Yesterday, I was talking to a professional researcher. Currently, he is looking at the effects of Government cuts on poorer families. In particular, he is doing a study of families in Bristol and Liverpool in conjunction with MORI polls. Apparently, the evidence is conclusive: many of these families are already in real difficulties - and it looks like it will get worse as the austerity measures are stepped up. No way are we 'all in this together'. This is not only serious for those families now; it is serious for society in the longer term, as a whole generation grows up without work, with little money, few choices and without purpose, angry and frustrated.
What drives us? A number of things, anger being one of them. It could also be fear. A health-care professional says she cannot converse with a patient without worrying whether she is ticking all the boxes; and when something goes wrong, she and her colleagues have that sick feeling in the stomach: 'was it me that failed to do something?' Compassion is overcome with fear.
I sense a lot of people operate out of fear. I remember a young woman I counselled years ago, who had strong religious views. She told me that she lived in fear of what God would say to her at the end of her life. Fundamentalism of all kinds is driven by fear.
Guilt is another. I was talking to a brother priest about the burden of expectations on us clergy. He said, 'the trouble is, you want to do all that is asked of you (by the bishop etc) but it all seems too much sometimes'. I said, 'do you mean we act from guilt rather than grace.' 'Well put,' he said.
The highest virtue, of course is love (see Tom Wright's book, 'Virtue Reborn' for an excellent study of this). To which I would add the word 'courageous' in some instances. A love which truly cares, and does and says what is right at cost to oneself, out of loving obedience to God. Like the Tibetan monk who refused to flee his monastery during a Chinese invasion. The commander said, 'Don't you realise I am the one who could run you through with a sword in the blink of an eye?' The monk replied, 'Don't you realise I am the one who could let you run me through with a sword in the blink of an eye?'
Wednesday 30 January 2013
Thursday 24 January 2013
Britain and Europe
Yesterday was one of those God-incidences days. I had arranged to visit another church, where they have a debt-counselling service, to discuss the possibility of setting one up at St Barnabas. This was in response to an email I sent before Christmas, asking about this and also about Credit Unions. Just before I left for this visit, an email came through: a Credit Union, nearer the City Centre, is looking for a base in our area. Would we be interested? We will definitely follow this up and - who knows? - soon, after months of thinking, dreaming, praying - we may be able to put to good use our redundant office space. Another step in the direction of becoming a community 'hub' on Penny Lane.
I am trying to make sense of David Cameron's speech yesterday about Britain and the Europe. I can't help feeling that this has more to do with gaining political advantage than about Britain's best interests. I don't think that a simple 'in-out' referendum will be helpful at all, since the issues involved are far more nuanced than that. Most of us don't fully understand them anyway - I certainly don't! There must surely be benefits as well as disadvantages to our membership of the European community. Furthermore, how can you negotiate within any organization if all the time your partners know that you could be leaving anyway? At worst, it's a form of blackmail; at best, negotiation would seem a waste of time. The length of time Cameron is talking about before this referendum is far too long, creating years of uncertainty.
The word 'bridges' comes to mind. An island nation surely needs bridges, for two-way traffic of all kinds: trade and tourism, culture and ideas. To cut ourselves off, physically or politically - or to threaten to do so - will surely only make us the poorer. We need to think about what we can give to Europe as well as what we can get out of it. But bridges can make you vulnerable. If the fear is of a flood of Eastern European migrants, then maybe we should face that fear fairly and squarely. What is needed is not so much an immigration policy as an integration policy.
I'd be interested in others' views on this.
I am trying to make sense of David Cameron's speech yesterday about Britain and the Europe. I can't help feeling that this has more to do with gaining political advantage than about Britain's best interests. I don't think that a simple 'in-out' referendum will be helpful at all, since the issues involved are far more nuanced than that. Most of us don't fully understand them anyway - I certainly don't! There must surely be benefits as well as disadvantages to our membership of the European community. Furthermore, how can you negotiate within any organization if all the time your partners know that you could be leaving anyway? At worst, it's a form of blackmail; at best, negotiation would seem a waste of time. The length of time Cameron is talking about before this referendum is far too long, creating years of uncertainty.
The word 'bridges' comes to mind. An island nation surely needs bridges, for two-way traffic of all kinds: trade and tourism, culture and ideas. To cut ourselves off, physically or politically - or to threaten to do so - will surely only make us the poorer. We need to think about what we can give to Europe as well as what we can get out of it. But bridges can make you vulnerable. If the fear is of a flood of Eastern European migrants, then maybe we should face that fear fairly and squarely. What is needed is not so much an immigration policy as an integration policy.
I'd be interested in others' views on this.
Sunday 20 January 2013
History Repeating Itself?
On Friday, Bishop James hosted a meeting of civic leaders from several northern cities to discuss the effects of Government cuts on their constituents. He was interviewed on Radio 4's 'World at One' and was asked whether he felt he was being 'dragged into politics'. He replied in terms of a 'social triage', necessary when austerity measures are required, involving pastors on the frontline, providing for the needy; the prophets, who speak out about the injustices of the situation; and the politicians who seek to put in place policies which are just and fair. It was vital, he said, that pastoral leaders highlight the needs of the poor and needy. Who would speak for them otherwise? Elsewhere, he has spoken (as a diabetic himself) of an 'urban diabetes' - the poor circulation of wealth and resources to the more extreme margins of society.
My mind goes back nearly 30 years to 'Faith in the City', when Bishop James' predecessor, David Sheppard, would be asked similar questions as he too spoke up for the disadvantaged. He would be accused of 'meddling in politics'. He would often speak of God's 'bias to the poor', as reflected in Scripture and of God's concern for the whole human race - not just the wealthy and powerful. I was not altogether surprised to hear similar implied criticism being levelled by today's media.
However, I think there are a couple of differences over 30 years. There seems to be a greater acceptance of the role of bishops and the Church generally in national life and social concern. It is no longer only bishops who are interviewed on moral or social issues. Christianity per se seems to have much more of a voice in today's world than a generation ago, when it was just assumed that the Church was 'the Tory party at prayer' - and therefore to be benign. It seems as if Christians are expected to offer something more cutting edge on a whole range of social and moral issues.
Secondly, whereas in David Sheppard's day, the response to poverty was more institutional - the Government was expected to do something (and sometimes did) - today it seems that the local church just gets on with it. Foodbanks are the primary example of this, though it is salutory that such things are needed.
For any who are interested, there is a major conference at Liverpool Hope this autumn to look at the contributions of Bishop David Sheppard and Archbishop Derek Worlock to the social issues of their day - and what their writings might have to say to today's world. See the conference website http://www.togetherforthecommongood.co.uk/.
My mind goes back nearly 30 years to 'Faith in the City', when Bishop James' predecessor, David Sheppard, would be asked similar questions as he too spoke up for the disadvantaged. He would be accused of 'meddling in politics'. He would often speak of God's 'bias to the poor', as reflected in Scripture and of God's concern for the whole human race - not just the wealthy and powerful. I was not altogether surprised to hear similar implied criticism being levelled by today's media.
However, I think there are a couple of differences over 30 years. There seems to be a greater acceptance of the role of bishops and the Church generally in national life and social concern. It is no longer only bishops who are interviewed on moral or social issues. Christianity per se seems to have much more of a voice in today's world than a generation ago, when it was just assumed that the Church was 'the Tory party at prayer' - and therefore to be benign. It seems as if Christians are expected to offer something more cutting edge on a whole range of social and moral issues.
Secondly, whereas in David Sheppard's day, the response to poverty was more institutional - the Government was expected to do something (and sometimes did) - today it seems that the local church just gets on with it. Foodbanks are the primary example of this, though it is salutory that such things are needed.
For any who are interested, there is a major conference at Liverpool Hope this autumn to look at the contributions of Bishop David Sheppard and Archbishop Derek Worlock to the social issues of their day - and what their writings might have to say to today's world. See the conference website http://www.togetherforthecommongood.co.uk/.
Tuesday 15 January 2013
'Hope of the World'
Last weekend was very full. Late Thursday night, I travelled down to Rugby for a breakfast visit to Mum in her nursing home, followed by a meeting with NHS staff re her funding. As expected, she does not qualify for finance for all her nursing care, just the basic minimum. We now await a decision from Social Services about how her care in future is to be paid for. Long story!
At the interview, I was conscious of bearing several responsibilities: primarily as a son, concerned for his aged mother (she is 85); also, a brother, with my sisters, trying to do the sums and share the burden of mum's care. In addition, I am also a tax payer in very small part concerned to see that the money most of us contribute to the national 'purse' is fairly and justly distributed especially in these straitened times. Whilst one would love it if the state basically provided in such circumstances, I have to realise that there are many far worse off and it is hard for NHS and SS administrators to cope with the burden of making such decisions. At the back of one's mind too is the realization 'one day, this could be me - in care'. One good reason for having 4 children!!
On my return, I left almost immediately for a 24 hour retreat on the Wirral, with a group of 8 'emerging leaders' from our 3 churches. I was hugely encouraged, working with them, listening to them, exploring the Scriptures, understanding why vision is so important. For me, the only vision that really matters is that of the new heaven and the new earth (Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21): all other vision pales in the light of that, and yet our vision must also reflect it. God is already creating the new heaven and the new earth - and we are part of that creation, even co-creators!
Bill Hybels, Senior Pastor of Willow Creek Church in the USA, states that 'the local church is the hope of the world'. I am more and more convinced of the truth of this. The weekend with my excellent Christian brothers and sisters has strengthened this faith.
At the interview, I was conscious of bearing several responsibilities: primarily as a son, concerned for his aged mother (she is 85); also, a brother, with my sisters, trying to do the sums and share the burden of mum's care. In addition, I am also a tax payer in very small part concerned to see that the money most of us contribute to the national 'purse' is fairly and justly distributed especially in these straitened times. Whilst one would love it if the state basically provided in such circumstances, I have to realise that there are many far worse off and it is hard for NHS and SS administrators to cope with the burden of making such decisions. At the back of one's mind too is the realization 'one day, this could be me - in care'. One good reason for having 4 children!!
On my return, I left almost immediately for a 24 hour retreat on the Wirral, with a group of 8 'emerging leaders' from our 3 churches. I was hugely encouraged, working with them, listening to them, exploring the Scriptures, understanding why vision is so important. For me, the only vision that really matters is that of the new heaven and the new earth (Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21): all other vision pales in the light of that, and yet our vision must also reflect it. God is already creating the new heaven and the new earth - and we are part of that creation, even co-creators!
Bill Hybels, Senior Pastor of Willow Creek Church in the USA, states that 'the local church is the hope of the world'. I am more and more convinced of the truth of this. The weekend with my excellent Christian brothers and sisters has strengthened this faith.
Wednesday 9 January 2013
Chastity - the Missing Word
Once again the CofE is in trouble concerning sexuality. A House of Bishops statement allows the possibility that male clergy living in a same-sex civil partnership may now be considered for appointment as bishops. Previously, a gay person living in such a partnership could be ordained a priest but not a bishop. However, the original condition (from the 1991 House of Bishops report Issues in Human Sexuality) still stands that "clergy cannot claim the liberty to enter into sexually active homophile relationships." In other words, a gay or lesbian priest or bishop may exercise their ministry if they are living in a civil partnership, provided their relationship is not sexual.
This seems strange to me. How can one make this demand? What does 'sexually active' mean in this context? If that commitment were given, how could it be relied upon? There clearly could be no policing of a couple's private life. Supposing a gay or lesbian priest or bishop was in a non-sexual civil partnership but on one occasion (shall we say) 'crossed the line' into a sexual one, would they have to admit it and resign? And what might be the consequences of that, not just for themselves but for their parish or diocese? You might as well say that a priest might live with a partner of the opposite sex so long as they didn't have sex. Imagine the gossip! And the possible temptation!
It is significant that the CofE appears to have done no new thinking on this - officially at least - since 1991. The world has moved on. The number of same-sex civil partnerships is increasing, and public opinion seems to be moving in their favour. It is difficult for a heterosexual person to understand the feelings of a gay or lesbian for a person of the same sex, but the fact is that a small minority of people are gay or lesbian - and some of them are Christian. So it seems to me that we have to find a Christian ethic and pastoral practice to address the situation, rather as the early (Jewish) Christians had to address the question of the uncircumcised becoming Christians.
The CofE demand is that a gay or lesbian person remain celibate. Whilst from a heterosexual perspective that might make sense, I guess from a gay one it does not. Celibacy, like marriage, is a gift (Matthew 19.12) and it is not for everyone. The proper discipline should surely be chastity - one of the three great monastic vows. This is a lifestyle choice, a personal discipline for the ordering of one's sexuality and relationships. It requires purity, faithfulness, single-mindedness - all appropriate characteristics for any Christian whether lay or ordained. I wonder whether this is the word that is missing in our debate about sexuality today.
This seems strange to me. How can one make this demand? What does 'sexually active' mean in this context? If that commitment were given, how could it be relied upon? There clearly could be no policing of a couple's private life. Supposing a gay or lesbian priest or bishop was in a non-sexual civil partnership but on one occasion (shall we say) 'crossed the line' into a sexual one, would they have to admit it and resign? And what might be the consequences of that, not just for themselves but for their parish or diocese? You might as well say that a priest might live with a partner of the opposite sex so long as they didn't have sex. Imagine the gossip! And the possible temptation!
It is significant that the CofE appears to have done no new thinking on this - officially at least - since 1991. The world has moved on. The number of same-sex civil partnerships is increasing, and public opinion seems to be moving in their favour. It is difficult for a heterosexual person to understand the feelings of a gay or lesbian for a person of the same sex, but the fact is that a small minority of people are gay or lesbian - and some of them are Christian. So it seems to me that we have to find a Christian ethic and pastoral practice to address the situation, rather as the early (Jewish) Christians had to address the question of the uncircumcised becoming Christians.
The CofE demand is that a gay or lesbian person remain celibate. Whilst from a heterosexual perspective that might make sense, I guess from a gay one it does not. Celibacy, like marriage, is a gift (Matthew 19.12) and it is not for everyone. The proper discipline should surely be chastity - one of the three great monastic vows. This is a lifestyle choice, a personal discipline for the ordering of one's sexuality and relationships. It requires purity, faithfulness, single-mindedness - all appropriate characteristics for any Christian whether lay or ordained. I wonder whether this is the word that is missing in our debate about sexuality today.
Friday 4 January 2013
The Triumph of Hope
My younger daughter, Jude, is still on a bit of a high having got to see Gary Barlow at the Phil on Wednesday. She had been unsuccessful getting tickets, but refused to give up. She took herself down to the Phil on Wednesday morning and waited...Amazingly, 4 tickets were returned - second row in the stalls! - so she could go with 3 of her friends (who will love her for ever!). And that's not all: during the warm-up act they realised the seat next to them was empty. A quick visit to the box office, a phone call home, and her friends' mum was able to dash down and join them, just in time for the main act! It just goes to show if you want something badly enough there's a good chance it will happen - though not always, of course.
For Jude this was a triumph of hope. I ask myself, at the start of the year, what I hope for. My Bible reading yesterday was from Ephesians 4. In v.1, Paul describes himself as 'the prisoner in the Lord'. Not, we notice, 'prisoner in this cell' or 'prisoner in Rome'. As the commentator says, 'this reflects his sense of where the whole sphere of Christian living takes place, with his imprisonment to be seen as no exception.' Paul's hope is in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, an historical certainty, which opens the door to a new creation.
What do I hope for? So to live 'in the Lord' that everywhere I see the potential for blessing and renewal. And help it to happen, by God's grace.
For Jude this was a triumph of hope. I ask myself, at the start of the year, what I hope for. My Bible reading yesterday was from Ephesians 4. In v.1, Paul describes himself as 'the prisoner in the Lord'. Not, we notice, 'prisoner in this cell' or 'prisoner in Rome'. As the commentator says, 'this reflects his sense of where the whole sphere of Christian living takes place, with his imprisonment to be seen as no exception.' Paul's hope is in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, an historical certainty, which opens the door to a new creation.
What do I hope for? So to live 'in the Lord' that everywhere I see the potential for blessing and renewal. And help it to happen, by God's grace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)