Can't make it to church - Sunday 12 February 2017

The people of God, the Israelites, are at the border of the Promised Land where Moses, much like Lt Col Tim Collins on the borders of Iraq in 2003, prepares the people to enter this new land – and like Tim Collin’s effort, it’s all there: life, prosperity and blessings - curses, death and destruction. Choosing God gives life, rejecting Him brings death: So take your pick!

Like any other relationship, Choosing God is an ongoing, vital, relationship lived out with the focus of our love (God) each and every day in a total commitment. Just as those troops on the borders of Iraq needed total commitment and a willingness to lay down their lives in selfless commitment, that's what Moses is calling for here. Are you ready and willing to do this?

Hopefully you've said ‘Yes’ – but let’s hope it's not the same ‘Yes’ that the Corinthian believers appear to have; a ‘yes’ that seems just a little stuck in its immaturity. The people are beset by jealousy and quarrelling: All the things that Moses listed as ‘curses, death and destruction’. These are a people who haven't embraced a full on and vibrant faith but rather they live like the world, like people who don't know Jesus, the Christ, at all.

But before we get into a mindset of criticism for the Corinthian believers, let us stop for a minute and consider how different we might be from them. Where I am, with the things I've encountered over the years, I'd have to say the answer is probably: “Not much!”

The next time we find ourselves getting more passionate about being in one camp or another; the next time we find ourselves more bound up in strategies and programmes, looking to build ‘our’ church at the expense of unity and the building of the kingdom of God. Let's remember Moses and his call to us to ‘choose life’ and to put aside the things that we should have left in the playground; to put aside following individuals and to follow that one individual who died that we might have life: Jesus.

Following on from last week’s Gospel we find ourselves again with the Sermon on the Mount and it’s all  about behaviour and attitudes.

“Those who murder will be subject to judgment.”
That’s fair enough, after all, murder is a really serious offence.

But the next bit:
“Anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment,”
that's a bit harsh isn't it?

Then, to make matters worse, the passage is extended  this:
 “Anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court; anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

Goodness me, not much wiggle room here is there? But this is more about attitude as I understand it rather than the use of one isolated word. The thing about ‘choosing life’ is that we have a daily relationship with God and the people around us too, and we realise that often it's not just the things we do but the things we say that brings the Church down. So when you know you've broken a relationship or acted foolishly, don't carry on regardless but go make your peace and live in relationship with those you might have offended or hurt.

And when it comes to attitudes and relationships, the greatest of these in import and duty of care is perhaps that which relates to marriage. The good news is that divorce amongst married couples is on the decrease (sadly the opposite is claimed for those who live together and this last clause applies equally to them).

But, divorce is only to be used as a last resort and for serious reasons and the things that start the slippery slope to divorce are what goes on in the head rather than what the hands do! “Everybody looks and thinks,” said a person I was counselling, “It's only wrong if I do something about it!” Jesus would say to them, “So stop looking and thinking the things you do before you weaken the relationship!”

He'd also say that divorce is a last resort; something that comes about because the serious, irreconcilable issues, have broken the marriage. But in your marriage; in all your daily relationships – choose life - work at them, repair the breaches, apologise for the wrongs and reach out your hand in acts of fellowship and love.

The Collect
Eternal God, whose Son went among the crowds and brought healing with his touch: help us to show his love, in your Church as we gather together, and by our lives as they are transformed
into the image of Christ our Lord. Amen.

Lord, help us to choose life and love today, and every day, looking to build our relationship with You. To work at our relationships and to be seen as a person who strives for love and works to reconcile and rebuild. May we go our our relationship and work to make our lives open, honest and holy – for we are Your Church, called to be light and salt to the world around us – make us a mature, living, and holy people we pray. Amen.

Deuteronomy 30:15-20
See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

1 Corinthians 3:1-9
Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarrelling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?
What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labour. For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.

Matthew 5:21-37
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.
“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfil to the Lord the vows you have made.’But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Post Communion Prayer
Merciful Father,
who gave Jesus Christ to be for us the bread of life,
that those who come to him should never hunger:
draw us to the Lord in faith and love,
that we may eat and drink with him
at his table in the kingdom,
where he is alive and reigns, now and for ever. Amen.

When pastoral gets tricky: the 'M' word

The issue of masturbation is one of the rarely occurring challenges for the pastoral role, but when it turns up it is never a simple issue. The main reason is that this is surely one of those things done out of the public gaze; and if it isn't then the solution is made simple for whenever I have encountered this (about seven or eight times) mental health issues or cranial trauma were the more pressing pastoral need.

It is, generally not an issue that we tend to talk about other than the attributing of a more colloquial term for the act addressed at someone who has acted foolishly - as many Referees will surely attest.

This is an issue which may have first been addressed in the (boy's) school assembly when warnings about inducing  'weaknesses' were made. Staying in school and moving to the playground where folk warnings about hirsute palms, weakened eyesight and many other curses were passed on from one to another. Of course, supported by the Onan 'spilling seed' context this is often limited in people's thinking as a male only issue - but of course it isn't. During my time as a counsellor I have met almost as many women as men who have engaged in the act as something compulsive and/or damaging and a problem.

It is an area which so many of those 'pastors' on the Internet seem to be obsessed with as they condemn the reader who transgresses to eternal separation from God and  an eternity of hellfire and damnation.

The very reason I have started along this current thread of 'pastoral getting tricky' is that people have turned up before me and brought me a Jesus who is a curse as He comes into their reality with the sole purpose of condemning them - and the focus of this condemnation, for some is masturbation!

But I have a Jesus who comes not to condemn the world but to save those in it by reconciling them to God and bringing the promise that, believing in Him, they will not perish! (Jn 3.16)

I have a God who tells me that nothing separates me from His love: Not height, not depth, nor power or principality; nothing future, present, or past, separates me from the love of God. (Ro 8.38)

And today, in my morning office (see the post before this) I found the words: '
But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die.'

Which are great, but when I check my Bible, nowhere do I find and reference to the word. It isn't just that there is no commandment about this issue, but there is no mention of the word.

The focus of the much vaunted hellfire despatching and condemnation-supporting passage that many like to use, Matthew 5.27, is about lust, double standards and the key requisites of those who claim to have a faith: humility, justice and mercy. The problem is that one person I discussed this with, when asked what they thought about during the act responded with the answer, 'Nothing really - I just do it!' 

How on earth do you follow that? 

There's no sexual sin broken - because there isn't one!

There's no lustful thoughts - so Matthew 5 is tossed away!

This was, for them, no different to scratching and itch, until they became a Christian and then it became something so very big and damaging because of the way the person who had asked the question, when truthfully answered, responded!

How can we respond to that other than to ascertain whether the act has the a detrimental effect on the person because it is:

Compulsive - you won't need glasses or a razor, but you might need some support because of any underlying roots for the behaviour. Always good to gently check this.

Causing marital stress - I have met people of both sexes who by engaging in solo sex acts (I'm not keen on the labels 'self-abuse' or 'pleasuring oneself') have reduced the sexual activity (or even in one case caused it to cease completely) with their partner. 

Dependence on pornography: This is where our problems (and sinful action) really start to bite as Matthew 5 comes back into the equation. If the spur or promoting action is pornography then you are on a very slippery road for, in my experience, the thought life is not only affected but the physical life is affected too. Many of those caught up in the pornography trap that I have met end up engaged in some sexual transgression involving a third party if married or another single person (followed by another and another and ...) if single.

The problem is, like alcohol, the level of indulgence and the brand of choice and the images before you have within it it an escalation and the journey from bare breasts to something much less savoury is but a slippery step into damnation and worse! Worse because some of those I have met who have dabbled with 'soft' porn have found themselves in a hard cell as they sought to act out their fantasies!

No, not everyone who engages in porn will end up a sex offender, but the mind of those who do is changed as the level of pornography and the images and the levels of exposure to it to satisfy escalate. Better not to walk in to lion's cage rather than enter and wonder what the fuss was about, 'Well I'm in the cage and I can't see a Li...!'

Lust: And here we have the big issue. Lust can come out of the pornography but it can also be the root that leads people into pornography too.

Over the years I have counselled couples to, 'Get on with it and get married rather than engage in sexual activity before they married.' The sexual desire for each other was such that they were on fire inwardly with their passions and because they were heading to marriage anyway, they thought, 'What's the problem, we're going to get married, let's get it on!' The problem is that in some cases, the inability to get the whole relationship right before they married made the marriage a real battlefield. Better to square away the potential problem areas and enter a relationship with some degree of balance and control. Sometimes the sexual desire in one party pushed the other to agree with sex, and this is an even worse situation in my book.

If the desire to possess someone sexually causes you to engage in any activity, then there is something wrong and regardless of the act, there is something that needs to be dealt with. If we cannot control our thought life to the extent that we are controlled by it then we are heading for an existence of sexual sin and potentially societal correction (or exclusion).

If lust is present in the equation then you need to be honest with yourself, those who might be affected by it, and get yourself some help. Talk to someone and set about getting your thought-life sorted and squared away. Self-awareness and a proper response are always more desirable than those who will point the finger at you and simply condemn .

____________________________________________

When doing a psycho sexual counselling course, a lecturer made the observation that as Christians we should be glorifying God in everything that we do (1 Cor 10.31) and that a healthy, balanced and fulfilling sex life was part of that desired state. If our sexual encounters do not glorify God, if our thoughts do not glorify God, then we need to stop and sort it out.

Talking of her daughter's upcoming marriage, a woman who was well known for her opposition to nakedness and sex in the media shocked me when she said: 'Everything and anything goes in marriage, there is no wrong other than this: That you never abuse, misuse or demean yourself or your partner.'

Whether the issue is that of sex on your own or with another person, the guiding rules are that what we do is a right act (and there's often that niggle which confirm the fact that it isn't) done the right way (again, you know) with the right mindset (lust or love? Giving or getting or taking?)

So - right or wrong?

I'm not going to become one of those who will label you as saint or sinner but will pass the question back to you and then  be willing, should you say 'Sin' to simply help to 'restore you gently' - because that is what Christians are called to do, not offer condemnation.

A tough issue today - I hope the contents of this blog post are of some help and encouragement.

Pax

When pastoral gets tricky:Onan

Now this is going to be one of those more difficult series of posts for me to write as there is a fine line to be trodden with this topic if I am to do it justice. Conversations with a few people of late have made me realise that I need to try and set a few things straight; but by attempting to do so I will undoubtedly become heretical, liberal, foolish, or hardline in the eyes of some. But the pastoral role is daily fraught with such potential, so what heck?

Let's crack on:

The topic: a triumvirate that is the sin of Onan, masturbation, sexual sin.

Except of course Onan, although having become synonymous with masturbation, has nothing to do with the act at all!

Genesis 38 finds Onan, Judah's son, being required to father a child with Tamar, the widow of his brother Er. The intention was that a child, if male, would claim a double share of Er's estate - but if there was no heir then Onan got it all! 

Onan, whilst having sex with Tamar, pulled out of the arrangement, and the act, and 'spilled his seed in the ground'. This act of coitus interuptus meant no heir and therefore Onan inherited. This is a story of greed and failure to discharge (no pun intended) one's duty to a dead brother.  This is about engaging in a 'levirate' marriage ('levir' meaning husband's brother - literally marriage to one's husbands brother') - and not keeping the brother's side of the contract.

Onanism is regarded as the 'spilling of one's seed on the ground.' But this blanket term covers a multitude of acts and would that we left Onan to be the patron of pulling of of a deal for one's own ends than cloud the other seed spilling encounters (and a psycho-sexual counselling course done many years ago listed many such activities) that go on in the world!

Onan in failing to bring about the birth of an heir for Er gives birth to an exclusively 'male only' offence - that of 'spilling seed' - but it is not about spilling but about the not fulfilling of an obligation 

So farewell Onan, let's send you off the the legal department and file you under the heading of  'broken contracts for self-gain' and move on to the real matter in hand!

Just to understand my approach to this  whole 'sexual sin' area, I find my Bible listing but three sexual states:

Marriage: and here this is taken to mean the male/female relationship,

Fornication: the sexual act engaged with outside of marriage, and

Adultery: the sexual act of a married person with one who is not their spouse (and vice versa).

Now this is a simple account of the three sexual States of matter -not popular with some (I have received short shrift from many who dislike the label 'fornicator' and others for whom 'adulterer' was less acceptable to them than the act they were engaged in. We are a bunch of odd people us humans, aren't we? We are all happy until we call it what it is!). But, human nature and sensibilities aside, this is what the Bible tells us to work with - although some clever sort will point to concubines, plural marriage and the like as found in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East (ANE) accounts - I'm not going to muddy the water any more than necessary: and it ain't necessary)!

I think this is a good place to park the bus for now - we'llcontinue with this after the Sunday services (and a celebration of our patron saint and a harvest celebrations) are done.

I hope this has been of some help and that the whole, when completed, will prove to be of some value.

Pax

The 'the rising tide'

I have a most interesting conversation with another cleric at a funeral this morning. Interesting, surprising and just a little shocking and sad-making in fact!
Interesting because what I heard was something I'd suspected but not the way they'd put it.
Surprising because they were female and yet saw the recent synod decisions as negative.
Shocking because, well you don't expect that sort of thing on a Monday (do you?).
Sad-making because it seems we are looking at people with an agenda here - and it doesn't seem to have the Bible included (well, not the majority of it anyway)!

Then, to make it more interesting still I return and now (almost 16:00 and time for a brew) find myself challenged by the image below:

This image is something produced by Mark Regnerus (University of Texas, Austin) as he seeks to answer the question, "What exactly do pro-same-sex-marriage Christians think about sex and relationships in general?"  (click here) So let's put all this in the mix and see whether the unfolding conspiracy theory holds water or is just the ramblings of a mad woman and a sociologist and a gullible (below-average) Vicar who is perhaps more than a little convinced by it all!

My colleague (whose name I never did get) told me that she'd realised that the tide was rising, something that had been confirmed by a friend who'd told her that, "Having accepted women bishops the only remaining barrier to see toppled was same-sex!" 

One of the problems for those who consider themselves to hold with an orthodox (or some would say 'traditional') faith has been the situation whereby when the issue of homosexuality and the Church first came up it seems (to me anyway) that just as a line was about to be drawn in the sand some clever type realised that this would potentially cost the CofE money. And so the first fudge was born and we had the situation whereby homosexuality was definitely 'out' on the altar side of the rail and sort of, well you know, but not totally wrong so keep on coming to church and giving!

All that was needed was a straight (no pun intended) 'Yes' or 'No' and the matter would have been sorted one way or the other but it wasn't! Then women get ordained and this marks a step towards a lessening of opinion regarding the dread subject of homosexuality because women are apparently less inclined to be against it! Empirically I did have a female friend who told me that being part of a marginalised group (women) she could never vote against another (homosexuals) and so if this is consistent I guess the view holds some water.

Now I'm told by some that women in the house of bishops will add weight towards accepting homosexuality (struggle with 'same sex sex/marriage 'sss/ssm' as it all seems a little - off!) and that this now sets the signals to green for a move to remove the final obstacle for being a 'totally accepting and inclusive' Church. Seems to me that some regard the words  'permissive' and 'inclusive' to be as interchangeable as 'sex' and 'gender' - which makes them wrong on a couple of counts!

The scores on the doors from Prof Regnerus all indicate that those who support same-sex marriage are much more likely to be in favour of a lot of stuff that those Christians who aren't that keen on. Don't think that's a shock. Then again neither is it any surprise that non-Christian homosexuals are supportive of lots of stuff that Christians (of all complexions) aren't - even if they support same-sex marriage or are homosexual themselves. What I like about the man is that he's not screaming about slippery slopes or increasing trends - changing attitudes so same-sex marriage are not necessarily the cause of changes elsewhere. But each is discrete and also influenced, and influential, in the processing and adoption of attitudes.

So we should not demonise either - because that's merely a slippery slope in the other direction, innit?

Neither should we use our straightness, gayness or confusedness as a weapon because to do this reduces us to being nothing more than a pawn rather than the focus of God's amazing love - dunnit?

Seems to me that there's few surprises for me today - just confirmation that that which the Bible appears to consider right behaviour sure ain't popular among those who like to please themselves. No shock there either I guess because the whole point of sin is that it's a popular pastime.

The key is surely to find a via media and to be collaborative rather than combative and yet still maintain that which honours God, keeps the Christian living on the right track and is truly open and inclusive without compromising or becoming permissive - especially not in the mistaken belief that permissive means converts (unless we're looking to make them twice as fit for hell as we are ourselves that is).

What a very funny day indeed!

Girl Summit - Looking to end oppression of girls and women

Tuesday 22nd July

The UK hosts the first Girl Summit, aimed at mobilising domestic and international efforts to end female genital mutilation (FGM) and child, early and forced marriage (CEFM) within a generation. UNICEF will co-host the event.

Girls and women have the right to live free from violence and discrimination and achieve their potential, but some are being prevented from doing so by harmful practices such as FGM and CEFM, which are illegal in the UK.

The good news is that things are changing. In the heart of communities and families in the UK and across Africa, South Asia, the Middle East and Europe, more and more people are saying no to these practices. Our role is to get behind, support and accelerate their efforts to end them.

This creative, positive and engaging event will bring together women, girls and community leaders from the UK and overseas, alongside governments, international organisations and the private sector to agree on action to end FGM and CEFM within a generation.

The Home Secretary Theresa May and Secretary of State for International Development Justine Greening will host the event, alongside heads of state, practitioners, survivors, charities and community groups.

The summit will aim to secure new commitments from the private sector, faith leaders, other civil society organisations and governments.

The summit will also share success stories and spread good practice in tackling these issues. It will hear from girls and women who have lived through the ordeal of FGM or CEFM, and from many inspiring individuals from affected communities who are now driving through changes so that other girls and women can enjoy greater opportunities in the future.

There are SIX WAYS that you can get involved:

Visit Girl Summit -  sign the pledge and take a stand against FGM and CEFM today and start ridding the world of violence and discrimination against women across the world (for it's not, as one woman said today,  'Just the undeveloped world.'  this applies to!

:-)

Made me Laugh: Marriage and cards

I love this so much that I think it may have to go on my wall:

Blue Sky Thought - Marriage (1)

A wonderful piece of advice makes up today's thought:

Happy Anniversary :-)

Love is a dish best served ...

Faithfully!

Recently I have found myself engaged in dealing with a number of incidents where 'love' has been replaced by vitriol, spitefulness and rancour. Relationships have soured and many things have conspired to bring actions and words together with the intention of hurting others. The sad thing is that those who have acted thus appear to have not only achieved their goal but have also, somehow, become part of the collateral damage from their actions as well.

The Bible tells us that those who dig a pit for others are destined to fall into it themselves (Proverbs 26). Those who seek to wound others might achieve their goal but when the target of their hatred has long gone, the melody lingers on and they are not only damaged but find themselves unable to engage in secure or fulfilling relationships ever again. They blame the person who has gone and the more the estranged combatant appears to be be successful and happy  in their post-them life the greater their pain.

We live in a world where people want revenge rather than justice and appear to put more energy into the destruction of relationships than the maintenance or restoration of them and this is wrong. I see people excuse, and accept, the breakdown of relationships amongst their friends with not a thought to encouraging the couples to reconcile and resolve. The ease at which relationships are entered and left and the speed at which some join together and then break apart is something that speaks of a worrying lack of fidelity and commitment.

I often find myself using a formulaic explanation of what marriage (and non-married but cohabitational relationships - so you're not off the hook because you're not married) should be about. I call it the 'F Plan Diet' and it goes like this (perhaps I should (c) it :-)  ):

FAITH - regardless of what has happened, you need to keep faith with one another - to trust and believe in the other person and even when this is difficult, to find a way through the situation to restore the belief.

FACTS - The reality is that once you are together, you are together. If this is a a married relationship then regardless - you are married and this brings some serious elements of commitment, sacrifice and engagement.

FEELINGS - Feelings are the most easily manipulated of all the things that influence our relationships and attitudes. Often they bear little relation to the facts and are often fuelled by well-meaning (and sometimes not so well-meaning) friends, misunderstandings, selfishness and a host of other factors (tired, drunk, absence and the like). When the feelings conspire to damage or break a relationship - or to bring a third-party into the mix - refer to the two points above!

FORGIVENESS - The Bible tells us not to let the sun go down on our anger. If there's a problem then discuss it and bring about some resolution and reconciliation before you go to bed, for if you don't you'll wake up to a worse situation! Forgiveness requires us to put ourselves in the other person's shoes and the other person to do the same and to repent (Turn away from, stop, accept that their actions were wrong) and bring about a restoration.

FELLOWSHIP - The Bible tells us to 'love our nearest neighbour as our ourselves' and the person with whom we are in a relationship is that 'nearest neighbour' (and the act of sexual congress makes us 'one flesh' too). Being in fellowship - doing things together, sharing interests (yes, even going shopping!) is not just important but is the very glue of a relationship (and you perhaps thought it was merely the sex!).

FRUIT - The Bible says that the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5) is:
'love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
Against such things there is no law.'

Having these attributes in our life (individually and corporately) can only be good - after all, theyt are all highly desireable (aren't they?).

FUN - Regardless of how much money you have, or how much work you have, there are always way that you can have fun TOGETHER!

So many relationships appear to fall because of the many nights out with friends and the few out with you partner or at home. Relationships take time and need fun - when we were married and broke (still are) we used to walk along the river bank and feed the ducks - the important thing was that we were together and enjoying each other and the place we were in. So here's a quick outline - the people I have spoken to this past week will hopefully find something within it to build their relationships and mend the broken bits, this is my hope and prayer for you :-)

Priests and Privilege

I wonder how many people there are out there who think that the possession of a piece of plastic around the neck and the prefix 'Revd' make for a privileged class of people?

I wonder if they also realise just how right they are if they think that and also wonder if they realise that they are more than likely right for all the wrong reasons?

The reality is that privilege means that one gets invited to things that others generally don't as what appears to be a matter of habit and as a mark of who the person is. After all, if you're one of those suitably enobled people you get invited to stuff all the time - this is indeed privilege and preferment.

If you're one of those rare people who have won a medal in some major sporting arena, or perhaps in some major arena of conflict then you will also get yourself invited to things - So if you're Mo Farrar of Johnson Beharry VC, you can expect those invitations to select gatherings and amazing functions and happenings to fall through the letterbox all the time I I guess.

But if you think that's the all the case because you have that wonderful 'Revd' sellotaped to your business card then you have got the wrong sort of privilege in mind; after all, I haven't been invited to much in the way of gala functions, state balls, celebrity-filled junkets or the like in all of my time doing the job.

BUT - We are indeed privileged, and it goes like this:

I have been privileged to sit by the bed of a person who is departing this life and have had the privilege of helping their last moments in this world have shape, meaning and within the pain - a dignity.

I have been privileged to sit with those who have lost a loved one and help them come to terms with their loss, finding meaning, reason, hope and solace in the situation before them. Sometimes I have been able to bring a perspective of the person's life and to see within the haphazard jumble of life's events a consistency and qualities that closeness to them has previously obscured.

I have been privileged, as I was today, to find myself in a crematorium (or at a graveside) and, in the company of the deceased and their loved ones find before us someone whose life was to be not only celebrated but also given thanks for - even when they have left earlier than my 87 year average!

I have been privileged to celebrate life coming into the world and to give thanks for it in blessing and baptism services - often at times when those bringing the child knew only that they wanted to have God involved even when they didn't understand fully what that might mean (another privilege as I get to explain guilt, love, grace, sacrifice and relationship as found in Jesus, the Christ, and the cross).

I am privileged to have eaten out with the homeless on many occasions, sharing a sandwich and a brew as I find out who the image of the invisible God is made visible in!

I am privileged to be invited to dinners, but as there's no such thing as a free meal, that comes with saying grace (another privilege which I'd pay for - and with mess dinners - I do!).

The list could go on for a lot longer (are you still awake?) but I'll stop here (or shall I mention weddings, school assemblies, chaplaincies, marriage counselling, prayer ministry, preaching, church, worship and the rest? No, thought not ;-) ).

Suffice to say I am more privileged than perhaps many of you out there might think.

Pax

Prayer - Who you gonna call on (and how)?

Last night we had an interesting turn of events as the Alpha course considered the issue of prayer, the statement:

'Christian prayer is to the Father, through the Son, by one Spirit,' 

caused a bit of a kerfuffle as people asked whether it was wrong to pray to the Son or to the Spirit.

'Are we only to pray to the Father then?' one asked, 'How does prayer work? How do we pray?'

Prayer is, of course, the name we give for our communications with those in places of power and authority, the ultimate person in that category being God. In the legal world, once all the facts have been laid out there is a prayer - a request for justice and recompense, comfort and satisfaction added to the thing.

So how do we view this communication?

Having yesterday celebrated twenty years of marriage I guess it has to be made on the same wavelength and in language - although I sometimes wonder what God makes of all the buzzwords, jargon and 'God language' we cloak our chats with Him in, especially those who seem to think God only reads the KJV and speaks in that same vogue!

'O Lord, Thou knowest whatest we havest partaken of and are found mean and in the poverty of our undoneness . . .'

Nah - God wants a face to face, mano e mano, full on conversation. To talk through the day gone, the things present and the stuff to come. Two-way communication with you speaking as who you are, nothing cloaked, all in the clear and open and honest; and He (I believe) talks the same language as you.

So how do we explain prayer? Can we pray to the Son; can we chat to the Holy Spirit? Does the Father get all our mail and hold all the conversations?

A knotty problem for those seeking to form an understanding of one of the staples of Christian living and whilst the words, 'Christian prayer is to the Father, through the Son, by one Spirit,' are indeed right - they might not be helpful. So here's a few of the analogies I've tried in my quest to bring clarity and understanding.

'God - Father Son and Holy Spirit' is the focus of our prayer and because sin separated us from being one with the Father we needed someone to bring us back into relationship with Him and this is done by the Son taking upon Himself the task of restoring that relationship by His, once and for all, atoning act on the cross. So it is by Jesus that we are able to be in the Father's presence.

Putting in in earthly terms and using marriage as the example, it is like a couple who have split because of the behaviour (AKA wrongdoings or sin) of one of the two parties. The Son acts as someone who brings about a restoration of the relationship, making the two one once again.

Now the Holy Spirit, that much misunderstood and nightshirt like spook image that some wrongly have of Him (for He is definitely a 'He' and not and 'It') works in this relationship as one who comes alongside and helps support the wayward, and now restored, party in the relationship to step away from and avoid the things that caused the breakdown in the first place. He helps direct our thoughts and gives us the information and advice we need to keep the thing flying properly.

Back to the earthly terms bit, the Holy Spirit becomes that best friend we all need; that person who tells us the truth when we need to hear it and gives that advice with stops us crashing and burning.

Which leads me nicely into the analogies:

AVIATION
Father = Runway,  Jesus = Air Traffic Control,  Holy Spirit = Co-pilot

As we seek to put ourselves on the runway it is Air Traffic Control who makes this possible by giving us permission to approach; the Co-pilot who calls out heights, works throttles, lowers gear and does the stuff that stops us crashing and burning. This is how it works with our prayer for we approach the Father because the Son gives us access and the Holy Spirit works with us to lower the workload and reduce the errors as we approach.

SPECTOMETRY
 One God but when looked at more closely we find that, like the spectrograph below, that God shows up as having three distinct components - each different and yet making the one and being equally part of that one element: God.

Ten minutes gone and tea drunk - off out (but more later)

Care: Mental, Social and others - CHAMPIONS

I would just like to set the record straight regarding what I feel about those who provide care for those who suffer from various needs of the mental, social, housing, medical and benefits kind. For those who devote their lives to addressing the needs of those with problems I have nothing but respect and admiration. I chance across many who are committed to their role and see them struggle against decreasing budgets, diminishing staff numbers, increased workloads and restrictions that would make a saint swear like an East End docker and they deserve, no demand, applause and respect by the bucket load.

BUT (has to be a but) to reflect on 2013's experience to date:

I have seen first hand those people who make decisions long before they've engaged with their client and the reason for this has nothing to do with proper or effective care. The reason is merely a desire to make the problem go away. The reason for this is the fact that they are no longer doing what they joined up to do (and most of the social workers did join to make a difference) but are merely pumping out the clients in an effort to keep their own heads above water. The need to rationalise their own jobs means that many who are client-facing are no longer proving care but merely attempting to contain things.

I happened across a case where someone was presenting serious mental health issues but when one of the family called their local unit for help they were told that they'd been 're-diagnosed' and so they were no longer on the unit's list. 'But they are a danger to others and themselves,' pleaded the family member. 'In that case here's the other team's duty crisis number,' said the voice on the other end. The number duly given, they hung up. Worse than useless as the number they were given turned out to have been changed last year! By the time they found someone from the 'right' team the person with problems had been picked up by the police (who could do nothing but bring them home to be a problem to the family and not the community - not a knock at the police, they had no power to do anything else as the local team wouldn't come out!).

I found a child who had been removed and placed for adoption before conditions such as getting support and undertaking training had even been started. 'Best for the child'? I hope so because it looked like it was simpler for the caseworker and the team involved from where I stood. Another example of what might well be poor outcomes coming about because it required less effort and energy from those who are supposed to be supportive and caring.

Another case meant I found myself coming into contact with involved someone about to be made homeless with their partner and children. There were health issues and yet when they went to their local housing people they were told that they were at the very bottom of the pile because one of the couple had some income from a part-time job. The answer? They were made 'redundant' by the person they did five hours for and now at least they are moving up the list. Not so the person who left the army and was told that they 'were someone else's problem as they'd lived in married quarters in the SW and so were that council's problem!' Of course the rules regarding priority (mental and other health issues, released from prison, left the armed forces) are rarely considered because of the 'yes/no' game that many play to mitigate their workload and protect a non-existent social housing stock (yes - it's great selling houses to people but the money should have built new social housing stock!!!).

A plea to my clergy colleagues regarding the creation of 'Champions' in their congregations:

Build up a group of local 'champions'. People who can become experts (or at least be informed) regarding the various areas of need, which I suggest are, as a minimum:

1. Mental Health - one of the greatest and least addressed needs that face us.
2. Housing - Not just homelessness, because many who are housed will soon be homeless unless they find champions.
3. Debt - Debt coaching courses and support are essential parts of the pastoral care role of Church and yet, amazingly, few are equipped to come alongside and engage with it!
4. Family Issues - Yes, I know we do this as pastoral care but we need to know the law and the ways of protecting people at risk and we need to do it intelligently.
5. Old Age - one of the areas where provision is being withdrawn and where, even though people think the 'old' are always complaining, little is said as services disappear.
6. Addiction - and not just drugs and alcohol. It's amazing how sex and gambling often fall below the radar and how compulsive spending and other issues just don't feature at all.
7. Relationship and Reconciliation - can cover so many areas from providing a neutral place for engagement through to training and counselling
8. Health Issues - and this can include preparation for death, palliative and bereavement issues (including how to fund a funeral when the bereaved have no money!).

Eight areas which I reckon takes at least ten to twelve people to engage with if a church is going to offer support to the community outside (and within) its walls. It needs coordinators and someone who will keep the minister in the loop without making them the sole point  of contact.

When I have broached this with some clergy the response has been, 'Well that's what CAb and others are there for!" And indeed they are but I have to ask whether or not we have given up our pastoral birthright for a mess of 'other agencies' potage and I fear that the answer is 'Yes!'.

So feel feel to disagree (or add areas that you feel I've missed) but if you've read this then take it back to the church or team and see who and what you have to meet the needs for as money becomes even more tight the services will feel even more of the squeeze and clients less of the care and support.

Pax

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.

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!

Coalition for Marriage - Please read and act

Was asked to post this:

Over 67,000 British citizens have signed the Westminster Declaration of Christian Conscience in 2010 in support of life, marriage and conscience. The government, led by the Prime Minister, intends to change the legal definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage and is shortly launching a consultation on how (not if) to do it. 

Please take this opportunity to sign the ‘Coalition for Marriage’ Petition which was launched on Monday 20 February and has already gathered over 35,000 signatures. 

This petition simply says:

‘I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.’

What you can do:

1. SIGN PETITION HERE
2. Forward this email to friends and colleagues
3. Join the Facebook page and follow the regular updates
4. Pray for the campaign

Background information:

1. ‘Westminster Declaration Supports Coalition for Marriage’
2. Marriage: ‘the most successful partnership in history’
3. ‘Ten reasons not to legalise same-sex marriage in Britain’

Please read, add your name (if you agree of course) and 'be the difference'.

Vic

Greece - A Lesson from Counselling?

Many years back when I was still pretty new in the wonderful world of counselling I was passed a couple who had agreed to separate but were also asked, by a court, to look at some form of marriage counselling which was why they were there. As we progressed one of the pair began to set goals and targets for the other. It was simple, should they meet the goal the prospect of reconciliation increased and this was a sign of their commitment to the continuation of the relationship.

As each goal or task was set the other party agreed that they would have a go at meeting it and after a few weeks we reached the stage where the other party had to agree that indeed, their other half had not only met the requirements but had perhaps exceeded them. What became obvious was that although they were changing there was no intent on the part of the 'demanding' partner to accept any need for change or modification of their behaviour on their side of the relationship.

Eventually (week four if I recall correctly) it came to pass that, with yet another demand being placed on the weaker of the two, that the stage was reached where they had to say, "Sorry, I can't give any more!" The result of this was to have the consistently demanding, and stronger positioned person, throw up their hands and proclaim that there was no way that they could ever continue the relationship and with that they left.

A few weeks later I met the same person with their new partner and another person I knew from a different setting who gave me a bit of a strange look (which at the time I thought nothing of). I realised why I'd got the look a few weeks later when, having bumped into them, I found out that they were the cousin of the 'demanding' party in my attempt at marriage counselling who informed me that the 'new' partner had been in the background for a number of months and was the reason the previous partner had been expelled. Not only that but the cousin had been confided in regarding the marriage and had been told that they were going to use the counselling sessions to put more and more demands and increasing pressure on their 'ex' in the hope that they'd fold their hand and leave the marriage. The 'refusal' to change had been all that was waited for as it gave them the ability to tell everyone how their former partner had been unwilling to change and how that had caused the break-up.

But apparently everyone who knew of the other person realised what was going on and although they'd gotten what they wanted in that they could claim to be the innocent party they also lost most of the friends who'd known of the person in the background.

The reason for this story? I get the feeling that those who shake the change in the European Union are doing the same with Greece. Every time they ask for an assurance the Greek government debates and agrees to meet whatever demand is placed upon them, even though they know the Greek people are being pressed harder and harder and that the rule of law is becoming thin in an increasing desperate people. But the time will surely come when the Greek nation says, "No More!" and a parting of the ways will come - which is just what I think certain nations in Europe want.

Divorce but with Greece bearing the blame.

Politics and hypocrisy - sadly just different words for the same thing!

Divorce - the unforgivable sin?

Reading Lesley's blog and the account of her physio's experience regarding remarriage in the church and my thinking turned back to a vicar who was approached by a couple seeking a marriage in church. One of the couple had had a PMD (previous marriage dissolved) and so was told that a church wedding would not be available to them. After some discussion, the dog-collar told them that if they got involved in the life of the church, he would reconsider the situation after six months. They did - he did and decided that although they were now deeply involved members, tithing and engaged, his answer was still no.

The couple were pointed to me for advice as they were wounded and felt unloved, abused and even a little manipulated by their opportunistic (or perhaps worse) dog-collar. I soon ascertained that:

1. Neither of the parties seeking marriage had been involved with, or responsible for, the breakdown of the marriage,

2. Both were willing, and in fact desirous, of some time working through the expectations, realities and demands of marriage in the form of a marriage preparation class,

3. The church looks at restoration, forgiveness and helping people to learn from their experiences and move on in their relationship with God and with each other. When this desire is matched by the couple, then it is our task to lead people forward and affirm them (and honour God), not penalise and exclude.

So there was nothing to stop them being remarried in church. This diocese applies canon law to weddings and so the general rule is that people may be remarried in church (once, any more than that needs a jolly good reasons for it),

Of course, there are some who will wave their Bibles at me and tell me that by marrying divorcees I am placing them in a position of 'permanent adultery' and am contravening Scriptural warrant. Well, let's take a quick look at this then:

I begin, M'lud with Matthew 19:

"Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. wWhat therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”

He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia and marries another, commits adultery.”

Now, to contextualise the passage (always a good idea), as I understand it there were two prevalent attitudes regarding divorce. One said that you could divorce your wife for any reason, the other said you needed a reason (i.e. she was getting old, fat, couldn't cook - you know, something valid!!). Jesus is speaking against the trivialsation of marriage and the lack of commitment to it.

I have replaced the words 'sexual immorality' for the original 'porneia' because we find this word translated as so many things (adultery, marital unfaithfulness, sexual immorality, unchastity, etc.) and what is relevant here is that it is a serious issue, not a trivial one.

A book of Jewish custom and practice I have on my shelf tells of those who would divorce their wife and marry a younger woman for a period of time (weekend), divorce her and remarry the first wife so that they have had their jollies without being adulterous. Legal and right in the eyes of the Lord (hence the passage that prohibits remarriage to a former wife!). This is the minefield we enter when considering remarriage and divorce.

I have to go off to a staff meeting and so will leave you with an interim thought:

A bill of divorce is given to permit remarriage, not to end the marriage. The bill of divorce is a recognition that the marriage has ended and permits a person to be remarried without causing adultery to occur. Consider this:

In biblical times a woman finds herself divorced. She is no longer a wife and is no longer the property of her father. How does she live? She cannot remarry, for to do so would cause the man who takes her on to commit adultery. The woman is given a bill of divorce which states that she is ritually free to marry and that anyone who marries her is not in a state of adultery. Thus it is simple to demonstrate that the bill of divorce is a permission (ritually, theologically, practically) to remarry.

When one gives an engagement ring, it is a sign that a relationship exists, for it is not the ring that makes the relationship. It merely acknowledges what is.

When one gives a wedding ring, it does not make the marriage, the vows, promises and the couple do that, but it acknowledges that a marriage exists.

So too does the bill of divorce. It does not break the relationship, the couple have done that, but it recognises the break and makes it possible for restoration, succor, support and love that is marriage to exist with another, blessed and right before God.

Simples, isn't it?

Pax

Porn? Wouldn't give a XXX for it!

I see that ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)have approved a porn domain. It has been a long time since we had .com and .co.uk suffixes and now added to the pile we are about to have .xxx as a domain for porn.

The battle by some groups to prevent what might be seen as a legitimisation of porn has been lost and yet many of those who publish the stuff are not that happy about the move either as they see in it the potential for their material to be 'ghettoised'.

Personally I would be happy to see this move as it has the potential for me to filter all .xxx content from our servers and browsers and it was also (hopefully) remove some of the material already out there from the mainstream domains. After all, those who seek porn will always find it and other than removing or restricting content, there's no way to limit it and so this is nor a bad outcome.

I meet people who are addicted to pornography and what they see begins to shape what they do (or want to do) and colours their attitudes to their partner (or partners) to the extent that it has destroyed marriages. The reality is that regardless of domain, nothing other than engagement, pastoral intervention and some firm talking is going to restrict the effect of porn. The fact that it is so easily found on the internet is not good or helpful, but is a mirror to the casual sex ridden, almost abusive society, we inhabit and this should motivate Christians to get involved in the area of relationships (how many do marriage courses for those before marriage and once they're married?).

So before people start throwing up their hands and moan that all is lost, let's ask ourselves (honestly) what we are doing to be engaged, to work in the area of educating people over the problems of porn and to (I know, I keep saying it) be the difference.

Too many people merely campaign and do nothing on the ground where the needs are - but that's not us, is it?

Pax