Some are expressing shock and horror that the bourgeois Church of England are about to seek legal remedies for the eviction of the protesters presently camped in front of St Paul’s Cathedral. What started as a protest against world capitalism has become a sad little battle within the Church of England.
But why the shock and surprise? Was anyone really thinking that the established church would line itself up against the rich and powerful?
The Church of England, alongside many other Christian denominations is part of the bourgeois elite and seeks to control spiritual life on behalf of those that have the power.
In its foundation document, the 39 Articles, the Church of England specifically rejects any political programme which seeks to redistribute wealth (see Article 38 “The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as some Anabaptists do falsely boast…). No western Christian denomination, including the Methodist Church has ever challenged that position.
Bourgeois structures and theology completely smother our church and our faith. Our Bible colleges and Ministerial training programmes are all about ensuring that the radical message of Jesus is confined to personal salvation at best or New Age mysticism at worse. At the moment we have a license to be radical about “global warming” but that is conditional that it doesn’t really challenge the status quo and remains a legitimising way to stifle the economic aspirations of countries such as China and India..
Bourgeois theology ignores Jesus’s proclamation that He had come to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, no one bothers to learn the lessons of Jubilee from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the primitive communism of Pentecost is forgotten in the rush to spiritualise Whitsun, and no one tells us why the first Christian martyr was Stephen.
As for Mary’s reaction on hearing that she was to bear Jesus, we are left to assume she is exalting motherhood and apple pie. And when Jesus own brother James writes an epistle far more radical than anything written by Marx we are told by the patronising and ill informed theologians that it should be “read in context”.
As for the Sermon on the Mount, well when Jesus says “blessed are you who are the poor”, He really means “the poor in spirit”, and is all about depression and middle class anxiety. The bourgeois are very selective in which parts of the Bible we should accept at face value.
We now have a whole generation of Christians who have never read “The Ragged Trousered Philantropists” or anything by Conrad Noel. Many active Christians today have only ever been taught or exposed to bourgeois theology.
That’s why we don’t understand where the Church of England and other churches really stand on the present crisis of capitalism. There they stand, with the rich and the powerful. At the end of the day they can do no other. We need to put our faith in Jesus and Scripture, not in the Church.
Posts
11 comments:
The pull of institutionalisation has made one expression of Christianity after another susceptible to these problems. Christian movements have often started out as radical, but once you have a priestly hierarchy of specialists, grand buildings that need to be funded and maintained, money coming in that needs to be invested, a thirst for respectability and a whole set-up that needs to be protected and regularised by the state, you become limited in how far your church can actually be 'for the poor'.
I agree with your last sentence, but the trouble is, what if putting our faith in 'Jesus and Scripture' leads us to question the scriptural efficacy and authenticity of the way that we do church? After all, church isn't incidental; we make Jesus and Scripture known among ourselves and to the outside world by means of the church, so if our theology of church is inadequate - or even detrimental - to the task, how can we just turn a blind eye to that? Isn't it imperative that we challenge the structures and practices that undermine the progres of the gospel?
It's more acceptable for Christians to question the virgin birth than to question the problematic structures and practices of their churches. I find that a bit ironic, really.
"Our Bible colleges and Ministerial training programmes are all about ensuring that the radical message of Jesus is confined to personal salvation at best or New Age mysticism at worse."
Utter caricature and rot, I think. How many courses have you examined? Mine included a course on political theology, which enabled me to study Liberation Theology. It also included a course on the Hebrew prophets, alongside the opportunity to study Hebrew language - and believe me, when you read Amos in the original, you know you're reading a real radical! My course also included placements working in real-life contexts which contained all of human life. A colleague did one of her placements at UTU, as a result of which she pursued an active (and radical) ministry in the inner-city.
The problem isn't the college courses, but the congregations. I preached on Amos a while back in a sizeable Methodist church, a sermon which I reckoned was based on a fair and straightforward exegesis, simply pointing out that God is against such injustice and unfairness - I was actually sworn at by a middle-class lady in her late 60s who roundly condemned me for preaching "b***** Marxism"! I've lost count of the number of times I've been told off for mixing religion and politics. My usual response is that when I find a clear dividing line I might make the distinction, but I can't actually see one - can you? So far, most accusers have had the wisdom to hear the alarm bells and not try to educate me on that one...
The big danger is that we get trapped by our institution, and the vision is overlaid by our domestic needs and concerns. I don't know what actually happened at St Paul's - we're told they received advice which they were bound to heed, but I haven't heard anyone say from whom. Insurers? I do know the weight of responsibility carried by our managing trustees, and it would be a brave church council which risked losing its insurance cover.
There are valid points to be made in this, and challenges which need to be heard. You don't help matters by scattering such red herrings in the way.
Thanks Tony and Anonymous. There seems to be a consensus that its the institutions rather than the Gospel which creates the problems. And Tony, yes, the herrings are definitely red!
You are right David concerning the importance of justice and standing with the poor. This is quite simply gospel. But you are wrong in your comments re training institutions. My years of training enabled me to learn much about liberation theology and our responsibility to be in solidarity with the poor.
Like Tony I know that to speak out on these issues is the quickest way to lose popularity in many a church situation. Still the church response has been slow.
Re the Occupations I have found much spiritual strength among our local Occupiers. Indeed I am looking forward to leading worship there next sunday afternoon - just a bit apprehensive of hitting the wrong notes
Paul
That reminds me of the old quote about liberation theology in Latin America:
'Theology opted for the poor and the poor opted for pentecostalism'.
You know far more about liberation theology than I do; does it really challenge church dynamics? Does it tackle institutionalised church hierarchies? Inclusive liturgies may be introduced, but are the laity empowered? Is popular spirituality celebrated, or is the church still nervous about spontaneity and loss of control? When all's said and done, is liberation theology still about church elites doing stuff on behalf of poor people? Some might find that a bit paternalistic....
I think that church structures probably placed restrictions on where liberation theology can go which is why we hear less about it now. That said it offers valuable insights.
I think we cannot transport something wholesale from a different story. My concern is justice for those who are regarded as disposable by the present economic order.
Th problem of church elites controlling events --- I totally see your point and wouldn't argue with it. Just don't throw baby out with bathwater
P.S. Anon I may have learnt but whether I remember is another thing!
It's interesting that in this discussion there is an assumption that liberation theology is the radical interpretation of Christian doctrine. However here in Europe we developed a rich strain of radical thought which was most strongly articulated by groups such as The Levellers during the civil war. This radicalism continued and the influence of Christianity on the Chartists movement, the foundation of trades unions and the wider Labour movement is well known. My own introduction came via the Christian Socialist Movement in the 1960s where I came across the work of people such as Conrad Noel and Stanley Evans.
For me it came largely through the same person as you - Lord Soper. I remember a book of his entitled "christian Politics" - and still it is a pearl of wisdom.
Paul
I understand, and share, the concern for those 'who are regarded as disposable by the present economic order.' But when the church has its own internal issues (acknowledged or not) over who has a say, who has power, then it might seem a bit hypocritical for the church to continually condemn external structures while failing to address its own structural failings.
The CofE in particular is in an impossible situation: it's the established church, yet some people want it to be 'anti-establishment'. How is that going to work? It's unsurprising that St. Paul's has got itself into such a muddle.
I deliberately said that my course included "political theology" - liberation theology was only one aspect of that. The dissertation I did as examination for that module was an attempt to compare modern European political theology (specifically the work of Jurgen Moltmann) with the work of one particular Latin American liberationist, Jose Miguez Bonino. The point was clearly that political theology must be contextual, so whatever is happening (or in this case was happening 40 years ago) in Latin America might not be the right way forward in the UK.
As to church structures enabling or inhibiting liberation, it all depends. I reckon institutions are inherently conservative, but the faith is inherently radical. The tensions between the two are the dynamic which fuels church history: revival and renewal form a dynamic movement (the model behind our General Secretary's latest comments about 'a discipleship movement shaped for mission'), but as the movement becomes an organisation, it forms structure and hierarchy which tend to become conservative - so revival and renewal break out again, and the pattern repeats. It's like watching a lava flow, which forms a crust, until the pressure below breaks out and flows again, forming a new crust, and then a new breakout, etc.
The biggest problem I have is that too many people still insist that faith must be separated from politics - failing to see that as a (conservative) political position. Faith and politics are inextricably interwoven; for the Christian, faith is about living with God, and politics is about living together - surely our whole concern must be about living together with God.
Post a Comment