A friend (who I am somewhat in awe of) is going to publish an academic paper soon on the question of what enables organisations to survive the sort of crises that would otherwise result in schism or utter meltdown. Apparently, research has shown that there is only a single factor that makes the difference between the organisations that sink and those who swim, and that is the faith of the leader in the organisation to survive. If the leader believes unwaveringly in the ability of the organisation to overcome the difficulties then it is likely to survive. If he has doubts, whether they are expressed or not, the people in the company will intuit them and the organisation is unlikely to survive.
I flippantly said at this point 'you should tell this to Rowan', and I was amazed at the reply I received. My friend doesn't know that I oppose the Anglican Covenant, doesn't read my blog and I have never heard him be political. He said that the Anglican Covenant and this idea of having several tiers was tantamount to openly giving in and openly saying that the organisation couldn't survive the crisis without schism. My mouth literally dropped open.
"Err... um.. did you err... know that I am the Moderator for the No Anglican Covenant Coal..i..t.i.on?" I asked. The title and even the cause sounded petty to my ears in the presence of a man who is not political but who is one of my heroes, because of his intellect, and the way he sees through things.
"Very good", was his reply. Enough had been said and he moved on to other interesting ideas and thoughts and snippets of research and funny, funny moments that made me laugh and laugh. But the shock of what we face has stayed with me. We have agreed to schism and the Anglican Covenant is the Decree Absolute.
Of course, I sort of knew this.. and I have described the Anglican Covenant as a 'document of schism'. The words my friend said were echoed in this interesting article from way back in the Telegraph.
Dr Williams appeared to accept that his efforts to preserve the unity of the communion had failed as he sketched a new Anglican structure that would allow local churches to loosen their ties with the main church body.
M473AASNC6PN
5 comments:
You are right about the Covenant organising the schism, the difference between fully in and out, but this business about a leader? I mean, a cult splits often after its guru dies, but I'd have thought that the forces of the time that divide something up leave little in terms of difference to what a leader does. I'd be interested to see more about that.
Well, it depends on the leader and the style they exercise, but leadership is crucial and it can be amazing what difference an individual can make to the morale of a group or organisation. Adrian's comment about cults and their gurus is true IF the guru is running the organisation for personal benefit and gain, and has around them a group of subordinates who will indulge in in-fighting and power games when the guru is no longer on the scene.
Wise leaders, who care for the organisation and its members, will create structures and promote people who will facilitate the continuance of the organisation once they are gone - a lesson to those of us who find ourselves in leadership positions, I think.
That's absolutely right. And one of the biggest tasks for a retiring minister is to leave a congregation able to function afterwards via committees and the like.
The minister should never join a faction of a congregation even if there is a policy preference, especially on a contentious issue. Them pastoral task always takes priority. Even with an opinion on one side or another the minister should draw both sides in.
I've seen a minister join a faction and turn a bad situation into complete mayhem. I've also seen them surrounding themselves with yes-people, who they then set out to get into office, allowing them to get their own way all the time. All too often, that's been the genesis of a faction.
The best ministers work with people to help them develop what they're doing, and create a strong lay leadership which can continue independently as ministers move on. Problem is, the next minister may well undermine it,and you're right back to square one.
I don't wish to seem flippant but isn't God the leader of our institution? ok so Rowan may be elected to the role on earth (eek am I sounding a teensy bit RC here?) but ultimately God is the one in control. I have stayed rather silent on the covenant as I'm not sure I've made up my mind which way I fall, but I do believe that whatever is supposed to happen will. I love the CofE (as I posted on last week), but if it splits then perhaps that is what is meant to be? Part of the beauty of the CofE is it's wide boundaries, but at the same time those boundaries are increasing so much that something is bound to give at some point. It's a bit like we're all inside a balloon and people are pushing at the walls from every angle, some to move the balloon one way, some to move it another and some to just get out. Will it burst or will the balloon just stay still because we're all pushing in different directions? Would it be better if it burst and we all escaped to do our own thing? I don't know, but I do know that there is someone who is perfectly able to direct this in the way it should go or pop the balloon if need be. If that makes sense, and no I haven't been on the sauce...
red :)
Post a Comment