Creeds and reconciliation

Justin Welby tweeted:

It's Written on Your Face

Jeannette Sirois for

 the City of Vancouver, 2014

Genuine reconciliation is not only about agreement, but about how we love one another in deep disagreement. @JustinWelby

Which is undoubtedly true and which also raises certain challenges - even accusations - for Christians.

History relates that Christians have been appalling bad at showing compassion to other Christians - never mind to those outside their own walls.

In fact - for all the committed Christians and Christian groups committed to reconciliation - I think there are structural aspects of Christianity which make it very difficult to find ways to "love one another in deep [or any other] disagreement."

Specifically the credal character of Christianity - self-definition and self-authentification by statements of belief - is in practice a mechanism for building walls and making enemies.

Creeds, even fragments of creeds, become the tests by which Christians tell themselves who's in their camp (and thus righteous, blessed, and Godly) and who is not (and so is polluted, accursed, ungodly). Creeds simultaneously bind together and alienate. A credal culture mediates this public structure into individual Christian attitudes and behaviour.

Locally too, the presupposition that members of a particular church community agree with one another is very powerful. It can be very hard for people to express spiritual and theological doubt, never mind dissent. Those who speak off-key find they cannot be heard. They are out of tune and they must leave the choir. The desire for harmony can make people wilfully deaf to other tunes. Faithful searchers and questioners may (wittingly and unwittingly) be edged out the door.

It's Written on Your Face

Jeannette Sirois for

 the City of Vancouver, 2014

Political parties, by contrast, begin with the presupposition of internal disagreement. Therefore their structures are designed to accommodate difference and disagreement. There are mechanisms by which differing internal groups seek to persuade the majority of their views. In practice multiple minorities are able to co-exist, collaborate and contend in ways which may contribute to the vitality of the party as a whole. Sometimes they break too, but on the whole public disagreement is evidence of strength.

But churches set on a foundation of presumed agreement, have all too often become rigid, breakable, friable. An inability to listen and unwillingness to accept difference all too easily result in individuals leaving unnoticed and conflicts escalating rapidly into division. Christian truth is conceived as credal statements which demand assent. Expressions of faith in ambiguity and ambivalence, fluid spirituality, historical flow - not to mention a divine refusal to be locked into small verbal boxes - are all threats to the established order.

And yet as Christians we preach reconciliation. We have largely been unable to reconcile older churches to one another and new Christian denominations proliferate like weeds. But we all think we can tell other people to love one another.

SHOUTING IN CHURCH

I can't recall having been shouted at in church. I guess it's happened on occasions, but not for a long time. I've certainly done things on occasions which have left people angry with me.

I did one (relatively brief) job where I was expecting a blazing row every time I entered the building. Although the row never came the expectation of it made worshipping difficult.

But it seems that being shouted at is not uncommon in the life of the clergy.  In a survey of 200 clergy

When asked about church members being rude, aggressive or passive aggressive to them, 76% reported that this was a regular occurrence, with church members shouting at them on average, once a week. Some church leaders however, said that they were shouted at or spoken to aggressively as many as 30 times a month, with one respondent sorrowfully reporting that it happened ‘on a daily basis.’

Shouting in this context is an act of violence just below the physical. It can be felt as a blow, an assault. It's often born of frustration but it can equally be part of a pattern of bullying behaviour.

It's also, for the most part, an expression of violence for those who want to remain within the community. Perhaps they are frustrated in not getting their own way, or they shout to sustain their control over events, or they hate they way things are changing out of their control. But they don't want to leave.

Yet at the same time such people (even when they're not shouting) destroy the quality of the community they're part of. Trust and security are lost. And it's incredibly hard to turn such a situation around into a safe, nourishing and pleasant community.

No, but might benefit
from a haircut

On a couple of occasions in my career people have left the church following a row and the remainder of the church have been able to relax and breathe again and to build a better (if smaller) community. I recall a group of three in Sheffield who left after a dispute and went to the Cathedral. I told the story to one of the Canons who replied "Oh people are always falling out with their vicars and coming to the Cathedral. They don't stop being awkward buggers here - but they do all get together."

But if the experience of being shouted at regularly is as frequent as the survey suggests (and the post gives no details of sampling or methodology) then perhaps a more collective response is needed. 76% reporting regularly being shouted at cannot simply be down to the individuals concerned.

Nor does the brief report say whether men or women are equally the object of shouting or, as I would suspect, women are noticeably more likely to be shouted at.

It also suggests that prospects for church growth may be significantly hampered by poor, even self-destructive, relationships within too many local church communities.

(The brief report of the survey didn't say whether respondents had themselves shouted at other church members, or even whether they had been asked. But it would be unwise to assume that all fault is on the side of the laity.)

Knowing how others see us

A recent survey looking at the perceived trustworthiness of the police included clergy in the list of comparison groups. (Thanks to British Religion in Numbers.)

It turns out that, in general, clergy are deemed noticeably less trustworthy than nurses and doctors, or the police, but more so than lawyers and accountants.

And, thankfully, they are trusted more than tabloid journalists - the question there is why they are trusted by as many as 13% of people.

This survey should not be comfortable reading for clergy. First, I guess it contradicts the self-image of most clergy. Second it suggests clergy have real image problems with two important groups: younger adults and members of ethnic minorities.

Over two-thirds of younger adults find clergy untrustworthy or don't know. This suggests to me that there is a mountain to climb if the church wants to re-balance its age profile by attracting young people. (Or, alternatively, I suppose churches could work harder to strengthen their links with older people who are positively inclined to trust clergy.)

Summary:

% very/quite trustworthy	UK	London
Nurses	86	83
Doctors	85	84
Teachers	80	79
Armed forces	75	70
Judges	68	65
Police	65	60
Clergy	59	53
Accountants	56	55
Lawyers	52	47
Broadsheet journalists	25	36
Politicians	16	20
Tabloid journalists	13	16

Gender: In the more detailed survey results men and women trust clergy more or less equally but more men find them untrustworthy (30 % as opposed to 25% - the difference is that more women don't know).

Age: Older people trust clergy much more than younger people. In the 18-24 age group just 29% thought them trustworthy (as opposed to 72% of 75's and over). 37% of 18-24 year olds found them untrustworthy while 36% didn't know or weren't sure.

Regions: Geographic analysis shows intriguing differences. The North East and Wales have the highest proportion of people judging clergy to be trustworthy (64%), whilst the lowest figure (54%) is found between these two areas, in the North West, and in Northern Ireland.  (added later: Wales has the largest proportion of the population who reported 'no religion' in the 2011 census.)

Ethnicity: Amongst white people 62% thought clergy trustworthy and 26% untrustworthy. Among ethnic minority respondents 39% thought clergy trustworthy and 40% untrustworthy.

Reforrm and Renewal - the South African way

From the website of the Archbishop of South Africa, Thabo Makgoba:

In just over six weeks' time, representatives from all 28 dioceses, including experts in strategic planning, will hold two meetings, back-to-back, in which the Province will seize a Kairos moment to review our Vision and Mission as a church, to strategise around ways to implement our priorities, and then to make practical decisions on how to implement them in a manner that is productive, holistic and transformative.

Five years ago, the Province adopted a Vision and Mission Statement. In it we declared that the Anglican community in Southern Africa seeks to be:

• Anchored – in the love of Christ
• Committed – to God’s mission
• Transformed – by the Holy Spirit

Archbishop visits victims of Duduza tornado
4 October 2011 (Hope Africa gallery)

We added that across the diverse countries and cultures of our region, we seek:

• To honour God in worship that feeds and empowers us for faithful witness and service
• To embody and proclaim the message of God’s redemptive hope and healing for people and creation
• To grow communities of faith that form, inform, and transform those who follow Christ.

Within the context provided by that statement, we declared our Provincial priorities in the succeeding decade to be: 

• Renewal for transformative worship
• Theological education and formation
• Leadership development
• Health (HIV and AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis)
• The environment
• Women and gender
• Protection and nurture of children and young people
• public advocacy

==========

To me the tone and substance might have significant and constructive lessons for the CofE, if we could hear.

1. To begin with God-orientated vision. Not fear of collapse.
2. A history of Kairos (remember the Kairos document of 1985?): embracing the possibility of transformation (wiki). As opposed to cautious and arthritic legislative reform and tinkering.
3. To look equally inwards and out: to see that the church is only whole when it is engaged in a transformative - and reflexive - manner with the injustices of the society in which we live.
4. And, as a united church, to be prepared to address public issues which are neither easy nor one-sided but where there is the possibility that the church could make a substantive and positive difference to people's live.

And, frankly, a sense of excitement. 

I don't doubt that in the cities and the deep countryside there will also be significant anxiety about what all this will mean for them. The view through the Archbishop's eyes is most unlikely to be the same view as a worshipper in a village outside Olifantshoek, say, or in the centre of Bloemfontein.

But we are buried under too much sediment: not only our history but also the weight of being the State church.

Elections for General Synod

General Synod is the governing body of the Church of England. It is a largely elected body with three 'houses' (chambers): Bishops, Clergy and Laity.

Clergy are elected by vote of almost all ordained clergy. The exception is ordained clergy with no permission to officiate. For electoral purposes at  least - they're nobody. They have no standing as clergy and cannot vote as laity.

The laity have an electoral college - Deanery Synod members - who alone vote for representatives of the laity on General Synod. In my view this is wholly unacceptable and embodies the marginalisation of the laity. (I've wittered on about this elsewhere.)

(Curiously, at least on a quick look, I couldn't find a general page about Deanery Synods of the CofE official site - only a leaflet (pdf) and the rules.)

Undoubtedly this new Synod is going to be busy. It has to begin the process of dismantling and rebuilding the CofE.

I personally hope it goes for wholesale reform but that's not the Anglican way: look for slow, piecemeal and insufficient change.

Here's some more talking heads: