Church and Society 2002

A few days ago I posted an article commenting on the occupation of the pavement outside St Paul's Cathedral:  http://kentcommunityactivist.blogspot.com/2011/10/caught-between-rock-and-hard-place.html

Yesterday I had a clear-out of old paperwork and came across the 2002 annual report of Tunbridge Wells Churches' Social Responsibility Group. In my Project Developer capacity I wrote the following article for the report.

The Church of England document Faith in the City 1985 makes the point that Christians generally find it more congenial to express their discipleship by helping individul victims of misfortune or oppression, fewer are willing to rectify injustices in the structure of society.  To be a protagonist of social change may involve challenging those in power. Faith on the City argues that many Christians are not at home in the tough, secular milieu of social and political activism.  As I stated at the Gift Service at St Luke's Church, if we are cast in the role of creative opposition to the policies of local authorities and government agencies then so be it.  Tunbridge Wells Churches' Social Responsibility Group takes as its inspiration the commandment to love our neighbour, the strand of biblical writing that demands the advent of a fair and just society and the injunction to have a preferred option for the poor.

The report highighted  how TWCSRG moved forward its social inclusion agenda through membership of a number of organisations and partnerships:

• West Kent Community Legal Services Partnership
• Tunbridge Wells Community Safety Partnership: Youth Strategy Group
• Connexions partnership Reference Group
• Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Homelesness Strategy Groups: adults and young people
• KCC Social Services District Partnership Group
• Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Community Plan Steering Group (chair)
• Credit Union Development Group

TWCSRG was involved also in the Number One Community Trust and nominated a person to the board of Tunbridge Wells Mental Health Resource.

From my faith correspondent

Just in from my Church of England 'mole'.

Several centuries ago, the Pope decreed that all the Jews had to convert to Catholicism or leave Italy . There was a huge outcry from the Jewish community, so the Pope offered a deal. He'd have a religious debate with the leader of the Jewish community. If the Jews won, they could stay in Italy ; if the Pope won, they'd have to convert or leave.   The Jewish people met and picked an aged and wise rabbi to represent them in the debate. However, as the rabbi spoke no Italian, and the Pope spoke no Yiddish, they agreed that it would be a 'silent' debate. On the chosen day the Pope and rabbi sat opposite each other The Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers. The rabbi looked back and raised one finger. Next, the Pope waved his finger around his head. The rabbi pointed to the ground where he sat. The Pope brought out a communion wafer and a chalice of wine. The rabbi pulled out an apple. With that, the Pope stood up and declared himself beaten and said that the rabbi was too clever. The Jews could stay in Italy . Later the cardinals met with the Pope and asked him what had happened. The Pope said, 'First I held up three fingers to represent the Trinity. He responded by holding up a single finger to remind me there is still only one God common to both our beliefs. 'Then, I waved my finger around my head to show him that God was all around us. He responded by pointing to the ground to show that God was also right here with us. 'I pulled out the wine and wafer to show that God absolves us of all our sins. He pulled out an apple to remind me of the original sin. 'He bested me at every move and I could not continue.' Meanwhile, the Jewish community gathered to ask the rabbi how he'd won. 'I haven't a clue' the rabbi said. 'First, he told me that we had three days to get out of Italy , so I gave him the finger. 'Then he tells me that the whole country would be cleared of Jews and I told him that we were staying right here.' 'And then what?' asked a woman. 'Who knows?' said the rabbi. 'He took out his lunch so I took out mine.'

 

It's an odd world

Some of my best friends, like me, are white, heterosexual Christians. It may well be the case that their versions of the Christian faith differ from mine, as I am an adherent of postmodernism and understand the Christian faith to be man made. Therefore I consider the bible to be of human origin entirely and not a meta-narrative inspired by a metaphysical entity. But everyone to their own beliefs.

Two matters in the past few days have exemplified clearly the problem some Christians have with homosexuality.

A cleric has written that homosexuals are 'not normal'. When challenged on this, his response was that homosexuals did not use their genitalia in the way it was meant to be used, by which I assume he meant procreation. I don't believe being opposed to contraception forms part of the teaching of his church and there was no answer to the question: is genitalia to be used solely for procreation? The Church of England and the Anglican Communion is riven in discord over the issue of how its teachings and rules should reflect the fact that there are many homosexual Christians. In the eyes of this writer the Christian teaching is simple: charity demands that we do not discriminate on any grounds.

The second matter relates to an article in today's Observer which claims that Philippa Stroud, a committed Christian, has said that homosexuality is an illness. Philippa is the Director of the Centre for Social Justice think-tank. She issued the following statement:

“I make no apology for being a committed Christian. However, it is categorically untrue that I believe homosexuality to be an illness and I am deeply offended that The Observer has suggested otherwise. I have spent 20 years working with disturbed people who society have turned their back on and are not often supported by state agencies; drug addicts, alcoholics, the mentally ill and the homeless that I and my charitable friends in the public sector have tried to help over the years. The idea that I am prejudiced against gay people is both false and insulting.”

I take the statement at face value. The problem though is that many regard Christians as being homophobic simply because they are Christians. Indeed, many Christians are homophobic, not because they think it is an 'illness' or 'not natural', but as a consequence of a particular kind of biblical interpretation.

Religious chicanery

When it comes to chicanery the Christian church beats politicians hands down.

A number of Anglo-Catholic bishops (that is bishops who are part of the Church of England) had a trip over to the Vatican to meet their brothers in the Roman Catholic Church. The meeting was secret: certainly the rest of the Church of England did not know. Furthermore the Archbishop of Westminster (Roman Catholic) didn't know either!

According to press reports, one of the concerns of Anglo-Catholics is that the Roman Catholic bishops in England are not happy with the Pope's plan for C of E clergy to become Roman Catholics whilst at the same time preserving some of elements which mark out Anglo-Catholics from Roman Catholics.

Anglo-Catholics are opposed to the ordination of women in particular and the general drift (some would say avalanche) towards 'liberalism' in the Church of England. However, there are some Anglo-Catholics who belong to an organisation called Affirming Catholicism which supports the proposals for women bishops and goes along with the liberal agenda.

The Liberals in the Church of England are opposed also by the strongly Protestant Evangelical wing of the Church, most of whom are opposed to women bishops and the liberal agenda.

In the past Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals have managed to put a brake on the more liberal elements in the Church, as witness the failure to bring the Methodists back into the Church from whence they came.

Should there be a massive departure to Rome by Anglo-Catholics I anticipate Evangelicals, led by an organisation named Reform, leaving the Church of England within a few years. The Liberals will have triumphed, but there won't be much of the Church of England left.

A theological journey

Many years ago I was a senior lecturer in jurisprudence and legal theory. It was a compulsory subject of the law degree course I lectured on. The subject delves into various 'schools' of jurisprudence as well as analysing how judges reach decisions. The most important aspect of the subject is understanding the relationship between politics, economics and religion and how they interact with each other.

Students had to have an understanding of the works of philosophers, theologians and economists, an appreciation of political theories and the impact all these have on the creation and application of law. Law does not exist in a vacuum. It is the result of many influences. One of the major problems regarding law is that it may reflect attitudes which have been superseded and thus the unsatisfactory state of the law may lead to political agitation. Law is not a reflection of things as they are, but as they were.

Fast forward a couple of decades and I decided to study for a diploma in theology. It was a comfort that much of my knowledge of jurisprudence was of relevance to my theological studies. On the diploma course we explored the world's major religions, methods of scriptural interpretation and the writings of major theologians. It was interesting to look again after twenty years at many of the same issues but through a theological as distinct from a jurisprudential perspective.

Have you stayed with me so far?

I informed my law students that I was the founder member of the Cynical School of Jurisprudence. Also, I was a postmodernist before it became the 'in thing'.

My journey has taken me to the theological and social movement known as liberation theology and beyond to the radical ideas of Don Cupitt and the rejection of metaphysical concepts and meta-narratives. Thirty years ago I argued against the idea of the 'divine right of kings to rule' as a basis for law. Now I argue against any ideas based on a divine assumption. But, and importantly, I regard myself as a Christian.

Church in Society: Bishop Brian's Easter message

The Bishop of Tonbridge has published his Easter message part of which reads thus:

In that remarkable act, God was saying that although the forces of negativity and destruction are part of the world and even of ourselves, they do do not have the last say. Through God's help we can rise above them and transform them, just as the surfer can change the wave that could bring destruction into a vehicle which will take him to shore more quickly. Hope and new possibilities are always there, trying to break through in the darkest moments. Over the coming months, we all face challenging times as we need to make important political and economic choices. All of us, at some point in our lives, come up against hard times, tough dilemmas and difficult decisions that need to be faced. The events of Good Friday and Easter remind us that we do not have to be victims of this world and that new life can be found in the most unlikely places.


Well, what to make of that. The forces of negativity and destruction have done for Church in Society. No hope and new possibilities there, just redundancies and dissolution. I am curious to know where new life can be found in this context.

Oh yes, almost forgot: I haven't received any response from the Bishop to my e-mails concerning the demise of Church in Society.

Putting a few myths to rest

Visit the Communities and Local Government site and you will find a document which seeks to debunk various myths about public funds going to faith groups. One section of the document states:

Myth:

"If you engage with one faith community you will have always to engage with all the others in the same way, and all together."

Fact

Not true. Whilst public authorities must not discriminate against religion and belief organisations in matters of engagement and the letting of contracts, there are great differences in scale, capacity and skills between faith communities in different parts of the country, just as there are across the wider third sector. Faith communities should be engaged with as appropriate to this context. For example, in some regions or sectors a faith community or religious organisation may be able to take on a large service contract while another community in the same area, or the same community or organisation in another region, may not yet be ready to do so.

Now some of us representing Christian organisations in Tunbridge Wells have been saying this to Tunbridge Wells Borough Council for years, as has our excellent MP, Greg Clark. But would the Council agree? Of course not, the Council claimed spuriously that equality legislation demanded a faiths forum even though non-Christian faiths have very small numbers and lack the capacity, skills and track record of Christian groups.

In Tunbridge Wells, despite the immense amount of work it undertakes in the community, there is no faith representation on the local strategic partnership as faith groups are lumped in with the voluntary sector.

Think I'll start stirring it up!

Good Works

Many people of faith engage in good works. What worries me is the extent to which some emphasise the faith to which they belong when promoting what they do.

This thought was sparked when I went a Googling for information about foodbanks in Kent. Not a great deal on the Internet, but I did find The Trussell Trust which looked interesting.

The website states the Trust is a Christian charity. Do we need to know this?

My comment is not aimed at the Trust specifically but at charities run by people of faith which fall over themselves to express their faith credentials. It's almost as though they are saying: look at us, we have faith and, gosh, we are good, we are doing good things.

The leading perpetrators of this approach in my experience are Evangelical Christian groups, an approach which makes it difficult for secular organisations to work with them as well as alienating potential beneficiaries.

Christians , indeed all faiths, should be out there doing good works in the community, but why broadcast the belief? Surely it is the work that is important?