Categories: uncategorized
Date: 15 May 2012 08:27:09
The Journal, (a local paper in the North East), had an interview with the Bishop of Durham Justin Welby yesterday which they recycled into their front page story. It was a good interview which was interesting and the Bishop it seemed managed to - after some effort - get the journalist away from the subjects of women bishops and homosexuality and on to what he really wanted to talk about which was the recession and the north south divide in this country.
The point that he made which was recycled into the front page story was that pay day loan companies are out of order and he explained why, based on an analysis of their interest rates. I agreed almost totally with all that he said but there was one problem with the discussion for me though - the guy for some reason felt the need to get a bit theological and start using language like usury. This got to me because I thought great, this is a churchman standing up, getting good media coverage and saying stuff people can connect with but then he has to go all posh and use language which with my theological understanding I'm struggling with.
Now I know there are debates around the language thing, and Jeanette Winterson's recent book Why Be Happy When You Can Be Normal contains a good defence for the continued use of this type of language and avoiding dumbing down. However, he was making a specific point which in some ways was obscured for me because of his moving into a particular type of biblical language which we are now disconnected from - even within the church.
Beyond the language though, as I say, he gave a great interview which highlighted the way problems within the church (with clergy preferring to take up vacancies in the south rather than the north) and the wider world (the lack of public spending per head on transport in the north compared to the south east) were linked. The key theme was about economic injustice and challenging this.
In terms of the controversial issues which the journalist inevitably got him to comment on and which took up a disproportionate amount of the actual interview space compared to the things Welby clearly felt mattered he came out as very clearly pro-women bishops but in a way which sought to achieve compromise and unity. On the gay thing he used an interesting set of language which clearly stated he disagreed with all sex outside of marriage and underlined in his mind that was the issue being debated. However within this section he did refer to the way "[h]istorically there have been plenty of bishops who were gay"; "the only person whose sex life I am interested in is mine, and I won't be talking about that " and the way the church has been correctly challenged over the years, for example on the issue of slavery.
Within the papers editorial the paradox of the whole interview was summed up. The editorial said "it is rare to hear a man in his position take such a forthright stance nowadays, unfortunately" (talking about the way he had "lambasted greedy bankers and pay day loan companies"). However, equally clear from the interview was the fact that the journalist had been sent along with the instruction to get the bishop talking about the controversial stuff on women bishops and gay priests. Perhaps if these issues could be given a little less space more men in his position may be able to speak out passionately on the issues they actually care about - which are often the same as the rest of us.