1.
I have believed for many years that the resolution of issues is best achieved by taking a pragmatic approach unfettered by assumptions and opinions entrenched in dogma associated with a specific philosophy. That is not to state that there is no need for guiding principles but principles exist for just that purpose, to guide, not to act as a total fetter or constraint on reaching resolution of issues.
An example. The National Health Service in England is in very poor shape and no matter how much money is spent on it matters do not improve. Finding solutions to the various problems is not helped by a dogmatic assertion of the need for privatisation or retention of public ownership. What is required is finding the most appropriate solution unfettered by political considerations underpinned by political philosophies. An individual on a long waiting list for treatment couldn't care less how the waiting period is reduced and even less about arguments over private or public ownership. Dogma and bigotry borne of adhering slavishly to a philosophy have been the cause of much misery.
2.
I believe we do need to consider the relationship between applying principles and being pragmatic. In 1985 the Church of England published a report on urban priority areas. Its title: Faith in the City. It painted a woeful picture of prejudice, bigotry and poverty and their causes. At the time the Conservative government and its acolytes told the Church to stick with the cure of souls and leave the politics to the politicians. Disgracefully little has changed since in terms of the relationship between churches and the state, and it has to be said some, but far too little, progress as been made in addressing the social issues identified in the report.
One key paragraph in Faith in the City is this:
Yet while many members of the Church of England have found it more congenial to express their discipleship by helping individual victims of misfortune or oppression, fewer are willing to rectify injustices in the structures of society. There is a number of reasons for this preference for 'ambulance work'. No-one minds being cast in the role of protector and helper of the weak and powerless: there is no threat here to one's superior position and one's power of free decision. But to be a protagonist of social change may involve challenging those in power and risking the loss of one's own power. Helping a victim or sufferer seldom involves conflict; working for structural change can hardly avoid it. Direct personal assistance to an individual may seem relatively straightforward, uncontroversial and rewarding; involvement in social issues implies choosing choosing between complicated alternatives and accepting compromises which seem remote from any moral position.....We have little tradition of initiating conflict and coping with it creatively. We are not at home in the tough, secular milieu of social and political activism.
Paragraph 3.7.
In the United Kingdom there has been some improvement in the way denominations challenge government on social justice issues, but there needs to be much more. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has published a number of reports in the past year setting out the stark reality of poverty and destitution. (See previous posts.). It was encouraging to note secular and faith organisations coming together to challenge politicians on poverty issues. Denominations need to engage more in initiating conflict and engage with secular social and political activists. In so doing it is essential that the need for a pragmatic approach is to the forefront and positive action is not sacrificed on the altar of unbending moral principles or, narrow biblical interpretation.
3.
For many years the Church of England has been an uneasy collection of Liberals, Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals. For the most part the disparate groups rubbed along with varying degrees of suspicion, even loathing.
The uneasy calm was shattered by moves to ordain women as priests and later to become bishops. An alliance of Anglo-Catholics and conservative Evangelicals blocked progress for years and eventually caved in in return for structural change in the form of alternative episcopal oversight otherwise known colloquially as 'flying bishops'. Pragmatism rather than principle triumphed, although there were some Anglo-Catholics who jumped ship and landed on the deck of the Roman Catholic Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. Some Evangelicals joined GAFCON.
4.
In the past few years a major division has opened up over the issue of blessings of same-sex marriages and the position of clergy in non-platonic, same-sex civil marriages. The division and acrimony is on public display in the General Synod. The outcome is uncertain. There is talk of schism, of a new province. Will pragmatism triumph or will there be more departures from the Church on a matter of principle? Will there be a spurious unity that does not accord with the reality?
The Parable of the Good Samaritan tells of the triumph of the principle of love over the limitations of the application of rules. Adherence to rules guided the behaviour of the priest and the Levite. The Samaritan behaved in a pragmatic fashion, giving practical immediste assistance and ongoing support. He was not constrained by rules.
It is in this context I commend the following from Jim Rigby:
THE SIN OF FUNDAMENTALISM
Fundamentalism imagines itself to be the essence of religion, but, by reducing religion to its unchanging “roots” fundamentalism robs religion of its living “fruits."
The only true “fundamental” of Christianity was and is love. Love cannot be organized into a clear dogma nor established as a stable hierarchy. This is why Jesus sought to awaken people using outlandish parables but fundamentalism teaches in dogmas, rituals and rules.
Fundamentalism is all stump and no blossom. Fundamentalism produces beliefs detached from thinking, rituals detached from creativity, and ethics detached from compassion.
Fundamentalism has to take love out of the equation to do the dirty work such reductionism requires.
No comments:
Post a Comment