Just a quickie as I haven’t had time to write anything deep (did I ever?) this last couple of weeks.
Funny old world. The Church of England gets it in the neck from politicians regarding women bishops and gay marriage. The Mother of Democracy makes space for people elected on a fraction of the electorate’s votes to threaten the Church that if we don’t change our polity they will do it for us. In other words, “we don’t like how your people voted, so change the system in such a way that they get it right next time – or we will force you to do it”.
Er… forgive me for being naive, but did any of these guys think through the implications of this ‘advice’? Or the assumptions behind it?
Did the Prime Minister not feel just a tinge of embarrassment in encouraging the Church of England to “get with the programme” (interesting choice of words…) when he had, for example, failed to reform the House of Lords (which the Church still thinks is needed) in Parliament? Pots, kettles, black. And how many u-turns has this government managed in the last couple of years? And they tell the Church how to get the right results by bending the systems?
Then we have a minister stand up in the House of Commons and state that the Church of England will be ‘banned’ (“It will be illegal…”) from allowing the celebration of gay marriages in church under the planned new legislation – without actually talking to us or alerting us first. OK, the established church finds itself in a conundrum about this and other ethical/cultural issues (and with a spread of opinions within the church) and some of the challenge has to do with stuff you simply can’t erase from reality (or law). So, the debate about the Church of England is OK. But, the minister referred to the Church in Wales in the same category – when it was disestablished 92 years ago. That’s 92 years ago.
So, we have politicians who are badly briefed, ignorant of the polity of the matters they are dealing with, change their minds every five minutes, put out ‘consultations’ at the same time as announcing that they “are determined to push this through”, make a false and factually erroneous distinction between ‘civil marriage’ and ‘religious marriage’ in their consultation paperwork, fail to think through the implications of their proposals, fail to provide evidence of anything other than ad hoc and reactive populist thinking in the proposals they announce prematurely, and then expect to be taken seriously.
I was asked by a radio interviewer this morning how the Church of England will respond to ‘the ban’ on performing gay marriage in church. I wasn’t being entirely facetious in replying that we had probably better wait a while as there might well be an announcement next week changing it all again. Confidence isn’t high.
To make it worse, BBC Question Time last night was embarrassing. Not for the Church for being out of touch or irrelevant or any of the other things levelled at it. No, embarrassing because none of the panellists seemed to be aware of their ignorance, ashamed of their lack of basic research or the least bit open to the remotest hint of a possibility that their confident opinions might be even questionable.
One of the charges against the church is that we are irrelevant and out of touch with contemporary values. This might be true. It is also true that the church always needs to check its hermeneutics against lived reality and have the humility to consider that it might be ‘reading wrong’. But, the principle that the church ought automatically to go along with whatever a particular contemporary culture thinks is ‘right’ or ‘obvious’ is such obvious nonsense that it is embarrassing to have to name it.
Let’s be dramatic – and remember we are talking principle here. What should the church have done when German society in the 1930s colluded with the nasties? How should the Russian church have re-shaped itself during the Communist years? Should the church in England simply let go of some unpopular values because they get widely ridiculed? Should a church’s theological anthropology simply be short-circuited in order to keep trouble away and ‘fit in’?
The Christian scriptures and tradition don’t sit easily with this line. The prophets weren’t popular in the sixth or eighth centuries BC when they saw through the short-term political and military alliances that would ultimately lead to chaos. When life was cheap they didn’t refrain from holding to the inherent value of human life, the common good and the need for justice. Jesus didn’t get nailed for being untrendy – but for daring to challenge the Zeitgeist. His followers weren’t encouraged to blend in to first century pagan culture.
Let’s be clear: it is the principle of automatic collusion with the Zeitgeist that has to be questioned. Drill down then to the issues themselves (gay marriage, etc) and at least the conversation can proceed with mutual respect. Simply writing off those who oppose gay marriage as homophobes without engaging with the fundamental value systems and world views that shape their journey to that conclusion is crass – as is the sneer from the other end that approving of gay relationships automatically writes off all Christian credentials and reduces them to brain-dead liberalism.
The church needs to listen very carefully to what society is saying – and be willing in all humility to contemplate that its tradition on any issue might need to be amended. Sexuality is the big one in this respect at present. But, wider society should not expect an authentically Christian church to simply reflect its surrounding culture or be cowed by sneering ridicule or political pressure.
For the record, the House of Bishops of the Church of England has commissioned work on sexuality (Pilling) and the outcome of this will inevitably have implications for other matters. No bishop is treating this lightly and we are fully aware of the impatience of many people for us to get on with it. But, we will work on it properly and will eventually come to some conclusions. Sneering or ridicule won’t force the issue – however much many of us would like to expedite it to a particular end.
Nick Baines's Blog 
December 14, 2012 at 1:52 pm
I agree with you, Nick – but unfortunately the impression given by the House of Bishops isn’t one of open consultation either – especially when decisions are made about women by a roomful of men. Whether that’s a fair assessment you’d be in a better position to say than I, but I regret to say that’s what it looks like to much of the world. How can we change that?
December 14, 2012 at 2:06 pm
[…] Bishop Nick Baines – Great piece, do hop over and read it […]
December 14, 2012 at 4:04 pm
[…] Baines, bishop of Bradford, has written a very useful summary of the church’s position in the current scrap with the government over a range of issues where the elected minority think […]
December 14, 2012 at 4:12 pm
I watched the beginning of Question Time last night, but switched off because it was too painful. It left me wondering, though, about the “liberal bigotry” that was on display and how much the Church was being used as a whipping boy for the guilt that people feel when they remember the attitudes they used to have towards Gay couples, and opinions they agreed with until relatively recently, which were far less accepting than they are now.
December 14, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Well said Nick. These blundering, myopic, arrogant and disingenuous politicians are in no position to lecture anyone on where the moral high ground is located. The Church succeeds in ” being Church ” when it defines itself against, not in accordance with, the fickle, ever changing moods of society. And this is not to be deliberately obstructive but to bear witness to timeless truths, reinterpreted in each new set of circumstances.
December 14, 2012 at 4:43 pm
>>“we don’t like how your people voted, so change the system in such a way that they get it right next time – or we will force you to do it”.<<
Now that has a familiar ring to it. Just like the reaction to the lost Synod vote on the women bishops measure which had nothing to do with whether or not there should be women bishops but hinged on the reneged promise of proper provision for those unable in conscience to accept the measure.
Fair point on the disestablished Church in Wales; it had their Archbishop Dr Barry Morgan in a right old paddy describing the decision as a "step too far". As an arch-liberal Dr Morgan is totally unrepresentative of the larger part of the Anglican Communion but he was the chosen representative of the liberal elite to sit on the Crown Nominations Commission that selected the new Archbishop of Canterbury. After years of decline in Wales under his leadership he 'represents' just 1% of the population with his surrounding area shown to be one of the most godless in the UK according to the 2012 census.
Again I agree that the ignorance displayed on Question Time was appalling but that is the same ignorance which the Church of England is using to persuade people to push for women bishops, not on theological grounds but on false issues of equality of opportunity in the work place.
Yes, funny old world!
December 14, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Maggi, I think we have to get over ‘the impression we give’ and hold our nerve. The HoB is almost unanimously in favour of having women in the House and are frustrated by the fact that this has not proved possible yet. However, women are invited to meetings – a situation we will be happy to end when women are there by virtue of being bishops. We also have to remember that a load of lay women spoke strongly against women bishops in the Synod – this is not a case of a bunch of misogynist blokes trying to preserve the all-male club; in fact, it is the opposite.
December 14, 2012 at 7:18 pm
I read the Hansard transcript of yesterday ‘s Commons debate on Women Bishops and was (surprisingly) pleased and rather moved by the tenor of the debate, the fact that so many MP’s were speaking from a position of obvious Christian commitment, and the respect showed to the minority objector. It was a good and impressive Christian witness.
On gay marriages, I’m afraid that the C of E has reaped what it has sowed. Having put out a public statement declaring the church’s position but not (as the Methodist statement did) acknowedging deep divisions in the church’s attitude towards gay marriages, the government has simply taken the C of E at its word.
December 14, 2012 at 7:47 pm
I so completely agree – whatever we do it should be considered and thought out and not about jumping on bandwagons
December 14, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Like much of your argument +Nick, really well said. I wish many other Bishops put it so well. When are we going to see you on QT or any other programmes such as the Big Question again?
I do find it interesting however that there are no Conservative Evangelical (CE)Bishops in the CofE now that +Wallace Benn has retired. When will this imbalance be corrected as it seems to me that CEs are actually being discriminated against, with the last new CE+ being 15years ago?
The act of synod still allowed clergy to become bishops who were not in favour of women’s ordination, and whilst there has been Forward in Faith Bishops there have been no CEs who hold that women cannot be bishops.
Therefore how can the House of Bishops be representative of the clergy in the CofE? Don’t you think Nick that this imbalance should be corrected? Southwark Diocese is now totally liberal in all senior positions hence the lack of representation and tension in that diocese.
The sticking ground is the provision for traditionalists. The bishop of Chelmsford Stephen Cottrell said in the debate that CEs would be given more protection under the measure and would have a CE Bishop and yet he knows that there aren’t any and that there would not be any if the motion passed. I find that rather disingenuous.
I also find it interesting that because the motion on the provision for traditionalists was voted down (even by some women in favour of Women Bishops who felt it was too generous), that it is impossible that the prayers for ‘God’s will to be done’, weren’t, because it was the wrong result. Isn’t it time to pray and reflect more rather than rush in and getting with the programme?
I am concerned by the level of ‘liberal bigotry’ being displayed in the CofE, government and media, with labels of misogyny and homophobia being used all the time to shut down debate and being thrown at traditionalists. QT was a case in point.
Peter Hitchens may not be everyone’s ‘cup of tea’ but at least he is able to show the liberal bigotry that exists as he did on the special BBC Big Question after the vote on women bishops. I think George Pitcher said what was underlying the whole thing was the fight for the soul of the CofE and its being a liberal church. It was made clear by Christina Rees of WATCH and The Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin that in their world there is No Place for traditionalists in the CofE, that traditionalists muct put up and shut up or leave, and that the natural conclusion would be a CofE that would eventually have same sex marriage over time.
There are many who are not, but have very deep theological convictions on human sexuality and a complementarian theology. I would like more bishops whose function is one of unity as well, to make that clear and stand up for them or to keep things balanced. However that is very unlikely seeing as there are no CE bishops.
Hope you are enjoying it back up t’North and Christmas goes well.
Lee
December 14, 2012 at 11:21 pm
Hi nick,
Just wanted to say how enjoyable and interesting your book “why wish you a merry christmas” was…your previous blog prompted me to buy and read it.
When my 11 year old asked me what I was reading it sparked an interesting conversation about Christianity, God, Jesus and as a relatively new Christian confirmed this year by you at Bradford Cathedral along with my teenage daughter, made me realise just how important it is to have this dialogue with my unbelieving 12 year old, who like you say in your book seems to have thrown away the notion of Jesus with Santa Claus now that he is older.
Your description of the Adult Nativity scene was truly thought provoking and yes we adults need to portray the Christmas story to our own children rather than the other way round.
God bless you Nick and may I wish you a merry christmas
Karen Slingsby
December 15, 2012 at 10:29 am
If that’s “just a quickie” I’d love to see you on a roll… 🙂
December 15, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Lee states & asks “Therefore how can the House of Bishops be representative of the clergy in the CofE? Don’t you think Nick that this imbalance should be corrected?”
Can he say how many or what proportion of the clergy are CE? There is quite a number of current bishops who are evangelicals. How conservative does one have to be to be CE?
December 16, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Ken, that’s my point I can not point to any CE Bishops who are conservative on headship and could not receive a woman bishop. The House of Bishops should be made up of representative streams of the CofE with liberals, Catholic, Evangelical etc. One way to define the streams may be to look at affiliations,here are a few of the main ones
‘FiF’ Bishops Anglo Catholic not able to receive a women’s ministry as a priest etc I think many have gone over to the Ordinariate
‘Affirming Catholicism’ Bishops liberal – I think many are liberal on human sexuality
‘New Wine’ charismatic evangelical – no bar to women’s ministry although there are no New WIne senior leaders
‘Fulcrum’ Evangelical centre some would say liberal – definitely for Women Bishops
‘Reform’ Conservative of headship and unable to receive the ministry of a women bishop. Conservative on Sexuality, main focus the word of God, some same nearest to Puritan in the CofE. Many would not have a problem with lay presidents at HC.
I think it is generally recognized the last CE Bishop was Wallace Benn but he was the last appointment 15 years ago and has just retired. One of teh points I am trying to make is that the vote in the HoB is skewed as there are no CE Bishops who would not vote in favour of Women Bishops.
The CEs make up a significant size of the church and are possibly some of the biggest givers to the parish share.
I don’t now what Nick would class himself as?
New Arch Bishop to Canterbury was an HTB charismatic but I think much of his spirituality is Catholic now, bishops tend to move, change, grow in spirituality some would say, or try and be all things to all people. Can’t say I’m not one.
I think you would have to look at the Reform website or GAFCON to see what they would define as being CE.
Come on Nick give us your wisdom on this, do you know any current CE Bishops and can you name them?
Just asking……
December 16, 2012 at 9:30 pm
The Church of England has been “contemplating” the issue of equality with relation to sexuality for a long time now.
It’s been 21 years when since “Issues in Human Sexuality – A Statement by the House of Bishops of the General Synod of The Church of England, December 1991”
Click to access humansexualitych5.pdf
Although I agree that at times the Church must not follow the “Zeitgeist” as you say but remain faithful to Christian values, I don’t think equating the colluding with Naziism is helpful! Maybe thats just an example but I don’t think it’s a particularly helpful comparison.
I understand your frustration that the gocernment has urged the Church of England to “get with the program” while not consulting the Church. But to be fair, that’s pretty much what the Church of England did earlier this year when the statement against gay marriage was released to the media. Tabloid headlines screamed “Church against gay marriage” and “Anglicans against gays” while many of the congregations up and down the country simply scratched their heads, thinking “huh? do we? Well nobody asked me!”
So as you said, “Pot. Kettle. Black”.
Forgive me for being impatient, but get on with it!
20 years of thinking, surely there should be some action!
December 16, 2012 at 10:15 pm
There are so many issues going on here with the Government in its response to the Church: but primarily it does seemsto be hurriedly responding to perceived pressures rather than looking at what make for good lawmaking. Running scared over the Human Rights Act on the one hand, and yet wanting to be seen to be able to respond generously to changing social attitudes about sexual identities, and also assuming that the Church of England has a monolithic conservative voice on these issues that it wants to be seen to be protecting. Thank God we don’t!
For me, the sexuality questions are about justice: what do gay and lesbian relationships look like in God’s Kingdom? Given that God is none too picky about whom he hangs out with (Parable of the Wedding Banquet, so much of Jesus ministry, Peter’s sermon after the resurrection) it is strange for a Church called in his name to have barriers set up for it like this. The evangelist in me also questions why many in the church effectively suggest that the gospel isn’t for gays and lesbians. (Not that they would put it that way, of course.)
There is also an alarming case of amnesia about the church and marriage law. There is an historic precedent which could help. The 1937 Matrimonial Causes Act (The Herbert Act) gave Anglican clergy the right to marry divorcees. The convocations of York and Cantebury both said it was wrong to marry the divorced, but the law gave clergy the freedom to follow their conscience on this. A similar case in law could be made for Gay Marriage in the Church of England. In my view, the current Government has simply identified the wrong place for freedom of conscience to be exercised. Instead of looking to the Church as a body it should look to where ministry is actually being exercised.
December 17, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Lee: since when did the defining mark of being CE become that of opposition to women in leadership? There are plenty of evangelical bishops but it seems none quite evangelical enough for some people!
Plus: I am not sure I can think of any women in favour of WB who voted against in November, and WATCH has never said we want so-called traditionalists to leave – so can we please get the details right on this?
Back to the issue Nick raises though – certainly the present government has no cause to take the moral high ground on gender equality, but we are seeing clearly now what establishment might mean if parliament pushed it. Grounds for disestablishment, I’d have thought. Parliament does have the legal right to impose this stuff on us – though not the moral right I’d say.
December 18, 2012 at 1:37 pm
one of the argument i find ridiculous for people who have a knowledge of how the church works is saying that the church is irrelevant in the contemporally world, has the church ever bordered to be relevant to the society, has it ever decided that a popular believe means it is the right to do things, if it did, it should have accepted the fights in the Roman arena in the first century, Jesus himself was never relevant to the world he lived in according to the educated world around him, he was ignorant to them.
the church of England did conform to the worldview and supported slave trade, history will bear me witness but also history is witness that it was wrong when it conformed, the issue is never about relevancy but what is right and wrong. the church has its way of testing things and if there is any theological idea, let them bring it to the table. secondly telling the church it is not allowed to conduct gay marriages doesn’t make any sense, it was supposed to be the churches decision not the parliament, if they want to chase away the church from commenting on the gay marriage law, then they should also stop making regulation of it not having the right to officiate or not the marriage, are we creating to kind of marriages, are we in future going to get second class marriage, did they think through all those question, the answer is no.
finally the media, i think our journalist are obsessed with writing but lazy to research, how did they miss a simple fact that the general synod didn’t vote down the female legislation, that is just a simple example that the media are not to be trusted on what they tell us, however i don’t need to be a omniscient to say that the current society is ignorant of the church way of doing things.
December 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Well your blog gives us some certainty. I would say it is 100% certain that you won’t be Archbishop next time round either, after a post like that. Well done though, we need people to say things like that and its hard to swim against the tide.
December 20, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Thank you for your thoughtful and wise comments on these issues. I agree wholeheartedly. It would be good to see/hear you on some of the BBC’s discussion programmes.
A very Happy Christmas to you and Linda and all the family
December 28, 2012 at 4:13 pm
[…] Baines recently blogged about being counter-cultural. The Bishop of Bradford is a very VERY prolific blogger, so count on him to keep you up to […]