Why Christianity must not lose faith in its past.

I admit I struggled conceiving of a suitable title for this article. A faith which began over two millennia ago is likely going to be firmly rooted in the (very ancient) past, and having thus far stood the test of time surely it's pretty future proof? Yet in recent years the Church of England has demonstrated an alarming trend towards denial of the fundamental founding principles of our faith, with a kind of apologetic embarrassment leaving us with a "Christianity-lite" offer. Whilst wonderfully convenient and less controversial, this is becoming further and further removed from where we ought to be. A collection of books compiled over a period of five thousand years by a people in transition as the foundation of faith would not seem to offer an obvious modern handbook for the future. Except ironically it can and it should. 

What is holding Christianity back- and specifically the Church of England, is its insistence that creating a modern veneer for today’s worshippers can offer a new, relevant representation of the faith fit for today. I personally feel this is selling out; an enduring ethos and way of life should not need a shiny new wrapper to ensure its survival. It’s not how Jesus operated and it misses the fundamental point of our faith; that superficial acceptance of the world we live in is not the way forward. Standing up against the tide, however difficult, is the only option when following Jesus. 

Christ Driving the Money Changers from the Temple

Benvenuto Tisi da Garofalo (c.1481–1559)

I might not be a Biblical scholar, but I'm pretty certain Jesus was a revolutionary- from overturning the moneylender’s tables in the Temple to riding a donkey through the side gate into Jerusalem in contrast to the Roman Governor arriving in pomp through the main entrance to the city. These are not the acts of someone hoping to go along with the status quo to achieve acceptance, they are confrontational acts designed to precipitate strong feelings. Jesus did not choose the easy path, he chose what he believed to be the correct one- and yet today convenience and acceptance triumphs daily in the CofE. The mental gymnastics required to avoid "offending" any person or group whilst simultaneously remaining relevant is astonishing. Ironically this is precisely what Jesus objected to; it is fundamentally UNChristian to avoid challenging something immoral, unethical or which causes persecution. Worse still, they have confused seeking justice and speaking out with persecution, in collusion with a "woke" agenda seeking to subvert society.

Religion and leadership thereof should not be a popularity contest, and the dependence on political acceptance is a dangerous path. Since the Reformation the Church of England has been unequivocally linked with the State, through the monarch as Head of the Church. In its infancy it is easy to see why political acceptance was essential, given the monarch's power over the Church. But those days are past and King Charles prefers to be considered "Defender of Faiths" with little real involvement in the affairs of Parliament. One could argue that our bishops play a more active role than the monarch within the legislature as members of the House of Lords. As active politicians who don't require election it beggars belief that they don't feel compelled to be more Christian - more Christ-like even, and speak out more often on controversial matters. Worse still, the Church is not only blind to compromise and conflict of interest but actively condones it. Anglican priest Paula Vennells was shortlisted for Bishop of London whilst Chief Executive of the Post Office, her application supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby. 

Where was the voice of the church when buildings were closed during lockdowns? Whilst the pandemic presented opportunities as well as restrictions for congregations (which I wrote about here) the church fundamentally failed as an institution during this time; permitting self-serving compliance with both reactionary public policy and selfish fear to override their raison d'être. There was always a middle way, and this golden opportunity for relevance was missed. Similarly, where is the voice of condemnation against the Trans agenda? The silence is deafening. Perhaps the insidious homophobia which is an intrinsic part of Trans ideology is morally convenient for the Church, along with the denial of women's rights and spaces. But acceptance of a body which is God-given is surely taught multiple times throughout the Bible. From the trials of Job, the barrenness of Elizabeth, to the identity of Jesus we are told being a Christian is not meant to be comfortable. Or convenient. Acceptance that we are merely instruments of God, with a wider role to play in society is unassailable and an obsession with the self, with identity and appearance surely misses the point? 

Faith is never supposed to be easy, or comfortable. We might include "Comfortable Words" in the liturgy, but they are intended to bring comfort to those finding their chosen path a trial, to offer support to Christians who struggle with what is asked of them, vital words to the Body of Christ (us) to reassure and convince. And absolutely not to make us feel safe and cosy.

My generation has perhaps enjoyed the longest ever stretch of peace and prosperity in Britain, and misinterprets this as an excuse to avoid confrontation. We do this at our peril, because tacit acquiescence of problematic events and developments only precipitates future conflict. It also dilutes the relevance of the Christian faith today. Of course there are fundamental tenets common to all the mainstream faiths but love and respect for others is not the same as avoiding opportunities to speak out against evil, hatred and persecution.

One of the most beautiful anthems we sing at our church is Phillip Moore's setting of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's prayers. A German pastor and theologian, Bonhoeffer met his end in a Nazi concentration camp in April 1945 just a fortnight prior to the camp's liberation by the Allies. A staunch opponent of Hitler's regime, Bonhoeffer faced condemnation as a pacifist and state adversary as early as 1936. Following his arrest in 1943, he endured two years of imprisonment, with his fate sealed when documents surfaced in 1945 exposing his close ties to the German Resistance. Unlike the Pope who preferred to avoid direct confrontation with Hitler to protect and preserve the Catholic Church in Germany, Bonhoeffer remained constant in his convictions. Challenging authority is not without risk, and I am not advocating we all become revolutionaries. What I do firmly believe is that connecting with what being a Christian really means involves occasionally speaking out, refusing to blindly accept something which appears wrong because it is more convenient to keep quiet, or avoiding difficult choices for fear of becoming unpopular. 

Perhaps a degree of confusion over our responsibility for speaking out stems from the claim that “the meek shall inherit the earth”. However the true meaning of the word "meek" is perhaps not humility, but strength or power that is under control. It's about appropriateness and responsibility, meekness before God. King David was not meek before Goliath or the enemies of Israel, but chose meekness in front of Saul. There is a time to speak, and a time to be silent. Trusting in God does not absolve us of our personal responsibilities, and sitting on the fence between two difficult positions is surely unChristian? Erecting such a fence from which to sit and cast judgement is blatant hypocrisy.

What I believe we desperately need is a crash course in “Back to (Christian) Basics”. To peel off the comfortable veneer & reassess our place in the world because the patronising avoidance of conflict is suffocating. We need more bishops like Dr. John Sentamu; and we need to listen and connect, rather than indulge in introspection. This week the resistance of Alexei Navalny has been celebrated the world over. I have no idea if he had a faith, but I strongly suspect Jesus would have related. And whilst Jesus is our Shepherd, the “lamb” analogy does not necessarily mean we should be passive. “For we, like sheep, have gone astray…” and need to re-evaluate. What we need is constancy, within the frame of reference taught for millennia.