Watching and Waiting: Women Bishops, New Job, Pilling, Fulcrum (The Universe and Everything.....?)

It's been a little while since I last posted.  Partly this has been because I've been insanely busy, and now we are at Advent, that is not any less the case, but I have a day off and I also want to update you on my thoughts and news, should you wish to read them.

There have been a couple of important things that have come up for me over the last three months.

Women Bishops legislation - This has been approved for consultation - woohoo - slightly muted optimism as I want to believe that no-one will sabotage the final vote when it comes, but if I'm honest my trust is low on that one, so we shall see.  This is not pessimism, or cynicism, just reality based on the last vote, and the vast majority of encounters I've had with Conservative Evangelicals that have made me sense that they would stop it if they could.  And why would they not - they believe it is an anti-gospel move.  It appears that the Trad Caths are on board and will abstain if not vote in favour.  This seems to be a legislation that they can work with.  So I watch with interest.  There should be a post soon on the Y2WB website unpacking what has been approved, and what the next steps are.  It all gets a bit complicated, and a lot of people are surprised that we could be talking about a final vote in 2014, whereas last year we were saying not until 2015.  This is mainly because the review stage has been agreed to rest with Synod rather than a review committee, and that speeds up the process.  But do take a look at the Y2WB site for updates on that.

Personal news - I'm in the third year of my curacy, and in London Diocese these are a maximum of three years long, so I've had my antennae up for any possible jobs that might be where God is calling me next.  I have been keen to stay in London and in the Willesden Area, where I am now.  I have absolutely adored being in London, the best city in the world, and I've enjoyed working with Bishop Pete Broadbent, who is a straight talker and intentional about including women, so works for me! :) And so it was fantastic news, after prayer and exploration, to be offered the job of Vicar at St Michael and All Angel's in Harrow Weald.  I will begin there after Easter 2014, and I can't wait!  As well as the church being the right place, as a family we feel very invested in Harrow, as that is where I've been for my curacy too, and have a sense that this is where God wants us.  My husband will continue to co-ordinate Harrow Street Pastors and be involved in the community and council work with the homeless that has taken up a good chunk of his time whilst we've been here.

Pilling - And so Pilling has erupted onto our consciousness.  I very much liked Mouse's response to responses on the report :). Mouse is a wisely creature indeed.  Having said that, I would like to tell you about some of my emotional response to the report.  My initial response on reading that we should look at ways of 'marking/blessing' same-sex relationships was that my soul responded 'Yes!' - this is not a logical, thought through response, it was a soul one, and I note it with interest.  I also note the discussions going on around the wording 'mark' or 'bless', but am not sure that's the point - if we 'mark' something in church, I rather doubt it is for the purpose of saying 'look - this is here', it is rather to mark it positively, to somehow celebrate it.

I've often in my conversations indicated that I desire conversation on the subject of same-sex relationships.  Conversations that are open to diversity of opinion on the subject, and certainly that go beyond our positional stances of shouting 'homophobe' or 'heretic' at each other.  I personally think that there must be something more positive to say to gay people other than 'go away you shouldn't exist' or 'be celibate' or 'break up', when they come to my parish asking what God has to say to them about their relationship (especially if there are children involved). Importantly for me, I don't think that the Bible is conclusive.  I am heartened to see David Runcorn as an evangelical engage with this ambiguity in the report.  And the reality is that, whilst I don't think women in ministry/sexuality is exactly the same question, any woman ordained in the Church of England will be VERY careful about taking some verses and using them to exclude/diminish someone else - how many times has that been done to her.... Regardless of whether she is conservative or not on the issue, ordained women I suggest will be rather more wary about certainty on this matter.

When I read God's story with people throughout scripture there are narratives of welcome, hospitality, boundary-crossing, love, soft-hearts, journeying, New Jerusalem, eschatology, complex family relationships, mistakes, legalism, permission to bind/loose, which I think need to be explored - in relation to this subject, but also how we do life with God in general.

So in response to Pilling, I welcome the conversation.  I will watch with interest the facilitated discussions.  In my own ethic I am committed to a Person, Jesus - this means that I am open to an ongoing journey with a rather undefined destination, other than to keep that Person close by.  And for those who wonder how 'evangelical' this is - I am passionately committed to scripture, but the true definition of an evangelical is, I believe, found in the concept of the 'Personal Relationship with Jesus'.  And in that I am unremittingly In Love.

Fulcrum - In light of the above on Pilling, and in long conversation with my friends and colleagues at Fulcrum, it has been with some sadness that I have made the decision to leave the team.  Fulcrum has been incredibly important to me over the last 8 years, and I have been on the team for 6 of those years.  It is fair to say that we have had much laughter, and a few tears together in that time.  I have great affection for the team and our work together.  The subject of sexuality has been one which we have gnawed on over the last little while and whilst there is some room for discussion, Fulcrum, as has always been the case, will be approaching Pilling from the position set out in their statement .  I found that I needed a little more room for manoeuvre in the upcoming conversations that will be happening.  I also, as you know, like to be able to think aloud on my blog, and wanted to have the freedom to do that without undermining what Fulcrum as a group want to be able to say and do.

It is somehow fitting that in Advent we are being called to a time of watching and waiting.

May you be blessed as you do so.

Community Engagement: Some Reality

In Harrow we have found different ways of working together, both with the secular authorities and amongst ourselves as God's people in this community.  My own church works with the education authority to run a Forest School program, through which young people who are not achieving are drawn in from the margins through the curriculum program.  The program is inherently gospel, those who are on the 'outside' are included and are given skills by which to engage more fruitfully in their own communities, they are being given the things they need to flourish and become the people they are made to be - nothing more gospel than this.  We have found that the educational authorities are very happy to work with us and appreciate our desire to impact for good the community where we live.

But what about working with other Christians?

It is not only justifying any engagement from a Christian doctrine perspective where some of the 'trickiness' comes.  Even when Christians agree that engagement is needed, there are so many perceptions of what it means to be in the community, to 'Seek the welfare of the City', within Christian thinking.  How then do we work with each other across that City?  Working with the secular authorities might seem a walk in the park compared to working with other Christians.

What we have found here, and I think that this is being seen nationally also, is that there are certain activities which seem to be drawing many different types of Christians together.  Among these seem to be the Street Pastors initiative.

Our Street Pastors team (follow on twitter @streetpastorHA1) has a breadth of denominations (which is actually required of the initiative): we have RC, CofE, URC/Methodist, Free Church, Baptist, Pentecostal working together: 6 denominations, 18 churches, 50 Christians.

Our remit is to patrol the main streets of our town, from 10pm-4am each Friday: listening to those who need listening to; helping those who've found themselves worse for wear or skint and unable to get home, or even in need of the emergency services; and caring for people, whether it's a lollipop or water after they've been sick, or a pair of flipflops once their shoes get too sore after a night of dancing.

This is no mean feat.  I don't think we are under any illusion that if we scratched the surface on particular ethical issues or doctrinal beliefs, we might find a number of differences.  And they would be differences that in any other situation we might find ourselves fighting about!  But Street Pastors is fundamentally about 'Seeking the welfare of the City'.  Our remit as we patrol is to make Harrow a good place to be.  Based on the premise that most people want to go out on a Friday night, have a good time and make it safely back home, we are there to make the town centre a flourishing place. We are also finding that the mantra that 'Harrow have no Homeless' is being challenged by our work on the streets and that the council are extremely pleased to have our help in working out the best way to listen to and help those who, for whatever reason, find themselves on street.

I suspect this kind of work focuses us entirely on the 'other'.  It prevents us from naval-gazing, from trying to figure out God, away from the world where God is.

And *do* I find God there?

In 'Seeking the welfare of the City' do I find my own welfare?  Do I, as I said in my previous post, find God?

Well it's not quite as neat and tidy as that - would we really expect it to be?!  Some nights I know that we are there as the presence of Jesus in those places.  Some nights it seems bloody obvious: when we call ambulances, police, social services, and when we can see up close and personal that our presence has prevented something destructive, or more destructive, from happening.  And some nights we walk alone and wonder what the point of us might be.

But I think that there is something inherently Christian in being 'angels in the night' - watching, waiting, announcing, pronouncing and leaving.  Sometimes wondering at the ordered or chaotic lives that we see.  Sometimes unable to 'do' anything at all.

As I write this, I watch the rain tumbling down my window and think about tonight's patrol.  I'm likely going to be very wet, this may make it quiet in terms of revellers, who will quickly seek shelter in the pubs and clubs of the town.  I think about the few homeless people that we see regularly and think about the coffee flask that we must remember to take out and the gloves, blankets and socks that we are stocked with, which will inevitably be used tonight.  And the 'Truths' that we so often fight about as Christians (haven't we been doing it quite well on 'gay marriage' this week *rolls eyes*), suddenly seem to dim before *the* Truth.  Before the One who, I have absolutely no doubt, is also out on the streets tonight.

Are Women Really Human?

Almost a week has passed since I was sitting, nervous, jittery and hopeful on the edge of my seat, in the public gallery in Church House, Westminster.  Waiting for the voting figures to be called, first the bishops, then the clergy, and finally the laity.

Since that moment it has been all at once interesting - in a way that a disinterested observer might watch a newly discovered tribe order themselves by strange alien customs, and painful - so that the grief cycle of disbelief, anger, sadness is completed a number of times every day.

The most surprising emotion that I experienced this week was the sense of shame that rested upon me on the Wednesday morning.  I felt that I simply did not exist at the same level of priestliness as my male colleagues. I have heard a lot about 'second-class' citizens in this debate - whether it is in defence of making sure that women bishops are equally bishops, or, distastefully in my opinion, the cries of 'second-class' status that those who are 'anti' claim.  However, I had not expected to feel like a second-class priest.  After all, isn't this about bishops?  Not priests.

So, why this is not just about 'Woman Bishops'?

Some of the conversation that I have heard over the last week has been a bit puzzled why women priests are quite so upset - not just angry because of the injustice, the unbiblical decision, the disgraceful way the process was mitigated against - but upset, gut-punchingly, heartachingly, tear-jerkingly, upset!

Is it puzzling though? Is it?  Or is it that what is, now blindingly obviously, a structurally male organisation, is simply incapable of dealing with this kind of pain?  So it is then easy to be puzzled, and it is easy to think that this is an overreaction to simply not being allowed to progress up the career ladder - after all the majority of us will not be headed in that direction anyway.

Why be quite so upset, when it is not going to make a difference to your life anyway?

You can almost see the cogs turning.

Firstly, I want to say something about the 'career ladder' language that has surrounded some of the responses to the images and stories of women's pain linked with this issue.  The idea that women enter the priesthood in order to progress up a career ladder is not only offensive in the extreme, but ridiculous too.  Do those who suggest such twaddle really think that if women were choosing their day job on the basis of progression, there might not be something rather better that we could do?!  I simply think that there is deep ineptitude in understanding the connections that women priests (and of course other men and women in the church) are making regarding this vote, that this is the only thing that some people can think is 'wrong with us'.

Well, what is 'wrong with us' is that we feel 'rubbed out', as if we are a strange anomaly in the fabric of the priesthood, an anomaly that can simply be unpicked at any moment.  For those of us who were at Synod, listening to the speeches, we were under no illusion that the discussion was really a time-shift back to 1992.  Arguing again the case against women being priests. And the case against women being priests is, in itself, really about the particular humanity of women - is the particular humanity of women sufficient to represent authoritatively the humanity of Christ?  If the answer to this is 'no', then the reality is that a woman's humanity is fundamentally different to a man's humanity and when there is a difference like that, then it follows that one type of humanity *must* be the most authentic representation of humanity that there is.  In this case the male is the most human human and women are....well not.

So yes, we are upset.

For those of us who are priests, we recognise that our orders have been called into question yet again.  Called into question because of a voice which speaks of us as the 'not-quite authentically human' human and expects us to be okay with that.  And when that voice speaks with the authority of the institution (regardless of the fact we know that most within the institution did not want this...), it causes a disintegration between the inner and outer person of the woman priest.

Ecclesiologically, I am supposed to rest on my orders - given me by an institution which officially says I'm not the truest representation of Jesus' humanity.

Spiritually, I am supposed to 'hang the Synod' and rest on my calling from and identity in God - a calling and identity which seems unrecognised fully by the church to which I am called.

Emotionally, I am supposed to show resilience - so as not to disturb the church with my tears, and if I do cry it will be because I am a woman and show me lacking in strength.

Do not underestimate the strength and resilience it took for many women priests to get up on Wednesday morning and do their job, without this dissonance causing a fatal crack in their psyche.

So yes, we are upset.

But we will not stay so upset forever.  Do not, however, mistake this for it 'going away'.  This conversation will not go away and women priests will not go away.  We find in our pain the very reason to stay - it is ironic that the very thing that hurts us will be the thing that gives us the strength to remain in the CofE.  Our humanity is inextricably identified with Jesus' humanity in this.  We came to our own and have been rejected. We were told 'how dare you' and asked 'by which authority'?  We were denied again and again.

Our humanity is Jesus' humanity and it is by *this* authority that we dare to stand where we stand and say what we say, behind the altar and in the pulpit.

The Morning After

This is still on the agenda

Clearly this is a strange moment in time - the Yes2WomenBishops campaign team are deeply disappointed that the Measure before Synod did not pass yesterday.  But there will be women bishops in the CofE.  Of this I am convinced.

below is my article published in theinformationdaily

___________________

Yesterday the General Synod of the Church of England voted against the legislation that would have made women bishops a reality.  The machinations were many and the complexity of why this happened has left most of the Church of England, let alone the nation we serve, at a loss to understand.

As my alarm rang at 3.30am yesterday morning and I made my way in the dark to the night bus that took me to Trafalgar Square, I was excited and hopeful about the day ahead.  A short hop to Church House, Westminster and I was joined by a small number of others, all of us eager to be part of this historic moment in the Church of England.  We were reminded of the story of Easter, the bit before Jesus is raised from the dead, all were in deep despair and our Scripture tells us ‘Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb …’.  Mary then goes on to find the tomb empty and Jesus resurrected, that joyous resurrection life, which is abundant and full and open to all.  Mary, a woman, whose testimony was suspect because of her gender, was witness to the greatest moment in human history, according to the Christian faith.

It felt like we were gathering, in the dark, in a place of waiting.  We were hoping for a glimpse of that resurrection life in the day that lay before us.

I am not a member of General Synod and so had to queue for a space in the public gallery, where we had to remain silent and simply listen to the debate happening on the floor below us.  It was important to remember that what was being voted on was not the principle of woman as bishops, this has already been agreed in the Church of England, but rather the legislation that was to make that a reality.  Unfortunately a number of the speakers to the debate appeared to still be arguing the case against women being bishops rather than speaking to the legislation.

The concern for those against this measure was that it did not provide sufficiently for those against having a woman bishop.  However, in the debate, again and again, our bishops spoke to reassure people that the measure ensured that bishops would be duty bound to provide an acceptable bishop when one was requested by a parish not in favour of women bishops.  It is unclear how much further a measure might go.

As the result of the vote was given by the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, there was an audible gasp that reverberated around the room.  The faces of many there told the story.  The vast majority of Synod wanted this to happen.  In fact almost 75% of Synod voted in favour of this legislation.  The vote needed to pass by 2/3 majority in all three Houses of Synod: Bishops, Clergy and Laity.  Both the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy voted in favour, however the House of Laity, which is unrepresentative of the vast majority of laity in our Church, voted against.

The story from this moment hangs in the balance, it is as yet untold.  However those of us who gathered at 5.30am that morning find ourselves sorrowful and yet ever hopeful, we believe that there will still be an Eastern morning, a ‘resurrection’, a time when women and men will work alongside each other for the good of the communities they serve.

In terms of the synodical process now, there will be further repercussions.  There will most likely be a demand to reform the House of Laity, so that it does its job in representing the majority of the laity and there will be discussions as to the exact time that we will now have to wait until this will be able to be discussed at Synod again.  Most say that it will be at least 5 years until that happens, although there may be ways in which the constitution will allow for earlier.  The measure that was set before Synod yesterday was the work of over ten years of conversation and discussion with those who could not accept a woman bishop, it is unlikely that the same process will be repeated.

For myself and the many women priests in the Church of England, we have and will continue to work alongside people and parishes who cannot accept our ministry.  We will continue to serve our own parishes who accept us joyfully.  The reality of our day to day ministries seems a far cry from Synod.  We live with life and death, cry when we bury young people and older people, and smile when we baptise happy gurgling babies and twinkly eyed 80 year olds, we eat lunch in the local café and chat with people at the bus stop, we listen to those at the end of their tether and we laugh with those for whom life is good.  God has called us and we will serve the communities before us with joy and privilege, as we have always done.

And perhaps the full life of the resurrection is closer than we think.

To General Synod

Published today in CEN online

twitter: @yes2womenbishop

facebook: Yes2WomenBishops

Next week, just over twenty years after the vote for the ordination of women to the priesthood, General Synod will vote on the legislation which will pave the way for women to enter the episcopate.

It is an auspicious moment and anyone reading the blogosphere will know that people on all sides of the debate will be thinking of voting ‘yes’ or ‘no’.  Whilst I understand in particular why those who are pro women bishops, would struggle with the amendments that were made to the legislation that was overwhelmingly passed by the Dioceses, I became involved in the Yes2WomenBishops campaign because I do believe that this current legislation is sufficient for all people to flourish within the Church of England.

I, in common with many on General Synod, am an Idealist.  And when you are an Idealist it is very easy to spend life disillusioned and despondent that the world is not ‘as it should be’.  Idealists find it very hard to abandon their Ideal in order to work with what they see as a ‘means to an end’ mentality.  Idealists are naturally very suspicious of ‘means to end’ mentality.  I have friends who tell me that they are Pragmatists, they want to see something happen and are willing to do what they see as ‘working together with others’, in order to make it happen.  Pragmatists become frustrated with what they see as ‘my way or the high way’ rigidity.  Both of these are of course exaggerated, however I suspect that when it comes to the legislation on women bishops the biggest dispute is Idealist vs Pragmatist.

There are idealists on both sides of the argument.   For those who are pro women bishops, there are those who cannot in conscience vote for anything other than a single measure legislation where there are no qualifications to women’s episcopacy.  On the other side there are those who cannot ever, no matter what the legislation, vote for anything that would mean women bishops become a reality.

And there are pragmatists on both sides of the argument, who see that the Church of England has ‘spoken’ - we want women bishops – and given that, will wrestle with compromise to produce what they consider the ‘best possible plan’ depending on their position.  For pragmatists who are pro women bishops, they have to decide how much they can compromise on what they see as the full humanity of women in order to see the reality of women bishops come to pass.  For those who are anti women bishops, they have to decide what the legislation will have to say in order for them to feel they will be provided for (and would rather be involved in the conversation because they consider it is going to happen anyway, so they might as well have a voice).

The reality of the situation that is before synod this November, is that Idealists, such as myself, will have to discover where their inner Pragmatist ‘kicks in’, if at all, and Pragmatists will have to decide if their caveats have been met.  This will be most costly for those Idealists who are pro women bishops, where they find that both a Pragmatic ‘yes’ or an Idealistic ‘no’ vote to the legislation will not bring them joy.  They may get women bishops (but at what cost) or they may not get women bishops (the Ideal that is the ‘way the world should be’ as they see it)

As I said, I am an Idealist.  However, I have found that this current legislation wakens my inner Pragmatist.  It must be understood that the legislation is very much a compromise for those who want to see women and men working together equally in the church.  However, the Appleby Amendment provides the pathway for provision for those unable to accept women bishops, in such a way that hopefully the orders and consecration of women will not be undermined.  The consequences of legislation will, of course, only truly be known in the actuality, but I believe that this has the best potential for satisfying all our needs.

Sadly some of the information being given by those who do not wish to see women bishops, suggests that the ‘respect’ offered within the legislation is not robust enough to ensure provision is given.

Not only is this a deeply disturbing indictment on the way women are viewed – as seemingly entirely unable to behave with integrity – but is simply wrong.  The ‘respect’ that is required is a term that holds gravitas legally.  To use this word in the measure is not simply to offer a nodding acquaintance with the reality that a parish is requiring other provision, but to respect the letter of request that is proffered and respond in an appropriate manner.

Unfortunately I think that some will simply not be satisfied with anything other than a church where there are no women bishops.

I deeply hope that those who wish to see women and men working alongside each other as bishops, can vote yes for this legislation.  There is provision, there will be space for women to flourish as bishops for the good of the church….find your inner Pragmatist and vote yes!

old church new church red church blue church

what do you think of 'churches' which are only made up of one specific group? old church new church red church blue church........hmmmm

the homogeneous principle that 'like attracts like' has been intentionally affecting our churches for well over a decade now, but it has been part of the dna of church for a LOT longer than that. nevertheless, is it, as an intentional, formal, chosen pathway....a good thing?

when i was a youth leader at church, we took our young people to what must have been one of the first specifically designated 'youth' churches in the country. we thought this was a good idea...and it probably was. our young people loved it, we loved it, it was like church on speed. for us. it probably wasn't like that for them all the time. for us it was a bit like going to soul survivor and then dealing with the youth expecting church to be like that all the time.

but i hadn't realised at the time that this was a new type of church. for us this was a 'youth event' that we took our kids there on a friday night, but it was never meant to replace 'church'. now, of course, i'm old and wise, and i realise that we were all on the cusp of a fresh expressions explosion and this was the beginning of that.

i began to wonder what it was like for those young people, attempting to build the kind of community that must be part of being church - and these 'tourists' would turn up every so often and treat it like a show. i'm sure we weren't the only ones. i suspect HTB have the same problem. but i digress.

and when i began to think about it...the idea of a church community that was specifically designed to only be open to one particular type of person, i found myself discomfited. surely that's not the idea of church? is it healthy for a church to be simply full of the same type of person? as an intentional act?

it may be that this is what happens in our churches by default. this bothers me too. but that is somewhat different from intentionally excluding people - it can be just as unhealthy of course and when we think we're inclusive but are actually unintentionally excluding people, that can be more difficult to change, as a culture in a church. but it's not the same as setting up a church that is *explicitly* exclusive.

of course, we do congregate with people who are like us, this, i've discovered is a universal human behaviour. but then that's not church. church is for jerusalem, judea, samaria and the ends of the earth.

so, am i being naive?

i wouldn't want to stop us having groups that facilitate growing into church together, for our young people, our old people, our...whatever people/insert here. but i'm not sure that any group that is *only* for such and such set of people, can ever really be defined as 'church'.

what d'you think?

the one that everyone hates

so today is 11.11.11. there has been much in our media about the wearing (or not) of red poppies. everyone gets hot under the collar about people who won't wear them and the proliferation of them on everything from 'strictly' to 'question time' becomes quite stifling.

i wear a white poppy for a number of reasons. firstly, i believe that primarily peace and reconciliation should be the answer to conflict and violence. the white poppies have an important and long history which gives them a provenance equally as signficant and valid as the red poppies. they appeared first in 1933, an initiative of the cooperative women's guild. women were beginning to sense that the war which claimed husbands, sons, brothers and sweethearts - the war that was to end all wars - had not done its job. it was not, as had been hoped, the answer to the problem of violence and oppression. and on the doorstep of history they were being faced with another war, more violence, more death. into this scenario came the symbol of the white poppy.

i don't particularly think that, for the most part, the red poppy glorifies war. i know that this is an argument against wearing them, but i don't think i've ever heard anyone say that war is a good thing. i do think that the red poppy has become a symbol beyond its beginnings. i think that it can and has become linked with a militarism and nationalism which is quite unhealthy - particularly in light of the range of nationalities who fought with, and continue to fight with the british troups.

but regardless almost of the poppy debate, i've begun to realise that there is another discomfort that christians face on this day.

the remembrance day service.

it appears to be the one that makes people feel a bit stuck. we don't want to be disrespectful. we're really grateful for the freedom we enjoy and yet....we don't want to get caught up in the idea that military might and violence are the answer. when we know that, as christians, well...generally we're not meant to like war are we? how do we say all this without getting our proverbial knickers in a twist?

a lot of clergy seem to grit their teeth and 'get through it', navigating their way through the possible minefield (excuse the pun) that is those in their congregation who were directly affected by WWI or WWII, and the call to be those who work for peace and reconciliation as a way of life for followers of jesus. we want to care for those who have been bereaved and to remember in order to not repeat. but perhaps that's where we've made an error. we are called to be a people who 're-member'. in the church i'm part of, we do this 're-membering' in all our services. we are a eucharistic community.

but the re-membering that we are called to do as church, is quite different to the remembering that we are asked to do in our remembrance day services. one is done as a way of stopping us from doing the same things - remember the war and the death, so as not to keep doing it. the other is a literal re-membering, a putting together of a story once told, so that the story is never forgotten, and so it remains living and real, and we keep bringing the story to life, so that it is lived and repeated, and told and 'memed' around the world.

one form of remembering leaves us with a sense of inability to make it mean anything at all - we keep fighting, we keep doing violence, war is worse now than at any other time in history. remembering in order to not repeat, does not, it seems, work. on the other hand, the other form of remembering - re-membering, putting back together - lives and brings to life. when we do our eucharistic liturgy, we 'do this in remembrance of him' and it opens us up to the new possibilities of a life lived in God, this kind of re-membering, sparks our imaginations.

i think we don't quite know what to do with a remembrance day that doesn't quite understand what 'to re-member' really means, and what 're-membering' asks of the human psyche. a tension goes on inside our psychologies when we are asked essentially to 'remember to forget'.

whatever your perspective on war and peace, this liturgical service needs some re-work. i'm hoping that we can come together and re-member who we are in the face of a world at war.

let me know what you think.

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.

pray for us

so this week is definitely 'church politics' week in my diary.

tomorrow i go to the launch of the 'fellowship of confessing anglicans' in the uk, and then on wednesday and thursday i travel to durham for our ref group meeting for fulcrum.

it's been an interesting time of it - we (fulcrum) seem to have been getting a bit of flack for trying to tackle some of the sticky questions that surround the fcauk, but i won't say too much about that because we've already replied.

but i would certainly appreciate your prayers as i go into this week - whatever you might think of politics in the church - for wisdom, discernment, patience, courage, love.

CofE does the spanish inquisition

courtesy of eddie izzard. (contains some bad language and obviously a man in make-up...)

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.

who will be canute?

i wonder if you can guess which magazine these following excerpts comes from?

'Warts and all, men have played their part in God's story...All [these men] reveal the multifaceted purposes of our God, who chose primarily to make himself and his ways known through men within a historic culture of a patriarchal society...For better or worse, men still hold privileged positions of decision-making authority within areas of global influence such as banking, politics, science and the military forces...the Lord continues to reveal himself through all his people, but still maintains a place for man within his continuous story for earth.'

'When God decided to reveal his story, he began with man: Adam. When he decided to redeem history he chose his Son: the new Adam. No wonder the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, said of Jesus, 'Here is the man!' (John 19:5). Such was the revelation of Jesus. If Jesus is the image of the Father, and he is, and we are the body of Christ, it poses the question: does the world see the divine in men, as Pilate saw the divine in Jesus.'

according to this article, the privileged status of men in society is not something to be judged as institutionalised sin in our world. a world where women are continually privatised as men continue to be at home in the public sphere. rather this is the way that God chooses to reveal himself. Of course God can still use people even when they have been put in a privileged position which might not reflect God's eternal plan for humanity - but this is not the flavour of this particular article, it rather seems to say that God maintains this state of affairs as the place of 'man' in his continuing story ('man' i think means 'males' as opposed to humankind - to be honest the article is a bit confusing throughout in the language, but i think that whenever the writer uses 'man' it is deliberately exclusive because of the subject being discussed)

the first paragraph however is nowhere near as offensive as the second para which builds offense on offense when it completely removes women from the significance of God's creation of human beings and from the particularity of Jesus' humanity.

so, where did this come from?

new wine magazine

*sigh*

a couple of comments - recently i had a chat with a good friend who is a vicar of a large evangelical church in london, he said that if you are not actively standing against sexism and misogyny then it overwhelms. it is not possible to pretend that it is not an issue and simply 'get on with the job'. he was clear that if you don't stand against it then you end up colluding with it by default.

secondly, on speaking to a friend whose husband is training for ordination, i asked her how she felt about women at new wine because she was on the prayer ministry team and she obviously felt very positive about new wine generally. she said that it was a problem but that the reality was that she turned a blind eye to it because she feels at home with the general ethos. she was very frank with me about it, it was just the way it was.

why do i care? probably because i know that new wine is so influential and is so loved by so many (how many other will be prepared to turn a blind eye?) that the particular type of 'gender-blindness' that it purports to have might filter through to those who consider themselves 'new-winers', and what it will really mean is that those who for reasons of integrity simply want to 'get on with the job' will end up colluding with the prevailing sexism instead of being the pioneers that they could be.

turn or burn

we have couple of bishops who agreed to be 'lambeth bloggers' for fulcrum, which is fab and means that we can have their perspective on lambeth and not just ruth's and jonathan's.

so nick baines (bish of croydon) and mike hill (bish of bristol) have been giving us their thoughts on the story so far.

and I have been struck by something that nick wrote in his recent post, it's a paraphrase of something rowan said in one of his addresses:

people change/repent when they see the Kingdom of God - not when they are shouted at to repent

it seems that the in-breaking, growing, kingdom of God is loud enough.

the goings on at lambeth

another name for 'palace' is 'castle'

I'm just saying that this cartoon of dave's may not be so far off the mark........ (I really hope)

sometimes saying nothing is okay

according to this website, richard turnbull reiterated much of what he said in that video at a conference in the states yesterday.

among other things he is reported to have said that:

'he is not ashamed to admit that he is trying to call the Anglican church back to her Reformed heritage.'

and that he

'sees Wycliffe Hall as a strategic international center for Evangelical orthodoxy.'

at the end of the article it says that 'The basic gist of this ~15 min video [the reform 2006 video] is the same as what he shared yesterday in about 5 minutes at RTS, Orlando.'

seriously, someone needs to tell him to be quiet.

what this tells me is that mr turnbull has not learned one thing from the outcry at his words to reform in 2006. he still sees his appointment as principal at wycliffe as a strategic heist for the CE world.

bearing in mind that the college admitted the unlawful nature of elaine storkey's departure, one would think that a little bit of humility would not go amiss.

we're still waiting for an apology richard.

somehow I doubt that one will be forthcoming.......

church politics and all that jazz

please have a look at this cartoon by the inimitable dave walker, it is quite brilliant as ever.

I'm back! and the anglicans are still behaving badly

sorry for being 'off-line' for so long, I've been sooooo busy, but I'm sure you all have too, so here is a new year (well almost) and I have a little more headspace now that Christmas Day has passed and anything forgotten will have to stay forgot.

well it comes as no surprise, but I'm always frustrated by it, that CEs are again trying to do some kind of pre-emptive strike on the bid for unity to remain in the AC. This time it is a 'no it's not another Lambeth conference, but really it is' conference. Set for June 08 (yes, before the REAL one) and with all the usual names involved, it is called the, wait for it:

Global Anglican Future Conference

or GAFCON for short.

anyone else raise an eyebrow at that? I admit to having a little snigger - it surely is, after all, just one more gaf for the CE movement, no doubt it will raise the ire of all other evangelicals, for whom it will no doubtedly try to say it is for. It also sounds rather like some military speak for upping anti on weaponry:

crackle 'it's no use sir, we have to go to GAFCON 4' crackle

really guys, it's not big and it's not clever.

we're not going to ordain overseas...said Reform to the Bishop

and then the Reform conference happened.

see links here and here to see what I'm going on about.

I'll just point you here and here to say what I think about it all.

dave walker does it again, along with bishop alan but his pictures aren't so good

dave has instructed us all to give lots of links to bishop alan's blogpost on why he is going to the lambeth conference and he'll talk to anyone he chooses thank you very much. (that's +alan, not dave)

so here is the link to dave and to +alan and I instruct you all to go there.

so go on then.

go.

walk out the door.

just turn around now.

oops no, that's something else entirely.....

wycliffe hall

a resignation letter has been sent to CEN (Church of England Newspaper) from a member of the Wycliffe Hall Council. it will be reported in the CEN newspaper on Friday. the letter gives clear reasons for the resignation of the (ex)Council member, Clare McInnes, which include:

1. bullying from other Hall Council members.
2. failure of the Hall Council to follow due process in the following:
- allegations of bullying
- the termination of staff
- the recruiting of staff
- the listening process
- records of Council discussions
- Council membership.

Clare McInnes says that her decision to put her resignation letter in the public domain was taken in the belief that this was for the benefit of the Hall and the wider Church.

the religiousintelligence website has the initial report here.