theology & flourishing

Why do we send ordinands to theological college?

On the face of it, that question has little to do with the debates over gender and equality in the church this week, and on the nomination and withdrawal of +Philip North as bishop of Sheffield. But one of the things that I think is happening right now is that we are realising that we can’t be silent about theology.

So: why do priests need theology degrees?  One answer is that a theology degree gives us time to broaden and deepen our understanding of God and the traditions of the church, which hopefully help us understand ourselves better too. A degree is a gift of time and focus. There is nothing that I learned in five years of academic theology that I haven’t used at some point in parish ministry — and that means my degrees were useful.

Knowledge is useful. But knowledge only gets us so far with God. One of the other gifts of a theology degree is that it helps us understand the limits of our knowledge. Any degree worth its salt puts us up against ideas that clash with our expectations of the world. Some ideas fall into place quickly, and illuminate other things we only half-knew. Other ideas provoke and annoy us, so that we have to question what we assume. When we engage with an idea that surprises us, it changes us. Wether we ultimately accept it or reject it, a new idea helps us learn what we think about God.

The process of doing this time and again — letting a new idea come and rearrange our thinking — gives us the greatest gift of all in a theology degree. We come to realise that we can change our minds. And that is invaluable to the church.  If I believe that at one point in my Christian journey I believed something to be true, that I now believe to be false — but also believe that I was Christian then and am Christian now and God loves me still — then it must follow that I can allow other people to be wrong too. I can believe that they are both Christian and mistaken, and still beloved of God. We can change our minds.

And imagine what might be possible if the church were truly full of people who believed they could change their minds.

This idea makes some people nervous. Surely we should have conviction. Surely God needs us to be clear. Well yes. At any given moment, we have to be utterly committed to the best vision of God we have seen. We have to proclaim the gospel believing with every fibre of our being that it is good news.

But sometimes, God gets at us, and teaches us something new. Our understanding of good news shifts a bit — and we go on preaching it, glad for what we now understand.

If we believe that God is infinitely more than we are — infinitely greater and more loving and more complex — then there will always be something new for us to learn. We believe that Jesus embodied all the fullness of God; but that doesn’t mean we yet understand the half of it.

And that is where I come back to the current confusion in the church over Philip North, and what the circumstances of his appointment and withdrawal mean for our mutual flourishing. If Philip North believes that I cannot – simply cannot —  be a priest, because it is not possible for a woman to be a priest, then his desire for my flourishing should involve a desire to persuade me of that. He shouldn’t leave me to follow a vocation I have misunderstood, and give my whole life to a task that he believes is not from God. That is not how love works, nor how we long for another’s flourishing.

And similarly, if I believe that the the good news of Christian faith is that Jesus sets us from prejudice and inequality — proclaims and creates our equality in the loving gaze of God — then my desire for Philip North’s flourishing must involve hoping he comes to believe that too.

Mutual flourishing does not mean that we politely agree to disagree and separate ourselves from each other while sheltering under the same umbrella organisation. It does not mean appointing bishops tit for tat. It means we commit ourselves to continuing the disagreement, and not letting that disagreement divide us as we share in the body of Christ.

And this is what has become impossible in the church of England.

At theological college, we fought all the time. We fought over scriptural interpretation, ecclesiology, real presence, ontological and functional views of ordination, the importance of tradition, the relationship between theology and modern philosophy, feminist thought, and the body politic. We disagreed all the time. We sometimes lost our tempers, and sometimes fell silent in frustration and rage. And then we went for coffee.

The final gift of theology degree is the gift of friendship — with people who affirm your understanding of God, and with those who challenge it on every point. What we knew — always — was that were in this together. Giving your life to trying to know and serve God is a bit of specialist pursuit in this world. Those of us who are in this game need to be in it together, and need to recognise that in each other even when we can’t reconcile our theologies at all.

When I was in the Scottish Episcopal Church, our bloody minded unity in the midst of diversity was express most clearly in sharing communion. We could fight all day, throw every idea into uncertainty, and then gather at the table to share in the body of Christ. The mystery of how God comes to us in communion in infinitely greater than the mystery of how we can be in one church when we so often disagree. Communion is what we can share while we passionately defend our best understanding of God, while also admitting that there’s still more to learn, and (therefore) I could be wrong.

But what does that mean in England?

The Church of England is not as eucharistically centred as either the Scottish Episcopal Church or The Episcopal Church in the States. I think most non-English Anglicans are shocked when they realise how little England really cares about communion. But it gets more complicated than that, since in 1993, the Church of England decided that people could belong to the same church while not being in communion with each other. That’s what resolutions A, B, and C created: a church in which people who were of the same denomination were not all in communion with each other. The Church of England teaches that it possible to ‘opt out’ of recognising someone’s orders, or the validity of the sacraments in a particular parish, while still belonging to the same church. The church of England has not been in full communion with itself since 1993.

So what holds us together?

Ironically, I suspect our valuing of communion is the thing that Philip North and I share most deeply. And if I ever did have reason to work with him, the work I would most like to do would be to explore how we could help the church re-value the eucharist as divine gift and blessing. But we can’t do that, because the structures of the Church of England mean that he is not in communion with me, even if I am with him, and even if we are both priests (and he a bishop) in the Church of England.

I have no solution to this.

I regret that Philip North has had to be the test case that exposes the confusion of the Five Guiding Principles and their call for our mutual flourishing. I want Philip North to flourish — I really do. And until he persuades me otherwise, that means I want him to change his mind about the ordination of women. And I want him to want to change my mind, and I’m happy to keep arguing it out. But what we can’t do is pretend that we want each other’s theology to flourish. We just can’t. The theologies are incompatible. If I believe God creates our equality and works for our liberation, I can’t want a theology to flourish that says the opposite — or that says, as the Bishop of Maidstone is consecrated to say, that women’s flourishing only comes through subordination. I don’t believe that is the will of God. I don’t want that theology to flourish.

And I as I write this, there is a voice in my head saying ‘can I say this? will I ever be able to work again — to take a new post — if I say this?’ And that is the greatest tragedy of all in the Church of England. We are afraid to talk about theology because it might divide us, and because if we nail our colours to the mast we may become un-appointable. We fail to proclaim love because we get caught in fear.

I believe that the only hope for the church is that we recognise sincere passion for God, wherever we find it. We need to be able to affirm that in each other, even when we can find no way to make sense of our theological differences. For me, the clearest affirmation of our mutual recognition is our willingness to gather at the table. When we take bread, and say ‘the body of Christ,’ we reach the limits of our knowledge. Where knowledge breaks, and love holds, communion begins.

16 thoughts on “theology & flourishing

  1. It is many many years since I have been in England for more than a short break, so possibly I should not comment. but I suspect, very much, that part of all this is a deep distrust of theology in any form. Part of the current great distaste for all things which are seen as coming from an intellectual elite who have made a world some feel very uncomfortable in, having never been given the tools to grapple with the changes. I could be utterly wrong.

  2. It’s hard to judge. This week we had an open invitation conversation about the synod refusing to take note of the bishops’ report on sexuality. It was low key, and advertised as “the church has been in the news a lot. If you want to learn more or talk about it then come…” it’s the sort of thing that I think of as utterly normal in parish life. But a number of people expressed surprise that we were having a conversation, and at least one person was deeply suspicious of it, thinking there must be a pressing reason. “Lets talk theology because the church has been in the news” was not a familiar idea.

  3. Kimberly It might come as a surprise to you but I agree with you 101%. Keep up the good work. Like Martin Luther you have nailed your beliefs to the ‘Church Door’. It can only do good.

  4. Yes. So much yes especially the stuff about the centrality of the Eucharist.

    The five guiding principles can’t work because the first one states unequivocally that women are priests while the fourth and fifth equivocate about this.

  5. As a Methodist I am still struggling to understand how the deep hurt I can sense and see among Anglican friends and covenant partners. This article has helped give me an insight. Bless you.

  6. A wonderful simple to understand (for a non theologian) description of the hole the COE has dug for itself – it helps to understand what Kelvin is on about!

  7. Thank you for this excellent piece. If only the HoB could see the truth of what you say, and stop their Alice in Wonderland pursuit of so many impossible contradictions! It does nobody any good to pretend that the deep issues which divide us don’t exist, or must be set aside in the name of ‘mutual flourishing’.

  8. Well actually the Christian Church doesn’t have priests, it has a combined role of elder/overseer, look it up in the New Testament.

    This role has as a main purpose to teach your fellow believers theology. To explain what the Bible says and cause them to live a life that glorifies God. It’s also a good idea if they learn some Church history as well so they can see what the errors were and why they arose.

    And the Bible makes it very clear that a woman is not allowed to be an elder/overseer, which rather raises the question of how good your theological education was.

    And what is this nonsense about ‘mutual flourishing’? If you aren’t obeying what God has said you shouldn’t flourish. Indeed you should be at least warned if not be put out of the church altogether. That command is in the Bible as well, by the way.

    It’s very easy to see why the Church of England is in the mess it is in when I see posts like this.

  9. It’s not just the bishops, though. Our fear of theological conversation leading to division plays in every level of the church, and we’ll all have to join in if anything is to change.

  10. Surely, this is all about the doctrine of Reception. Once the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches confirm that the ordination of women priest and bishops is a legitimate development of the apostolic tradition the argument within the CofE will be settled. Until then we need the resolutions and bishops who do not participate in the ordination of women bishops and priests. Otherwise, we are claiming that the CofE is an infallible determiner of Catholic truth. Something we have never claimed for our provincial authority.

  11. I can see the logic in that, Philip, and grant it is a reasonable theological position. If you start with that, however, how does it work in the other direction — what does it mean for a priest who’s a woman to have a diocesan bishop who does not/ will not/ cannot share in communion; and what does it mean for such a bishop to share sacramental ministry with someone he does not think is ‘fully’/ sacramentally ordained (to use an awkward phrase). I am still trying to understand how someone in The Society makes sense of it for themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s