Massive catastrophes such as the earthquake and tsunami in Japan not only remind the world of (a) the fragility of life, (b) the commonality of human lives and (c) the contingency of all life, but also render as insignificant luxuries many of the preoccupations that drive our energies. (They might also provide an attentiveness smokescreen behind which the unscrupulous will increase their violence while the world and its media are distracted – think ‘Gaddafi‘.)
Apparently, something significant is happening in the world this week as a handful of clergy and a few hundred lay people leave the Church of England and head for pseudo-Rome (otherwise known as the Ordinariate). Well, God bless them in their journey – as, presumably, he does those coming the other way. I read that 14 RC clergy have crossed the Tiber in the opposite direction, but that sounds odd – possibly because we don’t count the numbers coming our way. I can immediately think of half a dozen Anglican priests who were once Roman Catholic priests – in this one diocese – and countless other clergy who were once RC lay people. Spread that across the country and the picture looks interesting.
Interesting, maybe, but also irrelevant to most of the world. (Do the numbers really tell us anything at all? I don’t think so.) I have yet to read or hear anything about the Ordinariate that had anything to do with the big wide world; it seems that all the talk and all the preoccupation is with seeking a ‘pure’ church in which to do purely churchy things. I respect the conscience of those who have embarked on this journey (and those who are still struggling with the decision) and I pray that they will find in Rome a spiritual home. But, I also pray that they will be driven out of the churchy preoccupations and back into the world itself. It seems from the Bible that God sent his Son into the world for the sake of the world, not into the church for the sake of its purity. Isn’t that precisely the problem in the Gospels between those who got the point of it all and those who had to fit God and his ways into the systems their faith shaped for them?
In the meantime, we in the Church of England will just carry on our often flawed attempts to live out the Gospel, to be what was fulfilled in Jesus but was always the vocation of God’s people: to give and live our lives for the sake of the world and not for the sake of our own purity, power or security (however defined). As we pray for those going to Rome, I assume they will be praying for us in our faithful obedience to God’s call.
But, to go back a step, all of this is frippery in the context of the world’s needs. It is luxury. It seems to me today that these ‘conscience’ matters are a privilege for those whose lives are reasonably secure. And they don’t address the hard questions about God and human suffering in a contingent world. Which is of more concern to most people than how much lace the clergy wear in church.
Contrary to some Christian sentimentalism, the key feature of Christian doctine is that God opts INTO this contingent world and does not exempt himself from it. The earth is a living, moving, changing planet which would cease to exist if any of these characteristics stopped applying. Life depends on the movement and this movement must necessarily bring unpredictability, mutation, cataclysm and eruption. Which is why cancer and disaster and suffering are part of the deal of being human on this particular planet. It cannot be otherwise.
So, why do people assume God is absent when tragedy – either global or individual – strikes and strips away our securities? Why does ‘God’ depend on everything going right for us – as if he were a puppet bound to intervene whenever there is a threat to our happiness? And why do some Christian theologies collude with this (possibly narcissistic?) nonsense?
Without writing a book on the matter (which is probably what it requires), it seems that we need to toughen up a bit and be a little less prissy or precious about our individual comfort. I have no right to be spared cancer or hurricane.
In what has been called ‘the scandal of particularity’, God opts in to the world at a particular time and in a particular place and thereby suggests that faith can never be real if it takes us out of time and space and place. Faith cannot be a form of escapism or fantasy – as if we can invoke God to ‘make everything better’ for us. Rather, genuine Christian faith plunges us back into the world and all it can throw at us – without any hope of or desire for exemption. Christian hope is not derived from a fantasy of personal happiness or security, but rooted in the person of a God who doesn’t spare himself and drives the people who bear his name (and have been grasped by him) away from their own securities and into places of vulnerability. We are not called into the light, but to shed light in the dark places: the distinction matters.
There may be good reasons (and I use the word ‘reasons’ advisably) why communities shouldn’t live on tectonic faultlines or flood plains. But, they do and they suffer the consequences of doing so. The imperative for the rest of us is to get stuck in to helping those devastated communities to hear the faint echo of a melody that (a) puts flesh and blood onto the ‘idea’ of a common humanity (using all our human ingenuity to do so) and (b) whispers of promise that the violence does not have the last word.
I care about the fate of Liverpool Football Club, I love my music and books, I thrive on diversity of culture, I dread saying ‘farewell’ to the Croydon Episcopal Area and the Diocese of Southwark this very evening – but these all need to be kept in a broader perspective… one that recognises that Christian hope is rooted not in a desired set of circumstances, but in the person of God who has been here, seen it all and now has to see it all caricatured on a t-shirt.
March 13, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Thanks Nick – another example of how your perspective, candour and humour is so valuable to the church and the world outside it. You are always worth reading! Personally, I am glad you are not too concerned about clergy and their lace. Keep on shedding light in dark places. Even at Anfield.
March 13, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Go well, God speed!
March 13, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Amen! Well said!
But I’m not quite so sure as you about why you say of cancer and natural disasters “It cannot be otherwise.”
It IS not otherwise, that is true and all your conclusions stand.
But in a created world the parameters could conceivably have been different, in a way that would have allowed continuous change without extremes of suffering.
Other than observed fact, there is nothing obvious about it.
March 13, 2011 at 7:27 pm
I think you’re right. On the comparatively minor matter of churchiness, I recall reading that when Paul VI was preparing for Vatican 2 and wrote to all his bishops asking them to identify issues for the great Council, one replied that he for one wanted to see ‘some tightening up in the area of devotion to Our Lady’. Our parish priest (who is obedient to Ebbsfleet)and we have tacitly agreed not to discuss the ordination of women (he’s against it) and I’m glad because that sort of stuff just gets in the way.
On your larger point, you hit the nail on the head. If God did what we wanted all the time, why would we ever believe in the concept? I’ve written on this myself recently (http://wp.me/p14Pgl-5m)but I know it’s a debate that by its very nature will never end. Meanwhile we are bidden to get on with our lives and be for others. That is the real deal.
March 13, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Thank you Nick for this brilliant post! May God continue to bless your ministry as you take up your new responsibilities in Bradford.
Anne.
March 13, 2011 at 10:27 pm
You are right on many levels – not least that such issues could fill a book.
Our faith calls us to grapple with many paradoxes, not least that you can- rightly in my view- reduce our faith to a few short propositions, whilst others can find complexity whilst showing integrity in their endeavours.
We have always had ” tensions” between those who see the transcendent God, and those who proclaim His immanence.
Sometimes I seem to need to respond to the one, sometimes the other. Is this in some way a weakness or commendable open mindedness? Today is one where the image of Jesus with his sleeves rolled up seems to predominate.
Plainly you are heading for a “sleeves up ” future (doubtless with some trepidation). I wish you every blessing in your return North, and comfort in the inevitable sense of loss.
I hope you find some time for stillness, amidst all the busy times ahead.
March 13, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Nick: “I pray that they will find in Rome a spiritual home. But, I also pray that they will be driven out of the churchy preoccupations and back into the world itself. It seems from the Bible that God sent his Son into the world for the sake of the world, not into the church for the sake of its purity.”
Accepted, in part, but aren’t you in danger of implying that the church is not ‘of’ the world, that it is something separate and distinct from it? Because it seems to me that the church, like any institution, is a microcosm. All the things that bother and concern folks ‘outside’ are reflected once you get ‘inside’ as is demonstrated by johnian [above] when he expresses the opinion that the ordination of women is the “sort of stuff” that “just gets in the way”.
Respect for, and humane treatment of, women is a big issue [you might say the biggest issue] there is in the world. As a Pakistani Foreign Minister once admitted “we kill our women.” Speaking of the millions of pounds of American aid spent at one time in draconian birth control measures [which included murdering female babies] he admitted that, in hindsight, they would have achieved a much better result if, instead, they had spent the same amount of money on educating young women and girls. His reasoning was that women who have been educated are aware that they have choices and therefore tend to want to limit the number of pregnancies they have, in order to avail themselves of those choices.
Perhaps rather than going “out into the world” in peace or on any number of missions, the church has to recognize that it IS the world, both in it and of it, and therefore act as a model of what it means to be at peace … which might mean a greater, rather than a lesser, preoccupation with its purity unfortunately.
March 14, 2011 at 1:23 am
THANK you very much for this – I read your blog as I sat looking out over Lake Beresford In Florida.Certain themes within this great blog were worked out before me as I watched the fishermen and women on the lake ‘roll up their sleeves’ and patiently cast their lines to catch fish from their boats in the shallows and further out. As dusk gathered they packed up and headed for the shore and home; they lacked the sight for the darkness of night. Jesus does not. For us to be his fishermen/women we need to carry on into the uncomfortable and seemingly unnavigable, (rolling up our sleeves) and remember your well chosen words : ‘We are not called into the light, but to shed light in the dark places: the distinction matters.’ Dark places of Japan, Libya, Croydon, home, heart.
I hear the service tonight was ‘awesome’ and ‘uplifting’. May you be uplifted as these weeks ahead unfold.
March 14, 2011 at 7:38 am
Preach the Gospel without fear or qualification. Distinguish the Catholic faith from personal opinion or political prejudice. Proclaim the Lordship of the Divine Christ to people of all religions and none in Bradford. Bring Muslims and pagans to Christ. Bind yourself to the strong name of the Trinity.
March 14, 2011 at 8:54 am
I hope you keep blogging Nick, I am always encouraged by your (what seems to me) common sense & compassionate words. I look forward to your stints on radio 2 too.
All the best with your move, remember: when God closes one door, he opens another.
March 14, 2011 at 9:03 am
[...] Bishop Nick Baines -Stripping away the nonsense [...]
March 14, 2011 at 9:06 am
Thank you for writing this, Nick.
I wasn’t aware of the C of E clergy finally making their move ‘over the Tiber’ but then I’m C of S.
I have been aware, though, of the terrible events unfolding in Japan, Middle East, and Ivory Coast without forgetting the continuing misery in Zimbabwe, the tyranny that continues in Burma and the awful strangeness of North Korea.
As Martin Sewell noted, Jesus is “rolling his sleeves up”. Time for us to do the same (or in my case, put my apron on)and I’m not convinced that changing to a different stream of Church is part of that work. Making a song and dance about the change isn’t really a part of the work either.
As part of your rolling the sleeves up, go and enjoy the saying “goodbye”. A good sign of a job well done when folk are sorry to see you leave and you are sad to leave them. But look forward to Bradford and it’s challenges. I know there are folk looking forward with open arms to have you there!
March 14, 2011 at 9:12 am
Nothing like a bit of Joseph Spence to chase away the blues..
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYmnJ5WmR3U&w=480&h=390
Chocks away & bon voyage!
March 14, 2011 at 10:00 am
Nick, thank you for your gritty comments, both in your blog and at personal meetings in the Diocese and locally. Your grit is sometimes uncomfortable, but, if you see the church as an oyster, it has produced some pearls. There were some heartful and lovely comments at the service last night. Though we say goodbye, I hope your Blog will continue.
March 14, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Bishop,
I realise that you are one of the hardest working Bishops we have, so it’s no surprise you have not had a change to read/listen to Fr Keith Newton & Fr Andrew Burnham’s many comments about how the Ordinariate must be mission-focussed and outward-looking. As somebody who has been following developements closely, over the last 2 months they have been saying little else!
March 14, 2011 at 1:57 pm
In response to dearsoeur, I hasten to clarify that I am all for the ordination of women: I just cannot understand the arguments against it. On the other point: the church is a human institution trying always to be a spiritual one, “the only institution which exists for those who are not its members” (Archbishop Temple)so it is at once ‘of’ this world and subject to all its contradictions and challenges, and also ‘not of’ this world (cf St John’s gospel). It straddles the divide.
March 14, 2011 at 2:59 pm
tommiaquinas, thanks for corrective.
March 14, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Rimboval: Thank you for noticing my comments but I didn’t understand Nick to be criticizing anyone for being overly spiritual. Rather the problem seemed to be with them not being spiritual enough and too preoccupied with infighting of the kind that might be considered ‘churchy’ i.e. of concern to the church but no-one else ["sweating the small stuff" to borrow a phrase.]
My point was that the kind of infighting and disagreement that goes on in the church is also [though I didn't put it in this way] “part of the deal of being human on this particular planet.” It isn’t peculiar to churches. It is one of the hardest things for any institution to deal with and, actually, far more common and down to earth “roll your sleeves up” stuff than the relatively rare but horrific crises that hit the headlines, and grip people’s imaginations, for a short time before the newspapers move on.
March 14, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Dear Nick, I’ve been blessed with your ministry when I was in Croydon and I’m sure many others have. Zimbabwe I was with you 07 which was a great experience.
May God bless you and Linda as you move up North, going with my prayers and support, but i will always miss your encouragement in my ministry. Les Wells
March 15, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Seems to me that the only thing which a disciple of Jesus can do is follow his example. Paul had a good go, but most of us do not even come close. As an observer from outside both C of E and Rome, it just looks like ‘deckchairs on the deck of the Titanic’ when one lot leave to go elsewhere. The only thing ‘the world’ takes note of is actions, and playing religious chess just adds more ammunition for those who rubbish Christianity in all its forms. I think that followers of Jesus need to get out there and be Jesus to a world in need.
Ps Great blog
March 16, 2011 at 9:49 am
Personally, I think the publicity has been very unfortunate. I’m sure there must be those involved who are more concerned with the outward and visible, and who have probably gt their priorities wrong.
In my experience, though, most of those going to the Ordinariate have not ceased thinking about and working on the higher things. But I suppose journalists are just looking for a story.
I also think that the death of anglo-catholicism, as predicted by several commentators in the nationals, has probably been exaggerated. Personally, I’ve decided to be in the group that’s going nowhere, and working with SWSSH to throw ourselves on the mercy of Synod. There is a lot that’s good about being an anglican.
However, from a day to day point of view of worship and witness, the departures of some of our friends, whilst terribly sad, has not affected our commitment one jot. Ask me again after 2014 though…..
April 2, 2011 at 5:01 pm
A little grumpy and one dimensional in your writing on this one, your grace. I concur that those leading the Ordinariate are passionate about mission. Furthermore many of us see this as a step towards unity which will serve the world as a whole.
As for length of lace…I think you will find that is for those remaining behind. My decision to join the Ordinariate required the surrendering of church, all lace in it and my house to share a mass centre hall with no lace at all.
But hey, why not just stereotype and draw attention away from what we are really saying?! After all the only other answer would be that we are making a principled step to walk from a church that has abandoned faith as it increasingly takes its lead and values from secular culture…a church that refused to make space for us
April 2, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Ed, “a church that has abandoned faith as it increasingly takes its lead and values from secular culture: – and you criticise me for stereotyping? I respect your decision, but think that particular caricature, whilst vital to your case, is nonsense. I wouldn’t stay in a church that had ‘abandoned faith’ and I am sorry that you so easily write off those who are faithful, but don’t agree with you. I wish you well and, especially since our earlier exchanges, continue to pray for you and your family.
April 3, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Fair point- intemperate words that should have been better chosen. I should have said we have serious concerns regarding some of the thinking and decisions, particularly in regard to family life and ecclesiology, of modern Anglicans- as well as a genuine fear that we are not understood or always wanted as recent synods suggest….
But the mutual prayer is important and it will be crucial- given that this is happening- that we all work at reconciliation. How can the Anglican church find blessings in the Ordinariate and vice versa… Being about unity it is an important consideration…..
April 3, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Bishop Nick, I thought you were stripping away the nonsense?