Christmas Letter

The Rectory

Broadheath

Tenbury WR15 8QW

Christmas 2012

Dear

If you’re someone who dislikes round robin Christmas letters please accept our best wishes for Christmas and the new year and feel free to ignore the rest of this. 

However even though we keep in touch with some people with facebook, we still enjoy hearing about other’s news & people have told us they like to receive ours, so here it is.

February saw the birth of our third grandchild, Geoffrey, Daniel and Annabelle’s first child.  As a first born often does, he kept us waiting and didn’t seem in a hurry to come into the world and he needed a little extra encouragement before he made his appearance.

 

We had a week away on the Lizard peninsula, Cornwall, during February half term.  We stayed in a former lighthouse keeper’s cottage right at the southern end of the Lizard. We walked the coastal paths looking to see if we could see seals (we couldn’t), looked for geocaches (we found them) and walked the lanes where there were fields of daffodils in bloom.

The summer marked our 30^th wedding anniversary. Looking back it seems like a long time ago. We were out of the country on the actual anniversary. We were in northern Portugal staying for ten days near the river that marks the boundary with Spain.   We had a very pleasant time unwinding. We spent our actual anniversary canoeing, not something that many people would have predicted 30 years ago!

The run up to Portugal had been busy, not just with all the usual preparation for going away but because Madge (Margaret, my first wife’s mother) had after a long illness died.  Because of everybody else’s travel commitments the funeral could only take place on the Friday four days before we went to Portugal.  Also because it had to be that day, the priest from her local church wasn’t available, so I was asked to take the service. Not many people have the chance to say the last word about their mother in law! It all went as well as could be expected.

After Portugal was busy too.  We arrived back on a Friday. The next day was Edward (my nephew) and Kate’s wedding. It was good to see family on a cheerful occasion.

October saw us back in Cornwall for a few days break staying at Talland Bay, with walks to Polperro and Fowey and visits to the Eden project and the lost gardens of Helligan.

Another family gathering was in November when it was Geoffrey’s christening, again good to meet up with folk that we don’t see as often as we might like.

The churches continue to develop. Three years after the decision was originally taken, Stanford was added to this group on the 1^st of November.  That means I’m up to seven churches. It also means a change in the structures of the other six churches and that will take a little working through. This year has seen the first people from these villages being confirmed in several years, two adults in May and four teenagers in November. The Pastoral Team is starting to find its feet.  We have funding for a project with  someone spending two days a week developing geocaches in the churches, walks from the churches and stories of the local area. That project finishes next March.  There is more life about the churches.  I reflect on what I am doing with the Centre for Studies in Rural Ministry and am at the early stages of a dissertation with a working title of “How provision of church services affects church life: an inquiry in Teme Valley South”

Reflections on that vote

I have for some time felt that the Church of England would benefit from women  bishops. Women make excellent parish clergy, cathedral deans, archdeacons... There is, in my view, no reason why they should not be consecrated bishops. (Though why anyone would want to be a bishop is another matter. I most certainly do not.)

 

However not everyone shares that view.  I have met people who are opposed to the ordination of women  clergy in general and those opposed to the consecration of women bishops in particular. Some of those opposed have struggled to find any theological justification for their position and could probably be fairly described as "bigots".   Others have been good kind committed Christians with thought out theological positions that I can respect even if I don't agree with them. They are people who have faithfully served the church. They are a minority but a minority that I want to see assured of a continuing place in the Church of England. 

 

The legislation that was defeated spoke of  giving such an assurance but clearly it wasn't felt by the minority to do so. It seems to me that there were two factors at work.

 

First there was the way the legislation had changed. "We need safeguards", said the traditionalists. "OK, here are safeguards" said the house of Bishops and the draft legislation was amended. "But those safeguards create second class bishops" said the liberals. So those safeguards were removed. We were supposed to go ahead on the basis of trust.

     

And this is where the second factor comes in. Traditionalists have looked to see what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic. Reports and letters abound in the church press with stories of traditional congregations and clergy being thrown out of their churches by liberal dioceses, of  buildings formerly used by those traditional congregations being sold off at knock down prices to be used as mosques. I believe that traditionalists on this side of the pond fear that it could all be repeated over here.

 

I think this is reflected in the comments of the Archbishop of Kenya. He writes:

 "The key issue at this stage was the maintenance of proper safeguards for those who as a matter of theological principle could not accept such a fundamental change. I am therefore heartened that the Church of England has stepped aside from following the path of the Episcopal Church of the United States which has progressively marginalised and excluded those who seek to hold to historic Anglican faith and order in good conscience."

I hope that we have women bishops sooner rather than later. I hope that we learn the lesson of this debacle. Liberals don't want safeguards in legislation that create (from their perspective) second class bishops. Traditionalists don't want legislation that creates women bishops. I hope that Liberals will allow safeguards and Traditionalists will allow women bishops. Or is that too loving and christian for the Church?

A one in 10?

Pete Thorp presented with his licence by David Hoskins

Yesterday saw a range of services across these churches. At 10 o'clock we welcomed Pete Thorpe who was licensed as the reader to these churches. 11:15 saw a harvest service and lunch and Stanford. 3 o'clock it was harvest at Rochford. In the evening we had a harvest service and supper Kyre.
Adding up all the attendances at the different services there was a grand total of around hundred and twenty people that worshipped at one of the services. Not quite as perhaps one in ten of the total population of the villages, but not far off.

Reflections on a planning meeting - bats and farm workers

Yesterday evening (3rd October) I was at an area meeting of Malvern Hills District Council. I wanted to speak in support of a planning application and, as the application I was interested in was last but one on the agenda I sat through most of the meeting.

And very interesting it was too. It covered a range of applications for housing, stabling, a dog sanctuary... There was great variety and each application had been carefully scrutinised against guidelines by officers who made recommendations, many of which the elected councillors followed. Some they chose not to.

I was struck by one comment by a member of the public. Why, he asked, are  "we driven by the system rather than doing the best for the community"? In fairness to the councillors, in that case they went against the officer's advice and (in my view) quite properly put the needs of the community first. 

They did the same in the case I was interested in too. Unanimously they voted to allow a farm worker and his wife to have a chalet/bungalow on a green field site. It's good for the applicants. It's good for the community because if they are able to continue living here. It means the Village Hall has a Secretary, the Church has an Electoral Role Officer, the PCC has a Lay Chair. Rigidly following the officer's advice about the correct process would have denied the community all this. The elected representatives' common sense has been good for the community.

Earlier in the evening an application had been passed with the requirement that bat boxes be installed as bats had been seen on the site and they are a protected species whose habits are under threat. Perhaps we should make farm workers a protected species. Their habitat is under threat too! 

Or perhaps as the chalet is going to be the same sort of size as the stables I see sprouting up round the countryside they should have applied for permission for a stable instead. I seem to remember a story about a family where there was no room for them in the "proper" accommodation and so they had to sleep with the animals!   

£50 for a conversation!!!

No not with a dodgy premium rate phone line but for an email conversation with the local planning department.

Rochford church is trying to update its heating system and what is intended might be covered by church planning rules or might need local authority permission too.

So an email to Malvern Hills District Council explaining what we want to do and asking if church planning is enough. The email reply says yes we do need their planning approval and telling us that counts as " advice" for which a fee of £51 is chargeable!

But why doesn't church planning cover this? I reply.

Because of paragraph 27 of the attached document, comes their answer, and any further advice is £51

Are you sure you're right, I ask, What about paragraphs 5, 16 and Annex A which seem to say something quite different.

I'm not going to answer that, comes the reply from the planners, till you give me £51 pounds.


I know times are tight for local authorities but having to pay to get them to justify their decisions!

Safety first - at what cost?

Yesterday as I was walking the dog there was a girl of about three years old running along the lane. Not a busy lane and there were no dangers from traffic, but the lane led on to a main road with traffic travelling at speed.
The little girl was happy exploring but with no responsible adult to be seen was clearly in danger of wandering on to the road. She could tell me her name, but couldn't tell me where she lived. Her parents, she said, were at the shop but the nearest one is a good two miles away so that was unlikely! Of the few houses on the lane there weren't any that she seemed to recognise but there was one on the main road which she seemed to think was something to do with her.  Not so the residents of the house. They had never seen her before.
The story ended well. The police arrived just as a panicking grandfather appeared & she was reunited with her family, but it's worth reflecting on the role of the adults.  I was extremely wary of doing anything that might be seen as trying to abduct a toddler. When she was walking on the main road I held her hand so as she didn't get hit by traffic but what I wanted to do as a human being, a parent and a grandparent, was to pick her up. But I daren't for fear of it being misconstrued. Likewise the residents of the house were extremely careful to ensure that they did nothing that could be misinterpreted.
    

Reflections on Lent

As a Lent course we looked at some of the ideas in Nigel Room’s book “The Faith of the English.”

Just as Jesus lived at a particular time in a specific culture and showed what His Father is like, so too the church in any age cannot exist outside culture. If the Church is to show the nature of the Father then we have to do that from within the culture we live in. Arguably failure to understand and engage with culture is what leads to the demise of churches. So what is English culture, what is there about it that the gospel affirms and what does the gospel challenge?

The group looked at five sayings/attitudes that help us appreciate Englishness. They are “Don’t Rock the Boat”, “Humorous moaning”, “An Englishman’s home is his Castle”, “To be fair,” and “Sorry!”

Englishness is about moderation. We don’t rock the boat. A moderate world would be very safe, but Jesus who stilled the storm also rocked the boat. He drove the money changers out of the temple. He healed the sick and leprous. He welcomed the outcasts. His life was one of non-violent change. A world of moderation is not all bad, but falls short of the example of Jesus.

 Banter and chuntering about weather and  general “gallows humour” is another characteristic of Englishness. It creates ways of engaging with others but a “gallows humour” world could be be wearing. The ability of gallows humour to accept a situation & transform it has strong faith overtones. The biblical picture is one of Transformation through Acceptance.  A “Transformation through acceptance” world would be exciting and yet uncomfortable because of the implications of change.

An “Englishman’s Home is his Castle” is a world that would  feel secure, private, comfortable but also  potentially isolated. Homes can be expressions of personality, contentment, a personal place to be yourself, recharge your batteries & offer hospitality yet they have potential for isolation & increasing individualism. The biblical picture is of Son of Man, born in a stable who had no place to lay his head, who called followers to leave their homes, of Abram & Moses called to go into unknown. BUT the Son of Man who retreated to “a lonely place”, who was welcomed into people’s homes to receive hospitality & who talked about the prodigal son’s homecoming.

A world built round the value of “a stable place sufficed” would be smelly, but a place of shelter warmth & security, albeit on the margins. It would be one in which people rejoiced in what they had not relentlessly pursuing what they hadn’t. It would be non-materialistic with gratitude & resultant joy. It would celebrate family & social connections. Contentment follows being satisfied with what you’ve got. People who demonstrate that philosophy come across as truly happy. Satisfaction comes from a relationship with God who provides enough. Human response is to see that what God has provided is shared so all have shelter warmth and security.

“To be fair,” caused us problems, because the scandal of the gospel is that God’s love is unfair. It is for everyone, including the undeserving. That is not comfortable for those of us who feel as though we have been working long hours in the vineyard! But we need to recognise that’s our problem!

“Sorry!” – why are the English so good at apologising, and do we actually mean it. A researcher quoted in Rooms book went round bumping in to people. 80% of them – of all ages and ethnicities – apologised to the researcher for her bumping into them!  A “Sorry!”  world could be caring and healing, celebrating reconciliation and harmony.  It could be insincere and irritating.  A biblical picture of sorrow is Peter breaking down and weeping after denying Jesus. A world based on that – of guilt and remorse leading to contrition, has the possibility of real acceptance of human frailty and of personal and corporate growth.  

Observations of Easter

Good Friday morning saw a very full and enjoyable children's craft morning, appreciated by adults and children alike.  The afternoon saw Hanley Childe church nearly full - well it only holds a couple of dozen! - for an Hour at the Cross.

Easter Day had services in four of the six churches with total attendances into treble figures. As a percentage of the population it was around 10% which if replicated nationally would have had media coverage about revival breaking out. 

Reflections on Saturday's synod

Saturday's meeting of Worcester Diocesan Synod discussed the Anglican Covenant.This is a response to all the argy bargy over recent years trying to find a way of keeping the widely different parts of the world-wide Anglican Communion vaguely together without it all depending on the skill of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The first 3 sections simply say that the churches of the Anglican communion share a common inheritance.... & that while all are autonomous they have never reckoned that the autonomy gave them licence to do whatever they liked without concern for the other churches of the communion. Nobody is particularly steamed up about sections 1-3. 

Section 4 then sets up a mechanism for keeping different churches of the communion round the table when one has done something to upset another part. It’s this section that has been criticised by the extremes on both sides of the church. The ultra liberals think it restricts them too much and the ultra conservatives think that it isn’t restrictive enough! What it does is give to the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) a role where if different parts of the communion are at odds with each the ACC sets up a process of dialogue between the two parts and the ACC can make recommendations as to what either part of the Church should or should not do – but they’re only recommendations which carry no legal weight. They can be ignored.

Perhaps the most important thing about the covenant is that it provides a safety valve to release the tension when there are differences. That role has been done by Archbishop Rowan but at significant personal cost and there is no guarantee that his successor will have the skills & gifts necessary to do so. And indeed the role of Archbishop of Canterbury should not be entirely taken up in dealing with disagreements!

Diocesan synod was bizarre with all sorts of wild claims being made, we don’t need a structure we should work on trust; if the covenant is brought in we could end up with the Methodist Church signing up to it and the Church of England being expelled; it could stop us ordaining women bishops;  it could be the catalyst that brings about the disestablishment of the CofE..... All sorts of stuff that can’t be justified from what the text actually says! 

I can’t work out why people have got so steamed up about it. It feels like the ultra liberals really don’t like it & have got their knives out for the covenant. It also felt like there was a “you can’t tell me what to do attitude.” Bishop John had personally endorsed the Covenant in his presidential address (I heard mutterings that this was an improper use of a presidential address to synod) & we’d been shown a video of the Archbishop of Canterbury  endorsing it. Too strong a "steer"?

What I found particularly bizarre was that having voted against the Covenant, synod then voted for a motion expressing our appreciation of the Anglican Communion and asking the House of Bishops to bring forward a means of keeping the Communion together.  As most of the House of Bishops have already said they think the covenant is a good way of doing just that then I do wonder what else they're supposed to dream up as a way of keeping it all together. Also bizarrely arrogant in a worldwide context.  Why should the House of Bishops of the Church of England be coming up with a mechanism  that will be acceptable to the Anglican Communion internationally?  It was an international process that led to the Covenant.                

Glad that Coventry diocese voted in favour even if Worcester voted against