Sunday 12 April 2009

Happy Easter

I apologise, in advance, for the content of this post. If you're offended by someone being offended by the clergy, best look away now.


The BBC reports that Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury is planning to use his Easter address to say "There's more to life than money".

Errr

No shit, Sherlock!

Sorry - I know that's no way to speak to an Archbishop...

No shit, Your Grace!

Apparently the top ranking Roman Catholic Archbish, Cormac Murphy O'Connor, was to do pretty much the same thing.

I was brought up to go to church - CofE - and I have a huge amount of empathy with the Christian ideal - in fact in the ideals of most of the Abrahamic religions.

On the face of it there are lots of arcane rules, guidelines, observances from the Ten Commandments to the teachings in Leviticus, to the various deadly and cardinal sins etc, etc

But it seems to me that if you ignore the downright silly ones and, excuse me whilst I sideline Commandment #1 (I am the Lord thy God...etc) then it all pretty much boils down to:

- Live your life not at the expense of others.

- Look after people less fortunate than yourself.

I'm an atheist. I never did believe in God but I believe in both of those principles. I'd like to think I do so because they are the right things to do in any civilised society and not because some omniscient being will give me a slap upside the head if I fail.

Anyhow - back to the Easter message. I don't disagree with what they're saying but isn't it just a little patronising?

It's quite an easy thing to say from the comfort of the Bishop's palace. Yes, I know that when they're further down the greasy pole of the holy pecking order they endure relative poverty and work very hard for their crust. But bedecked in their Easter finery and preaching that others should not want designer clothes is a dangerous thing to do, IMHO.

The people for whom they hope this message will mean something will likely know little or nothing about the entirety of ecclesiastical life and would, understandably, feel there is an element of hypocrisy.

This is the problem with organised religions. Not the core of the doctrine, but the way it's delivered to the masses (pun intended).

We all crave security.

Security in being loved by friends and family.
Security in knowing we can be ourselves and not have to fit someone else's mould.
Security in knowing we can pay our bills and feed our children.
Security in knowing our educational or work experience will give us employment.
Security in our faith, perhaps.

It's very easy for those of us who have that sort of security to sneer at those who aspire to it, or what they feel is a near enough replacement.

I know this is going to sound at odds with my last post where I made quite a big deal about money not being everything...but this is about people with some influence potentially making other people feel bad.

So come on guys...

Encourage new parishioners in by giving them a community they can be secure in. Let's not exclude those people who might need that security most...

Who?

Well, it depends on the church, and indeed on the parish.

For example - those whose sexuality is not exploitative and yet frowned on; those who don't fit the parish template; those who choose not to marry but to live together anyway...the list goes on.

There are great examples of clergy who really create an atmosphere of acceptance and a congregation that gives a sense of place and community to all that attend.

Sadly, it's the other type that cause a disproportionate amount of hurt and alienation.

Let's have less of that, eh?




.

6 comments:

  1. I totally agree with you about the need for more tolerance/acceptance but it's unlikely to come from religion. What's perhaps more important is for attitudes to change within the rest of the community. A vicar not inviting gay people into his church is one thing. Children being taught at secular schools that the only kind of love/sex is heterosexual? That's far more damaging, I think. But then I'm not a gay person who believes in God but isn't allowed to go to church.

    Have to say, also, that vicars aren't badly paid at all. They get a good salary, a big house rent-free, a car, expenses... That's not bad going. That list refers to Anglican vicars, mind; no idea how it works for other churches.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I entirely agree that the state have far more influence but my thoughts here are entirely about the church - irrespective of how influential it is overall.

    I guess I'm disappointed that the letter of the message seems to be at odd with the spirit of it.

    I'm not sure I agree with you about the pay and conditions of vicars. Those I know have very modest incomes and are on call almost all the time. But I concede that it may not be universal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. They get good perks (nice big vicarages) but I don't think the salary's all that. But then, I doubt they go into it for the money - at least I hope not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @James: The other thing with vicarages is that there's usually an expectation they get used for parish business so the family home is less private than it otherwise might be.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @DrC: Now you've explained what that means...yep! :-)

    ReplyDelete