New jam - new jam jars...

It is good to see that the Churches in England are finally catching up with Jesus teaching on jam-jars.

In a landmark move, the Churches Legislation AdvisoryService (CLAS) has issued guidance to churches of all denominations, pointing out that EU(European Union) regulations now forbid the re-use of jam jars for selling produce at church fetes.  While it is legal to give home-made jams and preserves away in old jam-jars as personal gifts, old jam-jars must not be sold under any circumstances.  Even the great repository of wisdom and knowledge known as the WI, has confirmed this to be true.

The EU ruling is, of course, reminiscent of Christ’s famousteaching on wineskins.  “Who puts new wine onto old wineskins?” he asked.  “If you do you will lose the lot!”

Which makes you wonder – why did it take the EU to identify the dangers of putting new jam into old jam-jars?  Why did the church not recognise the problem decades ago?

The issues which worry the EU are, of course, slightly different than those that Christ drew our attention to.  The EU is more concerned with the hygiene risk of ‘old jam-jars’ .  Old bugs and bacteria might contaminate the new jam endangering those who consume it.  But the analogy still holds true when we look at the church today.

Churches have been putting the new jam of the gospel into the culturally contaminated jam-jars of the Victorian era for over 150 years and the results are all too obvious.  Young people stay away from the church in droves; deeper understanding in areas like gender and sexuality are contaminated by outdated Victorian values; and the result is often seen in virulent outbreaks of ecclesiastical nausea and vomiting.

The few young people who stay can also become infected by the same Victorian values which infuse those old jam-jars.  At best many seem to accept that this is quite normal – at worst some rise with zombie like conviction to defend views of which are un-Christian, compromised and arcane.

Yet again we find that Jesus was right.  Whether it is wineskins or jam-jars, we constantly need to put the new wine (or jam) of the gospel into the new skins (or jars) of the Kingdom of God today.

But sadly the church of today seems more attached to its old jam-jars than to the gospel.  No wonder church attendance is falling…

 

He's not even the Father!

One of my favourite Christmas cards of all time is a cartoon.

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

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

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

As we celebrate Christmas, we celebrate the eternal Son 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 the extra-ordinary into our lives.  He was born 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 a reality.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Genderless God?

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)

An unfinished work ...

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.

My song is ...

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

Re-Writing the Gospel...

I have struggled over the last few days with whether to post a link to this blog by The Satirical Christian.  It is a re-working of John chapter 8 where a woman who has been caught in adultery is brought to Jesus for judgment.

On the one hand, it is highly relevant to events in Uganda in recent times, and shows how easily the Gospel can be re-written in our own image.  On the other hand, it is not fair to single out the Church in Uganda in this way, as all of us have the capacity to use our cultural prejudices to re-form our image of God and the Gospel - often without realising it.

However, as The Satirical Christian says "Satire is always unfair, but that is why it gets under your skin and makes you think about issues in a different way".

So here is it, and I hope that it will act a catalyst, not just for our thoughts about Uganda, but also for our own reflection and self-examination, lest we find ourselves falling into the same trap.

http://thesatiricalchristian.blogspot.com/2011/01/gospel-according-to-uganda.html

One day when Jesus was teaching in the Temple, the teachers of the Law brought in a man caught in adultery.

They made him appear in the national newspapers and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this man was caught in the act of adultery, and we would like the law to demand that we should stone such men.  Now what do you say?"

They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write in the ground with his finger.  When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone."

Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, until one of them turned and said, "But Teacher, he was caught with another man."

Then Jesus replied  "Why didn't you say that in the first place?  Stone him - straight away, and go looking for others who have done the same thing, so that they may be 'outed' in Rolling Stone  too!"

"And when you take their funerals, remind their friends why they have been stoned, and tell them how he brought it upon himself, and how evil they all are! 

"For I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of being Gay will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who dares to be homosexual will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

And the teachers of the Law congratulated Jesus on passing their test, for confirming all their prejudices, and giving them an excuse not to consider the sin of their own hearts.

And Jesus said, "Then neither do I condemn you - go now, and be self-righteous in your sin."

Today I am ashamed to be an Anglican.

Today I am ashamed to be an Anglican.

The accounts of David Kato's funeral have shocked and depressed me as I think of his family and friends gathered there to mourn, but instead being subjected to a kind of pastoral rape.

Yesterday I wrote in hopeful terms that there was an opportunity for the Archbishop of Uganda to live up to the proud Christian history of his country, to bring peace in the midst of conflict.

His predecessors stood up for the Gospel and for justice, and some gave their lives for it - the church he leads now is doing neither.  The Gospel they have chosen to embrace appears more ready to condemn than to love, by its actions as well as by its words.  That is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The appalling way in which his funeral was handled has ensured that a new martyr has been born in Uganda  - and the role of martyrs has always been a powerful force in the spirituality of Uganda.

But unlike the martyrs which the Church of Uganda celebrates, David will be the kind of martyr who, like the prophets of the Old Testament, shines a light into the lives of those who profess to be God's people.  What will that light show?

It will show an Archbishop in Uganda who has remained silent, while other Archbishops speak out, and even Presidents express their deep sadness.  It will show a church which is content to Scapegoat a vulnerable minority, rather than face its own moral bankruptcy.  It has shown the world who the real 'violators' of Lambeth 1:10 are - those who refuse to listen to others - those who refuse to assure homosexuals  that they "are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ" - those who refuse "to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation".

Repentance is needed in Uganda - but it is not the repentance of the gay community - it the repentance of a church that has lost its way.

Today I am ashamed to be an Anglican.

(For an account of David's Funeral - follow this link)
... And if you have read this far, please go back and read yesterday's blog  'A Tale of Two Ugandans' which put this in context.

I agree with Philip Giddings...!

It has come as a bit of a shock, but I have actually found myself agreeing with the new Chair of Laity in General Synod -  Dr Philip Giddings!

It is a surprise because I have previously found myself at odds with Dr Giddings on numerous occasions.

Firstly, there  is the fact that he is a Trustee of Anglican Mainstream.  I have been at a meeting of Anglican Mainstream where he was nodding in approval with a smile on his face when a speaker from the United States said "the time is coming when you need to decide - if you are not with us, you are against us - will you stay, or will you leave the Church of England!"

Second is the fact that when Jeffrey John was appointed as Bishop of Reading in 2003, he was one of the protagonists who ensured that the Archbishop of Canterbury would force Dr John to step down from the appointment because of his sexuality.

But in spite of all of that, I find myself agreeing with the comments he is reported to have made following his election as Chair of Laity in the Church of England General Synod.

"Mission, mission, mission" were the priorities he set forth to the Church of England Newspaper for the next 5 years, and I could not agree more.  We desperately need to rediscover our mission of reaching out to others with the Good News of Jesus Christ rather than squabbling among ourselves.  Proclaiming the words and work of Jesus should be first and foremost in our minds as we reach out to a lost generation.

"We must continue to be faithful to the timeless truths of the Gospel" he said, and once again, I could not agree more.  Incarnation, Salvation, the Cross and the Resurrection are sidelined all too often in our internal arguments, and we waste far too much time bickering among ourselves, and far too little time declaring the words and works of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

So I agree with Philip Giddings in all the areas that are most important to the Christian Church at this time.  I want to see us focus on mission for the future rather that finding ways to preserve the past.  I want to see us proclaim Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life.  I want to see the Church of England transformed into a mission orientated Body of Christ, reaching others with the Good News of Christ.

And if we can focus on this together, united behind Christ as Lord and Saviour, perhaps there is hope for the Church of England and the Anglican Communion.

But if we continue divide over such peripheral issues as sex and sexuality, we will continue to undermine the Gospel that we seek to proclaim by our constant in-fighting.  In words of Jesus Christ, "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life" not "Conservative moral theology is the Way the Truth and the Life".

Please, Dr Giddings - could we just agree to follow Jesus together and let Him decide if we are right of wrong?  That would seem to be much more Biblical than the disagreements which, far too often, characterise our message.

Not Ashamed ...

"The Gospel has been under attack.  The Church has been under attack.  Christianity in our country has been under attack for decades."

Thus says the opening speaker in the promo video for the 'Not Ashamed'  Campaign which former Archbishop George Carey launched recently.

It has taken me a little while to get my head around this one.  I have been in something of a dilemma about the campaign, and unsure as to how to respond to it.

On the one hand, I am not ashamed of the Gospel, or my Christian faith.  I am certainly not ashamed of Jesus Christ my Saviour and Lord (although I often find myself being ashamed of His Church of which I am a part).  So from that point of view I want to join the campaign and state clearly my allegiance to Christ.

But on the other hand, I do not recognise the portrayal of a Church and faith under systematic attack for decades.

Sure, I have sometimes been ridiculed for my faith and know how to stand up for what I believe.  This was especially true back in my school days when my fervent teenage faith was a cause for concern in staff meetings, as well as attracting the attention of less caring class-mates.  But I wouldn't call that an attack on Christianity - merely the standard rigours of a all boy's school.

I didn't experience any such attack when I have worked with Local Authority Youth Teams during my training for ordination 20 years ago.  I have never felt under attack as an Anglican Priest, working in some of the most politically correct of London Boroughs.  I have not experienced attack when working with the Metropolitan Police in Community Groups where I always found an open ear when we were seeking to rehabilitate offenders who had come to Christian faith and commitment.

Indeed I certainly did not experience any attack on the Church or Gospel 10 years ago, when I served on the Government's Community Forum for Neighbourhood Renewal, along with a fellow Baptist Minister, and several URC Community Workers.  We were appointed among 20 others from over 600 applicants to advise the then Labour Deputy Prime Minister on urban regeneration.

I do not feel under attack or marginalised when I lead worship and Communion Services today for almost 500 school pupils at a time - by far my biggest regular congregation - or take weekly Christian Assemblies at non-church,  local authority schools.  Nor do I feel under attack when I am granted permission by ward staff  in hospital, to visit a patient outside visiting hours, despite the fact that I will offer to pray with that patient before I leave.

So I am puzzled when the basis of this campaign seems to be that the Gospel is under attack. 

It seems to me that the only times when the Church comes under attack are when we refuse to engage in equality legislation enabling us to claim exemptions and continue to discriminate against women and homosexuals - or when we try to claim a continuing right to unelected representation in the House of Lords in spite of our consistent attempts to sidestep the law on the basis of the Christian faith, and in opposition to public opinion.

If there is any sense of the Gospel being under attack in Britain today it is because we have presented a distorted gospel, more concerned with our own prejudices and self-righteous desire for power than with serving our neighbours in the love of God.

So on balance, I will not be joining the campaign, but I will continue to be completely unashamed of my faith in Jesus Christ, and continue to pray for a Church which will proclaim that faith without prejudice or discrimination.

If this link does not work please visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7oUbHBGOGs&feature=BF&list=MLGxdCwVVULXd23tdAi9Wn1WyvVA9TuysQ&index=4

"Bible says No ..."

(If the link above doesn't work try this link.)

I have had the first negative comment on my Blog!

Anonymous said ....... "You are an Evangelical and you presumably know your Bible yet you say homosexuality is fine ? Accept the people, sins and all, but the practice is not OK and you should know it. Goodness, there are plenty of Biblical admonitions about it. I`m not even an Evangelical and it seems crystal clear to me."

I am actually amazed that it has taken so long. When we launched Accepting Evangelicals in 2004, we immediately had a flood of the most awful emails expressing the hope that we would die a slow painful death and burn in hell. So actually, this mildly negative comment is not only long overdue, but also extremely polite and reserved.

What has not moved on, however is the mistaken belief about what the Bible does and does not say on the subject of same sex relationships.

Far from there being 'plenty of Biblical admonitions' on the subject there are only a handful of verses which talk about homosexuality, and understanding exactly what they mean or refer to is by no means straightforward. Yet the perception remains in many people's minds that this is an open and shut case.

Even Theologians who are committed to a conservative line against same sex relationships, acknowledge that there is not much in the Bible to go on. One such theologian is R.Hays, is quoted in the Church of England's official document on the subject "Some issues in human sexuality" (2003). He talks about the "Slender evidence of the New Testament" in relation to homosexuality -and he is right. It is mentioned on only 3 occasions, and only one of these contains any attempt to portray a theological explanation for why such attraction might be wrong.

The Old Testament is no better. There are only 2 clear references, both in the same section of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) and the second is merely a reiteration of the first for the purpose of setting down a penalty for the 'crime'. Other references in Deuteronomy are almost universally understood to be about temple prostitution whether heterosexual or (by inference) homosexual, so contribute nothing to the current debate on same-sex relationships.

Other passages - eg the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 - whilst having a sexual component to them, are not principally about homosexuality, but about rape, inhumanity, and breaking the laws of hospitality which were deeply ingrained in fabric and culture of the Middle East. Hence it was considered acceptable(even proper) for Lot to offer his daughters to be gang raped by the mob in order to protect his visitors!

On top of all this, Jesus appears to have been entirely silent on the issue, and if you are a lesbian, you can rejoice that there is even less to go on. Leviticus refers exclusively to men, and only one of the three references in the New Testament (Romans 1) includes sexual attraction between women.

So far from there being plenty of Biblical admonitions against homosexuality, the reality is that the Biblical evidence is both flimsy and fragmented. We need to delve deeper to see what exactly is being considered in those verses and to see to what extent it might apply today.

The problem is, just like the Little Britain sketch where the bank clerk says over and over again 'Computer says NO!' - there are many too many Christians who are content to roll out the same mantra time after time - 'Bible says No!' - without ever considering the evidence and what the Bible actually says.

That doesn't mean that what the Bible says is unimportant however. As an evangelical, I consider it vitally important to build my understanding of the Christian faith on the Bible.

So over the next few months, I will be using my blog to take a close look at what the Bible says on same sex relationships, and what that means today. I know, of course that I am not doing anything new here, as many have trod this road before me, but as long as there are people out there who think the same way as Mr/s Anonymous, I think it needs to be done. I just hope and pray that anyone in that position will be a little more responsive than the bank clerk in Little Britain.

To see Part 2 - follow this link

Open Evangelical?

"There are plenty of evangelicals out there who have left the door so widely open that they are virtually indistinguishable from... Inclusive Church"

These words were written recently by Andrew Carey (son of the former Archbishop of Canterbury) who is a columnist in The Church of England Newspaper. Like many columnists, Andrew Carey is often outspoken and I often find myself at odds with his kind of right wing ecclesiastical conservativism.

The context was his musings about the new Church of England General Synod which has just been elected for the next 5 years. It will be more Evangelical and more Liberal, he said, but then implies that it can be hard to tell the difference these days!

Now I have nothing against Inclusive Church - I do support their aims, and have attended their Executive Committee meetings in the past - but I objected to the way he was trying to say that any Evangelical who embraces a more open and inclusive approach has lost everything distinctive about her/his understanding of the Christian faith.

So I fired off a letter to the editor, and this week they published it ...

Here is what I wrote...

Dear Sir

I was fascinated by Andrew Carey's description of the new Synod (15th October) and in particular, his perceived overlap between evangelicals and liberals.

While I am pleased to see that Andrew now recognises the growing number of open evangelicals, I feel that he is perpetuating a mistaken view which is a grave danger to the Evangelical movement . That mistake is to define evangelicals by what they are 'against' rather than what they are 'for'. Any movement which is simply defined by what it shuts out is destined to a slow and painful demise. To seek to define evangelicals in this way will do exactly the same, and the church would be the poorer for it.

As a evangelical, I am for the preaching of the Gospel, enabling people to have a personal faith in Jesus Christ, and encouraging people to read the Bible themselves as the inspired Word of God. I believe that is at the heart of being an evangelical, and is a healthy approach which is, life giving, inspirational and challenging.

In an age where secularism is growing, and more & more people regard the church as outdated or irrelevant, isn't it more important than ever to be defined by the positive things we stand for, rather than by the things we are against.

I hope that Andrew Carey is right when he predicts a more evangelical General Synod, and I hope it will be indeed be a more open kind of evangelicalism, not simply the sort that seeks to shut people out.

(Thank you CEN)

Letting the light into our crowded lives

I have just finished cutting back the vines which grow either side of the patio at the vicarage.

Before you write to tell me – yes, I know that this is not the time of year to be pruning vines — but when we returned to the Puddletown at the end of my sabbatical, I discovered that they had grown so much while we were away, that we could no longer see out of the dining room windows.

Normally I train them as they grow, but left un trained and untrimmed they had simply taken over. Growing in all directions, filling every space, I couldn't help seeing a metaphor for our crowded lives.

Left to their own devices, our lives can often fill up with different tasks and responsibilities. The danger is that, unchecked, and untrained, we simply fill our lives over and over again, layer upon layer, until there is no space left. This is often made worse in our churches by the mantra, often repeated, "If you want something done, ask a busy person!"

In John's gospel, Jesus compared us to the branches of a vine and described God as the gardener who prunes the branches so that they might bear fruit. (John 15)

I wonder, however, how willing we are to allow God to prune our busy lives. Too often we have a tendency to want to hold on to the things we do. We are more likely to try to add something new rather than let go of one thing in order to do something else. The result is increasingly pressured and frenetic activity as we try to cover all the bases.

I wonder what would happen if we were to let have God free reign to prune where he wishes, training and directing our lives as he would want.

One thing I am sure of — that our lives would be less crowded and more fruitful as a result!

Having cut back our vines at the vicarage, I can now see out of our windows, and the light from outside now illuminates the inside of our dining room. It feels a lot less claustrophobic in there as the light streams in. I wonder how many of us would find the same if we would allow God to have his way.