The Ramshackle Religion

The following is an excerpt from Unapologetic, by Francis Spufford, which i've just finished. Unapologetic attempts to explain Christianity from the inside, essentially, from inside the author's head. I'd cautiously recommend it, as i'll (hopefully) explain when i review it some time this week.

So no, i don't think that most British Christians are in mourning for times past. And though i write this book to try to extricate for people, from the misleading ruins of half-memory, what Christianity feels like from the inside, i don't expect my religion ever to be any less ramshackle, in my time, where i live. And that's all right. For sure, i would be be if people weren't quite so rude. It would be nice if they didn't brandish crude cartoons of nineteenth century thought and expect you to reel back, dazzled. It would be nice not to be patronised by nitwits. It would be nice if people were to understand that science is a special exercise in perceiving the world without metaphor, and that, powerful as it is, it doesn't function as a guide to those very large parts of experience that can't be perceived except through metaphor. It would be nice if people saw that the world can not be disenchanted, and that the choice before us is really choice of enchantments.

 

It would be nice. But it isn't necessary. Because the churches are open, doing their ancient and necessary business, and they will be open tomorrow, and the day after that, and that, onwards into far time, in some form or another. And it doesn't really matter what form, much though we may love the form they have now. They will still be offering a hush in which we can bear to find out what we're like. Christ will still be looking at us from the middle of the angry crowd. God will still be there, shining.

 

Unapologetic. Francis Spufford, Pp 221-222

The Church of England and Relevance

The first paragraph of Saturday morning's BBC website article sums it up well.

'A decision by the Church of England to allow gay men in civil partnerships to become Bishops has prompted criticism from both liberals and conservatives.'

Why? Because 'the announcement would allow gay clergy to become Bishops only if they remain celibate.' Quite apart from the simply impossibility of ever enforcing this stipulation, it's hard ignore the dangerous path that the CofE is on, and we mustn't ignore it, we must take heed of the warning it gives us.

Lets look at the policy for a minute. The CofE will ordain gay men in civil partnerships providing they remain celibate. Why? If it supports, officially and institutionally, gay marriage, then there's no reason they shouldn't be Bishops. I'm not clear on why they have to be married at all to be honest, are single heterosexuals allowed to be Bishops? That's a genuine question. But back to the main point. If the CofE sees no problem in two men, or two women being married, then those two men or two women should be afforded the same rights that any other married couples should be.

So why the celibacy clause? Why take away from these marriages the one thing that makes marriage unique? Why take away from these marriages what God has given to marriages? Unless...

Unless it's just a concession to keep conservatives happy. Unless it's just something for the CofE leadership to point to for people who don't want to be led by a gay Bishop. If demanding celibacy concedes, or even defines, that gay marriage is an oxymoron, why ordain gay men as Bishops?

It seems to be, as an outsider, that the CofE is trying as hard as it can, to be all things to all men. To be relevant, But if you try to be all things to all men, you end up being nothing to anyone. Liberals aren't happy because the Church is demanding celibacy from those who have been given the right to be married, and conservatives aren't happy because they see no way you can take the Bible seriously and call two men or two women a marriage. In chasing relevance they become irrelevant to all. What a mess.

The Gospel, the Biblical Gospel of the virgin birth, perfect life, vicarious death and glorious, bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth will always be relevant. It speaks to the greatest need of every man, woman and child who ever lived. The Church of England simply can not continue down this path. If gay marriage is ok, ordain married gay men, and let them be married. If not, don't. It's not that complicated is it? If the Gospel is relevant to all everywhere, preach the Gospel and don't be ashamed of it.

Imagine a Britain where the Church of England was true to it's Gospel roots. Where every little church, in every little village was a Gospel station. Where the Church uses it's privileged position in society to preach the Gospel. If the Queen can manage it, why not Archbishops?