Really?

Just been talking to a 'Christian' who thought they might put me straight - not that they asked me whether I needed to be put straight or even had the grace to find out if I agreed with their views before they launched into their view of what Church should be.

And it goes like this (don't think she even stopped for breath):

'Church needs to stop being so sexist and stop being homophobic and stop supporting Israel and stop being so stuck in the past and should realise that marriage isn't the norm' anymore and should lock up all the paedophile priests and get rid of the Pope and stop lending money to people that can't afford to pay it back and should stop trying to make everyone feel guilty just because they are having fun and should leave Christmas alone and stop going on about God and Jesus and making everyone feel like they're doing it all wrong.

If Church just told everyone that they're doing alright and got on with helping the poor and doing what it was supposed to do then it would be more popular!'

So I asked if they were Christian and the response was in the affirmative.

So I asked what church they attended (thinking of praying for their pastor/minister/priest) and the response was, 'Oh, I don't go to church, I don't believe in God!'

'But you started by telling me that you were a Christian,' said I (just a little confused by now).

Her response placed the cherry on the whole pile of patisserie she had just baked for me:
'I am, I was christened!'

So I thanked her for her advice and said I'd pass it on (Justin, Ruth, Gavin - are you watching?) and left her to her campaign of world domination and the sunshine (and looked for a suitable wall to bang my head against)

And it's only ten to nine in the morning!!!!!!

ps. assume the lending bit referred to Wonga - glad Justin has stopped doing that :-)

Schori, Glory, Hallelujah?

I had to check the calendar to make sure that I wasn't being conned and even when I was certain it was May (not April the first) I had to check many sources* to see if I was being had, but (sadly) apparently not!

It appears that the doyen of all that is liberal, revisionist (and Episcopalian - which appears to mean one and the same for many these days), Katharine Jefferts Schori, had launched a bit of a diatribe against the Apostle Paul (who many seem to think might just have penned most of the New Testament).

The focus of her attack is Paul's dealings with a demonically influenced slave girl (Acts 16. 16-34) who follows Paul and the others around, for days, shouting, ‘These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.’

Now eventually Paul gets a bit cheesed of and so he casts out the demons. Of course the people who manage her, for she is a slave who is hired out to predict stuff, get a bit naffed off and drag Paul and Silas before the authorities for a bit of revenge. Nothing like losing a good income stream to tick people off now, is there?

I have to admit that I would have thought that a bit of free publicity was always helpful, but obviously there are limits and so Paul draws the line - even though of course a house divided and all that - and sends the dark bits packing - after all, they're not on the same side as us (or are they? Some might take from her words the idea that Schori thinks they might be and that would explain so very much more than just the sermon now, wouldn't it?).

Still, that's my 'off the wall' take on it I guess.

But what of the Schori-teller herself, what does she make of this episode? Well, apparently it demonstrates that Paul is, 'mean-spirited and bigoted.'

Not only that but (apparently) she condemns those who disagree with her and labels them as 'enemies of the Holy Spirit'.

Schori explains that Paul didn't set the girl free, he merely 'deprived her of her gift of spiritual awareness'. His frustration at her proclamations led him to rid her of something he considers as wrong and because he sees it as such he denies that it can be beautiful or holy. I guess Schori would, using the same logic, believe the fact that people who deny homosexuality are acting in the same manner and assign the same dynamics to their actions also.

She speaks of progress and how 'different is not the same as wrong' and how it can be difficult to see God at work in the world, especially if God is doing something unexpected - and homosexuality and the demoniac slave girl appear to be one and same in that respect.

Of course, to make it work there has to be the good old ad hominem - Paul the mysoginist is now Paul the arrogant, the oppresser, the slighted who lashes out and takes away something beautiful - the gift of demon oppression - And this is what others do now with homosexuality when they oppose it too I guess. Bigots and homophobes each and every one!

There's so much 'other information' that Schori draws on - the earthquake and the fact that Paul 'repents of casting out the spirit of divination' and acts with compassion towards the frightened, and about to take his own life, jailer.  Schori continues, 'It makes me wonder what would have happened to that slave girl if Paul had seen the spirit of God in her.'

Well I have to think he'd have praised God for His gift in her had it been God's gift, but it wasn't God's gift - it was the work of the enemy - and so what could he do but oppose it?

If we bless what the devil does; if we bless those acts which deny that which Scripture, tradition and reason has known, taught and lived in for so many years; if we support, and especially encourage, divination then surely we fall foul of the Biblical commandments and deny God. But, according to Schori (if the reports are true) we are not justified by our faith but by our respect for diversity. Odd that, I thought justification came by God's grace - something she most definitely doesn't have a scooby about it seems.

Move over Paul, it's time for a rewrite and some rehabilitation!

Mind you - I do have to agree with Schori when she says:

'Jesus says he’s looking for everybody, anyone who’s looking for good news, anybody who is thirsty. There are no obstacles or barriers – just come.  God is at work everywhere, even if we can’t or won’t see it immediately.'

Hallelujah lady - you've got one right at last. Of course, once we've come to Jesus the adventure continues by Him (Jesus) calling us to be obedient and live according to God's commandments and lifestyle guides, so you've fallen just short of the mark (but that won't be a new experience now, will it?)!

Now that bit won't be as popular with her or her followers methinks ;-)

*To read the transcript of the sermon click here

Salisbury, statements and unity

Yesterday, one of the church members asked if they could bring some of the words from the Bishop of Salisbury, Nicholas Holtam, to the congregation's attention. As is ever the case I answered in the affirmative and this is what was read out:

". . . increasingly, there is an evangelical imperative for the Church to recognise that covenantal same sex relationships can be Godly and good for individuals and society; that they are at least like marriage for heterosexuals, and this is a development that many Christians in good faith warmly welcome. For LGBT people it raises question about whether marriage is what they want, but for us as a Church there are things to affirm in this development. It is a disaster that we have allowed the Church to be seen as the opposition to equal civil marriage."

What followed was a balanced and reasonable rejoinder of the words above and afterwards, another of the congregation pointed out that they held the same view as the bishop, and so the service continued with no grief, tension or conflict. I was so proud of being part of that body because we dialogued after the service and found ourselves still one! Pity the wider Church can't do it as well :-) (of course 'equal civil marriage' is actually a reference to 'gay marriage'. That aside I know no one who opposes civil marriage - the register office is there for those who choose it and I for one have no problems with that (and the same is true for civil partnerships which some have always billed as 'gay marriage' from the start so what's the problem?)

For me the first interesting thing is that like sex and gender, there appears to be a bit of confusion regarding civil partnerships and marriage and as with the former, there is a fair amount of interchangeability being used to blur and confuse. Secondly, one of the points made was that opening the doors to 'gay marriage' would do many things but the idea that it would suddenly see the church buildings full was not one of them.

Holtam speaks of us, "Having to accept the new distinction between civil and religious marriages, as we have had to accept Civil Partnerships." This brought some disagreement from those who might otherwise support his words and from those who surely didn't. Extend this to blessing civil (Same-sex) partnerships (which of course many do in defiance of the rules just as they defy them in the way they choose to live) and the confusion is complete. Civil partnerships happen and do so outside a church setting and I'm happy with that - redefining and 'choosing to ignore' (as per the ordained man on the radio last week who chose to ignore the church's ruling on his sexual relationship with another man) are all (I am told) part of rebellion, not revision and this is where the two worlds collide.

Resonance of the collision can be found in the reality that I have been (informally) told that a few of the church groups with which I am in fellowship would have to review their relationships should we ever fling wide the doors and act, as they see it, contrary to Scripture.

Still - we did well yesterday and I trust and pray we will continue to do so (but well done again) after all, if we fail to love the image of the invisible God made visible in our neighbours, what hope is there for us? :-)

Pax

Most people aren't gay - live with it?

I was most saddened and more than little appalled at the interview surrounded a response by some to Stonewall's bus advert campaign which saw the statement, "Some people are gay. Get over it." appear on some of London's buses.

The response was, "Not gay, ex-gay, post-gay, and proud. Get over it," which seems to be a statement of fact as realised by the opposing view to Stonewall. Mind you, "Most people aren't gay - live with it!" would have perhaps been a more accurate statement of the reality.

Still, I listened (with growing disinterest) and thought poor Revd Linda Rose (Angican Mainstream) lost the conversation when she dug in and used terms like 'rebellion' - something that is always likely to find the other side personalise the issue into how they (being gay) are 'nice people'and how wicked the opposing side are to vilify them. So the discussion ticked the first two boxes nicely. Could it get any worse?

Of course it could.

Having sought to personalise it (isn't that how the gay gene got his job?) the discussion took the next available and (over used ) position which entails declaring how the other side is 'being abusive and intervening/interrupting'. This is designed to divert from having to engage in any real way and shows everyone else how wicked and nasty those who oppose their view is!

And, of course, having the brains to realise what was going on, the other two played the game and interrupted at the right places to deny discussion and win points for the other side (unless of course the listener expects that gambit to be present I suppose).

And so we can thank Colin Coward (CA), Linda Rose (AM) and Mike Davidson (CIT) for a waste of broadcasting time and thank Lichfield Cathedral for an extremely well-timed and life-saving morning service.

As ever, what might have been informative and perhaps positive descended into the same old same old.

Some people just aren't interested anymore - get over it!

Middle Ground - A Guest writes:

I have passed the pen over to a guest writer regarding her document on 'Middle ground'. Everything from here on is her work and you are invited to comment as you wish once you have read the various elements (to assist, all mM words are in italics):

With respect to LGBT inclusion, a number of folks on the blogosphere seem to report sightings of the Middle Ground (non-affirming but non-condemning) so if this is not a mythical country, it may be closer than we think. What would it cost us to pay a visit, pitch a tent there, buy a semi?

Also, given that many of us are not seeking to challenge church teaching on sexuality, but are questioning church practice on inclusion, how might the discussion evolve to enable us all to make some progress on this?

The document 'The Middle Ground' (which you will find below) no doubt raises more questions than it provides answers but it does make an attempt at addressing some of the concerns people may have about making a move. Also, it's good to talk. And think. And pray. And let's just keep asking the questions....

Welcome to the Middle Ground
While the current debate on the place of same-sex relationships in our churches is ongoing, the Middle Ground (non-affirming but non-condemning) should seek to offer safe space and a welcoming environment to all people:
• straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered
• celibate, single, in a relationship, civil partnered, married
• church leadership, lay membership, fringe members, non-church affiliated
We welcome any feedback on the following guidelines:

----------------------
Our prime objective is to serve God’s kingdom purposes, to see people come to faith, be impacted by his Spirit, be transformed into the likeness of his Son, and for each individual to find God’s plans and purposes for his/her own life.
----------------------
In our church community, as far as possible, we will endeavour:
To seek love, justice, mercy, unity, opportunities to extend grace and reconciliation, God’s invitation to faith and a personal relationship, offered to all.
To shun condemnation, criticism, false pride, attempts to evoke in others guilt, shame, fear, diminished self-esteem or alienation from God.
----------------------
We acknowledge that we are all a work in progress and that the transformative power of the Holy Spirit is ongoing in each of us. We all have areas of difficulty, some quite personal, painful and private. We respect each other’s feelings, bear with each other’s failings and take seriously issues of mutual accountability and confidentiality.
----------------------
With respect to Bible study and interpretation:
We will seek to widen our reading (looking at a range of theological writers rather than only those who support our current viewpoint) and we will seek to deepen our understanding, prayerfully seeking God’s revelation through our study.
----------------------
We will seek unity in our fellowships and make every effort to keep the bond of peace. We pray for the Holy Spirit to highlight areas of weakness, criticism and self-sabotage and we will deal with these promptly, prayerfully and with humility.
----------------------
We seek to be a community that models a non-ageist, non-sexist, non-racist environment in order that all our members may grow and flourish regardless of age, gender or race. We also take pains to eradicate a homophobic atmosphere, challenging prejudice and discrimination where they arise.
----------------------
We acknowledge that for many of us, living in the Middle Ground is not stress-free. We will implement strategies to deal with this stress in exactly the same manner and with similar resources that we would use to manage heightened levels of stress created by our family lives, workplaces and neighbourhoods.
Where necessary we will seek help from others within the church or from other organisations to manage our personal levels of stress in order to avoid resorting to a fight-or-flight response, making a scapegoat of other church members, or undermining and being critical of church leadership.
----------------------
Where differences of opinion (on issues of sexuality but also on any other issue) lead to relationship difficulties we will seek appropriate conflict resolution strategies (allowing some breathing space, open dialogue, and mutual listening). Where necessary, an impartial facilitator may be helpful in resolving conflict and working towards reconciliation.
----------------------
We honour our commitment to our church communities, understanding that it is often through times of challenge that we may see the most growth in our own and in our church’s journeys of faith. We will commit to those churches that we believe God has called us to, ‘for better or for worse’, seeking God’s leading through particularly testing times.
We are thankful for the positive and supportive relationships we develop in our churches and we seek to be part of that network of support and encouragement.
----------------------
We anticipate that our children (aged 4-11) will, at times, have questions regarding same-sex relationships and transgender issues. We will pre-empt our children’s questions as far as possible, having given consideration to age-appropriate explanations.
We will have entered into consultation with parents of children in this age group and arrived at some consensus on these responses, so that the children in our church may receive a consistent message from all its members.
----------------------
We will be open to the process of change and development in our own church and seek to learn and grow from new experiences. We will be open to the possibility of sharing and learning from the experiences of other churches throughout our denomination and in our local area.
----------------------
Where individuals still maintain a traditional viewpoint on homosexuality, it is to be hoped that they will nonetheless see the Middle Ground ethos as a Biblical response to our changing cultural situation.
----------------------
We anticipate that our young people (aged 12-17) will, at times, have questions regarding same-sex relationships and transgender issues and will already be developing their own opinions. For some of our young people these will be quite personal issues.
We will seek to be supportive and non-directive and to that end, will be willing to reflect upon and discuss the multiplicity of approaches and responses currently operating within our churches.
Where appropriate, we will advise on further exploration of these issues via specific internet websites and other materials. Where requested, we will offer prayer support, counselling or mentoring.
----------------------
We will speak of other church denominations with respect, avoiding the temptation to hold them in contempt for either (in our view) progressing too far or not progressing fast enough. Other church denominations are still ‘part of the body’, containing members who are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and who are similarly making sense of the tension in this unchartered territory.
We acknowledge the unusual circumstances that we currently find ourselves living through and we will ‘cut each other some slack’ as we make our ongoing journey.
----------------------
Our hope is that many of us will view the Middle Ground as an adventure in faith, an ongoing opportunity to deepen spiritual maturity, to develop Christ-likeness and to partner with God in furthering his plans and purposes. We acknowledge that without God’s help, we will undoubtedly struggle, but with his help we will be encouraged, enriched and empowered to live out the Gospel message to all people in our community.
----------------------

I was hoping to discuss each of these and put forward my own views but I have realised that there are some who make this impossible and so merely leave you with Jane's document above. If you wish to comment on any of them I am sure she will be happy to read them - just post them on the comments page.

Thanks

'Gay Cure'

The development of a 'Gay Cure' is something that I find myself reflecting on from time to time.

The reason for this is that if someone finds a genetic reason for being homosexual then you can bet your bottom-dollar that someone else will work out how to correct that 'genetic difficulty'. This is true for any physiological cause of homosexuality, for if there is found to be a 'cause' then there is also sure to be someone who will effect a 'cure' and this has to be wrong. Mind you, finding psychological causes doesn't do too much for the situation either, does it?

It appears that a work of fiction by writer, Marion Heath, has been the focus of a 'bit of bother' in that some are portraying it as a 'gay cure' book because it tells the tale of two men whose relationship breaks up after one has a 'religious experience'.

I think I might be more concerned by the response of an Outrage spokesman who issued what is, in my view contradictory and not only unhelpful, but likely to add support to those who want it to be a genetic aberation (a small group which deviates from the main population is considered to be abnormal and this will be neither popular with some or helpful for others).

So the assessment that the book was written, "By people who can’t get it into their thick skulls that being gay is not an illness, an ailment or something to cure. Christians in particular are worried as science moves towards seeing being gay as a genetic thing – they are running out of ammunition. If science says this, Christians cannot say ‘you are evil’ because it’s something you’re born with, like your skin colour," is a bit of a foot shooting exercise as I see it!

Exactly right, but many others will say that it is a genetic condition. The best path would have been to just ignore it and let it vanish into the ether and then, as the spokesman for Outrage said, "The book will have its moment of fame and then disappear into the remainder shelves in the bookshop." But now of course it's become an issue and the publisher will sell many more books - bet they love Outrage!

Bit of a sad story this and one which is not going to help either side of the situation at the end of the day.

It's sad because Jesus can change lives and that is a reality, but describing the life-changing work of God's Holy Spirit in this context as a 'cure' is as sure a path to conflict as the way that some of those who are homosexual (or merely support their lifestyle) posture and misrepresent the mainstream (by which I mean 'central') Christian view.

I am not bothered with who a person is but I am bothered with how a person lives their life. Why? Because so too does God who applies the rules equally to all without exception or favour - a good way to live as I see it.

So, let's all try to play nicely in the play pen and if we demand the right to live as we choose then perhaps we should afford that same right to others. We might not like what they say, but to do other than this only makes one side more right than the other and this is of course wrong (unless it's your side that benefits from the bias of course)!

Also, living as God commands appears to bring a number of benefits to our lives, relationships and community. That these are not popular has more to do with us than God, that these commandments are used as a stick to beat others speaks poorly of us and does God no favours (Galatians six applies here . . .).

Pax

Fruity Answers - the first!

I posed some questions regarding scenarios I have encountered during 2011 thus far.

The first considered meeting a woman who, at some stage in her life, had an abortion. Now it is obvious that this is raw and painful She's still raw about it and now, some time after the event we find her wracked with guilt and grieving, feeling the pain of the loss for which she was responsible. .

Do I condemn her because of the abortion?
I don't think so, for Christians are not in the business of issuing condemnation but of correcting and restoring. I wasn't part of the process that led the person to consider and take up the option of an abortion, but I am now part of the process which sees her restored and moving forward with God.

It is so easy to judge when you're outside of the situation and whilst I consider a pro-life stance to be the only approach that is Biblical, I find my Bible telling me to restore those who have been caught up in sin, 'gently'. If asked, we need to say that the decision taken wouldn't be our choice and move on. There is great potential for righteous (which usually means wrong) indignation and for us to find ourselves sinning by our response.

What does it say in matthew Chapter seven? Oh yeah, don't judge because if you do then you're asking to be judged the same way you do it! First rule, what is the Biblical way forward and how would you like to be corrected? (and that's before we consider the loss of a child, regardless of the reason)

Comfort her over the loss of her child?
Well in short, the answer is 'yes'. A life has been lost and there is a mixture of grieving, guilt, regret and loads of fear besides. regardless of how the point has been reached, it has been reached and there is a child who has been lost. In days gone by when I was involved with both LIFE and SPUC I used to encounter a great many women who had never been counselled and and grief-stricken over the lost of their child. Often the situation would be worse as they reached the EDD (or the anniversary of it) and they needed the same counselling and support that a miscarriage or stillbirth woman would need (along with help over the part they'd played in the loss too!).


Tell her 'you're forgiven' and that 'it's done now'?
Remembering the words of 1 John chapter nine:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

Simple then, isn't it? If the person has acknowledged their sin then forgiveness is part of the transaction. What right do I have to pronounce what God doesn't or deny what His word, and nature, makes real? This is not to deny what has happened and it is not to ignore or diminish - we have to move on, living in the past is what dead people do!

Do I leave, rushing to be free of this sinner?
Some people take this approach, but this is reason so many errors and misjudgments become the norm. We fail to engage and by absenting ourselves give what is often taken to be tacit approval to the act or attitude. Those leaving often tell themselves they are making a moral stand, but rarely is this communicated by them and even less rarely is it understood or lived in by the person who is left there. They see no conflict and thus assume that their position has some merit.

There is much more to the scenario than that given here. As ever, the key is relationship and asking ourselves that perennial question, 'What Would Jesus Do?' and combining this with our Bibles to see, 'What did Jesus Do Then?'. The Micah, 'Mercy, Justice & Humility' is useful too!

I hope this helps move the discussions further with those who are looking at the issue of calling and perhaps makes us a little more responsive as ministers and members of the Church.

Pax

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