The Lambeth tight-rope walk- part 1

I woke up today to hear the end of an interview about the Lambeth conference of bishops from the Anglican communion that's taking place at the moment. Like so many similar reports over the last few weeks, it left me feeling sad that the only time the medial reports what the church is doing is because there's controversy and criticism. I'm sure many things were discussed at the General Synod at the beginning of July- but we only heard about the debate over female bishops. Many issues are under consideration at the Lambeth conference- but almost all that's being reported is the debate on homosexuality and the potential for this to split the communion.

Rowan Williams is in difficult position- whatever his own or anyone else's opinion might be, he as head of the Anglican Communion has to think in terms of what's best for whole communion- how to hold it together. With such a vast and varied organisation it's a near-impossible and pretty thankess task. One might even question the point of it (but that's another matter). According to Dr Williams, it's not even clear what the Anglican Communion is, and the range of views and beliefs within it is immense. As is the range among those attending the conference, from bishops from churches of comfortable wealth in Western countries to bishops from churches where most of the worshippers are not far away from struggling to survive.

I can sympathise, to some extent. I've been in a similar situation, although on a very much smaller scale. When I was on the executive committee of my Christian Union at university, we had to take a difficult decision which we knew would upset a proportion of the membership which ever way we decided. There was the posibility that some would leave. There was no way round the issue, a decision had to be made, and after much prayer, consideration and debate, we made it. Each person on that committee had their own opinions, but that wasn't what mattered. We had to do what was best for the unity of the whole CU, and part of that meant preserving the unity of the committee, and being able to defend our decision even if our personal opinon was against the decision taken. That was the position I was in, I disagreed with the conclusion we had reached but I knew that to stop the dispute continuing and more people being hurt, I couldn't attack those I disagreed with. I could continue to privatly disagree with it, and make that clear both to the other committee members and to members who were upset, but I would not go so far as to disobey it or publically criticise those who, I believed, had made the wrong decision.

Why? Partly because I had respect for them as individuals. Some of them I considered good friends. Partly because I understood why they had made the decision, and knew that they had been trying to put God's wishes first when they made it. Thirdly, because unity is a hugely important part of any Christian organisation. Not uniformity, as in everyone doing and saying the same thing at the same time, but unity of purpose and love for one another. Jesus knew what a mess we'd make of the church, and prayed for us to be unified. "Love one another," he told the disciples. If only we made the effort to love one another, even those we disagree with, dislike or find annoying, the church would be a better and more welcoming place.

The Moral Dilema

I told a lie at work today. It was (yet another) sales call, the ones where someone rings up trying to sell computer services/water coolers/ goodness knows what else. They ask to speak to the office manager, but if I try to put them through she just says "no thanks" and leaves me to get rid of them.
So I say that she's not available. Unfortunatly, this means they keep ringing back because they think they might get through another time. But when I know that she's not going to take the call, and doesn't want to be disturbed, I will still say that she's not available. Which isn't quite true. She is there, she just doesn't want to talk to that caller (and I don't blame her).
But I can't tell the callers to stop calling or that we're not interested (although I do try to sometimes) because I'm only a receptionist. One caller I tried to get rid of got quite angry. So the same people try calling over and over again. Some just don't get the hint, even after weeks of being told she's not available. So it's not a very good system really.
It's the same when sometimes the secretaries will say that they don't want to speak to someone because they're too busy; "can you tell them I'm not here?" I don't like lying, so the great phrase "not available" is very useful. It can mean "they're in a meeting" or "they're not here" or whatever the caller wants it to mean. Including "they're here but they're refusing to speak to you." It generally does the job, unless the caller starts asking where they are.
I don't like not telling the truth. I don't like being put in the position where I have to lie or get into trouble for not doing my job properly. And it would be much easier (if less polite) to just tell the sales callers to stop ringing up. But it won't happen. I guess it just shows what a mess the world's in!