A week off :)

Merry Christmas to you and see you in the New Year

Digital Nativity

My second favourite Christmas Pop Song

h/t Changing Worship

May favourite being the Fairytale of New York

Fellows Christmas Letter

A Christmas Quiz:

I am truly rubbish at Christmas letters, so instead here is a Christmas Quiz (no prizes for full marks):

1. How many of the Fellows Family won the Nobel Peace Prize this year?
a) 4
b) 2
c) 0

2. This year, Caleb turned into:
a) an alien
b) a frog
c) a teenager

3. In September, Benedict:
a) changed school and went to Secondary school
b) changed his hair stylist
c) changed his name to Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate

4. Over the summer, Lesley received:
a) an absolute beginner
b) a Decree Absolute
c) an Absolut vodka

5. Aidan recently:
a) contracted Yellow Fever
b) got his Yellow Belt in Karate
c) tore a copy if the Yellow Pages in half, when in a rage with his brothers.

Happy Christmas to you all and we hope you have a very wonderful 2011

Homosexuality and the Church

I have recently written about how Bishop Christopher Senyonjo, pictured above, stands beside his lesbian and gay sisters and brothers in Christ. Then I was really impressed by this comment by DaviGoss:

In this week’s Church Times ‘Diary’ the Revd Sister Rosemary, of The Convent of the Holy Name in Derby, describes a recent visit to a local Arts Centre to see a Dirk Bogarde film when, turning aside form romantic comedy, he gave a riveting performance in Victim, a story of lives destroyed by blackmail. She writes:

We saw how homosexual men were forced to hide their sexuality, and how they lived in constant fear of discovery, loss of livelihood, and disgrace. The film was so powerful that when it ended I sat still for some minutes, unable to return to normal life. Then I got into conversation with a young woman near me. She said: "You can't imagine it, can you?"

"I remember it," I responded.

In the face of her incredulity, I could not find words to add that in the Church we do not have to imagine it: we are living it still.

And this from Susan Russell's Blog:

I’m remembering this morning a particular evening in Advent. The boys would have been about twelve and fifteen. It was after I had come out and their father and I had separated and while we were working away at what my therapist called “reconfiguring the family on the other side of the marriage.” We were at the dinner table together with the Advent wreath in the middle and -- that particular night -- my younger son, Brian, was on about something he couldn’t live without and his father and I were ruining his life by not getting it for him. I think it was a dirt bike.

He didn’t want to hear reasoned explanations that dirt bikes were not in the budget for newly ordained parish priests. “So how long do we have to wait until there’s some money in this family?” he asked. “What about those big jobs at those fancy churches? Why don’t you go be in charge of one of those?” And I must have run out of patience at that point for I remember saying, “You have be ordained longer than I have been to get those jobs, Brian – and besides, they usually go to the straight, white men.”

“Well, so much for that idea!” he said. And then, unable to resist one last parting shot added “I just hope you know I always expected my mom to be straight!” And his father, without missing a beat, piped in, “So did I!” And we all laughed … and Brian did NOT get the dirt bike.

Another thing Brian did not get was the family he expected – but that didn’t mean we quit being family to each other. And that’s because the values that made us family to each other transcended even the expectations we had for each other.

And the icon of what that family looks like for me is my mental picture of the year both of my sons and their father joined my partner Louise in the pew here at All Saints Church on Christmas morning – after a Christmas Eve dinner of roast beef and Yorkshire pudding the night before! I looked out at them from the chancel with deep gratitude for the family we had become.

We may not be a family James Dobson focuses on but that doesn’t make us any less family. And it doesn’t make the values that bind us together any less holy.

Mr Catolick's Christmas message

Find out what Archbishop Katharine, Pete Broadbent and Archbishop Rowan are getting for Christmas this year.

A Christmas Message from the Archbishop of Canterbury

The snow that presently covers the British countryside covers a multitude of sins, doesn’t it?  Human scars and detritus now blanketed by a white perfection – white, that is, until the roaming animals have their natural way.  And for how long?  How long will this illusion of faultlessness remain?  For it is just that.  A dream or maybe a hope for Christmas.

These were my thoughts only yesterday as Jane and I carefully walked across a Surrey field.  We traveled light yet in heavy coats, with a Thermos of tea and a pack of cheese sandwiches for sustenance.  As my sleeve caught on the cold briar of the hedgerow I pondered the metaphysical-mystical concept of matter’s resistance against form – a resistance from which, look you, all the negativities of existence and ambiguities of life are derived.  I turned to ask Jane about this, and to glean her feminine understanding of the relationship between finite and estranged beings, but she walked on in silence.  

The solitary sheep reminded me of St Paul.  Now he was searching for food, but instead fed himself on the knowledge that forgiveness was related to justice and the basis for the certainty that one stands forgiven.  Or was it hay?  The sheep turned and looked at me with a soulful expression.  I broke off a corner of cheddar but it was coldly spurned.

“Come on!” Jane implored.  She was eager to reach the old country church before the next flurry of snow.  And so we pressed on, our very tread dinting the perfection which was shaping my thoughts.  We reached the lych-gate and read the parish notices.  Matins for the Fourth Sunday of Advent.  Christmas day service would be in another part of the Benefice.  Yet the porch provided shelter as new flakes descended. We sipped tea without words, for I began to wrestle with the notion that the personal centre is superior to encounters with reality on the temporal plane, because the transcendent unity embraces the content of all possible encounters.  I felt an incarnational cheer, and stretched out my hand.  The church was locked.

May the theonomy of Christmas open your doors this season. Indeed.

++ Rowan Cantaur

h/t The Pharisaios Journal

Day off guilt

Last night I had a dream. I was due to have a meeting at my Bishop's house at 11am. I had my middle son with me and I chose to turn up at 9.30am, thinking that my son could play in the Bishop's amazing garden. In my dream, the Bishop had a fast flowing stream in his garden, with a waterfall and the children rode it in makeshift boats. When I rang the doorbell, he was surprised to see me and a bit off-ish. He explained that it was his day off until 11am (I know that makes no sense - but it was a dream!). I was mortified, but he invited me and my son in anyway. Then we sat in his garden watching his kids and my son playing in the stream. He seemed fine with it, but I felt very guilty. I think the dream is about day off guilt.

Last Lent, the Bishop and Archdeacon gave all the clergy an extra day off each week. This had a major impact on me, because I wasn't taking one day off each week, never mind two. It wasn't so much that I was overwhelmed by work, more that my day off was always under pressure to fit in a meeting, take a funeral, take a call, open the door... all little things, but I found that my day off was compromised so often that I just gave up. To clear one day a week would have been difficult - two was very difficult indeed. The impact was immense - I became aware of a profound emptiness that I had covered with the business. Since then I have protected my day off and tried maintain the additional spiritual disciplines that I had developed over that Lent. However, I think for the last four days off I have failed... and I have a feeling that my subconscious is less than impressed.

I do sometimes feel guilty about being so fastidious about my day off. When I was doing a regular job I would go to community events and have local friends over at the weekend. It seems ridiculous to refuse to pick up the phone or avoid being in so I can't open the door. However, what can I say? I fall apart without it! I think my subconscious is telling me that if I wouldn't compromise another priest's day off, why would I compromise my own?

Fruit Problems

Hannah talks about Jesus and p*rn

I found this video really moving. I've had lots of arguments on this blog about p*rn. Personally, I think it is a hugely destructive force in our society, often people who have been victimised as children are revictimised in the p*rn industry. I also feel much of it is misogynistic and feeds the sexism that is already abroad in our society. Just saying... :)

Post on the Anglican Covenant IN CAPITAL LETTERS

Glorious Things made me laugh, she said

"The trouble is that much of what is going on in the institutional church makes me cross and want to SHOUT. All my posts would have to be written in capital letters." 

I can so relate to that! I am so tempted to write about the Anglican Covenant with caps lock on. I feel it is STUPID and WRONG and IT MATTERS! Sadly, it seems have ended up being an argument between those who are conservative and those who are progressive, or indeed between those who are anti-gay and those who are pro-gay. But it isn't about that. It is a dreadful, centralising, vague, potentially desperately unfair and divisive piece of legislation. I don't want to waste my time on this document any more than anyone else does, I would love to rubber-stamp it and ignore it, but it is so wrong that my conscience won't allow it. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the gay issue, nor a progressive agenda.

Alan Perry, a Canadian Canon Law Expert, has grave doubts about the Anglican Covenant to fulfil principles of the Duty to be Fair. Please read the entire post, here is an extract:

Previously I have commented on the vagueness of the dispute-settling process in the proposed Covenant. This vagueness, and the high level of discretion given to the Standing Committee, raise the question of whether the process is workable at all. Jones and de Villars raise the issue of legislative vagueness as a matter of fundamental substantive justice: “laws cannot be so vague that a reasonable citizen would not know whether a proposed action is legal or not, or so vague that it creates unlimited discretion.” (p. 247) Here we are concerned with procedural justice.

One of the difficulties in the proposed Covenant’s procedures is that there is no mechanism for an appeal of a decision. The Standing Committee, with virtually unlimited discretion, is empowered to declare whether an action or proposed action is or would be “incompatible with the Covenant.” (s. 4.2.6) On this basis, the Standing Committee may then recommend “relational consequences” to the Instruments of Communion and the Covenanting Churches to implement. (s. 4.2.7) There is no process for review of the decision or of the recommendation. (And it is doubtful whether there is any court that would entertain an application for judicial review.) Discretion is not necessarily fatal to fairness, as discretion can be exercised well just as easily as it can be used badly. But the question arises whether we can be confident, beyond the assumption of good faith, that the discretion of the Standing Committee will be exercised fairly? The question is doubly important because of the lack of an avenue of appeal.

I have a longing for the Kingdom of God to come more fully on earth. I believe that the Church is God's principle way of doing that. In order for the Church to do that then it needs to be more ethical, more fair, more righteous, more loving than the surrounding culture. It needs to have something to offer. None of us would accept a legislation of this kind in our secular government. Atheists, Humanists, Muslims, everyone, I believe would have more self respect than to pass a 'Covenant' of this kind. What is wrong with the Church of England, that we would have less respect for fairness in our Church life than our secular life?

Please consider helping us get the message across about the Anglican Covenant, and click the logo in the top right hand corner of this blog, and join us.

Chippy the Parakeet

Chuck Swindoll tells the story of a bird named Chippy:'Chippy the parakeet never saw it coming. One second he was peacefully perched in his cage singing, the next he was sucked in, washed up, and blown over. His problem began when his owner decided to clean his cage with a vacuum. She stuck the nozzle in to suck up the seeds and feathers at the bottom of the cage. Then the phone rang. Instinctively she turned to pick it up. She'd barely said 'hello' when-sswwwwPPPPP! Chippy got sucked in. She gasped, let the phone drop, and snapped off the vacuum. With her heart in her mouth, she unzipped the bag. There was Chippy-alive, but stunned-covered with heavy black dust. She grabbed him and rushed to the bathtub, turned on the faucet full blast and held Chippy under a torrent of ice-cold water, power-washing him clean. Then she did what any compassionate pet owner would do: she snatched up the hairdryer and blasted the wet, shivering little bird with hot air.' Swindoll closes his story with these words: 'Chippy doesn't sing much any more.' Life will test you, but don't let it steal your song!

(Taken from The Vine)

Things that the church does that industry wouldn't.

I want to say two things about this post as a disclaimer! The first is that I don't want to take anything away from Nick Baines' appointment to Bradford Diocese, I am delighted, and I left this post a couple of days deliberately for that reason. Secondly, I don't mean this necessarily as negative criticism, it is just I think there are many of us who find the church odd as an institution, because it acts differently than other institutions we have been a part of.

So on 9th December, it is announced that a review is happening and Bradford Diocese is possibly being swallowed up into the Wakefield Diocese (nice map showing the details here). On 17th December Nick Baines is announced as the next Bishop of Bradford. There is no mention of what that means given that there may not be a Diocesan Bishop of Bradford long term.

In industry, in a similar situation, with a vacancy and a major restructuring review going on, what would happen is that someone would be appointed as the Acting Bishop of Bradford. The person would be temporarily promoted, or someone who was going to retire soon, or someone would cover two areas..... Then the employees in the company would be issued with a memo saying:

"Fred Blogs is the Acting Manager of Bradford, he has much experience in this and that, he was previously working over in Someother Department. The Wakefield Review is still ongoing, it is hoped that all your views will be taken into consideration. The CoE Corporation very much values its employees, and Fred Blogs has been appointed both because of his experience in working through transitions and also to be a listening and supportive Manager to the Bradford Department."

Something like that. I may be wrong, but I feel the Church could learn some things from industry, partly because not communicating and answering the obvious questions leaves people either confused or feeling that in the Church the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing.

iband for Christmas

h/t Peter Ould

Ok - I'm gonna try to be in a better mood for Christmas, and try to rant less about posts like this. I must be getting bad because someone sent me a section of a webpage and not the whole thing. When I asked why he replied that all the other bits were about Christians discriminating against gays and it would be a case of light the blue touch paper and retire... So... Thinking nice thoughts.....

Messiah as Hope

I was profoundly moved by the weekend 'Pray As You Go'. I have been feeling very un-Christmassy. I have been brought low by the realities of the inequalities in the church. These were less obvious to me as a lay person, less obvious before I was divorced, less obvious when I didn't have friends who are gay and in the church, less obvious before I read job adverts telling me that women need not apply. I had become perturbed and wondered about leaving the church quietly. A bit like Joseph on hearing the news of Mary's pregnancy.

The questions that Pray As You Go asked were, "How do you react when you hear perturbing news? What if this news is actually from God?"

The commentary continues, "Joseph doesn't want to miss a moment of grace - he pays attention, even to his dream. He did what the angel of the Lord commanded him - took Mary as his wife".

"Can you trust in the Lord's will for you and take that brave step of carrying it out?"

"How do you want to accept God in your life this Christmas?"

I remember how excited I was on recognising my vocation, how deeply I felt God was calling me, how terrified I was on taking the first tentative steps. It was like falling in love, and in that love I found out new truths and realities about myself, I recognised my passions and I put my hand more firmly in the hand of the Lord. (I'm not saying the priestly vocation is any more special than any other vocation - just the discovery of one's vocation, whatever it is, is like discovering one's life partner).

I still love my vocation, but inequality is a desperately cruel thing. Inequality begets prejudice, and prejudice begets hatred (or is it all the other way around?). There is a lot of hatred within the church, and it makes me cry. It is always packaged as something else, because we can't admit it, which makes it all the more dangerous. Sometimes it feels like a sickness that is getting worse and I fear for the church.

So what do I do? Lose hope? Or do I act like Joseph, and believe that something good will come, even through the shame, even through the confusion, even through the pains of childbirth?

Who is Christopher Senyonjo?

Time to do some further self-education. I received this email recently:

With all this talk about how bad gay people are--and even how bad people who are nice to gay people are--I can't help wondering if Lambeth has taken any notice of the way Bishop Christopher was drummed out of the Ugandan house of bishops and stripped of his pension for failing to share the hate.

Bishop Katherine has received some pretty severe treatment at the hands of other primates including Canterbury.  Not unnaturally I wonder if any such severity has been shown the Ugandan primate and other bishops for the dreadful way Bishop Christopher has been treated.

I also can't help wondering how long it's going to be before the haters in Ugandan sees are going to be told that their position is un-Anglican and un-Christian.  Isn't it about time the position of such leaders is critiqued as closely as the American church has been?

I read a good article on Bishop Christopher Senyonjo, which described him as the Desmond Tutu of Uganda. He has been standing alongside gay men in Uganda and suffered as a result. The article says:

Bishop Christopher says that what has sustained him during what he calls "the big storms of life" is his deep belief that the Gospel of Christ does not discriminate against anybody. He continues to spread the message that God loves everyone equally. Knowing this truth, he says, has set him free.

His ministry with Integrity Uganda could soon outlawed by the government, and Bishop Christopher could be put in prison for his support of LGBT Ugandans if Uganda's proposed "antihomosexuality" bill becomes a law. He has strongly condemned the bill as a violation of the U.N.’s Declaration of Human Rights and a violation of the sacred bonds of the Ugandan extended family system. He calls the bill inhumane and was recently a part of a delegation to the speaker of the house to reject the bill.

I think the author of the letter I published has a good point. I hope and pray that the Anglican Communion will uphold and protect this saintly man.

12 Days of Christmas

Blogging and Institutions

Yesterday, the Pluralist posted one of his amusing Radio Chatterbox dialogues. I must admit that I have taken more notice since I have appeared as Lesley Bloke (of course these characters are entirely fictional). My interpretation is that the other characters are Harold (Alan) Wilson and Kenneth Beans (Nick Baines), who are both blogging Bishops, Harry Tickpaper (The Pluralist) and then a blogging ordinand Rachel Marsovenus (Marszalek). There are a couple of other Bloggers alluded to in the post who have had difficulties with their institutions because of their blogs.

Some of the things that Harry Tickpaper says are:

"Over and over again, people who keep blogs put themselves at risk"......... "you ought to be able to equate ministry with honesty. I've done this myself even without blogging and came a cropper."

There is a suggestion that Harry thinks Nick Baines is pretty careful and keeps his more controversial thoughts to himself, which protects him whereas Alan Wilson keeps asking questions and doesn't totally commit himself. Hence, they are okay whereas others are at risk.

I am not sure what I think about all this. I became aware soon into blogging that those who were honest were the bloggers I wanted to read, but their honesty also made life pretty difficult for the authors. In particular, early on, I followed the Nakedpastor and the Madpriest. Neither of them are now ministering in church institutions. However, no one in the 'institution' has said anything negative to me about my blog, quite the opposite really. I do think Blogging makes people both more aware of and more outspoken about difficulties within their institutions, which makes them edgy.... I would love to know what everyone else thinks.

Let it Be

h/t Ragamuffin Soul

A few of us have had bad days lately, one way or another. I always think this is a good bit of wisdom from the Beatles. Watching it, I remembered I had a collosal crush on John Nettles when I was a kid!

Governance by hurt feelings

Who can be a Bishop? Well this is what the Windsor Report says (emphasis mine):

125. There are some areas in which the issue of acceptability is unclear. For example, practice varies across the Communion in relation to divorce and remarriage: there are provinces where it would be unthinkable to appoint a bishop who had been divorced and remarried; there are others where this would be regarded as a secondary issue. The fact of divorce and remarriage would therefore not seem per se to be a crucial criterion[85].

126. There are some matters over which the Communion has expressed its mind. As we have seen[86], the contentious issue of ordaining women as bishops was the subject of extensive debate and discussion in the Communion for some considerable time before a common mind was reached. After lengthy deliberation, the Instruments of Unity concluded that although the ministry of a woman as bishop might not be accepted in some provinces, that represented a degree of impairment which the Communion could bear[87].

127. The Communion has also made its collective position clear on the issue of ordaining those who are involved in same gender unions[88]; and this has been reiterated by the primates through their endorsement of the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution[89]. By electing and confirming such a candidate in the face of the concerns expressed by the wider Communion, the Episcopal Church (USA) has caused deep offence to many faithful Anglican Christians both in its own church and in other parts of the Communion.

It seems that one can become a bishop if it doesn't cause 'offence'. In fact, the key word in the Windsor report is 'offence', it was created because people were offended by the Consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. The report has as a presupposition that causing offence is wrong, and the fault of the one who offended. But is it?

Paul seems to think so because he wrote, "Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed" ( 2 Corinthians 6:3) and in 1 Corinthians 10:32, "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God." 

However, Jesus offended people in general (Matt 13:57), the religious authorities (Matt 15:12) and even offended his own disciples (John 6:61). Taking offence is not reason enough to condemn the appointment of Gene Robinson. Careful and thoughtful theology and engagement with people who are gay would be a better route to resolving differences over the issue of homosexuality.

Simon's cat in 'Santa Claws'

h/t What the tide brings in

Congratulations to Nick Baines

Bishop Nick Baines (Bishop of Croydon) has just announced that he will be the new Bishop of Bradford. Not only is he one of our younger Bishops, but he is also a Blogging Bishop. I think this is tremendous news and wish Nick every blessing in his new ministry.

This has got me thinking about the age of Bishops. In industry I was aiming to be Managing Director by the time I was thirty-five, if I hadn't made it by forty it would never happen. But the church is very different - rarely does someone become a Diocesan Bishop before the age of fifty, and they tend to retire at seventy. Whilst I think age and wisdom are good things, I wonder whether it impacts the ages of people that interact with the church? Below are the fourteen youngest Diocesan Bishops in age order:

Diocese	Christian Name	Surname	D of B	Theological College attended
Coventry	Christopher	Cocksworth	12/01/59	St John's College, Nottingham
Chelmsford	Stephen	Cottrell	31/08/58	St Stephen's House, Oxford
Ely	Stephen	Conway	22/12/57	Westcott House
Bradford	Nick	Baines	13/11/57	Trinity College Bristol
Truro	Tim	Thornton	14/04/57	St Stephen's House, Oxford
St Albans	Alan	Smith	14/02/57	Wycliffe Hall, Oxford
Sheffield	Steven	Croft	01/01/57	St John’s College, Durham
Southwark	Christopher	Chessun	05/08/56	Westcott House
Rochester	James	Langstaff	27/06/56	St John’s College, Nottingham
Southwell & Nottingham	Paul	Butler	18/09/55	Wycliffe Hall, Oxford
Worcester	John	Inge	26/02/55	CR Mirfield
Portsmouth	Christopher	Foster	01/01/54	Westcott House
Carlisle	James	Newcome	24/07/53	Ridley Hall TC
Birmingham	David	Urquhart	14/04/52	Wycliffe Hall TC

(Thanks to Peter Owen for the information)

Another thing that interests me is that it is rumoured that you have to dance on the bar at Cuddesdon Theological College to be a Bishop, and indeed I have done the YMCA dance up there with the best of them. Whilst that may have been true at one time, none of the youngest sixteen Bishops studied there, and most of them went to more evangelical colleges.

I sense that things may be changing. By the way Durham and Salisbury are vacant at the moment. No idea who might get Salisbury, but perhaps Martyn Percy will get Durham? He has done an excellent job at Cuddesdon Theological College, so it would be thoroughly deserved.

Saying 'I'm Sorry'

There is a brilliant post by the Simple Massing Priest about saying 'sorry'. He seems to think some British Bishops need a little help with apologising, and indeed, the Church Mouse agrees. However, one of our Bishops did do an excellent job of apologising and then got withdrawn from public ministry. I guess it all depends who you sleight?

Apologising is an interesting thing. I almost certainly do too much of it. Now I am not married, one of the freedoms is not apologising, which leads me to wonder whether I say sorry first and ask questions later. I notice that one of my sons is fantastic at proper unreserved apologies, but I fear a little that he might be like me.

On the other hand, proper apologies when we know we have done something wrong are brilliant at diffusing situations and restoring relationships, if, of course, they are accepted in the spirit that they are given. I even think the 'I'm sorry you're upset' apology is good, if it is genuine. One that people close to me sometimes say is, 'I can see you are upset, and I can see why, and I am sorry that I caused this, but do you not think your response is disproportionate?' ....the answer to this is often yes.

The problem is that taking offence is sometimes a weapon that is wielded - the response to 'You offended me', perhaps should sometimes be 'Good - you should be offended, because then you might change'. If I get hurt by something that someone else says then perhaps it is just me overreacting, and people shouldn't have to tiptoe around my sensibilities.

Mr Catolick interviews Cyril Smallpiece

THE NO ANGLICAN COVENANT COALITION: “Ten Reasons Why the Proposed Anglican Covenant is a Bad Idea”

Ten Reasons Why the Proposed Anglican Covenant Is a Bad Idea

1. The proposed Anglican Covenant would transform a vibrant, cooperative, fellowship of churches into a contentious, centralized aggregation of churches designed to reduce diversity and initiative. The Covenant would institutionalize the “Instruments of Unity” as never before and would give extraordinary power to the newly enhanced Standing Committee.


2. Under the Covenant, churches will be inhibited from undertaking new evangelical or mission initiatives for fear of offending other Communion churches and becoming embroiled in the disciplinary mechanisms set up by the Covenant.


3. The centralization of authority envisioned by the proposed Covenant is cumbersome, costly, and undemocratic. In an era in which power and authority are being distributed in many organizations in order to achieve greater efficiency, responsiveness, and accountability, what has been proposed for the Communion seems out of step with current thinking regarding large organizations.


4. Although the proposed Covenant is offered as a mechanism to achieve unity, its immediate effect is to create divisions. Churches that cannot or will not adopt the Covenant automatically become second-class members of the Communion. The inevitable application of the disciplinary provisions of Section 4 will likely further distinguish between “full” members of the Communion and less-than-full members.


5. The proposed Covenant is dangerously vague. Sections 1–3 of the Covenant, which are seen by many as innocuous, leave much room for divergent interpretations. Section 4 makes it all too easy for any church to “ask questions” about the actions of another, which may then be subjected to unspecified “relational consequences.” There is no sure measure of what behaviour is likely to be acceptable, no checks provided against unreasonable complaints, and no guarantee that “consequences” (i.e., punishments) meted out will be commensurate with the alleged offence.


6. The proposed Covenant runs counter to the gospel imperative of not judging others. It is all too easy for Communion churches to complain about the sins of their sister churches while ignoring or diverting attention from their own failures to live out the Gospel.


7. The proposed Covenant encourages premature ending of debate. Rather than taking the advice of Gamaliel (Acts 5:38–39) and seeing how controversial matters play out, the Covenant evidences an eagerness to “settle” them. This is an unfortunate temptation to which the Communion seems subject. It has too quickly concluded that “homosexual practice” is “incompatible with Scripture” and that adopting the Covenant is “the only way forward,” neither of which is either intuitively obvious or universally agreed upon.


8. The notion that we need to make “forceful” the “bonds of affection” is fundamentally flawed. If we need force and coercion to maintain relationships between Communion churches, there is no true affection, and the very foundation of the proposed Covenant is fraudulent.


9. The proposed “Covenant” seems more like a treaty, contract, or instrument of surrender than a covenant. In the ecclesiastical context, a covenant is usually thought of as an agreement undertaken in joy and in an atmosphere of trust—baptismal and marriage covenants come to mind. The proposed Anglican Covenant, on the other hand, is advanced in an atmosphere of anger, fear, and distrust, and with the threat of dire consequences if it is not adopted.


10. The proposed Covenant is not the only way forward; there are better options. The Anglican Communion would be better served by remaining a single-tier fellowship of churches, allowing disaffected members to leave if they must, while keeping the door open for their return. Any alternative position cedes too much power to those willing to intimidate by threatening to walk away.

FROM HERE 

Who is Drexel Gomez?

Ok, further attempts to educate myself.. I know Drexel Gomez is the former Primate of the West Indies and that he is Chair of the Covenant Design Group. But I have the sense that when his name is mentioned there is a whole load of history I don't know about. This is what Wikipedia says:

Along with Archbishop Peter Akinola, Anglican Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Gomez is a leading opponent of the ordination of practising homosexuals as Anglican clergy, an issue that escalated into a crisis for the Anglican Communion following the consecration of openly gay clergyman Gene Robinson as Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire in the USA in 2003.

In October 2003 Archbishop Gomez was appointed to the Lambeth Commission on Communion by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams. The Commission produced the Report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion (also known as The Windsor Report and the Eames Report), published in October 2004.

In August 2007, Archbishop Gomez was the main preacher at a service where several Anglican Archbishops consecrated two American priests as bishops despite the opposition of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America‎. He accused the U.S. church of "aggressive revisionist theology" and teaching lies.

This is exceptionally surprising to me, because in the Windsor Report (2004) there was a moratorium on foreign Bishops ordaining people, and yet it seems that in 2007 Drexel Gomez was part of the breaking of the report when he was part of forming it.

Drexel Gomez is a controversial figure because he is so anti-gay. The level of oppression of gay people in the West Indies is shocking, although perhaps not surprising, Jamaica being considered to be one of the world's most homophobic countries. I wonder how well the 'Listening Process' is going in the West Indies, recommended in Lambeth 1:10', where gay and lesbian Christians are listened to by the church?

Although, I know that more liberal voices were drafted in to help with the Covenant, it would have been much more reassuring to gay people and the rest of us if a more neutral Chair of the Covenant Design Group had been chosen.

O little town of Bethlehem

Last night I taught a session on the Diocesan 'Rolling Programme' (training for lay people and those who will be lay ministers). At the end of each session someone leads worship, and Hazel brought some pictures of Bethlehem (with the oppressive wall) and this nativity set, where the Kings can't come and worship because the wall is in the way. We prayed for Bethlehem:

O Mystery as grand as the universe
O Mighty Force of all creation,
O Power beyond all our power,
You have come to us as an infant.
Vulnerable, fragile, beautiful.
You have come to us
in the midst of poverty,
powerlessness and longing.

Come again, O Promiser of Peace.
Come again, to the city of your birth
mired in fear, oppression and injustice.
Come again, where bullet holes
still pock the walls of Sanctuary.
Come again, where Children dream
of homes they have never seen.
Come again, where a single key
or the number 194 cry out again
of forced journey to Bethlehem.

Be born again in the camps.
Be born again in stables and homes.
Be born again in many cities and languages.
Be born again among nations.
Be born again in places of injustice.
Be born again a promise of hope,
a sign of love and joy to the world.
Be born again in our hearts,
that we too might be called
Makers of peace
and Children of God.

Amen

Spiritual Abuse

The nakedpastor writes a lot about spiritual abuse. Of course those of us who have suffered in this way often think it is all our fault, but he writes this in response:

There is something we should understand. Yes, you might consider yourself weak and let someone walk all over you. You might not be very aware of your boundaries and you allowed them to be crossed. You might be overly respectful of authority and allowed yourself to be intimidated. Yes, you might find it hard to say no and let yourself be worked into the ground.

But we are talking about abuse here.

The abused’s disposition and the abuser’s actions are separate. Your disposition and actions, no matter how weak or provocative, never justifies you being abused. Never. You may provoke… either by your weakness or by your provocations or whatever… but it may never justify abuse.

Rather predictably, as someone who didn't know much about boundaries, I fell prey to spiritual abuse during one phase of my life. The minister considered that I was too strong-minded or didn't let my husband be the head of our household, and all the problems in our relationship were squarely my fault. My response was to try to change, and try to be someone different. I became more and more the demure evangelical wife that was expected until one day my husband said, 'Who are you? I married someone who was spunky and vibrant and wild. I don't recognise you any more'. It took me a long time to recover from a number of really quite shocking events, as well as the continuous pressure to conform.

The thing is, there is a lot of power that can come with wearing a dog collar, and it should be handled with a great deal of care. Now that I wear one, I think I sometimes forget that my words can have more impact than they did before, hopefully mainly for good, but I must take heed from my own negative vicar experiences.

One artist meme

I bit on Phil's Treehouse... Using only song names from ONE ARTIST, answer these questions. Be as clever as you can. You can't use the band I used. Try not to repeat a song title. It's a lot harder than you think...

Pick your Artist  Foreigner
Describe yourself Urgent
How do you feel I don’t want to live without you
If you could go anywhere, where would you go  Long, long way from home
Your favourite form of transportation Love on the Telephone (!)
Your best friend is a Juke Box Hero
You and your best friends are Waiting for a girl like you
If your life was a TV show, what would it be called I want to know what love is
What is life to you Growing up the Hard Way
Your current relationship Feels like the first time
Your fear Heart turns to stone
What is the best advice you have to give That was Yesterday
I would like to die... Hot Blooded
Time of day Blue Morning, Blue day
My motto Say you will

Christmas Can-Can

h/t Wounded Bird

Puritan Theology

I have made friends with some very clever people recently, which is good because I am learning lots, but bad because I now realise how ignorant I am. Anyway, continuing with the project of self education, here are some thoughts from Jonathan Clatworty about Puritan Theology:

Puritans believed that the human mind is too fallen to understand true doctrine by itself, so we depend entirely on divine revelation in the Bible. Thus revelation transcends reason, cannot be judged by it, and even when it seems contrary to all reason is to be accepted as complete and certain. 

This theory implies a particular view of authority, knowledge, and the Church. Adherents have argued that a person who disagrees with a certainty must certainly be wrong; that on every question of doctrine and ethics there is a single biblical answer which is beyond doubt correct; and that since revelation is inherited from the Christian past there is no place for discovering new insights or learning from other faiths. Such a view leads to the expectation that every biblical text has been designed by God exactly as it is, so to doubt the truth of any one text is to reject the central principle of divine revelation. To use a philosophical term, this theory of knowledge is foundationalist. Foundationalism is based on two principles, a truth which is known with certainty and deductive logic which derives other certainties from it. The modern successors of this tradition no longer seek biblical answers to all questions of doctrine and ethics. Nor do they apply every biblical text literally. They do however insist that some biblical texts apply literally, and deny the right of Christians to hold alternative views. 

The implication for the Church is that its duty is to transmit doctrine exactly as it has been received. As the only source of information is revelation, teaching is always in one direction, from the teacher who has learned revelation to passive learners. The Church is therefore hierarchical, and positions of leadership need to be restricted to those who accept the church’s teaching on all matters. Group discussions are opportunities not for creative development of ideas but for seeking clarification from the person who knows; attenders should not hear both sides of an argument and make up their own minds, as that would be to exalt reason above scripture. Conversely, those who in all conscience cannot agree with the views of their church’s leaders find that they have no option but to leave. This is why the inheritors of the Puritan tradition have a record for sectarian splits: every disagreement has the potential to provoke one faction to leave and set up an alternative church. 

It is interesting, reading this I realised that I have been influenced by Puritan Theology. One of the things I really hated about my time as a more fundamentalist evangelical was the way that I had to constantly doubt myself, and put the evangelical interpretation of scripture above my own morality, feelings and thoughts. I ended up tying myself in knots and doing mental gymnastics. Eventually, I could cope no longer and snuck out when no one was looking. However, I think my blog is giving me away!