The Church Leaders on Sunday Sequence
Well, that was a fast-paced discussion of some pretty divisive issues on today's programme. The leaders of Ireland's four largest churches faced questions on: their sense of the biggest challenges facing churches today; whether they regarded each other as Christians; why there are so many Christian denominations; whether faithful followers of faiths other than Christianity can be saved; whether they believe in evolution or creationism; whether they support civil partnership legislation for same-sex couples; whether they believe infant euthanasia is ever justified; their response to Richard Dawkins' claim that the God of the Old Testament is a "genocidal psychotic"; their reaction to the claim that religion is a danger to the world; their sense of how much progress has been made in the Northern Ireland peace process; and why they think church attendance is falling so dramaticially across Ireland.
That's a lot to get through in an hour, by anyone's standards. There were many other questions we didn't have time to consider -- and, inevitably after a programme like this, a presenter regrets not making more time for other important topics. In order to get through so many subjects, I had to risk appearing rude by moving the discussion alone at quite a pace.
I'd be interested in your reactions to the church leaders' comments on the programme. I was struck by how unified they seemed across a wide array of topics -- and how protective they were of each other in the cut and thrust of a live studio discussion.
There were a few areas of disagreement (not many), including the vexed question of salvation outside the church. While the others repeated the phrase "only God can know", the Catholic primate, Dr Sean Brady, was more prepared to argue that God had already made his views on the matter known (faithful non-Christians honestly following their own conscience could be saved).
Comments
They were all over the place, to be honest. I've given up on church and today reminded me why. Out of date. Out of this world. At times I wondered if these guys even read the newspapers, they seemed so sealed off from reality. I don't mean to sound offensive but that's my honest response. I found it fascinating for that reason, but also despressing.
Is it any wonder that 70 per week are leaving the church, after listening to the fudged waffle coming from these men who supposedly lead the main denominations? I'm not surprised.
Is this the best they have to offer, it doesn't say much for for those clergy under their leadership.
I can't disagree with those comments from the others. I listened all the way through, even though I wanted to pull my hair out most of the time. A couple of comments which others might want to respond to ...
- How can these church leaders sound so cavalier about massively declinging attendence? They just shrug their shoulders and accept that churches are closing. The blind leading the bored, I'm afraid. You've no idea. That first question you asked the leaders, about the big challenge facing churches TODAY (not 5 hundred years ago) ... they couldn't even handle that. The big challenge is the crisis in church leadership.
- Euthanasia: out of their depth. Really strange that they have no leadership to offer in this. The same old phrases trotted out. These are complex questions and if the church wants to be taken seriously it needs to be able to deal with them sensitively and intelligently.
- Gay marriage: Some think they should apologise for mistreating gays, some don't. Great. They say they want to defend minority rights yet they opposed civil partnerships. No consistently. They don't seem to realise that we listen to them and make our own judgements. And my judgement is: you are not informed, you are not focused on the civil liberties issues, and your knowledge of the bible and theology is pedestrian. Look at those questions you fluffed on whether the God of the Old Testament is different to the God of the New Testament. I would expect more from a GCSE student in RE.
- War in Iraq . . . They say it's immoral. Where were they when the war was being debated? Why didn't they lead a rally, make a nuissance of themselves, stand up and be counted? You can't oppose a war after it's been fought.
- Creationism . . . How difficult is it to simply say that this view has no place in our science classrooms? I'm a teacher, with a cmmitment to offering young people the best science ... creationism is not science. It's pretty nutty religion in fact.
Here's my ratings for them ...
Archbishop Brady: nervous, seems like a nice man, but doesn't know how to talk in public and doesn't know how to sound connected to the world. At one point he said, "I don't have to take this!" Um, sorry, Archbishop, as one of your flock, you do! At least he did say something vaguely open minded about Muslim believers and about science. He struggled under questioning to avoid having two different gods in his Bible though. 5/10
Archbishop Eames: never answers a question. Sounds posh and polished. Whatever you say, say nothing. Ever. 4/10
Moderator Clarke: Seems like a chatty type, likes to crack a joke, has one of those presbyterian minister voices, and doesn't seem to have worked out his view on much of anything. Called himself a theistic evolutionist (I'll reward him with points for that), but didn't think the church had any apology to make to gay people (yeah, right!), and hadn't a clue when pushed on how to read the Old Testament. 3/10
President McIllhinny: one answer to everything ... people need Jesus. What's your view on euthanasia? People need Jesus. What about gay marriage? People need Jesus. 1/10
Helen ... brilliant. You nailed it.
Helen- Great analysis, and I agree with almost everything you said. I notice that every comment so far has been critical (at best) of the leaders' responses. Not good.
But let me go out on a limb here and offer a possible reason for this trainwreck. Is it possible that church 'leaders' should not be held responsible for coming up with blanket answers for tough moral questions on behalf of the members of their denominations? I have never been a member of a church, despite growing up in and being involved at various levels in several churches over many years. But at no time would I expect that the 'leader' of the particular group or denomination should be able to answer for me on any issue - moral, political, ethical, theological - in the way that they're being expected to.
There's a reason we have this expectation of church leaders, of course; not least because churches have traditionally filled the role of the thinker, so the 'layman' can be absolved of the responsibility to think for himself. It's easier that way, and it's an easier way to view the world: to believe that there are four main belief systems out there rather than the thousands there actually are.
But perhaps it's time to disrobe church 'leaders' of the expectation that they answer on behalf of thousands of people that they've never met. If we do that, then their answers on Sunday Sequence were the answers of a few individuals who represent only themselves.
Just a thought.