I suspect that many Christians are looking at the current events in the world and thinking that perhaps (just perhaps) the Mayans are right and the world will end on 21/12/12. Let's look around.
Environmentally we see Global Warming, Earthquakes in Haiti, China and Chile, and now a volcano in Iceland knocking out a sizeable majority of air travel in Europe. There are struggles and conflicts in Thailand, Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan. And then of course there is the relentless battery against the Church.
It seems that every Christian body is under attack at the moment. We have governments trying to impose regulations on who we can marry, whom we can ordain and what actions we can regard as good. We have scientists not only preaching atheism in a most evangelical fashion but trying to use the weight of the law to force their views. We have a media which is more concerned with peddling distortions and muck-raking in order a) to earn more money and b) to silence the voices of moral authority. We have historians and authors trying to publish their own fantasies about the origins of the Church at odds with the Tradition we have received. We have infighting, division and schism.
The Lord says: And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled : for all these things must come to pass , but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended , and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise , and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound , the love of many shall wax cold .
The beginnings of sorrows - ah! the Church has suffered many of them since our Lord walked bodily among us. It's very tempting for us to think that the end is very near. We can turn to the Apocalypse with a sense of frightened justification and look for the true Millennium, seek out the one who bears the number 666 (or 616) and await the beast rising from the sea.
However, this is rather rash. It is very easy for us to get nervous and start interpreting the Scripture or Tradition in a way that will alleviate our fear. The Lord says we are always going to hear of disasters - natural, political, social and moral, but we should not take them as necessarily being the End of the World.
I think that the Maccabees had the right idea - within reason.
In the first Chapter of the first book of Maccabees, we read of the enforced apostasy on Israel. We read of the abomination being erected in the Holy of Holies, of the Israelites being told to conform to the worship of Zeus, of Jews forsaking the worship of God for the state religion.
And the Maccabees said "NO!"
Of course, they then take arms and a lot of bloodshed ensues (that's clearly how things were done back then), but in the ensuing war, the orthodox Jews were united.
We are in the same boat, with the world trying to enforce its morals on us by corrupting our leaders and vilifying those who stand against. Like the Maccabees we need to say "NO" and we need to fight, and fight hard.
Of course, the only weapons appropriate to the Christian are Faith, Hope and (most importantly) Love expressed through the Truth, Prayer, and Worship. We must discipline ourselves like good soldiers in living the Christian life well so that the love of God shines through us brightly to destroy the malignant spirits lurking within our societies and to win others by our sheer devotion to God.
And we must come together, unite despite our differences, to show the World that the Worship of the One True God will not be crushed.
The Ordinariate does offer such an opportunity. It is a start, the first wave of what should be the move to Church Unity. I doubt that it addresses all the problems, but it is a start and it is a chance for us to fight back against an antipathetic establishment.
We can only do this if we in one Christian community are prepared to trust each other, make ourselves vulnerable to the other Christian community. We can be defensive and be very scholarly in our defences, building up an impenetrable wall demonstrating that the other is utterly wrong, keeping ourselves utterly pure and isolated waiting for the other to move first; or we can accept that there are differences which may be mutually interpreted as error but the intention to worship, pray and study together is of greater importance and so make a move towards the other.
Let us look for ways to increase the spirit of the Ordinariate in finding ways to become a United Church even if we cannot agree to the details of the Apostolic Constitution. Let us pray for our leaders, especially Pope Benedict, so that further ecumenical dialogue can take place unhindered by hysterical and malignant reports by the media.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"We have governments trying to impose regulations on who we can marry, whom we can ordain and what actions we can regard as good."
I think this is a bit of an overstatement, at least in the UK. What does seem to be happening is that within the Church of England there are factions who wish to widen the range of people they can marry or ordain, and the range of actions that are regarded as good. I can well understand how other factions might be dismayed by some of this, of course, but I'm not sure it's quite accurate to present it all as something being imposed by external, secular forces.
For example: recent legislation was passed which allows churches which wish to do so to perform same-sex civil partnership ceremonies analogous to marriage ceremonies. As the BBC News article here says, the legislation allows, but does not compel, churches to do this. Some bishops spoke in favour of this move, some against (although I have to say I found the latter's arguments rather weak and incoherent).
"We have a media which is more concerned with peddling distortions and muck-raking"
Well, it has become apparent that for many decades now there has been a systematic attempt within the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church to cover up some pretty heinous crimes and to intimidate victims and witnesses into remaining silent - behaviour one expects more from the Mafia than from an organisation supposedly dedicated to the spiritual health of the world's population. This behaviour simply cannot be tolerated or permitted, and furthermore it is in the long-term interests of Christianity and Catholicism that it not be.
The media, if there's any point to it at all (which sometimes I doubt) has an obligation to bring such crimes to light, regardless of who has committed them. Yes, some of them are using this unfortunate business to advance certain anti-Christian or anti-Catholic agenda, but I think most of them are merely reporting the evidence that comes to light, and (perhaps more damagingly) the various offensive and stupid things some of the senior members of the Church hierarchy have been saying in response. If there is a worldwide anti-Catholic conspiracy, then I can't help feeling that the Church is currently playing very squarely into their hands.
"We have scientists not only preaching atheism in a most evangelical fashion"
Firstly, not all scientists or atheists are doing this: just as Rowan Williams (who personally I have a lot of time for), or the Pope (whom I don't consider to be a net force for good, but is at least probably trying to do what he considers the right thing), or Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church (who is actively evil) don't speak for all Christians, you shouldn't tar all atheists, agnostics and scientists with the same brush as Richard Dawkins. (I respect him for the most part, although his rhetoric is pretty strongly worded at times, and whereas I don't agree with him on a lot of points, I believe he's trying, in his own way, to make the world a better place.)
Secondly, why should atheists keep quiet about what they believe? Throughout history, Christianity has actively (and in some cases aggressively) evangelised, spreading its message throughout the world, and it continues to do so today: Every time I go shopping in Coventry I have to run a gauntlet of people shouting loudly (and, occasionally, rapping tunelessly and repetitively) about what they consider to be the central message of Christianity. Finally, in the last couple of decades, the atheists and agnostics have started playing the same game, and Christians now have a choice whether to engage with the arguments in a coherent and mature manner, or not. I hope it'll be the former, but the attempted court injunctions about the "There's probably no God" bus adverts last year indicate that at least some people will opt for the latter approach, which is a tremendous shame.
"but trying to use the weight of the law to force their views."
Again, a lot of Christians try to do this as well, and have done so throughout history. If I lived in the 16th century, for example, I could be fined for not going to church every Sunday (granted, that was for political reasons as much as religious ones). Also, I think that the majority of atheists doing this are really just acting in accordance with the principle that "your rights end where mine begin" and trying to prevent legislation that forces religiously-motivated behaviour on people who do not subscribe to that religion. The US ban on prayer in schools, for example, isn't about persecuting Christians, it's about protecting nonbelievers from being coerced into doing something they don't want to do.
I'd like to think that the efforts to have a properly secular legal system are really just about negotiating the border between "your rights" and "my rights", although I do get the impression that there are people on both sides who are treating it more as an invasion or annexation, which I don't think really helps anybody very much.
"For example: recent legislation was passed which allows churches which wish to do so to perform same-sex civil partnership ceremonies analogous to marriage ceremonies. As the BBC News article here says, the legislation allows, but does not compel, churches to do this. Some bishops spoke in favour of this move, some against (although I have to say I found the latter's arguments rather weak and incoherent)."
All very well, Nick but this is not how the Equality Bill first appeard. The first draft was discriminatory against the nature of what it means to be an ordained priest in an Episcopal Church.
I cite the official website of the RCC in England which states:
"As soon as the Bill was published in April, both Catholic and Anglican churches pointed out to the Government Equality Office that their definition of employment was so narrow that it would even exclude clergy, never mind those lay posts with significant roles in representing or promoting religion. This would have produced a position where it would have been unlawful to take any action against a priest who decided to get married and insisted on remaining in post (or, indeed to require that he be male and celibate in the first place). It would also have meant that it would be illegal to exclude from a lay post a person whose life-style and circumstances were notoriously at variance with Church teaching, even where this made it impossible for them to function credibly in the post."
Further, had the Bishops in the C of E voted against women "bishops", Harriet Harman who drafted the equality Bill would have used an act of Parliament to enforce it. This is similar to the threats issued by Parliament in 1992 about refusing women as priests.
With regard to the Media, there is more than enough evidence which demonstrates the medias bias against Christianity, especially from the BBC. This includes deliberately loaded language in reporting remarks made by Pontiffs, preachers and priests alike. And there are some in the Media who have gone so far to any journalistic standards to cast slurs at the Holy Father.
At each stage, the press are trying to judge the church against the moral standards of the day which are not the same as the moral standards of the Church. Yes, there have been some ghastly and horrible mistakes made by the Church, but the way these things are reported remind me of what has been said about motes and beams.
The "There's probably no God" adverts were just silly. If you're an atheist then you say "there is no God" full stop. I say there is a God - no probably about it. Though I have never seen a bus advertisment with any statement to the contrary.
If Dawkins is trying to make the world a better place then he needs to stop doing stupid things like trying to prevent the Pope from visiting his many followers in this country, by trying to prove that he is a terrorist or in breach of the human rights act. If he wants to make the world a btter place then perhpas he should engage in polite dialogue rather than brand anyone with the slightest amount of religious believe as deluded at best. (c.f. "Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests"" - Dawkins)
"If you're an atheist then you say 'there is no God' full stop."
Well, it wasn't solely an atheist campaign: one of the main supporters was the British Humanist Association, which covers a wider range of opinions and beliefs than just atheism alone. And at least it was a positive and peaceful message, whereas the advertising campaign which inspired it, and to which it was a response, definitely wasn't.
"If Dawkins is trying to make the world a better place then he needs to stop doing stupid things"
Prof Dawkins' actual involvement has been widely misreported, and in any event I'm not sure he's really trying to prevent the Pope from visiting the UK, or having him shipped off to the International Criminal Court. What he does seem to be trying to do, though, is to get people to ask certain (to my mind entirely valid) questions. Why, for example, aren't certain senior members of the Catholic hierarchy being questioned by police regarding their complicity in these very serious crimes? This is a question which needs to be answered, not least because it's in the Church's interest to have the situation resolved in a way which enables everyone concerned to move on.
As I understand Dawkins' position, he regards organised religion (and in particular the Roman Catholic Church) as a negative influence on the world. Rather than just sit back and let it happen, he's doing what he can against it. We may disagree with some or all of his conclusions or his methods (and personally I certainly do to at least some extent) but I am convinced he thinks he's doing the right thing. Whereas the bishops who systematically covered up the instances of child abuse, and coerced the victims and witnesses into keeping silent, couldn't possibly have thought they were behaving reasonably.
"As soon as the Bill was published in April, both Catholic and Anglican churches pointed out to the Government Equality Office that their definition of employment was so narrow ..."
Yes, this sort of thing often happens during the legislative process. The government drafts a bill, and then interested parties contact their representatives (whether that be their local MP, a bishop, or a relevant peer) to point out flaws in the wording. The House of Lords and the various Parliamentary Select Committees are there to scrutinise the proposed legislation and try to make sure that what eventually gets onto the statue book is sensible and proportionate.
Sometimes (look at the Digital Economy Act for a rather depressing example) this goes a bit wrong, and the whole process is subverted by those with vested interests in a particular outcome (in the case of the DEA, the recording industry). But more often than not the end result is a mostly sensible outcome.
In this case, equality legislation ended up being strengthened, which is a good thing, and something that Christians should surely be in favour of. It's simply not right in this day and age for people to be discriminated against on basis of creed, colour, sexuality, age, gender, etc. I realise that some factions of some religions believe themselves to have theological justification for doing so in specific cases, and in fact the resulting legislation did end up having relevant exemptions.
Actually, I've just read a document issued by the Equalities Office debunking a lot of the scare stories that were floating around at the time, including the one about being forced to employ gay priests or female bishops.
"Harriet Harman ..."
Well, yes, I'm not sure I can (or would want to) defend anything Harriet Harman has done or said. Fortunately, we have a bicameral parliament rather than an autocracy, so not everything she says goes.
"With regard to the Media, there is more than enough evidence which demonstrates the medias bias against Christianity, especially from the BBC."
Yes, I'm sure that some segments of the media are biased against Christianity, just as some (Fox News, for example) are biased against anything politically leftwards of the US Republican Party. I'm surprised to hear that the BBC are, though. That article dates from 2006 - have things become more balanced since?
On the other hand, it's certainly the case that what rhetorical or moral high ground the RCC might still occupy has been quite substantially undermined by some of the things being said by senior members of the hierarchy.
Post a Comment