All Soul's Service

Did I mention that I am a soppy git? I helped with an All Souls Service tonight and this made me cry: 

At an airport I overheard a father and daughter in their last moments together. They had announced her plane's departure and standing near the door, he said to his daughter, "I love you, I wish you enough." 

She said, "Daddy, our life together has been more than enough. Your love is all I ever needed. I wish you enough, too, Daddy." They kissed good-bye and she left. 

He walked over toward the window where I was seated. Standing there I could see he wanted and needed to cry. I tried not to intrude on his privacy, but he welcomed me in by asking, "Did you ever say good-bye to someone knowing it would be forever?" "Yes, I have," I replied. 

Saying that brought back memories I had of expressing my love and appreciation for all my Dad had done for me. Recognizing that his days were limited, I took the time to tell him face to face how much he meant to me. So I knew what this man was experiencing. 

"Forgive me for asking, but why is this a forever good-bye?" I asked. 

"I am old and she lives much too far away. I have challenges ahead and the reality is, her next trip back will be for my funeral, " he said. 

"When you were saying good-bye I heard you say, 'I wish you enough.' May I ask what that means?" 

He began to smile. "That's a wish that has been handed down from other generations. My parents used to say it to everyone." He paused for a moment and looking up as if trying to remember it in detail, he smiled even more.

"When we said 'I wish you enough,' we were wanting the other person to have a life filled with enough good things to sustain them," he continued and then turning toward me he shared the following as if he were reciting it from memory.

"I wish you enough sun to keep your attitude bright. 

I wish you enough rain to appreciate the sun more. 

I wish you enough happiness to keep your spirit alive. 

I wish you enough pain so that the smallest joys in life appear much bigger. 

I wish you enough gain to satisfy your wanting. 

I wish you enough loss to appreciate all that you possess. 

I wish enough "Hello's" to get you through the final "Good-bye." 

He then began to sob and walked away.

Welcome to Crazytown

h/t An Inch at A Time

No real idea what this is about, but it made me laugh

Out of context

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.

The Bible can easily be misunderstood to mean things that it doesn't!  Take the quote above (no, it isn't from the Bible, although given First Century social behaviour it could well have been), who do you think wrote it and why?  I could easily believe that it was written by a socially conservative group who did so to restrict the rights of those against marriage and LGBT people.  If something isn't read in context then the wrong message can be taken from it.

These particular words are taken from the UN Declaration on Human Rights, article 16.3.  Read in that context they would not be at all discriminatory.

Taking odd verses from the Bible is to take them out of context, and I would argue that the context is that Jesus was always on the side of the excluded and marginalised, and against the pious and judgemental people if the time.

I have been told (but can't verify the quote) that John Fenton said something along the lines of: If you draw a circle to separate those inside the church from those outside of it you will find Jesus on the outside.  Then on Bishop Alans blog on the covenant Jonathan Jennings wrote "By the time we need to define 'what it is to be Anglican' because we fear that some folks have stopped being Anglican, we've all stopped being Anglican ...".

The Goodies on the Covenant

Those encouraging support for the covenant say that it is no threat to anyone - just like a kitten.

Sleeping Together and Social Networking

I was recently talking to some young people at University and it became apparent that in their generation when people say they slept together, very often, that is what they mean!  Apparently when friends come to stay and there is no spare bed available they just share, male, female, two, three, four, no one seems to mind.  The only caveat appears to be no sharing with a couple who are sexually active!

I pondered for a while why this was news to me, and wondered whether it is that I am old enough for sleeping together to have been a big deal that would only be done if there were some form of commitment, whereas today there is no stigma attached to this (at least by the peer group) so there is no reason not to do it.  Was it happening way back in the mists of time or is this something new?

They asked me what I did when I was at University and old friends from school came to stay. The answer was they didn't - we lost touch. No mobile phones, no email, no Facebook, no Twitter. I did have a payphone close by to my lodgings and I could write letters. So that was how I kept in touch with my boyfriend, but other than him, I had no other visitors. I don't think that was unusual, I think the same was true for my flatmates. I felt incredibly ancient, explaining this. It also made me realise that the communications revolution has caused us to keep in touch with radically more people, and that social networking has increased, not decreased the number of face to face relationships that we maintain. No wonder we are all so busy!

The plain truth of the Bible

I recently heard about a theology student who prepared a sermon on Matthew 12.30:  "Whoever is not with me is against me".  He then preached this sermon to his tutor explaining why everyone should turn to God immediately.  After a pause his tutor replied with Luke 9.50: "whoever is not against you is for you".

Many years ago a friend got involved in an argument on the Christian Aid bulletin board about the ordination of women.  On quoting Galatians 3.28: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus".  He was told that this verse only applied under the specific circumstances, whereas those which were against women's ministry stood for all time.

We all pick and choose which bits of the Bible we use - can't we at least acknowledge this rather than hit others over the head when we see them doing it?  After all we can all get our fingers burnt playing this game.

Advert about the Anglican Covenant

In the Church Times and the Church of England Newspaper, the following advert has been sponsored by Inclusive Church and the Modern Church. I think it explains all my the concerns about the Anglican Covenant very well:

WHAT WOULD THE ANGLICAN COVENANT DO?


Who runs the Church?


In November the Church of England’s General Synod will be asked to approve the Anglican Covenant. Many Synod members do not realise it, but it could be the biggest change to the Church since the Reformation. We explain here why it would be a change for the worse.


What would the Anglican Covenant do?


It would enable objectors to forbid new developments 

Each of the 38 Provinces in the Anglican Communion is being asked to sign it. By signing, it undertakes not to introduce any new development if another Anglican province anywhere in the world opposes it – unless granted prior permission from a new international body, the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.


It would redefine Anglicanism


The Covenant would become ‘foundational for the life of the Anglican Communion’; signatories would agree that ‘recognition of, and fidelity to, the text of this Covenant, enables mutual recognition and communion’. This means that non-signatories would no longer count as part of the Communion. Since ‘mutual recognition and communion’ have until now applied across all Anglican provinces, the effect is to withdraw recognition and communion from non-signatories.


Thus the Anglican Communion would cease to consist of the 38 provinces and instead consist of the new international structure, to which the provinces will only belong if they sign the Covenant.


Who wants an Anglican Covenant?


It was fi rst proposed by the Windsor Report in 2004 to put pressure on the North American churches, after a diocese in the USA had elected an openly gay bishop and a diocese in Canada had approved a same-sex blessing service. Opponents had no legal way to expel the North Americans, so the Covenant is designed to achieve the same result by redefining the Anglican Communion to exclude them. However the Covenant does not mention those events; instead it imposes restrictions on any future church developments which another province opposes. This makes it much more significant.


If it’s this important, why has it been kept so quiet?


For a few years it was being publicly promoted as a way to ‘discipline’ the North Americans and establish an authoritarian leadership of the Anglican Communion. In other parts of the world it is still being presented like this; but where opposition is likely, it is now being presented as a minor bureaucratic reform – to persuade the provinces to sign it. Once the signing is done we expect the gloves to come off again.


What will happen if the Church of England signs it?


It would subordinate itself to an international body


The Covenant text claims to affect only the relations provinces have with each other, so that they would be unaffected in their internal governance. However the intended effect, as often expressed in international discussions, would be to subordinate the Church to the judgements of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. It would thereby make the Church of England subject to an outside power for the fi rst time since Henry VIII. This would create serious confl ict with its role as the established church.


It would become more dogmatic


Until now Anglicanism has prided itself on being ‘catholic’ in the original sense of expressing universal Christianity, not a sect with its own distinct doctrines. If the Covenant is approved, every time the Standing Committee upholds an objection it will thereby establish a new ruling, another doctrine Anglicans are expected to believe. Over time Anglicanism will become less inclusive and more dogmatic.


This would affect parishes too. As each new ruling becomes the Anglican position clergy who disagree, or simply prefer a more open-minded approach, will come under greater pressure to avoid telling their congregations what they really think for fear of reprisals.


It would become more inward-looking


At present when General Synod makes new proposals it consults interested parties like the dioceses and parishes, relevant specialists and the Government. The Covenant would subordinate this to international Anglicanism: the top priority would always be to ‘to seek a shared mind with other Churches’ at the expense of national and local context.


It would become more backward-looking


Instead of Classic Anglican theology’s balance of scripture, reason and tradition, which allows for new developments, the Covenant reduces Anglicanism’s authorities to ‘the Scriptures, the common standards of faith, and the canon laws of our churches’, thus making it harder to justify changes.


It would increase interference from outside


At present General Synod openly debates proposals and votes on them. The Covenant would oblige it ‘to act with diligence, care and caution in respect of any action which may provoke controversy, which by its intensity, substance or extent could threaten the unity of the Communion’. This would put pressure on churches to avoid changes which other Anglicans, anywhere in the world, might dislike, and would encourage opponents to exaggerate the strength of their objections.


We cannot know in advance which issues may generate objections from overseas hierarchies in the future. To sign the Covenant would in effect give them the right to lodge formal objections to any change we may wish to make in the future.


It would become more centralised and clerical


General Synod may not be perfect, but it does aim to be representative and allow a voice to laity. The Covenant would subordinate it to the new centralised authorities, the Standing Committee and the four Instruments of Communion. Power would be centralised and concentrated in smaller numbers, mostly bishops and archbishops. The voice of the laity would be significantly reduced.


It would hinder mission


Many younger people are put off by the Church’s apparent reluctance to change and backward-looking stance on many issues. Whether or not they are right, to turn this stance into an essential feature of Anglicanism is to accentuate the problem and create a new obstacle to mission.


It would hinder ecumenical relations


Proponents of the Covenant hope it would ease ecumenical discussions at an international level. At a local level, however, initiatives would become subject to objections from Anglicans in other parts of the world who do not know the local situation.


What will happen if the Church does not sign it?


Because the Church of England is the mother church of the Communion, if England declines to sign it will probably not come into effect. This would be the best possible outcome.


If the Covenant goes ahead, provinces not igning will govern themselves in the same way as now, but signatories will no longer count them as part of the Anglican Communion. They will be excluded from representative institutions and counted as ‘second track’ or ‘churches in association’.


What if we already had the Covenant?


Over the centuries there have been many changes. The Church no longer approves of slavery, but does permit divorce and contraception. We have introduced new orders of service, terms of ordinations and ordination oaths. In 1992 we permitted women priests. If the Covenant had already been in force other provinces could, and almost certainly would, have objected to these changes. It is one thing to disapprove of some of them, quite another to give other provinces the right to veto them.


If it had been in force in 1944 the ordination of the fi rst Anglican woman would almost certainly have been forbidden, and from then onwards women priests would have been forbidden in every Anglican province. The Covenant is not now expected to rule out women bishops because some provinces already have them; but if it is in force before the Church of England’s legislation and Code of Practice are agreed, other provinces will have an opportunity to lodge objections.


Is there a better way to resolve disagreements?


The Covenant offers a neo-Puritan method. Behind the campaign for an Anglican Covenant lies an attempt to re-establish a Puritan dogmatism. Reformation Puritans believed Christians should submit to the supreme authority of the Bible and therefore agree with each other on all matters of doctrine and ethics. Refusing to allow reason a role, their disagreements have often led each side to accuse the other of not being true Christians.


This is why parts of Protestantism have a history of repeated schisms. Their successors today support the Covenant because they see disagreements within the Church as a threat. When disagreements arise they aim to resolve them as quickly as possible, by means of a pronouncement from the leadership decreeing what all members are to believe and forbidding dissent. Some other Anglicans support them in the mistaken hope that this will avoid schism.


Classic Anglicanism offers a better method Anglicans traditionally value the role of reason and thus expect to learn from other people. We have therefore been better at staying united because we have debated our disagreements openly within the Church, without threatening schism, until such time as consensus is reached.


The way to keep united is to insist, as the Church of England has normally done, that differences of opinion may be freely and openly debated within the Church, in the interests of seeking truth, without invoking power games or threats of schism.


How you can help?


Please encourage your General Synod representatives to vote against the Anglican Covenant. To fi nd out more visit www.modernchurch.org.uk/anglicancovenant/ and follow the links; contact: Covenant@modernchurch.org.uk or write to Covenant Debate,


9 Westward View, Liverpool L17 7EE.


This advertisement is sponsored by Inclusive Church and Modern Church (formerly the Modern Churchpeople’s Union)

What to write about the covenant?

It seems to me that many people are not happy about the proposed Anglican Covenant, and I have been asked in the comments of a blog post whether there is a draft letter available to sent to General Synod members (or indeed your Bishops). There isn't a draft letter available, to my knowledge, but I think I would put the following points forward:

• We are not a confessional church requiring members to sign up to a statement of beliefs, we work on the basis of Scripture, Reason and Tradition. 
• Provinces should be autonomous and disciplinary action for holding alternative views is abhorrent. How can we be mission focussed if our decisions depend on churches thousands of miles away in radically different contexts?
• Anglicanism is not monochromatic but diverse; it thrives in the tension between different ecclesiological traditions and religious beliefs - we do not need uniformity to have unity. We have traditionally been a broad church.
• Decision making in the Anglican Communion belongs with elected lay people, clergy and Bishops, not with a ‘Standing Committee’.
• We will become stagnant if we sign the Covenant - decisions like the admission of women to the priesthood would have been impossible if we had needed the 'Standing Committee' to agree. The church has changed its position on slavery, marriage of divorcees, women in ministry, we do not stand still on these things.
• It won't work anyway - there will be endless squabbles if the Covenant is signed - Provinces wanting to throw each other out. This is not the route to unity.
• In a world where authoritarianism is increasingly distrusted and we wish the bishops, priests and people to have adult-adult relationships, this takes us back to 'Father knows best' and centralisation of power. It is extremely unwise.

For more ideas, look here. Please chip in with more thoughts.

Time to tell some jokes!

I read recently that our sense of humour starts to fail at 52:

By the time we reach 50, Brits are laughing just three times a day, while the average 60-year-old manages a hearty guffaw just 2.5 times in the same period.

To add insult to injury, the study suggests that the art of joke telling is on the wane.

It found that most Brits are only able to tell two jokes but more than 600 of the 2,000 questioned cannot remember telling a joke in the last twelve months.

Dr Harbidge said: "It's important to remember how good laughter is for you: it releases endorphins and a little laughter every day goes a long way to reducing stress.

"To combat stress, we ought to be seeking out more comedy.”

So this your mission today - tell a joke or too - it is good for your health!

Humanists 'no religion' campaign

I was interested to read an article in the Guardian saying that:

The British Humanist Association has launched a campaign to encourage non-believers and the seriously lapsed to tick the "no religion" box on the 2011 census with the aim of challenging religious privilege in Britain.

The BHA says it is time for people who never go to church or who never think about religion to 'fess up: " ... what people do not realise is that by ticking the 'Christian' box rather than the 'no religion' box – which would more accurately reflect their identity – they have contributed to data used to justify an increase in the number of 'faith' schools, the public funding of religious groups, keeping Bishops in the House of Lords as of right, and the continuation of compulsory worship in schools." Yes you fickle and lazy lot, the humanists blame you for all that.

I am please - the truth will set you free and all that. It is better for everyone to be free and honest about their religious beliefs, although I suppose many people see themselves as culturally part of a religious group - so they like the ethic of love being the highest value, and loving their neighbour, and being a Good Samaritan, but they don't believe in God.

I am bored of hearing headlines about the BHA attacking religion though. I'm guessing they do lots of positive good stuff - can we hear some of that instead? I think Christians and Humanists have much in common in terms of building a better world.

Jesus and Mo - WHY

h/t Wounded Bird

The trajectory of Porn and the impact on the user

I know I am meant to be liberal and open minded, but I hate pornography with a passion.It frightens me, I find it misogynistic. I am biased on this, I have had some awful experiences that in my mind are related to pornography. However, I was interested in this article:

Kimmel remains open-minded about pornography – what's needed is a much broader conversation about it, he says – but the picture he paints in Guyland is nonetheless troubling. "Pornotopia is the place where [young men] can get even," he writes, "where women get what they 'deserve' and the guys never have to be tested, or face rejection. And so the pornographic universe becomes a place of homosocial solace, a refuge from the harsh reality of a more gender equitable world than has ever existed. It's about anger at the loss of privilege – and an effort to restore men's unchallenged authority. And, it turns out, that anger is worse among younger men."

I honestly don't think most people realise the trajectory that porn has taken recently:

Jensen started analysing pornography 15 years ago and says: "If you had told me then that there would be a common genre where a woman was penetrated by three men at once, I would have said, 'Oh, come on'. But I've now seen things I don't think even Andrea Dworkin could have imagined." Even ardent fans have acknowledged modern porn's brutal trajectory. In 1998, the pro-porn campaigner and performer Nina Hartley admitted "you're seeing more of these videos of women getting dragged on their faces, and spit [sic] on, and having their heads dunked in the toilet."

While an enormous amount has been written about how pornography affects women – particularly the terrible way in which they are sometimes treated within the industry – less has been written about how it affects men, which seems odd given that, as McCormack Evans says, pornography is a product predominantly "made by men, marketed by men, and consumed by a massive male majority".

One obvious problem for many porn users is the conflict between their stated belief in equality and respect for women, and the material they're watching in private. McCormack Evans says he used to exist in a "kind of double consciousness. For that half hour when I was watching porn I thought, 'This is separate from my life, it won't affect how I view the world.' But then I realised it did."

Jensen says he hears about this disjuncture "all the time. Men will say, I know the images I'm watching are in direct contradiction to my own stated values, but I just can't stop". McCormack Evans says porn-watchers can quickly descend into self-hatred. "They're sitting there afterwards, and there's an image left on the screen, and they look at themselves and think, 'I'm disgusting' . . . Then their daughter comes in, or their wife, or their girlfriend, and they've just been to Pilates, and the next day they start looking up Pilates porn, or something crazy like that, and they feel even worse. It can become quite self-destructive."

I tried explaining the Primate's Meeting to my Mum.

My mum is staying at the moment, and as she attends an Anglican Church, I asked her if she had heard about the Covenant. Of course she hadn't - it seems to have been very little talk about it, perhaps because if people knew about it, they wouldn't like it (see post here). I then somehow got on to explaining about the upcoming primates meeting:

By the end of it my mum looked incredulous, and I felt ashamed. How childish it really is. How can i hold my head up high and say I am a priest in the Anglican Communion when this is going on?

Busyness and Blogging

It is Monday evening, and Monday is normally the day when I start to think about Sunday's sermon, I read, I catch up on my blog, I ponder, I pray. But not today. Aside from my kids being off school and my mum visiting for a few days, I am also applying for a job and I have a major new project that has just kicked off. So I worked at top speed from 9am to 8pm with perhaps a couple of hours off in amongst it all. (Feeling a bit guilty that I am neglecting my mum to be honest).

I know some Ministers who seem proud of being busy, but I'm not one of them. I have come to the conclusion that busyness reduces the opportunities for prayer and meditation, and if I am not doing those things I am not a good priest. The capacity to be still and to capture thoughts and ideas about the spiritual journey feels key to my ministry - it feeds into my pastoral work, my sermons and my assemblies.

My blog suffers when I am busy. Posts are just the beginning of a thought or idea, with no meat, no reflection. My posts become very cerebral as well. I seem to disappear out of them. I think that is true of what I am like in real life when I am busy. I have nothing of myself to give.

I no longer see my blog and my ministry in competition, I don't feel a guilty pleasure that I have spent time blogging, because spending time here, tapping away at the keys, gives me the opportunity to find out what is really going inside my head, and if I don't do that well, I don't do anything well.

Is the Anglican Covenant Innocuous or a Serious Threat?

I enjoyed reading Bishop Alan's Blog on the Covenant, but surmised from his words in the comments section that he thinks the Covenant is fairly innocuous (whereas I feel it is a serious threat to Anglicanism). I asked my new friend Jonathan Clatworthy who is General Secretary of Modern Church, and these are his thoughts:

Supporters of the Anglican Covenant are currently trying to persuade the Provinces to vote in favour of it.

What do they say it will mean? That depends on where you live. In parts of the world where same-sex partnerships are strongly condemned, it’s all about ensuring that there are no gay bishops anywhere in the Anglican Communion, which will probably mean kicking the USA out of it. This is what Ian Ernest, the Archbishop of the Indian Ocean, argued at the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa meeting in August.

For others the problem is much wider. Opposition to same-sex partnerships has successfully built up a head of steam behind a programme to centralise power in the Anglican Communion; but once the Covenant is in place there will be other disciplines to impose. Tom Wright, previously Bishop of Durham, has taken this line (‘Rowan’s Reflections: Unpacking the Archbishop’s Statement’, Anglican Communion Institute, 30.7.09).

In more tolerant parts of the world the Covenant is currently being presented as a minor, unimportant tidying-up exercise only of interest to church bureaucrats, so the rest of us don’t need to worry our pretty little heads and can safely leave it to the archbishops.

Why these mixed messages? The Covenant’s proponents faced a real dilemma: how to produce a text which on the one hand is forceful enough impose its demands on the provinces, but on the other will persuade them to give away their autonomy. The solution is to present the Covenant as an entirely voluntary agreement which does not affect autonomy. Provinces continue to act as they wish, so long as no other province objects.

However, the Covenant proposes to redefine the Anglican Communion so that henceforth it will contain only those provinces which sign. Signing means submitting to the judgements of the newly empowered international authority the ‘Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’. Provinces which declined to sign would no longer be considered part of the Anglican Communion, and signatories would be liable to expulsion if they did not accept the Standing Committee’s judgements.

Thus the dilemma is resolved with a message familiar from the school playground: ‘You are free to do as you like, but if you do not do as we tell you, we shall all turn our backs on you and you will not be one of us’.

Church leaders will not lightly accept expulsion. In practice, once the Covenant was in place there would be immense pressure to toe the line on whatever issue the most intolerant chose to campaign about. One by one the Standing Committee would build up a set of pronouncements which became the Anglican teaching. We would be turned into a confessional sect demanding of our members assent to an ever-increasing list of doctrines.

The way to avoid this absurdity is to make sure the Covenant does not come into effect in the first place.

Please don't go

There are at least three groups threatening to leave the Church of England, see the post here. I don't want them to go. Anglicanism is about worshipping together even when we disagree, sharing the family meal, learning from each other and showing respect to all people. I will miss them, even if they are a pain sometimes, they are part of the family.

So why are they going? I was interested in this newsletter by Reform, it is all about fear:

If the draft measure is eventually approved in something like its present form, the clearest warning bells will be ringing for us. It may be that we will be able to make use of arrangements under the Code of Practice but at the very least it seems likely that some of our best young men will be put off offering themselves for the ordained ministry in the Church of England. If that happens – if the tap is turned off – then new incumbents for our churches will be harder and harder to come by and the future of our churches will be called into question.

Our response to this must be twofold:

We must encourage people to keep offering themselves for the ordained ministry for as long as it is possible. Hopefully they will be able to have a life-time of service in the Church of England. But if not, they will be no worse off when they make a move than if they had never entered. This will particularly be the case if we are able to use the time now available to us to forge closer links between our churches.

We must forge closer links with one another. As the future looks increasingly uncertain, we need to bring the issues to our congregations now and then get PCC backing to the idea of linking up with other like-minded churches in a close fellowship. If more difficult times lie ahead, we need to support one another. One way of doing this may be to create a ‘Society’ within the Church of England, focused on mission, with its own bishops providing support and encouragement. It could even be that if such a Society were to come into being, the House of Bishops might recognise it as a place where separate episcopal oversight could operate when the Women Bishops Measure comes in. We will be actively exploring this possibility in the months ahead.

So if the measure goes through then it may be harder to find Conservative Evangelical church leaders? I find that unlikely. Stop panicking, calm down and see what happens would be my advice. Geoffrey Kirk was even gloomier:

The Revd Geoffrey Kirk, Vicar of St Stephen and St Mark, Lewisham, in Southwark diocese, who, like the Bishop, was a founder of FiF, assemb ling its first mailing list out of cards in shoeboxes, gave his valedic tory address.

In it, he spoke of the many things that over the years they had got “resoundingly wrong”, the failure of their constituency to deliver on its rhetoric, and the “total inability” of Church of England bishops to “grasp anything except geographical mono-episcopacy”.

Neither he nor Bishop Broadhurst was optimistic about the future in the C of E even if the legislation were defeated. Fr Kirk suggested that the “mayhem that would result . . . is horrendous”.

If it was passed, however, there would not be an honourable place for those who would make do with a code of practice, he warned. “A Catholic party cannot subsist at all on mere sufferance.”

Fr Kirk, who has recently suffered ill-health, said that he would probably not see the outcome in the C of E; or, if he did, it would be from another communion and on another continent. The Assembly stood to applaud him, and he was presented with a coffee-maker.

This doesn't feel very persuasive - why would there be mayhem? Surely the Catholics love the idea of unity and of everyone having the same bishop, whether you agree with the theology of the Bishop or not? However, I am quite pleased about the coffee-maker. Perhaps we can work it all out over a vanilla latte..?

Vestment or Star Trek Costume?

You don't know, do you?

h/t Bad Vestments, via Mustard Seed Shavings

The fun theory

h/t Crimperman

Prodigal Son

h/t Changing Worship

I must say I found watching this video unbearable because my parents have a prodigal son, I have a prodigal brother. I remember when J John wrote the book 'The Road Home', talking about Prodigals he was overwhelmed by the response, so many people have this as part of their story:

I find that when I bury people it is remarkable how many sons and daughters are not at the funeral because they haven't been in contact for years, there are deep rifts and deep wounds. I don't really know what to say on this subject. It was easier before my own family was broken in this way to say 'forgive, embrace'. Now I recognise that  it isn't always that easy. There is often pain all ways round and no easy way to see how that can be different.

Swan Lake - Circus Style..

This made me cry

h/t An Inch at a Time

Please click on it and read the story. Life is so precious and yet it can be so miserable. It is made miserable partly because of hatred and prejudice and partly because we can all be so scared at times that we are worthless and if people knew the real us they would reject us. I read a blog called 'Telling Secrets' that has a tagline on the right that reads 'remember, you are only as sick as your sickest secrets'. I was also suicidal as a child for seven years, from when I discovered it was possible to take your own life, until when I became a Christian and realised I was of worth and loved. I too know it is incredibly difficult to kill yourself, no matter how miserable you are. I too had a secret, a different one to this young man. These days I feel secrets are a bad thing, and openness is a good one. Not everyone agrees, of course.

Can I recommend this post by Bishop Alan on the impact of New Media and openness. I would like to hear your thoughts.

How do Wikio rankings work?

I know I am officially a sad git, but I have buckled, and my curiosity about how Wikio Blog Rankings work has overcome me. So I checked it out and the answer is here:

The position of a blog in the Wikio ranking depends on the number and weight of the incoming links from other blogs. These links are dynamic, which means that they are backlinks or links found within articles.

Only links found in the RSS feed are included. Blogrolls are not taken into account, and the weight of any given link increases according to how recently it was published. We thus hope to provide a classification that is more representative of the current influence levels of the blogs therein.

Moreover, the weight of a link depends on the linking blog’s position in the Wikio ranking. With our algorithm, the weight of a link from a blog that is more highly ranked is greater than that of a link from a blog that is less well ranked.

Interesting - so it is only about links from other blogs, and preferably blogs that also use Wikio but with a high ranking. Is that right? To add to my sad git status, and as I love algorithms, I tried to work out what the algorithm might be and to predict what my next Wikio ranking will be. And the answer is... 430. I'll find out how good my estimate is on 10th November. Here is the Church Mouse's Wikio summary for last month.

What is a fresh expression?

Blame the Naughty Americans this time

Thinking Anglicans has highlighted this interview in The Hindu that Rowan gave. The two sections that have received most discussion are highlighted:

I think that after the Lambeth Conference of 2008 many people felt that we found ways of talking to one another, and perhaps exercising some restraint and tact towards one another. And it was very significant that at the next meeting of the Anglican primates, which was in the early part of 2009, all major Churches of the Communion were represented.

Unfortunately, the situation does not remain there. The decision of the American Church to go forward, as it has, with the ordination of a lesbian bishop has, I think, set us back. At the moment I'm not certain how we will approach the next primates' meeting, but regrettably some of the progress that I believe we had made has not remained steady.Alongside that, and I think this is important, while the institutions of the Communion struggle, in many ways the mutual life of the Communion, the life of exchange and cooperation between different parts of our Anglican family, is quite strong and perhaps getting stronger. It's a paradox. We are working more closely together on issues of development than we did before. We have the emergence of an Anglican health network across the globe, bringing together various health care institutions. We have also had quite a successful programme on the standards and criteria for theological education across the Communion. So, a very mixed picture.

If I were a part of TEC (The Episcopal Church in the USA), I would feel hurt by this. They ordain partnered, not celibate Gay and Lesbian Bishops - get over it. If the Anglican Communion is so fragile that one Lesbian Bishop derails it then it is in a very sorry state. Why should TEC take the blame for this fragility? The Anglican Covenant has been cooked up to throw the Americans out, and it is the worst case of scape-goating I have ever seen. If we throw them out then someone else will take their place as the 'problem'. The Anglican Communion is horribly dysfunctional at the moment.

Then Rowan does admit that the Institutions of the Communion 'struggle', but says that the cooperation of different parts of the family is strong and perhaps getting stronger, citing health care networks and standards of theological education. I am sure he is right that these two things are improving, so they should in this age of advances in internet communication. However, it feels like he is in denial, or cloud cuckoo land because it sounds like his message is that the Anglican Communion is flourishing, in fact on the official website the article is entitled, "Archbishop Rowan Williams: Despite Challenges, Anglican Communion Life is Strong" Yeah - right!

Why is it that every time I write something about the Anglican Communion a Monty Python sketch comes to mind?

Tabloid calls for 100 'Homos' in Uganda to be hung

h/t An Inch at a Time

I find this unspeakably awful:

The front-page newspaper story featured a list of Uganda's 100 "top" homosexuals, with a bright yellow banner across it that read: "Hang Them." Alongside their photos were the men's names and addresses.

In the days since it was published, at least four gay Ugandans on the list have been attacked and many others are in hiding, according to rights activist Julian Onziema. One person named in the story had stones thrown at his house by neighbours.

Women Bishops - interviewing Christina Rees

h/t Preludium

If there is a Hell, I want to be there

I had a discussion with some friends when I was doing my ordination training, and, as usual, I was being baited by liberals. I rather walked into it by asking, 'Do you believe in Hell', to which I received the response, 'If there is a God who sends people to Hell, then I want to be there'. This, as usual, rendered me speechless and once again my liberal friends had a good laugh at me. But the words stayed with me. He was serious. If there was a Hell then he had no interest in Heaven.

Recently, I have been debating with an atheist about the meaning of some words by Peter Rollins. I love his work, I've heard him a couple of times and read his book, 'The Orthodox Heretic':

Anyway, one of the occasions that I heard him, he read from his tract 'The Rapture', and we were all given a copy, which I have lost, but I found it here on the Friendly Atheist's site:

The Rapture
by Peter Rollins


Just as it was written by those prophets of old, the last days of the Earth overflowed with suffering and pain. In those dark days a huge pale horse rode through the Earth with Death upon its back and Hell in its wake. During this great tribulation the Earth was scorched with the fires of war, rivers ran red with blood, the soil withheld its fruit and disease descended like a mist. One by one all the nations of the Earth were brought to their knees.


Far from all the suffering, high up in the heavenly realm, God watched the events unfold with a heavy heart. An ominous silence had descended upon heaven as the angels witnessed the Earth being plunged into darkness and despair. But this could only continue for so long for, at the designated time, God stood upright, breathed deeply and addressed the angels,


“The time has now come for me to separate the sheep from the goats, the healthy wheat from the inedible chaff”


Having spoken these words God slowly turned to face the world and called forth to the church with a booming voice,


“Rise up and ascend to heaven all of you who have who have sought to escape the horrors of this world by sheltering beneath my wing. Come to me all who have turned from this suffering world by calling out ‘Lord, Lord’”.


In an instant millions where caught up in the clouds and ascended into the heavenly realm. Leaving the suffering world behind them.


Once this great rapture had taken place God paused for a moment and then addressed the angels, saying,


“It is done, I have separated the people born of my spirit from those who have turned from me. It is time now for us leave this place and take up residence in the Earth, for it is there that we shall find our people. The ones who would forsake heaven in order to embrace the earth. The few who would turn away from eternity itself to serve at the feet of a fragile, broken life that passes from existence in but an instant.”


And so it was that God and the heavenly host left that place to dwell among those who had rooted themselves upon the earth. Quietly supporting the ones who had forsaken God for the world and thus who bore the mark God. The few who had discovered heaven in the very act of forsaking it.

Press Release about women bishops

Thanks to Gurdur for highlighting this from Damian Thompson's Blog:


From: Christian News Release Service (UK)


Sent: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 9:00


Subject: Women Bishops in the CofE now to be BLOCKED after latest General Synod Election


MEDIA INFORMATION ON GENERAL SYNOD ELECTION


Following the Election of the new General Synod of the Church of England, Evangelical and Catholic Groups on Synod have now swapped lists of candidates.


The results show that 66 Clergy (32.10%) and 77 laity (35.46%) will vote against the current Women Bishop legislation unless it is amended to give those who for conscious/scriptural reasons, cannot accept WBs.


Only 34% is needed to block this when it returns from the dioceses. For the first time, it can and will be blocked by both fully ELECTED houses. In the clergy only a further 1.81% is needed, and that’s just ONE person. There are 21 new evangelicals on this new synod, and one out of a possible 58 undecided is a given!


The Bishop of Fulham’s departure to Rome, announced on Friday, was therefore a little too early and the Catholic Group on General Synod have distanced themselves from his position and will be staying within the CofE.

And the response from WATCH:

GENERAL SYNOD RESULTS ANALYSIS: 

Preliminary Response from WATCH (Women and the Church)

WATCH considers that reports that those opposed to women bishops have made gains in the recent Synod elections are premature. There is no evidence that this view is based on an accurate analysis of results. WATCH notes that some significant figures against the consecration of women have lost their seats, and that more women clergy have been elected. Many candidates did not declare their views about the draft legislation for women bishops before the elections.

"We are 18 months away from the opportunity for General Synod members to vote on the issue. During that time every Diocese will be discussing and voting on the Draft Legislation, including the considerable provisions it includes for those who will not accept women as priests or bishops. General Synod members will be listening carefully to those debates. We expect there to be widespread support across the Dioceses to proceed to consecrate women bishops on the basis of this legislation without further delay", said Hilary Cotton, Vice-Chair of WATCH.

Coca Cola Happiness Machine

h/t James Poulter

Only mad dogs and Church of Englandmen....

I do love the eccentricity of the English, well sometimes, the irony, the backing the underdog, the not doing things because 'It's just not Cricket'. The Church of England seems equally eccentric. Let me tell you a story:

It all started back in the Summer at General Synod, when the two Archbishops proposed a rather delicious fudge where women bishops could at once be equal and not equal to their male counterparts, (see Thinking Anglicans). Remarkably, it seems that General Synod thought this was not possible, but it was only narrowly defeated (although some say that it is highly unusual to go against an amendment tabled by both Archbishops).

The idea of 'Societies' was considered by the revision committee, but rejected because:

'Crucially the majority of us came to believe that there was some risk of creating a society that was an even weightier body than a Diocese. This was because some of the representations made to us seemed to envisage that jurisdiction would in some way be conferred on the society itself and through it to its bishops…we therefore voted by 11 votes to 7 that we did not wish the draft Measure to be amended to give effect to a society model.' (Report of the Revision Committee, page 22 paras 110, 115).

So it is rather surprising that we now have two Societies. One for the staunch Catholics (Forward in Faith) called the Society of St Wilfred and St Hilda (with St Hilda being the patron saint of feminists) and the other for the staunch Low Church Conservative Evangelicals (Anglican Mainstream) called Society of Saint Augustine (with both St Augustines being very high church and pro-Rome).

The other Conservative Evangelicals group, Reform, seems to have some issues. Our correspondent, Sue M explains:

For a variety of reasons, which I am too tired to explain, Reform has failed to deliver a manly thrust in its bid to stop the monstrous tyranny of women in the Church of England.

In short, Reform has not managed to reform anything at all and needs to be reformed, or something like that. It may also relate to something Chris Sugden has set up, a society for evangelicals called after St. Augustine. 

Ah, so perhaps some at Reform have given up on reforming the rest of us and are going to join a Society in splendid isolation instead.

Are you still with me? Because I haven't mentioned the 'Ordinariate' (which is the Catholic church for disaffected Anglicans, I believe). One congregation will be joining it, although why they can't simply go to the local Catholic church, I'm not sure...? I mentioned that both the Flying Bishops in the Southern Province of Canterbury are on ah-hem 'Study Leave', I rather naughtily suggested that it was gardening leave and that they were going to join the Ordinariate. The Church Mouse also noticed this and asked the question, to which the answer seemed to be, 'No, no, no, not setting up an Ordinariate, perish the thought, just going to be reading books'. In the mean time, the Bishop of Fulham, who is the chairman of 'Forward in Faith' has announced that he is going to join the Ordinariate, saying:

"I don't feel I have any choice but to leave the Church and take up the Pope's offer. The General Synod has become vindictive and vicious.

"It has been fascist in its behaviour, marginalising those who have been opposed to women's ordination. We have not been given any space."

Although, the Church Mouse noticed that if you are baptised a Catholic (which the Bishop of Fulham is) you can't join the Ordinariate, unless your family is already a member. The idea is that you can't be a disaffected Anglican-Catholic if you are already a Catholic-Catholic, in that case you simply have to be a Catholic. All clear?

Which brings me all the way back to the fudge, at the beginning of this post. I'll go and lie down now.

Christian New Media Awards

On Friday the Christian New Media Awards were announced, and these are the winning entries:

Best Christian Blog

Winner: Sophia Network Runner up: Jonny Baker & Cartoon Church (joint) Finalists: The Church Mouse,Epilogue TV

Most Inspiring Leadership Blog

Winner: Dave Gilpin Runner up: Richard Littledale Finalists: Father's House Trust, Dave Gilpin, Adrian Warnock, Dave Webster

Best Small Church Website

Winner: New Life Salford Runner up: Ribble Valley Church Finalists: Living It, Christ4U, Stibbard Methodists

Nest Newcomer Blog

Winner: Sunday Latte Lamentations Runner up: Transpositions Finalists: Science and Belief, Pretty Little Wilderness, Project Awaken, Lauraoli

Best Christian Blog for under 25's

Winner: Saved by Grace Runner up: Purposeful Purity Finalists: Hidden with Christ in God, That Theology Student

Best Large Church Website

Winner: Hope City Church Runner up: Jesus House Finalists: Reading Family Church, Making Jesus Famous, Christ Church London, Ebenezer Church, Walking With You,

Best Christian Organisation

Winner: Urban Saints and Christian Medical Fellowship (Joint) Runner up: Church Army Finalists: 24/7 Prayer, Father's House Trust

Best Christian Music Site

Winner: Worship Central Runner up: Musicademy Finalists: Matt Redman, London Community Gospel Choir

People's Choice Award

Winner: The Papal Visit

Best use of New Media in a Christian Project

Winner: Story4all and Test of Faith (Joint) Runner up: North Bristol Noise Finalists: Methodist Church iPhone App, Easter Live

Best use of New Media in a Christian Campaign

Winner: Relive Resouces Runner up: Make Jesus Famous Finalists: Make the Cross Count, Raised with Christ

Best use of Rich Media for Christians

Winner: Kore Runner up: Lost in Wonder Finalists: Revelation TV, Friends & Heroes, James Chung