A counterblast from the clergy

CHURCH OF ENGLAND v LUDOVIC KENNEDY

In our issue of 7 June we gave Mr Ludovic Kennedy an opportunity to reply to the many critics of his earlier article 'A lesson in communication'. His reply stimulated an even more vigorous response from readers, both clerical and lay. We publish below, in the shape of a representative selection of letters received, the clergy's answer to Mr Kennedy.

From the Vicar of Highbrook, Chichester Mr Ludovic Kennedy in 'A reply to my critics' says that he is gratified by the res- ponse to his previous article, but his reply indicates that he has learnt nothing from any of them. I wonder if you could gently make it clear to him that, however good he is at writing highly polished articles for your admirable paper, he is in fact ecclesia- stically illiterate and, so far as knowledge of the Christian religion is concerned, a non-starter rather than a beginner.

I say this with no desire to be rude but rather in the interests of accuracy. I accept his statement that he attended church par- ades and compulsory lessons on 'Divinity' in his school days, but the fact remains that that is by no means always a satisfactory starting-point. It is possible to be so injected with a sort of pseudo-Christianity when young that one becomes almost immune to the real thing: alternatively one may so far react from having religion forced down one's throat as to be left with a permanent distaste for it and an almost total incapa- city for digesting it.

But why in that case write articles about it? Surely Mr Kennedy must know some intelligent Christian who could explain to him what the Church really stands for. Why must he accept Marghanita Laski's incred- ibly misleading and naive definition—that 'the main function of the Church, and indeed of religion generally, is to give com- fort to the lonely, the guilty and the afraid?

The main function of the Church, as the most elementary textbook on the subject could tell him—or indeed the Bible which he seems to think authoritative—is to wit- ness to the truth about God proclaimed by Christ, to worship the God whom He revealed and to invite all men to trust and experience the power of the spirit of divine love.

No doubt that makes nonsense to a humanist, but it is what the Church exists for. Those who accept the gospel of Christ do so not because it is helpful or comfort- able (it is frequently the reverse) but be- cause they are forced to the conclusion that it is true. Mr Kennedy's suggestion that the Church's main function is to propagate the teachings of Christ is correct, but he makes the suggestion only to discard it on the ground that 'we can read these for our- selves in the Bible'. But can we? Mr Ken- nedy has evidently missed the point that Christ left no blueprint for living but He did found a society to live out His way of life.

Often it has done this inadequately, but Church and. Bible together have preserved the truth of His Gospel to date and, if the Bible is to be believed, will continue to do so.

The Creeds distil and summarise the truth enshrined in Bible and Church. To dis- miss Christian doctrine as something that

• s

'reaches a climax of dottiness in the Creed' is astonishingly childish. If Mr Kennedy has interviewed the Archbishop of Canter- bury six times, can he think that intelligent prelate would really swallow a lot of un- diluted dottiness? Is the Creed dotty or is it true? A short letter cannot answer this question: but, unless you consider that all Christians everywhere have been fools or madmen, it's a dotty sort of question to ask.

One has to conclude sorrowfully that Mr Kennedy's second article is a singular proof of the contention of his first article—that the Church is extremely bad at communi- cating. We can't blame Mr Kennedy: we can only blame his ignorance on ourselves. But could we possibly ask him to read something on the subject — perhaps the Archbishop's little paperback, Introducing the Christian Faith—before he writes his next article?

Guy Bowden

From the Rector of Swindon, Gloucester As Mr Ludovic Kennedy says, he is simply a communicator; and, as he further betrays, he is not a theologian. He has it all wrong.

The main function of the Church is not what Mr Kennedy says it is. It is not to give comfort to the lonely, the guilty, and the afraid. It is not to teach people to lead good lives. It is not to perform good works. ,These things but follow.

The main function of the Church on earth is to continue Christ's work on earth —and we know how He was treated. Christ was held up to ridicule. Christ was spat upon. Christ was done to death. How good it is, then, that the Church is held up to ridicule; that the Church is spat upon (with especial reference to Mr Kennedy's article); that there are those who would do the Church to death.

The followers of Christ go to church in obedience to His command: 'Do this'. And when they leave the altar rail they are aware that they have been with Him, and that they have found grace and courage to serve Him better.

It is extraordinary that Mr Kennedy seems so interested in what the parsons say and how they say it, in spite of the fact that he says he does not believe what they say. One wonders, therefore, why such interest should be shown. Can it be that he makes some money out of what he writes? Wasn't there once someone named Judas Iscariot who was motivated by the same considerations?

M. E. Bennett

v., From the Rector of Alvechurch, Worcester _Jo Ludovic Kennedy says that he was 'over- exposed too early' in his experience of Church of England services. This consti- tutional inferiority ought not to excuse him for over-exposing himself in print, as he does in 'A reply- to my critics'.

He tells us that he writes three or more drafts and then polishes and re-polishes. 'But do parsons', he asks, 'and if not why not?' Mr Kennedy would appear to have over-exposed his mind, for who said which ones do and which do not? Then, from his communicating perch, he tells us that when parsons 'ascend the lectern, platform or pulpit they too enter the communications business, whether they like it or not'. As members of the original communications

business, parsons will be grateful to Mr Kennedy for this information, which- they had failed to notice in Holy Writ.

He asks why Sir Laurence Olivier `rather than one of their own number, say York or Canterbury', was chosen to record read- ings from the Bible. Re-polishing his over- . exposed draft, he asks `because he would sell more copies?"Certainly', he tells us. How over-exposed can you get? For if the recording company had mere sales in mind, why were not the Beatles asked to do the job? Mr Kennedy sneers at the Arch- bishops for `all their theology', but who- ever heard one of them claim to be a better reader than Sir Laurence? However, Mr Kennedy misses the point, which is con- tained in the story of the old parson and the West End actor who were asked to read the 23rd Psalm. It was the old parson whose rendering displayed that he knew the Shepherd . . . Parson-communicators will no doubt be indebted to Mr Kennedy for telling them what Marghanita Laski says about the func- tion of the Church. These 'dying men clutching at passing straws' had not thought to take hold of her skirts for salvation.

Mr Kennedy also admires Billy Graham as a communicator, but it would appear that the substance of Dr Graham's `enthus- iasm and conviction' was lost on him—or, could it be that (in the words of another communicator) `the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God'?

This parson-communicator would seek to inform Mr Ludovic Kennedy that the ves- sel's colours are flying and its guns firing— and it is not going down. It will be com- municating when the organs in which he over-exposes himself have ceased to exist.

Leslie Aitken From the Vicar of St Paul's, Warton

The disaster may be upon us and the church in England may drown in the sea, as Ludo- vic Kennedy asserts, but that is a fate from which he is safe as his reasoning has not the depth in which to drown.

The function of the church is indeed to give comfort to the lonely, the guilty and the afraid, at the same time speaking of the ever present God who is the creative force at work in the universe and human society. I give this force the title of God; does Mr Kennedy deny its existence or believe in its existence but refuse a name?

Can any man seriously suppose that there is less loneliness, guilt and fear about today than there was three centuries ago? The ivory castle of the television studio seems far removed from the people that I live amongst, visit in their homes and meet in their clubs.

Loneliness: diminished in a society that plunges its able children into a rat race from the age of eleven? The move to a competitive meritocracy may bring greater affluence and even fairness, but a side effect is increased loneliness; nearly every man at some stage in his career becomes a failure through his inability to secure the next pro- motion. I fear that too much watching of the TV commercials has bemused our com- municative friend. Loneliness may be less evident but I refute that there is less of it.

Guilt: perhaps Mr Kennedy has not been -aware of the traditional teaching given to every aspiring preacher for many centuries, that no one should seek to convince a man of his sin without speaking of the mercy and forgiveness of God. As a Christian, I (surely joined by all people of good will) cannot look at the sufferings of Biafra, Viet- nam, Notting Hill, the Northern Ireland un- employment problem, without suffering the pangs of outraged conscience and aroused guilt. I am troubled at nights by what I have seen on the ten o'clock news not only by my identification with the sufferers but because, like all the people of this country, I gain by those wars, my new car is stained by the blood of a Biafran child killed by a `Made in Britain' bullet—and there is very little that I can do about it.

Mr Kennedy says that there is much that he can learn from the life and teachings of Christ; yes of course I agree, including the death of Christ who died not by the male- volence of a small gang but with the acquie- scence of the machinery of first century social life. I too must suffer my little crucifixion but it is not a wallowing in self-inflicted guilt. but a process that leads to the essen- tial resurrection. Only if I will suffer with my fellow can I rejoice with him when he is freed. Resurrection is not the waving of a magic wand to undo the death that has been done, it is growing into a new life of undreamt-of depth and dimension. Perhaps this is the difference between us, I insist on dreaming and yearning to reach my dream.

Fear: Mr Kennedy seems to assume that the only fear which Christianity has sought to deal with is the fear of death. This I can confidently deny from personal experi- ence. having lived for several months with a dying child. The fears with which I live are clearly much more complex and subtle. The extending of my life to an indefinite future would not diminish my fears by one iota, the potential destructiveness of my own personality, both to itself and to those I love, is the ground of my fears. The Church's teachings of the Holy Spirit are directed to the exorcising of these my per- sonal demons by the restructuring of my life and thought. D. G. S. Battersby

From the Presbyterian Minister of North Church. Prestwick

It is true that Christianity of the popular kind has usually believed in Jesus as a sort of demi-god. but this has never been the view of intelligent orthodoxy, nor could it have been the view of the first disciples, who were Jews and uncompromising mono- theists. When Paul called Jesus the Son of God. this was not what he meant.

We must cease dogmatising about `God'. (Who do we think we are, anyway?). For me, and I think Mr Kennedy might agree, Duman life will partake of more reality as it conforms more closely to the pattern Jesus set. I would hold that he lived in accord with the demands of love, even towards the Pharisees he condemned, be- cause he tried to make them see that people mattered more than certain rules on which they insisted. But Jesus had his rules, and he believed that they represented God's will, or. if you like, that they corresponded to reality in its human aspect, which is another way of saying the same thing.

It must be a matter of faith that reality is more to be found in love than, say, in dedication to the dominance of a given -race. It cannot be proved, in advance.

In retrospect, however, is it not true that the Christian faith has shown extraordinary survival value? It is rather a long time since Voltaire prophesied the day when Bibles would only be found in museums, and even at the lowest level, the cohesive Christian-motivated family seems to come out of the stress and strain of life with enough vigour to help where help is needed.

I've no doubt that the Church will have to change more than it will like, but I don't expect my successors in the centuries to come to be out of business. So far from being out of date, that man from Galilee is not clearly in sight yet. Mr Kennedy is on the track there!

Phil W. Petty From Canon Howard Dobson, Bury St Edmunds

One can only have profound pity for Mr Ludovic Kennedy, for he is obviously a very frightened man. He was a committed Christian by reason of his confirmation, and he knows, at least subconsciously, that he is an apostate. He will probably end as a penitent Catholic. Meanwhile he will con- tinue to lash out at the Church to keep his Courage up.

Howard Dobson

From the Ven R. V H. Mime. Salisbury 'Mr Kennedy asks and gives his answer to

the vital question. 'What is the Church for?' He suggests certain possible answers and rejects them all except the last one, which is. 'to give comfort to the lonely, the guilty and the afraid'. Arguing from this premise, he goes on to show that in these days the need for comfort for such people is diminishing and therefore the need for the Church is diminishing also, so that it 'is becoming increasingly irrelevant to modern life' and is on its way out.

If we can accept his premise. no doubt his conclusion is sound, but can we accept it? Is it possible to believe that that is all the Church exists for? Surely the real pur- pose of the Church is to introduce men to God, the God of love whom Jesus revealed to the world, and help them to know him and believe in him. This is what the Church

is realty for, and all the other reasons Mr -Kennedy has suggested—to lead good lives, to perform good works, to propagate the teachings of Christ, to comfort sufferers- aA are its natural by-products and should follow from it, and, I venture to say, have followed from it wherever the Gospel has been preached, though limited by the natural frailty of Christian agents.

If scriptural ground is required for the line I have taken I would select St Paul's message to the Church at Corinth (2 Cor. vi 20).

- This is the end for which the Church exists, and all its manifold organisations are or should be a means to this end, and not substitutes for it

R. Y. N. Burne