• Our Cynicism

    I think we had a reasonably good day at the Diocesan Synod last weekend. A large part of the day was given over to discussion about poverty, welfare reforms and the consequences of government policy.

    The only thing that started to make me feel a little uncomfortable is something which has been getting to me in a number of gatherings recently – what feels like a disconnect between decent people and the political process.

    I was co-facilitating the large group discussion on Saturday afternoon and was working pretty much to a script. I found some questions arising in me though that went neither asked nor answered.

    I wanted to stop the discussion for a moment and ask, “How many people here feel they don’t trust politicians to make the right decisions?”

    It isn’t possible to be certain but I suspect from what I was hearing discussed in other parts of the day, that it would be a quite a strong majority of the people there.

    I’d have followed it up with a supplementary question, “How many of us have written to or contacted an MP or MSP in the last six months either about the topics under discussion or about anything else relating to government policy”.

    Would as many hands have been raised?

    All of which leads me to wonder whether the repeated scandals in our institutions seem so compelling to watch unfold because by watching them we feel that it all must be someone else’s fault. If the poor are hungry – it must be the fault of politicians. If I feel uncomfortable by the manner in which the media does its work it must be the fault of journalists. If the economy can’t look after our vulnerable it must be because of the bankers and not my low taxes.

    I’m not saying that we should expect anything less than the highest standards in public life.

    I am suspecting that in order to achieve them we need to be more than mere spectators.

5 responses to “Heresy hunting”

  1. Nick Brindley Avatar

    It is probably helpful to be clear about the distinction between “dogma” (which is best understood as the definition of orthodoxy and of heresy, of the things it is mandatory to affirm and the things it is forbidden to affirm) and “church order” (the rules about how people are to conduct themselves). These are related but by no means the same thing.

    “Doctrine” is a third thing again, to my mind. It is the body of teaching that the church affirms but is much more extensive and changeable than dogma.

    Of particular relevance is who has the authority to pronounce on these things. Denominational authorities quite properly establish church law and discipline (this needs to be done and there’s nobody else to do it) but would go beyond their proper sphere (in my view) if they tried to establish new definitions in the field of dogma.

  2. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    I feel the need to separate praxis and doctrine, but I suppose that is probably a minor heresy in itself, in a church that hides its doctrine in its liturgy. Although I suppose the deftness of the ‘McCarthy Liturgy’ has maybe sidestepped that pitfall as deftly as an 18th century non-juring bishop side-stepping western orthodoxy and the rest…

  3. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    To a degree I think it is a matter of tradition. Anglican churches have tended (and it is only a tendency) to insist of orthopraxis. Church of Scotland churches have tended (same health warning) to emphasise orthodoxy of belief, call it doctrine or dogma. St Andrews is not of course a C or S institution, but it used to be, certainly in my day, and to a degree in yours, heavily steeped in C of S ethos. St Mary’s trained C of S ministers and that was ALL the training they got, because then they knew Orthodoxy.

  4. Jimmy Avatar

    The links on this post have led me to think of this –

    The Inner Party – The Outer Party – The Proles.

    The model demands tight control of the middle class, with ambitious Outer Party members neutralised via promotion to the Inner Party or “reintegration” by Miniluv, while proles can be allowed intellectual (and sexual) freedom because they lack intellect. Winston nonetheless believed that “the future belonged to the proles”. Wikipedia.

  5. Allan Ronald Avatar
    Allan Ronald

    There was most definitely a C of S ethos at St Andrews in my day [67-71]. Robin Buchanan-Smith was running a packed college chapel and one president of the SRC and one president of the Union were St Mary’s men who went on to ordination and, in one case, to be Moderator of the Kirk. Perhaps they got their orthodoxy from Matthew Black at St Mary’s and their skill in future clerical politics from their student posts…….

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Sermon – 28 August 2005

    One of the few non-work things that I managed to achieve this week was watching a film on the television. It was Sliding Doors. Some of you may have seen it ? it doesn?t matter. I?m not going to preach about it, however something about it made me think quite a lot. The basic idea…

  • Episcopal Blogging

    Apologies to Gareth for missing him off the list of Scottish Episcopal Bloggers. He does indeed merit an honoured place and has been included now. However, he appears to be making a claim to be the Mother of All Scottish Episcopal Bloggers by being able to show that he was posting since 9 June 2003.…

  • Alexander Pope

    Here is a bit of Alexander Pope’s poem Messiah which I came across for the first time yesterday whilst thinking about the carol service and midnight mass. (You have to plan ahead, you know). Peace o’er the world her olive wand extend, And white robed innocence from heaven descend. Swift fly the years, and rise…

  • On the way home

    Guess where I went on the way home from Edinburgh, coming round the by-pass… I came back with: 14 lightbulbs (all energy efficient) of different shapes and sizes 1 suede cushion to match a chair I already have 1 packet of large round crispbreads (because they remind me of when I lived in Sweden) 1…