Sub Ratione Dei

Kung on Vatican's thirst for power:

From Hans Kung's article in the Guardian on Tuesday:

As I wrote in 1967, "a resumption of ecclesial community between the Catholic church and the Anglican church" would be possible, when "the Church of England, on the one side, shall be given the guarantee that its current autochthonous and autonomous church order under the Primate of Canterbury will be preserved fully" and when, "on the other side, the Church of England shall recognise the existence of a pastoral primacy of Petrine ministry as the supreme authority for mediation and arbitration between the churches." "In this way," I expressed my hopes then, "out of the Roman imperium might emerge a Catholic commonwealth."

But Pope Benedict is set upon restoring the Roman imperium. He makes no concessions to the Anglican communion. On the contrary, he wants to preserve the medieval, centralistic Roman system for all ages – even if this makes impossible the reconciliation of the Christian churches in fundamental questions. Evidently, the papal primacy – which Pope Paul VI admitted was the greatest stumbling block to the unity of the churches – does not function as the "rock of unity". The old-fashioned call for a "return to Rome" raises its ugly head again, this time through the conversion particularly of the priests, if possible, en masse. In Rome, one speaks of a half-million Anglicans and 20 to 30 bishops. And what about the remaining 76 million? This is a strategy whose failure has been demonstrated in past centuries and which, at best, might lead to the founding of a "uniate" Anglican "mini-church" in the form of a personal prelature, not a territorial diocese. But what are the consequences of this strategy already today?

First, a further weakening of the Anglican church. In the Vatican, opponents of ecumenism rejoice over the conservative influx. In the Anglican church, liberals rejoice over the departure of the catholicising troublemakers. For the Anglican church, this split means further corrosion. It is already suffering from the consequences of the heedless and unnecessary election of an avowed gay priest as bishop in the US, an event that split his own diocese and the whole Anglican communion. This friction has been enhanced by the ambivalent attitude of the church's leadership with respect to homosexual partnerships. Many Anglicans would accept a civil registration of such couples with wide-ranging legal consequences, for instance in inheritance law, and would even accept an ecclesiastical blessing for them, but they would not accept a "marriage" in the traditional sense reserved for partnerships between a man and a woman, nor would they accept a right to adoption for such couples.

Second, the widespread disturbance of the Anglican faithful. The departure of Anglican priests and their re-ordination in the Catholic church raises grave questions for many Anglicans: are Anglican priests validly ordained? Should the faithful together with their pastor convert to the Catholic church?

Third, the irritation of the Catholic clergy and laity. Discontent over the ongoing resistance to reform is spreading to even the most faithful members of the Catholic church. Since the Second Vatican Council in the 60s, many episcopal conferences, pastors and believers have been calling for the abolition of the medieval prohibition of marriage for priests, a prohibition which, in the last few decades, has deprived almost half of our parishes of their own pastor. Time and again, the reformers have run into Ratzinger's stubborn, uncomprehending intransigence. And now these Catholic priests are expected to tolerate married, convert priests alongside themselves. When they want themselves to marry, should they first turn Anglican, and then return to the church?

Just as we have seen over many centuries – in the east-west schism of the 11th century, in the 16th century Reformation and in the First Vatican Council of the 19th century – the Roman thirst for power divides Christianity and damages its own church. It is a tragedy.

Moral, But No Compass

Francis Davis, Elizabeth Paulhus & Andrew Bradstock, Moral, But No Compass: Government, Church and the Future of Welfare, Matthew James, 2008. ISBN: 9781898366911.

Moral, But no Compass is the culmination of research undertaken by the authors having been commissioned by Stephen Lowe, Bishop of Hulme and Bishop for Urban Life and Faith. The study is lauded as being the result of extensive research and interviews with ecclesiastics, politicians and government officials but I must admit I was underwhelmed with the book. Prior to its publication the report was the subject of a lot of media interest such as this report by the BBC. The claims that the report pleads discrimination, while not wholly misplaced, is overblown. However, the gist of the report's argument is the religious charities, by which this report refers almost exclusively to Christian charities offer an invaluable and formally unappreciated role in public welfare provision and the Government should be more accommodating and cognisant of the particularities of the Church's position in society and its theological self-understanding. There are huge theological issues at play in the report which aside from a few references prophetic religion are bypassed - it is taken as a given that the CofE should remain as chaplain to society, hence where disestablishment is pivotal to the debate it is entirely ignored. Writing of the report Simon Barrow of the Ekklesia think tank writes

On specifically Christian grounds, we have opposed particular privileges for church people (for example, the ability to select and employ according to faith affiliation in publicly funded schools). We have urged the churches to grasp the comprehensive equalities agenda fully in public life, again from a theological starting point. We have also sent out a series of warning signals about the emerging 'new deal' between religious and state interests -- of which what is being discussed here may or may not be the latest example (you can read it in a number of ways). The point of this is not to recommend isolationism or a 'prophetic stance' disconnected from a proper understanding of the shape and limits of the environment we live in, but to recall the Christian community to a renewed sense of its primary vocation as an exemplary agent of change rather than a collusive cementer of the social order.

He is right but the issue really is not at all addressed instead the message of the report can be summed up in eight words to the government: please listen to us, we really are important. A profoundly disappointing piece of work, there is indication that more reports will follow, they can only get better.

Elsewhere ... Ekklesia's articles on the subject. A set of links to media reactions of the report.

"Too damn Christian"?

HT to Sean for this - there's a fascinating article on his current troubles on the Guardian site. Here's a snippet:

As he prepares to welcome the bishops of the worldwide Anglican communion to their once-a-decade meeting at the Lambeth conference tomorrow, his first as Archbishop of Canterbury, Williams knows that as many as a quarter will not turn up and that there are open challenges to his leadership of the third largest Christian denomination, both from across the world and within the Church of England. Last week, as the Anglican general synod in York overruled his advice to provide stronger safeguards for those opposed to women bishops - even though he himself is in favour of women in the episcopate - he sat with his head in his hands. Derided by conservatives, despaired of by progressives, his leadership flounders in division and dismay. One archbishop from outside the church said: "There is an unholy alliance of Church of England dissidents and the disaffected. The potential for further disintegration is clear. Quite honestly, his personality and way of doing things are not geared for conflict diplomacy. He means well. He's a godly man, but he's theorising when what is needed is action. "Is he the wrong person to deal with this? He looks for consensus where there is none and, when you listen to everyone, you end up losing sight of the plot. The gifts for which he was chosen are being stifled. It's a tragedy. I am sorry for a man who wants to do what's best but doesn't see it in terms of leadership. He has all the gifts to be a professor or an academic, but not an archbishop. What is needed is someone who can get their sleeves rolled up and provide some downright unintellectual leadership." With the Anglican communion crumbling around his ears; with revolt among the remaining rump of high Anglo-Catholics over the church's palsied progress towards women bishops; with conservative evangelicals around the world in alliance with some African primates against any accommodation with gay people and with a fierce internecine struggle over authority and property in the sister American Episcopal church, Williams must wonder whether it wouldn't have been better to do what he considered as a student and become a Catholic instead.

Packer v. Williams

Ruth Gledhill reports that J I Packer has suggested Rowan Williams should resign. When questioned as to what Packer would say if given 5 minutes with the AoC he said:

‘Well if I said to him all that I think, and I might and I might not, I would have to say to him, look sir, you are not qualified just at the moment to lead the Anglican Communion, for on this issue of whether or not people should yield to homosexual temptation, you are over a barrel. 'Before you became Archbishop, you went in to print cautiously approving gay relationships.  It is known, and you don’t deny, that you have ordained at least one person who is a practising homosexual.  Now you say that you are seeking to uphold the Anglican consensus of the Lambeth conference of 1998 which says that homosexual behaviour is absolutely off limits, but when asked whether you have changed your own mind on this matter, you say no.  I cannot pretend to believe what I don’t believe and all of this of course is documented.  He has been asked that question and that is the answer he has given. 'I would say with great respect Archbishop, I believe that the way of wisdom is for you to resign.  Now that of course is very bold and tough talk and if I wasn’t in my 80’s, I might not feel that I had the gall to answer your question in the direct way that I have done, but that is what I would like to say to the Archbishop and I believe that it would be the kindest thing to say to him.  He really is over a barrel on this matter.’

I'll be honest and say I share some of the frustration Packer expresses concerning the ambiguity of Williams' position (although from the opposite side). Viewed generously it seems to me to be a choice between conviction (the grace of Christ is not synonymous with social conservatism) and the desire to affirm the catholicity of the church (prevent schism). I do not envy Williams' position.

Lydia Potter Update

Remember my rant of just under a month ago? (I didn't think so). This was about a 16 year old girl who was taking her school to the Hight Court over its refusal to allow her to wear a "Silver Ring Thing". Well today the High Court have ruled against Ms Playfoot. The BBC reports that

Judge Michael Supperstone QC said the school, which had insisted the ring was not an essential part of the Christian faith, was "fully justified" in its actions. He ruled the act of wearing a ring was not "intimately linked" to the belief in chastity before marriage. "The claimant (Miss Playfoot) was under no obligation, by reason of her belief, to wear the ring, nor does she suggest that she was so obliged," he said.

On her Campaign website Lydia Playfoot has commented in a press statement following the determination that

I am very disappointed by the decision this morning by the High Court not to allow me to wear my purity ring to school as an expression of my Christian faith not to have sex outside of marriage. I believe that Mr. Justice Supperstone’s decision will mean that slowly, over time, people such as school governors, employers, political organisations and others will be allowed to stop Christians from publicly expressing and practising their faith.

Over two years ago, I was concerned at the number of teenagers who were catching sexually transmitted diseases, getting pregnant and/or having abortions ...

As a Christian I do not agree with sex before marriage. I believe I have a right not only to state my Christian views on sex, but also to demonstrate my Christian faith and commitment to God and my future husband not to have sex before marriage, through the wearing of a purity ring.

I, along with 11 other Christian girls at Millais School decided before God that we would make a commitment not to have sex before marriage, and as a sign of that commitment, to wear a simple silver ring from the ‘Silver Ring Thing’ movement.

The wearing of the ring was to me, a demonstration of my Christian faith and values, which are based on the Bible – which clearly teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong and therefore not God's best for us.

Despite the fact that Muslims girls at our school wear headscarves, and Sikhs wear Kara bangles, the school refused to allow me to manifest my belief through the wearing of a ring ...

I still believe the decision by the Governors of the School goes against the Article 9 rights to Freedom of Religion and my right to express my faith in word or deed, in a democratic, Christian-based country.

As I said in the previous post linked above I do think the school's decision was wrong but am pleased the correct decision was made. On a related note does anyone seriously think these are the words of a 16 year old? It seems to me that this is just confirmation of the argument Jonathan Bartley made in his Faith and Politics of a potential upsurge in attempts to plead persecuted status among Christians in the UK and make a more fundamentaist appeal to the UK has a "Christian-based country"; I have noticed in most of these instances a name that is regularly mention is the "Lawyers Christian Fellowship" (a topic for a future post perhaps?)

 

Rant of the Day (ii)

For the second time in a relatively short space of time there is something of a media circus about persecuted christianity. First time around it was the case of Nadia Eweida, a BA staff member who was asked by the arline to ensure her cross pendant was not in public view whilst on duty. However, all over the news today is the story of Lydia Playfoot, a 16 year old student from Horsham who has just appealed to the High Court over the issue of whether the school's decision that it prohibted Playfoot from wearing a "Silver Ring Thing". The BBC summarises the dispute as follows:

A 16-year-old girl has gone to the High Court to accuse her school of discriminating against Christians by banning the wearing of "purity rings". Lydia Playfoot was told by Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, to remove her ring, which symbolises chastity, or face expulsion. The school denies breaching her human rights, insisting the ring is not an essential part of the Christian faith.

First off, I think the school rule is ill-advised; whilst it may not be integral to the faith the "silver ring thing" is still for those who wear it an important means by which those who wear it can express their faith. Is the supposed social good of a consistent uniform policy really sufficient to warrant their actions, I don't think so. However, the claim that this denial amounts to a breach of some Christians' human rights is ludicrous. The identification of this ring with Sikh Bangles and Muslim Veils is, to put it bluntly, wildly misplaced. Whilst evangelical Christianity may promote pre-marital abstinence it does not necessitate wearing a piece of jewellary to assert this belief. Mild inconvenience does not amount to a human rights breach, to assert otherwise is an insult to those who do suffer persecution for their faith. Perhaps the only saving grace is that we have not, to date at least, had calls for the government to pay for this.

Persecuted Christians?

This story first hit the media over a month ago. I was tempted to post on this then but thought it was all too silly to take too seriously. It appears that the media, the Anglican Archbishop Dr John Sentamu and now even the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams seem to disagree with me.

I am sorry but I can't bring myself to get worked up over the fact that a misguided lady got worked up because she was asked to wear her crucifix under her British Airways uniform rather that on top of it. Yep you've guessed it this is, according to the critics, a clear sign of the absurdity of 'multicultural' Britain where everyone but Christians are free to Christians and the poor old Christians are being persecuted for their faith. Sorry but as much as I think the BA decision is incredibly pedantic (it is) it certainly isn't persecution.

On the one hand the very idea of the outward sign of the Cross can be indicative less of a symbol of one's identification with Jesus' life, death, and resurrection than a symbol of 'Christian Britain' (see here). While such criticisms are valid these are only applicable to the media circus that has followed the case and the manufactured rage rather than to Ms Eweida herself. At issue is her contention that BA have asked her to do something contrary to her faith. How?

Even if it is is conceded that the wearing of a cross is a central part of Christian life (and I am not aware of any religious denomination that would assert this for lay Christians) BA have simply not asked Ms Eweida to remove the cross, merely to place this under the uniform. I repeat this is pure pedantry on the part of BA, but it isn't discrimination and it cheapens the very real persecution people of many faiths experience in this world which really should be protested against.

I think what really grates with me is the hypocrisy lurking behind those who I have heard discussing this issue and has in fact been mirrored by the politician who sparked the recent debate over the wearing of veils by Muslim women, Jack Straw (for non UK readers Jack Straw is not some extreme politician but leader of the House of Commons). Jack Straw you will remember recently caused controversy by admitting he regularly asked Muslim women who visited his constituency office to remove their veil. This same MP talking on the subject of Nadia Eweida is that the BA decision is inexplicable. Most of those Christians I have spoken to who support Nadia Eweida are the very same ones who were delighted with the public criticisms of the wearing of the veil in public (although to be fair some groups such as the EA did offer support).

Anyhow, that's enough of a rant for now but I am sure I can be coaxed into continuing in the comments section should anyone want to take the bait.

Update: BA won the appeal on this decision but the evening news indicates that because of the public backlash BA are reviewing their policy. I for one am not among those boycotting the service, not that I could ever afford the air-fares in any case!

For some other good posts on this issue see
Big Bulky Anglican
Wes Richards

There but for the Grace of God Go I

For a few posts now Dan has been bothered by some of the responses to the Ted Haggard scandal. Today he perceptively writes:

I think I've finally pinned down what has bothered me so much about the "there, but for the grace of God, go I" response to the Ted Haggard scandal. You see, my time journeying alongside of women, children, and men who have experienced sexual violence, has disciplined me to think about the Christian community from their perspective (as best I can). What bothers me so much is that the continual reiteration of this phrase by male Christians and male leaders is that such a response makes the Church a very unsafe place for survivors of sexual violence. It transforms Christian men and male leaders into sexually threatening figures. After all, who knows, maybe the miracle of God's grace will stop working one day and my pastor will assault me. Maybe my pastor already fantasizes about such things, and it is only the grace of God that prevents him from enacting those fantasies -- either way, it makes him unsafe. I mean, have you ever heard pastors saying "there, but for the grace of God, go I" when they hear about priests raping boys, or soldiers torturing civilians, or parents shaking their babies when they cry at night? Of course not. So, why in the world do we think that it is okay to say such things when it comes down to paying people for sex?

The graceless hypocrite?

Oliver Kamm's blog has recently come to my attention as I have a copy of his book Anti-totalitarianism on order. Today he has posted a further comment prompted by an interview with Kember from Inspire magazine. Kember it will be recalled was held hostage in Iraq whilst working there as part of a Christian Peacemaker Team.  In his post Kamm makes the claim the "Professor Kember is not only graceless but also hypocritical".

The graceless reference is I assume a reference to (false) allegation that Kember showed absolutely no gratitude for his release. Straight after his arrival in the UK Kember is quoted as saying

"I do not believe that a lasting peace is achieved by armed force, but I pay tribute to their courage and thank those who played a part in my release,"

The reference to hypocrisy is a strange one. I can only guess that Kamm is lambasting Kember for being rescued by the same military that he was campaigning against, a fact of course that he had no control over.

For my part I pray that the world will see more of the gracelessness and hypocrisy of Norman Kember, particularly in the Church for in doing so it is a sure sign that the church is doing its job.

Conversion by the Sword

Jeff has an interesting post highlighting a controversial speech Pope Benedict gave yesterday in Regensberg. Whilst mostly concerned with western secularisation he began with some comments on Islam. The following is from the New York Times' commentary on the speech:

He began his speech, which ran over half an hour, by quoting a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, in a conversation with a “learned Persian” on Christianity and Islam — “and the truth of both.”

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread the sword by the faith he preached,” the pope quoted the emperor, in a speech to 1,500 students and faculty.

He went on to say that violent conversion to Islam was contrary to reason and thus “contrary to God’s nature.”

I wonder, has the Pope ever read any Catholic history. Aside from the history of the use of the sword (Crusades etc) it also strikes me that baptism and the exclusion of those who did not do so also seems to me to be a form of forced conversion. Without at least a recognition of past failings when addressing such problems I really find it hard to take his words with any real respect.