Church Mouse squeaks again!

 I was thrilled beyond words this evening to discover that Church Mouse has emerged from his mouse hole and delivered quite a lengthy squeak on the important subject of the Archbishops' new  proposals on Women Bishops about to be suggested to Synod. As usual, Mouse squeaks a great deal of sense and when he predicts (and I quote) a cock up, the Church should  bloody well sit up and listen! The wisdom from the skirting boards continues,
It has been the clearly expressed will of General Synod and Diocesan Synods that women be admitted to the episcopate on the same terms as men, with graceful provision for those who cannot accept this. Those who are being offered graceful provision should accept it gracefully.

For the good of the gospel in this country, Synod members must vote against the proposal to reintroduce the Archbishops' amendment for "co-ordinate jurisdiction".

Oh, Mousey, we love you , we love you! We adore you from the ends of your whiskers to the tip of your mousey tail. Let's forget changing the Church (which is doomed anyway) and just see if  we can tempt this cute little beastie out more often. Anyone got some cheese?

Falling Upward

It has been an eventful two weeks during which we have seen a steady stream of news items about the various issues and conflicts that beset the Church of England. First came the news that Jeffrey John had written a letter threatening legal action against the Church, with all the opening of old wounds that entailed and with all the questions about exactly who leaked this - since Jeffrey John clearly did not intend to go public. Then there was the defeat of the Government in the Lords, promptly followed by Lord Carey's criticism of his fellow bishops and also by his further involvement in legal disputes on behalf of Christian Concern. Meanwhile John Sentamu advised the Government that they should not change the definition of marriage, something which (although I disagree with him) I think he is perfectly entitled to do, but which threw  into relief  just how little real power and influence the Church now has in the workings of the State.  Then we heard that General Synod next month looks to bring further debate and conflict over the legislation on women bishops, with the Archbishops looking set to try to introduce what seems to be wider concessions to those who wish to discriminate against women in the Church. Finally, the news that Wallace Benn had somehow-by-mistake ended up endorsing a book, Britain in Sin, which advocates legalising maritial rape , along with a host of other nasties, just put the final touch to the whole sorry spectacle.
I suppose I shouldn't really let this kind of news affect me, in fact I hardly do anymore. Sometimes it  is so predictable and wearies me so much that I can't even be bothered with it, but weariness, although preferable to bitterness, is not an emotion which enhances the soul or makes our spirit dance. I've been glad, therefore, that I've also spent this last fortnight reading Richard Rohr's Falling Upward, a book described as "A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life." I can find Christian books -  the type you used to  find prominently displayed on the bookshelves of Wesley Owen - utterly unreadable, but after reading Rohr's Advent Meditations this year, I immediately ordered some more, realising I'd found something which struck a chord.
        In Falling Upward, Rohr describes the way that our approach to life and faith almost inevitably shifts and changes as we grow older, or at least it does if we are people who tend to think and to seek and not to be satisfied with easy answers or with over simplification. Rohr says that, as we learn a different approach, our thinking shifts from being "first half of life thinking" which is "dualistic" (black/white, either/or, good/ bad) to "second half of life thinking" which is non-dualistic and deals more comfortably with paradox, uncertainity and holding opposed ideas in creative tension. I am not saying that I agreed with every word I read, but there was a lot of food for thought, after reading certain paragraphs I stopped and read slowly again - always an auspicious sign!
Rohr has a lot to say in this book, but Chapter 12 deals with the problem of institution, and, Rohr claims, institution belongs almost of necessity to first half of life, to dualistic structures and thinking. I can't cover all his points here, but this paragraph did stand out:
 When I say that almost all groups and institutions are first-half-of- life structures, I say that not to discourage you but in fact just the opposite.I say it first of all because it is true, but also to keep you from being depressed or losing all hope by having false expectations. Do not expect or demand from groups what they cannot give. Doing so will make you needlessly angry and reactionary. They must and will be concerned with identity, boundaries, self-maintenance, self-perpetuation and self- congratulation. This is their nature and pupose. The most you can hope for is a few enlightened leaders and policies now and then from among those "two or three gathered in my name."
I have a feeling that I shall be reading more Richard Rohr.

Chivalry or sexism?

My son has run into some problems with his boxing; his trainer says that when he puts him in the ring to spar with girls, he just lets himself be pummelled and won't fight back. He does his best to dodge the blows and fends them off but he never really punches back other than a few ineffectual and half hearted jabs when the trainer bellows, "HIT HER."  After being questioned he has said it is because it, "doesn't feel right to hit girls and that he was taught not to." (We got something right then...)
I am not sure whether to be proud of said son for this attitude or whether it is a sort of inverse sexism. My personal view is that we shouldn't hit boys or girls, but IF you are going to do boxing or any competitive sport then it is a mark of respect to your opponent to engage fully and give them a fair game or match. My son says it doesn't work this way; the sexes do not compete in actual boxing matches and the sparring is just practice (I don't know much about boxing) and on that basis, he would rather get pummelled! He says it is not sexism because some of the girls are fantastic boxers and much better than him. It just doesn't feel right to him personally.
Overall, I am not really worried that my son is going to turn into some sort of complementarian and I don't think his  quaint/ old fashioned/ chivalrous/ sexist/ stupid (delete according to your lights) attitudes will hold him back in his pursuit of competitive success, but I have to say that he did look rather the worse for wear when I picked him up from boxing last night.
"Been sparring have you?", I enquired casually.
"Yup", he said.
"Who with?", I asked.
He mentioned the name of one of the girls who is apparently a pretty tough cookie.
I didn't say a word.

Holocaust Memorial Day

On a related note, Rowan Williams address on Holocaust Memorial Day - which was yesterday. This year's slogan urges us to Speak Up, Speak Out.

Christian voices

 The debate over the capping of welfare benefits, both the Government's defeat in The Lords by the bishops opposed to a £26,000 cap on payments and Lord Carey's criticism of their actions has thrown into relief the issue of how far, as Christians, we should speak out. Those on both sides may try to claim the moral high ground or may see their view as the most truly "Christian" one. The Bishop of Lewes, Wallace Ben, has this week withdrawn his support for a book which, among other things, advocates legalising marital rape. The book was produced by a right wing think- tank called "Christian Voice" - how ironic that a group espousing views which so many find deeply offensive should see itself as a voice piece for Christian values! Indeed, when we hear Christians with diametrically opposed views speaking out on moral and social issues, we may well ask if there is any such thing as a definitive "Christian voice" on complex or controversial moral issues.
I believe that Christians should engage with political and social issues and should speak out against injustice. And yet when we do so it is inevitable that we will sometimes hold different positions depending on our politics, our understanding, our interpretation of scripture and the world around us. Even when it comes to  downright atrocity, we may not be united. Many Christians, while deploring the loss of life in war, may believe some wars are morally justified to prevent greater evil. Religious fervour is often one of the most effective weapons of jingoism and propaganda, while sadly there are some "Christian" groups and websites that spew hatred and incite violence against their fellow human beings.
Perhaps this why the bible warns us to be careful how we use our speech, not always to remain silent, but to think carefully about what we commit to words and about the consequences of our words. Perhaps one of the best known verses is the one in James 3 which warns that we should bridle our tongues,
 "Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!"
It seems to me that similar advice is given in the whole bible, Jesus warns us that, "by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."(Matthew 12) while the Psalms ask God to put a guard over our tongues and in Colossians we are told that our speech should always be gracious, seasoned with salt so that we know how to answer all men. It seems that when it comes to our speech, we are constantly told to exercise caution, and to think about our motives for speaking out, that when we speak out we do so from good and honourable motives and that we consider others' points of view and  so are able to "make answer to all men".
I do believe that, although the issue of when to speak up can be a difficult judgement call, that we should speak up when we perceive injustice and have decided it is right to challenge it. At the same time, it can sometimes be appropriate to curb our tongue, especially when to speak might do little good, or be for our own personal ulterior motives or  might cause unnecessary hurt or pain. As we are told in Ecclesiastes, there is a time to speak and a time to remain silent. The line between wisdom and folly lies not just in what we say  but in knowing how we should say it - and whether we should say it at all.

Good news getting a good press

On Wednesday, John Sentamu made a visit to Macclesfield to see and hear more about the work of the Cre8 Youth group. I didn't attend, although I did read about the visit and the work of Cre8 both in the local press and through comments and pictures on Face book from those who had been involved! What did surprise me was to be asked about the visit by a number of  friends and colleagues, most of whom don't live in the immediate area,  are not in any way Christians, and have sometimes challenged me with their views about of some aspects of Christianity and religious belief in general ( views which are entirely valid and which in many ways I share.)

 I told them what I knew about the work of Cre8 and of churches in the area and the reaction was one of interest and approval. One friend commented on how valuable she thought it was when people of faith got involved in this kind of work and mission. It is nice to know that news travels, not just bad news but good news as well. As someone who believes that Christianity has a message of good news  it brought to mind Matthew 5:16 - that Christians should let their deeds shine before men. It was heartening to see such a positive response .

Polite notice

From time to time I receive comments that I do not think are suitable to be published on this blog. I am quite happy to publish strong opinions as long as they are not expressed in such a way as might offend most reasonable people. I have recently received a few comments about named individuals which I have hesitated to publish and some which I have decided not to, either because they are clearly malicious or indecent or because they make allegations which, whether or not they can be substantiated, seem to arise from some personal grievance which I do not wish to see aired in this space.
I would like to make it clear that I  no longer intend to publish  any comments mentioning named individuals unless that individual has been mentioned in the blog post or it is strictly relevant to the matter being discussed. This includes comments which might be deemed to be of a "lighthearted" nature, but could be regarded as malicious by the person named or by their associates.
Thank you all for your understanding in this matter.