex!

Frankly, I am personally of the view that what consenting individuals do in the privacy of their homes is entirely between them and their maker, it is none of my business. It becomes my business when someone determines that I must be told or must in some way be forced to acknowledge that they have a different lifestyle or a different set of norms to mine. As I said I don’t have a problem with you or anyone else doing it your way – provided that you accept that I may not choose to follow your lead. If you want my respect than show me that it is a mutual arrangement. Besides, I regard this whole thing as a side issue being used for political purposes, the Church is not there to reflect society but to provide a vision for society. This is what it has done through a very long period. It usually falls down and loses its way when it tries to be the society it serves, that is when you get the Torquemades, the burning of “heretics” and other abuses. Nor should we forget that the Church has had “gay” clergy for a long time, most of them exemplary priests and Bishops. I have had the privilege of knowing quite a few in my time, but they would have been horrified at the thought of being “outed”, rather accepting that they were different, had different gifts and bringing them to use for the benefit of their congregations. Nor must we overlook the problems that have arisen for a number of churches – including the Church of Canada and the Roman Catholic Church in the US where a very small number of clergy have abused their positions to prey upon young people. What do the sneering, jeering mockers and politicians want? On the one hand they demand the Bishops put an end to these abuses, and on the other that they take a stance which will proclaim in some sections of society that this is “all right”. Either way, it gives the mockers something to sneer at.

Yes, the Church is a soft target, but what do we have as an alternative to the round of worship, the teachings and the traditions of Christmas, Easter and so on? On the one hand you could go down the New Age route and set up “Wicca” covens as an alternative “Earth Spirit” religion to provide a spiritual outlet. Of course, you would have to accept that some of the practices of this group would probably frighten the horses, but it would also possibly provide plenty for the salacious delectation of the media circus and so would possibly be more acceptable than the C of E vicar caught with his chorister. You could, of course go for an African or Indonesian style “animist” religion, but I suspect that these would give the Police a problem with the following up of mutilated corpses and animals and attempts to prosecute the “worshippers”. Or perhaps, you would favour closing all centres of religion and just making available a variety of chemical and herbal substances to those who feel a need to explore a spiritual side to their natures?

That, really, is the problem we all face. Some simply refuse to consider it, others pay it lips service but shy away from exploring it and others, like myself, attempt to explore and make some sort of sense of it as we go through life. Our society has been created by the principles set out in the Christian Gospels, but we have also borrowed from a number of other religious sources as well. Now that we have successfully demolished the authority of the Spiritual leaders of the nation we are left with a society that has lost direction and replaced religious belief with a selfish and self indulgent approach which breeds greed, avarice and envy. This is why whenever you care to take a good look at the book shelves in any decent book store, you find the shelves are bursting with “alternative” philosophies – religion of the individual, by the individual, for the individual. There is a strong element of desperation in the search for a belief system that spawns these books.

In a recent survey in Britain, the somewhat startling statistics revealed that more than 50% of households considered themselves to be basically Christian, a majority claiming to be C of E, yet our Churches are actually seeing only around 5% of the people. This is in part because the Church has allowed itself to become a “holy huddle”, inward looking and self defensive, instead of being more robust and challenging the knockers and mockers.

Our new Archbishop may look like a pushover, but I suspect that many will find in due course that he has a strength they lack. Like most things in this world, if it is reduced to a 30-second sound bite it either becomes a non-event or a controversy. The trouble is, that the Church has a message for all of society and all the people, gay, straight, black, white and every other shade, rich, poor, intellectual or not, but it cannot be reduced to a single sound bite applicable to all.

By all means knock the Church when it is being silly and it often is, but give some thought to what could or would replace all that it brings if you destroy it. Let’s hear your alternative philosophy so we can also see where you stand. It’s never as simple as it looks from the comfort of an armchair or the editing suite of a TV studio, and its always much easier to shoot at someone else than it is to take the return fire.

A Rabbi, once told me a story in which God watched the Israelites cross the sea and Pharaoh’s army drowning in the waters. An angel noticed He was weeping and asked why. God replied, “Did you not realise that the Egyptian’s are my children too?”
The C of E has many faults, but it also recognizes that it is there for all those who live in these isles, the doubters, the mockers, the adherents and those like me who have to struggle sometimes to hang in there and keep going in the face of our own personal crises as well as those of the folk around us. The key element is that it is there to welcome everyone, but it does have a few “issues” which will continue to cause heartache for a long time to come. The only way these will ever be resolved is to sit down and talk them through, not in emotive terms, but in reasoned and rational debate, with both sides being completely honest and open. At least the Bishops have been open and honest, give them credit for that, and then let us all see how the situation can move forward for everyone.

As I said in my opening lines, it is easy to take a shot at the Archbishop, but would you care to take that responsibility? I know that I would rather attempt to climb Mount Everest in a blizzard.