« An ever-reducing spiral? | Main | Minor Orders »
April 04, 2004
Moving forward
The responses to Dr Carey’s lecture from various quarters reveals a great deal about the rather negative attitudes held by some in the developed world towards Christianity. Instead of focusing on what the Archbishop has said, they have immediately jumped on the anti-Christian bandwagon and focused on the attempts by a few fundamentalist types – admittedly influential for a short period – to hold things back. Stephen Newton has posted an article which is a counter-blast to the Archbishop's lecture - yet he, too, focuses on the fundamentalist view - not the wider view taken by the greater Church, and which, in due course, prevailed. They miss the fact that Dr Carey also roundly criticized those within Christianity whose fundamentalist views are as damaging as those that have brought Islam to its current state.
The fact is that this view of Christianity is fundamentally flawed and is based on a slanted view of the Church promoted by the likes of Marx and others who have attempted to push the “Humanist” view that all good comes from a basic goodness within the individual. This completely fails to explain why so many are now searching desperately for a “spiritual” dimension to their lives. Hence New Age, Wicca, Paganism, and a whole slew of other “Earth Mother” style religions springing up to replace the “certainties” one could formerly seek in organized religion.
To those whose view of Christianity is that it is anti-science, I would point out that it was in Christianity that the great Universities were founded. Certainly we owe our knowledge of the Greek and Roman philosophers to the early period of Islam, but, after the sack of Baghdad by the Mongol hordes, it turned in on itself and ceased to explore the sciences, while Christian scholars continued to do so. Yes, it was a stop/start business, and yes, it was by no means without its problems, but, the fundamentalists did not prevail – indeed, they could not, as the basic tenet of scholarship is not to learn things by rote but to study them, taking them apart, and examining them by comparison. They did this by looking at them and trying to create understanding as the underpinning principle. Rote learning is fine for those who do not wish to understand or to have their preconceived notions challenged, but it is not the path by which any form of real enlightenment can come.
Islam proclaims itself as a “revealed” religion: that is, one received by its members not by understanding or by examination of the roots of the scriptures it holds as its foundations. This is where Christianity and Judaism differ markedly – their scriptures are studied for understanding. They are examined critically, and each tenet is examined in every age by philosophers seeking to interpret them afresh in the light of new understanding of the world about us. To do otherwise would be to stagnate. We would still be clinging to the view of the pre-Christian era which proposed a “heaven” beneath the earth inhabited by the blessed and established beneath the soil of the Holy Land.
Those who claim that Christianity is responsible for all the conflict and wars of the last two thousand years are also refusing to acknowledge the important point that it is not the religious philosophy itself which is responsible for the wars and conflict, it is the deliberate perversion of these by people seeking to use the power engendered by faith that is responsible. The Crusades themselves were a response to a deliberate campaign against Christians in the Holy Land and the rest of the Middle East. Yes, they went sour – because the leaders saw an opportunity for personal wealth. But, was the Islamic leadership any better?
Since the renaissance, which saw the flowering of the arts, followed swiftly by the sciences, as trade opened up and travelers brought back information which challenged accepted views, the Christian world has seen a flowering of social and scientific thought. This has not been the case in Islam, which has locked itself into the view of social order pertinent in the Middle East in the 6th Century.
Certainly in Christianity there is a great deal still to improve upon, but simply sitting outside and throwing stones will not do it. One commentator on this blog accused Dr Carey of throwing stones from within a glass house. Perhaps that is what is needed! Perhaps Dr Carey is being particularly courageous in doing so. No one denies that the Church has got a lot wrong over the last two thousand years, but it has been a brake as well on the excesses of “enlightened” humanity. Ask yourself why China now boasts 50 million Christians, many of whom held fast to their faith despite official purges and attempts to torture anyone denounced to them into confessing that they were “misguided”. Ask yourself why Christianity is growing rapidly across the non-industrialized world. Could it be that, in attempting to make a religion out of prosperity and science, the developed world has lost the plot?
To those who wish to criticize Dr Carey I would say this: study what he has said – not the sound bites the media have given us – and then see what he is challenging us to do. Rev Mike made a very good point in a posting on his blog to the effect that the journey of faith is a parabola. It starts as a faith based on nice certainties and childish images, then, as we age and learn, it diminishes and becomes very shaky indeed, but with experience and perseverance, it gradually becomes less rooted in certainty and more based in the acceptance that some things are beyond our understanding, eventually returning to the faith of a child – acceptance, but now enriched by the knowledge and experience gained along the way.
Inevitably some will start out in faith and loose the way. Others will start out in faith, find the going difficult as the path becomes less certain and pass through it eventually by perseverance until they find the path again. Sadly many, and here I think we must put the fundamentalist approach, never pass beyond the first faltering steps on the downward curve toward discovery. They cling to the childish “certainties” and refuse to grow up. These are the people so many identify as the “Church” or as “Christianity”, and they simply refuse to acknowledge that there are far, far more people of faith who take a very different view. One which leads to an ever widening sense of wonder and of hope that one day peace can truly be found between the nations and between all people of true faith.
I hope that Dr Carey has sparked a proper debate, and that it will not be dragged down to the usual mudslinging claptrap of the Politically Correct vision of anything not rooted in Christianity or in European culture must be superior and cannot be debated. Let us, for once, have some intelligent views expressed on this issue of such importance to so many, Christian and Muslim.
Posted by The Gray Monk at April 4, 2004 02:26 PM
Comments
Wow.
Posted by: Ozguru at April 4, 2004 09:17 PM