While I was in Ireland last week loads of interesting things were going on elsewhere:
Liverpool finally got sold and bought. One lot of Americans went out (having done nothing that they promised when they took over the club) and another lot came in. Although we breathe a sigh of relief at the ending of one American dream, we clap the new owners with one hand while reserving the other one ‘just in case…’ If celebration is heartfelt today, there is also a great deal of suspicion. Having been fooled and humiliated once, we won’t (as The Who put it) be fooled again. Yet, it is almost embarrassing to listen to the language of the ousted Tom Hicks: he still doesn’t ‘get it’. But, at least Torres appears fit enough to play against Everton on Sunday…
Chilean miners were being released from 69 days of imprisonment a very long way underground. The world rejoiced, but this is only the end of the beginning. Mining safety has to be improved in a country where miners’ lives have thus far been cheap. And we know that the next months and years will bring huge challenges for the miners and their families: they will need massive support in the light of not only their trauma, but their new-found fame. Furthermore, the BBC overspent on its budget by covering this saga in such depth; will it now cover the stories of trapped miners in China and Ecuador similarly – or are some stories less interesting than others and some lives cheaper than others? The Chilean saga was gripping, but it also raises questions of value and perspective for the rest of us. In brief, was it just more entertaining for us?
The Bishop of Fulham has announced he is to resign and join the Ordinariate (i.e. become a Roman Catholic). His announcement speech used extraordinary language, claiming ‘persecution’ of ‘traditionalists’. Someone should do a linguistic textual analysis of this stuff – for a start it cheapens the word and concept of ‘persecution’. But, the notions of ‘they are forcing us out’ and ‘we have no responsibility- it is all being done to us’ has reminded me of the posts I wrote about ‘future foreshortening’ and the hierarchies of victimhood.
As I have often expressed here, I understand something of the dilemma facing those who oppose the ordination of women; but they need to take responsibility for their decisions about the future and not do the unhealthy thing of simply identifying themselves as a victim of other people’s decisions. I know from personal experience something of the cost of such demanding dilemmas (twice: once in secular employment and once in the church) – and how important it is to stop blaming other people (or ‘the evil institution’ as the Bishop of Fulham puts it). The language is the give-away in all this and it will repay careful examination one day. Meanwhile we continue to pray and try to support those facing these dilemmas – everyone loses in processes such as this one.
The thing each of these stories has in common is the importance of perspective – and how difficult it is to see through the eyes of others or dare to change our point of view. I was going to write today about a German exhibition, but I guess that will have to wait.
Nick Baines's Blog 
October 16, 2010 at 2:28 pm
The conversion of John Broadhurst, Bishop of Fulham, to Catholicism must be difficult for you. You are quite close geographically; you were colleagues, perhaps friends.
I hear on the news this morning that an entire congregation of Anglicans have also decided they prefer to be Catholics. I have no detail on this, and we have to be careful of the media.
I am an atheist, as you know. Please believe me when I say I am not trying to score points here, I am trying to understand.
How can a senior member of the Anglican Church, who has presumably spent much of his life arguing that the Catholics are wrong, just change sides so easily?
I am a scientist. To me, the conversion of John Broadhurst to Catholicism is a little like Stephen Hawkins saying “Oh sorry, the Earth is flat after all”.
Finally, as much as I read your blogs, I am not clear on your own views about women bishops, and gay bishops. Could you tell us please?
KK
October 16, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Not taking responsibility for our responses is potentially a very advantageous place to be because by blaming and demonising the other you can even retaliate without the slightest bit of blame attaching to you.
It’s childish but it’s also clever tactics. I’ve already read the argument that “you” stole “our” buildings during the Reformation and now you have kicked us out of “your” church, we can take “our” buildings back.
I’ve just translated a fascinating James Alison essay about not getting involved in these kinds of adversarial battles: “Contemplation and monotheism: on the indispensability of irrelevance”
http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng01.html
October 16, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Kevin
I can’t speak for Nick, of course (!) but outside the blogsphere I know not a single person who spends any time at all arguing that other Christians are wrong, never mind most of their lives.
And in the blogsphere it seems we’re all adversarial partly because blogs focus on issues and not on the whole person and their normal lives.
Even the most strident bloggers are probably only strident in their spare time and perfectly normal people most of the time.
You choose a church or are born into one, you make your journey as best as you can within the context of your parish, or your diocese or wherever your faith life takes you. Sometimes you change denominations and that can be faily traumatic for you and you lash out a little while you’re going through the trauma.
I sincerly hope your idea of what faith is about isn’t coloured by the idea that we’re all constantly at war with each other, trying to shore up our own egos by trying to prove that the others are wrong.
October 16, 2010 at 9:59 pm
The sad thing about all this trying to blame someone else for real or imagined woes is that most of the rest of the world does not give a tinker’s cuss. Christians in other denominations look at the Anglican Church tearing itself apart, the world just looks on and does not care. There is only one thing Anglicans have got to get through their minds and that is the Lordship of Christ, which they seem to have forgotten en masse. Once that is reestablished in the Anglican Church, the squabbles will become the tragic nonsense which they mostly are and the church can get on with its real task, mission and making disciples.
October 17, 2010 at 6:51 am
Nick your words would have power had the synod not been so mean in granting provision. I note the writing of history when people speak of the Code of Practice as generous but
we entered Synod with flying bishops, legal protection, resolutions and left with the flimsiest of Codes. And perhaps you should come and be part of us here for a few days, often it is hard to see persecution from the top down.
We have not been cared for and promises have been broken. Even the Archbishop admits this much.
October 17, 2010 at 10:33 am
Ed, The path that has led you/us to this position – whether it is noble or otherwise – does not take away the need for all of us to make decisions to shape our lives and futures and not simply be victims of the decisions of others. My point is that it is unhealthy (in lots of ways) to live out of blame of others. I do not underestimate the grief of those who feel aggrieved, but they must make positive decisions and not identify themselves as victims. The problem with ‘hierarchies of victimhood’ is that the conversation never goes beyond whose hurt is the greatest.
I still regard the use of the word ‘persecution’ as a cheapening. I have very close relationships with Zimbabwe and have been involved in parts of the world where persecution is real. Hence my unease with the use of the word by +Fulham and others. This might not satisfy you, but I don’t need to spend a few days as you suggest – I spend every Sunday in two or three parishes and visit every parish (of every complexion) on a regular cycle, and that includes my Resolution C parishes. I also am shown in some parishes the correspondence women clergy receive from ‘opponents’ and some of them can only be described as abusive. When I asked one of my clergy recently if she knew who was sending them (a couple every month), she said that some people add their names and others do not. The named letters are always from lay people; she suspected the anonymous ones aren’t.
I still have not received an adequate response (other than the shaking of heads) to my own sense that if I did not believe the Church of England was competent to do what it is doing, I couldn’t have been an Anglican in the first place. That is not to diminish the grievance of people like yourself, but to reiterate a question that puzzles me.
You continue to be in my prayers.
October 17, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Erica, many thanks for the reply, I think I understand and accept your general point. (I am a bit worried about the concept of being ‘born into a church’, but it is not important just now.
You say, “I know not a single person who spends any time at all arguing that other Christians are wrong”.
The Sunday Telegraph, also the Mail, this morning carried a headline (I paraphrase) “John Broadhurst, Bishop of Fulham brands Church of England vicious and fascist in bitter row over plans to ordain women.”
I share your suspicion of the media (particularly the Mail), and I have not yet had a chance to read the original speech, so I might well be wrong, but this does seem to suggest that the Bishop is ever so slightly disenchanted with the Anglican church.
KK
October 17, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Kevin
By “born into a church” I mean nothing more than that many people were taken to church as children and remained with that parish or that denomination as adults. It’s still their choice!
Bishop Broadhurst is clearly deeply upset about the path the CoE is taking and he is one of those who are changing denominations. His language is regrettable, his emotions are understandable. Hurt people lash out unjustly and ususally exaggerate.
But I would be very surprised if you found a collection of his sermons and prayers and writings and discovered that most of them for most of his life were spent telling everyone that Catholics/Methodists/Baptists etc. were wrong.
Of course he is/was an Anglican for a reason, but most of us can belong to a denomination without having to define ourselves against those of other denominations.
In day to day church life the bishop of Rome is important to some, not important to others, supremely important to a third group of people. That’s just how it is. Right or Wrong barely enter into it unless it suddenly becomes a political issue, and then, of course, you take sides, things become polarised, emotions spiral out of control, sometimes words do too.
It’ll settle again and we’ll all get on with our lives within the context we have chosen.
October 17, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Dear Nick
The victim stuff is interesting: mostly I have been noticing, as was drawn to my attention by a psychologist, how reluctant women clergy and their advocates are to move on from victimhood and grievance. The petitioning parishes account for far less than 5% of the total. The women’s ordination process therefore is already a victory for ‘inclusion’ – until those who are now to be included say what is necessary for their inclusion. The victors quickly become victims once more. There is a significant history of broken promises, rhetoric that could not be lived up to, and bad behaviour on all sides. I don’t think the Bishop of Fulham can be blamed for his take on this: he is chairman of a campaigning organisation which has probably lost its battle. Others of us would see things, and say things differently.
Where I do agree with you is over the inappropriateness of all this language of persecution. There is a persecuted church out there and people are tortured and killed for belonging to it. Perhaps we can settle for a new kind of language.
Personally, I hope everyone can begin to move on. There is a glorious Catholic future for those who join the Ordinariate as the papal visit and the puublic interest it engendered showed. No other Christian body could generate that interface with hostile and indifferent secular culture.
Meanwhile, the C of E will become a great deal less dysfunctional if it can recover interchangeability of order and sacrament. Its greatest challenge is not the gender issue nor gay marriage – it will asccommodate itself as it always does to the prevailing mores – but the way it is hurtling towards a very lightly-trained voluntary clergy, following a second or retirement career. We are rapidly losing our interaction nationally with children and young families and once that has gone we shall be a cross between the National Trust and the local history society.
+Andrew
October 18, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Erica,
Thanks again for the response. I don’t want to pursue the ‘born into a church’ issue here, it raises so many secondary questions.
I understand that someone might use intemperate language when upset (I have done so myself, especially after a few beers), but this rift within the Anglican Church has not appeared overnight, it has been brewing for many years. The Bishop presumably thought long & hard about his decision, the language he used cannot have been spontaneous. Words such as ‘Fascist’ are rather extreme.
I do not understand the intricate differences between the Anglican & Catholic flavours of Christianity. As an atheist, I believe it is all nonsense. To me, the machinations between these churches are pure politics, the politics of power. Power & control over other people.
I gather from listening to ‘Today’ this morning (Monday) that there is still a compromise available on the issue of women within the Anglican Church. I wonder why the Bishop left so suddenly, and so angrily.
You probably think that I am jumping up & down with glee at this conflict within the Anglican church. If so, you are wrong. Religion is a very powerful force in this world. I need to understand it.
KK
PS It might help me if I were able to talk with you elsewhere, rather than via this Blog. I have tried with Bishop Nick Baines, but he is too busy to engage in a private email exchange. Please let me know if you would be ok with this?
KK
October 18, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Kevin,
I have just replied to your email before seeing this. Spooky…
The machinations have to do not with power so much as deep-seated understandings of what makes a church an authentic church. The fact that there are differences of opinion is not new – such differences are the reason most of the New Testament letters were written. But, these conflicts need to be kept in perspective – along with the fact that the media report the conflicts and not the million good stories. The current struggles are an irrelevance to most Anglicans and life continues regardless.
October 18, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Nick, many thanks for the reply.
I am not sure what is an ‘authentic’ church; it suggests there are non-authentic churches. What are these?
I have not read your email yet, I will do so directly. Thanks for your time.
I know nothing about the New Testament letters you refer to, sorry.
I have to say that I do believe that the church is a political organisation. The Bishop of Rome is perhaps the most powerful man on this planet (I guess President Obama has a few more bombs).
I don’t accept that your current struggles are irrelevant. There is a long history of conflict between Protestants & Catholics here & elsewhere. Our future King cannot marry a Catholic, but he can, in principle, marry a Moslem (or perhaps even an atheist?) These are important issues.
The Anglican Church is part of our ‘state’; it has an established role in government via its guaranteed seats in the House of Lords. The conflict within your church is not irrelevant, it is potentially extremely important.
KK
October 18, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Kevin, read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote! I said that for many Anglicans the matter is irrelevant. That is not the same as saying the matter is irrelevant.
October 18, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Nick ok.
This is most difficult. I must have misunderstood you yet again. I often feel that you & I speak a different language.
I have read your post again. I do not understand how I misinterpreted you. It seems very clear to me.
You seem to be suggesting that this conflict within the church is important, except to Anglicans.
I find this quite scary.
KK
October 18, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Kevin, no I don’t! The fact that some people find a situation irrelevant to their faith or daily life does not mean that it IS irrelevant to others or even the grand scheme of things. Maybe someone else can explain it more clearly?
October 18, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Kevin
One of the difficulties is that while it is easy to say that you do not believe in a God, it is a lot harder to define what you mean when you say that you do believe in God and what this God is about.
There are some things Christians subscribe to, best expressed in the creeds. But already you have different interpretations what the creeds mean. “… born of the virgin Mary”… does that mean you have to believe in a literal virgin birth, does it have a more symbolic meaning, is it still relevant today?
These are things Anglicans disagree about and it is quite legitimate to disagree. There is no body that imposes a certain interpretation on all Anglican believers.
Because faith is intensely personal and deep, it touches to core of who we are, we can feel incredibly strongly about it. To some people it truly matters that you believe in a literal virgin birth and they really really cannot accept that anyone else can call themselves Anglican and not believe it.
In day to day church life it makes no difference to me whether my neighbour in the pew believes in the virgin Mary or not. But once a big debate starts and we feel threatened (many of us do, when our faith is challenged), these defining beliefs seem to become more and more important.
If you now look at other topics where theology has to grapple with modern scientific discoveries such as that women don’t have inferior brains to men or that a stable percentage of people all over the world is born gay, you touch a real nerve. Suddenly what we believe becomes even more important because it translates into a new way of living and maybe into accepting things we used to be told were absolute God-given no-nos. The question then becomes can we justify changing our view, if so, how do we safeguard that we are still following God’s will and not just own our preferences. It is actually hugely important because it is about how we interpret God, his will and his authority over us.
If you look at women priests you have 2 groups of people who don’t believe in them. One are the evangelicals who believe in male headship. They think that there COULD be women priests but that they are against God’s will. If you genuinely believe that it is distressing to see your church go against what you believe is God’s will.
The Anglo-Catholics struggle even more because they believe that it is actually impossible for women to BE priests, just like it is impossible for men to get pregnant. They have managed to accommodate women priests in the CoE because they had their own Episcopal oversight. But women bishops are a nightmare, because not only do you have an “invalid” bishop, all the male priests that woman bishop ordains are also “invalid”. You can see why this is a huge problem and why people feel pushed into a denomination that doesn’t have this problem.
Is a truly calm and tolerant church possible? I shouldn’t think so for a minute because there will always be a new topic that causes sudden friction, a new way of thinking we didn’t have before, new knowledge and experiences to make sense of.
Does it matter? Well, it would be nice if we could be kinder about each other. But faith is a passionate thing and so emotions will be high at times.
You say it is potentially dangerous, but I don’t see what the real danger is or what can be done about it. You can either have a church like Rome that allows no dissent or you have a church where all of us together try to work out what faith means. Our version is messier but I think it is healthier too.
October 19, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Nick, Erika
Thanks for the replies. As always I have to apologise for not understanding. I do not understand so many things.
Erika, I will print off your reply above & study it later whilst listening to my new Del Amitri CD. If I have anything useful to add I will put it here.
KK
October 19, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Its always a nice way out to blame the owners when a team fails to perform the way we would like for them to. I suspect there are many one handed claps going round the world.
October 19, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Erika: I really appreciated the link you provided [comment no.2 above]. An inspiring piece and relevant to so many contexts. Thank you.
October 20, 2010 at 8:23 am
Dubious,
I’m a great fan of James Alison and the whole website is worth exploring. If you liked the monotheism essay you might also like “Prayer, a case study in mimetic anthropology” http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng54.html
and “some thoughts on the atonement” http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng11.html
October 20, 2010 at 10:54 am
Erika: Just read the essay on atonement. Again, brilliant. And again, thank you for pointing me in this direction.
October 20, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Erika,
I’ve now read, studied & digested your reply above, and it has helped me. Thank you for your time. As so often happens I understand the general point you are trying to make, but I disagree with the detail and, of course, your underlying philosophy.
This is not the place to debate the detail. I must make one final point though.
It is not so easy being an atheist. The initial hypothesis “There is no supernatural God” is just as easy, just as difficult, and just as fundamental, as the opposite “Yes, there is a supernatural God”.
The differences in difficulty arise in what follows from that decision. The Theist has to decide what religion to choose (if she has freedom of choice), what creeds to believe in, and whether or not to abandon or modify them when circumstances change.
The Atheist has to try to explain the origins of life, the universe & everything, without resorting to the supernatural.
And this particular Atheist has to cope with a dearly-loved Aunt who believes that he is doomed to burn in hell for his beliefs.
As a postscript, quite irrelevant to this article, but knowing how much Bishop Nick likes meaningful lyrics in popular songs; I offer the following, from a popular combo not generally thought to be atheistic (Pink Floyd).
“Far away, across the fields
The tolling of the iron bell
Draws the faithful to their knees
To hear the softly spoken magic spell”
KK
October 21, 2010 at 8:19 am
Kevin
thank you for your reply.
I did not mean to imply that being an atheist means there are no more philosophical challenges!
But isn’t it true that atheists don’t group in organisations and argue bitterly about what being an atheist is about or call each other heretic atheists and “not really atheists”?
I understood your initial question to be about why it is that Christians seem to argue all the time and you speculated that a friend’s conversion to another denomination may be difficult.
I have been trying to explain why we argue, that it is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength, that the expectation that we all agree on everything is unrealistic, that our arguments are fierce but not dangerous in some absolute kind of way.
That some of us cannot bear others to believe differently while others see faith as a journey that does, indeed, imply a level of constant change.
Of course, if you wanted a conversation about faith vs atheism, I agree that could be fascinating – but better done offline than in this thread!
October 22, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Erika,
Hello again & thanks for continuing the debate. You are helping me. I think I am starting to get some clues into the theistic mindset, which is exactly what I have been trying to understand all along. We will probably never agree, but we might understand.
You are quite correct of course; Atheists do not divide into groups in the same way that your Church does. There are no “Anglican” atheists, nor “Roman” atheists, nor “Methodist”, nor “Baptist”, nor “7th day Adventist” atheists.
I know nothing about the differences in opinion between these groups, though I imagine they all use the same book to prove that they are right, and the others are all wrong.
This is why I try to separate the underlying hypothesis (God / no God), from the consequences that flow from that decision.
To me, the most important issue is ‘does a supernatural God exist’.
This is very different from the question “does religion exist, and if so, is it good thing or a bad thing?”
You are right; I was surprised that the ‘defection’ of an Anglican Bishop to Rome was dismissed so lightly by Bishop Nick. You see this as a minor difference of opinion between groups of friends. I see the Anglican Church tearing itself apart, with Rowan Williams (whom I do respect) desperately trying to find ways of keeping it together.
Finally, you are right again. Debate is good. It is not weakness; it is strength.
Intelligent people can argue passionately from opposite views without causing offence to each other. I am a scientist, we argue all the time.
However, there must come a point at which you say, “You are wrong”.
You might be comfortable sitting on a pew alongside someone who believes in the literal truth of the virgin birth. You might regard this as a minor difference of opinion between yourselves.
If I sat alongside a scientist who told me that the sun rotated around the earth, I would get up and move.
KK
October 22, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Kevin
this thread is about to disappear down the list and it’s only you and I who are still talking, if Nick doesn’t mind printing my email address, you can contact me privately at erika at blagdonlake dot demon dot co dot uk