Being in a place of scarcity and threat compels us to look through different eyes at our own situation and life. Gaining a first-hand acquaintance with the church in Sudan last week (as I had previously done for eleven years with the church in Zimbabwe) shone a different light not only on who we are as an Anglican church in West Yorkshire, but also how we are in our attempt to fulfil our unique calling.
Add to that a reading of Walter Brueggemann's excellent book The Practice of Prophetic Imagination and the choice before the Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon & Leeds and Wakefield takes on a different (and more radical) complexion. On 2 March the three diocesan synods will vote on whether or not to choose dissolution and the creation of a single new diocese for West Yorkshire and the Dales. During the last two years we have lived with uncertainty as, first, the initial proposals were debated; second, the amended draft scheme was debated; then, third, the final scheme was presented for acceptance or rejection.
So far, no problem. The whole world lives with uncertainty and sometimes the Church needs to grow up and get real when faced with challenges or bewilderments. Uncertainty is one of the facts of life and we, of all people, should learn to live confidently with it. However, how the process has been handled during the last two years raises some important questions that precede the detailed matters of the scheme's content: they have to do with identity, vocation and vision.
Identity
Who is the church? The church must take as its narrative the sweep of the biblical story, read in the light of its experience throughout history. What we learn is that the church's institutional shape must serve its vocation and not have its vocation shaped by its inherited institutional form(s). If the church aims “to create the space in which people can find that they have been found by God” – and to do this by learning the (constantly changing, moving) 'languages' of a culture that never stands still, then it must constantly be willing to sacrifice its inheritance for the sake of its mission. Indeed, this was the motivation behind the creation by the Church of England of new dioceses in the twentieth century, aimed at re-shaping the church to serve new urban communities that hadn't really been there a century before.
The proposals for West Yorkshire do the same for the twenty first century, both responding to the changes in demography, culture and communications and anticipating further changes in the century to come. It would be interesting to see what arguments were used at the time when Wakefield and Bradford were established as separate dioceses by those who thought the change would be negative, retrograde, trendy, unnecessary, unmissional, and so on. I guess they would represent a re-run of some of the 'denial rhetoric' that is being articulated now.
However, these proposals invite the Church of England in West Yorkshire (and beyond – because this could still be put to the General Synod for acceptance even if one of our dioceses votes against it on 2 March), for the first time in several generations, to do what the Church of England used to do in re-shaping itself for the sake of its declared mission.
Vocation
Who is the church for? The church's vocation is a tough one: it essentially asks us to be 'prophetic', not only in word, but in action. By 'prophetic' I mean offering the world the possibility of a different way of seeing and being… even while the old world continues and appears dominant. This is the invitation of the Old Testament prophets: to see a new world whilst the current reality was exile under a powerful empire. Not only do the prophets speak truth about now, but they use language to fire a daring imagination about a different future… a future rooted in hope. At the beginning of his public ministry Jesus poses the same challenge: you can't see how the pure God can come among you again while the unholy pagans (the Roman occupying forces) remain in your land, compromising your worship and blaspheming your faith; but, dare you 'repent' (literally, 'change your mind' – see through a re-ground lens) and begin to live now as if God were present, contaminating the unholy with grace rather than being afraid of being contaminated by the bad stuff? (This is what is going on in Mark's summary of Jesus's message, mission and ministry in Mark 1:14-15.)
Walter Brueggemann draws attention to this when he writes:
… prophetic preaching is the enactment of hope in contexts of loss and grief. It is the declaration that God can enact a novum in our very midst, even when we judge that to be impossible. (P.110)
More suggestively, perhaps, he goes on (p.130f) to expose the discrepancy between what we Christians say and sing, and how we then handle prophetic demands:
There is a tacit yearning in the church for the prophetic. And so the church sings about the prophetic with some vigor… The church sings that way with hope, all the while, in practice, mostly resisting anything prophetic and really wanting no more than a status quo pastorate or priesthood, mostly wanting apostolic faith that “tells” but does not summon too much.
In other words, we don't walk the talk. In relation to West Yorkshire all parties have agreed, articulated and rehearsed the view that change needs to happen and that we cannot just continue blindly into the future. Yet, when specific change is proposed – based on thorough consultation, research and testing alternatives – some of us resist even using our imagination to see how 'a different way' might potentially look, were we to have some courage as well as convictions. What lies before us is not simply a choice about specific proposals for a single diocese, but also (and perhaps more importantly) a challenge to the integrity of our vocation as a church. Given that so-called 'alternatives' have come too late in the process, been simple reactions to specific points that, once addressed and answered (see the 'threat' to funding three cathedrals, for example), are held onto regardless or quietly dismissed in the search for another objection.
Vision
I understand what lies behind the fear of change, loss and uncertainty. (After all, if this scheme goes through, I become the first diocesan bishop to be made redundant – a prospect I don't relish, but for which I am prepared.) But, this is what the church is called to model in every generation – for our rootedness is fundamentally not in our institutional shape (as if this were directly established by God in creation), but in our courageous and prophetic faithfulness to the mission God has entrusted to us.
I will come back again to some of the specifics involved in the proposals, but for now the big question has to do with something deeper, more integral to our identity and vocation, more theological and attitudinal. A new single diocese would bring huge challenges and opportunities. There will be errors, mismanagements and failures. Risk will be felt acutely. Structures – existing or potential – achieve nothing of themselves; all depends on how people lead, work them and creatively attend to their potential as media (parameters) for enabling the vocation to be fulfilled.
I think I am not alone in Bradford, Wakefield and Ripon & Leeds in wanting our decision to be driven by courage, vision, creative commitment, vocational conviction and missional invitation. We must not fail the church and the wider world by being driven by denial, fear, resentment, protectionism or self-interest.
More anon.
January 26, 2013 at 3:32 pm
I agree and if we don’t take tough decisions now, then we will have to make even tougher ones in the future.
January 26, 2013 at 4:16 pm
“It would be interesting to see what arguments were used at the time when Wakefield and Bradford were established as separate dioceses by those who thought the change would be negative, retrograde, trendy, unnecessary, unmissional, and so on. I guess they would represent a re-run of some of the ‘denial rhetoric’ that is being articulated now.”
Those 20th century ‘resistors’ might, of course, look and say ‘told you so…’ as the three dioceses are put back together. Not a suggestion that the new plan is wrong or to be resisted now but our hindsight can sometimes be wrong too…
January 26, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Andrew, hindsight is always a bad guide to understanding earlier motivation. However, I was more interested in the phenomenon – even those who talk change don’t always do change.
January 26, 2013 at 6:13 pm
I’m glad that I am not in one of those dioceses having to take such difficult decisions. But, your comment about how it might effect the wider church is relevant to us here in Kent. We have two dioceses, both historic, but in one country, do we actually need on Arch Bishop, A diocesan, and two suffragans and the six Arch Deacons. In such times where resources are strained, are we over over organised and over loading our congregations with additional costs that could be reduced by either one diocese or merging support activities.
There is no denying that this might be a choice we have to face and it will be difficult and fraught with difficulties, but if the church is to grow, it might need to become more stream lined with a flat management structure and place more autonomy with the deaneries.
We as a church need to have a sense of realism, and decide how mission and evangelism shape our vision and outlook and devote resources to bringing discipleship to all who are willing to listen. If this means adjusting the CofE parish based model for one of an Ecumenical model, sharing with Partner Churches to place a Christian focus in every community, or the wider use of the Fresh Expressions model or other experimental forms of church, that so be it. It’s time for risk taking if we want growth and to draw people to the good news. Staying as we are is in my view, not an option.
January 26, 2013 at 7:02 pm
Letting go is painful, but also liberating. On a parish level and as a lay person, to be able to hold my role responsibly and yet lightly, is a great challenge.
January 26, 2013 at 8:07 pm
Though in sympathy with the blog, there is a tendency, both among those opposed to change (cf http://www.wakefield.anglican.org/images/uploads/info/diocesesreview/diocesescomaltvision.pdf) and those pressing for change (as above) to appeal to higher theological arguments. And fascinating though this is, when it comes to diocesan reorganisation in West Yorkshire you don’t need to be a card carrying Yorkshireman (and I’m not!), to realise that the most important question is ‘will it work?’ John Tuckett is right when he says lets cut out the theological jargon. Abstruce appeals to a higher motives are being employed by either side. This is the Church of England for goodness sake! Henry VIII and all that. Courage and vision are needed whichever way we vote.
January 26, 2013 at 8:51 pm
John, I don’t agree. No one can know if it will work or not until we try – but the chance that it won’t work is not a reason for not doing it. I think the questions of theological understanding and primary motivation are important. But, as I wrote, I will move on to practical issues next.
January 26, 2013 at 9:23 pm
I think my point is that the,debates on March 2nd will not be best served by “my theological understanding trumps your theological understanding” arguments. If you’ve read the theological/ecclesiological/historical arguments in the anti -papers on the Wakefield website you’ll understand where I am coming from! Basically one could argue for the return of the papacy, the dissolving of parishes, smaller dioceses, black is white and the Chiltern Hundreds , but in the end have the Dioceses Commission come up with the right answer? Yes, time will tell but the strongest voices for change are coming from those who won’t be around when we find out!
January 26, 2013 at 9:53 pm
John, not trumping doesn’t mean we should be silent about the theological issues or implications. This isn’t about trumping, but about putting positions. It is grown up. It is also about how the proposals are to be seen and weighed. How would you know if they had come up with the ‘right answer’? And it is obvious that strong voices come from people who won’t be around in twenty years time when we will have a better idea of whether it ‘works’ or not.
January 27, 2013 at 10:51 am
[…] on from my last post – which was sparked by a visit to Sudan and the reading of Walter Brueggemann (again) – […]
February 9, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Thanks for providing the jumping off point for next Education for Ministry theological reflection. If this merger goes through, how will it be decided who is the bishop?
February 9, 2013 at 5:22 pm
Carole, we are being quite careful to say that this isn’t technically a merger, but the dissolution of three dioceses and the creation of a new one. It is a bit complicated on the bishop front, but, basically, a new Diocesan Bishop will be nominated by the Crown Nominations Commission in the usual way. However, the precise schedule for how and when this might happen has yet to be decided. First, we need to know whether or not the change is actually going to happen!