Monday, 22 March 2004

to stay or to go?

My current job requires me to take a managerial view of my university. I have been an academic for much (but not all) of my professional life, and this has allowed me to comment, and often comment critically, on how other organisations behave. I have often done so from a perspective of self-righteousness, in that the frame of reference for my criticism was informed by a belief that I was spreading the gospel of openness, transparency, accountability and equity. It’s a potent cocktail, because it numbs the capacity to see error in one’s own analysis.

Now I am in charge of a university, and I see at least some things differently. I recognise, for example, that universities are notoriously bad at modernising themselves, see tradition as noble, dismiss out of hand the possibility that they are bad employers — or worse still, that they might discriminate - and are suspicious of the desire on the part of public representatives to hold them accountable. They also have bits of mystical dogma — sometimes described as ‘academic freedom’ — which can be used to slap down argument when all else fails. And yet, beyond the slogans and the traditionalism, universities are stewards of a great public good: education and scholarship which maintains civilised, cultured and tolerant values. It is just when they become too self-important (which usually happens at times of great stress) that it becomes hard to see these values in action.

It’s probably similar with the church. We have all become a little fed up with the evident failings of the men and women (but usually men) who occupy the major ecclesial offices, and we are critical of the way in which both the mission of the church and its resources have been mismanaged. We become impatient when dogma which an educated person probably started to dismiss as absurd at the time of the Enlightenment still adorn a catechism or two, and we wonder whether this is an organism which can adapt sufficiently in order to survive.

But I am also aware that in the middle of all this mess is the Word, and however we have corrupted it, it is still there. So when I hear some daft new episcopal pronouncement and think I want to leave, I remind myself that the church is more than, and bigger than, what currently irritates me. And so I stay.

But staying should not be a comfortable irritation, in which I shrug off what annoys or offends me and get lost in other-worldly contemplation. Staying means accepting the mission to promote, and if necessary provoke, change — in a spirit of love, tolerance and (properly understood) obedience. It means recognising God in the church and striving to be true to God’s Gospel — an unchanging God who, for every generation, makes all things new.

Posted by Ferdinand von Prondzynski on Monday, 22 March 2004 at 7:56am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: just thinking
Comments

It strikes me, pondering the "obedience" portion of your comments, that our obedience is not to the Church but to God-in-the-Church. This means seeing the Spirit's work within our structure, and constantly seeking Christ as we move forward. If that means criticising the current actions of the heirarchy, let it be doneā€”in the context of our common call.

I try always, throughout whatever troubles or disputes strike the Church, to keep my focus trained on faith, hope, and love, and let my actions follow. If I succeed, it's by God's grace alone.

Posted by: Kevin Bullock on Monday, 22 March 2004 at 11:20pm GMT

Seems to me that "obedience" is a bit harder to do and less easy to avoid than Kevin Bullock appears to think. Add "the one who loves me is the one who does what I say" to "If anyone says, "I love God",yet hates his brother is a liar". Then try that with 'obey' ... Have a look at Heb 13:17 while you are about it.

Posted by: Nigel Feilden on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 at 8:43pm BST