One of the great joys in spending a few days at Walsingham was the opportunity to spend time being a recipient of worship as opposed to the celebrant. It is healthy for the soul of any priest to leave dog collar at home and simply kneel before sacrament focusing on man more than priest. Those who have been to Walsingham will know it is fertile soil for an encounter with God and I feel spiritually refreshed as I return to the parish.
I am especially grateful to Bishop Lindsay Urwin, a man in whom the Holy Spirit is tangibly present, for making time to offer me counsel and the opportunity to chat. He was equally inspirational when conducting public worship and I want to focus on something he said from the pulpit. +Lindsay suggested that Walsingham, and all true Churches for that matter, are often places of protest. What can this mean?
You will have to ask +Lindsay exactly what he meant, but I want to steal the tag and then consider it in light of the Pope and Harriet Harmon’s clash over changes to equality laws and David Cameron’s recent declaration that the church must become fully inclusive of active homosexual lifestyles.
Western society is becoming detached from the Christian culture it came from, dry places spiritually, and this is increasingly leading to serious problems.
At the heart of the impending crisis lies mutually exclusive philosophies that remain divided by a common language. Secular thinking, based on a philosophy of self gratification, believes ‘justice’ can only be delivered with the licence for sexual activity combined with non-judgmental attitude. Orthodox Christian thinking, based on the revelation of Christ and a philosophy of self denial, would concur that everyone requires love and respect but would refute the need for licence as regards sexual activity.
What is really held in tension here is an understanding of what constitutes ‘justice’, ‘tolerance’ and ‘inclusion’. Accepting just one interpretation politicians are claiming authority to tell the church ‘how to behave’. Quite what makes these theological amateurs qualified to lecture the Holy Father on matters of morality is beyond me, but we do start to realise that something disturbing is in progress.
The Western elite is moving away from respect of true faith and, in the process, Christians are frequently misunderstood and misrepresented. Why are we anti gay if we simply ask all single people to lead celibate lives? Why are we anti women simply because we believe in equality which respects difference?
Regardless of the answers to these questions the West marches off in an increasingly intolerant direction. We who minister in such soil must face up to reality, increasingly our churches will be seen as places of protest, light in the darkness and salt in this world. But then again- on this feast of Saint Agatha the martyr- we might ask, ‘was it ever any different?’
“One of the great joys in spending a few days at Walsingham was the opportunity to spend time being a recipient of worship as opposed to the celebrant.”
Is British English really that different from the US variety? I have always thought that the only recipient of our worship (well, the only legitimate one) is God. What you are calling a “recipient of” would be known among us as, perhaps, a “participant in.”
if you want to split hairs (as I am guessing you understood me really!)…I should have said I was recipient of the joy of engaging in worship from the pews which is different to the joy of celebrating Mass. I am fully aware that the full purpose of our worship is to give praise and honour to God and not to entertain or please the people….
“Why are we anti gay if we simply ask all single people to lead celibate lives?”
Because you (alright, we) don’t help them to do so. If the church cannot model a way of life it has no authority to teach it. The faith is primarily caught rather than taught. When there are respected and supported church leaders who are gay and out and proud and celibate and have something unequivocally positive to say about their sexuality as a gift from God, and who can present a clear Christian way of life which honours both their biological identity and a calling to intimate, supportive companionship … THEN the church will be able to say what you say with integrity.
Regardless of its theological opinion, while the church models a vocational way of life for the straight and not the gay it is anti gay by its deeds. (And, perhaps strangely, that does mean that I think the liberals are as anti-gay as the conservatives.)
I would agree with your original point. We certainly do need to help people to lead lives of celibacy and that is within marriage as well as without it. It is certainly totally unreasonable that we Anglicans do little to discourage cohabitation by straights and are increasingly saying nothing negative about divorce and rmarriage and yet get our knickers in a twist over this issue. However….just because we have not treated the subject well does not mean a wrong becomes right- it merely means we have two wrongs to deal with. It is a compounded problem in the over-sexualised culture we live in, especially as regards how we meet, greet and affirm those of all sexual persuasions who live a million miles away from the way faith intended.
That said I still think these politicians have a cheek!
Enjoying yesterday for the first time a pint of excellent ‘Eight Bells’ from the Cathedral Brewery, Lincoln (4.8%, though it felt less; quite bitter [though not in the Timothy Taylor 'grapefruit' style]; very long finish; excellent hopping], I fell to musing about your good self, Father Ed., and about the richness and range of English/British beers as contrasted with the truly dismal Peroni copiously imbibed in Rome. Must be a moral there somewhere. Perhaps you can help?
John, the Pope is German and a German who knows and loves English beer as well as those from his homeland. (I’m sure that he shares your view about Peroni). An English Catholic priest who travels regularly to Rome keeps him supplie with a Kent beer called Spitfire and adds to the Pope’s collection of beer mats (no kidding).
Not sure whether my orginal comment made it but – John, the Pope is a German beer lover who loves an English beer called Spitfire and collects English beer mats (really). I am sure that he shares your view of Peroni.
“Why are we anti gay if we simply ask all single people to lead celibate lives?”
Firstly, I’d say it’s none of your darned business.
Secondly, it begs the question; if god meant single people to lead celibate lives, why did he provide them with genitals?
firstly we would only ask Christians to live by Chrtistian rules – so its not all single people. Secondly your second argument is daft….no one is born married!
As to the first answer, you were the one who included the word ‘all’ so it’s not my fault if you are mis-interpreted. However, I’d be interested to know where in the bible Jesus stated this.
As to your second, my question is only daft in the context of your equally daft statement that all single people should be celibate. But if you’re not prepared to answer a direct question what more can I say?
“Quite what makes these theological amateurs qualified to lecture the Holy Father on matters of morality is beyond me.”
Quite what makes Herr Ratzinger qualified to lecture people about real world issues, much less about morality, is beyond me.
““Why are we anti gay if we simply ask all single people to lead celibate lives?”
This question really is disingenuous. You not only ask all single people to lead celibate lives, but deny that gay people can ever be anything *but* single (unless, of course, they enter into heterosexual marriages that are recipes for disaster, with or without subscribing to the lie of “reparative therapy”). In short, you ask single straight people to lead celibate lives until they marry; you ask gay people to lead celibate lives until death.