Lay Anglicana, the unofficial voice of the laity throughout the Anglican Communion.
This is the place to share news and views from the pews.

Get involved ...

Boot Camps for Bishops?

The problem begins in childhood. Small English boys are allergic to small English girls (see Molesworth, Just William et al). Then many of them (perhaps most of our bishops) are sent to single-sex schools. The female of the species acquires a sort of mystique, which persists into adulthood.  Take, for example, Phileas Fogg of  ‘Round the World in Eighty Days’. Having rescued an Indian princess from suttee, as you do, he brings her back to London, but is not quite sure what to do with her. It is left to Aouda to sort matters out:

“Mr. Fogg,” said Aouda, rising and seizing his hand, “do you wish at once a kinswoman and friend? Will you have me for your wife?”
Mr. Fogg, at this, rose in his turn. There was an unwonted light in his eyes, and a slight trembling of his lips. Aouda looked into his face. The sincerity, rectitude, firmness, and sweetness of this soft glance of a noble woman, who could dare all to save him to whom she owed all, at first astonished, then penetrated him. He shut his eyes for an instant, as if to avoid her look. When he opened them again, “I love you!” he said, simply. “Yes, by all that is holiest, I love you, and I am entirely yours!”

Apart from the obvious, what is the point of the female of the species? Many English men, even these days, are uncomfortable with women as work colleagues. They would rather be drinking that patronising toast, ‘The Ladies, God bless ’em!’, after which the ‘ladies’ would withdraw into their ‘withdrawing room’.

In all the discussion surrounding the Measure on the admission of women to the episcopate, the realisation is slowly dawning on many of us that the problem is not any failing on the part of women at all. Nor is it  fundamentally a problem of  ‘taint’, except at a visceral rather than a theological level. It is a problem of the collective unconscious of our bishops.

Lenin famously asked ‘What is to be done?’. It seems now too late to hope that slow evolutionary change will bring about the reform we need in the running of the Church of England. Let us be bold and take inspiration instead from the Little Red Book (and other works) of Mao Tse Tung! The aspect of his recommendations for revolution which I think might be particularly helpful are those concerning ‘criticism and self-criticism‘. I’m sure the poor bishops feel they have been offered plenty of criticism already, but I wonder how much self-criticism is going on. Here is an extract from “On Coalition Government” (April 24, 1945), Selected Works, Vol. III, pp. 316-17:

Conscientious practice of self-criticism is still another hallmark distinguishing our Party from all other political parties. As we say, dust will accumulate if a room is not cleaned regularly, our faces will get dirty if they are not washed regularly. Our comrades’ minds and our Party’s work may also collect dust, and also need sweeping and washing. The proverb “Running water is never stale and a door-hinge is never worm-eaten” means that constant motion prevents the inroads of germs and other organisms. To check up regularly on our work and in the process develop a democratic style of work, to fear neither criticism nor self-criticism, and to apply such good popular Chinese maxims as “Say all you know and say it without reserve”, “Blame not the speaker but be warned by his words” and “Correct mistakes if you have committed them and guard against them if you have not” – this is the only effective way to prevent all kinds of political dust and germs from contaminating the minds of our comrades and the body of our Party.

May I suggest that bishops take themselves in batches to one of the conference centres generally used by the Church of England. There we must hope they will engage in serious sessions of criticism and self-criticism. A week should suffice, I think. If, however, we don’t think the bishops can be left to carry out their own re-education, we can perhaps import one of those self-appointed experts beloved of television reality programmes. The latter-day Miss Beale and Miss Busss  in charge of converting ‘ladettes to ladies‘ are an appealing prospect (and I challenge any bishop to gainsay them). But I think they might find Sir Roy Strong more to their taste, and he very successfully ran a boot camp for people to lose weight.

Once our bishops have learnt to apply the lessons of Maoism, the Church will be free once more for mission and evangelism in its attempt to build Jerusalem in England’s green and pleasant land.

24 comments on this post:

Susan S. Hedges said...
avatar

Boot Camps for Bishops! Excellent suggestion. But judging by the venues you suggest, I don’t think they would be ‘booted’ enough. Much too posh for serious thinking. ‘Basic Training’ is what they need.

Lay Anglicana said...
avatar

Ah, but you’ve got to find a way to lure them there in the first place, so I think a judicious mixture of carrot and stick may be necessary.

Susan S. Hedges said...
avatar

Oh, I see. Here we call it ‘bait and switch.’

Mark Bennet said...
avatar

I thought the bait was going to be carrot juice and celery stick …

15 June 2012 19:26
14 June 2012 23:12
14 June 2012 19:59
14 June 2012 17:43
UKViewer said...
avatar

What I believe is that the Bishops have nothing to learn from Chinese Maoism of even torture. They seem able to turn the screw exceedingly slowly and excruciatingly on women and lay people.

The thing that bugs me about the whole business is that the Bishop’s Assessors look for Pastoral Sensitivity, Ability to build and sustain relationships, listening skills and real self awareness. These come under the criterian D for Personality and Character. http://www.churchofengland.org/media/56413/Summary%20of%20Criteria.pdf

I wonder how many would meet the Ordination Criteria today? Because, it’s not evident in some of their actions and announcements of late.

My fear is that when women are finally admitted to the HoB, that they will be subsumed into the male dominated culture and become in effect, just the same as those who lead today.

Lay Anglicana said...
avatar

Oh, UK Viewer, I do hope not, but agree that there may be a danger of what the Foreign Office used to call ‘going native’. I think it will be less of a risk if we get a good number in, but a greater risk if it is only a token handful.

Pam Smith said...
avatar

I think unless we have a review of how bishops are appointed very little will change. I had the privilege of meeting a bishop from Texas a couple of years ago and she stood 3 times before she was elected – that meant she’d tested out her calling very rigorously before she was appointed, and gone through a certain amount of soul searching each time she wasn’t elected.

In the C of E as far as I can gather you get put on a list of ‘good chaps who should be bishops’ on the basis of other bishops thinking you should be one of them, and then it’s only a matter of time.

Now, there may be a list of ‘good chapesses who should be bishops’ but I bet it’s considerably shorter!

Linda McMillan said...
avatar

But is the “bishop” of whom you speak really a woman, or do her actions reveal her to merely be a man with lady parts instead of a dick? I assume you are speaking of “bishop” Harrison who has pretty well played along with he boys. I’d just as soon have a man.

I’d be most happy to hear of how I am wrong in this so do speak up and tell why you disagree.

(I don’t recognize the clergy of the Diocese of Texas, thus the quote marks.)

Pam Smith said...
avatar

If you don’t ‘recognise’ the clergy of the Diocese of Texas then the rest of your question, while provocative, seems to be completely redundant.

16 June 2012 07:02
Lay Anglicana said...
avatar

Pam, if you are indeed talking about Bishop Gayle Harris, I too was privileged to meet her (at the conference on ‘the futures of Anglicanism’ at the Gladstone Library last autumn). I was captivated by her and thought her feminine and episcopal in equal measure. It was after meeting her that I started to wonder whether we should not simply adopt the procedures of TEC, including the election of bishops. There seems to be strong resistance to the idea amongst people I have spoken to in the Church of England, and I do not know enough about the subject to advance my case, but it does seem to me that election would automatically ensure that the Church reflected the era it was working in.

16 June 2012 07:14
Pam Smith said...
avatar

I think all systems of appointment for bishops are based on the same principle, which is that we should hear and understand what the Holy Spirit is saying to us. So there is no theoretical objection to one system in favour of another since the Holy Spirit can speak just as effectively through an election and through a less transparent system of a list of approved candidates and a series of meetings by those nominated to make the decision.

However, in human terms, our current C of E system does IMO is rather biased in favour of the appointment of people who fit in with the current group of bishops. Not least because suffragans (area bishops) are largely appointed by the diocesan bishops they will work with, rather than a wider consultation – and then most – though not all – diocesan bishops are appointed from within the ranks of the suffragans.

It’s noticeable that churches which elect bishops have been ready to elect women quite soon after they’ve been eligible. I think a woman in this position probably has a credibility that the first women bishops appointed on the ‘old boy system’ favoured by the C of E will have. There will always be a suspicion – however unjustified – that the first woman bishop, who is likely to be a suffragan bishop appointed by a diocesan bishop who is known to be heavily in favour of women becoming bishops – is a ‘political’ appointment, however good a candidate she is.

16 June 2012 07:44
Pam Smith said...
avatar

Oh dear a few typos have crept into the post above – I hope the meaning is clear though!

16 June 2012 07:50
15 June 2012 14:07
14 June 2012 21:09
14 June 2012 20:01
14 June 2012 18:22
richard haggis said...
avatar

Tony Benn stood for the House of Commons when his late father’s peerage made him ineligible. The people of Bristol re-elected him. Eventually the law had to be changed so he could renounce his peerage, stand again, and take his seat in the Commons. But there’s the key – the people were allowed to speak. We would have had women bishops long ago if the people in the pews in each diocese had a voice and a vote.

14 June 2012 22:18
avatar

¨risk of going native¨ (I love you, I really do)! Un gran abrazo, Leonardo

15 June 2012 01:54
Lauren Gough+ said...
avatar

I think that there is something in the dye of the color purple that makes those wearing it impervious to criticism–self or otherwise. I wonder if bishops wore puce it might make a difference.

Lay Anglicana said...
avatar

Permanently blushing with embarrassment, you mean?

Pam Smith said...
avatar

My experience of being a clergy person is that you have to be able to tune out unjustified criticism while acting on justified criticism. If you can’t tune out the unjustified criticism you’d end up afraid to do anything.

I imagine bishops attract huge amounts of unjust criticism as well as a fair amount of unquestioning approval. It must be quite a balancing act to draw the right amounts of affirmation and constructive insight from it at times.

16 June 2012 10:34
16 June 2012 07:19
15 June 2012 02:39
Matthew Caminer said...
avatar

In my new book, I write: “Cut the Church some slack! It’s a huge organization, under-resourced financially, trying to address major cultural shifts that threaten the stability of the institution. It’s led by people who have many fine qualities, but who are not necessarily equipped with the skills and experience required to manage a large organization.” I stand by that. I have spent a career working in industry and very few senior church people seem to have the management experience, the skills-mix and temperament of even senior middle managers, let alone chief executives. I have also known many bishops personally: many of them are cerebral, gentle, pastorally-minded people, often reluctant to take high office. It’s easy to throw stones from the wings, generally anonymously I observe, without accepting that they have a story to tell as well, and would probably surprise us if we only took the time and trouble to listen to them, and I do mean listen. Doesn’t mean we will agree with what they say, but who knows…?

Linda McMillan said...
avatar

Having a story doesn’t justify treating half the human race as if they were inferior. There is no story that justifies that.

15 June 2012 14:10
15 June 2012 09:47
Pam Smith said...
avatar

I’ve been watching the re-runs of Frasier on Channel 4 while convalescing, and usually leave the telly on for the programme that follows. Undercover Boss.

Each episode features a senior manager in a large company experiencing the business from the perspective of those who work at the the cutting edge. Inevitably they’re surprised and embarrassed at the commitment and expertise of their staff working under difficult conditions with very little support from management.

I’ve been wondering how/if such a concept could be adapted for the C of E, to bring a bit of realism back to our decision makers!

Lay Anglicana said...
avatar

I think this is a brilliant idea. It would obviously be difficult for a bishop to go undercover in his own diocese – I wonder if it would work if we got them to swapp with a brother bishop? The two bishops could compare notes afterwards, but I think it highly likely they would come to the same conclusion as the undercover bosses. It would certainly make great reality television!

Pam Smith said...
avatar

I was wondering what role you could assign to an undercover bishop to give him a cutting edge view of the church. Would you send him in as someone who’d moved to the area and was looking for a church? Interim vicar of a multiple parish benefice?

Seems to me the C of E is a very different experience for each group within it. I know I see things differently as someone who’s been ordained for a number of years than I did when I was a lay minister, and things looked different from the perspective of a Reader than they’d looked when I was a PCC member, and going on the PCC was an eye opener for someone who prior to that had no decision making role.

I think this is at the heart of a lot of miscommunication and misunderstandings.

What’s quite shocking to me is that many Diocesan bishops who had been present at the Diocesan Synod meetings which voted against adding additional amendments to the draft legislation must then have acquiesced to the voice of their Diocesan Synod being ignored. This shows a frightening lack of respect for the ability of Diocesan Synods to understand the issues and make the right decision. I wonder how I would feel if I was still on Diocesan Synod, had given up a day to discussing the issue, and then saw my bishop ignoring the outcome of that meeting.

Joyce said...
avatar

Good points,Pam.I think the biggest surprise would be in discovering how few ordinary pew-fillers and communicants,unless they’re involved in the running of the parish church,actually know the name of the bishop.They may not even know the name of the diocese,let alone care tuppence about how the bishop got the job.As for knowing what his job is …. well !
The idea of yet another election makes most of us groan. More than half the public don’t turn out to elect their own local councillor and even regular worshippers don’t necessarily bother to go on the church voting register.If they don’t read the notice boards or listen to Today in Parliament the chances are they’ve never even heard of a synod.

21 June 2012 12:00
16 June 2012 08:54
16 June 2012 07:18
15 June 2012 10:58
Linda McMillan said...
avatar

One should be careful with Mao. Struggle and criticism have brought about more exile, torment, and inhumanity than the world can measure. The remnants of it live in my student’s faces and in the mental chains that will keep them down for another generation… at least.

15 June 2012 14:14

Leave a Reply to Lay Anglicana Cancel reply

We rely on donations to keep this website running.