I enjoyed Chalcedon’s post on the theologically semi-literate comments of Giles Fraser. They remind me of the theory that it is a little known part of our unwritten constitution that the Anglican Church has to provide a barmpot to keep the newspapers in sales in slack times. The first one I recall in my lifetime was the ‘Red Dean’ of Canterbury, Hewlett Johnson, a man who never found a genocidal left-wing dictator he couldn’t worship, moving from Stalin, via Mao to Castro – all of whom received his unalloyed praise; he kept his scorn for his own Government and that of the USA. He may even have had views on Jesus, but beyond thinking him an early version of Mao, they weren’t very pronounced – or indeed often pronounced at all. I’m old enough to recall the old loon, living in a palace, and with a good private income, and lecturing the rest of us on redistribution of wealth; he could have started with his own, but somehow never got round to that. At least his successor, ‘honest to God’ John Robinson actually had views on religion, as did his successor in the ‘nutty Anglican’ succession – David Jenkins, one time Bishop of Durham – ‘the bishop who doesn’t believe’ – notorious for thinking that the resurrection was a ‘conjuring trick with bones’. Young Fraser’s a reversion to the Red Dean line, and like Johnson, spends more time opining modish lefty views than writing about his day job – but then the Guardian wouldn’t be paying for that I suppose?
Judas, having sold his master for 30 pieces of silver, had the decency to feel shame and to hang himself; times have change. If he’d been around now he could have made a living from writing for the media: ‘Why I had to hand Jesus over’, explaining that he’d gone all mystical and betrayed the ‘social gospel’. One can imagine the quotations: ‘It was all very well saying turn the other cheek, but the capitalists would have hit us there too, so revolution was the only answer.’ No doubt Judas should have quoted in aid the old-fashioned social views of Our Lord: “That marriage and one man, one woman stuff, showed just how conservative Jesus was. I once said in frustration “You should join the Tories” – so it’s no wonder I did what I did.’
It is generations of ‘shepherds’ like Jenkins and Fraser who have helped reduce the once-mighty Anglican Church to a bad joke. Fraser has recently written about the need to get rid of many church buildings as they ‘get in the way’ of the ‘wider social and religious mission’ – the ordering of the words is significant. I hate to tell him, but there is already a whole network of churches who behave the way he wants his church to behave – nonconformist chapels like my own have been doing this a long time – much to the disgust and distrust of many of Fraser’s predecessors. I can give him a tip. having been at this for a lot longer than him, if you don’t believe what the Creed says, people won’t come. If they want a social worker, they will phone for one. The church needs to be ‘meaner’, no more ‘Mr Nice Guy’. He thinks the C of E has concentrated too much on its pastoral role – well, not in these parts or others with which I am familiar – it make be different in London. He is right that people will come to worship – but who is it Fraser worships – the God of Scripture or the God of his own devising. Men and women have always come to the first – but when the trumpet gives off a discordant squeak, the go elsewhere.
Before offering a solution to the C of E’s many problems, Fraser needs to identify them – he could begin by looking in the mirror.
Geoffrey – I’d say that Giles Fraser is a non-entity whom we do not need to bother about. I had never heard of him until I clicked on Chalcedon’s link to his Guardian article – and I won’t waste any more time on him.
JAT Robinson, on the other hand – a very curious character. We have discussed his book ‘The Priority of John’ here before – it’s very good and it’s probably one of the very few points where Chalcedon and I would see eye to eye.JAT Robinson has other very good work on the dating of NT scriptures.
It’s curious that he can be so knowledgeable about the Scriptures and so conservative when it comes to handling the text – he put an awful lot of work into it and at the same time doesn’t believe a word of it.
His ‘Priority of John’, though, does place him among a long tradition of Anglicans (including CK Barrett and Cranfield) who are a credit to their organisation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s practically impossible to live in the UK without being exposed to overdoses of Giles Fraser: he’s on Thought for the Day, the Moral Maze, the regular Guardian column, etc. Whenever the establishment want a left-wing vicar without too many embarrassing religious beliefs, they know where to look.
I knew John Robinson, who was a serious theologian in his Trinity College days; his main problem was that he got too fond of liberal ideas, so that he welcomed people like Don Cupitt and Una Kroll rather than telling them to grow up. JATR may have been fond of left-wing causes, but he did have a serious understanding of Biblical scholarship, unlike the ubiquitous Fraser.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Agreed, at least Robinson was a sound BIblical scholar. Johnson was a loon whom I met once at Oxford when he came to debate – a man who seemed in love with his own legend.
LikeLike
Fraser is best ignored. Robinson, as you say, a curious character – I think, with you and C, he’s right on John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When the main focus of a democratic nation is no longer about preservation of the state or enforcing its common laws but has shifted its focus on redistribution of resources, government housing, subsides, welfare, healthcare and job creation . . . then democratic societies are beginning to crumble. They are operating in a realm where they do more harm than good.
When religious leaders begin supporting such moves as these, claiming them to be basic Christian morality, they muddle the moral purpose of a man and a nation as if they are the same: they are not. In the national realm such things end in enslavement, impoverishment and total dependancy in many instances. Dignity is at once lost; unless, of course, the religious minded can convince the people that these types of things are ‘rights’ and that the state has the ‘obligation’ to provide them. In such instances of pandering; religious leaders become ideological leaders and political lackeys to be bought and sold according to promises. Religion becomes a political constituency to be bought by favors and coerced by its leaders.
Best I think that religion be about saving individual souls whilst worrying less about the collective soul of an inanimate entity which we might call our nation or our society. It is, though, the way of modern democracies and nations these days . . . until we stop licking their boots that is.
LikeLiked by 2 people
‘Best I think that religion be about saving individual souls whilst worrying less about the collective soul of an inanimate entity which we might call our nation or our society.’
Spoken like a true protestant in the best Christian tradition. You’re in the wrong church. (The Catholic archbishops here all seemed to give a heavy dose of politics in their Christmas homilies).
LikeLiked by 3 people
So true Jock and not surprising. I’m quite aware of this modernist, activist movement in society and within all of Christendom. The Catholic Church is right there with the rest of the mainstreamers that are pandering to the politicians and to political correctness.
LikeLiked by 3 people
While I don’t disagree with Jock, I’d also say it’s spoken by a man who recognizes that church and state should be separated. One of the best bequests from our founders, I think. That, of course, does not mean that the church shouldn’t form men for the state, it should, indeed must. We are seeing now what happens when it fails in that mission.
LikeLiked by 4 people
That’s for certain!
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLike
It is an odd phenomenon – not as though, having wrecked their own Church, anyone sensible would take any advice from them!
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s the rub, my old friend; is there many left in this world who are still sensible? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
It did make me smile when he talked about how you might be able to run a church without all the add ons – well I never, who’d a thunk it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
. . . like apostate clergy? There is an add-on I’d like to eliminate.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If he looks in the mirror he’ll identify his main problem 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
He may be daft enough to think he is looking at one of his admirers. He’d be right of course.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Unfortunately he appears to have a few others 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why am I not surprised in this particular political and social climate?
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s always someone offering 30 pieces of silver 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
And many who are more than willing to take it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely brilliant! Spot on Geoffrey. I really dislike that disgrace of a priest and yet he gets so much airtime and is always afforded a platform to spout his heretical, nonsensicle views. What worries me more is that people believe him, agree with him and think he is the way the C of E should go. Spare me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The man’s a loon, and clearly so – but then I am afraid he’s all too representative of his kind! And they wonder why the C of E is where it is!
LikeLiked by 1 person