Former British Prime-Minister Tony Blair and the British press do seem to be a match made…well, somewhere. The Catholic convert has been outraging conservatives ever since he left Downing Street in 2007. In a fascinating symbiosis between Blair and the press, he natters on about religion, which gains him publicity for himself and his foundation, and the media outlets publish his utterances, focusing on his many controversial statements (and perhaps attracting more readers).
What would happen if he shared his perspective on rugby, which some Brits take even more seriously? Riots would probably break out.
Recent articles in the London media outlets covered an interview Blair gave to the British magazine Attitude, which is targeted to the gay market. Ruth Gledhill’s article, posted on Times Online, focused on the portion of the interview, relatively close to the end, that addressed historic and contemporary religious attitudes towards homosexuality in general and those of the Pope in particular.
Note that these comments actually take place in the context of a much longer interview, which you can find linked in Gledhill’s blog. Naturally, Gledhill’s lede pits one enormous public figure against another.
Tony Blair has challenged the “entrenched” attitudes of the Pope on homosexuality, and argued that it is time for him to “rethink” his views.
Speaking to the gay magazine Attitude, the former Prime Minister, himself now a Roman Catholic, said that he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal, and suggested that in time this would make all religious groups accept gay people as equals.
Asked about the Pope’s stance, Mr Blair blamed generational differences and said: “We need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.”
There’s an awful lot going on here. First of all while Blair may or may not have intended to be specifically critical of Pope Benedict, he was responding to a question about Catholic “church leaders” in general.
Here’s what he said when asked to respond to a question about why many of the “world’s most senior religious leaders” in general and the Pope specifically disagree with his position.
To my mind, this is a tremendously revealing quote—and more interesting than suggesting that Blair was tossing a gauntlet at the Pope’s feet (metaphorically speaking, of course, since Blair is apparently such a metaphorical kind of guy).
Again, there is a huge generational difference here. And there’s probably that same fear amongst religious leaders that if you concede ground on an issue like this, because attitudes and thinking evolve over time, where does that end? You’d start having to rethink many, many things. Now, my view is that rethinking is good, so let’s carry on rethinking. Actually, we need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.
Earlier in the Attitude interview, Blair dismissed a literal reading of the Old Testament. It’s not even clear, from his point of view, what he thinks of the Hebrew Scriptures at all — follow his arguments to their logical conclusion, and one might argue that the Hebrew Scriptures are a benighted relic of a less rational time. The lens he applies to traditional religious points of view on homosexual practice is the same lens he seems to apply consistently, that of the supremely rational, self-confident, “progressive” innovator: “rethinking is good, so let’s carry on rethinking.”
Religious thoughts and even texts can evolve over time, argues Blair. Evangelicals (like Saddleback megachurch pastor Rick Warren, who serves on Blair’s Tony Blair Faith Foundation board) can change their minds about gay practice if they are “engaged” in dialogue. And then there is this sentence: “I think that for all religions, the challenge is how do you extract the essential values of the faith from a vast accumulation of doctrine and practice?”
That’s an extraordinary sentence on so many levels. Who gets to define the “central values?” Does one get to ditch the “doctrine and practice” if one doesn’t like it or feels that it is discriminatory? Yet neither Gledhill, nor her colleague Jerome Taylor at The Independent bring in any dissenting voices, or provide any context for Blair’s statements.
One would expect that perhaps in a mainstream media piece his statements would receive some analysis or a challenge from another authority figure —possibly one with some credentials in the religious world. Instead, the media’s usual obssession with personalities blinds them to the bigger story — the self-confidence of a former head of state who seems to believe that if he and others talk persuasively enough, centuries of doctrine will be abandoned and the tide will flow inexorably their way.
 | Posted at 7:00 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (19) |
April 10, 2009, at 7:42 am
At the risk of excessive cynicism on Good Friday, I would expect no such thing. I have grown to expect advocacy on certain issues. Now, were it an article discussing, say, the Resurrection, of course there would be the necessary contradictory voices.
/cynicalmode
To the point, Attitude is hardly a mainstream publication, of course, and Ruth Gledhill is a columnist (although doing a reporter’s work in this column). Still, even columnists ought to found their advocacy on facts, and the fact is that Tony Blair is applying Anglican interpretive principles to a Catholic context. First, Catholic truth is not subject to majority vote. Second (and this is really irritating), it’s not the pope’s personal views at issue here, but Catholic moral theology that has been consistent on this matter for 2000 (with a couple of thousand years of Hebrew belief before that). Could it be re-thought? Probably not: some matters are settled. In any case, Catholic doctrine develops, as a child grows into an adult; it doesn’t change in nature, as a child growing into a dog.
Gledhill’s writing has concerned me before: when you disagree with someone, it’s important to honestly present the matter from their point of view. It makes no sense to critique Catholic doctrine on Anglican terms. I don’t expect Ruth Gledhill to accept Catholic beliefs (though one might have expected Tony Blair to do so at this point). I do expect her to accurately present them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 10, 2009, at 7:52 am
Well, I remain forever hopeful—although I’m not shocked by what happens in many, though not all of, the British media outlets.
Ken, I agree with much of what you said, particularly your point about Catholic moral teaching. But I object to your broad generalzation about “Anglican interpretive principles.” There are roughly 70-80 million Anglicans worldwide, and a lot of disagreement about how to interpret Scripture. These are Tony Blair principles. Look back at his career and his general perspective on how to solve problems (through reason) and you’ll see a thread.
Just as there is not one flavour of Catholic, as we’ve discussed here so many times, there is not one homogenous flavor of Anglicanism. Which is why, as you’ve noticed, we’ve been having some problems recently. (grin)
Blessed Good Friday,
Elizabeth
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 10, 2009, at 8:28 am
That’s a fair point, Elizabeth. Even before the current set of issues, you had the evangelical/reformed types versus those pesky Anglo-catholics. I was thinking more of the western thought dominant in TEC these days, which often seems to think a vote at General Convention justifies whatever a majority agrees upon.
I’ve written this about 5 times trying not to sound snarky and I think I’ll give it up and go have some coffee. I don’t mean ill toward Anglicans in any case: I’ve been Catholic longer than I was Episcopalian, and heaven knows, I have lifetimes of Catholic affairs about which to snark.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 10, 2009, at 9:55 am
Blair converted to the wrong faith. He should have become a Unitarian Universalist.
These days, anybody does, and many do. That, imho, is what is distinct about our age and drives the ARIS numbers that so distress Christian conservatives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 10, 2009, at 10:19 am
Actually, Blair doesn’t seem to realize that the Catholic Church has always believed in rethinking its traditions - has, indeed, institutions and theology to ensure that this be done and done faithfully. It’s a legacy of Blair Protestant roots to see a structural conflict between “the essential values of the faith” and the “vast accumulation of doctrine and practice.” The “vast accumulation of doctrine and practice” IS the faith, precisely as it engages in its “discipline” of prayerfully rethinking its “essential values”!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 10, 2009, at 11:56 am
This post got me thinking of a question: to what extent can a member of a church disagree with the teaching of that church without being accused of heresy (or something very close to heresy). For a Catholic, I assume that should be reserved for someone disagreeing when the Pope speaks ex cathedra but I’m not sure everyone would agree with me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 10, 2009, at 12:52 pm
Jerry,
Yes, there are lots of things on which Catholics can and do disagree. Visit a Catholic blog for some entertainment sometime. It’s not so much the extent to which a person disagrees with the Church, but about what they disagree. Some matters are settled, some are in development, and some aren’t dogma at all. Dr. Ludwig Ott gives a useful taxonomy about the authority which various teachings hold.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 10, 2009, at 4:44 pm
It’s more accurate to say that there is one flavour of official Catholic teaching with many flavours of dissenters and academic speculation - that’s a different situation from Anglicanism which doesn’t seem to have one official set of teachings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 10, 2009, at 4:50 pm
Left out: Catholics also have many flavours of arguing about debatable subjects. All the arguers aren’t dissenters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 10, 2009, at 5:32 pm
Read the full interview here:
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1476
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 10, 2009, at 6:20 pm
“Instead, the media’s usual obssession with personalities blinds them to the bigger story — the self-confidence of a former head of state who seems to believe that if he and others talk persuasively enough, centuries of doctrine will be abandoned and the tide will flow inexorably their way.”
Is that the main story? Really? Wouldn’t it have been better to end this post with the unbiased, astute sentence that comes right before this? — “One would expect that perhaps in a mainstream media piece his statements would receive some analysis or a challenge from another authority figure —possibly one with some credentials in the religious world.”
Question the lack of a balanced perspective, yes, but why the need to openly question the man’s positions? “Metaphorically speaking, of course, since Blair is apparently such a metaphorical kind of guy” and “he natters on about religion” seem like bits of snark that are totally unnecessary to the post’s critique of media coverage.
Then there are the weasel words: “seems to believe” (how does this blog like it when a story on Easter states, “Catholics seem to believe that Christ rose from the dead on this day), the subtle condescension of speaking of efforts to affect change in a religious tradition as merely “talking persuasively enough,” and the dramatic “centuries of doctrine will be abandoned” — a near cousin to this blog’s usual rhetorical sledgehammer of “traditional.”
What I’m trying to get at is that Tony Blair might be a bit ridiculous, but something that worries me about this post (and certain other posts over the last few months) is the way in which it basically denies the legitimacy of any progressive religious point of view, not just Blair’s. After all, it’s not just Blair who is silly to hold dissenting views within his religious tradition, right? It’s “he and others.”
Tmatt has on many occasions defended this blog as being open to critiquing articles that fail to adequately cover the religious left as well as the right — but recently the largely right-leaning positions of the bloggers have been coming out more and more. That’s fine, obviously (it’s a blog), but as a left-leaning Christian who has read this blog almost every day for over a year now, lately it’s been becoming a bit difficult to read some of its posts without wincing. It feels like a hostile environment.
Yes, the media is clearly biased in favor of liberalism and secularism, so by all means continue to point that out. But reading parts of the Old Testament symbolically, relying on dialogue and discussion as a legitimate way to discern changes to religious practice, and the belief that “religious thoughts and even texts can evolve over time,” are all important parts of progressive religious traditions. It’s uncomfortable to have to wade through posts filled with subtle snark and half-concealed denigration to be able to read the intelligent media commentary that this blog rarely fails to produce. I’m still a fan; I just don’t feel very welcome.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 10, 2009, at 6:22 pm
Oh, and I can’t help it, but I have to note the irony of this particular post being written by a female priest. “Centuries of doctrine will be abandoned and the tide will flow inexorably their way,” indeed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 10, 2009, at 6:41 pm
I’m not sure what it means to “rethink” something as opposed to just “think” about it. “Rethinking” seems though to be considered a good thing only with regard to ideas that are presumed to be defective.
Over the last 50 years the Church has pondered sexuality issues in greater depth than anyone. The result: Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body and a growing sense that Humanae Vitae was a prophetic document. Maybe Tony Blair should take his own advice, and start to do some “rethinking.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 10, 2009, at 9:32 pm
Nitpicky note: Tony Blair was never a head of state - Queen Elizabeth is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 10, 2009, at 10:13 pm
Elanor — you are quite right. My mistake.
Ah, Nick — there is so much here that I’m not sure where to begin.
Let’s start with your second comment. If you’d like to engage that one email me (it will also go to my colleagues, but they can ignore it) at the story suggestion email with my name in the header. No point dragging our commenters into a whole conversation on women’s ordination.
I concede the snark in “natters on about religion” — that’s a sentence that should have gotten re-written. And if you continue to see snark in my posts, feel free to call me on it.
But I will stand by my last sentence in this post. I don’t think Blair is a “bit ridiculous” — do you? He seems extraordinarily self confident — and in opposition to the doctrinal position of his chosen church! Because the journalists didn’t offer another perspective to balance his, his bold viewpoint was particularly striking.
As to your other point— what do you think has changed lately (I hope it’s not my presence on the team) and what can be done to provide left-leaners like you with more coverage from the progressives? I can’t speak for the rest of our team, but if you see a piece that you feel unfairly slams progressives, send it my way.
Elizabeth
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 10, 2009, at 11:22 pm
Elizabeth, if this is too far afield, go ahead and spike, but if I may, I’ve been mulling over Jerry’s point since reading the “Seamless garment of life” discussion below. The seamless garment argument is often used to push agendas, without respect to actual Catholic doctrine. That is true from all directions, liberal and conservative, and reporters seem unable to parse out the actual facts from the spin.
I made a comment in the other thread that garment isn’t seamless, though it is intact. The seams in the garment are in the distinction between abortion and euthanasia, which are always and everywhere intrinsically evil, and the exceptions to capital punishment (when necessary to protect human life) and peace issues, which allows for the “just war”. Another “seam” is notable in the area of economic justice, where we can differ on means to the end.
When these distinctions are subordinated to social agendas (again, from left or right), it’s incumbent on reporters to get past the spin to the facts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2009, at 1:19 am
Somehow, I am getting very confused by this. My understanding is that doctrine refers to unknowable things like the Trinity which are accepted on faith. Doctrine expresses the teachings on what is not subject to direct knowlege. So, I can not understand how issues that are subject to empirical study get lumped in with the Hyperstatic (?) Union. Both Gay and birth control issues can be studied in ways that produce verifiable information. From these empirical findings we can begin to understand what to do. Very confusing situation here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 11, 2009, at 8:33 am
Ken, not a problem, I appreciate your point of view on this issue.
Dalea, my understanding of doctrine is that it is teaching or instruction (catechesis) in the faith — which leaves us a lot of wriggle room, doesn’t it?
My friends in separatist churches in the Anglican tradition would assert that say, ordaining women or gays (not that I’m neccesarily putting them in the same basket, because the arguments are different) deviates from what the church has taught througout the centuries. What we believe about what we know may be as important as what we “know” (or even what we believe we know, because sometimes we are wrong). Interestingly these arguments go on among nonbelievers, too— but they are called “political” or “moral” disputes rather than “doctrinal ones.” Very complicated.
AND I would not presume to say what Tony Blair thinks doctrine is — but he does seem to be a bit skeptical of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 3, 2009, at 3:25 pm
.
Oddly, I keep getting the opposite impression.. that the MSM thinks that “Catholic doctrine” is whatever Big Papa says. Hence the incessant references to “the Pope’s position” as though it was some bright idea he just came up with. They seem to think that the Pope can get up one morning and announce, e.g., “Homosexuality is now okay”. They see no difference between this and (purported) endorsement of Ptolemaic astronomy in their version of The Galileo Story— both are just matters of “the Church admitting it was wrong.”
And on other things people don’t get—- Blair is NOT “A former head of state”. The head of state is STILL Her Majesty the Queen. He is a former HEAD OF GOVERNMENT.
Americans are persistent offenders in this regard, as this is one of the few countries where the same person holds both positions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0