Meat-Eating Vegetarians

Seems to be just one issue in the news at the moment after the Church of Scotland (CofS) voted, as one of their spokespersons put it, 'to uphold traditional views and support diversity'.

This appears, at more than first glance, to be akin to a Vegetarian Society approving and endorsing the eating of meat, the caveat being that each of the local groups must approve of one of theirs being a meat-eater. Not for them the understanding that they might have meat in their cupboards and 'fridges but were still keeping to the Veggie code as long as they never ate the stuff - now apparently, using the CofS it is now possible to uphold the 'non-meat' mantra of the vegetarian and partake of the hitherto forbidden fruit as well - excellent news as one can't beat a bacon sandwich in the morning!!

I am troubled because the wording in so many places speaks of 'affirming the traditional teaching of the church as favouring vegetarian ministers  yet permits local groups to select meat eaters in leadership roles should they wish'.

I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with the 'favouring' because I dislike the 'having favourites' mentality, it speaks of something unfair. Still, they continue:

'This has been one way or another, a massive vote for the peace and unity of the vegetarian community,' said a spokesperson, 'For here we have 'a compromise' and now vegetarians everywhere can live at peace in a 'mixed economy' - which oddly they always have done, it's called the world; a place where meat eaters, vegetarians, vegans, burger fans and others have always mingled on an 'whatever floats your boat' basis. There are two places - the world and the club and both live, think, feel and act differently from each other.

I asked a staunch veggie friend whether they could work in such a setting and they admit that whilst happy to live in a world where others make their choices, they choose to be a vegetarian and work on the theory that you either are, or are not, a vegetarian. 'You can't be a bit vegetarian, ' they said, 'But then again we live in the world where there are many choices, preferences and tastes. It's not like it's Church because they're not the world but in it, aren't they?' 

Interestingly they also said that they were really frustrated at people who claimed to be veggies and yet, in reality, weren't - 'The two are very different and it's not just about what we eat, it's about how we view things and see ourselves. If we had veggie clubs (which I don't think we do) then we would not be permitting people to eat meat within it because that's not what we believe! is right or healthy'

All very interesting stuff isn't it? Tofu or A Big Mac - if that was the choice I'd opt for tea and toast ;-)

Church - Reasons to be fearful (Part one)

It seems to me that 'the Church' is an entity that swings from media frenzy to

In case you have missed it, the Church of England's 'General Synod' will apparently be voting on women bishops today.

There are three voting groups: bishops, clergy and laity and, apparently it is a done deal in the first two! Only the house of the laity (the 'ordinary' members) are uncertain when it comes to the vote and it is them who will carry the day for one of the two camps.

A quick sound bite very early this morning (or was it extremely late last night?) from a woman who will be voting today went like this:

"It is all about equality and the church has been poorer because it has not embraced the same degree of equality that has seen this nation governed by a woman. "

Another voice put forward the idea that,

"The church is bending over backwards to try and please everyone and the cry (from those who want women bishops) is for the church to draw a line and make the 'right' decision regardless of the response of those who oppose it!"

Interestingly, this is the same cry from those who wish to change the church's attitude to sexual issues too and this (for me) is the source of more concern than the actual issue/s themselves. Make the changes that give me what I want and those who oppose are mysogynists, homophobes (and any other ad hominem I can think of ) and by virtue of that should be forced out!

Since when has the message of the Gospel been: Capitulate or Clear Off?

Now I have to be honest and say that having read quite widely and discussed the issue with those for, against and confused I don't really see what the problem is and am neither convinced by many of the arguments for nor drawn in by those who oppose.

I struggle with those who would deny the right for people to believe, as the church has for many centuries, and relate to certain theological understanding of ministry and therefore, by this denial, remove any potential for a coexistence by offering 'alternative oversight'.

I struggle with those who seem to forget that Church is about Bible, not current social conventions or practice.

I struggle with those who would seek to restrict, or deny, anyone the right to practice and engage in any 'calling' from God on personal preference and wrong attitude.

I am sorry but anyone who wants us to 'do' women bishops because it is 'good PR' is stupid in the extreme. Those who want us to be 'popular' should realise that this isn't really what is on offer. There are two real potential outcomes:

1. Some in the world, seeing a decision they dislike will vilify the Church, just as they did before, and will continue to do by means of the next issue, and the many more behind - because they will only oppose it until it no longer exists as a force to oppose their own selfish aims and lifestyles!

2. A response that parallels the views and standards of the world in terms of 'equality' will not advance the reputation, ministry or evangelistic opportunities. In fact it will result in there being one less issue to engage over and oppose. In the end what will be left is a passive ignoring of a passive and impotent body.

So how do I want the vote to go today?

With an eye to Biblical authority and and ear to the voice of God and in step with His heartbeat; lovingly seeking to find a way by which all can coexist with justice, humility and love at the fore.

With a view to maintaining the Church of England as a Bible-believing, Spirit-filled, orthodox Christian church and with regard to the attitudes, traditions and needs of the worldwide communion too.

This is not a 'being right' issue - it is a being righteous issue.

Pax

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