The Day after THAT Day

Courtesy of ENS

Before I say anything, a point of clarification - I am in favour of women being consecrated as bishops. Being both male and Anglo catholic are fearful things to be at the moment.

Very bright and insightful people have already written many good and worthy words in the light of the failure of the General Synod to pass the draft legislation that would have paved the way for the consecration of women as bishops. It passed through in the Houses of clergy and bishops, but fell in the House of laity. It is also fair to say that some foolish and baseless words have also been written too that would suggest that somehow God has failed and that the Church of England is now utterly dead. The writers of those words do not know God, I would suggest. 

I am one who feels sadness that this process didn't conclude as it ought. However, it didn't happen as many might have hoped (me included), and we are now left with some choices. Do we crumble as a church? Do we become unbalanced in the understandable reaction of regarding all women in ministry as living martyrs? Yesterday ended and today's day broke. My church is still standing stone on stone and the living work of God's mission seems, here at least, to have survived the night.

This all feels to me like a vast-scale Bishop's Advisory Panel (selection conference) where laity are either approved or otherwise for training for ordained ministry. Some of the words I have heard are the words I have heard from those who have either 'passed' or 'failed' that process. There is a real sense, which frustrates me in either case, that where the process is  for one's cause that it is of God and blessed by the Spirit. When it fails to back my cause, it is flawed and weak and characteristic of human ineptitude. In the case of BAPs, whole churches full of people might believe a candidate to be called for ordained ministry only to be told by three good folk that they are not. That is earth-shatteringly bad for them as this is for women in ministry today  - but much the same, it seems to me. Do we therefore focus on the the process, or do we re-focus on what God may just have said to us through its outworking?

What saddened me yesterday almost as much as the result was the stream of consciousness, often through Twitter, that poured forth into the public domain. I read some appalling things among the other heartfelt pleas. High in rhetoric and pathos, low on prayer and theology - some things were said that could have turned my resolute heart against the cause. Given that votes were in the hands of brothers and sister Christians, all present in the light of their own consciences, words like "stench" being applied to a possible No, or that if a room full of humans out of many millions make a flawed choice, that an entire church would be seen to be dying. I read more that lacked grace yesterday than I did in a long time. And that before the result. 

This debate in recent years had become tainted by those (some) who would fight for a cause at all costs, few-holds barred. Compromise was non-negotiable, seeking to create an inverse of the present. The present is unacceptable to many, and rightly so, but could we in all conscience create its equal and opposite sibling? These and many questions will now have to be re-imagined, and perhaps even more radically than before. 

For now, we are left with a strange sense of numb, in the light of Sunday's gospel which, perhaps even cruelly, refers to such agony being but 'the birth pangs' (a uniquely female experience). I think it is fair to say that a 'No' was a considerable shock to all sides, which now leaves questions. In the middle of those questions is God, however. Why did the verdict go this way? What would God have the church do before this can pass through? Are there lessons and what are they? We are, I am quite sure, being asked by God to consider embracing diversity and difference, but for all those years of campaign and energy to not have been utterly wasted, the church (and me too as part of it) have now to consider what today must bring now - for it is the tomorrow that none of us expected. 

And I concede that all of this is very easy for me to say (but take heart, women will be bishops long before I will be) ...

Have Men Lost Their Voice?

Yesterday was Trinity 2. It was also Father's Day, a day that many will claim is a commercial invention to sell cards and poor CD compilations of 'driving hits'. 

I have made an observation this year. When it was Mothering Sunday I heard much about its value and how such a day allows us to celebrate the motherhood of the Church etc. The social meejyah was replete with images and sloganeering for and by mothers in support of themselves and the wonderful work of motherhood that they rightly embody. 

The thing is, the only reference I saw for Father's Day wasn't from a blokey geezer dad-type person. No. Not a single bloke uttered a mere morsel of self-congratulation about their paternity and all the blessings and joys that proceeds from it. No.

All I saw on Father's Day was written for and by mothers who are themselves single mothers and therefore the mum and dad of the piece. 

Now, this isn't a post making a complaint about women and their apparent desire to self-congratulate on the internet. There are far worse things to do with one's time. Perhaps Father's Day is a relic of a former age? Well, the restaurant I was sat in was filled to capacity so I sensed that that argument didn't work. 

The thing for which I chastise myself this day is when, during church notices yesterday - having asked if there was anything else to mention - was confronted simply by a sole male voice who uttered "Father's Day". I felt somehow naughty for mentioning it in church for fear of chiding the Mum's Onion (who don't like me at the moment - again). Speaking as one of the brotherhood of males called to parenthood, I ask simply whether we men have lost our voices? Are we afraid of offending?

It certainly seems so!

AMiE, AMiE, Give Me Your Answer, Do!

"All who believed were together and had all things in common" (Acts 2: 44)

"God is love, and those who live in love live God, and God lives in them" (1 John 4:16)

Togetherness and love are what the Church of God has in common with every normal family in all their shades. The Church family has Christ as its head, we have our Mother in the perfectly sublime Mary, and we are children, together, of the same Heavenly Father. 

The problem is that Christians in many circles have given up being together. They have stopped negotiating their differences, listening, talking, or even trying to understand. The enemy, in the minds of many Christians is not without, it is within. In so many ways, grace has become so thin that where someone is different or hold a different view, that they are considered opponents. 

The Church of England is still reeling from the wanderings of some Anglo-Catholics, who have taken entire parish communities with them, leaving behind some of the most appalling messes. Far better to conveniently overlook the whole transubstantiation thing because it is but a trifling next to the weightier issue of grubby women. People speak of integrity - I just see people refusing to play by rules that they don't subscribe to, and taking the ball with them in many cases. 

Now we have the crew at the other end of the ecclesial spectrum. Not only have they found a friendly archbishop (the nearest was in Kenya, apparently), but they have presumed to call themselves 'Anglican Mission in England' [AMiE]. Forgive me, but how dare they? Their intention is, by all accounts, to teach the rest of us flawed CofE types what we should be doing. This is, of course, wrapped around the whole 'women thing' is another family member to go it alone. Mine, too, is an Anglican Mission in England - and like FinF, have taken a statement that applies to all Christians and made it their own in the context of their choosing (and not mine).  

I am peeved by all of this. I am saddened that we have got to a stage, in a multi-communicative age, when communication is all but gone. This feels exactly how it would if one of my children, whom I lovingly raise and feed, love and nurture - came up to me and told me that because we are having salad for tea that they are going to find another Dad (but won't be moving out, because it is their room, and would I mind still paying for the heat and light). In a normal domestic family, this would be regarded as appalling behaviour, a grotesque dis-respect.

So why is it appropriate behaviour in a church setting? 

If it is, then I ought to let you all know that I have an emotional and theological issue with the music of Patrick Appleford. I am going to find me an archbishop (Archbishop Frosty Inuit, he'll do), and give myself a cracking good name: Society To Undermine Patrick's Irritating Dirges (or alternatively the Association for the Restoration of Sung Expressions of Spirituality)  - an organisation that will presume to tell the rest of you lot what to do and how you should jolly well do it. Sorted. 

I don't really have an issue with Patrick Appleford's music, not completely.

Resolutions, Women, Church and Choices

In regard to church life, there are two stances that I take 

1. I support the calling of all people to all ministries within the church if they are God-given and demonstrable (ie the same marker that I was asked to stand by). 

2. I defend the right of anyone to disagree with the above, and believe that a family should be strong enough to accommodate both/other/all points of view

The tension in holding these two views brings with them some consequences for me. I was looking at the Resolutions as they stand at the moment, and given that they are not much published on the web, include them here: 

Below are the texts of Resolutions A and B, and the provision for Alternative Episcopal Oversight, commonly known as Resolution C, as they apply to parishes. They should be read in the context of the legislation that put them in place – i.e., The Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1992 (Resolutions A and B) and the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993 (Resolution C). 

Resolution A

That this Parochial Church Council would not accept a woman as the minister who presides at or celebrates the Holy Communion or pronounces the Absolution in the parish.

Resolution B

That this parochial church council would not accept a woman as the incumbent or Priest-in-Charge of the benefice or as a Team Vicar for the benefice.

Resolution C

Where the Parochial Church Council of any parish has passed one or both of the resolutions set out in Schedule 1 to the Measure, a decision may be taken jointly by the minister and the council to petition the diocesan bishop concerned to the effect that appropriate episcopal duties in the parish should be carried out in accordance with this Act of Synod

I will start looking at parishes soon as I move to incumbency, so rather than making blanket-presumptions, thought it best to examine the Resolutions. My churchmanship means that I am more likely to come across them. For my part, I believe that I could minister in a parish community that has A and B in place. It is not my role, I believe, to agree with a parish community - but rather to defend the rights of others to hold their views with integrity. I am, of course, in favour of the ordination and consecration of woman - and not even that - anyone whom God calls, whatever their 'label'. I would also hope that a confessing community would also allow me the same dignity. Mutual challenge in those situations can only be healthy if undertaken with absolute respect and openness. I cannot minister to a parish with Res. C in place for the following reason: I cook for my kids, and if they decide that they don't like my cooking we will talk about it, but they will not be allowed to invite another dad in to do it for them. Simple. 

The inverse of all of this is that some would remove all ability for dissenters to dissent, will force issues in some circumstances, and in those moments, people get hurt and become more entrenched in their political and theological perspective. Dialogue dies with prematurity. Churchmouse brought to my attention today a Paper tabled by Frank Field MP that seeks, to my eyes, to force hands. To force legislation in favour of anything renders it forced. Force removes compromise, silences voices, removes choice. The Church of England may stop being an adverse place for some, but it will surely become adverse for others instead - and I do not believe that any of us really want 'the other side' of any argument to suffer the pain that we ourselves may have suffered (and I acknowledge the endless pain in so much of this). Measures like the Resolutions that allow people integrity of choice are, to me, helpful things. We cannot all agree all of the time, and neither should we. We can listen though. 

Grasping The Nettle

In a post written yesterday, I found myself happily and gladly advocating the place of women in a given sphere (here, blogging). I am delighted to do that, but I count myself as one who really doesn't care about gender, but rather quality of being. Yes, there are things that I appreciate about women as distinct from men, and vice versa. For me, that is where it ends. In my post, I argued that there is no disparity between male and female bloggers (none that is imposed, or caused, at any rate).

After writing that post (and then defending myself a fair bit elsewhere) it occurred to me that in my defence of my post, I was, de facto, defending men as a whole single group. There has been much written about how much women have been and are discriminated against. Some is right, and some is wrong (from my own perspective as a human being). 

Let me say to all of you reading this, it is bloody hard at times being a man in the church today. 

Why? For the vast majority of us men who support everybody and anybody despite gender, we are still the implicit baddies in every article written on the subject of the discrimination of women. We are disarmed to comment about how we feel for fear of accusation. We daren't match the plethora of women-specific interest groups with men-specific interest groups. The vast majority of men in the church are not the ones who have drafted difficult legislation, marginalised women in the expression of their faith. Yet we are bound and gagged, at grass-roots level. I want to celebrate how it is to be a man in the church, to celebrate what we bring to things. I want to talk about what makes me tick, what floats my boat without fear of a pointing finger (I started writing this blog partly for that reason). Little wonder that men fear church life, or frankly refuse to engage except for being the taxi-driver on a Sunday or the obedient husband or ferrier of kids. Not a million miles away from here, men are sought like rare beasts under the titles 'un-churched' or 'de-churched' - such unhelpful labelling as I could imagine. (For clarity, I should point out that I am speaking about church local as distinct from Church institution - in other words, day-to-day church at community level)

I can hear a chorus building now. "But Cloakey, this is how it has been for women for centuries", and yes, that would be correct, and an appalling truth and one I acknowledge freely. But what have women quite rightly done? They fought past it towards a place of equality which in some ways is not yet fully realised. But part of me wonders if it not 'payback time', a little of our own medicine. Well, at times that is how it feels. 

I acknowledge that some women have cause to feel discrimination, and there are men who for many reasons, some sincere, some misogynistic, seek to maintain a disparity between men and women (and let us not forget the women who hammer those nails too, of which there are plenty). They are a slim minority of men. The rest? Barring a couple of percent of them, they fled (because that is what men do, sadly) for ever. 

So, not all men are bastards. Some of us aren't so bad. Many of us get it wrong at times, but want to get it right all of the time. Yes, some of us even wear black clerical shirts, practice their faith under the banner 'Anglo-Catholic' and find a way to accept women as equals in life and in ministry. Actually, the majority of that group are that way inclined, if the truth were known. And so too, it is the case that most women are not discriminated against in the Church. If you want to be a bishop and you happen to be female, you may make that claim, for example. My experience of being male in church life is that on a Sunday we are the tiny minority, and the other six days of the week. 


(Postscript - This post in no way seeks reduce the pain caused to women through discrimination. I acknowledge is effects at alive in some quarters today. Discrimination of all types, and against anyone is wrong and should be identified and countered by us all)

The Might of Women

This is Woman - she is to be feared.

Not because of her mighty claymore sword, not because of her intimidating glare. Not because of her feminine charms and not because she looks acceptably good in a leather skirt.

No, this is Woman and she is to be feared by all who behold her (except for a few days a month when she unclean and should be ignored, and more properly mocked for her weakness).

But I hear you asking 'why?'

I will tell you why: because Woman is mighty even enough to defeat the grace and love of none other than 

...God. 

She touches the matter of communion, and even the power of the Holy Spirit is neutralised by Woman. With her frightening Woman Ray and her alarming Female Photon she will break the connection that holds God and his church together - whatever she touches becomes Godless. The world may only be safe in the hands of none less than Man, the conduit of all the mighty universe-forming powers of God. 

Can Man save the day from Woman? 

Will God be vanquished by this scourge of the known Galaxy?

...tune in next week for 'The Ludicrous Opinions of Some Christians' to find out. If you missed this week's thrilling episode, it will shown again on the Sacramental Assurance Player

[This is a work of irony, by the way - before you comment that I am a 'traditionalist']

The Curate's Egg I

Egg of the Day

Scrambled

It is not late in the day; it is fairly and squarely lunch time (if you are not of the view that 'lunch is for wimps'), and already my head hurts. In life, a man needs a spitoon, and today's post is that spitoon. Hoik-Petooee ... ding.

1. I have been fully exposed to the popular press of you wimmin  - oh my word; what are you doing to yourselves? I didn't realise to what level the female psyche obsesses about weight. Guess what ... no, really - Beyonce lost four pounds last week. I can lose more weight than that by vacating my olfactory canals with a digit. Four pounds - and it reaches the glossy gleaming pages of Grazia. Natalie Cassidy apologised to the world for looking a little more cuddly than last edition - and why might this terrible circumstance be? She is pregnant. Oh my word ... saying sorry for wrapping the miracle of life in an ounce or two of love ... I ask you! Peculiar Spice (or is that Posh, I forget) is now so thin that all can see is her pout hovering 5'9" off of the ground, in the vicinity of a floating handbag and some whacky oversized sunglasses. If you are  to be anyone these days in Sleb Land then you will have sweated your giblets to near-death and produced a 'Lose Fat Fast' DVD  - immaciation for in un-initiated. Ladies, STOP!

Speaking as a blokey, and with some idea what causes the male red-cells to course more nimbly, I can tell you this: what you look like in the transient delapidating shell that you call a skin is as NOTHING when compared to the light that shines within it. God knows - you only have to look at most fellas to determine that four pounds to a man is largely his wallet and car-keys. It is all to do with who you are and not what you look like - though if in the event you are taller lying down than you are standing up, fear only for your health, not for how the world through the Sleb Land lens regards you. Enough said ... ?

 2. A controversial statement now - but if I don't make it, I will pop. Ladies of the Priestly Charism: stop apologising. God chose you, the Spirit ordained you, and the rest can ... well, converse with their own consciences elsewhere. I sense that in some circles that I have been party to in passing recently that you wonderful women are the only ones beating yourselves over the head. Enough said ... ?

3. I am tired. We are now in Holy Week (and if there are any Christians reading this that didn't know that, please go and stand in the corner), and the work-load is reaching its climax. I am a person who feels every cut of the scourge and each nail - and I rarely get through the Liturgy of Good Friday without weeping. This year, with so much stuff to do, I think that Good Friday might just overwhelm me - not good given that I am preaching. The crushing weight of the Passion has been given an extra dimension today. I officiated at the funeral of a very nice man earlier, and as I walked to the flower garden, I saw the vast array of flowers for a little girl of four years old who had died. That is as close as I got to that tragedy, and yet I am winded by it. I saw her radiant face on a card and she was overflowing with life. I bet that she was overflowing with life as she breathed her last and I pray that her smile is still as bright somewhere else. Life can be crap at times - and my prayers for the rest of this week will be with that poor family whose name I will never know.