Women and Episcopacy–A Personal View

The General Synod’s vote against the legislation that would allow consecration of women to the episcopate is hugely disappointing. I am very saddened that our Church will now be held up to ridicule and scorn by the wider society and I am alarmed that women who serve the church as clergy feel that this decision undervalues their contributions. There are things to be said, for when we depend on secular media to filter the news we only get an edited version.

We must recognise that the ‘vote against’ was not primarily a vote against women bishops but a vote against women bishops this way. Many, if not most, of the opponents to this measure recognise that the Church has already decided to consecrate women bishops and it will happen – but want some measure of safeguarding of their traditional position. The real issue has been around the provision of  ‘alternative episcopal oversight’ on terms acceptable to those who cannot accept the oversight of a woman (or a man consecrated by a woman) and acceptable to those who do not want to diminish the authority of the women bishops (or those consecrated by women).

This is not a vote against the quality of ministry that women offer – whether ordained or lay. This vote is not directly saying anything about the strength of women’s ministry or the courage they have had to minister in a male dominated organisation. I have served in staff teams with women, and collaborated closely with other women clergy. It would be foolish to deny that women such as these have not enriched the ministry of the Church bringing distinctive experiences and their own particular strengths.

It is clear to me that those gifted by God for any ministry should serve in the capacities enabled by their gift, and human arrangements should facilitate their service and provide them the opportunities to serve. The Church should be asking (and is) how can (women) best minister – and in the case of episcopacy, making arrangements for that to happen. (For it is undoubtedly true that women can be able and successful leaders.)

It is also clear to me that the language of rights and equality is not sufficient to create a proper understanding of leadership in the church. This should not be the main consideration. In the NT we are obliged to serve – arising out of the grace (gifts) given to us. If we use too quickly the language of rights and equality we are in danger of using a primarily secular model and reducing leadership in the body of Christ to a level that omits God’s grace-giving and power.

We must recognise that this vote was the outcome of a democratic process. It is of course baffling that when 42 out of 44 dioceses voted for the measure, it was defeated by a slim majority in one of the three houses of General Synod. On the other hand it is odd that preliminary stages go through on a simple majority but that the final vote has to be a 2/3 majority in the General Synod.
But nevertheless clergy and laity synod members were only elected in 2010; in most of the candidates’ election material were references to his/her position re women bishops. The hesitant movement towards the final vote on 20 November began when Deanery Synod members elected this General Synod. We may find that voting against this legislation the Synod was voting against its existence again, in this form.

There are some who have lost patience with trying to accommodate the refusniks – and have only grudgingly given ground, preferring a simpler ‘one size fits all’ solution and ‘out with the rest’. The Archbishops and the House of Bishops, I believe, took the bolder path of trying to accommodate the different traditions. However they have not been able to find a solution that provided enough for everyone. It remains to be seen whether there is yet another configuration that will fit the bill. There may come a time when it is clearer that not everyone can be accommodated. But make no mistake the Church is definitely, if slowly, moving forward to consecrating women as bishops. This will happen.

In the meantime let us continue to pray for women clergy feeling under-valued ... and the House of Bishops and the Archbishops as they listen to the Spirit and seek to lead the Church forward.

Why should I bother with church? (Pt 2)

 
In the last edition of the Parish Link I began to answer the question ‘Why bother with church?’ I suggested that one of the reasons we go to church is for a spiritual experience or a rich moment. While it is true that we might experience something ‘spiritual’ in a variety of places, if it is an encounter with God we are looking for, the most obvious and tested routes are reading the Bible and praying, public worship and the sacraments, and conversation with other believers.
However I think we go to church not simply to meet with God. Meeting with the church family, praying, and learning together are means by which we are moulded and transformed.

Gathering

When the church meets for worship it also meets together. All ages and backgrounds gather together as one people. Churches can be divided it is true. But as often they are like the rainbow nation that Nelson Mandela dreamed of. In my experience there are very few places in society in which people choose to be together but are more mixed than a local congregation. But we are also reminded of those who are not with us. Some have died, some are sick, some have never been invited. When the church is truest to itself it is not self-absorbed but concerned for others. Week by week we learn this together.

Confessing

In our worship services we pause and admit our failings and faults. We make confession; knowing that we have sinned but may be forgiven. So regularly we face up to our pride, our selfishness, our lust, our weaknesses. But we can face them knowing that God will cleanse and heal us. Dare we do that outside God's loving relationship?

Listening

We listen to God's Word in Scripture; we stop our own thinking and try and absorb some new truth. It is often said learning is lifelong. Week by week we are opening ourselves up to new thoughts and to a deeper understanding of ourselves and to revelation from above. There is no place for a know-it-all in church there is always more to learn.

Interceding

When we pray well we're thinking deeply about other people's needs and God's mercy. Our concern and love can touch people well beyond our reach. We maintain connections with the long-running and unresolved situations in the world and in people's lives. We learn patience and  perseverance.

Sharing peace

Being close to other people is not always easy. But Jesus taught us to make peace. Whenever we look into someone's eyes and say the liturgical words ‘Peace be with you’ we have to mean it. We have to forgive. We have to begin again.

Sharing communion

At every communion service we stand (or kneel together) and receive. It is very hard to many people to receive-we'd much rather be the givers. But around the communion table we are all the same. We simply receive. We learn to be humble together.

Being sent out

At the end of worship we are commissioned afresh for service. Worship is an end in itself. But it is not the end of our life. What we have received we must share. And so deliberately, we are told to ‘go out into the world to love and to serve the Lord’. Our life is not all about us – it is about what we can do for God and for others.
So ‘going to church’ re-makes us. It is like a gymnasium for the spirit. We don't expect physical exercise to be easy; it is the the resistance that builds fitness. So we should expect church to be tough at times, it may be that God will use it to change our hearts.

Why should I bother with church? (Pt 1)

At a recent a ‘Question Time’ panel discussion at St Mary’s someone asked ‘if I can experience God more fully or more frequently in other places (such as at a concert or on a country walk) why go to church or encourage other people to do so?’

I would like to address this question in two parts:

1. The purposes of going to Church beyond an encounter with God
2. A Biblical perspective on spiritual experiences

… and I am going tackle these subjects in reverse order (Part 2 comes at Christmas!)

What is a Spiritual Experience?

The Alister Hardy Society has been in the forefront of collecting stories of spiritual or religious experiences. The Chair of the Society, Jonathan Robinson wrote: ‘I do not believe we should attempt to define the word ‘spiritual. Practically every person will give a different description of what they feel the word ‘spiritual’ means.’ This might be true but it is rather frustrating!

William James attempted to outline some characteristics of religious experiences; he suggested they were transient, insightful and accidental… and indescribable. I offer the simple phrase rich moments: we are aware of being taken out of ourselves, or of the sense of another presence, or of a deeper appreciation of the world around us, or being moved within ourselves. Something deeper happens in or to us that we did not begin.

Alister Hardy began to collect stories of such rich moments. He believed that most people have spiritual experiences – although they might not often talk about them. Some occur in religious contexts – worship (including music and dancing), prayer and meditation – but others altogether elsewhere such as in the rock concert or mountainside walk.

Is every Spiritual Experience an Encounter with God?

While I would want to include a great number of these rich moments as points at which we somehow touch God (or he touches us) – it cannot be that every experience is genuinely an encounter with the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. In particular there are numerous occasions when people have contrived experiences, trying to conjure up God: Henry James for example took various drugs to induce a ‘spiritual state.’

But the Bible teaches that everyone is touched by God – “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen…” Romans 1:20. A Godly rich moment is a point of connection. But we should be asking of the feeling of connection – ‘is this the living God’?

How might we seek God?

By God’s grace he is looking for us and we can meet him, often unexpectedly. We sense that thrill, or movement of our spirit that is his touch.

But it is also by his grace, that we have been provided with established situations in which we are more likely to be quickened spiritually, and more certain that it is him we are encountering. The most obvious and tested:

• reflecting on the Bible, and personal prayer
• public worship, Christian teaching, and Holy Communion
• conversation and prayer with other believers

So I would encourage everyone to look for God’s presence in their world, but to build their lives around the core spiritual ‘times and places’, I have mentioned above.

But we need to be humble; God will speak or act when he chooses. We cannot manipulate him. So it may be that there are times when our religious life seems less promising.

At those times we need to know that there is more to being part of the church than encountering God. Then we will continue for other reasons…

How does God be alive to start with?

So asked Jamie (aged 4) when we held an Any Questions session.

Dear Jamie

Thank you for your question ‘How does God be alive to start with?’ I have been thinking since you asked me about how to give you a clearer answer.

I would like you to imagine you are a domino like this!

All dominoes come in sets. People can play the game Dominoes but often they stand them on their end in a row. If one domino falls onto the next, then that one falls down, and so they all fall down one by one.

I hope you can imagine being a domino – in ‘Domino World’. All you know about is how dominoes live. Being a wise domino you are quite sure that if a domino stand on its end – it will stay that way – unless something or someone causes it to wobble (the wind, a finger, another domino…). You are quite sure that if a domino falls over it has been pushed by something else.

This is how life is like in the real human world. If a car moves it is because petrol is being burned, if a book falls down when dropped it is the earth’s gravity pulling it, if there’s a picture on the TV it is because there is electricity going into the set. And the same seems to be true for life – animals and plants have animal and plant parents. So I suppose that’s why people ask ‘Who made God?’ or ‘Where does God get his life from?’ They are asking the question ‘if there is always something that causes an effect – what caused God’?

Let’s go back to ‘Domino World’. Imagine you were a wise domino and you saw a row of dominoes in front of you: there are so many that you cannot see the beginning of the line or end the end of it. They would all be standing upright, not moving at all. Then off in the distance you see them falling down, and one knocks down another; you see them all fall one by one- as far as your eyes can see.

Now what would you, a wise domino know?

• 1.      That something had started the dominoes falling down
• 2.      That whatever had started the dominoes falling down, it was not a domino. It was a different kind of thing to a domino, because, remember, dominoes by themselves don’t move.)

Now even a wise domino would probably not be able to explain much about other kinds of things (such as boys!) – but he would know that something quite different him had started the dominoes falling, however many thousands of dominoes were in the line.

Perhaps you can begin how in the same way to see now that a different kind of being to animals and plants had to start our universe going. Of course God is that different kind of being – and he is certainly more different to us, than we are to dominoes. And if God is a different kind of being – then perhaps he has always existed.

So I can’t give a complete answer to your question; but I don’t think that should bother us too much. If God is a wonderful as Jesus taught us, then there will be things about him that we can’t fully explain. But what we do know does make sense.

Two last thoughts:

• ·        carry on asking questions like these. Perhaps you will find a better answer than all the people who have puzzled over these things before us.
• ·        remember that Jesus was the smartest man who ever lived, and that he made sure that he taught us things we really need to know about God: how he made us and loves us like the best parent, and wants to help us live our life to the full, loving God and caring for other people

Thank you again for this question – I hope I have helped you at least a little. 

The Good-enough Good Book?

An interesting article yesterday in the Sunday Times by AC Grayling, trailing his new book ‘The Good Book’ – a humanist bible. There is some Bible-bashing in the first half, and typifying the Biblical God as someone who commits massacres. There is also a little envy – yes, the Bible has been inspiring (especially the non-religious bits), well edited and invented chapter and verses. These are the things Grayling will try emulate in his volume.
How should we reply:

• welcome someone who is trying to raise the tone of humanist discourse?
• remember that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?
• feel that someone else is stealing our best lines?

In the second half Grayling lays out his creed, his 10 Commandments and his Lord’s Prayer. It all very urbane and high-minded, e.g. the ‘prayer’ O Friends, lets us always be true to ourselves and to the best things, so that we can always be true to one another.’
I ask:

• is this for the ‘ordinary person’? ‘We must take full responsibility for ourselves and aim to live with personal nobility.’ Well yes, but try telling that to Jamie Oliver’s Dream School-ers and see how you get on, Professor.
• is this all about will-power ‘we must seek self-mastery’? How does that happen?
• is there any place in this system for objective morality? What does ‘be true to ourselves’ really mean?

But I also think for the church that :

• we shouldn’t see the best wisdom of the secularists as necessarily dubious. From a doctrine of God’s image in humanity, flows a presumption that truth is everywhere. There are co-belligerants against materialism, and selfishness.
• we need to take up the challenge to respond in action. Not just talk about God (Grayling would not give any ground in philosophical debate). No we should be demonstrating that our gospel is to everyone’s advantage, that it doesn’t result in crippling guilt (‘was I true to myself today?’) but in the atmosphere of divine love and affirmation truly is freeing. We believe that the Spirit is working inside us, changing who we are – why isn’t that more obviously true?
• and of course we need to teach the Bible in a way that leads people to respect it, to see deeper into its depths and find more than their best ideas reflected back.

A Story for Mothering Sunday

Hannah Prays For A Son (1 Samuel 1 & 2)

In the time before Kings in Israel there lived Elkanah - a proud man. He was proud of his family tree – he could trace it back to his great, great grandfather.

But Elkanah was particularly proud of his family– he had lots of children – perhaps as many as ten. He loved to hear them play outside in the yard; he watched them grow with amazement. And he looked forward to the time, when he was older and they would look after him. He knew that God had blessed him.
Elkanah was proud of his wives too – yes that’s right he had two wives. That was how it was in those days. And as we shall see – that is not the way to peace and happiness.

Elkanah had married Grace first. He loved Grace and he loved her name – Grace – God’s kindness (Hannah in the Hebrew language.) For Elkanah served God faithfully. He knew God had given him this wife, he didn’t deserve her– Grace indeed. He knew that God had blessed him.

And as I said – there is another wife. We will call her Pearl, for that is what her name means. It must be hard to always be second. Pearl often thought of herself as Number 2 wife. But there was one way that she came first – before Grace. Pearl had children – perhaps as many as 10, and Grace had, well… none. And that was Pearl’s chance to point out who was best. She lost no opportunity to show off her children.

‘Look at Simeon – see how he looks like his father.’
‘Whew, kids are hard work aren’t they? – O you wouldn’t know would you?!’
'What a great Mother and Daughter time we had shopping at the market – whoops!’

Mothering Sunday was not easy either.

Pearl knew that God had blessed her and reminded Grace every day she was childless. And Grace began to wonder about her name – God’s kindness – perhaps God had forgotten her, he certainly was not very kind. Everyday a little more hope died inside her.

The worst times were the pilgrimages to God’s House in Shiloh. It was not far – just 20 miles. But it was another extra-special chance for Pearl to be nasty. All the family would go –all the family – the adults and the , teenagers, children, toddlers and babies – all Pearl’s children, every year a new baby – and there would be a big meal for everyone after the sacrifice. Eating meat was a rare thing among these people – so this was always a special feast. But that wasn’t the really bad part for Grace– it was Elkanah – every year he did the same stupid thing.

He wanted all the family to be happy, he was proud of his family. And he loved Grace (perhaps he loved her more than Pearl – which was perhaps easy to do). And he knew that she was sad not having children of her own. And he wanted to cheer her up. So every year when he carved the joint for the family meal at the festival – he gave her the best cut – ‘to make it alright.’ Which it did not. Grace was so upset she could never eat anything at all. One year he even said ‘Don’t cry – I’m such a great husband – better than even 10 sons!’ What an idiot.

So this time after the meal – she could only watch the others eat and drink – she walked out. Her heart was breaking. What use was it being called Grace – if God was not kind? And so she slipped into the courtyard of God’s house.

And there she poured out all the sadness and hurt in a long, long prayer. She wept, and rocked backwards and forwards. She held nothing back. That is the kind of prayer that God loves to hear. It was good to get it all out –she said under her breath ‘LORD All-Powerful, I am your servant, but I am so miserable! Please let me have a son. I will give him to you for as long as he lives.’ And she carried on and had a good long talk with the LORD.

Now she was not the only one out late that night. Sitting by the door was the old priest Eli (he had problems with his children – but that is another story.) Perhaps he was there praying, perhaps he was having a nap, but certainly he was on guard – with all the folk celebrating the festival sometimes things could get out of hand… So he sees a woman, talking silently, muttering, and weeping – and he recognises a drunken reveller. “How long are you going to stay drunk?” he asked. “Sober up!”

Sir, please don’t think I’m no good!” Grace answered. “I’m not drunk, and I haven’t been drinking. But I do feel miserable and terribly upset. I’ve been praying all this time, telling the LORD about my problems.”
And then Eli knew what he had to say: “You may go home now and stop worrying. I’m sure the God of Israel will answer your prayer.” And do you know she believed him?

And the LORD did remember Grace – and she became pregnant. Before the next festival Elkanah had another brand new baby son and Grace was the proud mum. She called him ‘God listened’ or as we would say - Samuel. Pearl still had several buggy-fuls of kids but just one Samuel made all the difference – Grace knew that God was kind.

She didn’t take Samuel to the festival that year. He was too small, and Grace wasn’t ready. She knew that when she took him to House of God, she would leave him. But the next time the family went up, when he did not need her milk, Grace lead him into the House of God and found old Eli, the priest.
“Do you remember me sir – I was here before – I was praying and you spoke to me? I prayed for this child, and the Lord remembered me, and gave me what I wanted. So now I give him back. His whole life will be given over to the Lord.”

And so Samuel grew up with Eli (and his scoundrel sons – but that is another story…). His mum of course did not forget him, and every year when the family visited the House of the Lord, she came and looked for him. And every year Grace left a coat for him, a little larger each time as he grew. So every day when he put it on he would remember how she told how he was given his name: ‘Samuel – my name means ‘God’s kindness’ and yours means ‘God listens’ – I know now that it is true. Always remember – God is kind, God listens.’

Love Wins-or does it?

Just finished the Rob Bell book.  You don't get many pages for £12! His usual punchy prose, short sentences, white space; he writes how he speaks.
Is Bell an universalist? Probably not in the final analysis. He clearly takes an inclusive approach, and loves to trot out comprehensive statements of salvation-and so he should. But although he speaks about how God's omnipotence ought not to be defeated he expressly says that people can reject the divine love. Bell uses Revelation 21 to make the point that if we won't be separated from Sin we face exclusion.
For a English/Anglican/evangelical there will be little new here. Tom Wright, Steve Chalke and others have been over this ground before. I would like a more co-ordinated apologia: e.g. Chalke is better on the Old Testament. Where is the Spirit? Or the Church? But I guess he was going for the big Last Things.
Unresolved for me-does he really hope for second or third chances (rather than a final judgement, tempered with grace and mercy?) What is the place of pre-venient grace and/or can we turn to God ourselves? Is this treatment of the Cross sufficient (an elegant variation of 'models')? And of course absence of  'in Christ'. Final puzzle is that while Love wins, God does not. Can that be right?