Toeing the Party Line
I had a moving email from a recent ordinand, responding to my post about escaping from evangelicalism. He describes something of the pain he felt at seminary, because of the pressure to conform, to appear to be as believing (and in the same way) as everyone else, to have all the convictions and answers that everyone else seemed to have. But it just wasn't him. And he's still feeling scarred, only just beginning to believe that it's all right to be himself in ministry, to be asking deeper and more fundamental questions, to be honest about where you stand and what you believe.
I felt like weeping for a church that treats its trainee clergy like that. In any other context you would call it abuse: apart from the anglican gentility of it, it's not very different from the brutal Marine Corps instructor in Full Metal Jacket (who eventually gets his full metal jacketed comeuppance). Something is not right here; something is clearly working out of the camp of that Satan who day and night accuses our kin.
But it also occurs to me that the trainers are victims of the same systemic oppression. At the time of the Jeffrey John affair last year, when I visited one of our local seminaries to lead a workshop (on storytelling) one staff member in particular was trying to get me to sign up to the letter of protest to the Bishop that he and some colleagues were preparing to fire off. No way was I going to do that; yet I was too much of a coward - and a guest, moreover - to get into a big argument about why not. Yet there was clearly an expectation that, as 'one of us' (!) I would agree with their opposition to Jeffrey John's appointment.
I was surprised at the time that all the faculty seemed to be of one mind, when I would have expected at least some of those I know to think differently. But I realised later that it must have been terrifying for them, perhaps even impossible, to express a different view if the 'party line' was so clear. (Or at least, if there were some who were making a big noise about it and asserting that it was so clear.) It would be like jumping ship, in the middle of a shark-infested ocean, with no other ship in sight to pick you up. Moreover, you would have made yourself such a pariah, that there would be no hope of ever getting back on board, if at the first tickle of a shark's tooth you changed your mind. If the Party treats its officials so badly, what hope is there for its novices?
I felt glad to have got off that boat a long time ago. For it meant that the worst pain I got (but it was still painful) was from upsetting some people I love and respect, who thought I was still a true Party man, the way I did when I stood up at last and came out about what I really believed about the issue.
I felt like weeping for a church that treats its trainee clergy like that. In any other context you would call it abuse: apart from the anglican gentility of it, it's not very different from the brutal Marine Corps instructor in Full Metal Jacket (who eventually gets his full metal jacketed comeuppance). Something is not right here; something is clearly working out of the camp of that Satan who day and night accuses our kin.
But it also occurs to me that the trainers are victims of the same systemic oppression. At the time of the Jeffrey John affair last year, when I visited one of our local seminaries to lead a workshop (on storytelling) one staff member in particular was trying to get me to sign up to the letter of protest to the Bishop that he and some colleagues were preparing to fire off. No way was I going to do that; yet I was too much of a coward - and a guest, moreover - to get into a big argument about why not. Yet there was clearly an expectation that, as 'one of us' (!) I would agree with their opposition to Jeffrey John's appointment.
I was surprised at the time that all the faculty seemed to be of one mind, when I would have expected at least some of those I know to think differently. But I realised later that it must have been terrifying for them, perhaps even impossible, to express a different view if the 'party line' was so clear. (Or at least, if there were some who were making a big noise about it and asserting that it was so clear.) It would be like jumping ship, in the middle of a shark-infested ocean, with no other ship in sight to pick you up. Moreover, you would have made yourself such a pariah, that there would be no hope of ever getting back on board, if at the first tickle of a shark's tooth you changed your mind. If the Party treats its officials so badly, what hope is there for its novices?
I felt glad to have got off that boat a long time ago. For it meant that the worst pain I got (but it was still painful) was from upsetting some people I love and respect, who thought I was still a true Party man, the way I did when I stood up at last and came out about what I really believed about the issue.
posted by Tony at 8/25/2004 06:19:00 pm
3 Comments:
Traditionally the distinctions were between Catholics, Evangelicals and Liberals, and I guess this is still one possible way to slice the cake. Charismatics might be a kind of sub-slice. But yes, the possibility of these groups embracing within one organisation, is the truly great and wonderful thing about the Church of England. It's even part of the founding vision of the people who started it: one Church for all the people of this nation. It's the main reason why I am an Anglican, and even more than that, it's the main reason I have become an Anglican by conviction.
But it is fragile, it's like balancing on a tightrope, and it depends all the time - and history has shown it again and again - on keeping the balance. Ideally, every member of the C of E, and every congregation, would be passionately Catholic AND Evangelical AND Liberal. But given that this doesn't often happen (I TRY to model it in myself :-) ) it only works if no one group becomes too strong. The danger at this time, is that the Evangelical group is too strong, and is trying to impose its agenda on the whole body. This is like the eye not saying, I'm not a part of the body, but, The whole body has got to be an eye like me! If they were to prevail, the Anglican body would not just grow sick, it would most likely die.
I agree about training. I had a real mix of lovely, helpful peple and difficult times (I don't toe party lines either) when I was training.
Whilst in training, the majority of my fellow ordinands were cooking up a poisonous letter re. the 20-year celebrations of LCCM, which was to be sent on behalf of the whole college. It didn't even occur to my compatriots that anyone would wish NOT to be represented by such a letter. In the end, as a result of a few ovf us objecting to being represented without our consent, the letter had to be signed individually, and I'm happy to say that quite a number of people didn't sign - a few because they supported LGCM, but several others merely because they objected to the tone of the letter. I, meantime, went to the 20-year celebration at Southwark, as a friend of mine (closet gay) wanted to go and was too scared to go on his own. It was very noticeable that an atmosphere of love and humility was far more in evidence at Southwark than in the self-righteous common room meeting at college.
"Ideally, every member of the C of E, and every congregation, would be passionately Catholic AND Evangelical AND Liberal. But given that this doesn't often happen (I TRY to model it in myself :-) ) it only works if no one group becomes too strong. The danger at this time, is that the Evangelical group is too strong, and is trying to impose its agenda on the whole body. This is like the eye not saying, I'm not a part of the body, but, The whole body has got to be an eye like me! If they were to prevail, the Anglican body would not just grow sick, it would most likely die."
Perhaps the biggest problem is one I identify in the latest instalment of "Why leaving fundamentalism hurts", namely that the big story underlying much of evangelicalism (insofar as it overlaps with fundamentalism) by its very nature excludes other parts of the body. Liberalism (ideally, that is) has room for others because tolerance, ambiguity, diversity and openmindedness are all part of the underlying story.
Part two of "Leaving fundamentalism" is here: http://gracepages.blogspot.com/2004/08/why-leaving-fundamentalism-hurts-2-big.html
Post a Comment
<< Home