Call me naive, but I just hate church politics, and I hate all the labels we use - yes, all of them. And I particularly hate it when politics either masquerades in another guise, or the people involved are blind to it.
Last spring, I had the profound privilege of serving on the Crown Nominations Commission as one of Durham Diocese's representatives. I am bound by the confidentiality that surrounds that process. I have no desire to break the confidentiality. By instinct I am someone who is 100% for total transparency, and I am frustrated by processes that are secretive, but that is not how I feel about that process. Too often egos are fed by being in an inner circle. Too often secrecy about processes works against making the right decision. Too often it leads to silo thinking. I didn't experience any of that as a member of the Durham CNC.
What I did come respectfully to recognise was that the confidentiality we observed protected the people who were under consideration. It protected their families. It protected the communities they were serving in at the time. It protected the diocesan reps from too much inappropriate lobbying. It protected the diocese from unhelpful speculation. It also reminded us that this was a process entrusted to us by the church under God.
Serving on that CNC was a privilege from another point of view as well. It may well have been a very task-focused group, and it is a pretty tall order for any newly formed group to reach a high level of functioning so fast from a standing start, but it was a deep bonding experience. I came away from it with a deep admiration and fondness for every single member of the group - laity, clergy, archbishops, secretaries.
I know that the group of us from Durham came to it from our various traditions and theological positions with a deep sense of unity in diversity. I cannot recall any discussion of 'party issues' or 'party positions', and while I might infer what some of the standing members views might be on some of those issues, they were never even close to the surface, and the discussions we had transcended them.
If saying all that is a breach of confidentiality, I can live with it. I hope it is not. I wish the church as a whole could function in such a healthy way! Sadly, that's not what I see.
A few weeks ago, we had the announcement of ++Rowan's move, followed by extensive discussion of his numerous 'failures' in the press, and on blogs. We even heard admiration poured out for "the woman priest who saw off Archbishop’s ‘horrifying’ legacy". My experience of ++Rowan is of a warm, funny, wise, thoughtful and open-minded man, with a deep humility, profound courage, complete integrity, and a far wider and richer view of issues than any of those columnists or bloggers.
This past seven days I have seen Professor Glynn Harrison's membership of the CNC questioned, in many cases with little regard for what he actually thinks or what sort of person he is. Again, my experience of Glynn is of a warm, funny, wise, thoughtful, open-minded man of integrity.
And today Facebook keeps telling me how many of my friends, and their friends, have read the letter in the Guardian about confidentiality (or rather failures of confidentiality) in relation to the Southwark CNC. I assume that the Southwark CNC experience must have been very different from ours, but I don't know. I could have asked some of the people who had been through it, and also took part in Durham's CNC. However, it never occurred to me to ask, and quite rightly I don't think anyone would have given me an answer if I had.
The reporting of both issues, mutliplied by the attention drawn to them on Thinking Anglicans and other blogs, is spawning all sorts of comments which are leaving me with a bitter, bitter, taste in my mouth. I am profoundly uncomfortable - even depressed, and distressed - and I am really trying to get to the bottom of why that is.
If I were a suspicious type, I think I would probably be seeing a conspiracy here: a conspiracy to influence the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury in a particular direction. Certainly conspiracy language is being bandied about by those who were so bitterly opposed to the Anglican Covenant, and by those commenting on the Southwark CNC. Might there be a 'specks and logs' problem here? I'd prefer to think not, but time will tell.
The bottom line is that I am fed up with people and parties who think they know the only right answer to all these problems. Sick to the back teeth. Had it up to there (gesture indicating a level just below the top of my cranium). And I am especially fed up with those people and parties self-righteously promoting those right answers in the name of 'integrity' (or 'an integrity' in some cases, whatever that means).
Transparency isn't going to fix these problems. It needs something different. I'm not willing to add my own wild diagnosis to all the other ones out there. Like weight loss, I basically think it comes down to diet and exercise. So, my prescription for the patient's woes are a heavy dose of good listening to replace all the hasty proclamations, painful self examination to replace the finger pointing, and genuine openness to replace the narrowness - all under-pinned by a basic attitude of trust to replace the 'conspiracy' mindset, and humility to replace the pride. That would be a good start towards some genuine integrity.
I love my church, and I love the people who make it up - some of the ones you might think I am angriest with today are the very ones I love most. I hope I haven't just become guilty of the same things I'm so upset about, and if you think I'm getting at you personally, I suggest you don't make any assumptions!
I also suggest you don't make any assumptions about what I think about any of the presenting issues. This isn't about my beliefs, or anyone else's, my feelings or anyone else's feelings. It is an appeal to learn to trust each other again, under God, as part of his church.
There it is, I've got it off my chest, and I've got better things to do than dwell on the subject. Don't disappoint me, Church of England.
