Dreaming spires?

Crossing the Line - part 15

I arrived in Oxford in October 1982 with my grant cheque, luggage and  music – a collection of vinyl & cassettes, a powerful amplifier and huge speaker bought from my friend Neil who hand-made the speaker cab himself.

My parents drove me down and we went to the porters lodge to find out where my room would be.  I was given 8:2 – Staircase 8 Room 2 – and shown where to find it.  Most of the staircases were in Old or New Quad, but staircase 8 was tucked away between the kitchen and dining hall, up narrow stairs and room 2 was just below the roof.

The view from my window

I was amazed to find that I had been given a suite of rooms!  There was a large living room with a three piece suite, an old fashioned desk & captain’s chair, a welsh dresser and coffee table.  Then there was a small bedroom and a loft room, which would come in handy for storing my kit during the holidays.  There was a pleasant view over the ridiculously named Deer Park (a piece of lawn half the size of a tennis court) and the dome of the Radcliffe Camera beyond.  On a mild October afternoon, I thought I had been granted a taste of paradise.  What is more, there were just two rooms on Staircase 8. With no other bedrooms nearby, I quickly realised that if my neighbour was out, I could turn my music up as loud as I wanted!

8:2 up at at the top

The downside of 8:2 quickly became apparent.  The nearest toilet for students was on the opposite side of Old Quad which meant getting soaked in the middle of the night when it was raining.  Later I discovered the staff toilets for the kitchen which I could sneak into at night, as long as I didn’t mind sharing them with a few cockroaches.  There was a shared sink in a cubby hole half way up the staircase but no bath or shower nearby which meant another long walk for anything more than washing your face, but by far the worst thing was the heating – or lack of it.  For this big suite of rooms I had one 2-bar electric fire mounted on the wall and nothing else.  It was the kind of heater which toasts whatever is within 2 feet of it, but does nothing to warm the air.  Added to that, 8:2 was at the top of the oldest surviving part of the college, dating back to the 15^th century with no insulation in the roof above me.  Through the winter it was freezing!

My living room with the useless 2 bar electric fire

During my year in college, I learned how to make the most of it.  I bought a fan heater which sat next to my bed.  I could lean out to switch it on when I woke up and wait for the bedroom to warm up a little before getting up.  Even then it was not unusual to find ice on the inside of the lead lattice windows.  I also decided that, as there was no bath nearby, I was going to find the best bathroom in college to use.  Soon I discovered the sumptuous bathroom in Heberden staircase above the JCR (Junior Common Room).  I had a huge Edwardian bath, green tiled walls and unlimited hot water.  Bliss.

The first week was a whirlwind of new experiences. 

First, I had to obtain a gown and mortar board for matriculation (the act of joining the University).  Fortunately, there was an easy way to do this.  Every student was assigned a scout – an employee of the college who looks after you and cleans your room on the one hand, while acting as eyes and ears for the college on the other.  Writing this, I am amazed to find that the system still prevails today.  Gowns and mortar boards are bread and butter to scouts, and provide a handy income on the side as they supply second hand ones for a fee.  Gowns also had to be worn at formal dinner each evening, at the main Sunday service in the college chapel and at exams, so getting one was a priority.

Students were also required to wear something called ‘subfusc’ to matriculation, celebration dinners and exams.  For men this meant a black dinner suit, a white wing collar shirt and white bow tie topped off by the gown and mortar board.  I felt like a stuffed penguin from a cartoon.  Gowns were also graded by success and ability.  Scholars and Exhibitioners wore full flowing gowns reminiscent of teachers in the Harry Potter films.  Commoners wore something which looked like a half-shredded prop extra for a servant in a Dracula movie.  I was a Commoner, of course. 

The Matriculation ceremony itself consisted of being marched into the Sheldonian Theatre, listening to a few mumbled words in Latin, and then being marched out again.  Was that it, I thought.

Class of 1982

Brasenose was a fairly small college with about just over 100 new undergraduates arriving each year.  That meant that you came across almost everyone in your year – from the public school toffs who didn’t much care for anyone outside their social class to the more ordinary students like me.  I didn’t much care for the toffs and there weren't many, so that wasn’t a problem and I did discover that money doesn’t always make you objectionable.  In my first week, during an evening at the college bar, I had a wonderful conversation with a final year student called Henry.  He put this naive fresher at ease and made me feel welcome and listened to. When the conversation came to a natural end and he moved on, someone else came up to me and said, “Do you know his father owns most of Hertfordshire?”

I got to know my fellow Maths students.  We were a pretty disparate bunch of people but I formed a lifelong friendship with my tutorial partner Anne.  Nick, a friend from Bolton School also went up to Brasenose and through him I got to know the lawyers who were a much more interesting group!  I signed up for rowing, much to my regret at 6am on cold winter mornings in the dark.  I also joined the college record lending library which had two categories of LPs on offer – Classical and CRAP (Contemporary Rock And Pop).  I always borrowed CRAP.

The place where I thought I would feel most at home, was in the huge variety of Christian churches and organisations which buzzed around Oxford.  The Mathematician who had hosted us when we came for interview was also the co-leader of the Christian Union in college, so an invitation quickly came to that and OICCU (the Oxford Inter-Collegiate Christian Union).  I went along and met some nice people, but also felt that some were a bit intense.  I went to St Aldates Church which was the biggest Anglican charismatic church in Oxford at the time and had a famous preacher and author as its vicar – Michael Green.  I went to the college chapel where I met someone who was to become a major influence on my life and faith.  He was the college chaplain – Jeffrey John.

I even started going to Maths lectures, although I gave that up in later years.  I found walking into the Maths Institute was a sobering experience; finding myself surrounded by Mathematicians, many of whom were geniuses was quite overwhelming.

The central method of teaching at Oxford is the tutorial.  A couple of times each week, we would meet with our tutors in pairs.  Our tutor would give us work to do between tutorials which led to regular all-nighters for me and Anne before tutorials, to get the work done, fortified by Martini and Death Burgers from the all night van near the college. 

If we had a Monday morning tutorial there was a problem.  Anne’s boyfriend would often come over for the weekend and catch the early coach back to London for work on Monday morning.  Just after he left, I would arrive, so Anne and I could get ready for the tutorial later that day.  Invariably, Anne’s scout, Armando would see her boyfriend leave and me arrive.  He was Italian and although he had lived in Oxford for many years, he still spoke with a thick accent, sounding like an Italian version of Manuel from Faulty Towers.  After a few Mondays, he would pull me aside on the way up to Anne’s room and say, “I know sir, itz-a-right, I know” and tap his finger against the side of his nose as a promise he wouldn’t say anything!  No amount of persuasion would convince him that he had got it wrong.   My scout and I also developed a healthy relationship during my year in college.  I didn’t mind if he didn’t clean the room that well, and he didn’t mind if I broke a few college rules.

My biggest shock however, was the way different Christians viewed and treated each other.  I encountered a culture where Roman Catholics were not seen as Christians; where people were questioned to see if they were ‘sound’; where there were more churches and chapels than anywhere I had ever been and yet most tended to retreat into their own cosy silo, looking down with suspicion or derision on the other silos around them.   I know that Universities are hot houses of opinion and heated discussion.  I know that Oxford is probably one of the more extreme versions of this, with institutions like the Oxford Union embodying polarised debate.  But this ran deeper.  The latest intake of new Christian students seemed to be pushed into choosing an allegiance, then called on to defend it against all-comers, and recruiting more people into their religious silo.  It was more competing spires than dreaming spires.

I felt caught between silos. I was an Evangelical Catholic Charismatic Christian and I didn’t want to pick a side or be backed into a corner.  Coming from a year in the open environment of the Scargill Community where all views were valued and our commitment was to live together in diversity, I found myself way out of my depth amidst a clamour of different voices, vying for my attention.

At the end of my first term I returned home for Christmas and after a few days my father took me to one side.  He had noticed a weariness about me and wanted to know how I was really doing.  As we talked, he said to me “You look like you have lost your first love.”  Knowing the Bible verse in Revelation, I knew exactly what he meant.    In the visions for the 7 churches, the believers in Ephesus are commended for their hard work, perseverance and endurance, but then God says,

“Yet I hold this against you; you have lost your first love” (Rev 2:1-7)

I realised he was right.

While trying to navigate my way through the contesting voices, I had lost my first love of God.  I was becoming more wrapped up in issues than people.  Theological disputes were replacing life-giving faith.  I was becoming infected with a version of faith where being right was more important than loving others.  I had lost my first love and for someone who felt called to be a priest, this was serious. 

Paul’s words to the Corinthian church rung out in my head.

“If I have the gift of prophesy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.”  (1 Corinthians 13:2)

Whatever I did when I went back for my second term, I had to rediscover the love that is at the heart of the Gospel.  I had to resist the divisive intellectualisation of faith which I was encountering.   I had to find a way to be counter cultural.  I had to find a way to cross the lines that were being laid out for me by others.

It felt daunting; I worried that it would be a lonely road; but I knew it was what I needed to do.

Click here for part 16 - Seconds out... Round 2

Click here for an introduction to Crossing the Line

Wtfwjd..?

Recently Rev Alice Goodman has been propelled into the public’s gaze with her rather unconventional bumper-sticker ‘wtfwjd’. 

Apparently the sticker has resided on her car for some time without causing too much of a stir, until Anonymous of Cambridge wrote to a local newspaper to complain.  The story was then picked up by the Daily Telegraph, and before you could say ‘Holy Sh*t!’ statements were being sought from Bishops and Archbishops in a media frenzy.

The fact is -  vulgar words are nothing new in Christian circles.

For example, Paul used a word which could properly be translated as ‘Shit’ in the New Testament.  Talking about the righteousness he used to rely on before he knew Christ, he describes it all as ‘skubala’ compared to the treasure of knowing Christ.  The strength of this word is hard to understate.   Although our modern translations sanitise the word by translating it as ‘rubbish’ or ‘garbage’, it is really ‘street filth’ or ‘excrement’.  The King James version comes closest translating the word as ‘dung’ but in today’s language it would certainly be ‘crap’ and probably ‘shit’.  Yet imagine the offence which it would cause if we read that out in church…

“What is more, I consider everything as loss, compared with the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord… I consider all these things as shit that I may gain Christ!” Phil 3:8.

Then there was a famous Evangelist I worked with on a mission.  He was late for his opening address of the weekend.  Caught up in traffic, he arrived, hot, bothered and stressed, once the evening meeting had already begun.  He raced into the church and straight to the pulpit where he launched into one of the caricatures he used of a ‘man in the street’ to set the scene, but forgot to moderate the language, using the word “F*ck” as he laid the foundations for his address.  You could see people in the congregation, looking at each other as if to say “Did he really say F*ck in church?!”

And of course there is evangelical leader Tony Campolo, who has often begun speaking about poverty with 3 things he wants to say to Christians.

“First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation and diseases related to malnutrition.  Second, most of you don’t give a shit.   What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”

Which brings me back to Alice Goodman’s bumper sticker which (it seems to me) has been blown up out of all proportion.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t use the ‘F’ word very often, and when I do it is usually followed by a swift apology and silent request for forgiveness.  But there are more important things to get hot and bothered about.  There are bigger priorities for the church and the gospel than playing it safe all the time. 

And we do get things out of proportion.  If Paul can use the word ‘shit’ in his epistles to shock his hearers into taking his message seriously, then why shouldn’t Alice use another vulgar word to stop and make people think?  (Especially as most of the people who are likely to take offence would not know what ‘wtf’ meant anyway?)

Like the Pharisees of Jesus’ time, we all have the propensity to get our priorities so muddled that we miss God’s big picture while getting hung up on the wrong thing yet again.  

So I leave you with one more offensive item – the pictures and caption below.

 

 

 Wwjd?

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…

 

Not to be read by children!

I think that I was about 7 when by father made a serious mistake at a primary school service in the parish church where he was vicar.

In the run up to Christmas, in a talk on gratitude, he foolishly made the remark, “Of course some of us know who we really need to thank for our Christmas presents.”

The fuse was lit.

A small girl went home after school in tears because that vicar had said that there was no Father Christmas.  Her parents were outraged and rung the local newspaper who immediately picked it up and ran an article the next day.

Within hours of it going to press the vicarage was inundated with phone-calls from the press – local newspapers, nationals, radio stations, and finally, a photographer from The Sun turned up on the doorstep asking for a photo of my father and I playing with one of my toys from last Christmas.

In the midst of this the BBC rang the Bishop of Manchester for comment.

“Did he know” went the question, “that one of his clergy was going around telling children that Father Christmas doesn’t exist?”

The Bishop thought for a moment, and then simply replied, “I didn’t know that belief in Father Christmas was a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith.”

I have been prompted to tell this story because of news coming out of the GAFCON meeting this week.  According to the Daily Telegraph they have, ‘criticised what they called “revisionist attempts” to abandon basic doctrines on issues such as homosexuality and “turn Christianity merely into a movement for social betterment” during Dr Williams tenure.’

As a result they think that the Archbishop of Canterbury should lose his role as figurehead of the world-wide Anglican Communion.

Now there is a debate to be had as to whether it is appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury to be so caught up in the strife of world-wide Anglicanism that he (or hopefully in the future, she) is inhibited from displaying the right kind of leadership in the Church of England….

But... and this is a big BUT…  I have to ask the question,

Since when has a doctrine of homosexuality been a basic doctrine of the Church of England – let alone the Christian Faith?

Did Jesus say anything about it in the Gospels?  - No. 

Does it appear in the Creeds? – No. 
Does it appear in the 39 Articles of Religion or the 1662 Prayer Book? – No.

So how is it now being portrayed as a basic doctrine of the Church?

What is more, if this is true, it only provides more evidence that the Church of England is institutionally homophobic.  After all, if it is a basic doctrine of the Church, then our whole existence as a church has, as one of its foundational doctrines, an anti-homosexual faith.  You can’t get much more institutionally homophobic than that.

In truth, however, the traditional understanding of homosexuality is not a basic doctrine of the Church of England, the Church in general, or the Christian Faith as a whole.

Like belief in Father Christmas, it has acquired a status in some parts of the Church which might lead the unwitting observer to that conclusion, but to mis-quote a former Bishop of Manchester,

“I didn’t know that belief against homosexuality is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith – because it isn’t!”

Pain in the Body of Christ

I have recently gained a new insight into Paul’s analogy of the Church as the Body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12.

It came from a helter-skelter on the pier at Weston-super-Mare last week. As I reached the bottom of the spiral slide, it suddenly switched direction and I was thrown to the other side, and managed to crush one of my fingers in the process.

A visit to the local hospital revealed that I had shattered a bone into 3 pieces.  It was just one bone, and a small one at that, at the tip of my middle finger on my left hand.  It has to be splinted up for a month and I have been told not to use it.

But the impact on my day to day life has been out of all proportion to the size of the bone which was broken.

For the first few days, I had to keep my hand elevated in a sling to reduce the swelling.  I am left handed so I have had to learn how to do things with my right hand.  Simple things like brushing my teeth or eating a bowl of pasta have become a real challenge.  Typing with one hand – doing the washing up without getting my splint wet – the list of implications could go on and on.

And when I forget to be careful and knock my left hand against something – it hurts!

Just as Paul said about the body, “If one part suffers, every part suffers with it.”

Paul was painting this picture to teach us about the Church – different parts joined and knit together to make the whole – every part important – every part interdependent on the other.  When one part of the church is in pain – the whole body is in pain.

As I reflected on this I found myself thinking about the pain which the continuing controversy about same-sex relationships, Civil Partnerships and same-sex Marriage is causing in the church.  Which parts of the Body of Christ are hurting now in the midst of Government consultations, uncompromising statements by leading church figures, and banned bus poster campaigns ?

Certainly, there are gasps of outrage and horror from the conservative Christian groups.  There is also deep discomfort among clergy and ministers who find themselves having to face same-sex couples in church who might challenge their preconceptions or church allegiances.  But this is not real pain – it is the discomfort of a slight bruise or a shallow graze.

The real pain is amongst lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Christians who are constantly having their identity, faith and sexuality questioned – treated with suspicion, distrust or open hostility.  The ones who face the invisible sign outside many churches which says “Not welcome here”, or “Please find somewhere else”.  The couples whose love is not recognised or accepted by churches which refuse to pray for God’s blessing on their committed partnerships - or are prevented from doing so by authority or fear of others.

These are the people who are truly hurting in our current intransigence, and the hurt runs deep – right to the bone.

As a consequence, the whole body is in pain.  Just like my broken finger, that pain and injury affects the whole body.  Tasks which should come naturally, almost without thinking, become unfamiliar and burdensome. Some activities even become impossible until the healing takes place.

There are some in the church who say that they are fed up of all this sexuality stuff – “It’s all we ever seem to talk about” is a phrase I’ve heard more than once. “There are much more important issues we should be addressing” is another.  But like Paul said (and my broken finger bears witness to) when a part of the body suffers, the whole body suffers – even when it is a comparatively small part of the body as a whole.

The truth is that we will not function properly as the Body of Christ while we continue to inflict this pain on our gay brothers and sisters.  Our mission, our presence in society, even our message will continue to be severely impaired by this pain.

I like ‘The Message’ translation of the verse I quoted earlier (1 Corinthians 12:26).  It goes beyond most when it says,

“If one part hurts, every other part is involved in the hurt, and in the healing.”

The time has come for the Church to minister in the way that Jesus did, by focusing on healing rather than judgment.  It is time to open our hearts.  It is time to be the Body of Christ.

God of Conflict?

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/)

More harm than good...?

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

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

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

The UK Government has been consulting for some time on changes to the Civil Partnership laws that would allow CP's in religious buildings.  One of the arguments that conservative Christians have used against this progression is that such a change would ultimately 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 conciliatory article in which he describes attending a Civil Partnership ceremony and encourages Christians to "do all we can to be compassionate and generous in all our relationships  and not condemn or reject people on the grounds of their sexual orientation or lifestyle."

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

"A minister who refused to allow [a Civil Partnership] might be taken to court for discriminating against a same-sex couple...  We hope that the courts would uphold the churches' position but... as we have seen, they have the power to rule differently from what the politicians intended.   The Government says it has no intention of compelling churches that do not want to host Civil Partnership ceremonies to do so, but just one successful case could set a legal precedent."

For some in the church this is clearly a genuine fear, and Mr Weatherley's letter will do nothing to reassure them.  Others have used this fear as an axe to grind against Civil Partnerships, and the letter plays right into their hands as they seek to spread fear and mistrust.

Fundamentally however, his letter goes to the heart of the debate 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 who are rigidly opposed to same-sex relationships. 

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

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

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

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

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?

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)

Uganda - Urgent Action Required ...

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 ...

Towards a Theology of Gay Marriage

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)