Magna Carta

Freedom is a strangely elusive idea.  Instinctively we want it, value it, demand it, yet it is much less clear what it really is.  

Take the striking opening of the Magna Carta, and one of the only four of its clauses that remain in contemporary English Law:

• I. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. 

This might warm the heart, one would think, of any Christian. Yet strangely it did not work out quite as this reads.  After all, it was the Monarchy that effectively changed the Church of England (on account of Henry VIII's marital woes) into a non-Roman Church.  That seems some way short of the Church being free of the monarch as the Charter indicated.

Then there have been the times when, whatever freedoms the Church did enjoy it used against other expressions of church and religion.  You would have to look very hard to find any other longstanding expressions of Church on the actual City of London (which is a double irony as the freedoms of the City of London are also contained as a remaining Law from Magna Carta).

Then there is the irony that the institutional Church of England (which Magna Carta most obviously references) is, in fact, the least free of all expressions of Church with a multitude of things it can't do, must do, must have and may not have.

On the bright side, it offers an early trend toward freedom of religion in a broader sense, and one which is happily still respected (though losing ground through the double whammy of militant Islam and rampant secular Humanism).

What it most confirms - and this I think is truly frightening - is that the basis of what old King John did was under the watchful eye of God - We have granted to God.  A society that no longer believes it is answerable to God and where pockets of it believe in a God of vengeance and violence is not likely for too long to hold dear the idea of freedom.  Oppression is so much more human (as Cain effectively said).

Polycarp

Today much of the Church remembers one of the best attested early Christian martyrs.  Polycarp reminds us of the principle our Lord laid down to his Church at Smyrna in the Bible (Revelation 2): Be faithful to the point of death and I will give you a crown of life.

Off-Road

Some years ago I visited Rhode Island and saw this historic Church - the first Baptist Church building in America.

Yesterday we had an awayday for our leadership at this Baptist Chapel:

It's not very big, and its not as old as the one in Providence, Rhode Island.  More pointedly it is situated behind a Post Office and a Public House.  Is this typical of the Brits, we ask?  Americans (even early ones) give themselves a prominent landmark, we put ourselves out of the way in, effectively, someones back garden.

History tells a rather different story.  Chapels were built off road because in their founding day their founders were lucky if they were allowed to build at all.  Indeed, there were times when, in England, a body of believers outside the establishment could only meet - as would today be true in some other lands - in private houses.

It isn't getting any easier to witness publicly for Christ in 21st Century Britain.  But it's immeasurably easier than it's been for many of our forebears and many of our brothers and sisters through the world. 

Synod

Rarely does the Supreme Governor of the Church of England stray into deeply theological territory.  I suppose that in the week after one of her junior bishops called her son Big Ears it is unsurprising that she is looking a little beyond her Church for virtue!

The Queen addressed her Church's General Synod thus,

"It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals and groups of all faiths and none."

Wow.  I wonder if she realised what she said?

This is profoundly true and far too little understood.  There is no difference in the duties and opportunities of virtue for the Atheist, the Agnostic, the Believer, the Nominalist, the Buddhist, the Muslim or the whatever.  This is explained by the apostle Paul:

For we must all of us appear before Christ's judgement-seat in our true characters, in order that each may then receive an award for his actions in this life, in accordance with what he has done, whether it be good or whether it be worthless. [Weymouth's translation] 

Virtue will indeed be expected all round.  Nelson Mandela, Stephen Hawking, Queen Elizabeth, Kim Jong-il, Barack Obama, Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict and every one of the rest of us.  Does faith help virtue?  I think this is possible.  Indeed, our Lord said that his followers would be light and salt in a dark and rotten world.

 

But at the heart of the Christian message is no virtue.  Just the opposite in fact.  A cross.   Condemnation, not complements.   Death not life.  Savagery not elegance.  Blood not beauty. Bad not good.  Shame, not virtue.

 

What the Synodic observation lacks are two further observations:

 

1.  That people of faith and people without faith - all of whom have the same possibility and responsibility for virtue - ALL FALL SHORT.

 

2.  There is forgiveness through a crucified Saviour who calls us to him.

 

To put it another way - the call to virtue is universal, the remedy for our failing it is unique.  Thank you Jesus!  

In a State

Norway and Denmark (but since 2000 not Sweden) have State Churches. This means that, literally, the parish church (Lutheran) is an arm of Government. This is anathema to Baptists of all shades and varieties. But surely it must provide mighty stability and resources?


Perhaps so, but when you read this introduction from the Kultur og kirkedepartementet (Norwegian Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs) you can't help thinking the Government is struggling to know what to do with the Church:

The Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs was established in 1982, at which time it was called the Ministry of Cultural and Scientific Affairs. Until then, the Ministry of Church and Education had had the overriding responsibility for cultural affairs in Norway. The Ministry changed its name to the Ministry of Church and Cultural Affairs in 1990. From 1991 until 2001, Norway had a Ministry of Cultural Affairs that was responsible solely for culture. From 1 January 2002, church affairs were once again amalgamated with cultural affairs and the current Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs was established on the same date. In January 2005 the Minister of Culture and Church Affairs was assigned responsibility for the voluntary sector. This was the first time the sector had been given its own minister.

The Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs is responsible for culture, church affairs, the media (films, broadcasting, press and copyright) and sport, and for gaming and lotteries. Several other ministries also deal with cultural matters.


So there you have it. The Church and the Lottery go together!