Church - Working to be ONE!

Today I will find myself being Church with a variety of people I don't usually get to fellowship with and this is a source of great joy for me.

The day begins with me crossing town to take a early Communion service, sharing God's word and breaking bread with them. This is followed by our congregation (St Francis') going up the hill to have a joint service with the Methodists (St Andrew's) - something we began last year having made the journey both ways and having run a joint Alpha and continue with a shared House group too.

This evening will see many of the Christians from the Tamworth area crowd into the town centre church, St Editha's, where we will celebrate the many things done to serve the town's residents (and there are a fair number of them) and add to their number Tamworth Street Angels. We have the diocesan bishop and senior clergy from the Baptists, Methodists and RC Church. How cool is that?

Having done some of my training in a couple of Methodist colleges and working with them in the East end of London during the seventies, I have long appreciated them (enjoying the fact that they are of course 'splitters') and this joy has deepened with the coming of the current minister, Tim, to our town a while back. The addition of two new RC clergy, Michael and Noel, has brought opportunities to share I new ways - the previous incumbents were a blessing too - (and loving the fact that we become the 'splitters'!). The arrival of the Baptist minister, Graham, has deepened the joy and the cherry on the cake has to be the Living Rock Church and John and Caleb.

Ecumenism is often regarded as something that doesn't that sounds great when reading the label on the tin that contains it but is, when opened, is something rather bland that lacks the ability to sustain. This is not the case though, for where there is a willingness to dialogue and a desire to serve the people in the place where you live, ecumenicism is a deep and enabling joy.

This week we will see us meet in different church building at 7pm every day to pray together as one Church as we engage in the 'Week of Prayer for Christian Unity' - can it get any better?

To all the members and leaders of the churches that is Tamworth Covenanting Churches:

Thank You!

Working Together is Kingdom thinking

One of the key elements in anything to do with Church growth is the making real the oft proclaimed desire of working together. The problem is that whilst this is a great idea in concept the minute anyone starts to do something in, near, or around someone else's patch the barricades appear.

Now, where I am, we are rather blessed with people who are into the Kingdom stuff and are looking at ways of working together. So far this year we have closed our church and taken the congregation to other places and the message it sends is worth its weight in banana chips - we are there to serve the people around us as one Church with many expressions of church.

Of course there are some who will go to great lengths to explain how they need to do this, that or the other because they don't get 'everything' paid for like we do ('we' in this case being Anglican of course). I've had this reported to me and seen it first hand so I know this to be true. The reality is that the active encouragement of transfer growth (AKA 'sheep stealing' if they're leaving you for somewhere else) from some does happen and although this makes people appear successful on the surface the harvest it reaps is poor and the growth short-lived.

When we do something in our church we need to ask who else we could be doing it with and then, having identified others we could act in partnership with, we do it: Or at least invite them because they might not be in the right place or time to come on board at that time - and if so we leave the door open for later. Where I am I am blessed to find myself in partnership with the local Methodist church and have shared ALPHA, and continue to share a joint house group, with them.

So if you're reading this please have a think about what opportunities there are for mission and ministry in the place where you are and then step back and ask yourself the all important question. Who can I do this with?' - for when you do you're not only opening the door to Kingdom thinking but opening up you and those who travel with you to be blessed and be a blessing.

And there's little to eclipse that reality is there?

The language we use

I was told the story of a man whose relative has come to work in the UK. This man has no English and so asked his brother for some basic vocabulary. He knows the words for 'please', 'thank you' and 'where is . . .' (toilet station,etc.).

After a few months, his brother visits him in the UK and teaches him some more words. He learns the word for fish and every day goes to the canteen where he has a job as cleaner and orders fish. This is fine but after a few weeks, the fish thing is beginning to pale a little.

The brother visits him again and teaches him some more words, one of them being 'milk'.

Keen to try the new word, the man goes to the canteen the next day and says, "Milk."

"Hot or cold," come the response. The man looks at the person behind the counter for a few second and then, knowing he's beaten, says, "Fish!"

I rather like this story because it speaks of more than vocabulary and foreign immigrants (well it does for me). It is a parallel tale of Christians with the secular world outside and the liberal/fundamentalist world around them. Seems that we can exist with very few words and yet if we do we are condemned to eat the same fare for ever. the trouble is that when we learn a new word we rarely realise that there are others than are required to define what that word will produce (in a glass or or in our church congregations).

So many people call themselves christian and manage to exist with a small vocabulary, not seeing that the word used might have variations within it. 'Church' is a good starting point. For some it is the building, for others the believers who comprise it. Some see it as Bible-believing whilst others see the Bible as a book of recommendations and an optional element. The list is endless and many of those in church have managed to build a minimum vocabulary that allows them to get by in their chosen place of worship because no one challenges them and, as long as the buzzwords, are in place the security of sameness is around them.

This has made me think about words and how they alienate or pait ourselves into a corner. A while back I should have said, "I don't care who you are but I do care about the way that you live your life!" I didn't and found myself attacked and labelled by some of those I was engaged with.

Seems to me that many of those outside have learned one of two words, 'orthodox' and 'liberal' (there are ruder varieties of same) and whenever they try out any new word quickly fall back to their original, secure, word as a safe label for themselves or an accusation for others.

How about we try to broaden our vocabulary and seek to understand what each new word, especially each new noun, means to us and to those who own them too? Might make our dialogue a little more profitable.

Pax

Ecumenical Aspirations

In dialogue with a couple of 'Ecumenical Officers' this week, one of them remarked that ecumenical aspirations were noble and to be applauded, but usually totally unrealistic.

We are in the long dark ecumenical teatime of the soul. Wherever one looks moves to be one were all running aground and some were choosing to remain but to no longer engage with members of other Christian groups. It is now better to be working in multi-faith groups than multiple denominational, but it is predominantly the ecumenical areas that foster the polite presence approach.

Apparently it is not polite to ask other Christians what they believe and even worse if, upon discovering a heresy within their make-up, to challenge them or ask them to explain their position and the way they have reached their opinion. "It's better to be together and avoid the areas of difference," said one person, "That way we present a positive image to those outside looking in."

This leads me to question what Jesus' words at the end of John where He prays that we would be one as He and the Father are one. Being one Church, as in denomination, is how some approach this. A Catholic friend tells me that all would be well if we 'just' all returned to the 'True Church' (which is of course, for them 'Rome'). An Orthodox friend says that all would be well if everybody, including Rome (who he considers to be the splitters), returned to the 'True Church' which is of course Orthodox!

My Pentecostal friends tell me that everyone should leave Rome and become 'proper Christians'! Interestingly they have no view on the Orthodox because they know nothing of them other than they're Greek (Aren't they? We saw them on holiday with their big hats and beards!!).

My Methodist friends (I have a few, can't be helped!) are basically of the opinion that everyone out there is far to concerned with the Bible and rules and doing the right thing and should just get down and engage in the social stuff around them.

Scratch a Christian, of any complexion, and you'll find a difference. Scratch some and you'll find stuff that others consider make them barely Christian (or ven non-Christian)! Scratch others and you'll find that they appear to assume that they are the only 'real Christians'.

Find someone who is a Baptist but joined from a C of E setting and ask them whether they moved because they had a change ion their thinking over baptism and then ask someone who was baptist but is now Anglican the same question. The answer I always get is that they moved because of the worship, the dogcollar and a host of other, non-theological, reasons.

Ask A Pentecostalist whether they are evangelical and they will most likely answer in the affirmative but ask an evangelical if Pentecostalists are evo's and they will probably answer with a negative.

Ask a Catholics what they believe and nine times out of ten they will tell you that they pray to Mary and that the Pope is the head of the 'true Church' and probably tell you all about Henry VIII and a failed divorce!

How can we expect to be together and find areas of common faith, to celebrate the image of Christ in each other and to dialogue when we don't even know who we are or what we believe? As the bloke said this week, "People love the idea of being one but don't understand what it means. It is more than sticking everyone in a room and shouting, 'look unity!', it is an engagement which comes out of being sure of who we are so that we are afraid of others taking that away!"

So here's a question for me, but you can play too, do I know who and am and what being an Anglican says about my Christianity?

One of the colleges I have attended, Ridley, had an exceptionally good summary of what being an open evangelical is all about. It is:

"Roots down - walls down!"

We grow in our own denominational and faith, putting down roots so that we are securely based and, having removed the things that separate us, let our branches reach out to touch, and be touched by, others around us.

I think this is the beginning of ecumenical aspiration!

Pax

Proclamatory, Apologetical Ecumenism

In my book, one of the best ways of doing ecumenism is to be loud and proud about who you are and what you believe. This is not to encourage dogmatism but it might encourage those who have a position to not only be able to spout it but also understand it from a theological/church history standpoint and be able to explain/defend it too! This is what apologetics is all about and ecumenical gatherings is one of the best arenas to engage in it because it requires dialogue.

There are some who think that ecumenism is about having the largest voice and deaf ears.

The problem with this is that those who refuse to challenge, or even ask, lead the shouters to think that this is the best way forward. The 'spiritual, silent ones' are never spiritual and rarely (once they get amongst friends) 'silent'!

A good example here might be the issue of (and I've taken one at random) 'Zionism'. Now, this is apparently an extremely contentious issue. The leader of one church that I know is not only 'anti-zionist', but is also a self-proclaimed 'pro-Palestinian'. Another leader doesn't give a hoot about Israel or Palestine and thinks they all need their heads banged together. Yet another leader thinks that we have to support Israel because it's what the Bible tells us we need to be doing!

The positions continue and eventually the decision is taken that rather than dialogue regarding the politics, study regarding the Biblical or engage with the varying positions and find out more, it is 'safer' to merely agree not to engage lest we fall out or find ourselves at odd with one another. Better to take the path of peaceful disagreement! We do the safe things like an Easter 'walk of witness' and gather to sing a few carol around a tree at Christmas and hope that the world assumes this means we are one!

What a load of tosh! Surely the Biblical solution is that we look at the important stuff, engage with the historical and political stuff, consider the humanitarian stuff, address Biblical issues and bring it all to the table (it might take months or years, but at least we would be engaging and working towards an informed, balanced and biblical consensus) so that even if we don't agree we might understand.

Would that we might stand up for what we believe and come armed with biblical, rational and honest arguments for the positions that we occupy. Would that we would bring our beliefs and opinions and share why we think, act, live and believe as we do.

Is it any wonder that Islam presents such a viable alternative to us when we are such milky, wishy-washy, lacking in faith people?

Study the subject

Think about and understand it

Explain it

Dialogue

And then one day everyone will clap and you'll become:

So come on then people, let's get started on the journey. Take something that defines you, your church, fellowship, denomination and understand what it means so that you can explain it to others as a valid, reasoned and (hopefully) biblical choice.

If you're Anglican then you have paedobaptism and if you're Pentecostal then it's the Anabaptist life for you - can you explain the differences and the reasons why or is it merely what you do?

If you're catholic then understand that you don't pray TO Mary (and if you do, you are wrong!) but can you explain where she fits in and what the snake is doing under her foot in the statues?

If you're pro-Palestinian, can you explain what you do with all the prophesies about Israel when you stand against that nation and vilify it?

If you're not pro-life then how do you reason with that one, what's the journey that took you there . . . and of course there's more besides (yep, there's even deep theology!!!). It's called apologetics

Pax

Receptive Ecumenism

I have been reading a number of papers and articles on the rather high-sounding topic of 'Receptive Ecumenism'. This is an interesting journeying point for those seeking to be 'Churches Together' in that it looks at news ways of being 'One Church' and that the prime movers appear to be Catholics called into both action and response to John Paul II's 'Ut Unum Sint' ('may they be one').

The question before the Catholics was one of finding ways that the Catholic church could keep to its own beliefs (or as they put it, 'maintain their integrity') engage with, and learn from, other Christian traditions with regard to matters of faith, spirituality, worship, churchmanship and engagement with the secular world and yet not (my words) 'be tainted or changed'.

One of the popular expressions in this is, "From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy" (initially used by a paper from the SSJ).

The reality is that many within the Christian world are coming to the conclusion that the Church (universal) finds itself in an 'ecumenical winter' and that the days of people assuming that putting Christians, or their leaders, in a room and labelling it as 'unity' is drawing to a close. That said, a continued presence in the room with a desire to see ways in which unity could become a reality heralded (very early) signs of Spring and is perhaps one of the first stages of what might become a realised unity.

A key element of this is that rather than bring what we have, or push the position we occupy, we come to listen to what others have and from here begin the dialogue. We come and, creatively, explore how we might engage, not just at personal, congregational or other local levels but at wider and deeper (denominational?, now there's a wonderful, yet frightening, thought!)levels still!

Receptive Ecumenism seeks to (and I quote here):
"To extend Spiritual Ecumenism into an explicit exploration as to how Christian traditions might most effectively and genuinely learn, or receive, from each other with integrity."

Just to get you started with this, here's a link to Paul Fiddes' excellent paper: Learning from others - Baptists and Receptive Ecumenism

Enjoy!

Speak first, apologise later

Once again Rowan has spoken out and then, very much like Benedict, apologised later.

Now he's apologising for saying something that many obviously think and feel and to be honest, stitch-up by clever editing by the BBC apart, I don't think he was actually being that controversial or damaging for the Catholics. He's certainly not done any more damage to the RC church than he has to many Anglicans, who are well used to having him and the result of his intelligence cause them to appear in such a light that other faiths (Islam being an example ) regard them as failing, fallen and apostate.

I hope that the words of Cardinal Sean Brady, uttered in Armagh today are true for the whole of the catholic church (and beyond) when he says that, "There is now no hiding place for abusers in the church." Of course the sadness is that there was and many carried out the abuse because those in authority practised 'turning a blind eye' and ignoring what was before them for a very long time.

I personally see nothing in what Rowan said that needs to be apologised for. I know his words will wound some, but they are neither malicious nor wrong and therefore merely need to be acknowledged and to be honest, some just seem to like being wounded and see the RC church as being persecuted. Get a life, persecution is what is happening to Christians in in Iraq at the moment - best wake up and smell the incense.

Mind you, I notice (reading around) that some Catholics are billing this as an attempt to win over some of the high church types who might be thinking of Tiber swimming excursions. Not so, because the words will do nothing for them and neither will they appease those who are troubled by the homosexuality issues so kindly brought to the fore by our American cousins. Sorry people, can't write Rowan's words off. You can't go round them, you can't go under them, you can't go over them - so you'd best suck it in and go through them and take stock and strive to make Sean Brady's words true.

No church, denomination or grouping is above honesty and integrity, Christ demands it and congregations and church members have the right to expect it. So best get it sorted and seek to restore the place of the church in Ireland and the rest of the world and whilst the RC's sort their situation perhaps Rowan might care to make some sort of comment over homosexuality too - there's enough to be done closer to home.

Happy Easter to one and all

PAX

RC Church has "Lost All Credibility!"

Rowan Williams has said that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland has lost "all credibility" over the way it had dealt with paedophile priests."

What an amazing statement from Rowan, especially given the timing (Easter) and the fact that Bennie will be visiting his (Rowan's) patch later this year. This Easter act of reconciliation and peace seems to me to be a great equaliser and perhaps even a winner in the dialogue over Rome's alternative Anglican provision.

Bennie's already under a great deal of pressure over his handling (at many levels) of the paedophile priest issue and this isn't going to help his case. Then again, having heard one of the Vatican spokesmen baldly state that Benedict and the RC church were facing the same collective violence that the Jews faced, anti-semitism now having become anti-catholicism. Mmmm, don't think so geezer!

I love the News the morning, especially the bit where Rowan is quoted as saying that Bennie would be welcome to the country as a 'valued partner' but that's 'about it!'.

Seems both of these two chaps might be at the helm of sinking ships, one through institutional errors and the other through his own lack of action and leadership. Seems to me that even though Rowan's got a good punch in (at last) and re-iterated the view that few would swim the Tiber, he hasn't managed to do anything for ecumenical relations (which don't really appear to exist in this context anyway).

But what great news for the press and media - back to the playground and that buzzing circle encolsing two combatants chanting the words, "fight, fight, fight . . . "

Rowan 2 Bennedict 1? Christianity ?

ps. listening to some of the broadcast, seems Rowan has, as ever, spoken extremely reasonably ;)

Let there be peace on earth and let it begin . .

Hans Küng on peace, "There will be no (global) peace among the nations without peace among the religions. To have peace among the religions there must be dialogue between them." I would continue . .  To be able to dialogue we need both a common framework of ethical standards, mutual trust and respect (haven't even touched upon theological interpretation or practice).

Moving from world peace to a smaller scale consideration; If those who claim to be Christian (let's not even extend this to other faiths) cannot agree ethical standards and exist in a state of limited trust and respect  regarding other groupings or denominations what chance is there for the world?

I have spoken with people who tell me that it is becoming increasingly difficult for them (meaning their fellowship) to be in partnership with the CofE because of the goings on in American Anglicanism (by which they mean the ordination of homosexuals) and the lack of leadership and by this they mean 'Biblical leadership' from the über pointyhead (i.e. Rowan Williams). Not only that but others, who they assume will be doing the leadership thing at local levels, seem to be either saying nothing relevant about Biblical Christianity or are taking positions which cause even more distrust and unease.

The time is coming when some fellowships will, I am sure, look at the CofE and its excesses rather than the local clergy and their fidelity to the Word, and act against it. Many of the BOPS (Bums on Pews) are beginning to find a marked and obvious distrust of the CofE and feel that it stands against the faith that they have and weakens the position of Christians and Christianity.

The time has come to cease issuing comments over 'regrets' and begin to issue clear and Biblical directions. To have pointyheads claiming that two views supporting totally opposite realities can exist coherently in one body is to misunderstand that great theologian Montgomery Scott (AKA 'Scotty') in that, "You can't mix matter and anti-matter!" We can have a broad church but it needs to be a Christian church as well.

Perhaps Williams needs to consult that other religious leader, Arsene Wenger, who is doing a fair job of having a team who are up there and doing something attractive. Oh that we could say that!

Right, third meeting of the day done, tea finished - off we go again . . . .