Do you know where to stick your church?

No, not something rude - I'd like to offer a little challenge this morning:

Take a look at these two images and think about what your can see, and perhaps what you know and perhaps what you assume about the two buildings, the people in them and the people around them - what are the differences (and similarities) between them? 

A recent conversation I overheard (and keep back from) was heading towards, 'Burn the cathedrals and put those in sector ministry in the diocese to the sword'. A foolish misunderstanding of many of the realities of church and yet a realistic observation when some are considered as well!

So Take a look and have think about them:

Here are some of the possible responses:

One has a black border around it - but it isn't dying (intact it's pretty stable and showing gentle signs of growth - of all sorts).

One has blue skies around its domed splendour - but I'd hazard to suggest that it's not all sunshine and roses being there!

One has only one room whereas the other has many rooms - one can accommodate about sixty people whilst the crypt in the other holds about two hundred more than that!

One is pretty and the other is merely something utilitarian and considered by some to be anything but pretty (which is why weddings and baptisms go elsewhere perhaps?).

One is in the centre of an Estate Church: An Urban priority area. The other is situated within one of the most prosperous centres of commerce and law in the world.

One has around fifteen percent of those who come in full-time work - I was told by someone in the other that that's probably the other way round there!

Some might think about the difference between the two locations in terms of IMD numbers (Index of Multiple Deprivation - the higher the number the better the area) one is around 8,500 and the other around 28,000.

One of them charges people to come in (£18 for an adult and £8 for a child) and the other doesn't charge admission (perhaps there's nothing to see?).

One of them has to pay parish share whist the other appears to be exempt (and in fact receives money from the Church Commissioners) from that charge. I'm told that's because they struggle to pay the bills - but then again that's a common area for both I would think.

Some might think that the worship styles differ, after all one has a robed choir and p

Perhaps you've thought of a different difference? If so, plonk it in the comments area and we can see what others have come up with and perhaps grasp some insights which would have otherwise been passed by and ignored.

Here are a few of my own observations to add so grit to the machinery (or hopefully, grist to the mill!):

The differences?

Physical:  Size - Age of the buildings - Location - one is an icon, the other an eyesore (a quote!)

Spiritual: None at all - both seek to witness to the saving power of the cross and the servanthood of Jesus, the Christ. It's all about scale and audience and opportunity. One has a massive footfall and a great tourist trade whilst the other has none of the above!

But when it comes to knowing where to stick a church building, the smaller of the two does something very important for it ministers God's love in a place where hardship, adversity and struggle are quite often to be found (yes, I know that happens in the City of London too, but it's a matter of scale). 

Reputation: The majority of people are in awe of those who work in the larger of the two buildings. How often to you hear an estate church or urban priority minister doing 'Thought for the Day' or being quoted in one of the national papers? The answer is that generally you don't unless there's been something juicy in terms of news. The truth is that the smaller, dare I say more community engaged (now there's an invite to a punch up if I ever heard one), little churches are largely only of import to the people and the communities that they serve.

Extend this to include rural churches and you'll find yourself struggling just as much for although they are a lifeline to many and the remain community cohesion for many in a place, they just aren't counted as equal to the big and splendid places of worship (where sadly admission is charged and egos can be as polished as their floors). I must just tip my hat to the congregation of St Ethelbert - East Wretham, Norfolk to the community that it is and for the wonderful service they had recently to celebrate 150 years since the building's was rebuilt; and a thumbs up to the bishop of Norwich for a great bit of history, Bible and pastoral gathered into his sermon on that day. 

Rural churches are a treasure and focus for many a community

Sustaining the witness: And it is here that perhaps the real difference is to be found for should any conversation of closing an iconic building such as the larger featured here there would be uproar. How could we countenance closing a 'national treasure' and a place of such importance to the tourist industry? I can envisage the letter to the Times now. But when it comes to the smaller, those where 'can't pay - can't have' means the end is nigh, what of the people we serve and where and how do we do are evangelism (of course as a missioner I'll point to pubs and homes and mention 'fresh expressions' but the public understanding is that, as we close building we are no longer voice or influence for good (and God).

BUT

Close the smaller of the two pictured here and it wouldn't attract a column inch in the national - I know that because the others who have closed their doors and been merged and reorganised haven't!

Church buildings need to be where the need is and this means that some, where communities have moved away or been incorporated into larger gatherings of people, do need to be closed to make them relevant and among the people they seek to serve. The problem is that we are not just about the 'cure of souls' but we also have the role of being 'curators of a place's memories' too and this means we have more listed building than we need and spend more on upkeep than perhaps we do on evangelising our communities - a situation that cannot continue. So there is the question of ownership and the issue of making Christ known - two areas of friction which leave nasty chafes in embarrassing places (i.e.. in the public domain).

Our challenge: Where I am there are many who treasure the large, imposing and quite ancient building in the centre of town; but few actually come into it as part of the normal congregation. This changes a little when there is a baptism or wedding and more so when there is a funeral, for then it is the old or the pretty church that attracts them all. The smaller churches, unless they are picturesque places, only tend to do baptisms for those with whom they have a relationship and weddings (done one here in the past ten years) are even more difficult (because people want nice photos in a pretty setting) are always done elsewhere.

Answers? These are the hardest bit in all this. As we close treasured, yet almost empty church buildings, and remove clergy: Or better still create multi-beneficed monstrosities: the winner of the ghastliest being eleven church buildings and almost as many communities in a diocese I will not name.

A friend of mine (well they were before I started writing this) who works in a cathedral was telling me how tight the purse strings were in their magnificent pile of stone. The problem was that as they told me about their challenges all I could see was how well off and extremely comfortable they, and their place, were when held up against some in parish ministry I know.

Now I am aware that we can always find those better, and worse, off that ourselves and that balance is they key. ALL of the expressions of Church: Cathedral, Parish, District and freshly expressed are valid and worthwhile; the minute we start thinking otherwise is the day when the Church, standing against itself, begins the final phase of decline and heads towards extinction.

The problem is that whilst I admire the wonderful buildings (as long as I can decide whether and what to give as I enter or leave) and marvel at the history and architecture and the music on offer, this in itself will not get the baby saved, bathed and given the bread of life. 

The same is true of the wonderful examples of parish church which are self-contained, self-satisfied and self-serving: If they don't serve the community around them and don't proclaim the Gospel to those inside and outside their wall, then what are they good for?

And again, look at some of the 'missional' churches out there. Those places who claim to be effective for the Lord and excelling in promoting the Gospel: If they are then we need to sustain them if they cannot because of an inability to pay on the part of the people they serve. We are heading to a time when those who can afford to have a church building will have them and those who cannot, will not. Basic economics: if you can't pay for it then you can't have it (even with non-stipendiary and ordained local minister [AKA licensed lay ministers).

This is an important debate - one that needs to be open-handed and big-hearted and yet, like many things Anglican, there is a danger that the divide between haves' and 'have nots' will see but one side win rather than some from both sides. 

So read, look and think and develop some reasoned thinking before you need it, because as it stands, need it you will. Do you know where to stick your church building*?

Pax

* Polite answers only please - and remember, there are many sharp bits to a church building so be charitable too!

Cathedrals - who needs them?

I appear to have lit the blue touch-paper with my passing comments about cathedrals yesterday if the three people I met whilst at 'Open Door' were anything to go by. Two of them left me in no doubt that these wonderful building were little more than a drain on the finances of the Church of England and that, "All those people who work in them and live around the close should be 'paying their way' rather than tasking money away from the church congregations that were in the towns and villages!" The other person told me that they love our cathedral as it's a place where they can go and find peace and great music - both of which help them with their own walk.

So there we have it, in a local poll 67*% of the people don't think we need our cathedrals! But are they right? I don't want to address the money bit at the moment as we are currently engaged in an exercise of 'sustainability' (which the diocese is calling 'plain speaking') and looking at clergy numbers and the like (more about that shortly methinks) and this might be part of the reason for the comments***.

So do we need our cathedrals? The majority of the comments made focussed on money. Money for maintenance of those wonderfully big and glorious buildings. Money for upkeep and keeping the doors opened. Money that some 'charge' (and here Westminster and Chester came in for the most flak) Christians to visit their buildings. Money for 'all those people' who work in the cathedral and the money that is paid out for the housing in the closes (with question asked about rent and 'grace and favour'). Yep, if my engagements yesterday are anything to go by, seems quite a few are uncertain about having one on the grounds of money.

Another issue that cropped us was the fact that whilst the building we have is splendid, it's not in the right place for a cathedral in a diocese which is shaped as it is (mainly because we've given bits off to form other diocesan structures elsewhere).

I have had discussions with some who considered the cathedral to be an outdated, outmoded edifice to days gone by and that they needed to be considered in the same light as other stately homes and heritage centres rather than anything that has a place in the community (but these people have never lived in a cathedral town - and I know that having one makes it a city, but that's just convention not community). A tourist feature not an ecclesiastical reality. A source of income for the place in terms of tourism and a source of self-sustaining for the cathedral itself.

BUT (has to be one)

The same responses to yesterday's closing churches conversation apply here and alongside them we have a multitude of other considerations to add into the pot.

The OLSX (Occupy London Stock Exchange) debacle did much to bring the Church, the CofE in general and St Paul's in particular into the public gaze. There was criticism for the fact that the place appeared more concerned with tourists and income than it did with standing with those who campaigned about institutional greed and the general imbalance of wealth (although of course to get wealth you have to be born rich or work and it seemed most of the protestors perhaps lived in neither of those camps!). Where doors should have been flung open and a welcome given, what many saw was a church that cared more about money that standing up for the rights of some and criticising the excesses of others.

Sadly, not one person could see the fact that the electricity, gas and other suppliers to St Paul's all wanted their payments. "Surely no one would cut off a cathedral or a church?" some asked when faced with this scenario. But of course they would, for we are but customers (and commercial, not domestic, customers too!). The cathedrals need to balance their books and the problem of charging admission rather than inviting donations is a tough one for, as we find with some of the churches in our town, many may come in but the donations are pitiful. All want the buildings to be open and available to them but this same 'all' expect the church to fund itself or be funded by some other body (just not them!). So we can ask for a donation or we can charge and I'm not sure which of the two is the right way pastorally, practically, financially and as criteria and responses on a list of other consideration.

On a value for money (which is mean and mercenary) I think that our cathedrals are worth their weight in jelly beans and centres of worship of the highest standard and as centres of excellence, facilitation and enabling. Here's a few 'for instances':

1. When it comes to the major festivals and holy days there is something special about making the journey to the cathedral and it becomes a sort of mini-pilgrimage and centre of celebration all rolled into one. Just speak to people on a Maundy Thursday and see how special it is to gather in a large, and generally splendid, building to celebrate as the many strands of Church together.

2. The ability to come into a scared space which has stood as the centre of Church in that region and in so doing understand that you stand in the company of generations of those who have worshipped before is something that cannot have a price placed on it.

3. To come into a cathedral and find oneself lost in the music and the excellence of the choirs (visiting and resident - and this is a factor, it is a venue for other choirs, organists, bell-ringers and the like) draws one into God and into a special place that all of us need from time to time. It is a safe haven in the storms of life.

4. They are churches and they have their own regular congregations. It's just that their church is a bit bigger than other peoples. They are the centre of community and engage as such with all the same things that we in our smaller places engage with and in.

5. Cathedrals are a centre for excellence and resource as the roles of those who act as missioners and facilitators clearly demonstrate. In fact I would rather that some of the diocesan sector staff worked out of the cathedral than the administrative offices as this would solidify and confirm the role and place of our cathedrals.

6. They engage with the schools and the 'Open Door' and other schools events are an extremely effective and valuable form of engagement between church and community (and not just the local community).

7. They do need to bring in the money to be self-supporting and this is an issue. I felt aggrieved when visiting Church House, Westminster to realise that popping in to the place next door would cost me (although another person later told me that had I asked there is a broom cupboard set aside for those cheapskates who tried the 'just want to pray' approach to getting in for free). I'm not that sure that the cathedrals do take way money from the parishes but as one of those yesterday argued - they cost money and that, even if it comes from a different pocket, is from the same pair of trousers! Think this highlights a need for involvement at parish and Deanery levels from the cathedral staff and some value for money input and engagement.

So there you have it - a real thinking on my feet fifteen minutes of cornflakes (Crunchy Nut), Tea (Darjeeling) and typing.

I hope it makes sense (and has some validity to).

Let's treasure our treasures and let's pray that they continue to flourish and support the wider Church in all and every respect. Pray for them, their congregations, those who work in (and out of) them and for those visitors too - might be the first chance some have to engage with God as we perceive Him to be!

Pax

* Sample of 3 in a poll conducted by strange Vicar**
** Thankfully none of those whose opinions were gained were from the church I'm in
*** There were also comments about paying for 'all those people in diocesan jobs'

ps. I've left the 'grace and favour' aspect as I know little of this and wouldn't know where to start.

pps. Interesting that those who were critical came from places that felt badly done with regard to parish share.

"I love God but Hate Church!'

The above billboard sums up a conversation I had with a church member this week.

They pointed to the St Paul's debacle and the Church's failure to do what everyone else saw as right. They railed at the 'fact' that the Church is more taken up with money than people, consistently missing the opportunity to act in a Christian manners doing the right thing and predominantly appearing to be bankers (I don't think that was meant to be a euphemism!) and financial types.

"I love God," they cried, "But I don't want anything to do with Church! I'm more concerned about me and heaven than being alongside a bunch of hypocrites, and worse still, being one of them!"

Now I don't know about you but I can remember when I thought, spoke and even acted like this lovely person. I didn't want to be part of any denomination I just wanted to follow Jesus and His teachings. I wanted to keep myself 'clean' and avoid the religious people. The problem was as I progressed further along this path (and I did for quite some time - about eighteen months) I found myself being more and more of a hypocrite in the way that what I said married up to who I was, and was becoming.

Then, one day it struck me that if I was someone who believed in Jesus and looked to His sacrifice on the cross to bring me and God back together then I too was 'Church'. This didn't mean that I bought into the hierarchy or applauded the excesses, weakness and errors or politely coughed and looked away when hypocrisy was on display, it meant that I couldn't live in isolation from other Christians and where two or more of us were together, we were Church. In fact even when I was on my own, being a bit Trinitarian, there were four of us and so Church was to be found in me alone. Not only that but because of this, wheresoever I went, basilaea, the Kingdom of God was to be found too.

I was to be the lampstand that was placed in the centre of things so that all might see by the light of Christ (Matt5 // Lk 8 & 15). I was to be part of the body that did the task it was called to do that the whole body might be fit and well and work as it should (1 Cor 12).

I'm sorry to say this but once you take Christ's hand and accept His offer of life then you are part of Church and if the institutional body that bears his name is getting it wrong, then we stand and speak out, we make our stand and seek to restore those in error (GENTLY!).

Christianity is not about condemning anyone but is about coming alongside, affirming, supporting and leading them to better things.

How we doing?

OYLC - Issue the first: Poverty

I have been trying to find out what the exact aims and purposes of the OLSX people are. The more I have looked the more I struggle to find anything coherent for what we have is a bunch of people ranging from the intelligentsia through to the professional 'supporter/anarchist' all bringing stuff to the party. The problem is that this lack of a focussed and coherent position results in nothing more than a collection of disgruntled people who are doomed to be nothing more than just that.

Scanning various pages and talking to the ordinary people on the street I get the feeling that there is much dis-ease regarding the current situation facing our nation, Europe and the wider world. That noted, we must take care to ensure that we are looking at justice not revenge, for it appears that the majority (read and dialogued with) are generally seeking the latter.

So, this is an opportunity for the Church (universal) to get off of its behindside and take up the battle. There are so many areas to focus on and I think that we are best served, and serving, when we consider them intelligently and devise prayer and action relating to them, so let us begin with:

Poverty
The increase of FoodBanks, repossessions, redundancies, loss of support for those in post-sixteen education (i.e. EMA) and so much more.

Some food for thought (and prayer)
The current Housholds Below Average Income* (HBAI) (after housing costs) survey tells us:

That 13.5M people in the UK (22%) are income poor and of these:

53% are in families which include at least one child;
32% are in families of people of working age without children;
15% are in pensioner families.

People living below the poverty line are distributed around the UK as follows:

England - 11,615,000 (23% of the population)
Scotland - 969,000 (19% of the population)
Wales - 667,000 (23% of the population0,
Northern Ireland - 374,000 (2% of the population)

The road to this situation includes:

Unemployment - Low wages - Inadequate benefits - Educational opportunities

Child Poverty Action group (CPAG) puts forward these proposals to work towards ending child poverty in the UK:

1. Protect jobs
2. Mend the safety net
3. Move away from means tests
4. Remove barriers to work
5. Stop in-work poverty
6. Put in place a child-first strategy for childcare
7. End the classroom divide
8. Provide fair public services for those who need them most
9. End poverty premiums in taxes and services
10. Ensure a decent home for every family

Just some foor for thought and some spur to developing something coherent (and I am pretty disgusted at just how many church members I have met during my journeys who take up the 'Daily Fascist' view that the poor generally get what they deserve. Thank God that isn't true with us and His standards!! But in case you might think this a graph to savour as you start writing prayers and think of how you can open doors, hearts and engage those outside over this topic:

The poor by economic status (2009/10)

Pax

* HBAI 2009/10 figures

George Osborne - Guilty of fiduciary mismanagement?

I'm sorry to potentially upset those who might think that George Osborne is a safe pair of hands at the helm of UK plc's financial dealings but following the sale of Northern Rock to Northern Rock to Virgin Money for £747m I have to say that this is past 'Virgin on the ridiculous' it is downright blesséd criminal (or perhaps, to do him a favour, merely totally incompetent!)!

We are seeing members of the armed forces facing redundancy should they be silly enough to find themselves wounded in combat. We have libraries closing as Councils cut back their spending (CCTV in cabs excepted of course)! The number of young people without employment and the rising number of NEETs (post 16 Not in Education, Employment or Training) all add up to make one concerned and to crown all things there must be . . . .

Let's do the sums and see?

Northern Rock has cost the British Taxpayer something in the region of 1,400,000,000.

The Company was then split into two: Northern Rock plc and Northern Rock (Asset Management), the former being the 'good' business and the later being used as a receptacle for the 'bad' debt.

The company has shed some 3,000 staff (many of whom are probably now are receiving benefits)

And we sell it to one Of that nice Mr Branson's companies for £747,000,000

1,400,00,00 - 747,000,000 = £653,000,000 (it could be less, but it couldn't be worse!)

Northern Rock (Asset Management) is a black hole that accounts for c.£21,000,000,000 (but rest assured, we are not going to sell that to anyone - it's all ours!!!).

There is a bright side in that there potential for another £150,000 and then (possibly) another £50,000,000 and if Virgin sell the business on or relist it on the Stock Market within a five year period there could be another £50,000,000.

So, if they make money out of it, and one has to ask, "How could they fail, they have the good business," we might see another £250,000,000 in all.

Back to the abacus and we find a minimum loss of £403,000,000 (and we still have the Asset bit)!!

I just love Virgin Money's Chief executives view of it all, "We think we have made a great offer!"

It certainly is, but for whom?

The disabled in Birmingham who were to have their care cut to fund cuts?

Those whose library (and related services) are, or have been earmarked, to be cut?

Those local government workers who will find themselves unemployed (and paid by us through increased benefits)?

I'm sure you can add to this list (you are welcome to) and on a week when protesters have been told to move from St PAul's Cathedral I can but applaud the timing and the demonstration of just who benefits from the way our society, nation and the government operates. If anything was designed to see people take up the protester's cause, it is surely this.

Well done Mr Osborne!!!

Now what's this week's OT Lectionary reading about 'fat' sheep????

Privileged Clergy, pressurised Parishoners

Returning to the issue of 'finance and the Church', time to respond to the comments made in the first-placed observation, namely:

"The clergy live in their privileged and comfortable lives whilst demanding that their poor and disadvantaged congregations pay for the privilege in the money the are pressured to give!"

Assuming that the 'privilege' is meant in some way to be monetary, for it fits with the general tone of the comment my first observation has to be that if they are then they're either doing it from private means as where I find myself the six of us work hard to keep our heads above water, especially with the current recession, rises in energy, fuel and just about every other cost! I realise that having six of us in a household is perhaps not the norm but it is for us.

As for, "demanding that their poor give!" Working in an Urban Priority Area I have to say that generally all of the those within the area we serve might well be considered poor with respect to many parts of the country (for 'poor' is surely a comparative) and even with in our own town we most definitely serve the 'have nots'. As for pressurising the congregations, I would have to say that generally, as a breed, clergy still tend not to lean on people to pay a tithe (which is actually the minimum of course) and yet there is this misconception amongst those outs, and I have to assume that the author of this comment was not a church member, that we are always out there with our begging bowls!

Where I am, and I cannot speak for others, our church building is used by the community without charge. Groups and individuals come and make use of our facilities and services and the answer is always the same, for Church (the people of God) should be paying for their buildings and the heating, lighting and whatever where it can and where it can't, if there is good reason for this (and I would have to say being a truly missionary church is pretty much the only caveat here) it should be supported by the other churches around it (i.e. at diocesan level or nationally). Now we get loads of flak from some because we don't charge, especially those who do charge for EVERYTHING and see us undercutting them (rather than ministering to the needs of those around us) and those who moan because of the difficulty we have in paying Parish Share (claiming we should charge for everything and pass the plate around at every opportunity), but that's life I guess.

Oddly though, the same people who complain that we charge for nothing are the very same people who get envious about the fact that we've decorated, installed central heating (where we had storage heaters), got new chairs, fitted a new kitchen (with dishwasher and double-ove, eight burner oven) and more besides - at no cost to the church (yep, all donated - even the plumber came and offered his services free!). God calls us to scatter our bread on the water - well we do and God has proved himself time and time again to be no man's debtor!

But clergy are indeed 'privileged' for the the calling that we have responded to is something that is a reward in itself but it's not financial. We might not be 'comfortable' but, generally speaking, we have dinner (and often lunch too) at home and are not subject to the pressures of working for someone else, for we set our own workloads and tasks for much of our working week. Now that is a privilege, but perhaps one that should see us offer to exchange places with people in the 'real' world of work or do a day with church members every now and then to keep the experience real. That said, we have but a very small number who are working and so, for me, this would be a bit difficult!

Those who are Church are also privileged and we all, for we are all 'Laos' (i.e. Church, God's people) should be paying sacrificially but from the outpouring of our hearts with gratitude and never because we are pressured by another.

Church should work at people seeing what they get for free and yet to do this without claims of exhibiting pride or generating envy on the part of others is something I just don't know how to do. So we do the stuff, live the life, house the homeless, feed the hungry and minister to the broken. The rest is up to God!

Pax

Down with money - send the Gas Company a Chicken!

Having had my rant over the CofE selling its possessions, let us move on to the second placed suggestion:

"The 'Church' should oppose all financial dealings and seek a return to an equitable world where people traded and lived by bartering and sharing resources and skills - like we used to!"

Well, this is an interesting comment to attempt to respond to because first and foremost I think it joins ranks with those who see standing on the prow of an unsinkable ship (which is about to sink!) and those who see Celtic Christianity as thinks of romantic beauty. The wonderful world of everything was much betterer then when it really obviously wasn't! Not only that but I don't think the world was equitable, fair or a very nice place when people bartered their skills for food, drink, medicine or homes.

I think there is some great confusion regarding matters financial and the day-to-day exchange of money for food, drink, clothes, housing and the like is something that will always be with us. Bartering is merely a changing of the currency and to be frank, many who propose this as a way of living would find themselves quite badly off because they have little to bring to the party. Those who would prosper under this scheme of life would do so to the extent that they swapped the excess produce and possessions they'd accrued by providing their skills that they would, within that setting, have become 'wealthy' and this is the root issue for so many I've met who support bartering.

For many this is an issue of wealth and the divide between the 'haves' and 'have nots' and looking at history - the poor (and inadequate) fared much less well when this was the order of the day. Of course the Bible tells us that, "The workman is worthy of his wage," and further instructs us to ensure that those who labour receive the benefits of that labour for we, "Do not muzzle the ox that treads the grain." (i.e. if you do the stuff you reap the benefits. The problem also comes when you get too old or are to ill to do stuff, for who will provide you with the necessities of life because you've been non-productive? Only a welfare state will do this and of course to do this there needs to be taxation (or insurance) present to provide.

What I think is really meant here is that we should deal with those who make money by losing money for their customers and then make money again by selling the stocks that lost the money for less money again! The wonderful world of commission and the dodgy world of insider dealing, big bonuses and the like are what is really being spoken of here. The demand from investors that their dividend yields and the profits of the companies in whom they invest coupled with the increasingly large salaries 9and benefits) of the people at the top (IDS - 50% increase over the past year - immoral, not even close - it's much worse than immoral!).

I think the issue is that we have different rules and standards for the ordinary person, the rich, the financial types and those in power and this, the Bible tells us (Deuteronomy 25) is wrong:

"You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house differing measures, a large and a small. You shall have a full and just weight; you shall have a full and just measure, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you."

The problem is that the regulators failed to regulate, the government failed to govern fairly and without favour or concession to certain people whilst oppressing (for it is oppression) others. There were (and are) different weights in use and our government and those who regulate them all stand condemned and guilty as they show favour towards those who seek great returns for doing nothing and expect others to pay for their privilege. In doing so they, all, defy Deuteronomy 10:

"For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing."

No thanks, forget bartering and pay in good old fashion pound notes but stand and shout for those who oppress the poor, who raise the cost of living, see services cut to fund their excesses but do not pay, brought to book - and brought to live as The Book and its author commands. But the answer lies in prayer, prayerful dialogue and sticking to that which God commands, not disobedience and anarchy for these are the fruits of him against whom we contend.

Pax

Living in the lack of luxury?

I was stunned by the effects of prejudice and ignorance (of the not knowing kind) which combined on various of the radio broadcasts relating to 'the church, the bankers, OLSX and St Paul's Cathedral'.

Some had me laughing at their absurdity, some had me appalled at their lack of logic whilst, far too many, had me railing as people displayed their ignorance. The top three, in reverse order, in my opinion were:

3. The CofE should sell all of its property, paintings and investments and give them to the poor!

A superb idea, but of course this begets the questions, "Who are the poor and are some more worthwhile, needy, deserving than others?" A

2. The 'Church' should oppose all financial dealings and seek a return to an equitable world where people traded and lived by bartering and sharing resources and skills - like we used to!!

But rather than get a chicken for a day's work we get a Qeen Elizabeth II drinking voucher - money and financial transactions (like paying for your food?) is an essential act. Changing a fiver for a handful of tomatoes is just changing the currency; isn't it?

1. The clergy live in their privileged and comfortable lives whilst demanding that their poor and disadvantaged congregations pay for the privilege in the money the are pressured to give!

Wrong on so many levels and certainly not my experience on any of the points made here. Kids go to local state schools, can't afford holidays abroad and live an adequate, but not always easy, life with our children. Have never pressurised people to give and see in the words above something that is wrong at many levels.

Will discuss these points further - but hopefully some stimulation and food for thought.

Pax

St Paul's - what ordinary folk think

I came into conversation about St Paul's no less than four times yesterday whilst going about my day. Not only that but a concerned person came and knocked on the door of the Vicar's palace late last night asking what they could do about the situation!

It seems to me that the situation at St Paul's has touched a nerve and caused many to regard the Church as a body that is firmly in bed with those who have. The only saving grace was that no one actually used the term 'the Conservative Party at prayer', but it's what they surely felt.

The consensus was that St Paul's (funny how like Spring, the building is a sentient entity) should open its doors and welcome in the protesters. Rowan should have made an appearance on the first day and spoken out about the great divide between rich and poor, the excesses of the financial types and the obscenity of the ever increasing profit. "St Paul's is a church that is built on Jesus," said one commentator, "So why are they living like it's a City establishment?"

I explained that there are tensions in that the desire to accomodate and embrace is countered by the pressure of paying the bills, maintaining the building and keeping the lights on and that this was the most likely cause of asking the people to leave. In telling people this we reveal the problem facing so many Christians every day - doing what we need to do Vs doing what is right.

My companion last night said that surely no one would cut the power off because St Paul's hadn't paid. Sadly though, I wasn't so sure.

Another said, "Surely if St Paul's embraced the protesters and ran into financial problems because of it, people would rally round and pay the shortfalls!" Sadly I find myself engaged in a number of things and whilst they are the 'right' things to do, when others hear of it (and the pressures they create) they merely shuffle off, more concerned at meeting their own needs than supporting what should be done! Those who would merely say, "Be well, be blessed and leg it having done nothing are still with us.

A further comment came regarding the wealth of the CofE, how it owns land, property and great treasures. I pointed out the fact that 'having stuff' generated money (well it did!) and this money meant that the bills could be paid, support for the diocese I am in and many other needs could be met. "But they should sell it all," came the response. My reply was, "Fine, but will you put your hand in pocket to help the churches in your town continue? Will you pay so that we can keep our lights on and work in the community?" There was no answer - but I think we all know the answer.

I am always amazed at the number of people who assume that the CofE gets its money from some state funded source and when I explain that our little church needs something approaching £20k to pay the Parish Share and then find money for everything else - they mumble about 'never knew' and 'not right' and leg it (slowly but it is still legging it!).

So for those who stumble across this and think we're living in luxury with no pressures on us consider the image below and then ask - am I supporting the work of my local church?

(click on the image to see a larger image)

Pax

Rowan Speaks for Us All

So says David Cameron. But of course he continues, "But we're not going to take any notice!"

That's subtext regarding the response from Messrs Cameron and Osborne. Then again I would have to say that this is no surprise as it appears to be a consistent response regarding Rowan. Regardless of the issue we usually have excellent thinking, fine words and a consistent ignoring of them. Sometimes because they are pitched too high, sometimes because you knew that some were never going to listen (indadba, more like insolence and intolerance!!) and sometime because, well - just because - and this is surely another of those occasions.

I was asked by people why Rowan hasn't taken control of the St Paul's situation. My response is that Chartres is doing this and Rowan is merely leaving the job to the man on the ground. "But when it gets to this level, surely the man at the top should be getting involved and should be making relevant comment about OLSX, the camp and ways of making the Church relevant," They cry. And you know what, as much as I like and admire Rowan (and I do - he's an intelligent and extremely gentle and humble man) I am stumped because it appears to me that there are so many with woolly ideas and fluffy notions regarding the situation. So many voices saying so many things - but Rowan isn't one of them, and if he was, with his brain and manner I'm sure he could bring something winning and positive for the Church (universal) and the CofE (in particular).

My problem with the 'Tobin Tax' and those who are sending me mails asking me to support it or canvassing me on Facebook with the same intent is that every one of them, to a man jack of them, isn't concerned with something positive but are acting only to extract some form of revenge. Much like the sad person who appeared to applaud the firebombing of a satirical magazine in France saying. "They got what they deserved!" Thank God we don't get what we deserve and what place does extracting revenge and hitting the financial world because of their excesses. We don't need revenge, we need responsibility and if this has to come through regulation because they can't de responsible, then so be it.

Personally I love the idea of two or three percent of the money made in the finance world being used to address world poverty, finance heath research, building and replacing lost social housing stock, paying for our children to attent university with a major award like we did when I was a lad and more besides. I welcome a financial world where people paid administration charges but saw interest reduced or even gone (isn't that usury?) and our nation living by the Judeo-Christian values that once dominated.

Come on Rowan - speak up - there hasn't been such a time of relevance and such a desire for the Church to be heard speaking since the last war!

Pax

Wowan Wevived!

Wow, what power I obviously wield for no sooner do I ask where Wowan is but he writes in that popular tabloid, the FT, as he calls for a Wobin Hood Tax as a means of advancing the 'moral agenda' of those camped outside St Paul's. Sadly Wowan's words build upon the Church in Wome's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace paper suggesting the wonderful world of finance be regulated along ethical lines rather than .

As Wowan puts forward his support for James Tobin's ideas regarding financial dealing, especially a 'small' tax on financial transactions he can rest easy, for the government says, No Go Wo, not unless the whole worlds does it!" and so it is a good point made with the assurance that it won't even make it to the runway, let alone make it into the air!

The protesters want 'something different' - but don't appear to have any coherent ideas outside of hanging the bankers.

Many in the financial sector don't see the need for change - they're doing well thank you very much!

Many who work in the finance sector will be getting on trains, buses and other means of transport knowing they are losing each and every way as their jobs vanish, their pay fails to keep up with inflation (we won't even compare them to their bosses and the rises they've had over the past year!) and they are held up for abuse because of where they work and what they do!

Wowan has spoken but he's not said that much and in fact regarding Christ (remember Him?), the Church (remember that - a bunch of believers heralding in and live by kingdom values?) and the situation that our nation (and the world) find itself in, he's really said very little. But of course, as ever, he's said it in a most eloquent manner indeed!

And before anyone asks, what should he have said?

Perhaps a missive from Deuteronomy chapter ten proclaiming that God shows no partiality and accepts no bribes and defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, loving the disposed and the alien amongst us. The God who calls us to clothe the naked (or ragged-clothed) and feed the hungry, to provide shelter within the storms of life (a wonderful opportunity to bring in 1 Corinthians 13 here as we speak of love building a shelter for the focus of that love in the storms of life).

An opportunity to extol Hebrews Chapter Thirteen and call upon those in the finance sector to offer to God a sacrifice and to bring in offerings of praise from our lips for the lives that we have and from our pockets to do good and share with others (see Deut 10) for this pleases God! This leads us into submission to those in authority and calls upon them to give account of their policies and their actions.

Most importantly - we have the words conscience and clear and maintaining - three words that when put in the correct order change everything in the finance and every other sector of the Church.

Hallelujah.

See Wowan - simples!

Is Rowan Still Around?

haven't heard much from him regarding the St Paul's debacle (I know a limerick about it!!).

Anyway, the Chapter has now issued a statement offering to act as a broker between the protesters and the wonderful world of finance. Not only that but they are suspending their action to evict the happy campers from their front door.

Not only that but +London has engaged the services of a Merchant banker (not rhyming slang ;-) )to 'reconnect the financial with the ethical'. Now, there's a thought!!!

Pity they couldn't get their act together sooner - I have met more than enough people who are only too happy to inform me that the, "CofE is a disgrace in the way that it sides with the bankers and seeks to use the same company as was used to evict people in the Dale Farm debacle!"

I have asked people whether they have anyone stupid, dodgy or a bit of an embarrassment in their family and when they answer in the affirmative (as I'm sure we all can - I know my Sister is able to do so!) I ask them whether this means that they, or their whole family, is stupid, dodgy or a bit of an embarrassment. Of course the answer to this is always a resounding 'No'.

That's exactly how it is with St Paul's and the CofE!

Simple or what - job done.

Now Rowan, why couldn't you have said that (more eloquently and with much more theological voracity and intellectual magnificence)?

Pax

Time to fetch the canons?

I am saddened that some have seen to make capital out of the confusion of St Paul's Cathedral staff and that there appears, on a number of levels, to be a distinct lack of Christian love, integrity and most of all awareness.

The reality is that moves will be made to evict those who are camped outside St Paul's but behind the surface of this is a great deal of double-speak, self-serving posturing and and erosion of the public awareness of just how engaged the Church (universal) and the Church of England (local) is with the causes, and opinions, embraced by those camping outside the church building.

What people are being encouraged to miss is the fact that we still provide care and represent people when they are in times of trouble and tend the broken and much more besides all because of a few bob and a desire, on the part of some, to make a martyr!

Simple answer - STOP IT!

Liked this cartoon from the Mail (Thanks Jon)

Pax