Saturday 24 November 2012

Mursi's Egypt

President Mursi has got himself a lot of media space over the last few days. Sweeping powers to overrule the courts and make laws. Why? The headlines and even the news features themselves tell us very little. Instead they feature angry Egyptians who feel betrayed by this move, or militant followers who approve. I did catch a very balanced piece of reporting on radio 4 however. What I heard made me less inclined to be critical of Mursi. He finds himself in a position where many of the judiciary were appointed by President Mubarak. They are still in place. Not only can they effectively block or overturn new democratic procedures, but they have once before disbanded the assembly that is writing the new Egyptian constitution. He was afraid they might try to do this again, and indeed, there were reports that the courts might be about to do this.
That could seriously derail the transition to democracy, further delaying new parliamentary elections, which could deter Egypt's political leaders from taking tough decisions while they wait for the vote.
So what is the problem?
Well, perhaps it is about the way this has happened.

The president failed to consult with other political forces, acting in an autocratic manner reminiscent of his predecessor. Indeed, he has taken more power than Hosni Mubarak ever claimed, with almost no constraints at all. And his attempt to sideline the judiciary is reminiscent of the early power-grab of the Free Officers in 1954, the beginning of what is now being seen as six decades of military dictatorship in Egypt.
As a result, many Egyptians fear the real agenda is not to protect the revolution, but to increase the power of President Mursi, and of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist movement from which he comes. In particular, there is an accusation that the underlying aim is to enable the constitutional assembly - currently dominated by Islamists - to write an Islamist constitution for Egypt.
So there is an interesting story to be told about this affair. I for one am inclined to the side of those who feel this is a necessary step to further safeguard this fledgling democracy. But time will tell, and in the hotbed of feeling in that part of the word, time may well be short supply.

St George's Tron, Glasgow

The Church of Scotland Ministries Council is advertising a post the like of which I had never come across before: that of "Transition Minister". The post is obviously outwith the domain of normal parish ministries. It comes with a salary/stipend £53 shy of £39,000. Nothing about a manse mind you, but there is a manse with The Tron.
The bulk of the Tron's congregation, its office bearers and minister have left the Church of Scotland. This leaves a gaping hole in the Church of Scotland's presence in Glasgow City Centre. Since there is effectively no congregation left to search for and call a new minister, a new plan has been made. The Ministries Council is seeking for applications by 7th December. I was curious about the job description. Having taken a look at it I am even more curious.
The information under Context For The Role is as follows:
The Minister, Office Bearers and overwhelming majority of the congregation of St George’s  Tron Parish Church have left the Church of Scotland.  The Presbytery of Glasgow, having indicated that its Plan sees the retention of a Parish of St George’s Tron based on the building in Buchanan Street as a continuing  mission  priority, has taken steps to ensure that the buildings are vacated for use by a continuing Church of Scotland Congregation.  The successful applicant will  take the lead role in developing a new congregation based on the Tron building and engaging fully with the parish.

Evidently The Presbytery of Glasgow has told the leavers to leave. I wrote to the Presbytery suggesting they might like to allow the leavers to remain in the building, at a fair rent, thus achieving two purposes: 1) have a vibrant city centre Christian congregation in place; 2) show a huge measure of grace to those who were abandoning the Church of Scotland because of its/their attitude to gay ministers. I admit that this move would have a negative side: the congregation would have a negative attitude to gay ministers. But many ministers and congregations still within the Church of Scotland have this view too.

The thing which really got me thinking though, were the listed main duties of the successful applicant, which are as follows:

MAIN DUTIES 
 Through leading contemporary worship and evangelical Bible teaching and discipleship, to motivate, build and inspire a team of committed Christians gathered from, and working in partnership with, supportive congregations in the Presbytery; 
 to develop strategies to engage in effective ministry, mission and service to people for whom the location of the church building in Buchanan Street is key; 
 to form a worshipping, witnessing Christian community into which new members can be welcomed; 
 to develop the financial and people resources available for this work through partnership with others and creative use of the church building. 
Outcomes:  a  vibrant, mission-focused congregation of the Church of Scotland in the 
evangelical tradition, engaging with the people and wider institutions of the parish; a
settled ministry; maximised use of the buildings for a broad range of missional activity.

Forget the dubious nouveau English, "maximised", "missional", and concentrate on the first duty: "Through leading contemporary worship and evangelical teaching and discipleship....".

I thought it was the evangelicals who were leaving. But presumably not all. And presumably not all the evangelicals therefore, are against practising homosexuals and practising gay ministers. Unless of course the new evangelically orientated incumbent simply bides their time until the General Assembly makes its mind up about gay ministers, and if the General Assembly approves them, well, may we possibly read of the need for yet another "Transition Minister"? There is nothing in the job description which mentions attitudes to gay ministers (or gay people in general) as that would be against the law, of course. So, I will be watching, along with many others I'm sure, this space with a very great deal of interest.