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.

The Poverty of Riches ...

"While he was born in poverty and obscurity, far from the centres of earthly power, he was none other than the Son of God. Out of love for us he took upon himself our human condition, our fragility, our vulnerability..."

These are some words from the Pope's 'Thought for the day' message on Christmas Eve - the first such broadcast by the Pope on the BBC.

The 'thought' was gentle, warm and encouraging.  It pointed us to the Christ who came into our world to bring us liberation from death and  fullness of life.  It also reminded us that this liberation was not achieved by the politics of power or military force, but through sharing our fragility and vulnerability, and in the end by making the ultimate sacrifice in a shameful death on the cross.

It was all very inspirational - but there was one thing which made me uncomfortable as he spoke.

It was the thought of the Pope speaking of a Christ 'born in poverty and obscurity' in the midst of the opulence of the Vatican.  In my mental picture, there he was,  surrounded by priceless art and artefacts, supported by a huge financial machine, speaking of the poverty of Christ's birth - and that picture laid bare a worrying discontinuity in the message which can so easily undermine our proclamation of Jesus Christ.

This discontinuity is high-lighted by one anonymous observer who posted a comment on the Vatican Information Service website earlier this year.  As it emerged that the Holy See had made a £7m loss, partly due to "the considerable economic and financial burden of protecting, evaluating and restoring the artistic heritage of the Holy See", the observer wrote,

"Thank God no shortfalls were caused by charitable works among the poor, oppressed or persecuted. Layers of paper pushers and facilities beautification are far more worthy of capital expenditures."

Whilst there is probably an injustice in this comment, when other charitable works of the Roman Catholic Church are taken into account, the point is well made - how can we preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who was born and lived a life of poverty and vulnerability, culminating in the cross, when the church surrounds itself with the trappings of riches and security?

Nor is this just a Roman Catholic problem.  Evangelical and Pentecostal mega-churches in the USA build huge buildings to accommodate their growing congregations.  They set up Satellite TV Stations to preach the Gospel, and then they use them to appeal for money to keep the whole thing going!

Nor are we immune from the issue in the Church of England.  Although many parishes struggle to pay their way, pleading for ever increasing donations from their congregations, the Church Commissioners are charged with investing their portfolio of £4.8 billion to provide financial security for the Church in funding Bishops, Cathedrals, ministry and past pensions.

Included among its commitments are historic Bishop's palaces which are a world away from the stable in Bethlehem where our Lord and Saviour was born 'in poverty and obscurity'.

There are also major works of art like the Zurburan paintings at Bishop Auckland which the Commissioners are proposing to sell, not just because of their potential £15m price tag, but also because of the £60K each year which it costs to insure them.  This cost however, is dwarfed by the cost of maintaining Auckland Castle, the Bishop's Palace, with its state rooms and 800 acres of parkland. 

Arguments rage from time to time about whether this is a good use of the Church Commissioners money (and my own belief is that they should be sold) but even then, the money raised will go to give the church financial security, not to meet the needs of the poor or disadvantaged.

The Church Commissioners' task is to make as much money as possible without being so unethical that it becomes an embarrassment for the church.  The primacy of this requirement has been demonstrated in the last 10 years, as the Commissioners have disposed of the social housing legacy entrusted to them by Octavia Hill, that great Victorian housing reformer.  The affordable housing estates which the Commissioners owned in London were sold off, not because they didn't make money, but because they didn't make enough money.   The need to maximise financial returns for the Church did not allow for any deviation which would accept lower profits while providing low cost housing for the less well off.

So we too are mired in the same discontinuity that the Pope's thought uncovered.

Nor are the issues of historic treasures limited to the Church Commissioners.  Many churches up and down the UK are custodians of ancient art, silver or gold which cannot be sold, even to support ministry.  I was at a UPA church in South East London some years ago when they wanted to sell some historic silver to pay for a community project.  The silver was so valuable that the insurers insisted it be kept in a bank vault down the road.  It was never seen by the congregation or used in church, but like so many others, the application to auction it was refused by the Diocese.

We preach the Good News of Christ, the servant King, dependant on God and on others, living amongst the poor and the outcast.  People continue to be inspired and challenged by this Christ - the Christ who puts the needs of others first.  The Christ who told the story about the Rich Man and Lazarus.  The Christ who told the rich young ruler to sell everything and give to the poor before coming and following him.  The Christ whose only possessions at the cross were the clothes he stood up in.  The Christ who said "Do not worry about what you will eat, drink, or wear - seek first the Kingdom of God".

Yet we do this surrounded by the historic wealth of an established church and by valuable art and artefacts, (which drain our resources as we take on the role of custodian).  In worship, our Bishops are presented to the world resplendent in fine robes of state wearing lofty mitres as symbols of authority.  And in finance, we seek the same security as any other worldly institution.

This image does not inspire or challenge.  In fact it stretches the authenticity of the Christian Gospel to breaking point, and causes many to dismiss the Church, even if they are attracted to Christ.

If we are to be a more Christ-like church, perhaps we need to be more centred on giving then receiving - in providing security and stability for others rather than for ourselves.  Perhaps we need to let go of the riches of the past - perhaps we need to stop being custodians of art and history - and focus on the needs of the living.

To quote some of the less comfortable words of Christ, "Let the dead bury the dead - you come and follow me!"

(For a lighter look at Church Commissioners Housing Policy and the Zurburan paintings see  The Satirical Christian)

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

I'm dreaming of a white (black, gay, straight, gypsy, immigrant, rich, poor) Christmas ...

As we approach Christmas, our thoughts naturally turn to the ones we love.  Family, friends, & neighbours all feature in our minds as we write our Christmas cards, buy gifts and wrap presents.

But there is so much more to the Christmas story.

There is politics, military occupation, rough-sleeping shepherds, migrant foreigners, and in the end, a family of refugees forced to become asylum seekers.  Not quite the snowy scene of a Christmas card.

And there is plenty of prejudice, injustice, abuse of power, and vulnerability to go around.

Yet Christ came to challenge all these things.  In his birth, he challenges all our pre-conceptions about who is, and is not important in God's eyes.  In those who responded to the call to worship the baby , God challenges our attitudes to wanderers, foreigners and those of other faiths.  In the actions of the powerful, God shows us the futility of earthly power and authority.

In Christ's birth, he challenges us to a new way of looking at the world where everyone is valued, and all have a part in God's plan, irrespective of the prejudices of others.

So who will we have in mind as we hear the Christmas story this year?   People  like us, or people very different to us?  Whoever they may be.