As the next General Synod meeting approaches, where several questions have been tabled about the Green Report, there have also been several articles published about it.
Andrew Lightbown has written The Green Report: ‘authors of the apocalypse?’ I think so.
..It is so shot full of assumptions as to beggar belief. It is the product of romantic and lazy thinking, especially with respect to the ‘cult of the leader,’ and the capacity of business school style training to offer appropriate forms of training outside the world of business. (It has many other faults as well – but lets leave these to one side).
I hope the report disappears into the long grass never to be seen again.I strongly believe that the style of management, and leadership, training it proposes will do real and long lasting damage to the Church and, therefore society for, a healthy society needs a healthy church.
My reasoning is that the proposals seek to mimic a mode of training that has caused significant damage in the corporate world…
Mike Higton has adopted a different approach in a series of five articles headed Re-Reading the Green Report, in which
Rather than setting out yet another critique, I want to try for retrieval and repair.
The five articles are:
Andrew Lightbown has a response: Four questions to ask of the Green Review at Synod.
I’ve enjoyed Mike Higton’s blogs on the Green Review. I appreciate his analysis of the text and, the reconciliatory tone he adopts. I agree with the majority of what he says and, I hope Synod take on board his critique.
I have read, and re-read, the report and still find it difficult to accept that its recommendations can do anything other than damage the common good. My starting point has always been that the recommendations are an extension of the authors subjective biases and assumptions.
Below are four sets of questions which I hope might be useful when debating the report at Synod next week…