Inky Fingers
Inky Fingers
I am a fervent antidisestablishmentarian! Useless for Scrabble, I’m afraid – it wouldn’t fit, even if I had all the tiles! What a crossword answer though! But this isn’t about words, much as I love them.
The Establishment – what pictures does this call up? The Queen, Houses of Parliament, the Church (of England, of course), the Bank of England – all symbolised by Trooping the Colour and similar ceremonies and friendly bobbies using tact and charm first rather than guns or sticks to make their point.
In real terms it means the Crown having the last word – on new Prime Ministers, on new laws democratically enacted on our behalf by elected representatives and on new bishops in our Church. In modern times this has been both ridiculed and criticised. We know the Government writes the Queen’s Speeches to Parliament, we have been bemused by the putative heir to the throne “talking” to animals and plants and moaning about “monstrous carbuncles” of new architecture and we have seen the “goldfish bowl” effect of constant intrusive public scrutiny on these who are normal human beings, whatever their public role may be – their blood is as transfusable as yours and mine. And yet – good television has shown the Queen taking a shrewd, informed interest in public affairs (giving Prime Ministers an uncomfortable time on occasions), whilst reflection tells us that “talking” to animals and plants simply reflects our concern to look after them properly – and how do we express our disapproval of bland or jarring impositions on our environment? Being potentially a “defender of faiths”, rather than the Faith, surely respects the rich diversity that has legitimately become part of our public life today – in addition to that of original native Celts (or are they?) or the descendents of those Commonwealth members who came to our aid and helped rebuild our country, damaged but not destroyed in protection of the freedoms we tend to take for granted?
It is said that “it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good”. In a previous Inky Fingers (Easter ’09) I referred to a report suggesting that the “credit crunch” was leading people to revalue priorities. Latterly the conduct of certain (but too many MPs) has led to disappointment with those elected to enact laws reflecting our best standards of civilised justice and morality – we have been aghast at the brass cheek of some of the claims made, and we observe that some of the repercussions may not only be political or electoral. But would there be such outrage if we did not have standards and expectations? Where did it come from, if we are only vicariously amused by the discomfiture of those in public places?
In public life, it is surely right that laws be applied impartially, and that all legitimate rights are protected against “mob rule” that democracy can become. However, how should these rights and laws be identified? Who sets the standards, especially in changing times, and how? In mediaeval times the Chancellor was the “Keeper of the King’s Conscience” – but it was the barons who set a curb on the king’s prerogative by formulating, and imposing by persuasion, the Magna Carta that became a foundation stone for our modern laws. But that was not actually new – both Jesus and St. Paul had much to say about sound community and citizenship. Though grounded in “good Torah”, mere observance was not enough, as He berated pedantic officialdom; whilst the “rich young man” (ie well-educated and brought up), who had the opportunity to be an inspiring “role model” himself, only occasioned Him disappointment – history does not tell us whether that person subsequently made good that “lost opportunity”. It has long been an uncomfortable thought to me that Jesus Himself stormed through the precincts of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem to purge it from abuses.
General William Booth, of the Salvation Army, once famously asked – “Why should the Devil have all the best tunes?” By the same token, why should the apostate be the sole arbiters of our public life? Our faith need not, and should not, shirk challenge – it has not survived just by being childishly “meek and mild”: far from it – I referred above to Jesus sweeping through the Temple, and He left His disciples with no illusions of the difficulties they would face (see Matthew, chapter 10). But – “if God be for us, who can be against?” (Romans 8:31). Establishment has in fact given us constitutional monarchy, independent Parliament – and the Church a voice in our legislature. Who better to keep an eye on our public institutions? Any less is surely an abdication of responsibility for our part in the Great Mission given us by Jesus: our faith and understanding are surely the best guarantee of our legitimate rights and obligations, jointly and personally?
A similar report to that referred to above, based on a survey of more than 2,000 adults by Christian Research (“Christianity”, Christianity Communications Partnership (CCP) Ltd, July 2009) confirms that the credit crunch has caused 70% of UK adults to “reconsider their core values and reconsider the meaning of life”. But – just 3% said they had considered going to church. Why not? What are they expecting there that they are not finding? However, it is said that 3/4 of UK adults, when asked their religion, put down “Church of England”! I can live with that – to a point: I recognise in this an acknowledgement, and search for, the genuine spiritual “fruits of wisdom” (James 3:13 to 18). I do genuinely believe this is a basic human need. But are we – in Camborne Parish Church in particular – ready, willing and able to welcome these people home?
Yours in fellowship
Editorial Assistant
You just can’t get the staff nowadays!