Life is a bit busy at the moment and there doesn’t seem to be much time for blogging. However, despite watching Germany play Spain in the company of German friends (who are not happy…) and reading about the reality of David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ (66% cuts in Croydon’s voluntary services budget – of which more anon…), my real surprise is how easily people believe what they read in speculative (mischievous?) media reports.
Recently – in relation to World Cup prayers – Ruth Gledhill described me in the Times as ‘one of the favourites to succeed Dr Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury’. By the time this reached the other side of the world, I was ‘the favourite to succeed…’. It doesn’t take long to be made an object of ridicule.
Now, apart from the obvious silliness of this suggestion (among other things: Rowan Williams isn’t leaving, I’m not a diocesan bishop, I lack the gifts, academic qualifications and experience … and would prefer to boil my head), the obvious question the reader should be asking is simply: favourite among whom?
Did the journalist do some research? Did she ask a few mates in the pub? Did she ask the House of Bishops or a scientific sample of clergy around the Church of England? No. It is baseless and meaningless. Fortunately. So, the reader should look at such stuff and dismiss it as baseless fabrication. It might add colour to a piece in the newspaper, but it should be dismissed by the reader as nonsense.
I have ignored this until now. But, reading the mischievous speculation last weekend about the nomination of the new Bishop of Southwark, I thought I’d have a fresh look at the language. (Linguistic analysis of texts isn’t just the preserve of under-occupied pedants; it can be useful in shining a light on reality – as we discovered when training in it at university.)
According to the Telegraph last Sunday, a particular person was ‘understood to be the favoured candidate’. What does that mean? I have served on one of these commissions and there is no such thing as a ‘favoured candidate’. There is a longlist which gets reduced to a shortlist and from that a series of votes comes up with the final name(s). To speak of a ‘favoured candidate’ is nonsense – the most that could be said is that a particular person favours a particular candidate.
Then the article goes on to say:
Members of the Crown Nominations Commission, the body responsible for selecting bishops, will vote this week on whether Dr John’s name should now be put forward to the Prime Minister for final approval.
Er… the CNC will vote on which of half a dozen names should be put forward to the PM. That’s different.
And if that isn’t enough, the piece goes on to state (as if fact) that ‘the overwhelming majority of clergy in the diocese are believed to be very keen’ to have a particular candidate as their bishop. Really? How does he know? Has anyone asked ‘the majority of the clergy’, let alone the ‘overwhelming majority’? This is speculative nonsense dressed up as statistical fact. It should be dismissed as such by anyone who can read with their brain engaged.
And don’t get me started on the way in which disconnected observations are associated as if they were intimitely connected.
In today’s update (again, speculative) the language has shifted interestingly from Sunday’s edition. On Sunday the Crown Nominations Commission is a ‘confidential meeting’; now, apparently, it is a ‘secret meeting’ which took place at a ‘secret location’. How sinister. Confidentiality is something we respect (allegedly), but secrecy implies something to hide. Yet this is purely in the mind of the writer. Clergy are said to be ‘furious’ – really? Who? How many? And the candidate was ‘considered the frontrunner’? By whom? The journalist who was making the story?
The point of this ramble is to encourage a closer questioning of what we are being fed. The words matter. Journalists might want to tell a story and raise temperatures – that is fine, that is their job. But the readers should engage brains and not take seriously this sort of language without seriously questioning it first. This isn’t knocking journalists – I am more interested in how the readers read rather than how the writers write.
And if you are wondering why I am not commenting on the person at the heart of the speculation, the answer is simple. He could do without this stuff and I have no intention of commenting on what I don’t know about – the conversations or decisions of the CNC in which I wasn’t involved and about which I know nothing.
After all, it was confidential. Wasn’t it?
July 7, 2010 at 11:07 pm
This is an important message, may I cross-post?
July 8, 2010 at 12:04 am
Stuart, yes.
July 8, 2010 at 2:42 am
The arcane ways of the Church of England and its appointments seem ever stranger in the 21st century. Just elect people openly (for five-seven year terms), or get an Egyptian shepherd boy to draw lots, as the Coptic Church does.
July 8, 2010 at 7:06 am
[…] of a media frenzy relating to the non-appointment of Dr Jeffrey John to the Bishop of Southwark, Bishop Nick Baines offers us wise council urging […]
July 8, 2010 at 7:51 am
Wouldn’t an open democratic appointments process be the obvious way to avoid all this? If the Anglican churches outside England can manage to have them, why not the C of E?
July 8, 2010 at 8:25 am
Fr Mark & Jim, I was on the Perry Commission which reported on the appointment of diocesan bishops back in 2002 (‘Working with the Spirit’). We examined the ways other churches elect their bishops and rejected them for sound reasons – not least the politicking that goes with such systems and the fact that the very people who probably should be eligible are the sort of people who will not put themselves forward in such a system. What is interesting to me is how commentators on the one hand condemn our current system while, on the other, say they don’t understand it. Now, that’s weird.
July 8, 2010 at 8:41 am
Thank you for a sensible comment on the whole sorry saga – the first I’ve read in the media or blogosphere.
July 8, 2010 at 8:52 am
I used to be in the ‘open-democratic election’ camp. More recently, following a powerful and moving conversation with my own Area Bishop, I have changed my mind. As you say, it requires a different kind of discernment of the Spirit’s murmurs…
July 8, 2010 at 9:33 am
Thank you for a little wisdom & sanity, so badly needed here.
July 8, 2010 at 12:42 pm
“Journalists might want to tell a story and raise temperatures – that is fine, that is their job. ”
No. Their job – and their duty – is to report.
Reporting means observing and relaying facts, and facts first, with the analysis and commentary second. It saddens me that our journalists fall so far short of such a basic expectation; and some, it seems, have taken a step further than ‘reporting’ a slapdash mess of supposition as fact, and knowingly mislead their readers in support of their proprietor’s political agenda.
This commentary and speculation on the selection of a bishop is a fairly tame example; it shows journalism as a parasitic excresence on the body politic – but where would you draw a line and say that this or that ‘report’ or journalist is more pathogen than parasite?
July 8, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Perhaps we ought to follow the old procedure for electing a Venetian Doge.
The following is taken from Wikipedia
New regulations for the elections of the doge introduced in 1268 remained in force until the end of the republic in 1797. Their object was to minimize as far as possible the influence of individual great families, and this was effected by a complex elective machinery. Thirty members of the Great Council, chosen by lot, were reduced by lot to nine; the nine chose forty and the forty were reduced by lot to twelve, who chose twenty-five. The twenty-five were reduced by lot to nine and the nine elected forty-five. Then the forty-five were once more reduced by lot to eleven, and the eleven finally chose the forty-one who actually elected the doge.
Once elected the Doge was given no power and the Republic was run by the Council of Three!!
July 8, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Hi Nick,
I heard on the News that Dr Jeffrey John has been turned down for the post of Bishop of Southwark because of his homosexuality.
Can I ask what your attitude is towards the issue of homosexuals in the church?
Do you believe homosexual behaviour is a sin?
Thanks
July 8, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Good common sense – much neeeded – please can it be exported to the rest of the communion. Deomocratic voting – first past the post, single transferrable, or… has a limited use in the church.
July 8, 2010 at 6:49 pm
We’d need to disestablish before we could have open elections with no government involvement, because some of the Bishops get a free seat in the House of Lords. Or at least abolish the House of Lords and replace it by an elected body.
Two more good reasons for disestablishment and abolishing the Lords…
July 8, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Nick, I am pretty sure the politicking goes on in any case, just sub rosa. What I was getting at was the role of the British government in the process, something (probable agnostic Presbyterian) Gordon Brown rightly had no time for, and the check of having a fixed term, which works for the other Protestant churches when they elect their leaders, presidents etc. No system (and no bishop) is perfect, so I would rotate leadership.
July 8, 2010 at 9:39 pm
What the astute John Richardson has to say:
“As is often the case in the Church of England, it is also a process which maintains the appearance of quiet dignity whilst concealing the political shenanigans which are inevitably involved. Despite the election of some members of the Commission, disproportionate influence is repeatedly wielded by the same individuals, and whilst confidentiality is meant to avoid just the sort of brouhaha we have seen in the past few days, it means the final choice is somewhat foisted on dioceses, rather than being given their due consideration in advance.
One result is a stream of rather ‘clone-ish’ candidates. Given that Anglican clergy tend to have a similar personality type anyway, I am sure this is even more so for bishops. Even my wife (not given to ecclesio-political enthusiasm) burst out once, “Why are they all the same?””
The rest of the Anglican world gets by with diocesan synods, ratified provincially. This doesn’t preclude disasters(Pike, Spong, Schori, Robinson, Glasspool) but it does make them the provincial Church’s diaster. Time for the C of E to wake up from its Trollopean dream.
July 9, 2010 at 1:16 am
[…] process. Actually, I noticed today Bishop Nick Baines of the good old C of E writing on his blog about that outfit’s appointments process in re Jeffrey John and the Anglican diocese of […]
July 9, 2010 at 9:04 am
Nile,
I think the difficulty with saying that a journalist’s job is first and foremost to report is that what is true and what sells papers are often at odds with one another. People seem to value scandal and entertainment over fact. They tend to also like commentary and analysis which agrees with their own assumptions and prejudices. It may not be right but it is certainly understandable that journalism shaped by market forces will tell people what they want to hear as well as, to a degree, influencing those preferences in the hope of future sales. I think this is a more systemic problem than simply a matter of journalists doing their jobs haphazardly, or the more sinister deliberate misinformation of which you write. If it didn’t sell it wouldn’t get published and we cannot blame journalists or editors without also implicating the people who buy these papers.
“where would you draw a line and say that this or that ‘report’ or journalist is more pathogen than parasite?”
The expenses scandal springs to mind, but I’m sure Nick can think of a few more examples.
July 9, 2010 at 10:22 am
Wise comments on journalism. I think you should appear as a little inset on the news (like on the programmes for the deaf), instead of sign language you highlight the exaggerations, generalisations and ridiculous unfounded statements dressed up as information. Or maybe a download or iPhone App called Baines BS Blocker. Or something.
July 9, 2010 at 5:44 pm
[…] bishops, Church of England, Diocese of Southwark, Telegraph | Leave a Comment When I posted Lesson 1 the other day, it clearly slipped the notice of one or two people that my target was readers, not […]
July 9, 2010 at 8:53 pm
No doubt there are many stories to tell here. But I don’t think we should weakly capitulate to Nick Baines’ allegedly objective procedurism, especially as delivered in such a patronising mien. Failing cogent evidence to the contrary and on the useful principle ‘cui bono?’, it seems obvious that the leak must have come from anti-gays. In which case, as always, they play a very dirty game.
July 10, 2010 at 7:19 am
Even the title of your Guardian article Jeffrey “John was not the favourite” adds to the confusion. I assume these are not your words. The Guardian also has “How to become a bishop – secret ballots and royal approval”. This does not contradict anything you say but leaves a different impression. You emphasise the input from the diocese. Riazat Butt adds the significant details of two-thirds and secret ballot. So some forceful character could have said a lot about a candidate but it’s not over until every vote is counted.
July 10, 2010 at 8:58 am
David, I did not choose the title of the Guardian piece and didn’t choose the links. Regarding the process, the leading document is the Diocesan Profile and Statement of Needs. It is against that that candidates are considered. The popular notion that bishoprics are prizes for ‘stars’ is nonsense – even if inconvenient.
July 10, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Hi Nick,
Is my question regarding homosexuality too controversial an issue for you to answer?
July 11, 2010 at 10:08 am
Trevor, three responses:
1. You need to ‘hear’ more critically. To have been ‘turned down’ assumes that he ‘went for’ the job. That’s not how it works. Read my later material for an analysis of this. ‘Homosexuality’ is not the issue.
2. I welcome homosexuals in the church. I also welcome heterosexuals, trainspotters, brain surgeons and bankers. But it would be better to get away from speaking in categories and refer to ‘homosexual people’ or ‘heterosexual people’.
3. This is a dumb question. Much human behaviour might be called ‘sinful’. I sometimes worry that heterosexual people concentrate on ‘homosexual sin’ as a form of distraction therapy from their own contradictions.
3.
July 11, 2010 at 10:10 am
Trevor, no. I forgot about it. I thought of so many different ways of answering that I didn’t get round to actually answering it.
July 12, 2010 at 9:10 am
Bp Nick,
For those lost on Lesson One, how about assigning some extra-credit reading…
John Humphrey’s “Lost for Words: The Mangling and Manipulating of the English Language”?
Mtr Kathryn
July 12, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Thanks for responding Nick.
Just to clarify, do you agree with the Bible’s teaching that sexual activity is only permitted by God within a heterosexual married relationship?
In other words, unrepentant practicing homosexual people cannot have God’s approval?
July 17, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Trevor, just to clarify, do you agree with the Bible’s teaching that all people are justifiably damned by God?
In other words, you and I cannot (and do not) have God’s approval?
Or are the gays subject to special damnation, while general damnation is good enough for the rest of us?
July 18, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Sinner, I understand why you are asking the question, but, as I said to Trevor, this is irrelevant to the theme of the thread and there might be a better forum for having that conversation.
November 11, 2013 at 7:13 pm
[…] Nick Baines, Bishop of Croydon, analyses media reporting re appointment of next Bishop of Southwark.… […]