Specks and Planks: Gay People as the Scapegoats of our Generation

I've been a very busy bee over the last little while, however I wanted to draw you attention to this video from Diverse Church.

As I mentioned with regards my departure from Fulcrum, I'm an advocate of finding, making, being in a space where there is room for conversation, especially on the issue of sexuality.  Sadly we haven't been very good at making those spaces (understatement of the year). But the new kid on the block, Diverse Church, has managed to do something that other groups haven't. In short they've stated in all that they are and do that it's just not about YOU.

For Diverse Church they are entirely there for those young gay Christians who have found the courage to be who they are: lovers of Jesus and gay, finding these things not incompatible. But they don't have to *prove* that to you, or me, or any other person. They are about being disciples of Christ and encouraging others to do the same: encouraging others that it is possible. That God knows being gay is part of their story with God.

It's refreshing to watch the videos that Diverse Church have uploaded so far, you can see some of them here.

This new video comes with the tagline 'a simple man changed by an almighty God' and it is a creative joy, but also a lesson in planks and specks. So often gay people have to absorb the anxiety and self hatred that others bear towards themselves. They are the scapegoats of our generation. This new video places the source of the anxiety right back where it belongs.

It is an example of a new way of being part of the landscape in the conversation on sexuality and Christianity.  The rest of the conversation has been positional for so long.  Arguing for this or that position.  There is a place for that.  But for a good number of people, this is simply not the point.  It's about a Person, not a Position.

The sheer awful-ness of what the church has done to so many gay people has overwhelmed what is feeling like a rather ridiculous argument over genitalia.  It feels like we are having a completely different conversation.  There are numbers of paradigms in play and thus entirely congruent for some to gasp 'what planet are you on?' when faced with a convoluted doctrinal argument which zooms past the puddle of a person in front of them.

What DC reminds us by simply telling the faith story of a real live person, is that if you have a problem with gay Christians, it is your problem, not theirs.

I think I probably have to say that again.  If you have a problem with gay Christians.  It is YOUR problem.

Deal with your own thing.

Focus on your own story, stop trying to write another's.

Attend to your plank.

Well done DC, you've nailed it.

l See Gay People

There have been many comments over the last few days on the House of Bishops guidance with regards to Same-Sex Marriage (SSM)

Thinking Anglicans have been doing the usual round-up and are always good for a wide range of responses:

Reports and reactions to House of Bishops Statement

More reactions to House of Bishops

Reactions to House of Bishops Statement - episode 3

and then Linda Woodhead's painful wit

An error in the House of Bishops Guidance on Same Sex Marriage

I was particularly touched by Rachel Mann's contribution

Personal Response to the House of Bishops Pastoral Statement

And I was reminded again of the stories found in the journey of Benny Hazlehurst and Accepting Evangelicals

Accepting Evangelicals - Stories

___________________

I'm not sure why the HoB wrote this particular statement at this particular time with this particular flavour.  It did seem a little odd and reactionary.  But on the other hand this is the moment I suppose.

I have to say I remain bemused by the Church of England as a whole on this.  The guidance says that gay

clergy are not allowed to marry, or have a committed, faithful, sexual relationship.

But I see them...with my very eyes!

I know many clergy who are gay, I know some who are in CPs, at least one with a child (there will be many more than I know).  I've only just realised that they are expected to live in a kind of purgatory in which for their life to be named publicly, or become open, rather than just an open secret, would be to cross a line which is known but never drawn.

And yet they exist - there will be no way in which their congregation is unaware, they are a couple, or a family.  There they are.  What will you do with them?

If I were expected to hide my family, my best beloveds, keep them a dirty secret, in order to obey my calling to God, what would that do to my psyche, my mental health and overall physical wellbeing?

Simon Butler who announced his sexuality and his openness to being in a relationship, in General Synod last week, has done something unbelievably brave in saying all this out loud.  It will be recorded in minutes, it cannot be unsaid, denied.  Perhaps there was a sense of relief, a level of integration which has been impossible up to now, but the cost of this into the future must not be underestimated.  Where we seem to have been intent on wandering around with our eyes and ears shut, and have thought that we're doing people a favour, what we've been doing has been unutterably cruel and abusive.  To ask people to live invulnerable lives, closed, guarded, defended, hidden lives.  This will inevitably lead to unhealth in all manner of spheres of living.  And then we can point and say 'see, we were right all along'.  To be one who refuses the parameters leading to this end, is courageous.

But it is astonishing is it not, that those of us who follow Christ have gotten ourselves into a situation where shadows and 'lies by omission' are the acceptable, even compelled, option.  Where truth, honesty and integrity seem to be thought politically naive and optimistic to the extreme.  How did we get this so upside down?

Surely, we need to find a way to enable gay clergy to come out openly and safely, without it being a dreadful ordeal.

We have gay clergy, single, in couples and families, ministering with us and to us throughout the Church of England this very day.

I see you.

The Garden of Eden vs The New Jerusalem

I am always interested in how our own personal experiences and journeys through life and faith, impact our theologies and doctrines.  When I did my undergrad in Theology, this was an inherent part of the learning that I gained.  It seems to me that this was one of the most significant things that I learnt over that time, and I remain suspicious of those who speak of 'arguments from experience' with disdain or smuggery, as if they have won the argument (whichever argument they are fighting) by simply raising the fact that someone's life and interactions with God's cosmos has had an impact on what they think about that cosmos.

Such important doctrines as our theories of atonement are rooted in the ground of the time from which they came, and the people who lived particular lives, in a particular time. The Exemplar theory, a witness of great love from the Abelard who was castrated for his, Penal Substitution theory from Calvin the lawyer, Satisfaction theory from Anselm's understanding of the feudal system. Simplistic of course, but nevertheless, it is not a coincidence that these theories are rooted in lives lived, and the impact of those lived lives on the way Scripture is read and interpreted.

It strikes me that some of our conversations on sexuality and the proper place for acts/expressions of sexual love might benefit from some honest self-examination of our own lives lived.

In scripture and theology there are often concepts which find themselves in seeming tension with each other - justice/mercy, election/freewill, heaven/earth, body/spirit etc etc.  As human beings are wont to do, we find it difficult to find a way to hold these things together, to live in the both/and, rather than the either/or.  I sometimes wonder if we are incorrect in trying to keep these concepts in tension, rather than finding ways to integrate them in our minds and lives.  That justice is found within the mercy of God for example.

One of these is the 'concepts in tension' is the pairing of The Garden of Eden and The New Jerusalem.  The perfect paradise which we left through disobedience versus the city of God to come.

I have often wondered whether, where you rest at the moment, with regards your position on sexuality, will be reflected in where your heart finds itself with regards to The Garden of Eden or the New Jerusalem.  We know, in theory, that we have left Eden and our trajectory is towards the New Jerusalem, but, particularly in Western theology, we found a way for The New Jerusalem to be the Garden of Eden.  Are we going forwards, or going backwards?

In the West, we have tended to understand the story of salvation as something like this:

The world was made perfect, humans transgressed, Jesus came to redeem, perfection recovered.

Another story, that found through the Eastern Christian tradition, particularly found in Irenaeus, reminds us that the world was not made 'perfect', but that it was made 'good':

Good (waiting for perfection in Christ), humans transgressed, Jesus, restoration of goodness, perfection.

Are we going forwards in order to recover an old way of being, or going forward to discover a new thing?

I have lived for a number of years with an eschatology which looks more like the second of these stories.  And so it is not hard to understand that when it comes to ways of being human community, ways of family, I find myself left cold by arguments that equate themselves, for all their posh language, to the old 'God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve' line of thought.

I do not desire to go back to Eden, but on to the New Jerusalem.  And in the New Jerusalem, there are possibilities, there are stories of family and love and intimacy, which are yet to be told.  I do not know yet what these possibilities are, but I know that they do not necessarily have to conform to the Old Creation.

Depending on where your own proclivities are weighted - do you desire Eden or Jerusalem?  The Garden or the City? The Old Life or the Unknown Life? - I suspect will have an effect on how easy or hard you might find it to engage in genuine conversation about sexuality.  Conversation which may lead to as yet unknown forms of human living, rather than re-establishing the known.

It is interesting for me to question myself, in light of this reflection - what about my life lived has meant that the New Jerusalem is where my own heart is drawn? I suspect a childhood begun in a council flat in Aberdeen, with parents who were steeped in a work ethic, has had an influence I can't measure.  It was never that where we were was awful, I never felt a desire to escape.  However, I did grow up knowing that life was a bit of an adventure, that you could forge a path that was unknown to you or your kin before you.  I learnt that money and housing and clothes and cars were passing nothings, and that love and work and justice would remain.  I learnt that the things of value come with you into the unknown.  I also learnt that moving forward was good. That staying where you were was to turn down the possibilities of flourishing that were open before you.  To take the opportunities offered to you, walk through the door. Be brave.  I have moved house 13 times in my life.  New places, new people, new ways, cultures, thoughts.  All these interest me, intrigue me, cause me to think, to explore, to live life beyond the life I have thus far lived. And I have also learnt that respectability is not the same as goodness.  I also prefer cities to gardens.

The honest truth is that any comments or theologies, or interpretation I may come to offer, on any subject, will always have been formed by these learnings.

My life lived.

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.

Fleshy Hearts and Tissue Paper Skin

Thanks to everyone who looked at, voted, commented on the poll that I created to ask the question of what we're thinking on same-sex relationships.

You can find the results here: http://poll.pollcode.com/oqjjd_result?v

Of course a poll is just a poll.  We cannot draw evidenced conclusions about exactly what everyone thinks in depth on the issue.

And of course that was never the point.

So what was the point?

Simply this - to find out if there was a conversation to be had within my own constituency.

And it seems there is.

We need to have a serious reality check here. For those of us in the evangelical wing we are so good at keeping quiet for fear of being disowned.

This is understandable.  I've been there and continue to feel the pull of belonging.  But in the end, be under no illusion, belonging at the expense of your integrity, it is death to the soul.

Let me be clear, I don't have a worked out theology or ethic on sexuality.  What I do know is that I do not want to be part of anything where the conversations, the questions, the doubts, the compassion, the mistakes, life stripped bare, squashy fleshy hearts and tissue paper thin skin are considered things to be ignored or defeated or that somehow they have nothing to do with theology or ethics.

So here's the deal.  There's a conversation to be had.  Let's have it.

What DO Open Evangelicals Really Think About Gay Relationships?

This post is short but sweet - I really really want to know where the Open Evangelical mind is on permanent gay relationships. [note: to respond to the question below, I am assuming there will be a sexual aspect]

We have had a lot in the press because of the marriage bill and Christians are making all kinds of statements all over the place.

Soooo, here's a little poll to try to draw together an idea of where Open Evos are at.

If you don't identify with the Open Evo label, you're welcome to comment - as is everyone taking the poll anyway - but I'd quite like the poll to reflect where my own particular constituency are at, thanks!

Go for it.......

What is your primary response to permanent same-sex relationships?
	They are completely permissible in Christian discipleship
	They are not a faithful Christian way of life
	They could be a faithful biblical response
	I affirm hetero marriage, but see goodness in gay relationships too
pollcode.com free polls

Reform Women Instruct us Not to Listen to Instructions from Women

Earlier this week a group called Proper Provision (from what I can gather the women of Reform) presented the Bishops with a petition regarding the Women Bishops legislation that the House of Bishops is debating almost as I type this.

Reform Women

I do find this kind of thing highly ironic and not a little bit irritating.

Reform, is a group formed specifically to prevent women from getting their pretty little female hands on anything like any kind of authority to run a church all by their fluffy headed little selves.  How on earth they think that using women to be figureheads for being anti a church where women are listened to, is beyond me.

Are we to allow women to use their voices or not?

Come on Reform! You can't have it both ways.

You cannot point at these women and say - 'You see, we're right, listen to the women', and at the same time be using these women to bring the message 'Don't listen to women!'

It's sheer nonsense.

To me it entirely exposes the kind of thinking and non-thinking that goes on at the heart of an institution like Reform who, on one level, think they are really doing women a favour.  And some women are convinced  that they are.  When I was at college I often found myself at the brunt of other women's ire.  It was painful, but it did lead me to ask the question as to why I was such a pain in the arse to some of them.  It really was as if my raising the point or just exposing some of the sexism that I saw or experienced, was taken as a betrayal of the unwritten Code of Women, which goes something like this....

'Don't point out that we're women, or someone will notice and stop us from playing'

'Don't ask for the shape of things to change, be grateful we've been allowed in at all'

Of course at college it was slightly different from the Reform nonsense because there was some semblance of women being allowed to be ordained and run churches, but some of the outworkings are the same.

If you spend your spiritual life being told that you are 'equal but different' as the Reform Women are told, then the narrow area of ministry that you are then offered seems not only wise and generous, but you will absolutely guard it with your life because it is your whole world and it is being controlled by those who tell you that they are in control - they are in control because they are the ones in control and they say who gets to be in control.  You are given all your self-worth through the eyes of those who control the barriers to your potential.  To be actively seen to be colluding with the power-holders will increase your sense of belonging to that group and give you affirmation from those who hold the key to your possible potential.  Those who are seen to be trying to demolish these boundaries are seen as traitors and world-destroyers.

In college the atmosphere was one of not upsetting the applecart.  Women who smoothed any turbulence found that their affirmation from some of the men increased.  It doesn't take too long for us to learn that 'keeping the peace' is the way to  belong and 'upsetting the status quo' is a fasttrack to exclusion and suspicion.  Of course a lot of women in an evangelical college have been well schooled in this for a long time.  It takes quite a lot of courage to choose to claim the emperor has no clothes anyway.

It's really tough when women work against each other, and it is tough for women to break the rules of the communities that they've grown up in and to which they belong.

But I also have enough respect for women to say that you cannot at the same time 'Speak Up', when the message you bring is 'Shut Up'.

The Sixth Thought

I really enjoy Jon Kuhrt and Jon Chilver's blog Resistance&Renewal and recommend you read their posts which are often insightful and refreshing in a Christian world that often gets stuck in various ruts.

sexuality is the unmentionable issue of evangelical christians

I particularly enjoyed reading Jon Chilver's post on whether the Church as lost her right to speak on the issue of homosexuality.  If you read the comments you will see that I had a conversation with another commenter on the way that we approach this issue.  I think that this interaction epitomised what I see as a fundamental problem in the discussions on sexuality.

It saddens me that to *even discuss* the ethics on sexuality is taboo.

Recently on Fulcrum forums, we have become stuck on this issue, sometimes the tone of the comments has become highly unkind and when I challenged that I was accused of not knowing Christ.

It tells me that people are really very insecure.  To not even be able to discuss a subject, does not speak of certainty.  It speaks of a desire to control and to hold on to a 'world' that is under threat.  I suspect that there are a lot of people out there who really want to have the discussion on sexuality but who are implicitly or explicitly being given the message that it is 'the issue that must not be named'.

I see it all the time, when this issue is raised, people are cagey, they don't even want to give the impression of an impression that they might even have given this issue a second thought.  To give the issue a second thought (presumably beyond the 'first thought' of 'euww that's just yucky and doesn't the bible mean I don't have to think about that...?') is deemed as irredeemably beyond the pail.  If you give it a second thought then you are on the path to the wide road of destruction.

Now think about that....a second thought.

A SECOND thought?!

We're talking about *human beings*, and we can't even get beyond our own comfort zone of belonging to give this our attention?!  We should be giving this the focus of not only our second thoughts, but our third, fourth, fifth and perhaps even our sixth thoughts too.  We at least should deem our fellow human beings that dignity, surely?  Let alone those who are brothers and sisters in Christ.  Of course some of the language I see and hear is that gay people are barely human, let alone flourishingly so within the love of God.

go on....admit it

But my observation is that my gay Christian friends have to turn to God for their identity and security and love and belonging so much more than other Christians who too often get it from conforming to the implicit rules of belonging of their particular Church community.  To behave as if this is not the case and to deny that they even have a relationship with God is simply deceitful.

The discussion on sexuality, in reality, leads people to a full spectrum of opinion.  But the sad thing is that we are having to do 'figuring this out' on our own, without the help of each other.  The only conversation that is allowed to happen is on the ends of this spectrum, normally throwing verbal bombs at each other across 'No Man's Land'.  There's no space for *any* recognition that there's a bunch of us who don't sit at either end of that spectrum.

I hope and pray for the day that it will be encouraged and tolerable for people to say 'I don't know' or 'I'm thinking about this' or even (as is my desire these days) to say that we will make decisions based on the human beings who stand in front of us and not who we imagine them to be in our head.  Maybe then we will be able to listen as we look at them, and hear, as the God who made both us and them whispers in our ear.

virgin mothers and barren women

So some of us have navigated Mother's Day again this year. again, a bit like Remembrance Sunday, this is one of those services that feels a bit tricky, to say the least.

often we talk about how those women who have experienced infertility might feel, those who have wanted to be mothers, but are not, but I think that the difficulty goes a bit deeper than that.

The Biblical images that are being invoked are the 'thesis and antithesis' of womanhood - the virgin mother or the barren woman. These images have followed us through history and are embedded in our culture in a way that is quite oppressive. Firstly, women are expected to want children, and if they don't then they are somehow 'odd' or 'unwomanly'. In our culture a woman without a child is as incomplete as a woman without a husband (note the first questions people wish to ask you: are you married? do you have children? I recently experienced the almost physical pain of someone who was desparate to ask this question, but knew that it was inappropriate - and I refused to help them out by offering them the information.... at first before I felt sorry for them....).

For those of us who do want children, some of us will experience infertility and heaped on top of the pain of not having a child, is the shame aspect of not being able to have a child, when our culture tells us that, as a woman, that is really what you are *for*.

But what about those of us who are mothers? Surely Mother's Day is for us, and that is okay - to celebrate those who care for and nourish us? Yes, we should be sensitive to these issues, but surely it's okay to thank those who have been our mothers? Well the answer to this is 'yes, but....'

Enter, the Virgin Mother.

By all means, be grateful for your mother - and lest you think I have mother issues, I sent my own lovely things to thank her for her mothering - but I think that too often at this time of year, we enter a state of ideals. Firstly, the ideal is that women have children, secondly, that if they have children, they at least do them courtesy of being a Perfect Mother:

- Be a mother firstly and foremost
- Do not let us think about you having had to have sex to procreate
- Diminish your own needs to the point of having none
- As this book says, Perfect Mothers, become Invisible Women

Mother's Day presents women with hobson's choice, a choice in which wherever we turn, our definition is dependent on our relationship to our children, whether they are actual or absent. Often it has a very human focus, our understanding of Motherhood coming from what we have been able to generate ourselves as human community, often built up in a very male dominated environment, where women are the answer to the needs of husbands and sons.

But there is a different way of looking at Mother's Day, or Mothering Sunday. And that is to look to God for our image of Mother. I wrote about this before but I think that it needs saying again. There are many images of God as Mother in Scripture. For us to entirely focus our celebration of motherhood on the human aspect is to miss the point of Christian discipleship. In church, of all places, we should be looking to God for our understanding of humanity and human role. To look to God, instead of at each other, or our own needs, for our image of Mother releases us in all manner of ways.

Firstly the images of God as Mother in Scripture are not always, in fact in most cases they are not, gentle kindly images. We have, as I spoke of before, the God as Mother Bear image, ferocious and fierce, a love that you do not want to get in the way of - beware the Mother Bear robbed of her cubs (Hosea 13.8). Or we have the God as Mother Eagle, leaving her children to fend for themselves as she goes for food, teaching them to fly on their own, giving them strong wings to make their own flight through whichever storms they encounter (Deuteronomy 32.11-12). Or, more obscurely perhaps, we have God as Mother Pelican, and image that has been surrounded by the myth of the Pelican - in legend the mother pelican, seeing its young dying through lack of sustenance, will break its own breastbone and pierce its own heart, and its lifeblood will revive the young. Not surprisingly this traditional image of God as Mother is linked with the sacrifice of Christ, who saves the whole cosmos (Psalm 102.6).

In these images it is not the insipid invisibility of motherhood that we are sometimes offered, certainly there is sacrifice, but it is the sacrifice which makes us all whole. It makes us the solid people we are made to be, rather than calls us to transparent ideals which are built on dominance and oppression.

And one of the most important things about transforming Mother's Day into a gaze at God, is that it includes everyone. All people are made in God's image and are called to be like God. So if God is Mother, then we are all called to be like that. The image becomes something which is for everyone, Women, Men and Children.

We are all Mothers, because God is Mother.

women can come in, as long as they wear beards...like in the life of brian

i listened to 3 hours of synod the other wednesday - 'that' wednesday, the one where they spent an inordinate amount of time reiterating their own point of view in speeches of '5 minutes, 2 minutes, 3 minutes' - these are arguments that were heard ad infinitum at the last synod - and in the space in between, and will continue to be heard, over and over again, in the space between now and july. these arguments go something like the following:

1. do not want women to be bishops, can't bear them, maintain the boys club at all costs
2. do not want women to be bishops, can tolerate them, but please don't make us have to play in the same park
3. want women to be bishops, but happy for them not to be treated equally, it's only an issue of church order
4. want women to be bishops, see it as gospel imperative, anything less than equality is tantamount to allowing racial segregation

i found it rather depressing listening actually, and i get that it has to happen, but i really can't shake the idea that it's all a bit futile. after all the speeches are done, how many people actually changed their minds? of course conversation and dialogue is really important, and over time people do change their minds about things, of course they do. but i think that for those who really have some kind of fear about women being in their space, or what it will look like for women to take their place alongside men, the only thing that will change their mind will be the reality of it.

some people, both men and women, will always be frightened about what those things will look like, it means change, it means women taking responsibility for their own lives and men losing control. this is scary for both men and women. there is, of course, some genuine misogyny involved too, any time that women experience hostility for simply opening their mouths and having an opinion, for impacting the world around them in a way that hasn't been part of the implicit social contract, where they literally become the counter-argument for their own existence. bit like this....



in scripture, this kind of fear, the kind that comes from loss of control and world view being changed, can only be changed by a revelation from God. peter would never have been convinced about God's message to the gentiles and the cleanliness of the 'other', had he not been sent a dream from God.

so yes, discuss, give speeches, whatever, but until women inhabit those spaces which are closed to them, hearts and minds will not be changed. until then we will find ourselves going round in circles, rather like this....

why you don't know what we really think

hello men (evo men in particular)

think of the ordained women you know who are evangelical. if you're an evangelical ordained man, ask yourself what you think that woman's position is on sexuality.

did you ever ask her? did you assume? either because she's an evangelical, she's conservative, or because she's a woman she's liberal?

one of the things that i overhear in the circles that i move in, when talking about evangelical women, especially those who are either ordained, or in leadership of some description, is that, on sexuality, they are 'probably conservative' or 'i assume she's conservative' (underlying reasoning being that she's never said she's not)

but do you really know? did you ever ask? and if you asked did you ever really get a straight answer?

of course, i'm exaggerating (slightly)

but the next time you're at a clergy or leadership event, mixing with evangelical women, look around and ask yourself if you really know what they think about this particular issue.

now let me tell you why i think you don't.

let's take the venn diagram. one scenario goes like this. A is catholic, B is evo. ordained evangelical women are B, but because they are not quite understood as 'kosher' in their own 'pool' (woman? fine. ordained? find. ordained woman? risky!) they find that most of their friends and their support network are from 'pool A'. and so they find themselves swimming in 'both A and B'. if they are conservative on sexuality, in coming out they risk their support network, the people who make them who they are, they risk part of their very identity. if they are liberal on sexuality, they risk being ousted from their own gene pool, the tradition that made them who they were, they risk part of their very identity.

it may be that you are in quite a different diocese or parish, where the lines are not drawn so fiercely, or that your area is mainly evangelical or catholic. so then the scenario becomes more intense and concentrated. if you are an evangelical woman who is liberal on sexuality and you find yourself in a mainly evo deanery or area of ministry, then you are B, your friends are B and in outing yourself as liberal you potentially lose your tradition and your friends. on the other side if you're an evo woman who is conservative on sexuality and find yourself in a catholic liberal parish, then you're B in an A pool, but you have friends, if you out yourself, you potentially find yourself isolated or backed into a siege mentality that is very attractive in evos, so i hear (that was sarcasm)

long and short of it, we are being taught that the only 'safe' positions for evangelical women is to be B and be conservative. don't give a 'sniff' of a clue to anyone that you are even 'thinking' about 'thinking' about what you might think about sexuality, because it will simply allow people to think 'i told you so, it's the thin end of the wedge, first women, then gays....'. as an ordained evo woman, if you even think of not towing the line on this one, then it's not just you, its ordained women, its women - you've let down the whole gender. you're a role model and you'd better stay clean.

this will be uncomfortable for some to read. and the last thing that i want to do is to pre-empt anyone, especially women, ordained women, having to declare themselves one thing or the other on the issue of sexuality. i'm not attempting to 'expose' people. i'm not saying that women are, or even tend to be, on one side or the other of this debate. but when you look at an evo woman and 'assume she is conservative', then you have constrained the debate to begin with. you've pushed her into a corner where she knows if she is conservative then she is not allowed to change her mind and still remain in the same pool. and if she's liberal or even thinking through the conversation, then the risk is too high to give you a straight answer.

the implications of discussing sexuality are so complex for evo women, especially those that find themselves straddling A and B as identity groups. i guess, on one level, i'm asking you to be kind.

theradicaldisciple: fear should not stifle debate on sexuality

'women will change the church forever'

so says my lovely friend stephen in this article

stephen is one of the most prominent voices that i've come across in his advocacy of women in ministry - he puts his money where his mouth is in a way that i am constantly blessed by his consistency in this arena, he just doesn't let up, or let things slide, when even i might run out of energy.

so, thanks stephen, you're a star :-)

f is for feminist pain in the arse

feminist is a horrible word isn't it? or rather it conjures up some pretty cringeworthy images - hairy legs, ranting, boobs sagging from years of not being allowed to wear a bra (i never got that one, seems wholly painful to me)

and for christian women, well, if there's one adjective you're meant to do your utmost to avoid, it's this one - even for those who are not of the 'headship' brigade, being a feminist christian woman is seen as 1. a denial of the goodness of the male/female relationship, 2. a judgement on those women who are happy in a calling to catering and baking and 3. a general affirmation that it's okay to be a pain in the arse when you simply have to point out the entirely sexist premise on which some point has been made (just doesn't make for good small talk at bring and share lunches)

any real foray into feminist theology entirely blows two of these out of the water.

yes, i did say two. you see there is no christian feminist worth their salt who doesn't at some point elaborate on the fact that the whole point of christian feminism is that the affirmation of both sexes is foundational to that image of God thing that we're imprinted with. quickly following this must be a statement about the fundamental goodness of cakes - whether made by men or women - and so no judgement about the making of them.

now....the being a pain in the arse thing. sorry, i'm coming to the conclusion that there is no other way. most people don't see the sexism and, if you're a feminist (male or female), you do. your choices are this, 1. smile sweetly and look the other way, hoping that someone else in the group will pick it up, or simply that your semi-non response will move the conversation in a more edifying direction, unfortunately this makes you a collaborator, 2. point out the blatant sexism and watch tumbleweed drift by, 3. make a witty quip, if you can think of one, which hopefully makes the point whilst preventing you from being struck off their next party list (of course you can never be struck off the list of church parties because they have to love you - thus feel free to be a pain in the arse, it's just that they'll really hate you - in love)

ah, the joys of being liberated.......

no gay africans?

i found this video on ruth's blog, it's of variable quality, but worth watching

genuinely surprised

I never thought it would happen, but the bishops are going to go to synod with a 'code of practice' offer rather than structural provision!

I am surprised and happy in equal measure :-)

for all the links and stuff go to ugley vicar cos he's done all the legwork - for different reasons than me of course, but he deserves the credit.....

james jones, lent and the lurgy

I am writing this after spending a day with my son lounging on the sofa watching cbeebies, after he fairly violently threw up in the middle of the night, just the once and hopefully it will stay that way.

this is by way of saying that my mind is far from clear and I feel like there are a few things going on in my brain, so I'm going to splurge them here, in a kind of mental vomit and they may or may not be coherent.

the whole james jones thing, concerning his recent essay calling for more helpful dialogue on issues of sexuality, has flummoxed me a little. I normally know what I think, but on reading the essay I really can't quite see what all the fuss was about, but there is soooo much fuss that I am concluding that other people are reading the essay with different eyes to mine.

I don't really want to go into an in depth analysis of the essay, but it seemed to me that the main points were these:

1. That the Anglican Communion is not an ordered 'spider's web', but rather a 'bowl of spaghetti' and that this needs to be recognised as a part of the historic nature of our Communion.

2. That the partnerships that spring up between dioceses are more based on 'need, experience, enthusiasm and friendship', than any kind of strict ordering (see #1)

3. That this partnership by friendship is essential to the conversations that are held in controversial times. That these conversations are better held 'between people who already know, trust and respect each other than through megaphone diplomacy between strangers across the oceans'.

4. That conversation about controversial issues needs to be rooted in cultural context - to guard against the charge of Western moral decline in the face of Islam for African Christians is paramount. For Episcopalians in the US it is important to see their desire to be free from the shackles of past involvement in denying human rights to African Americans, today translated into Gay Americans.

5. That 'space' within the context of the discipleship is needed (quoting Acts 15) and that this space is limited when we talk about 'impaired communion'. No-one can bring themselves to be 'in Christ' and no-one can remove another from being 'in Christ'.

6. That +Liverpool has found the following four 'walls' helpful for dialogue:

-The uniqueness of marriage
-The appropriateness of love between those of the same gender in the form of intimate friendship
-The acceptance of the role of conscience
-That disunity saps us of energy and limits mission

7. He mentioned that he had previously apologised to the ++Canterbury and York regarding the way in which he and others raised dissent regarding Jeffrey John. Whilst also saying 'I still believe that it was unwise to try to take us to a place that evidently did not command the broad support of the Church of England but I am sorry for the way I opposed it and I am sorry too for adding to the pain and distress of Dr. John and his partner.'

8. That the relationship between David and Jonathan and the Son of David and John, were close emotional and physical relationships, for me the following is a most pertinent discussion:

'Jonathan loved David “as his own soul”. David found Jonathan’s love for him, “passing the love of women”. There was between them a deep emotional bond that left David grief-stricken when Jonathan died. But not only were they emotionally bound to each other they expressed their love physically. Jonathan stripped off his clothes and dressed David in his own robe and armour. With the candour of the Eastern World that exposes the reserve of Western culture they kissed each other and wept openly with each other. The fact that they were both married did not inhibit them in emotional and physical displays of love for each other. This intimate relationship was sealed before God.'

9. That we have been seen to be graceless in our discussions about gay people.

10. That Jesus was a pastor and a prophet (in that order)

11. That he is hopeful, rather than pessimistic:

'All I know and can testify to through our own discussions within the Diocese and with our partner Dioceses is that entering the debate prayerfully in the company of the One who is “full of grace and truth” takes you to places beyond “all that you can ask or imagine”. I know that many are pessimistic about the future but I find myself strangely and surprisingly optimistic that if we can maintain the space to listen to “the still small voice” there might emerge a new understanding and paradigm that none of us can yet imagine.'

so, interestingly, as I seem to be in contrast to just about most other people who have read the essay, I did not read that JJ was positing a gay relationship between either david and jonathan or jesus and john. I'm not sure what lenses I have on but they are certainly not in any way similar to those worn by the CEN journalist who wrote the front page article last week - but then they seem to have done the same to the archbish and his lecture (on law to lawyers - just making the point) this week.

now I don't claim to know the way forward in this, but an open space where it can be discussed is surely in desperate need. and the kind of friendship that JJ advocates surely preferable to the antics that we're getting up to at the moment.

these are all just thoughts, as I say no real attempt at coherence, but in addition to this, what continually haunts me whenever we get into discussion about 'those gays' (of course this week the focus is shifted to 'those muslims' *sigh*) is the story of Matthew Shepard

I know that the case is so well known now as to be a cliche in a lot of people's minds, but it still fills me with horror. If I, as a disciple of Jesus, do anything that in any way indicates that hatred of another people group is understandable, surely I must go away and think again about my expression of belief?

and this brings me to lent. traditionally lent is a time for space, a place in the wilderness, where we might face our deepest fears, prejudices, insecurities and choose the way of the cross....or the other way.

this is something that we often try to avoid, hoping for the quick fix, the way out, or to establish our 'kingdoms' by force. but perhaps it is time for the lenten space on this issue of sexuality that we continually seem to get our knickers in a twist about.

a couple of years ago brian mclaren suggested a 5 year space on this issue in which prayerful christian dialogue should occur - this was mark driscoll's response (for which he apologised), mark's response is probably more honest in its impulsively written bad language than a lot of conversation about this issue that we have, and at least it lets us know where we are - really.

but the irony is that his response illustrated exactly the point that brian wished to make - that we need some space to face our own prejudices, fears and insecurities

and, for the record, the need for space is what JJ calls for.

bishop alan...

....has written quite a funny post here.

made me laugh anyway and it sums up the histrionics fairly well I think.

who's right and who's wrong and how much does it really matter?

it strikes me that this is one of the main questions going on in the CofE today. And probably it's the last question that gets us all hot under the collar about things - how much does it really matter?

there is another question of course - how do we figure out whether 'it' matters or not.

with the issues surrounding sexuality there seem to be evangelical Christians who think that sin in regard to sexuality gets you a ticket straight to, well, the fiery place. I, personally don't think that this is the case, whilst I would be considered 'orthodox' on sexuality - positively conservative in fact, or perhaps... radical?

I am a sinner, it's true. There will be sin in me which I don't recognise as sin, and which I might not recognise as sin until I die. If God cannot see past that to a heart intent on following Him with all its inconsistencies, well then I am in serious trouble!

I am following a conversation going on at the moment between Giles Goddard (Inclusive Church) and Andrew Goddard (Fulcrum)http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/20070117goddard2goddard.cfm?doc=181, this is a gracious conversation between friends who disagree, I'm not sure where it will go exactly, I don't think either of them do - and that's the beauty, this isn't a conversation where the end has been mapped out by either of them, whilst they are honest about their positions, it really is a 'listening' conversation.

something I think we could do with more of....