Conclusion - Some Reflections on the People of God
What specific conclusions can we reasonably draw from our discussions?
- First, that the injunction to go away and think theologically is too general. We need to know what theology is before we can decide what issues are appropriate for its tools.
- Secondly, in thinking about theology, we need to be clear in our own minds what issues we would rank in what order. We might not agree about the ranking and, indeed, the ranking process itself might be more illuminating in understanding an issue than considering the content of the issue.
- Thirdly, there are issues which are not theological at all but ethical.
- Fourthly, in all matters connected with the Church, whether they are first order theological issues or fourth order ethical issues, it is dangerously dualist and unChristian to neglect, accidentally or deliberately, the findings of philosophy, natural science, literary criticism and other branches of learning which might illuminate our problems and prospects.
- Finally, to discuss matters theologically may be fine sounding but what we most need are the tools for discussing our differences in love and with trust and respect. What makes us the people of God is our belief in the primacy of love. We are in danger of overthrowing the Church of England tradition of tolerance, latitude and diversity in favour of a proud, callous, judgmental church which is what we claim to have escaped from at the Reformation.
Here are some broader issues raised by the Course:
- First, Perhaps the best place to start in any discussion of the people of God should be at the beginning by asking ourselves for one last time what this means. Do we think of ourselves as radically pointing towards God as God's self communication indiscriminatingly points at us; or do we think of ourselves as radically turned away from God who can only be re-directed by God's saving action? Are we fundamentally good and loving or fundamentally evil?
- Secondly, the way we answer those questions will have a profound effect on the way in which we look at theology. If we tend to emphasise our congruence with rather than our separation from divine love we will be more likely to be attracted intellectually and temperamentally to incarnation rather than Redemption. This, in turn, will influence the way we understand scripture; to hold either that all theological questions are equally important or to hold that all scripture is equally clear are both unhelpful. To rank issues as we have is only one way of helping us to live our lives faithfully without being unrealistically complacent or agitated.
- Thirdly, as the people of God we need to think about how we are all equal but how we might have different functions in our worshipping and loving community. Why do we need a hierarchy in the body of Christ? Is hierarchy a necessary reflection of our imperfection and, in being so, fundamentally antithetical to a community based on mutual love? Why do we need specially appointed people to represent us collectively in the sight of God (priests) and to represent the Church to its people (bishops)? And if we need these people, what kind of people must and should they be; what characteristics are essential or desirable?
- Fourthly, how do we know who are the people of God and who makes decisions about inclusion or exclusion from the full life of the body of Christ? Are there any circumstances when we rank judgment higher than love?