bath & wells: from the bishop

BISHOP PETER'S PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS TO JUNE 2006 SYNOD

Laying hands on the head of a dying colleague and friend, and anointing them for that great and mysterious journey into the heart of God, is an awesome and profound experience. It was my privilege to minister to  Bishop Andrew in such a way, a little over twenty four hours before he died.

The tributes to him have been diverse and generous. Perhaps Russell Bowman-Eadie summed Andrew up most succinctly in his funeral oration: ‘In Andrew the love was there, the joy was there, the compassion and concern for others.’ And Russell concluded, ‘we can trust that, in travelling with Christ, we shall never lose you nor forget your smile. And we shall always know who you are with. For you remind us that, just as we think we’ve come to an end, there’s a smile at the heart of the universe, and a voice that comes through space and time that says, ‘Not so, not so, I have a new day for you.’

I can think of no better words. I wish I could have written them.

On Monday July 3rd we shall bid our diocesan farewell to Andrew and celebrate his life and ministry. I hope as many as can will come to the Cathedral at 2.30. Bishop Andrew’s remains will be laid to rest in the Camery of Cathedral in a private ceremony immediately following the Service of  Memorial and Thanksgiving.

Many of you have expressed to me your concern that I should move as quickly as is decent in the appointment of Andrew’s successor. I am grateful for that encouragement, and assure you that the process is well in hand. A job description was drawn up in the spring, and approved by Bishop’s Council, who also appointed a consultative group to help and advise me on the appointment.

This group has been furnished with a number of names, and I am grateful for all the suggestions made following my letter to clergy, readers and others. A short list has now been drawn up. At the point of preparation of this address, all I can say is that letters have been prepared, and on July 15th I, together with the consultative group, will meet and interview the candidates. I hope that we will have two names to put to the Queen shortly after, and then we must await Her Majesty’s pleasure, before an announcement can be made. Please continue to pray for wisdom, courage and the right choice.

Tonight we came to end of this series of sessions of the Diocesan Synod. In an essay entitled ‘Illusions’ the French philosopher and Christian, Simone Weil observed: ‘We are drawn towards a thing because we believe it to be good. We end by being chained to it because it has become necessary.’ I wonder if that is something that could be said of both the church, and synod.

Whether we are cradle Anglicans, or people who have come to faith through life’s journey, an encounter with another tradition, or whatever, all of us I suspect were drawn towards God and the church, because ‘we believe them to be good.’ The question is, have we become chained to it because it has become necessary?’ Of course necessary is not necessarily bad; but necessity can remove the sense of freedom that something that is good in and of itself, invites.

Last Sunday I was invited to St. John’s Milborne Port to celebrate their transferred Patronal Festival. I spoke on the Gospel of John. I sought to remind folk that John’s gospel and John’s Jesus, represent household communities inherently suspicious of Petrine hierarchy with its control of doctrine and church order; committed to egalitarianism, and led by the Spirit. In this church, Jesus is the sole authority, ‘the Vine’, all are branches; and the criteria for being of value in such a community is ‘bearing fruit.’

While stating its credentials, (1)‘that all members are capable of becoming vessels for the word the Paraclete speaks to the community’, John’s Jesus is nevertheless anxious to create unity – ‘I pray that they may be one,’and that there should be connection with the wider apostolic tradition. John’s gospel is an apologia for a radical church, that rejects racial and ethnic privilege, as well as gender stereo typing; and calls for the church to be a model to the world. It is to model egalitarianism towards those rejected by poverty, ill health or other forms of marginalisation.

In John’s gospel, Peter may be the shepherd; but the Samaritan woman and Mary Magdalene are the apostles. In John the word ‘apostle’ is not a noun but a verb: it is a fruit bearing word. Where the twelve are noted as ‘followers’; it is Martha who bears the task of confessing – ‘You are the Christ.’ While Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea bury the body; it is Mary of Bethany who anoints it for burial. Here too Samaritans and Greeks, unlike the synoptics, and particularly Matthew, are included within the elect of God.

Key to the purpose of the gospel is the responsibility to bear witness. The term martyria is used more times in John’s writings, than any other. It supercedes the ministry of service, healing and preaching. People are called to joyful acts of public testimony whether before the ‘court of n eighbour, bystander, family or officials, that (is what) marks the Johannine discipleship mission to the world.’(2)

This witness is not merely that which seeks to impose its values on others. This witness challenges the violence of war, racism, economic inequality, as well as matters of personal morality. And while it does none of these things in specifics, we are left in little doubt that the context requires ‘let the reader understand.’ Above all John claims that real agape love, involves being willing to lay down our lives not only for friends, but in public witness to a world out of kilter through its obsession with power, wealth and status.

A church bearing such news would indeed be good. Yet, to read the accounts of life in the Anglican Communion today, we would have to question whether such is the message it is offering. Have we become chained to it because it has become necessary? I raise the question.

In General Synod next week the priority will be given to the Women Bishops issue. There is little doubt in my mind that this will grab the headlines, whichever way it goes. Tucked away in the agenda is the Synod’s usual obligatory nod in the direction of mission. It will draw little or no interest, and perhaps rightly, because as a church we have yet to take mission seriously. A not to be named member of the clergy recently advised me not to keep on banging on about reconciliation. It appears that it is too difficult a concept. Absolutely; and that is why the cross at the heart of the Christian gospel has to be prettified and romanticised.

Simone Weil observes later in the same essay on illusions, and I agree: ‘ A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough. Joys are to be found in it, not pleasure. What is pleasant belongs to dreams.’

John’s gospel is a gospel for our reality. There is, as Paul Tillich put it in his book, a Shaking of the Foundations. It is possible that the centre will not hold. For all its egalitarian energy, and its reliance upon the Spirit, the Johannine church would have foundered without some kind of dialogue with those whom it saw as establishment. John’s gospel offers no conclusions to the debate; save that of the re-discovery of self giving love. Paradoxically, that is the situation in which we find ourselves today.

We must repent, ‘think differently’ about our witness; recognising that the sin that Jesus understood as blasphemy against the Spirit, was the failure of people having witnessed concrete need before them in those created in the image of God, not meeting that need, and addressing the causes of it. Jesus spoke against a Pharisaical church that ‘strained out gnats and swallowed camels.’ We need to be re-drawn to our church and its gospel, because it is good; not be chained to it because it has become necessary.

And what of synod? I confess this is not one of the events in my ministry that I anticipate with a great deal of joy. Whenever this happens in my life, I try to go back to the roots of things and discover whether what was once thought to be ‘good’, has some how become a ‘chained necessity.’

The Oxford History of the Christian Church advises me that Synodical government was introduced into the Church of England in 1969, ‘to achieve a more effective and coherent system, to give a greater part to the laity, and to avoid the delays caused by the dual controls of the Convocations and the Church Assembly.’ Hmm! Well that’s good. But is it what happens?  Those for whom synods are meet and drink will no doubt argue that at its best that is what happens. Effectiveness, coherence and greater lay involvement seem to me to be some ay off. Of course, there are some articulate, and skilful synod movers and shakers, but overall, whether at General, diocesan or even rural level, the vast majority remain silent, breaking that silence only with the occasional wave of the order paper in a hand counted vote.

The dictionary further reminds me that Diocesan Conferences were replaced by Diocesan Synods, and that Ruridecanal Conferences were replaced Rural Deanery synods. The critical bit was, ‘The base of the whole system remains the parochial church council, the functions of which are fundamentally unchanged, though the relationships with the diocese and the deanery synods are emphasised.’

There is always much debate about whether things are ‘top down’ or from the grassroots. Those who have an inbuilt resistance to anything structured, even slightly directive, will by and large wave the ‘top down’, ‘them at the centre’, flag. The truth of the matter is that we have not really found an effective way of thinking and talking things through in such a way that ‘the base of the whole system’ – the local church and its council, does anything more at best than propose a motion for debate; and at worst fails to communicate any kind of coherent diocesan policy whether for mission or ministry.

A synod is a council of the church. Acts 15 is often held up as the first Council of the Church. It was, as you know, a debate about whether the requirement of converts to Christianity was that they effectively should be converted first to Judaism, with the ritual of circumcision being the requirement. The conclusion of the debate was that ‘no irksome restrictions’ should be placed on those turning to God. Advice was given on diet, personal morality, the risk of getting caught up in idolatrous practice. Good will was expressed, and the church moved on, into a radical encounter with the powers and principalities as expressed through the Roman Empire.

My hope for the new synod is that we can be redrawn towards something that we believe is good. Here is my shopping list of things I think we could debate fruitfully:  Being a church in mission; Our call: its cost and implications; Reconciliation – an agenda for today; ‘And God saw that it was good’ – A new attitude to environment and ecology; ‘Circles of Hope and Support’ – Creating communities of hope and protection for abused and abusers; ‘Breaking the cycle of despair and violence’ – a challenge for the local and national church; ‘Fair trade – fair deal’ for all – at home, and elsewhere; ‘ Zambian Link: Alive or an anachronism?’; ‘Clergy and Laity in Ministry – Partners or competitors?’; ‘Church schools – the new weekday church’ And we could go on. And I hope we shall.

Changing Lives, Changing Churches, Changing Communities is not just a slogan. It is something to be delivered. Not from the centre, for the centre will not hold; nor from the margins but from both, motivated by what is good, chained only by love, self giving, passionate and compassionate. In obedience to the One who calls us out of darkness into his marvellous light; and who through his own reconciling work on the cross, has given to us the ministry of reconciliation.

There is a voice that comes from the heart of the universe.  ‘I have a new day for you.’

(1) John ‘s Gospel and the Renewal of the Church,  Wes Howard Brook, Orbis 1997

(2) Op cit p176