Tim Hames tackles what has become a proper chestnut: what to do about the Church of England.
There is a story about William Whitelaw which, in a touching if faintly damning way, sums up the plight of the Church of England. It involves the moment when the Conservative politician was told that, somewhat unexpectedly. Robert Runcie was to be appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. Whitelaw, who had admired Runcie’s military record during the Second World War, was delighted. “Splendid news,” he said. “Fine man, Runcie. I knew him in the Army; very brave, very brave.” He then concluded: “Quite religious too, you know.”
“Quite religious” is an awkward place to be stranded between the more robust stations of militant secularism and theological fanaticism. “Quite religious” is also an accurate description of our contemporary Easter. On Friday, Gerard Baker wrote in these pages that in Japan, where there are not many Christians and an element of confusion is perhaps understandable, it is possible to purchase a Father Christmas nailed to a Cross. Coming soon, a chocolate egg nestling in a Nativity manger?
Anglicans are desperately close to the worst of all worlds. They are perceived as both irrelevant and bitterly divided, especially over homosexuality, which threatens to rip the Church apart at the Lambeth conference next year. It is a moment when leadership at the top — charismatic, intellectual and spiritual — is especially important. Yet leadership is not so much missing as mislocated. Rowan Williams at Canterbury and John Sentamu at York are well qualified to occupy the two most senior portfolios in the Church of England. Unfortunately, they are most well qualified for each other’s positions.
Dr Williams is probably the most intelligent man to sit in St Augustine’s chair for centuries. He is kindly and thoughtful and almost painfully reasonable. His anguish over how to simultaneously hold his Church together and his conscience intact is manifest. He is the personification of the thesis that a liberal is a man so broadminded that he would not take his own side in an argument.
At a deep level, I identify strongly with Rowan Williams. I like him and, to use an Appleyardism, I find him consoling.
He is everything that is good about religion. The sad thing is that he is presiding over the decline of everything that is good about religion, and by being good, he is in a way helping to accelerate this decline.
12 comments:
Coincidentally, I chose the bank holiday to write about Catholicism over on Woolgatherer. The Catholic Church has, in Benedict XVI, a sort of polar opposite of Rowan Williams. Although he isn't quite as fiercely conservative as initially expected, his opposition of moral relativism, references to homosexuals as "sufferers" and the continued unhealthy position on condoms and HIV, mark him out as just the sort of person that gentle, consoling Williams would find it difficult to deal with.
I met Williams once, by the way. He was quiet and modest and seemed to have his head in the clouds somewhat.
I don't think that "painfully reasonable" is a very good trait for successful leadership, religious or otherwise. That phrase makes me think of Jimmy Carter. At least the painful part does. Ebullient charisma and certainty are what fill the pews.
I wonder why the Anglican church pretends to universality anymore. They could cure a lot of headaches by saying "we're the Church of England and nowhere else. You Yanks, Aussies, and Nigerians can do what you bloody well please". Is there any point in trying to keep disparate cultures together under one steeple?
It depends what your aims are.
If your aim to be sell the CofE Brand and get Bums On Seats, then yes, you're right that Williams is a rotten leader. The worst possible leader, probably.
Um...His main aim would presumably be to ensure that the Church continues to do its work and proclaim its message as God intends.
That's my guess as to what is his aim on his terms.
You and Duck are the ones projecting marketing aims onto him - or rather, you're saying that increasing the number of churchgoers - even if this means compromising on his principles - should be his main aim.
You might be right.
He has the goal that any leader of an organization has, to promote the organizational imperatives. There is some creed, philosophy or belief behind any organization, and the leader has to voice that creed, philosophy or belief as confidently and persuasively as he can. And yes, getting people in the pews, or at least keeeping people there is the job of the leader.
Peter:
I think the modesty and humility of which you complain actually shows a move towards real Christian values. It is far easier to pay lip-service to doctrine and to get emotional satisfaction from ritual than it is to live daily life according to Christ's teaching and example. That is why the pews are emptying. The challenge of uncertainty is too great for most people.
Peter: I will answer your question fully in a new post. But suffice it to say that I don't have a sinister agenda, but am merely saying what I like and don't like.
Peter:
I knew I should have avoided getting into this debate - it is impossible to avoid misunderstandings. On the whole, I think I am singing from a very similar hymnsheet to yours. The kind of certainties that I am pleased to have outgrown are not the basics of right and wrong, good and evil. Had I heard the preachers you quote, I would have been for the road trip too.
I was referring to the pre-Vatican 2 Catholic church that I was born into, where we ordinary members were given a formula for getting us from cradle to grave to purgatory and beyond. Fear and guilt were used to keep everyone in line and if that is the only way to keep the pews full then I'm delighted they are emptying.
Great opportunities were offered by Vatican 2 but they have mostly been missed because change has been resisted or compromised. People feel safe when they have a formula: it was much easier to go through the checklist of mass on Sunday, fish on Friday, confession once a fortnight and sex for procreation only, than to face the challenge of the full 'examen'. I find myself challenged daily by what happens in my immediate environment as well as world events and I would be very suspicious of any church leader who had a certain sure answer for everything. Sometimes 'I dunno' is the only honest, humble answer.
I don't know if the evangelical churches have the clearest message, our youngsters certainly think they have the best music! Good liturgy, ritual and symbolism are essential and some of our Latin rites have been replaced with very inferior stuff, but that can be remedied without returning to the days when we were observers at a performance, instead of participants in an act of worship.
Maybe naive certainty and good music are all that a lot of people want from church hence the growth of the evangelical movement. I'll stay where I am with all the uncertainties, I've always loved a challenge.
Monix:
You talk about the bad old pre-V2 days and bemoan the resistence to implementing the "opportunities offerred" by the council, as if if they had been enacted in full it would have had a positive impact. Even half implemented the fruits of the Council led to a mass exodus from the church, a drop of over two-third in vocations in the West and the almost total elimination of female religious orders as a substantial force.
Having said which I might be being a tad unfair, because, of course, it was not V2 that prescribed these things but the 'Spirit' of V2. That Spirit which allowed a bunch of crazed neophiles, purpose-seekers and Gramscians to ransack everything. Yes liturgy and ritual are important, but they are all of a piece with culture and for better or worse Fish on Friday, Signs of the Cross, Nuns in Habits,Corpus Christi processions, Popes on Sedia Gestatoria,etc helped to define Catholicism and bind people to the faith. Yes it was tribal, but no, I don't think they were leading poor miserable and benighted lives until someone came along and said you can have mass with tambourines, homespun vestments and no judgements made: spiritual, moral, aesthetic or liturgical.
Mark:
I don't believe in 'golden ages' so I don't think everything was fine pre-V2 and it is cetainly far from fine now. I'd be interested to know if you had first-hand experience of the pre-V2 church? Would you like to go back to the Index and not being allowed to read the Bible? It wasn't just Gregorian chant, birettas and processions.
Many of the disastrous and hideous changes you describe did not come out of the Council but because there was a lack of leadership and organisation in planning and implementing change. I've been part of commissions on catechesis and liturgy and have been shocked to find the majority of the decision-making members have never read any of the relevant documents, as a result we have had years of 'anything goes.'
That said, forty years is nothing in the life of the church. Sooner or later it will hit bottom and then sort itself out. (We had two popes at one time so I'm sure we'll survive a few tambourines and nuns in Marks and Spencer clothes.) There will have to be major reform of some kind because, as you point out, we are running out of priests; my diocese does not have a single student in seminary.
I think Africa, India and Poland will shape the church for the next few centuries.The indications are that Tradition will be restored, the 'certainty-wallers' will be back in charge and everyone will get back on the safe track to purgatory.
Oops! I meant 'certainty-wallahs' of course!
Post a Comment