The forecast was awful, but the reality turned out nice. The weather in York, that is. Yesterday's torrential rain gave way this morning to blue skies and a big yellow thing in the sky. If yesterday reflected the mood of people arriving for the General Synod, today shines a different light into our concerns… despite all the shouty 'noises off'.
I spoke with a journalist recently who suggested that we arrive at Synod, keep behind our battle lines, then start arguing about sex and women. The reality is a little less dramatic, hugely less violent, and considerably more interesting. This morning, for example, we met in 40 groups of a dozen people for worship, Bible study, discussion and thinking. The conversation in my group led my thinking towards the 'debate-everyone-is-waiting-for-and-shouting-about': women bishops. What follows isn't a dig or a pretence at a solution, just a suggestive reflection derived from the reading we were looking at.
In John 18 Jesus has prayed for the unity of his 'body'. (Presumably, he included Judas the betrayer, Peter the denier, and Thomas the doubter in this.) He then waits with his feckless friends in the garden of olive trees – olives being destined for crushing if the life is to flow from them for the nurture of others. What is remarkable is that Jesus, having taken considerable time to pray and think, now waits for the moment of truth (literally). Three things struck me about him in John's description of this most agonising moment:
- Jesus was in control of himself. In modern psychospeak he was 'centred'. Judas, the religious authorities and the Roman soldiers might think they are in control of him, but they don't see that they have no power over him. He knows, he owns what is to happen, he chooses to be here and nowhere else. They can kill him, but that's all.
- He didn't play the victim. Contentious church debates too often revolve around emotive language and hierarchies of victimhood. This gets us nowhere. If some circles cannot be squared, someone is going to be 'hurt'. Someone is always going to be hurt when decisions are made about anything of any import. But the decisions need to be made without accusations rooted in perceptions of victimhood. We then move on and take responsibility for what we do in the light of those decisions.
- He didn't blame anyone else. He didn't start throwing olive stones at the guards. He took responsibility upon himself and refused to blame others for the situation in which he found himself or the decisions he was now bound to take.
This applies today because too much talk is about perceived (even if not intended) threat. The synod needs to take stock, make its decisions and then see where we go from there. There will be both positive and negative consequences whatever we decide in relation to the women bishops legislation. But we need to eschew the language of blame, of victimhood and of threat, if we want to connect this morning's Bible study with Monday's synodical debate.
Anyway, today has also involved a good debate about engagement with the wider church in the world and how to encourage even more links with other provinces, dioceses, parishes and sister churches. Among the many fringe lunches, I went to hear more about the Near Neighbours scheme at work in several of our cities. The afternoon was taken up with legal matters relating to money, Europe and the Church Commissioners. I had a good hour with the excellent German ecumenical guest before dinner with the Children's Society and an evening on the ecclesiology of Fresh Expressions.
In other words, most of what we are doing here is not about women bishops or sex and there is little conflict about. Contrary to popular reportage or assumption, the church is facing outwards and looking at its engagement with the many worlds that make up the world. Monday will come – with all its immense challenges – but so will Tuesday. And Wednesday. Life will carry on, new challenges and opportunities will present themselves, new conflicts will emerge and new alliances be forged. And God will still be God, the church will still be Christ's, and our Christian vocation will not have changed.
Posted with Blogsy
July 7, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Isn’t Johns version of events just one of many who were in attendance at the seizing of Jesus? As such, plus the time between the event and it being written down, can it be trusted? Many studies show how poor human recollection is after only a short time. To base so much on such potentially poor foundations opens a door to skepticism.
July 7, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Some interesting reflections here, Nick, thanks
Simon Vibert
July 7, 2012 at 9:02 pm
A stimulating and refreshing reflection that places the current synod meeting in a broader context with a Kingdom perspective. That’s one of the things I love about Jesus, He never loses His Father’s perspective and surrenders everything to ensure His Father’s will is fulfilled even when it comes at a great cost to Himself. How swift we can be to abandon God’s perspective in order to ‘protect’ & ‘defend’ our own corners, with each person claiming the moral high ground, yet Jesus listens, prays, loves, forgives, accepts & claims the victory even when it looks like defeat in the eyes of the world. Praying that Synod keeps the Kingdom perspective in its remaining debates, discussions and votes.
July 7, 2012 at 10:17 pm
[...] conflict) than many a newsbyte or agitator would seem to suggest. Have a look at Nick Baines’ Squeezing the Pips and be [...]
July 8, 2012 at 12:35 pm
It’s good to hear the broader context of the Synod discussions and the attitudes of the folk coming together, listening to one another and sharing. My prayers are for the Synod and all the discussions and voting ….as we share the Lord’s Prayer saying “Your Kingdom come”.
July 8, 2012 at 8:37 pm
An interesting perspective from the “inside” on events at Synod…I am glad that I did not reply to this as soon as I read it last night, but instead decided to sleep on it and give it 24 hours…especially given what has emerged out of Synod today…ie the eminently sensible likelihood of the vote being deferred until November. (I am not usually a fan of deferring/delaying decision making…but this is most definitely an exception to the rule)
I really think you need to be careful when using the victimhood argument/language Nick Who were you thinking of exactly in relation to this particualar issue…the opponents of the legislation, some of whom have taken the adoption of a victim mentality and turned it almost into a veritable artform…or the supporters of the measure who have been so inconviently petitioning Synod members over the weekend about the strength of feeling should the amended legislationn be passed?
Could the same not be said about the farmers over the milk issue by the way..ie “stop adoting a victim mentality…unfortunately the supermarkets ripping off and exploting the producers is just life…get on with it and deal with it” etc That is not what I believe by the way, but it could be logically argued if we start bandying the “victim” language about. Do you class female Bishops who enter the Episcopate on an unequal footing with their male counterparts as mere “victims” for instance?
Yes, of course if people lose an argument, or indeed a vote, then the victim mentality can set in, but the female ordinands I know have no such mentality about them whatsoever, unlike a fair few of their male counterparts. I do wonder at times Nick if the able, gifted and female ordinands under pastoral care in the Bradford Diocese are 100% convinced that you have their interests and furture development as fully close to your heart as it could be. If I were a female ordinand, which I never will be, from what I have seen and heard over the past few weeks I would certainly be wanting the Bishops of Gloucester, Worcester and Salisbury in the trenches alongside me fighting my corner.
I am not going to mention any names, except to say that she came from the Diocese of Ripon and Leeds, but I was at a New Wine Conference last summer when I encountered a female ordinand who I would love to see in the Episcopate one day, such was the deep and powerful impression she made on me in a relatively short time. I am hoping and guessing that there are gifted, humble, able and anointed female clergy in Bradford Diocese who have the potential to go far in a leadership capacity. Whether they will be permitted to remains to be seen.
Regarding the John 18 Bible study…Yes it is a great passage to study, but it is by no means the only passage in Scripture dealing with the issue of unity..or the struggle to maintain it. Would it not have been more imaginative and uaseful to have had different groups looking at different passages such as “make every effort (ie it’s really hard work at times!) to keep the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace” for example or the passage in Acts looking at how Paul and Barnabas, who had had such a close working relationship and been real partners in the gospel had such a shartp disagreement that they parted company on pretty bad terms. Pretty relevant if you ask me! Surely a wider sweep of Scripture on the issue than just John 18, ikmmense prayer that it is, would have been more beneficial, given the context. Let’s face it..since Jesus prayed his prayer over 2000 years ago that his body shall be one, given the proliferation of denominations in this small land of ours alone, notwithstanding their internal divisions, (you can find five or six small and struggling churches on one road in some British towns!) he must be pretty disappointed and disllusioned I would imagine!
I did also get slightly frustrated at the image of a preferred nice cosy discussion, cucumber sandwiches with the corners cut off/somewhat Dibleyesque apprach to the matter to proceedings which appears to come across. I do accept that there are other church matters to discuss at Synod over the weekend. The ecclesiology of the Fresh Expressions movement was certainly a session I would like to have attended, so long as it was undertaken from the prEmise that the mixed economy is here to stay, and needs to be fully and appropriately resourced and respected, and FEs are to be seen as vital to the future of the church and not tiresomely presented as some sort of threat to the parish system, and that all sides of the ecclesiology argument were considered.
However, it does feel like you have been somewhat irked by the presence of petitioners trying to legitimately open the eyes of Synod members to the strength of feeling there is at grassroots level with regard to the amended legilsation..which I am glad to report they have done both courageously and pretty successfully, or so it would appear.
To end on a very positive note…I spent part of yesterday afternoon looking at the various book titles youi have written and have read he excerpts that are available online from a couple of the books. They look very good indeed and not surprisingly are eminiently readable, thought provoking and cringe-free.
Having known a bit already, and read more about your Scouse upbringing, a sudden thought (not menat to be in any way prophetic), that if you are not translated to Canterbury when the new AoC is announced, you may,
in time, when the current Bishop of Liverpool probably decides to retire in a few years time, having returned as Bishop to the place of you lived as a student, you may one day end up returning to be Bishop of the city where you were born and raised! Which would be deeply worrying for me as you would be the Bishop to whom I will be licensed as a Reader and whose authority I could one day sit under!
…So maybe I had better watch my Ps and Qs for a change…although I wouldn’t bank on it…lol