You will be free to do what we tell you

Justin Welby, Archbishop of CanterburyThe Church of England’s General Synod is due to meet on 15th February, and some bizarre preparations are being made.

This post is about a long document, Setting God’s People Free , written by the Archbishops’ Council. On behalf of Modern Church I have written a response, much shorter but still over 4000 words, Setting God’s People Free to Do What They are Told. (Currently there’s a problem with the link. Click here and then click the link at the bottom of that page.)

The Archbishops’ Report aims to generate more active engagement by lay churchpeople in church affairs.

Part of it aims to improve the relationships of lay people to their clergy, which is certainly needed.

However the proposals for encouraging evangelism and ‘whole-life discipleship’ by lay people in their daily lives and occupations is another matter.

Far from setting lay people free they would impose extra burdens on them. Instead church leaders should focus on improving theological resources for the laity. And for the clergy too, come to that. People can then make their own judgements.

The Report presupposes a uniform Christianity which does not exist, as though all Christians believed the same things. It does not discuss the content of Christianity. Instead, we at Modern Church have always (since we were founded in 1898!) believed that church leaders should encourage open debate between different views. Not only ordinary Christians but church leaders – like bishops – should feel free to debate ethical issues without agreeing with each other. Until a generation ago this was a characteristic role of bishops. It would help people to develop a more realistic understanding of their faith and make their own decisions.

The Report rightly states that Christian mission is not a matter of rescuing souls from a degenerate world, but the case would have been more convincingly made if it had not used the language of dualistic and other-worldly cliques. It is full of cliquey, in-house jargon: ‘vibrant relationship with Jesus’, ‘follow Jesus confidently in every sphere of life’, ‘gathered and sent church’, ‘how God has worked in their lives’, being ‘fruitful (in missional terms)’, ‘the missional opportunity’, ‘whole-life discipleship and formation’. This is not language that ordinary people use.

In a strange amalgam this in-house jargon is combined with generous use of management-speak. In order to ‘set God’s people free’, it spells out plans for more surveys and information-gathering. This will provide information to church leaders, who will then be better equipped to make decisions. Centralised, top-down decision-making.

Instead we think decisions should be made at the most local practical level. National church leaders should resist the temptation to give more instructions to local parishes than necessary.

The Report proposes to invest more heavily in artificial evangelistic projects. It is well known that these practices often give Christians a bad name by requiring people to talk about their faith to people who are not interested. Instead the Church should focus on providing theological resources to help Christians understand the different versions of their faith traditions. They will then be better equipped to develop their own beliefs and talk about them intelligently as and when they judge it appropriate.

Philosophically the Report is a muddle. Three theories of humanity are combined with no awareness that they conflict with each other.

The management-speak, like most management-speak today, is a direct descendant of secular nineteenth-century positivism. In their hurry to deny the existence of God, positivists insisted that there are no unobservables and all behaviour is determined. Therefore they thought it should be possible for social scientists to find out how to control us for our own good. Social engineering! It seems odd that the Archbishops’ Council has bought into this so enthusiastically, but they have.

The nineteenth-century religious revivals were largely a reaction against this bare, determined account of human life. Church leaders stressed the richness of spiritual life beyond the reach of secular science and measuring techniques. This is the origin of the other-worldliness the Report rightly laments, while in effect affirming it by making full use of its cliquey, counter-cultural, dualistic language.

Of course there were nineteenth-century Christians who resisted these trends; indeed, Modern Church was founded to represent them. So when the Report states that Christianity is not a matter of rescuing souls from a degenerate world, they are right. Unfortunately it is written in such a way as to give a strong impression that the authors did not understand what it means.

If they had understood what it means, they might have made the following observations. Firstly, because they rightly believe that life has spiritual dimensions that transcend all secular measurements, they should not have been so enthusiastic about surveys, data-gathering and top-down decision-making.

Secondly, because they rightly believe that Christianity is about how we live our lives here and now, they should have directly addressed the questions of here and now, using here-and-now language.

We don’t need to be micromanaged. The proper role of church leaders is to tell society about God. Who made us? For what purpose? How has God designed us to live? About these questions, they disagree with each other. So let’s hear the disagreements, publicly debated, and be allowed to make up our own minds.

This entry was posted in Churches, Society, Theology and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to You will be free to do what we tell you

  1. Rob Lewis says:

    Much to agree with here, Jon. Thank you for taking the time to say this. It needs to be said on a regular basis, I feel. Don’t be shy about repeating this across a range of contexts and communities.

  2. lady heath says:

    i found the report disturbing as the emphasis was not on a nondualistic mystical relationship with God and a willingness to learn from other faiths but on Jesus Christ. We have two evangelical archbishops at present I think. d

  3. Mark Pickles says:

    Great stuff, Jonathan: your blog at least. I can’t see your report, the link tells me I’m not authorised to download. Guess I’ll have to join “Modern Church”? But I’m not quite Modern Church, more “Affirming Catholicism” (the liberal Anglo-Catholic group), but, I have admit, I haven’t joined that yet either !

    As a member of the laity, I’m going to write a report to back your report up. I haven’t seen yours, but mine will be better than yours of course 😉

    In all seriousness. A “dialectic” between clergy and laity would be productive. I accept the purpose of intent of “Church”, perhaps even more than yourself. But because God is everything, and in everything, and there is nowhere where God is not, the laity can educate the clergy as much as the clergy the laity.

    This was not the case for most of the history of the Church, when ALL education and good culture came out of the Church. The upper and lower case letters I am now typing were invented by the monks, as was the musical stave, as the means of transmitting music, and as was musical harmony itself.

    The notion of clergy as shepherds and we laity as docile sheep just doesn’t wash any more. It’s time for a revolution. Four legs good, two legs bad 😉

  4. Mark Pickles says:

    Thanks, Jonathan. I’ve now read the report. I like it on the whole, though, as you know, I am not “Modern Church”. Free-thinking, yes, but not Modern, or Post-Modern. My emphasis always starts, develops and ends with the omnipotence of God (and love and trust of the same).

    Of course, there is not a single mention of “omnipotence” in the Archbishop’s report, because, frankly, the Archbishop has never explored its meaning, and, quote, “always prefers to talk about Jesus”.

    If I had to accept a category, it would be liberal Anglo-Catholic, but “Affirming Catholicism” doesn’t have enough teeth, or political balls, for me. If it wasn’t for the fact that I am a (divorced) “fornicator”, and a feminist, I would probably cross the Tiber. I am a fan of John Paul II, and his deep ecological and ecumenical vision. He saw the “seeds of the Word” in all that is good in the great ancient faiths, and he publicly kissed the Quran, and called for an “armada” (perhaps an unfortunate word) of the three Abrahamic faiths. Can you ever imagine Welby affirming such love of our neighbours? Rowan Williams, perhaps, but not Welby, unless he has a Damascene conversion, that helps breaks him out of his public-school Evangelical (Iwerne) holiday/boot camps. It is interesting, isn’t it, that protagonists of HTB, Millar, Gumbel and Welby, are all old-Etonians.

    You report has a good analysis of the serious internal contradictions in the Archbishop’s report. I will refer to your analysis in my report, that I will start now and complete by the weekend. I will send you my report. It will be more pithy than yours, because, as a member of the laity, I feel quite insulted and ashamed by the Archbishop’s report. Also, though the report is centred on worlds of Archbishop William Temple (whom I have studied in depth), it has nothing in common with the spiritual, political, philosophical and deeply ecumenical vision of Temple. Temple had a great vision for “Church”, which I share, be he also deferred to the other “great faiths” (in Mens Creatrix, which I acquired as a PDF if anyone wants to read this great out-of-print essay).

    Perhaps Welby’s ideas will work in Brompton Road, but they won’t work in Bradford or Blackburn (places in which I have lived and worked, in fact I was born in Bradford). Bradford and Blackburn have a high Muslim population of course. And through dialogue and mutual prayer, I have learned a lot from the Muslims, and have a deep respect and admiration for Islam at its best. There is nothing we Anglicans can teach the Muslims about God Omnipotent, but they can teach us much. And, of course, we share reverence for Jesus.

    I’m working-class Northern lad, born in Bradford in 1961, and have been schooled with Muslims and have worked, and do work, with Muslims (I have worked with Hindus and Sikhs too). I left full-time education at age 16, but have studied more theology than the bishops (despite, or perhaps because of, being an atheist until age 30). And I have read the whole Bible from cover to cover, whereas the clergy have only read the lectionary. As you know, I think that half the Bible is rubbish, boring and stupid (generally, but not limited to, the half that hasn’t made it into the lectionary). And some of the new scrolls and codices unearthed by archaeologists, such as the gospels of Judas and Mary Magdalene, are far more interesting than, say, Chronicles (which even the king himself had read out to him to help him fall asleep!).

    Imagine a working man, not well-educated, being “leveraged” and “empowered” in Bradford Cathedral through Welby’s initiative, and then goes to his workplace and starts talking about his “vibrant relationship with Jesus (or “Joshua” in the Hebrew)”, and the Church of England, to his Muslim colleagues who pray 5 times a day and fast for a month a year, and really does have a mystical understanding of our Creator (as many of my Muslim friends do).

    And let’s not forget that in England, and in the workplace, there are many RCs and Orthodox. I currently work (as a scientific technical writer for a company near Manchester) at a group of four desks. One of my colleagues is Romanian, and is Russian Orthodox, another is lapsed Roman Catholic (who used to be an altar boy) but found the church, and his parents’ Christianity, to be abusive (he’s now a fan of Richard Dawkins). The fourth, though he is highly educated scientists, and is called “Paul”, knows absolutely *nothing* about his Biblical namesake, or theology, but is interested in my discussions on theology and science. I get on with all these people, and most of the other folks in the company. All those I am friendly with know that I am “Church of England”.

    I cannot promise that I will get anyone interested in the Church of England, but I do have a talent for getting the people of England to talk about God, if only the “God” they don’t believe in.

    Alas. I’ll get my report to you soon, Insha’Allah. If you like it, you can perhaps say so to help me push it.

    Nothing happens unless God allows it to happen, including Welby’s report, and yours, and mine. And, thinking about it. If Welby hadn’t commissioned his report, you wouldn’t have written yours, and I wouldn’t be as motivated to speak up for the laity.

  5. Sophie Johnson has sent me this challenging response. It’s too good to ignore and I’m putting it up with her permission. Sophie says:

    I want to say immediately that you have done an excellent job of putting over the idea that ‘Setting God’s People Free …’ makes propositions that cut ice in the quest to evangelise the community. I am now taken by several of its suggestions, and much relieved that the inane ‘Fresh Approaches …’ has now had its day. Still, I sighed, for I instantly spotted a radical oversight that dooms ‘Setting God’s People Free …’ from the outset. Take this of its several worthy proposals that you cite:

    Instead Modern Church believes church leaders should focus on improving theological resources for the laity.

    The obvious oversight here is that ‘church leaders’ are all too often themselves very poorly equipped with theological resources. There are very, very far too few NT Wright-like people among them. And the general education level of the lower clergy is much more often than not that of the lowbrow. The theology colleges that are currently turning out most priests must be very undemanding intellectually. (Despite having kept a weather eye on the chance of coming upon an intelligent priest who knows his theological ground, I have found the sum-total of two. Of course, I have heard of others.)

    Simply, that the lowbrow priest is the overwhelming norm should be acknowledged. Keep this kind of priest for pastoral work. But ensure the production of the theologian priest too. The theologian priest should have completed at least a bachelor degree in a traditional university discipline (at 2:1 standard minimally), then taken a theology degree, also at a university. A priest with that level of education will be able to ‘improve the theological resources of the laity’.

    Be candid on this point with the laity: tell them that for a few years there will be few theologian priests. Allow a culture to develop in which ‘theologian priest’ and ‘pastor priest’ are recognised distinctions. This separation of the priestly functions is nothing short of pragmatic. After all, the roles of ‘theologian’ and ‘pastor’ make very different demands; one person should not be expected to fill both roles. Indeed, the theologian priest should not be wasted as the pastor. The pastor can be anyone of the contemporary poorly educated priests and the ones who will follow them. And, of course, the pastor priests must be fully engaged in pastoral work. There is no need for them to deliver formal sermons. Their main function is to be very visible in the community, caring for people in Christian love, be they assistant priests, parish priests or canons. (How sad it is, for instance, that a bereaved person badly in need of spiritual healing is unlikely to get more than a few minutes, if that, of a priest’s time. Surely any member of the community who approaches a priest in a bereaved state is entitled to expect the priest’s substantive support.)

    In the meantime, by all means introduce the adult Sunday schools. Urge the church leaders to encourage their attendance. Have ready a good collection of excerpts from videos (plenty of videos available from NT Wright!), each making out just one theological point. A moderated group discussion should follow the viewing. The moderator could be the pastor priest, but better still would be a highly educated lay member of the congregation. And the theologian priest, possibly the area dean who is attached to some dozen or more churches, comes every so often to give a theological sermon.

    I realise that I have dealt out a sizeable insult to the bulk of the contemporary priesthood. Please excuse me here, for I am convinced that one cannot afford to ignore the elephant in the room when one is intent upon achieving a desired outcome.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.