{"id":101,"date":"2019-11-19T08:40:36","date_gmt":"2019-11-19T08:40:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/?page_id=101"},"modified":"2019-11-20T14:40:30","modified_gmt":"2019-11-20T14:40:30","slug":"carolyn-hammond","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/carolyn-hammond\/","title":{"rendered":"Carolyn Hammond"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p> <em><strong>THE CHAIRMAN<\/strong>:  <\/em>We are now moving beyond seminaries.  We are very fortunate to have with us Cally Hammond, the Dean of&nbsp;Gonville and Caius, Cambridge, whose writing some of you may know.  Her recent work on words as they are used in worship has been really one of the most valuable books for me.  I know the Cambridge college chapels rather better than Oxford, because they are nearer to me.  My impression is that the quality of music in them, the quality of worship, the number of undergraduates I see in them, seem rather more healthy than they were in the 1970s when I knew them as an undergraduate.  I hope Cally will give us a wider view of the students and what they make of the themes that we are exploring today \u2013 and whether they make anything of them at all.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\n<strong>THE REVD DR CAROLYN HAMMOND<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Dean of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\n<em><strong>Introduction<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nIt is always a bit scary when\nsomebody introduces you with words about what they hope you are going\nto say when actually you have other plans in mind!  I was asked to\ntalk about faith challenges amongst young people as part of my brief,\nbut our endeavour in this Symposium is so much wider than that that I\nthink I can justify going off\u2011piste a bit.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nI sent an e-mail to all\nchapel-going students at Caius to ask them what they thought\n\u2018Catholic\u2019 meant.  What I got has partly decided me on the shape\nof what I\u2019m going to say.  I got just one reply, and the provenance\nof that reply is very suggestive.  This is what that student said: \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>My understanding of catholic (little \u2018c\u2019) as in the Creed\/declaration of faith is of one united Church (big \u2018C\u2019); the body of believers united as a family through the blood of Christ, so that we all have one common Father.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nThat came from the College\nChristian Union rep.  There was nothing from the people that I\nmyself&nbsp;would have identified as Catholic, which was interesting.\n \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nWhen I was in correspondence\nwith Fr Stephen Tucker about coming to speak today, he referred to\nthe loss of contact between the Church and the Academy, which he had\nmentioned in an article for the <em>Church\nTimes<\/em>; and of\ncourse Bishop Graham has referred to that as well.  It is a serious\nmatter.  It is serious, because right from the beginning Christianity\nhas attracted brilliant minds.  It does so because it has something\nto offer \u2013 because it is in itself brilliant.  I do not think I am\nbeing unfair, but the current climate of hostility, or at least\nindifference, to theology is worrying \u2013 at least in part, because\nit departs from the tradition of fearless inquiry and hunger for\ntruth which I would call our Catholic patrimony.  I&nbsp;think we can\nsay that the church of Irenaeus, Justin, Cyprian, Origen, Ambrose,\nAugustine and the Cappadocians is a church of thinkers.  (You will\nknow from that that I am in my comfort zone in patristics.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\n<em><strong>The 1947 Report<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p> There is a grave danger of historical naivety in an approach like the one put forward in the 1947 Report.  (I am going on the <a href=\"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/catholicity-1947-a-synopsis\/\">summary<\/a>, which I imagine most of us have read as preparation for this Symposium.  The Report puts forward a vision of a primitive unity which was later vitiated by heresy, schism, and dissent.  There are references in the full Report to the \u2018many-sided \u201cwholeness\u201d of the primitive Church.\u2019  But the overall emphasis remains on theological primitive unity rather than historical primitive diversity.  But I have to say \u2013 this is only an opinion, but a reasonable one, I think \u2013 that the word \u2018catholic\u2019 was already sectarian in the fourth century, when Augustine, for example, used it to refer to his side in the Donatist controversy.  You will notice that we call that controversy by the name of the people who lost it: the Donatists, named after an individual, a heretical and schismatic Christian, as opposed to the \u2018according to the whole\u2019 party, the Catholics.  This is, of course, a consistent trend we can see with hindsight in the history of the Church.  We talk about the Arian controversy and the Nestorian controversy.  In contrast, the winners are Catholicism and Orthodoxy; so claiming this word says something about ourselves.  This is not to make a value-judgement about the relative worth of the two versions of reality, but rather to serve as a reminder that the Christian emphasis on chronological development over time meshes with a providential view of history in which \u2018what triumphed\u2019 is sometimes too smoothly equated with \u2018what was right\u2019.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nLet me quote the preface to\nCanon C15:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\n<em>The Church of England is\npart of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the\none true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  It professes the faith\nuniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the\nCatholic creeds\u2026. <\/em>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nI find those noble and\ninspiring words.  I always have; but they are at least as much a\nstatement of history as they are of theology.  They are a claim to\nauthenticity, if you like, rather than an expression of any partisan\napproach to \u2018being church\u2019.  (I do quite dislike the idea of\ncalling it \u2018church\u2019 without the definite article, but this seems\nto be the way we are going, so \u2018being church\u2019 it is.) \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\n<em><strong>Elements of the 1947\nReport<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nI want to start, therefore,\nwith a brief commentary on some elements of the 1947 Report summary,\nand some observations which might help us today, and might suggest\nways in which we can re-imagine the debate for our own time.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nLet me start with the question\nput by Archbishop Fisher: \u2018What is the underlying cause \u2013\nphilosophical and theological \u2013 of the contrast or conflict between\nthe Catholic and Protestant traditions?\u2019  At the risk of sounding\nboth pretentious and annoying, this made me think of Thucydides\u2019\nanalysis of the Peloponnesian War because, in that \u2013 for the first\ntime in a piece of historical&nbsp;writing \u2013 he makes a distinction\nbetween two kinds of cause: between <em>aitiai<\/em>,\nwhich are the immediate triggers for an event, and the <em>alethestate\nprophasis<\/em>, which is\nthe most true explanation of it.  This contrast between apparent\ncauses and real causes, or between superficial and underlying causes,\nor short term triggers and long term causative factors, is very\nhelpful.  If we think of the nexus of sensitivities around the word\n\u2018Catholic\u2019, we might identify as some of our short term triggers\nthings like divorce, women\u2019s ordination, gays, that kind of thing;\nbut the underlying causes are something else \u2013 the <em>alethestate\nprophasis<\/em>.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nMaybe that is not so clear,\nbut I think it can help us.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>\n\n\tAuthority.  Are we talking\n\tepiscopacy, or are we talking scripture?  This is a fundamental\n\tdichotomy between tradition as personal (bishops) and tradition as\n\timpersonal (books).\n<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>\n\n\tAuthenticity.  Are we talking\n\tthe role of the Church, or are we talking the vocation of the\n\tindividual Christian.  If you will forgive me for the term, the\n\tmeta-narrative for that is the individual <em>versus<\/em>\n\tthe corporate.  I know very little about the Enlightenment as a\n\thistorical phenomenon, but I do recognise that one of the most\n\timportant factors in our theology nowadays is the understanding of\n\tthe base unit of Christian faith as the individual.  Of&nbsp;course,\n\tAugustine had realised this long ago, but we always need to remind\n\tourselves of it.  The difference between Christians as individuals\n\tand Christians as corporate is fundamental to this Catholic outlook.\n\t \n\t\n<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>\nIf Fisher\u2019s underlying cause\nis philosophical, then I would suggest that the triggers&nbsp;\u2013 the\n<em>aitiai<\/em>\n\u2013 would be concrete and practical matters; but I do not think this\nis really true.  I&nbsp;think conflict attaches itself to ideology\nand expresses itself through ideology, but that this can only happen\nbecause of underlying causes which are not intellectual, but\npractical and concrete.  I will come back to this later.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\n<em><strong>Archbishop Fisher\u2019s\nQuestions<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nAnother point to take issue\nwith is this: \u2018What are the fundamental points of doctrine at which\nthe contrast or conflict crystallises?\u2019 I have to apologise if I am\ntreading on Andrew&nbsp;Davison\u2019s toes, but I would say that the\npoints of doctrine are not the issue.  I&nbsp;want to argue for a\nless ideological perspective on the sources of conflict within the\nChurch of England, both Catholic and Reformed.  This is not to say\nthat doctrine does not matter \u2013 I wholeheartedly believe that\ndoctrine does matter \u2013 but if we assume that it is fundamentally\nthe formulation of our ideas that separates us as Christians, we risk\nthinking that finessing our terminology will resolve our problems.  I\ndo not believe that it will.  Again, I will come back to that later. \nThe Report is aware of this, but again it argues that certain\nelements in Protestantism and post-enlightenment liberalism are like\nthe ancient heresies caused by an imbalance in a certain direction \u2013\noften as a result of a corresponding imbalance in the opposite\ndirection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nAnother question Fisher asked\nwas: \u2018Is a synthesis at these points possible?\u2019  I only have a\nvery simple observation to make here.  \u2018Synthesis\u2019 is not an\nattractive word in English.  It sounds negative because of the\nconnotations of its cognate adjective.  When we hear that something\nis synthetic, we think \u2018not real\u2019.  In fact, however, to call\nsomething in the Church synthetic is a compliment to what we can do\ntheologically to make disparate elements co-inhere.\n It is creative, because it is instinctively and inherently\ncooperative.  The Report objects to the idea of synthesis for reasons\nit spells out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nFisher went on to ask: \u201cIf a\nsynthesis is not possible, can [disparate elements] co-exist within\none ecclesiastical body?\u201d  The short answer to that is, \u2018Of\ncourse they can, because they do and they are doing so right now\u2019 \u2013\nthough not without a cost in terms of friction and conflicts about\ngoals and perspectives.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nTo speak personally, every\ntime I hear the words \u2018mission\u2019 and \u2018leadership\u2019 in a church\ncontext, my heart sinks.  These words act as triggers for all my most\nnegative feelings about people who think they can change the course\nof history with a few underpowered and un-financed initiatives and \u2013\nworse \u2013 because they are based only on theological and scriptural\nfoundations, and take little or no account of the sociological,\npsychological and anthropological factors which drive human religious\nbehaviour.  We have to take those into account as well.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\n<em><strong>Evangelicals and\nAnglo-Catholics \u2013 then and now<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nOnce upon a time, the classic\nsplit was between Evangelicals and Anglo\u2011Catholics.  Now, to\nuse metaphorical terminology, we are looking much more at a\nforward\/backward or conservative\/progressive split.  Is the Catholic\nChurch of England marching forward in faith, or retreating backwards\nin bigotry?  As I say, these are metaphors, and they can clutter up\nour thinking.  We need to keep firmly focused on the truest causes of\nour current confused state.  When the Report summary suggests,\n\u2018Today, our agenda is dominated by apologetics, mission, the\nrelationship between science and belief, and between community,\npolitics, church and world\u2019, of course I want to ask first of all:\n\u2018Who is the \u201cour\u201d in \u201cour agenda\u201d?\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nWe have moved through a time\nof profound anxiety generated by questions of scripture or\nhistoricity.  Other anxieties have come to the fore, with what\nI&nbsp;would characterise as a crisis of confidence for the Church. \nThe forces of militant&nbsp;atheism and secularism are very strident\ntoday, and are frankly intimidating.  One thinks only this week of\nthe business about the future of \u2018Thought for the Day\u2019 on the\nBBC\u2019s <em>Today<\/em>&nbsp;programme,\nand the fact that it seems to be perfectly all right to attack\nthree&nbsp;minutes of reflection on religious matters, but nobody\nquestions for a millisecond the inclusion of racing tips or business\nnews.  I think encouraging people to gamble probably does a lot more\ndamage \u2013 but then I was brought up Baptist.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\n<em><strong>Dubious Presupposition\nbehind the 1947 Report<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nSo here is my biggest problem\nwith the 1947 Report.  It presumes the primitive wholeness of the\nChristian faith and says: \u2018Unity today can only be built on a\nrecognition of that primitive unity.\u2019 That is problematic for me,\nbecause I do not believe that there ever was such a unity.  The facts\nof history are against such a fantasy.  For this reason, I suggest\nthat the question ought to be: \u2018What sense can we make of unity,\nand especially our Christian duty?\u2019  As one of my predecessors has\nquoted some Latin, I will use a bit myself: <em>ut\nunum sint<\/em> \u2013 \u2018that\nthey may be one\u2019.  If we are to stop staggering towards a mirage of\nunity and start working our way towards the reality of it, we have to\nunderstand what we think unity is.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nAnd so, as a contributor to\nthis Symposium, I am like that person who, when asked for directions,\nsays: \u2018Well, if you\u2019re looking to get there, I wouldn\u2019t start\nfrom here\u2019.  This is not where I would want to start from; but that\ndoes not mean such an exercise cannot be fruitful.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nI found this statement in the\nReport summary more helpful: \u2018Unity is based on a way of life which\nincluded belief, worship and morals.\u2019  It goes on to express the\neschatological event of redemption in the person of Jesus.  Why is\nthat more helpful?  Because, instead of pretending that unity was\nthere at the beginning of the Church, a kind of primitive patrimony\nlater corrupted \u2013 and, by the way, this has always been the\nChurch\u2019s self-image, helped by the apologists and people like\nEusebius&nbsp;\u2013&nbsp;it allows us to re-think <em>ut\nunum sint<\/em>, \u2018that\nthey may be one\u2019: Christ\u2019s vision for the end and goal and\npurpose of the Church.  I have to say that, as this week we\ncommemorate the start of the European Reformation, the time is right.\n That gigantic shift 500 years ago played out as a fight about unity;\nbut I would suggest that it was really about uniformity&nbsp;\u2013&nbsp;not\nthe same thing at all.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\n<em><strong>Importance of Uniformity<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nTo see how important\nuniformity is, spiritually and emotionally as well as theologically,\nyou only have to observe the anxiety levels in a congregation which\ndoes not know if it is supposed to be sitting, standing or kneeling\nat a given point in a service.  A lack of uniformity in posture is\nprofoundly disturbing to the peace of mind of a worshiper.  A lack of\nuniformity of belief and praxis is, not surprisingly, infinitely more\nunsettling.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nI have my own concerns about\nthe risks of imposing a uniformity which pretends to be unity.  This\nis not what is being claimed.  Uniformity of doctrine and liturgy and\nmorals can help us feel we are all one body in Christ.  That is true,\nbut only if within that uniformity we have the capacity to tolerate\ndifference \u2013 and I really mean more than tolerate.  I mean, \u2018accept\nit with joy, not suspicion\u2019.  A favourite quotation of mine is from\nII Corinthians: \u2018God loves a cheerful giver\u2019.  He wants us to be\nopen and accepting in our reactions.  If I may quote, not from the\nBible, but from a very bad film called <em>Robin\nHood: Prince of Thieves:<\/em>\n\u2018God loves wondrous variety.\u2019  I cannot see a problem with that. \nIt is a good watchword: \u2018God loves wondrous variety.\u2019  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nUniformity is measurable.  We\ncan measure it through law and liturgy and theology.  It is also\nenforceable through canon and through episcopal discipline.  Unity is\nnot.  Unity is an abstract concept.  Christ does not pray for unity\nin his high priestly prayer.  He prays \u2018that they may be one\u2019. \nThat is why it is useful to think of it in Latin, because in Latin is\nhas a paradoxical force: <em>ut\nunum sint<\/em>.  <em>Unum<\/em>\nis singular, but the verb <em>sint<\/em>\nis plural.  It is a paradox.  \u2018One\u2019 does not mean \u2018all the\nsame\u2019.  As we have already heard, baptism unites us, even if we are\ndivided at the sacrament of the altar.  Scripture unites us, even\nthough we are divided by our interpretations of it.  For all these\nreasons, I&nbsp;think it is better to see unity as our goal, rather\nthan our lost, abandoned, neglected, but potentially recoverable\nheritage.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nNone of what I have said so\nfar offers any help in healing the breach between the two&nbsp;main\ntraditions within the Church of England.  Of course I am talking\nabout the Catholic and the Evangelical here, rather than forward and\nbackward, or progressive and conservative.  Scripture, and the use of\nscripture, remains one key point of friction between the two\npolarities.  I do not think either side does justice to the key role\nthat scripture plays in the worshiping life of the other.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nThe Church is described in the\nsummary of the Report in terms which I think it important to quote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p> <em>Only a Church which was not afraid of \u201ctensions\u201d, which could discern without prejudice the \u201cwholeness\u201d of the revelation in Christ, would have dared to set side by side four&nbsp;differing Gospels, the Epistles of St Paul and St James, the apostolic history of Acts and the eschatology of the Apocalypse, and to acclaim them all as normative.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nI wish.  I think that is too\napologetic.  The Church did not do away with multiple gospels, true,\nand did not do a <em>Diatessaron<\/em>\nsolution by combining them all \u2013 but that was because of the need\nto maintain the authenticity of the apostolic documents, not because\nthe Church in its early centuries was fearless about embracing\ndiversity.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\n<em><strong>Divine Providence<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nThat is me with my historian\nhat.  What about the role of divine providence in all of this?  If\nGod is at work in human history (and I believe he is) and if human\nhistory is going in a direction (and I believe it is, because I do\nnot have an \u2018it happens\u2019 view of history) \u2013 if God is in this,\nwe do not have the luxury of saying that the past has been wrong. \nNot, at any rate, if we believe in divine providence, in the divinely\nwilled direction of human progress and flourishing.  Saying that\nhistory (in the sense of \u2018what happened\u2019) is wrong is like saying\nthat blue skies are wrong.  It is what it was; only for the present\n(if it exists \u2013 a conundrum for Augustine and others) and the\nfuture.  Choosing to do things differently \u2018now\u2019 and \u2018evermore\u2019\nis something else.  We cannot say that history is wrong, any more\nthan, in the patristic period, those commentators on the Bible who\nwere so flexible and so inventive in their interpretations could ever\nbring themselves to say that a single jot or tittle of scripture was\nwrong.  They could not do it.  I do not think we should be able to do\nthat with history.  What has happened has happened.  We are here now\nbecause of it.  We should not even want to rewrite the past, because\nit is God\u2019s past.  No Christian, I believe, can ever say that\nhistory was wrong.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nWhat the Church of England\u2019s\nCatholicism needs to recover \u2013 and I am talking about this\nregardless of views on women and gays and ministry and all the rest\nof it \u2013 is a positive&nbsp;attitude towards itself and its message,\na confidence that there are indeed incalculable riches in our\nCatholic patrimony; but we are never going to access them or\ncommunicate them if we focus on disputation amongst ourselves. \nSometimes I think we Catholics are our own worst enemies in that\nrespect.  I learned long ago, and I guess this is true for many of\nus, especially those of us called to preach, that one should never\npreach a negative message.  The Christian gospel is always a\npositive, and it must be preached positively.  This is another way of\nsaying we must be much clearer about what we are for than what we are\nagainst.  Our record on this to date has not been good.  A culture of\nsneering at the opposition and belittling people\u2019s sincerity, their\nmotives \u2013 even their faith&nbsp;\u2013&nbsp;has prevailed.  That is\ntrue on both sides.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\n<em><strong>Students at Cambridge<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nThat brings me back \u2013 you\nmay think at long last \u2013 to my brief: student ministry.  Cambridge\nstudents are not stupid.  One of my colleagues at Caius once said,\n\u2018The students think we\u2019re so much cleverer than them, but we\u2019re\nnot cleverer.  We just know more stuff.\u2019  People like Rowan\nWilliams <em>are<\/em>\nI suspect more clever \u2013 but they do put before us the possibility\nthat we can be too.  It is, of course, true that, as we get older, we\nknow more stuff; but we are not cleverer.  Still, we may be wiser in\nknowing what to do with all the stuff we know.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nCambridge students are not\nstupid.  Well, I did not think my parish&nbsp;congregations were\nstupid either.  Congregations can tell when we preach what we\nbelieve, and pray what we mean.  They are quick to detect negativism.\n But yes, some members of a congregation will be enthused by the idea\nof sectarianism and partisanship.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nIt is quite exciting,\nespecially when you are young, to be <em>contra&nbsp;mundum<\/em>&nbsp;\u2013&nbsp;against\nthe world, against the majority \u2013 to be set apart, select, special.\n It seems to me that there is a risk here, for both Anglo-Catholics\nand Evangelicals, of going astray in what I can only describe \u2013 I\ncannot think of a better way of describing it \u2013 as \u2018recruitment\nprocesses\u2019 and \u2018systems of selection and promotion\u2019, which\nsingle out particular individuals, set them apart from their peers\nand encourage them to think of themselves as special and different\nand better.  There is an element of grooming in all of this.  We\nrecognise it quickly amongst the Cambridge deans and chaplains when\nit happens with the Cambridge&nbsp;University Students\u2019 Union,\nwhere students are talent-spotted, taken to lunches, encouraged to\nlead things, and groomed up.  But it is also true of ourselves, I\nthink.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\n<em><strong>The Church Necessarily\nConservative?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nThe Church has to be a\nconservative institution to protect its patrimony.  It would not have\nsurvived for 2,000 years if it had not been conservative.  I find it\nsobering to reflect on that extraordinary success.  If you think how\nold the English monarchy feels, remember that the Church is nearly\ntwice as old.  It could not survive without being conservative; but\nit also cannot survive without adapting.  One of the things that\nmatters most is how we identify what should and should not change. \nThat is far more important than thinking about protecting our own\npositions.  And we have to accept that both continuity and\nauthenticity can only be built on creative tensions between them.  We\ncannot resolve those tensions without losing babies with bathwater.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nI want to say a few final\nwords about my historical perspective on the subject I have been\ngiven.  My doctorate was written on Roman&nbsp;historiography.  I am\ninterested in how historians express conflict and how they\ncharacterise and morally evaluate events.  Conflict in history can be\ntriggered by things&nbsp;\u2013&nbsp;as I&nbsp;have said already, by\nimmediate causes \u2013 but it can also have more fundamental or\nstructural causes.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\n<em><strong>Anglo\u2011Catholic\/Evangelical\ntensions today<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nSo what is, or was, or ever\nwill be, the Anglo\u2011Catholic\/Evangelical split about?  Perhaps\nI&nbsp;am being controversial here, but I do not really think it is\nabout theology or, indeed, about scriptural principles.  I think we\nwill get much more insight into the difficulty we must come to terms\nwith and manage if we understand that, at a fundamental level \u2013\nlike every conflict in history \u2013 it is about competition over\nresources, power and control, whether those are concrete (land,\nmoney) or abstract (ideology, relationships).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nHere is a parallel from\nanother field.  Think of the New Atheists.  They are always blaming\nreligion for starting wars and conflict.  It is one of their\nprincipal reasons for saying that religion should be edited out of\nthe public sphere and public debate.  Whenever they do this, we jump\nin quickly as religious people and say: \u2018No, it is not religion\nthat is at fault.  It is the misuse of religious beliefs in a\npolitical or military cause.\u2019  I&nbsp;think that is true, but we\ncannot have it both ways.  If the factors which drive those kinds of\nconflicts are not really religious, then we have to apply that\nprinciple to ourselves as well.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nTo understand this more\nclearly, we need to start thinking in terms of agencies and\nmechanisms for change, and for defence or preservation.  We need to\nstart analysing the questions we set ourselves in terms of resources\n\u2013 and here I am talking historically about things like buildings\nand territory, offices, senior appointments, attractive jobs, the\nnicest churches, closed charitable funds.  We need to think about the\ninstruments by which we put our principles into effect: \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>\n\n\tOur legislature (the General\n\tSynod).  \n\t\n<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>\n\n\tOur leadership \u2013 the\n\tepiscopate \u2013 which, by the way, if you think in terms of a\n\tparallel from Roman history, acts both as army and police.  This is\n\ta bit scary for bishops, being both army and police together, but\n\tthey are a regulatory body like that.  \n\t\n<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>\n\n\tThe <em>cursus\n\thonorum: <\/em>the\n\tsystem of appointments, roles and leadership, who gets the positions\n\tof influence, how they get there and, once there, what they do.  \n\t\n<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>\n\n\tOn a very basic level, how\n\tpeople learn their Christianity and what it consists in.  \n\t\n<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>\nWherever there are sufficient\nresources, there is less conflict; but when we have competition for\nresources, whether that is prominence or something more concrete, we\nget conflict.  The traditional Catholic\/Protestant dichotomy appears\nto be ideological.  To some extent, that is true.  Christians care\nabout their beliefs enough to fight for them and even die for them. \nHistory tells us so.  So yes, the Anglo-Catholic\/Evangelical divide\nmay play out in terms of arguments about ideology or apostolicity or\nwhatever; but more often, I suggest, it is actually tribal.  It is\nabout loyalty and identity as much as ideology.  It is not surprising\nin a religion based on the Word incarnate that we behave as though\nfinessing over formularies will create and sustain unity \u2013 whatever\nwe mean by \u2018unity\u2019.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\n<em><strong>Don\u2019t Fudge the Issues<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nJust to speak personally\nagain: not so long back, I was on a subcommittee of the Faith and\nOrder Commission tasked with producing a document on men and women in\nmarriage.  Oh yes!  Not our finest hour!  There was fundamental\ndisagreement between members of that working group about both the\napproach to marriage and the conclusions drawn.  Paraphrasing, but\nonly slightly, the reaction of the chair to that clash was: \u2018Let\u2019s\nput our thinking caps on and come up with a form of words which\ncovers both.\u2019  To me (and, as Fr Tucker points out, to the authors\nof the Report), that is fundamentally improper.  This is not what it\nis about \u2013 finding a form of words which can glue us together, when\nthe tension is actually too great for the two sides to stick.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nThe truth is simpler, and also\nharder.  As I have said, most students, like most parishioners, have\nto be taught what heresy and schism are, and relatively few of them\nhave any instinctive enthusiasm for what I would call \u2018true\ntheology\u2019 in the sense of \u2018reasoned discourse about God\u2019.  Very\nfew of them have any fixed idea of what Catholicity is.  Most of them\n\u2013 most of us, I suspect (it would be hard to construct the\nappropriate research but fascinating to get its results) \u2013 begin\nwith a sense of the divine which we cannot explain or express, and\ncome to find it crystallised in the person of Jesus&nbsp;Christ. \nEverything else comes later and remains secondary, both in our belief\nand in our praxis throughout our lives.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nIn other words, we are taught\n\u2013 and learn \u2013 to separate ourselves from our fellow Christians\nbecause our natural desire to embrace authentic Christian faith makes\nus vulnerable to fears about being found on the wrong side.  We have\nto choose our side.  Will it be a side like Manchester United or\nArsenal?  Will it be a side like Wolverhampton Wanderers or (Fr Peter\nwill forgive me) Queens&nbsp;Park&nbsp;Rangers?  Will it be a team\nthat is glamour or naff, good or bad, strong or weak, right or wrong?\n We choose it and hold to it, buckle and thong.  Just like football\nsupporters, we learn to sing the songs as a way to mark and defend\nour territory, and at the same time we learn the mind-set of \u2018My\nteam, right or wrong\u2019.  We learn which team to support, and which\nteams to hate and belittle and jeer at.  I defy you to find anybody\nwho watches Arsenal at the Emirates who has never sung <em>Stand&nbsp;Up\nIf You Hate&nbsp;Tottenham<\/em>.\n \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\nOurs is a faith of the\nincarnate Word, so we privilege words in our negotiations and in our\nself-identity; but a less ideological perspective would clarify what\nis really at stake.  As you might say, \u2018<em>Cui\nbono?<\/em>\u2019 \u2013 \u2018Who\nstands to gain?\u2019  Or as you might say, thinking of film culture:\n\u2018Follow the money\u2019.  Once we can see clearly who stands to lose\nor gain from the conflicts played out by the\nAnglo\u2011Catholic\/Evangelical divide in the Church of England, we\nwill be better placed to encourage all the positive riches of our\nCatholic patrimony: our apostolicity; our authenticity; our\nfaithfulness to scripture; our unity of identity; the full riches of\nsacrament in one body without, God willing, imposing a rigid and\nrestrictive uniformity.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\n<em><strong>Following Jesus<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p> Inside and outside the faith, so-called \u2018ordinary people\u2019, like my students and parishioners, are busy following the advice of our Lord Jesus.  \u2018By their fruits you will know them.\u2019  They are not interested in the clever forms of words we can devise to glue our fractured communion together.  They see straight past all the theology and principle and the debate about authentic Catholicism, and look at how we behave to one another, and what we say about one another when our guard is down, when we are not on our best behaviour.  By their fruits they will be known.  By our fruits we will be known.  I suggest that those fruits had better be fruits of repentance and firm purpose of amendment, so that even if, not now or in the past, then in God\u2019s good time, we may be one.  Thank you.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p> <strong>THE CHAIRMAN<\/strong>:  Thank you so much, Cally.  I think <a href=\"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/catholicity-anglicanism-history-adn-the-universal-church-in-1947\/\">Andrew<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/two-theological-college-principals\/\">Robin, Peter<\/a> and Cally have all illustrated, in their different ways, that our theme today is certainly not a redundant one \u2013 although, as Cally has illustrated, it is pretty messy and rather contested.  If the crisis of confidence in the Church is to be overcome \u2013 and I am sure Cally is right here as well \u2013 then there must be something more than projects to do it.  As somebody who has to speak sometimes about mission and leadership, I can sometimes hear myself critiquing the very things I am saying.  I also have sympathy with where Andrew began this morning, with Geoffrey Fisher wanting results.  We all do.  I\u00a0am certain our Church today is seeking results, and I expect we will not find them without a renewed Catholic\u00a0theology \u2013 and indeed a renewed common life.  We need to look back to Lionel\u00a0Thornton, not just in relation to religious communities, but also to the theology of baptism of which Peter was speaking.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The next paper was by <a href=\"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/andrew-davison\/\">Andrew Davison<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>THE CHAIRMAN: We are now moving beyond seminaries. We are very fortunate to have with us Cally Hammond, the Dean of&nbsp;Gonville and Caius, Cambridge, whose writing some of you may know. Her recent work on words as they are used in worship has been really one of the most valuable books for me. I know &#8230; <a title=\"Carolyn Hammond\" class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/carolyn-hammond\/\" aria-label=\"More on Carolyn Hammond\">Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-101","page","type-page","status-publish"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/101","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=101"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/101\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":147,"href":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/101\/revisions\/147"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/catholicity.societyofthefaith.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}