Everything Changes

Posted on by
2

It’s an old joke, but what would actually happen if the Vicar forgot to put the clocks forward at the start of British Summer Time? And what if that Sunday was Easter Sunday?

So, picture the scene – the Vicar is missing, the service is starting, but the church is all set up for a Skype call later in the service. This is the conversation that follows:

How will they get here in time for the service? Something fast is needed. So after the hymn, here’s how we arrived and got to the Easter Acclamation.

Two men receive shocking news that brings them running to the scene.

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.

John 20:1-4

But what makes grown men rush off early in the morning. As we look further into the eye-witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in John 20 and 21, we saw that everything really does change at the resurrection. From the bottom upwards – Here’s the rest of the sermon from my Twitter feed as @JonMSpeaker.

And everything that changed in those first witnesses is offered to us. Everything Changes when we begin to trust in the power of Jesus’ resurrection.

 

Alleluia, Christ is Risen
He is Risen Indeed! Alleluia! 

 

P.S. I have no way of controlling what videos Skype suggests you watch after mine. I think recommendations are based on your own YouTube viewing history.  

Ruth in Haiku

Posted on by
3

New to Twitter Login ScreenIn a recent Bible Study we was challenged to try and summarise the ‘story so far’ in each of the chapters of the book of Ruth. I cheekily suggested we should summarise each chapter in Twitter-friendly haiku poems – and promptly found myself challenged to do just that. The results are below, in a slightly more permanent form than their original Twitter form (with line breaks, typos corrected and one refinement).

Ruth Chapter 1

Starving House of Bread
Ruth clings as Naomi pleads
Don’t call me Pleasant

Ruth Chapter 2

At barley harvest
Ruth’s diligent gleaning prompts
Kindness from Boaz

Ruth Chapter 3

Boaz uncovered
Ruth finds rest and Godly love
Under his mantle

Ruth Chapter 4

God in the detail
Ruth weds Kinsman-Redeemer
Mara full again

A Belated Post for Purim – Finding God in Esther

Posted on by
1

Last Sunday two global pageants took place. The Academy Awards Ceremony captured the eyes of the world on Sunday evening, but as the Oscars were starting, the Jewish festival of Purim was ending. Between sunset on Saturday and nightfall on Sunday, Purim was celebrated with carnivals and processions, fancy dress and feasting, as Jewish people remember the Old Testament story of Queen Esther and the deliverance of God’s people.

This is a belated post for Purim, not just because the festival has passed, but also because it’s a post I said would be ‘my next post’ way back in December 2011. You can read the first two parts of my discussion about Esther here and here. Since I wrote this a long time ago, there is some repetition in what I’ve written below, and I’m still trying to home in on the answer to the question I posed back then “Do we need to put God back into Esther?”

In my former posts I was trying to clear the ground of unhelpful approaches to Esther and, having done that, we now need to look at the story. It’s in this colourful narrative that we begin to see that God was right there all the time.

We might have seen it as a vegi-tale, where Esther is an aubergine or something, but I imagine that a retelling for children left out some of the more sordid details of this book. And there are some fairly questionable things going on here.

We start in chapter one by being introduced to King Xerxes I, who is also know as Ahasuerus. This places the story between 485 and 465 BC, so some years after the exile, and in keeping with what we know about the geo-political situation of the time, Xerxes rules over the mighty Persian empire, 127 provinces stretching from India in the east to Libya and Greece in the West.

So at this time there had been a remnant return to Jerusalem, but Jewish people lived throughout the empire, some of them even in the citadel of Suza, which is where the action in Esther takes place.

So how do you treat the most powerful man in the world? Well, there is an expectation of obedience, not just from his armies, or his government, but also from his household. So one day during a lavish banquet King Xerxes and the visiting dignitaries and the nobles are beginning to behave in some fairly unpleasant laddish behaviour. After a few drinks too many, the men begin to boast about their sexual conquests and the king begins to boast about his queen. After all, the purpose of the banquet was the display the might and prowess of the empire, and what better way of doing so than to parade the king’s greatest trophy to the world.

Now this was well before the days of political correctness, and so the king summons his attendants to go and get queen Vashti. We read in chapter one verse 11: that she was to be brought “wearing her royal crown, in order to display her beauty to the people and nobles, for she was lovely to look at.”

Now chaps might expect the same response if we tried to get away with this sort of thing. Vashti is often dismissed as a small bit-player in the Esther narrative but, like many of the more interesting women in the Old Testament, Vashti is something of a proto-feminist. As Queen, the eyes of the empire will be on her and her actions will be noticed and copied by the women of the realm, and Vashti won’t come and be treated as a sex-object, something to be ogled at and fantasised about. So the King has something of a problem – here is someone in the very heart of his household who will not obey him.

The King’s advisors say to him, if you let her get away with this, then people the notice and the same problem will spread. Wives will say to their husbands “If even the wife of Xerxes does not obey him, why should we obey you?” So Xerxes makes an example of Vashti and kicks her out. This leave a vacancy, not in the kings bed, it seems, there are still plenty of young women in the harem for that purpose, but there is no queen, and so the king decides to do what any self respecting monarch would do, he decided to choose his next queen by holding a beauty pageant.

So it’s a case that whoever is the most beautiful wins. Or at least that’s the vegi-tales version. The real criteria seems to be whoever most satisfies the king sexually would be the winner. This is not just a beauty pageant, this is about how good you are in bed.

And just in case we are a bit squeamish about admitting what was actually involved, what happened at this point is that the women went from one part of the harem, where the women were virgins, into the king’s bedroom and then on to another section of the palace where the women were wives or concubines. Verses 13 and 14 of chapter 2 spell it out for us”

“And this is how she would go to the king: Anything she wanted was given her to take with her from the harem to the king’s palace. In the evening she would go there and in the morning return to another part of the harem to the care of Shaashgaz, the king’s eunuch who was in charge of the concubines. She would not return to the king unless he was pleased with her and summoned her by name.”

And presumably if you were called, you learnt the lesson of Vashti, and you came.

Now Esther is the heroine, she has received a little help, and undergone months of beauty treatments, and at the end of the day she is brought to the king.

And Esther pleases the king and she is made queen, and the citadel celebrates by having another lavish banquet in her honour, decreeing a public holiday and showing the provinces with gifts from the royal treasury.

While all this is going on, the camera shifts. We are still in the citadel of Susa, but now Mordecai is the focus. Mordecai is a Jew, and the Uncle of Esther, and we read that he has raised Esther like a daughter. Now Mordecai is a fairly shrewd operator, and he keeps a low profile and we realise that it was on his instructions that Esther has kept quiet about the fact that she is a Jew.

One thing, however, brings Mordecai to the attention of the king – from where he sits at the kings gate, he is able to hear a lot of gossip, and one day he stumbles upon a plot among the royal officials to assassinate the king himself. Mordecai reports this, the culprits are captured and executed and Mordecai’s name is written down in the annals as someone worth honouring. This is a little like having your name on the Queen’s new year’s honours list, it’s symbolic rather than of any material value.

Chapter three introduces us to another character, Haman the Agagite. Haman is a senior official in the government of Xerxes and, like the king, he is a man who expects to be obeyed. He expects people to recognise his importance and to do as he says.

Now Haman thinks that a good way to show respect is by bowing down, and so he issues an order that whenever he rides past, everyone must bow down and worship him.

This is a man with delusions of grandeur on the scale of a Kim Jong-Il or a Saddam Hussein, and if you refused to play along, you would find yourself in real trouble.

And just in case we think that Haman is an historical anomaly, take a look at the luxury motorcade which carries Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe around his poverty stricken country. Since 2002, motorist have been required by law to pull off the road of they see the president’s entourage coming. It’s also an offence to gesticulate at the vehicles, and pedestrians who don’t get out of the way run the risk of being mown down or shot as terrorists.

But one person in Susa won’t obey the order. Mordecai won’t bow down and so Haman is enraged. Every time he enters the king’s gate, there is this man who will not show reverence. One thorn in his flesh, reminding him that he is not as powerful as he would like to be. Haman can command men’s actions, but he cannot command their will.

We don’t know if Mordecai is simply standing while those around him bow. We don’t know if he turns his back or if he makes rude hand gestures as Haman rides past, but his defiance causes Haman to hate this man and to hate his people. He might be saying to himself, “this is typical of this weak king and his tolerance of these people. These Jews are a threat and a danger”, and so he plans to get revenge on the Jews, and he arranges for the king to sign a death warrant for this people.

So the day is set, the command is signed, sealed and delivered, and we’ll remember from Daniel that the laws of the Meads and the Persians cannot be repealed. Once they are written then must be carried out.

So the Jews are sentenced to death, at the hands of Haman, with the authority of the king.

Now this leaves Mordecai with a serious problem, and unbeknown to the king, it also leaves Esther with a problem. And so Mordecai begin to fast and pray. He tears his clothes, he sits in sackcloth and ashes and he talks to queen Esther.

Mordecai says to Esther, you have the ear of the king. You are his queen and with him when no-one else is, can’t you whisper something in his ear during your pillow talk and do something to stop this. Esther’s reply is to remind her uncle what happened to queen Vashti. Chapter 4 verse 11, Esther says:

“All the king’s officials and the people of the royal provinces know that for any man or woman who approaches the king in the inner court without being summoned the king has but one law: that he be put to death. The only exception to this is for the king to extend the gold sceptre to him and spare his life. But thirty days have passed since I was called to go to the king.”

But Mordecai has faith that there is more going on than meets the eye. And so he replies with this well known phrase, which is at the heart of the book and at the centre of our understanding of Esther. Chapter 4 Verse 13:

“Do not think that because you are in the king’s house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?”

And so reflecting on this Esther realised that she has no choice. This is not just about doing the right thing, but about survival and so she resolves to do something very risky.

Esther puts on her best clothes, and goes to the palace, and stands before the king. And, he is pleased to see her – which is good news and Esther and great news for the Jews.

But it is not enough for her to just go in and argue about politics, the law cannot be repealed, and so instead Esther begins to put in motion a plan to save the Jews.

Esther asks the King to come to a private banquet, and to bring Haman with her. Which makes Haman think even more of himself. He thinks, what a privilege to be invited to dinner at the royal table, what a recognition of my status, what an accolade!

But there is still someone who can dent Haman’s mood, and as he leave the palace, again he sees Mordecai in the gate, and this time he resolves to destroy him utterly, and so builds high gallows in his back garden, with the intention of stringing Mordecai up on them, publicly humiliating him as he has done by refusing to bow down.

What happens next is nothing short of divine intervention. Seemingly by co-incidence that night the King cannot sleep. And to help him nod off he begins to read through the annals until he comes to the part which records Mordecai’s involvement is uncovering the assassination plot. He also realises that he has done nothing to recognise this.

At that moment Haman comes into the court, with the death warrant ready for signing, but instead the king asks him “What should be done for the man the king delights to honour?” Haman cannot think of anyone who could possibly be more worthy of honour than himself, and so he thinks ‘what would I really like’ and so he says, verse 7 of chapter 6:

“For the man the king delights to honour, have them bring a royal robe the king has worn and a horse the king has ridden, one with a royal crest placed on its head. Then let the robe and horse be entrusted to one of the king’s most noble princes. Let them robe the man the king delights to honour, and lead him on the horse through the city streets, proclaiming before him, ‘This is what is done for the man the king delights to honour!’”

“Go at once,” the king commanded Haman. “Get the robe and the horse and do just as you have suggested for Mordecai the Jew, who sits at the king’s gate. Do not neglect anything you have recommended.”

Don’t you just love that bit? The tables are turned and the hero is exalted. This man who has humiliated Haman, will now humiliate him once again, and Haman is no fool, he goes out and obeys the king. We might see the forces smile on his face, but we know than inside his heart is seething with impotent rage at his powerlessness to destroy this man who keeps on defying him.

After this Haman attends the Banquet arranged by Esther. And at this feast, as is often the way, the drama is paced out. So on the first night they have a great time, they have the best food and the best wine and Esther asks if they can do it all again tomorrow.

The next night the scene is the same, but during the second feast, Esther begins to reveal her hand. At the start of chapter seven, the king again asks Esther what she wants and she says this:

“If I have found favour with you, O king, and if it pleases your majesty, grant me my life—this is my petition. And spare my people—this is my request. For I and my people have been sold for destruction and slaughter and annihilation. If we had merely been sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept quiet, because no such distress would justify disturbing the king.’”
King Xerxes asked Queen Esther, “Who is he? Where is the man who has dared to do such a thing?”
Esther said, “The adversary and enemy is this vile Haman.”

Brilliant! Esther is a Jew, and Haman has signed her death warrant with the King’s own signet ring, and here he is cowering at the dinner table, fully aware of what is about to happen.

Well, this where the story turns from Drama to Farce, at the king storms out Haman falls down before Esther and begin to plead for his life. At this point the king returns and sees Haman with his hands all over the queen and thinks “if this wasn’t bad enough, now Haman is trying to molest the queen as well, and so he has a bag put over his head, and he is let out to the very gallows that Haman had built for Mordecai.

After that Ester and Mordecai put together this plan to save the Jews. As we said, these laws cannot be repealed, so a new law is passed, that gives the Jews permission to arm themselves and to kill anyone who is planning to kill them.

And so this threat of destruction to both sides means that a truce descends and the feared ethnic cleansing does not take place. There is some fighting, but those who are the enemies of the Jews are frustrated and themselves killed.

Finally, Haman’s family are hung on the gallows they had intended for the Jews, a very public demonstrations of the triumph of the Jews and the destruction of their enemies.

This is a story which records God’s deliverance. That’s why it is read at the festival of Purim as a reminder of the rescue of the Jews.

At the end of the story the tables are turned completely, The final verses of the canonical Esther say this:

Mordecai the Jew was second in rank to King Xerxes, preeminent among the Jews, and held in high esteem by his many fellow Jews, because he worked for the good of his people and spoke up for the welfare of all the Jews. Here is a godly prayerful man in a powerful position.

It’s a great story isn’t it? A riveting read with high drama, great irony, black humour, and captivating suspense. But we are still left with the question we started with.

Where is God is all of this?

  • We can infer that he is behind the scenes, but can we prove it?
  • Can a book which makes no reference to the divine names be rejected as lying outside the interest of Old Testament scholars?
  • Is this book in the wrong place, does it belong in the apocrypha as a ‘useful’ book, rather then in the Bible as scripture?

As we read and reflect on the story of Esther, we cannot help but see that it belongs in the canon. The book highlights the Jewish people, scattered and exiled throughout the immense territory of King Xerxes, which the opening verses record, covered North Africa, the Middle East and Southern Asia. The story recalls how the enemies of the Jewish people contrive against them but through a combination of providence, bravery and cunning, the eponymous heroine secures the safety of her people and the destruction of those who oppose them.

The book of Esther reads as if it is has been written by a secular chronicler, anxious to convey the details accurately and favourably (especially the splendour of the king and his kingdom), but unwilling to attribute the outcome to a mere tribal deity. The story has the hallmarks of a ‘romance’ or a ‘historical novella’ and has assonances with the Arabian folk tale ‘The Thousand and One Nights’ . In Esther the king is powerful but benevolent, the heroine beautiful and brave and the enemy is ruthless and devious. There is a rags-to-riches transformation and justice is seen to be done, but there is more here than pure entertainment.

There is also the air of a moral fable to the story. Proverbs 3:34 teaches that YHWH “mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble” (NIV) and the story reinforces such a reversal of fortunes as the proud Haman is humbled and the lowly Mordecai is exalted.

In fact those Jewish scholars who were so keen to add to the book of Esther make this point explicitly in the Apocryphal chapter 11 where we read of the Jews

“Then they cried out to God; and at their outcry, as though from a tiny spring, there came a great river, with abundant water; light came, and the sun rose, and the lowly were exalted and devoured those held in honour.” Esther 11:10-11 (DC)

But this story is much more than a cautionary tale. Although it is not explicit in the text, the story is one of YHWH’s covenant faithfulness to those who are faithful to Him. In a world of cultural and religious relativism, Esther and her uncle Mordecai refuse to abandon their absolute faith in the God of the covenant and instead of being destroyed, they are elevated to great power.

The main characters in Esther are portrayed as flawed but faithful. Esther finds favour from the king as a result of her performance in his bed (2:17), she became concubine to the uncircumcised pagan king and is defiled as she eats the food from his table. On the advice of her Uncle she also conceals here true identity (2:20) and presumably as a result is required to participate in the pagan worship of the Persian court.

Again, in their attempt to make the Jewish characters in the book into better role models the LXX attempts to explain away these defilements with prayers from Mordecai and Esther justifying their actions. But the Hebrew text, which is bereft of these excuses, presents more believable and more credible characters. These flawed characters are more true to the Hebrew scriptures taking their places alongside Samson, Gideon, David and other flawed people who are, nevertheless, used by YHWH.

It is not perfection, then, which is the defining characteristics of the Jewish characters. Rather it faithfulness and trust. Mordecai’s response to the news of Haman’s plot is to put on sackcloth and ashes (4:1), as is the response of the scattered Jewish communities throughout Persia (4:3). In the Jewish scriptures, wearing sackcloth and ashes was synonymous with calling out to YHWH in repentance or supplication and there is no reason to suggest that the action has any other meaning on this occasion. Even the King of Nineveh, on hearing Jonah’s warning exchanges his royal robes for these garments of repentance (Jonah 3:6) and exhorts his city to “cry mightily to God” (3:8).

As we look for signs of God’s activity in the book of Esther, we realise that it is Mordecai’s Jewish identity and faith in God’s promises to His people that lead to the planned holocaust. Verses 3 and 4 of chapter 3 tell us as much:

“Then the royal officials at the king’s gate asked Mordecai, “Why do you disobey the king’s command?” Day after day they spoke to him but he refused to comply. Therefore they told Haman about it to see whether Mordecai’s behaviour would be tolerated, for he had told them he was a Jew.”

(Esther 3:3–4 NIV11)

‘He had told them that he was a Jew.’ These are the only words of explanation about Mordecai’s motivation for his refusal to bow down.

I an attempt to find some deeper connection, some commentators have suggested that it was his family history that prevented him from showing respect in this way. In 2:5 Mordecai’s family is traced back to Kish and in 3:1 Haman is identified as an Agagite. The connection that is drawn is that in 1 Sam. 15:20-33 Saul, the son of Kish fails to put to death all the Amalekites and especially their King Agag. Knowing who Haman was, how could Mordecai then bow before him?

This theory, although providing a speculative insight into the background of these two men, does not seem to advance an understanding of the theology of the book of Esther. In addition it contains a further problem in that in 2:6 the text records that “Kish had been carried away from Jerusalem among the captives carried away with King Jeconiah of Judah, whom King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had carried away.” This can hardly be the same Kish, appearing both in the deportation of 597 B.C. and the genealogy of King Saul some 400 years previously.

It is, maybe, more reasonable to give to Mordecai’s actions the force the texts suggest. Mordecai refused to bow or do obeisance to Haman, and although some commentators attribute this to arrogance and the Rabinic sources suggest that Haman had “a divine image embroidered on the chest of sleeve of his garment” , it is taken for granted by the author of the text that the reason why Mordecai will not bow is simply because he is Jewish. Surely, as the book hints and the LXX additions (13:14) make plain, this is because to bow to anything other than YHWH himself is to break the most important commandments, it is to deny the very thing that underpins the Jewish identity.

If his motivation is not to dishonour God, what of the explanation of his actions to those who were also at the King’s gate? When the King’s servants saw that Mordecai did not obey the king and bow before Haman the text records that they asked him why this was (3:3).
Mordecai’s response is not recorded (except that he would not listen to them, 3:4) and when he is reported to Haman it is “in order to see whether Mordecai’s words would avail; for he had told them that he was a Jew” (3:4). The reader is left to imagine what these words of Mordecai might have been, but there are very clear parallels elsewhere in the genre of wisdom literature where these words of explanation are make explicit.

When Daniel’s companions are faced with the rage of King Nebuchadnezzar for their refusal to bow down and worship his image, their response is simple and displays the same trust the Mordecai has that relief will come for the faithful Jews. They reply to the king saying:

“O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to present a defence to you in this matter. If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire and out of your hand, O king, let him deliver us. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up.”

Daniel 3:16-18

In Esther, the King’s servants want to test Mordecai’s words, and the words of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego seem to fit the mouth of Mordecai perfectly. There is trust, challenge and the simple refusal to compromise the worship of YHWH with the relativism of Babylon and Persia.

Joseph is in a similar situation in Egypt when he is asked to interpret the King’s dream. Having learnt humility in the disgrace of Pharoah’s dungeon, now Joseph is not coy about who it is he worships. Joseph says “It is not I; God will give Pharaoh a favourable answer” (Genesis 43:16). These short confessions are charged with meaning and again point to the source of Jewish identity – God himself.

One final example, again in the broader category of wisdom literature is that of Jonah. Again, a Jew finds himself among pagans and out of their favour, but as Jonah explains who he is and who he worships, the response from the pagan sailors is not anger, or incredulity, but blind panic. Jonah tells them

“I am a Hebrew,” he replied. “I worship [YHWH], the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land.”

Jonah 1:9

Among these men there is a realisation that YHWH is more then a tribal deity, he is the cause of their calamity and must become the object of their worship (Jonah 1:16).

The proving of the words of Mordecai is synonymous, then, with testing the faithfulness of YHWH. Mordecai firmly believes that deliverance will come and he recognises that he and Queen Esther may be YHWH’s instruments in obtaining that deliverance, but that whether or not they act in accordance with His will, YHWH will deliver the Jews from their enemies and from the ethnic cleansing orchestrated by Haman. That one possible circumlocution which I mentioned earlier is the word ‘place’ in 4:14– “if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish.”

As the text plays out the story becomes one of role reversal. The powerless Jews are elevated by the king while the powerful enemies of the Jews are overcome. Mordecai is promoted from sitting at the king’s gate to riding on the king’s horse while Haman and his sons are hanged from the very gallows upon which they had intended to humiliate Mordecai.

From a human point of view, the bravery and courage of Esther brought about the liberation of her people. But the book of Esther stands firmly within the canon of scripture as it tells the story of YHWH’s providence and his faithfulness to those who follow Him. Although these people are morally compromised, such is YHWH’s grace to them that they can become His agents for deliverance in a foreign court. This is the reason for celebration. This is why this scroll would be read both morning and evening at the festival of Purim to remind the Jews that as they participated in Purim, just a month before Passover, they were remembering YHWH’s deliverance, his grace and his covenantal faithfulness.

So Estehr book is not just a Jewish book, and Purim is not just a Jewish festival. The theology of Esther is the theology of Purim, faith in a foreign land. YHWH’s faithfulness to those who were faithful to Him.

So where is God in the book of Esther – He is there, we just need to look a little closer to see him at work.

Lent – A season of give or take?

Posted on by
1

Over the past few days we’ve been bombarded with cartoons and memes following the surprise resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. My favourite is a simple drawing of St. Peter’s Church with a speech bubble coming down from heaven saying “You’re giving up WHAT for lent?”

Today is Ash Wednesday – the first day of lent and, although there are big differences in how it is marked, both Christians and many others will make changes to their lifestyle for the (almost) 40 days before Easter.

Like most corporate activities, Lent has enjoyed a great variety of different incarnations. Before the protestant reformation you could be dragged off to court for eating meat during lent, immediately after the reformation you could be in equally hot water for NOT eating meat in lent and despite the religious vacillation which followed, the idea prevails to this day that the discipline of lent is unnecessary when ‘every day is Easter Sunday’.

More recently the rhetoric has been that we shouldn’t give things up, but instead take up something new – acts of random generosity, regular communication, or even just a new hobby. Two years ago the pendulum swung back and it was fashionable to do a social media fast during lent, so Facebook and Twitter fell silent for a while. It’s interesting to see how few people repeated that exercise last year – maybe Facebook and Twitter have now become so ubiquitous that the withdrawal symptoms were just too overwhelming.

So what can we do to observe this historic season of preparation, penitence and humility? I want to suggest that we give something up, and we take something up – but not tweeting or acts of kindness – lent can be about something much more powerful.

The second chapter of Paul’s letter to the church in Philippi is a reading traditionally associated with lent. In it, the apostle urges his readers to have humility as they think about their own attitudes to the themselves and to others. Instead of giving them good reasons to do so, however, he sings them a song, a creed which holds up the example of Jesus as a mirror to our own hearts.

And as we reflect on the example of Jesus here, we see that lent can be a time when we choose to give up our rights, and to take up our cross.

Paul begins by describing Christian community at it best.

If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.

Philippians 2:1-2

Did you notice the words Paul uses here? Encouragement; comfort; fellowship; tenderness; compassion; joy; like-minded; the same love; being one in spirit and purpose. These are all descriptions of how family life can be at its best. And Paul continues with an exhortation to root our enjoyment of christian community in the conscious act of thinking that others are better than we are.

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Philippians 2:3-4

Now Paul is not at all thinking of a kind of Uriah Heep humility where we ‘well aware that we are the umblest person going’ but really inside we seethe with jealousy and crave power. What Paul is describing is a recognition of our rights and our status (after all, Paul is writing to children of God) and then the decision to set them aside, to give up our rights.

And in this hymn of Praise, Paul shows us why:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Philippians 2:6-8

 

The first half of this song of praise describes three remarkable steps that Jesus took as he humbled himself. The first is that he did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but instead became a man.

We are familiar with people who grasp onto power. Pope Benedict is a wonderful example of a man who is prepared to relinquish his position of authority for the good of those he leads, but the world is full of people who won’t. For every Benedict there are a hundred Mugabes or Gadaffis who grasp what they have and hold on tightly. But the one person who really has something worth grasping, give it up willingly and the uncreated creator became a part of frail creation. He took the nature of a slave.

But this act of humility is not the end of the story and then we see that it was not enough for Jesus just to become part of creation, it was also necessary for him to die – he humbled himself and became obedient to death. No wonder Charles Wesley was moved to write:

’Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies!
Who can explore His strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
To sound the depths of love Divine!

But even that was not the nadir of Jesus journey. These verses finish with the simple words “even death on a cross” and this reminds us that the death Jesus died was not just a break in the cosmic order (the immortal dies), but he was subjected to the most brutal and excruciating method of execution ever devised. In fact, that where the word excruciate comes from – crucifixion – death on a cross.

And where Jesus has gone, he calls us to follow. Take up your cross and follow me is a call to die to self interest and self importance and to be willing to give anything, even our lives in the service of Jesus.

So as we follow Jesus’ example in lent, we are called to give up our rights and take up our cross.

But saying this is not to be a act of naive optimist, forgotten as quickly as the disciplines of Lent. (after all, how many saint’s days can we find in lent to justify breaking our fast?). No, this hymn gives as confidence that we can follow the example of Jesus because the final verses give us two antidotes to selfish ambition and vain conceit – Jesus’ name and God’s glory.

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:9-11

As we reflect on who will be worshipped and glorified in Heaven, and who is at the centre of the church, we cannot possibly maintain the pretence that we are the most important person. It is the name that the Father has given to Jesus that will cause all people to bow ‘in heaven and on earth and under the earth’. And all this is for one purpose, to bring Glory to God the Father.

So amid the dieting, the extra communication, the acts of kindness, the abstinence and the extra visits to church, let’s also remember the call to give up our rights and to take up our cross as we follow the example of Jesus and as we worship him and bring glory to the Father.

Malachi: Desire, Refining & Purity

Posted on by
2

The Waiting Place…
                                …for people just waiting.

Waiting for a train to go
or a bus to come, or a plane to go
or the mail to come, or the rain to go
or the phone to ring, or the snow to snow
or waiting around for a Yes or a No
or waiting for their hair to grow.
Everyone is just waiting.

Waiting for the fish to bite
or waiting for wind to fly a kite
or waiting around for Friday night
or waiting, perhaps, for their Uncle Jake
or a pot to boil, or a Better Break
or a sting of pearls, or a pair of pants
or a wig with curls, or Another Chance.
Everyone is just waiting.

Dr Suess, Oh, the places you’ll go!

Advent is a season of waiting, but often our preconceptions and experiences of waiting are no help as we try to imagine how this can be anything but an in-between limbo time. Unlike all those apathetic people stuck in The Waiting Place, however, our waiting in Advent is not a vague hope that circumstances will change around us, but an active process of allowing God to prepare our hearts for what is coming. 

240 meters above the Colorado River, arching out from the side of the Grand Canyon is a tourist attraction called the Skywalk Platform. This horseshoe shaped walkway has a glass floor so that visitors can look directly down and see the vertical drop into the canyon below, so it’s not a visit for the faint-hearted.

Turing the blank page between the Old and New Testaments can feel a little like gazing down into a giant chasm with our hearts in our mouths. How can we reconcile the two halves? How can we bridge these 400 years as the prophetic voice is silent?

The second candle on the Advent wreath represents the Old Testament prophets, who help us to leap across the chasm as they make us expectant for the coming Messiah. In this post I’m going to be looking at just three verses from the prophet Malachi, whose words were written on the brink of that chasm of expectation, at the very close of the Old Testament.

During our Advent service at St. Pancras, I paused after each of the sections below and played the relevant bit of Handel’s Messiah. You might also like to use the questions to turn your waiting into an active process in response to the challenges of God’s word.

Many of the verses in Malachi’s four chapters are written to the religious leaders in Israel, the priests and the levites. They are guilty of dishonouring God as they lead the people in half-hearted worship and offer deformed and second-rate sacrifices. Malachi writes to expose their impurity and confront their wrong expectations of God.

Desire.

In the first of our three verses from chapter three, Malachi examines their desires.

“I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty.

Malachi 3:1

On the face of it, this verse seems upbeat. They have been asking (in 2:17) for the God of justice to come and now the prophet tells them their request will be granted. But like our world today, the priests live in a consumer society and even their prayers are tainted by their greed rather than being a devotion which brings glory to God. Malachi says that they have wearied God with their constant calls for him to come and bring justice to the land when they are a big part of the problem.

Meditation: So what are we asking of God? What is it that we desire? Ask God to make your longing for Him to be deeper and more profound than our longing for stuff?

Refining.

The best place to be buried if  you were Jewish was on the Mount of Olives, to the east of Jerusalem, looking across the Kidron Valley at the temple gates. This was a good place to wait because this was the route which the glory of God took when it departed from Jerusalem in Ezekiel’s vision during the exile. And as He had gone, so He would return. 

In another, very familiar story, there is an often forgotten detail. It is how Jesus gets to the temple before he turns out the money-changers and traders. His route should come as no surprise to the alert reader of the prophets, however. He comes from the direction of Bethany, over the Mount of Olives, across the Kidron Valley and into the East gate of Jerusalem and into the temple. Suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple…

But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.

Malachi 3:2

Some 400 years after Malachi’s rebuke to the priests and levites, it was business as usual in the temple. Lacklustre formulaic worship was being offered, while the people were short-changed and fleeced by greedy leaders. No wonder Jesus accuses them of turning the temple from a house of prayer to a den of thieves.

But what were they expecting? Malachi makes it clear that if they though God would be on their side, the priests were sadly mistaken. Their expectations of God were way off the mark, he was coming to give justice, but they would find themselves on the end of his judgement.

The two images used in this verse are images of pain. A refiner’s fire is a smelting furnace, hot enough to melt away the dross and leave only the pure metal. Similarly the launderer’s soap is not some Fairy nonbio-esque powder. The image is of ammonia or lye, which bleaches out stains. There’s a memorable (and disturbing) scene in the film Fight Club where the protagonist is given a chemical burn on his hand from pure lye, and these two images combine to show us how painful it can be when impurity is exposed.

Meditation: What impurities is God exposing in your life? What are you hiding from Him? Ask God to reveal to you the places in your heart where his refining is needed.

Purity.

Exercise gurus have popularised the expression ‘No Pain – No Gain’ to motivate us to regular workouts, but the principle is the same here. Although rather than motivate us to undergo suffering, the prophetic message is more positive – there is real gain to be had from this pain.

He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness.

Malachi 3:2

The problem Malachi was addressing was that this priestly tribe, the tribe of Levi, were making what they offered to God unacceptable by their sin. And God’s solution is the pain of refining. But this is not an arbitrary punishment for sin, God’s people are to undergo this suffering so that the impurities are melted away and the stains are bleached out. Then this priestly tribe will be able to ‘bring offerings in righteousness’ – their worship will be acceptable to God once again.

And the picture is similar for Christians. When God exposes our impurities we don’t just ask for forgiveness from them, we also pray that God will refine us to remove them altogether. We endure temporary pain for lasting gain.

Meditation: Do we want God to refine us from the impurities in our lives? Are we just at the stage where we ‘want to want’ that? Ask God to help you submit to his refining and to give you a vision of what it might be like to have a heart like silver and gold.  

Stepping out across the Chasm.

So is the gap between Old and New Testaments so scary? Not if we remember how the one ends and the other begins. Despite the silence of 400 years, the Old Testament closes with the promise of that “I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me”.

And the New Testament does not begin with a baby in a manger. It begins with a priest, a son of levi, alone before the altar, receiving the news that he will have a son who will ”make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:17)

The chasm has been bridged, but we are still called to wait. While we do so we can make waiting an active process where we allow God to expose our impurity and confront our wrong expectations of Him.

During Advent I’m linking up with Tanya Marlow’s advent series on Thorns and Gold. Next week, John the Baptist.

Abraham: Promise, Hope and Groaning

Posted on by
3

During Advent I’ll be doing a few things differently. At church we’ll be having midweek Morning Prayer services looking at the four characters traditionally depicted by the four candles on an Advent Wreath. I’ll also be linking up with Tanya Marlow as part of her ‘Advent Thoughts’ series on Thorns and Gold. To top it all I’m reading Paula Gooder’s book ‘The Meaning is in the Waiting: The Spirit of Advent’. Paula’s meditations explore the same characters, so any similarity to what I’m writing  is entirely intentional.

First Advent Sunday

The first candle on the Advent Wreath represents Abraham. We first meet Abraham in Genesis chapter 11, but it is at the start of chapter 12 that Abraham’s story really begins as God calls him to leave behind the ordinary and live an extraordinary life of faith. Even his name will change to reflect his new calling, from Abram (Exalted Father) to Abraham (Father of Many).

Throughout the portion of his life which is recorded in Genesis, the dominant verbs are about movement: go; he went; he took; he set out; he arrived; and that’s just in the first four verses of chapter 12. What is extraordinary about Abraham is that his willingness to go is based on nothing less than his faith that God would keep his promises. And what promises they were:

“I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you. ”

Genesis 12:2-3

Abraham’s faith in the promises of God is why he is a model of waiting for us. I’m going to look at three words from his life which give meaning to our waiting: Promise, Hope and Groaning.

Promise

 After this, the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision:

“Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward.”

But Abram said, “Sovereign LORD, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.”

Then the word of the LORD came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.” He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”

Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

(Genesis 15:1–6)

Can you imagine an expensive but really inappropriate gift? Maybe a hand-made sofa for someone who is about to emigrate to Australia, or a hot air ballon ride fro someone who is afraid of heights. That’s how Abraham seems to be responding to God’s ongoing promises to him: ‘What’s the point of giving me anything, even the world, because I can’t keep it in my family – all my property will pass to a servant in my household”.

But God makes another game-changing promise to Abraham, not only will he have a son (and not an adopted son, but his own flesh and blood) but his descendants will be as numerous as the stars in the sky.

Abraham believed God’s promise and it was ‘credited to him as righteousness’.

Hope

Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God,being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Romans 4:18–22

Oh! So that’s why Abraham’s faith is such a big deal. At 100 years old, Abraham was well past the age when anyone could reasonably expect to have children, so was his wife Sarah. Humanly speaking, Abraham’s faith was ‘against all hope’, but Abraham was the first person in the Bible to use reason to interpret the Word of God. Abraham reasons that God has the power to do what He has promised. He was fully persuaded that God could bring expectancy out of barrenness, and so Abraham trusts God.

This is where Abraham’s example informs our waiting. Christians are waiting for Jesus to return and as time passes, humanly speaking, this looks to be against all hope. “Yet Abraham did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.” We are called to the same faith as we wait.

Groaning

For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling,because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

2 Corinthians 5:1–5

Abraham was a nomad and his life was spent under canvas, but that wasn’t all he had to look forward to. Hebrews 11:10 tells us that Abraham ”was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God”. The Christian life is supposed to be marked by dissatisfaction. Not in the sense that we are not content with what God has given us, but that we are longing for something better, an eternal house build by heavenly hands, rather than the ‘tent’ of this mortal life. So our waiting is characterised by hope, but it is driven by longing, and punctuated by groaning. As we move towards the nativity narratives during Advent we have licence to use the richness of imagery or childbirth and elsewhere Paul talks about our longing for heaven as groaning as in labour. So this groaning is hopeful, labour should lead to new life and so our longing for heaven is a longing that death is swallowed up in life.

In the mean time, we are not left alone to trust all on our own. “God … has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come”.

So we wait, trusting the promise, reasoning that our hope is well founded and groaning as our longing for heaven eclipses our comfort and satisfaction with this world.

Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face
and the things of this world
will grow strangely dim
In the light of His glory and grace

Hel­en H. Lem­mel, 1922

 

What was lost this week?

Posted on by
1

Something more than a measure of Synod was lost this week. In the aftermath of the vote on Tuesday evening not to accept the legislation that would make it possible for women to become Bishops, we also seem to have forgotten how to finish these phrases:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called …

“Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as …

“If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of …

“By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you …

“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and …

(Matthew 5:9; Colossians 3:13; 1 Corinthans 6:1; John 13:35
& Matthew 5:23-24 if you do need to look them up)

From what is being reported of church services this morning, there have been a very wider range of reactions to the General Synod vote, but everyone seems to agree that we can’t leave it here.  Synod has spoken, but no-one is happy, the question is whether synod members are willing to return to the table and work out a solution before being asked to vote again.

Right now, today, we have an opportunity to do something remarkable. Instead of defending our corner or justifying our decisions and actions, what if representatives of the different groupings in General Synod decided (or were invited) to meet together and try and agree what to do next.

Instead of trying to win public sympathy for our cause while we let open wounds fester and turn septic, let’s show the world what it means to be the household of God. Let’s do what Christians do: sit down together and study the scriptures with an expectation that God will speak though them; listen to each other’s hurts and frustrations; pray blessing over each other; then share a meal together and say “Though we are many, we are one body, because we all share in one bread”.

But what we can’t expect from such a meeting is that anyone will go away with exactly what they want. A common refrain during the Synod debate was that everyone felt they had compromised more than enough already but, as painful as it is, compromise is the only way we can find a consensus. On Tuesday the Church of England was humiliated before the world and we deserved it. Synod was presented with a piece of legislation which very few people were happy with and we cannot allow this to happen again. I pray that we can pass legislation with a 100% majority in each house, but this can only happen if we work out a solution in advance.

So here is my solution. Here are where I see possible compromises, and also why I think these are less serious that they might appear. Apologies for the simplification and grouping of positions, but I wanted to keep this post shorter then my usual efforts.

Legislation.

  • Pass a measure which removes the block on women being ordained as bishops, but rather then completely removing the provisions from the 1993 measure and the accompanying Act of Synod, retain the option for a PCC to request alternative episcopal oversight from a Provincial Episcopal Visitor (PEV, or Flying Bishop) but without the need to pass a resolution preventing women from ministering in churches.
  • As they do at the moment, PEVs would continue to act as suffragan bishops, providing pastoral care and episcopal ministry in churches which request them. They cover a wider area than just one diocese and so there might need to be more than three if more churches opt into this scheme.
  • This also removes the need for an unknown ‘code of conduct’ and removes the ability of an individual bishop to devise a scheme which does not meet the need of those who request it.
  • NOTE: as ever, the devil is in the details, the Act of Synod which provides for the ministry of PEVs is not enshrined in legislation, but carries a similar moral force. Extending the scheme in a way which met the needs of groups #2 and #3 below would be the main sticking point for group #1.

Group #1 Supporters of a Single Clause Measure

  • The compromise for this group is significant. PCCs will effectively be able to reject the ministry and pastoral oversight of a women bishop.
  • But we need to remember that this is the current position and has been for the last 20 years. Diocesan Bishops have not been complaining about feeling like second class bishops just because a PEV operates in their diocese, so women who become diocesan bishops and men who ordain women need not feel that what is being created is a two-tier system within the House of Bishops.

Group #2 Conservative Evangelicals who cannot accept the episcopal oversight of a Women. 

  • The compromise for this group would be in accepting that a woman could be appointed who was legally responsible for them and to whom they would be required to swear canonical obedience.
  • They would also have to give up any idea of ‘co-ordinate jurisdiction’ of a province within a province.
  • But this is not really a theological issue, as we already reason that the oath of canoncial obedience is made to the ‘office of bishop’ rather then the particular incumbent and that it is only ‘in all things lawful and honest’. So we already (sometimes) make that declaration to bishops we don’t agree with.
  • Similarly, we currently invite bishops to come and perform episcopal ministry and we choose which bishop to invite by thinking about the style of service, the pastoral needs of the participants and even which different bishops will insist on wearing. If there is no acceptable diocesan or suffragan bishop in a particular diocese, the PCC can opt to come under the ministry of a PEV.

Group #3 Anglo-Catholics seeking sacramental assurance

  • The compromise for this group is that they lose the rights given in the 1993 measure to prevent the eucharistic ministry of a woman priest in their church. They too have to swear canonical obedience to the diocesan bishop (male or female) and would have to accept ordination to the diaconate from a female bishop or a male bishop who has ordained women.
  • Also lost would be any legitimisation of ‘societies’ or quasi-diocesan structures within the Church of England.
  • Again, the compromise is not as great as it may seem. No incumbent need invite a women to offer any of the sacraments (or to preach) and no parish reps need accept a women as incumbent. With PEVs in place, the issue of sacramental assurance is also clear. Ordinations to the priesthood are usually done in the parish anyway, so a PEV could ensure that the priest was being ordained by a man who had not ordained women and who was not himself ordained or consecrated by a women.

So will you join me in inviting the people who spearhead your campaign to start talking to each other? If there was an easy solution then we wouldn’t be in this mess now, and what I’ve said above might be totally unworkable, but I don’t see anything else on the table.

So this is my open letter or my own petition to synod members, to the Archbishop Designate, to WATCH, Reform, GRAS, Forward in Faith, Anglican Mainstream and everyone else. If you like what I’ve said, then please give me a retweet or comment.

If you don’t then come up with something better, but please, please be a peacemaker, for they will be called Children of God.

Is Synod Broken?

Posted on by
10

It’s very hard to find a silver lining to the cloud created by this week’s General Synod vote not to pass the measure making it possible for women to become Bishops in the Church of England. If there was an upside, though, it would be the sudden resurgence of interest in the synodical governance of the Church of England and the legal framework which underpin it. Synod has done in one day what the education officers of the Ecclesiastical Law Society have been trying to do for years: get people excited about Canon Law.

Over the past week there have been many different voices clamouring to explain how just 6 people could swing this vote so dramatically. There have been calls for reform (small ‘R’) calls for disestablishment, some fairly scary calls for laity (non-clergy) to butt out of decision making altogether and also some potted historical analysis to try and explain why the General Synod is follows the same debating ethos as the ‘Mother of Parliaments’ on the other side of the Abbey Precinct.

There are three questions which need to be asked in the light of some of these comments. My answers come from my study of representation and governance in the Church of England, so hopefully they are more than just personal opinion. But then, as all good students of Canon Law know, interpretation of English law is very much to do with opinion, so feel free to weigh in.

#1 What are General Synod Members there to do?

Before I began my formal theological training, I worked for a while in the Student Union at a university. My job was to prepare students to represent their peers and to be involved with the governance and academic improvement of the university. So when students sat on disciplinary panels they were there to look at the evidence and decide for themselves, and when they came to quality assurance meetings they were there to offer a student perspective on the teaching and learning in their department. Most of the time they were there to think for themselves.

But once a year we prepared delegates to attend the Nation Union of Students’ annual conference. These students were different because they were not only elected, they were also given a mandate and the wider student body indicted how they should vote. As such, it was usually possible to predict quite accurately what the outcome of a proposal would be, even before there had been a vote.

Now, the important thing to realise about General Synod members is that they are representatives, not delegates. Members are elected from and by their peers and entrusted with making a decision on our behalf. They are not sent with a mandate, they are elected to think for themselves.

As such, a representative is there to listen to as much information as they can and to make an informed decision about how they will vote. When they came to vote on Tuesday evening, General Synod members had seen the responses from the parishes, deanery and diocesan synods, they had read the documents and responses produced by the different interest groups, they had read the letters to The Times and The Independent and noted the numbers (and genders) of signatories, they had done their own reading and reflection, and then they had listened to over 100 speeches over the course of the debate. Then they were asked to have a few moments silent reflection before pressing one of the three buttons on their electronic keypad.

It is absolutely no surprise how many of the members voted. Before they had even been elected they had laid their cards on the table and so it was possible to have a fairly good estimate about the general shape of the vote. But synod is not partisan in the same way Parliament is, and there is no mechanism for compelling members to vote with their ‘party’, to vote with the majority and especially not to vote to appease the secular media or even government.

And so there were members who went into the chamber undecided and formed their opinion by listening carefully over the course of the day. Some were looking to be persuaded one way or another, some just wanted to hear how the different opinions stood at the end of the debate.

There is no question that the rank-and-file of the Church of England (myself include) wanted a measure to be passed which allowed for Women to be consecrated as bishops. Those floating voters in the Synod’s House of Laity, however, felt that it was more important not to exclude those who could not accept this, rather then to push ahead regardless. That was the conclusion they came to after hearing all those speeches and their decision was informed and deeply considered. Those in the public gallery might have felt that provision was adequate but having heard the debate, more than a third of the House of Laity did not.

Having understood what the members of General Synod are there to do, we then need to ask the question about whether the members themselves really are trustworthy to make decisions of this magnitude on our behalf.

#2 Is the House of Laity Representative?

The criticism which has been repeated online and in print is that the method of election of General Synod members either ‘favours larger churches’ and that it ‘allows it to be captured by special interest groups’.

The first thing to say is that these two criticism are antithesis to each other. EITHER the membership can be dominated by the majority OR it is open to abuse by minority groups. It cannot be the case that a majority can be called a special interest group.

But let’s look at those two statements one at a time. Is there any truth in them, and are there better ways to choose representatives from those who are most invested in the Church of England, its members?

For those who’ve missed the multitude of dummies-guides-to-synod over the past few days, most of members of the House of Laity of the General Synod are elected by the membership of al the Deanery Synods in their diocese. Anyone who is on the electoral roll of a Church of England church can stand as a candidate for the Laity of General Synod, but it is a subset of this total ‘membership’ who will decide who is sent to represent the diocese. There are a few unelected (ex-officio) positions, but these are a tiny minority of the total number of lay reps.

This is in contrast to the House of Clergy, where all the clergy licensed to a particular diocese can vote for their General Synod representatives.

Each Deanery synod will have members from every church in the local area (the deanery) and so every parish in the Church of England will have at least one person who votes for lay General Synod reps, and this person will be elected by the church members who attend the annual church meeting. The number of reps elected depends on the size of the electoral roll (which is usually bigger, but proportional to, the regular attendance at that church). But does this favour larger churches? Well, it’s the diocesan synod that determines the number of Deanery Synod reps from each parish and, if anything, the smaller churches send a larger number of reps per person of the roll.

If a church has under 26 names on the electoral roll, it can only send one rep to Deanery Synod so, in theory, a church with 26 members could send two reps, although in practice the cut-off is more like 40. Much larger churches on the other hand, usually find themselves allowed six or seven reps from a membership of several hundred. This means small churches can have a ratio of Deanery reps to members of 1:20, while in a large church it could be as low as 1:100.

Add to this the fact that there are many more small churches than big ones, it does seem that the criticism that larger churches are overrepresented simply does not hold water.

There have been some calls to reform this house, or at least reform the way it is elected. These do seem to misunderstand the way representation in the CofE works. As I hope I’ve demonstrated above, any sort of proportional representation would only seek to increase the influence of the larger churches. Also, it is almost impossible to determine a genuine ‘membership’ of any given church. The two instruments which come into play in the selection of Deanery Synod representatives are the Electoral Roll and the Annual Meeting. If you are on one and come to the other, you have a say.  Moving the other way would also be counter productive. Having some sort of ‘electoral college’ (maybe the members of diocesan synod) further removed the process of election from those people who the lay members of General Synod are there to represent. As it stands, the electorate of General Synod lay reps is directly representative of every church in the country, and there is no other body than Deanery Synods of which that is true. 

So what about the claim that General Synod is open to ‘capture’ by minority interest groups? As with all elections were candidates are not personally known to the electorate, voters are choosing based on the information they have. Name, manifesto, history, churchmanship, gender, views on women bishops; most of this will be used by voters as they select their candidates, but it seems that the most important criteria is record of service.

In representative organisations it is common for voters to choose to stick with the status-quo, so in practice a diocese will often have the same set of General Synod reps until one moves away or decides not to stand for reelection. This means that the members are usually stable and informed about debates but, more than that, they are also known to the electorate. So it is quite hard for a new candidate to be elected, especially if they are trying to unseat an existing rep. And trying to co-ordinate Deanery Synods across a whole diocese to elect a particular rep (as one of the current online petitions is trying to do) is difficult, if not impossible.

Like all committees, the reason why minority candidates can wield influence is not a problem with the structure, but because of apathy among candidates and voters alike. With a few notable exceptions, Deanery Synods are not the most exciting place to spend and evening, and so members do tend to be there by default rather than because of an active choice. Because of the time commitment, General Synod elections are also not that hotly contested, so often the limited choice of candidates confirm the view that voters don’t really need to be that informed as they cast their vote.

I am extremely fearful of the damage of a politicised single-issue General Synod could have on the governance of the church, but the effect at deanery level could be quite exciting. Having a local meeting of Anglican Christians who are engaged with the process, involved in local mission and there by active choice could transform Deanery Synods into really effect forums for collaboration in mission. So my plea to those who want to hijack the process is this: if you stand for Deanery Synod, please don’t see your role as just to number the right boxes in a few years’ time, instead sign up with a willingness to be a part of the Church’s mission in your local area. 

#3 Does Tuesday’s vote show that the system of synodical government has failed?

Over the past week the prevailing narrative seems to have been “Synod has failed”. There have also been petitions, calls in Westminster and cynical cartoons calling for synod members to go back in the chamber and ‘come out with the right result’. One or two people have helpfully pointed out though, that having agreed the rules of debate, we cannot say that democracy has failed, just because the system did not deliver the result we wanted.

Did the House of Laity fail the church last Tuesday? No, I think it showed us that synod is still working. General Synod members are still prepared to vote against massive pressure from other members, from the clergy, from the bishops, from the internet and from the government if they feel that what is being proposed is not right for their church. For that I applaud them. Those who only last week were saying, ‘trust in the process’ now need to examine themselves to see if the abuse they have directed towards ‘no’ voters is anything more than sheer bullying.

But what about the overall majority who wanted to pass this measure? Would reform of the voting within synod be an option?  The phrase that is commonly used of governance in the Church of England is that we are ‘Synodically Governed and Episcopally Led”. In practice, this means that it is difficult, if not impossible, for significant developments unless they are supported by both synod and the Bishops. The reason why the ability to vote by houses is unlikely to be removed is that it gives power to the House of Bishops as they can to veto legislation and other developments of importance. The Bishops also have the power to modify legislation before a vote (as they did earlier this year), but this isn’t a right that is shared by the other two houses. And this cuts both ways, because by the same token the House of Laity can also exercise the same right of veto, which they did in Tuesday’s vote.

One person who brought huge clarity to Tuesday’s debate was Elaine Storkey. I remember clearly a story which she told about the vote 20 years ago to ordain women as priests. Following the vote she met a senior churchman in tears outside the chamber who held her hands and said “I don’t agree with this, but the church has spoken”.

The synod has spoken, and it has said that we cannot have Women Bishops at any price. Now the challenge is to work out a solution, which allows women to become bishops without tearing the church apart. What I can’t see any point in doing is bringing this back to another vote on this same measure with this same synod before there is some sort of consensus among members about a way forward that is acceptable to all.

UPDATE: If you thought this was long, my college essay on Synodical Government is even longer, you can download it from this page.

Not for this reason, not in this way.

Posted on by
6

This week was always going to be a difficult one for the Church of England and I, for one, can’t see myself celebrating either of the possible outcomes from tomorrow’s debate and vote on the Women bishops legislation. I’ve felt for some time that I don’t really feel comfortable in either ‘camp’, but this morning’s open letter published in the Independent has confirmed my view that I am in a real minority.

So let me start by saying something that I hope won’t be a surprise, but which I haven’t made public: I’m theologically in favour of Women’s ordination and so I don’t see any barrier to women being consecrated as Bishops. In theory, I’d be voting in favour of a motion to allow women to become Bishops and thinking it was not before time. Although I don’t like the label, I guess this makes me an egalitarian. Now I realise that according to some of my conservative evangelical colleagues I ought to drop the ‘conservative’ label, but I still feel that this best describes the approach to serious engagement with the whole Bible and the conviction that I should obey what it teaches.

But as the debate currently stands, I can’t find myself supporting the motion that is before General Synod this week, and were I asked to, I couldn’t sign a letter which uses the arguments printed in today’s Independent. Although in agreement with the principle, I can’t say that the “end justifies the means” – I don’t want it for this reason, and I don’t want it in this way.

Not for this reason.

Much of the ‘yes’ debate can be reduced to the single point made in today’s letter:

First, because the Bible teaches that “in Christ there is no male or female”, but all people are equal before God. Just as the churches have repented of our historic antisemitism and endorsement of slavery, so we believe that we must now show clearly that we no longer believe women to be inferior to men.

This is the trump card which is used to defeat all other arguments. ‘God thinks we are equal, so the church needs to come in line with the will of God, and repent of not doing so sooner’.

But to take a single phrase out of context and to elevate it above the rest of the Bible’s teaching is a sloppy way to make a point, and the danger of using proof-texts in this way is that by trading verses in this way we can generate a lot of heat, by no real light.

Over 1000 Bible teachers signed the letter in the Independent, but the challenge to Anglican Bible teachers as we engage with this issue is to heed the warning of the 39 articles, which prohibit the church and it’s clergy from “so expound[ing] one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another”. If we favour one text at the expense of another then we are not allowing ourselves to be led by scripture, we are sitting in judgement upon it as we say the bits we like are more valid than the bits we don’t. We need to look at more than one verse as we come to this debate.

So what does that passage in Galatians say, and what does it mean? And as we do so, let’s remember that this verse is written by the man who is often wrongly portrayed of as the arch-misogynist of the New Testament, the Apostle Paul.

“So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God  through faith,  for all of you who were baptized into Christ  have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free,  nor is there male and female,  for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  If you belong to Christ,  then you are Abraham’s seed,  and heirs  according to the promise.” Galatians 3:26-29

The big debate in the letter to the Galatians is whether Jew and Gentile are going to be included and united together in on church. In this context, this verse is not about the abolition of all differences, but it is about the unity of all believers in Christ. The Galatian believers were in danger of going back to an Old Testament legalism, which does talk about differences between the way men and women are included in God’s people. Paul wants to refute that as strongly as he can and we writes “You foolish  Galatians!  Who has bewitched you? … Did you receive the Spirit  by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?”

So we cannot use this phrase as a proof-text to justify the rejection of all gender distinctions, or any other distinctions for that matter. It is not the trump card that destroys all other arguments or silences all other voices. We need to engage with the whole council of scripture.

As I said earlier, I want to take scripture seriously and I do come to conclusion that gender distinctions should not prevent women from playing a full part in the life and leadership of the church. I come to that conclusion from looking at the accounts of the creation of men and women in Genesis, from looking at Jesus inclusion and treatment of women (as mentioned as the second point in today’s indy letter), looking at Paul’s practice in appointing, training and deploying female leaders and from seeing the way household codes empowered women in the home and in society, in stark contrast to pagan instructions from the same period.

But in this backdrop Paul sees fit to limit the ministry of women in Ephesus and also, to  degree, in Corinth. There can be no question that Paul really does write “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;  she must be quiet” (1 Timothy 2:12). This is not a man who thinks that all gender distinctions have been completely abolished.

I’ve taught elsewhere about how I this passage can be understood as the exception to the rule of equality, rather than the general principle which is excepted by Paul’s choice of women as leaders and teachers. But the point is that I come to an egalitarian viewpoint because I believe scripture consistently allows us to do so, rather than because one verse allows us to disregard all others.

Not in this way.

The other reason why I can’t support the measure as it stands and couldn’t have signed today’s letter is that it does not involve the “enormous compromise” which is claimed by the ‘yes’ lobby.

The church of England is governed by an incredibly complicated web of legislation, hierarchy and representative bodies, which allow for a wide diversity of theological opinion and practice. So it shouldn’t be that much of a surprise that such a complicated institution could produce legislation which safeguards the integrity of all its members.

I recently read an e-mail from one of the General Synod members from my own diocese saying that we needed to trust the house of bishops to come up with a non-statutory code of practice to safeguard those who hold a complementarian position. The irony is that just a few months ago, the same people who are urging us to ‘trust the House of Bishops’ were up in arms that the Bishops had attempted to introduce a fairly minor change to the legislation which is before General Synod tomorrow.

My fear is that if (and when) this measure is passed, over time the provision for those who cannot accept it will be weakened and then removed altogether. It isn’t that I don’t trust our leaders, but as I look around the Anglican Communion, and especially in the direction of the Episcopal Church in America, what I see is the dilution of protections to the point where congregations are forced to leave their buildings and dioceses find themselves in conflict with their national church.

So I can’t see myself celebrating either outcome from tomorrow’s vote. Unless that vote is to introduce genuine compromise, which allows for women bishops, while protecting the integrity of all those who want to remain under the authority of scripture.

 

 

Should I be on Twitter?

Posted on by
3

This week I was away on a conference with my fellow clergy from the Diocese of Exeter. From the start of the conference we were given permission to sit engrossed in our laptops, tablets and smartphones as this was to be the first Devon clergy conference with a “social media element”.

As I quickly pointed out using the #DevonClergy hashtag, this wasn’t really anything new, we used to call it passing notes, and it used to be frowned upon if you did it too obviously.

Now it turns out that there are a lot of Vicars in Devon who have Twitter accounts, but many of them have a tweet count in double figures, rather than the thousands which it is possible to rack up if you post on a more regular basis. They had signed up, but not really found a use for Twitter.

New to Twitter Login Screen

As Erasmus commented “In the country of the blind, the one eyed man is king” so even with my fairly modest 1,234 tweets I found myself in the rare position of being an early-adopter. I also found myself being repeatedly asked the question by colleagues “Should I be on Twitter?”

 

 

 

So here is an answer to the question – which doesn’t make recommendations, but does give an insight into how I see my own Twitter use, and how I want to develop it from here.

I my personal Twitter account in three main ways:

First, as a way of connecting with local people, businesses and organisations. I’ll typically do this by mentioning places I’ve gone, things I’ve been impressed by, and sometimes things I’ve been disappointed with. Most businesses, charities and venues have a Twitter account these days, so if you mention them by their account name you should expect some sort of response. Recommendations on social media are generally thought to be a good thing, and I’ve found that retailers get to know you as a customer if you interact with them online. I’ll often share photos here too, especially if something special is going on and I want to help publicise it. Here’s a couple of recent examples, both positive and negative:

Having a great ?#TouristWednesday? in the sunshine. With ?@Marttheart?, ?@NMAPlymouth?, ?@RoyalWilliamYd? & ?@NationalTrust? Shamrock.

Well done Boots Opticians. Just posted my new contact lenses to an address I left 12 years ago!

(I wasn’t being kind by leaving the Twitter username off this Boots tweet, I couldn’t find a relevant account to aim it at.)

Second, as a way of announcing news, notices and insights related to ministry or my blog. These are typically announcements rather than invitations to dialogue, but I occasionally retweet comments I agree with or pass on links to articles and blog posts, as in the example below. As a rule I tend not to retweet things I don’t agree with ‘as discussion starters’. Under this section I’ll also engage on a fairly superficial level with discussions or disagreements, but try to avoid protracted or heated exchanges in this public sphere. I’m also not a big fan of retweeting aphorisms from well know Christian speakers.

Catch up and share Stephen Ellard's great sermon 'Peace under God's rule' from ?#spancras? this morning. ?http://bit.ly/OtQnBr ?

Finally, I use Twitter as a way of sharing personal thoughts, anecdotes and photos with friends. Unlike Facebook, Twitter is a public forum, so I have quite strict rules about what I do and don’t share. I try not to give away any personal information that might help identity fraudsters; I never use my son’s name or put any identifiable photos of him on Twitter or my blog; I don’t advertise if the house is going to be empty, and I’m careful what I write about alcohol, eating out or spending money. I always need to think ‘would I be happy for my congregation, neighbours, parents (or Bishop) to read this?’

This does keep the sharing to a fairly superficial level, but I’ve found that it is possible to be truthful and humorous in a way that does help people to build up a picture of you are a person. Like a true Brit, my best humour is self-deprecating, and this seems to work well on Twitter too.

Just accused my mum of stealing aprons from my kitchen. She pointed me towards a draw containing nothing but clear, ironed aprons. #contrite
Fortunately I looked up from my iPhone when I heard the words "Tom Daley diving" from the bath tub.

Now the thing to keep in your mind as you tweet, is that if you are interesting and courteous (follow others and mention them) you will gradually build up a list of followers who fall into one of these three categories. As such, you want to keep them all interested, and not flood their timeline with stuff that isn’t relevant to them.

It’s a temptation to set up several accounts for different audiences, but as Christian leaders we ought to be able to integrate our life and ministry in such a way that we are presenting the whole person to those who are looking on.

Having said that, there is one additional category which I’m just starting to explore, which is using my presentation software to automatically tweet from lectures and sermons. Because the volume of information is likely to exceed the spam-tolerance on those who are not in the lecture, I’ve set up a separate profile to handle this information. (@JonMSpeaker) If I want to interact with my own lecture material, I will then do so by retweeting or replying from my personal account.

As I reflect on these three ways I use Twitter, it seems that there is one thing that they have in common, which is that Twitter is a great way of making friends. Twitter allows you to interact with people you don’t know or you hope to get to know and breaks the ice quickly. In a conference setting, it’s difficult not to speak to someone you’ve been interacting with online just a few moments ago, but for many, Twitter is now the starting point.

So yes, you probably should be on Twitter, but you also need to know when to put it down and have a real conversation.   

If you don’t already follow me, the you can find me on Twitter using the name @jjmarlow. Now you know what to expect.