Category Archives: Anglican Communion

MPs debate women bishops

With a quite stunning mixture of ill-informed history, misunderstood theology and obtuse sociology1 But I thought that Barry Gardiner (Brent North, Labour) said something that was, exceptional to the debate, perceptive:

Two or three years ago, on Christmas eve, my wife and I went into our local church to celebrate midnight mass, and there was a woman celebrating. I have to say, she gave one of the worst sermons I had ever heard. It was dreadful. As we got into the car after the service, I turned to my wife and said, “You know, that was really quite inspiring.” She looked at me and said, “Are you mad? That was one of the worst sermons I have ever heard.” I said, “Yes, but just think—25 years ago, could we ever have imagined that we would be sitting in a conservative evangelical parish on Christmas eve listening to a woman priest give just as bad a sermon as any man? That is progress.” We went forward that Christmas eve with a renewed sense of faith, joy and possibility.

Amen!

  1. I’m talking about you, Frank Field and you, Diana Johnson. []

General Failure: in the Army, in Business, in the Church?

This CartoonChurch.com cartoon by Dave Walker originally appeared in the Church Times.Last month’s issue of The Atlantic had a fascinating and disturbing article which examined the gulf between American veneration of the military and the general and pervading incompetence of its general staff (General Failure by ).

Ricks discussed the decreasing phenonmenon of the relief of general staff, that is, removing those deemed and proved to be incompentent from their post. During World War Two general staff were removed from command regularly and suddenly: the removal of Generals Jay MacKelvie and Eugene Landrum from command of the 90th Infantry Division allowed the 90th to become an effective force.

Those days are long gone, now “a private who loses his rifle is now punished more than a general who loses his part of a war” says Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling of his experiences in the Iraq War. Of the hundreds of generals deployed to combat operations in the wars of the last decade, not one has been relieved of duty, and yet, we have good evidence that the wars might not have been wholly successful and without cost: politically, economically, strategically, tactically. Why is this?

Ricks suggests two reasons: first, wars are inevitably political creatures. The wars since the World War Two have been “small, ambiguous, increasingly unpopular wars, ” in which success is a harder thing to define than in WW2. It is hard to relieve a general of his commands, because in the face of the lack of any definition of success, a fired general tells the public that “the war was going poorly.”

The second reason is sociological: armies and generals are part of the wider changes in North Atlantic society: we became “corporate”, believing that the business is the best model for any and every form of social endeavour: a corporate society, like a corporate army becomes “less tolerant of the maverick and more likely to favor conformist ‘organization men.’” Those who become successful in such organizations do so by submitting their loyalties and abilities to the service of the organization. In Riches’s words, generals “began acting less like stewards of a profession, responsible to the public at large, and more like members of a guild, looking out primarily for their own interests.”

What is the purpose of being a general? It is no longer to “save and take lives; to advise presidents on our most fundamental national issues; to shape their own institution by deciding how to select and groom their successors… [through a] hard-nosed but flexible system [which allowed] the most competent to rise quickly” and swiftly culled the ineffective or incompetent. Rather, to be a general is to protect the rights, privileges and powers or being a general, and you don’t do that by firing or disciplining other generals. Once you are in the star-club, you remain in the star-club. The mystique of the military in a corporate society requires that.

As Ricks’s says:

Instead of weeding out bad officers, senior leaders tended to closely supervise them, encouraging habits of micromanagement that plague the Army to this day. Mediocrity also led to mendacity…

A parish priest may allow the wrong type of material to be placed on his church roof. A bishop may lead a diocese which is wholly dysfunctional in its Child Protection. Which one will be disciplined?

I was talking yesterday with a friend of mine, a senior priest in a diocese outside the Church of England. He wondered how he could make a stand against the creeping corporatization of his church’s culture. Bishops are terrified of letting parish’s slip (financial Armageddon is looming just around the corner): the only solution seems to be to import ideas, structures  assumptions from the business world1. Key Performance Indicators, Professional Development Dashboard, SMART Targets, Accountability Reviews. The bishops will now closely supervise, they will micromanage, and, whenever people are micromanaged mendacity will be the result: “look at how every indicator in my parish in up-lifting into the black, bishop!”

And yet corporatization is no guarantor of success or longevity: in the 1920s the average lifespan of a company listed in the S&P 500 index of US companies was 67 years. Today it is 15 years. According Richard Foster of Yale University, by 2020 75% of the S&P 500 index will no longer be in existence.

As a Church what lessons do we have to learn from business?
Anything other than how to fail faster?

As a Church what lesson do we have to learn from the military?
Anything other than how to protect the generals better?

 

 

 

 

  1. because we all know how successful those are! []

What a priest needs to do to be a Christian

(according to +ABC, in an interview with Vatican Radio)

Interviewer:              

You famously said that your successor “Needs the constitution of an ox and the hide of a rhinoceros.” What positive, practical advice would you like to give to the man who’ll be shortly stepping into your shoes?

Archbishop:

Visit lots of schools and parishes. Make sure that you’re there constantly, faithfully, regularly, with people who are doing what matters. One of the great illusions you can have in a job like this is that what you do in the office is what really matters.

God deliver us from an illusion like that; what really matters, of course, is lives evolving in faithful discipleship at the grass roots. So go and see that happening, go and encourage it, go and learn from it; go and be vitalised by it.

I’ve enormously appreciated the time I’ve spent, especially in schools, because being with young people who are questioning about their faith and their life is always invigorating.

For all the difficulties that beset many parishes, I can’t think of any parish I’ve visited, in 20 years as a bishop, that hasn’t in some way made me go away feeling “It’s all worthwhile.”

 

“Church of England in ‘sham marriage’ crackdown”

Once again, I discover a change in the legal status of the things I am supposed to do, as a clergyman in the Church of England, by listening to the Today programme on Radio 4.

Now, apparently, the House of Bishops have issued new guidelines on the legal preparations for marriage in churches, especially where the immigration status of one of the parties marrying is in doubt. Apparently.

All I know about it is what is on the BBC news website, and what a singularly unrevealing and blustery interview with John Packer, Bishop of Ripon and Leeds disclosed. Which is, basically, nothing.

No email from the diocesan registrar. No flashing, blinking link from the front page of the C of E website. No package in the post. Nowt.

Then again, why should there be? After all, I am only a surrogate, the person responsible for administering the process.

Brief question about the Ordinariate

Actually, the question is not so much about the Ordinariate as about the legal advice prepared for the next meeting of General Synod, and placed on the intertubes here.

Commendably clear (and uncompromising), the basic tenor of the piece is “No… you can’t” when it comes to questions of property, office, decision-making processes, legal title and so on. However there is one interesting contradiction within its paras, which is only a contradiction because I don’t know enough canon law:

In the section Will church buildings transfer to the Ordinariate? there is this explanation

it is a general principle of law that -even if the trusts do not expressly require it – where a charity is established for Church of England purposes, only members of the Church of England should act as its trustees. Thus those who leave the Church of England to join the Roman Catholic Church are no longer eligible to remain as trustees of any such charity. The vacancies which their departure creates stand to be filled, in the usual way by new trustees who are members of the Church of England.

Fair enough. If the charity / trust is for the Church of England you have to be part of the Church of England to run it. Then again, in the section Who will care for the parishioners if clergy leave the Church of England? there seems to be another definition of “member”:

As one aspect of its established status, the Church of England relates to its ‘parishioners’, rather than simply to its ‘members’. Its ministry is open to all comers, whether they are on its church electoral rolls or otherwise.

Note the “scare quotes” around ‘members’ in that sentence. The Church of England does not have ‘members’ as such: everyone in the country is able to access the pastoral care and the governance of the Church, unless…

Well, unless what? What is the difference between membership in the first para and ‘membership’ in the second? Is it communicate status? Is it canonical obedience? Is it being listed on an electoral roll? Is it being on the coffee rota?

This has, historically, been one of the strengths of the established church, a blurred and movable boundary. The Church of England is the liminal church par excellence. Does GS Misc 979 indicate the beginnings of the hardening of those boundaries?

LC08 : “Bishops march for poverty action”



The BBC reports the Lambeth Conference march of witness, and finishes the report with an appeal for photographs:

But that’s impossible! Imagine taking photos of a procession of bishops without endangering yourself or others!

Simply can’t be done. Leave it to the professionals.




3MT : Weeds, Wheat and Unity

I never really wanted 3MT to be a repository of sermons, but I have weakened. This is based on a sermon preached yesterday in St Stephen’s Church, Canterbury, in the light of the meeting of the Lambeth Conference, which is taking place within our parish. So, for this one occasion only (!), we present Eight Minute Theology…!


Continue reading