Pope Benedict and all that

So this morning history was made with the Pope giving the "Thought for the Day" on Radio 4 after which John Humphries quizzed a leading English Catholic, Archbishop Bernard Longley,  with an emphasis on the issue of "change".  It was, of course, inevitable that if a Christian speaks out then there is likely to be some criticism following.  But i think it is worth reflecting a little on what was said, and I do this from my own theological understanding.

A few months ago the Pope visited the UK.  While I respect the view of the Roman Catholic Church regarding priestly ministry and the authority of the Pope it is not an opinion that I hold.  Indeed I hold one that is strongly opposed to both concepts, but one aspect of my ministry is to engage in dialogue with the RC church (and other traditions) and I do so expecting that dialogue to lead to change where change is needed (in me and my tradition as well as theirs).

One aspect that most - possibly all - reading this blog will not know is that ahead of the Pope's visit we received an exhortation from his office stating that when he came to the UK he hoped to share something of the message of the gospel and hoped that other Churches would be ready to exploit any interest that might be stirred through his visit.  This message was conveyed to me personally at an ecumenical meeting concerned for the evangelization of the people of the UK.

For me the outstanding feature of the Pope's visit was the biblical content of his talks and his encouragement that all people should seek a relationship with God in Christ.  Social and political issues he touched on were never divorced from that central message.  By contrast an other Christian leader made hardly any reference to scripture or the gospel beyond his comments on social issues in which there was no overt connection with the gospel.

This seamed to me to set out the Pope's position as one who clearly placed biblical authority above his own.  Again, for me, this was an interesting and encouraging revelation.

In today's "Thought for the Day" the Pope again asserted the biblical record of what Christmas is about and why Christ came into this world - it was for us and our salvation.  Since he had proclaimed the old traditional message of Christianity it was not surprising that in the interview that followed John Humphries brought up the opinion that the Catholic Church needed to change with regard to such matters as homosexuality, contraception and women in the priesthood.

In response Bernard Longley asserted that the Catholic Church had changed and was changing, citing two examples.  He firstly spoke of the Catholic Church's ecumenical dialogue and attitude to other traditions.  As one who has had a small part to play in that I can confirm that this has been interesting.  For example when at a meeting of Churches together in Britain and Ireland I was called on to present the case for "Lay Presidency at the Eucharist" at ecumenical gatherings (the Congregational view that anyone authorised by the local church can preside at a Communion Service) a Roman Catholic Archbishop was first to his feet supporting what I had said.  The second to his feet in support was a senior Orthodox cleric.   Ecumenical dialogue does produce change - or at least moderates attitudes.

The second defence that Bernard Longley drew upon was the Beatification of John Henry Newman.  He pointed out that (a) Newman sought to develop theology within the social context of his day, and (b) that Newman believed in hearing the voice of the laity. Here there are two interesting parallel's with my own tradition as a Congregationalist.

The first of these relates to a developing theology rather than one that is set in stone.  On the departure of the Pilgrim Fathers, Pastor John Robinson commented that "God has yet more light and truth to break forth from his holy word".  Some significant early influences in my Christian life held a more fundamentalist and fixed view but I am grateful that my own journey has brought me to an experience of developing theology.  The journey has been exciting and has made me more passionate about scripture, and delighted by those moments of the breaking of light and truth previously unrealised by me.  It has also made me unhappy to be identified by any label other than Christian (i.e. I do not want to be labelled as "conservative", or "liberal", or "charismatic" etc).

As to the second point relating to John Henry Newman since I do not recognise priesthood other than that of all believers and especially that of Jesus Christ in heaven, I believe strongly that all Christians are part of the laos (the Greek word meaning people) and play a part in the mediation of the understanding of truth.  But this is not the same thing as political democracy nor is it saying that what the Church should believe and stand for should be determined by the whims of secular society.  The abandonment of an understanding of the importance of scripture is a recipe for anarchy.

As Christians we have a duty to be careful about declaring what we hold to be true.  For me the scripture (OT and NT) has the important place but truth has to be exgeted (drawn out) from it.  Inevitably, we will do this from our various cultural and historical contexts and this will result in different opinions and understandings, each of which should always be considered alongside our own.  After all truth is something far greater than my mind can completely comprehend right now.

While there are some aspects of Roman Catholic teaching with which I wholly dissociate myself, I find myself not uncomfortable with people who wish to assert the central message of the gospel, that Christ came to save us and reconcile us to God, and who do not believe we should be blown about by every wind of opinion of unregenerate minds.

I welcome your comments.