Declining Language

Today is one of those days where spoken English language has taken a bit of a pounding.

There was the spokesman for an organisation which had received a financial award for its work. The reason they gave was that it was a recognition that they were one of many unique projects in that area!

This was followed by the head of a school which had benefited by spending by the DFE. One of the stated strengths of the school was that all the pupils received an education which meant all the pupils were above average. Surely if all were above average then then all were merely average (were there no above or below the 'above average' pupils?)! I assumed he meant the pupils were above some national average or other benchmark.

Yet another spoke of the majority of the people in the area their charity served were supportive of them. The chairman said that over a third of the community had signed petitions asking for a rethink of funding. Poor maths perhaps?

As I travelled it became obvious that many thing impacted (surely had an impact) on the lives of others.

All I needed was some football and the services of a summariser and I'd have been replete with a Colemanballs day of broadcasting.

Cherry on the cake is one of our children bringing home a letter with some interesting words. I asked one of the teachers (we're friends so I could) about a letter they'd sent out. "Oh yeah, English isn't my subject!" Obviously true of the author of the letter that we got this week too!

Star prize still goes to an American doctorate holder who, speaking of an exhibition she had arranged for her employer, the Tate Gallery, said that it had been then 'funnest' job she'd had since working there!

Aaaargh!

Healing the sick

One of those very clergy days today with staff meetings, funerals, visits to schools, service prep and a bit of church maintenance thrown into the usual round of daily offices, praying for the sick, arranged funerals for the dead and more besides.

It's all gone green (ordinary time) and although some might consider it to be a period of journeying through the doldrums, the very opposite is true.

Today's reading (Mark 6) recounted Jesus arriving . . .no, why not read it yourself?

"When they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret and moored to the shore. And when they got out of the boat, the people immediately recognised him and ran about the whole region and began to bring the sick people on their beds to wherever they heard he was. And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or countryside, they laid the sick in the marketplaces and implored him that they might touch even the fringe of his garment. And as many as touched it were made well."

Two things hit me with this passage this morning: recognition and healing. Is Jesus recognisable in me? Why do some get healed and others (far too many others) not? This was something we touched on in out evening 'Thinking Theologically' service last night where we have been considering the issues of suffering, good and evil and the whole area that is theodicy (the very word casts chills into the hearts of some). We've done Epicurus and logical considerations for evil and suffering and all that when someones told how they found the very thought of praying for people to be healed to be 'tough'.

If where we go, the kingdom of God goes also (basileia) as the Holy Spirit (the homo ousious) is with and within, then we should be recognised and we should also see healing.

As a response to this we're about to start looking at healing, what it is, how much to expect and how we bring it into being a reality in our own experience and the community we serve.

Is it about the expectancy of those who brought the sick, the sick themselves or just about who Jesus is?

I'll let you know! (or better still, perhaps you could tell me - I need all the help I can get)

Pax

So this woman comes up to me and says . .

"I've heard two of your sermons, one last year and today's and they were great!'

"Don't come next year, I've only got two sermons," was my response! Oh how we laughed!

But seriously, one of the biggest curses is the 'nice' sermon. You study the passages, consider the situation in which they were set and the underlying cultural and social background and then try to bring something sound, fresh, and most of all, relevant, to the proceedings. Then up comes someone who can only say, "That was nice!". It's about being entertained and the sermon slot filled. Wearing another hat, a member of one church told me they were moving to another congregation because the sermons were always about money or doing things! Tough, but necessary subjects, but perhaps with the wrong focus or emphasis (or perhaps just too long?).

A friend is complaining because they have a new minister who preaches for almost ten minutes each Sunday. Concerned about the content or the scholarship, the direction the sermon was intended to take them? No! Concerned about the fact that the previous incumbent never did more than five minutes and there is linch to think about (isn't that what sermons are for - meal planning?).

When I was a young Christian we all took notebooks and scribbled furiously during the sermons, especially when it was St Helen's and Dick Lucas was preaching. It was what we did. Later when I was in the Pentecostal side of life, we also took notes and had our own Bible too! We made notes and discussed what we had heard, examining the words and wondering how they might relate, or how far from the mark, the wordswere.

These days it seems that the majority carry neither notebooks or Bibles and the words pass through, like trains at a disused station, noted but rarely remembered.

Now the service in question today was a civic service and I was grateful that so many were there to hear the Gospel, especially as for many it would have been an extra service added to Christmas and (possibly)Easter. It made me realise the privileged task we have to feed those who might otherwise never come into the building and also how when they hear, they are touched and find that the words 'make sense'.

More reason we should be taking it outside to feed the hungry.

Pax

ps. Just found this - hadn't posted, got stuck as an 'edit'

5 Before Lent

Been thinking about the Gospel tomorrow (Matthew 5: 13 - 20) and having had the Godspell song running through mind on and off all week because of it, thought I'd just read it before turning in for an early night:

"You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. You are the light of the world.
A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Do not think that I have come to abolish qthe Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Hallelujah for God's Word - always comes in at the right time and lifts you up.

Even the collect is a winner:

God of our salvation,
Help us to turn away from those habits which harm our bodies and poison our minds
And to choose again your gift of life, revealed to us in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.

Fruit goes fourth!

Here's what I thought might be a simple one, but going by the responses so far, perhaps not!

Lady comes to the door wanting a baptism for one of her kids. She has a few of them, each has a different father and it appears that she is pregnant again. (turns out it's a different father from any of the others).

What do you do?
Tell her she needs to do course and attend for six months.
I know a minister who does this as it's a sure fire way to get the person enquiring to look elsewhere. If all else fail, include a baptism course and a few other hurdles and they are sure to vanish for ever.

But if we do this then any chance of engaging and building a relationship with the person and their family has gone. Any hope of bringing some acceptance and engagement on behalf of the Church, and hopefully therefore God, has gone.

Tell her I can't baptise the child because baptism requires 'true repentance on the part of the candidate'.
I've recently been told of a minister who hasn't baptised a child fro years on this basis! But of course if paedobaptism is good enough for the early Church . . .

A good starter for a group discussion this, will give it a try some time soon!

Shrug and give her a date to suit her.
If we do have clergy who do this, is it any wonder that we have so many people troubled by padeobaptism?

Engage and look at building a relationship to address the many spitiual, moral and practical issues before me - looking to be a friend?
I think this is what I did. My response was to invite her in and tell her that of course we'd be happy to do a christening (that's what they call baptism). We had the usual surprise that it was free and then we began to chat about the family and the journey that brought her to the church door. Step by step - no condemnation, just a willingness to dialogue. Why does she want the child baptised? What does baptism mean?

We can't ask if we don't engage, can we?

The engagements thus far are all contentious and potentially crisis-ridden. If we engage with integrity, honesty and love we can at least find a place where peace might be found and unity, even if it is perhaps a little tense at times, becomes a reality.

I hope the posts have served to help with the thinking of those who read and helped shaped their engagements, even if we differ theologically or otherwise.

Thank you for you for your comments - all are valued, even when I might disagree.

Pax

Fruity and three

Today's issue deals with an approach by a man who 'has a calling'. He's a member of another church in the area and lives with a woman. They're not married and have no intention of it. He comes to ask my opinion about his domestic situation in the hope that the CofE wouldn't be bothered about it and would train him?

So what's the way forward with this one I wonder?

Do I explain that the CofE is not an 'anything goes' organisation and tell him to go and sin no more?
Of course, for me the first thing to explain was that one of the biggies when it comes to the Christian life is that of being in a position whereby one was playing by the Book! The fact that he was in a relationship with another person, albeit a woman, didn't change the fact that celibacy until marriage was the rule. He wasn't married and he wasn't celibate and therefore he fell at the very first hurdle! So the ball was in his court really.

He pointed out that this was a long-term relationship and felt that to be celibate would damage this and to move out would break the relationship. I asked why they didn't want to get married and the response was that they 'just didn't', it was a choice!

After some discussion he felt that it probably wouldn't be a problem in the CofE as his domestic arrangements weren't part of the 'calling', it was about God and Him. I had to explain that there had to be clear evidence of calling and the way one lived was part of the discernment of a call. I also had to explain that just popping in from another firm and expecting the CofE to send them off to college was a bit of a non-starter! He'd no track record with the CofE so why expect them to fund his training. His response was that this was what he'd been told the CofE did, pay for people to train.

I again had to explain that the living arrangements weren't satisfactory and that not being a Anglican would make make things difficult from the beginning. I asked why he wanted to be an Anglican and the bottom line was that he wanted to go to college and was told that we'd pay!

He left as sad and disillusioned man, especially when I told him that a couple of years with us and a wedding ring would start to put things on the right track to help test his calling. Don't think I'll be seeing him again.

Do I tell him that he'd be ok as long as he keeps his domestics to himself?
I sat in a Potty training session a few years back where a chap from Church House told us that if we were homosexual we didn't have to put it on any application forms and not only that, it was out of order for bishops to ask about it when interviewing.

Keep you 'arrangements' to yourself and things will be fine, they have no right to be told or ask. better still, the man continued, those who oppose women are obvious and so we can identify them and weed them out so that eventually they will be gone - no place for people like them in the Church of England! (Perhaps he's the founder of the ordinariate?) The same when for evangelicals who opposed homosexuality and other stuff that cramped the style and liberty of those in church, for they also always put their heads above the parapet.

My advice is that plain and transparent is always a good way forward, stops worrying at night about what people might know and how they might one day reveal it. The Oscar Wilde, "Flee, all is discovered!" telegram springs to mind here!

Do I start to outline how we test calling and explain that his home situation presents a problem which needs to be addressed regardless.
Of course I do! There's four states of sexual activity: Married (male/female), unmarried (and celibate), unmarried (and engaged in fornication i.e. not celibate) and adulterous (married but sexually engaged with someone outside the marriage relationship of either, or both, parties).

It's pretty simple, always has been and always will be really!

Outside of this there are the various ways that we personally test a calling on our life and the way that we offer ourselves to, and are tested by the wider Church. Living Biblically is a start on this road of discovery.

Do I tell him to leave his 'other half', and their kids for the sake of his eternal soul?
Many out there would say a big 'yes' to this and it is one of the tough questions that we encounter from time to time. We don't want to split families and yet we'd be wrong to merely look the other way to maintain the atatus quo. For my part, I'd rather engage with the person and from a developing relationship with them seek to lead them, rather than demand or condemn, them into the place that they should, biblically, be. It is, after all at the end of the day, their decision and they have the freedom to act as they please - that's the way it was set up. We choose how we act and whether or not we act regardless of the setting!

This, of course, brings us back to restoring gently and lots of not judging lest we are judged and myriad numbers of splinters and beams in the eyes stuff!

Do I tell him to talk to his pastor and/or contact him to ask him to talk to this bloke and sort him out?
The reality is that the man is a member of another church and therefore unless he asks me to work with him he's under the pastoral care and authority of someone else. If he does ask me, I'd have to contact his pastor as a matter of courtesy. I would of course tell the bloke that I would have to speak to his pastor and ask his permission. If it's not forthcoming then I couldn't act.

Asking the chap's pastor to get involved is a potentially difficult thing to do, after all he's apparently comfortable with the bloke living in a wrong relationship, but I might try to find out what his 9and other people's) take on the situation is so that at least I might pray intelligently and perhaps discuss it should the opportunity ever naturally arise.

I find the big problem with this area is that many have no issues because it's heterosexual sin which almost sanitises or leads people to ignore it. But of course just as homosexuality is not the defining sin, neither can anything involving heterosexuality become the the invisible sin.

Is it me, or do many people who claim to be Christian live in a world where as long as they don't know, they aren't troubled? Is it more or do many not want to know so the previous sentence can apply?

Pax

ps. We will also need to consider the issue of 'calling' at time, but we have time. Thank you for those who are engaging with me - I'm happy to consider other viewpoints and dialogue.

Fruity second thoughts too!

Now I knew that when I posted the 'fruity' thoughts that I would be treading where some might fear to tread, but also know that unless we dialogue and understand how others would deal with an issue then we have no comparatives or remedies against our own methods of engagement. After all, the object is not to be prescriptive but to engage in a dialectical discourse. Seems this goal might be achieved.

An area for a later revisit surrounds the issue of homosexuality being a choice, but that's for another time.

What is interesting is that I, like all pastors, clergy, ministers of leaders represent the communities they serve (and are themselves part of). This raises an interesting point, made thus:
"Whether this man and his partner would be welcome in the building depends not only on you but the reaction of other members of the church community. How do you go about ensuring that any welcome you personally may give is as widespread as possible within your congregation?"

This is an extremely valid question and one which I feel may be different from congregation to congregation. One congregation I know would be split into three distinct groups, those vehemently opposed, those passionately for and a larger muddied and either ambivalent or even apathetic centre.

There is a potential issue always lurking in the background in that what the dog-collar believes or promotes has the potential to be at variance with the congregation (and of course, vice vera) and I think that this is best dealt with by transparency and by cross-fertilisation between dog-collar and congregation. My goal is to lead the people such that they grow as disciples and that we have the same DNA as me. My opinions and ideas are tempered, developed and matured by the people I seek to serve. If it works as it should then we have the unity that Church should be. The journey to this requires loads of listening and dialogue. It needs loads of respect and tolerance, especially with some of the tosh that is thrown up (often from the dog-collar as well as the members!) and loads of prayer, study, teaching and love. If we did this locally, nationally and globally we would find that even though we had areas of difference, we could at least share where we can and not act so awfully where we can't.

It's about respect, love, looking and being like Jesus and celebrating Christ in the other person.

I hope that makes sense and perhaps takes us forward a bit. It's not easy, but it is doable.

Moving on, we have:

"I am unsure how widely this aspect has been thought through, but I am aware of differing views in my own parish. Unfortunately, there is no half-way house here. It seems to me that we need to welcome all, without judgment and allow them to be Christians in the light of Christ.

I don't believe that anyone is asked to agree with another's lifestyle or sexual orientation, rather to accept people for who they are. It just seems wrong to me to condemn or to turn away anyone who comes to the Lord's house."

The answer is that it has been quite widely thought through but my attitude is to be always willing to consider and think through more than I have! Dialogue with me!

I don't want a half-way house. I don't think the 'Let's just agree to differ' approach does anything except fuel schism and dissent and worse still, the awful distrust that so debilitates the Anglican Communion as it stands today. Christ died for all and therefore all may come to Him. Anyone who calls themselves Christian and restricts God's grace to the few that they consider to be acceptable choose only those who are acceptable to them, choosing to speak for God. My approach has to be what does the Bible say (in the light of the 39 Articles perhaps as clarification of our doctrinal bits) about the situation?

The difficulty comes when we start to engage with others and find that they have an area which denies that which God commands. The pain is that for so many this is about sexual sin and homosexuality in particular, but of course (as I keep saying) this is not the defining issue. We are concerned with sin it all its poverty and undermining glory!

I would have to take a differing view in that those who are not against something may very quickly find themselves consider to be for it! That I oppose a number of things in the lives of those in, as an example, the fellowship I am a member of, is only to be expected. That one of those with whom I have problems is me should be a certainty and my greatest area of conflict. Sadly this is not always the case, splinters and beams! We need to engage in relationship with those around us. If we do this then we see people who sin rather that sin with people attached.

the key comes in that it is the enemy (the devil, satan, whatever you'd like to call him) who is the accuser of the brethren. It is he who condemns and therefore is we do the same can we claim to be children of the light? Don't think so!

Regardless, I don't think I could turn away someone because of what they'd done (I've included paedophiles and others elsewhere despite criticism) because sin is merely a binary state, '1' or '0' and we all have the switch set to '1'!

I am in a very blessed and wonderful position in that we are a small fellowship (phone box almost full now) and we are a close-knit family. I know this is not the same for others - but I am only speaking from where I am and will benefit from hearing the accounts, and views, of others in disimilar situation and realities.

That's the first couple engaged with. I'm (obviously) not an expert, merely someone trying to dialogue and also stimulate some of the people I engage with outside of cyberworld to challenge their thinking with regard to pastoral engagements and personal opinions.

Thanks to RevSimmy and UKViewer for helping me move the dialogue forward.

Pax

(more soon)

Fruity Answers - A Second Thought!

Having started to consider some pastoral engagements and the ways we might respond, here's the second scenario for us to consider:

I am approached by a man who informs me that he and his partner are hopefully moving in to the area and wondered whether they'd find a welcoming place within our building. His partner is another man!

Do I tell him that he and his partner are going to burn in hell and leave in case I catch a dose of homosexuality?
I do understand that this is the method of choice for a fair number of people. It works better if you can perhaps have a placard with 'God hates Gays', and a megaphone, close to hand so that the point can really be made forcefully. After all, we are called to be watchmen and at the end of the day it's only 'being right' that matters, not being 'righteous'.
I don't know the bloke and if I haven't found out and at least gained some idea about him (them) and he (them) a bit about me, what he actually have is the potential for a shouting match and polarised positions doing the talking (shouting) for us.

Do I tell him I don't consider homosexuality to be a compatible Christian lifestyle but also explain that he's a brother and that was the place we needed, honestly and in dialogue, to work from?
Indeed I do, but it was not the first thing I did! It would be wrong for me to pretend that I supported the relationship for this would be hypocrisy at one extreme and weak, and unbiblical, at the other! But it would have been wrong to open dialogue in any way other than to say he (they) would of course be welcome.

One of the things that we appear often to fail to do is seek or celebrate the image of God in others and instead look for that which separates rather than that which unites. This, like withholding Communion, serves only to make a point and keep the 'religious' pure, just like the Pharisees of Jesus' time. Homosexuality, if I understand it correctly, is not contagious nor genetic but is a choice and so I will deal with it as such. After all, what of those who choose other things, do I exclude them?

Do I tell him he's welcome but 'no communion for you'?
Aha, the parody of Seinfeld's tragic,"No soup for you!" 'Soup Nazi'! I'm not sure who this damages most, but my money is on those who refuse rather than the refused person. Not only that, if people want to play the 'victim' card, this act of refusal (like ejection) is a real winner in the garnering of the 'sympathy vote and actually hardens support for the liberals rather than solidify opinion against!

Another aid here are the lyrics of an old song:

"It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it - That's what gets results!"

Do I, looking to avoid conflict, merely smile and say nothing?
In this response we find plentiful supplies of the principal road-building material for the highway to hell, that is 'good intentions!'

We are called to let our 'yes' be 'yes' and our 'no' be 'no'. If we don't agree we should say so and dialogue, correct or be corrected. Silence is for cowards (I do accept that is the 'time and places' consideration here) and those who consistently disagree but smile and remain silent need to join the rest of the hypocrites and weak-kneed individuals in their local ecumenical gatherings! We seek unity but we do so honestly - with differences understood and lived with.

Phew, this is one of the 'difficult' issues because there's more politics and a fair deal of what appears to be, to be blunt, entrapment and engagement of a duplicitous kind apparent (or of course, because it's entrapment,not apparent!). If we respond honestly and without malice or nastiness then we live by our conscience, maintain our integrity and honour God (the most important bit!).

Wise as . . . . Gentle as . . .

No one ever said the role of Christian was an easy one to take on. Taking up our Cross and following Christ is always a challenge(and a joy).

Pax