In defence of bishops
At the beginning of last week, Matthew Parris let go a broadside at the Church of England, and the way that some of its leaders were taken in by the abuser Peter Ball. He points to the culpability of those taken in by Peter Ball'south charm and charisma, particularly focussing on Prince Charles and Lord George Carey, so Archbishop of Canterbury. But he believes that George Carey is guilty of the greater sin, since he must take been privy to greater information that Prince Charles.
I am absolutely sure that the Prince of Wales neither knew nor suspected, and that he would take cared very much if he had…Simply the former archbishop is a different case. The well-nigh we can offering Lord Carey is a verdict of not-proven. Charles's problem was that he knew also piffling. Lord Carey'south is that he knew besides much. He had in his possession letters which, even if he had not believed a word of whatsoever of them, he should have known raised concerns of such gravity that he was duty bound to refer them on, arguably directly to the constabulary.
But he then takes the argument on a stage farther: this was ultimately the error of Margaret Thatcher for choosing Carey as archbishop in preference to the much more than intelligent John Habgood, having been incensed past Habgood'south left-leaning criticism of the Thatcher regime. This reflection so leads him into a tributary to the main statement—but it is a substantial tributary, and one that is deep enough for Parris to wallow with all his feelings. (I include his argument at length for those who cannot become by the Times paywall.)
What has happened to the calibre of the upper echelons of the Church of England? No doubt it'due south partly the terms and atmospheric condition: the money's no skillful, about of the bishops' palaces have gone, and the continuing of churchmen in society has fallen. But I tin't aid remarking that (with doubtless many exceptions) as the evangelicals accept moved in, the average IQ has dropped.
How I miss the likes of my favourite bishop and the but great rationalist philosopher the Church of England ever produced: the 18th-century Joseph Butler. I cherish Butler's remark to the evangelical John Wesley, forbidding him from preaching in Butler'due south diocese: "Sir, the pretending to boggling revelations and gifts of the Holy Ghost is a horrid thing — a very horrid matter."
But today we're left, I'grand agape, with suckers for charisma and revelation. It is a well-attested truth that confidence tricksters fall more than easily for others' confidence tricks, and I'd debate that Charismatic Christians are the natural casualty of theological quacks. Ball, with his Community of the Glorious Ascension and sessions of naked prayer and flagellation, may have established a hold on Carey.
Parris, who is unremarkably an insightful commentator whom I enjoy reading, doesn't appear to find the incoherence of his own statement. He has already noted that Ball bamboozled some very eminent people in public life:
I've never met Brawl but when you look at the list of people in public life that he enlisted in his support (some of whom I do know, and think honest and well-significant) yous have to detect an extraordinary charisma most the homo.
So it is hard to argue that it is the poor calibre of archbishops that led to this problem; if anything, a Church which was less engaged with the structures of the establishment might have been in a better place to ask the right questions.
But Parris is also contradicting his own long-held view about the nature of the Church. As recently equally 2015, in the lite of the Irish gaelic referendum on gay marriage, he argued 'As a gay atheist, I desire to encounter the church oppose aforementioned-sex matrimony'. Why is this? It is because Christian morality, if it means annihilation, is derived from the heed of God and not from the arithmetic of the pollsters. He heaps disdain on those who would seek to curve the education of the Church to fit popular opinion.
Can't these Christians come across that the moral basis of their faith cannot be sought in the pollsters' arithmetic? What has the Irish referendum shown us? It is that a majority of people in the Republic of Republic of ireland in 2022 practice not agree with their church's centuries-old doctrine that sexual relationships between two people of the same gender are a sin. Fine: nosotros cannot doubt that finding. But tin a preponderance of public stance reverse the polarity between virtue and vice? Would it have occurred for a moment to Moses (permit alone God) that he'd meliorate defer to Moloch-worship because that'southward what nearly of the Israelites wanted to do?
This is a view that Parris expressed with similar eloquence dorsum in 2003:
Anglican evangelicals are right. Knowingly to appoint gay bishops robs Christianity of significant. It is time that convinced Christians stopped trying to reconcile their spiritual beliefs with the modern age and understood that if one matter comes clearly through every business relationship we have of Jesus's teaching, it is that His followers are not urged to accommodate themselves to their age, but to the mind of God. Christianity is not supposed to be comfortable or experience "natural". The mind of God, contemplating the behaviour of man, is not expected to be suffused with a spirit of "any".
The Church building can only really exist the Church when information technology seeks to be true to itself, and true to its calling nether God—and on that I think Parris is spot on. But why is seeking to fit in the institution whatever better than conforming to public opinion? In both of his two recent pieces, he contrasts two leading figures in the Church building from the past:
How I miss the likes of my favourite bishop and the merely great rationalist philosopher the Church building of England ever produced: the 18th-century Joseph Butler. I cherish Butler's remark to the evangelical John Wesley, forbidding him from preaching in Butler'due south diocese: "Sir, the pretending to extraordinary revelations and gifts of the Holy Ghost is a horrid thing — a very horrid affair."
And here'due south the matter: are there any churches singing hymns written by Butler? Does anyone talk of the Butlerian revival, which changed the course of the Church building of England for 150 years? Are whatsoever churches called Butlerian Chapels? And in relation to the 'horrid' revelations and gifts of the Spirit, how do we account of the influence of the neo-Pentecostal movement, which led to the greatest growth of the church globally probably since the first iii centuries, and with which around 2-thirds of the Christians in the globe today identify?
And does Parris really want to see bishops appointed who are motivated past a love of money, attracted by the idea of living in a castle, and longing for the adulation of public condition? If this is the calibre of bishops that Parris longs for, and then his imagined Church is heading for serious problem.
Unfortunately, Sarah Coakley, one-time Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, waded in on this argument, agreeing with Parris in a subsequent letter of the alphabet published in The Times.
Sir, Matthew Parris (Annotate, May 11, and letter, May xiv) writes: "What has happened to the calibre of the upper echelons of the Church of England? . . . I can't aid remarking that . . . the average IQ has dropped." He is admittedly right as far as the bench of bishops is concerned: for the first time in living memory in that location are no one-time theological academics among them.
This, and many other unintended consequences of the system for appointing diocesan bishops, were matters analysed by a committee established by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to written report to Synod recently on the matter. I was glad to serve nether its incisive chairman, Professor Oliver O'Donovan, who wrote of the demand to reflect seriously on the "loss of intellectual depth and seriousness" in public theological debate in our country. What I was less glad about was that our committee was debarred by its rubric from commenting on the more sinister undercover reasons why "bishop-ready" lists now very rarely incorporate those of higher theological learning. In fact, most expert-hearted members of the Church of England who long for better teaching and preaching remain completely unaware of these lists. Who better than Matthew Parris to investigate and comment further?
The first affair to note is that her claim is flat out wrong. At to the lowest degree two bishops (Coventry and Oxford) have PhDs and have been principals of college which have been part of prestigious universities—but presumably Coakley is here meaning holders of academy chairs. She surely knows that what was possible in the by volition never be possible in the future—since both the nature of episcopacy and the nature of academy chairs accept changed, the latter including such demands on administration and other academic demands that it seems impossible to recollect that serious ministry leadership tin can too exist a part of it. A notable professor-turned-bishop was David Jenkins in Durham, and even all those years ago it was hardly a happy experience. Jenkins was popular in the region for his campaigning on behalf of miners, merely I am not sure he was an effective leader in mission. I went to hear him requite a lecture on the Lord's Prayer at the University of Nottingham, and I thought information technology incoherent and offer fiddling useful insight to me as an ordinand in preparation.
The other difficult affair with Coakley's comment—a danger with any criticism of the fashion that bishops are appointed—is that it doesn't sound like much more than personal criticism of the current demote of bishops, and Parris' (supported by Coakley) is of a specially snarky kind.
The one thing I would agree on with Coakley (and possibly Parris) is the desire to bishops who model skillful preaching and teaching. The problem here is putting that aslope all the other demands that nosotros brand of them. They need to be skilful administrators (who wouldn't want a quick reply to a request?); financial managers (how else will the diocese remainder its budgets?); competent strategic thinkers (else who volition lead the states into growth?); concerned pastors (who else is looking out for the clergy?); effective in discipline (someone has got to keep everyone in line, even if that contradicts the previous business organization); they must offer an constructive phonation in national debates (to enhance the quality, as Parris argues)…and and so on. Equally a recruitment consultant once commented, it is the multi-coloured unicorn brief!
Maybe the question is not so much 'What do nosotros look for in a bishop?' merely 'What can we practise without?' or, better, 'What can be delegated to other people?'
In mentioning 'bishop-ready lists', what Coakley does not bespeak at is that at least now these kinds of concerns are being thought through and weighed up. We might want to ask some questions nigh the criteria and how they are applied (and I certainly do), but surely this kind of overt reflection is much better than asking whose face fits, who knows whom (or was at theological college with whom), and whom volition the Prime Minister similar—which have all been influential questions in by appointments. Bishops are now actually receiving training on things which help to make them competent in a way that has not happened previously, and the much-maligned future senior leaders training is encouraging potential future national church leaders to think through central problems ahead of fourth dimension.
Merely i further thing we could exercise with noting as we temper our expectations of what bishops might practice: ordination to any society of ministry building does non confer spiritual dominance; at its best it recognises the gift and phone call of God and releases and equips those gifted and called. When ordained, our bishops are certainly conferred with institutional authority, since the ministry building of the bishop has a legal condition in the Church of England as established by police. But if nosotros remember that this ordination confers spiritual dominance that was not previously there, or wisdom that is not already present, so we will be disappointed and will set both us and our bishops up for failure. That is non intended to be a criticism; it is intended to sound a note of realism. There are many in the Church building who exercise a kind of episcopal ministry, and not all of them are ordained bishop.
As it is, with all our current expectations, information technology doesn't seem to me that the job we inquire of our bishops is actually doable. I am non sure of the all-time fashion out of this predicament—but information technology doesn't look sustainable in its present class.
If you enjoyed this, practice share it on social media, possibly using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my folio on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, would yous considerdonating £ane.20 a month to back up the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, do share information technology on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance footing. If you accept valued this mail, y'all can make a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Skilful comments that appoint with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek start to understand, then to be understood. Make the near charitable construal of the views of others and seek to acquire from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a disharmonize to win; accost the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/in-defence-of-bishops/
0 Response to "In defence of bishops"
Post a Comment