Talking or writing about the Pope in this church has become rather dangerous I almost feel as though I ought to ask whether we have any journalists here before I proceed. However, the new Pope has I think in part been elected because the Catholic Church is very conscious of the decline of all branches of Christianity in Europe. He has chosen the name Benedict because of his concern for the future of European Christianity. It seems likely that he will in his travels pay a little more attention to Europe than to other parts of the world. He will probably go to Germany first but our Archbishop has expressed the hope that he will come here; and the fact that the previously stalled Anglican Roman Catholic dialogue is being renewed makes such a visit more likely. But what is Pope Benedict 16th or any other Christian leader to do about the decline of faith in Europe?
Perhaps we need first to look more closely at the situation. Research tells us that there is an increase in the number of people especially amongst the young who describe themselves as religious and believe in an afterlife. The same people are interested in the spiritual guidance the church might give them, but overwhelmingly deny that the church has any right to interfere in their private lives. Their key characteristic is individualism or the desire for freedom to decide their own moral values. They are more likely to be attracted by those who share their questions than those who want to tell them the answers. They see dogma as divisive and live with the fear that faith generates conflict.
Against such a background we might see the reason for the extraordinary popularity of the Lord of the Rings and the fantasy genre that has grown up in its wake; their attractiveness lies in the idea of the quest. The first half of the twentieth century saw the apogee of scientific rationalism, and the grand political solutions offered by Communism, Fascism and perhaps also capitalism, all of which tend to despise or privatise religion; nowadays people are more prepared to admit their spiritual curiosity, while remaining uncertain of the church’s ability to satisfy their spiritual hunger. The modern quest is for the self authenticating experience that will give substance to a set of values and a code of behaviour, chosen but not imposed, and guaranteeing a sense of real freedom.
Amongst the vast array of inscribed bracelets now available, the ones which read, ‘What would Jesus do’ or WWJD were one of the earliest on the scene. I would prefer the phrase HWJR, ‘How would Jesus respond?’ He came from a religious background as carefully prescribed as Pope Benedict 16th. He lived in a society where the discussion of how rules should be interpreted and applied was almost as divisive as our own. And the gospels make it hard for us to pin him down as a conservative or a radical on different occasions he could be either. You might think you know where he stands, you might think that you are speaking in his name, only to find him denying that he ever knew you, however much you call him Lord.
Jesus had of course been taught all the commandments all the law, and he had learnt the importance of memory. The words of the law should be inscribed in the heart and soul, but just as a reminder a Jew must also carry certain words inscribed on a scroll contained in a little box tied to his hand or arm or forehead, known in the gospels as a phylactery, though Jesus doesn’t seem to have worn one. But steeped in the law, as Jesus was, he also knew like Paul that all have fallen short of the glory of God. We all have to accept that our very limited goodness puts us in no position to condemn others. The secular liberal will of course applaud. And religious people will wring their hands and worry about moral relativism. Surely we have to stand up for what is right, for family values, sexual purity, honesty, the sanctity of life and so on. But how did Jesus respond?
Jesus was clearly not a moral relativist he knew right from wrong he knew the Father’s will. But he demonstrates that curious capacity of real goodness which is able to keep company with sinners without being afraid and that is real freedom. And the sinners knew his goodness and yet they were not afraid of him. They did not feel condemned by him. They saw that he gave them moral hope a way out of whatever prevented them from changing into the sort of human being that would find fulfilment in God. He gave them moral hope because he gave them a sense of God’s loving kindness.
And that perhaps is the place to start in renewing the European vision of Christianity; confident in our remembering of our heritage of faith yet willing to join the contemporary quest; starting from wherever our neighbour stands, however, much that might seem to lie outside the church’s traditional teaching; sharing what we have of spiritual and moral value as we might share a treasured possession; offering sanctuary, and hope and a real vision of goodness, truth and beauty.
The extraordinary thing about Frodo’s quest in the Lord of the Rings is that he goes on his quest not to find something but to throw something away the ring of power. Perhaps when we have found what we have to throw away, then we will truly have found faith a faith that will draw everyone into the fellowship of Christ. Amen
Stephen Tucker