• Church blogging – all may, none must, some should

    The injunction “all may, none must, some should” is the classic prescription for how Anglicans deal with confession. However, it is worth thinking of it as a helpful way of thinking about church blogging too. The recent speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury in which he acknowledged the significance (and one suspects, in his mind, the malevolence) of those are able to comment instantly on matters affecting the Anglican Communion is a significant recognition of the importance for good or for ill of those who write online. Now, skating over the possibility that there’s some connection between blogging and the confessional, it is maybe worth thinking about where we’re at when it comes to church bloggery.

    I made a prediction at the start of the year that the number of church bloggers would probably decline but the significance of those who continued would probably continue to rise. The archbishop’s comments, which I’ll come to in a moment certainly bear that out the latter half of that prediction but what about the decline in those blogging from a church perspective. What’s that all about?

    Well, the rise of social media has changed the way a lot of people engage online. At one time blogging was an obvious way of connecting in an online environment. Nowadays you’ve got to work for your community if you are keeping a blog and saying what you want to say in the short telegraph messages of social media gives you an almost instant community and the instant gratification that goes along with saying something and getting a response from others very quickly.

    I happen to think that the arrival of social media is a good thing. Indeed, I think it is an excellent thing. Its power is yet to be fully understood and it has completely changed the relationship of individuals with power and hierarchy. This is something that church leaders have often found difficult to believe, never mind difficult to stomach.

    Of course, social media is deeply connected to the blogosphere. At one time I used to get most of my readership for this blog from links on other people’s blogs. That is certainly no more the case. Nowadays most of the readership comes from links on social media. That’s people sharing links on Facebook or Twitter mostly. I seed those links and try to attract people. I do so at different times of the day to attract a world-wide audience and sometimes it pays off with a strong readership from all around the world. The post I put up about what local churches might learn from cathedral ministry is a case in point. It has now had an audience of thousands. I posted a few links to it on social media and people were interested enough in what I was saying to like the post, comment on the post and recommend it to their friends.

    But social media has another function for me too – it is where I discover those random gems from around the internet that I’d never find otherwise. Things other people have posted that catch my eye. As I write this, I’m aware from reading Facebook in another screen on my desk of this article which is a fascinating perspective that enriches my life: This Atheist is Thankful for the Clergy. I’d never had found that without an American friend pointing me towards it online.

    But back to blogging – all may, none must, some should – what am I trying to get at?

    Well the great thing about blogging is that it is open to such a wide pool of people. The entry levels for publishing have fallen to almost nothing. Get regular access to the internet and you can write a blog for no financial cost which can change the world. But the amazing thing is that you can also write a blog that doesn’t change the world too. You can write a blog for the shear job of sharing something that gives you shear joy – like Freda’s post this week of a jolly cairn terrier. Bloggers don’t need to be trying to change the world all the time. There’s a world of people wanting to know what inspires you, delights you and makes you laugh. Isn’t that worth taking part in?

    Mind you, changing the world is always an option.

    Here’s what the Archbishop of Canterbury said in a recent address to the Church of England Synod.

    In an age of near instant communication, because the Communion exists, and is full of life, vigour and growth, of faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and love for him, everything that one Province does echoes around the world. Every sermon or speech here is heard within minutes and analysed half to death. Every careless phrase in an interview is seen as a considered policy statement. And what is true of all Provinces is ten times more so for us, and especially us in this Synod. We never speak only to each other, and the weight of that responsibility, if we love each other and the world as we should, must affect our actions and our words.

    Sadly, that does not come close to an apology for the Archbishop’s disastrous comments during his LBC interview earlier in the year. However, it does show that he is coming to understand how significant online comments are.

    It is rather a pity, I think, that he can see so little good in those who comment online. After all the online Anglican Communion is in some sense rather more real than the Anglican Communion that exists in distant committees and Primates’ Meetings. It is immediate, feisty and not quite so divided along doctrinal lines as people might suspect. Indeed, it is one of the few opportunities that people have to see what people think who don’t share their own theological pecadillos. I keep reading what people who don’t agree with me write not simply to keep an eye on them but because I’m interested in them and care about what they have to say. Sometimes I change my mind about things. That side of the blogosphere isn’t celebrated enough.

    I’m still in love with an online world which can move me too. Things like Kate’s reports recently from the Holy Land give me a human perspective on aspects of that part of the world that would otherwise go unreported to me. Or John McLuckie’s generous piece about the Scottish Episcopal Church’s Cascade Process. That deserves to be read widely.

    I think that it is probably the case that a few more people will try blogging again over the year that is to come. I suspect it rewards those who can think about why they are blogging and make a bit of a plan as to what they are hoping for.

    I think that there’s good reasons for people to blog some of the small stuff too. The pictures from parish life that show how much life and laughter there is in your own congregation. The sermon with that one line that will touch someone unknown on the other side of the world and which will make the person from round the corner decide you might be worth trying out at Christmas.

    Maybe the turn of the liturgical year this weekend is worth marking. Maybe one or two would want to give it another go or revive their blogging resolve as an advent resolution.

    There’s virtual territory here that needs virtual missionaries.

    Real ones.

11 responses to “Providence and Vocation for Liberals in Public Life”

  1. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    I was one of the Lib Dems who did foresee the calamity in 2015 and actively campaigned to get the party to change leader – after 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 it wasn’t difficult for anyone to see, but it was difficult for many nice Lib Dems to own up to the fact that they had allowed it to happen. I failed, but I don’t think it was part of anyone’s plan that I did (except possibly Ryan Coetzee and a few other true believers).

    There’s a lot in your points I can agree with, particularly regarding the naivety of referring to God’s plan, when many Christian’s have a view that his/hers/its plan is to let us get on with it and find our own way to salvation. However, the most interesting question is when you say “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.” Do you really mean that you have the right to force someone else to marry you who doesn’t want to and believes it is wrong, even though you have the right to and can get someone else to do the same job for you? Do individuals have the right to insist on being married by the registrar of their choice, or just the right to get married? Are you not perhaps just a bit assuming that your tree is that bit taller than the other guy’s?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories. I think that the equal rights tree is bigger than my tree and the registrar’s tree.

      I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them, not least because I don’t think it is a very real question – few people want to be married by someone who doesn’t want them to be married. I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.

      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        I think you are rather changing your ground here from your original piece. You started with “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.”

        You have now moved onto “I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories.” So we now have a right to expect, but only against a person who works in the public sector, and even if it is against that person’s conscience and only if you are in a specially protected category.

        It gets even more tenuous then as you accept when you then say “I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them.” So the right is not to a person wanting to be married at all.

        Finally we get “I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.” So the right is not to an individual at all, so definitely not “your rights” but to a public sector organisation. Hardly a human right, more of an employer’s right by your own statements.

        I rather think that your equal rights tree, however high you think it is, has decidedly peculiar roots.

        1. Graham Evans Avatar
          Graham Evans

          David, I thought most liberals accepted the view that in the provision of services to the general public, whether provided by the public sector or private sector, a policy of non-discrimination was an essential ingredient of a progressive society. I accept that there is a notable exception to this rule in terms of the provision of abortion, but this arises from the broad range of medical procedures undertaken by one type of doctor or another. Surgeons are specialised medical practitioners, as are nurses who assist them, so it is most unlikely then anyone who opposed abortion on conscience grounds would actually be faced with having to refuse to conduct an abortion. The provision of most services to the general public is also a specialist activity, and no-one forces people to engage in any particular activity. The idea that a registrar should be able to opt out of undertaking a civil gay marriage represents the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. If such people wish to opt out of doing so, then they should act as part of a religious community, such as a deacon in Anglican Church, which has the legal power to conduct religious marriages, are still recognised by the State.

          1. David Evans Avatar
            David Evans

            Quite simply Graham I disagree with your view that this is a level of discrimination in the provision of a public service of anything like the scale you imply makes it essential that every individual has to comply with it. The “go with it or get out” philosophy demanded of the state by so many in pursuit of their personal view of their rights is to my mind a greater threat to liberty than the fact that Fred or Freda don’t agree with something and don’t want to do it but George, Georgina, Harry, Harriette etc etc etc etc can do it instead. Ultimately you aren’t stopping someone from exercising their right; you are preventing someone from imposing their requirement on someone else.

            However, I note Kelvin hasn’t responded to my substantive point and I await that with interest.

  2. Iain Brodie Browne Avatar
    Iain Brodie Browne

    Firstly thank you for your posting.
    I have been expressing my concern elsewhere that the main voices we have heard in the debate about Tim’s faith have been firstly from those who think that it wholly a private matter and because his opinions are sincerely held and are derived from his faith the rest of us should back off and secondly those who seem to imply that having a religious faith at all is a negative factor. Until your contribution I am not aware that anyone has directly addressed the issue from different Christian understanding.
    I cut my political teeth at the end of the 1960s opposing the all ‘white’ rugby and cricket tours from South Africa. The dominant voices from the churches were from Trevor Huddleston and David Sheppard. They effectively contested the assertions of those who told us (and they did) that apartheid was part of God’s plan.
    Earlier in that decade Michael Ramsey spoke up clearly in support of what was then called homosexual law reform. David Steel, who pushed through the 1967 Act did so at a time when he was regularly introducing Songs of Praise.
    I regret that equal marriage and the removal of other discriminations against gay people –including the issue you raise about Registrars- have not been as effectively championed by Christians as those earlier reforms. It is fair to say that in the minds of those who you describe as ‘decent people in society’ Christians are seen as opposing these reforms. The priority for the churches appears to be to gain protection for those who oppose such reforms. Imagine if that had been the approach to apartheid.
    My own experience gives me hope that things are changing. Our local church got a new vicar who immediately began to pray for the defeat of the Equal Marriage legislation, got up petitions and lobbied. His views on women priests were no more in tune with ‘decent society’. In common with many churches these matters had not really been properly discussed. It was heartening how many members did openly contest his views and a significant portion of the congregation felt so strongly the eventually relocated to other churches. There is a good deal more support for liberal values amongst church goers than is popularly conceived.

    My view is much the same as expressed in the Independent’s editorial this morning which endorsed Tim but added the rider that : ‘It will be for Mr Farron to make clear to party members, the public at large, and this newspaper, that his faith can indeed be reconciled with a liberal view on matters of birth, marriage and death.’ If faith is the opposite of certainty then I have enough to believe that can be achieved but if would be of assistance not only to Tim but to others struggling to reconcile their faith with liberal views if more church leaders provide a Christian narrative as effectively as did Michael Ramsey and Trevor Huddleston did in their day.

    http://birkdalefocus.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/influencial-divine-former-libdem-ppc.html

  3. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    Personally, as a non-Christian, I find the attack on Tim Farron’s Christian faith distasteful, even disturbing. With the issue of gay marriage, something I wholly support, it is clear to me that Farron was trying to protect freedom of religious thought whilst also legislating for LGBT equality. There is nothing illiberal about that. Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental human rights, and something liberals should defend. Any definition of liberalism which does not include freedom of conscience, is one I have no interest in supporting.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Thanks for commenting, Andy.

      I’m not aware of people attacking Tim Farron’s faith. I am aware of people questioning whether someone who apparently has anti-gay views is an appropriate person to represent the Lib Dems as leader.

      When it comes to the vote about the registrars, that can either be interpreted as defending religious thought or as defending discrimination. I come to the latter view because if I substitute a couple who are gay for a couple being say mixed race (something many people would once have objected to on religious grounds) then I see clear discrimination at work.

      It is a strange day when people are arguing (as some are) that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has the right to hold distasteful views about gay people in private so long as he defends their rights in public. He does have that right but not the right to be taken seriously as well.

      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        Sadly there have been many who have been attacking Tim’s faith, some directly and some more with disdain. Comments such as listening to his sky fairy are not uncommon. Also portraying his views as apparently anti-gay are without doubt over egging it massively as opposed to the simple fact that as a liberals we should all have views which take into account the “balance of fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” and that this inevitably leads to differences of judgement on lots of individual issues, but do not undermine the fundamental decency and liberalism of many people like Tim, who have proved it over a great many years.

  4. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    Kelvin,

    It is a great disappointment to me that you have not come back to me with any further reasoning in response to my post on 30 June 02:19. Have you changed your views, reinforced them with new vigour or simply moved on?

    1. Graham Evans Avatar
      Graham Evans

      David, perhaps you could clarify what your substantive point is. Having reread the whole thread it’s certainly not clear to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Recording the resurrection

    I’ve to do the strangest thing today. I’ve to record the resurrection ahead of time. We are in the middle of Lent at the moment, which means worship in a lovely subdued mode, preaching of the passion on Sunday and a generally sub fusc mood. Yet I’ve agreed to a recording of a service for…

  • News from the States

    The news came through last night that the Anglican Communion is to have its second bishop who happens to have a gay partner. Canon Mary Glasspool was elected as a new suffragan bishop in Los Angeles a few months ago. What’s happened since is that the wider American church has had a chance to say…

  • E and B

    Its a funny thing, Choral Evensong. A few years ago, I would have said it was purely of antiquarian interest. However, I was wrong. Last night was a good example. Glorious music. Quite a diverse aged congregation. A diverse aged choir too. Gorecki’s Totus tuus utterly beguiling us all in its simplicity and sparse beauty.…

  • Sermon preached on 14 March 2010

    Here's Bishop David's sermon for Lent 4. It was good to have Bishop David here this morning – he came as he is currently our diocesan bishop. (And we won't be able to say that for long).