This evening we had a reception for those being ordained as Deacons and Priests in the Diocese of Southwark next Sunday, 4 June. They are a mixed bunch of people – evidence that God doesn’t call clones and honours the flawed humanity we bring to the party. As I left I wondered what the future will hold for these people who have given up much in order to respond the call of God on their lives. Where will they be (and what will they be like) in ten or twenty years from now?
No idea. Not a clue. I have given up trying to imagine people’s future trajectories – experience has taught me to be open to surprise. But it has also taught me to be open to hope. I was reminded of Jürgen Moltmann‘s wisdom:
God is our happiness. God is our torment. God is the wide space of our hope.
These people soon to be ordained will need to discover (if they haven’t done already) the need for hope to be a wide space and not narrowed down by their own prejudices or theological/ideological straitjackets. Experience (as well as our reading of the Bible) tells us that God will not be pinned down to suit our own comforts; we must beware of trying to shape God in our own image.
Tomorrow I will be leading a Quiet Day for clergy at Worth Abbey and will be basing my addresses on the story of Jonah from the Old Testament. Many people think it is a kiddy’s story about a weird bloke being sicked out of a whale’s stomach; it isn’t. It is about a man discovering (but not very well or willingly) that God’s love and mercy cannot be limited by our own limitations or desire for God only to behave well to the people of whom we happen to approve. God has a habit of never sticking to our moral formulae – which can sometimes be embarrassing.
I recently read the book about Anglicanism and the future, called The Hope of Things to Come. Like most edited books, it is a mixed bag. The first two chapters by Dr Charlotte Methuen are very interesting, but spoiled by lack of proofreading by an editor: there are loads of typos and words transposed. But, these chapters and the book as a whole repay careful consideration as they address a generally Christian and specifically Anglican approach to tradition and change in both world and church. Charlotte Methuen quotes Sir Thomas More (1478-1535):
Tradition is not holding onto the ashes but passing on the flame.
However, the flame of hope – indeed, of confidence – can only be passed on if it has first been received and held. And that confidence has to be rooted not in a particular tradition, but in the person of the God whose character and activity the tradition is supposed to be about.
My own hope for these ordinands is that their experience of the church will blow oxygen onto the flame and make it dance… and not let the flame die out in order to preserve and honour the wick. I hope they will play like Brazil against Chile (full of flair, creativity, enjoyment and imagination) and not like England against Germany (er… you know what I mean…).
The job of the bishop is to fan the flames, keep the fire burning, feed the embers when they are in danger of dying. In the words of the great Bruce Cockburn song/prayer (sort of):
Love that fires the sun keep them burning.
July 1, 2010 at 4:04 am
The question of tradition any Anglican has to face is: ‘Why are you an Anglican and not a Roman Catholic?’ In other words, what do you make of the Reformation and its central watchwords? What is the status of the Bible in your theology, worship and witness? How do you answer (if you do) attacks on its traditional understanding?
Tradition has a more exact historical and dogmatic sense for Catholics, and Catholics have generally avoided many of the wilder vagaries of Anglicanism, not least in its present condition. Western Anglicanism will not survive in its present schisms. The Modern Churchpeople’s Union and Affirming Catholicism are two trajectories that can lead away (and have done so) from traditional Anglicanism. Bishop Richard Holloway, one of the founders of AC, is now an agnostic, while Bishop Tom Butler now openly advocates (on BBC Radio 4) same-sex relationships as right for Christians. Yet he did not say openly while he was a serving bishop. Why was that?
July 1, 2010 at 9:27 am
thank you for sharing that – I particularly love the More quote, ‘Tradition is not holding onto the ashes but passing on the flame.’
For us all, with our personal like/dislikes and schools of thought, to remember this could help us to keep a perspective on what it was that we all became ordained for.
Thanks again – I shall carry that as a mantra in my head today as I seek to re-imagine what I am called to
July 1, 2010 at 10:47 am
What a fascinating role they will taking on! I can only encourage them to be dynamic, passionate and not to become domesticated!
Here are my thoughts on the sublime-to-ridiculous wonderful variety of being ordained, in a poem entitled “I am the vicar, I am”. Imagine Bruce Cockburn singing it… http://wp.me/pC2vm-58
July 1, 2010 at 10:52 am
[...] Bish Nick Baines – The hope of things to come [...]
July 2, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Jim,
You cite two groups as leading away from traditional Anglicanism, but how do you differentiate between that which “leads away from” a tradition and that which develops it with continuity but also with flexibility?
Are static interpretations of a tradition ever really viable and resilient?
July 3, 2010 at 6:17 am
Song, I think it’s the old question of ‘By their fruit you shall know them’. Richard Holloway started his clerical life as a traditional Anglo-Catholic but increasingly adopted liberal biblical critique. The trajectory he was following was clear 15 years ago. Holloway was just more consistent than others who have been a little more timid in following the implications of his method.
While Tom Butler was Bishop of Southwark he publically held the line on same-sex clerical relations, but he was widely believed not to agree with it. Now he is free to speak his mind.
For a Catholic take on this, check out what john Henry Newman had to say on liberalism in the 19th century.
It comes down to your doctrine of Scripture as God’s Word Written.
July 3, 2010 at 10:29 pm
- and now the Teelgraph is reporting that Jeffrey John may be nominated as Bishop of Southwark: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7870158/Gay-cleric-in-line-to-become-bishop-in-Church-of-England.html
All of this is pushing the C of E into further division.
July 3, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Jim,
“It comes down to your doctrine of Scripture as God’s Word Written.”
Do you really mean Scripture as God’s Word Written, or your interpretation of Scripture as God’s True Intention?
If the latter, how do you know that your interpretation is right?
If the former, what are your views on divorce? Or on wearing mixed fibres? Have you ever tried keeping Jewish law? How can anyone seriously deal with the apparent contradictions in the Bible without doing at least some interpretation? For that matter, have you seriously studied it in the original languages? Translation is also interpretation.
Those being ordained tomorrow (er, today, it’s way past bedtime) are very much in my thoughts and prayers.
July 4, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Song, you forgot to ask me my views on shellfish.
If you really want to hear the judgments of expert scholars, check out the website of Professor Robert Gagnon (robertgagnon.com) or see the video addresses of Professor John Nolland of Bristol on the Anglican Mainstream website archive.
Talk to the organ grinder, not the monkey.
July 6, 2010 at 7:05 am
Jim,
I always forget about shellfish — can’t stand the stuff, myself, so when I was keeping kosher I didn’t think about it any more than usual.
I think perhaps you mean http://www.robgagnon.net, as http://www.robertgagnon.com seems to be the website of a photographer.
I attempt to listen to the one who wrote the tune rather than to any organ grinder or monkey, but I’m sure I make mistakes. I hope that the Christian message of God’s mercy and unconditional love is true. I believe that mercy is wide enough to encompass a variety of mistaken interpretations and I believe the church is invited to act as an example of that mercy and love, here and now. I value that far more than I worry about what Paul thought of homosexuality or women’s leadership, and I instinctively recoil from what I see as the abuse of Scripture to perpetuate prejudice and injustice.
Your interpretation, of course, may vary. And you do interpret — just as I do or anyone else does. You may not be grinding the organ but you have nevertheless decided to dance. As far as I can tell, your organ grinder values correctness or purity above mercy. I’m unlikely to be swayed by any arguments stemming from those values. What Scripture says is not irrelevant, but it must be considered in context. I mean its own context as much as the context in which we now live — Paul’s recommendations that women cover their hair and remain silent in church can hardly be more important than the Great Commandment.
I cannot rightly say that I don’t interpret Scripture according to my values. I also cannot rightly say that my interpretation of Scripture does not inform and influence those values. It’s all a bit chicken-or-egg, really.
For a more detailed scriptural analysis that does draw some (though not all) of the same conclusions I do, you might like to read http://reasonableandholy.blogspot.com/ (by Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG).
July 8, 2010 at 2:48 am
I have engaged Tobias Haller in (internet) debate before. I am quite unconvinced by his use of Scripture or his attempt to legitimize same-sex “marriage” by his hermeneutic. It was entirely unknown to the Apostolic Church and the Church Fathers.
Read Rob Gagnon, don’t be guilty of prejudice.