Changing views on marriage raise important questions on evangelical truth

The article below is published in today's edition of the Church of England Newspaper:

In The Church of England Newspaper on March 4, the Rev Benny Hazlehurst, the Secretary of ‘Accepting Evangelicals’, set out his proposals for a ‘theology of gay marriage’. In the pages of the Church Times this would have been unremarkable, and letters of support would equally come as no surprise. This, however, was in ‘Britain’s leading evangelical newspaper’, and the many letters agreeing with him came, no doubt, from people who would describe themselves as evangelical.

That such a thing would have been unthinkable amongst the generation that gave us the 1967 Keele Congress, or the even bigger NEAC at Nottingham in 1977 is a measure of how far we have come in a few decades.

We must therefore ask, does this growing acceptance of same-sex relationships amongst evangelicals mark a stepping away from our earlier unconscious Pharisaism, as Hazlehurst suggests, or is it a declension from evangelical truth, as our forebears would doubtless have thought?

As we reflect on Hazlehurst’s article, one thing which particularly stands out is that the understanding of marriage he puts forward has no need for gender as such.

This alone surely raises difficult questions! Hazlehurst refers early on to the slogan that “God made Adam and Eve — not Adam and Steve”, and many of us would agree this is a bit too slick. Yet a few paragraphs later he has reached the conclusion that God might as well have done just that.

“Is it not possible,” he asks rhetorically, “that the yearning to find the one who ‘completes’ us is the same for everyone — gay straight, bi, or transgendered?” And he continues: “Is it not possible that God’s response to that yearning is also the same for everyone irrespective of their sexuality — the opportunity of marriage for all, with the person who ‘completes’ them, no matter what sex they are?”

Hazlehurst’s argument is thus that the need marriage addresses — the thing that prompted God to say, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen 2:18) — is the need for someone to be, as we might say, our ‘other half’. And it is that arrangement which meets this felt need which ought to be defined as ‘marriage’.

It is an appealing argument, but the ‘genderless’ notion of marriage that emerges from this proposal is utterly unlike anything found in Scripture, or indeed in virtually any human society until the present time.

Hazlehurst claims that marriage is not fundamentally about procreation. Sexual attraction is fundamental to the desire, but sexual function is irrelevant to the definition.

Yet just what Hazlehurst rejects is actually intrinsic to the traditional Christian understanding of marriage, regardless of age or ability. “First,” says the BCP marriage service to everyone, “It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name”, even though, as the rubric notes later, “the Woman is past child-bearing”.

Admittedly that is not Scripture, but it is surely the BCP keeping the scriptures of Genesis 1:28 and 2:18 together, not dividing them as Hazlehurst does.

The biggest problem with Hazlehurst’s thesis, however, is not the ‘variable geometry’ of marriage that will result, but the fact that it is simply not theological enough.

Hazlehurst writes that, “In the account of Adam and Eve we find our paradigm for marriage.” Yet that is not true, as the Apostle Paul makes abundantly clear in Ephesians 5.

In verse 28, Paul quotes Genesis 2:24 — a verse central to Hazlehurst’s argument. Yet he refers it not to Adam and Eve, as might be expected, but to Christ and the Church. And this is why he can say to husbands in v 25, “love your wives, just as Christ loved the church.”

He emphatically does not say, “Christ loves the Church as you husbands love your wives”, which he would have done if this were simply an analogy between a loving marriage and God’s love for his people. The application is ‘top down’, not ‘bottom up’.

Thus it is ‘Christ and the Church’ which is the paradigm for Adam and Eve, and for all married couples to follow. And the fact that the love between Adam and Eve was imperfect is no more a barrier to the Apostle than the fact that the husbands he addresses are imperfect. It is the paradigm, not its outworking, which counts.

Just how significant this is in Paul’s thinking, however, is indicated at the end of chapter 1: “And God placed all things under [Christ’s] feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way,” (Ephesians 1:22-23, NIV).

To understand this, we must look again at Genesis 1:28: “God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth ...” (NIV, emphasis added).

In the LXX of the Old Testament, the verb for “filling” is the same as applies to Christ in the New — Christ is the one who truly ‘fills the earth and subdues it’. But he does not do it ‘alone’. Rather, as Eve was presented to Adam, so Christ presents the Church to himself (Eph 5:27) so that, as ‘one body’ with the Church, he may fill and rule over all things.

Theologically, then, Genesis 1:28 (sexuality for procreation) and 2:24 (sexuality for companionship) are held together, just as they point forward to Ephesians 1:23 and 5:27. It is no wonder Paul calls this a “mystery” (Eph 5:32), but it indicates that our understanding of sexuality in bodily union needs to be held together with our understanding of mutuality in marriage.

Thus human sexuality, according to Scripture, is not simply procreative, but neither is it simply relational. Rather, behind it lies God’s plans both for creation and redemption.

What, then of Adam and Steve? The modern world has coined the notion of ‘sexual orientation’ to explain the attraction between people of the same gender. In truth, however, we ought to speak of sexual dis-orientation, for such an attraction can never achieve a fully ‘sexual’ relationship.

In theological terms, however, the endorsement of ‘gay marriage’ would require us to say that ‘Christ and the Church’ can just as equally be modelled by two ‘Christs’ or two ‘Churches’, or indeed some other combination, since Benny Hazlehurst also refers to the bisexual and transgendered.

At that point we would certainly have left behind the traditional understanding of marriage. But I would contend that we would also have left behind the biblical understanding of Christian theology. And that we must certainly not do.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

A padre's blog

Regulars to this blog should have noticed by now that in my 'Blogroll' there is a link to the British Army blog. There are a number of reasons for this.

One is that with the way that events in Afghanistan are reported in the British media, which usually just focus on casualties anyway, it is good to hear another side 'from the horse's mouth' about other aspects of military life.

Another is patriotism. Another is that if we send people to kill and be killed on our behalf, the least we can do is take an interest.

The latest blog contribution, however, is from an army chaplain, and therefore is particularly worth a read. Here is a snippet, follow the link for the rest:

For me, faith is also central, it is vital to things, because I know at the deepest level, God is, and has been, with me in all things. And of course in the darker corners of life on tour, where the memories paint pictures we would rather discard, the cross to which we journey at Easter points Christians to a God who has known humanity’s worst laid upon His Son, but Who extinguished all the power of pain and hate and hurt in the resurrection.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Windows live installer problem: hr:0x80070643

Update: For Windows XP users it doesn't matter what you do, Live Sync is dead. I am now using Drop Box which isn't quite the same but seems to fulfil my current needs. Now even though I am a complete stranger, if you e-mail me (use the link down the left column) I will try to send you an invite to join Drop Box which gets you and me some extra free space.

I got a message from Microsoft yesterday telling me that Windows Live Sync would soon stop working, but that if I just followed the attached link here it would take me to a page that would address my problems.

Well, it didn't, because I am using Windows XP, not 7 or Vista (cough, spit!). So I had to follow another link to Windows Live Essentials where I could download an installer that would update Windows Messenger (which I don't use) and add other bits that will hopefully allow me to go on using Live Sync (which I use to back up and copy files automatically from my laptop to my desktop and vice versa).

The only trouble was that the updater refused to install the programs. Instead, I kept getting the error message above and something about a problem with "messenger.msi" in the C:\Windows\Installer" folder. It also suggested there might be a problem with a conflicting program.

There followed the usual two hours of frustration trying to find an online solution, disable conflicting programs, etc, etc, etc.

Finally, this combination seemed to fix the problem:

1. First, I discovered there was no messenger.msi file in the C:\WINDOWS\Installer folder.
2. I used 'Search' and found several copies in other temporary folders.
3. I copied one of these to the C:\WINDOWS\Installer folder.
4. I started Windows Messenger, which I hadn't used for ages, and logged in.
5. When I logged in, it told me there was a new version available and I clicked the necessary to start the download and installation.
6. This seemed to take me to a screen identical to the Windows Installer screen that wasn't working earlier.
7. The installation began, but seemed to hang after several minutes.
8. I left it to get on with it, but after about quarter of an hour shut the thing down manually.
9. I went back and tried the original Windows Installer again.
10. This time it told me that I'd already got Windows Messenger installed, and it didn't need updating (which it had done before).
11. The rest of the installation went OK.

So the problem seems to be something to do with (a) not having the messenger.msi file in the Installer folder and (b) perhaps not updating Windows Messenger first.

Anyway, this worked for me, I offer it to those experiencing the same problem.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Marriage and the Church's ministry - why women bishops don't work for me

This is an edited piece requested for The Guardian that didn't get published.

************

“With the Church,” wrote C S Lewis in his 1948 essay Priestesses in the Church?, “... we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge.”

These words are a reminder that current debates in the Church of England have a longer history than many realize. And they are equally a reminder that the outcome may be more serious than many think.

But I cannot myself wholly follow Lewis, who rejected women priests on the basis of their exercising an ‘iconic’ rôle in the congregation. The priest, he wrote, “represents us to God and God to us.” Yet at these words my Protestant hackles rise, for does not the priesthood belong to all, both men and women? Martin Luther, no less, wrote that, “when women baptize, they exercise the function of priesthood ... and do it ... as a part of the public ministry of the church” (LW 40:23).

Nevertheless, Luther, Lewis and I would all oppose the admission of women to the Anglican episcopate. And for myself, this indeed relates to Lewis’ belief in the iconic significance of human gender. The place to see this exemplified, however, is not in the Eucharist but in marriage.

The Book of Common Prayer describes marriage as “signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church.” There is much that could be said about this, and one of the best accounts is by the Roman Catholic author, Edward Schillebeeckx. The title of his book, Marriage: human reality and saving mystery, identifies the close connection between what is increasingly treated as an incidental aspect of human experience and the entire structure of Christian theology, focussed as it is on the need for, and nature of, our salvation.

Here, Lewis is precisely right. Male and female are discovered to be not mere ‘facts of nature’ but ‘shadows of realities beyond our control’, for in the narrative of Scripture the physical (re)unification of man and woman in Genesis 2:24 is finally identified with the spiritual union of the Saviour and the saved: ‘as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him’ (1 Cor 6:16-17, ESV).

Indeed, this theme within Scripture has profound implications which are rarely considered in Christian theology. Nevertheless, for our present purposes, the consequences are relatively familiar and straightforward, and concern polity within the family, where the male and the female are both ‘iconic’: the man representing Christ towards his wife, and the woman representing the Church towards her husband.

This is most explicitly set out in Ephesians 5, where the relationship is described in terms of ‘head’ and ‘body’, from which has been derived a concept of ‘male headship’. But it is precisely here that we find within contemporary Anglican Evangelicalism both misconstrual and misapplication.

From the Conservative side, there is a misapplication of ‘headship’ from the specific context of marriage to the general context of the Church. Thus the pressure-group Reform speaks of ‘the divine order of male headship, which makes the headship of women as priests in charge, incumbents, dignitaries and bishops inappropriate’.

Yet this is theologically clumsy, for (Thomas Cranmer and Henry VIII not withstanding), the headship of the Church belongs only to Christ. Husband is to wife as Christ is to Church, but not as vicar is to congregation, bishop to diocese — or even monarch to national denomination.

On the ‘egalitarian’ side, however, there is misconstrual, for even where the parallel in marriage with Christ and the Church is admitted (and many of this persuasion find that difficult enough), its practical implications are effectively denied on the argument that the passage calls for a ‘mutual submission’ of all Christians to one another. The submission of a wife to her husband is thus ultimately rendered indistinguishable from the submission of a husband to his wife.

Such an interpretation, however, is hard to maintain. With regard not only to the specific verses but to the overall thrust of the New Testament Scriptures, the weight of evidence is with the Traditionalist view of marriage.

Nevertheless, the application of this to Anglican ecclesiology is not straightforward.

The Church in the New Testament was not so much an agglomeration of individual believers as a ‘community of communities’ — witness the prevalence of ‘household’ baptisms. Individuals there certainly were, but people belonged to households. (This was especially true for slaves, who ‘belonged’ in both senses of the word.) And the household was not just an economic unit but a faith-community in itself.

Arguably, it is this which lies behind the New Testament injunctions about the rôles of women in the Church. 1 Timothy 2:12, for example, famously forbids a woman ‘to teach or to exercise authority over a man’. Yet the underlying rationale is the example of Adam and Eve (vv13-14), who are treated elsewhere as not just individuals but the archetypal couple. As Christ himself is understood to be the new ‘Adam’ (1 Cor 15:45), so Eve is never just ‘a woman’, but is the primeval ‘wife’.

Moreover, it must be remembered that teaching, in this context, is not the mere imparting of facts, as one might teach English or engineering. Rather, it is the imparting of what ought to be believed and practised, and therefore includes reproof and correction (2 Tim 3:16).

If this is the issue, then the primary focus of the injunctions would be the preservation of the ‘iconic’ husband/wife relationships fundamental to the households of the Church, rather than a concern about who may or may not belong to a group which would later become a separate, and professionalized, ‘caste’ within Christendom, as did the priesthood.

The problem within Anglicanism, particularly for Evangelicals like myself, is that there is no simple overlap between our traditional orders of ministry (bishop, priest and deacon) and the biblical pattern of local elder-overseers and semi-permanent deacons alongside peripatetic Apostolic teams. The modern bishop’s rôle in particular, with all its administrative concerns, is almost completely unlike anything found in the pages of the New Testament.

Nevertheless, these orders are our way of providing the ministry which the New Testament prescribes for the health of the Church, and must not therefore conflict with that aim. Thus, as, David Broughton-Knox, the former principal of Moore Theological College, wrote, ‘relationships between men and women in the congregation should not contradict relationships of the home’.

And for my own part, I find it impossible to see how a woman can be a priest-in-charge, incumbent or (especially) a bishop, whilst maintaining with a husband at home the iconic relationship of the Church and Christ, let alone modelling this doctrine to others as the Ordinal says we should. This is especially so when we consider the authority conferred on those offices by the Anglican way of doing things.

It is on this basis that I believe Evangelicals should be conducting the debate about women’s ordination and ministry. Indeed, I understand there is an ‘Open Evangelical’ book in the making which addresses precisely some of these issues.

The one thing I cannot do, and would resist within the Church, is to dismiss the Bible at this point as merely ‘culturally conditioned’. The overarching theme of Christ and the Church is too profound for that. At the end of the Scriptural canon, in the book of Revelation, we read that the age to come is ushered in with a wedding: the New Jerusalem descends from heaven ‘as a Bride adorned for her husband’ (Rev 21:2), and the ancient marana tha (‘Come, Lord’, 1 Cor 16:21) of the early Church is echoed in the invocation of the Spirit and the Bride in Revelation 22:17.

Insofar as human marriage is called to reflect this understanding of the Church in the future, so it must inform, and where necessary control, our understanding of the Church in the present.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Hell is justice for everyone, for everything, forever

Last week the Guardian requested an article from me for their 'Comment is Free' section on the subject of Hell, in the wake of the recent publication of Rob Bell's new book. The article can be found here, with the usual acclaim from readers in the comments that follow ;-(. I would like to point out to them and to others, that there is a word-limit for these things of around 600 words (I once went well over that with a piece which then wasn't published which is a bit of a waste of my time.) So this is not a grand over-arching thesis, just a piece to (hopefully) raise some points and provoke thought.

‘Justice must be done.’ That is virtually an axiom for any understanding of human nature and society. Of course, the principle is not quite straightforward. As has been pointed out in other contexts, moral guidance is not to be found in the study of geology or astrophysics. And just what constitutes right and wrong or ‘the good’ has long been a matter of discussion.

Nevertheless, just as the youngest of children have a keen sensitivity for what is ‘fair’ (especially with regard to themselves), so it would seem that a ‘passion for justice’, however elusive a definition remains, is part of the makeup of any morally sentient being.

Certainly the diminution of religious faith entails no necessary lowering of this expectation. All around us we find ready examples of those for whom, or to whom, it is asserted that ‘justice ought to be done’: ‘greedy bankers’, ‘the underprivileged’, ‘benefit cheats’, ‘paedophiles’, ‘homophobes’, ‘global capitalists’ — the list goes on.

Yet the list is also coloured by personal taste. There is surely a strong correlation, for example, between newspaper preference and moral priorities, which perhaps suggests that whilst the ‘moral instinct’ is strong, its focus is less precise.

Moreover, our demand for justice is often less than adequate. Take, for example, the campaign for the release of the ‘Birmingham Six’, accused of the 1974 IRA pub bombings.

Certainly the insecurity of their convictions meant an injustice had been perpetrated. But it did not stop there, for if the Birmingham Six were innocent, then others were guilty — and had not only committed a terrible crime but had allowed the innocent to suffer imprisonment in their place. They, it would seem, have escaped justice twice over. And what of the victims of the pub bombings? With no one finally convicted and punished for the crime, will justice ever be done for them?

And the circle gets ever wider, for there are also the police, the prison officers, the judges, the witnesses, the politicians, the fund-raisers and supporters of the IRA, and a multitude of others to take into account. If justice were truly done for the twenty-one killed, the hundred and eighty-two injured and the six wrongly imprisoned, the final list of those implicated might run to hundreds or even thousands.

One reaction to this is to shrug our shoulders — to admit that total justice is impossible, and that therefore we should be satisfied with the limited things we can achieve: the vindication of the innocent, for example, and the punishment of at least some of the guilty. It seems reasonable, if not inevitable. Yet if we are content with this, are we not treating those who get caught and punished as a kind of social scapegoat?

What if justice could be done absolutely? Would we not welcome the prospect? Or would we throw our hands up in horror, and say that such a thing would implicate far too many people?

The doctrine of hell is not about where and how people are tormented for the entertainment of gods or demons — though it must be admitted that this theme has fascinated generations of artists and authors. Rather, it is about justice, but justice being done to everyone, for everything, for ever.

Given our readiness to demand justice where we perceive that an injustice has occurred, we surely ought to find that more appealing than we do.

John Richardson

14 March 2011

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Deanery Synod - the Debate on the Women Bishops Measure

Below is the actual speech I used last night at our Deanery Synod debate on the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure. The vote at the end was by houses: clergy for 8, against 4, laity for 17, against 10.

Introduction

I have been asked by the Rural Dean to speak tonight against the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure.

I would much rather be talking about church growth. However, I do believe this concerns the health of the church and I actually hope you will vote against the Measure.

There are three reasons why you might chose to do this. First, you think the move is theologically wrong in principle — which I do, but I recognize I belong to a Church where others take a different view.

Secondly, you are in favour of women bishops and think the Measure goes too far in making provision for those who cannot accept their ministry.

Thirdly, whether or not you personally are in favour of women priests and bishops, you do not think the current Measure goes far enough in the provisions it makes for those who would find this unacceptable.

It is the third point on which I want to focus.

The Official Position

The official position of the Church of England was expressed in a report by the House of Bishops back in 1993 and has been reiterated ever since:

“those who for a variety of reasons cannot conscientiously accept that women may be ordained as priests will continue to hold a legitimate and recognised place in the Church of England.” (‘Bonds of Peace’, Ordination of Women to the Priesthood: Pastoral Arrangements — Report by the House of Bishops [GS 1074], June 1993)

Since 1993, therefore, anyone who has remained in or joined the Church of England of England, or who got ordained, did so on that understanding.

And outwardly, the proposed Measure continues to endorse that view. Most of it is actually taken up with clauses setting out provisions for those conscientiously opposed.

Inadequate

Unfortunately, on closer examination we find that although the new Measure is operating on a biblical principle, it is the principle of Luke 19:26,

... as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.

In 1993, the Church of England made three provisions, two by statute and one by an Act of Synod, for those opposed to the ordination of women.

By statute, Resolution A allowed PCCs not to “accept a woman as the minister who presides at or celebrates the Holy Communion or pronounces the Absolution in the parish.”

Resolution B allowed them not to: “accept a woman as the incumbent or priest-in-charge of the benefice or as a team vicar for the benefice.”

The third provision, under the 1993 Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod, allowed parishes to petition for episcopal ministry to be provided by a bishop sympathetic to their position on women priests (4:1; 5:4).

Erosion

What has happened since then, and what lessons does that have for us today?

The 1993 Act of Synod specifically declared that:

“There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.” (Section 1)

Actually, between 1993 and 2000, of the 31 diocesan bishops appointed, 27 ordained women and only two new bishops did not — both of whom were actually appointed before 1995 (The Perry Report, 2:28).

Since 1997, no Traditionalist Evangelical has been made a bishop in the Church of England.

Episcopal Provision

Under the new Measure, the Act of Synod will be abolished. In its place, diocesan bishops will draw up a scheme in consultation with their diocesan synods, having regard to a Code of Practice yet to be published, to be interpreted and operated at their discretion (2:1).

This scheme will be different for each diocese. Indeed, it can actually be different in the same diocese for different persons, groups of persons or parishes (5:2). It will have to be reviewed every five years — but it can be changed or revoked at any time and it must also be reviewed within 1 month of the arrival of a new diocesan bishop (2:6; 2:7).

Parishes may request that they receive oversight under the scheme and the bishop shall consider that request, but it is for the bishop to decide what arrangements will in the words of the Measure, “give effect to the Letter of Request” (3:8).

The most that will be given is an existing male bishop in that or a neighbouring diocese — not necessarily one who agrees with the petitioning PCC — who will take some services and provide some pastoral care (2:1a, b).

And the PCC resolution is only effective for five years, after which the whole process has to be done again.

Resolutions under the existing Measure

Meanwhile, Resolution A under the existing Measure will disappear and Resolution B will be watered down.

Parishes will be able to send a ‘Letter of Request’ “that only a male priest shall be appointed as the incumbent of or priest in charge for the benefice” — though there is no longer any mention of Team Vicars (3:3; 3:6).

However, this will only be possible in an interregnum or where a priest in charge has left or is about to leave — and in the latter case, the priest in charge will not be able to attend the meeting (nor will the spouse of civil partner of the priest in charge, 3:7).

The PCC must make the decision in isolation under the pressure of beginning a vacancy and seeking a new incumbent — and we all know how difficult a time that can be, especially if you have just had a visit from the bishop or archdeacon to remind you how few replacement clergy there are to go round these days.

What, though, of parishes that have already passed Resolution A or B? The Schedule to the Measure provides that these Resolutions remain in place, but only for three years or until the incumbent or priest in charge leaves — whichever happens sooner.

However, in the meantime if another parish in the same Benefice wishes to do so, it can pass a resolution actually rescinding the Resolution A or B passed by the first PCC (Schedule 1:2).

So one PCC could actually force another to accept a woman as the minister who presides at or celebrates the Holy Communion or pronounces the Absolution in the parish, despite this being against the express wishes of the relevant PCC.

Incidentally, I have no idea what is supposed to happen if, under the proposed Measure, one PCC in a multi-parish benefice either does or does not want a male-only list of prospective new clergy. That was covered in an earlier ‘illustrative draft Code of Practice’, but there is nothing about it in the Measure.

Vanishing provision

I hope you can see why traditionalists are worried. And I hope you will actually agree that the provisions proposed in the Measure are entirely inadequate and that you will vote against the Measure. But there is something else you can do.

The Church of England Evangelical Council, with the support of Forward in Faith, is sponsoring a Following Motion, which is an instrument which allows amendments to the Measure when it goes back to General Synod. This following motion,

“calls upon the House of Bishops to bring forward amendments to the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to ensure that those unable on theological grounds to accept the ministry of women bishops are able to receive oversight from a bishop with authority (i.e. ordinary jurisdiction) conferred by the Measure rather than by delegation from a Diocesan Bishop.”

The precedent

The sticking point is the phrase ‘ordinary jurisdiction’, which may seem to be allowing too much. However, this is effectively what the Act of Synod allowed in 1993 for those in favour of women’s ordination.

Clause 2 of the 1993 Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure could have allowed bishops effectively to make their dioceses ‘no go areas’ for women priests.

Under the Act of Synod, however, provided the bishop did not object, women could be ordained, licensed and instituted in his diocese by the Archbishop or by another bishop acting on his behalf.

What traditionalists are now requesting is basically this same provision today, with the difference that it will be granted through the Measure itself.

Conclusion

I close with words from Lady Saltoun of Abernethy in the House of Lords debate on the Measure and the Act of Synod in 1993:

“I myself asked the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury whether it was envisaged that the Act of Synod would operate in perpetuity or whether it would be in the nature of a temporary measure which would cease to operate at some future date. He replied that it was the intention that it should be permanent and that they were not thinking of rescinding it or anything like that. Then he added the caveat, ‘with the goodwill of the House of Bishops’. He went on to say that of course anything could happen in the future.”

I hope you will agree that what is now happening is quite wrong, that you will vote against the Measure and that where possible you will support the CEEC Following Motion.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Who's impersonating the Bishop of Chelmsford?

'Shome mishtake, shurely' in this article from the Trinidad and Tobago Newsday:

Members of the Provincial Standing Committee who were also attending meetings in the diocese, and specially invited guests from the parishes, including those from Tobago, were also present. The Right Reverend John Hawkins, Bishop of Chelmsford in the United Kingdom, was also a special guest.

I know the last five Bishops of Chelmsford were all called John, but ...

Or maybe it's a 'palace coup' by this man!

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop and Martyr

"Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again: Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood ..."

Today is the 455th anniversary of the death of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.

To him we undoubtedly owe much that is good (and some that is not so good) about the Church of England and the global Anglican Communion.

Above all, in my view, Cranmer gave us an inestimable liturgy, especially in his 1552 service of the Lord's Supper. For a guide to what this entailed I still think you can hardly do better than to read Colin Buchanan's little Grove Booklet What did Cranmer think he was doing? Why not order it today in commemoration?

(Acknowledgements to the other Cranmer for pointing this out.)

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Chelmsford Diocesan Evangelical Association Meeting with Bishop Stephen Cottrell 2nd April 2011

Saturday 2 April 2011

Meeting with Bishop Stephen Cottrell

(followed by AGM)

Meadgate Church Centre

Meadgate Avenue

Chelmsford

CM2 7LJ

10.00 to 1.00
Coffee from 9.30
 

Our new bishop will lead us in a Meditation on Scripture, followed by a 'question and answer' session.

Annual General Meeting begins at 12.30pm

Enquiries 01245 492741

Church in Wales recommends action against 'homophobic' clergy

UPDATE: the full report is here.

The relevant paragraphs would appear to be 22, 29 and 35:

22. It is necessary to provide a policy with guidance to clerics on the dangers of emotional abuse arising out of the inappropriate use of pastoral supervision or theological teaching.

29. The cleric as role model, as seen by children and young people is significant. This needs to be fully recognised and appreciated by the Church in Wales. Inappropriate and unacceptable conduct such as discriminatory behaviour involving aggression, bullying or attitudes such as homophobia should not be tolerated and can in some instances be emotionally abusive. This should be a professional development issue and where necessary, subject to disciplinary procedures.

35. Reference has been made earlier to the need for policy and guidance in relation to certain approaches to ministry within the Church in Wales (see 21 and 22 above). It would be appropriate to initiate a debate on the subject which would include exploring the importance of ensuring responsible attitudes towards age appropriate emotional and spiritual growth. This would ensure that the Church in Wales exercises its duty to protect children and young people from spiritual and emotional abuse.

From the Church of England Newspaper, March 18th:

On March 9, the church released the findings of an 18-month investigation conducted on its behalf by social worker Elaine Cloke of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales’ office. It called for stricter sanctions for clergy engaged in physical, emotional and spiritual abuse, including homophobic attitudes.

The investigation reviewed 1381 clergy files. Of these 219 were referred for further action.

However, the “majority of these referrals related to incomplete service records and other complaints in relation to clergy conduct and personnel issues. Of these cases only five files were identified as containing information relating to child protection and safeguarding which required further action. These were referred on to the appropriate agencies following discussions with the relevant Bishop,” the report said.

The police declined to take any action against the five clergymen.

The report offered 36 recommendations for strengthening the Church’s child protection policies, including compulsory child abuse prevention training, increasing awareness of domestic violence, and providing guidance to clergy “on the dangers of emotional abuse arising out of the inappropriate use of pastoral supervision or theological teaching.” [My italics]

Hmmm. Any further information, anyone?

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Speech to Deanery Synod on the Women Bishops Measure

Next Wednesday I have to speak to our Deanery Synod in a debate about the draft Women Bishops Measure, and have been asked to oppose the motion. This is the gist of what I intend to say, and I would invite feedback and comment in advance.)

**************************

I’m sure you’ll agree it makes a change for me not to be talking to you about the growth of the church [I chair the Deanery Growth Task Group which makes regular presentations to the Synod].

However, I do believe that what I have to say this evening has to do with the health of the church.

Since 1993, the Church of England has been able to ordain women as priests and it is now proposed to consecrate women as bishops.

However, the legislation framed in 1993 was carefully designed to preserve the unity of the Church of England.

This was achieved through two instruments.

First, the Measure which passed through Parliament had two ‘Resolutions’ in an appendix, which allowed parishes to choose not have a woman as their incumbent, team vicar or priest in charge, or to pronounce Absolution or to celebrate Holy Communion.

The latter clauses were particularly framed out of concern for Anglo-Catholics committed to the doctrine that priesthood is essentially a male quality, and that the priest, as a representative of Christ, had to share his maleness.

The former was more important for evangelicals who believe this is more an issue to do with rôles within the congregation as the ‘household of God’.

However, there was a second instrument, not a parliamentary Measure, but an Act of Synod, which made special provisions regarding specifically episcopal ministry for those who opposed the ordination of women.

This Act of Synod is often treated as being one-sided, having regard only to the needs of traditionalists. But it also had something for those in favour of women’s ordination by providing that, even if the diocesan bishop were himself opposed to the ordination of women, with his permission, women could be ordained, licensed and instituted in his diocese by the Archbishop or by another bishop acting on his behalf.

Since 2000, I have often heard complaints about the untidiness — and worse — of the system of flying bishops (which was just one of the provisions of the Act of Synod).

But there was an equal untidiness (if we want to call it that) embodied in the Act of Synod (11:1-3) for those who supported women’s ordination, whereby ordination, licensing and institution — surely key elements of the bishops oversight — could be handed over to another bishop outside his diocese, where the diocesan bishop opposed women’s ordination

Let it be noted that the Flying Bishops have never had this much authority with regard to those who received their ministry.

The principle at work throughout the introduction of the ordination of women, however, was expressed in the Act of Synod, which said that

... the highest possible degree of communion should be maintained within each diocese; and

... the integrity of differing beliefs and positions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood should be mutually recognised and respected. (3.a.ii, iii)

And that is where the health of the Church of England comes to the forefront.

Authority in the Church of England is often said to be like a stool with three legs, namely Scripture, tradition and reason. But that is not quite a complete picture, for although the Church of England recognizes the important of reason and tradition, it gives priority to Scripture.

Article XX of the 39 Articles, states that “it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written.”

Scripture, tradition and reason are not three separate ‘legs’ but three interacting sources of understanding. So we need reason and tradition to understand Scripture.

But once we have understood Scripture, the Articles state that the Church cannot then contradict Scripture, despite our traditions or our other ‘reasonable’ justifications.

In the present debate, there are those who believe that Scripture does allow the ordination and consecration of women as priests and bishops, and there are those who believe it does not.

The official position of the Church of England since 1993 has been that both are authentically Anglican — and this can be maintained insofar as we believe neither are deliberately and consciously acting contrary to Scripture.

However, whilst that continues to be the case — and it is still the case at present — the Church must organize its structure so that both those in favour of, and those opposed to, the ordination and consecration of women can function coherently within the same denominational body.

Now it may be that this is impossible. Baptists and Anglicans would find it difficult to operate in the same denomination because they have contradictory views of infant baptism. It is possible to be a Baptist layperson in the Church of England, but you can’t really be a Baptist ‘priest’, because your office requires you to carry out baptisms of infants.

Sometimes doctrinal differences require structural separation. And indeed, it has been said to me on more than one occasion that if I don’t like what is happening I ought to leave the Church of England.

In reply, I would make two observations. First, when I was ordained in the Church of England, women’s ordination was only just being considered. In fact in 1977, the National Evangelical Anglican Congress, meeting at Nottingham, passed a resolution which said,

Leadership in the Church should be plural and mixed, ultimate responsibility normally singular and male. (The Nottingham Statement, J6)

That was my own position then and it continues to be my position now. And that is one reason why I feel under no obligation to go, despite the urging of others.

Furthermore, the Church of England maintained in 1993 and has continued to maintain since then, that the issue is not settled. The technical term for this is that we are ‘in a period of reception’ — which doesn’t mean ‘we are giving everyone time to get used to it’, but ‘we still discerning whether this is right or wrong’ (see the Act of Synod ‘Proposal’ 3:a.i).

And that brings me to my second observation, which is that although I may be mistaken, I genuinely think that the Church of England has got it wrong on this issue and that it has acted contrary to Scripture.

But if that is true — and officially the Church of England goes on saying it may be true — it is especially important to go on witnessing to what one believes to be true, for the sake of the Church.

And that is why I want to urge the Church to look again at this legislation and not to accept it in its current form.

You will have noticed that the Measure is quite long and complicated. The reason is that there are four long clauses (2,3,5 and 6), detailing the provisions for those who, like myself, continue to have difficulty with the ordination or consecration of women.

May I make the point, in passing, that by making this legal provision, a vote for this legislation is a vote to accept that the Church of England still may be wrong on this issue?

But it is a grudging and inadequate provision. For example, PCCs may request that only a male incumbent or priest in charge be appointed to a parish or benefice, but it is only a request, not a requirement (3.3, 6).

Nor can such a decision be made by a meeting attended by the existing priest in charge of a church (nor, indeed, their spouse or civil partner, 3.7). The PCC must now act alone and only once there is an actual or impending vacancy — and we know what an anxious time that is.

We also know — or at least I do — that Archdeacons are not above reminding parishes in this situation that passing any of the existing Resolutions will, of course, narrow the field of any possible future replacements.

It is when we come to the provision of episcopal oversight, however, that this legislation is wholly inadequate.

Here, again, it is only possible for a PCC to make a request “that episcopal ministry and pastoral care shall be provided by a male bishop” (3.1).

The response to that request will be governed by a ‘Code of Practice’ which has yet to be decided. However, it is up to the diocesan bishop to frame the scheme that will apply in his or her diocese.

Moreover, that scheme may make different provisions for different churches or even individuals (5.2). But then the scheme itself must be reviewed every five years, and meanwhile may be revoked or amended at any time (2.6).

A major problem with these proposals, however, is that episcopal ministry to parishes in these circumstances is not really ‘episcopal’ at all. The Measure defines it in terms of:

the celebration of the sacraments and other divine services ... (2.1.a)

And

the provision of pastoral care to the clergy and parishioners ... (2.1.b)

Now with the exception of some ‘divine services’ like confirmation, and the provision of pastoral care to the clergy (which could in any case come from a lay ‘spiritual director’), the other duties are those of the local priest, not a bishop.

Compare this with the Act of Synod, which in the case of dioceses where the bishop opposed women priests, allowed the Archbishop or his commissary to ordain, license and institute women priests in someone else’s diocese (11:1 — not forgetting that the Archbishop is himself a diocesan bishop in the Church of England.)

This is why the Church of England Evangelical Council, with the support of Forward in Faith, is sponsoring a ‘Following Motion’ which it is hoped will be discussed at General Synod, calling for oversight under the new Measure to be exercised with a bishop with ‘ordinary jurisdiction’ — the power to ordain, license and institute.

As pointed out before, that provision was never granted to the ‘Flying Bishops’, but it is there in the Act of Synod for supporters of women’s ordination.

To my mind, however, the biggest problem with the Measure is not legal but theological.

Under the Measure, these very limited episcopal functions — which I have said are not really ‘episcopal’ at all — will be delegated to another bishop in the diocese, or a different diocese, simply because he is male.

Strictly speaking (unless I have misunderstood the legislation), he does not himself have to be a bishop who holds the views on women’s ordination held by those to whom he will minister — the clergy and congregations (2:1).

To take this approach, however, is to drive a wedge between what a bishop believes and what a bishop does in terms of the exercise of his ministry. Yet if a parish or a priest requests episcopal ministry because of their beliefs in this area, it is not enough to say, “You can have bishop B although he doesn’t agree with a word you say, because he’s a man.”

If the Church of England is to continue to maintain that it has a place for both integrities at this point — which this legislation clearly presumes — then there must be provision that the beliefs involved are held by actual, living and ministering, bishops. Just being a ‘bloke’ is not enough!

Finally, and unfortunately, we have to remind ourselves just how things have been for the past eighteen years under the existing legislation, which shows why the provision needs to be strengthened, not weakened.

In the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993, it is stated that,

There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood. (1)

Actually, since 1993 there has been just one appointment of an Evangelical bishop opposed to the ordination of women (and that was to a suffragan post) and a handful of Anglo-Catholic appointments.

Indeed, the 2001 Perry Report on episcopal appointments, noted that of the 31 diocesan bishops appointed between 1993 and 2000, 27 ordained women and two were already diocesan bishops elsewhere. Only two new bishops did not ordain women, and these were both appointed before 1995 (2:28).

I would also refer to ‘Talent and Calling’, GS 1650, published in 2007, which looked at the appointments of suffragan bishops, cathedral deans, archdeacons and residentiary canons, which made this observation:

4.6.1 While the proportion of women on the Preferment List and among those holding senior appointments is lower than the proportion of full-time stipendiary clergy who are women, we are pleased to note that action is being taken to address this.

But then it added this:

4.6.2 The proportion of minority ethnic, conservative evangelical and traditional catholic candidates on the Preferment List and among those holding senior appointments would appear to be even lower.

In other words, the reality on the ground suggests that despite the Act of Synod, discrimination has taken place even in the period before the new legislation was proposed — and this may, of course, go some way towards explaining the passage of that legislation through the Church’s governing bodies.

I hope you will understand, therefore, why the feeling of traditionalists is so strong that a ‘Code of Practice’ — yet to published, leaving wide discretion to the diocesan bishop, without any guarantee of what will be put in place, subject to revocation at any time and review every five years — just will not do.

Personally, the more I have examined the small-print, the more I would like to see this Measure defeated. It is not that I could not live with women priests and bishops — I can, and so far have done since 1993.

But the Measure seems to be applying the biblical principle that ‘to those who have not, even what they have shall be taken away’, and this is a bad application.

I would ask you therefore to vote against the Measure.

However, if the Measure is to go through, the House of Bishops must do what the CEEC Following Motion requests, and make provision in the Measure itself for people and parishes to receive oversight from a bishop with ‘ordinary jurisdiction’ — just as the Act of Synod did for the supporters of women priests in 1993.

So I would ask you, whether you support the Measure or not, to vote for the CEEC Following Motion.

*******************

The CEEC Following Motion:

This [General] Synod,

1. desires that all faithful Anglicans remain and thrive together in the Church of England and therefore

2. calls upon the House of Bishops to bring forward amendments to the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to ensure that those unable on theological grounds to accept the ministry of women bishops are able to receive oversight from a bishop with authority (i.e. ordinary jurisdiction) conferred by the Measure rather than by delegation from a Diocesan Bishop.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

That blessed spam filter again

I'm afraid the Blogger spam filter has done it again, by flagging a number of past comments as Spam when they weren't.

The trouble is, it doesn't tell you it's done this, so the comments appear in my inbox, but not on the blog.

If you think this has happened to you, you might like to check the blog now and see if your comment has finally appeared.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Is there a Christian view on Alternative Voting?

On May 5^th this year, the country will be voting on the biggest change in our electoral system since — well, you pick your own comparison, but I would guess something like the introduction of votes for women.

I am referring, of course, to the Alternative Vote system, which will replace the present X on the ballot paper with a numbered preference. The instructions you’ll see on your ballot paper, in the event of the system being introduced, will be as follows:

Remember — use 1, 2, 3 etc at this election — this is an election using the alternative vote system. Put the number 1 next to the name of the candidate who is your first choice (or your only choice, if you want to vote for only one candidate). You can also put the number 2 next to your second choice, 3 next to your third choice, and so on. You can mark as few or as many choices (up to the number of candidates) as you wish. Do not use the same number more than once. Put no other mark on the ballot paper, or your vote may not be counted.

Now to me that seems pretty straightforward. Also, as one who is used to the STV system used in General Synod elections, it also seems both familiar and reasonable. The maths are rather different for those counting the votes (STV seems to involve either a big brain or a small computer), but there is nothing too complicated for the voter to grasp, and that is surely all that matters in this regard.

Above all, the AV system seems to me to be more fair. I am frankly tired, after innumerable elections throughout my lifetime, of putting casting a vote that I know will count for nothing or next-to-nothing, either because my candidate is a dead-cert or because they have no chance on the first-past-the-post system.

The fact that the Church of England has already adopted something very similar for its own elections suggests to me that Anglicans ought to support AV.

But of course I may be missing something. When a couple of dozen leading historians describe AV as a threat to our whole democratic way of life, you have to allow that they may be right (though of course you’d then have to ask whether the elections to General Synod ought to be regarded as ‘proper’).

Personally, I’m going to support AV unless someone can talk me out of it. But I’m surprised at the overall silence on this whole topic.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Recommended commentary on Revelation

Some time ago, I wrote a small commentary on the book of Revelation — but that is not the one I want to commend here.

Recently, however, I’ve been teaching Revelation as part of our Diocesan Lent courses, and I decided to go over and revise my old notes. In the process, I came across the commentary by Stephen Smalley, published by SPCK, 2005.

It is certainly in the category of ‘big and fat’, and this reflects in the price (up to £40). Nevertheless, I would thoroughly recommend it for the interested student or preacher who wants to go deeper than the excellent, but less technical, commentary by Michael Wilcock.

Still, do feel free to buy mine (currently £3.00 from The Good Book Company), just to complete the set.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Fukushima power plant - not looking good

If you go to this link to the Google map of the Fukushima power plant and compare it with the picture on the BBC website report here it seems that the smallest of the four buildings which seem to be reactor housings blew up.

Also watch the video and pause it at the beginning.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Divorce and the Episcopate

Published in today's Church of England Newspaper under the heading 'Getting to the Root of what Marriage Means'.

Fans of Colin Firth’s recent Oscar™-winning performance will no doubt have noticed that the film in which he stars is not titled The Duke’s Speech. Overcoming a serious stammer is an impressive feat for a public speaker, but the story would have been considerably less interesting had Albert not replaced his brother Edward as King, just as Western civilization was to face its greatest challenge to date.

What modern audiences must find difficult to appreciate (if they notice it at all), however, is that Edward’s abdication came about not because the law of the land or the constitution required it, but simply because neither the Prime Minister nor other key leaders of the Commonwealth would accept the King being married to a divorcee.

Had today’s standards prevailed, of course, there would have been no problem — though it is hard to imagine Britain going to war with Hitler, having a monarch so apparently enamoured with the latter’s political views. But as Edward himself said, Wallis Simpson was the woman he loved, and today that would clearly be enough not just for him but for the nation as a whole.

This may seem an unreasonable starting point for considering the Church of England’s position on divorce and the episcopate. Indeed, the mere mention of Hitler and divorce in the same breath surely falls foul of ‘Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies’, meaning that the argument is lost.

The point, however, is not just how difficult things were then, or how quickly they have changed since, but how different are the principles on which we now habitually operate.

One of the most depressing features of the recent debate in General Synod was the regular reference to ‘marital breakdown’ as acceptable grounds for divorce.

True, the Church of England does not take an ‘indissolubilist’ view of marriage. Moreover, there are many conservatives who would argue that the New Testament recognizes two circumstances in which remarriage of a Christian to someone else is allowed, namely after adultery has broken the marriage covenant (Matt 19:9) or after abandonment by a non-Christian spouse has rendered faithfulness unsustainable (1 Cor 7:15).

To this, we may add a third possibility, when divorce took place before the individual was a believer and therefore acted in ignorance of the gospel requirement and without the power of Christ to help them.

Nowhere, however, does the Bible indicate that ‘marriage breakdown’ is grounds for anything other than separation, to be followed if possible by reconciliation (1 Cor 7:10-11). Moreover, Paul’s explicit appeal in this regard to the Lord’s command recognizes both the challenge and the dominical authority of what is required. Who would propose such a thing had Christ not first said it?

And this is why the Church will find itself in an increasing difficulty on this issue. It is no consolation that the same standards will apply to candidates for the episcopate as now apply to potential deacons and priests (which Synod has agreed) if they are the wrong standards.

Of course, relationships break down — even (perhaps especially) within marriage. Seventy-five years ago, however, the King was expected to adhere to the practice of marriage as ‘a solemn, public and life-long covenant between a man and a woman’ (as our own bishops have described it), irregardless of personal desire. The distance we have travelled since then is not just in our expectation of the individual or the monarchy, but in our commitment to the principle.

Most important of all, therefore, is the need to recognize that this is not finally about divorce but marriage itself. As one speaker in the Synod debate pointed out, marriage is modelled on the relationship between the Redeemer God and his redeemed people — and who else could be better candidates for divorce? Thus God’s hatred of divorce is the counterpoint to his love for his people. And therefore an acceptance of divorce on the basis of ‘marriage breakdown’ is a fundamental departure from the very nature of marriage as modelled on a spiritual reality.

This is why we vow, “Til death us do part.” The Church which teaches otherwise, and embodies that teaching in the lives of its ministers, will soon find that it is not a Church at all. And since it would seem that canonical dispensation is already being applied ‘liberally’ (in every sense of the word), the worry must be that the Church’s ministry and witness will both be weakened by this latest development.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Lord Falconer's misleading remarks about the Johns case on the Today programme

I have just been listening to Lord Falconer on Radio 4 speaking about the John’s fostering case. He seemed to describe the outcome by saying the issue was not decided but that in certain circumstances people might be deemed unsuitable to foster in a particular case of an eleven or twelve year old uncertain about their sexuality.

That is not true, as can be seen if you go and read the ruling, which was nowhere near as specific.

Indeed, such specification was one of the things the Johns’s sought, but were refused:

27 ... The claimants sought the following declarations (as refined following the hearing):

(c) It is unlawful for a Foster Service to ask potential foster carers their views on homosexuality absent the needs of a specific child.

The ruling, however, was to make no order in this (or any other) regard.

Most listeners won’t know this and therefore will have been misled.

Ho hum.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Parish Share: time for change

On Saturday we had a meeting of the Chelmsford Diocesan Synod. For the last few years Synod has been a bit of a ‘trial by ordeal’ of dull presentations. This time, however, we had what I must say was the best presidential address I have heard in many years, by our new bishop Stephen Cottrell — full of vigour and challenge. Amongst the notable things he said, incidentally, was that we need more stipendiary clergy, not fewer. Hurrah for that idea!

Unfortunately, the following items then had a depressing sense of déjà vu, not least when it came to finance.

Once again, we are in the red, but this time the number of ‘defaulting’ parishes has doubled from previous years, despite an overall increase in giving levels and strenuous efforts by the diocesan finance team to improve matters.

There are a number of possible reasons why this is so: lack of effort, lack of commitment, lack of awareness of our ‘mutual responsibility’ — all of these are things that have been identified and addressed.

There is, however, another possibility, which is simply that the whole system of parish share, on which our diocesan finances depend, is wrong. Given that it has never actually worked satisfactorily in all the almost thirty years I’ve been in the diocese, there is something to be said for this view.

In The Road to Growth : towards a thriving church (London: Church House, 2005), Bob Jackson is fiercely critical of the share system and is worth quoting at length:

A parish share system is a subsidy arrangement. [...] Most churches, however, have come to believe that what is actually a benign subsidy system to them is in reality a wicked taxation system upon them. [...] It drives a damaging wedge between parish and diocese. The diocese, the operator of the subsidy system, gets bitten by the mouths it is feeding because the owners of the mouths believe, wrongly, that the diocese is taking their food from them. ‘Bringing in the share’ has become the major point of contact between many parishes and their dioceses. Often, when church hears from its diocese, it is in connection with a demand for money. Diocesan leaders often appear to assess local clergy and churches not on the basis of their effectiveness for the kingdom of heaven but on whether or not they are paying their parish share. (157-8)

The last point is particularly apposite. In 2008, Chelmsford introduced an official ‘award’ scheme for parishes, based entirely on their contribution to ‘parish share’, with ‘Platinum’ at the top, followed by ‘Gold’, ‘Silver’, ‘Bronze’ and ‘Won’t Pay’. Parishes are actually told which bracket they come into, and those in the ‘Won’t Pay’ category are subject to sanctions (and a visit from the finance team). Surely nothing could drive home more unhelpfully the idea that ‘the diocese’ is only interested in financial performance?

Intense and detailed attention has been given to this issue, yet the scheme never works! Indeed, as was admitted at the Synod, last year was worse than normal.

Is it not, therefore, time to risk trying something else? The obvious approach would be to shorten the ‘supply lines’ between costs and payments — in other words, to get parishes to pay their direct costs as directly as possible.

(As it happens, this would be quite straightforward to initiate, with PCCs paying the minister a proportion of stipend which is then declared on the minister’s annual return of income and credited to the PCC against ‘share’. The computers will take care of the rest.)

It is deeply frustrating to hear the same debate every couple of years, and yet it was greatly refreshing to hear the bishop speaking convincingly about growth. So I will close with a quote from the ‘blurb’ on Jackson’s book:

Bob Jackson’s The Road to Growth confronts us with some truths about ourselves. Sometimes uncomfortable, always provocative, and ultimately helpful, this is a book that helps us imagine a new future.

The author of this commendation? Stephen Cottrell, Bishop of Reading. There is hope for us yet!

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

The BBC's latest biblical 'find'

If it were not so serious it would be funny. According to an article in The Telegraph, the BBC’s “new face of religion is an atheist who claims that God had a wife and Eve was "unfairly maligned" by sexist scholars.”

Well, everyone is entitled to their scholarly opinion, and this particular scholar apparently also takes the view that the God of the Old Testament had a consort named ‘Asherah’ — nothing there which hasn’t been claimed before, and fine if that’s how you want to approach your Ancient Near Eastern theology.

Of course, there are other views around, and provided they are given a fair go with license-payers’ money, no problem. I know Ken Kitchen isn’t yet pushing up the daisies, for example.

But what’s this? The ‘new face’ is not just on the far left of OT scholarship. It is also a young and strikingly pretty female.

How amazing! A corporation that has already been convicted of ageism with respect to its female presenters finds what is probably one of the best-looking women biblical scholars in the UK, if not the world, to present its latest series. And she’s ‘unorthodox’.

Well all I can say is, “Go, BBC!” First, Brian Cox for astronomy, now Dr Stavrokopoulou for biblical history.

What a find — and how many birds (if you’ll pardon the pun) can you kill with one stone when it comes to fulfilling your usual criteria?

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.