The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, retires this week after 15 years in post. He will now devote his time to supporting Christians facing persecution in some tough parts of the world. I have no idea what this will actually mean from day to day – or how this will be funded and Michael and his family supported – but he has made a brave decision to move on at this point and enter an unknown world for the last five or ten years of his ‘paid’ ministry.
As I have said before, 
I heard Michael speak when I was a curate in Kendal in the late 1980s and was astonished at his fluency, intelligence and memory. He didn’t once appear to refer to a note or script, he quoted theologians and thinkers I have trouble even remembering, and dealt with questions with a gracious eloquence that didn’t expose how silly some of them were. Michael has never lost that amazing ability and has used it to great effect for the sake of the Gospel and the Church. Being on the receiving end of his eloquence and forensic analysis is not always comfortable (which is an understatement), but his passion and integrity are unquestionable.
In yesterday’s Daily Telegraph he gave his final interview before moving on. Predictably, the thrust of the reported interview highlights the perceived concerns of the Telegraph itself, focusing on the need for the Church of England to “do more to counter twin threats of secularism and radical Islam”. Apparently, he warned us that “traditional British society is under threat from the rise of aggressive secularism and radical Islam”. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to find the interview itself – only the report of it. So, it isn’t clear what else Michael might have talked about in the interview. (Update 3 September: Martin Beckford has very helpfully written up the interview.)
I agree with Michael that ”the Church of England, which is used to working with society, should speak up … to defend the country’s customs and institutions, most of which are based on Christian teaching”. But I do not agree with the bit I excluded from that quotation: “more often”.
The first question this begs is: who is the Church of England? Is it the bishops or the Archbishops’ Council or the clergy or…? The fact is that the Church of England – in its parochial clergy, its chaplaincies, its bishops, its synods, its reports, its bloggers, its representatives in the House of Lords, etc – is always ‘speaking up’ and questioning the drifts of society when they need to be questioned. But not everybody gets listened to as Michael does. I am constantly surprised to hear that the Archbishops of Canterbury or York have been silent on something when a cursory look at their speeches, sermons and writings tell a different story.
I regularly get asked why I have not ‘spoken out’ on something or other when I have preached, blogged and debated the matter openly. What is really meant is: ‘you weren’t reported as saying what I want to hear you say in my newspaper.’
The same can be said of : “I think it will need to be more visible and take more of a stand on moral and spiritual issues”. What would such a ‘stand’ look like? And which ‘moral and spiritual issues’ will be regarded as those most important for the Church to be heard on? We are accused of not ‘speaking out on moral issues’ when it has to do with sex or relationships, but not often when it is to do with climate change, banking/finance or media misrepresentation.
I think there’s a double jeopardy – on the one hand an aggressive secularism that seeks to undermine the traditional principles because it has its own project to foster. On the other is the extremist ideology of radical Islam, which moderate Muslims are also concerned about. This is why there must be a clear recognition of where Britain has come from, what the basis is for our society and how that can contribute to the common good.
Michael has been well-heard on these matters, but he is not and has not been alone in speaking on them – either at parochial, local, national or international level. (I raised questions about persecuted Christian – and other religious – minorities during the Congress of Leaders of World and Tradional Religions in Kazkahstan in July this year…) I hope he will continue to bring his unique perceptions and perspectives to bear on these and other issues, but I also hope that others will get heard when they do what he is asking for, but don’t have the same facility as he does for getting reported.
August 30, 2009 at 11:54 am
My take on the “speak up more, shut up more” marry-go-round is that it’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” setup – so say what you have to say anyway while spending 98% of energy at the grass roots where it will make more difference over decades.
August 30, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Matt, this is my approach exactly and I also think there are times when the clamour for ‘speaking out’ should be resisted by wise silence. (And I have amended/fixed the link – thanks for the alert.)
August 30, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Is it not a case that the media only usually grants this facility to such Church representatives who uphold their own false dichotomies regarding religion and society? (Or at least uphold them enough to provide quotes that ensure they continue receiving the facility.)
August 30, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Not necessarily. I think they listen to ‘loud’ voices or ones that create conflict – and I mean that neutrally, not pejoratively.
August 30, 2009 at 2:53 pm
As usual, we will arrive via the ‘difficult’ and ‘stupid’ route. It’s what we do.
August 30, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Nick,
I have every respect for Bishop Michael, who has never positioned himself other than where he now is. His commentary can be hard hitting and difficult and uncomfortable for some to hear – when he states things as he sees them and does not qualify them or make them palatable.
I do not agree with all that he says, but would defend his right to say it.
Perhaps we need a return to the Prophets of old – but would they be able to give the warnings and prophecies, before being rushed of by the men in white coats.
Whatever the Church does, it needs to get the Word of God and its message across, using all of the media resources to hand – this blog is an example of engaging in and with both the media and a wider audience.
Change is inevitable and ongoing – we need to master it and to use all of its resources.
When will the Archbishop of Canterbury begin blogging? Archbishop Sentanu uses both blogging and twitter sparingly, but when needed.
Unless the Bishops are out there, engaging, like Parish Priests are daily and weekly, how are they tending their flocks? When do they hear the voices of their flock (churched or not)?
August 30, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Ernest, thanks for another thoughtful response. Bishops spend most of their time ‘out there’ engaging with people at all levels of society. But there are only so many hours in a day and we all have to be selective about our priorities. I visit all my 102 parishes on a regular cycle, but it is never enough. I write, broadcast, speak, travel, preach, etc., but only a fraction gets reported (fortunately). And, like many bishops, I also have a wife and family and need time off for rest, recreation, study and thinking. I agree with you that a blog can be useful for engaging and listening/learning, but it isn’t the only way and I would seriously not encourage the Archbishop of Canterbury to start blogging! He does do YouTube, though…
August 30, 2009 at 4:41 pm
On models for blogging, I’d suggest a look at the approach taken by the “Lords of the Blog” site from a number of members of the House of Lords.
http://lordsoftheblog.net/
The advantage of a group model is that a significant platform can be built for thoughtful but busy people to contribute occasionally about areas where they have significant expertise.
Consider (say) half a dozen bishops plus fifteen other commentators putting out a couple of posts a month each (on average) in their own areas. For example (and just picking a couple of examples out of the air) what about the Vicar (Rector?) of St Martins in the Fields on issues around homelessness, or an NSM farmer on farming questions (which receive nothing like he coverage they deserve).
Having a range of contributors allows each to stick essentially to their specialism while being part of a team which can together create a platform.
Quite what scope/focus you go for – whether a “direct interface to the House of Bishops” or (one I like) “working out the faith” (i.e., faith & work) – probably doesn’t matter too much, since any other group could repeat the model in their own domain.
Perhaps it can be seen as a development of the Chaplaincy idea or the “subject specialist” approach from the House of Bishops.
There are some excellent individual bloggers around (no need for me to recount them here), but if the Church believes in the model of “witnessing, reflecting, community”, why not apply it here?
August 30, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Matt, that is excellent. I hadn’t thought of doing something like that, but it looks obvious when you explain it like you did! I’ll take that up with the relevant people and see what we can develop. Many thanks.
August 30, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Nick,
thank you for a response, which answers my questions.
Your response demonstrates exactly the issue about getting the message out. “You write, broadcast, speak, travel, preach, etc, but only a fraction gets reported!
Mirror this across all working bishops, it becomes obvious, the low priority given to the churche’s message in the media (unless controversial or hot news) is low or non-existent.
This is one reason why I believe that the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords is so important, their presence there is one where they can hope to influence opinion and actions on scrutiny of legislation from a Christian perspective directly. I would be sad to see them removed or emasculated.
What I would agree with you is that Bishops within the CofE are now much more accessible than they might have been in the past.
Before I joined the CofE, I probably had heard of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and Bishop Michael and perhaps the Bishop of Durham. My education within my own Diocese and wider has been extraordinary, from meeting Bishop Stephen Venner at Confirmation to meeting Arch Bishop Rowan Williams a few weeks later.
In addition, I have the ability to contact the bishops who are on twitter or faceboook and am able to interact with them all if appropriate. This is democracy within the CofE which is quite refreshing, given how busy you all are.
I look forward to more interaction as I learn and grow within the Church, I had a wonderful opportunity this morning, when renewing my Wedding Vows with my lovely wife in our Parish, with friends and community, which once again reminds me of the value of a vibrant, thriving Parish as the basic building block of the Church.
Here I feel really comfortable and at rest with Christ and the whole family of the church with God alongside and with us.
August 30, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Ernest, congratulations on the renewal of marriage vows! And keep commenting.
August 30, 2009 at 7:58 pm
[...] Rochester opens up « Nick Baines’s Blog nickbaines.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/rochester-opens-up – view page – cached #RSS 2.0 Nick Baines's Blog » Rochester opens up Comments Feed Nick Baines's Blog Here we go again… Long live the BBC — From the page [...]
August 30, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I think Matt’s suggestion and excellent one in embryo!…
I am much looking forward to attending a conference in October being hosted by Cumberland Lodge, on ‘Religion and the News’ (http://www.cumberlandlodge.ac.uk/our_conferences/forthcoming_conference_pages/religionandthenews.htm)
A few Bishops will be among the contributors, with plenty of media professionals, and I hope there will be some quality maturing of this stuff…
August 30, 2009 at 11:04 pm
I was invited, but can’t be there. Richard Harries is chairing it, I think.
August 30, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Nick,
Maybe only a fraction of what you write/speak/blog gets reported in mainstream media.
I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem.
How much of mainstream media does the average person read? There is surely a peer selection effect at work here but my perception is that most people in my social circle do not read a broadsheet daily and would be embarrassed to give their money to the tabloid end of the press. Instead we follow the main headlines online, taking them with a large grain of salt, and maybe read the free commuter papers if we’ve forgotten to bring a book on the Tube; these we take with a salt lick. We read about issues that interest us in more specialist forums online or perhaps in print. Some of us read local area papers, usually more for the news of local events than for the journalism. Articles that come across as moralising on behalf of the church are going to get ignored as just so much more polemic; articles that make the church look idiotic might get slightly more weight, but only slightly, and more because humans are so very good at looking idiotic than anything else.
I’ve heard you preach just once, and some of your words have stuck with me even nearly a year later. They seemed important and challenging at the time–I was in a Christian church for the second time that summer, after about a decade without attending any services–but I had no idea how much they would affect my thinking.
I’ve had powerful experiences of being made welcome in a church in one of your 102 parishes. I’ve had very compelling experiences of being shown God’s unconditional love by humans’ imperfect but loving actions on a very great number of occasions, far too numerous to list, but some of the clergy in your care have been among the perpetrators.
This is the stuff that changes lives: a kind word here, a bit of quiet understanding there, the hands that caught me as I stumbled, kept me from hitting the ground and helped me keep my balance until I found my feet again. I have encountered people who somehow bring light, and I have wondered what makes them shine so brightly. This is not the stuff of newspaper headlines, or even the articles (which you so often and rightly point out are not as inflammatory as the headlines would suggest).
I’d say the grass roots approach works. I don’t think people make moral decisions based on what they read in the newspapers; I think they make moral decisions based on their relationships with those near to them and their sense of connectedness with the rest of the world.
August 30, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Song, thank you for posting this. I am glad that you have been made welcome and experienced unconditional love. And I am very glad you read and comment on this blog.
I am not worried about not being reported – indeed it would be awful to be reported all the time. But the point I was trying to make was simply that not being reported does not mean things aren’t being said or done. Some people don’t realise that!
Thanks again.
August 31, 2009 at 5:38 am
>How much of mainstream media does the average person read?
I’d point up the issue of concentration of the media, and who those controlling the policy agenda (a very small no.) get their influences from.
One example: Recent Editorial Intelligence work has senior politicians admitting to paying attention to the commentariat – which is mainly a narrow-ish set of opinions from the Londonerati about national affairs – as a lens for what people are saying. Listen to the EI podcasts from the last 9 months or so:
http://www.editorialintelligence.com/products-services/podcasts-eitv/podcasts.php
or their report from last year.
Extracts:
http://www.editorialintelligence.com/downloads_from_ei/ei_powereport_edit.pdf
>I’d say the grass roots approach works.
A brief look at the list of conference speakers, compared with the “grass roots” idea, suggests that regional religious news
reporters are slightly missing – e.g., the likes of the person doing the BBC Sunday morning radio programme in (say) Newcastle.
If grass roots is the way, then perhaps there needs to be an emphasis on local papers and regional media with “small” stories. I keep getting Street Pastors quoted to me as one the news media likes locally.
And if I was a Comms Professional in the religious niche, I might want to spend my £410 on learning about that – maybe (?).
August 31, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Matt,
If grass roots is the way, then perhaps there needs to be an emphasis on local papers and regional media with “small” stories.
Bishop Nick wrote about local papers here.
I think local, small media has potential, especially with good support, but I think it’s also important to recognise that many people do not view their community in geographical terms any more. I am trying to get involved with local community where I live (without getting too enthusiastic and over-committing myself), but I’m a bit of an anomaly. I work from home most days and have more flexibility in my working hours than most. I’ve also done a lot of research before deciding to move to this area of London.
For my commuting peers, especially those still living in shared houses with relatively high tenancy turnover (this includes a huge number of urban professionals under the age of 30), things like local residents’ associations or community halls which have classes and events can seem irrelevant. Local community is simply not the default option for many of us.
August 31, 2009 at 5:58 pm
>For my commuting peers, especially those still living in shared houses with relatively high tenancy turnover (this includes a huge number of urban professionals under the age of 30), things like local residents’ associations or community halls which have classes and events can seem irrelevant. Local community is simply not the default option for many of us.
I half go with you, but I think that depends how you define “local”, which many take as broadly as “London” or “Bimingham” or even “Scotland”, in addition to villages / districts / towns.
Certainly I’d agree that much revolves
around networks etc. Yet we still pay local taxes, send children to schools depending on education authorities run by local authorities and with geographical catchment areas, and visit The Lake District or Canterbury.
August 31, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Just a note to say I like the thought of our developing something serious along the lines Matt has suggested… something to discuss at the next college of Bishops?
August 31, 2009 at 9:26 pm
I have emailed C of E Comms about it. I won’t be at College of Bishops – I’ll be on a Comms conference in Rome. We should pursue the idea seriously.
September 2, 2009 at 5:23 pm
If any readers of this blog are still interested in what else the Bishop of Rochester was asked about in this interview, I’ve typed it up here:
http://tinyurl.com/mwuo69
Thanks,
Martin
September 2, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Martin, many thanks.