Barnes in Common

the magazine of Churches Together in Barnes
March/April 2005

Home
Current issue
Previous issues
Noticeboard
Discussion board
About CTiB

Readers' Letters

From Edward Jones,
the Methodist Church

Dear Editor,

Immoral Majority by Guy Collins
Predictably, BiC for January/February included an article on the American elections with a 100% anti-Bush line. May I attempt to redress the balance a bit?

The Rev. Dr. Guy Collins takes a hefty swipe at those voters, particularly the poor ones, who had the temerity to place their religious and moral values above what the liberal clergy deem good for them. In my naïveté, I would have expected a cleric to see at least some merit in "value voting." On the other hand, I think it likely that many of the poor, not being as dim as the intelligentsia suppose, actually perceived some butter on the Republican side of their bread. By far the biggest item of Federal expenditure in 2003 was Social Security, much exceeding Defence.

Would Guy have been so confident in depicting Iraq as an all round disaster if he had written after the people of that country had demonstrated their support for the democratic process? Theirs was the courage and enthusiasm, but the opportunity came from Bush.

If, as Guy says, US elections "are not about real things", does it matter who won and why is he so concerned about the result? Conversely, he himself cites health care and unemployment as areas of disagreement between the candidates. These hardly strike me as issues to be disposed of casually.

Incidentally, Guy regards Britain as a "deeply secular society". This seems a curious description of a country with two established churches, an arrangement which (if polls are anything to go by) has a wide measure of popular support.

From Alfred Kenyon,
St Osmund's Church

Dear Editor,
The Path to Unity
Ross Collins in his Jan/Feb 'Reflections' criticises some obscure hair-splitting disagreements between the Churches. He celebrates some differences and urges us to focus on the big issues on which we are agreed.

That approach is also now taken by those engaged in the ARCIC dialogues. There are some all-important fundamentals which we all seem to share now. We all believe in a God whose essence is Love. He loves us so much that he has died on a cross for our sins. He wants us to love one another, as he has loved us. We all believe in the Incarnation, the Redemption, the Holy Trinity, and much else.

If we want visible unity, we must not shrink from discussing the more fundamental things that still divide us. Ross is surely right to suggest that Anglican orders are not best discussed in terms of legalistic minutiae.

Behind Anglican orders lies the bigger issue of authority. Authority tends to be treated as a clash between top-down and bottom-up governance. However, the real clash is not about governance, but about the rule of faith. Jesus revealed God's good news to the disciples, orally. The scriptures are a fundamental part of how the good news reaches us, but many of us believe that the apostolic tradition is also fundamental and complementary. That tradition was entrusted to the Church in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is not easy to see faith and morals as suitable terrain for bottom-up democracy. Sacraments are another such issue. Whether issues other than these can be decentralised, may well turn out to be a matter for loving dialogue between the Churches.

Behind the nature of the revelation is another big issue, on which few of our separate denominations may be unanimous. Is our faith God-centred or man-centred? If love is its essence, can we mortals become living witnesses of it by our own efforts? Or do we need divine grace? Is it God who reaches out to us, or we to him?

Our common ground is precious, but when we do discuss our differences, should we perhaps start with these questions? At least they are not trivial.

Back to the top