Oh no - Not another church sex scandal!

The release of the report 'An abuse of faith' makes for eighty-one pages of (largely) uncomfortable reading and will undoubtedly lead us into the public spotlight and open us up to vilification from many. Although relating to what many are referring to as 'historic', the conversations will be happening in the 'now ' and needs an understanding of the facts and the way forward - accentuating positives and learning from the errors - that this sad situation presents.

To this end, may I suggest that take some time to read the report (you can find it by clicking here )?

Following Ball's conviction in 2015 the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, commissioned an independent inquiry which was chaired by Dame Moira Gibb, who in the foreword of the report writes:

"This report considers the serious sexual wrongdoing of Peter Ball, a bishop of the Church of England who abused many boys and men over a period of twenty years or more. That is shocking in itself but is compounded by the failure of the Church to respond appropriately to his misconduct, again over a period of many years. Ball's priority was to protect and promote himself and he maligned the abused. The Church colluded with that rather than seeking to help those he had harmed, or assuring itself of the safety of others.

We were asked to consider changes necessary to ensure that safeguarding in the Church is of the highest possible standard. The Church has made significant progress in recent years in its understanding of abuse. We have no doubt that the Church has a genuine commitment to meeting its responsibilities towards the victims of abuse. However we can see how difficult it is to make change across the complex structures of the Church. Progress has been slow and continuing, faster improvement is still required. It is the leadership of the Archbishops and Bishops which will determine whether change is effective."

The report has eleven recommendations for the Church focusing on a range of issues including:
i.   focusing on getting the right support in place for survivors, 
ii.  the leadership of bishops, 
iii.  strengthening guidance, 
iv.  reviewing the Archbishops' Lists, and
v.   the effectiveness of our disciplinary measures with regards to safeguarding related cases."

Then David, staff in hand, chose five smooth stones* from the stream, 

put them in his shepherd's bag and, sling in his hand, 

approached the enemy.

This statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby is, I think, rather helpful:

"Abuse of Faith makes harrowing reading: the Church colluded and concealed rather than seeking to help those who were brave enough to come forward. This is inexcusable and shocking behaviour and although Dame Moira notes that most of the events took place many years ago,  and does not think that the Church now would conduct itself in the ways described we can never be complacent, we must learn lessons. I fully endorse the recommendations in the report and will ensure that the House of Bishops addresses how we can implement these as soon as possible, working with the National Safeguarding Team. For the survivors who were brave enough to share their story and bring Peter Ball to justice, I once again offer an unreserved apology. There are no excuses whatsoever for what took place and the systemic abuse of trust perpetrated by Peter Ball over decades."  



* JUST MAKE SURE THEY ARE THE RIGHT STONES!

Iraqi Christians: Pray - Act - Give

Says it all:

To save this image right click and select 'save image'

A Few Good Vicars

So here we are, it's the end of the year and the new man at the helm of the Anglican Communion has an opportunity to say stuff and make a state of the Church (of England) speech. How do you think he did?

Some of my colleagues are sighing, one has 'gone shopping', and others are bemoaning and bewailing Justin Welby's BBC Radio Four appearance this morning.  Aside from that 'good Vicars' comment, some are pointing their toes and holding their breath (and they can, believe me!) over other things that he (Justin) did, and didn't, say. So let's consider what some have told me represents the end of the honeymoon and makes Justin fair game:

'I think there sometimes is a disconnect, we sometimes give the impression at the national level that we are obsessed with a small number of issues whereas the reality that people experience in the church is of communities that are messy and untidy because society is messy and untidy, but which get on with the job that they're there for. Of course there are churches that are doing better and churches that are struggling more - depending upon area and leadership and that comes back to something Antony Jenkins has been talking about - but the reality is that where you have a good Vicar, you will find growing churches.' 

I have to say that I have to applaud the acknowledgement that we, the Church of England, have indeed become so bound up with a few issues that whilst obviously important to some are truly nothing to do with communicating the Gospel. In fact there are some clergy whom I have met, heard of (and avoided) who are so taken up with their cause of choice that they appear to have totally forgotten that we are called into the diaconal, and subsequently the priest ministry, to ensure (in addition to our baptismal calling):

That the people of God may be better equipped to make Christ known,

That we exercise a sacrificial, self-giving, ministry, washing the feet of others in humility,

The leadership of God's people in the offering of praise and the proclamation of the gospel,

That the people of God are shepherded and sustained by the ministry of word and sacrament,

That they are also taught, disciplined, discipled, equipped and released (by example and teaching),

To preach the Gospel in and out of season, when it is popular and when it is not.

You know what? I think Justin has hit it on the head with his first part of that which is above. He has noted that some do better than others and you know something else that's interesting? Those who are doing well do, generally speaking have good Vicars at the helm (of course there are always the 'comfortable' churches where numbers remain fairly static because it's one of 'those' areas where people are comfortable enough to 'do' church!). Then again, some churches that are fairing less well would look even worse if it wasn't for the fact that they too have good Vicars (so smile - without you it could be even worse!).

 The reality is that there are many clergy out there who might have fuller churches if they put as much energy into preaching, living and proclaiming the Gospel as they do over the issue of __________ (add the issue your dogcollar is passionate about in the space provided and if it's isn't the reconciling love of Jesus and the Gospel then they, and you, need to get up and do something about it).

I think Justin's words will sting (I know they do for me) and yet I thing the reality is that sometimes it has to sting to let us know the medicine has been applied.

End of the honeymoon? No WAY!

Merely me getting ready to celebrate out first anniversary and to look forward to a year of challenge and growth.

Thank you Justin - timely and essential words!

Church of England - Decline Terminal

The latest news today, if the newspapers and radio reports are to be believed, is that the Church of England has been diagnosed and found to be in terminal decline and is not expected to last more than a generation.

The sad news was delivered by former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, who continued to describe the symptoms of defeat, despair and a general lassitude (or 'heaviness' for the lay people out there) within the body and an ability to bring about a 'rolling of the eyes and yawning' amongst the general populace whenever it might come into contact with this terminal entity.

He continued to describe some other symptoms this terminal illness was making apparent upon various parts of the body (the Church formerly known as the CofE) where, 'Churches are struggling, some priests are diffident and lack confidence; a feeling of defeat is around ... as the  joy in ministry has been replaced by a feeling of heaviness.'

One of the greatest effects of this is obvious for as the CofE became less of a threat and accepted its role as a friend of all rather than a voice for change (my words - not his) is that, 'The reaction from the public is not so much hostile as dismissive.' But then again, it doesn't need to engage in hostile with us does it? We are of course far too busy righting wrongs and tilting at the windmills of or own choice and making for anyone to see us as a threat!

"We ought to be ashamed of ourselves.”

Carey describe the response in a little more depth in that society makes its feeling regarding Church know in a number of non -verbal ways: 'the shrug of indifference, the rolled eyes of embarrassment, the yawn of boredom.' I have to say that I found the next bit really encouraging when he (Carey) says:

'So many people do not see the average church as a place where great things happen. “To sit in a cold church looking at the back of other peoples’ heads is surely not the best place to meet exciting people and to hear prophetic words.'

The situation was confirmed by a current senior churchman, Dr John Sentamu (Archbishop of York) who elsewhere observed that the only hope the Church had was to be found in the administration of large doses of evangelism.

“evangelise or fossilise”

Dr Sentamu's passionate plea for action was met by an entirely Anglican response as the governing body (the General Synod) voted to set up a committee!

I think George Carey is splendid in the way that he has drawn attention to the fact that we are more taken up with social action and consecrating women* and all the other stuff that those clergy I often bump into witter endlessly about (and this doesn't mean I am in opposition to any of them before people start with their homophobe, misogynist or whatever else label they might like to try and apply). I know people think these things are important (and often quite rightly so) but you know what, when it comes to making the Gospel known and helping people into relationship with God - I have to say that they are all second order issues and shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of the really important stuff. A little perspective is all George (and me too) is asking for.

Teaching one of the units of the Mission Shaped Ministry course last week I was (once again) taken up by this:

The Church is by nature missionary to the extent that, if it ceases to be missionary it has not just failed in one of its tasks, it has ceased to be Church.

J. Andrew Kirk, What is Mission?: Some Theological Explorations

Darton, Longman and Todd, p30

The problem is that for some we have ceased to be Church and have become a wonderful group of people who are concerned with being popular rather than righteous. We refrain from saying whose name we are doing what we do in and have even ceased from doing it on the grounds that it might alienate or offend.

Here's the news people: The Gospel is offensive to some: Always has been - Always will be!

Church is not declining (unless you want to measure it by Bums on Pews on a Sunday

Church is not irrelevant (unless you want to ignore the major life events and the challenges and tragedies of life

Church is not about pleasing people but helping people to become pleasing to God

So well done George and huzzah for General Synod as they form a committee to look at evangelism and bleah to the clergy who have already said. 'Oh well, that's good it's on the agenda - all you have to do is convince the people in my church!' If that's the people you have in the church you're in then you'd best take the leader outside and have a strong word with them!

What's that Sooty? They are the leaders???

Then a small word in your ear my clerical friends:

"We ought to be ashamed of ourselves.”

* I know it's St Hilda's Day and I'm surrounded by a cloud of witnesses who are telling me that it's so good that 'at last' Synod is going to make the women's thing happen so we're in line with ...blah, blah. blah  ... but I'm just detached from it. Yes it might be different if I was a woman (but I doubt it) but if you do one thing then it follows the other (consecration) will be part of the whole. I am so tired of people giving the evil eye and acting like we are a political body (yes, I know all sides wrap it up in spiritual speak to sound like it's Church - but you know what? It ain't!!!).

Church is missional and at the end of the day we have to ask ourselves where what we dissipate our energies on leads people to Christ. As ever - it's simple stuff isn't it?

Pax

ps. To the lovely clerical lady I had the discussion with earlier - here's what I was trying to say in a way that you can take your time to read and perhaps understand a little more clearly - bless you :-)

Collars? Something to get hot under!

A friend wrote, 'I'm always amazed at how often people get 'hot under the collar' about this issue,' and they were right because I had a few comments* that fit that description, and many that didn't.

Anon writes, 'There are times when I choose to wear my collar and times when I have to wear my collar but generally I don't because I don't want to be labelled or pidgeon holed by people around me because of the job I do. I think you've got it all wrong with what you have said and feel quite attacked and angry by it.'

I think that we all have times when we choose not to wear our collars, that said I find that I probably wear it more than I don't these days because I think the 'Taxi' analogy is valid and so feel that when I'm out with it on am fair game to be stopped and engaged with. The fact that I am stopped and engaged with so much seems to confirm this thinking. But we have, and make, our own choices and unless it says 'don't do it' in the big Black Book (BBB), all are valid.

I wasn't trying to pour burning oil on people's heads, but was merely trying to get some of those I engage with on the journey of exploration of vocations to think about the role being more that just a job and to explain that there are a number of factors (which I listed in the original post) that we need to consider across a number of areas - and the piece of plastic that adorns our necks is just one of them.

Many of those who don't generally wear collars have told me that they wear them when it's appropriate, by which they mean occasional offices, but otherwise they are to be found in the study. Again, this isn't an issue, I wasn't saying you must, or you should, but I was saying what I thought and how this relates to me. Mind you, I have wondered since the 'only  appropriate' comment which places might be deemed to be inappropriate and my weird mind has had a bit of field day - but I'll spare you that.

A few have told me that the collar doesn't work these days, the pick of the crop being:

'In this day and age, the wearing of the clerical collar is outdated and outmoded. To wear it is to invite being ignored and avoided: So I don't and make relationships as me and wait for them to ask about the God side and if they don't then I've won a friend even if not a parishioner.'

And to be honest, I was disturbed by this because as nice as it is to make friends, I was under the perhaps deluded idea that I was to make family; to make disciples who understood and lived in the ways that God, through the Cross, required us to live. It's a bit like the people I met who 'want to be friends, not parents' with their children. Just as I am a parent first and hopefully a friend later, the same is true with the priestly role.

I have many friend who being into New Wine (like me) wear the alternative clerical outfit of check shirt (open-necked), brown shoes, hornrimmed glasses and flannels or cords and have the view that clerical garb of any form is outmoded, popish and to quote one, 'So yesterday!' The problem is that much of the negativity they perceive towards them and their message is towards them and their message rather than the kit they wear. That said, one chap said that by not wearing anything that said 'Vicar' they found they could get closer to people before they rejected them - which I really like!

I think the same applies to wearing of cassock albs and the like during the services. When I started where I am now I decided that I wouldn't wear 'tat' during the service for the first few weeks and see where the congregation wanted to go. I wore a clerical shirt and black trousers and shoes but that was it, opting for cassock alb on feast days, festivals and holidays. After a couple of months I asked the congregation what they wanted and how they felt about the way we did our services and as a response altered what I did. Now I wear the clerical shirt rig until we reach the Eucharist and then, coming as President from the people, I put on the cassock alb and preside. After the Eucharist I take it off again and return to the people - seems to fit what I see as the NT way.

Now I don't expect everyone to like what I do, but it works and seems to fit the bill. This is the same for clerical collars - at the end of the day we do what we do and whilst we may get it wrong at times, that's our prerogative.

So please don't read what I'm writing as a criticism or putdown (unless it is - and you will know when that happens) because it;s not - it's me taking stuff from my brain and putting it somewhere where I, and others, might dialogue with it.

All comments are welcome and for any I may have inadvertently offended - apologies.

Pax










*I am amazed that Blogger appears to be such a tough  place to leave comments - many write to me because they cant successfully leave a comment - something that needs fixing methinks :-)

Church of Wonga

Now as much as I don't agree with payday loans, they are of course better than the alternative, which is two large geezers knocking on your door to 'enquire' why Mr X hasn't had his money yet!

Just as payday loans were applauded for removing some of the the poor from the vagaries of the 'loan shark' (and we still have them and people 'helping' those around us get further into debt) the reality is that Justin is on the right track with his championing of Credit Unions and low-rate payday loans, helping to replace white goods without increasing the burden of debt and more.

One of those I spoke to on Friday said that 'the Church' ought to stick to i's own business and keep out of the financial world - after all, they said, 'You don't see banks opening churches now, do you?'

What a thought - perhaps Errol Damelin, Founder of Wonga, ought to draw up battle lines and open the Church of Wonga - Motto: 'Why not count on tomorrow to pay for today?'

I have to say that I think he looks the part - so why not? After all, money is the focus of many of those I meet and so a church that looked towards the accruing, spending and general worship of the stuff would be popular - and you could always take out a loan for the repayments (errr, I mean, offering!)

The reality is that Damelin and his organisation are meeting an obvious need - that's what business does.

What Justin is doing is trying to meet that same need, but in a better way, and this has to be good for everyone - well everyone except those who make money out of lending it that is) - and this has to be applauded and acted upon (Church is often poor at the former and invisible in the second of these).

For my money (and prayers), Justin has chosen his battlefield well - he just needs the CofE to be more circumspect in its investments now. Still, he looks good in the shirt!

He, and the CofE, will look even better when he's taken it off ;-)

Questions, Questions, Questions

Lying on the bed and it's dark.
The Labrador is snoring,
The wife is gently breathing,
Thoughts are queuing for attention;
Questions jump from foot to foot (do questions have feet?):
'Pick me - Pick me,' they cry.

Is it enough that people are happy?
Is the absence of war the same as peace?
Is it enough to merely 'keep the customer satisfied'?
Is the absence of commitment the same as discipleship?
Is coming to church the same as being Church?

Is doing stuff the same as believing?

You can't buy your way into heaven through works.
But that same faith,
Which comes by faith,
Is impotent unless it begets works.
That mean doing something,
Anything!
Yet all God wants is for us, is:
To sit on our behindsides
And love Him.
Yet, if we do it well
We get off of them!

Yet all God wants for us, is:
To enjoy the relationship.
To spend time with Him (we call it relationship)
To chat (we call it prayer),
To read (we call it study)
To sing His praise (we call it worship)
To listen to His voice (we call it guidance)
To strive to be like Him
To change the way we think
To change the way we live
To be disciples
(There's that word again: disciple)

Can anything that begins with 'dis' be good?
Dis - aster
Dis - ease
Dis - tress
Dis - ciple
(what is an 'iple' anyway?)

But there's a light at the end of the tunnel

A glimmer if hope

And a re-assuring thought:

We don't have to go to Church
We're C of E!

We don't have to change

We just need to change the Vicar!

CofE Statistics - A longer view (relative ages) - part the first

So here we are again taking a longer view at the CofE stat's (as shown below); this time we're going to have a bit of a think about the issue of children/young people:

The reality is that we have haemorrhaged a quarter of the children and young people over the past ten years and this is something that those around me are cheering (and we do need to cheer about it) over the 2011 (year-on-year) rise of 1.2% that the 216,900 (average weekly attendance) represents.

Couple this with the 139,751 baptisms (another rise in the year-on-year of 4.3%) and the massive rise (again year-on-year of 11.9%, that's 6,582 in 2011) in the area of blessings, and you can see reasons indeed to be cheerful. But this is something we must not only celebrate but also build upon and consolidate as a matter of importance.

The problem is that where I am some regard us as being 'lucky' because we have young people and children because they are 'unlucky' and have none! I often visit churches where the mantra is, 'We are committed, engaged, enthusiastic and becoming old and we have some/few/no* children/young people.' (*delete as applicable)

One of my first questions relates to the area of baptisms, for these are often a place in the church's life where families with young children are to be found. The dialogue then goes a little like this:

'We do baptisms but we can't get the people to do any real prep' and they don't come back afterwards. In fact we used to give the baptism certificate a week or two after the baptism but they never came back and so we just give it to them on the day and never see them again!'

Another person complained that, 'We can't compete with sport on a Sunday and other things that draw the children away. Neither can we make ourselves relevant with regard to the young families around us!'

And you know what? I think we can - and are in many places :-)

CofE Statistics Released

The figures are in for 2011 and, like the Curate's Egg, not all of it is bad:

Smile At:

Christmas (2011) saw a year-on-year increase of 14.5% more worshippers to our services with a grand total of 2,618,030 (and the 2012 are looking to be better still).

Baptisms also increased by 4.3% (with a rise of just over 5% in adult baptisms) bringing the combined number of baptisms for 2011 to 139,751 baptisms.

Thanksgiving Services also increased by 11.9% (that's 6,582 for the year).

Frown a little at:

Average Weekly Attendance which fell by 0.3% (which is almost static!) to 1,091,484 and leads one to smile (again) that the decline has been (nationally) arrested and smile even more that this means that many places are seeing growth to bring this about (Praise God or what?).

Smile again that:

Growth - around half of the regions are reporting growth in Church attendance, with 46% (20 out of 44 dioceses) enjoying  increases.

Young People - A 1.2% increase in children and young people attending (risen to 216,928).

Need some work with

Weddings which decreased by 3.6% (perhaps we need to look at the preparation and welcome/image and prices?) - that said, we still did 51,880.

Conversely

Wedding Blessings - have risen by 4.5% (so we must be doing something right!).

An interesting aside comes in the information that the trend over the past decade has been that the CofE married an average of 1,000 couples every week and that is pretty much maintained (but needs some real work).

Funeral  numbers have fallen slightly as in 2011 there was a year-on-year drop of 2.8% (that's still 162,526) but the ONS (Office for National Statistics) posts a fall of 1.8% death for the same period so there is some correlation  When you think that we do more than 3,000 funerals each and every week (400 a day) it is obvious that this pastoral office is a large part of the parochial mission and ministry to those around us!

Cheering news to send us all back to our kneelers methinks

Happy Tuesday

Equal Marriage and the CofE

Taken straight from the church's mouth (so now you can read it for yourself rather than keep pm'ing me):

In her statement to the House of Commons on 11^th December on the Government's proposals for Equal Marriage, the Secretary of State said:

"because the Church of England and Wales have explicitly stated that they do not wish to conduct same-sex marriages the legislation will explicitly state that it would be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples. Mr Speaker, this provision recognises and protects the unique and Established nature of these churches. The church's canon law will also continue to ban the marriage of same-sex couples. Therefore, even if these institutions wanted to conduct same sex marriage, it would require a change to primary legislation at a later date and a change to canon law. Additional protection that cannot be breached."

Press and political commentary on this has given rise to the impression that extra safeguards have been put in place for the Church of England, which give legal protection above and beyond that for other denominations and faiths. Some have said that this amounts to Government deciding to give preferential treatment to the Church of England on the question of legal protection for religious organisations not wishing to perform same-sex marriages. Others have questioned why the Government should explicitly write in to primary legislation that it would be "illegal" for the Church of England to perform same sex marriages when it will not be so for other denominations and faiths, taking this to mean that it places additional legislative barriers in the way of the Church of England in the unlikely event that it should wish to change its current position.

Such questions are understandable, but are based on a misunderstanding of the Church of England's established status and its relationship with Parliament on matters relating to Canon Law.

This is not a question of the Government and Parliament imposing a prohibition or "ban" on what the Church of England can do. It is instead the Government responding to the Church's wish to see the status quo for the Church of England preserved and accepting, as for other churches and faiths (though the legal framework is different for them), that it is not for the Government and Parliament to determine matters of doctrine.

As explained in the Church of England's submission to the Government's consultation in June 2012 (here: http://tinyurl.com/bsn6dxt ), the Canons of the Church of England define marriage, in accordance with Christ's teaching and the doctrine of the Church, as being between a man and a woman.  Because the Canon Law of the Church of England is also part of the public law of the land and cannot be in conflict with statute law, it is important that any legislation for same-sex marriage makes it clear that it does not apply to marriage according to the rites of the Church of England. The legislative drafting of what is needed for the Church of England is necessarily unique because of that; and because Church of England clergy normally have a legal duty to marry people by virtue of their office. The Government, in accepting that the legal effect of the Canons of the Church of England need to be preserved (in line with its assertions about protection of religious liberty), have committed to drafting legislation on same sex marriage accordingly.

The effect of what the Government has proposed is to leave decisions about the doctrine and practice of the Church of England with the Church of England. Any change to the Church of England's doctrine and practice of marriage would require legislation by the Church's General Synod.  In addition to an Amending Canon that redefined the nature of marriage such a legislative package would also involve the General Synod passing a Measure (the General Synod's equivalent of an Act of Parliament) that altered both the statute law concerning marriage according to the rites Church of England and the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer.

All Synod Measures require parliamentary consent. The usual process of parliamentary scrutiny for legislation submitted by the Church is that it goes first to the Ecclesiastical Committee and then has a single debate in each House before the Measure goes for Royal Assent.  As the General Synod's devolved legislative powers includes the ability to amend Westminster legislation it would not require separate, additional legislation on the part of Parliament to enact any change to the Church's practice on marriage. Talk of additional 'barriers to opt-in' for the Church of England following the Secretary of State's announcement is therefore misplaced.

For Parliament to give the Church of England an opt-in to conduct same sex marriages that it hasn't sought would be unnecessary, of doubtful constitutional propriety and introduce wholly avoidable confusion.

In addition, as the Bishop of Leicester said in the House of Lords on 11^th December in response to the Government statement "our concern here is not primarily for religious conscience or the protection of the Church of England's position, but rather a more fundamental concern for stable communities". The arguments set out in the Church of England's submission in June to the Government's consultation (here:http://tinyurl.com/bsn6dxt) spell out those concerns in detail.

Clergy Stress Test

The Church of England's Clergy Support Division has issued a simple stress test for all of the CofE clergy to ascertain just how many of us are suffering from work-related stress issues.

The test is simple, all that is required is for the clergy person to stare at the image below and see if they perceive any differences between the two otherwise identical dolphins pictured in it.

If you do you think you see any difference (the more difference the worse your condition) you should contact your senior clergy staff immediately to get support before the problem becomes serious. It is your responsibility to help senior staff help to keep you effective and in the best possible frame of mind to do the work before us as resources and ministry needs become more pressured.

Thankfully I still see two identical animals and so am assured of many more years of carefree ministry in the church!

Happy Saturday

Reaching New Generations - Lichfield Diocese

Today is set aside in Lichfield diocese as a day of prayer for the young. As I was praying this morning, and as others in our church, parish and deanery will also be doing so, I was struck by a comment I heard this week:

Some people want it to happen,

Some people hope it happens,

Some people pray it happen,

Some people make it happen!

Now I don't want you to think that I am saying that prayer is not effective, for I know that this is not the case; what I am saying is this:

All too often I meet people who have either identified or been made aware of a need and their first response is to say, "Oh, let's pray about it." Then, having dutifully prayed, they consider their part done and sit back waiting to see how God is going to do it.

I encounter far too many people who are'concerned' but are not engaged. They clearly see a need and are willing to talk about it to whoever will lsiten at the time (and do the same with God) but do not examine their church to see how it can be made effective and welcoming. They ask the questions and bemoan the fact that 'nobody is doing anything about it' and drone endlessly on about how the need is 'never' met and how they hope that one day someone will wake up and do something.

Meanwhile God looks at the situation and wonders why one earth those people who can see the need keep asking Him to do something when he's already 'something' through the Cross of the Christ and the enabling of His Holy Spirit. What He needs is for those who are asking to do the something He's asked them to do in response!

Today we are praying for 'New Generations' and this is fantastic.

But are we opening our doors to them and seeking to reach them with an old and established message in ways that are culturally and linguistically effective?

Is inculturation something we are considering?

Are we putting on Kid's Clubs and other events that will bring the 'New generations' through our doors and into relationship with us?

Can I commend Lichfield's 'Reaching New Generations' document as something worthwhile to read on this issue? (click on the words and it will download)

We will reach new generations when we leave the comfort and security of our church buildings and get out where the 'new generations' are and engage with them, putting aside the tosh that you need to be young to be effective with them, in ways that break down the barriers that false opinions and attitudes create; by seeking to find the image of the invisible God in them and leading them into a place where they can see God's hand is already on them and His Spirit working through (in, and on) them too!

Please pray this prayer sometime today (and them resolve to make rather than want or hope):

Almighty God and loving heavenly Father

Thank you for calling us by name and welcoming us into your family

Help us to reach out to new generations

so that children and young people

may find their identity as your daughters and sons.

Bless all churches and individuals meeting for prayer today;

Give us vision, faith and hope

that your kingdom may come in our Diocese

and your will be done in and through our lives.  Amen

Pax

Canterbury - Welby unsurprised

But the first thing we need to do for the rank and file on the Clapham omnibus ordinary man (and woman) in the street is make sure they know who's been picked.

So to help stop any confusion over which Welby is the Archbishop of Canterbury (elect), here's a couple of photographs which might be help to distinguish between the two:

JUSTIN Welby

MARCUS Welby

One is a fictional character and the other is a highly respected person who has brought comfort and solace to many!

So, as we seek to pour oil(man) on troubled waters with regards to women bishops, homosexuality, intolerance, a financially-floundering church and global Christian relations all that remains is for us to pray for the man who would perhaps be king(maker) and let the other candidates breathe a sigh of relief and get back to the normal run of things.

I'm sure Welby blessed by him ;-)

And goodbye to Rowan too!

ps. As the announcement isn't until tomorrow I'd name someone else at 11:00 on Friday just for the sheer fun it would induce in the media and the church itself (go on, you know you'd want to)

Carling don't do church . . . .

But if they did, this would be one of them!



The churches of St. Mary's and St. Andrew's in Essex need a new House for Duty (HfD) Priest and whoever get to love and be part of this amazing bunch of people looks set to be blessed indeed!

The vision, initiative and energy of this bunch of believers leaves me green with the gift of envy.

So, looking for a HfD post? Then get your finger out and contact the pointyhat now - think it's going to be a post in demand.

And for those who aren't looking to move - please pray for them as they seek a new priest to partner them.

Pax

(so excited now I might just go and frighten my son by jumping into his bedroom and singing ;-)  )

postscript: so I did (will have to go and make him a hot chocolate with bailey's now ;-) )

Whoops Apocalypse - Chichester in news (Again!)

Right on the back of a really great 'feel good' story comes this saddening (and concern-making) piece:

 The Church of England's Chichester diocese has placed a temporary moratorium on recruiting as a response to the diocesan finances having 'deteriorated'!

The diocese is looking to the BOPs (Bum on Pews AKA congregations) to dig deep to overcome the situation and although the person quoted (Rural Dean of Dallington, The Reverend Stan Tomalin) tells us that (at the current rate) the unrestricted funds would be gone by the middle of next year, he also says that it's 'not a crisis'!

Nope, apparently that will only come if things don't improve markedly over the next twelve to eighteen months. So to help balance the books there will be no appointments made until November (at the earliest).

That's the troubling news out of the way.

Now comes the bizarre piece in that the (many) articles on this all quote Stan as saying:

"It hasn't yet got to the point where we have to justify each and every post - although that may well be not far off”.

I would have thought that no one appoints without being sure that the post is justified - or am I being insanely naive here?

Diocesan Secretary, Angela Sibson, adds a bit to the story with the quote:

"... the diocese is examining its financial position rigorously as a matter of good housekeeping, recognising the financial challenges ahead and that it has to keep a close eye on income and expenditure." 

Colin Blakely (editor of the Church of England News) told the BBC that the CofE was facing some serious problems as numbers attending declined. he pointed to diocesan mergers and a membership in terminal decline (what would you call 125,000 members - which is what they predict in 2057 - from the current 1.25 million today?)

Would all senior clergy please make their way to Decks 'A' and 'B' where help is needed re-arranging the deckchairs.

All together now:

Nearer my God to Thee . . . . .

Nah - Our Lady hasn't sung yet - this is all far from over and rumours of our demise have been greatly aided by some poor money management, vision, Golgafrincham mentality and a desire to make the Church look like the world!

Still be of good cheer - Sunday's coming (and He is risen indeed!)

CofE: Church Growth Research Project

One of the most exciting things that I have found of late has to be the Church of England's church growth research project .

It's an 18 month research project that is seeking to explore, understand and explain church growth in the CofE and it is potentially something of great import to us on the ground at parish level. To this end there are three strands:

Data Analysis - We all know just how much data the CofE holds and this gold mine will no doubt enable trends and practice (good and bad) to be identified. This will lead to:

Church Profiling  - Looking at what is happening to see what really works in some 4,000 churches to augment the data that's already been collected (and discus/discover why).  This leads to the final strand (take a deep breath):

Structures: Cathedrals, Fresh Expressions and Church Planting and Amalgamations, Team Ministry and United/Grouped Benefices  - Looking at growth in cathedrals and comparing it with city centre (and larger churches) to investigate the impact of church planting/Fresh Expressions on growth and research into the effect of Team Ministry and Grouped Benefice structures.

Bottom line is that we are going to need to cut our cloth according to the number of stipendiary ministers we have (and also look at ways of balancing the books) and this means  effective, efficient and smarter ministry model. Sharing resources and working together in a collegial manner, minster models (which is what the 'Team Ministries' were aimed at being) and equipping the Church (which in this context means ALL THE LAITY*) to fulfil their baptismal calling.

We are in for a very exciting few years as we revision and re-equip the Church to be the body God has called it to be.

And it won't happen unless you (and I) get involved and committed to it!

* Laity (God's people) means every Christian. Clergy never cease being laos (God's chosen people) they merely add other titles to it (diakonos, presbyteros etc.) and laos is the bedrock, the very foundation of our Christian being, calling and mission.

Same-Sex Marriage - Rowan and Church 'embarrassed'!

Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has been extremely critical of Prime Minister, David Cameron over the 'embarrassment' to the Church over the issue of same-sex marriage. Rowan points to the fact that the Church has been given firm assurances that no pressure would be brought to bear on it regarding conducting such services. The problem comes about with the fact that all have the right to be married in Church; of course 'marriage' here is taken as a word which relates to the joining of two people (one of each sex).

Of course, changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples means that one could extrapolate this to say that all couples (homosexual and heterosexual) have the right and there is (as Rowan puts it) the potential for a bit of a tangle!

He (Rowan) also says that the Church should have pressed harder for civic equality and it was wrong in not doing so and I not only agree with that but also feel in the civil partnership the means of creating a legally recognised partnership has been given and so see the redefinition of marriage as divisive and unnecessary (not a popular view with some I'm sure). Take this and the fact that the Church of England has (quite surprisingly) nailed its colours to the mast over this issue) and it's obvious that there is a collision on the way - especially when those ConDem(ed) Coalition pair of quasi-believers (Cameron and Clegg) play their 'bigot' cards on this issue.
(note. They aren't the bigots, this term is reserved for those who don't see things their way ;-) )

Seems to me that Rowan has pitched his complaints about right and the efforts of a confused, people-pleasing bunch who fail to see the differences between civil and faith related issues (and condem those of faith who make a principalled stand) are seeking to divide the nation and deconstruct the constitution too! Something which, as our nation becomes increasingly secular will see it losing the elements that have made it socially caring and compassionate.

Well done Rowan, it's good to see some leadership for you as your swan song, your words on public theology and political integrity of late have been an encouragement and a joy. Just a shame you didn't sing earlier and louder!

CofE and marriage - loadsa responses

Some of those with whom I am in relationship have brought their own inimitable style to the CofE's report. I was rather taken with one person's view as outlined in a radio interview when they pointed out that, "Marriage is not a consumer item. . . . it is the recognition of something physical, moral, mental and spiritual." I wondered if I had heard it wrong as there appeared to be some form of substance and a lack of the usual 'via media, let's agree to differ' fudge.

Visiting my Facebook page I found one of my friends describe the report thus:

"News Today: Widespread Shock as Church of England publicly upholds Scripture & Tradition and is seen to Stand For Something. In other news: Bears' toilet found in wooded area; Pope seen attending Mass."

Another wrote:

"Not sure how I feel about wearing the collar today..."

Whist another wrote:

"If the Church of England continues to shoot itself in the foot, it's only a matter of time before it won't have a leg to stand on"

I have to admit that I too think that the government's consultation on the issue was indeed extremely shallow. Could it be that the decision had been taken and all that remained was to 'listen' before they acted (something often found in both politics and Church issues).

I also have to be honest and say that I too thought that any right to 'opt out' of doing such a service in a church setting would soon be challenged and would probably fall when it got to the Court of Human Rights because after all - everything is our right these days, even if it (morally, legally or Biblically) isn't!

I need to read the report (I have downloaded it - get yours here) before I get into making my own assessments. And for those who want to merely engage in kneejerk responses because of their own position - well you'd do that anyway so no problem (or sadly change) there I guess.

But regardless of your position, it appears that the Church has drawn a line and made 'No' mean 'No' and this for me is a positive element to the day (especially when one realises just how many of our regular armed forces personnel will be finding they have been made redundant today - not a lot to cheer about!).

Please pray for the church, the Church and our serving Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen today.

Pax

We don't need our buildings - do we?

One of the most popular themes I encounter at the moment is that of 'getting rid of buildings'. Time and time again I find myself in a meeting or conversation where this issue is raised.

"Why don't we get rid of our buildings, they are a money pit and not fit for service (or services)," they cry. "We'd be much more flexible and could meet in [insert your location here], where everyone in the area would come!" Having been privileged to have planted a few churches over the years I generally sit and smile at these words and the wondrous naivety of the speakers. the problem is that they, generally, have been Anglicans for all of their Christian life and know no different. BUT . .

Not having a building is great, especially on a Sunday when you arrive with all the kit for the service (which now occupies your garage, spare room or most of the house) and, having loaded it into the vehicle, unload it. You take it into the building (one of the plants we did was up four flights of stairs!) and set up. Having done the service you then pack everything up (which takes ages) and take it out to the vehicle, load it and take it back home and unpack it.

Alongside this there is the gathering, and arranging, of the chairs followed by the stacking and removing same back to the place where they live (and they never seemed to live in the same place that you were going to do your service).

Drop into the mix the caretaker, who often appeared to be lurking somewhere that made them visible enough to let you know they'd like you to finish and clear the building so they could get back to their Sunday off!

ADD to this . . . .

The fact that even though you'd like to be doing a service on a bank holiday weekend, the building just isn't available and we'd love you to do something on Ash Wednesday but we'd love you to do it somewhere else! Christmas? Not a chance - could you do it somewhere else?

CONSIDER this . . .

The 'if we do it they will come' approach doesn't work when you're in a sports hall or a school hall. You might be doing a great job and the services may be sublime but whilst you will have your regulars the reality is that the casual drop-in visitor, the seeker of God because of some amazing epiphany and those who want a pretty 'looks like a church' venue just are going to make it. Mind you, if you are in a small place more will be aware that you're meeting (but will still want something more like church!).

THE REALITY is . .

One of the biggest dreams in every church plant I have done is that glorious day when the church has its own building and the lugging in and out of equipment ends; when there is a 7*24 presence and the ability to put something on the wall becomes more than a dream. That wonderful moment when you realise that the all night prayer meeting can happen and that almost indescribable feeling that rises up at the reality that you can walk in and everything is already set up (for those who doubt the frustration, niggle and eventual throwing out of the toys that is the bringing and taking, setting up and breaking down of kit all I can do is suggest that they give it a try for three months - and that's without the fact that it adds a couple of hours to the Sunday, EVERY Sunday).

We don't need to get rid of our buildings but we need to engage with the planners, the (never go to church but wants a say) Victorian, Dickens, 'Whoever was here' and 'whatever happened here' societies and those who want to conserve 'their' church and tell them the realities. If they want to pay for the roof restoration (£250k please) or the essential work on the organ (£75k) or rewire, replumb or whatever else needs doing (just give me all your money) then they can have a say in what is going on. BUT . .

Church is living stones and the building that houses them needs to be fit for purpose. Where we have buildings that don't do what we need, then we need to re-order them. Where we have buildings which are special because of the many generations of additions, modifications and the leaving of fingerprints, we need to preserve them and change the interiors sympathetically. But change them we must! And where this is not possible then we should perhaps bite the bullet and, as an extreme last resort, hand them over to the councils, preservation societies or the state.

Note the 'last resort comment though, for when we let go of our landmark buildings; when we leave a place without a visible (or invisible, done in some school, hall or house) church presence we are leaving that place, barring a great revival, without a Christian influence (and place of safety, welcome and salvation) for good.

Time to stop saying we need to get rid of buildings and time to start making buildings do what we 9and the community) need them to do and if this means a Post Office, newsagents and general store in the church hall (or even the back of the church or in a spare room) then so be it. Church should be seen and felt throughout the communities we serve and church buildings should serve the Church and the communities in the same way.

believe me - not having a building is bigger than you think (as I hope you'll see with the next bit).

Pax

Lottery Money

Tuesday saw me visiting the local supermarket and whilst waiting to buy a newspaper I found myself standing behind a woman who was buying her lottery tickets for the week. Having passed over the little red slips with her numbers, and paid the sixteen pounds required, she waited for the person serving her to get her numbers. As she waited she turned to a friend who was with her and, smiling, told them that she must be lucky one day and it would be good if it was this week as she had so many bills they couldn't pay.

I wanted to tell her that the chance of her winning the jackpot was about one in fourteen million and even the tenner that three numbers brings was about one in fifty-seven, but I didn't think it would make her day. I stood there listening to the conversation and thought about the fact that she had a 44% chance of winning nothing and a 42% chance of the tenner and so the odds were stacked against her.

I once attended a lecture on chance, hope and certainty and during this we stopped at the lottery. The speaker suggested that if we were 'those sort of people who did the lottery' then we'd be better off buying our ticket a couple of hours before the draw as this would give us a chance that we might see some prize money. This got me thinking about the lucky dips and the ways they were constructed. "Was there more chance of a hitherto unissued number being successful, " I mused. Then the speaker burst the train of thought with the words:


"If you are wondering why you have more chance of seeing the lottery money if you buy it within a couple of hours of the draw, it is simply this. Statistically, there's more chance of you dying before Wednesday if you buy it on a Monday or Tuesday or on Thursday or Friday if you buy your Saturday ticket then, than there is of winning. Buy it just before and there's a good chance you will still be 'in it to win it' - and then you only have the odds against winning to contend with!"


I struggle with the issue of lottery funding because time and time again I find myself being confronted by situations where those who are obviously struggling financially increase their struggle in the hope that salvation lies in the shape of six numbers. The lottery isn't done to help good causes, even though so many claim this is their reason for doing it, and regardless of the talk of who'd benefit, the reality is that the person most thought of when putting down the money is the person putting down the money!


I often find myself ministering to people with problems caused by gambling and when I explain that gambling in itself might not be wrong but there are limits and if paying for the privilege of doing whatever it is damages you or your family then that limit has been reached (and exceeded).


I was really glad when the lottery lady left for as she did she was explaining that she had sixteen times the chance of winning!  Now 1/14,000,000 = 0.000007142857% and sixteen tickets raises this to 0.000114285714% that's an improvement in your chances of 0.00010707142843 (that an eleven thousandth of a percent!)


Still more chance of being hit by lighting :-(


Pax