One of the stated aims of Renewal and Reform, the CofE's national vision and strategy* for the next generation, is to increase the number of people being ordained each year by 50%.
In their (our!) own words - The Church of England is seeking an increase of 50% in the number of candidates for
ordained ministry. This means an increase in numbers per annum from around 500 to
750 in the overall annual cohort. The Church is seeking both numerical growth and an
increase in diversity within the cohort of ordinands so that it reflects the communities in
wider society where the Church is engaged in mission, in terms of age, gender and ethnic
and social background.
Stats released last week give some background to what this might look like. I've not detected much response in the blogosphere as yet (Ian Paul, comments at Thinking Anglicans). I posted a few thoughts of my own the other day, and here are some more.
,
1. Firstly, great. Every time I come across someone who feels God is calling them into leadership in the CofE, I'm delighted. Not just because I know what a privilege it is, but also that it's a sign that God isn't quite done with us yet as a church. Whatever else is going on, God wouldn't be calling people into this ministry if we were making a complete pigs ear of it.
2. Increasing the number of ordinands by 50% will mean a rise of 150 in those ordained to paid full-time ministry to 450 per year. The average age at ordination is 41, add on 4 years for a curacy, and retirement at 65, and you have a long-term stipendiary workforce of 9000 clergy. That's 1300 more than we have at the moment. By the time we get to this figure, the UK population will have increased by another 10m to 75m, so there'll still be plenty to do. If the CofE succeeds in lowering the age profile, we may have closer to 10,000.
3. But.... there are several big issues, some practical and some theological, that we really need to deal with, and I'm not sure if we are doing:
a) At the moment we are ordaining almost exactly the same numbers as those retiring from ordination. so whilst the main narrative around the drop in clergy numbers is retirements (25% of those in my diocese are due to retire in the next 5 years), there is another major factor. On average we ordain 290 people a year, 280 clergy per year retire or die, and another 300 per year leave to do Something Else.
b) Something Else #1 2500 ordained clergy are in chaplaincies or other non-parish appointments. The CofE projections assume this will stay the same for the forseeable future. Why then do we train all clergy for parish ministry? Why is every curacy served in a parish setting? CofE training is front-loaded (2-3 years in college/theological course then 3-4 years in a curacy), and apart from the occasional specialist placement, the main focus of activity, training, and ministry models is the parish. This seems like a spectacular waste of resources on two fronts. Firstly that many of those thus trained will end up in a different setting to the one they were trained for, and secondly that the model is designed for a static society and ministry setting (what you learn when you're 25 will serve you well at 65). Spreading learning and training throughout ministry makes more sense, as it can be better tailored, and more responsive to context.
c) Something Else #2 About 100 clergy per year leave the role before retirement, and we have no idea where they go or what they do. In other words, for every 3 people ordained, one will drop out. We may have to revise that 9,000 figure down a bit. If the attrition rate remains the same, there'll be 150 clergy per year dropping out if the ordination targets are hit. Some of these clergy are dropping out for health reasons, others for stress, others because (often stress is a factor) they've done something that makes remaining a vicar untenable. There's evidence that we could support clergy much better than we do, and my own experience is consistent with that. On more than one occasion I haven't been very far from becoming a clergy casualty, and each time stress and lack of support have been key factors. This resignation statement is from a US church leader, but would probably find an echo amongst many CofE clergy.
d) We owe it to the future clergy we are praying for to look at what they are being called to do. There are attempts to simplify what the CofE does, but a do-able job description, realistic expectations from parishes, and greater sharing of ministry between lay and ordained are all vital. George Herbert may be long dead but his ghost still stalks the vestry of a thousand parishes, whispering of home communions and Morning and Evening Prayer, heard in echo every time someone complains 'the vicar hasn't visited'. I was stunned to hear the Herbert model advocated by a CofE college principal not that long ago.
e) Digging still deeper, what about 'ministry' itself? The CofE claims to follow the historic pattern of 'Bishops, Priests and Deacons'. Sure, and I use the Book of Common Prayer every day. The role of CofE bishop is a long way away from the bishop/overseers of the New Testament, who were in team leadership of local churches. Deacons, with a handful of exceptions, are a holding bay for apprentice priests, it's what you are for 12 months after initial ordination. We still have only 1 full-blown licensed lay ministry (lay Reader), despite having lay gifts in evangelism, pastoral care, discipleship, healing, preaching, worship leading, organisational leadership, children/youth/womens/mens/older persons ministry etc. And by restricting leadership at communion to priests, promoting communion itself as the be all and end all of worship, and amalgamating parishes, we have created a situation where every Sunday hundreds of vicars are driving from church to church to wave wafers at small groups of people, whilst never having the time to have a proper conversation with any of them.
There has to be a better way, and there has to be a better theology - of church leadership, of worship, of the church as the body of Christ and people of God.
f) Before we invest a lot of money finding, vetting, training and deploying new ordinands, we need to invest some energy in looking at the system we are putting then into. How much investment is needed to support 1 vicar in post, to keep them from that one mistake which will potentially destroy them, their family and their congregation, compared to the investment needed to train up their replacement? Not so long ago, some parishioners of a clergyman I know wrote a letter to his Archdeacon, complaining about something trivial. Because they'd had it in writing, the Archdeacon told this faithful vicar that the Diocese couldn't offer him support, as they were now involved in a complaints process. I'm sorry but that's disgraceful. We must do better.
I'm delighted that at last the CofE has woken up to the facts, and is doing something, I'm glad that before anything else we're being encouraged to pray. I hope that we let the dominoes keep falling - becoming a mission-shaped church will change our thinking about church, ministry, training, priesthood, and a whole host of other things. Historically, our thinking about church life hasn't been shaped by mission, so it shouldn't be a surprise if we have to rethink pretty much everything. Bring it on.
*5 years ago this phrase would have been a cartoon caption. I still have to pinch myself that it's a reality, after years of wittering on about the fact we don't have one.
Showing posts with label Bishops. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bishops. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
New story, old url: the Telegraph and the Bishop of Greater London
May the Farce Be With You: there was a brief flutter this morning over a Telegraph story headlined 'Bishops Condemn CofE over Cinema Advert'.
If you visit the story now, you'll see that the headline and article have completely changed, but the url hasn't. The Bishops in question in the original (you only need 2 to make a plural) were Steven Croft, Bishop of Sheffield, who wasn't criticising the CofE at all (which the new article recognises), and the 'Bishop of Greater London', who is nothing to do with the Church of England, Here's a bit about his 'Open Episcopal Church', though his work seems to be as more of a freelance celebrant and campaigner. He doesn't seem that keen on the Lords Prayer either, which is odd for a bishop.
Credit to the Telegraph for correcting the story, but not much for posting it in the first place. It almost looked like an informal competition with the Sun for most misleading headline of the week.
The whole business does raise the interesting question of DIY clergy titles. What other clergy with impressive titles are lurking out there, waiting to be uncovered? If the CofE missed Greater London, what other parts of the UK could be ripe for episcopal/ceremonial recognition? It could be quite a lucrative trade, the ecclesiastical equivalent of personalised number plates. Canon Precentor of Marks and Spencer? Pioneer Archdeacon of Helvellyn? The Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells could be a proper title at last, with the added bonus of getting quoted by national newspapers looking for a headline.
If you visit the story now, you'll see that the headline and article have completely changed, but the url hasn't. The Bishops in question in the original (you only need 2 to make a plural) were Steven Croft, Bishop of Sheffield, who wasn't criticising the CofE at all (which the new article recognises), and the 'Bishop of Greater London', who is nothing to do with the Church of England, Here's a bit about his 'Open Episcopal Church', though his work seems to be as more of a freelance celebrant and campaigner. He doesn't seem that keen on the Lords Prayer either, which is odd for a bishop.
Credit to the Telegraph for correcting the story, but not much for posting it in the first place. It almost looked like an informal competition with the Sun for most misleading headline of the week.
The whole business does raise the interesting question of DIY clergy titles. What other clergy with impressive titles are lurking out there, waiting to be uncovered? If the CofE missed Greater London, what other parts of the UK could be ripe for episcopal/ceremonial recognition? It could be quite a lucrative trade, the ecclesiastical equivalent of personalised number plates. Canon Precentor of Marks and Spencer? Pioneer Archdeacon of Helvellyn? The Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells could be a proper title at last, with the added bonus of getting quoted by national newspapers looking for a headline.
Saturday, October 03, 2015
London: Lessons for the Church of England
A couple of days ago Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, delivered a lecture on the remarkable turnaround in the Diocese of London. For the last 20 years, London has been just about the only place in the CofE which has been growing, whilst all but 1 of the other 42 Dioceses have been shrinking, some at an alarming rate.
In terms of England, London is an exceptional place, but there are other Dioceses (Southwark, Chelmsford) which also cover parts of the capital, and there are particular things that London Diocese has done that others could learn from. Some will be more controversial than others.
Here's a few of them, with some quotes from the lecture.
The mission of the church is to all sectors of society, not just the most vulnerable: We can regret this now, but at the time it seemed to be inevitable and even meritorious that the Church should retreat from what could be regarded as imperial over-reach to associate itself with the voiceless in the back streets. Sympathy with vulnerable local communities also led the church into sustained opposition to major new developments, notably Canary Wharf where no attempt was made to establish a Christian presence in what was effectively a new town with a working population which now exceeds that of Leicester.
Scrap the boards: there was an energy-sapping superstructure of boards and committees for Mission, Unity, Ministry, Social Responsibility and the like, all of which had been established during the period of decline with the professed aim of widening participation in decision-making and stimulating action. The result, of course, was the very opposite as I discovered as Chairman of the Board of Ministry. Over-worked members of the Diocesan staff found themselves discussing the same issues over and over again in slightly different forums. There were ideas in plenty and not a few “initiatives” but little energy left over for implementation..........No one has ever said to me “if only we had a Board of Mission we would have done some mission”. Instead a black hole of energy was closed and, as a result, effort directed to supporting those individuals and places which signalled life and possessed the missionary gene.....We significantly reduced the number of Diocesan advisers in the belief that financial resources were better deployed in local mission initiatives.
Back the missionaries, even if they aren't your type: The local hierarchy was unwilling to see HTB as much more than a conventional parish in the Area, and in particular was keen to restrict the numbers of curates that the Church could employ, even though there was finance available to enlarge the staff. The restrictions were fuelled by a liberal distaste for charismatic evangelicalism and a conviction that the supply of curates should be evenly spread throughout the Diocese, irrespective of the capacity to pay
parish clergy need to be held to account: in one parish which sociologically offered good prospects for the Church of England, an elderly single- handed parson was replaced by the standard bearer for one of the extreme churchmanship factions. The new man was given two able curates financed by the London Diocesan Fund, and within two years the electoral roll which had stood at 110 had been reduced to 75. It apparently occurred to no one that this was a scandalous situation. What right had any outsider to criticise parochial policies?
Technique is no substitute for holiness: The one thing that cannot be delegated is one’s own prayer and study of the scriptures. An MBA in ecclesiastical administration is no substitute for the development of a beginner’s mind and acquiring the teachability with which the Spirit can work.
Find new purposes for old buildings: Chartres gives several examples of redundant churches which were given a new focus - e.g. as a centre for reconciliation. Not every building has to be used to house a congregation, but neither do they all have to be sold off.
Abolish the 'tax on growth' system of collecting funds from parishes to finance the work of the church: We reduced the mysteries of the old formula by inviting each parish to pay for its ministry costs .... Well-financed parishes were encouraged to pay over the odds to support Christian ministry in areas of need. The effect was to abolish the fine on growth and release money to be spent close to where it was raised. It proved to be possible to support the work of the church in less affluent areas although, as so often, parishes which had been subsidised proved willing and able to rise to the challenge of greater self-sufficiency.
Reform Diocesan structures so that people are accountable for their actions, and pursue a shared vision: Unity in the Diocesan team and in the structure of the Diocese has been an important ingredient in being able to pursue consistent policies addressed to growth.
The current way of ever more thinly spread clergy is not sustainable: The healthier financial situation enabled the diocese to avoid the widespread formula of reducing clergy numbers by multiplying the number of churches for which an individual cleric is responsible. This may be an effective cost-cutting strategy but it is not an effective mission strategy and is calculated only to maintain congregations rather than growing them.
In terms of England, London is an exceptional place, but there are other Dioceses (Southwark, Chelmsford) which also cover parts of the capital, and there are particular things that London Diocese has done that others could learn from. Some will be more controversial than others.
Here's a few of them, with some quotes from the lecture.
The mission of the church is to all sectors of society, not just the most vulnerable: We can regret this now, but at the time it seemed to be inevitable and even meritorious that the Church should retreat from what could be regarded as imperial over-reach to associate itself with the voiceless in the back streets. Sympathy with vulnerable local communities also led the church into sustained opposition to major new developments, notably Canary Wharf where no attempt was made to establish a Christian presence in what was effectively a new town with a working population which now exceeds that of Leicester.
Scrap the boards: there was an energy-sapping superstructure of boards and committees for Mission, Unity, Ministry, Social Responsibility and the like, all of which had been established during the period of decline with the professed aim of widening participation in decision-making and stimulating action. The result, of course, was the very opposite as I discovered as Chairman of the Board of Ministry. Over-worked members of the Diocesan staff found themselves discussing the same issues over and over again in slightly different forums. There were ideas in plenty and not a few “initiatives” but little energy left over for implementation..........No one has ever said to me “if only we had a Board of Mission we would have done some mission”. Instead a black hole of energy was closed and, as a result, effort directed to supporting those individuals and places which signalled life and possessed the missionary gene.....We significantly reduced the number of Diocesan advisers in the belief that financial resources were better deployed in local mission initiatives.
Back the missionaries, even if they aren't your type: The local hierarchy was unwilling to see HTB as much more than a conventional parish in the Area, and in particular was keen to restrict the numbers of curates that the Church could employ, even though there was finance available to enlarge the staff. The restrictions were fuelled by a liberal distaste for charismatic evangelicalism and a conviction that the supply of curates should be evenly spread throughout the Diocese, irrespective of the capacity to pay
parish clergy need to be held to account: in one parish which sociologically offered good prospects for the Church of England, an elderly single- handed parson was replaced by the standard bearer for one of the extreme churchmanship factions. The new man was given two able curates financed by the London Diocesan Fund, and within two years the electoral roll which had stood at 110 had been reduced to 75. It apparently occurred to no one that this was a scandalous situation. What right had any outsider to criticise parochial policies?
Technique is no substitute for holiness: The one thing that cannot be delegated is one’s own prayer and study of the scriptures. An MBA in ecclesiastical administration is no substitute for the development of a beginner’s mind and acquiring the teachability with which the Spirit can work.
Find new purposes for old buildings: Chartres gives several examples of redundant churches which were given a new focus - e.g. as a centre for reconciliation. Not every building has to be used to house a congregation, but neither do they all have to be sold off.
Abolish the 'tax on growth' system of collecting funds from parishes to finance the work of the church: We reduced the mysteries of the old formula by inviting each parish to pay for its ministry costs .... Well-financed parishes were encouraged to pay over the odds to support Christian ministry in areas of need. The effect was to abolish the fine on growth and release money to be spent close to where it was raised. It proved to be possible to support the work of the church in less affluent areas although, as so often, parishes which had been subsidised proved willing and able to rise to the challenge of greater self-sufficiency.
Reform Diocesan structures so that people are accountable for their actions, and pursue a shared vision: Unity in the Diocesan team and in the structure of the Diocese has been an important ingredient in being able to pursue consistent policies addressed to growth.
The current way of ever more thinly spread clergy is not sustainable: The healthier financial situation enabled the diocese to avoid the widespread formula of reducing clergy numbers by multiplying the number of churches for which an individual cleric is responsible. This may be an effective cost-cutting strategy but it is not an effective mission strategy and is calculated only to maintain congregations rather than growing them.
The parish system is good, but it's not enough: It is obvious that, while there is huge virtue in the parish church ideal, the parochial system in the Church of England, with its excess of law, is open to being manipulated by small groups who wish to frustrate unwelcome mission initiatives. In an urban setting, while flexible agreements about areas of pastoral care for each parish church are clearly desirable, mission to networks that are not principally defined geographically argues for an unfreezing of rigid parochial boundaries that have long since ceased to correspond to sociological realities.
criticise well, or don't criticise at all: Publically expressed and constructive criticism should always be welcome, but subversives, “weevils of the commonwealth”, those who damage morale by cynicism and gossip have to be weeded out.
Invest in church planting: ....our pledge of establishing 100 new worshipping communities in London by 2020 ...My prayer is that it will be possible to learn from our experience -- and especially our mistakes -- so that other places will be able to surpass our successes.
Recognise where to engage: The need for greater clarity and a confident response to the incessant propaganda directed against so called “faith schools” has been recognised in the Diocese, and is one of the themes of Capital Vision 2020 which has risen to the top of the agenda in the current year.
sorry about the uneven formatting! Good old Blogger....
Update: Cranmer has also done a presee of the lecture, with chunky quotes from it. Imitation is the sincerest form.... ;-)
Update: Cranmer has also done a presee of the lecture, with chunky quotes from it. Imitation is the sincerest form.... ;-)
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
In Praise of the Green Report
Nearly half of the Church of Englands paid employees think the CofE is 'Bad' or 'Quite Bad' at supporting and developing talent (full data here p9). You would therefore think that a report addressing how we could do this better would be greeted with delight. Not so.
The 'Green Report', an internal report which seems to have been intended for publication this month, was leaked/announced by the Church Times just before Christmas. To say the CT wasn't impressed was putting it mildly. A lot of vigorous discussion followed (links here, here, here, here, and now a new set based on the report getting an award from the FT for opaque English)
The report addresses two unquestionable issues
1. The Church of England faces a time of massive challenge and change. Society is changing fast, and the CofE, on current trends and in its current form, does not have a long term future.
2. Training and development of clergy is inadequate, to put it kindly. For the report, the focus is senior leadership (principally bishops and cathedral deans), but this is a specific instance of a more general problem. (something the Church Times itself has recognised)
The focus of the report is the current training and induction of Bishops and senior clergy, and the development of generations of future leaders for the CofE. It looks at how to align this training with the stated priorities of the CofE (growth, reshaping ministry, and contributing to the common good), and how best to develop the senior leaders the CofE will need in the future.
Justin Welby explains part of the rationale, probably better than the report itself:
We talk much about discernment and do little as an institution. To leave the discernment of a vocation to the episcopacy to the brief moment of a CNC* is absurd. One cannot leave it that late. The process of the Green Report enables discernment to be carried out in a thoughtful and sustained manner over a period of a number of years, with excellent pastoral care for those who are not going to be appointed to senior posts. It is also absolutely essential that we have institutional structures that are seen to be fair and just. The experience of too many is one of profound rejection after a period of extreme crisis.
There's always a suspicion that some of those criticising the report haven't actually read it, so here's a few quotes to give a flavour:
The report states that internal trainers and theological colleges 'failed to provide sufficient challenge' for senior leadership development in the CofE, which may or may not explain why one former theological college principle has been a highly vocal critic of the report.
I was at theological college in the 1990s, and whilst the theological and some of the practical training was good, training related to leadership was non-existent. At no point did the college seriously address issues of character, holiness and integrity, at no point did we look at how you develop teams, identify gifts, lead change, set a vision or grow a church. Yes we could theologically reflect with the best of them, and we could empathise until some of us were past oral caring. It was only when I was invited to join the Arrow Leadership Programme at CPAS, 2 years into my curacry, that I discovered what was missing. The vague uneasiness I'd had at theological college that we were skirting round something fundamental turned out to be right. Here was a whole stack of perspectives, insights, personal challenges and skills that have turned out to be indispensable to me in local church leadership.
In identifying future leaders, the Green Report proposes a 'talent pool', a rolling 5 year programme of spiritual and leadership development (yes, spiritual development, it's not all business-speak) for people identified as having the potential for senior posts. Critics of this speak as though the 'talent pool' was being imposed upon a void. Far from it. Patronage societies, old boys networks, theological networks, there is an array of informal 'talent pools' already at work within the CofE. Look at the appointments made by Robert Runcie when he was ABofC. Do we want the best people in our senior leadership roles, or just the best connected?
It's also clear that those in leadership need more support and help with issues of integrity and spirituality. Chris Brain, Mark Stibbe, Mark Driscoll, and plenty of ordinary parish clergy: every year there are new additions to the casuality list of people who lost it personally, theologically, or spiritually and crashed off the road. The more demanding CofE ministry becomes, the better prepared and supported our leaders, and especially our senior leaders, need to be.
And what is better, a new bishop who has the role sprung on them, or someone who's already had time to think, learn, experience and prepare? Jesus is clear fairly early on with Peter that he'll have the foundational role in the early church, but he has a few years of apprenticeship to serve first. We face the same issue with any position of responsibility in the church - churchwarden, childrens leader etc. We're not great at planning ahead, and many of these roles are filled by the last person to say no, rather than someone who's been prepared and trained up. Lets face it, the CofE is poor at this across the board.
If we are to be good stewards of the gifts that the Spirit has given the church, then we should do our best to develop them. And this needs to happen all the way through the church. Talent spotting (or 'discernment' to use the churchy word) needs to be normal good practice for everyone from the home group leader to the Diocesan Bishop. And not only spotting talent, but developing it, supporting it, and making sure practical and personal gifts are deeply integrated with prayer and character. The Green report seems to me to be a step in the right direction.
*Crown Nominations Commission, which appoints bishops
Update: for a very helpful executive summary of the Green report, go to this post at Useful in Parts. also has a rolling list of links to comments and commentary.
The 'Green Report', an internal report which seems to have been intended for publication this month, was leaked/announced by the Church Times just before Christmas. To say the CT wasn't impressed was putting it mildly. A lot of vigorous discussion followed (links here, here, here, here, and now a new set based on the report getting an award from the FT for opaque English)
The report addresses two unquestionable issues
1. The Church of England faces a time of massive challenge and change. Society is changing fast, and the CofE, on current trends and in its current form, does not have a long term future.
2. Training and development of clergy is inadequate, to put it kindly. For the report, the focus is senior leadership (principally bishops and cathedral deans), but this is a specific instance of a more general problem. (something the Church Times itself has recognised)
The focus of the report is the current training and induction of Bishops and senior clergy, and the development of generations of future leaders for the CofE. It looks at how to align this training with the stated priorities of the CofE (growth, reshaping ministry, and contributing to the common good), and how best to develop the senior leaders the CofE will need in the future.
Justin Welby explains part of the rationale, probably better than the report itself:
We talk much about discernment and do little as an institution. To leave the discernment of a vocation to the episcopacy to the brief moment of a CNC* is absurd. One cannot leave it that late. The process of the Green Report enables discernment to be carried out in a thoughtful and sustained manner over a period of a number of years, with excellent pastoral care for those who are not going to be appointed to senior posts. It is also absolutely essential that we have institutional structures that are seen to be fair and just. The experience of too many is one of profound rejection after a period of extreme crisis.
There's always a suspicion that some of those criticising the report haven't actually read it, so here's a few quotes to give a flavour:
the aim is to "develop clergy of exceptional leadership potential to make
a significant impact in every area of the Church’s endeavour, and to be more
open to the emergence of leaders from a wider variety of background and range
of skills than is currently predictable... the church must be more intentional about drawing in those
with high potential who do not appear to ‘fit in’ "
‘the
goal is more ministry, not more bureaucracy’
“This generation of leaders faces a huge challenge in terms
of balancing the development of their spiritual life and developing the skills
needed to lead the Church through a period of profound change. These leaders have
received little (or no) leadership training to prepare them for the challenge."
“the current MDR (on the job training for clergy) process is too fragmented and of variable quality
to provide a suitable foundation for talent and leadership development
processes”
The report states that internal trainers and theological colleges 'failed to provide sufficient challenge' for senior leadership development in the CofE, which may or may not explain why one former theological college principle has been a highly vocal critic of the report.
I was at theological college in the 1990s, and whilst the theological and some of the practical training was good, training related to leadership was non-existent. At no point did the college seriously address issues of character, holiness and integrity, at no point did we look at how you develop teams, identify gifts, lead change, set a vision or grow a church. Yes we could theologically reflect with the best of them, and we could empathise until some of us were past oral caring. It was only when I was invited to join the Arrow Leadership Programme at CPAS, 2 years into my curacry, that I discovered what was missing. The vague uneasiness I'd had at theological college that we were skirting round something fundamental turned out to be right. Here was a whole stack of perspectives, insights, personal challenges and skills that have turned out to be indispensable to me in local church leadership.
In identifying future leaders, the Green Report proposes a 'talent pool', a rolling 5 year programme of spiritual and leadership development (yes, spiritual development, it's not all business-speak) for people identified as having the potential for senior posts. Critics of this speak as though the 'talent pool' was being imposed upon a void. Far from it. Patronage societies, old boys networks, theological networks, there is an array of informal 'talent pools' already at work within the CofE. Look at the appointments made by Robert Runcie when he was ABofC. Do we want the best people in our senior leadership roles, or just the best connected?
It's also clear that those in leadership need more support and help with issues of integrity and spirituality. Chris Brain, Mark Stibbe, Mark Driscoll, and plenty of ordinary parish clergy: every year there are new additions to the casuality list of people who lost it personally, theologically, or spiritually and crashed off the road. The more demanding CofE ministry becomes, the better prepared and supported our leaders, and especially our senior leaders, need to be.
And what is better, a new bishop who has the role sprung on them, or someone who's already had time to think, learn, experience and prepare? Jesus is clear fairly early on with Peter that he'll have the foundational role in the early church, but he has a few years of apprenticeship to serve first. We face the same issue with any position of responsibility in the church - churchwarden, childrens leader etc. We're not great at planning ahead, and many of these roles are filled by the last person to say no, rather than someone who's been prepared and trained up. Lets face it, the CofE is poor at this across the board.
If we are to be good stewards of the gifts that the Spirit has given the church, then we should do our best to develop them. And this needs to happen all the way through the church. Talent spotting (or 'discernment' to use the churchy word) needs to be normal good practice for everyone from the home group leader to the Diocesan Bishop. And not only spotting talent, but developing it, supporting it, and making sure practical and personal gifts are deeply integrated with prayer and character. The Green report seems to me to be a step in the right direction.
*Crown Nominations Commission, which appoints bishops
Update: for a very helpful executive summary of the Green report, go to this post at Useful in Parts. also has a rolling list of links to comments and commentary.
Monday, November 17, 2014
First Woman Bishop: The Shortlist
The CofE is to have women bishops, or 'bishops' as they'll now be known. Leaving aside the tenuous link between current practice and the actual role of a bishop in the Bible, there's bound to be a flood of 'who'll be the first one?' blogs and articles.
I've already given my suggestions for Archbishop of Canterbury after Rowan Williams stepped down, which were roundly ignored, but undeterred.....
Teresa May: plenty of experience with public school/Oxbridge educated colleagues, so no problems with the House of Bishops. Won a personal battle with Michael Gove in the cabinet, so the church school and Guardian-reading constituency is sewn up.
Clara Oswald: has spent most of the last year trying to deal with a crotchety old man with limited social skills. Don't worry, there are plenty more out there and they'll start writing to you in longhand from about your 3rd week onwards.
Tess Daly: plenty of experience trying to make discouraged adults feel better after they've spent all week preparing, and given their all in front of a room full of people, only to get harsh comments from folk who sit in the same seats week after week, and watch but never do anything.
Emma Watson: sooner or later there's bound to be a 'she only got the job because she's young and pretty' so lets just get it out the way now. After all, who cares that she's talented and intelligent?
Tinky Winky: purple, carries a handbag, and wears a three-cornered bit of headgear which is clearly a prototype mitre. Subliminal advertising for women bishops which has clearly played a major part in todays vote.
Fiona Bruce: carries a suitable air of authority and can hit a moving parishioner with an arched eyebrow at 60 paces. Good CV: Crimewatch for minor infringements of canon law, Call My Bluff for dealing with Reform and other lobby groups, and Antiques Roadshow for pretty much everything else.
Olivia Colman: already knows the CofE inside out from being a vicars wife in Rev., and now heads up something called Broad Church, a community of people with troubled histories who are struggling to get on with each other. Hang on, has she been consecrated already?
any more suggestions?
I've already given my suggestions for Archbishop of Canterbury after Rowan Williams stepped down, which were roundly ignored, but undeterred.....
Teresa May: plenty of experience with public school/Oxbridge educated colleagues, so no problems with the House of Bishops. Won a personal battle with Michael Gove in the cabinet, so the church school and Guardian-reading constituency is sewn up.
Clara Oswald: has spent most of the last year trying to deal with a crotchety old man with limited social skills. Don't worry, there are plenty more out there and they'll start writing to you in longhand from about your 3rd week onwards.
Tess Daly: plenty of experience trying to make discouraged adults feel better after they've spent all week preparing, and given their all in front of a room full of people, only to get harsh comments from folk who sit in the same seats week after week, and watch but never do anything.
Emma Watson: sooner or later there's bound to be a 'she only got the job because she's young and pretty' so lets just get it out the way now. After all, who cares that she's talented and intelligent?
Tinky Winky: purple, carries a handbag, and wears a three-cornered bit of headgear which is clearly a prototype mitre. Subliminal advertising for women bishops which has clearly played a major part in todays vote.
Fiona Bruce: carries a suitable air of authority and can hit a moving parishioner with an arched eyebrow at 60 paces. Good CV: Crimewatch for minor infringements of canon law, Call My Bluff for dealing with Reform and other lobby groups, and Antiques Roadshow for pretty much everything else.
Olivia Colman: already knows the CofE inside out from being a vicars wife in Rev., and now heads up something called Broad Church, a community of people with troubled histories who are struggling to get on with each other. Hang on, has she been consecrated already?
any more suggestions?
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Women Bishops: The Morning After
Do you ever have those chats where the other person takes ages to get round to what they wanted to say in the first place? It's felt a bit like that as a vicar in the CofE over the last few years - we were going to get round to having women bishops (or 'bishops' as they're now called) eventually, but by 'eck it's taken a long time.
Self-indulgently long in fact.
I tweeted a couple of things on the #synod hashtag yesterday, which got 75 retweets/favourites between them, so must have struck a chord:
"Looking forward to the day when 85 people want to speak at #synod about evangelism" (85 people had indicated that they wanted to speak in the debate)
"Well done #synod, good call. Now back to that tedious old stuff about making disciples of all nations."
It's scandalous that we have taken up so much time, energy and angst over this - yes it's an important issue, but I don't see people queueing up to talk at General Synod about the main thing Jesus set the church up for in the first place, to make disciples of all nations (involving baptising new believers and teaching them the ways of Jesus). It doesn't matter whether a man, a woman or a goat is dressed in a purple shirt if we are not actually making disciples. Yes lets get this right, but lets also remember that it's not the main thing.
Alongside this - and this is where I get thrown out of the CofE completely - is whether we really understand what a bishop is in the first place. The CofE claims to have a 'threefold order of bishops, priests, and deacons'. It doesn't of course, it only has a twofold order of bishops and priests, Deacons used to be a holding pattern for women who were called to the priesthood but not allowed to go there by the church. Now it's something that priests do for a year before, through an episcopally-applied software upgrade, they're then allowed to bless people and run a church (I simplify, of course...).
Several dioceses don't have permanent deacons: people who have a call to be a deacon in the church, and have been ordained specifically to that role. Which makes a bit of a nonsense of the 'threefold order' claim. In the meantime we take a word used for a member of the team leadership of a local church in the NT (overseer/episkopoi) and freight it with 2000 years worth of historical and theological baggage. The God and Politics blog summarises the early part of that history. It's always seemed a bit odd for evangelicals to be debating who should or shouldn't be a bishop, when our understanding and practice has such a slim biblical basis in the first place.
But then, perhaps that's what God intended. The first batch of deacons hardly stuck to the job description: they were supposed to oversee the distribution of food, but we know of one who became a travelling evangelist (Philip) and another (Stephen) got himself killed after doing lots of miracles culminating in a showdown with the authorities. The labels and roles matter less than the authorisation, and the priority, in everything, to get the word out.
In all this there are positive signs - the national priorities of the CofE now include growing the church, and reshaping ministry, so there are signs we're alive to the issues above.
Final point: in the inevitable 'who will the first woman bishop be?' over the coming months, lets keep coming back not to the personalities or the politics, but to the mission of the church. Because if we aren't doing what Jesus set us up to do, then we are not truly the church. Female or male, I'm not that fussed who we have in leadership in the CofE as long as they have the same priorities as Jesus.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
St. Aidans Day, 31st August
Everlasting God
you sent the gentle bishop Aidan
to proclaim the gospel in this land:
grant us to live as he taught
in simplicity, humility, and love for the poor;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen
FROM the aforesaid island, and college of monks, was Aidan sent to instruct the English nation in Christ, .... it was the highest commendation of his doctrine, with all men, that he taught no otherwise than he and his followers had lived; for he neither sought nor loved any thing of this world, but delighted in distributing immediately among the poor whatsoever was given him by the kings or rich men of the world. He was wont to traverse both town and country on foot, never on horseback, unless compelled by some urgent necessity; and wherever in his way he saw any, either rich or poor, he invited them, if infidels, to embrace the mystery of the faith or if they were believers, to strengthen them in the faith, and to stir them up by words and actions to alms and good works.
...... whatsoever gifts of money he received from the rich, he either distributed them, as has been said, to the use of the poor, or bestowed them in ransoming such as had been wrong. fully sold for slaves. Moreover, he afterwards made many of those he had ransomed his disciples, and after having taught and instructed them, advanced them to the order of priesthood.
...It is reported, that when King Oswald had asked a bishop of the Scots to administer the word of faith to him and his nation, there was first sent to him another man of more austere disposition, who, meeting with no success, and being unregarded by the English people, returned home, and in an assembly of the elders reported, that he had not been able to do any good to the nation he had been sent to preach to, because they were uncivilized men, and of a stubborn and barbarous disposition.
They, as is testified, in a great council seriously debated what was to be done, being desirous that the nation should receive the salvation it demanded, and grieving that they had not received the preacher sent to them.
Then said Aidan, who was also present in the council, to the priest then spoken of, "I am of opinion, brother, that you were more severe to your unlearned hearers than you ought to have been and did not at first, conformably to the apostolic rule, give them the milk of more easy doctrine, till being by degrees nourished with the word of God, they should be capable of greater perfection, and be able to practice God's sublimer precepts." Having heard these words, all present began diligently to weigh what he had said, and presently concluded, that he deserved to be made a bishop, and ought to be sent to instruct the incredulous and unlearned; since he was found to be endued with singular discretion, which is the mother of other virtues, and accordingly being ordained, they sent him to their friend, King Oswald, to preach; and he, as time proved, afterwards appeared to possess all other virtues, as well as the discretion for which he was before remarkable.
source: Bede. My emphasis.
you sent the gentle bishop Aidan
to proclaim the gospel in this land:
grant us to live as he taught
in simplicity, humility, and love for the poor;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen
FROM the aforesaid island, and college of monks, was Aidan sent to instruct the English nation in Christ, .... it was the highest commendation of his doctrine, with all men, that he taught no otherwise than he and his followers had lived; for he neither sought nor loved any thing of this world, but delighted in distributing immediately among the poor whatsoever was given him by the kings or rich men of the world. He was wont to traverse both town and country on foot, never on horseback, unless compelled by some urgent necessity; and wherever in his way he saw any, either rich or poor, he invited them, if infidels, to embrace the mystery of the faith or if they were believers, to strengthen them in the faith, and to stir them up by words and actions to alms and good works.
...... whatsoever gifts of money he received from the rich, he either distributed them, as has been said, to the use of the poor, or bestowed them in ransoming such as had been wrong. fully sold for slaves. Moreover, he afterwards made many of those he had ransomed his disciples, and after having taught and instructed them, advanced them to the order of priesthood.
...It is reported, that when King Oswald had asked a bishop of the Scots to administer the word of faith to him and his nation, there was first sent to him another man of more austere disposition, who, meeting with no success, and being unregarded by the English people, returned home, and in an assembly of the elders reported, that he had not been able to do any good to the nation he had been sent to preach to, because they were uncivilized men, and of a stubborn and barbarous disposition.
They, as is testified, in a great council seriously debated what was to be done, being desirous that the nation should receive the salvation it demanded, and grieving that they had not received the preacher sent to them.
Then said Aidan, who was also present in the council, to the priest then spoken of, "I am of opinion, brother, that you were more severe to your unlearned hearers than you ought to have been and did not at first, conformably to the apostolic rule, give them the milk of more easy doctrine, till being by degrees nourished with the word of God, they should be capable of greater perfection, and be able to practice God's sublimer precepts." Having heard these words, all present began diligently to weigh what he had said, and presently concluded, that he deserved to be made a bishop, and ought to be sent to instruct the incredulous and unlearned; since he was found to be endued with singular discretion, which is the mother of other virtues, and accordingly being ordained, they sent him to their friend, King Oswald, to preach; and he, as time proved, afterwards appeared to possess all other virtues, as well as the discretion for which he was before remarkable.
source: Bede. My emphasis.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Justin Welby's Most Important Job?
Yet another Church of England bishop has announced his retirement today, with the Bishop of Guildford taking a well-earned rest in September. I was trying to work out how many Diocesan posts are now due to be filled in the next 12 months or so. By my reckoning it includes:
Durham
Exeter
Guildford
Bath and Wells
Manchester (probably decided but not announced - see comments)
Liverpool
Hereford
with Blackburn recently decided, and 7 other Bishops aged 65 or over, who will have to retire in the next 4-5 years. There may well be others who decide to retire at 65 (a further 6 are aged 61-64).
The full list of bishops, along with the CNC schedule for appointments, is here.
There's a fairly clear explanation of the appointment process here - for each appointment, the local diocese (via its Vacancy in See committee, a group of around 24 people based on positions held and clergy and lay elections) draws up a diocesan profile and person spec, and sends 6 reps to the Crown Nominations Commission. The CNC also includes 6 reps from General Synod, and the 2 Archbishops. That's where shortlisting, interviewing and the final appointment is made, with names submitted to the Prime Minister for the formality of approval.
Justin Welby, as Archbishop of Canterbury, has a massive strategic opportunity here. The CofE has committed itself to 3 'Quinquennium Goals' (makes the pulse quicken, doesn't it?), the first of which is 'to take forward the numerical and spiritual growth of the Church of England.' That gives the Archbishop, as chair of the CNC, a pretty solid starting point for making the appointments above (plus any I've missed). If this is our top priority, then the top line of any person spec for these appointments is someone who can lead a diocese into numerical and spiritual growth.
It was pretty clear at the church growth strategies conference the other week that a massive amount depends on the leadership of the Diocesan bishops. Without that leadership, it's very hard to get the resources and energy of the church behind any agreed strategy. With that leadership, a diocese can change direction in significant ways, and see decline reversed and turned into growth. Justin Welby may have only the power of persuasion as 'first among equals', but with the chance to shape the leadership of 1/3 of CofE dioceses in the next 5 years, there is a great opportunity here to bring quality leaders into place.
Durham
Exeter
Guildford
Bath and Wells
Manchester (probably decided but not announced - see comments)
Liverpool
Hereford
with Blackburn recently decided, and 7 other Bishops aged 65 or over, who will have to retire in the next 4-5 years. There may well be others who decide to retire at 65 (a further 6 are aged 61-64).
The full list of bishops, along with the CNC schedule for appointments, is here.
Justin Welby, as Archbishop of Canterbury, has a massive strategic opportunity here. The CofE has committed itself to 3 'Quinquennium Goals' (makes the pulse quicken, doesn't it?), the first of which is 'to take forward the numerical and spiritual growth of the Church of England.' That gives the Archbishop, as chair of the CNC, a pretty solid starting point for making the appointments above (plus any I've missed). If this is our top priority, then the top line of any person spec for these appointments is someone who can lead a diocese into numerical and spiritual growth.
It was pretty clear at the church growth strategies conference the other week that a massive amount depends on the leadership of the Diocesan bishops. Without that leadership, it's very hard to get the resources and energy of the church behind any agreed strategy. With that leadership, a diocese can change direction in significant ways, and see decline reversed and turned into growth. Justin Welby may have only the power of persuasion as 'first among equals', but with the chance to shape the leadership of 1/3 of CofE dioceses in the next 5 years, there is a great opportunity here to bring quality leaders into place.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Bishops: How to Misread a Job Description
I am mystified, as to how this list of personal qualities wanted in a new bishop:
1. A deep and confident personal faith
Our new bishop should be a person, clearly captivated by God, whose love of God and life of prayer will equip him to encourage, and engage in a meaningful way with the diversity of church traditions that make up the diocese. He will be theologically literate, confident in scripture and a good/strong teacher of the faith/apologist for the church.
2. A clear commitment to mission and growth
He will have demonstrable gifts in visionary and inspired leadership and be fully committed to working with the Five Marks of Mission. He will promote growth and stewardship in its various forms and build on existing initiatives as well as offering fresh insights.
3. Experience of working across diverse social, economic, ecumenical and interfaith contexts
He will be able to embrace the many diverse elements that make up the diocese and have an awareness and understanding of the particular issues that pertain to the North. He will have at least some recent urban experience as well as an interest in suburban and rural contexts.
4. An ability to lead and to manage change creatively
He will take the lead in managing necessary change at parish, deanery and diocesan level, recognising the need to work collaboratively and to delegate as part of that process. He will be bold and courageous in tackling difficult issues: ensuring financial sustainability, helping to steer through the necessary culture change in relation to the balance of lay and ordained ministries.
5. A confident and competent communicator
He will be comfortable and at ease engaging with a wide cross-section of people and be particularly able to connect with young people in churches, schools and HE/FE. He will be able to communicate in a compelling way with the un-churched as well as with members of churches and other faiths. He will have experience of working with the media and be a clear thinker with a warm and engaging delivery.
6. A gifted pastor to clergy and laity
He will be a person of wisdom and integrity with an ability to listen and to get alongside both clergy and laity. He will encourage, motivate and empower others, building up their confidence and self esteem and affirming them in their ministries. He will be open to the ministry of women at all levels of the church’s life whilst respecting and seeking to hold together those of differing views.
produces the headline 'Church of England diocese asks for gay-friendly bishop'. 'Establishing positive relationships with the LGBT community' is half of one of the 27 bullet points under these 6 headings. Forget being 'captivated by God', a high quality teacher, a leader in mission, a deliverer of change, an empowerer and motivater of other leaders, and all that other stuff.
Because hey, who cares if the Church of England is disappearing up its own Synod, as long as we're being friendly? I'm not decrying bullet point 13b, it's just the utter lack of perspective that frustrates me.
As a footnote, it seems to have taken the Telegraph 6 weeks to break this story after the publication of the original document. Maybe someone with an agenda has had a quiet word? If so, here's an agenda: mission, mission, mission, mission, mission, mission. A.O.B: mission. Who'd have guessed from the article that Manchester had this on their agenda at all?
1. A deep and confident personal faith
Our new bishop should be a person, clearly captivated by God, whose love of God and life of prayer will equip him to encourage, and engage in a meaningful way with the diversity of church traditions that make up the diocese. He will be theologically literate, confident in scripture and a good/strong teacher of the faith/apologist for the church.
2. A clear commitment to mission and growth
He will have demonstrable gifts in visionary and inspired leadership and be fully committed to working with the Five Marks of Mission. He will promote growth and stewardship in its various forms and build on existing initiatives as well as offering fresh insights.
3. Experience of working across diverse social, economic, ecumenical and interfaith contexts
He will be able to embrace the many diverse elements that make up the diocese and have an awareness and understanding of the particular issues that pertain to the North. He will have at least some recent urban experience as well as an interest in suburban and rural contexts.
4. An ability to lead and to manage change creatively
He will take the lead in managing necessary change at parish, deanery and diocesan level, recognising the need to work collaboratively and to delegate as part of that process. He will be bold and courageous in tackling difficult issues: ensuring financial sustainability, helping to steer through the necessary culture change in relation to the balance of lay and ordained ministries.
5. A confident and competent communicator
He will be comfortable and at ease engaging with a wide cross-section of people and be particularly able to connect with young people in churches, schools and HE/FE. He will be able to communicate in a compelling way with the un-churched as well as with members of churches and other faiths. He will have experience of working with the media and be a clear thinker with a warm and engaging delivery.
6. A gifted pastor to clergy and laity
He will be a person of wisdom and integrity with an ability to listen and to get alongside both clergy and laity. He will encourage, motivate and empower others, building up their confidence and self esteem and affirming them in their ministries. He will be open to the ministry of women at all levels of the church’s life whilst respecting and seeking to hold together those of differing views.
produces the headline 'Church of England diocese asks for gay-friendly bishop'. 'Establishing positive relationships with the LGBT community' is half of one of the 27 bullet points under these 6 headings. Forget being 'captivated by God', a high quality teacher, a leader in mission, a deliverer of change, an empowerer and motivater of other leaders, and all that other stuff.
Because hey, who cares if the Church of England is disappearing up its own Synod, as long as we're being friendly? I'm not decrying bullet point 13b, it's just the utter lack of perspective that frustrates me.
As a footnote, it seems to have taken the Telegraph 6 weeks to break this story after the publication of the original document. Maybe someone with an agenda has had a quiet word? If so, here's an agenda: mission, mission, mission, mission, mission, mission. A.O.B: mission. Who'd have guessed from the article that Manchester had this on their agenda at all?
Monday, April 15, 2013
I've got that joy, joy, joy, joy, ...... where?
This is the jolly scene that greets anyone logging in to the Church of England home page. Looks like they're having a great time doesn't it? Really communicates that following Jesus is about taking up your cross, getting out into the real world with the life-changing message of the gospel, and living in the joy of the Holy Spirit. You can just see how hard these people are working to keep that excitement bottled up inside and prevent it from getting to their faces.
Stick around for long enough, and you're treated to some slightly more encouraging pictures. I hope the CofE can find a better pic of Justin Welby than this one. Somehow the glum expressions, robes and throne don't really say 'Jesus' to me.
Here's a couple of alternatives
Monday, February 04, 2013
Choosing a Bishop
Our first meeting of the Bath and Wells 'Vacancy in See' (you've got to love the names) committee is this weekend, the start of a 7 month process to discern/choose the next Bishop of Bath and Wells.
There's a good explanation of the process here, and this gives you some idea of the composition: a blend of General Synod reps, ex officio places, elected clergy and lay reps (including me), and people appointed by Bishops staff for 'balance'. I fear that, at 43 and 364 days come Saturday, I'll be the youngest person on the committee, but hopefully I'm wrong about that.
Stage 1 is drawing up a 'Statement of Needs' for the Diocese, we then team up with the Crown Nominations Commission to canvas opinion, before going on to consider specific names.
It's all a bit of a new experience, if you're the praying type please pray for us (and the various other ViS groups also going through the same process, such as Durham). A lot of it will be confidential, but I'm hoping to blog a bit about the process just in case that opens a few helpful windows for people wondering how on earth it all works.
Having taken a few soundings already, it's interesting to hear a cross section of folks saying largely the same thing about the kind of Bishop we need. I then ran into someone this evening who recalled a Cafe Service planning meeting where we debated whether to play 'Pin the Fish on the Bish' with our visiting suffragan (2nd in command) bishop to illustrate a Bible story. I think we decided not to, but it was close. Puts it all in perspective......
There's a good explanation of the process here, and this gives you some idea of the composition: a blend of General Synod reps, ex officio places, elected clergy and lay reps (including me), and people appointed by Bishops staff for 'balance'. I fear that, at 43 and 364 days come Saturday, I'll be the youngest person on the committee, but hopefully I'm wrong about that.
Stage 1 is drawing up a 'Statement of Needs' for the Diocese, we then team up with the Crown Nominations Commission to canvas opinion, before going on to consider specific names.
It's all a bit of a new experience, if you're the praying type please pray for us (and the various other ViS groups also going through the same process, such as Durham). A lot of it will be confidential, but I'm hoping to blog a bit about the process just in case that opens a few helpful windows for people wondering how on earth it all works.
Having taken a few soundings already, it's interesting to hear a cross section of folks saying largely the same thing about the kind of Bishop we need. I then ran into someone this evening who recalled a Cafe Service planning meeting where we debated whether to play 'Pin the Fish on the Bish' with our visiting suffragan (2nd in command) bishop to illustrate a Bible story. I think we decided not to, but it was close. Puts it all in perspective......
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
Bishops and Church Growth
I've recently posted the following discussion starter on the CofE's Church Growth Research Programme discussion forum:
I've recently joined the Vacancy in See committee for our diocese, and we're choosing a new bishop this year. As a leader in mission, the bishop has a crucial role both in setting the tone for growth in the Diocese, as well as strategic and spiritual leadership. What is people's experience of the difference that a bishop and his (amend in 2014 to his/her) leadership can make to local church growth?
I notice than in some Dioceses there are episcopally lead growth strategies in place (e.g Sheffield) - how effective are these? What difference to they make? Can we realistically expect a new bishop to make any difference to the year-on-year decline that we currently have?
please respond here, or over there, whichever takes your fancy.
Update: there is a post and thread here on John Richardsons blog on this topic, though the comments rapidly run off topic.
I've recently joined the Vacancy in See committee for our diocese, and we're choosing a new bishop this year. As a leader in mission, the bishop has a crucial role both in setting the tone for growth in the Diocese, as well as strategic and spiritual leadership. What is people's experience of the difference that a bishop and his (amend in 2014 to his/her) leadership can make to local church growth?
I notice than in some Dioceses there are episcopally lead growth strategies in place (e.g Sheffield) - how effective are these? What difference to they make? Can we realistically expect a new bishop to make any difference to the year-on-year decline that we currently have?
please respond here, or over there, whichever takes your fancy.
Update: there is a post and thread here on John Richardsons blog on this topic, though the comments rapidly run off topic.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
CofE press office overdrive - burying bishops expenses?
There's an end of term torrent of press releases from the Church of England media centre, including a response to the latest Energy Bill from the government. Each of the other ones is noteworthy, for different reasons:
The House of Bishops has recognised that it needs a bit of outside assistance in drafting decent women bishops legislation for the July synod. I'm glad it's also resisted the calls of WATCH to delay until after the next set of Synod elections (another 3 years), which seems a bizarre request designed to prolong the discomfort in the short term and steamroller traditionalists in the long term. A new working group will start meeting in January to help get something workable together. IIt's a mixture of men and women, lay and ordained, including the lay theologian Paula Gooder and Philip Giddings, current chair of the house of laity at General Synod...
.... though he may not be for much longer. A 'public meeting' of the House of Laity has been called for January, with one item on the agenda. That item is a motion of no confidence in Dr Giddings as chair of the house of laity, citing his speech at the November debate as the reason. I don't know if this legally has to be a public meeting, but I can't really see why it shouldn't happen behind closed doors. There's a danger of it becoming a public trial, and yet another public airing of divisive views. (update, Peter Ould isn't impressed with the reasoning for the motion)
Finally the 2011 figures for Bishops Office and Working costs have been published. These amounted to £17m, a jump of over £1m on last year, most of which is accounted for by increased legal fees. The reason for this (reading between the lines) is the additional cost of the Clergy Discipline Measure, as legal advice for this isn't already covered by the other legal expenses of a Diocese. Full details are here, where you can see what's happened in your own Diocese. Here in Bath and Wells, costs have jumped 10%, whilst next door in Bristol they've gone down. I'm assuming there's a back story to places like Southwark, where costs have risen 40% in a year.
More concerning is the fact that, in 2006, this figure was £11.3m. That's a 50% rise in 5 years. How is budgetary control exercised here? As a local priest, every day I meet the people who pay the bills, and am part of a church that has to balance the books month by month, year by year. That's a big incentive to make sure I use resources wisely. No such financial discipline exists for bishops, the money does not run out, there is not the same context to provide that accountability and discipline. And whilst clergy numbers have dropped significantly in 5 years, we still have 113, the same number, in the purple.
There is mention in the full details of a new 'block grant' system of allocating funds for bishops expenses. Will that mean that, in future, if all the money is spent then there's no more? This will increase by 4% year on year, which is significantly ahead of inflation, and this seems overly generous given the huge increases of recent years.
I'm sure there are local factors wherever these expenses have risen, but the aggregate of 44 local factors over 5 years points to a lack of budgetary control and accountability. Perhaps bishops should be funded out of their dioceses, with budgets accountable to diocesan synods as they are for the rest of diocesan functions? The changes may be an attempt to address the spiralling costs, but the document doesn't mention them, instead the reasoning is 'greater flexibility' for bishops. There already seems to be too much flexibility in the bottom line.
The House of Bishops has recognised that it needs a bit of outside assistance in drafting decent women bishops legislation for the July synod. I'm glad it's also resisted the calls of WATCH to delay until after the next set of Synod elections (another 3 years), which seems a bizarre request designed to prolong the discomfort in the short term and steamroller traditionalists in the long term. A new working group will start meeting in January to help get something workable together. IIt's a mixture of men and women, lay and ordained, including the lay theologian Paula Gooder and Philip Giddings, current chair of the house of laity at General Synod...
.... though he may not be for much longer. A 'public meeting' of the House of Laity has been called for January, with one item on the agenda. That item is a motion of no confidence in Dr Giddings as chair of the house of laity, citing his speech at the November debate as the reason. I don't know if this legally has to be a public meeting, but I can't really see why it shouldn't happen behind closed doors. There's a danger of it becoming a public trial, and yet another public airing of divisive views. (update, Peter Ould isn't impressed with the reasoning for the motion)
Finally the 2011 figures for Bishops Office and Working costs have been published. These amounted to £17m, a jump of over £1m on last year, most of which is accounted for by increased legal fees. The reason for this (reading between the lines) is the additional cost of the Clergy Discipline Measure, as legal advice for this isn't already covered by the other legal expenses of a Diocese. Full details are here, where you can see what's happened in your own Diocese. Here in Bath and Wells, costs have jumped 10%, whilst next door in Bristol they've gone down. I'm assuming there's a back story to places like Southwark, where costs have risen 40% in a year.
More concerning is the fact that, in 2006, this figure was £11.3m. That's a 50% rise in 5 years. How is budgetary control exercised here? As a local priest, every day I meet the people who pay the bills, and am part of a church that has to balance the books month by month, year by year. That's a big incentive to make sure I use resources wisely. No such financial discipline exists for bishops, the money does not run out, there is not the same context to provide that accountability and discipline. And whilst clergy numbers have dropped significantly in 5 years, we still have 113, the same number, in the purple.
There is mention in the full details of a new 'block grant' system of allocating funds for bishops expenses. Will that mean that, in future, if all the money is spent then there's no more? This will increase by 4% year on year, which is significantly ahead of inflation, and this seems overly generous given the huge increases of recent years.
I'm sure there are local factors wherever these expenses have risen, but the aggregate of 44 local factors over 5 years points to a lack of budgetary control and accountability. Perhaps bishops should be funded out of their dioceses, with budgets accountable to diocesan synods as they are for the rest of diocesan functions? The changes may be an attempt to address the spiralling costs, but the document doesn't mention them, instead the reasoning is 'greater flexibility' for bishops. There already seems to be too much flexibility in the bottom line.
Monday, July 09, 2012
General Synod: When is a Decision Not a Decision?
'The perfect forum for those who want to avoid decisions'. That description of the Church of England General Synod was penned back in February by Andrew Brown of the Guardian. On first reading, it would seem ever closer to the mark today. A few thoughts:
- Is the glacial decision making process of the CofE born out of a desire to get things right, a fear of getting things wrong, or a deadlock brought on by competing lobby groups taking up the ground normally occupied by leadership and vision? Is it another symptom of the weakness of the overall CofE leadership model?
- This was supposed to be the day when the key vote was taken. Instead it's now delayed until November, and who knows what will happen then? It's better to take our time to make the best decision, and we should applaud synod for not sacrificing accuracy for speed, despite pressure from people like me to 'just get on with it'. But the longer this drags on the more sapping it becomes. A delay of 4 months isn't much in the 2000 year history of the church, but the delay itself is the result of an intervention by the Bishops which seemed to upset a lot of people. I think their motivations were right, but the result was a flurry of press releases disagreeing with them, and todays adjournment of the debate.
I'm not sure if it's fair to describe the governance of the CofE as dysfunctional, but something has gone seriously wrong here. Once this is done and dusted (as far as it can be) we need to ask some serious questions about CofE processes. We talk about ourselves as an episcopal church, we're looking to accept women into the episcopacy, but we don't seem that keen on episcopal leadership. I hate to say it, but we seem pretty confused about what bishops are for. To take a chess metaphor, we only seem to want bishops who will move sideways one space at a time, unless we agree with them, in which case we want them to move straight ahead as fast as possible.
- The sad thing for me is that the desire for finely-tuned legislation is a symptom of a deeper problem. Normally, if a family has brought in the lawyers it's a sign that the relationship is struggling. We only resort to law to codify our relationships when love, trust and community have broken down, it's an external sanction on behaviour. It's apparent that many Anglicans don't trust each other sufficiently to live without safeguards. Whether that mistrust is well grounded, I don't know. But it doesn't look like people are willing to take the risk of finding out.
History may show that the delay has some wisdom to it. We may find a glorious way to please everyone. I just wonder how many other organisations could take this long, be this confused, and still survive. But maybe family rather than organisation is a better metaphor, and if the CofE is an organism, then in comparison with evolution we're going at lightening speed.
For a fascinating inside view of all this, have a look at Stephen Lynas' blog from synod.
- Is the glacial decision making process of the CofE born out of a desire to get things right, a fear of getting things wrong, or a deadlock brought on by competing lobby groups taking up the ground normally occupied by leadership and vision? Is it another symptom of the weakness of the overall CofE leadership model?
- This was supposed to be the day when the key vote was taken. Instead it's now delayed until November, and who knows what will happen then? It's better to take our time to make the best decision, and we should applaud synod for not sacrificing accuracy for speed, despite pressure from people like me to 'just get on with it'. But the longer this drags on the more sapping it becomes. A delay of 4 months isn't much in the 2000 year history of the church, but the delay itself is the result of an intervention by the Bishops which seemed to upset a lot of people. I think their motivations were right, but the result was a flurry of press releases disagreeing with them, and todays adjournment of the debate.
I'm not sure if it's fair to describe the governance of the CofE as dysfunctional, but something has gone seriously wrong here. Once this is done and dusted (as far as it can be) we need to ask some serious questions about CofE processes. We talk about ourselves as an episcopal church, we're looking to accept women into the episcopacy, but we don't seem that keen on episcopal leadership. I hate to say it, but we seem pretty confused about what bishops are for. To take a chess metaphor, we only seem to want bishops who will move sideways one space at a time, unless we agree with them, in which case we want them to move straight ahead as fast as possible.
- The sad thing for me is that the desire for finely-tuned legislation is a symptom of a deeper problem. Normally, if a family has brought in the lawyers it's a sign that the relationship is struggling. We only resort to law to codify our relationships when love, trust and community have broken down, it's an external sanction on behaviour. It's apparent that many Anglicans don't trust each other sufficiently to live without safeguards. Whether that mistrust is well grounded, I don't know. But it doesn't look like people are willing to take the risk of finding out.
History may show that the delay has some wisdom to it. We may find a glorious way to please everyone. I just wonder how many other organisations could take this long, be this confused, and still survive. But maybe family rather than organisation is a better metaphor, and if the CofE is an organism, then in comparison with evolution we're going at lightening speed.
For a fascinating inside view of all this, have a look at Stephen Lynas' blog from synod.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
House of Bishops statement - links roundup and thoughts
The original statement from the CofE, on the House of Bishops 2 amendments to the legislation on women bishops. You might want to read this later, unless you have a PhD in law, theology and English grammar.
A translation of the statement into English by Unshaun Sheep.
Pete Broadbents explanation of what the amendments mean. He also chips in to this comments thread at Thinking Anglicans.
Bishop Alan offers some analysis and comment.
Nancy Wallace doesn't know what to make of it. I suspect she's not the only one.
Thinking Anglicans has the predictable responses from pressure groups Reform ('disappointed') and WATCH ('disappointed'). Forward in Faiths response is more positive and graciously worded, but still slips the 'd-word' in near the end.
Ancient Briton doesn't think much of the WATCH response, and Radical Disciple doesn't think much of Reforms'
Good post from James Ogley, who sees a legalised 'third province' emerging.
Telling Secrets reckons the Queen needs to have a word
Lay Anglicana thinks that a lot will depend, not on the legislation itself, but on the leadership of the next ABofC
Archdruid Eileen rounds up the press coverage, sort of.
update 1: Andrew Brown comment piece for the Guardian.
There's a blow by blow account of the debates within the CofE here, if you're a real anorak and not fed up with the whole thing already.
My thoughts:
1. When one persons discrimination is another persons theological integrity (or vice versa), we're clearly at an impasse. The choice is whether to make this a red line issue, or attempt to stay together. When we tolerated senior bishops who didn't believe in the risen Jesus (who knows, we may still have some), should we have split then? Should we split now? There is no way to express the views of both WATCH and Reform within a single church. So, do we have 2 separate churches, or try to accomodate? Which is more Christian?
2. My brief take on the amendments is that it's an updated version of Resolutions A&B and flying bishops, to accomodate conservative evangelicals. It provides an institutionalised way of rebelling against the 'liberal' leadership of the church - is this a clever CofE response to the sabre rattling from Southwark, or an impossible line to hold?
And by the way, talk of a 'stained glass ceiling' does the supporters of women bishops no good at all. Ordination is not a career, becoming a bishop is not 'promotion'. But if you want to talk about opportunities to serve, gifts to be used in the service of God's kingdom, and the building up of the church, then I'm all ears.
Update 2 (Sun pm): some more links. Archdeacon in the Dales argues that the CofE can't have it both ways, Church Mouse just wishes the powers that be would get on with it and doesn't think the Bishops amendments amount to a great deal. Thinking Anglicans rounds up a few more links. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes wonders what the long term effects will be, and whether 'pick your own episcopacy' will work.
Update 3: perceptive post from John Richardson, in response to Miranda Threlfall-Homes piece, and the sabre-rattling from WATCH.
Update 4: Rachel Hartland and Seeker and Lay Anglicana all worth a look, WATCH aren't the only supporters of women bishops, and it looks as though their more strident response doesn't sum up everyone's position.
A translation of the statement into English by Unshaun Sheep.
Pete Broadbents explanation of what the amendments mean. He also chips in to this comments thread at Thinking Anglicans.
Bishop Alan offers some analysis and comment.
Nancy Wallace doesn't know what to make of it. I suspect she's not the only one.
Thinking Anglicans has the predictable responses from pressure groups Reform ('disappointed') and WATCH ('disappointed'). Forward in Faiths response is more positive and graciously worded, but still slips the 'd-word' in near the end.
Ancient Briton doesn't think much of the WATCH response, and Radical Disciple doesn't think much of Reforms'
Good post from James Ogley, who sees a legalised 'third province' emerging.
Telling Secrets reckons the Queen needs to have a word
Lay Anglicana thinks that a lot will depend, not on the legislation itself, but on the leadership of the next ABofC
Archdruid Eileen rounds up the press coverage, sort of.
update 1: Andrew Brown comment piece for the Guardian.
There's a blow by blow account of the debates within the CofE here, if you're a real anorak and not fed up with the whole thing already.
My thoughts:
1. When one persons discrimination is another persons theological integrity (or vice versa), we're clearly at an impasse. The choice is whether to make this a red line issue, or attempt to stay together. When we tolerated senior bishops who didn't believe in the risen Jesus (who knows, we may still have some), should we have split then? Should we split now? There is no way to express the views of both WATCH and Reform within a single church. So, do we have 2 separate churches, or try to accomodate? Which is more Christian?
2. My brief take on the amendments is that it's an updated version of Resolutions A&B and flying bishops, to accomodate conservative evangelicals. It provides an institutionalised way of rebelling against the 'liberal' leadership of the church - is this a clever CofE response to the sabre rattling from Southwark, or an impossible line to hold?
And by the way, talk of a 'stained glass ceiling' does the supporters of women bishops no good at all. Ordination is not a career, becoming a bishop is not 'promotion'. But if you want to talk about opportunities to serve, gifts to be used in the service of God's kingdom, and the building up of the church, then I'm all ears.
Update 2 (Sun pm): some more links. Archdeacon in the Dales argues that the CofE can't have it both ways, Church Mouse just wishes the powers that be would get on with it and doesn't think the Bishops amendments amount to a great deal. Thinking Anglicans rounds up a few more links. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes wonders what the long term effects will be, and whether 'pick your own episcopacy' will work.
Update 3: perceptive post from John Richardson, in response to Miranda Threlfall-Homes piece, and the sabre-rattling from WATCH.
Update 4: Rachel Hartland and Seeker and Lay Anglicana all worth a look, WATCH aren't the only supporters of women bishops, and it looks as though their more strident response doesn't sum up everyone's position.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Return of the Mouse
This whole women bishops thing must be serious, even Church Mouse has broken cover from his nest in the vestry, to encourage the CofE to get on with it. It looks like it's a one-off squeak, but worth reading just the same.
I must confess this is one area of church politics I've avoided on this blog, partly out of frustration that we spend more time talking about sex than mission, and partly because the CofE position on ordination is such a mess. We proclaim a 'threefold order of bishops, priests and deacons' which bears minimal resemblance to the ordering of ministry in the Bible, and don't even follow through on it. In most places, deacons are just a priest in short trousers, waiting for 12 months to elapse so that they can take communion services. The New Testament depicts 'bishops' (overseers) as part of the team leadership of a local church, which is a far cry from what they've become in the CofE, never mind the Roman church.
Which is why I can't actually get that political about whether or not we have women in a role that isn't sanctioned by the Bible in the first place. And everyone else will probably be thankful that, with a theology like this, I go back to avoiding the topic.
(And I haven't even got started on the way we've created a sacramental theology which bolsters this structure and makes it almost impossible to question or unpick. )
I must confess this is one area of church politics I've avoided on this blog, partly out of frustration that we spend more time talking about sex than mission, and partly because the CofE position on ordination is such a mess. We proclaim a 'threefold order of bishops, priests and deacons' which bears minimal resemblance to the ordering of ministry in the Bible, and don't even follow through on it. In most places, deacons are just a priest in short trousers, waiting for 12 months to elapse so that they can take communion services. The New Testament depicts 'bishops' (overseers) as part of the team leadership of a local church, which is a far cry from what they've become in the CofE, never mind the Roman church.
Which is why I can't actually get that political about whether or not we have women in a role that isn't sanctioned by the Bible in the first place. And everyone else will probably be thankful that, with a theology like this, I go back to avoiding the topic.
(And I haven't even got started on the way we've created a sacramental theology which bolsters this structure and makes it almost impossible to question or unpick. )
Monday, January 23, 2012
Sunday Times At War With Reality
Under the headline 'Bishops at War with Coalition', the Sunday Times led yesterday on an interview with Ian Duncan Smith, in which he takes issue with the CofE Bishops in the house of Lords for opposing certain benefit cuts.
IDS is quoted as saying: "The question I'd ask these bishops is, over all these years, why have they sat back and watched people being placed in houses they cannot afford? It's not a kindness.
"I would like to see their concerns about ordinary people, who are working hard, paying their tax and commuting long hours, who don't have as much money as they would otherwise because they're paying tax for all of this."
This is IDS politely but firmly asking the bishops to think again, and see the other side of the argument. But as far as I'm aware there are no ecclesiastical tanks in Downing Street, nor a concerted attempt to oust the government by the men in purple. This is part of ongoing concerns about the Welfare reform bill, shared by the Childrens Society, that the reforms will tip some children into poverty.
I agree that having families on benefits earning £35k a year or more when the average wage is far below that is absurd, and the idea of a cap makes sense, but if it needs some of the 'blunt instrument' edges taking off it, then the bishops intervention makes sense. What makes no sense at all is the Sunday Times standing on the sidelines shouting FIIIIIIGHT! like the journalistic equivalent of Harry Hill, or, more accurately, like kids in a playground. Get a grip please, I thought broadsheets were written for people who at least had an attention span, and the ability to follow an argument? Or did I miss something?
IDS is quoted as saying: "The question I'd ask these bishops is, over all these years, why have they sat back and watched people being placed in houses they cannot afford? It's not a kindness.
"I would like to see their concerns about ordinary people, who are working hard, paying their tax and commuting long hours, who don't have as much money as they would otherwise because they're paying tax for all of this."
This is IDS politely but firmly asking the bishops to think again, and see the other side of the argument. But as far as I'm aware there are no ecclesiastical tanks in Downing Street, nor a concerted attempt to oust the government by the men in purple. This is part of ongoing concerns about the Welfare reform bill, shared by the Childrens Society, that the reforms will tip some children into poverty.
I agree that having families on benefits earning £35k a year or more when the average wage is far below that is absurd, and the idea of a cap makes sense, but if it needs some of the 'blunt instrument' edges taking off it, then the bishops intervention makes sense. What makes no sense at all is the Sunday Times standing on the sidelines shouting FIIIIIIGHT! like the journalistic equivalent of Harry Hill, or, more accurately, like kids in a playground. Get a grip please, I thought broadsheets were written for people who at least had an attention span, and the ability to follow an argument? Or did I miss something?
Sunday, November 20, 2011
The Sheep and the Goats and the Bishops
Church of England bishops have descended en masse upon the Governments Welfare Reform Bill, and its plan to cap household benefits at £500. A joint letter to the Observer spells out their concern at the impact upon children:
While 70,000 adults are likely to be affected by the cap, the Children's Society has found that it is going to cut support for an estimated 210,000 children, leaving as many as 80,000 homeless. The Church of England has a commitment and moral obligation to speak up for those who have no voice. As such, we feel compelled to speak for children who might be faced with severe poverty and potentially homelessness, as a result of the choices or circumstances of their parents. Such an impact is profoundly unjust.
This is about as trenchant as the men in purple get, (though I can think of a couple of outspoken exceptions!) Five amendments have been tabled by the bishops, to be debated in the Lords this week. Here's the original response from the Childrens Society to the proposals.
It may just be that that good bishops have been taking their sermon preparation seriously this week. Todays set reading for CofE services is Matthew 25:31-46, the 'sheep and goats' picture of the judgement scene. The criteria for separation between the rightous sheep and the excluded goats is acts of compassion towards the vulnerable. Strictly speaking, it's acts of sacrificial service to fellow Christians, but the principle extends beyond the church (e.g. the parable of the good Samaritan) to any neighbour in need.
As James says, there's no point talking about faith unless it issues in action. There's no point talking about justice unless you do something about it. At times I wonder whether bishops in the Lords is a bit of a luxury for the CofE and an anachronism for the state. But I'm happy to suspend that thought for this week.
At the other end of the age range, if you want to help older people, and have the means to do so, and are over-65, then donate your Winter Fuel Payment to the Surviving Winter appeal. Because it's not means tested, the payment goes to all pensioners, whether they need it or not, and this campaign is a great way to help to target this money at those who need it. "I was cold, and you paid my fuel bill."
update: the BBC has also picked up the story.
While 70,000 adults are likely to be affected by the cap, the Children's Society has found that it is going to cut support for an estimated 210,000 children, leaving as many as 80,000 homeless. The Church of England has a commitment and moral obligation to speak up for those who have no voice. As such, we feel compelled to speak for children who might be faced with severe poverty and potentially homelessness, as a result of the choices or circumstances of their parents. Such an impact is profoundly unjust.
This is about as trenchant as the men in purple get, (though I can think of a couple of outspoken exceptions!) Five amendments have been tabled by the bishops, to be debated in the Lords this week. Here's the original response from the Childrens Society to the proposals.
It may just be that that good bishops have been taking their sermon preparation seriously this week. Todays set reading for CofE services is Matthew 25:31-46, the 'sheep and goats' picture of the judgement scene. The criteria for separation between the rightous sheep and the excluded goats is acts of compassion towards the vulnerable. Strictly speaking, it's acts of sacrificial service to fellow Christians, but the principle extends beyond the church (e.g. the parable of the good Samaritan) to any neighbour in need.
As James says, there's no point talking about faith unless it issues in action. There's no point talking about justice unless you do something about it. At times I wonder whether bishops in the Lords is a bit of a luxury for the CofE and an anachronism for the state. But I'm happy to suspend that thought for this week.
At the other end of the age range, if you want to help older people, and have the means to do so, and are over-65, then donate your Winter Fuel Payment to the Surviving Winter appeal. Because it's not means tested, the payment goes to all pensioners, whether they need it or not, and this campaign is a great way to help to target this money at those who need it. "I was cold, and you paid my fuel bill."
update: the BBC has also picked up the story.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Future of the Church of England
There are days when being the Bishop of Bath and Wells is a tough job. Last week Peter Price gave a lecture in Wells Cathedral on 'the Future of the Church of England: the Next 25 Years'. Prophetically, he opened it with this:
There are few moments of regret in a bishop’s life, but agreeing to this somewhat catch all title for a lecture has been one of mine! Its somewhat disparate title requires me from the beginning to appeal to the Higher Power for grace and forgiveness. Ken Dodd was once asked whether he could make God laugh, and he responded, ‘Yes, tell him your plans.’
Attempting to prophesy the future of the Church of England, let alone the Anglican Communion, Christian churches and other faith traditions is to risk God’s hollow laugh.
It's an interesting read despite all that: he speaks of the 'half a revolution' of Vatican 2, and challenges the church to look outwards to the world and the poor, and not inwards to its own debates about sexuality and women bishops.
Another snippet:
The years following the Vatican Council were heady times. Two of those present going on to be elected pope, Karol Wojtyla and Josef Ratzinger, John Paul 2 and Pope Benedict respectively. Despite some opposition, much energy was expended and expectations were raised of a new church vibrant with the possibility of a humanity and a planet finding its true purpose.
But, and it seems there is always a but, in McCulloch’s words Vatican 2 was only ‘half a revolution.’ Key among the areas which it failed to address were the issues of the role of women, contraception and celibacy. Perhaps the hidden agenda of what was not tackled was that of patriarchy, dominance of men.
Here in a sense we come full circle, back to the present realities of not only the Roman Church, but also the Anglican Church, and at this particular moment, the Church of England. For the issue of women in leadership, particularly as bishops is once again a hot potato. Conservatives and Catholics within the Church of England find themselves often in strange juxtaposition with Roman Catholic and Orthodox teaching on the ‘headship’ issue in relation to women.
Even more of a juxtaposition now...... but the key passage is on pages 7-8
It seems to me we have a choice at this moment in history. Either we face inwards and increasingly narrow the focus of our lenses on the minutiae of whatever we perceive as ‘deal breakers.’ Or we face outwards and have a radical change of heart towards the priorities determined by the plight of the planet and its people. We cannot do both. To do the latter will need moral imagination.
I may blog at some stage about this weeks Vatican manoeverings. But actually there are far more important things going on in the church, and in the world. In the grand scheme of things, how much does it really matter if a few dozen priests and a few hundred worshippers decide to become semi-detached Roman Catholics? Stick a couple of zeroes on the end if you want, it's still nowhere near the billions in poverty, the 800 million without clean water, the number of chronically depressed people in the UK right now, or pretty much any other indicator of human need and suffering you choose.
We love the intrigue, I'm not sure God does. I'm with my Bishop on this one.
There are few moments of regret in a bishop’s life, but agreeing to this somewhat catch all title for a lecture has been one of mine! Its somewhat disparate title requires me from the beginning to appeal to the Higher Power for grace and forgiveness. Ken Dodd was once asked whether he could make God laugh, and he responded, ‘Yes, tell him your plans.’
Attempting to prophesy the future of the Church of England, let alone the Anglican Communion, Christian churches and other faith traditions is to risk God’s hollow laugh.
It's an interesting read despite all that: he speaks of the 'half a revolution' of Vatican 2, and challenges the church to look outwards to the world and the poor, and not inwards to its own debates about sexuality and women bishops.
Another snippet:
The years following the Vatican Council were heady times. Two of those present going on to be elected pope, Karol Wojtyla and Josef Ratzinger, John Paul 2 and Pope Benedict respectively. Despite some opposition, much energy was expended and expectations were raised of a new church vibrant with the possibility of a humanity and a planet finding its true purpose.
But, and it seems there is always a but, in McCulloch’s words Vatican 2 was only ‘half a revolution.’ Key among the areas which it failed to address were the issues of the role of women, contraception and celibacy. Perhaps the hidden agenda of what was not tackled was that of patriarchy, dominance of men.
Here in a sense we come full circle, back to the present realities of not only the Roman Church, but also the Anglican Church, and at this particular moment, the Church of England. For the issue of women in leadership, particularly as bishops is once again a hot potato. Conservatives and Catholics within the Church of England find themselves often in strange juxtaposition with Roman Catholic and Orthodox teaching on the ‘headship’ issue in relation to women.
Even more of a juxtaposition now...... but the key passage is on pages 7-8
It seems to me we have a choice at this moment in history. Either we face inwards and increasingly narrow the focus of our lenses on the minutiae of whatever we perceive as ‘deal breakers.’ Or we face outwards and have a radical change of heart towards the priorities determined by the plight of the planet and its people. We cannot do both. To do the latter will need moral imagination.
I may blog at some stage about this weeks Vatican manoeverings. But actually there are far more important things going on in the church, and in the world. In the grand scheme of things, how much does it really matter if a few dozen priests and a few hundred worshippers decide to become semi-detached Roman Catholics? Stick a couple of zeroes on the end if you want, it's still nowhere near the billions in poverty, the 800 million without clean water, the number of chronically depressed people in the UK right now, or pretty much any other indicator of human need and suffering you choose.
We love the intrigue, I'm not sure God does. I'm with my Bishop on this one.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Sunday Brain Food
An interview in the monthly review with Terry Eagleton, about religion, atheism, culture, and lots of other things. Covers lots of ground, good stuff.
Normblog responds to the Eagleton interview, kicking off a whole discussion about whether religion is basically about believing certain doctrines, or is more 'performative' - based on action (which expressed doctrine). Stumbling and Mumbling argues that perhaps faith is more like getting into a piece of music, and here's Norms response to that.
Couple of posts at Heresy Corner, one on Richard Dawkins at the Libdem conference, the other on Back to Church Sunday and comments by bishops about supermarket queues. (ht Thinking Anglicans). Ann Droid posts a Facebook discussion about blasphemy, offence and Christian values in a secular society.
I am Christian, hear me roar wonders if John Calvin is to blame for capitalism.
Ben Myers notes the 'Jesus, All About Life' advertising campaign in Australia. Not being an Aussie, I've no way of knowing how culturally appropriate this is, or whether it's come across better or worse than Back to Church Sunday, but Ben doesn't seem to be impressed.
Beyond Relevance has a good meditation on the Princess and the Pea: Many church leaders will tell you that they do not have problems with the non-Christians, its the finicky church people that keep them wound in a knot. (spotted this a bit late, but it's still worth a look)
Thinking out Loud takes us behind the scenes at King David's worship committee.
Girlpreacha has a nice version of the 10 Commandments translated for 7-11 year olds.
Steve Borthwick has unearthed a copy of the Daily Mail from AD 33
Normblog responds to the Eagleton interview, kicking off a whole discussion about whether religion is basically about believing certain doctrines, or is more 'performative' - based on action (which expressed doctrine). Stumbling and Mumbling argues that perhaps faith is more like getting into a piece of music, and here's Norms response to that.
Couple of posts at Heresy Corner, one on Richard Dawkins at the Libdem conference, the other on Back to Church Sunday and comments by bishops about supermarket queues. (ht Thinking Anglicans). Ann Droid posts a Facebook discussion about blasphemy, offence and Christian values in a secular society.
I am Christian, hear me roar wonders if John Calvin is to blame for capitalism.
Ben Myers notes the 'Jesus, All About Life' advertising campaign in Australia. Not being an Aussie, I've no way of knowing how culturally appropriate this is, or whether it's come across better or worse than Back to Church Sunday, but Ben doesn't seem to be impressed.
Beyond Relevance has a good meditation on the Princess and the Pea: Many church leaders will tell you that they do not have problems with the non-Christians, its the finicky church people that keep them wound in a knot. (spotted this a bit late, but it's still worth a look)
Thinking out Loud takes us behind the scenes at King David's worship committee.
Girlpreacha has a nice version of the 10 Commandments translated for 7-11 year olds.
Steve Borthwick has unearthed a copy of the Daily Mail from AD 33
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)