For evil to triumph ...

... it is only necessary that you don’t look up the source of a quote.

How often have you used these words of Edmund Burke, or something similar: “For evil to triumph, it is only necessary that good men do nothing?”

If you’re PC enough, you may have changed ‘men’ to ‘people’, but hey, you’re close enough to what Burke said, aren’t you? And everyone knows he was right —right?

Except that if this 2002 essay by a chap called Martin Porter is correct, Burke never said it at all —indeed, never even came close to saying it.

I stumbled across it when I wanted to ‘quote’ Burke myself, and decided I just needed the reference. But as hard as I looked, I couldn’t find one. Then I discovered Mr Porter’s page, and he seems to explain why. (The follow-up essay is also well-worth reading, and I was intrigued to find Mr Porter has also devised his own online Bible concordance, as well as a few other things.) It is a fascinating case of everyone feeding off everyone else. I have even found the Burke misquote with which Porter begins his essay used as a quote in other online material by people who apparently don’t realize it is taken out of context.

The reason I think this is worth pointing out, however, is Porter’s final comments (after giving a truly exhaustive list of the variations on ‘pseudo-Burke’):

Burke will use the words ‘good’ and ‘evil’, but he never reduces politics to the primitive level of describing his side as the good people and his opponents as the forces of evil they have to combat. In the pseudo-quote you do get the feeling of Buzz Lightyear, and the other good men of Star Command, fighting the evil Emperor Zurg, sworn enemy of the Galactic Alliance. And despite appearing to be precise, the exact meaning is not altogether clear. Are the men good in an absolute sense, or are they being described as good because they see the evil? Can they be described as good if they do nothing? Are not other things necessary for evil to triumph? Some degree of public enthusiasm for the evil, for example?

[...]

The pseudo-quote is therefore without authenticity or meaning, and is just another of those political slogans which are used not as an assistance to, but as a substitute for real thought. It is not a deep truth, although it is constantly treated as one. Burke incidentally hated such things. He thought that cheap political slogans, or ‘maxims’ as he called them, enabled politicians to invoke principles of expediency, so they could pursue their own selfish interests instead of fulfilling their obligations to country, party and people. To him they were quite distinct from the deeps truths, or as he calls them ... ‘first principles’ [...]. (My emphasis)

Lazy thinking and clichéd sloganizing are, I think, ‘evils’, evident, for example, in camps run by adults for children which claim to teach them ‘critical thinking’ by comparing the existence of God with invisible unicorns (it’s called ‘begging the question’, by the way). They are evils because they keep us from the truth, and whereas the truth does, indeed, set us free (John 8:32), falsehood, especially when knowingly perpetrated by those in power, is a form of captivity.

Learning to think for yourself is an empowering thing. But even here, modern society errs, for what is commonly regarded as ‘thinking for yourself’ is generally nothing more than ‘valuing your own opinion’ —and, of course, one of the laziest examples of uncritical thinking is the slogan, “Everyone is entitled to their opinion.” They are not.

By the way, I would recommend you go and read the bits of the quote from Porter I’ve left out!

John Richardson
31 July 2009

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select the 'Anonymous' profile, then type in a couple of letters, select 'preview', then close the preview box and delete these letters.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

'And for my next trick': why Jesus walked on water

These are the notes from my sermon last Sunday on what, at first glance, is a perplexing miracle. The actual sermon was rather different and more 'vigorous', but this is surely more important than all the Church politics.

Introduction
What is Christianity?

That might seem a bit of an easy question —especially in Church on a Sunday morning. But it isn’t so easy. I was listening to the radio very early this morning and there was a programme on about religion where the guest speaker pretty well rejected the version of Christianity I was brought up on, and which I believe today, for quite another version.

So what is Christianity?

Admiring Jesus
Most people would say it is “about believing in Jesus”. But even that apparently simple answer conceals a lot of problems.

One is what we mean by believing, but the biggest problem is what we mean by Jesus.

There’s a writer for the Guardian newspaper doing a series at the moment on a well-known introduction to Christianity called the Alpha Course. So far, he’s got up to week three out of ten, but his comments on week two are very interesting. Week two is about the historical evidence for Jesus, and this is what he said,

On balance, I think a man called Jesus probably did exist and he formed the basis for Christianity. But I also think that the teachings of the biblical character Jesus are much more interesting, so in some ways I am grateful that we are getting this out of the way in the second week. Surely his words are more important than his fact?

That, I think, is a very common view, especially if I may say so, amongst intellectuals. They’re not too interested in all the supernatural stuff, but they admire Jesus as a spiritual teacher —as a kind of Jewish Mahatma Ghandi.

Jesus’ ‘fact’
It sounds wonderful. The trouble is, it just doesn’t work. Last week, we were looking at Mark 6 and the feeding of the 5,000, and I’d just like to take you back to that passage to highlight something — reading from v 30:

The apostles gathered around Jesus and reported to him all they had done and taught. ³¹ Then, because so many people were coming and going that they did not even have a chance to eat, he said to them, “Come with me by yourselves to a quiet place and get some rest.” ³²So they went away by themselves in a boat to a solitary place. ³³But many who saw them leaving recognized them and ran on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them. ³⁴When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things. ³⁵By this time it was late in the day, so his disciples came to him. “This is a remote place,” they said, “and it’s already very late. ³⁶Send the people away so they can go to the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” ³⁷But he answered, “You give them something to eat.”

Do you notice what is missing there? There is something missing that drives a coach and horses through the idea that Jesus’ teachings are what really matter. V 34 says, “So he began teaching them many things.” V 35 begins, “By this time it was late in the day ...”

Where is the teaching? If our Guardian writer is correct, and Jesus’ “words are more important than his fact”, surely this was a missed opportunity.

What Jesus taught
Actually I have a theory about this, which is that what Jesus was teaching them was basically the Old Testament. We have to remember, this was a culture largely without books. The Bible would have been something people heard read once a week, if that, in the Synagogue.

At the end of Luke’s gospel, after the resurrection, when Jesus was about to send the disciples out to preach about him again, it says this,

... beginning with Moses and all the Prophets [in other words, the Old Testament], he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

It would make sense if in these early days Jesus was laying the groundwork for this.

But notice also how Luke puts it: “he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.”

Walking on water
If this is right, then many of the words of Jesus were about the Old Testament, pointing to himself. Our Guardian writer says, “Surely Jesus’ words are more important than his fact?” Jesus says no, my fact is precisely what matters. Who I am is the key issue.

And that is brought out in the bit of Mark we had read today, and it is very interesting, because frankly, it is a bit embarrassing. Jesus, we are told, sent the disciples back across Lake Galilee, while he went off to pray. Then in v 47 it all gets very awkward for Guardian readers, or for anyone trying to convert them:

When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. ⁴⁸He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake.

Don’t try this at home. I think at this point you have just lost three quarters of a modern audience. It is ridiculous. People cannot walk on water. Worse than that, saying Jesus did walk on water is just going to put people off.

In fact, some years ago there was a fashion for trying to explain away these kind of things. I heard one famous Christian broadcaster suggest there was a sandbar and Jesus was walking on that, so it looked as though he was walking on water.

I’ve also heard it suggested that the miracle of feeding the 5,000 was really the miracle of persuading people to share their food.

Well, forget it. The miracle, if it was a miracle, was that Jesus walked on water. But why would he do that —and why would he make life so difficult for everyone who can’t believe he walked on water?

The glory of God
The answer goes back to Jesus said about the Old Testament —that it pointed to him. And the clue is the last bit of v 48, where Mark says, “[and] He was about to pass by them ...”.

The “and” is very important —it is all one action:

About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake and he was about to pass by them.

Very early on in the Old Testament, the man called Moses asked to see God’s glory —his true character. God told him that he couldn’t, it would be too much for him, but then he said this:

There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. ²²When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. (Ex 33:21-22)

Jesus ‘passing by’ the disciples in the boat, has echoes of God’s glory ‘passing by’ Moses. If this is right, then we must think of what Jesus was doing as showing his glory, just as Moses asked God to show him his glory.

But this might not be very convincing until we ask, “Why did Jesus choose to do this by walking on water?” And if we turn again to the Old Testament, we can see why. In Psalm 77, we read this:

Your ways, O God, are holy. What god is so great as our God? ¹⁴ You are the God who performs miracles; you display your power among the peoples. ¹⁵ With your mighty arm you redeemed your people, the descendants of Jacob and Joseph. ¹⁶ The waters saw you, O God, the waters saw you and writhed; the very depths were convulsed. ¹⁷ The clouds poured down water, the skies resounded with thunder; your arrows flashed back and forth. ¹⁸ Your thunder was heard in the whirlwind, your lightning lit up the world; the earth trembled and quaked. ¹⁹ Your path led through the sea, your way through the mighty waters, though your footprints were not seen.

Remember, the Psalms were Israel’s songbook. And you can imagine how fishermen, like some of the disciples were, would have taken a special interest in Psalms about storms at sea.

Lines like verses 16, 17 and 18 might often have come to mind —and here they were straining at the oars because the wind was against them, when Jesus did what it says about God in v19:

Your path led through the sea, your way through the mighty waters, though your footprints were not seen.

Conclusion
It is so difficult, isn’t it? We want to have Jesus where we can manage him. We want him in a safe box where it is easy to believe in him. We want to be able to admire Jesus as a teacher, and kid ourselves that we follow his teaching.

But you can’t have the Jesus of the Bible and just admire him as a teacher. Or you can —but only if you accept that what he taught was that the Old Testament was about him, and that if you read the Old Testament and compare what it says with what he did, then there is something, or someone, completely amazing here.

Christianity is about believing in Jesus. But not a Jesus who came to teach us to be nice to one another. The Jesus of the Bible is a person who does things that are only done by the God of the Bible.

Believing in Jesus means believing and trusting in that. That, and only that, is what it means to be a Christian.


Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select the 'Anonymous' profile, then type in a couple of letters, select 'preview', then close the preview box and delete these letters.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Hell on wheels: young drivers in rural Britain

Having recently driven past yet another serious accident on the bit of the B1383 that runs through the parish of Ugley, I was not surprised to see my suspicions about road safety in rural areas confirmed by a study produced by researchers at the University of Bristol’s Department of Social Medicine.

What is particularly interesting about this study, imaginatively titled The Grim Reaper’s road map: An atlas of mortality in Britain, is that the results are almost totally ‘counter intuitive’ regarding road safety, whilst at the same time indicating clearly where the greatest problem areas lie.

You would think that road safety became more of an issue the more traffic there was. You would therefore imagine that your chances of becoming a casualty would be greatest in our most dense conurbations. Who would not feel more challenged by the busy streets of London than, say, the open roads of the Pennines?

Actually, the worst place for road deaths in mainland Britain is the north of Scotland. In fact, the Grim Reaper’s map of fatalities is an almost perfect inverse map of urbanization. The more rural the area, the higher the rate of road deaths, whilst some of the safest places to be are almost anywhere inside the M25.

As I have argued previously, the reason for this is simple —within these urban areas, it is very hard to travel fast enough in a car to kill either yourself or anyone else. It can be done, but it is a challenge! By contrast, if you are driving along a typical rural B road at 50mph and cross into the path of someone travelling the other way at the same speed (as someone did recently near the site of the same accident referred to above), you are in serious trouble.

The obvious question this raises is about administrative policy. As anyone who drives in London will tell you, the difficulties of the traffic are elevated to nightmare level by the proliferation of ‘traffic calming’ measures —or as I preferred to call them when I lived there, ‘driver enraging’ measures. Of course, it might be argued that it is precisely these which have created the safer conditions identified by the Bristol study, but for the most part, as a former London driver, I would suggest they had little impact, save on the springs of cars and the patience and backbones of their occupants.

However, the same study also identifies another factor which seems scarcely to be taken into account by public policy, namely that, as Mark Easton from the BBC identifies, “The average age of a road death victim is 36.9, and three-quarters of those who die are men —predominantly in their teens, 20s and 30s” (although the pattern for female road deaths precisely mimics that for males, but at a lower level). It has also been established by studies elsewhere that the chances of a young driver having an accident increase proportionately with the number of passengers.

Yet I know of no official policy or campaign addressing this issue. Safety campaigns and measures address speed and alcohol, and of these, speed is taken the more seriously (you still cannot be stopped and random breath-tested in the UK!)

My own view is that safety campaigns largely miss the point, by addressing legal driving rather than safe driving. The two are not always the same! Moreover, the emphasis is on penalties, not rewards. Thus, for example, the biggest no-claims discounts one can get on motor insurance are typically 60% for five years without a claim. But what if there were a subsidized 90% discount for nine years without a claim, paid for from the road safety budget? Wouldn’t that do something to encourage safer driving, not only by rewarding the individual but by giving safe driving a more public reward?

Equally, couldn’t young drivers (eg under 25) be restricted to carrying only one passenger unless, say, that person is named on their insurance? Thus young people with families could still drive them around, or give a lift to mum and dad, but they wouldn’t be able just to pick up three mates.

Most importantly of all, we need to encourage a culture of good driving, and that is about much more than speed. Above all (dare I say it?), it includes loving other road users as much as you love yourself.

Revd John Richardson
28 July 2009

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select the 'Anonymous' profile, then type in a couple of letters, select 'preview', then close the preview box and delete these letters.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Reflecting on Rowan's reflections on General Convention

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s reflections on the Episcopal Church’s 2009 General Convention, ‘Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future’ make for demanding reading, and not only for their prolixity —but if you have to look up what that means you may want to give the full 2,900 words (longest sentence, 90 words) a miss.

It is perhaps ironic that in a situation frequently described as a crisis, where there is a widespread call on both sides for clarity, the man at the hub is so given to lengthy expression. Nevertheless, there are, I think, three points worth noting from the document as a whole.

First, the Archbishop seems to have accepted the line (strongly advocated by TEC itself) that, “if the wording is studied carefully” (para 1), resolutions DO25 and CO56, on ordinations and blessings, do not mean what they have been widely taken to imply.

The difficulty here, though, as many will recognize, is that it involves detaching the words of the resolutions from the substance of the debate and the context in which they have been put forward. It is as if Nazi Germany’s construction of so-called ‘pocket battleships’ had been greeted by a discussion of the nautical meaning of the word ‘pocket’, rather than an awareness of just what a battleship is for. No doubt, the words of the resolutions may accept an alternative construction, but their meaning may also be read from where we have been in the past, where we are in the present and where it evidently seems we are going in the future.

Secondly, however, these ‘reflections’ seem to have shifted the framework within which the whole issue of human sexuality needs to be discussed within the Anglican Communion, for we now have several references to “the Church Catholic” as something over against the Anglican Communion, of which the Communion has to take full account in its decision-making.

This is not the first time Dr Williams has used this phrase, but it is not, apparently, how he has always thought. In an interview with Paul Handley, he once said that he was an Anglican because “this is the Church Catholic in this place”. That principle, however, sits awkwardly alongside paragraphs 8 and 9 of his reflections, where he says both that,

... a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. (para 8, emphasis added)

and,

So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. (para 9)

adding, in brackets,

There is also an unavoidable difficulty over whether someone belonging to a local church in which practice has been changed in respect of same-sex unions is able to represent the Communion’s voice and perspective in, for example, international ecumenical encounters. (para 9, emphasis added)

This may indicate that Dr Williams has listened to the chief complaint of Forward in Faith in this country, that the real issue is not sexuality but whether the Anglican Communion, let alone a single Province, has the right to come to decisions which are fundamentally at odds with the Church’s received understanding of faith, morality or Order (with a capital ‘O’).

I may be wrong in suggesting this is relatively new, but if it is indeed the case, then it changes the whole debate, for it means that the person ‘chairing’ it has accepted a different set of rules than hitherto.

Thirdly, although Dr Williams remains committed to the Covenant process, in paragraph 22 he talks of “at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance”, which he elaborates as,

... a ‘covenanted’ Anglican global body, fully sharing certain aspects of a vision of how the Church should be and behave, able to take part as a body in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; and, related to this body, but in less formal ways with fewer formal expectations, ... local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with ‘covenanted’ provinces.

This is as close as he comes to admitting ‘schism’. In fact he specifically rejects the word in paragraph 24, describing it as simply “two styles of being Anglican”. Nevertheless, it envisages a future quite unlike the present, resulting from the decisions and actions of TEC and others.

Those of us who believe TEC is schismatic, who basically support ACNA and who are convinced the Covenant is a dead duck should not greet Dr Williams’ statement with automatic scorn. Its length is no more than we would expect from him, and its willingness to see both sides is intrinsic to his own theology. Nevertheless, there must still be a concern that he does not seem to accept the fundamental logic of what must happen when people pull in different directions.

Holding people together in such circumstances, whether by a covenant or by some other convention, may succeed, but it is in principle contrary to the underlying processes. Unless some means may be found by which TEC and others within the Communion can be made to pull in the same direction, then tensions will continue and a split is virtually inevitable.

Revd John P Richardson
27 July 2009

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select the 'Anonymous' profile, then type in a couple of letters, select 'preview', then close the preview box and delete these letters.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

A sign of the end?

Newcastle United suffer humiliating 6-1 defeat to Leyton Orient

Leyton Orient? I knew a Leyton Orient fan once. I think he knew all the others.

It could just be the end, you know.


Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select the 'Anonymous' profile, then type in a couple of letters, select 'preview', then close the preview box and delete these letters.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Bible Overview 3: the historical books (Joshua-2 Kings)

Bible Overview 3 can be downloaded here (this will open a new browser window or tab, the file is about 12mb in mp3 format).

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select the 'Anonymous' profile, then type in a couple of letters, select 'preview', then close the preview box and delete these letters.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Bible Overview 2: Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

You can download Bible Overview 2 here (this will open a new browser window or tab, the file is about 12mb, mp3 format).

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select the 'Anonymous' profile, then type in a couple of letters, select 'preview', then close the preview box and delete these letters.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

What would Jesus teach?

Further to my ponderings on Mark 6:34 last Sunday, I didn’t raise it in the sermon, but we did spend some time in our staff meeting thinking about the last bit of this verse: “So he began to teach them many things.”

As I said previously, I believe that this was how Jesus did for the people what their leaders were failing to do —they were ‘sheep without shepherds’, and so he ‘shepherded’ them by teaching them. And in the process, he began to empower them, as the Church was later to empower people through the gospel.

But surely the question we’d like answered is this: what exactly did Jesus teach? You would have thought that the text would tell us, yet it says absolutely nothing! In fact, the gospels tell us remarkably little about what Jesus taught. There are the parables, there is the Sermon on the Mount (in Matthew) and on the plain (in Luke). But Jesus’ recorded ‘teaching’, especially in Mark, is astonishingly meagre.

If you don’t believe me, try looking at a ‘red letter’ Bible, and you will quickly see that apart from what I have mentioned, Jesus’ teaching is confined almost entirely to a relatively few ad loc comments relating to his person or mission. (Interestingly, one of the few substantial blocks of specific material is about marriage and divorce —yet this is one of the things that the Church has recently tried hardest to ignore.)

Even the epistles are apparently no help. References to ‘what Jesus taught’ are notoriously few and far between. If Jesus’ teaching is ‘the heart of the Christian message’ it would seem we have a problem. Significantly, the lacuna seems to have been exploited by the Gnostics, for it is in the ‘Gnostic Gospels’ that we find the kind of ‘esoteric’ teachings of Jesus for which we might have hoped. Yet when we go to these documents, the teaching is hardly of the kind we associate with the Jesus of the New Testament, and hardly the kind of thing we would want to add to our existing understanding.

Nevertheless, as Mark 6:34 makes clear, Jesus spent a great deal of time teaching the people. So what did he teach them? And why do neither the gospels nor the epistles think it worth recording much of this teaching for us?

In the light of what I said earlier, I want to suggest this: that what Jesus taught the people was nothing other than the Old Testament. What he was doing when he addressed various crowds was the beginnings of what we read that he did with the disciples he later met on the road to Emmaus:

Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory. And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.”

As yet he might not have been applying the Scriptures so openly to himself, but he may well have been raising questions, making connections, and laying the groundwork which could later be exploited by the preaching of the Apostles and first evangelists.

If this seems too little to explain how he drew and held the crowds, I would point to my own experience in the mid-1980s when I was with a group of similar-aged clergy (in our thirties) being addressed by none other than Phillip Jensen, brother of the now-Archbishop Peter Jensen.

In the middle of what he was saying, Phillip stopped and said, “Now to understand the next part of my talk, you have to understand how the Old Testament fits together. You do understand that, don’t you?”

But the truth was, we didn’t. Despite years of theological education (three, in my own case), and as much as a decade for many of us in parish ministry, most of us felt the Old Testament to be hostile territory —somewhere where we might find a lesson or two about social justice, and a verse or two about Jesus, but the rest was just confusing.

And so Phillip explained to us how the Old Testament worked. And I can still remember sitting there thinking, “I’ve learned more in the last five minutes than I ever learned in all my time at theological college.” Before, I’d had a miscellaneous collection of bits, now I had something which not only made sense in itself, but led directly to the gospel.

Now if that was what Jesus was doing —taking people who knew the Old Testament, but couldn’t make sense of it, and opening the Scriptures to them —no wonder he gathered the crowds. And this would also explain why we don’t find explicit references to Jesus’ teaching in the rest of the New Testament —because it is there behind everything, in the way that the Old Testament is understood, taught and applied, and in the shape this gives to the gospel.

And this would also give us an important indication of what we should be doing —that we should also be learning to present the Old Testament to people, to familiarise them with it, so that it becomes their own story, and to teach the gospel from it, so that they understand properly who Jesus is. This would fit exactly with the end of Luke, which is also the beginning of the expansion of the Church:

Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

Let us follow his example (if such it is) and do the same.

Revd John Richardson
21 July 2009

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select the 'Anonymous' profile, then type in a couple of letters, select 'preview', then close the preview box and delete these letters.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Entertaining doubts on a Sunday morning

This morning I found myself stepping down from the pulpit with a sense of doubt. These were not those ‘nagging’ doubts about God or the gospel —they usually come at about 4am, and I have learned to treat them as one does ‘mood swings’. No, this was a much more determined doubt, a ‘Have we got it right?’ doubt, an ‘Are we barking up entirely the wrong tree doubt?’, indeed a ‘Have I spent my whole life on the wrong cause?’ doubt, to do with Anglicanism.

To make matters worse, the reason was my own preaching. We’ve been working our way through Mark, and I had meant to spend just a few moments on 6:34, just before the feeding of the five thousand: “When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things.”

The plan was to point out to the congregation the link with Ezekiel 34, where the Lord condemned Israel’s ‘shepherds’, and then chapter 22 where we read about the conditions in Israel: corruption in high places, falsehood amongst the priests and prophets, and then in 22:29, “The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the alien, denying them justice.”

However, I’d forgotten my notes (or rather I’d printed off last week’s sermon instead of this week’s) so I was ad-libbing slightly, and I began addressing the issue of social injustice. Here, from memory, is roughly how it went:

“The failure of the leadership —the shepherds —in Ezekiel’s day had created injustice,” I observed, “And we see much injustice around us in the world today. But look at what Jesus did when, in his day, he saw the people as ‘sheep without a shepherd’.”

“What would we do in the same circumstances?” I asked. “Surely we would try to address the causes of injustice. But what does Jesus do? It says, ‘He began to teach the many things.’ But how would this help? The answer is that injustice is, in the end, caused by people, and so by teaching the people, Jesus was addressing the injustice.”

“But Jesus was not addressing the rich and powerful. So how would that help reduce injustice? Because he was empowering the poor by what he taught them. And that is the best way to reduce injustice, because there are more poor people than rich and powerful people. So in England, in the eighteenth century, the Wesleys empowered the poor, not the rich and the powerful, by preaching the gospel to them and empowering them, and they changed societies and communities.”

But as I was preaching, I could feel at the back of my mind a realization that what I was saying didn’t quite work. So often, the gospel has not changed society, because it has not empowered people. And my doubt is this: whether Anglicanism, and specifically the Anglican understanding of priesthood, will always disempower people, and can therefore never really change society.

As evidence of this, look at all the fuss that is made about ordination generally and women’s ordination in particular. Where in the pages of the New Testament do we ever find a heated discussion about ordination? Circumcision, yes, but ordination?

And then what about the link between ordination and the sacraments? It is no wonder people want to get ordained in the Church of England, if this is the only way you can, literally, get your hands on sacramental ministry. Hence women’s ordination is an issue of ‘justice’ because ordination is power. But where is ordination an issue in the New Testament?

I simply do not find convincing the argument that Jesus passed this on as an ‘apostolic’ ministry at the Last Supper. Michael Green, when he was principal of St John’s Nottingham, used to point out how in the Corinthian correspondence a great deal was said about the Lord’s Supper and the need for discipline, but nothing about who should ‘celebrate’ it. As he said, can you imagine that in a situation parallel to what we find in Anglicanism today?

So I found myself with my head in my hands after the sermon (people probably thought I was praying) wondering if we haven’t got it all wrong. How is the Church going to empower the poor, when the ‘rich’ —the rich in talent, and learning, and leadership qualities, and language skills, and the ability to work the middle-class ‘system’ of Bishops’ Advisory Panels and DDOs —monopolize the ministry of word and sacrament? Surely this is why the Church of England has never truly reached the poor in this country (except through works of ‘charity’, done in a condescending way and never really making a difference) and why only truly ‘indigenous’ ministry from the poor to the poor can work to transform the poor, such as we see, for example, in the best of Pentecostalism.

In short, am I simply part of the problem —along with all my dog-collard brothers and sisters —because merely by being what I am, I stifle the life of the Spirit by creating a dependency culture? Am I not colluding in the power structures, even whilst I try to preach the gospel for the poor? Are we not just as fearful as the religious leaders were in Jesus’ day, that if just ordinary people took on the privileges of priests and bishops then we would lose our influence?

I note that in Acts 4:13, the Sanhedrin saw that Peter and John were ‘agrammatoi kai idiōtēs’. The NIV translates this, ‘unschooled, ordinary men’. A more blunt version would be ‘ungrammatical idiots’. Would you and I trust them with what they were doing? I ask again, “What would Jesus do?”

Revd (still) John P Richardson
19 July 2009

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select the 'Anonymous' profile, then type in a couple of letters, select 'preview', then close the preview box and delete these letters.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

A possible joint statement from the CofE?

OK, could the various bodies and personalities in the Traditionalist wing of the Church of England sign up to something like this?

1. We affirm our unity in the tradition of the Church of England expressed in Article XX, that Scripture is “God’s Word written”, that it is “not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written”, that it may not “so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another”, that “the Church be a witness and keeper of holy Writ” and that the Church “ought not to decree any thing against the same”.

2. We regret that the developing attitudes, decisions and actions of The Episcopal Church make it impossible for us to accept that it shares the same commitment to this tradition. On the contrary, they have stretched the fabric of the Anglican Communion to breaking point.

3. We believe it is time for decisive and united action to signal to The Episcopal Church that it can no longer depend on continuing fellowship with those within the Communion who continue in this tradition.

4. We therefore recognize the Anglican Church in North America as an inheritor of the Anglican tradition in the geographical area it shares with The Episcopal Church.

5. We call for a speedy conclusion to the Covenant process, but we believe that The Episcopal Church is already outside the framework of the Covenant and desire that the final form of the Covenant take account of this.

6. We commit ourselves to working together to ensure that the Church of England in the British Isles does not follow in the footsteps of The Episcopal Church in the United States and elsewhere.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

A joint statement by Church of England Traditionalists for this time of crisis in the Anglican Communion

No, there isn’t one yet. But shouldn’t there be? And shouldn’t it be signed by Traditionalist Anglican Bishops, representatives of Anglican Mainstream, the Church of England Evangelical Council, FCA, Forward in Faith, Fulcrum, New Wine and Reform, patronage bodies and Principals of Theological Colleges?

So who is going to organize it?

John Richardson
18 July 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

A fix for when Thunderbird cannot send e-mails

Are you finding you cannot send e-mail from Thunderbird? Does Thunderbird keep asking you for a password, but ignores it when you enter one? If this is you, read on.

I have just had one of those annoying wastes of a couple of hours when something which worked on my computer suddenly decided not to, for no apparent reason.

In this particular case it was that my e-mail client, Mozilla Thunderbird, suddenly decided not to send e-mails. It would receive them fine, but not send them. Instead, it would display a pop-up box asking for the password to the server, but when I entered it, it simply repeated the request. If I cancelled the request, I got a message saying it could not connect to the SMPT server.

I tried the Thunderbird Help Forum, and Googling things like "Thunderbird cannot send e-mail asks for password", and all combinations in between. I found numerous similar complaints and requests for help going back over the years, all from people who'd been using Thunderbird and who suddenly found they could receive, but not send, e-mails, and that repeated attempts to enter the password were refused.

Well, I finally worked out a solution. I am not sure if it is a wise one, but it works for me, so along with my advice on Installing FAX services for Windows XP, I offer it as a 'public service'.

1. Open Thunderbird

2. From the menu bar at the top, click Tools> Account Settings> Outgoing Server (SMPT) [from left hand menu in the new window]

3. Highlight the account currently in use (or the one you wish to use) and select Edit

4. In the box which opens, under Security and Authentication unclick Use name and password

5. Click OK

6. Try sending again

It works for me. If it works for you, leave a message.

John Richardson

(PS: I just tried doing the reverse on my wife's computer, setting it to use the name and password, and sure enough it locked up. I have set it back!)

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

After B033, can English Evangelicals unite?

The Bishop of Willesden is not the only one, but given his remarks on the Fulcrum discussion forum, he is wearing his ‘Told You So’ tee-shirt in response to the decision by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church to rescind Resolution B033, which had established a moratorium on ordaining or consecrating people in active same-sex relationships.

“There’s no particular point in saying ‘we told you so’,” said Bishop Pete, whilst understandably doing just that, “but it does make the Windsor process look pretty unfit for purpose, as many of us suspected.”

Almost simultaneously, Bishop Tom Wright has written an article in The Times in which he acknowledges that the Bishops and deputies of TEC in favour of this move, “were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would ‘tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level’.”

And the leadership of Fulcrum itself has published a Press Statement in which they call for a formal expression of the distance TEC has now put between itself and the rest of the Anglican Communion, including the invocation of the Overseas Clergy Measure, whereby TEC clergy might be refused permission to function in this country.

The declamations by Bishop Wright and Fulcrum are truly to be welcomed for their clarity. And yet one cannot help, along with Bishop Broadbent, wondering why it took so long for the penny to drop.

Bishop Wright describes this as yet another phase in a ‘slow moving train crash’ which began, according to him, as long ago as 1996 “when a church court acquitted a bishop who had ordained active homosexuals.” He adds, “Many in TEC have long embraced a theology in which chastity, as universally understood by the wider Christian tradition, has been optional.”

Yet for someone who has been aware of ‘schismatic’ tendencies across the Atlantic for thirteen years, Bishop Wright has been slow to sound the alarm, and even slower to embrace those who have themselves been expressing such alarm for some considerable time.

As one of my personal correspondents put it, “I have not seen so much flak flying west from the CofE before.” Yet over against this we must still set Bishop Wright’s, and Fulcrum’s, attitude to the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, GAFCON and Anglican Mainstream. Thus at the end of his piece, Bishop Wright tartly observes,

Contrary to some who have recently adopted the phrase, there is already a “fellowship of confessing Anglicans”. It is called the Anglican Communion.

Yet everything he has written prior to that demonstrates this is not so. The Anglican Communion is not (certainly not as FCA understands it) a fellowship with a unifying confession. Rather, it has contained people (in Wright’s words, initiators of schism) who are willing to write their own ‘confession’ and to override the concerns of those committed to the original, and explicitly affirmed, confessional stance. As he continues, “The Episcopal Church is now distancing itself from that fellowship.” Yet, as he fails to acknowledge, it is still within it. True, he concludes,

Ways must be found for all in America who want to be loyal to it, and to scripture, tradition and Jesus, to have that loyalty recognised and affirmed at the highest level.

But it is not clear whether this a hint at the recognition of the Anglican Communion in North America, precisely at a point where clarity is needed. Similarly, Fulcrum, whilst adamant on the need to do something, is far from explicit in suggesting what should be done. Their press statement calls for,

A formal expression of distance, with consequent limiting of involvement in Communion counsels ...

And possibly,

... actions under the Overseas Clergy Measure and a decision that the Church of England not be represented at future TEC consecrations.

In the context of the Anglican Communion, however, where polite understatement has long been the order of the day, this amounts to little more than ‘harrumphing’ —the expression of annoyance without substance, and something which The Episcopal Church has been neatly sidestepping for years. As I wrote in my own ‘told you so’ moment back in March,

[The revisionists in North America] have called the bluff of the Communion as a whole, and they have simply by-passed the reconciling posture of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Knowing that, in the end, they can do what they like and get away with it they are, unsurprisingly, pressing ahead. (Suddenly it's over for the Anglican Communion)

It is a sad fact that throughout a period when Traditionalist Anglicans should have been united, they have been bitterly at loggerheads, sometimes over policies, but often, one suspects, over personalities. In this, we have seen the besetting sin of Evangelical fissiparity writ large. Thus Bishop Graham Kings has been able to put his hand to the Fulcrum statement calling for action whilst at the same time lambasting Canon Chris Sugden personally and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans generally for the actions they have taken. Opposition is allowable, it seems, so long as we ‘do it my way’:

I believe the way forward for the Church of England, and the Anglican Communion, is through the glacial gravity of the Anglican Covenant rather than through the setting up of opportunist, autonomous fellowships.

The mention of setting up ‘opportunist, autonomous’ fellowships, however, will be greeted with wry amusement (at best) by those who remember how Fulcrum itself was launched on an unsuspecting fourth National Evangelical Anglican Congress in 2003. (For Bishop Kings's own account of this, see here.)

However, at some stage bygones must be bygones. Now is the time to heed the words of another Evangelical Anglican Bishop, J C Ryle, written in a different age, but to similar problems of disunity:

If we would hold fast the truth, we must be ready to unite with all who hold the truth, and love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. We must he ready to lay aside all minor questions as things of subordinate importance. Establishment or no establishment, liturgy or no liturgy,—surplice or no surplice,—bishops or presbyters,—all these points of difference ... ought to be regarded as subordinate questions. [...] The Philistines are upon us. Can we make common cause against them, or can we not? ... Surely it is not right to say that we expect to spend eternity with men in heaven, and yet cannot work for a few years with them in this world.

Perhaps it is time for Bishops Kings and Wright to get on the phone, rather than the keyboard, and instead of lobbing more brickbats to speak to the organizers of FCA and ask, “Where do we go together from here?” He will be a truly great man who can do this.

Revd John P Richardson
15 July 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Swine 'flu: the latest

Latest figures from the World Health Organization on the global Swine 'flu pandemic can be seen here. Since it first appeared back in (was it?) April, the total as at the 6th July had reached a staggering 94,512, with 429 deaths (out of a global population of almost 7 billion). In Mexico (where you will remember it all began), there have been no less than 10,262 confirmed cases in that time, with 119 attributed fatalities. That's a worrying 40 deaths a month.

Meanwhile, if you follow this link you will find the transcript of a Radio 4 'File on Four' programme about the origins of the disease and why it is (somewhat controversially) called Swine 'flu, blaming it all on intensive American pig farming. (You see, it had to be the Yanks!) You'll also find things like this:

[BBC reporter Julian] O’HALLORAN: One leading American expert says the US pig population are an increasingly important reservoir of viruses with human pandemic potential. Do you agree with that?

[Dr Ian] BROWN [of the Government’s Veterinary Laboratory Agency]: I would agree that they’re an important reservoir for influenza viruses. Whether they present increased threat pandemic potential is, I think, as yet unproven. [In other words, a cautious 'not entirely'.]

O’HALLORAN: This all raises the question of whether virologists and doctors working in human health paid enough attention to the novel swine flu virus in pigs after it broke out in 1998 [in the USA].

Er, not really. But here is how O'Halloran's thesis develops later:

... back in America the National Pork Council maintains there is a lack of evidence that industrial pig farming was in any way the cause of the ‘98 flu outbreak in pigs. So far in the USA, more than two dozen people have died of the current swine flu outbreak, and the number of confirmed cases has gone over 13,000. However, public health officials have warned that the true number of cases could be up to ten times greater. Troubling references have been made to the 1918 Spanish flu, thought to have killed up to 50 million people worldwide, because it also started with a limited wave of illness in the spring and summer. So all over the country, hospitals have been gearing up to face a possible deluge of cases in a few months time. And nowhere more so than in North Carolina, where a new swine flu virus first broke out in pigs in 1998.

So, it seems one group (admittedly a vested interest) claims there is a lack of evidence to connect intensive farming to an earlier 'flu outbreak amongst pigs, which the programme seeks to blame for its spread to human beings. But it is 'flu, and a lot of people died of 'flu in 1918. So even though the illness has so far been limited in its spread and mild in its effects, there may be a 'deluge' of comparable cases soon.

Here, then, is the conclusion to the programme (with key phrases highlighted):

O’HALLORAN: The sudden mutation of viruses, and large areas of ignorance about past pandemics, combine to mean it’s almost anyone’s guess whether the coming flu season will be little worse than normal or a great deal more severe. And the exact role of intensive farming operations in the chain of causation of a possible pandemic clearly needs much more investigation. What public health chiefs, virologists and doctors are all agreed on with flu is to expect the unexpected. But despite that dictum, it seems that, to many human health experts, swine flu came like a bolt from the blue, even though there’d been some clear warnings of danger in the last few years from some virologists who had focussed - rightly as it turns out - on the risks posed by disease in pigs.

Finally, if you want to read a first-hand account of the early reactions amongst medical staff in Mexico (which may have something to do with the media coverage now) there is this doctor's diary on the BBC website.

John Richardson
14 July 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Swine 'flu: the update

And now this from the NHS Choices website (like you can choose not be ill?):

Worldwide, just over 0.4% of the laboratory-confirmed cases reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) have died, which would be a rate consistent with that normally observed with seasonal influenza. However, the true number of swine flu cases is likely to be significantly higher than that reported to WHO and therefore the figure of 0.4% is likely to be an overestimate of the death rate. (Emphasis added)

In other words, as regards your chances of death, Swine 'flu is not as dangerous as ordinary 'flu. Pass the chalice!

John Richardson

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Swine 'flu: how bad might it get?

Some may think it ironic that I have had a lighter-than-expected afternoon, thanks to a meeting being cancelled due to some attendees having possible Swine 'flu, given that I was blogging rather cynically last week about the measures being suggested by our bishops to contact the disease.

To me, this whole exercise reeks of King Canute and the tide, except that he had the sense to realize it couldn't be stopped from coming in and was simply making a point to his more enthusiastic courtiers.

Someone (I think it was on Radio 4 this morning) described Swine 'flu as 'a story that was failing to live up to expectations'. Others, however, think I am not taking it seriously enough.

So how bad might it get? As it happens, we can get a good idea from a written answer by the then-Secretary of State for Health, given in October 2007 to the Shadow Secretary, Andrew Lansley, who asked (inter alia), "how many deaths resulting from influenza infection there were in each year since 1979". This is from her reply:

Estimated excess deaths due to influenza in England and Wales
Influenza season	Number of excess deaths
1988-89	358
1989-90	26,945
1990-91	8,125
1991-92	5,967
1992-93	1,687
1993-94	14,544
1994-95	2,480
1995-96	16,241
1996-97	21,770
1997-98	0
1998-99	17,982
1999-2000	22,040
2000-01	1,067
2001-02	7,078
2002-03	6,559
2003-04	5,207
2004-05	1,795
2005-06	0

The last official epidemic, it will be noted, resulted in over 22,000 deaths. So far, Swine 'flu has managed a UK total of 17.

Now we may well be on the way to a parallel situation to 1999-2000, or even to 1989-90, when almost 27,000 died, and I think even I caught it. (Unlike most men, I rarely get 'flu.)

My point is, however, that even in a 'fallow year' like 2004-05, almost 2,000 died of 'flu and no great measures were urged on the churches or anyone else, and there were no headlines. In fact, unless Swine 'flu deaths get up around the several thousand mark, we would surely have to regard it as nothing out of the ordinary - would we not?

John Richardson
13 July 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Flu Pandemics and Health Panics

Ed: Is it me, or is there something of the 'Corporal Jones' ("Don't panic! Don't panic!") about this ad clerum (a letter to all the Diocesan Clergy). OK, so we're at an eight-year low for influenza, but really, face masks and aprons for clergy sick-visiting? Still, I'm beginning to see why we need a sixth bishop in Chelmsford (as is currently being proposed).

The Bishop of Chelmsford

Ad Clerum

July 8^th 2009

To all clergy in the Diocese of Chelmsford

The Department of Health has announced that the management of the Swine Flu Pandemic has changed from the 'Containment' to 'Treatment' phase. This has implications for the churches' response to the pandemic, and I am therefore issuing new directions to all parish clergy on how to respond to the various needs which will arise as a result of this.

1. Churches should continue to take services and conduct business as normal, and use stringent hygiene measures for use with the chalice or common cup: the use of antibacterial gel is recommended before handling the bread and chalices, as well as wiping the chalice with a clean, dry purificator between communicants. There is no immediate need to change this policy. Should Government advice change with a further increase in the level of alert, you will be notified, and further advice will be given. If you are able to check the Diocesan website, any changes will immediately be placed there. Please note that the practice of intinction (dipping the bread in the wine) and giving communion directly onto the tongue are strongly discouraged. These customs increase the possibility of spreading the virus.

2. Clergy should be asked to give clear advice (in Sunday Notices, parish magazines etc) to members of their congregation who may be showing flu-like symptoms not to attend church services or other meetings. (Symptoms do not normally last for more than 7-10 days.) Hygiene in church should continue to be taken very seriously, and churches may wish to consider providing bins for used tissues (not the open waste-paper bin type, but a closed top, pedal or swing top bin.) Further information can be found on www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk

3. Some churches have a stoup for holy water near the entrance to the church door, and people are invited to dip a finger in this, and to make the sign of the cross as a reminder of their baptism. The water contained in stoups can easily become a source of infection and a means of rapidly spreading the virus. This practice should be suspended. Holy water stoups should be emptied and cleaned thoroughly, and not used until the pandemic alert is over.

4. The "Flu Friend" (or Flu Buddy") system will provide help for people who have been diagnosed positive for Swine Flu. Parishes are in a unique position to be able to offer help for congregation members and parishioners. The incumbent, parish administrator, or some other suitable person may be able to act as "Flu Friend Co-ordinator" in the parish, and their details could be posted in Parish Magazines, Pewslips, etc. Suitable people may be recruited to fulfil this role. This would mean that if someone receives a positive diagnosis for Swine Flu, they could contact that "Flu Friend Co-ordinator" who could put them in touch with a local "Flu Friend". This person would be able to pick up prescribed medication on their behalf (a voucher or individual code is given when a positive diagnosis is made) and deliver it to them. In some cases, where people live on their own, they may also need some help with shopping. Clear guidance is available for "Flu Friends", but they should be advised not to enter the house, or to have direct contact with the infected person.

5. Pastoral visits and Home Communion for people who have been infected, by clergy or pastoral assistants is strongly discouraged. Contact by telephone, internet, or other means is to be encouraged! The risk of infection is very high, and a priest making a series of pastoral visits could spread infection, as well as being susceptible to becoming infected.

6. Special caution is urged when taking Holy Communion to Residential Homes. If anyone in the community has flu-like symptoms, it may be prudent to give communion in only one kind to the congregation, or those receiving communion in their own rooms. The priest alone should drink wine from the chalice. Congregations may need assurance that in receiving Holy Communion in one kind in no way suggests that they are not receiving the fullness of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament.

7. When a pastoral visit is absolutely necessary - if someone is so ill that they may be close to death, then very great care must be taken to prevent exposure to the virus. The virus is currently perceived as relatively mild, and for most people the symptoms will not be life-threatening, though people who are at high risk, because of a compromised immune system, or other health conditions may be more vulnerable. It must be noted that such people are likely to remain at home, as hospitals will not have the capacity to isolate and care for large numbers of people who are infected with the virus. In these cases clergy visiting infected people should wear personal protection equipment, including sterile gloves, apron, and face mask. If a priest gives communion (host only) without wearing sterile gloves, they should wash carefully with hot water and antibacterial soap immediately afterwards. If a priest anoints someone who has the symptoms of pandemic flu, special precautions should be taken. Never dip your finger back in the oil during the anointing, and do not use the same purificator at separate anointings. It is a good idea to use a swab of cotton wool for each separate anointing, and dispose of it safely afterwards.

It is not our intention at this stage to cause panic, or to exaggerate the seriousness of the situation. I believe that the measures I have outlined above will assist the churches in providing appropriate support in our congregations and parishes, whilst doing all that we are reasonably able to, to combat the spread of the infection.

With my prayers as we all struggle to respond, as well as we are able, to the difficult situation we are facing in this major health alert.

+John Chelmsford

PANDEMIC FLU

Checklist

1. Receiving Communion.

· Provide antibacterial gel for ablutions before handling bread or communion wafers

· Notify the congregation that they should not dip their communion wafers in the Chalice

· Do not give communion directly onto the tongue

· Wipe the chalice with a clean purificator between each communicant. If the purificator becomes damp, use a new purificator.

· Clean chalices thoroughly with hot soapy water after use.

· Do not use chalices of pottery/ceramic or semi-porous material.

· People may, if they so wish, receive communion in one kind.

2. Congregation members with symptoms

· Advise congregation members who have flu-like symptoms to stay at home (Verbal notices, as well as Newsletters, parish magazines, etc.)

· Provide bins in churches (with lids) for people to dispose of soiled tissues

· Place posters in toilet facilities (“Catch it, Bin it, Kill it”). Posters in A3 and A4 formats can be downloaded from the Department of Helath website: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_080839

3. Holy Water Stoups

· Empty and thoroughly clean Holy Water stoups, and ensure that these are not used until you are advised that these may once again be used.

4. Flu Friend

· Appoint a “Flu Friend Co-ordinator” and volunteer “Flu Friends”.

5. Ministry to the Sick

· Provide Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in case this is needed for ministry to the sick. Gloves, facemasks, aprons are available from internet suppliers.

· Ensure cotton wool is available if anointing is needed.

· Carry bottles of antibacterial gel for personal use.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

FCA unity and Anglican 'communion'

Just a thought, but one of the objections being levelled against the FCA is that it is an ‘unholy alliance’ of Catholics and Evangelicals, sharing a widespread opposition to ordained women and homosexual practice, but divided on almost everything else that matters, such as ecclesiology, theology of priesthood and ministry, doctrine and use of scripture, sacrifice of the mass, praying to the saints and for the dead, lay presidency at the eucharist, episcopal authority, Mary, etc (I quote from elsewhere).

Now maybe I’m missing something here, but isn’t this almost exactly what the opponents of the FCA think the Anglican Communion ought to be —a church which unites people who can disagree completely about absolutely all the above, but who are united in their commitment to the purposes of the Church?

So what is the difference? Isn’t unity in disagreement just what they want from the Anglican Communion? Why does FCA attract the ire of Anglican ‘inclusivists’ for forming an alliance which embraces exactly the kind of breadth they think Anglicanism should include?

My guess is because they can see that FCA types are different from themselves, in that in the different ‘wings’ present at the FCA launch, these things have been seen as issues of what Francis Schaeffer used to call ‘true truth’ —issues on which there is a right or a wrong —whereas for themselves they are a matter, ultimately, of ‘opinion’, where I am entitled to mine and you are entitled to yours.

What annoys them is what they (rightly) see as a possible inconsistency —people who ought to disagree acting as if they agree. And as I have said already, there are deep and serious issues here.

But what they fail to see is their own ‘beam’, that this is just the kind of Church they want: one where we can all ‘disagree in unity’ —with maybe a bit more prominence for women priests and a bit more acceptance of homosexuality, but without even (in some cases) insisting on these. That, after all, would be the Open Evangelical position, would it not?

Perhaps the real difference then is the understanding of truth —that, and the view of what are the purposes of the Church. The real problem is surely that the unity of the FCA is seen as a threat to the unity of those who dislike the FCA. Both want unity, but it is the kind of unity, and the issues of unity, which are creating the hostility.

Revd John P Richardson
11 July 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

The Chicago Consultation: read it and weep

One of the things I’ve been reading recently is the Study Guide prepared for The Episcopal Church by the Chicago Consultation, titled Christian Holiness and Human Sexuality. It is important to be aware of this in the UK, not least because one of the contributors is our own Revd Marilyn McCord Adams, canon of Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford and Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford University.

It is also important because the document must presumably be regarded as the ‘best of’ arguments for changing the Church’s traditional teaching and practice on same-sex relationships. That is certainly the point and purpose of is contents.

However, I personally find the theological content tendentious to the point of being bizarre, particularly where it deals with the biblical material.

Thus we have an opening argument that Genesis 1:28 needs to be rescued from a caricatured version of dominion theology: “God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours!’” (According to the document, the text of Genesis “can certainly” be read that way.) This seems to show an almost complete unawareness of Ancient Near Eastern background and the way the text would have been read in that context. The putative modern abuse of the text is the starting, and the reference, point of the ‘exposition’ which follows.

From that shaky beginning, we go on to the suggestion that the story of Jacob and Esau in Genesis 27, “raises questions about models of blessing: is there only the possibility of the one blessing to the exclusion of the other or can the church bless both kinds of marriage [heterosexual and same-sex]?”

The inappropriateness of this can surely be seen by turning the question round. If this reading turns out to be wrong, does it add evidence to suggest that equal blessing is not available to same-sex relationships? One doubts whether this would be accepted at all. Yet this is presented, once again, as a model of exegesis.

The author, Wil Gafney, also suggests on the basis of Genesis 1:1-2 that God is “both masculine (‘When beginning, He, God, created…’) and feminine (‘The Spirit of God, She was hovering…’)”, and that this explains the “our image” reference of 1:26, thus solving, at a stroke, a problem that has dogged Jewish scholars for years, whilst simultaneously ignoring issues she herself must know about Hebrew grammar. To quote from my Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, “B[iblical] H[hebrew] allocates a ‘grammatical gender’ to each noun that does not necessarily correspond to its sex in real life.” Gafney knows this. Why does she ignore it?

Meanwhile, there are apparently other issues with the Hebrew text. According to her, the Levitical prohibitions on same-sex (male) intercourse are also “not terribly clear[since]: men cannot have vaginal intercourse with other men.” That last point is true (and was, I suspect, known to the ancient Israelites), but it surely has nothing to do with our understanding of Leviticus 18:22, which actually seems entirely clear.

The same author also writes that, “Paul’s letter to the Romans did not function as scripture when it was produced and indeed, may have never been intended to do so.” Moreover, according to her, “Paul’s belief about what is natural is just that, a belief.” This distinction does not, apparently, apply to her own convictions, but it is taken somehow to address the problem. Romans, apparently, is not Scripture, Apostolic statements are just ‘beliefs’, let’s move on.

Meanwhile, on the subject of tradition, Ms McCord Adams writes that,

Where systemic evils are concerned, the way to respect tradition is to question and dispute it, to identify its theological distortions and to work to undo their institutional expressions wherever they are to be found. This is what three-leggedstool Anglicans think they are doing, when they support the ordination of women and noncelibate homosexuals and sponsor institutional blessings for same-sex partnerships.

Tradition, then, is authoritative only insofar as the modern mind considers it to be so. In other words, Tradition has less significance than modern opinion. Once again, our beliefs trump their ‘beliefs’. In fact, Tradition is nothing more than a quaint example of the way people used to think. It belongs, McCord Adams significantly notes, in the historical ‘rag-bag’ with the Thirty-Nine Articles,

... clergy in the Church of England were required to subscribe to the Thirty- Nine Articles: until 1975, to pledge not to teach anything that contradicts them; after 1975, to number them among the historic formularies that bear witness to Christian truth.

And that will soon be the way with orthodoxy generally. It will be ‘an historical witness’ to, but not a contemporary expression of, the Church’s teaching.

What is truly frightening about this document is not that it challenges the traditional teaching and understanding of the Church, but that it is so far from being something with which one can engage according to the traditional way in which the Church has done theology, or indeed the normal principles of exegesis.

By all means read it, but it is hard to know quite what to do about it.

Revd John P Richardson
9 July 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Bible Overview 1: Genesis to Exodus

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

The talk can be downloaded by following this link, and clicking on the download button. It lasts about 45 minutes.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Job Vacancy in Church Plant

I have been sent notice of a clergy job vacancy in a diocese-approved church plant in an Anglo-Catholic building but looking for an evangelical minister for this work. Briefly, I'm told, it is "12,000, mixed UPA, plenty of back up around them for joint training & mission. Quick road and public transport into centre of Liverpool and Chester and short drive to "nice" places (N Wales, Cheshire etc.) The Church has halls, albeit tatty - still much more than [some] have. It's also the edge of an Urban Village (Dr, pub, library, takeaways, barbers, lidel, etc.) & a little square, bottom of a park. So they are trying to create community there. A few community links."

Anyone interested, drop me an e-mail.

John Richardson

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Next for FCA? Giving money in gospel partnership

One of the issues presented at the FCA launch was that of funding. It is a fact that not everything which is funded by parish contributions (‘quota’, etc) within the Church of England is something which FCA types would always want to support.

However, it is surely also a fact that paying your way in the Church of England and, if possible, supporting those who cannot afford to do so, is a moral, scriptural and gospel obligation. (Indeed, this was one of the things brought out in Bishop Wallace Benn’s talk.)

For this reason, I have never been a particular enthusiast for so-called ‘quota capping’ —restricting the money one will pay in quota —and even less for quota cutting. If one belongs to a supra-congregational Church one’s fellowship in the gospel is expressed through funding support, not through funding reduction.

Yet at the same time I am painfully aware that the funding system of the Church of England is, as Canon Bob Jackson has identified, based on socialist rather than gospel principles. It is about ensuring a slice of the cake for all and sundry, paid for by what is effectively a tax on the putative ‘rich’, rather than cheerful partnership in evangelism and mission.

Thus we always seem to be on the horns of a dilemma. Every now and then, some radical segment of the Church (usually one which can afford to do so) cuts its quota to express its frustration at what some other radical wing (often one with episcopal powers or backing) has done. But the outcome is usually just to alienate the radical non-givers from rest of the hard-pressed, if not so radical, givers.

It creates some self-satisfaction, and great annoyance, but little reform. Meanwhile the ‘system’, which is able to soak up huge amounts of financial damage, rolls on unchanged.

There is, however, a simple and workable alternative which would both ensure that a good deal of ‘quota’ giving went to causes of which the givers would approve and which, at the same time, would meet all one’s quota obligations. It is not perfect. It would not stop some money being spent in ways the givers might regret. But then the same is true of our taxes, and we know that we should all pay them (Rom 13:6-7).

So here is my simple system for radically changing the financial workings of the Church of England without penalizing the dioceses or defaulting on one’s obligations, or even having to make significant changes in the present structures.

1. Set up a charity. Let’s call it, for the sake of argument, the FCA Ministry Support Fund (MSF for short), using lay people with financial and charities expertise. The terms of this charity are to fund ministry in the Church of England amongst parishes affiliated to the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans.

2. Set up diocesan administrative branches of the MSF, again using voluntary lay expertise.

3. The local administrators invite parishes in each diocese affiliated to the FCA to contact them with offers to make a donation. These offers would be based on a percentage of their quota.

4. The administrators simultaneously invite clergy on the diocesan payroll who are affiliates of, or in parishes affiliated to, the FCA to request grant support for their ministry.

5. The local administrators then work out how much is needed from the donor parishes to meet the grant requests from the affiliated clergy.

6. The administrators write to the donor parishes asking them to send a cheque to help meet the requested grant support. The cheques should be payable to the FCA MSF.

7. Having cashed the cheques from the parishes, the administrators make out appropriate cheques to the ministers who have requested grant support. NB: it is essential that all the money received from donor parishes is paid out to stipendiary ministers in the same diocese.

Now this is where it gets clever. At the end of the financial year, every minister in the Church of England who is on a diocesan payroll fills in a pink form called the PUN. On it, he or she enters all income received from sources such as fees for occasional offices, chaplaincies, etc. All such ‘additional income’ is deducted the following year from the minister’s stipend paid from diocesan central funds. This ensures that everyone gets paid basically the same, even though in ‘good’ or ‘fallow’ years there may be slight peaks and troughs. Provided the form is filled in with honesty, the system is self-regulating, and has been in place for years. So ...

8. The minister who has received an FCA MSF grant puts the figure in the appropriate box on that year’s PUN form.

9. The administrators send to the donor parishes an account of donations received and ministers supported. Obviously the ‘income’ and ‘expenditure’ figures should be the same.

10. The donor parishes send a copy of these accounts to the Diocesan Board of Finance pointing out that £X of their quota has been paid via the FCA MSF which supports ministers within their Diocese.

11. Next year, the amount paid to ministers in receipt of income via the FCA MSF for that diocese is reduced by the DBF (via the Church Commissioners), and the whole thing begins again.

The result is that quota is paid in full, dioceses are only very slightly inconvenienced until the system settles down, and as much money as possible goes directly to the presumed ‘good guys’.

This system is actually workable, provided one sticks to what is outlined above. (In fact for a while in Chelmsford we made it work on a small scale.) It is more a case, I believe, of ‘where there’s a will’.

Revd John P Richardson
8 July 2009

As a PS, it is worth pointing out that this would essentially do the same as was once done by that venerable body, The Additional Curates Society. This was set up in the nineteenth century to provide curates to Tractarian parishes that could not afford them. Constitutionally, therefore, it was somewhat ‘partisan’, as indeed an FCA fund would be. However, the institution learned to cope, and today the ACS is regarded as part of the scenery, no more controversial than CPAS or the Church Times' Train a Priest fund. (A typical case, I think, of what George Melly called ‘Revolt into Style’.)

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.