What a rocking day it's been. I knew it was going to be a bit busy so I got it rolling early to fit it all in. But it worked and I managed to stick a few visits, a Bishops Certificate, lunch with a friend, and preparation for three of the nine services next week will see happen - and get newspaper item finished along with Easter Services page and do a music practice too. Mega!
Fun bit was a colleague from another denomination, after hearing how many services Holy Week attracted, commenting, "That's why I'm not an Anglican!" Each to their own I guess - reckon I'll be high church in another few years as I'd love to not only keep the feasts and festivals but do Communion every day too; and yet I'm still a charismatic (how odd)!
So looking forward to Good Friday, I love the witness and the watch and this year I'm privileged to be with St Editha's choir for a choral reflection too. Holy Week brings many great services as we do stations of the cross the first couple of nights followed by the splendid tenebrae service on the Wednesday. Thursday brings the Seder meal into our experience and we relive that last supper and light the blue touchpaper for arrest, trial and eventual execution that is Good Friday.
Is it any surprise that 'holy Saturday' sees us lying in the floor mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually done in?
Of course this Sunday (Palm Sunday) complete with waving bits of palm tress (£10.50 for fifty of them. They certainly don't grow on trees at that price!!) starts the thing off, but it's the liturgy of the passion - a real marathon reading that breaks the heart for the first time on our journey to the cross.
But of today - one of my friends is struggling and I have to admit, taking him Communion was sad today as he's not doing as well as he has been. Another (who I need to include in my visits) is in pain. Another is needy and another couple even more up against it. This is a battle and we need to know we are not alone - sadly don't think I always help there as other stuff creeps in and distracts.
Lord, either give me more hours in a day or help me to stick all the unnecessary tosh in the bin!
I've analysed the first quarter and will be sharing them with a few people. I'll stick a pretty pie chat on some time soon, interesting to see where the time goes.
Bishops Certificate was brilliant - as seem the case, the material offered with thin and tenuous in extremes, but with the aid of a few interlinears and the Greek, we really had fun. Tow men down at the moment, so prayers for them and four us as we deal with some of the total tosh we use as a firefighter as we fan the flames of learning into something great. No charcoal was harmed in the making of this session! The person leading it did a great job with it all - got to play naughty schoolboy (no change there).
So a day of being broken and educated, blessed and grateful for my Christian family, challenged and tested by my own calling and passions as a believer.
Lord for those I find it easy to love, I thank You.
For those I sometimes struggle to love, I praise you, for life without those broccoli and cabbage moments -feasting only on the sweets - would be unbalanced and unhealthy.
For the people I visited today - and for those I didn't manage to visit - bring healing and a real sense of your presence.
Help me to turn my life into one of people, the word and prayer - thank you for the people in church who worry about money, strategies and structures - give me Christ and a true faith with sound liturgy and living stones. I'll leave the skeletons and dryness to others if You don't mind: Make me a man of the Word and of the People I pray.
And so, another day has crept into mine, so I guess I'll thank You for what's gone and praise You what what's now already here.
Yes Lord, I agape You!
Showing posts with label preparation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label preparation. Show all posts
Thursday, 6 April 2017
Tuesday, 7 January 2014
Baptism - getting down with the Kids ...
... And out there with the people is causing some controversy amongst some, who prefer not to be named, and others who do - the most notable being Michael Nazir Ali, former bishop of Rochester.
Many years ago when the earth was and I was younger I attended a training session on occasional offices during which we were asked to describe how we liked, and did, ours. Having complied, the person leading the weekend took us to task for setting aside the solemnity and import of the service for some shallow popularist entertainment. Where some saw energy and dialogue, the making accessible of the service and the clergy being one with the people before us the leader saw something shallow and almost meaningless.
One of those present, feeling themselves to be under attack, defended themselves vigorously by saying that this was the way forward and that 'If we wanted them to come we needed to do it in ways that made them feel safe, comfortable and 'entertained'!' And that was where the touch paper was lit!!! And the firework show continues ...
There is in this baptism issue a collision of posturing, misrepresentation, misunderstanding and extremely clever people (they know who they are) and this, fuelled by an ever-friendly press, makes for some great reading and - I was going to say 'a storm in a tea cup' but let's be positive and say instead- an opportunity for clarifying what baptism is all about.
What is Baptism?
Is it the beginning of the Christian journey - the initiation we claim it to be - or something else? Does our paedobaptist (we baptise babies) position add to the challenges or merely make the issues for all who present themselves more apparent?
Is it an invitation to embrace, and takes the first teetering steps of, faith or an invitation for some to make promises they have no real intention of keeping as payment for a nice service, a piece of paper conferring entry to a church school, an opportunity for a party and have conferred on some the honour of being a 'godparent'.
We baptise because Jesus' earthly ministry began with baptism and we take up our oil, water and candle to emulate Him (I favour the Eastern rite which adds communion to the equation, but that's for another day). Baptism involves the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit (Chrism), a ritual washing away of sin (water) and a passing from darkness to light (candle) - with the call to walk in that light (God's word being a lamp to guide our feet and a light for our path). This defines our 'mechanical actions' but we have the words to contend with too.
The Words
Because, quite often, we baptise those who are unable to answer for themselves (babies) we involve third parties (sponsors or godparents) to speak for them and they, in doing so are making promises to God, but do they intend to keep them? Ecclesiastes 5 tells us that it is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfil it.
Now some tell me that what others say is up to them but I wonder how my being complicit in encouraging, permitting and abetting others to make a vow there's no intention of keeping goes down with God; I wonder how a God feels about them that make it too!
Ever experienced the joy of the half-hearted baptism party? The mumbled, often inaudible responses, some on their mobiles ('No it ain't finished yet, put the water on in about five minutes....') and others obviously disengaged. Would 'more accessible' words change all this?
This is the root of the present debate: Are we turning the baptism service into something that is so 'watered down' that it is no longer fit for service or making the service it real for those that come (the few that do - I understand we 'do' no more than 10% of the sprogs on offer these days)?
I have to be honest and, nailing my colours to the font, say that I think that there is a great danger that we are looking to overcome something that has less to do with the IMD (Index of Multiple Deprivation) position that those coming to church for baptism occupy (which is, by the way, a really nice and polite way of saying that they're 'thick, chavvy or ignorant') and perhaps more about the way the clergy understand, instruct and deliver the service.
The words of the service in the common Worship volume are, as I understand it, totally accessible (and open to our own adaptation should it be needed) and having brought the candidate into play, the first element- the Decision - is not at all bad. It goes like this:
'In baptism, God calls us out of darkness into his marvellous light.
To follow Christ means dying to sin and rising to new life with him. Therefore I ask:
Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?
I reject them.
Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?
I renounce them.
Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?
I repent of them.
Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?
I turn to Christ.
Do you submit to Christ as Lord?
I submit to Christ.
Do you come to Christ,
I come to Christ.'
The published format of the new 'accessible' service gives us:
'In baptism, God calls us to a new live. We die with Christ to all that destroys and rise to live with him for ever. Therefore I ask:
Do you reject evil?
I reject evil.
And its many forms?
And all its many forms.
And all its empty promises?
And all its empty promises.
Do you turn to Christ?
I turn to Christ.
And put your trust in him?
And put my trust in him?
And promise to follow him for ever?
And promise to follow him for ever.
Do you believe in God the father, source of all being and life, the one for whom we exist
I believe and trust in him.'
So we've lost any reference to the devil (which should stop the sniggering!) and rebellion against God (isn't that religion?) and dumbed down 'evil' and the effects of sin and even though I can understand the views of both camps in this element of the service alone - I have to say that the 'promise to follow him for ever' is perhaps best enacted with 'fingers crossed' in the rubric!
I personally find nothing in the baptism service that cannot be dealt with by good preparation and explanation during that preparation and during the service for those who come to the service on the day.
I think the opportunity presented it the 'over the water' bit as it stands:
'We thank you, almighty God, for the gift of water to sustain, refresh and cleanse all life.'
How hard is this to understand?
'Over water the Holy Spirit moved in the beginning of creation.'
Genesis one - God is Creator - God is Trinity, three-in-one
'Through water you led the children of Israel from slavery in Egypt to freedom in the Promised Land.'
Excellent -
redemption, Pascal lamb, Passover - all found here
"In water your Son Jesus received the baptism of John and was anointed by the Holy Spirit as the Messiah, the Christ, to lead us from the death of sin to newness of life.'
Wow - what's so hard here - Incarnacy, obedience, baptism, repentance, new life in Christ!
'We thank you, Father, for the water of baptism.
In it we are buried with Christ in his death. Dying to sin, rising to new lie, identification with Christ
By it we share in his resurrection. Take the ticket and get on the ride - no universalist stuff here
Through it we are reborn by the Holy Spirit. Nicodemus would be proud of you guys
Therefore, in joyful obedience to your Son,we baptise into his fellowship those who come to him in faith. Obedience - ooh, a naughty word like submission
Now sanctify this water that, by the power of your Holy Spirit, they may be cleansed from sin and born again. Renewed in your image, may they walk by the light of faith and continue for ever in the risen life of Jesus Christ our Lord; to whom with you and the Holy Spirit be all honour and glory, now and for ever.
Sorry - think we might be trying to fix that which isn't broken and in doing so rather than make baptism accessible probably render it quite limited and perhaps non-efficacious. The intentions are great but the reality is . . .
If we take into account the fact that we no longer have a proper creed in the baptism, preferring to have an 'affirmation' (easier to agree than to make a statement for ourselves isn't it?), and now want to remove the potential for telling the stories of our faith and the history that leads to do as we do (or perhaps did in the light of the changes we keep making) I do find myself in the 'conservative' camp here (but then seeing some who bill themselves as progressive of late I really would want to be associated as being one, with them, or of them!).
A long post for me (27 minutes of splurge) - I hope others find it of value - at least I understand where I am on this issue now :-)
Pax
ps. Just to reiterate (because I have deleted the comment that this relates to) this is not 'new' liturgy - take a look at GS1816A it is merely an invitation to consider making changes - as we can anyway - in the baptism service. It's not being 'enforced' - Justin is not what you called him (but you might just be) - liturgy has to be consistent and yet remain contextually accessible (I hate the use of 'contemporary' here). So now you know!
Many years ago when the earth was and I was younger I attended a training session on occasional offices during which we were asked to describe how we liked, and did, ours. Having complied, the person leading the weekend took us to task for setting aside the solemnity and import of the service for some shallow popularist entertainment. Where some saw energy and dialogue, the making accessible of the service and the clergy being one with the people before us the leader saw something shallow and almost meaningless.
One of those present, feeling themselves to be under attack, defended themselves vigorously by saying that this was the way forward and that 'If we wanted them to come we needed to do it in ways that made them feel safe, comfortable and 'entertained'!' And that was where the touch paper was lit!!! And the firework show continues ...
There is in this baptism issue a collision of posturing, misrepresentation, misunderstanding and extremely clever people (they know who they are) and this, fuelled by an ever-friendly press, makes for some great reading and - I was going to say 'a storm in a tea cup' but let's be positive and say instead- an opportunity for clarifying what baptism is all about.
What is Baptism?
Is it the beginning of the Christian journey - the initiation we claim it to be - or something else? Does our paedobaptist (we baptise babies) position add to the challenges or merely make the issues for all who present themselves more apparent?
Is it an invitation to embrace, and takes the first teetering steps of, faith or an invitation for some to make promises they have no real intention of keeping as payment for a nice service, a piece of paper conferring entry to a church school, an opportunity for a party and have conferred on some the honour of being a 'godparent'.
We baptise because Jesus' earthly ministry began with baptism and we take up our oil, water and candle to emulate Him (I favour the Eastern rite which adds communion to the equation, but that's for another day). Baptism involves the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit (Chrism), a ritual washing away of sin (water) and a passing from darkness to light (candle) - with the call to walk in that light (God's word being a lamp to guide our feet and a light for our path). This defines our 'mechanical actions' but we have the words to contend with too.
The Words
Because, quite often, we baptise those who are unable to answer for themselves (babies) we involve third parties (sponsors or godparents) to speak for them and they, in doing so are making promises to God, but do they intend to keep them? Ecclesiastes 5 tells us that it is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfil it.
Now some tell me that what others say is up to them but I wonder how my being complicit in encouraging, permitting and abetting others to make a vow there's no intention of keeping goes down with God; I wonder how a God feels about them that make it too!
Ever experienced the joy of the half-hearted baptism party? The mumbled, often inaudible responses, some on their mobiles ('No it ain't finished yet, put the water on in about five minutes....') and others obviously disengaged. Would 'more accessible' words change all this?
This is the root of the present debate: Are we turning the baptism service into something that is so 'watered down' that it is no longer fit for service or making the service it real for those that come (the few that do - I understand we 'do' no more than 10% of the sprogs on offer these days)?
I have to be honest and, nailing my colours to the font, say that I think that there is a great danger that we are looking to overcome something that has less to do with the IMD (Index of Multiple Deprivation) position that those coming to church for baptism occupy (which is, by the way, a really nice and polite way of saying that they're 'thick, chavvy or ignorant') and perhaps more about the way the clergy understand, instruct and deliver the service.
The words of the service in the common Worship volume are, as I understand it, totally accessible (and open to our own adaptation should it be needed) and having brought the candidate into play, the first element- the Decision - is not at all bad. It goes like this:
'In baptism, God calls us out of darkness into his marvellous light.
To follow Christ means dying to sin and rising to new life with him. Therefore I ask:
Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?
I reject them.
Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?
I renounce them.
Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?
I repent of them.
Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?
I turn to Christ.
Do you submit to Christ as Lord?
I submit to Christ.
Do you come to Christ,
I come to Christ.'
'In baptism, God calls us to a new live. We die with Christ to all that destroys and rise to live with him for ever. Therefore I ask:
Do you reject evil?
I reject evil.
And its many forms?
And all its many forms.
And all its empty promises?
And all its empty promises.
Do you turn to Christ?
I turn to Christ.
And put your trust in him?
And put my trust in him?
And promise to follow him for ever?
And promise to follow him for ever.
Do you believe in God the father, source of all being and life, the one for whom we exist
I believe and trust in him.'
So we've lost any reference to the devil (which should stop the sniggering!) and rebellion against God (isn't that religion?) and dumbed down 'evil' and the effects of sin and even though I can understand the views of both camps in this element of the service alone - I have to say that the 'promise to follow him for ever' is perhaps best enacted with 'fingers crossed' in the rubric!
I personally find nothing in the baptism service that cannot be dealt with by good preparation and explanation during that preparation and during the service for those who come to the service on the day.
I think the opportunity presented it the 'over the water' bit as it stands:
'We thank you, almighty God, for the gift of water to sustain, refresh and cleanse all life.'
How hard is this to understand?
'Over water the Holy Spirit moved in the beginning of creation.'
Genesis one - God is Creator - God is Trinity, three-in-one
'Through water you led the children of Israel from slavery in Egypt to freedom in the Promised Land.'
Excellent -
redemption, Pascal lamb, Passover - all found here
"In water your Son Jesus received the baptism of John and was anointed by the Holy Spirit as the Messiah, the Christ, to lead us from the death of sin to newness of life.'
Wow - what's so hard here - Incarnacy, obedience, baptism, repentance, new life in Christ!
'We thank you, Father, for the water of baptism.
In it we are buried with Christ in his death. Dying to sin, rising to new lie, identification with Christ
By it we share in his resurrection. Take the ticket and get on the ride - no universalist stuff here
Through it we are reborn by the Holy Spirit. Nicodemus would be proud of you guys
Therefore, in joyful obedience to your Son,we baptise into his fellowship those who come to him in faith. Obedience - ooh, a naughty word like submission
Now sanctify this water that, by the power of your Holy Spirit, they may be cleansed from sin and born again. Renewed in your image, may they walk by the light of faith and continue for ever in the risen life of Jesus Christ our Lord; to whom with you and the Holy Spirit be all honour and glory, now and for ever.
Sorry - think we might be trying to fix that which isn't broken and in doing so rather than make baptism accessible probably render it quite limited and perhaps non-efficacious. The intentions are great but the reality is . . .
If we take into account the fact that we no longer have a proper creed in the baptism, preferring to have an 'affirmation' (easier to agree than to make a statement for ourselves isn't it?), and now want to remove the potential for telling the stories of our faith and the history that leads to do as we do (or perhaps did in the light of the changes we keep making) I do find myself in the 'conservative' camp here (but then seeing some who bill themselves as progressive of late I really would want to be associated as being one, with them, or of them!).
A long post for me (27 minutes of splurge) - I hope others find it of value - at least I understand where I am on this issue now :-)
Pax
ps. Just to reiterate (because I have deleted the comment that this relates to) this is not 'new' liturgy - take a look at GS1816A it is merely an invitation to consider making changes - as we can anyway - in the baptism service. It's not being 'enforced' - Justin is not what you called him (but you might just be) - liturgy has to be consistent and yet remain contextually accessible (I hate the use of 'contemporary' here). So now you know!
Tuesday, 14 May 2013
CofE Statistics - A longer view (relative ages) - part the first
So here we are again taking a longer view at the CofE stat's (as shown below); this time we're going to have a bit of a think about the issue of children/young people:
The reality is that we have haemorrhaged a quarter of the children and young people over the past ten years and this is something that those around me are cheering (and we do need to cheer about it) over the 2011 (year-on-year) rise of 1.2% that the 216,900 (average weekly attendance) represents.
Couple this with the 139,751 baptisms (another rise in the year-on-year of 4.3%) and the massive rise (again year-on-year of 11.9%, that's 6,582 in 2011) in the area of blessings, and you can see reasons indeed to be cheerful. But this is something we must not only celebrate but also build upon and consolidate as a matter of importance.
The problem is that where I am some regard us as being 'lucky' because we have young people and children because they are 'unlucky' and have none! I often visit churches where the mantra is, 'We are committed, engaged, enthusiastic and becoming old and we have some/few/no* children/young people.' (*delete as applicable)
One of my first questions relates to the area of baptisms, for these are often a place in the church's life where families with young children are to be found. The dialogue then goes a little like this:
'We do baptisms but we can't get the people to do any real prep' and they don't come back afterwards. In fact we used to give the baptism certificate a week or two after the baptism but they never came back and so we just give it to them on the day and never see them again!'
Another person complained that, 'We can't compete with sport on a Sunday and other things that draw the children away. Neither can we make ourselves relevant with regard to the young families around us!'
And you know what? I think we can - and are in many places :-)
The reality is that we have haemorrhaged a quarter of the children and young people over the past ten years and this is something that those around me are cheering (and we do need to cheer about it) over the 2011 (year-on-year) rise of 1.2% that the 216,900 (average weekly attendance) represents.
Couple this with the 139,751 baptisms (another rise in the year-on-year of 4.3%) and the massive rise (again year-on-year of 11.9%, that's 6,582 in 2011) in the area of blessings, and you can see reasons indeed to be cheerful. But this is something we must not only celebrate but also build upon and consolidate as a matter of importance.
The problem is that where I am some regard us as being 'lucky' because we have young people and children because they are 'unlucky' and have none! I often visit churches where the mantra is, 'We are committed, engaged, enthusiastic and becoming old and we have some/few/no* children/young people.' (*delete as applicable)
One of my first questions relates to the area of baptisms, for these are often a place in the church's life where families with young children are to be found. The dialogue then goes a little like this:
'We do baptisms but we can't get the people to do any real prep' and they don't come back afterwards. In fact we used to give the baptism certificate a week or two after the baptism but they never came back and so we just give it to them on the day and never see them again!'
Another person complained that, 'We can't compete with sport on a Sunday and other things that draw the children away. Neither can we make ourselves relevant with regard to the young families around us!'
And you know what? I think we can - and are in many places :-)
Monday, 22 April 2013
Selection, Rejection and proper responses
When I said that whilst some who had not been selected felt that they, 'Weren't wanted' and made the remark that, 'This is not what selection does, says or is,' I should have added, 'Or at least shouldn't be!'
One of those who has experienced the dark side of the Church of England's selection process writes:
'I'm sure the church believes this is true. But the system that is in place makes it very difficult to experience being turned down after a BAP as anything other than a rejection, and a violent one at that. If you spend up to two years carefully and often painfully working through a discernment process with your DDO, get recommended to the Bishop, go and see the Bishop and get recommended to a panel, and then are turned down (in my case) primarily on the basis of a single interview with a vocational advisor who you have never met before, it's difficult not to take it very hard. They say it's not rejection, but it sure feels like it.'
One of the things that has impressed me greatly is the support that our DDO has put in place for those who have received a 'No' (or perhaps 'Not Yet").
The other thing that we have is a process whereby potential candidates are met with by Vocations Advisors who help with the discernment and, being one I know this to be true, will say 'No' openly and honestly and work with that person to help them find the niche that exists for their particular form of ministry.
That said there are some whom, if anecdotal evidence is to be believed, send people up the chain because they don't want to be the person who says 'No'; an act which is duplicitous and damaging to the person and the well-being of the church and its ministry. After all, as Matthew 5. 37 tells us, 'All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. I'd add to that the 'Not Yet' and tell them what they need to do to gain experience, prove abilities yet unseen and the like - anything outside these is fudge or side-stepping the reality and this will lead to more pain and lost ministries in the long run.
Rightly or wrongly, I do have a great deal of confidence in the selection process and whilst when I went through it I found myself in the company of some who knew everything that was coming (even the questions which they'd learnt answers to beforehand!) I have to say that I knew enough to know what to expect in terms of format but everything was pretty much a surprise, a real benefit, as the selectors saw me and not someone else's answers. There is much to discuss concerning preparation, and we will be looking at this (and the fact that no one gets selected, or not, alone - it is a journey and an outcome that affects more than the one who goes off for the conference).
Pax
One of those who has experienced the dark side of the Church of England's selection process writes:
'I'm sure the church believes this is true. But the system that is in place makes it very difficult to experience being turned down after a BAP as anything other than a rejection, and a violent one at that. If you spend up to two years carefully and often painfully working through a discernment process with your DDO, get recommended to the Bishop, go and see the Bishop and get recommended to a panel, and then are turned down (in my case) primarily on the basis of a single interview with a vocational advisor who you have never met before, it's difficult not to take it very hard. They say it's not rejection, but it sure feels like it.'
One of the things that has impressed me greatly is the support that our DDO has put in place for those who have received a 'No' (or perhaps 'Not Yet").
The other thing that we have is a process whereby potential candidates are met with by Vocations Advisors who help with the discernment and, being one I know this to be true, will say 'No' openly and honestly and work with that person to help them find the niche that exists for their particular form of ministry.
That said there are some whom, if anecdotal evidence is to be believed, send people up the chain because they don't want to be the person who says 'No'; an act which is duplicitous and damaging to the person and the well-being of the church and its ministry. After all, as Matthew 5. 37 tells us, 'All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. I'd add to that the 'Not Yet' and tell them what they need to do to gain experience, prove abilities yet unseen and the like - anything outside these is fudge or side-stepping the reality and this will lead to more pain and lost ministries in the long run.
Rightly or wrongly, I do have a great deal of confidence in the selection process and whilst when I went through it I found myself in the company of some who knew everything that was coming (even the questions which they'd learnt answers to beforehand!) I have to say that I knew enough to know what to expect in terms of format but everything was pretty much a surprise, a real benefit, as the selectors saw me and not someone else's answers. There is much to discuss concerning preparation, and we will be looking at this (and the fact that no one gets selected, or not, alone - it is a journey and an outcome that affects more than the one who goes off for the conference).
Pax
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)