Murray - Lady Bishops - Abuse - The weather

These are the four topics that have greeted me thus far today as I braved the sunlight and ventured out of the Vicar's palace. Amazing how people assume that I have a view on things but wonderful that they feel they can engage me and I love being treated like one of their friends - so all in all, a blessing indeed!

Wimbledon - apparently 'We' won Wimbledon yesterday - something which might well account for the tiredness and aching arms and legs I have this morning thought it was the heat and late night boat building). What was strange was that I saw a closely fought, combative encounter played in the testing heat of Centre Court. The man I was talking to saw a 'walk over'. It seems that even the nature of victory is in the eye of the beholder!

'Lady' Bishops - and apparently, 'It's 'about time' we let the 'girls' have a go. I mean to say, look at that Vicar of Dibley, she's a bit of alright and ...' (I won't expand on the next bit other than to say the bloke obviously fancies Dawn French). As I probed deeper it seems that the couple I was engaged with both thought it was only right to have lady bishops because, after all,'That Margaret Thatcher was a lady and although we don't like her - it's only fair isn't it?' What was interesting was that neither had ever met a female cleric and the wife mentioned that she wasn't too sure she would want one herself.

I tried to bring this around to calling and how Jesus changed the culture such that those who were once 'non persona' were given the ability to not only exist as individuals, but we set free from their oppression and bondage. Sadly, think the ball was sadly called long!

And so I popped into the church building and collected a few things and as I left the building I found myself greeted by a member of a local church (on the way to the Doctor's) who raised the issue of child sexual abuse and the clergy (which had obviously been on one of the radio stations) and the fact that 'saying sorry' wasn't enough. 'The Church needs to get its house in order and it needs to return to 'proper' values,' said they. The quoted some regional bad guy who fled the country and died abroad and having made mention of them continued by telling me what should be done to those '**!!**' (an expression that was met by an, 'If you'll excuse my French, Vicar!').

I pointed out the need for vigilance and care in the area of children and vulnerable adults and tried to lead this, again unsuccessfully, onto the issue of DBS checks (the checks formerly known as CRB) and the excellent safeguarding practice that many denominations (including of course the CofE) employed ... but this wasn't what they wanted. The topic was one that called for strong action and swift justice (which I think might be the justice formerly known as 'vigilante').

Having made his point he left because he was (looking at his watch) apparently 'running a bit late'!

As I turned to head back up the grand drive to the palace one of the Mums who was trying hard to cope with two screaming children in the buggy and two more who were obviously more keen to be anywhere than school passed with the words, 'Bugger this weather Vicar, makes everyone miserable doesn't it?'

'Perhaps - but not me,' I thought as another week in the Estate Church Paradise that I inhabit got under way.

Have I told you lately just how much I love my ministry?

'Missional' means cost-cutting!

These words were thrown into the mix during an excellent discussion with my colleagues on the shape our combined ministries should take. Wearing my missioner hat I tried hard to point out the realities of the word but the problem was that the Dario Fo farce-like reality of 'can't pay - won't pay' was made all the more real by the words of some at diocesan level who baldly state that "If you can't pay then you can't have!"

There is a problem within the Church of England in that one side of the coin has churches who are able to pay are, in the main, also 'comfortable' whilst the other finds churches in Urban Priority Areas (UPAs), Estates and rural settings who struggle to exist.

Now, just in case anyone thinks that I am having a go at those churches who can pay (and this is not easy in today's economic situation), please be assured that I am not. My sending church was one who managed to pay their share with little trouble and they were also engaged in the community around them and supported a church in what for them was a UPA setting. Having money is not a sin and does not imply any lack of missionary or evangelistic, social-concern or any other zeal. It is not a sin for a church to have money or to have people who can afford to support the church (although there are some perils - but I will revisit them some other time).

There is an attitude from some that the UPA, Estate church fraternity are living a lifestyle that serves them and fails to support the central church. I have been in conversations where the 'haves' give the impression that the 'have nots' are, much like the scroungers the Daily Fascist revels in, the victims of their own folly, lifestyle or lassitude. This of course is, generally, not the case. Now I do know some congregations who have a begging-bowl mentality, but these are very few and far between.

Now Jesus never told us to go into the places that could afford us and this is the problem we face in that if those who can't afford the Gospel being preached, the pastoral and social action being present and a place of welcome and support being open are never touched then we deny the words of James' (2:9) in that we are showing partiality and the very people who are captive to so much are not to be set free because the Church isn't willing to foot the bill!

I know of churches who cannot pay their parish share and yet, despite this, have seen people come to faith in fair numbers over the past few years. So here's a few questions (answer if you dare):

How do we put a price on this?

Do we set limits on how many need to be in the congregation before we take them seriously?

If a church can't pay the share in full and yet sees one or two people a year come to Christ, is it valid? If we say 'Yes' then why aren't we willing to support it from external sources? If we say 'No', then what makes a church valid?

If a church pays its parish share but exists only for itself, is this a valid church? Who decides (and why)?

I am finding an increasingly cynical and despairing tone amongst many of the clergy and congregations I come across and yet, as I see it, the future's bright and the achievements, commitment and faith are cheering and fantastic. I see positives but the need for the words, and actions, of those who set the direction need to take these up and be consistent in following and encouraging those who do Church where it meets the world.

I look forward to your answers, experiences and considered views.

Pax