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 ...

Church Schools - Ethos or Admission?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AV or AV ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Bewrayeth’       ( Matthew 26:73 )

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

‘Choler’                ( Daniel 8:7 )

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

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

‘Redound’           ( 2 Corinthians 4:15 )

‘Spikenard’         ( Song of Songs 1:12 )

‘Or in the woof’  ( Leviticus 13:49)

So how did you do?

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

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