Results of the Primates' Meeting

h/t The Lead

Both these videos filled me with hope. I am so pleased that ++Katharine described the Primate's meeting as 'wonderful' and 'filled with grace'. I loved the way that she said that what she had gained from the meeting is new friends and deepened friendships. I personally think this is the most important aspect of the Primate's meeting.

I also think ++Rowan presented the results of the meeting very well. He described the work that needed to be done at the meeting:

What we expect of the Primates corporately and how we can best achieve that.

Clarifying what the role of the Standing Committee.

Responsibilities of the churches in combating violence based on gender.

All of these statements and more can be found at Thinking Anglicans.

I was especially interested in what the Primates think the Primates meeting is for, as I have mentioned before. Nice of them to answer that for me ;) As ever, it is a bit unclear, but it seems to me that it is primarily to support the worldwide churches together, to share stories and to get to know and understand each other. See the statement here, and tell me what you think.

I want to congratulate them all on a successful meeting, and long may it continue. 

Oh, and if you do listen to the second video, in the questions, one of the Primates describes the Communion as a family, families have disagreements, but we need to all keep talking. I couldn't agree more.

Twenty-one things you can't say in church

h/t nakedpastor

I asked what the one word you can't say in church is, and within no time at all had lots of comments that made me go 'wow, you are so right'. This is our collected thoughts. If you want to add any more then please do:

1. I'm in a really bad mood.

2. I'm left wing.

3. I'm 'green'.

4. I'm a feminist.

5. I've had an abortion.

6. I think all this stuff about evil spirits is silly.

7. I masturbate.

8. I'm scared of death because I barely have any faith.

9. I'm scared God doesn't exist.

10. God loves and accepts all including Muslim and gay people.

11. 'Saved'.

12. Women have as big a sex drive as men.

13. As a woman I am not a nurturer and don't want kids.

14. I don't approve of the shallow, anachronistic theology that gets fed to the congregation.

15. I have mental health issues. I'm suicidal. I self-harm. I suffer chronic depression.

16. 'Sorry'.

17. 'Cash'.

18. 'LGBT'

19. 'Now'

20. 'Vicar, is it possible you might be wrong?'

21. I have doubts.

I think I would only add 'I've been abused' to the list. I guess we all have some responsibility in breaking the taboos....

On Being Christlike

Richard Rohr has been interesting lately - he has been writing in his daily email about being Christlike. He believes that Christ is the model of a way of being that has been set out by God before time. Jesus was the perfect epitome of this model. We are all called to be Christlike, which means being who we are designed to be - loving, hopeful, joyful etc.

I have long believed that being a Christian does not mean being a clone of Jesus - acting exactly as Jesus would in a certain situation. I think that denies our inherent personalities and experience and suggests there is one perfect way of behaving in a certain situation, and every other action is wrong.

I like Richard Rohr's idea, I like the feeling that we are called to be the best 'us' we can be, and that would be different to everyone else's calling. I get frustrated with myself quite a lot - I know I fail to meet these standards. I sat in church  last night praying about this and somehow gained peace. Why do I let myself down? Well because Christ hasn't been right through me yet, there are still areas of my soul that are alien to Christ. But it is a journey, and our hope is that we will become more and more Christlike, and as it is God that has called us, and who has faith in us then how can we fail to become more like Christ?

Childhood Sexual Abuse

I was sent this video and asked to support the cause by telling my story. I haven't responded. I tell myself that it is because I am too busy, or because I don't want to be defined by abuse, or because there are a lot of good causes out there, and I can't support them all. But really, I think it is hard to tell the story when my abuser is still alive, and having discovered how merciless he can be I think I will always fear him. Mmm.. I don't like the sound of that. If you do  watch the video above, remember how brave they all are, they will have been terrified into silence and it isn't easy to break the silence.

Alternative Wedding Entrance

I've never seen this video before - h/t Changing Worship

Rowan condemns bigotry and the murder of David Kato

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who is currently in Dublin for the Primates’ meeting, has made the following statement regarding the murder of the gay human rights activist David Kato Kisulle in Uganda: (h/t Thinking Anglicans)

“The brutal murder of David Kato Kisule, a gay human rights activist, is profoundly shocking. Our prayers and deep sympathy go out for his family and friends - and for all who live in fear for their lives. Whatever the precise circumstances of his death, which have yet to be determined, we know that David Kato Kisule lived under the threat of violence and death. No one should have to live in such fear because of the bigotry of others. Such violence has been consistently condemned by the Anglican Communion worldwide. This event also makes it all the more urgent for the British Government to secure the safety of LGBT asylum seekers in the UK.This is a moment to take very serious stock and to address those attitudes of mind which endanger the lives of men and women belonging to sexual minorities.”

Comment: Thank-you ++Rowan.

Avoidance

I wrote this poem a long time ago having spent some time with someone who was avoidantly attached, and having talked and talked he realised that events in his childhood were controlling the way he behaved as an adult. I just turned up the poem and wanted to share it. I think many of us are avoidant because we don't want to be hurt again.

The hug

The scent of your skin,

The warmth of your embrace,

The love in your body,

as I bury my face.

I want to be here forever

In this safe, warm place.

The scent of other children,

Impatience in your embrace,

You push me away too soon,

And I can’t see your face.

I seem to wait forever

in a lonely, abandoned place.

The scent of your skin

The warmth of your embrace

But I push you away

And I hide my face.

I want you to search forever,

To come to my hurting place.

The scent of my longing

I must not embrace.

For what I long for will be taken

And I mask my face,

So I will avoid forever

and live in a frozen place.

What is the one word you can't say in Church?

I had a coffee with the gorgeous Anita from Dreaming Beneath the Spires this week, which was an inspirational hour. She told me about some wonderful blogs, including one by Anne Jackson (now an ex-blogger) who apparently blogs on similar issues to me (although I her blog was spectacularly popular and well written). So Anita told me about a post she put up asking what you feel you can't say in church, or around other Christians. I think I have a few answers myself, but I wonder what you feel isn't possible to admit to in church...?

Risks of Abortion

I was delighted to see that a health worker, Margaret Forrester, was reinstated and promoted. She was suspended because she mentioned that she was concerned about women who were facing an unexpected pregnancy were not being given enough information about the potential negative effects of abortion. Whilst I am deeply sympathetic towards the women and their partners who terminate pregnancies, and I am desperate not to add to their pain, I am also very aware that the risks of terminating are not well known. I hear people talk about it as 'the easy option' and it makes me shiver.

For me, when I was 24, I terminated a pregnancy because the baby was dying. I didn't really have a choice, because I believed that every move I made added to the child's pain, and therefore the impact on my mental health was dreadful. After the termination (which took two days and involved inducing the child and giving birth) the guilt was overwhelming, and the procedure in itself was traumatic and left me physically and psychologically not the same afterwards! Then it was five years before I realised I had a 'right' to grieve. I was attending a seminar on grief and said, 'I have never lost anyone close, but what you are describing sounds like me since I had my abortion'. The leader of the seminar seemed surprised that it didn't occur to me that losing a baby in this way is a bereavement. However, it was still many years before I actually grieved, when I admitted to myself and to another that my actions were a 'mercy killing', after that the floodgates opened and the healing began.

I've met many men and women who are still carrying the pain and grief of termination, and as it isn't generally talked about, I think it is really tough to deal with. Wikipedia details the research that has been done in this area, and it is not at all clear that my experiences are typical, however I thought this text about the response of men was interesting, especially having recently discussed it with a male friend:

The psychological response of male partners to abortion has been the subject of limited research. A study of 75 men in Sweden found that most participating men agreed with their partner's decision to have an abortion, and that many experienced a complex mix of emotions including anxiety, responsibility, guilt, relief and grief. Other studies have suggested that abortion can be a point of conflict when partners disagree about it, and that like women, many male partners experience an ambivalent mix of emotions in response to their partner's abortion, underscoring the complexity of the abortion issue.

Gay Rights Activist Murdered - Kyrie eleison

Two people have sent me this news article about a Ugandan gay rights activist, David Kato, who was bludgeoned to death yesterday. He had been receiving death threats because he was gay. The worst part of the report for me is the truth that many of us in the Anglican Communion already know:

Ugandan society is, in general, homophobic – but in recent years the anti-gay feeling has been stoked by religious leaders, a group of US evangelicals and politicians.

Now some of these 'religious leaders' are part of the Anglican Communion, as are some of the 'US evangelicals'. I despair that there was so much shock and horror in the Communion over the consecration of a gay bishop in the US, but a blind eye seems to be turned to those Anglicans who stoke hatred against gay people in the name of Christ.

Doug Blanchard said this today:

Anglican and other Christian bishops who value institutional unity and integrity over human dignity also bear their share of responsibility for his death. As far as I am concerned, they are in no position to be preaching anything to anyone.

I don't know what I feel, except that I am part of an organisation who is partly responsible for his death. It makes me weep. Lord have mercy!

Holocaust Memorial Day 2011

Blogging side-effect

There have been a number of unexpected side-effects of blogging, and most notable and interesting for me is that occasionally I receive an email or a Twitter Direct Message that says something like, 'I am a writer myself and I find the style of writing in your blog very interesting, can we meet up and discuss it?'

So on the appointed day, in the appointed coffee shop, I have a blind date. I sit there and suddenly it occurs to me that I don't really know what he looks like, how will I spot him? I am always early everywhere, and I take my Times crossword book with me as I am on a desperate quest to improve my vocabulary and general knowledge from diddly squat to marginally better than diddly squat by the time I die. So I sit, trying to get a few clues, and eyeing up every person that walks into the coffee shop, feeling really intrigued. Each time, I have failed to recognise my date but they have spotted me. It is actually better when it is a woman I am waiting for, because when it is a bloke I look like I am eyeing up the talent. Anyway, let's say I am waiting for someone called Jonathan...

So he arrives and we get our drinks. I have a skinny vanilla latte grande and he gets a small black coffee and we sit down and he looks at me. I get a sort of narrow eyed look that evaluates me and seems to say, 'Are you for real?' So I start the conversation:

'So, I'm guessing, if you have read my blog for a while, you know everything about me'.

'Yes, as much as you put up there - I feel like I know an awful lot about you'.

'Well the thing is I know nothing about you'.

'Oh, I suppose you don't, that is rather odd'.

It is odd these days. Quite a lot of people know me well and I don't know them. So Jonathan is kind, and fills me in about his career and his home life, and I must say it is always fascinating. Then the conversation turns to the blog, and I ask him why he wanted to speak to me, and I tend to get a compliment about my writing and then a comment about how refreshingly open it is. One person said it is as if I come downstairs in the morning, sit at my desk, switch on my laptop and open a vein.

I have met the most fascinating, insightful, talented people through my blog, and begun a number of friendships that I think will last a very long time. I love the way that blogs connect people, and generally if people like my blog they like me, and friendships form very quickly. It is completely opposite to the public perception that Social Media stops you from forming real relationships.

1:10 - the sign and seal of Anglicanism #nocovenant

I don't know about anyone else, but I have been a bit perplexed by the tremendous focus on infighting that has occurred in the last decade of the Anglican Communion. Personally, I think every minute and hour of time that is spent on squabbling could be better spent by showing the love of Christ in service to the world. However, I absolutely agree that unless we get our own house in order we cannot properly model the love of Christ. So, I have been trying to understand. Below is my honest interpretation of what is going on. I don't wish to cause division or blame, but neither do I wish to be in denial.

I think the problems do at least partly come down to homophobia (and I fully accept that not all those who are against homosexuality are homophobic). The reason I say this is because I have sat with the idea that the problems are due to different understandings about the authority of Scripture for some time and it doesn't make sense to me. For example, scripture forbids usury (lending money with interest) and the church hasn't threatened to split over this. Part of the church seems to have a list of sins that are abominations and top of the list is homosexual sex, probably followed by having women in positions of leadership. I don't think this has anything to do with scripture - if we were to list the biggest sins according to the Bible, at the top would be religious hypocrisy or neglecting the needs of the poor, I think.

I have also considered the possibility that the problems in the Communion are due to worldview shifts - from 'Modern' to 'Post-modern'. I still think this is true to some extent, perhaps the rapid shift in society towards accepting homosexuality has caused a very strong reaction from those who will not accept it. However, I still think homophobia is the core problem, and some of the fear and hatred is akin to what I have read about the civil rights movement in America in the 50s and 60s. Furthermore, I think the creation of the statement about homosexuality being incompatible with scripture in Lambeth 1.10 has become the tool that is driving the Communion apart. (Lambeth 1.10 was a statement on homosexuality made in1998 by the Bishops of the Anglican Communion).

The creation of 1.10 was a victory for some, and the implications go on and on. The reality is that Lambeth 1.10 has no authority in itself. For a start all the Churches in the Anglican Communion are autonomous and the ways in which they make rules differ. So even if a Primate is fiercely against homosexuality, it may well be that legislation is passed in the councils or synods in that Primate's Church that supports homosexuality. Secondly, my understanding of Anglicanism is that the bishops don't decide stuff, but we all decide together - bishops, priests and laity - I believe that we are a grass roots church as a reaction against papal authority during the Reformation, and I like it. So my response to Lambeth 1.10 is that it was a group of bishops - very interesting, but it doesn't represent the whole church, so it has no authority.

But no, 1.10 has become the sign and seal of being an Anglican. As a result, in England, a report was based on 1.10 called 'Some Issues in Human Sexuality', and when I was selected for Ordained Ministry I had to agree to abide by them or not be selected. After a gay bishop was consecrated in 2004 there was an emergency Primate's meeting that issued the 'Windsor Report' supporting 1.10 and the notion grew that we should throw Churches out of the Anglican Communion if they don't agree with 1.10, and that was the original purpose of the Anglican Covenant. Now Primates are refusing to go to any more Primates meetings because the previous three meetings had agreements about abiding by 1.10 and these agreements have not been honoured.

I actually have some sympathy with the these Primates. They believe that 1.10 is a key mark of Anglicanism, they have expressed that they don't want to be in Communion with anyone who disagrees and they have been consistent. For me though, any form of discrimination based on gender, sexuality or race is unacceptable.

In church on Sunday we had the text from I Corinthians 3:

1 Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarrelling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?

21 So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

We are acting like children - Lambeth 1.10 is not our sign and seal - Christ is. We are squabbling  and quarrelling with each other when it is obvious that no one is going to win. Let us forget about 1.10, let us scrap 'Some Issues in Human Sexuality' and the Anglican Covenant. And please can we instead agree to let each Church in the Communion address the issue of homosexuality for themselves, carefully and prayerfully, remembering that Christ loves everyone equally? Let us pronounce that Christ is the sign and seal of Anglicanism, and move on from Lambeth 1.10.

Wednesday Wacky Web Round-Up

h/t Naked Pastor

1. Telling Secrets - Elizabeth explores patience and passion.. hum - wonder why I like this post!
2. Anglican Samizdat - Some thoughts on the response of the Canadian Primate to the hoo-haa about the upcoming Primate's meeting in Dublin.
3 .Dreaming beneath the Spires gives us ten reasons why you should never get a job. Brilliant.. almost want to quit immediately!
4. Significant Truths - Tee hee.. It's about.. snigger.. sorry. well Sue has been brilliant again and well.. no sorry, it is too funny - you'll have to read it.. :D
5. Dreaming beneath the Spires, Anita shares a delightful post about her daughter and "prinking".
6. An Inch at a Time Susan shares with us a tribute to love, life and family values.
7. The Vernacular Curate talks about doubt - very interesting - I wonder whether it is a more extreme experience once you are ordained?
8. The Seeker puts up a very good post about whether we are obligated to be happy.
9. The Lead asks Chris Sugden to substantiate his comments.
10. Undercover Nun - A day in her life, absolutely fascinating.

Video on P*rn Addiction

Anne Jackson talks about women and porn addiction

Why have Primates Meetings?

I feel like I am endlessly trying to understand the Anglican Communion and failing. You see, I imagined that Primates meetings were a bit like 'Chapter meetings' whereby the clergy and lay ministers in an area meet together and the prime focus seems to be sharing stories and supporting each other. Sometimes we organise things, but that is pretty much it. That is not to say it is of no worth - I think it is tremendously worthwhile.

I am beginning to think that Primate's meetings are different to this, especially since I have been trying to understand why some of the Primates are refusing to attend the meeting in Dublin. They say it is because the decisions of the previous meetings have not been actioned:

Unless and until there is unequivocal commitment to honour the agreed basis of Lambeth Resolution 1.10 and implement the decisions of previous Primates’ Meetings (2005, 2007, 2009) expressed in the respective Communiqués, especially that of Dar es Salem 2007, it will only lead to further erosion of the credibility of the Primates’ Meeting and accentuate our failure to honour the work already done by them.

I must say Dar es Salem 2007 makes depressing reading, it fells like all the woes are due to The Episcopal Church (TEC) and even incursions from other Anglican Churches into America are downplayed because they were serving a pastoral need that was caused by the bad behaviour of TEC.

Another thing I am confused about - we are synodically governed in the Church of England, having three houses that vote - laity, clergy and bishops. Now Lambeth 1.10, which rejects homosexual practice, was created under very dubious circumstances by a group of Bishops without any input from clergy and laity. So I don't understand what authority it has. If we are a grassroots church then I don't see why we don't just ignore it. By all means discuss homosexuality in the synods and come to a view, but surely Lambeth 1.10, at best, only tells us what the mind of a group of international Bishops is. It can't tell us what the 'Anglican view of Homosexuality' is - can it? Moreover it surely can't be wielded against TEC can it?

Genuine questions.. I would love someone to explain it to me.

BLOG NOTICE: Facebook Page

Just a quick note to say I've added a box to the Right Hand Column of this Blog that enables Facebook Users to link to a new Facebook Page that I have created called 'Lesley's Blog' (original eh?) I think it is working - it has tested my Social Networking skills for the last half an hour or so. I'd really appreciate someone else testing it for me too.

I couldn't really see the point of the pages in the past, but now I realise that some people prefer Facebook as an interface, but they don't particularly want to be Facebook Friends with me (understandable!) so a page might add some value for some readers...

Please do let me know if it works.

Jesus in Every Book of the Bible

h/t Peter Ould

Clergy and Abstinence

I have been sent a very, very funny post by a friend. It is by a young, single, female vicar called Astrid Storm and her attempts to date. (I think my friend feels I too am young and single - not sure 40 really counts). She talks about several issues, one of them being the question of sex which inevitably comes up on the first date:

But of course these men don't want to know if I can have sex within the confines of matrimony. What they really want to know is whether I can have sex now. And that's a lot, um, stickier. While young Christians have recently started questioning the theology and practicality of blanket prohibitions on premarital sex, we young clerics are usually bound by traditional mores a lot longer than our lay brothers and sisters. I happen to be a traditionalist on this score (right, what else is she going to say in an article her parishioners might read?), but I would also support any priest who pushed the envelope a bit. 

Now, for me, becoming single again has been a tremendous eye opener. For a start, expectations about sex have moved on a lot since I was last single, I have been very surprised. Having said that, I started dating my future husband when I was fourteen, married when I was twenty and stayed married for twenty years. So perhaps I was never typical. The other thing is I have been really flattered that quite a few men have asked me out, which after having three kids and feeling old and haggard has been a real boost to my confidence.

However, as Astrid points out, the issue of sex gets raised on the first date, and the answer to the question affects whether there will be a second date. Seriously. Astrid recommends ambiguity, at least if you manage to be vague for a while then the dating might turn into friendship, and priests need friends, she says. Unfortunately, I think I am truly rubbish at ambiguity - I did try a bit of vagueness and got myself dumped twice in a month, and my pleadings of 'can't we just be friends' were also rebuffed. I remember sending a rather self-pitying email to my Archdeacon on the subject. Fortunately, I am now dating a priest!

The truth is, almost all the people I meet who are dating are sexually active, and I don't raise an eyebrow. The only times I am shocked are when they tell me they are abstaining, and then I sometimes find out that they only told me that because they thought it was what I wanted to hear. Personally, I don't find anything inherently bad or sinful about sex in the context of a loving and faithful relationship. So I find that the expectations we have about clergy and abstinence differ from my expectations for lay people, and I hate having double standards. But then maybe that conversation is far too difficult to have, and none of us want to talk about it.

That said, I was a bit uncertain of what the rules are. I believe that they are that Anglican priests should abstain unless they are married, and Civil Partnerships don't count as marriage. I tried to find out exactly what 'abstain' means, and I think it is about penetrative, genital sex (sorry if that is TMI). Hence, I think Lesbians are okay and married priests are fine, but for rest of us it is crossed legs and cold showers.

Oh yes, we make it up

Right then... I am looking for a job, and I have read a lot of Parish Profiles, which set out what the parish is like and what sort of vicar they want. I have also visited churches having read the profiles, and met the people and even been to one interview. In this process I have lost confidence in my ability to glean from the profile very much about what the actual church is like, and indeed what sort of vicar they really want.

I was tentatively expressing this with a friend who happens to be a Church Warden, and she said 'Oh, yes, we make it up'. This possibility hadn't entered my head until she said it. All the profiles effectively say, 'We are a perfect church, with a loving congregation, lots of exciting projects going on, many active lay people and a fantastic vicarage to offer. We are looking for a perfect vicar who will get lots of children and young people to come to our services'.

I am actually looking for a church where it isn't all shiny and wonderful, where I might be some use by listening and empowering and helping tease out a vision with others. I am far from perfect, I am broken and fail to meet my own standards regularly, a perfect church would not be for me. I'm really looking to be part of a group of sinners who have caught a glimpse of God's grace.

When I tried to articulate this she repeated her statement, 'Oh yes, we make it up', and I walked home wishing that it wasn't made up. But then, we all show our best sides, we don't show our soft underbelly to folks until we trust them, and are my application forms any different their parish Profiles? Mmm.

So am I going to change the way I do Application Forms? I don't know.

'Bit broken and sometimes flaky Vicar aged 40 who is loving, empowering and inspiring seeks similar Church to create a community that is healing and kind as well as ready to transform the world with the love of Christ. Church must have a GSOH and not snore loudly during sermons.

Not sure it is going to work!

Breaking News in The Episcopal Church

After the appointment of Gene Robinson, a gay Bishop in The Episcopal Church (TEC), a number of Bishops who were formerly part of TEC aligned themselves with Anglican Churches outside the USA, such as some African Countries and also South America. Some of them 'took' the buildings with them, and the impact was that there were lay people and clergy who wanted to remain in their mother Church but who no longer had buildings to worship in, and indeed if you were a gay priest in those areas you were no longer welcome to minister in your church.

The Lead has reported that:

The Court orders provide in part that the defendants, including Bishop Jack L. Iker, “surrender all Diocesan property, as well as control of the Diocesan Corporation, to the Diocesan plaintiffs and to provide an accounting of all Diocesan assets within 60 days of this order.” Additionally, “the Court hereby orders the Defendants not to hold themselves out as leaders of the Diocese.”

I think this is a significant ruling and will begin the process of TEC recovering buildings, and in so doing recovering an Anglican presence in some areas. It is also good news for LGBT people, and I think good news in overcoming behaviour that looks to me like bullying. If I get to a stage where I don't approve of the Church of England then I hope I would have the good grace to bless them and leave, but not expect to take the property I live in nor the one I worship in with me. This has currently has implications in the England with the Ordinariate, although it seems that the Church of England is going to retain her buildings.

Islam and Freedom of speech

Some time ago, I posted on Islam and contradictions in the Qu'ran. My assertion was that Islam can only be good if it is progressive and liberal. Of course, my opinion my be ignorant, misguided or wrong. It is an opinion. People can tell me Christianity is bad or wrong. I disagree, but I support the freedom of everyone to tell me this if they wish.

I received, from some kind soul, a plea not to put my opinions about Islam on my blog. I was warned that I would receive death threats. My initial response was fury. I am a free citizen, and I live in a free country, where I do not have to be afraid. If I do some thing wrong then I may be imprisoned. If I write something that is libellous, or say something that is slanderous then I may be in trouble. If I stop being a Christian I will lose my job. I accept these restrictions. However, I do not accept that I cannot write my opinions about Islam. Stomp, stomp, stomp, grrrrrr.......GRRRRRR.

Then I felt afraid, which was even worse than feeling furious. Maybe he is right. I do have three young children, is this responsible? It took me a microsecond to decide that I can't live with myself if I give into bullying and I need to defend my rights to free speech. Too many people worked too hard to give them to me for me to give them back without a fight.

I was reminded about this whilst watching a debate on Islam, sent to me by Ron Murphy, where it transpired that pretty much everyone on the panel had a death threat against them. There were two atheists, one of whom was apostate and needed a permanent bodyguard, and two liberal Muslims debating whether Islam is a religion of peace.

Putting aside debates about Islam itself, it is a terrible thing that people are threatened by these extremists, and a relatively new thing. What can we do, if anything?

The Homo Nomo Halfway House

Three or four years ago I saw Peterson Toscano (who is in the video above) at Greenbelt. He performed a play called 'The Homo Nomo Halfway House'. It was a true story of what he had subjected himself to in Christian Residential Centres that enable you to become ex-gay. It was incredibly funny, moving and horrifying, I must have sat open mouthed as it became apparent that this awful thing, this ridiculous thing, was actually true and the person before me had been through it.

The memory of this play returned when I read a post by the Satirical Christian on becoming ex-straight, a post based on an article about Lesley Pilkington, a counsellor who 'helps' gay people become straight. The article says:

She said she wanted to help ­others who were in a ‘similar place’ to her 29-year-old son who, she insisted, was ‘heterosexual. He just has a homosexual problem’. 

‘I am not in this because I am judging people,’ she said. ‘I am in it because I understand what the issues are.

‘I have been able to help my son. We have gone through a process.

‘[My son] is still gay... we are developing a relationship that was quite difficult for many years but is now coming back in a very nice way. I am confident he will come through this and he will resolve his issues and that he will change.’

She told the Sunday Telegraph: ‘We say everybody is heterosexual, but some people have a homosexual problem. Nobody is born gay. It is in the upbringing.’

I find myself both speechless and embarrassed by what goes on in the name of Christianity. These people are just trying to help, they are probably really caring, but ultimately abusive. I can't help but feel that there is some deeply messed up psychological stuff in some areas of Christianity where we feel we have to get everyone to conform, and if they don't then they are useless to God, and we know what is best for them, and we can fix them. We don't trust that they can work it out for themselves, nor do we feel that we can affirm that God made them like they are... but why? What is so scary about that?

Transubstantiation

I was chatting to a friend about his Catholic upbringing, which is fascinating for me. I was brought up as non-religious and now I am a Christian, he was brought up as a Catholic and now he isn't religious. I have no concept of what it is like to be a child and be in a religious household, and listening to him I think I got the better deal! That said, I love aspects of the Catholic church - in particular all the prayers I use regularly are based on the Jesuits, and I love some of the Catholic Theologians too.

One of the subjects we got onto was transubstantiation, or to be precise, 'Do you know that in my church they believe that when the priest does the magic, it turns into the actual, what I mean is the actual body and blood of Christ?'

'Err, yeah, weird eh?' (As an aside the weirdest part is that Jesus is recorded in the scriptures as saying 'this is my body broken for you' when he himself is holding some bread, so it must be metaphorical when he said it).

'So do people  in your church believe that?'

'Err.. no.. well yes... well no.. well some do.. I think.. sort of'. (Which proves that my church is Anglican - and that is just the way I like it). But as sat there with him, it suddenly struck me how weird it would be to be a Catholic priest. 'Gosh, how do you do that as a priest?' I asked.

'Well it must be complete faith or complete folly', was the reply.

We then started talking about that - what if you started off with faith and then it dawned on you that it was folly? It would be like not telling the kids that Santa Claus doesn't exist. It is like the day that it dawns on you that Santa Claus can't come down the chimney because you don't have a chimney. And what then? Do you carry on being a priest? What would happen if you no longer believe in transubstantiation? Do you have to pretend? Does any Catholic priest really believe in it?

On a related note we started thinking about how the Catholic Church want to make Cardinal Newman a saint, so they claim that an American was miraculously cured of a spinal condition after Newman prayed for him, and that gets him to be declared 'Blessed', but a second miracle is required to get him to be a saint. It is like the only important stuff is the 'magic', the supernatural. A lifetime of loving others and doing good wouldn't make you a saint. What is that all about?

I think it is actually quite simple to explain - the older practices of the Church of Rome belong to the 'Classical' age, when the worldview of people was full of magic and superstition (see the table below). The split in the church at the reformation was due to a massive change in worldview of a significant potion of the population, hence the Anglican Church is 'Modern' (again see the table). The Catholic church was to some extent also reformed but perhaps keeps some of the 'Classical' aspects. The problem we now face is that there has been another massive worldview shift to 'Postmodern' and again there is another huge split threatening. Can we morph into a post-modern church? Can we straddle the two worldviews? Will we have to split in two? Interesting times.

	Classical	Modern	Postmodern
Population	Mainly rural	Mainly urban	Rural/urban divide diminshed
Technology	Simple	Sophisticated Power Based Values purpose and design	Very powerful Information based Values play and chance
Work	Integrated with life and family	Division of labour Mobile, specialised	Industrial decline Employed v. unemployed Decentralised jobs
Social Relationships	Personal and Intimate Inherited hierarchy	Largely Impersonal Functional Establishes hierarchy	Common Interest Transient, Self-orientated Cultivates anarchy
Family	Vital Importance Defining	Weakened Regulated by authority	Eroded Redefined Diversified
Community	Common worldview Religion central	Conformist Nation-state central Religion marginal	Fragmented, tolerant Communitarian Religion a personal choice
Morality	Absolute Transcendent source of good	Rationally determined Expedient, relative and evolving	No absolutes, inconsistent Feelings based Subgroup determined
Knowledge	Revelation based, objective, taught Myth and story key means of communication	Reason based, scientific Discovered and learnt Religious knowledge privatised	Experienced based Subjective, Intuitive Religious explanations validated by experience
Orientation	Past	Future	Present
Metaphysics	Realism: Supernaturalism	Realism: Naturalism	Anti-realism
Human Nature	Original Sin, Subject to God’s will	Tabula rasa and autonomy	Social construction and conflict
Ethics	Collectivism: altruism	Individualism	Collectivism: egalitarianism
Politics and economics	Feudalism	Liberal capitalism	Socialism

"Homosexuals Successfully Sue Christians for Discrimination"

I don't want to say much about this case, other than to be so thankful that it seems like the news reports I have seen and the blog posts I have read are measured and kind. See in particular Seeker and Always Hope who make excellent points. Both blogs talk about how unwise it is for Christians to impose their ethical standard on others around them, and that we are called to impose the ethical standards on ourselves, not others. I have been feeling this myself and not been able to express it. Other good points are made by the judge, that it is direct discrimination because Civil Partnership is the equivalent of Marriage. So when the Bulls protest that they don't let any unmarried couple share a bed and therefore are not discriminating, this is a false argument because the homosexual couple were in a Civil Partnership. In addition, when one opens one's home up as a commercial venture then different rules apply and people need to be careful to abide by the laws of the land.

The only thing I want to say, once again, is I as a Christian do not think homosexuality is wrong. My faith leads me to a very different conclusion - that any loving and faithful relationship between adults is good - and that Jesus was radically inclusive and we should be likewise. I think my corner of the Blogosphere has many voices within it that feels this way too. I wish that the word 'Christian' didn't get linked to the idea of being anti-gay.

Confessions of a sceptic

I sometimes have difficulties that go like this..... (I may be exaggerating slightly)

Friend calls in (lets call her Jo) to say that God has done something amazing (already feeling worried). It transpires that Jo was driving in her car and at exactly the wrong time, her brakes failed, just as she was approaching a level crossing. Unfortunately, she crashed into the train and was taken several yards up the track, but miraculously she wasn't too hurt. When the ambulance arrived, unfortunately all the local hospitals were full and she had a rather unpleasant and uncomfortable ride for 100 miles to the nearest available hospital. When she got there, there were no beds, and she had to wait three hours on a stretcher in a corridor until her bed was available. But when she was put in that bed she found a Gideon's Bible in the drawer, with a bookmark. She turned to the book mark in Proverbs, and the verse Proverbs 3v5 was underlined. And it said 'trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding'.

At this point Jo looks at me with wide eyed amazement - 'Isn't that wonderful?'

'Err.. poor you', I say, 'that must have been horrible'.

'Yes, but if I hadn't had the accident and my brakes hadn't failed at exactly that time and if I hadn't been weirdly taken to that hospital and had to wait for that particular bed, I wouldn't have had God draw my attention to that verse. And I have not been trusting God lately, and it has been so affecting me, and God needed to do something exceptional to get my attention'. She then looks at me again full of excitement.

At this point I weigh my options. I could just say 'wow, that is great'. But I can never pull it off convincingly. I could say, 'do you not think that you were just unlucky and shit happens and you are reading too much into this?' But that would burst her bubble. I could say, 'I wish I had your faith', and in some ways I do, although I am really thinking that it is barking mad.

But no. What comes out is, 'Jo, do me a favour, can you tell God that next time he wants to send me a message then try doing it without smashing my car up, scaring the living daylights out of me, driving me in an ambulance to the middle of nowhere and stranding me in pain in a corridor for three hours. If God can't manage to get the message across without going to those lengths then perhaps I'll just work it out for myself'.

Sigh.

New Bishop of Reading on YouTube

Wednesday Weirdy Web Round-up

h/t nakedpastor

1. The Episcopal Cafe has a very thought provoking article about whether theology supports child abuse. I know a number of atheist friends and lapsed Catholics take this view and I think the church needs to seriously listen, however painful it is to hear.

2. Worship idea - dad its me. This post made me cry. I think because I so want God to be like this dad and it awoke in me a mass of emotions when you apply the advert to God.

3. St Aelred -patron saint of queers. I read a number of blogs written by LGBT people, and I find they somehow keep me honest, I just love this post.

4. Sue has blogged on Trust. To be honest I love all her posts, she has a profound gentleness without compromising feistiness, I don't know how she does it.

5. Anita does a stream of consciousness in an attempt to work through anger before sundown. I love posts like these - I don't want to be preached at, I just want to share life.

6. The Satirical Christian is just silly. He is great - you gotta laugh sometimes otherwise you might cry!

7. The clerics guide to being single. This made me laugh. If you aren't a vicar, or you aren't single, or you aren't trying to date as single vicar you may not get it.

8. Yes God is an omnipotent homophobe with anger issues. I totally blame my boyfriend for alerting me to this video, which I 'watched' with my hands over my face groaning in disbelief and embarrassment.

9. I only just discovered the blog LLM Calling, and I am enjoying it a lot. I love this post because for some of us families like this are normal, but no one ever speaks of it, so those with difficult situations feel even more isolated.

10. I really enjoy Charlie Peer's blog, and this is a wise post about the B&B hoo-haa.

The Country is going to the dogs 2?

Occasionally, I have a day when I meet a series of wonderful people and I just want to celebrate it. Last time I wrote about this was a trip to London. This time, it started rather unpromisingly with a huge row between me and my man on Sunday. I was still feeling rather bruised on the Monday, and after a wonderful lunch with a journalist friend, I decided to ring my boyfriend and ask him out for a date in the evening. We met and chatted and resolved things over a Pizza, and then trotted back to my car (he was going home by train). Unfortunately, I had parked it in a car park that locked after 8:30pm, and was therefore stranded fifteen miles from home. Still, there were taxis in the taxi rank at the station, and as we walked to them, my now wonderful boyfriend (who usually tends to be good at spotting my mistakes) was saying how obscure the sign was, and making feel less of a complete idiot. He did warn me that when I came back for my car the next morning I would probably have a charge notice for overstaying my time in the car park.

The taxi ride home was fun - the driver was clearly not used to country lanes, and I live in the sticks. He got more and more nervous as he travelled down smaller and smaller lanes, and somehow I found this endearing. When we got to my house, I asked him to hang on and take my babysitter home. He said he couldn't, the roads were too bad, he wasn't prepared to go any further on. 'But it is only two miles', I complained. We had a bit of a discussion and he very tentatively and nervously agreed, and I went to see my babysitter.

I explained to her the difficulty he was having, and she said, 'Oh, for goodness sake, the roads are fine'. With that she strode out, full of confidence and feistiness, and off the taxi went with a flurry. I stood there, proud as punch, thinking my babysitter is so creative and intelligent and so confident. And she is twenty years my junior, was I ever that confident?

The next day I called a taxi, and a lovely driver arrived. He commented that his Satnav had brought him along a host of country lanes, and was that really the quickest way.....? I didn't like to mention that you can only get to my village via country lanes. He was well impressed - it was the first time he had used his new Satnav and it had brought up a picture of my house as he drew close. Wonders of modern technology! I too used my phone in the car, I Googled the number of the doctor's surgery and cancel my appointment with the asthma nurse. Wonders of technology again! The receptionist was very kind and understanding about my plight. Then the taxi driver was equally sympathetic and when we got there he too complained that the sign was hard to see. We both said we hoped the other had a fabulous day, and meant it, and I trotted to my car feeling like the world is filled with the most marvellous people.

I didn't get a ticket on my car, and to celebrate I had breakfast at McDonalds and phoned my now tremendously marvellous boyfriend, getting him to help me solve the Times Crossword. Does life get any better than this?

Conservatives are pleased with appointment of new Bishop

Goodness me - David Ould, John Richardson and Anglican Mainstream are all quoting the passage below and heralding the new Bishop of Reading, Andrew Proud, as nothing like Jeffrey John:

Having made a plea for openness, kindness and respect[lxvi] we still need to assert that the culture of the Church is different to the culture of the world. As the Latin American, Roman Catholic symposium on evangelisation put it, "The inculturation of faith and the evangelization of culture go together as an inseparable pair, in which there is no hint of syncretism: this is the genuine meaning of inculturation."[lxvii] The Church must not be afraid to reassert its core beliefs and values, for the sake of the Gospel, even if many in the North, watching news reports of the Lambeth Conference on their television screens, will understand it to be a debate about human rights and the right of individuals to pursue personal happiness.[lxviii] Increasingly, it looks to me, from here, that the promotion of same-sex marriage and the ordination of openly homosexual individuals, are both the desperate, last-ditch attempts by a sinking Church to stay afloat in an otherwise alien and hostile culture. That, it seems to me, quoting Christopher Clapham, is about seamanship rather than navigation; staying afloat rather than getting anywhere.[lxix] For me, his whole issue is about mission and experience has taught me that, to have an effective mission, we need to be faithful to our apostolic faith in all its fullness.

Thus, I believe that much more is at risk here than personal happiness and self-fulfilment. What is at stake is nothing less than the credibility of the Christian Gospel and of the Anglican Church itself, both of which impact upon the effectiveness of her mission.

It isn't just of academic interest to me as I quite fancy a job in Berkshire.... still, it is a rich experience when people of different traditions work together.