Oh dear heaven, I should not have had that extra glass of fizz yesterday at the General Synod Office. [We keep Lent in a very particular way in the Scottish Episcopal Church]. I awake to face a world strangely changed today. According to Ruth Gledhill of the Times, George Carey has come out as a supporter of disestablishing the C of E.

One glass of bubbly too much and I find myself asking how it all happened. Do I really agree with George Carey about something? Something just doesn’t feel right with the world.


  1. Brian Holden says

    My last comment seems to have been deleted. I hope it wasn’t considered offensive. I didn’t intend it to be and apologise if it had that effect.

  2. kelvin says

    Not offensive at all. More of an overenthusiastic spam filter, I think. Please post again Brian.

  3. Brian Holden says

    Oh, good.
    Champagne easing life’s Careys.

  4. Jonathan Ensor says

    The Scottish Episcopal Church is not established in Scotland, and neither, in the sense of the Church of England in England is the Church of Scotland.

    I see a basic problem in maintaining establishment of the Church of England, in that it enshrines in its sacred text, particularly the Bible, ideas which stem from a society which is patriarchal and repressive of minority groups. It also seems, at least in the New Testament to have an unhealthy interest in death and subsequent supposed events. And in particular in drawing divisions between groups which have a common heritage by blaming a whole group for the death of Jesus ie the Jews.

    If one takes an unreconstructed view of Scripture, like the American Religious Right, one has to ignore much, nay even the majority of scholarship about the nature of the texts, as far as I can see. This position is analogous, it appears to the Muslim defence of the Koran as the inspired Word of God revealed through the Prophet or “Prophet”. except that there is hardly any living person who as a Muslim debates the authority or authenticity of the Koran.

    The opposing views on the nature of Divine Truth (supposing this exists) are in direct opposition and conflict which to my mind reveals the perhaps shallow or confused thinking of the Heir to the Throne when he stated that he wishes to be called “Defender of Faiths” Perhaps Prince Charles is in perpetual internal conflict, but there are many more than two Faiths to be represented and many of the faiths are at war with each other or with Western Secularism.

    The path must be clear for a robust debate on the very nature of truth. This debate must be inclusive and open and I am afraid that the Established Church does not wish to lose its privileged position in all debates about Truth.

    Elaine Pagels pointed out in her book, “Adam, Eve and the Serpent” that the Church became corrupt on becoming the Official Religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine. Perhaps to become radical and loving of Truth in a Just and Honest and Sacrificial sense the Church needs to become an oppressed minority. Perhaps then She can really witness to Love rather than privilege, power and preferment.

    However although I am critical of religious source material, I find many of the views expressed in the political arena to be jingoistic and superficial and I am not sure I can trust any living politician to be truthful and evenhanded when it comes down to issues of justice. I am not stating that I am any better, but I just haven’t made connections that I can rely on.

    I am conscious that this posting is a bit of a preliminary ramble, but to some degree this has benefited me in focussing my mind. I am conscious that I do not know who reads this Blog so there is a risk in expressing myself in such a public way, but here goes.

    Jonathan Philip Ensor

Speak Your Mind