Benny's Blog

Shocking Bishops!

2012-01-26T07:45:00.000Z

Bishops have been in the news this week in ways that couldhardly be described as being a 'focus of unity'.

First of all there were the five Bishops in the House ofLords who defied the Government and (if reports are correct) public opinion tooppose plans for a £26,000 cap on Benefits.

Then blast from the past, retired Archbishop George Carey,waded in with an articlefor the Daily Mail which was a scathing attack on the hapless Bishopsmentioned above. In it he called intoquestion their judgment, perspectives on morality and use of the Bible. He also practically canonised the relevant Government minister because he isa 'Committed Christian' - after all, God forbid that committed Christiansshould ever disagree!

Lord Carey has of course, every right as a member of theHouse of Lords, to contribute to the debate in the House of Lords - but he didnot. He chose instead to make hiscontribution in the pages of the Daily Mail giving them the front page headline"Halleluiah! Archbishop blastsclerics who oppose welfare reform!" Nicely done Archbishop!

But the most shocking statement by a Bishop was brought tomy attention by another Bishop who tweeted it with disbelief! And shocking it was...

It was the observation that BishopWallace Benn (current Bishop of Lewes) has endorsed a book by ChristianVoice fundamentalist Stephen Green.

The book "Britain in Sin"charts 57 pieces of legislation which the Queen has signed which arebringing God's judgment on Britain because they oppose the clear teaching ofscripture. Such unbiblical legislationincludes recognition of marital rape, equal pay for women, the United NationsCharter, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Coincidentally, another piece of legislation which StephenGreen describes as unbiblical is the creation of state social security. Apparently, it goes against God's law becauseit "penalises thrift andmarriage and rewards fecklessness and isolation." (page 9 of the pdf download of thebook). Disturbingly, Lord Careyalso uses a similar phrase in his article for the Daily Mail stating that thewelfare state, "traps people into dependency and rewards fecklessness and irresponsibility."

Sowhy is the 'focus of unity ' issue so important that it is being used to denycelibate gay clergy in Civil Partnerships from becomingBishops ?

It ishard to imagine that Bishop Wallace Benn's endorsement of 'Britain in Sin' willbe enable him to be a 'focus of unity' in the diocese where he serves, anymorethat we can pretend that the Bishops in the Lords are at one with Lord Carey.

Our Bishopscan be pro-government or anti-government. They can be pro-women's ministry or anti-women's ministry. They can even endorse books which wouldoutrage the vast majority of Christians and society at large - but they can'tbe openly gay - even if they promise to abide by the churches repressiveteachings.

Shocking- Bishops!

Update:
Since I wrote this blog I am pleased to hear that Bishop Wallace Benn has dissassociated himself from Stephen Green's book in a statment which implies that he didn't read it fully before endorsing it! See http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/16147

While this is clearly welcome it is still shocking that he should have thought he could endorse the book at all. It makes me wonder which parts had he read and could endorse!

Racism, prejudice and me...

2012-01-10T11:20:00.001Z

Recent events have driven racism back to the top of the newsagenda once again.

The conviction of 2 of Stephen Lawrence's racist murderershas attracted most attention, but alongside it, football has seen a flurryof activity with 2 men arrested this week for racially abusing players on the pitch and via Twitter.

Nor are politicians immune with Diane Abbott MP (Britain'sfirst black woman MP) forced to apologise last week after tweeting that"White people love playing divide and rule".

The truth is that while stories such as these hit theheadlines, there is some prejudice in all of us, however hard we may try tohide it. Like alcoholism and drugaddiction, owning up to it is actually the first step to addressing it.

What is more, prejudice within us feeds wider societalprejudice, which in turn feeds our personal prejudice, and so on... allowinginstitutional prejudice to survive and flourish.

I was a curate notfar from the spot where Stephen Lawrence was brutally murdered in 1993. Stephen was still a sixth form student atBlackheath Bluecoats School where I was also a year chaplain. He had been in school on the day he wasmurdered, and I saw at first hand the effect that his senseless death had onthe students there, black and white.

I was also a member of the Police Community ConsultativeGroup for the area and saw well-meaning senior police officers undermined bythe institutional racism which was identified in the Macpherson report fiveyears later. Such institutional racismhad allowed some of the officers attending the murder scene to dismiss it asjust another case of black gang violence, and led to accusations that thedetectives who initially investigated the murder were less than committed intheir actions to bring the murderers to justice.

As such I am deeply relieved that Doreen and NevilleLawrence have finally seen some justice after all these years. Their dignity, commitment and forbearance isbeyond words when we consider that for the last 18 years, they and everyoneelse who lived in the area have known exactly who murdered their son.

But I also remember an occasion when I found myself caughtout, and my own prejudices were exposed despite my commitment to opposingracism.

Around the time of Stephen's murder, our clergy chapterwelcomed two speakers from a race awareness team to talk to us aboutracism. Both our guest speakers wereblack and as we sat there, one of them toldus what had happened to his son after being arrested by police in Tottenhamsome years before.

On learning from a friend that his son had been arrested onsome very minor and dubious charge, he went to the police station where he knewhis son was being held. He asked for informationand was given none. He persisted and wasfinally told that yes, his son was there. Over the next 18 hours, he then sat at the police station, while all therights and procedures his son wasentitled to were denied him.

Finally in the early hours of the next day, the father wentonce more to the desk sergeant and said "As a magistrate, I hope that youwon't be bringing my son before me in court in the morning - because if you do, Iwill have no option but to point out all the ways in which you have denied himhis rights and call you to account."

The effect was almost instantaneous and his son was releasedwithout charge, but the effect of the story on me was equally profound.

You see - when this quietly spoken, middle aged Jamaican manwas speaking, it had never occurred to me that he could be a magistrate! My experience of meeting magistrates up untilthen had been exclusively white, and deep down a part of me was shocked (as thepolice clearly were when he revealed his identity) to learn that he was amagistrate! A part of me had seen thisman in a way which displayed "processes, attitudes, and behaviour, whichamount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance,thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping, which disadvantages minority ethnicpeople" (quoted from the definitionof Institutional Racism in the Macpherson Report).

And prejudice is what prejudice does...

So as racism tops the news agenda once again, it would do us noharm to examine our own hearts and minds. Prejudice is not just found in footballgrounds and on the streets - it is there in our hearts, homes and pews -anywhere where we prejudge people because of their colour, culture, gender, sexuality,politics or disability.

In recent years, racial prejudice in the Church has been widelyaddressed (although there is still a long way to go) but prejudice based on gender or sexuality has been allowed tocontinue unabated. Until we face up toour prejudices, whatever they may be, we will continue to fall short of thecommand of God to love our neighbour as ourselves.

God of Conflict?

2012-01-10T10:26:00.000Z

www.savagechickens.com

It is always a source of great irony to me that working towards a truly inclusive Church seems to produce so much conflict. Sometimes that conflict is subtle and well mannered, sometimes not.

Just before Christmas I received a Facebook friend request from someone I hadn’t seen sinceI was a curate. He was a member of the congregation where I served, and I remember assisting at his wedding.

When I looked at my Facebook page, I also noticed that he had commented on one of my blog posts– he said,

‘I don’t understand this – the word of God is explicit about sexual immorality including homosexuality… on judgment day, those who promote homosexuality and encourage others whilst claiming to be“Christian” will find out the truth of things when God rejects them saying, “I never knew you” and then sent to Hell.’

I guess that is me done for then! As I accepted his ‘friend request’ I couldn’t help thinking ‘with friends like these ...!’

But reading the Epiphany Bible readings today, I am reminded that whenever God has spoken into the world it seems to have produced conflict.

It was true for Moses and the people of Israel enslaved in Egypt. It was true as God led Israel into the promised land. It was true in the ministries of the prophets, from Samuel through Elijah, to Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Amos.

At Epiphany, it was true in the birth of Jesus, as Herod’s reaction to the Wise Men shows us. It was true in the ministry of John the Baptist as he upset the political rulers by his straight talking, and in the ministry of Jesus as he challenged the religious leaders.

It was true in the early church, upsetting Jews and Gentiles alike, provoking persecution, imprisonment and even death for a faith which claims to bring peace.

It was true for the leaders of the Protestant Reformation, as they challenged the status quo, and for Roman Catholics like Archbishop Oscar Romero, murdered at the altar for speaking up for the poor in El Salvador. It is true today in many countries around the world where Christians and those of other minority religions are often persecuted for their faith.

And it is true in the Church’s struggle with sexuality.

It seems that whenever God is at work - there is conflict. If this was the result when Jesus appeared ‘full of grace and truth’, how can it be any different now?

So perhaps it is my expectations which need to change. To be involved in God’s work involves us embracing conflict, living with conflict, working with conflict.

But that does not mean we should look for conflict or arm ourselves to win by force. The Christian way is not one of powerful victory, but of faithful witness, prayer and love - even in the face of visceral confrontation.

When faced with conflict, we must hold out arms of love rather than point fingers of condemnation; we must challenge the anger and fear of closed hearts and minds while planting the seeds of reconciliation and forgiveness; we must seek to see Christ in those with whom we disagree rather than seek to simply rebrand them with our version of God’s image.

So my prayer for 2012 will be the one from Celtic Daily Prayer, based on the Breastplate of St Patrick. It recognises both the inevitable conflict that seeking to follow Christ brings, while looking for Christ in all those we meet along the way.

Christ as a light illumine and guide me.

Christ as a shield overshadow me.

Christ under me;

Christ over me;

Christ beside me

on my left and my right.

This day be within and without me,

lowly and meek, yet all powerful.

Be in the heart of each to whom I speak;

in the mouth of each who speaks unto me.

This day be within and without me,

lowly and meek, yet all powerful.

Christ as a light;

Christ as a shield;

Christ beside me

on my left and on my right.

(Cartoon from http://www.savagechickens.com/)

He's not even the Father!

2011-12-24T23:48:00.000Z

One of my favourite Christmas cards of all time is acartoon.

In one corner was Joseph and the Wise Men laughing andjoking, celebrating Jesus birth with a pint. In the other corner was Mary saying to one of the shepherds, "Thereal joke is - he's not even the father!"

When I have told other people about this card, theirreactions have been divided. Some foundit funny, some were uncomfortable with it, fearing that it was irreverent or sacrilegious.

But like the hit TV show 'Rev' the humour contains a deeptheological truth. According to theGospels, Joseph was not Jesus' father - God was.

As we celebrate Christmas, we celebrate the eternalSon of God coming to be born as one of us, a human being in our human world,with nothing special to attract us to him. He was born in poverty not in a palace. He was born obscurity, not in celebrity. He was born not in majesty but in the ordinary, to bring theextra-ordinary into our lives. He wasborn in the disgrace of an illegitimate birth to bring the grace of God into our lives.

In the words of Joan Osborne:

What if God was one of us?

Just a slob like one of us

Just a stranger on the bus

Trying to make his way home?

At Christmas, we celebrate that question becoming areality.

Merry Christmas everyone!

The Bishop of Sodormy?

2011-12-14T22:21:00.000Z

I have to confess to being slightly surprised at the recentChurch of England announcement that the Bishopof Sodor and Man has been appointed to chair the review of CivilPartnerships.

It’s not that there is anything wrong with Bishop RobertPaterson. I am sure that he is a fairand open person with a wealth of experience that can bebrought to bear on the issues that the church needs to face.

My surprise came from the part of the UK where he serves as Bishop – The Isle of Man.

The diocese of Sodor and Man is the smallest in the Church ofEngland, covering the 28 parishes of this beautiful island in the IrishSea. I first became aware of it whenresearching the implications of a proposed Clergy Discipline Measure onDoctrine. The measure would have enableddoctrinal complaints to be made against clergy and bishops, initiating a kindof Spanish Inquisition to investigate alleged doctrinal impurity! Under the terms of the proposed legislation,I discovered that a mere 10 people in the Isle of Man Synod could force aformal disciplinary investigation into the beliefs and practise of theArchbishop of Canterbury or York with all the ramifications that such formalproceedings entail! Thankfully, I waspart of a group of clergy in General Synod who succeeded in getting thelegislation thrown out, and to this day it has not returned.

But it is the reputation of the Isle of Man that raised myeyebrows when I learned that their Bishop would chair the review into CivilPartnerships, because historically, the Isle of Man is famous for 3 things –liberal tax laws, motorbike racing, and homophobia.

Armed with its own parliament and legal system, it was thelast part of the British Isles to de-criminalise same sex acts in 1992 – a full25 years after the mainland. Itsattitudes were so well known that actress EmmaThompson famously joked that it was a place that ‘stones gays’ – althoughshe got it wrong and accused the Isle of Wight instead! When Civil Partnerships were introduced inthe UK, the Isle of Man stood out against them, only changing its mind amidstmuch controversy in April of this year.

Douglas harbour

Then there are the jokes (which date from pre 1992) abouthomosexuality being illegal which is ironic when you can only get there byentering Douglas – jokes which are still repeated today. And finally there was a friend of mine whomisheard when I said that the review of Civil Partnerships would be led by theBishop of Sodor and Man – he thought I said the ‘Bishop of Sodomy’!

So was this a wise choice on the part of the House ofBishops? Surely it would have beenbetter to choose a bishop from a more neutral diocese, or at least one withoutthe antigay reputation of the Isle of Man?

But then again, perhaps there is more than a little wisdom inthis choice – after all, the Isle of Man has a lot in common with the Church ofEngland.

Both represent relatively small communities in the UK,enshrined in historic law, each with their own law making bodies. Both are instinctively conservative inoutlook and slow to embrace change. Bothhave sections of their communities who would much prefer to pull up thedrawbridge and keep themselves to themselves, rather than deal with therealities of a changing world.

And yet the Isle of Man has found a way to embrace change inthe area of sexuality. Despite itshistory and the internal controversies which Civil Partnerships has brought, ithas found a way to move forward and embrace new understandings and new ways ofliving. Despite its cultural instincts,it has and is making changes.

Perhaps there is a parable here for the Church ofEngland. Perhaps its leaders and itsparliament can show the House of Bishops and the General Synod how to embrace amore open approach to people of all sexualities. Perhaps they can show us that when changecomes, the sky does not fall in as a result.

So perhaps the Bishop of Sodor and Man is exactly the rightperson to chair the Church of England’s Civil Partnership review – and manysame-sex couples in the Church of England will certainly be hoping he is.

And now for the good news...

2011-12-07T20:35:00.001Z

One of the things I struggle with sometimes is findingpositive things to say about the church. All too often it is the negative stories which make an impression on meand prompt me to write - and the church is a rich source for such stories!

But tonight on Radio 4 I heard not one, but two good newsstories coming from very different parts of the Christian church. So this blog post is a celebration of thesegood news stories - after all, that is what the word 'Gospel' is supposed to beabout.

First up was the news that the chiefexecutive of the FSA is to meet representatives from Occupy London in atent to discuss reconnecting finance and ethics.

After the disastrousstart which St Paul's made in responding to the Occupy London protest, theBishop of London has retaken much of the lost ground by bringing together membersof the protest with powerful players in the City. The tent is pitched at St Ethelburga's Churchwhich is now a centre of reconciliation and peace after being devastated by anIRA bomb in the 1990's. And the meeting was arranged by Ken Costa, anaccomplished investment banker and committed Christian.

At last the established church is playing the part which italone can perform - bringing together establishment and ordinary people todiscuss real issues. If there is a pathto be found which addresses the concerns of protesters, economists andfinanciers, it will be this kind of dialogue which creates the seeds of change.

The second good news story was about a Christian charitycalled 'His Church' which is recyclingcounterfeit designer clothes which have been seized by UK Customs &Trading Standards.

Previously all such clothes were destroyed or buried inland-fill sites, but now His Church is using sewing machines (which were alsoconfiscated from counterfeiters) to re-label these fake Armani, Gucci, and D&G clothes (to name but a few) anddistribute them for free to homeless centres and women's shelters. The clothes are high quality and new, notsecond hand - and they are given as gifts, not charity.

The clothes are relabelled with the 'HIS' logo as a reminderthat ultimately everything belongs to God- everything is His. (This would also bea useful reminder to those who make the wheels of the City go round).

So today I celebrate two news stories which show the churchdoing what we should be doing - bringing people together, challenging those inpower, redeeming that which was lost, and clothing the poor.

Today, I am proud to be a Christian.

Shhh - Don't ask!

2011-12-01T22:27:00.001Z

On Monday 5th December the law which prohibits CivilPartnerships being registered in religious buildings ceases to be.

Following an amendment to the Equalities Act in the House ofLords, the Government has now relaxed the rules and churches will soon be ableto apply to offer Civil Partnerships.

The Government has been careful not to force churches ordenominations to conduct Civil Partnerships and has produced 'opt in'legislation which leave it entirely up to churches to decide if they want toapply.

This both extends equalities legislation and preservesreligious freedom of belief.

But the Church of England is not being so even handed in itsresponse. All Anglican churches willneed to get permission from the Church of England's governing body to beregistered. The CofE has told theGovernment that the relevant governing body is General Synod. So far this seems reasonable until we learn that theChurch of England has no plans to ask General Synod if it would grant suchpermission or not. In the absence ofsuch a vote, the answer will remain 'No'.

The papersent to General Synod members today(1st December) makes this clear:

"an application for the approval of a church or chapelof the Church of England cannot be validly made unless the application isaccompanied by the consent in writing of the General Synod. That means that itwill not be legally possible for any church or chapel of the Church of England(irrespective of who owns or controls the building in question) to becomeapproved premises for the registration of civil partnerships without theconsent of the Church of England as a whole expressed by way of a resolution ofthe General Synod. In the absence ofsuch a resolution the Synod would not have given its consent for the purpose ofthe regulations."

And thatgoes with the recent statement from a spokespersonat Church House who told the press that "The Church of Englandhas no intention of allowing Civil Partnerships to be registered in itschurches."

So that's that then. IfSynod isn't asked - then Synod can't say 'yes' - so the easiest way of avoidingthe whole issue is 'Don't ask'.

This is, of course an interesting variation on the 'Don't ask - don't tell' policy which has kept gay and lesbian priestsquiet for years. Under this unofficial policy,gay priests have been allowed to continue in ministry as long as they haven'tput their Bishops in a 'difficult position' by being honest with them.

Now we have a new variation - "Don't ask - don'tknow" - which will enable the Church of England to continue to evade thein inconvenience of having to face up the fact the there are gay Christians,gay Clergy, even gay Bishops - many of whom are in fulfilled loving same-sexrelationships.

But shhh - don't ask.

Church Shown Up

2011-10-27T21:33:00.000+01:00

“The church is in danger - and its connection with the state, and thecorruptions thence arising, is the cause of that danger; its connection with the state has increasedits wealth and worldly-mindedness, which is dangerous to a Christiancommunity; its connexion with the statehas a tendency to beget a spirit of bigotry and intolerance in its sons anddaughters.”

The resignationof Canon Giles Fraser – Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral – has shownup this key establishment in the Church of England in the worst possible light.

After the initial welcome which it gave to the ‘OccupyLondon Stock Exchange’ protesters it has reverted to type with increasingclarity. Principles have given way topolitics – solidarity with people has given way to fears over finance – theindividual has been overtaken by the institution – and peaceful co-existencehas been replaced by the threat of violence.

And in the eye of the storm was Giles Fraser, asking thepolice, not the protesters, to move on, preaching last Sunday on the dangers ofcorporate financial greed – but eventually overruled by an institution moreconcerned with its own survival than with the immorality of selfish greed whichdrives the City around it.

Such actions by the Church are nothing new.

The quote at the top of this page is not from GilesFraser, or from one of the protesters – but from an ordinary working man fromthe 1830’s who rose to notoriety around the same issues that motivate thosecamping around St Paul’s Cathedral – issues of inequality, injustice andgreed. His name was George Loveless –one of the Tolpuddle Martyrs, whose letter “TheChurch Shown Up” is an deeply incisive attack on the Established Churchwhich in his day sided with the landowners against the ordinary working man& woman – a Church which sided with the rich to keep the poor in theirplace. Sound familiar?

To those who know anything of Trades Union History, thestory of George Loveless and the Tolpuddle Martyrs will bewell known. Forced to act by landownersand employers who slashed their wages, they formed the first Union, and werepromptly arrested and sentenced to Deportation for their impudence. The case caused a national outcry and aftersome years they were pardoned. Yet ontheir return to this sleepy Dorset village they continued to be denounced bythe establishment and the church – to the extent that all but one had to moveagain to places where their ‘crimes’ were not known.

Like St Paul’s Cathedral, the church in Tolpuddle had itspart to play in the story, and like St Paul’s it chose to turn against thosewho were protesting at inequality and greed.

For 5 years I was vicar of Tolpuddle, and even then, 175years after those events, I have experienced the cold shoulder of disapprovalfrom some at the Annual TUC Festival, because of the part my predecessorplayed. The collective memory of suchbetrayal runs deep in the folk memory of the disenfranchised.

Initially the vicar of Tolpuddle, Rev Thomas Warren, tried to act as honest arbiter in the dispute,and brokered a deal between the farm workers and the landowners, acting aswitness to the agreement. But when thelandowners reneged on what they had promised, he was pressured into betrayingthe labourers by the institutions which the church relied on. He denied ever witnessing such an agreementand soon afterwards the Tolpuddle Martyrs were arrested, tried andsentenced. The church had chosen to sidewith the powerful against the powerless while it continued to recite the Magnificateach Evensong, which speaks of a God who

"... hath scattered theproud in the imagination of their hearts.

He hath put down the mighty fromtheir seat :and hath exalted the humble and meek.

He hath filled the hungry withgood things :and the rich he hath sent empty away."

Today, even though the same words are recited eachevening at St Paul’s Cathedral, they appear to have as little impact on the Deanand Chapter of the Cathedral as they did on the Vicar of Tolpuddle.

The irony is that George Loveless was not just a founderof Trades Unionism – he was also a Christian – a Methodist laypreacher who saw clear dangers for a church which has become sodependent on its relationship with earthly power and authority that it had lostits soul.

He cites the Church’s treatment of ‘Dissenters’ in hisday as a prime example of this. TheDissenters of the 1800’s were religious dissenters who would not follow theestablished church, but are they so distant from the economic dissenters whohave camped around St Pauls?

He warns of the dangers of selling out the Gospel ofChrist for one of greed and earthly power, reflecting on the contrast betweenthe early church and the present,

“And they went forth and proclaimed " liberty to the captives andthe opening of the prisons to them that were bound:” they rallied round the standard of theirmaster… and although they had to contend with the selfishness of kings, thepersecutions of governments, the craftiness of priests… it grew and increased, and neither the studyof cabinets, nor the policy of states, has been able to suppress or retard it… How different is this from that which assumesthe name of religion in our day; mixed with all the glitter of the world, withall the power and pomp of earthly grandeur.”

He also reflects on the dwindling influence that thechurch has among ordinary people as a result:

How often has it been observed that the clergy are ever foremost inopposing any popular measure that is likely to be carried for the good of thepeople… The undue influence, however, ofthe clergy over various degrees and orders ofsociety, is greatly on the decline; the working classes are beginning toquestion their value and utility, and to think that they can do without theirassistance.

In his resignation today, Giles Fraser has refused to followthe path of my predecessor at Tolpuddle, and yet St Paul’s Cathedral has chosento follow the well-worn paths of an Established Church. They have ensured that yet another a nail hasbeen hammered into the coffin that George Loveless observed as the Church onceagain chooses to align itself with earthly power rather than a crucified Lord.

I will end this post with a few morewords from George Loveless – this time on the economics of riches for the fewat the expense of the many. Perhapsthey will also resonate with those who are protesting in the camp around StPaul’s.

The poor are rapidly becoming their own teachers, and it is in vain youtry to hoodwink and keep them in darkness; light is appearing around them…They see thatlabour is the source of wealth… that they are kept in poverty and degradationby those who, living in luxury and idleness upon the fruits of their labour,tell the working man his portion is to labour, to suffer, and to die.

Notwithstanding all the efforts of the clergy to impress this upontheir minds, as a command from God, the labouring classes have learnt that,living in a country which overflows with the abundance of the fruits of theirlabour, the tenth part of which they never enjoy, the first great object theyought to have in view is their own emancipation from mental and politicalslavery…. that all governments and laws should exist for the common benefit,protection, and security of all the people, and not for the emolument oraggrandizement of any particular family, single man, or set of men.

An eye for an eye?

2011-10-18T23:03:00.000+01:00

Today the Israeli soldier GiladShalit was returned to Israel after 5 years captivity in Gaza.

This single Israeli was set free by Hamas in return for1,000 Palestinian prisoners released from Israeli jails and some havequestioned the size of the ransom which has secured his release.

Certainly 1,000 Palestinians in return for one Israeliappears disproportionate to some Israelis, even after his 5 year ordeal, andHamas are portraying the exchange as a victory.

But there has always been a disproportionality in therelationship between Israel and Palestinians. For every Israeli killed since the second intifada began in 2000,6 Palestinians have been killed by Israel, and the ratio is getting worse, notbetter.

There are two watersheds in the recent history of the killingfeud that continues between Israel and the Palestinians. The first we have already mentioned - thebeginning of the second Intifada in 2000. The second is Operation Cast Lead in which the Israeli army and airforce pounded Gaza relentlessly for 3 weeks at the beginning of 2009.

Before Operation Cast Lead, the killing ratio between Israeland the Palestinians was 5 Palestinians killed for every 1 Israeli death. But since the end of that operation,that ratio has risen to 10 Palestinians for every Israeli. And that does not include the casualties ofOperation Cast Lead itself where 155 Palestinians died for every Israelisoldier killed.

Among children the disproportionality is even more acute. For the horror of every Israeli child killedin terrorist attacks, 10 Palestinian children have been killed since 2000, andduring Operation Cast Lead 345 Palestinian children lost their lives at thehands of the Israeli security forces.

Nor are the casualties limited to those who are combatants. Since 2000, amongst those who took no part ineither uprisings or security operations the ratio is 4 innocent Palestinians killed for every innocent Israeli civiliandeath.

As I researched these statistics today (from the Israeli Human Rights GroupB'Tselam) I couldn't help reflecting on the OldTestament Law which says, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,a life for a life".

To many in the developed world this law seems archaic andbarbaric - outdated by modern conceptsof justice and human rights for all. Butat least this law of retribution limited the level of retribution to the levelof the crime committed. And in Israeland the occupied territories today, even this old law of proportionality would requiremuch greater restraint in Israel's security policy.

In the meantime Hamas will undoubtedly be celebrating theirsuccess in negotiating such a high ransom for their one captive, but as theydo, we could all miss the deeper question. Whether in relation to violence or ransoms, deathor life, captivity or freedom, why is it that Palestinian lives are worth somuch less than Israeli lives?

Are we not all made equal in the image of God?

A Permanent Law?

2011-10-12T19:32:00.000+01:00

I have been reading the book of Exodus again recently - achapter a day - trying to get into themindset and culture of the people of Israel in the times of the Old TestamentLaw.

This week I have got to the part which describes the designsand rules for the tabernacle and its contents, and for the clothes which wereto be made for Aaron and his sons. Theinstructions are highly detailed, leaving nothing to chance, and are describedas "a permanent law for the people of Israel and must be kept by allfuture generations". (Exodus 27:21 - New Living Translation)

Aarons robes reminded me of the vestments which my moreAnglo-catholic colleagues wear adorned with gold and bright colours. They are something which I have never quiteconnected with in my own spirituality, but know how much they mean to others,and here they are in scripture, as the clothes of the priests as they enter thepresence of God.

Then I thought of how different the Exodus descriptions arecompared to the environment I find most conducive to worship. My personal worship heaven would be a modern,well-lit room with comfortable chairs, arranged in a curve rather than straightconstricting rows. A good sound system andworship band to lead and inspire. Adigital projector carving pictures and words in light on a large screen, encouragingme to look up as I pray, reflect and sing. Colourful modern banners lining the walls and a lectern standing centralon the stage, bathed in the warm glow of a spotlight for the preaching of theWord. How different this is to the tabernacle in Exodus!

But then again, we all have our preferences, customs, rulesand rituals when it comes to worship.

I remember an Anglo-catholic priest coming to my Evangelicaltheological college to preach. He wasthere to help us poor low-church protestants and charismatics understand alittle about what is important to those whose worship is 'further up the candle'. Just as he started to preach, someone rushedup to him and attached a lapel microphone to his robes and then sat back down,slightly embarrassed that he had forgotten to do this earlier.

The priest paused for a moment, and then said - "Youknow - this is how rituals grow. In thefuture this may well become part of our liturgy. Every week, just as the preacher gets up tospeak, someone with come forward and attach a small object with a wire to thepreachers clothes. By then, of course itwill be highly symbolic, with lots of bowing and carefully rehearsed handmovements. It will be engraved inartistic writing with the letters ' M I C ' but, following generations oftechnological developments, this will be a cryptic word which no-one usesanymore and few understand. A bell might sound to emphasise theimportance of the moment and to call the congregation to listen carefully asthe Word of God is unfolded. Particularlydevout members of the church may be moved to raise their hands into the air andcry 'Alleluia' or make the sign of the cross. And everyone except the most scholarly of church historians will haveexactly no idea why we do it!"

So what about the verses in Exodus that describe its rulesfor worship as ' a permanent law for all generations' ? The truth is that every generation fashionsits worship in a way which speaks to them - now even more than in the past - butshouldn't we be all obeying the permanent law of Exodus 25 to 30, particularlythose who call themselves 'Bible Believing Christians'? Are we living and worshipping in sin becausewe do not follow the designs and rituals of this ancient age?

In reality, if I went to preach that in any modern church, Iwould be dismissed as utterly mad! Onthe way to being thrown out of the door, I would be pointed to John 4:23 whereJesus said that true believers will worship in spirit and truth. I would be told that the 'permanent law' ofthe Old Testament is not as permanent it might first appear, and that readingthe Bible in that kind of simplistic way is not what God calls us to do.

So why do we still apply other parts of OT law as permanent fixedmarkers of the will of God today? (egLeviticus 18:22) And why do we allow theprevailing interpretations of Scripture in our time dictate how we should readand understand the Bible in ways which imply the same permanence?

When Jesus directed us to 'spirit and truth - when Paul sayswe no longer live 'under the law' - we are being called to a radically new andmore complex way of living under God. Itis more complex because it does not rely on legal codes, ancient or modern, buton a relationship with the living God.

Perhaps that is why we need the 'new heart' of flesh that weare promised in Ezekiel 36:26 to replace our heartof stone.

Bible says No? - Part 4 - Romans

2011-10-07T15:27:00.000+01:00

When I started this series in November last year, I never dreamed it would take me so long to finish!

We have looked at the Biblical evidence for condemning same-sex relationships and found that it is not as clear cut as many of us have been told. As we have seen Bible verses taken out of context in Leviticus 18, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy do appear to take the same approach as the clerk in Little Britain’s ‘Computer says no’. But context is vital to understanding Scripture, and usually, when something is prohibited in the Bible, there is a Biblical explanation for why. The verses we have looked at so far do not provide that. There are no reasons, no explanation, just ‘Don’t do it!’ – whatever ‘it’ is….

The one exception to this is Romans 1. Here finally, there appears to be some theology going on – some attempt to explain the purposes of God and the waywardness of human nature. The central verses are 26 & 27:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

The passage is often used to explain why same-sex acts are wrong. For many Christians, it explains how people became homosexuals – that same-sex attraction is the result of a perversion of natural, God-given attraction and emotion. Such desires are the result of exchanging natural feelings for unnatural ones. It is the rationale behind ‘homosexual healing’ which seeks to re-orientate homosexuals into heterosexuals by a combination of prayer, confession, forgiveness and self-discipline.

But wait a minute… Verse 26 begins with the words “Because of this…” – which means that we should ask ourselves ‘Because of what?’ And as we read back in the chapter, we find a very different rationale emerging.

So why had God given them over to shameful lusts?

In Romans 1:18-25 it is clearly because …

They knew God through creation, but neither glorified him nor gave thanks to him (vs 18-21)

They exchanged the glory of God for images & idols which they served and worshipped (vs 22-25)

In Romans it is idolatry (worshipping other gods) which leads people to God’s wrath, shown here as in so many places in scripture, by God abandoning them to the consequences of their own choices - and the homosexual lusts which Paul is describing are the result of the rejection of God and morality.

But this does not describe the LGBT Christians I know. They have not exchanged the glory of God for created idols. They are prayerful, devout, committed Christians, worshipping God faithfully, and giving him the glory.

I remember the day when this light dawned in me for the first time! I finally saw what my gay Christian friends meant when they told me that they did not recognize themselves in the Biblical passages which condemned homosexuality – and indeed what I read now was not describing them.

But there is more – as we then read the next few verses of Romans 1, the picture becomes even clearer:

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Do gay people fit this description? Have they all become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, envy, murder, deceit and malice? Are they gossips, slanderers, God-haters, inventing ways of doing evil? Are they senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless?

For anyone who has gay or lesbian (or indeed B&T) Christian friends, the answer is a resounding ‘No!” This does not describe them, so how can it be that Paul is writing about them? And if he is not writing about them, then yet again the Biblical proof texts we have been given do not apply to the loving same-sex relationships we see today.

So who was Paul writing about?

The answer of course, is staring us in the face – Rome! The epistle is, of course, a letter to the church in Rome – the centre of the Roman Empire – the seat of power. It was also the centre of Roman religion, politics, the Emperors & the ruling classes. These ruling classes were famous for their ruthless greed, intrigue and debauchery – and it was this pagan society about which Paul was writing. Roman society and Greek culture were the environments in which Paul saw same sex activity, alongside all the idolatry of the Greco-Roman world. It was not born out of love, or orientation, but out of pagan practices, greed, lust and abuse of power.

Needless to say – this is not the same as a loving, faithful, self-giving, same-sex relationship.

It is true of course, that homosexuals can embrace promiscuity and immorality, just like anyone else. It might even be argued that in the moral vacuum which the Church has created by condemning all sex between homosexuals, we are responsible for pushing the gay subculture in that direction, resulting in some of the more extreme expressions of same sex sexuality. But heterosexuals are by no means immune from such temptation, as witnessed by the exponential rise in pornography over the last 30 years. Expressions of sexual greed not make all heterosexual expression wrong - neither do they make all homosexual expression wrong.

The Christian faith rightly stands against pornography and debauchery because it impoverishes our humanity, transforming people into mere objects of lust. But the church has always encouraged and blessed expressions of mutual love and self-giving - the ultimate expression of which is marriage.

Romans 1 does not condemn LGB&T people seeking to give and receive love in a mutual life-giving relationship. In fact it has nothing explicit to say about it at all, in common with the rest of Scripture. And if the Bible does not condemn loving faithful, committed same sex relationships, why does the church condemn them?

I began this series with a comment on my blog, calling on me to look at the clear and numerous Bible verses which condemn same-sex relationships. Having done so, it is clear that what the Bible condemns is not those loving committed relationships which groups like Accepting Evangelicals are advocating. Simply repeating the mantra ‘Bible says no’ is not an option. The few verses of Biblical evidence which exist are at the very least unclear, rooted as they are in the context of historical cultures very different to our own.

And yet the church has used these half dozen verses to place a burden of judgment and shame on LGB&T people which the rest of us would find impossible to bear. If we continue to do so, we will be no better than the Pharisees who Jesus reprimanded. “They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.” (Matthew 23:4)

Where same-sex relationships of love, faithfulness and commitment are concerned, the Bible does not say no – and neither should we.

If you would like to read the earlier parts of this series, follow the links below.

Part 1 - Bible says No... - click here

Part 2 - Leviticus 18- click here

Part 3 - Corinthians and Timothy - click here

The (Planning) Law is an Ass

2011-09-19T12:08:00.000+01:00

Today as I write this, 86 families on a converted scrap yardin Essex are waiting for the bailiffs to make them homeless.

They have been living on the self-contained site for up to10 years and own the land their homes are built on, but because some of themdon’t have planning permission, they are going to be forcefully ejected andtheir homes demolished when the bulldozers do their worst.

Those expressing grave concern about the evictions includeBishops, The Children’s Society, and a United Nations representative whohas claimed that the eviction breaks international law.

All this at the same time as the government constantlywrings its hands about the lack of affordable homes, lack of investment, and isitself changing planning law to enable big developers to access new green-field sites with much greater ease.

Is it just me, or is there a stark contradiction here?

One the one hand we have government at every level trying, but failing year on year, to solve ourhousing crisis. On the other, we have 86Traveller families who have erected their homes at no cost to the tax-payer,being thrown out (at great cost to the tax payer) and their homes torn down.

But perhaps there is the rub – they are Travellers. Having lived in both inner-city London, andrural middle-England, I have noticed that while it is increasing unacceptableto be racist in general, there is still one group who are routinely vilifiedwith impunity – Travellers.

Until we learn that you can’t pick and choose whichprejudices are acceptable and which are not, there will continue to be peopleand authorities who make an ass of themselves and the law.

In the meantime, my heart goes out to the families of DaleFarm, and I pray that the God of justice and compassion will hear their cry.

Furtherreading:

Bishopscondemn Dale Farm traveller eviction

ChildrenSociety letter

GuardianArticle

DaleFarm Travellers Blog

Women's Ministry & Homosexuality - a response to Stephen Kuhrt.

2011-09-09T18:27:00.000+01:00

Last month the Church of England Newspaper published an article by Stpehen Kuhrt, Chair of Fulcrum, on the difference between accepting women's leadership in the church, and accepting homosexual relationships.

Today they have published my response...
___________________________________________________________________

The connection between the debate over women's ministry and thatof homosexuals has been a bone of contention among evangelicals for manyyears. On the one hand, the Biblicaltexts on the role of women in the church have been re-examined andre-interpreted by 'open' conservatives, whilst on the other hand, a similarprocess has been resisted with much more energy when it comes to homosexuality. In addition, there are those who haveprophesied that the acceptance of women into ministry and headship would leadinexorably to the same pressures to reconsider the place of homosexuals in thechurch on a slippery slope away from Biblical truth.

At the heart of each issue is how we as evangelicals treatverses in Scripture which, at first sight appear to speak out clearly against changeon either of these two issues.

In Stephen Kuhrt's recent article "Women'sministry and Homosexuality" he meets this issue head-on. He tries to provide a rationale for conservativeslike himself who want to follow the re-examination of Scripture in regard towomen's ministry while continuing to resist any movement on homosexualrelationships. In doing so, he is attemptingto defend that position from attacks from conservatives and liberals alike,while also trying to ensure that the 'slippery slope' argument does not holdback the full inclusion of women in the ministry of the church at every level.

And he is right in when he identifies significantdifferences between the two issues. No-one has ever suggested that women in general are sinful if they seeka loving, faithful, self-giving relationship (except if that relationship iswith another woman). No conservative hassuggested that women should seek to seek healing for their sexual identity orembrace abstinence in order to be acceptable to God and the church. Women can be clearly identified in the Bible,and are present in almost all New Testament contexts, and Paul is clear in hisradical theology that "In Christ there is no male of female". Indeed it would be profoundly sad andinappropriate if there were people who would oppose the full inclusion of womenin the church's ministry simply because they were opposed the inclusion ofhomosexuals.

But having said that, there are striking parallels in theprocess of discernment for both issues.

Both require us to re-examine Biblical texts which, whentaken at face value exclude any change in traditional teaching. In the case of women's ministry, the versesinclude clear statements excluding women from having authority over a man, anddescribing the idea of a women speaking in church as 'shameful'. In the case of homosexuals the verses whichexclude are well known to evangelicals, even if their meaning and context isless clear.

The process of re-examination which is needed in both casesis also similar. Proponents of a newunderstanding on either issue call for the texts to be considered within theircultural context and purpose before being weighed against other passages ofscripture which might point to the possibility of a more inclusive approach.

Both issues require an openness from us to be challenged onour own received cultural presuppositions and norms - what we think is 'normal'and 'obvious' because of the Christian culture we have been brought up in.

The difference, as Stephen Kuhrt points out is the lack ofidentifiably 'gay' people in the early church. While a careful reading of Roman 16 reveals the possibility (orprobability - depending on your point of view) of women in leadership, thereare no such examples of openly 'gay' people. But this absence in Scripture is not surprising, as it is similarlydifficult to demonstrate a model of exclusive, partnered, faithful same-sexrelationships in secular society at that time either.

The same cannot be said of our society today.

Homosexuality is identified by the vast majority of peopleas an orientation rather than a recreational choice. There are plenty of examples of same-sexrelationships today which exhibit the same characteristics of love, commitmentand fidelity as marriage. Indeed, thereare partnered homosexual Christians in ministry and leadership in a widevariety of churches.

The joy and blessing which Stephen Kuhrt has found inwelcoming women into ministry at his own church is wonderful to read about, andthere are many who have experienced that same joy and blessing as they havebegun to welcome LGB&T Christians into their churches in a more inclusiveway. Those of us who have experiencedthe blessing which LGB&T Christians can bring, know that full inclusion inthe church - of women and of homosexuals - will further demonstrate the joy andblessing of faith in Jesus Christ.

The debates of women's ministry and homosexuality aredifferent - but the issues which they call us to address have striking parallels,as are the potential blessings which full inclusion in the church will bring.

Rev Benny Hazlehurst

Secretary of Accepting Evangelicals
www.acceptingevangelicals.org

Published in the Church of England Newspaper - 9th September 2011

Dreams of home ...

2011-09-07T19:22:00.000+01:00

It is 25 years since I last went to Greenbelt. That makes me feel old.

I used to be a regular camper when I was a teenager, bringinga coachload of fellow teenagers from Bolton in Lancashire for a weekend ofcutting edge Christian music, seminars, & the encouragement that comes fromknowing you are part of something bigger – very important to teenagers, particularly those who bear the stigma ofbeing committed Christians.

So going back was potentially rather strange. What would it be like? Would it be the same, or different? Would I feel out of it, now that I am inmiddle age? Or would I find myselfsurrounded by the same people, all 25 years older? What would have changed?

Well there were definitely some changes.

There were proper toilets instead of huge holes in the groundcovered by rustic wooden frames! Manyworkshops and talks took place in the luxury of the grandstand of CheltenhamRacecourse instead of packing people into sweaty, muddy marquees. The Main Stage arena was much smaller andjust one of many venues, rather than the epicentre of everything. More significantly, the sheer of variety ofevents on offer was huge with a greater emphasis on speakers, performing artsand activities for children.

When I was a regular, Greenbelt was living out the axiom fromLarry Norman’s iconic song “Why should the devil have all the good music?” This was a deeply contentious issue in allour churches. I remember heatedexchanges with older church members about the evils of rock music; about how itwas wrong to wear denim in church; and the open suspicion of the Christian rockbands like 100% Proof, Rez , & Jerusalem which had converted most of myfriends to Christ.

Going to Greenbelt then was an opportunity to celebrate a newway of being church, free from the cultural constraints of the past, while atthe same time being challenged by the speakers and seminar leaders to thinkafresh our faith.

So what would I find now - 25 years later?

I found that there was less emphasis on music and moreemphasis on issues – spirituality, theology, cultural context and socialjustice.

I found that there were many more opportunities to worship –and extend our experience of God in new ways and new forms.

I also found that while there were many more people there whoshared my ‘middle age’, there were still teenagers, young people, and childrenin abundance.

And the cutting edge has changed. Conflict over music and church dress-codesare yesterday’s issues. Time has movedon, and (thank God) so has Greenbelt. For me, the cutting edge at this year’s Greenbelt were around EmergenceChurches, with speakers like Brian McLaren, Nadia Bolz-Weber, Phyllis Tickle, &Rob Bell – developing a 21^st century vision for the Gospel whichengages a new generation who are either un-churched, de-churched, oranti-churched.

So what were my conclusions?

As I left, I came away from a different Greenbelt to one Iwent to as a teenager, but still recognisable. I came away encouraged, challenged and elated – and most of all pleasedto be reacquainted with a festival which still pushes the boundaries and challengesthe conventional view of what it means to be church and what it means to be afollower of Christ.

Oh, and yes – I did find some music too! Mostly in the ‘Underground’ - the dark,slightly subversive venue for rock, punk and indie bands where I was considerablyolder than the average fan. So my thanksto MaLoKai, Spokes,Conduit, Jax Walker & Back Pocket Prophets forproviding the musical soundtrack to my Greenbelt 2011.

It was like coming home.

More harm than good...?

2011-09-03T16:30:00.000+01:00

News has surfaced that a Tory MP has written to the PrimeMinister advocating that Churches who refuse to conduct same-sex Civil Partnershipsshould be banned from conducting weddings.

Mike Weatherly, an MP in Brighton has written that, "As long as religious groups can refuseto preside over ceremonies for same-sex couples, there will be inequality. Such behaviour is not tolerated in otherareas, such as adoption, after all. "

Whilst I can see that the letter will express the frustrationof many LGB&T people who are being snubbed by churches, the letter willprobably do more harm than good.

The UK Government has been consulting for some time onchanges to the Civil Partnership laws that would allow CP's in religious buildings. One of the arguments that conservativeChristians have used against this progression is that such a change wouldultimately allow legal challenges to force churches to conduct CP's.

This was expressed most recently by Lyndon Bowring,Associate Minister at Kensington Temple and Executive Chairman of CARE, in 'Sorted' - a Christian magazine formen. It is a measured and conciliatoryarticle in which he describes attending a Civil Partnership ceremony andencourages Christians to "do all we can to be compassionate and generousin all our relationships and not condemnor reject people on the grounds of their sexual orientation or lifestyle."

But he also warns of the dangers of changes to the law whichmight, in time, be used to force churches to act against their conscience.

"A minister whorefused to allow [a Civil Partnership] might be taken to court fordiscriminating against a same-sex couple... We hope that the courts would uphold the churches' position but... as wehave seen, they have the power to rule differently from what the politiciansintended. The Government says it has nointention of compelling churches that do not want to host Civil Partnershipceremonies to do so, but just one successful case could set a legal precedent."
For some in thechurch this is clearly a genuine fear, and Mr Weatherley's letter will donothing to reassure them. Others haveused this fear as an axe to grind against Civil Partnerships, and the letterplays right into their hands as they seek to spread fear and mistrust.

Fundamentally however, his letter goes to the heart of thedebate about balancing human rights and religious freedom. This has been hotly contested in recent years,and is a continual source of energy and press coverage for religious groups whoare rigidly opposed to same-sex relationships.

There has to be a balance between the rights rightly givenas we progress towards equality for all, and the right of people of faith tofollow their religion, where that does not cause harm to others.

The idea of compelling churches to act against their understandingof their faith in these circumstances is unjust, counterproductive and flawed.

What is really required is the continual task of workingwithin the Church towards a new understanding of sexuality which will result insame-sex couples being welcomed and embraced by church communities, not churchesbeing forced into a begrudging and resentful obligation.

Back from the summer ...

2011-09-03T15:30:00.001+01:00

The summer holidays have nearly ended. My children go back to school next week, and I think it is time to get back to blogging ....

And there is lots going on at the moment. I have been blessed by going back to Greenbelt after many years - Bishop's reviews on sexuality are being set up - a Tory MP is calling for churches to be forced by the Government into offering same-sex Civil Partnerships and Weddings. (more on this very soon!)

So here we go ... I hope you enjoy.

Benny Hazlehurst

More or less human..?

2011-08-12T09:12:00.000+01:00

Hollywood and a prominent scientific body are both addressing the issue of bio-medical ethics in very different ways this summer. Both are highlighting the issues behind the use of human tissue and DNA in animals for research.

Predictably, the Hollywood approach in 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' (released in the UK this week) treads the well worn apocalyptic route - the scientific creation of a 'more human' ape which is then mistreated and rebels, leading to a battle between humans and apes for world supremacy.

The Academy of Medical Sciences, on the other hand, is calling for better regulation on the increasing use of human material in animals for medical research. This is necessary, they argue, otherwise we might find ourselves faced with a scientific 'fete accompli' of genetic hybrids with increasingly human attributes.

In short, the creation of a mice with 'human' livers is one thing (and already exists) but an ape with a 'human' brain would be quite different.

Potentially this is a huge issue. As genetic and stem cell research develops, the ethical issues about using human material in animal research raises significant moral, theological and ethical questions for the human race. The definition of what constitutes a 'human being' may in time come under increasing scrutiny if elements of 'personhood' in animals are artificially developed in such experiments.

And yet the ethics of making animals 'more human' seems to make few waves in the Church. The Church of England did contribute to the Academy's consultation last year, although my guess is that few people are aware of the document, never mind its conclusions. (Find it at http://www.churchofengland.org/media/45701/achmresp.pdf)

The Church's response to the Academy takes a pragmatic approach. It considers possible definitions of what constitutes a human being as well as potential issues of 'personhood' in relation to developing animal research. It concludes that most current experiments would seem to be ok, but there is a line to be drawn when we create something which is more human than animal (wherever that line might be). It seems to be ok to make animals 'more human' as long as we don't go too far. The response is measured, sensible, and well argued, despite the fact that the balance it tries to establish will not engender universal agreement among Christians.

When I compare this to the church's debate of homosexuality, I find a huge contrast.

Unlike bio-genetic research, the church's position on homosexuality makes huge waves, and it is not at all pragmatic. While giving the green light to making animals 'more human' , the church's response to homosexuals is to make them 'less human'. It does this by telling them that God requires them to set aside a fundamental part of their humanity - their longing to give and receive love in a mutual intimate relationship with someone they love. The potential for such relationships is at the very heart of what it means to be human and when we deny LGB&T people this possibility, we reduce their humanity in the name of God.

In short - the Church of England seems to think that it is ok to make animals more human, but not ok for homosexuals to be fully human.

The irony is that many of the issues which the Church of England has grappled with in human/animal experiments resonate clearly with the Church's ongoing e debate on sexuality!

In its response to the Academy, the Mission and Public Affairs Council of the Church of England deals with the question of what is considered 'natural' or 'unnatural' by noting that:

'Research may challenge some of our most fundamental beliefs and presuppositions but this is not sufficient reason to prohibit or to restrict it.'

and yet there are many Christians today who continue to regard homosexual relationships as 'unnatural' despite evidence to the contrary and the Church colludes with this world-view.

It goes on to say that..

Many scientific or medical techniques and practices that most people currently accept, such as organ transplantation or the use of psychiatric drugs were once widely deemed to be unacceptable because they challenged prevalent interpretations of human identity and personality. Fundamental beliefs may, at times, act as an initial defence mechanism against untrammelled experimentation but it is correct to challenge such beliefs and to engage in thoroughgoing discussion with regard to their veracity and significance.

and yet the Church has not allowed such an open approach to developing understandings around perceptions of sexuality.

The response also considers other concerns which resonate with debates over sexuality, namely that such experiments on animals

· will lead to moral or societal confusion

· is an affront to human dignity

These concerns are often raised by those opposed to the acceptance and blessing of same-sex relationships, and yet the CofE considers none of these to be insurmountable in bio-genetic research. So why are they insurmountable when it comes to allowing LGB&T people to express their humanity fully?

Perhaps this confusion arises from a misunderstanding of the role of God's laws.   I recently heard an evangelical theological college lecturer teach that "God's laws are there to make us more fully human".

If this is the basic premise, then those opposed to blessing same-sex relationships can claim that obeying laws against same-sex acts makes homosexuals more human, not less.

But there is a fundamental error in this understanding of God's law.

It is God who makes us fully human at our creation in the womb - we are all born fully human irrespective of obedience or not to God's laws - and anything which is fully human cannot be made more fully human!   The purpose of God's law is to enable us to express that humanity fully in our interactions with God and others. We can see this in Jesus' statement that loving God and our neighbour is the heart of the God's law. (Matthew 22:34-40) and in Paul's radical statement in Romans that 'love is the fulfilment of the Law'. (Romans 13:10)

So the test of any of the many laws we find in the Bible (often written in the context of specific cultures and points in history) is whether they enable us to express our humanity more fully , or whether they reduce it. The experience of the vast majority of LGB&T people is that setting aside or denying their sexuality reduces their ability to truly express the fullness of their humanity.

Should we allow unbridled experiments on animals using human tissue or DNA in the name of science?   Like the Church of England - I think not.

Should we continue to lessen the humanity of LGB&T people by telling them that God wants them to live in way which sets aside their sexuality? Unlike the Church of England - I think not.

And perhaps there is a wider issue here as well - that while the church continues to dehumanise LGB&T people, we lessen our right to be heard on other issues of humanity - and that is not a path we should follow.

Christians reach out while the Church pulls away...

2011-07-08T09:27:00.000+01:00

At London Pride last weekend around 120 Christians dressed in purple T-shirts emblazoned with the words "Christian and Proud", marched in the London Pride Parade.

They sang Christian songs and gave out gospel leaflets to onlookers. They smiled and waved as they were greeted with cheers and applause by the crowds who had gathered to watch. It was profoundly moving to see this expression of the Christian faith welcomed by people of all faiths and none. It was an act of mission declaring God's love to gay and straight alike on the streets of central London.

But as 'Christians at Pride' reached out, the Church of England was pulling away from the gay community, by introducing a new way of excluding gay clergy from being considered as Bishops.

In an statement from the House of Bishops, the Bishop of Norwich said, "clergy in civil partnerships should not, at present, be nominated for Episcopal appointment". This now appears to be the official policy of the Church of England, pending new reviews of same-sex relationships which will take place over the next few years.

This will certainly make for a quieter life in the Crown Nominations Commission, as recent revelations have shown, as it will exclude candidates like Jeffrey John without any need for discussion. But what kind of message is it sending to gay Christians?

Clergy in Civil Partnerships already have to make a declaration that their relationship is non-sexual and that they will abide by the teaching and discipline of the Church. As such there was nothing to prevent them being considered for other appointments - until last weekend.

To quote one of the organisers of 'Christians at Pride', himself an evangelical gay Anglican, "This poses an interesting question for the church. What does a gay person have to do in order to be acceptable to the church? For years, we have been told that it's really just the sexual act which is the problem, and now it turns out its more than that."

It is tempting to ask where Jesus would have been last weekend, if he had to choose. Would he have been standing alongside the House of Bishops, or among the Christians at Pride?

The Gospel writers would seem to leave us in no doubt. Jesus almost always chose to spend his time with those outside the religious institutions. Whether on the shores of lake Galilee, or with tax collectors and sinners, Jesus spent little of his time in the corridors of religious power. And when he did venture into the places of religious power, they were often as uncomfortable with him, as he was with them.

The two reviews which the Bishops announced last weekend do, perhaps, provide a glimmer of hope. They may provide the opportunity for the Church of England to reconsider its attitude to same-sex relationships after several years of stalemate where concerns in the rest of the Anglican Communion have prevented a return to this thorny issue.

It is intended that these reviews should build on the 'listening process' which was begun in 1998, but has faltered in recent years. LGB&T Christians will be hoping that as well as listening to them, the church will listen to the Jesus who still reaches out to them, even when the church pulls away.

Bisexual - or just greedy?

2011-06-28T21:17:00.001+01:00

I have read a number of blogs recently which have mentioned bisexuals, and the following comment appeared on my recent post on same-sex marriage:

Could you clarify something for me, since I am not totally clear on everything you have said here. You rightly point out that part of the marriage vows are "... forsaking all others, be faithful for so long as you both shall live."

How do bi-sexual people do this? Do they deny one part of their desires, and only have one partner for life? Or do they have two partners, and "faithfulness" then means "faithful toward two different people at the same time", and so is redefining "faithful" to mean "not monogamous"?

The fact that such questions need asking show the misunderstanding there is about what it means to be bisexual. This often leads to confusion among Christians (and even among some of the gay/lesbian community).

Those who are honest and open enough to say they are bisexual, often run the risk of all sorts of unspoken assumptions being made. Indeed I used to do the same.

I remember making the crass statement once to someone who I now know to be bisexual, that I couldn’t see what the problem was – “if you’re bisexual you should simply find someone of the opposite sex to fall in love with – and then all would be well.”

Others seem to think that all bisexuals want to ‘have their cake and eat it’ needing sexual partners of both sexes to feel a sense of fulfilment.

So what is the real story on bisexuals? Are they indecisive, fickle or greedy – or is there something deeper going on?

The following is the story of one married couple who have worked through this issue. It is used with their full permission:

‘My wife & I are dedicated evangelical Christians. I am not bisexual – but my wife is.

The strange thing is – I always knew that. Even though we couldn’t talk about it because I didn’t have the language or understanding to do so, I knew. Soon after we met and fell in love I somehow knew that if our relationship didn’t work out, her next partner would probably be a woman. I don’t know how I knew, but I did.

We never talked about it – how could we? I was still a conservative evangelical believing that all same sex relationships were wrong. On one level, we didn’t need to talk about it. We were in love with each other, and in time, we made our marriage vows to each other, promising to love and care for one another, forsaking all others, until death do us part.

And yet, we did need to talk about it, because until we did, there was a part of who my wife’s identity that was closed off from our relationship – and that meant that there was a part of her that she could not share with me, and which I could not receive and seek to understand.

It was many years later - after I had realised how wrong I had been about gay and lesbian relationships – that we were able to talk together about this part of her which we both knew was there, but neither of us had been able to verbally acknowledge.

Now before any minds start racing with questions and wrong conclusions, let me state categorically that:

> My wife and I have both been faithful to our wedding vows.

> We have each ‘forsaken all others, to be faithful to each other, and we are just as committed to our marriage vows now as we were 20 years ago on our wedding day.

> Since we have been able to talk with each other openly, there has never been any sense in which my wife has sought a same-sex partner any more that I would seek another opposite-sex partner.

> We consider that either of these would be adultery, and we are dedicated to one another.

But since we have been able to recognise her bisexuality, and talk to each other freely, our relationship has grown. My wife no longer needs to hide or ignore a part of who she is, and I have come to value her even more. She has come to know that I love her for who she is (with nothing hidden) and I know that she chose me out of all the people she knew – not just the men!’

So the assumption that bisexuals will always ‘need’ or ‘choose’ to have partners of both sexes is clearly not the case. In fact, I would argue that among Christians, almost all bisexuals I have encountered would say exactly the same thing. They seek to live faithful dedicated lives with their partner – whatever sex that partner is.

There are of course some who choose a different path – just as there are heterosexuals who decide (for whatever reason) to have ‘open’ relationships or join ‘swingers’ clubs. I personally do not understand such an ‘open’ lifestyle, and would say that is not what marriage is meant to be.

There also those whose marriages have not proved to be the life-long, life-giving commitment they had hoped, and after a marriage breaks down a bisexual person may then fall in love with someone of the same sex. But that does not make bisexuals greedy, indecisive, or fickle – just human.

All too often, Christians start at the wrong end of the issue. We get pre-occupied with sex, rather than starting with love. What most people long for is to meet the person who they fall in love with, and who falls in love with them. If that love is deep enough, then a partnership will follow, and for many, the desire to make promises to each other in marriage. This is the same whether you are gay, straight or bi.

The hard bit is to live out those promises (and not just the sexual ones) in a life-giving, life-long partnership – and that is exactly the same whether you are lesbian, gay, straight or bi. It requires commitment, dedication and the strength to say ‘no’ sometimes out of love for your partner.

The only difference between bisexuals and gay/straight people is that their orientation means the person they fall in love with could be of either sex.

Which brings us to the heart of the issue: being bisexual is about orientation, not about lifestyle. Statistically, most people are attracted to people of the opposite sex, but some are attracted to people of the same sex, and some are attracted to both. It is what we do with those attractions that matters.

It is high time that allowed bisexuals to be recognised for who they really are, not as some distorted stereotype. It is time for us to listen rather than assume.

As another Christian bisexual said to me recently, “I am bisexual and my lovely husband is straight. I do find I face a lot of problems if I am open about this, because of some awful assumptions and prejudices people have! Even in LGBT circles I (very occasionally) face problems because people think I am being dishonest or do not belong in a gay Christian group.”

It is time for bisexuals to be able to speak freely about their sexuality without having to battle with the prejudice which would keep them silent.

The T-shirts pictured on this blog are from The Bisexual Index, and are for sale!

There is also an excellent FAQ page which is an good place to find out more.

Employing the politics of fear ...

2011-06-17T01:21:00.001+01:00

It could lead to polygamy and incest!

Such was the cry from Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney when he spoke against gay marriage last week.

Such is the politics of fear which conservatives are now deploying in a desperate attempt to oppose same-sex marriage.

Others have used different prophecies of doom. One writer to the Church of England Newspaper recently claimed that research has shown that only 1% of LGBT people choose faithful relationships, and that accepting same-sex marriage would introduce a kind of institutionalised adultery into marriage which would destroy it from within. (As if there are no heterosexuals who engage in adultery, swinging, or shagging around!)

Of course conservatives have a vested interest...

For many years the most straightforward argument against same-sex sex was that marriage is the only appropriate place for sex to take place. As long as marriage is only be open to heterosexuals, this is a cast iron reason why sex between 2 men or 2 women could never be right in God's eyes. Put simply, the churches conservative voice has said to homosexuals,

"If you can't get married, you can't have sex - and, oh dear - you can't get married!"

You get the circular argument...

So the spectre of same-sex marriage is quite a threat, because it would remove this prohibition at a single stroke. This is why the big guns of fear are being rolled out onto the church lawn.

But what would really change if people of the same sex were allowed to get married?

Would the church's marriage vows change? Would the promise to 'love, comfort, honour and protect' each other disappear?

Would we have to leave out the promise, 'forsaking all others, be faithful as long as you both shall live'?

Would 'for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health' have to be watered down with something less demanding?

The answer is clearly 'No' because these are the promises which are at the heart of Christian marriage vows, and those coming to be married are not given the option to pick & choose which bits they want & which bits they don't.

It may be that the number of 'open relationships' among homosexuals is higher than for heterosexuals (although nowhere near as high as the scaremongers claim) but that is no reason to stop those who want to promise faithfulness through good times and bad. Indeed it is arguable that providing the opportunity to make such vows would go some way to reversing the moral and ethical vacuum that our blanket condemnation has created.

As for polygamy and incest, Christian conservatives and fundamentalists would do well to remember that a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve leaves little alternative to incest as the way the earth was populated - and there is a strong and consistent message in the Old Testament of male success being measured by the number of wives (not to mention concubines) that they had.

The truth is that our concept of marriage has moved on since Biblical times. Brothers are no longer required to marry the widow of their deceased sibling to provide for her. Abraham today would not have the choice of which wife to sleep with tonight. Jacob would not have to work for another 7 years to add the wife he really wanted to the wife he was given by deceit! King David would not have the option of coving up his adultery by marrying Bathsheba.

In the same way, the provision of same-sex marriage would be a step forward - not a step back - and would no more undermine marriage that the recognition of interracial marriage (which was only fully legalised in the USA in 1967).

So take your tanks off the church lawn, Dr Jensen, because they really do look out of place.

Now I know how it feels ...(a bit)

2011-06-13T09:32:00.000+01:00

This week I was told that I wasn’t eligible to volunteer for something because I wasn’t gay!

It rather took me by surprise. I was indignant. I felt devalued, disqualified, and stunned! Without needing to know anything else about me, I was told that because I was straight, it ruled me out from being a volunteer!

More than that, I was being ruled out because of a survey of opinion amongst the users of the group I wanted to offer my services to. Can they do that, I wondered? Isn’t that what equalities legislation was meant to stop? Putting an end to considering someone’s sexuality as a criteria for deciding if they were suitable?

Now I must stop there, because I have to say that having thought about it, I quite understand why this particular group has decided to only have gay volunteers. It is a confidential help line for gay farmers who were looking for volunteers, and thought ‘I could do that!’ As I live in deepest rural Dorset, and have several years’ experience of being a vicar to 4 local villages and their farmers, I felt that I might have some appropriate knowledge and skills to offer.

When I heard that all volunteers had to be ‘gay and out’, I asked why. The answer came back that people who had already benefited from the helpline felt that it was important that each volunteer should be able to truly identify with the issues the callers were facing. As a straight person, try as I might, I could not.

So actually, I'm cool with that – but the experience of being turned down (in this tiny way) because of my sexuality was a very sobering experience, and made me reflect on the way in which the church does this time and time again to LGBT people. Lesley's recent blog 'What does it feel like to be bisexual and a Christian?' revealed in graphic honesty what it feels like to suffer such discrimination.

It is only when we experience discrimination at first hand that we truly begin to understand what it is like to be on the receiving end of it.

I remember spending time with a black youth worker called Trevor in the West Midlands. He was (and is) a deeply impressive person – a former professional American Footballer and Rugby League Player, he was disciplined and committed, physically strong and athletic, and yet gentle and compassionate, always ready to listen.

On the way back from work one day we called at a carpet shop to get a quote for his flat, but the white shop manager clearly didn’t want to serve him. First he ignored him. Then he answered all of Trevor’s questions with one word answers, and when Trevor persevered, he finally gave an estimate that was 10 times more expensive than it should have been.

I was incensed with the blatant racism of it all. I felt like steam was ready to blow from my ears. I wanted to challenge the shop keeper - and in a less than constructive way!

But Trevor took it all in his stride.

When we left the shop, I asked him why he put up with it. He could have picked the guy up with one hand if he had chosen to – he could have intimidated him with one look – but he chose not to. The answer he gave has stuck with me.

He said that, “When you have grown up with that kind of thing, you learn how to deal with it. It becomes part of life - you can let it destroy you, or you can learn not to let it get to you.” But he also said, “With an attitude like that though, he won’t be in business for long.”

Sure enough, before the year was up, the carpet shop had closed down.

I wonder if there is a parable and a warning for the Church in that?

Time and time again we act with prejudice and discrimination towards gay people simply because they are gay. We make them feel like I did when I was told that I was disqualified because of my sexuality (but 1,000 times worse). All too often, we act like the shop manager, putting every barrier in the way to send the message "We don't want your sort here!"

So I wonder - if we don't change, how long we will be in business?

Communion from a Child?

2011-06-10T08:54:00.001+01:00

I am immensely grateful to Laura and her blog in Lay Anglicana for the inspiration for this post.

Some readers will know that I recently left full-time ministry as a vicar to spend more time caring for my wife who is partially disabled.

One of the benefits of this has been to see our children (aged 11 and 13) grow spiritually in new and wonderful ways. We have been attending a non-Anglican church on Sunday evenings and their radically inclusive approach has been a hugely liberating experience for them.

First of all they have been set free from the embarrassment of having their dad at the front of church, and the fear of being ‘picked on’ as ‘willing’ volunteers in the sermons! But more importantly, they have been included in leading worship in ways which would make most Anglicans mind’s boggle.

Not only have they been invited to present readings and lead prayers, but that have also been asked to celebrate Communion – and much to my surprise and wonder, they have said ‘yes’ with confidence and enthusiasm.

Now I know this might seem a bit of a stretch for most members of established churches. After all, most churches in the Church of England still struggle with the idea of children receiving Communion, let alone celebrating it! This has never been an issue for our children. When they were 2 and 3 years old, I became vicar of a church whose practise was to give Communion to everyone who wanted to receive it – whatever their age. So from the first time they held their hands out at the communion rail, they have been included fully in this celebration of the Body of Christ - but to celebrate Communion was far beyond anything which would be permissible in the CofE, so this was something quite new.

The first time they were asked, they simply used the Communion prayer of the church, holding up bread and wine, and then stood alongside the church Minister as she then distributed Communion and prayed a personal prayer with each individual, couple or family group who came forward to receive.

The second time however, they went even further. Instead of them celebrating and the Minister distributing Communion, they did both. As each person, couple or family came forward, they gave them the bread and wine and prayed for them. By the time we were all seated again, half the congregation were in tears – tears of joy and blessing.

So yes – I do agree with Lay Anglicana that we need to start at childhood to train our worship leaders of the future – and that might take us further than we could ever envisage. It has been such a joy for Mel and I to see our children blessed by the opportunity to lead, and it has been such a blessing for the church to receive this ministry from children.

Wasn’t it Jesus who said "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” Perhaps it is time we began to allow our children to show us how…?

Prevention or Abuse?

2011-06-06T08:37:00.001+01:00

I came across a shocking book last week which is being advertised in the USA. What shocked me was both its content and the person whose articles are promoting it - Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship .

The book is called "A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality" and is by Dr Joseph and Linda Nicolosi. Dr Joseph is described as a psychologist specialising in gender disorders.

The articles begin with the heart-rending story of a little boy whose parents suspected that something was wrong when he was aged just 5. He was playing with dolls, liked dancing and the colour pink. Nicolosi described the boy as a "prehomosexual male" and says that "without intervention, he had a 75% chance of growing up homosexual, bisexual, or transgender."

The solution for such boys appears to be intervention to 'interrupt an unhealthy mother-son bond" by replacing it with a strong but caring father-son bond.

He talks about the "toxic blend of sensitive temperament and an environment in which the boy does not receive affirmation ... to develop a masculine identity".

Leaving aside the many questions I have about these presuppositions, I am appalled by the potential abuse to children which this book could evoke. I have pictures in my mind of paranoid parents constantly assessing the 'risk' of their children becoming homosexuals - using the book to measure the percentage danger that they were facing. I wonder what lengths they will go to in order to 'interrupt the unhealthy mother-son bond' in children as young as 5 years old. I wonder how some fathers will take it upon themselves to be 'stronger', motivated by fear and prejudice.

When I first saw the article, I thought it must be a new book to warrant the attention, but when I looked into it, I found it was published in 2002 by IVP Academic (what were they thinking!)

I suppose that Chuck Colson thinks that this is a good time to push it again.

The whole premise reminds me of a time in history when left-handed children were forced to 'become' right-handed by having their left arm tied behind their back. Perhaps we ought to bring that back too?

As a left-handed straight male who can remember a time when I was interested in dolls, but who has never fancied a man, I think that this needs to be called by its real name - child abuse. Children need to be nurtured, not 'prevented' - they need to be valued for who they are, not treated with suspicion and fear for what they might become - they need to know that they are loved for themselves, not conditionally according to their likes, dislikes and tastes.

The only results I can envisage for Dr Joseph's patients are increasing inner conflict, strained psychotic parental relationships, and a whole load of therapy that will be needed in adulthood.

But Dr Joseph Nicolosi is not interested in wholeness in the way in which most Psychologists are. He is a founding member of NARTH which campaigns for 'Reparative Therapy' and 'Re-orientation' for homosexuals against the views of all the mainstream American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations.

In an interview at the launch of the book, Joseph and Linda are asked what parents should do if their child says they are gay. They respond by saying, "Parents can make it clear, lovingly, that they're grieved by their child's lifestyle choices. They can also clarify that they don't believe that that gay is ultimately "who a person is," in the deepest sense." So the appropriate response is grief, hurt disappointment, and denial.

Practising those views on adults is bad enough - but extending them to children?

That is abuse.

Genderless God?

2011-06-02T17:29:00.001+01:00

In one of his responses to my article “Towards a theology ofgay marriage”, John Richardson made the following comment…

Far from being ‘genderless’ however, this mystical union undergirds the very notion of gender – including the basis on which we call God ‘he’. As CS Lewis once put it, “What is above and beyond all things is so masculine that we are all feminine in relationship to it.”

While I do not have sufficient expertise in relation to CS Lewis to know what point he was trying to make, John Richardson’s comment did make me reflect about God as solely male - so ‘male’ that we can only call him ‘He’.

Many women have, of course found this difficult to accept, particularly since the rise of feminism. The Christian faith has come under attack from some feminists for our male only hierarchy and male God, while others have sought to redress the balance with prayers addressed to ‘Mother God’ or ‘Our Mother who art in heaven’.

It reminds me of a joke I once heard about someone who had died and gone to heaven.

He was met by St Peter at the Pearly Gates and given a tour of paradise. After being shown rooms for different Christian Traditions each with their own appropriate decoration, trappings and ornaments, the new arrival finally asked if he could meet God now. St Peter hesitated, and looked unsure. Finally he said, “Well I suppose so, but you will have to be prepared for a shock”.

The new arrival tried to assure St Peter that he was ready - that he had read his Bible and knew that he would almost certainly be overcome by awe, wonder, and godly fear at the sight of the omnipotent, great “I am” whose presence has struck fear and trembling into people throughout human history.

St Peter eventually agreed, but as they came to the door into God’s presence, he whispered to the new arrival, “It’s not those things that will shock you – you see, She is Black!”

The biggest problem with those who would want to keep God as solely masculine however, is that it simply isn’t Biblical.

Alongside the feminine pictures of God which appear in the Bible, (like that of a mother comforting her child or a hen gathering her chicks ) there is the clearest indication in Genesis 1 that we cannot restrict God in this way.

At the creation of human beings in Genesis 1:27, we read that

So God created humankind in his image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.

For me the Word of God here is very clear – both women and men, in all their fullness, are made in the image of God. Anything less would be to subtract from the Scriptures - and in a way which then affects our view of everything which follows, from Genesis 1 all the way to Revelation 22. For God to create male and female in his image, God must be both male and female in a way which transcends our limited human understanding.

But that does not imply a ‘genderless’ God anymore than same-sex marriage implies ‘genderless’ marriage. What it actually implies is a 'genderful’ God who is able to relate to both men and women fully, and with whom both women and men can relate fully without having to set aside part of their gender or sexuality in the process.

For me personally as a man, I have always been comfortable in calling God Father (while recognising that others find this difficult) but I have felt equally comfortable relating to the Holy Spirit as female and allowing Her to enrich my Christian life and faith.

She has filled my life with the presence of God, and She has made the reality of God more real in my life. She has led me in the Truth of Christ, given me Her gifts, and enabled me to grow in Her fruit. In all of these things, I am indebted to God, who is both male and female - Father Son and Holy Spirit.

I believe in a Genderful God.

(You might also like to see the response to this post on Significant Truths which expands and develops the idea of a Genderful God in a very helpful and creative way)

Archbishops haunted by a voice from the grave...

2011-05-26T18:25:00.001+01:00

So now we know what really happened.

A bad tempered Archbishop shouting and losing his temper; mature, professional people being reduced to tears; back room deals or ecclesiastical arm-twisting in the toilets; all to exclude a gay priest and a pro-gay priest from being appointed to a top job.

It is hardly the atmosphere that one would expect to find amongst the Church of England’s spiritual leaders as they met to choose the next Bishop of Southwark – one of the most senior appointments in the CofE.

Before yesterday, many of us who were concerned by reports and rumours thought that we knew. But last night The Guardian published a damning account of the last year’s secret meeting by one of the main participants – the late Dean of Southwark Cathedral, Colin Slee.

I knew Colin during my years working in Southwark Diocese. He was a complex character – sometimes brash and bombastic – at other times deeply pastoral – but always a man of huge integrity. He said what he thought, and told it like was, all through his ministry. The Church of England has been lessened by his untimely death last November.

But it appears that he has left one last parting to gift to the church that both inspired and frustrated him – the gift of his account of the 2 days last year when the Archbishops and the Crown Nominations Commission met to choose a new Bishop for South London. And now, following continuing disarray in the House of Bishops on the issue, his daughter has made the courageous decision to make the account public.

His account is not news to Lambeth Place. It is the same account which Colin gave to the Archbishops’ enquiry which was investigating the leaks which brought this shameful process out into the open. What is new is that ordinary church members and the public at large can now gain a glimpse behind doors that are usually guarded with such secrecy.

It is not a pretty picture.

When I first read the article last night, I posted a link to it on Twitter with the words “homophobic bullying” partly because I had also just seen a video account of such bullying that led a 15 year old to take his own life last year. The Guardian article smacked of ecclesiastical bullying, with the Archbishops at the helm. I also know some of the other people at the meeting. They are strong, self-assured and mature individuals, and the thought that any of them could be reduced to tears shows be how thoroughly unpleasant the atmosphere must have been.

But as I have reflected, I have realised how the reality is so much more complex than that.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is not homophobic. Nor, I am sure is the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu. Therefore by definition, they cannot be accused of being homophobic bullies.

So where did this all come from?

The real issue is the homophobic bullying that goes on day in and day out in the Church. Jeffrey John has experienced this throughout his ministry and particularly following his abortive appointment as Bishop of Reading in 2003. Other gay people have been systematically told that their ministry is not welcome in the church - or they have been told to keep quiet about their sexuality and relationships – to live a lie or face the consequences.

Even straight Christians such as myself, have been told that we are unfit for ministry and are wrecking God’s Church– just because we are advocating the acceptance of same-sex relationships in the church. Once at General Synod, an Anglican Church leader who really ought to know better, implied to me in public that I should be careful about my salvation (a thinly veiled threat if ever I heard one) and should remember the reality of hell.

If I, a mere nobody in the structures of the Church of England, can be on the receiving end of such pressure, what must it be like for Archbishops whose private views are so at odds with the repressive policies they feel they have to uphold.

And there is the heart of the issue. As a church, we have allowed homophobic bullying to become part of our institution – and allowed that institutional homophobia to corrode our leaders, our policies, our public statements, and our private decisions.

In the same way that the Steven Laurence enquiry came to the land-mark conclusion that the police were ‘institutionally racist’, so any independent enquiry into the Church of England would conclude that we are ‘institutionally homophobic’, and Colin Slee’s account of those 2 days last year proves it.

We have allowed the voice of institutional homophobia in the church to turn good people and gifted leaders into bad tempered bullies, desperate to defend the status quo, whatever that takes.

It reminds me of a quote which I came across last year when I was doing some research before a speaking engagement. It said,

"Considering all the evil that exists in the world, the fact that all of religion's condemnation is focused on expressing disapproval of two people loving each other proves just how evil religion is."

Until we make a determined decision to be less ‘religious’ and more Christian – to be less concerned with upholding our corrupted institutions, and more concerned with following Jesus Christ, we will continue to allow our church to act like a bad tempered bully instead of embodying the loving God who sent his Son so to bring us life in all its fullness.

It is time for change.

Enough is enough ...

2011-05-25T21:59:00.000+01:00

There is very little that needs adding to this video of a father talking about the suicide of his son following homophobic bullying.

I think his words put it best ...

"What I'd ask is that you share this video with your friends and ask them to share it too. If you are a teacher or work with young people feel free to share it in your school or wherever. If you are a young person feel free to take it school and share it through an assembly or a PSE lesson. If you work for a local authority use to raise bullying and teenage suicide as safeguarding issues. You don't need to ask my permission. Thanks. Roger"

That was awkward ...

2011-05-24T16:28:00.000+01:00

So says the new American billboard advertisement, following the no-show of Judgment Day last weekend.

Harold Camping is undaunted however, saying that his predictions have been right, except that his interpretation was more literal when it should have been spiritual.

"Judgment Day on May 21 did come", said Camping. However, he clarified that the Judgment Day arrived in a spiritual sense rather than manifesting physically.

"On May 21, this last weekend... is where the spiritual aspect of it really comes through. God again brought judgment on the world. We didn’t see any difference but God brought Judgment Day to bear upon the whole world."

Personally, I would go with the new billboard ... but hope that no-one spends $10m on the follow-up advertising campaign (like Harold Camping did before the 'big day'). I think that there are much more deserving causes in the developing world for that kind of money.

Doomsday and Dylan - something for the weekend..

2011-05-20T09:58:00.002+01:00

With 2 world-changing events scheduled for the week ahead, I thought it would be good to have something lighter for the weekend.

The first is the end of the world as predicted by Harold Camping - US Christian radio guru. This is the second attempt at predicting judgment day for the 89 year old, but undeterred by the embarrassing lack of action back in 1994, he is going for broke this weekend, predicting a world-wide earthquake, followed by the rapture as all true Christians fly up into the sky to meet the Lord.

The second event is Bob Dylan's 70th Birthday - who would have ever thought that he would make it this far? Mind you, if Harold Camping is right, he won't - because his birthday isn't til Tuesday.

But if we all make it to Tuesday intact, this is the song I will celebrate his birthday with. It's from the infamous 'Slow Train Coming' album back in 1979, when he sang and wrote about his new-found Christian faith in the same uncompromising way in which he wrote protest songs.

It's the last song on the album, and is suitably titled, 'When he Returns' (click to listen on Grooveshark)

The last verse says it all...

Of every earthly plan that be known to man, He is unconcerned
He’s got plans of His own to set up His throne
When He returns

Amen Bob - and Happy Birthday!

(Full lyrics are available here)

(Video's are hard to come by for this 1979 song so but if you don't mind the blurred image, give this one a go...)

An unfinished work ...

2011-05-16T21:26:00.001+01:00

I was very struck by my Bible readings for today. The first was from Acts 11 where Peter returns to Jerusalem after baptising the first non-Jews into the Christian faith - and wow, was he in trouble!

In the version I was reading from, it was particularly well put, "News came to the Apostles and the bothers & sisters in Jerusalem that even foreigners had received the Word of God"

Peter faced a barrage of protest on his return and he was accused with the words - "You went to the home of uncircumcised people and ate with them!"

This was a big issue for a 1st century Jew - even a Christian one. It was simply not done - it made you unclean - it crossed a line that it was not permitted to cross - it went against the Word of God! And more than that, Peter hadn't just eaten with them, he had baptised them! How could he possibly defend himself?

I began to think about this, and unless I am wrong, I can't think of any time when Jesus is recorded to have gone to the houses of Gentiles (foreigners) and eaten with them.

So the Apostles, brothers and sisters in Jerusalem had a point. I can almost hear them now saying "Jesus didn't go and eat with foreigners. You are not following His example. How could you do such a thing?"

And the facts speak for themselves. Jesus' relationship with 'foreigners' was ambivalent at the best of times. When he healed the Centurion's son, he did it at a distance. When he talked with the woman of Samaria, it was outside the town. When a Phoenician woman begged him to heal her son, he replied that it is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs! (But he did heal him, just in case you don't know the story).

Surely Peter should have limited himself to following the example of Christ?

Peter, of course did try to limit himself in such a way. It took God a fair amount of work to open Peter to the possibility of 'foreigners' becoming part of the Church. Three times, we are told that God showed him a disturbing vision, telling him to kill and eat unclean animals. Three times Peter said "No Lord!" (a contradiction in terms).

But there was more to learn about the inclusive love and purposes of God. More than Jesus could teach in those 3 brief years of ministry. More than Jesus' hearers could bear to listen to in their culture bound vision of God and the world. More than the early church was ready to accept, even after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Reaching out to, and welcoming in foreigners was the first step made by the Church in the completing the unfinished work of Christ. There were many others to follow.

Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch; Pauls mission to the Greco-Roman world; Thomas' journey to India which must have seemed like the 'ends of the earth' to him as he continued that growing understanding of what it meant to "Go and make disciples of all peoples".

There were pointers of course, like that final command to go - but we can always find ways to interpret these things in the way we want to. I can imagine the brothers and sisters in Jerusalem thinking "Yes but Jesus didn't really mean all people - he meant all people like us!" It took the continuing work of the Holy Spirit to break open what remained firmly closed.

The truth is that there is an unfinished work of Christ. Paul referred to it when he said, "and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church." (Colossians 1:24).

Our understanding of the Word of God and the teachings of Jesus is not yet complete. There are boundaries that we have not yet crossed. There are people we have not yet embraced. There is yet more to do, to bring in the Kingdom which Jesus talked about in parables and riddles - because it is beyond our understanding.

Peter did get the message, even though 3 times in his vision he refused to do what God told him to do. He did go to those outside - to those beyond the pale - to those considered not worthy of the grace of God.

And we still have our boundaries to cross - to complete the unfinished work of Christ. He may not have eaten with foreigners - but we can. He might not have appointed women as Apostles - but we can. He might not have publically embraced gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people - but we can.

The Gospel reading for today had one of those pointers which the early church was slow to understand - "I have other sheep who do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also."

The work of Christ is not set in stone - it is there for us to complete.

Life in a Sex Mad Church

2011-05-15T22:43:00.000+01:00

“The trouble with Evangelicals” someone said to me recently, “is that you can’t stop them talking about sex!”. Surely not, I thought.

I've had 2 articles published in the Church of EnglandNewspaper recently. The first was at the beginning of March about moving towards the acceptance of gay-marriage. The correspondence ever since has been both intense and constant. Every week there have been letters and articles in favour or (mostly) against the argument I put forward. We are now 2 months on and still not a week goes by without something appearing in each edition.

The second was potentially no less controversial. It was an article advocating a radical change in the culture of the CofE – from that of custodian for the historic buildings and treasures which it holds, to a policy of selling off whatever is not fit for purpose today, and using the proceeds to fund ministry, mission and evangelism! If we did this, it would release us from having to raise millions of pounds each year for maintenance, repairs and insurance, as well as providing millions for new ministry.

But what response has this article elicited? Nothing, zero, zilch.

Both were full page feature articles; both had the potential to arouse deep passions; both would cause controversy if they were implemented in parish churches. And yet the one the one which had the potential to completely transform the culture and ministry of the CofE appears to have one vital ingredient missing – SEX!

Perhaps my friend was right… If you want to provoke controversy, you have to include sex.

I remember when I was at Theological College 20 years ago, there was a book on the bookstall by Joyce Huggett entitled “Life in a sex mad society” (pictured). It was one in a very successful pastoral series where the author challenged much of the pervading obsession with sex in society.

Also at college with me was Joyce Huggett’s son, Kevin – and I remember the day when someone with considerable artistic talent did a wonderful spoof book cover which he placed around the book on the bookstall. At first sight it was difficult to see any difference. It was identical in every way except one – the title. Instead of being titled “Life in a Sex Mad Society” by Joyce Huggett” he had transformed it into “Life with a Sex Mad Mother” by Kevin Huggett! We all laughed – including Kevin.

Perhaps we need a new book today, “Life in a Sex Mad Church”. I am sure that it would sell millions, because it had the magic ingredient – SEX!

When are we going to get over our preoccupation with sex, I wonder? When are we going to start thinking about love rather than sex? When are we going to devote our time and energy to things that might really make a difference - rather than focussing on what people do in bed.

Last weekend I heard a pro-gay friend tell the story of an encounter with a sceptical evangelical who said that one of the problems he has with gay relationships is that he could not imagine what it would be like for 2 men to have sex together. My friend replied without hesitation, “So please stop trying!”

Say no more..?

A good day in Minneapolis ...

2011-05-13T18:10:00.003+01:00

Yesterday in Minneapolis USA, the Twin Cities Presbytery voted to remove a ban on openly gay ministers. The vote was decisive - 205 to 56 with 3 abstentions.

What's so amazing about that?

The significance of the vote is that the Twin Cities were the 87th presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in the USA to vote 'yes' to opening up the ministry of pastors, deacons and elders to gay candidates. And that in turn, is a majority in this denomination of 2.3 million members and 11,000 congregations - which means that the Presbyterian Church (USA) has become the latest mainstream denomination to accept the ministry of Christians in same-sex relationships.

Minneapolis has been the setting for a number of such momentous votes in recent times.

It was In Minneapolis in 2003, that the Episcopal Church voted to confirm the appointment of Gene Robinson as its first openly gay bishop.

Then in 2009, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted in Minneapolis to welcome gay clergy - and Minneapolis was also the venue last year for the Presbyterian General Assembly which voted to set the current changes in motion.

So perhaps it was a kind of divine coincidence that saw the Twin Cities of Minneapolis-Saint Paul provide this decisive moment for Presbyterians?

The road to this land-mark decision has not been quick or easy - the debate has taken 33 years, and will still cause some to rejoice and some to weep, as the church's website acknowledges. That long debate is summarised the book by leading Presbyterian, Jack Rogers - "Jesus the Bible and Homosexuality" - in which he charts his own journey from active opposition to advocate for change.

Rogers, who is Professor of Theology Emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary and was a Professor at Fuller Theological Seminary for 17 years, writes:

"It seems to me that the church and every person within the church is faced with a choice: to witness to an ancient Near Eastern cultural bias of male gender superiority, or to witness to Jesus Christ and his redemptive life and ministry. The best methods of biblical interpretation, from the Reformation on down through today, urge us to reject narrow historical bias and instead follow Jesus' example. The purpose of the Bible is not to weld us forever to an ancient culture. The purpose of the Bible is to tell us the story of Jesus' life, death and resurrection." (2nd edition, page 106)

Yesterday the Presbyterian Church took his advice and voted to replace the requirement that all ministers, elders, and deacons live in “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” with the requirement that they simply live in "submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ". In doing this they have removed a clause which was inserted into their constitution in 1997 to exclude church members in same-sex relationships from ministry.

The decision is not being welcomed by everyone however, and already comments on the Presbyterian Church's website give clear expression to the ongoing range of views on this new chapter in the life of this denomination. While some have rejoiced, others have reacted with anger, prophesying the demise of the Presbyterian Church as punishment for 'rejecting the Word of God'.

Such divisions have, in the past, led to formal splits amongst Presbyterian, most notably in the lead up to the Civil War. Then Presbyterians, along with Baptists and other evangelical denominations, formally divided into North and South over issues of slavery and racial equality. In that debate, the opponents of change were also convinced that such innovation went against the Word of God. The passage of time has shown who was right in that debate, to the extent that almost all Christians now accept, without question, that equality and inclusion in that area of human rights are an integral part of following Jesus Christ.

To quote Jack Rogers again,

'Those who choose to witness to ancient cultural bias will always be able to find certain passages, taken out of context, and turn them into church laws that benefit them and discriminate against those whom they dislike. Those who choose to follow Jesus will see Jesus as the centre of the biblical story and interpret each passage in the light of his ministry. Using this Christ-centred approach enriches our understanding of the gospel and brings us into a closer relationship with God and our fellow human beings.'

There are others in the Presbyterian Church who are pointing out that this renewed emphasis on the Lordship of Christ should be the central issue for all Christians, whatever side of this debate they are on. One web comment states,

'Submitting to the Lordship in Jesus Christ is covering all that it means to be a Christian - repenting, and being Christ like in our community. What this action does is remove the judgment of humans to what sin makes us fallen and therefore not worthy of God's Grace. We are all fallen (no matter the sin) and yet also worthy of our Lord's Grace. Dear Father in Heaven please forgive us our brokenness and help us to live in community to spread the Gospel. Amen.'

So what is the right response to yesterday's vote, among those of us who pray for such things? Celebration - certainly, but also openness and humility. Perhaps the prayer at the end of the today's announcement puts it best. It is not triumphalist or sectarian, but rather calls us all to continue to listen to each other and to God.

'May your Spirit of peace be present with us in difficult decisions, especially where relationships are strained and the future is unclear. Open our ears and our hearts to listen to and hear those with whom we differ. Most of all, we give thanks for Jesus Christ, our risen Savior and Lord, who called the Church into being and who continues to call us to follow his example of loving our neighbor and working for the reconciliation of the world. We pray in Jesus’ name. Amen.'

We, in the Anglican Communion, could certainly learn from that prayer. And if the Presbyterian Church can find a way to live out that prayer, then a good day in Minneapolis could become a great day for Christians everywhere.

Uganda - Urgent Action Required ...

2011-05-09T21:32:00.001+01:00

Difficult as it is to believe, the notorious anti-homosexual bill in Uganda which includes the death penalty for some offences and life imprisonment for others, has restarted its passage through parliament!

More than that - it could be put to a vote in parliament this week.

The bill which would strengthen the current laws against homosexuals, introducing the death penalty for 'serial offenders' and prison sentences for not informing on homosexuals, stalled last year following waves of international condemnation.

But according to Associated Press and others, a parliamentary committee has held two days of hearings on the bill, and it could go to parliament in the next 72 hours.

After the bill was stalled last year, a Ugandan magazine began publishing manes, addresses and photographs of people they claimed were gay with the message - 'Hang Them!' Then in January this year, leading gay activist David Kato was murdered and his funeral marred by the minister using the sermon to attack homosexuality.

The Anglican Church on Uganda's official position on the bill is to support the strengthening of anti-gay laws in the country while stopping short of supporting the death penalty. Many in Uganda and around the world however, believe that the Christian Church is colluding with those who encourage a climate of hatred and fear.

International protest has proved successful in the past.

To join the protest today sign the on-line petition at http://www.allout.org/en/petition/uganda

Please act now ...

Church Schools - Ethos or Admission?

2011-05-08T23:21:00.000+01:00

Interviews given by the Bishop of Oxford over the Easter period have highlighted the fact that there are 2 very different visions emerging for the mission and aims of Church of England Schools.

On one side of the debate, the historic approach currently adopted by the many Governing bodies – that Church Schools should prioritise providing education for Christians, preferably Anglicans. Those whose parents attend church are propelled up the admissions list, and the larger proportion of Christians associated with the school helps to maintain a distinctive Christian ethos.

On the other side of the debate, the line taken recently by the Bishop of Oxford, proposing a much more open approach to admissions, and calling for faith based admissions to be cut to a maximum of 10%.

The vision behind these proposals is that Church Schools should be part of the mission of the Church of England reaching out to all rather than providing a special service to the faithful few.

Having been in parish ministry for almost 20 years, I must admit that there have been times when I would be very relieved to forego the annual tide of letters and references requested in support of applications to Church Schools – often by people I had rarely, if ever seen in church.

But the future direction of Church Schools deserves a more objective analysis.

In defence of the status quo, are parents and governors anxious to see enough places maintained for ‘Christian families’ – i.e. people like them. They point out that church schools are permitted by law to set their own admission policy; that church schools provide financially towards capital projects, and that academic results are often higher than comparable schools in the same area.

Those who call for change point out that the education provided at church schools is still paid for by the state, so they should be open to all on a level playing field; they assert that the way in which church schools sometimes ‘cream off’ the best pupils makes it more difficult for other schools to get top results; they allege that non-church families can feel discriminated against or excluded from good schools on the basis of religion. As one comentator put it recently, "How would Anglicans feel if they could only receive treatment at 80% of NHS Hospitals?"

But what of the concerns of many church schools that the very ethos which makes the school so attractive would be somehow watered down or lost if admission policies were changed? If practising Christians were not given a priority & places were offered equally to all in an increasingly secular society, would the Christian ethos suffer?

The school which my 2 children attend in Dorset is a Church of England Middle School, providing 500 places to 9-13 year olds from a wide rural area.

Over the last 4 years, the governing body of St Mary’s Middle School in Puddletown has gone further than the Bishop of Oxford has suggested. It has removed all reference to faith from their admissions policy, not even reserving the 10% of places which he suggests. The admissions policy which it has adopted is now almost indistinguishable from the local authority schools in the area. Practising Christians are given no preference.

Yet at the same time, the Christian ethos has improved dramatically. In the Church (SIAS) inspection that follows Ofsted, the assessment has gone from barely ‘Satisfactory’ in 2007 to ‘Outstanding’ three years later.

To quote the inspector in last year's report, “St Mary’s has embraced its Christian character with enthusiasm and joy and firmly placed Christian principles at the heart of the school. The school is a community where faith and belief are a natural part of life and where children enjoy the opportunities to talk about these things freely.”

This has been made possible by a joint effort by governors, head teacher, senior management team and staff after having identified developing the Christian ethos of the school as one of the top priorities.

The RE and Collective Worship co-ordinator was given a place on the Senior Management Team. A chaplaincy team of local clergy and lay leaders was established to take responsibility for weekly assemblies and link to year groups. Most importantly, the concept of developing a spiritual journey for pupils during their 4 years at the school was established.

During their first term at St Mary’s, all year 5’s (age 9) are prepared to be admitted to Communion, and preparation for Confirmation is offered in their final year at school for those who feel ready to make this formal Christian commitment. In between, the pattern of collective worship and provision of RE aims to present faith in an active and dynamic way providing opportunities to engage in a wide variety of faiths with Christianity at the centre. Wherever possible enthusiastic members of churches and other faiths are used to express their faith in a passionate and open way.

Around 50% choose to be admitted to Communion and regular Eucharistic services are held for the whole school which many parents also attend. A few of these come to us from a background of involvement in their local church, but most do not. Engagement in the wider world is expressed in annual projects such as fundraising for Oxfam unwrapped. These are enthusiastically embraced by children and staff alike.

This co-ordinated approach has created an atmosphere in which "The culture of the school encourages students to develop their spirituality" and where "students respond to this with enthusiasm and confidence" (SIAS report 2010).

Neither have academic standards fallen. In common with other Middle Schools around Dorchester, almost all pupils leave with their attainment a whole year ahead of the expected level, and this has continued.

Of course St Mary's is not unique, and doubtless the same story could be told in many church schools up and down the country. But what this demonstrates is that it is clearly possible both to open up school admissions and to develop the school's Christian ethos for the good of all.

If church schools are to provide a truly Christian ethos, then that ethos must include following Jesus’ example of ministry of those outside the religious establishment. Our schools provide a unique opportunity to engage in the development of spirituality in each new generation. Parents of all kinds of faith backgrounds (and none) are making active choices to apply for places in church schools. If we choose to squeeze them out with admission policies which put them at a disadvantage, we shut a door which may never be re-opened in their lives.

AV or AV ?

2011-05-03T09:25:00.000+01:00

In the UK we are gearing up to vote on how we vote.

Yes – really – we are about to vote about how we elect our members of parliament. If we vote ‘Yes’ our traditional ‘first past the post’ system will be replaced by AV – the Alternative Vote system where we will place 1 next to our first choice candidate, 2 next to our second choice and so on…

The ‘No’ campaign has been energetic in their objections to this new innovation. It will be confusing, complicated and too difficult for ordinary people to understand. And because it will be too difficult to understand, it will put ordinary people off voting at all.

But the bottom line for many in the No campaign is a simple unwillingness to embrace change. They want things to stay the way they are, even if something new might just be better.

The irony is - there is another AV, which is much loved by people who like things to stay the way they always were – loved by the kind of people who hate change. This AV is being celebrated this year for its 400^th anniversary. But this AV is genuinely confusing for some, difficult for most, and has a habit of putting people off.

This AV is, of course, the Authorised Version of the Bible – authorised that is, by King James in the year 1611.

Not surprisingly, the English language has changed a bit since then. Words have changed. Sentence structures have changed. Nuances and idioms have changed. The language is still beautiful to those who have learned to love it, but most people find it obscure, difficult to follow, and generally off-putting.

I remember a elderly member of a congregation who completely stunned me one day when she defended the Authorised Version saying, "I like to hear the words that Jesus actually spoke." While few would be that confused, why not survey a few people around you to see if they know what these words mean:

‘Bewrayeth’ ( Matthew 26:73 )

‘Bolled’ ( Exodus 9:31 ) – no it doesn’t mean boiled!

‘Choler’ ( Daniel 8:7 )

‘Incontinent’ ( 2 Timothy 3:3 ) – where incontinent people are a sign of the end times

‘The price of a dog’ ( Deuteronomy 23:18 )

‘Redound’ ( 2 Corinthians 4:15 )

‘Spikenard’ ( Song of Songs 1:12 )

‘Or in the woof’ ( Leviticus 13:49)

So how did you do?

Why do some people still insist on using the AV in church? Perhaps it is because they want no-one else to understand – because they don’t want ordinary people to get involved. Perhaps it is because if you can’t really understand the message, it can’t challenge you too deeply.

In the battle over AV, we do need to keep the message clear, not so much in our method of voting, but certainly in the Word of God.

He's a Keeper!

2011-04-28T22:42:00.001+01:00

I have to admit that I am not a keen follower of Royal Weddings, but news of a slight change to the marriage vows in the service got me interested.

Apparently, Kate is not going to promise to obey William (no surprise there) but instead she is going to promise 'keep him'.

Is this a new liturgical expression that has found its way into the Church of England's biggest wedding of the year? And what does it mean? Is Kate promising to 'keep him' in the style to which he has become accustomed? I think that highly unlikely - as heir to the throne, surely it will be him 'keeping her' in the manner to which he is accustomed!

The word, of course, is not new - it appears in the 1662 Prayer Book where it is the groom who promises to "love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her".

Does that mean that they will be both be making the same promises to each other? For goodness sake, I hope so! The alternative, in the traditional language of the Prayer Book would have been for her to "obey him, and serve him, love, honour and keep him" which is a bit of a non-starter if you want an equal marriage.

Equal promises are the foundation of modern marriage vows, which see marriage as a partnership of equals, rather than a hierarchy of obedience.

But there are those for whom this concept is sacrilege! Women must 'obey' their men at all costs or else the whole fabric of the universe will be torn - God will be upset - and society is doomed to marital anarchy! (There have been more than a few such comments on the newspaper blogs already - see the comments on the Daily Mail article if you don't believe me)

At the end of the day, I am delighted that Kate is going to promise to 'keep' William, and I hope that he is going to promise to 'keep' her. After all, that is a part of marriage which is all too often overlooked as people give up when the going gets tough, or when the temptation comes to trade your old spouse in for a newer model.

I looked for a definition for "He's a keeper" on the internet, just in case some people wouldn't get the play on words.

I could only find one for "She's a keeper!" which went as follows...

"It means that he should keep her, and never lose her. She is a jewel."

I hope you are listening William!

Come alive!

2011-04-24T21:45:00.002+01:00

The miracle of Easter is not just that Jesus rose from the grave - the real miracle is that his resurrection means new life for everyone.

Beyond the Easter cry "He is risen", is God's call to us to take hold of this gift of life.

Today's song is the last in this series for Lent and Holy Week. It is by Foo Fighters from the album "Echoes, Silence Patience and Grace".

It speaks to me of the transformation which Christ's resurrection has made, and is making, in my life.

"I lay there in the dark, and I closed my eyes

You saved me the day you came alive.

Come alive!

Nothing more to give

I can finally live

Come alive!

Your life into me

I can finally breathe

Come alive!"

God's Easter call to us this Easter is "Come alive!"

Song for Good Friday ...

2011-04-21T20:50:00.000+01:00

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me!"

This was the cry from the cross as Jesus took all the pain and injustice of human sin and failing to himself.

Today's song is 'Iridescent' by Linkin Park, from the album 'A Thousand Suns'.

The whole album is one of repentance - not for the petty personal sins which we struggle with day to day - but for the sum of human sin which cumulate into global injustice, violence and war.

The album begins and ends with the lyric,

"God save us everyone

will we burn within the fires of a thousand suns

for this sins of our hands

the sins of our tongues

the sins of our father

the sins of our young"

When I hear 'Iridescent', I picture Christ on the cross.

When you we standing in the wake of devastation

When you were waiting on the edge of the unknown

And with the cataclysm raining down

insides crying "Save me now"

you were there impossibly alone.

And then the cry "It is finished" as the whole cosmos is transformed in an instant, with the impossible death of the Son of God. This greatest moment of sacrificial love embraces the moment of ultimate risk as he gives up his spirit, and enters the unknown.

And in a burst of light that blinded every angel

as if the sky had blown the heavens into stars

You felt the gravity of tempered grace

falling into empty space

No one there to catch you in their arms

Christ, both human and divine, draws the whole of human failure to himself,

experiencing the desperation that it brings, and as he dies, it dies with him.

But there is more.

As the song develops, it moves beyond the desolation which Christ suffered,

and begins to demand a response from me.

Do you feel cold and lost in desperation

you build up hope but failure's all you've known

Remember all the sadness and frustration

Let it go!

The challenge is for me to take what He has done for me, and let him take my sins away - let him take my hurts and fears - let him take the pain of everything I have ever done, and let it die with him, so that I am free to live a new life.

This for me, is Good Friday, and this is my song for today.

The real you ...

2011-04-18T19:34:00.001+01:00

I was struck during the Palm Sunday readings this year at how the crowds in Jerusalem greeted Jesus with ecstatic praise on that day, and yet cried 'Crucify' only 5 day later. What a turnaround, in such a short space of time.

My mind went back 25 years to when I was working with heroin addicts in Hong Kong. I was helping in a Christian ministry founded by a remarkable lady called Jackie Pullinger, who arrived in Hong Kong armed with nothing more than a sense of God's calling.

Several years later she had a thriving ministry among Hong Kong's numerous drug addicts and Triad members, who came to her because they had heard that there was a God called 'Jesus' who helped heroin addicts.

The part of the ministry where I lived and worked was a First Stage House, where the addicts came to live, straight from the streets - to come off heroin, and begin their new life in Christ.

Every evening, we would spend a good hour in prayer and worship, and I was struck, right from the beginning by the exuberance and intensity with which they worshipped. Their hands raised, they would sing at the top of their voices, and would pray enthusiastic prayers of thanksgiving to Jesus for saving them. The atmosphere it created was often so intense that it felt just like Palm Sunday - that if they were silent, the very stones would sing!

But life wasn't like that all the time. Like drug addicts the world over, they were skilled manipulators, determined to get their own way - often challenging, occasionally intimidating or threatening, and almost always lazy when it came to doing any meaningful work!

After a while, I began to be less enthralled by their worship and praise in the evening. Other thoughts started to creep into my mind like "How can you be so wrapped up in praise after the way you behaved earlier" or "You can't fool God - I know what you were like this afternoon!"

After one particularly challenging day, I began to tell God not to be fooled, because I had seen what they were really like. I guess this was the last straw for God, so he spoke to me.

"You see the real them when they worship me," He said. "This is who they really are - not what you see during the day!"

I was more than a little taken aback. How could this be them being real? What about the rest of the time?

Then it occurred to me. God, of course, was right. When they came to him, called out to him, put their faith in him, God had done exactly what he promised. God had given them a new life, they had been 'born again' - born of the Spirit. Their true identity was now in Christ, not in the old habits and old ways that were passing away. I had got things completely upside-down.

And we fall into the same trap too. One minute we can be praising God, and the next, doing or thinking something far less godly. When are we being real? Is the real me the one who responds to God in praise and thanksgiving? Or is the real me the one who falls into sin again and again.

Sometimes we get too hung up on our failings, thinking that they show what we are really like, but in fact the reverse is true. The real me is not the one who falls into sin again, but the one who reaches out to God - not because I have done something special, but because of what God has done in me.

I don't know if the people who sang 'Hosanna!' on Palm Sunday, were the same crowd who shouted 'Crucify' on Good Friday, but I do know this. Even if it was, the betrayal of Good Friday could not undo the reality of Palm Sunday, and the resurrection proves it. In God's kingdom, life is victorious over death, and forgiveness triumphs over sin.

So the next time we feel burdened by the ways in which we have let God down, or we feel that we are hypocrites in church, remember this. The real you is the one who comes to God in praise and thanksgiving. The real you comes out when you open your heart to God in spite of the ways you have let God down. God wants to see the real you more and more - and the old you will slip away.

Praise and Worship in the Walled City, Hong Kong

This week's song is... 'Your love is a song' by Switchfoot

2011-04-15T09:13:00.005+01:00

Keeping with the theme of God's love, from my last musical blog "My song is..."- this song is a womderful expression of how God's dynamic love surrounds us and enfolds us.

Sometimes it is only after times of brokeness or disappointment that we become open to God is a new way - hence the lyric "I've got my mind/eyes wide open" which echoes through the verses.

In many ways it remids me of the beauty of Psalm 139:

Where can I go from your Spirit?

Where can I flee from your presence?
If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.
If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,”
even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.
For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

For those who haven't heard of Switchfoot before, they are a Chirstian band from the US and this is definately one of their quieter songs...
The first blog in the series was My song is ...

Gays, Damned Gays, and Pro-Gays!

2011-04-13T18:41:00.001+01:00

Ok , it doesn't have the same ring as 'Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics' which came to mind as I thought about a title for this blog, but it does exhibit the same progression that is found in parts of the Christian church. In fact, it is fascinating to see how more conservative church attitudes to homosexuality are developing the same kind of hierarchy in levels of distrust.

On the first layer are gay people themselves (I use the word gay - by the way - as shorthand for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered - which I always find a bit of a mouthful).

This is the layer of openly gay people who are not currently in a same-sex relationship. On the whole they are tolerated by the Church. They are conditionally welcomed into most churches - conditional that they don't get into a relationship, of course. They are permitted to contribute to most areas of church life - join a home-group, read the Bible and lead intercessions. They are sometimes supported pastorally - mostly to keep them from getting into a relationship.

They are a slight cause of anxiety or concern, but are often used as an example in saying "We have gay people in our church", so our church is not homophobic. Dig down a little, however, and they are often viewed as a ticking time-bomb, which one day might explode with damaging consequences.

The next layer up are 'Damned Gays' who are the ones who are 'practising' homosexuals - whatever that means!

They are the ones who have the audacity to turn up to church with their partner. They are made to feel much less comfortable. They are often welcomed with that tense, surprised and nervous look by clergy and church officers who live in fear of what their presence might mean for their well-ordered church and congregation. They are often not allowed to join home-groups, not allowed to stand up and speak at the front of church, not allowed to be involved in lay ministry, but nevertheless are told that their presence is welcome as long as they don't rock the boat too much or talk to anybody. They are reminded from time to time however, that according to 1 Corinthians 6:9 they will not be inheriting the Kingdom of God - hence the title, "Damned Gays".

But there is another layer of mistrust which is gaining ascendency among conservative churches. And this layer is causing much more concern for those from a more conservative theology of sexuality. The name of this last category... Pro-gays!

They are being feared more and more, because of the damage they are doing to the Gospel. On the one hand there is less to attack. They are straight, often happily married, with families. They are amongst us as clergy, church wardens, deacons, or even Bishops. They are respectable people, not like those gays! They might be evangelicals, anglo-catholics, or just good old broad church CofE. England'.

But beneath this layer of respectability, they are more dangerous than Gays or Damned Gays because they have the audacity to be Pro-Gay. They are the real threat because they have no vested interest in seeing the church become more inclusive, and their presence is increasingly finding its way into the cross-hairs of conservative focus.

The appointment this week of Rev Nicholas Holtam as the new Bishop of Salisbury is just such a case. He is straight, married with children, and the vicar of a hugely successful church in central London. Surely such an appointment could not upset anyone?

But there is a darker side to Nicholas Holtam - he is Pro-Gay! And worse still - he has said so publically, is a member of Inclusive Church, and has welcomed such people as Bishop Gene Robinson to speak at the church! He has had the audacity to challenge the homophobic statements of the global south, and to genuinely welcome gay people in ministry and worship. Worst of all he has had the nerve to suggest that the biblical scriptures against homosexual practise simply do not apply to "baptised people in loving and faithful same-sex relationships".

And indeed the reaction from those who react to these things has been predictable.

The Church Society says...

"The appointment of the Revd Nicholas Holtam as the next Bishop of Salisbury is a regrettable and retrograde step. In his public ministry Mr Holtam has actively promoted erroneous teaching on the issue of human sexuality, which puts him at odds with the declared mind of the House of Bishops, the General Synod of the Church of England and the 1998 Lambeth Conference, makes him unfit for ministry in the Church of England let alone as a Bishop.

While Rev John Richardson, writing in the Telegraph says that,

"If I were a minister in the Diocese of Salisbury today, therefore, I would be faced with a real crisis of conscience."

You do not need to be a church dignitary of course to attract such questioning. In a comment to one of my recent blogs on same-sex marriage, the same Rev John Richardson wrote:

"When it comes to an issue as contentious as changing our entire theology of marriage and sexuality, the tradition should be our starting point, from which departure should only be made after careful, serious and collective deliberation. Importantly, this is one of those cases where private judgement must not be allowed free rein.

And that brings me to my question. You acknowledge standing outside the tradition (laid out in the BCP). But you are required to take the Declaration of Assent and stand under Canon A5, and I just want to know how you can do this. If you have changed your mind, fair enough, but should you not therefore change your allegiance?"

These are the kind of views which make many of us deeply suspicious of the Anglican Covenant - not for its intentions, but for the way in which it might be applied. Under the Covenant, Anglican Provinces which are perceived by some to have stepped out of line in their theology, practice, or indeed appointments could be similarly asked to consider 'changing their allegiance' but in a much more official way.

Such reactions do not, of course reflect the views of the majority of Anglicans in the UK who, despite wide diversity in their views on sexuality, treat each other with the acceptance and respect that Christ encouraged. They know that to have 'serious and collective deliberation' in the way John Richardson describes, requires people to be there to deliberate - not ejected or asked to change their allegiance.

As a member of the Clergy in Salisbury Diocese, I am happy to say that I am facing no crisis of conscience following the nomination of our new Bishop - just a sense of rejoicing that the Church of England has listened to the diocese and God in this appointment, despite what others might try to say.

Church, Tradition and the Bride of Christ

2011-04-11T09:02:00.000+01:00

As the debate continues in the Church of England Newspaper about same-sex marriage, I am grateful to Rev John Richardson for responding to my article - 'Towards a Theology of Gay- Marriage?'

In his article 'Changing views of marriage' in last week's CEN, he has clearly sought to engage with some of the issues and questions I raised, and he makes a number of points which merit a response.

He begins by noting that same-sex marriage would mean breaking with church tradition and the theology of marriage as outlined in the BCP (Book of Common Prayer). He then makes the argument that rather than looking at Genesis 2 as our paradigm for marriage, we should look to the marriage between Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5 as the ultimate paradigm. This, he argues, places a clear limit on our theology of marriage within the context of men and women with the ideal of procreation. (You can read the full article by following this link)

First of all, it is interesting to see a fellow evangelical beginning with an appeal to tradition. He rightly points out that the theology I am suggesting departs from the BCP emphasis on procreation and a 'traditional understanding of marriage'. This is indeed the case, and I readily accept it, but in the course of human history there have been many issues where we have changed our minds in spite of clear arguments made from both Scripture and tradition for maintaining the status quo - the abolition of slavery, and the church's insistence that the sun revolves around the earth are just two such issues that immediately spring to mind.

More importantly however, is the alternative (and indeed superior) paradigm he offers for marriage in the Bible - that of Christ and His Church.

While I am not convinced that Ephesians 5 supersedes Jesus use of Genesis 2 as the ultimate paradigm for marriage, the framework he puts forward does more to suggest a 'genderless notion of marriage' than to deny it. Why? Because the Church as the 'Bride of Christ' contains both women and men.

As the inspirational evangelical preacher FB Meyer puts it, in his devotional commentary on Ephesians - 'Redeemed men compose that bride'. Here is the context to that quote:

Here is a mystery indeed. That scene in Eden is also a parable. It was not good for Christ to be alone. He needed one to love and to give love. But there was none among unfallen angels that could answer to Him. And therefore God the Father sought a bride for his Son from among the children of men; yea, He took the Second Eve from the wounded side of the Second Man, as He lay asleep in the garden-grave.

Redeemed men compose that bride... Then the Church shall cleave to Him forever, and He shall cleave to her. And they twain shall be one spirit.

The fact that the Church comprises both men and women and that this (according to John Richardson) is the ultimate paradigm for marriage, suggests that marriage is indeed 'genderless' - it has just taken the church a long time to realise it (like the abolition of slavery and the movement of the sun).

No-one, of course would suggest that there is a literal 'sexual' component to the marriage of Christ and his Church, but that further calls into question relying on this paradigm for our full understanding of marriage. Indeed Paul says in Ephesians 5 that "this is a profound mystery". It is a mystery which we are still unravelling, and perhaps we haven't quite got there yet.

Play the ball - not the man

2011-04-05T10:58:00.000+01:00

It has been good to see the debate which my article "Towards a theology of Gay Marriage?" has prompted in recent weeks - both in favour and against the approach I put forward. The Church of England Newspaper has had a flood of responses, and over the last few weeks has been printing many of them.

On the first week, they were all negative.

On the second week, almost all were positive.

But then on week three, I noticed a change. There were two letters published which were less than gracious in their treatment of the issue. In fact they were not so much reacting to the ideas being discussed, as resorting to personal attack. And the attacks were not against me, but against some of those who had written in to support a more accepting approach toward gay relationships.

The letters they were reacting to, were both 'in favour' of examining a new approach to same-sex relationships, one from a gay Christian in a long term partnership, the other from an ordinand in training. Whilst these positive letters were measured and did not seek to attack anyone, the same cannot be said for the response.

The openness and honesty of the gay Christian was met by a one sentence dismissal of her faith, sexuality and partnership. Her courage to declare publically her sexuality and faith were simply put-down as being too ridiculous to listen to.

The ordinand was also dismissed in a rather disparaging way as someone who "no longer believes what the Bible says" - something which he did not say - while his evangelical theological college was blamed for "the sorry state of our church and nation."

Sadly, the reasons for this reaction are all too clear. This is an issue where feelings run so high that those who do not agree can so easily dehumanize those who think differently.

As another letter writer put it, "Unnatural relationships are constantly being discussed in your paper and horrible pictures of two men on a wedding cake give many people real revulsion." She had stopped seeing people - just visceral anger.

In such a climate, it is all too easy to (in the words of the footballing metaphor) play the man, not the ball.

For those not from the UK, this is saying which comes from soccer. It the temptation which a player faces when someone with the ball is about to get past him. Should he continue (probably in vain) to go for the ball? Or should he abandon the rules and hack down the player?

It is sad that all too often the debate over sexuality descends into this kind of dismissive and damaging exchange. It is not Christ-like. It does not reflect the Gospel of grace. It does not help us to fulfil Jesus command to love one another as he has loved us.

If Jesus had been talking to footballers, I am sure where he would have come down - "Play the ball, not the man!"

(With apologies to all female footballers for this terribly non-inclusive language)

My song is ...

2011-03-29T09:56:00.003+01:00

And now for something completely different ...

I have been inspired recently by a number of friends who have posted songs on their Blog's and Facebook pages. Some have really touched my heart - a good example is "Strumming my pain with his fingers" by Significant Truths - and they have made me reflect ...

Music is a big part of my life. It feeds my spirit and nourishes my soul.

It can also be a great release when things get too serious. I remember one evening when my wife was in hospital fighting for her life after her road accident in 2003. I had just taken our children to see her and the visit had not gone well. She had been given some bad news that day and was quite upset - she was also in too much pain to be able to hide it, and our kids (aged 3 and 5) came away from the hospital very quiet and withdrawn.

When we got home, I put a some music on. It was a loud raucous CD by Linkin Park. It turned out to be exactly what we all needed, enabling us to let go of the pain, fear and frustration that we felt. Before I knew it, I had picked the children up, one in each arm, and we were dancing like lunatics around the living room with the volume up as high as it would go. When the song finished, we fell onto the settee laughing and crying all at the same time. When I took them up to bed a few minutes later they both said to me "Daddy - that was fun - can we do it again?"

Often my Blog ends up being a bit too serious. It is often fed by observations of misunderstandings, injustice and prejudice. Yet the Christian Gospel is Good News. It is meant to be something which brings life, love, joy and colour to our lives.

So I am going to start interspersing my more serious Blog postings with something a little lighter - a song for each week. It will be a song which feeds me, which nourishes my soul, and just might do something for you too.

Today's song is 'A Message' by Coldplay, which was written around the a lyric "My song is love unknown" from the famous hymn. It speaks to me of the love that God has for us - constant, unconditional, faithful, life-giving, warm, refreshing, inspiring, healing, personal, inviting! As I listen to it, I find God singing those words to me.

It also speaks to me of the love which God wants us to live out in our relationships, our churches, our communities, our world.

Today's song is 'A Message' - Click below to enjoy...

For the next blog in the series click here

Bible says No - Part 3 - Corinthians and Timothy

2011-03-22T10:57:00.000Z

This is Part 3 in a series inspired by the 'Little Britain' sketch "Computer says No". It seeks to challenge the perception that the Bible issues a blanket prohibition on same-sex relationships.

You can read Part 1 here, and Part 2 here.

This time - 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1Timothy 1:10

The Apostle Paul has had quite a bad press in recent years.

As the Church has modernised its attitude to women, some of Paul’s statements have sounded antiquated, even prejudiced. Not allowing women to speak in church is one example that stands out but there are others. Protracted discussions about head-covering, and indeed headship seem a long way from the experience of many Christians today in an age of equality. And that is before we grapple with other enigmatic verses about women being ‘saved by childbearing’!

In some places, this has resulted in some aversion to readings from the Epistles. There have been services where I have almost heard a sharp intake of breath among the congregations when such passages are read in church. The fact that orthodox theologians have felt the need to address this in recent years in books like “Did St Paul get Jesus Right?” shows how deeply this has been felt.

But to succumb to such a point of view is to underestimate and devalue Paul’s contribution to the New Testament in a way which is far from justified. Alongside the few passages which seem to sit uncomfortably alongside modern understandings of society, there are a whole host of other areas where Paul’s radical and inclusive theology blaze a trail for which we should be profoundly grateful.

His uncompromising insistence of salvation through faith alone, freedom from the Law and life in the Spirit, are just some examples which are at the very heart of what it means to be a Christian. His beautiful and universal description of love in 1 Corinthians 13, quoted by people of all faiths and none, deeply inspires us and moves us.

And on a deeply practical level, all men have cause to be deeply grateful to Paul for successfully opposing those who wanted to impose circumcision on male converts to Christ!

The secret to understanding Paul is to discern between theology and cultural practise. Paul's theology is timeless and reveals to us in wonderful vivid ways the glory of God. His cultural practise on the other hand, is focused within the culture of his day, the culture in which he lived.

The theology we find in Paul’s epistles is truly remarkable. It is the theology of equality – in Christ there is no slave or free, no male or female, no Greek or Jew. It is the theology of equal grace – it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, so that no one may boast. It is the a theology that rejects the constraints of religious law in favour of being led by the Spirit – the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace…. against such things there can be no law. It is the theology of growing in understanding, not religious repression - for now I see in part, I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I am fully known.

We can only be inspired by the love and power of God at work in this most zealous of Pharisees, called while he was a persecutor of the church, and yet who, in God’s grace, became the Apostle to the Gentiles – those outside the people of God, who were dismissed and looked down on by God’s chosen race.

But alongside this, we also see Paul grappling with the cultural issues of his day, and the impact they had upon the new, fragile churches he was writing to. He was writing to a world very different to the one which we observe today. He was writing to a world which accepted slavery as a cultural norm, where spectators revelled in seeing death in the arena, and in which human rights were limited and dependant on political status. He wrote to fledgling Christian communities made up of Jews and Gentiles with very different norms and expectations about what was proper and socially acceptable. He wrote in a world where the religious practises of the vast majority of the population would seem bizarre and alien to us today.

So in the midst of all these issues, he tried to set down norms which would enable these Christian churches to function and grow in the Roman world, and yet not be conformed to it. This is where we find Paul's pronouncements on the role of women for example - statements that were motivated by considerations of cultural practise rather than expressions of the radical new theology of the Gospel.

He also lived in a world which he did not fully understand. Although he was clearly an educated Jew and a Roman Citizen, his culture was set firmly in the Jewish world, and as he went further and further in his travels across Turkey, into Greece, and ultimately to Rome, we find him grappling with the subtleties of Greek faith and culture as well as Roman politics.

It is within this mix that we find the briefest statements in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy which appear to address the issue of homosexuality. Today we will look at the 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

The first thing to notice is that the word ‘homosexual’ did not exist in Paul’s day. In fact it only begins to appear in the in English language in the 19^th century. The concept of homosexual orientation is one which is relatively new in human society. There was certainly homosexual sex in the Greek world which Paul moved through, but that does not mean that monogamous, faithful, committed same-sex relationships were the norm.

Same-sex acts of various kinds existed in the Greek world between teachers and pupils, in the military, in religious worship, and at the gymnasium. Even today scholars find it a huge challenge to try to unravel their complexity and significance.

But this is not the issue that Christians are grappling with today.

The overwhelming majority of gay Christians today are not fighting for the right to indulge in promiscuous, religious, or hedonistic sex. They simply want the church to recognise the same Christian ethic for them as for heterosexual couples, and increasingly want the same structures and sacraments to frame their relationships. This would not have been what Paul saw as he journeyed through the Greco-Roman culture of his day. What he would have been aware of, was the bewildering array of sexual activity which existed - much of which, as a Jew, he would have had little understanding of.

As a result, gay Christians have, for many years, said that they don’t recognise themselves in the things Paul writes about in respect to homosexuality (if indeed we can even call it that). Put simply, the things that Paul condemned are not the things that LGBT Christians aspire to today.

On top of that, there are considerable problems in translating the words which Paul uses. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 we find the verse, often quoted that says,

⁹ Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ¹⁰ nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (NIV, 1984)

But the words translated as ‘male prostitutes’ and ‘homosexual offenders’ are far from clear in the Greek which Paul wrote. The two words are ‘malakoi’ and ‘arsenokoitai’.

Malakoi also appears in the Gospels. In Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 Jesus asks people what they expected to see when they went to John the Baptist.

What did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings' palaces.

The word translated as 'fine' is malakoi. More usually it means 'soft' and was often used in Greek language to speak disparagingly about people who were soft willed, spineless, or lacking in courage. In English translations, it was not until the 20th Century that malakoi was given a homosexual meaning. What was more common before that, was the meaning found in John Wesley's Bible Notes. He defines "malakoi" in 1 Corinthians, as those:

"Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship"

Arsenokoitai is even more difficult to unravel. It does not appear in any contemporary Greek texts, and appears for the very first time in 1 Corinthians. One tool in discerning the meaning of words is to observe how they are used in a variety of contexts. In the case of arsenokoitai, we have no contemporary contexts outside of Paul's writings to compare. The only other use of the word is in 1 Timothy 1:10, where it is translated in the NIV as 'perverts':

⁹ We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, ¹⁰ for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.

This lack of comparable examples to cross-reference has prompted many to ask how we can know for sure what Paul meant by it, and how can we translate it with any degree of certainty?

The most likely explanation is that Paul invented the word, by putting together two words from the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22 which condemns someone 'who lies with a man as with a woman'. But as we have seen previously, (Bible says No - Part 2) this condemnation was almost certainly linked to religious prostitution and worship of idols. The command was designed to keep Israel separate from the dubious religious practices of the cultures around them, and free from idol worship.

This of course brings us back to what Paul saw in the Greco-Roman world. He would have been aware of same-sex acts in the context of Greek religion, Greek education, Greek gymnasiums - in short 'Greek Culture' - and he knew that the church must be kept pure from that in the same way that the holiness code of Leviticus was designed to keep Israel pure from the dubious practises and idol worship of those around them.

So if we can have any degree of certainty about these words, it is that they condemned the Greek expression of same-sex acts , which are very different in context to that of gay men and women today, in loving, committed, faithful, exclusive same-sex relationships.

As we try to unravel 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10, the case against homosexual relationships today becomes less and less clear. The words Paul used are either unclear in their meaning, or are simply not found in other contemporary texts, inside or outside of scriptures. Even Greek scholars find it hard to translate them with any degree of certainty.

I had always been told that ‘homosexual offenders’ in the Bible meant all homosexuals who had sex, regardless of the context, but I now find this impossible to justify. There is a world of difference between a man and a woman having sex together in prostitution, as opposed to marriage, and we would never dream of treating those situations as comparable – so why do we assume that all homosexual sex is condemned in the Bible?

If these verses can be translated in a way which condemns homosexual acts, then the acts they condemn are the wicked, immoral, idolatrous, adulterous expressions which the first part of 1 Corinthians 6:9 refers to - not the self-giving love that we observe today between people of the same sex who genuinely love each other and want to commit their lives to each other before God.

Next time - Romans 1 ...

When the world falls apart ...

2011-03-15T11:58:00.000Z

Like many people, I have been struggling to take in the awful events in Japan over the last few days. The scale of destruction, suffering and loss are simply too great to comprehend, even from the distance of being half a world away. What it must be like for those who are having to live through this disaster on the ground is beyond imagination.

But I have also been disturbed at some of the language which has been used in the TV news reports. More than once the scenes in Japan have been described as 'Biblical' by reporters trying desperately to find words to express the scale of destruction. "Scenes of Biblical destruction" is how one correspondent put it.

This disturbs me because destruction is not the first picture which comes to my mind when I read the Bible. For me the Bible is primarily about the story of God restoring humankind after the fall, not destroying it. And yet there are the stories of Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, and of course the prophecies about the end of the world. Is that the picture which others see first?

There is another problem of course. Describing the scenes in Japan as 'Biblical' also point us to that thorny question of where God was in all this. Did he cause the earthquake and tsunami - thus making him a capricious destroyer? Or did he just allow it - implying divine apathy? Was God powerless to stop it, or was it part of his plan - a divine wake-up call or punishment?

When huge natural disasters strike, they can often remind us of the lesser tragedies we have all experienced in life. The times when these same questions rear their heads to disturb us. The "Why me?" moments. The "It's not fair" moments. The times when the foundations of our world and faith are shaken.

My own experience of tragedy came on a sunny April morning in 2003. Like the earthquake in the Japan, it came out of the blue with no warning, as an 18 ton truck turned left without checking, and my wife on her bicycle was dragged under its wheels.

I was phoned by a bystander, and arrived at the scene just as the first ambulance crew arrived. I saw the scene of destruction with my wife lying on the road in the shadow of the huge wheel that had ripper her body apart, leaving parts of her strewn across the tarmac.

Over the weeks and months that followed, as she fought for life in hospital, I faced the same questions which the earthquake in Japan evokes in us. Some of those questions came from within - others from people around me. Some tried to encourage me with phrases like "It's all for a reason" or "God has a purpose - you'll see" as if some divine plan had caused or allowed the pain and suffering of this random act of negligence.

One woman in my congregation asked me "How can you get up and preach every Sunday after what has happened?". To this day, I don't know if this came from her own questions of what kind of God could allow this, or if she somehow felt this must be some kind of punishment from God for a secret and unspecified sin.

In midst of it I was angry at God - felt betrayed by God - let down by God - when I had given my life to following him, and all my energy to working for him. The least he could have done was to watch my back.

It took several years for my relationship with God to be repaired. Even now I struggle with those same questions when I see events such as those of the last few days.

As I reflect back, it was not those with easy answers who helped me during those dark days after my wife's accident. It was not those who had a reason ready to explain what had happened that eased my pain.

The ones who helped me were the ones who simply sat with me in the pain. The ones whose presence and prayers reminded me that God was there in the mist of the suffering, the anger and the confusion - even when there were no answers. The people who put their arms around me when I didn't want God's arms around me. Those were the ones who helped me come to terms with my own minor tragedy.

I have been surprised to see how quiet Christian bloggers have been over the weekend about the earthquake. Perhaps we have all been taking time to get our heads around it?

In fact this is no bad thing. Blogs can tend to be about quick answers and instant comment, whereas this is one of those situations where neither does any good, and those who rush in to make sense of these things are often those who do most damage.

My tragedy pales into insignificance when compared to the loss and destruction in Japan, but eight years on from the day my world was shaken, I simply know this. Bad things happen. They happen to good people as well as bad - and to the vast majority of us who are somewhere in between. They are often random, bewildering and unfair. Why does God allow them - I don't know. But I do know that God is there, wanted or unwanted in the midst of them, just as God was there in the violence, injustice and pain of the cross. He is not distant and aloof, and he shares our pain. And it is here that the Bible does speak:

"For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38&39)

Towards a Theology of Gay Marriage

2011-03-04T08:18:00.002Z

As the UK Government begins to explore the possibility of new policies on marriage for same-sex couples, do we need to revisit our theology of marriage and ask "Is it really as Biblical as we think?"

I often find myself feeling sorry for the Pharisees in the Gospels. It is easy to dismiss them as legalistic 'stick in the muds' but at least they tried their best to be faithful to the Word of God, and to hold the line against the secular influences of Roman politics and culture.

Their problem however, was that in their zeal to be faithful, they often got the wrong end of the stick. As a result, over and over again, they missed the point of what God was doing, and ended up fighting against His purposes in the process.

It was in this context that they ran up against Jesus over and over again.

Food laws are one example - their focus on clean and unclean foods led to a theology which implied that it is what goes into your body which makes you unclean, rather than the declaration of Christ that it is what comes out of your heart that matters.

The Sabbath is another example. They spent so much time and energy upholding the Sabbath that they transformed something which God intended as a blessing and made it a burden. What God intended as a means to an end - that we should have time for rest and recreation - became the end in itself. Again Jesus countered this by turning it on its head, pointing to the purpose of the Sabbath, rather than the institution. "The Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath." The Pharisees saw the 'end product' and allowed that to become pre-eminent, rather than seeing the intention of God. As a result, the need which God was addressing in the creation of the Sabbath became overwhelmed by their observation of the institution of the Sabbath.

But we too can fall into the same trap when it comes to understanding marriage.

In the account of Adam and Eve we find our paradigm for marriage. Although not the only consideration in forming our theology of marriage, it is the foundation which is taken up by both Jesus when questioned about divorce, and Paul in his advice to husbands and wives in Ephesians 5.

In the account we observe that male and female come together in joy to 'complete' one another, and become 'one flesh' in a way which is unique in creation. If we follow this form, then marriage must be between one man and one woman.

Such an observation precludes, of course, any contemplation of same-sex marriage. 'God made Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve,' is one way of expressing this, and silences all argument to the contrary.

Yet if we merely look at the 'end product' in Genesis 2, without seeking to understand God's intentions, we run the same risk as the Pharisees whose limited view of the Sabbath went so far out of kilter with what God had intended.

Genesis 2 is not primarily about understanding creation - it is about understanding relationship - our relationship with God, the world, and each other. Neither is it about procreation - the command to be fruitful and multiply is found in the first account of creation, not in the story of Adam and Eve. In Genesis 2, we find Adam created first and placed in the garden of God's blessing. He has everything he needs to feed his body and a pure untainted relationship with God to feed his spirit. Yet there is still something missing. God says, "It is not good for the man to be alone". There is still a need for another relationship to complete the paradigm of life in all its fullness.

God created the animals, but still no suitable partner was found. So finally God created Eve as the one who is "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh" and Adam rejoices in the one who completed his need for that unique relationship. In their coming together that 'one flesh' is re-united in what we call marriage and we can all relate to that yearning desire for the one who completes us - the one with whom we fall in love, and express that love in life-long commitment. Whilst we must recognise that not everyone finds their life-partner, there is always that hope, that possibility, of meeting the person who 'completes' us.

But what of those whose attraction is not toward the opposite sex? What if the person who we fall in love with - who completes that God-given need within us - is of the same sex? Does that negate the fundamental human need which God addresses?

Those who are attracted to people of the same sex still have the same yearning for that relationship which will bring a sense of fulfilment, a sense of completeness, a re-uniting of 'one flesh' from what God has created.

By focusing on the 'end product' (male and female) rather than the need which God is addressing in the Garden of Eden (relationship), we risk making the same mistake as the Pharisees did with the Sabbath at the beginning of the same chapter.

They elevated the Sabbath to monumental proportions because they thought it was something greater that our human needs, and Jesus had to correct them by reminding them that the Sabbath was created by God to meet human needs, not to be an end in itself.

When we elevate marriage to the same monumental proportions and restrict it to our observation of Adam and Eve, we need to be reminded that marriage was ordained by God to meet a human need, not to be an end in itself. This is radical thinking sure enough, but it is just as Biblical as the challenges which Jesus brought to the Pharisees.

Is it not possible that the yearning to find the one who 'completes' us is the same for everyone - gay straight, bi, or transgendered? Is it not possible that God's response to that yearning is also the same for everyone, irrespective of their sexuality - the opportunity of marriage for all, with the person who 'completes' them, no matter what sex they are?

Until we are prepared to look deeper, and frame our theology of marriage around God's purposes, rather than just the 'end product' we continue to run the risk of following the Pharisees, and completely miss the point.

(Also published in The Church of England Newspaper - 4th March 2011)