So I sign in this afternoon to find my one and only follower is no longer with me. This I suspect represents a total collapse of my readership. Not quite sure why either- perhaps it was the wrong message I was giving, perhaps it was the exploration of heretical thoughts, maybe it was just really boring for her.
Interesting of course because those are reasons given by some within the church for the waning fortunes of certain other sections of the religion (liberalism is poisoning the water hole)- and in fact in some ways it seemed to be the opinion of Ann Widdecombe in her latest programme on the BBC from which I've taken the title. I don't really know why Ann keeps getting to do these things, I don't think as a convert from the Church of England to Roman Catholicism over the issue of women priests makes her necessarily representative of most of the religious, but more so than that, it's like she has a chronic need to argue with people she disagrees with- they can't just talk. This time it was Johann Hari, in the Newman programme it was Diarmaid MacCulloch (who did a History of Christianity), and in the 10 commandments one it was Francesca Stavrakopoulou (Who did the recent series on the Bible's Buried Secrets). And you know? It never stops being Toe Curling. Much like her appearance on Strictly actually, which naturally, I loved for precisely the same reason.
No fear, Widdy will show you the way. It's for your own good young girl...
Despite this though, if you can catch it on iplayer before Sunday I'd definitely recommend watching it. It hardly says anything explosive or unexpected but I found it quite enjoyable. It also made me realise that I'm grateful that there's a lot of Diversity in Christianity- when she looked at a Pentecostal Church which takes a strong conservative evangelical line on doctrinal and social matters, her approval of this certainty could hardly be clearer. She probably wouldn't think much of my faith, probably call it anaemic... Well, I don't think Jesus would've voted Conservative so I guess we're even. At the same time though, I undeniably felt a twinge of envy at their certainty, and their joy in their faith. I would be lying if I said faith has brought me much 'joy' recently. Mostly just 'puzzlement'.
Maybe it's because I'm an Anglican. One of the things that pricked my ears was Rowan Williams giving his definition of Anglicanism. Reacting against the accusation of being a 'woolly Church where anything goes' he replied:
"...The Chuch of England has a set of beliefs which are laid out in the book of common prayer in new prayer books too, and in the creeds which we all sign up to. What of course we have is a history of a lot of, pluralism, about the deatil, and a certain tradition of tolerance about those who challenge even some of the fundamentals. I think those who are Anglicans are anglicans for reasons, they believe that while the central facts of the faith are there, there is a place for being a bit laid back about some variations on the edges."
Well undeniably this is the Church of Don Cupitt, Nicky Gumbel, Jeffrey John, Michael Nazir-Ali, Giles Fraser, Richard Harries and Tom Wright, to name a few. The place where the Church Spire may be the only high thing about it, and where Bishops can fly. This however is the Church of England. When we look to the anglican community with it's reckless/blasphemous/prophetic/simply Christian (delete as you see fit) Liberal bits, and its reactionary/uncharitable/principled/simply Christian (again, delete as suits your tastes) conservative evangelical bits particularly, one wonders just how 'tolerant' it is. In the age of the Anglican Covenant is 'pluralism' a guiding principle? Even within the CoE of course the lines seem to be hardening between Evangelicals and liberals, whilst the Anglo-Catholics of course deal with their identity and allegiance following the Ordinariate offer. I'd like to believe, I'd like to have certainty that Rowan's articulation is in fact the case, but even if there is a strong middle-of-the-road tendency from many in the pews right now, I don't know how much longer it can last...but if we've got to communicate to a generation where belief extends as far as 'family, friends and themselves' as the programme stated, and who all seem to be very open-minded, possibly tipping on indecisive, on the matter- appearing as a bunch of squabbling factions fighting over near-incomprehensible matters for the average unchurched is likely I think, going to be a big turn off.
The other thing I don't get is why nobody ever asks about the Orthodox Church in this Country, if you want a really traditional religion Ann, try the one that's barely changed for centuries, no Vatican II for them, oh no. Here is a church with it's own beautiful and holy worship and a deep sense of spirituality and continuity. Small yes, but no reason to be overlooked In a world of rush and short termism*, which (dare I say it) even the churches here can be caught up in - blending in with modernity, finding the next scheme or way of doing church - there could well be a lot of interest around an institution which does resist that urge, just as there is around the Cathedral services?
*RW also covers this a bit in the show noting "..the old forms of community has faded away...we're a society which on the whole because of its consumerism, has shrunk its horizons. It hopes for less, it thinks less of human beings."
