
As some of you know from my occasional contributions to Neo’s blog (what do you mean you haven’t read it! Golly, here’s the link, though those of a liberal frame of mind may need a trigger warning, but more of that in a moment) I am by way of being an Americanophile. I spent a year in the mid-West when I was ten, and fell in love with small-town America. There were no fewer than ten churches in a town of about ten thousand people, and I loved the Episcopal Church at which we worshipped. But there is one aspect of American culture which I wish we had not imported – the so-called “culture wars.”
I suppose I come at this from what I’d call a Church of England direction. I was brought up to believe that the Church of England has a mission to the whole country. As I grew up I came to value that side of things more and more. Regardless of creed, class or colour, the doors of our churches are open to all who want to go there (well, okay, they were, but don’t start me on Mr Johnson and his government). I don’t take the view that religion has no place in public life, and I value the role that the Church plays in this country. It is not just (although it is also) the work done selflessly and quietly locally through foodbanks, or through hospital and university chaplains, it is that local presence.
As a politcal näif, it came to me but slowly that there were “parties” in the church. At university I went along to some Christian Union meetings, but soon retreated to the calm of the College Chapel. I’ve never been one for jumping up and down and proclaiming my thanks for my salvation. C 451 tells a story of a politican who, on being asked by a Street Preacher whether he was saved, said “yes”, only to be asked “why are you not proclaiming it?” To that he responded as I would: “It was a close shave so I don’t like to shout about it.”
College chapel was like home – Alternative Service Book, decent sermon, seemly and, well, for me, a bit boring. Being an inveterate church hopper, I found one which was not boring. The Blessed Sacrament was reserved, there was incense, and the Book of Common Prayer was used. It wasn’t long before I’d bought my first mantilla and Rosary, and I asked Father to bless the latter – and he blessed the former too. I found a spiritual calm there which neither the College Christian Union, nor the Chapel gave me. But it never occurred to me to think that my preference was somehow “better”; it was different, and difference was, I thought, and still think, good.
Some at the Church I attended would refer to what had happened at the time when the Church of England had ordained women in the way that you might refer to a great disaster. As I came to know more, I realised that my Church was part of a group called “Forward in Faith“. There was considerable hostility among some of my fellow worshippers to those who, in their view, had “betrayed” the Church by agreeing to the ordination of women. Meanwhile, talking to friends at College, where I still attended early morning prayers in the Chapel, I encountered a similar hostility to the “dinosaurs” who opposed the ordination of women. As a woman, I was expected by my peers to share that view, and I was asked more than once “how I could bear” to “worship with those people?” I had a very good (male) friend in another College who was a keen Evangelical, and he used to ask me how I “could bear to worship in Laodicea”; he never darkened the door of the College Chapel.
It may just that I am a wishy-washy liberal sort of woman (guilty as charged by the way, and proud of it), but I did not see then, nor do I now, why they could not all “live and let live.” My other half (who only takes an interest in these things insofar as living with me requires it) asked me last night why I ran a “conservative blog” if I favoured the ordination of women and thought that LGBTI+ Christians should always be made welcome in church. I tried to explain that my Catholic views on the sacraments and the nature of the Church were not “conservative” to me, and constituted no bar to an inclusive view of that Church. I am not sure they were any the wiser, or even better informed.
On both sides of the Atlantic we seem to be living in sharply divided political cultures where the traditionally intolerant attitude by conservatives to things like gay rights are reciprocated on the left by a “cancel culture” to anyone with non-progressive views. This does seem to be an import, and it exacerbates existing divisions. In my own church it can seem, sometimes, as though those taking a traditional view of marriage and other social issues, are being marginalised. I was struck, as I thought and prayed about this, puzzled as to what a Church which has a national mission should do, by what Canon Angela Tilby has written in the latest Church Times: “we can take on that protective task only if we resist a too-easy identification of progressive causes with the values of “the Kingdom”.
It is a timely reminder that balance is one of the great virtues of Anglicanism, and so I leave you this Saturday, with her wise words:
We should nourish more diversity of thought, a wider theological intelligence. Scriptural truth, after all, is multi-layered. We misread our mission if we think that it is all about us and our personal preferences. In the same spirit, we should ensure that the conservative-minded among us are not driven to the edges, not only because this could encourage animosity, but because they retain insights that we need. We will engage effectively with secular society only if we know where our roots lie
Enjoy your Saturday!
A fine piece, Jessica. Yes, I remember how you loved that church. I thought Canon Tilby’s piece a fine one. Enjoy your day!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you very much, coming from you that means a huge amount 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have to laugh – you certainly make life difficult for me. I love the way you write, I enjoy reading your articles … and then I have to ‘like’ . I never know what to do! While I ‘like’ the writing, I don’t always like your opinions.
So lets agree to disagree and please know that I love your style of writing. I will ‘like’ all but it will be the writing I support. Is that ok?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oh surely, Audre, I am great one for living and letting live, so that seems a perfectly sensible thing. Mind you, as Dave will tell you, I am not always sure I agree with myself 🙂 x
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, when you say:
“On both sides of the Atlantic we seem to be living in sharply divided political cultures where the traditionally intolerant attitude by conservatives to things like gay rights ”
you need to support that assertion, dearest friend. I don’t know a single American conservative who is intolerant of gay rights. I know many Americans who are opposed to LGBTQWERTY people, blacks, or women, or any other group having more supposed rights than any other group.
You see we’re a funny breed, we believe in equality of opportunity, and in and under the law. But we realize that attempting to legislate equal outcomes will only outlaw liberty itself.
That’s true for American conservatives, not so much for the left. From what I see it is equally true of British conservative.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Indeed the proclamation of ‘victimhood’ has propelled this ‘divisiveness’ beyond any kind of credulity. Today, everyone can claim victimhood it seems and expect preferential treatment, special laws and protections in their lives. We no longer see individuals, we see movements of groups, each vying for special attention.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And, of course, your own attitude towards those who differ from the views you espouse even in your own church is a model of how to avoid being divisive?
LikeLike
I berate no one individually. I criticize in writing ideas that I disagree with. There is nothing divisive about arguing ideas. Real and imagined visions are real and always have been. But the progressives have been instrumental in creating the some pretty bitter imagined divisions. Life isn’t always fair. But in the past we still found ways to make our lives meaningful without seeing ourselves as victims. Life went on and will, I suspect, continue to do so.
If I have a horse in the race, I will study the racing form, and pick what I hope will be the most likely winner. I don’t have to agree with someone else who has placed their Monet on another horse but that is simply their opinion.
As for the RCC which you keep rubbing my nose in: you have no horse in the race.
LikeLike
No one? Do reread your comments on Pope Francis.
LikeLike
So I met the Pope and called him a no good SOB and then berated him? I think not. I have a position by studying the ‘racing form’ and take my stance. Since I have to take a stance in makes sense that I get as much info as possible since the salvation of my soul might depend upon making the right choice; this does not apply to you. In fact, it shouldn’t matter to you in the least.
However for me and others in the Church we must decide if the Church was perpetually wrong until this man arrived: 1) was it legitimate or illegitimate 2) have his actions and words been Catholic or antiCatholic etc.? So we metaphorically read and study and listen to as many arguments being made from both sides and take a point of view. Sorry that my view is not the same as yours but then again you do not have the same belief that your soul will be at stake if you choose badly during these confusing times and admitted Crisis within the Church. I do.
LikeLike
You are right. I put my trust in God, not any man and not any church.
LikeLike
I was basing myself partly on the figures here: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/10/05/5-homosexuality-gender-and-religion/
LikeLiked by 1 person
OK, Pew is sometimes OK, but in general, polling is trash, it’s all push polls all the time. This is old enough to have a bit of credibility. But it doesn’t correlate with what I see in one of the reddest states in the union. I can’t remember the last time a black or a woman was discriminated against in these parts. Sure some churches have internal rules about sex roles in their organizations, that’s their right. If you don’t like the rules don’t join the club, plenty of other have different rules.
I can remember real racism in the US, that was in the sixties, the only place I see it now is the Democratic party and it subsidiaries BLM and Antifa. Anything to keep the blacks on the plantation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Among Republicans and Republican leaners, more say homosexuality should be accepted (54%) than discouraged (37%) by society. This is the first time a majority of Republicans have said homosexuality should be accepted by society in Pew Research Center surveys dating to 1994. Ten years ago, just 35% of Republicans held this view, little different than the 38% who said this in 1994”
So it has got better, but I am not sure the research supports your view that conservatives accept gay rights. I know one who seems not to …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps, but perhaps you’re confusing dogma with personal belief. I simply haven’t seen it in years. I suppose I might live in an area without homosexuals, but then my stepson is, and while he didn’t fit a farming community especially well, nobody really discriminated against him, he just had little in common with most of his peers.
LikeLike
I’d be interested to know whether he’d share that perspective. Even at a relatively liberal university, I knew gay people who felt discriminated against, though I could not see it. It’s not always easy to see how others see the way they get treated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And that is the highest concentration of whiny snowflakes in the known universe. Most of them (male and female) need to put on their big girl knickers, get a job and do something productive, like the rest of us.
Feelings don’t really matter, we can’t fix that, we can work on objective fact, but I don’t see any.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought the Pew surveys gave some objective facts. I am afraid feelings do matter, to those on the receiving end of discrimination.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then document it. Nobody gets through life without their feeling getting hurt. There are certainly individual idiots around, but there is little systemic discrimination, except against Christians, of course. And that is well documented.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you think that some Christians are not discriminating against gay people, then I am not sure I can help. This is what I was writing about, you rightly complain that Christians are discriminated against, but when I say gay people are, you say no, and even when I cite good surveys, you say you don’t believe them. This is precisely what I mean about us importing the American culture war syndrome.
LikeLike
Other examples are given here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/lgbtq-rights-america-arent-resolved/596287/ and here:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-right-wings-war-on-the-lgbtq-community
And I could go on, but I am not sure it’s worth it, as no doubt the New Yorker and The Atlantic are not reliable sources.
LikeLike
And even after 2000 years of persecutions it is rare to see Christians claiming victimhood. We simply get on with life.
LikeLike
I find that a bit parochial. Christians in places like Nigeria and Syria can’t just ‘get on with it’ they are persecuted, and our churches should make much more of that, and less of the relatively trivial differences between them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I find that a bit parochial. Christians in places like Nigeria and Syria can’t just ‘get on with it’ they are persecuted, and our churches should make much more of that, and less of the relatively trivial differences between them.”
I suppose we don’t because it has always been this way, We have Christian missionaries helping other Christians on the ground but we don’t believe that God has promised us happiness in this life; only happiness in the next. So we have hope and we placate ourselves with that.
In the meanwhile, if we can help others (whether poor, starving, the sick or suffering) we do our individual best to do what we can. It is not our goal (politically or globally) to make this world some type of enlightened utopia but to individually show compassion and care for those whom God puts before each of us. That is all we expect and it is enough for us to choose rightly when confronted by these situations.
LikeLike
I am puzzled. Our governments spend a fortune on an unwinnable “war against terror” by invading Iraq, which was not even involved in 9/11 (unlike our “ally” Saudi Arabia) and yet when it comes to our fellow Christians its ‘not up to us to make this world some kind of enlightened utopia.” Why dod we try to impose our type of democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan? What am I missing?
LikeLike
What does changing the subject to county’s politics have to do with what I am speaking of as the role of Christianity? All I am saying is that we don’t make ourselves victims and we try to help those whom we can. It has nothing to do with the corruption of world politics.
LikeLike
It has this to do with it. Our countries are willing to use military power, but not to help Christians who are being persecuted. Do you not find that sad and reprehensible>
LikeLike
I find that a constant reality. I accept it and if it comes down to it, I pray for the grace to face my own martyrdom as courageously as other Christians have before me.
LikeLike
I accept what the Lord will send, but don’t think it absolves me from criticising our governments for their inaction, or, for that matter, giving to charities helping these fellow Christians – who, unlike us, really are persecuted.
LikeLike
Nor do I Jess . . . and I do. But I am a realist. Countries are not Christian Churches but run by secularists who send people of all religions and no religion to die in wars and causes. Christianity just doesn’t seem to fit their requirement for the ‘common good’ of their own people. So it is what it is; and we live with one foot in heaven and one in the world but others have both feet on the only reality they know . . . the here and now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s so sad, when there is so much we could do, but you are right, alas!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alas, indeed.
When you think about it, we have a lot to be thankful for. We live in the most free countries in the world. We have religious freedoms and capital wealth, good education and health care etc. Our countries have warts but we are not intentionally trying to victimize anyone. Whilst most of the world has all of these things in overwhelming proportions. It is good to think of our own plights within that larger spectrum and then do what we actually can do: as you say, send money and support to those less fortunate and raise our voices. But that is all we can do and we need accept that. And lest I leave it out; pray.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, you are right. It’s so sad when we could do more to help. But if we give of our substance and pray, that is for us the most we can do. Let’s join in prayer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙏🏻
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙏🏼
LikeLike
And that, Jess (yours at 3:50) I wholeheartedly agree with, and that is a good place to end a discussion that is likely to produce far too much heat and not enough light to find the whisky bottle. xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh to be sure, at some point agreeing to disagree is the best way 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s also an email 🙂 x
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yay! 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
And now another xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Huzzah! 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jessica – I’m all in favour of two people who like each other very much living together in life-long union, but we all know that when LGBTQ+ is mentioned, it is different from that and we have `love’ being conflated with carnal activities.
I’d suggest that the C. of E. changes its order of service so that the quantities of communion wine are much more liberal and they conclude their worship with the well known hymn by Jimmy Buffett, `Why don’t we get drunk and screw?’
LikeLike
If a group of people choose a label, I am not sure what’s wrong with that. I assume Baptists, Methodists and Evangelicals want to be called by the names they adopted?
For most of us, love involves carnal activities with the person to whom we are married. Even St Paul thought that was allowable 😊
LikeLike
We have to trust things and people on a case by case basis, I think. Heterodox is found in all the main camps as is Orthodoxy, issue by issue. You will find both high and low Churchmen who deny the existence if a personal Devil and high and low Churchmen who affirm that we are saved by grace through faith. Talking about things in general, we are apt to forget that the call to live at peace means a degree of self-discipline in all our utterances, from things we consider humorous that are actually calumny to out-and-out declarations of heresy
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, Nicholas. In essentials, unity, elsewhere, diversity. Naturally we might not always agree on what is essential, but for me that’s where the Niceness Creed matters. xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am a big fan of the Nicene Creed. Of course, I might understand the word universal differently from others.
LikeLiked by 1 person