Wednesday, 24 November 2010

Is There Anybody There?

Today is a day when the Yes folk lock swords with the No folk, the Archbishop frets, and the Synod votes on an issue.

I agree with the 'what is the point' camp, and I have sympathy with the 'will it really make any difference camp'. I am firmly in the 'Church of England has dealt with worse than this camp' and the 'I imagine that we will see next year' camp. 

I am looking for the 'So what' camp so I can join.

I feel like I might be the only person in the whole wide world who holds this view. I couldn't care less about the Covenant. I don't see it making the slightest jot of difference to us in the end because when people choose to, they will behave according to their consciences whether a piece of paper is there or not.

I do not regard it as an issue worthy of the froth and hype that it has recieved, and do not regard it as having the potency or valency that both camps ascribe unto it. 

What is worthy of froth and hype is how we as church meet the world where it is. What is worthy of froth and hype is drawing alongside people in greatest need. What is worthy of froth and hype is how we bring life to a Gospel that is suffocating under placards. Dancing like elves around an apparition is not good church. Loving and talking is, not finger-pointing slogan-yelling campaign-propagating issue-bashing. Let's all sit down, calm down, and get on with the business of loving neighbour as selves. 


  1. Well said. Peace be with you (and them)!

  2. I dunno. I'm in the mildly caring camp.

    But you raise an interesting question. I must use it on the theologian Edward Feser one day, when I feel wicked. Feser pushes neoThomism till it hurts against Kant and so on; he pushes the model of life, the Universe and everything following a grand plan in all details, and uses that as a stick to beat atheists with.

    Now, the whole thing with It's All Part Of The Plan involves just how far one goes with the "All" part; in other words, is there any randomicity or not? Any randomicity at all? Feser goes so far in his attack on the atheists that he ends up denying randomicity whatsoever in effect.

    The next part of all of that is that it's in effect saying everything but everything but everything is there because of Meaning. IOW, Caring.

    Soooooo, is it permissable for a person pushing the same stance as Feser not to give a stuff about something? Not to care? Not to allow Meaning to something?

    It may well be wicked of me, but I feel like teasing Feser on this, and who knows? I may have a real point there, depending of course on how he handles that.



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...