Being a radical atheist to the left of Richard Dawkins, I don’t take sides in religious matters, but I was depressed by the news that three Anglican bishops, appalled by the possibility of women becoming bishops, have switched to being Catholic priests.
Firstly I find it baffling that, among all the wrongs of the world, the issue of bishops’ genders should assume such importance ”“ mind you, that’s probably just me. I realise that if I were a narrow-minded sectarian bigot with no sense of perspective, I might see things differently.
But the worst thing is that this issue threatens to destroy the Church of England, or at least to diminish it until it becomes an irrelevance ”“ well, OK, even more of an irrelevance.
There is much I suppose that we could say by way of rebuttal, but I will limit myself to this. We can fairly judge a journalist by the accuracy which he or she brings to her craft. If a journalist cannot even spell names correctly, the odds are that this journalist will similarly misrepresent far bigger things. The last item in the column (if you scroll down) consistently misspells the name of Giuseppe Conlon. This cross man not someone whose vapourings we need to heed.
Except for the bit about not believing in God, I’m pretty much like his mum.
This is the kind of writing I like: Careful, evenhanded, competent,
thoughtful, tempered, generous, mindful of the verities – sort of like reading a cantankerous British Spong. Larry
To fail, or not even to be bothered, to understand the motives of those one criticizes is to deliberately keep one’s own mind narrow.
Well I thoroughly enjoyed his A1 rant. It got me laughing, as it was intended, while being deliberately provocative. More seriously, I think we ignore the views of those who do not think like us at our peril. I think Mr Cross [how well named he is] articulates the bemused and igorant response of others, who just do not understand what any of it is about, and why should they not being involved in all the church shifts and politics?
And if you read on, you will find that this is very much his style as a grumpy old man; then look at his face which might benefit from ironing and it becomes perhaps understandable. Over here we take pride in being a ‘grumpy old man’; I should know.
It takes a shrewd atheist to show a wet cleric what baptismal godparents are all about. That says so much about the current state of the Church of England that it should be bottled. Far from respecting the tolerance of the moron who told him lack of belief did not matter- it simply served to make a complete mockery of the entire faith. When exactly did the Church of England stop standing up for anything at all with conviction?
7. I agree, RPP. If the most that can be said of a Christian is that he never put up a fight over any matter of principle, then he is not worthy of the name.
Christ argued, scolded, shouted, got angry, mocked the authorities and cajoled and even insulted his own listeners, and finally was willing to die on mere principle. We must do no less.
[blockquote]I realise that if I were a narrow-minded sectarian bigot with no sense of perspective, I might see things differently.[/blockquote]
Then you must see things very differently indeed.
“Becomes an irrelevance?”
#5, why do you think this was intended to amuse us? His tone suggests that he is quite serious, his derogations intended. Larry
#10 Hello Larry
You get used to the style, I suppose.
I think it is probably a mixture of both. What I find quite interesting is that even though he and his mother claim to be atheists; there still seems quite a lot of warmth and affection for the Church of England. That’s the curious thing here; even people who are not religious still regard the CofE as ‘their church’. It might be something we could build on, if we were so minded, and got our act together.
“I realise that if I were a narrow-minded sectarian bigot with no sense of perspective, I might see things differently”…
No, you’d see things differently if you weren’t a screaming liberal atheist to the left of Richard Dawkins.
“…belligerence seems to be part of what it means to have a religious affiliation”.
Sadly, Mr. Cross is right about this.
“Christ argued, scolded, shouted, got angry, mocked the authorities and cajoled and even insulted his own listeners, and finally was willing to die on mere principle. We must do no less”.
ABSOLUTELY!! Possibly the reason for the “belligerence”, but belligerence need only be well-placed to be effective.
“MY mother used to say that she didn’t believe in God but she did like religion, specifically as expressed by the Church of England.
She liked ‘proper’ Victorian hymns, traditional choirs, the Book of Common Prayer, the King James Bible and verbally abusing vicars.
What she didn’t like was the way the vicars, after she had harangued them about the non-existence of God, the uselessness of the modern prayer book and how hymns sung by drippy girls with tambourines made her want to vomit, would say they quite understood her point”.
Yes, for those who claim to be agnostic, atheist, or disrespectful here, they sure seem to spend a lot of time around the Church of England. 🙂
And I, for one, enjoy grumpy old British men.
#10, possibly because it IS amusing, and rather silly.
Just look at the bit where he writes:
[blockquote] Which is where my mother comes in; belligerence seems to be part of what it means to have a religious affiliation. [/blockquote]
This is just after he has complained that his mother belligerently tried to start an argument and the priests wouldn’t be involved! Yet at the same time he advances the old canard that all belligerence in the wolrd really comes from religion.
Mr Cross appears to have a difficulty coping with logic. Or more likely, as has been suggested, Mr Cross writes in humorous and satirical vein.
Indeed Mr Cross’ entire basic thesis seems ironic: He claims to be unhappy that these three “priests” (actually bishops, I think) have decided to leave the Anglican Church because they don’t like the way it has rejected its traditions. He therefore demands, in wholly undemocratic fashion, that they stay in the Church of England. Thus Mr Cross as champion of free thought requires these priests to surrender their own freedoms, for his convenience!
Is that really what Mr Cross wants, that the Church of England become like the mafia – members are not allowed to leave, because that might disturb Mr Cross’ sense of what he would like the church to be? How far do we continue this – are footballers no longer to be permitted to accept transfer to another club, because Mr Cross doesn’t want to see his favourite team weakened?
If Mr Cross is really that concerned about what is happening to the CofE, perhaps he should think about becoming an active member? If he couldn’t be bothered doing that, then perhaps stop complaining and join something that does really interest him – collecting stamps, needlework, or a haggis appreciation society.