In... Out.... Time for an Overview.

It was well over two years ago now, on the 16th July 2016 to be precise, that having, in the wake of the Brexit referendum, given off yards about ‘that extraordinary act of vandalism, self-harm and misplaced anger’, I wrote that I would ‘take a break from all that nonsense’ as far as commenting in this blog is concerned. I more or less kept to my word, yet it turned out to be a compelling psychodrama for anyone in any way tuned in. You will not have been short of reading material about it, nor discussion if you are any way so inclined, though it has become more and more difficult to communicate with those on the other side of the argument, if such it may be termed. Now that the process is theoretically coming to an end, I will attempt an overview.

What rational debate there has been has been mainly confined to the economic sphere. This has largely been a matter of rustling up whatever plausible arguments that one can muster to reinforce one’s own point of view; it is obvious that economics is very far from an exact science. For what it’s worth, I would have thought the economic factors overwhelmingly point to staying in, but since they are rehearsed ad nauseam elsewhere, by people who should be better qualified than me, I won’t bother with them here. Mind you, some of the leading Brexiteers seem to me totally in cloud cuckoo land as far as economics are concerned. One must seek to understand their motivation elsewhere.

If one should delve in very different spheres, and allude for example to the obvious parallel between Brexit and the English Reformation, again, the chances of deriving enlightenment are slim. Frankly most people have only the vaguest notions about history, prior to 1914, bar the odd raid in a film or something that imparts no meaningful context. Good King Harry and plucky Francis Drake no doubt contributed hugely to the sub-plot of Brave England standing up to them forriners, but again, one is really back to one’s own point of view. What dark paranoia led to Catholic priests being savagely butchered in the market squares of England is hard to fathom.

None of the above provides anything like an adequate narrative for Mrs May's 'different' England. A big part of our problem today is that we have been trying to manage on a very inadequate one; that of the Enlightenment, Progress and Democracy, with a purely individual idea of fulfilment allegedly empowered by technological wizardry, and it is finally proving inadequate, indeed unseaworthy, under present conditions. In their dismay, populists are trying to take us back to national myths, though these failed so catastrophically in the last century. When we consider the EU, to my mind it is in danger of falling apart because it has largely failed to have the courage of its own roots, settling instead for the EnDem narrative with all its limitations.

Just as Brexit clearly relates to the English Reformation, the EU, while it may not like to admit it, relates to the Roman Empire and its successor, the Holy Roman Empire, and finally the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover its symbol is the crown of twelve stars with which Mary was crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth in the book of the Apocalypse, and many of its founding fathers were Roman Catholics. It is based on catholic values of universality, solidarity, subsidiarity, community and dialogue rather than brute power. I do not wish at all to imply that such values are the prerogative of Catholics, nor to deny that all too frequently we have failed to live up to them. I note however that having been effectively taught all down the ages, they were particularly elaborated in the Second Vatican Council, around the time when the EU was taking off. The shock of the ensuing gale, that blew in when the gates and windows of the ‘fortress Church’ were opened, caused such havoc that it may go some way to explaining what to me is the bizarre reactionary stance of some Catholics, who are mostly of the post Vatican II generation, such as Messrs Bannon and Rees-Mogg.

A real catholic narrative has anyway to be rooted in that older narrative which Protestants share. One of the best stories in it is one of the oldest; I mean that of the Tower of Babel. Just a few lines in the Book of Genesis, when men tried to build themselves ‘a tower reaching to heaven’, but the Lord ‘confused their language so that they could not understand each other’, and that was the end of that! Here we still are, trying to secure Heaven on our own terms, finding ourselves at odds with each other, and rejecting the very idea that our only chance of peace on earth and a transcendent fulfilment lies in paying attention to God.

Immediately people will be jumping down my throat to ridicule this idea. How can I say such things after all the violence committed ‘in the name of God’? To which I can only reply that mankind has been violent ever since Cain killed Abel, but who has been showing us the way to peace? Who has even managed to find peace in their own hearts and families, and how do they do so? But to do so, we surely have to try to come to some kind of terms with the rest of the world. I have found that I cannot sit back and see out my days in peace, as best I may, unless I also do what I may to build harmony in the world.

When people argue about climate change, they frequently seem to think that the issue stands by itself. It doesn’t; it is merely one symptom of a massive collision between our contemporary technological version of civilisation and the natural order. Anyone who is at all close to nature realises that this is being rapidly degraded in multiple ways. That climate change is a very clear example of the imperative to achieve a new solidarity among the nations and humility too is presumably why the Duckie and his mates deny it and also loath the EU. At least they thereby acknowledge that the two of them are related.

Where do we begin? How can we make an effective contribution to ensuring that our grandchildren inherit a blessing from us? When all is said and done, is this not one deep desire that we all share? And yet, is there anyone who has a plausible and coherent strategy? It simply cannot happen without a compelling vision of human destiny, of where we are trying to go.

To elaborate such a vision is the business of religion, and as long as we start from the view that religion is hogwash, and mankind’s spiritual journey has proven to be a dead end, then clearly we havn’t the proverbial snowball’s chance in Hell of doing so. In practice all the great religions point in pretty much the same direction, although it seems to me that there is one preeminently thorough and effective expression of it. The narrative goes something like this:-

In our quest for knowledge and power, we became locked into our egos, unhinged and separated from our fellows and from nature. This condition is known as being in a state of original sin, and is inherently destructive. The only way to break out is through personal love; anything less cannot suffice, for to give oneself over to anything less than another person makes us into something less than a person.

Our quest remains that of the New Jerusalem, the City of God. Christ uniquely offers his very body as the locus of that City, continually, dynamically and presently. He is powerfully helped by his mother, who makes it abundantly clear that her son does not come into the world in power as the world understands it, but by humble attention to God’s Word, while the whole business is rooted in physical as well as spiritual reality.

Now, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the whole world has reached a pass where we must either break through into a new solidarity or perish. None of our efforts will be adequate, and sometimes they will be counterproductive and destructive. If their flaws are indeed such that we cannot overcome them, well that is a time of out. Like the rhythm of the seasons, the drumbeat of life goes yes... no..., in... out.... But our last word, if we are not to be finally cast out, must be yes, in, be it done unto me according to thy word!