A clarity which stems from the thoughts of each taking place in the mind of the other, as well as in their own minds. How pathetic to claim to be a Christian unless you are competent in the world of affairs. Whatever your trade or profession, you want to be competent at it; and not claim to be Christian, as though that were an excuse for incompetence. The only benefit the Christian is likely to have in the world of affairs is in the degree of intimacy and mutual trust he has with others.
If science has taught us one profound lesson it is that Creation is a unity in itself. Everything in time evolves; even churches evolve whether they like it or not, and have no exemption. Only the truly spiritual is beyond space and time; lovers knowing each others’ thoughts, the indwelling spirit of God; and even these things change. But the Bishop’s authority, or lack of it, is based on the 39 Articles, legislation by Parliament and Tradition, and is very much in time. So it must evolve, or die. But marrying the sacred and the secular has nothing to do with the bishop’s authority, or lack of it. It has to do with the integrity of a human life, and giving expression to the spirit within. And in an evolving world, you cannot any longer cling to certainties in the physical world, nor to shibboleths in the spiritual. Even clinging to other people is dangerous, because few people like to have to fulfil the hopes and dreams of others. Safer by far to make the inspiration for your conduct an indwelling with another. What was a far-fetched dream for me, may actually be the way to make Christ’s Kingdom come alive in the secular world. This was the deficiency that gave Islam its tremendous ascendancy over Christianity, when they first met and clashed in the 7th century. Christianity was an other worldly religion; and Islam was not.
Islam marries the sacred and the secular, but not in a way that the West finds acceptable; and it is not hard to see why. Mohammed was correct in thinking that Jesus’ salvation was inadequate to heal the ills of society; at least it has not done it in 2000 years. But alas many people would say that Mohammed’s cure was worse than the disease. It is not easy to argue that the suicide bomber is in the forefront of evolution. It is easier to argue that, however dangerous he may be, he is the remnant of Islamic militancy, which as a regular military force was first checked at Constantinople in 718AD and at Poitiers in 732AD, and crushed by General Allenby’s campaign in Palestine in 1918. To seek to destroy the society, of which you are a member, when you yourself are utterly incapable of running a decent just society which might replace the one you are destroying, is the negation of all coherent policy. It is a mistake, whatever your religion, to view the world’s events through too small a prism; and the suicide bomber has tunnel vision, if anyone has. Whereas in the West, our imagination has produced the extraordinary flowering of our materialistic culture, which has knit together the entire globe in an unprecedented way.