Why even the non-religious should regret the church’s backwardness

Cricket LordsOnce, many years ago when I was younger and even more stupid, I found myself hoping that an England cricketer would fail. The year was 1995, and Robin Smith, who I quite admired as a middle-order batsman, had been recalled to open the batting against the West Indies. I thought he was being misused, and that the selectors were most likely to realise their mistake if he suffered a series of low scores, so every run he scored was an irritation.

Maybe I was right about the selectors’ mistakes, but I missed the point, as my friends pointed out to me. What I wanted was to see England perform well, but I’d allowed my personal view of how that should be achieved to take over. I’d missed the obvious truth that if Smith did well, that was good for England. My focus was my preferred means, rather than the end.

My mistake there was glaringly, embarrassingly obvious, but a lot of people fall into a very similar error in relation to the church. When the Church of England’s General Synod voted against female bishops (or rather, failed to vote in favour of the draft legislation by the required margin), plenty of people outside the church were delighted, believing that such backwardness would further damage the CofE’s authority and open the door to a more secular society.

Catherine Bennett, hardly a head-banging anti-theist, provided a mild example of this line of thinking in the Observer:

[S]upposing female bishops really constitutes some sort of advance, does one want the church to have any more credibility than it has already? A victory would only, as [Rowan] Williams now confirms, have entrenched his church’s claims to worldly authority – and with that, the ambitions of Britain’s rival faiths for enhanced, equal-opportunity meddling.

The argument goes that progress is achieved by the removal of religion from privileged public positions, the continued existence of a regressive stained-glass ceiling preventing women from becoming bishops is likely to speed or encourage this removal, therefore this inequitable policy must be a good thing. It has a certain attraction, but to me, it smacks a bit too much of my cheering for the West Indies.

WorshipThe church doesn’t exist in a vacuum – it reflects (more or less) the views of the ordinary people who are its members. If the church is displaying and persisting with backward attitudes, it strongly suggests that these attitudes are common in the pews, and (again, with some reservations) society at large. If those views were considered wholly repugnant, the church would have to change or die. To celebrate the enduring popularity of backward views as a harbinger of progress would be ridiculous, but that’s effectively what’s going on here.

After all, the aggregated vote in General Synod on allowing women to be bishops was 73% in favour, or 63% among the laity, which (with allowances for different questions and contexts) is virtually indistinguishable from the views of the wider population. If the church is misogynist and out of touch, so is the country as a whole. This should be a cause for concern, not celebration.

All things being equal, a reduction in the church’s popularity and corresponding claim to authority might be considered a good thing, but as mentioned above, they’re not equal. If a secular society is the ultimate goal regardless of anything else, then clearly anything that weakens the church is a good thing, but I’d argue that secularism is just a means to the end of a better, fairer society. Removing religious privilege has little value if the same views continue to hold sway.

So I think everyone – theist, atheist, secularist or whatever – should be concerned when the church expresses views we consider backward. Whatever our differences about the proper role of the church in society or the truth of its teachings, we should all be able to agree that backward views are bad, and the fewer people who hold them, the better.

Photos by burge5k and .:Axle:., used under Creative Commons Generic Attribution License 2.0

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

About Recovering Agnostic

I'm Christian by upbringing, agnostic by belief, cynical by temperament, broadly scientific in approach, and looking for answers. My main interest at the moment is in turning my current disengaged shrug into at least a working hypothesis.

2 responses to “Why even the non-religious should regret the church’s backwardness”

  1. raintreebranches says :

    I have found myself thinking things very similar to what you’ve just described! And felt unsure for which ‘outcome’ I should be hoping for. Although I understand what you’re trying to say, I’m still not totally convinced. Do the views and directives from the top always reflect the sentiments on the ground? If people on the ground have a less extreme view, especially from the influence of the rest of society, then when the top takes a strong stance, they will start to alienate more church goers…

    In any case, what I hope/cheer for in terms of what kind of stance the church is going to take will have little effect on what stance they really -are- going to take, so I guess it doesn’t matter that much!

    • Recovering Agnostic says :

      The position of the church hierarchy doesn’t always reflect views in the pews, it’s true, but nor does it reliably turn off those people who disagree. The evidence suggests that people can tolerate an incredible amount of disagreement with the official line. It’s the trouble attracting new blood that will most likely drive change.

      I finally gave up on it because of a single kneejerk position, but I was halfway out of the door already. Plenty more people feel just as strongly about it as I do, but have stayed put because religion incorporates more than just a shopping list of doctrines and beliefs.

      Look at surveys of practising Catholics – there’s generally a clear majority opposing just about every significant and distinctive Catholic doctrine, but they still persist with it. It’s part of their identity, and they accept the existence of these doctrines, however strongly they personally disagree.

      To be totally accurate, I should probably say that progressive change is likely to be driven by a need to remain within touching distance of society’s norms, while steady conservatism is unlikely to alienate significant numbers of believers without the involvement of some other factor.

Love it? Hate it? Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: