Bishop bullied off

I believe John Piper said: ‘Emotional blackmail says, “If I feel hurt by you, you are guilty.” There is no defence. The hurt person has become God. His emotion has become judge and jury. Truth does not matter. All that matters is the sovereign suffering of the aggrieved. It is above question. This emotional device is a great evil.’

I presume that we are all guilty of such thinking at times. It is too easy to allow our emotions to be the arbiter of the truth about our relationships, and when this happens chaos ensues. It can happen in families, amongst friends and even in churches.

Two outpourings

The Church of England has faced two outpourings of emotional angst in the last month. The first surrounded the publication of the House of Bishops’ statement about sexuality – known as GS2055. Those seeking to change the teaching of the Church of England claimed that the decision of the House of Bishops to uphold the doctrine of marriage meant that their ‘voices’ had not been ‘listened’ to. This meant that they felt ‘betrayed and hurt’. One commentator described their definition of ‘listening’ as ‘I speak and you agree with me’. They felt that the Bishops needed to think again. The Archbishops responded by apologising and promising ‘a radical new Christian inclusion’.

The second was in response to the nomination of Philip North, a man who does not ordain women, as the next Bishop of Sheffield. This time it was those who had campaigned for women to enter the episcopate who were complaining. The nomination was within the law, it fulfilled both the word and spirit of the guidelines drawn up by the House of Bishops, and had been agreed by a committee on which the Diocese of Sheffield would have been represented. But none of that was enough. As one retired male vicar wrote, ‘… it is not enough to assert that due process and the five guiding principles have been observed. If they have produced a situation that causes distress … then they need to be reviewed…’1. Perhaps it is unsurprising that Philip North felt forced to withdraw from the nomination.

Three strands

In both these cases, there were three main strands to the argument. 1. My distress is what matters – ‘I’m hurt – and it was you who hurt me’. 2. My experience is what matters – ‘I don’t like this – others might accept it, but I can’t’. 3. My definition of human flourishing is what matters – ‘I know what is best for me – and if you don’t meet my needs as I perceive them, then you don’t love me or accept me.’

Such arguments are not unique to the Church of England. I have seen the John Piper quote above applied to their own churches by Baptists, Independents and Anglicans.

So, the question for all of us is how we deal with such arguments. How do we counsel ourselves when we are tempted to use these methods on others? Perhaps Jesus’ words to Martha offer us some clue: ‘Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.’ Like Jesus, we must neither let those we love, at home or at church, get away with such outbursts, nor must we fall into the temptation of joining in the competitive pain. Instead we must keep focused on the one thing that matters – our submission to Jesus Christ and his teaching. Without that, we are lost.