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.