Stephen Bates of the Guardian is a man for whom I have great respect. During his time as Religious Affairs Correspondent for the paper – a post he held for seven years – he was intelligent, mostly fair, well informed and wrote as if the things he was covering actually mattered. He has spoken and written before now about the effects of his work on his own faith and it has not been comfortable reading. He also wrote several books, the most interesting (from my point of view being God’s Own Country, a seriously worrying analysis of some American Christianity.)
Now he has published a brief account of his move towards agnosticism, motivated not so much by theological or philosophical conviction, but by the sheer horribleness and hypocrisy of those who claim to be Christian. He exposes the double-dealing in the Church in making provision for remarriage after divorce (Jesus said ‘no’) while vetoing homosexuality (Jesus didn’t mention it). More to the point, it is not the church’s view so much as the treatment by some in the church of those they regard as being ‘wrong’.
Jesus commanded those who bear his name to be like him, to look like him, to sound like him and to love like he did. To love like he did means loving those who nail you to a cross. The sheer lack of such love to those who are ‘wrong’ surely calls into question the ‘christian’ bit of Christianity.
It is worth reading Stephen’s piece and asking what must change if good people are to see in the Christian community some bit of a reflection of the Jesus we read about in the Gospels.
August 19, 2009 at 3:29 pm
It’s a challenging piece, Nick
August 19, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Like some commenters on that piece, I think there is a difference between believing in God and believing in organised religion.
I left the Christian denomination I was raised in because of the sort of hypocrisy Stephen Bates writes of. There was nothing so very horrific about it, but my personal experiences and the larger patterns I could see put me off. I struggled (and still struggle) to understand Trinitarian theology, which surely didn’t help… But I retained a very strong belief in the existence of God throughout about a decade of avoiding any Christian church and actively pursuing other faiths. I retained it through some difficult personal and medical problems. Oh, I questioned what God was playing at, I questioned why the world is as it is, but never that God exists.
I don’t mean to claim any moral high ground for that–it just seems to be a part of who I am. I have brown hair and blue eyes, I like chocolate cake and singing, my left hand is slightly larger than my right and I have a strong belief in God. I can’t know what it’s like for someone whose belief in the existence of God is shaky to begin with, or is based on logical inference.
But I do know what it is like to find my beliefs changing; my beliefs certainly have changed in the last few years. I have been fortunate, nay, blessed, to come into contact with people who believe that God loves the world unconditionally and who are willing to act on that, to join in and do their best to show love to the world. The very human, imperfect love they have shown me has transformed me from believing that God exists to believing that God loves all creation. I find myself drawn back to Christianity as a framework for examining the implications of that, even though I still don’t understand the doctrine, and even though the Church (however one chooses to define it) is made up of human beings who err, sometimes at great cost to humanity.
That’s just a data point, I suppose; you could call it a case study but it would still be just anecdotal evidence that not everyone is being driven away. But his article is also based on anecdotal evidence, perhaps much more of it than I can present and with more credibility (given that he is a journalist and I am a semi-anonymous blogger), but we’re not looking at statistical analysis of badly-written opinion polls here: his article is his story, nothing more and nothing less, and I offer mine in contrast to show that even though I don’t understand the mechanism, sometimes lovingkindness wins.
My story also doesn’t really answer your question: it seems clear from his article that Stephen Bates has also come into contact with people of great faith who act with love. But throughout the article he writes of his experience of church, his experience of religion, not so much his experience of God. It seems his negative impressions of various hierarchies that claim to be acting on God’s behalf (and may or may not do good work) have overshadowed his observation of the good that dedicated and loving people can do.
The only thing I can think of to prevent that happening is to continue responding to God’s love: attempting to act with love and kindness and integrity, trying to understand the implications of God’s loving the world and acting in acknowledgment of and congruity with that will to love even if it might destroy me, in the hope that it will make a difference eventually. In Christian terms the shorthand for that would be “following Christ”.
(Which, I realise, is what you were getting at.)
August 20, 2009 at 8:49 am
Just a couple of observations. First, I am amazed to read Stephen Bates saying he is “at the agnostic stage” whilst “edging towards” the atheist camp – as if he was until recently a faithful believer. By his own account, this stage was entered when he was 28. Since he was at Grammar school in the late 1960s (about the same time I was) this “stage” has been running quite a long time. In short, his is no sudden conversion to doubt!
Secondly, he’s right about divorce. To ignore the clear, explicit teaching of Jesus, reiterated by the Apostle Paul, is simply indefensible. And as Desmond Tutu said, if we ignore what Jesus said on this, why not also ignore what the Bible says on homosexuality?
August 20, 2009 at 9:30 am
Thanks Nick for linking to this. I would have missed it otherwise. Predictably he mentions my name and even though he and I have had some exchanges on this before, Stephen Bates continues to misrepresent. He should know better than to repeat this claim that my father remarried me. My second marriage was a civil ceremony. I do not consider myself eligible for ordination because I am a remarried divorcee. Like any other sinner I am desperately in need of God’s grace and forgiveness and the ministry of the Church.
August 20, 2009 at 10:26 am
[...] also has a bearing on comments added to my post on Stephen Bates’ road to agnosticism from yesterday’s Guardian. Every human story is unique and every individual person complex. [...]
August 20, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I feel sorry for Stephen Bates, having read his article. But I just don’t get why his expectations of the Church are so high. It is a human institution, run by humans trying to discern God’s will, and so is flawed and broken. It is also holy and wise and beautiful because it is run by – well – humans trying to discern God’s will.
What interests me more though is how this tension is becoming a common thread in many of your blogs, faith-based or otherwise… The human condition? Or something more specific? Whatever, I’m riveted. In fact, for the past week, your blog has become the first thing I’ve checked out with my first cup of coffee of the day. This is very scary as I usually pride myself on being generally not your groupie, clubby sort of human…
August 20, 2009 at 6:54 pm
It is a challenging article. I think sometimes people choose to be disgruntled at the church from the outside, not quite knowing what it would look like if it was ‘better’ but thinking it is probably something different from where it is now.
And some people are disgruntled at the church, but choose to be a continuing part of the church, still holding on to the belief, the hope, that gathering to worship Jesus is ‘worth it’, whatever that means.
The church, that collective name we give to the ragtag bunch of folks who gather, is full of broken, hurting, people; people who think out loud, judge out loud, upset people out loud. But also a people who love out loud, care out loud, sacrifice out loud, self-give out loud. There is nowhere else where there is so much love and passion that also has such depth. I wrestle with the church, but I love the church.
I know people will always expect more from us that we can deliver. And so they should. Thank goodness that Jesus knows we fall short, and welcomes us anyway. I hope we can always be as welcoming to people who have experienced what Stephen Bates has experienced. And that we can also vent our frustrations, have a shout and rant at God (not people), then love again.
August 21, 2009 at 8:17 am
Just to make clear, when I said I agreed with Stephen Bates on the issue of Jesus and divorce, I didn’t mean any personal criticism of Andrew Carey, named in Bates’ article. I don’t know anything about Andrew’s circumstances (much beyond what he’s written here anyway), and the New Testament does provide for contexts in which people may, legitimately, remarry in the lifetime of a former spouse. It’s just that in recent years some have indeed steamrollered through those provisions, purely because they seemed ‘too difficult’, whilst purporting to ‘hold the line against’ same-sex relationships. That is not workable, and I think some in America are beginning to realize it.
August 21, 2009 at 11:13 am
Andrew, I don’t want this to turn into a case study on Andrew Carey’s marital status. But I do want to respond briefly. I am guessing here, but I imagine your civil ceremony was followed by a Service of Blessing – done by your father? Is this what Stephen Bates was referring to? If so, I think this points up the problem I faced as a vicar who preaches redemption and new beginnings, but then colluded in offering ‘blessings’ of what, presumably, I had declined (a marriage service in church) on the grounds that such a marriage was ‘wrong’. I don’t think remarried divorcees are in any greater need of God’s grace and forgiveness than anyone else – and, depending on circumstances, I don’t any longer believe this should exclude such people from being candidates for ordination. This isn’t wet liberalism or some sort of collusion with the ‘culture’; but it arises from seeking consistency in an area where double standards are too often applied in the church. We remain far too selective about which ‘sins’ should be regarded as excluding – usually ‘the ones I don’t commit’.
August 21, 2009 at 11:14 am
John, I don’t think your original comment suggested any criticism. On the related issue, I think it was an eye-opener for some bishops at the Lambeth Conference to discover the marital histories of some American bishops!