Grace and Truth

One of the biggest dilemmas that I experience in ministry is when to face people with themselves.  Sometimes you will have someone in front of you who is engaged in strategies to explain why they are in such a mess for one reason or another, why they have again spent their money on alcohol, or why they didn't turn up to the crucial meeting with regards to their housing situation etc etc etc.

And yet in the midst of knowing that, you also know yourself, you know that perhaps *today* your patience is thin because your own life is taking energy in areas that demand your time, that your children are struggling, or you feel ill, or someone has said something nasty about you on Twitter (irony people)

This is the concept of praxis, knowing yourself within the practice of particular situations - and so practice may change, depending on the 'self' you bring that day, week, month.

And it can be difficult to negotiate - I often find myself questioning whether I am responding out of my lack of breakfast that day, or the true need of the person in front of me. The reality of course is that I can only bring myself, breakfasted or not, *me* is who they get.

My predilection is towards tough love, or articulating the reality.  I am well aware that sometimes people feel I am too blunt, or I should couch what I am saying to soften the blow - but sometimes people need to hear that if they carry on down a particular road, they will find themselves rough sleeping/friendless/without choices.  Sometimes it is important to say that addressing their addiction is imperative to their wellbeing and future.

Yet, on some days, I find myself feeling a complete bitch.  Suffering is not easy to ignore, even if it is to some extent self-induced.  So I intentionally make myself think of language that is not so blunt.  I ask more questions, I articulate that my hope is for their best. I take more time than I might otherwise. Sometimes I fluff it and wonder if I have colluded with them in their destructive choices.

This will always be the wire I walk.  Grace and Truth are inextricably bonded, but often we can feel like they are pulling each other apart.

No more pertinent is this issue, than in the case of homelessness.  In the work we do as Street Pastors, we are often engaging with this and are constantly having to deal with the reality of government policy vs personal responsibility - the fault lines are not clear and easy to navigate.  The reasons and solutions are many and complex, as much so as the human beings themselves that they seek to explain and help.

Below is a short review by my husband, Quinton Stowell (twitter @qstowell) of a Grove Book which begins to talk through this reality.  The book is written by Jon Kuhrt and Chris Ward and tackles some of the issues and difficulties of Christian ministry in this area.

_____________________________________________________

Homelessness – Grace, Truth and Transformation

by Jon Kuhrt and Chris Ward. 

Grove Books P135 ISBN 9781851748778 £3.95.

Review by Quinton Stowell, Coordinator, Harrow Street Pastors

Can I recommend this little booklet to you? It’s a brief but very insightful book that tackles the issues of homelessness and is particularly useful for those who come into contact with homeless people through their involvement with their church activities. It’s only got 28 pages, but is packed full of useful information.

The main author is Jon Kuhrt, who has been involved with homeless people for over 20 years. As both a Christian and a full time worker in the ‘voluntary sector’ he sees the situation from both sides of the fence and gives clear guidance on how this partnership can work effectively. Complementing Jon’s overview, Chris Ward shares his testimony of how he battled with homelessness and how his life has been transformed.

From my perspective of being a Street Pastor and coming across homeless people in need of help on a regular basis I had a fair idea of the basic “dos and don’ts”, but Jon’s wealth of experience goes much further. I particularly like the chapter which deals with the need to balance Grace with Truth.

Churches/Christians are often good at showing unconditional, unquestioning care for those in need which is a powerful side of our understanding of Grace. In contrast homeless agencies and local authorities will focus on encouraging homeless people to face reality and take greater responsibility for their situation – to tell them the Truth. We must strive to improve our communication with our partner agencies and learn to balance the need for grace with truth so we can see more lives being transformed.

http://www.grovebooks.co.uk/cart.php?target=product&product_id=17648&category_id=265

when the best person for the job is always a bloke...

...it's good to see this story.

although there are of course the usual cries of 'political correctness gone mad' going on. i do wonder sometimes why people don't think through why intentionally looking outside one's own little window might actually be a good idea.

recently virginia bottomley (not someone i would normally be quoting), said 'It's still work in progress – individuals are inclined to look in the mirror, and appoint in their image, rather than look through the window and recognise the diversity of the work environment.'

it's a common argument that those of us used to the idea of intentional diversity when it comes to jobs/speaking engagements etc, take for granted as a positive thing. but it is still the case that the majority of people see it as 'unfair'. most don't question the fact that when it's just a case of 'the best person for the job' then 'the best person for the job', nine times out of ten, appears to be a white bloke. rarely do people actually bother to ask the question 'why is that?', to wonder whether the structures and deep seated 'fear of other' that we all carry with us, has anything to do with the choices we make about just who is the best person for the job.

i am pleased that the Speaker made the point that people should look beyond the usual pool. but i also live for the day when the 'pool' becomes a place for all to swim in.

debacle i tell you

okay okay, i probably should say a little bit more about the whole women bishops/archbishops debacle. alright, i suppose it's not a 'debacle' per se. no-one really thinks 'wow, what a debacle', but it's a good word, so i'll say it again - debacle - there.

anyway, so you may have figured out that i'm not so much impressed with the ABC/ABY idea of 'co-ordinated episcope' or whatever MADE-UP terminology they've come up with for this particular brainchild. my reasoning is as follows:

1. nobody is fooled by the idea that the 'measure' is not meant to remove authority/jurisdiction from the diocesan, it clearly does.

2. the current situation for ordained women in the church does not bear out that this kind of discrimination works for anyone 'practically' or 'theologically' (like there can be a division!) - this is a confirmation that *all* women's ordination, according to the church of england, is not fully recognised.

3. most importantly, God chooses to do God's mission through us who are made in God's image. the God of relationship chose to put us in relationship with each other as a reflection of the One True Relationship and by which, through the mediating power of the Spirit, the mission of God is done and the kingdom of God is built. if at the heart of that kingdom building, there is a relationship which is broken, corrupted and disconnected, then the systems that are built on that relationship are fundamentally dysfunctional.

it's about the mission of God! wake up and smell the chasuble people! (probably i won't use that phrase again...........)

meet the fca: part II

‘satan is alive and well and resides in church house’ according to +broadhurst

together with general synod, which apparently has a huge dose of satan too, as it has failed on the issues of marriage discipline, liturgical language (quoting also ‘creator redeemer sustainer’ language), language in worship songs.

he then lambasts Lambeth 1998, calling it a bureaucracy seeking to suppress the gospel and commenting that people are believing the ‘system’ and not in the gospel. he calls the new province (ACNA) ‘authentically anglican’.

at this point i admit to a smile being raised as i watched paul perkin cross the platform and encourage +broadhurst off the stage. certainly quite revealing.

__________________________________________

+duncan also comments on the seeming incongruity of these two traditions working together. how has it happened? because God changed hearts and they agreed to bless each other. they had a common focus: mission, and he comments that when we focus on each other and the party, this is where the temptation is to pick each other apart.

he says that he is asked ‘are the new churches growing?’. to which he answers that there has been terrible splitting and that people have their difficulties in separating from their buildings and the places and things that they have worshipped with, but that when they see those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, that they are encouraged that God is faithful.

he asks ‘what are the qualities of a leader?’. he says that leaders must stop worrying about who gets the credit, and that leadership is about serving. that leaders must speak the truth in love and that we must face the things that would divide us.

(you will begin to notice that there is a huge weighting difference between the time allowed to anglo-catholics compared with evangelical voices, with the evangelical voices more prominent)

_________________________________________

after a short video interview with j i packer, done by richard bewes, +jensen approaches the platform.

he speaks of ‘ominous and foreboding words’ that have been ‘used against’ the FCA. but that this shouldn’t be the case because all FCA wish to do is to keep anglicanism united, to keep orthodox Anglicans within the fold. he asks ‘will you join us?’.

he tells us that we are fighting an ideological war, that the fate of culture and the eternal fate of souls is at stake and that unless we pass the test in the UK then the ‘culture will swallow you alive’. it is a question of the structural unity of the institutional church over the gospel and that whilst in the UK we have the disposition not to ‘panic’ (‘don’t panic mr mainwaring), that this is not a time for drift, that there is little time left and if you don’t do something then the younger generations will be lost. some treat the institutional church as the unassailable temple of the LORD. listening as the false prophets say ‘peace peace’, +jensen says ‘there is no peace’.

the biggest clap of the morning goes to his next statement which is about the place in the church for those whose integrity doesn’t allow them to affirm women bishops. this tells me the constituency i am amongst, even if FCA claims that this is a second order issue, for everyone on the platform and the majority of those there, this is the issue at hand. this is the thread that appears to run through, joining them together. it may run under the surface, but it is there.

he finishes by saying that the conflict is over jesus’ authority, over theological education, over hermeneutics and that ‘they’ (liberals) are ahead of the game. he honours those who remain inside and who are going with the covenant, but he also honours greg venables and the jerusalem declaration is a good document that affirms the biblical gospel, that it is a holy spirit gospel, and it affirms the uniqueness of christ.

________________________________________________

so we turn to the afternoon now, where we are told that we are going to explore the shape of regional expressions of FCA.

vaughan roberts, st ebbe’s, oxford, introduces his ‘nightmare’ and his ‘dream’. his nightmare is that there will be a gradual drift towards apostasy, that there will be a time when the orthodox will not be ordained. that this will come because of people’s naivety, good people will fail to notice the ‘salami tactics’, where slice by slice we find ourselves unorthodox. or that through compromise, where good people don’t want to engage with the issues. or through divisions amongst the tribes. his nightmare is that this will end in sectarianism, where we have such things as ‘church of england (reform)’ or ‘church of england (FIF), or ‘church of england (new wine)

his dream is that FCA becomes a strong united renewal movement of orthodox anglicans. people committed to the truth and that it is not a pragmatic alliance of those united in what they are against. that this would be a group who are committed to breadth: culturally, racially, liturgically, and committed to grace and prayer. a group who would continue to exist within the structures if possible, but if necessary, on the edge.

_____________________________________________

i have to apologise that I didn’t take any notes of vinay samuel’s talk on the anglican communion, catholic and local – by this time my brain needed a slight breather!

_____________________________________________

we had a brief unpacking of fellowship from philippians, summarised in the five following signs:

1. common partaking or experience of the grace of God.
2. concern to defend and proclaim the gospel (accused some of being ‘sniffy and iffy’ at FCA even though this is all they want to do)
3. pray for and covet prayer from brothers and sisters
4. stand firm – military metaphor of ‘locking shields’
5. giving and receiving finances

fellowship must contain all five

___________________________________________

the main part of the afternoon was taken up by focusing on FCA as a mission movement and this too was split into five sections:

1. mission: we must go, sometimes to places we are not allowed to go
2. ministry: we will appoint, within the structures, sometimes outside
3. stewardship: we will fund, some things we cannot fund
4. fellowship: we will associate, but sometimes we cannot associate
5. oversight: seek oversight within the structures, and sometimes outside

my subtitles are a paraphrase as i didn’t copy them exactly.

the format of this part of the afternoon was to use videos of some with a positive spin on, for example, church plants, and some who had been ‘forced’ to go against the bishop and plant anyway, where they deemed their bishop to be working against the gospel by stopping them plant. then two people were invited onto the platform to be interviewed about their experience – overwhelmingly these people were negative. this format was followed for all five sections and became more and more wearing as the afternoon went on.

the people involved in the videos and interviews were overwhelmingly if not 100% against the ordination of women. when the section on ministry followed those being trained outside cofe structures, these training courses were either cornhill or training courses like the one currently running at st ebbe’s oxford – neither of which could be said to encourage women in an ordained calling to priesthood. one vicar complained when a member of his congregation failed to get through his BAP and proceeded to denounce the ‘hoops’ that he had been made to jump through by his DDO, which (oh horror) included having to work in a church with a woman incumbent – he actually admitted that she had given his candidate a ‘glowing report’, so i’m not sure the worth of mentioning it, apart from putting the fear on others who would find this a similarly distasteful exercise.

richard coekin of the co-mission effort made a plea for the FCA bishops to give him oversight as the archbishop of canterbury wouldn’t provide him with appropriate support.

in effect, in all these areas the message seemed to be – support us, or don’t support us, we’ll do exactly what we want anyway.

_______________________________________

i stayed for the communion afterwards, i wanted to be clear that fundamental disagreement had no effect on the grace of God to me in the sacrament. but be of no doubt that to stay came at a cost.

neac, bad behaviour and contrary to popular opinion, some united evangelicals

so neac was quite interesting

fulcrum has a forum thread going on, on which i've said most of what i really want to say, so i'll copy some of my thoughts from there and perhaps say more over the next day or so when other accounts start appearing..........

you need to know that the 'motion' mentioned was one that was sprung on us at the beginning of the meeting with no forewarning in publicity and seemed a deliberate attempt to steamroller us all into accepting GAFCON, and the Jerusalem Declaration that came out of it, uncritically. the exact wording can be found on fulcrum (see graham kings comment, 16th november, 7.33pm). it should also be mentioned that the motion came with a 'no ammendments will be permitted' clause.

________________________________________

have to say that my own personal sense from the meeting was actually quite positive. of course there was some phenomenally bad behaviour in the sudden appearance of a motion to vote on which carried a 'no ammendments will be permitted' clause (what kind of 'consultation' is this? I asked myself), but Keith Sinclair's balanced description of his experience at both Lambeth and GAFCON, Christina Baxter's contribution (which by far got the loudest longest clap of the day) and the Pete Broadbent's unique 'unboxed' (is that a word? you know what I mean, Pete will resolutely not be labelled and i love that) opinion, were utter gems.

one thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is the particularly difficult behaviour of the chair of CEEC, Richard Turnbull, I hesitate to mention it because, knowing that quite a few people will wish for it to 'disappear', I'm sure I will be sideswiped for mentioning it. however, it deserves a mention if only because most people would not have believed it unless they were there. it became clear that the majority of those present did not want the 'motion' to be put, and Philip Lovegrove with one of the best lines ever - 'Richard, from an elder brother, DO AS YOU ARE TOLD' - proposed a procedural motion for the previous controversial 'motion' to be 'not put' (I know it all seems complicated, but it had been made deliberately so - what we really wanted to say was, 'stop bullying us, we don't want to vote on this!', but had to do it as a constitutional body, so 'motions' were the order of the day). anyway, once this was proposed, Richard Turnbull was invited to speak to the motion, he had the opportunity, there and then to withdraw it, in fact he was urged to by many 'elder brothers', but instead chose to behave in such a way that we were left feeling emotionally blackmailed, bullied and condemned.

needless to say when the motion to 'not vote' was given, it won. in response to this Richard Turnbull announced that he was taking it to CEEC to vote anyway!

but as i said my general feeling was very positive, I was heartened by the fact that the majority of those present, albeit a small majority, voted against putting a motion that I believe would both divide evangelicals and which would also cut evangelicals off from our wider CofE brothers and sisters. The Jerusalem Declaration comes with the context in which it was wrought and whilst I wish to stand with those who are in anguish in the AC, the reality is that the political agenda which comes with the JD from the CofE is one which sees Anglican Evangelicals as the 'only true anglicans' (Richard Turnbull) and which defines Evangelical with a very narrow limit.

I want to be part of an Evangelical fellowship which will be happy with its distinctives and value that which we can gain from being among those who are 'not like us'. I believe that signing up to the JD in the context of the CofE would be to affirm those things which we as distinctly open evangelicals cannot - opposition of WO, crossing parish boundaries with very little cause, to name only two - not because it explicitly states such (although para 11 and 13 come close), but because based on past behaviour this is what it will be taken to mean.

perhaps I am naive but it seemed to me that of those that met, people generally wanted to behave well towards each other, recognising difference, that they did not think that agenda should override strategy, that they did not wish to be split down the middle, but rather be kept together as a body within the whole.

these are very good things.

my god's bigger than your god

i'm fairly sure that the old testament kicks out the idea of a God who is tied geographically to a particular country, but maybe someone forgot to tell the american conservative right........

....and i can see russia from my house

for those who aren't that bothered who is going to be president, but would like a general idea of what americans are thinking of sarah palin (john mccain's vp candidate) the best place to go is here, but you can also have a look at this video (of course you could go and look at the real interview with katie couric, but it's not nearly as much fun, even if sp does actually say the words 'i'll get right back to ya'):