The other thing I have been musing on today is how different people approach a conference like this – especially when they are used to running things and cannot control this one. I attended a conference in Wittenberg, Germany, last year when the German Church (EKD) addressed its ten year reform programme under the title ‘Church of Freedom’ (Kirche der Freiheit). The ‘Impulspapier’ divided the church’s task into twelve elements that then formed the content of the conference. At the first plenary session a longstanding, more traditional bishop stood up and took the document apart. He claimed that the Church is not the ‘Church of Freedom’, but the Church of Jesus Christ. This clever statement then enabled several people to dismiss the report and the whole process. They had found the gap – the error – and therefore were absolved from any responsibility to engage with it.
I am reminded of this not because I think this a German problem, but because I think this is how powerful people behave when they don’t like being powerless. I think there are bishops here who are behaving like this and find endless fault in everything. I would like to go on a conference organised by them and show them what it is like to have people identify (oh so cleverly) all the other ways in which it could have been done.
I think this process has been remarkable….
If others haven’t engaged with it and gained from it, that’s too bad. But it is only by engaging with it that you stand any chance of getting any gain from it. Furthermore, I am fully committed to getting stuck into whatever we come out with at the end of this conference – whether that be something good or something a bit hopeless. The Church has gone through two millennia of ups and downs and threats and challenges and now is no different. After all, the Church is not the kingdom of God – we are called to be a sign of the Kingdom and that impacts (drives?) not only what we believe but how we live together.
This is significant in the light of this afternoon’s second ‘hearing’. Of 27 speakers, 23 were westerners (American, English, Irish, Canadian and Australian[)]. Of those 23, 15 were from TEC and they ran the gamut of TEC complexions. Once again, they spoke with passion and clarity, but what was not said about their province was as significant as what they did say. What I think was most significant about this was that the Americans cannot say that their voice has not been listened to and heard. (The other speakers were from Sudan, South India and Egypt.)
Read it all (timestamp of entry is Monday 28 July 2008 – 06:24pm)
[blockquote] This is significant in the light of this afternoon’s second ‘hearing’. Of 27 speakers, 23 were westerners (American, English, Irish, Canadian and Australian. Of those 23, 15 were from TEC and they ran the gamut of TEC complexions. [/blockquote]
This is a recurring theme on other Bishops blogs. I wonder how much of what appears in the reflections document was written by Westerners, and how much of the discussion is dominated by Westerners.
My job involves a fair bit of travelling around the world and having conferences with 100-150 people from dozens of countries and ensuring I get input from everyone. The first expensive lesson you learn from the first conference is that the non English speakers don’t speak up in group settings. And that non Westerners will listen rather than speak. And will be reluctant to offer criticism even when required.
If you allow that to happen, your results will be worthless. It sounds like the facilitators of this conference need some training on how to facilitate to ensure the contributions from non Western bishops are heard. Otherwise you get sudden surprises where you think everyone is on board, and find out too late that you lost half the participants and they have gone off and done something completely different without even telling you they were planning that. When you ask why they tell you that no one asked for their opinion.
As I read the various (self-serving and whining) blogs and statements from the reappraisers, I am more and more inclined to say, “Scuttle the ship and take to the lifeboats. There is no way to keep this vessel afloat, thank God.”
[blockquote][i]I am reminded of this not because I think this a German problem, but because I think this is how powerful people behave when they don’t like being powerless. I think there are bishops here who are behaving like this and find endless fault in everything.[/i][/blockquote]
Thank you, your grace. This is such an important observation. From what I have been reading there is little at Lambeth that can be described as [i]Kenosis[/i]
I am reminded of the second verse of that beautiful old hymn:
[i] Should my tears forever flow, should my zeal no languor know,
All for sin could not atone: Thou must save, and Thou alone;
In my hand no price I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling.[/i]
I would like to see more clinging to the cross and less posturing. This is my prayer for Lambeth and for all believers as these days march on.
So it looks like Bishop Mouneer spoke too?
I remember Nick Baines when he was a very gifted parish priest on the rise. He is very bright and very loyal. If he has criticisms they will be voiced in private. As he was, he remains: a very, very effective civil servant.
#4. driver8. What does it mean to be “a very gifted parish priest on the rise”?
Would that most of/all bishops had good experience in parishes!
I was being complimentary. He was and is clearly very gifted and rightly on the way to larger responsibilities.