I am Neither a Catholic Nor a Mum

The perfect storm?

No, but I am a parent and a Christian. 

It's a funny old thing - this business of self-applied labels. 'Momhood' is prevalent in our world, indicating that Moms are either somehow very very organised as a tribe, or else genuinely the better parent in any two-parent-child combo. You will never hear "speaking as a parent ..." and even less often "speaking as a daddy...", but you will regularly hear "speaking as a mother ...". Funny isn't it. It permeates into the interweb and its life too - I am not sure I have seen or heard of DaddySnot, but MumSnot is all the rage. Politicians' entire careers and conglomerated companies' entire fiscal output is mitigated by the pleasure or displeasure of MumSnot. And good for them. Without mums there would be no need for Dads. And that. 

The same applies to church life too. If asked, I am a Christian. Speak to millions of others and they are not Christians they are, without any hesitation, Catholics. In my entire lengthening life I have never heard anyone make the statement: "I am an Anglican ...". I have certainly heard "If you are not a Catholic, what religion are you then?".

I have pondered this over years. To be a Catholic is to be a proud-and-out Catholic. To be from my clan is to be "Christian", and if asked what sort -  "Church of England" as eyes flick left to right. It doesn't effect the Methodists - they seem proud to label themselves so. I wonder sometimes if the world, including its members, regard "Anglican" as a euphemism for "mediocre", or "not really any specific type of Christian, it's just that I do to church and hope not to be spotted too often". 

It is fair to say, to paraphrase the Pub Landlord, that if you want rules where do you go? The Roman Catholic Church. If you don't want rules, it is not France you go to, but the Blessed Cee of Ee. In a world where choice seems to be the choice of choice, it is odd to me that a denomination that is so clear about its rules and limitations, teachings and edicts (and I offer no criticism at that whatsoever), is made up of members so proud to apply the name to themselves. We on this side of the Tiber, unbounded by rules (with the ones we have so easily abandoned if a pulpit and an altar really don't work with a set of speakers) and apparently so free to live as God made us, seem almost fearful of claiming membership to this august body of disciples. 

Some of you may think that it is only a name, and therefore not important. I think that name is hugely important to us - it is our badge, our "who we are", until it comes to our ecclesial badge. In this life, you are either the brick or the mortar - and I would love for a time when "Anglican" didn't still mean "just not Roman Catholic". 

I am not sure what this makes members of the OrdinaryHat - that is too much for my tiny brain

Blogging as Leveller

You may remember my comments a few weeks ago about this thing that bloggers do (you know, blogging). In that post, I observed that, for myself at least, blogs were largely devoid of gender labels. 

I ought to resolve an issue that I raised there - that my poor observation of gender possessives meant that I hadn't cottoned on to the fact that The Church Mouse is indeed of the male persuasion. There, that's sorted out. 

I have been thinking about this a little more, more especially while we glided near-silently through the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. Not only is the gender of the writer concerned of little importance but so to is their 'churchmanship' (don't start, 'churchpersonship' takes too long to type, and I have increasing fat fingers).

It is my custom to use my own blog roll (eyes left) as my coffee table of the blog world. I start at the top, tend always to look at posts with thumbnail-pictures first, then the ones with catchy titles, then the blogs of mates, and so on. I read good posts and bad, as I too write good posts and bad. Yes, there is far too much Rowan bashing and Church of England bashing for my liking, but on the whole, the whole arena is more or less devoid of labels like 'evangelical', 'charismatic', 'Anglo-catholic', 'conservative', and so many others. I regard this as an extra-ordinary thing, and one that is wholly good. 

The church of the real world (lest we lull ourselves as bloggers into thinking that posting posts is that thing) is often fractured along the 'churchmanship' lines (speaking for the Church of England). Don't get me wrong, breadth of ecclesial expression is among our strengths, and I am delighted that we are so diverse, but very often we form into clubs, to the exclusion of other Christians - no, really. In blogging, there are cliques and mutual appreciation societies, but no excluding ecclesial clubs. The expressions of worship that each blogger brings is suffused into their writings, not writ-large on the homepage (mostly). It would also seem that, taking social media as a whole, that the same can be said. 

As ever, I wrestle with the nature of blogging. Is it right, is it wrong, why and for whose sake - but of its presence as a leveller I am utterly convinced. Equally, it is a forum where bishops and curates share an equality, where clergy and lay can express together, where catholic and charismatic will listen to one another and respond positively. This can only be good. If a blogger is interested in God (presence or lack, mine or their own) I am interested in them. That interest is not mitigated by what brand of incense they use or whether they wave arms in choruses. Here it doesn't matter. On the whole, bloggers are stable (and not ecclesial chameleons), so it is one part of the conversation that is assumed and not focussed upon.