According to the RC bishop of Brentwood there are seven Anglican priests and about three hundred of the (un)faithful bums on pews (bops) who are currently having swimming lessons.
Now the three fatherless Essex fathers who are identified as being in Benfleet, Hockley and Chelmsford (not too hard to guess who then) are currently getting things ready for the trip in secret. (Well not anymore because of course we know those who lives in those three places and have a copy of the Missal, don't we?).
Those poor fatherless fathers living in East London will fare a little better as they can remain hidden and continue to take their stipends up until the last minute (and live in their CofE provided homes too!) which to me smacks of duplicity and a healthy dose of hypocrisy too! If they want to go then they should have the hutzpah to make their stand and go. Of course if they had any integrity and really wanted to be RC there are already means by which they can become 'real Catholics' rather than become Catholics of the ersatz sort that the inferiordinate presents).
I still find it funny that people are claiming that the swim is over anything but women bishops, gay clergy, same-sex blessings and the erosion of a traditional Anglo-catholic faith. Amongst those who go will be homosexuals (some of whom are in relationship with people of the same mond and sex! After all the go because of ecclesiology and not personal sin. The former being women's ordination and the latter being the homosexual issue.
I still find it sad that the ordinary Fr Newton speaks of ecumenical gestures and of sharing in the ministry and yet in doing so denies the reality of the lines that are being drawn and the rancour, vitriol and bile that those going (or more often, those posing as one who might be going) are bringing to this.
Bennie is going to get his pre-Vatican II stalewarts to bolster the slippage that Rome (and the Magic Circle that is the UK and Ireland) fears and will draw the faithful to its doors. Of course there has to be an infidelity to get them there!!
I also wonder how some will fare when they have to either get a 'proper job' (a quote, not my words!) or rely upon the good offices of the RC church? As I understand it, it is a 'fund yourselves' affair and this will prove tough for some. Apparently there are some who have offered money to support the new creation, reckon they are going to need it.
And as the CofE needs its money to fund parishes and continue its good work, perhaps those who are going (or have left) would like to stop taking money from a body to whom they no longer have any allegiance and thus prevent us from building the kingdom. After all, that's what Fr Newton says is the first care of those who are going - so prove it (please)!
Pax et Paxo (apply as is fitting)
Monday, 24 January 2011
Sunday, 23 January 2011
I'm Phobophobic!
I've heard so much about Islamophobia this week (thank you Baroness Warsi) and came across an interview with a Jewish academic who spoke of Judeophobia as part of his discussion on Islamophobia and of course with the couple who refused a couple of homosexuals a room we've had it up to, somewhere or other, with all this 'fear of' stuff.
The Jewish chap was speaking of the fact that a phobia is basically a 'a persistent, irrational fear of a something (an object, activity, or situation) that brings about a compelling desire to avoid it. He went on to point out that the actions of spiritual leaders who applaud the assassination of the Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, because he challenged the blasphemy laws and the stabbing of MP, Stephen Timmns, as a reprisal for his voting in favour of the Iraq War, demonstrated that it wasn't a 'phobia'. After all, there is nothing irrational about fearing a group who will commission, commit or applaud such acts.
It seems to me that there are far too many people who claim that not embracing, or applauding, their lifestyle choices is in fact *****phobia.
I would have to say that those who resort to the cry of, "You merely ****phobic' are acting out of duplicitous, corrupt and mischievous motives. I don't think I'm 'phobic' about anything except those who seek to make what they do, how the live or what they think legitimate, and protected, by the use of the word phobia itself!
Let's see - I don't choose to be Jewish and although I don't support Israel's acts regarding Palestine, Mordecai Vanunu and other issues, I'm not Judeophobic.
I don't see Islam as being my religion of choice and although coming a little late to the party perhaps (610 AD ish) and containing a great deal of Judeo-Christian material I still wouldn't fancy it. Of course not all followers of Islam are terrorists and there is much to commend the philosophies within it, I don't shoose to be one. But again, this does not make me Islamophobic!
I have seen a great many excesses and behaviour which for moral, social, ethical and religious reasons make homosexuality something that don't choose to practice. Were it that, as some would say, that it is not a choice but something over which there is no choice, then I would seek (as a Christian) to be celibate. But although it could be a choice, I choose not to make it. But this doesn't render me homophobic either!
Here's the bottom line, I am a phobophobic! It's something that I am obviously genetically disposed to and have no choice but to ignore the whining of those who seek to label anything that stands opposed to them as a phobia. My reasons for not choosing, disliking or opposing stuff are altogether rational and extremely well-founded, even when some in today's society would like to see the attitudes change. Isn't this as true for those who'd like to see us endorse and openly permit paedophile activity or incestuous relationships?
The fact that some are already discussing this in their legal considerations just goes to show that if we wait long enough, moral values and standards will slip enough to permit anything.
There are many things that float the boats of others and yet don't find me engaging with them. There are things that I enjoy which others don't.
These are choices and these are differences - we all make them, we all have make them. So when I don't applaud yours - grow up and live with it, don't try doing it in my face and I'll try not to do it in yours! If you don't want to be where some people with differing views are, then don't go there - and if you do, don't expect your choice to be the overarching one and your views to be the superior because truth is:
ALL TOO OFTEN THEY AREN'T!
So go and do it somewhere else, there's a nice bunch of people.
Pax
The Jewish chap was speaking of the fact that a phobia is basically a 'a persistent, irrational fear of a something (an object, activity, or situation) that brings about a compelling desire to avoid it. He went on to point out that the actions of spiritual leaders who applaud the assassination of the Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, because he challenged the blasphemy laws and the stabbing of MP, Stephen Timmns, as a reprisal for his voting in favour of the Iraq War, demonstrated that it wasn't a 'phobia'. After all, there is nothing irrational about fearing a group who will commission, commit or applaud such acts.
It seems to me that there are far too many people who claim that not embracing, or applauding, their lifestyle choices is in fact *****phobia.
I would have to say that those who resort to the cry of, "You merely ****phobic' are acting out of duplicitous, corrupt and mischievous motives. I don't think I'm 'phobic' about anything except those who seek to make what they do, how the live or what they think legitimate, and protected, by the use of the word phobia itself!
Let's see - I don't choose to be Jewish and although I don't support Israel's acts regarding Palestine, Mordecai Vanunu and other issues, I'm not Judeophobic.
I don't see Islam as being my religion of choice and although coming a little late to the party perhaps (610 AD ish) and containing a great deal of Judeo-Christian material I still wouldn't fancy it. Of course not all followers of Islam are terrorists and there is much to commend the philosophies within it, I don't shoose to be one. But again, this does not make me Islamophobic!
I have seen a great many excesses and behaviour which for moral, social, ethical and religious reasons make homosexuality something that don't choose to practice. Were it that, as some would say, that it is not a choice but something over which there is no choice, then I would seek (as a Christian) to be celibate. But although it could be a choice, I choose not to make it. But this doesn't render me homophobic either!
Here's the bottom line, I am a phobophobic! It's something that I am obviously genetically disposed to and have no choice but to ignore the whining of those who seek to label anything that stands opposed to them as a phobia. My reasons for not choosing, disliking or opposing stuff are altogether rational and extremely well-founded, even when some in today's society would like to see the attitudes change. Isn't this as true for those who'd like to see us endorse and openly permit paedophile activity or incestuous relationships?
The fact that some are already discussing this in their legal considerations just goes to show that if we wait long enough, moral values and standards will slip enough to permit anything.
There are many things that float the boats of others and yet don't find me engaging with them. There are things that I enjoy which others don't.
These are choices and these are differences - we all make them, we all have make them. So when I don't applaud yours - grow up and live with it, don't try doing it in my face and I'll try not to do it in yours! If you don't want to be where some people with differing views are, then don't go there - and if you do, don't expect your choice to be the overarching one and your views to be the superior because truth is:
ALL TOO OFTEN THEY AREN'T!
So go and do it somewhere else, there's a nice bunch of people.
Pax
Friday, 21 January 2011
Four funerals and no weddings!
It's Friday and this week's (four) funerals are done and I have to say, "I love doing them!"
So many people ask me what the role of a dog-collar is. My response often includes the reality that it is part of my job to help people live well and die well, for we only do both once! We can revisit acts in our lives and can resolve to change how we act, think and live but when it comes to dying, we only sit that examination once and we should aim to do it as well as we can.
Since the beginning of this month I have seen some people do it exceptionally well. A couple of examples being the person who thanked the carers as their shift was ending, because they wouldn't see them in the morning. Their response was, "Of course you will, see you tomorrow!" but when the carers arrived the next day they found that the their charge had indeed peacefully slipped away in their sleep!
Another person I visited was anointed, prayed with and then began to doze off as we chatted (I have that effect). I told them that sleep was a good idea (they'd had a rough day) and sat there as they fell into a lovely sleep. As I left the nurse popped in to do the ob's and the next time they popped in, they found the patient had gone!
Not all of us can die as well as that, peacefully in our sleep. Not all of us will die at 87 (my average funeral age). But, we can make sure that when we do we do it knowing who we are in God and knowing of His love and provision for us. Even the most ill person can die healed and whole!
When I started in ministry, one of my colleagues told me how they hated 'bloody weddings!' and that funerals were the best part of the role. I have come to find that they were right in their assessment for a number of reasons and at a number of levels:
Weddings They want the lady what does hair, the man with the camera (or these days a 'videographer!!!), the woman what does the catering, the dog-collar what has the pretty building (but want to leave God out of the proceedings - we just want the photo-opportunity!), the booze-up (and subsequent fight?) and more besides.
Funerals They need a friend. Someone who will come into their loss and help them make sense of it. Someone who will help them see the person who has died, sometimes for the very first time, as they are and help them understand who they were and what made them who they are. They need reality and realism, not "Everyone goes to heaven and the loved one is sitting on a cloud with Auntie Ethel and Granddad looking down!" Neither do they need (as one person I know does) words which tell them that their loved one wasn't saved and therefore is bound for eternity in hell! Those who have gone, have gone and (secondary probation excepted) our task is with the living and so we share the Gospel, the realised hope that because of jesus and the cross there is more than just life here.
Weddings? You can have them - give me funerals and people who hurt and of course, with funerals the customers don't come back for a repeat service, not (sadly) the same for those who get married these days (marriage prep?, being responsible with those we marry? Don't get me started!!!)
Mind you, I hear rumours that the fees for weddings are set to double, that should help reduce the numbers a bit. Let's hope they leave the funerals alone, eh?
Pax
So many people ask me what the role of a dog-collar is. My response often includes the reality that it is part of my job to help people live well and die well, for we only do both once! We can revisit acts in our lives and can resolve to change how we act, think and live but when it comes to dying, we only sit that examination once and we should aim to do it as well as we can.
Since the beginning of this month I have seen some people do it exceptionally well. A couple of examples being the person who thanked the carers as their shift was ending, because they wouldn't see them in the morning. Their response was, "Of course you will, see you tomorrow!" but when the carers arrived the next day they found that the their charge had indeed peacefully slipped away in their sleep!
Another person I visited was anointed, prayed with and then began to doze off as we chatted (I have that effect). I told them that sleep was a good idea (they'd had a rough day) and sat there as they fell into a lovely sleep. As I left the nurse popped in to do the ob's and the next time they popped in, they found the patient had gone!
Not all of us can die as well as that, peacefully in our sleep. Not all of us will die at 87 (my average funeral age). But, we can make sure that when we do we do it knowing who we are in God and knowing of His love and provision for us. Even the most ill person can die healed and whole!
When I started in ministry, one of my colleagues told me how they hated 'bloody weddings!' and that funerals were the best part of the role. I have come to find that they were right in their assessment for a number of reasons and at a number of levels:
Weddings They want the lady what does hair, the man with the camera (or these days a 'videographer!!!), the woman what does the catering, the dog-collar what has the pretty building (but want to leave God out of the proceedings - we just want the photo-opportunity!), the booze-up (and subsequent fight?) and more besides.
Funerals They need a friend. Someone who will come into their loss and help them make sense of it. Someone who will help them see the person who has died, sometimes for the very first time, as they are and help them understand who they were and what made them who they are. They need reality and realism, not "Everyone goes to heaven and the loved one is sitting on a cloud with Auntie Ethel and Granddad looking down!" Neither do they need (as one person I know does) words which tell them that their loved one wasn't saved and therefore is bound for eternity in hell! Those who have gone, have gone and (secondary probation excepted) our task is with the living and so we share the Gospel, the realised hope that because of jesus and the cross there is more than just life here.
Weddings? You can have them - give me funerals and people who hurt and of course, with funerals the customers don't come back for a repeat service, not (sadly) the same for those who get married these days (marriage prep?, being responsible with those we marry? Don't get me started!!!)
Mind you, I hear rumours that the fees for weddings are set to double, that should help reduce the numbers a bit. Let's hope they leave the funerals alone, eh?
Pax
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Unfair Accommodation?
One of the commentators on the hotelier debate said that "Christians have to accept the fact that attitudes, acts and lifestyles which were unacceptable twenty-five years ago are now acceptable and approved. Things changed because people made a stand, challenged conventions and got the force of the law behind them and people who don't like this situation must learn to accept or live with this for this is how it's going to be".
What a great display of skewed logic and hypocrisy combined we find in those words.
If it is right for some to campaign about restriction of freedom and rights then surely it is also right for those who, because of the changes, find their freedom, rights and integrity (social, secular and religious) challenged or restricted to do the same. The problem is that Christians appear, generally, to be unable to do this for a number of reasons. These reasons range from a wrong positioning or engagement (and action) and the fact that the minute they try to engage or make a stand they are met with accusations of homophobic activity or an inability (unwillingness?) from those who support the sexual liberalities to listen.
Now, at a personal level I'm happy for people to live out their own choices. I might not endorse their actions but that's their right, just as it is my right not to choose to do the same things or consider them to be right. I have an added dynamic in that I am called to warn those I see doing something that is hazardous to them, even when perhaps societal values and attitudes might not agree (anymore) with this. The reality being that just because man makes something legal, this does not remove the Biblical warrant regarding it.
Take your pick here for there are many areas which fall into this category: living together (which is not cohabitation or common law marriage - and for some is merely a "Long-term shag!*"), Abortion, homosexuality and many more issues besides. Now, I try to engage with people on this topic through developing a relationship and by using the Galatians Six instruction about "restoring people 'gently."
I consider those who send images of aborted foetuses through the post as misguided and contra-Christian; those who act like Phelps and Jones over Christian rights, values and engagement to have nothing to do with Christ and see them as merely working for the enemy! We need to be balanced, consistent and Christian and this issue brings forth much more than just the considerations of the hotelier case. It outlines the difficulty Christians have in making their stand and maintaining their integrity when one side is considered to have more rights and power than the other! It is about the very fabric of democracy and personal rights!
It challenges us to work out how we engage effectively and consistently within the Biblical standards and attitudes we are required live in and communicate this to others. It challenges us to bring a realistic, logical and balanced engagement with people who obviously (in the main) are not!
*One of the couples I counselled a few years back declared their intention to split and when asked about their relationship, this was the response! Not what I expected but perhaps a more honest take on their situation!
What a great display of skewed logic and hypocrisy combined we find in those words.
If it is right for some to campaign about restriction of freedom and rights then surely it is also right for those who, because of the changes, find their freedom, rights and integrity (social, secular and religious) challenged or restricted to do the same. The problem is that Christians appear, generally, to be unable to do this for a number of reasons. These reasons range from a wrong positioning or engagement (and action) and the fact that the minute they try to engage or make a stand they are met with accusations of homophobic activity or an inability (unwillingness?) from those who support the sexual liberalities to listen.
Now, at a personal level I'm happy for people to live out their own choices. I might not endorse their actions but that's their right, just as it is my right not to choose to do the same things or consider them to be right. I have an added dynamic in that I am called to warn those I see doing something that is hazardous to them, even when perhaps societal values and attitudes might not agree (anymore) with this. The reality being that just because man makes something legal, this does not remove the Biblical warrant regarding it.
Take your pick here for there are many areas which fall into this category: living together (which is not cohabitation or common law marriage - and for some is merely a "Long-term shag!*"), Abortion, homosexuality and many more issues besides. Now, I try to engage with people on this topic through developing a relationship and by using the Galatians Six instruction about "restoring people 'gently."
I consider those who send images of aborted foetuses through the post as misguided and contra-Christian; those who act like Phelps and Jones over Christian rights, values and engagement to have nothing to do with Christ and see them as merely working for the enemy! We need to be balanced, consistent and Christian and this issue brings forth much more than just the considerations of the hotelier case. It outlines the difficulty Christians have in making their stand and maintaining their integrity when one side is considered to have more rights and power than the other! It is about the very fabric of democracy and personal rights!
It challenges us to work out how we engage effectively and consistently within the Biblical standards and attitudes we are required live in and communicate this to others. It challenges us to bring a realistic, logical and balanced engagement with people who obviously (in the main) are not!
*One of the couples I counselled a few years back declared their intention to split and when asked about their relationship, this was the response! Not what I expected but perhaps a more honest take on their situation!
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Hate Crimes
The hotelier debate has brought forth some interesting responses. One of which was the gentleman on Radio Five who made the point that the hoteliers action was merely homophobic, for he new many 'good' Christians who had no problem with homosexuality and had chosen to ignore all that 'Leviticus stuff'.
The person supporting the hoteliera tried to explain that, for the majority of Christians, ignoring bits of the Bible wasn't an option for Gods Word stands for ever. But of course he was talked over and effectively ignored!
If I am a vegetarian and choose to eat some meat products I apparently cease to be vegetarian. If a Christian chooses to discount (traditional or orthodox) biblical content, those outside the Christian body (and those within who want to be told they are right) endorse this act and pronounce them, and their attitudes, as being 'Christian'!
Interesting how some people assume they can decide what is right for those members of a group which they neither belong to nor understand. Self-serving or what? Is this not doing exactly what the hoteliers are considered to have done? Can it be wrong for them and yet fair game for those who wish to oppose them? I don't think so!
The person supporting the hoteliera tried to explain that, for the majority of Christians, ignoring bits of the Bible wasn't an option for Gods Word stands for ever. But of course he was talked over and effectively ignored!
If I am a vegetarian and choose to eat some meat products I apparently cease to be vegetarian. If a Christian chooses to discount (traditional or orthodox) biblical content, those outside the Christian body (and those within who want to be told they are right) endorse this act and pronounce them, and their attitudes, as being 'Christian'!
Interesting how some people assume they can decide what is right for those members of a group which they neither belong to nor understand. Self-serving or what? Is this not doing exactly what the hoteliers are considered to have done? Can it be wrong for them and yet fair game for those who wish to oppose them? I don't think so!
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
An average day at the crem'
Turned up for the first of my funerals to see smoke looming large above the building. Fearing a problem with the filters I looked round the back to find twenty-plus people furiously puffing away on their cigarettes behind the crem'!
Phew, no problems with the kit and better still many more, eager, prospective customers (thank you for smoking, have a nice day!).
Looking into the chapel I noticed something you don't see everyday, a coffin emblazoned with, "I told you I was ill!" (Which are also the words on Spike Milligan's headstone). Well, it was first for me!
It's always good down at the crematorium because one sees all of life there (you know what I mean) and there are a number of enjoyable bits to fill your day.
Hey ho - all done and now back to do some more funeral visits (and enjoy more tea).
Happy Tuesday peeeps!
Phew, no problems with the kit and better still many more, eager, prospective customers (thank you for smoking, have a nice day!).
Looking into the chapel I noticed something you don't see everyday, a coffin emblazoned with, "I told you I was ill!" (Which are also the words on Spike Milligan's headstone). Well, it was first for me!
It's always good down at the crematorium because one sees all of life there (you know what I mean) and there are a number of enjoyable bits to fill your day.
Hey ho - all done and now back to do some more funeral visits (and enjoy more tea).
Happy Tuesday peeeps!
Christian Hoteliers acted Unlawfully
I have just been telephoned with the news.
The person who rang me added a comment, "No (something or other) Sherlock!"
I think they felt that it was obvious that they acted outside the law and this appears to have been the view of many that I encountered when the story forst broke.
A sadness but not an unexpected outcome. The problem is how can we apply equally the right to hold views and maintain rights?
This needs some real thinking and some proper investigation. It doesn't need posing, return episodes of entrapment or people rushing around screaming 'persecution!' It's not, it about being wise as serpents - gentle as doves.
The battle is engaged - let's use our heads and employ sound (and lawful) tactics - for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, are they?
Off to work!
The person who rang me added a comment, "No (something or other) Sherlock!"
I think they felt that it was obvious that they acted outside the law and this appears to have been the view of many that I encountered when the story forst broke.
A sadness but not an unexpected outcome. The problem is how can we apply equally the right to hold views and maintain rights?
This needs some real thinking and some proper investigation. It doesn't need posing, return episodes of entrapment or people rushing around screaming 'persecution!' It's not, it about being wise as serpents - gentle as doves.
The battle is engaged - let's use our heads and employ sound (and lawful) tactics - for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, are they?
Off to work!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)