Alleluia! Resurrection at Synod?

When the vote was lost for Women Bishops in 2012 I was shocked and stunned.  I was not alone.

The prospect of waiting another 5 years to get the same point, with no certainty of progress compounded that sense of depressing disbelief.

In response I wrote ‘Two Feet in the Grave’ as a response to the CofE’s uncanny ability to shoot itself in both feet, while standing on the edge of its own grave and then wonder why it falls into the gaping hole.

But I was mistaken.

Today after less than 2 years, the same vote has taken place again – and this time with a different result.  Somehow the Church of England has managed to rouse itself and move with remarkable speed (for an arcane institution) to overturn the bureaucratic processes whose tail so often wags the dog.   To those outside the church, this might not sound like lightening speed – but in ecclesiastical terms it would impress even Einstein! 

There is a wonderful parody of the hymn “Onward Christian Soldiers” where the verse starts ‘Like a mighty tortoise moves the church of God – brothers we are treading where we’ve always trod’.   When it comes to bishops the outdated sexist language of the parody was absolutely true – it was indeed brothers only – but somehow the tortoise has stirred itself to life and movement, surprising those who mistook its paralysis for death.

So perhaps I was wrong.  It would seem that in the action of falling into the open grave, the shock of shooting itself in both feet has resulted in a surge of ecclesiastical adrenalin which has brought about the first signs of resurrection.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t expect the CofE to instantly bound ahead with exuberant life, but with the advent of women to the House of Bishops, I am sure that there will be a new injection of life into this previously patriarchal tortoise-like institution.

The CofE has benefited enormously from the ministry of women priests, and now, finally, it will have the opportunity to benefit from women bishops.

Today the CofE took one foot out of the grave.  

I now look forward to seeing more signs of life the future, and for the resurrection to be continue when we stop trying to exclude people on the basis of gender, orientation, love and marriage - and start living out the life-giving, welcoming love of Christ for all people everywhere, with no exceptions!

Good News... keep it simple!

 In contrast to the Church of England, the Church in Wales got its act together today and voted for women bishops. 

What is more, there were no 'ifs' and 'buts' - just a simple one clause measure with the promise of a code of practise to be written over the next few months.

Simple...

Which might be why the Church of England keeps getting it wrong.  We make it too complicated, always trying to please everyone and ending up pleasing no-one.

The first meeting of the new steering committee on women bishops in England took place earlier this month, and the discussions were described by the press release as 'serious, honest, and constructive'.

Let's hope they were also brave and simple - just like the Church in Wales.

On a different note, I hear that Pope Francis has given up his bullet proof Mercedes for a 30 year old Renault with 186,000 miles on the clock.  The car was a gift to him from a elderly priest in northern Italy, in response to the Pope's example of humility.

Now all we need is a little humility towards the role of women in the Roman Catholic church, and who knows what might happen...?

OK - that's just a dream - for now....

Shhh - Don't ask!

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

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

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

This both extends equalities legislation and preserves religious freedom of belief.

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

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

"an application for the approval of a church or chapel of the Church of England cannot be validly made unless the application is accompanied by the consent in writing of the General Synod. That means that it will 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 become approved premises for the registration of civil partnerships without the consent of the Church of England as a whole expressed by way of a resolution of the General Synod. In the absence of such a resolution the Synod would not have given its consent for the purpose of the regulations."

And that goes with the recent statement from a spokesperson at Church House who told the press that "The Church of England has no intention of allowing Civil Partnerships to be registered in its churches."

So that's that then.  If Synod isn't asked - then Synod can't say 'yes' - so the easiest way of avoiding the 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 priests quiet for years.  Under this unofficial policy, gay priests have been allowed to continue in ministry as long as they haven't put their Bishops in a 'difficult position' by being honest with them.

Now we have a new variation - "Don't ask - don't know" - which will enable the Church of England to continue to evade the in 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-sex relationships.

But shhh - don't ask.

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.

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)

A good day in Minneapolis ...

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 ...

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 ...

He's a Keeper!

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!

Permission or Intimidation ?

This morning I was interviewed on TV with Chris Sugden, from Anglican Mainstream.

It was a bewildering experience. While the main action was taking place in a studio in London, I was alone in studio 100 miles away surrounded by remote control TV cameras, trying to take part in a debate with people I couldn’t see! It was definitely a learning experience.

But what bewildered me more was Chris Sugden’s assertion that Government plans to give permission for Civil Partnerships to take place in religious buildings was nothing more than intimidation. He implied that it was part of a co-ordinated campaign against the Church, (I assume he meant the Church of England) which was designed to coerce and intimidate.

While I found the surroundings I was in strange, I found his accusation mind-blowing. How can ‘permission’ be ‘intimidation’?

The fact is that there are many same-sex couples who would love to have a spiritual element to their Civil Partnership, but this is currently prohibited by law in the UK. There are also numerous churches (and other religious groups) who would love to offer Civil Partnership in the context of a religious service of blessing, but are similarly prohibited by law.

Last year, Lord Ali introduced an amendment to the Equalities Bill which would remove this prohibition by giving permission for religious buildings to be used and religious content included. The amendment was supported in a public letter by no less than 7 Bishops and many leading church people, and was passed by the House of Lords.

What the Government is doing now, is acting on this democratic vote to give such permission to those who seek it. This is the very opposite of intimidation, and will not force any church or anyone to act against their faith.

Yet clearly Chris Sugden and Anglican Mainstream feel intimidated by this permission. Why?

Is it because they feel intimidated by religious freedom? Is it because they feel intimidated by anyone who doesn’t agree with them? Is it because they are frightened of the differing views on sexuality which are present in the church? Is it because they are scared of people who don’t agree with them?

Whatever the reason, their attempts to prevent those who want to include their faith in their most important relationship, and to prevent churches from meeting those spiritual aspirations, are both morally indefensible and spiritually repressive.

Jesus had a saying for this kind of approach – “You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.” Matthew 23:13

I think the taxi driver who took me to the studio had the right question.

He was white, male, heterosexual, married, down to earth working class in his 50’s, and he said “What is their problem?”

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