When I read the Old Testament passage in this morning's service at York Minster one verse took my eye: “And whether they listen or fail to listen —for they are a rebellious people —they will know that a prophet has been among them.” (Ezekiel 2:5) Knowing the preacher was to be the Archbishop of Canterbury, I thought this was apposite, if not ironic.
The Archbishop named the frustration that characterises not only the church at present, but infects our wider society. He was direct, funny and poignant. The sermon needs to be listened to in full here, but the transcript will be available from the same link soon.
But, addressing the two other readings also – 2 Corinthians 12:2-10 and Mark 6:1-13 – he noted that Ezekiel was a frustrated prophet, Paul a frustrated evangelist, the twelve disciples frustrated followers, and Jesus 'could do no deed of power there'. It was in this context that he observed:
There is no power that can force the human heart… The human heart changes when it is broken by love.
I can't do justice to the sermon – it has to be heard in its entirety and I am too busy anyway. However, he concluded by noting that Jesus did what he did anyway, touched some people anyway, and that he simply and wryly demonstrated that his grace is enough.
It certainly shines a different light on the fevers around the synod this weekend.
Posted with Blogsy
July 8, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Nick
I am glad you raised this , because I read the same set short passage from Ezekiel during our Sunday morning service today. It is a very powerful passage indeed. When I read it through beforehand the same verse struck me also. In fact my fellow Reader colleague who was preaching this morniong asked me to preface the reading by askign the congregation “Are you listening” She also asked the lay person reading the Gospel reading from Mark’s gospel to preface her reading with the question “Are you still listening”, which we both did!
I read your blog yesterday when you stated that you were glad that a fair amount of listening had been going on at Synod..and that is really good to hear as has been demonstrated by what appears to be coming out of Synod today. Indeed the theme of “listening” is really appropriate here, as according to the BBC News website
“The Church’s ruling synod has outlined to plans to exempt traditionalists from serving under women bishops.But it has said it will now seek to delay Monday’s vote on the change.
The Church of England has confirmed that its steering committee for the draft legislation on introducing women bishops would seek permission adjourn the final approval debate.
This would allow the bishops to reconsider the amendment agreed in May by the Church’s 44 local dioceses”
This whole sorry episode as to what has gone on leading up to,and indeed during, Synod would not have happened if the House of Bishops, recognising that the Church of England is syndocially governed, had actually stopped and actively “listened” to the overwhelming views of the Diocesan Synods that were made abundantly made clear in the votes that were cast. You would surely not have found yourself as frustrated as you undoubtedly are now if this had been the case.
I said the other day that I was praying for the very best and hoping for the very worst. Graciously, it would appear that God has, thanks partly to the courageous stance of the Bishops of Gloucester, Worcester and Salisbury, as well as many others, heard my prayer and the matter has been sensibly deferred, rather than deeply flawed legislation being passed in a rather unseemly hurry.
Instead of listening the the Synods across the country (is that not what Synodical government is all about!?), it is my personal view the HoB have listened far too intently (and have done for quite some time and for way too long) to those who were vehemently opposed to the measure being passed, and have deliberately placed obstacle after obstacle in the way to prevent this being passed, seeking concession after concession after concession. They then made the HoB look very foolish by refusing to accept that the amendments had gone far enough! If that is not enough to make the HoB wake up and smell the coffeewhen they reconvene, I don’t know what is! What will ever be “good enough” for the opponents of the measure, may I ask?
What I have learnt from all this, and what the HoB will have to accept from now on, is that it will not just be strident voices of the conservative evangelicals, hardened liberals and devout Anglo Catholics that you will be hearing a lot of from now on…but the voices of many moderate open evangelicals too, like myself. Many of us started our journey in the conservative evangelical camp, but do not identify with that label as such any longer. That does mean we,love Jesus any less than a “conservative evangelical, as is often either openly stated or subtly inferred, or that we are “wishy washy liberals” (let’s knock that one firmly on the head too!)
Also I hope you have noticed in the various petitions that have been signed the number of men who are deeply concerned about this too. It is about time we started to stand up and be counted on this issue, rather than leave it tou our couragous sisters…you may notice more of that happening in the future too.
This has not been an issue that has, as has been way too simplistically presented on occasions, pitted progressives against traditonalists or evangelicals versus liberals…there are thousands of moderate evangelical Anglicans out there as well as the “moderate conservatives” who the HoB have been so despearte to win over. Bishops across the country may now find that they hear a lot more from us in future, as the decision to amend this legislation has ensured that we have well and truly found our voice, and I am glad that it appears, at last, to have been heard.
I would also like to state most categorically that just as a female Bishop in no way ever should be regarded or classed as a second-rate Bishop (or even non- Bishop), neither are those of us who are not conservative evangelicals, in any way second rate or non evangelicals as we are often made to feel. I know of many people, myself and my wife included who have signed petitions and made our voice heard for the very first time over this issue, and it is about time those in the episcopated started to devote far more time and energy to listen to other voices than the “usual suspects”. It sometimes feels like a very forlorn hope, I have to confess.
I would like to end by saying that one reason why I would be disparaged by the conservative evangelical wing of the church is that I have a very high regard for Rowan Williams, and believe he has faced an almost impossible task at times. However, I read some comments from him yesterday (before the possibility of deferring was discussed) which made me feel that he was frustrated at what was going on becasue he wanted the legilsation passed, I guess because as part of his legacy he wanted to have seen the passing of the Measure through “on his watch”.
I think deferring a decision until November is ideal because it still gives him the opportunity, if the House of Bishops make the most of the opportunity to reconsider that has now been afforded to them, to finish his Archepiscopacy on a positive note by ensuring that appriopriate legislation is passed that will be workable in practise without making a mockery of the workings of the Church of England.
This has been a chastening experience for all of us, What may come out of this ios that the voices that have shouted loudest and been listened to the most may recede, and those who up to now have been relatively quiet, may decide that it isn high time that they found their voice and will expect to be listened too far more intently than they have of late.
One final thiong Nick..you mention in passing that “I am too busy anyway”. Is this not part of the problem? When we are too busy to even listen..then quite frankly..are we not in real danger of being just “too busy” Maybe that is what needs to change if the HoB want to be switched on and ensure that they have their finger well and truly on the pulse.
Today is a very encouraging start…let’s hope it continues.
.
July 8, 2012 at 9:18 pm
[...] Synod prepares for major debate upon the morrow in York. Bishop Nick Baines of Bradford writes of Frustration and Joy here – pointing us (for which, hearty thanks) to an audio link to Archbishop Rowan’s [...]
July 9, 2012 at 7:31 am
First rate sermon majestically delivered!
Hadn’t occurred to me before that frustration is a consequence of freedom/free will.
Will the current compromise re women
Bishops hold?
A non sequitur to offer the difference twixt equivalence and equality as excusing making women second class status in this regard in the Church surely?
In any event even the bald sexual differences are not always clearcut: even in a biological sense sexual differences are graduated, and we are All different. Once hormones are taken into account the picture is still less clear.
Frustrations arise also from our imperfect understandings. Ever thus and ever will be.
I wonder at the certainties many claim in their understandings of our Lord and of God’s mind.
July 9, 2012 at 12:53 pm
quietsaple
I agree..what a magnificent sermon and deeply thought provoking. As I have said before, I am willing to go on record as a huge admirer of Rowan Williams.
This may well be one of his best sermons.
I agree that we need to beware of claiming to be too certain of the understandings many claim of knowing God’s mind and will, although I do believe with all my heart that we are encouraged to do our very best to discern it…but one thing I am unashamedly certain of is this…that Synod has admirably discerned the mind and will of God in voting (as it just has done today) to postpone not only the vote, but also the entire debate on admission of Women to the episcopate.
That is very good news in my opinion, and cause for much joy and very little frustration. Nothing would have been worse than to have the motion defeated by a bizarre coalition of opponents and supporters of the measure alike.
There is now ample time to go and have a summer’s break and relaxation, and then actively take time to seek, listen and discern what God’s will is regarding the proposed amended legislation. Diocesan Synods up and down the country have made their decision known. It is now up to the House of Bishops to review their decision/amendments and decide whether they wish to present either a revised piece of legislation, or the original piece of legislation which hass already been apssed and agreed by the vast majority of the Diocesan Synods. What is clear is that the current amended legislation is simply not acceptable in it’s current form.
It also gives the House of Bishops time to listen much more than they have done of late to the moderate/open evangelica/liberal catholic & central churchmanship wing of the church,(trust me…we have now , at long la,t well and truly found our voice) as well as the staunch liberal/AngloCatholic/conservative evangelical/moderate conservative wings, who have sought to dominate the conversation so far.
Only then, by listening to all concerned parties within the Anglican church, may Romans 12 v1 & 2 begin to become something more of a reality, than just a frustrating and illusory pipedream.
July 9, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Phil, you need to try editing! I haven’t time to go through all your questions and comments, but I do want to make a couple of points. First, I haven’t avoided addressing the women bishops issue – I chose not to do so on the grounds that everyone else is. Also, the ground was constantly moving and until we got to today too much was speculative. Secondly, but related, you repeatedly accuse the bishops of not listening when the reason we are where we are is precisely because the House did listen! We then had to try to square a circle that others had been unable to square. You ignore two things: first, if the original unamended text was put to the synod, it would almost certainly fall in the House of Laity. Second, adjourning the debate does not mean the bishops will withdraw their amendment – especially if nothing better is forthcoming. But, I can promise you that the bishops are not playing games with this or just carelessly entertaining themselves in order to annoy everyone. If you were here, you would recognise some of the games that are being played around this issue as well as the real business.
I tried to keep it brief, but hope you can understand. I will post more fully when I can.
July 9, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Nick
Thanks for your reply. I accept your comments re the editing…texting/emailing is always difficult because you cannot see face to face, read body language etc and tone can often be misinterpreted or misunderstood.
I understand that the ground was constantly moving, and I can just imagine the games that were being played…I hate them, but trust me unless you learn to reluctantly play them, you end upgetting walked all over! The current Archdeacon of Liverpool was also our vicar until 18 months ago, and he is a great guy, (he doubled up for many years but is now full time Archdeacon..and is still living in “our” vicarage!!) so I am fully aware of the games that go on.
I am on my local Deanery Synod, and tomorrow night face a very difficult meeting of the Deanery Pastoral and Mission Committee, on which I serve, as the church where i serve as Reader is being targeted for “pastoral reorganisation” by the Bishop/Diocese/Deanery, (surely a game-playing exercise if ever there was one), and there are several agendas, all of which remain hidden, none of which are being opnely and honestlyt disclosed, but which are there nonetheless for the more discerning..
So you can rest assured Nick, I am fully aware of the games that those both at the top, and the bottom, and those caught in the middle, play all too frequently. I sometimes wish that the right decisions would be made rather than the easiest and merely “convenient” ones for the Deanery/Archdeaconry/Diocese, as I am convinced that a “quick fix” does not necessarily equate to being God’s will! Sometimes there is indeed no choice, but I do feel that there are often better alternatives.
I fully understand where you are coming from re the Bishops not withdrawing their amendment. It would not surprise me in the slightest if you didn’t. I remain unconvinced that many of you actually want to, or have the slightest intention of doing so, but perhaps you could enlighten me on that one! Although I am sure the PR will be that you have listened most intently to how Synod voted today!
I don’t believe for one moment that you were “entertaining yourselves” , I just find it almost incredible to believe that several Bishops at least could not foresee what would happen if you did amend the legislation after Synods had devoted considerable time and energy to debating it and voting on it, I know that hindsight is a great thing, but so is foresight too!
Finally, Nick, just to let you know, that for two year, in the mid 1980s I worshipped in the mid 1980s same, extremely affluent, conservative evangelical church in Reading as the current Lay Chair of General Synod where he is a Reader…It does not surprise me in the slightest, although it depresses me, that the original motion would not have got through the House of Laity, because as far as I am aware, I know he is a staunch opponent of Admitting women to the Episcopate. How powerful is his influence might I ask….I wan’t impressed with him then , and not much has changed I’m afraid. What “power games” are being played there I wonder!
btw is there any way we can find out which Bishops voted to adjourn and which wanted to carry on with the vote regardless. It would be helpful and informative to know. And come on Nick, get real, General Synod and the Church of England in general are both places where people far more intent on ” playing games” instead of living out the Kingdom of God has been going on for decades. You surely aren’t trying to make out that that it is somehow a recent phenomenon are you?
Sorry this is still too long..however, I hope we can continue the dialogue becasue I think it is very useful.
July 10, 2012 at 7:27 am
Hi Bishop Nick, I’m glad you’re finding time to post amid these busy few days. I sympathise with the church as you are clearly in an impossible position here. On the one hand you have to be seen to be in tune with the times, or face criticism along the lines of “being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century…” On the other hand you face alienating thousands of worshippers, or at the very least asking those same people to change lifelong beliefs.
It doesn’t help that prolongued failure to resolve the issue is continually reported in the media as “fudging” it, and the Archbishop did a good job of making that point.
On the other hand, I admire your continued optimism. A couple of days ago I heard a bishop (who is not a member of synod) being interviewed and he said that one of the joys of being an Anglican is that you can have open debate, discussion and disagreement. Now that’s looking on the bright side!
July 10, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Phil, you write: “I fully understand where you are coming from re the Bishops not withdrawing their amendment. It would not surprise me in the slightest if you didn’t. I remain unconvinced that many of you actually want to, or have the slightest intention of doing so, but perhaps you could enlighten me on that one! Although I am sure the PR will be that you have listened most intently to how Synod voted today!” This illustrates that you do not understand where I am coming from.
The HoB was trying to ensure the passage of the Measure. It was clear that the House of Laity would have sunk it if it had gone unamended. Therefore, the amendments were aimed at helping the Measure to be passed this week. It clearly didn’t succeed. But, that leaves us all with a question: if simply removing the amendment will ensure that the vote fails in November, what further (or alternative) amendment will give us the best chance of getting what we all now want? What the HoB wants is to get the thing through and hold the church together – whcih is what all sides have asked us to do. Your cynicism about ‘PR’ is really unworthy and I would ask on what grounds you stand when you impugn the integrity of the bishops.
Lastly, getting details on who voted for what in the adjournment debate won’t tell you a great deal. For example, I know of people in all three Houses who voted tactically – such as traditionalists who oppose women bishops who voted against the adjournment in order to then vote against the measure… although the impression was given in speeches that ‘needing to resolve this now’ really meant they would then vote to get it through. It is all more complex than you would like it to be.
July 10, 2012 at 5:34 pm
“Lastly, getting details on who voted for what in the adjournment debate won’t tell you a great deal. For example, I know of people in all three Houses who voted tactically – such as traditionalists who oppose women bishops who voted against the adjournment in order to then vote against the measure… although the impression was given in speeches that ‘needing to resolve this now’ really meant they would then vote to get it through.”
As it was an electronic vote the details will be available in due course. I have to say that if just one of those ‘traditionalists’ had said that they would now have voted for the legislation then I would have thought twice about voting for an adjournment. But not one of them did. It became clearer as the debate went on that the majority of the House of Bishops wanted chance to have some breathing space and think again. The Archbishop’s speech in particular enabled that to happen.
July 10, 2012 at 8:28 pm
“What the HoB wants is to get the thing through, and hold the church together – which is what all sides have asked us to do”
Absolutely no disrespect to the HoB, Nick, but maybe it just isn’t possible to work this out by being ‘political’.
I think we all know that the circle can’t be squared, we can’t have ‘Schroedinger’s Priests’ let alone ‘Schroedinger’s Bishops’.
Whatever our good intentions, and our hope that we are showing unity in diversity, it actually looks like a great big mess to those on the outside.
I wonder – and it really is a question, I’m not having a go at anyone – where on earth the expectation came that the HoB could somehow sort out this mess by political means? It seems quite unreasonable to expect that to happen if the problem is indeed insoluble in terms of coming up with an answer everyone is unhappy with.
It seems to me that the reason for the unexpected wave of emotion about the amendment must be emotion that has been around a long time. We’ve been asking everyone to have a stiff upper lip but suddenly it all came out. I’m not sure we can or should try to put everyone back in their box. It seems to me real progress comes from honest dialogue, and that has to start with each of us acknowledging where we are starting from.
There are some great experts in conflict management and reconciliation out there. Some of them are in the Church of England. Some of them are in the House of Bishops. I hope their gifts will be called on to help us all move forward.
July 10, 2012 at 11:05 pm
Pam, this isn’t about being ‘political’ – it is about trying to find a solution or mechanism. In one sense, we have to try every option even if, in the end, we recognise that no option will work for everyone. But, what I reject is insinuations of bad faith, mere pragmatism, unprincipled naivete or simple other-worldiness. We all know what the problem is and are awaiting solutions that critics think would work better than what was suggested.
July 10, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Andrew, I think you’ll find that one speaker did just that: the Bishop of Beverley.
July 10, 2012 at 11:48 pm
” what I reject is insinuations of bad faith, mere pragmatism, unprincipled naivete or simple other-worldiness”
Well of course anyone would reject those, and making such accusations adds nothing.
However I’m unclear if that is all that you’re hearing? Because from where I am, what I’m hearing isn’t anything like as simple as that.
Forgive me if I’m adding to your sense of being misunderstood/maligned, I don’t mean to, but the fact of the matter is that the view from a position of power is different from the view from a position of weakness.
Many of us – on all sides of the argument – may feel that we have been accused of “bad faith, mere pragmatism, unprincipled naivete or simple other-worldiness” among many other things. Many ordained women I know feel they stand accused of ruining the church by their insistence on pursuing a vocation that, to some, can never be recognised because it can never be genuine.
I’ve written elsewhere of how the first women to be priested in my Diocese were told they must not smile or show any joy when they were ordained because this would be offensive to those who did not agree with their ordination. Before they were affirmed by the congregation, an opponent of women’s ordination was asked to speak to the congregation to plead with them, even at this point, to say no. The candidates for priesting (all female) stood behind him, facing the congregation, as he spoke, trying not to show their feelings about that either.
I see this as a paradigm for the suppression of joy about women’s ministry that had made many of us feel unsure about our place in the church. It is also a paradigm for the stoical attitude we have been expected to take in the face of heartfelt opposition to our ordination.
I understand fully that Forward in Faith feel insecure about their place in the church, and why.
So that is a lot of insecurity.
July 11, 2012 at 4:15 am
Nick: I would have to check the record. I think what he said was that was not the question. The question for him was did the amendment do enough to recognise that trad. catholics were loyal Anglicans. That approach bothers me a great deal because trad caths and con. evos have never recognised that those who welcome this development are loyal Anglicans. That’s the point – they think we are most dis-loyal. They want to claim for themselves what they can not offer to others. That’s why the whole ‘better together’ thing +Beverley signed is so utterly unconvincing and rather offensive.
I can’t recall +Beverley actually saying he would now be prepared to vote for it. I can recall ++Rowan talking about penitence. ‘The bishops will be aware that they under-rated the depth of that sense of hurt and offence; and if other bishops feel as I do, they will need to examine themselves and feel appropriate penitence that they did not recognize just how difficult that was going to be.’ Now maybe you don’t feel that penitence is necessary but I think Rowan was right.
July 11, 2012 at 9:04 am
I’ve not read any account of how any women bishops elsewhere work. It is usual to examine the practice of what is proposed if possible. Not same context no doubt, but we are all human. (All too human as Nietzsche wrote)
July 11, 2012 at 10:18 am
Andrew, I take your point. On ‘penitence’ I think misreading or miscalculating the effect of a decision (which was flagged up during the process) is not the same as acting in bad faith. I voted against the amendment, but respect the rationale behind those who voted for it in good faith and in an attempt to square the circle.
July 11, 2012 at 10:22 am
Pam, of course that’s not all I am hearing. The barrage of stuff that has come our way in the last weeks would make it difficult to be deaf. But, recognising the difficulties (and I think the episodes you cite are simply awful) is not the same as acting in bad faith – that’s my point in this context. For the record, I have spent over a decade appointing the best candidates to posts – and loads of them are women, appointed on merit.
I would still value hearing how you think the bishops might ‘square the circle’, given that an unamended measure would almost certainly fall in the House of Laity.
July 11, 2012 at 11:35 am
[Sorry for long post]
Well I can see that it would be easy just to hear the most harsh criticisms and not the more nuanced reactions – that’s why I hope (and assume) that some expertise is being applied in terms of helping everyone, including members of the House of Bishops, move forward in a positive way rather than reacting to the unexpectedly high emotional temperature that’s been generated since the HoB announced their amendments.
I have heard your question and of course that is what many of us are thinking about. So if I don’t answer it at the moment it’s because I’m still thinking about it, not because I’m ignoring it or thinking ‘That’s your problem, mate!’
However despite the short timescale (taking summer into account) I still think it would be worth thinking first about where we are now – at this precise moment – which seems to be a place that absolutely nobody wants to be.
In a strange way that might be a better starting point than any we have had previously!
I also think it is very important not to equate ‘the amendments didn’t bring about the intended result’ with ‘the Bishops wilfully got it wrong’. What I meant by not trying for a ‘political’ solution was that you are not – as ++Rowan pointed out – politicians. You are pastors to the pastors who have been put into a position that I think we all recognise is an impossible one in human terms. Maybe it is as pastors that you will find the right way forward.
Maybe we just need to go with the emotion for a little while. Maybe God wanted us to start being honest with each other. The amendments certainly released a lot of feelings in me that I didn’t know I was suppressing. Maybe the House of Bishops didn’t get it wrong at all in process terms. Maybe the amendments were exactly what was needed to start us down a new pathway of being open about the cost of any way forward to any of us.
The only suggestion I have at the moment is that channels should be opened for people to be listened to, if possible not just in the usual way of representations being made by organisations. I’ll get back to you if anything else strikes me.
One thing I do think is important. It’s about metaphors, but I think they can important. For years I have heard the word ‘pain’ applied to this issue. We all know that painkillers can help us carry on when we’re in pain but the cause of the pain also needs to be addressed for our long term health. I think many ordained women have internalised the idea that they are the source of the pain and the only solution to the pain is to get rid of them.
Now looking at the high emotional temperature we’re suffering from at the moment – when I was recently in hospital, I developed a serious infection. This didn’t get treated for several days because the nursing staff’s initial response to a temperature is to get it down with paracetamol, removing bedclothes etc. This is a good emergency response because a continual very high temperature is bad for you. But they omitted to tell the medics about it and therefore it took several days to identify and treat my infection, by which time it had got much worse than it need have done.
I’m not sure we have yet correctly identified the source of the pain or the reason for the temperature. I think it’s probably unfair and unrealistic to expect anyone to come up with a solution until we have.
July 11, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Pam, thanks for this. I should say, though, that it is precisely because the bishops are trying to be pastoral that they came up with the amendment in the first place. We’ll see what emerges in the months to come.
July 11, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Well maybe you were more pastoral than you expected!