The other day I was communication with a couple of old friends; one is a priest in the Church of England whom for years I high respect for. He was always willing to "Go into Bat" for you, help you and guide you. He had suffered problems throughout his life due to a physical disability and not always given the same acknowledgement as everyone else in society.
On many occasions he would discuss openly with me, the changes the Church of England was going through during the 1990's and although never expressed any problems with recognising women priests, he constantly brought up the notion that the church was going to be a woman dominated ministry in the near future. At that time in my understanding I could not grasp what all the fuss was, and it would be many years before I would!
The other is also a priest of the Church of England, who was at university with me, as well as his wife. He always professed this very conservative idea of being an Evangelical, yet both of the above whom I regarded as close friends in different forms decided that when I expressed my theological position and my own spiritual journey that had included being associated with a breakaway Anglican group that is very traditional, my friendships are ended with a stroke of key on the computer. Both of these priests come from the North of England, two counties apart, and historically are known for being out spoken and direct with you, even to the point of being offensive!
How sad it is, that opinions within the church are one sided. Is this the message we are presenting to the non-church, the marginalised?
Sunday, 31 August 2008
Thursday, 28 August 2008
Children's Ministry
If you ever look up a church on the Internet, maybe with a view to visiting or worshipping there, occasionally you will see a link that refer's to: Youth. This term can indicate anything from 10 year old up to those who are reaching their 18th birthday! The programmes that are offered are very dependent upon the size of the church, whether or not there is a full time paid Youth Minister/Worker, but generally speaking there is some progression in this area of ministry. Sadly, some clergy feel that this is a recruitment ground for new members of the choir,music group or serving team. This is wrong, cannot a member of the youth of the church be just that without holding some office?
Secondly, when we look at younger children, we see a totally different picture. On the whole, those who have young children, from new-born to around the age of 6 will only attend church if there is some kind of provision made for them. As a parent of a 3 year old, I know the issues. Until my son was 1 years old, he was in church with us, but after that first year, he needed some kind of daycare. Sadly the church we were attending failed to offer it,so we were forced to leave.Our next experience was a small room that failed to conform to the regulations that were set out.
How many churches, believe that their daycare services only need to be a small room with a few toys,many of which are broken and some willing victim to stay in the room with them. Is is this how they believe these children will grow in their Christian faith? Some do! The early years are vital, if not more so than the youth of the church. The mainline churches are the worst in alot of areas, both in the US and the UK, forcing alot of families to make a choice: bad child provision as I have already described in the Denomination that they are associated with or go to the Mega Churches that have a detailed and documented childcare provision, which comprises of separate room according to age, with several well qualified teachers and helpers, all of whom offer: exercise, Bible Stories, Drawing experience that relate to the Bible Story, plus a snack with the final minutes of regular play with toys that are not falling apart. In addition, they offer pagers, badges are worn by the children with a card that the parent(s) have to hand in before the child is handed back to them. Security is equally important as teaching the Christian faith alongside good old fashioned child's play. I know several parents who make the choice for the Mega church for what they offer. The belief is, that when their children can eventually join in church, they will revert back to their Denomination, but as they years pass, the Mega church will have them from that point on.
I realise that this is not the situation for all churches, but it is for most of them.We talk about presenting the gospel, evangelising and helping the needy, but why is young children's ministry but on the bottom of the list? For some families, the answer is, to simply not go to church at all and they and their children on the whole never return.
Secondly, when we look at younger children, we see a totally different picture. On the whole, those who have young children, from new-born to around the age of 6 will only attend church if there is some kind of provision made for them. As a parent of a 3 year old, I know the issues. Until my son was 1 years old, he was in church with us, but after that first year, he needed some kind of daycare. Sadly the church we were attending failed to offer it,so we were forced to leave.Our next experience was a small room that failed to conform to the regulations that were set out.
How many churches, believe that their daycare services only need to be a small room with a few toys,many of which are broken and some willing victim to stay in the room with them. Is is this how they believe these children will grow in their Christian faith? Some do! The early years are vital, if not more so than the youth of the church. The mainline churches are the worst in alot of areas, both in the US and the UK, forcing alot of families to make a choice: bad child provision as I have already described in the Denomination that they are associated with or go to the Mega Churches that have a detailed and documented childcare provision, which comprises of separate room according to age, with several well qualified teachers and helpers, all of whom offer: exercise, Bible Stories, Drawing experience that relate to the Bible Story, plus a snack with the final minutes of regular play with toys that are not falling apart. In addition, they offer pagers, badges are worn by the children with a card that the parent(s) have to hand in before the child is handed back to them. Security is equally important as teaching the Christian faith alongside good old fashioned child's play. I know several parents who make the choice for the Mega church for what they offer. The belief is, that when their children can eventually join in church, they will revert back to their Denomination, but as they years pass, the Mega church will have them from that point on.
I realise that this is not the situation for all churches, but it is for most of them.We talk about presenting the gospel, evangelising and helping the needy, but why is young children's ministry but on the bottom of the list? For some families, the answer is, to simply not go to church at all and they and their children on the whole never return.
Walking the Steps of Saint Stephen
Have you ever found yourself asking this question, who's in charge? I certainly have, and many of us have. The reason being, that on the whole, when we need a question answered, we expect just one person to take on the responsibility of leadership.
In the Church it is no different, with the exception that on the whole, we know who is in charge and I do not mean Jesus either! Most of us will ask for "The Rector", "The Vicar", "The Priest" or "The Minister" , or maybe "The Pastor" or "Father". These are the ecclesiastical titles that we are familiar with to use. But sometimes there is a "Curate", "Assistant Rector, Minister" or "Associate Pastor". But when we are directed to them then we feel short changed. In the ever-changing world of ministry, we now have "Deacon" in the Roman Catholic & Anglican churches, those holding these positions are see in the same light, yet they can be more experienced or more suited to your needs. In the Anglican churches, there is also: "Pastoral Assistant", "Youth Minister"," Church Army Evangelist" and "Licensed Lay Reader". All those holding these positions are trained to carry out many duties and that includes presiding at non-communion services, yet they are seen as second class in the pecking order. While other Denominations share similar pecking order mentality, they at least are familiar to lay presidency, including Communion.
We cannot always expect theology to be changed, especially in light of priesthood, but we can begin to work on recognition of laity. Many of them, are unpaid and do it as they see it as their ministry.Yet they are seen as second class. A retired Vicar is respected more than a Lay Reader who continues to preside at Evensong each Sunday and conducts funerals in the parish!
Many feel that the "Minister or Vicar"needs to be in charge and that means the person who reside in the Vicarage or Manse. Why? Why cannot we have a Deacon-in-Charge or Lay Reader-in-charge? After all, the Deacon answers to the Bishop and so in theory assists in the parish due to the wiliness of the Bishop, which puts them: "walking the steps of Saint Stephen".
In the Church it is no different, with the exception that on the whole, we know who is in charge and I do not mean Jesus either! Most of us will ask for "The Rector", "The Vicar", "The Priest" or "The Minister" , or maybe "The Pastor" or "Father". These are the ecclesiastical titles that we are familiar with to use. But sometimes there is a "Curate", "Assistant Rector, Minister" or "Associate Pastor". But when we are directed to them then we feel short changed. In the ever-changing world of ministry, we now have "Deacon" in the Roman Catholic & Anglican churches, those holding these positions are see in the same light, yet they can be more experienced or more suited to your needs. In the Anglican churches, there is also: "Pastoral Assistant", "Youth Minister"," Church Army Evangelist" and "Licensed Lay Reader". All those holding these positions are trained to carry out many duties and that includes presiding at non-communion services, yet they are seen as second class in the pecking order. While other Denominations share similar pecking order mentality, they at least are familiar to lay presidency, including Communion.
We cannot always expect theology to be changed, especially in light of priesthood, but we can begin to work on recognition of laity. Many of them, are unpaid and do it as they see it as their ministry.Yet they are seen as second class. A retired Vicar is respected more than a Lay Reader who continues to preside at Evensong each Sunday and conducts funerals in the parish!
Many feel that the "Minister or Vicar"needs to be in charge and that means the person who reside in the Vicarage or Manse. Why? Why cannot we have a Deacon-in-Charge or Lay Reader-in-charge? After all, the Deacon answers to the Bishop and so in theory assists in the parish due to the wiliness of the Bishop, which puts them: "walking the steps of Saint Stephen".
Sunday, 24 August 2008
parking the Rolls Royce between the pigsties and the muck heap
This is how you can see church worship today. "The Church" is seen on the one hand welcoming to all, rich and poor alike, yet the establishment that all represent seem like Rolls Royce drivers who are an attempt at "parking the Rolls Royce between the pigsties and the much heap". The whole structure is slowing becoming the club of the middle class on the one hand and a drop in centre for the poor and marginalised.
This elitist attitude is becoming a danger to all that Christianity represents. Like a modern-day Pop Larkin who becomes a self-made man; is congratulated in his new fortune, but is told not to bring "his ways" here, and although he has done well, the Gentleman's club or Country club is not "for his type". This is how many marginalised people who come to Christ feel. They were not brought up in a Christian home or any kind of Christian environment and yet, while glad to see you on Sunday and not really welcome.
This is a particular strong force within the Evangelical wings of mainline denominations. It is within these groups that children's ministry fail. Their practise is; find a room ,get a load of junk toys and get some willing teenager or elderly person of the church to watch them for an hour.
As you dig deep, these middle class Christians are the grandchildren of the working poor, while the new 21st century working poor are not wanted. On the other hand, the moderate, mildly Liberal congregations do a great example of treating visitors/enquirers to their church, by "Sending them to Coventry".
What does it take? The dynamics of society are changing, yet the "members only" attitude in churches continues. People are people and all of us represent the Body of Christ; broken, fragmented, struggling, depressed, successful, powerful ambitious, snobby and loving as well as friendly. All of this and more. Once we welcome visitors, encourage without being over-bearing, contact without being threatening, teaching without being a paradigm of elitist attitudes, the Christian love will continue to grow as well as reach out to the marginalised as well as success, the rich as well as poor, where the gospel of Christ will be preached as well lived out to all in a relevant and person way.
This elitist attitude is becoming a danger to all that Christianity represents. Like a modern-day Pop Larkin who becomes a self-made man; is congratulated in his new fortune, but is told not to bring "his ways" here, and although he has done well, the Gentleman's club or Country club is not "for his type". This is how many marginalised people who come to Christ feel. They were not brought up in a Christian home or any kind of Christian environment and yet, while glad to see you on Sunday and not really welcome.
This is a particular strong force within the Evangelical wings of mainline denominations. It is within these groups that children's ministry fail. Their practise is; find a room ,get a load of junk toys and get some willing teenager or elderly person of the church to watch them for an hour.
As you dig deep, these middle class Christians are the grandchildren of the working poor, while the new 21st century working poor are not wanted. On the other hand, the moderate, mildly Liberal congregations do a great example of treating visitors/enquirers to their church, by "Sending them to Coventry".
What does it take? The dynamics of society are changing, yet the "members only" attitude in churches continues. People are people and all of us represent the Body of Christ; broken, fragmented, struggling, depressed, successful, powerful ambitious, snobby and loving as well as friendly. All of this and more. Once we welcome visitors, encourage without being over-bearing, contact without being threatening, teaching without being a paradigm of elitist attitudes, the Christian love will continue to grow as well as reach out to the marginalised as well as success, the rich as well as poor, where the gospel of Christ will be preached as well lived out to all in a relevant and person way.
Monday, 18 August 2008
Harvest Crusade 2008
Reverend Lee Stewart:Follow Up Team memberThe evening of this year's crusade was 20,000, but the saturday attracted 46,000.
Many were Christians who attended to re-charge their spiritual batteries, but others had either being invited by Christian friends or who had made a decision to listen to Greg Laurie deliver the gospel. Several of them present were in a life of struggle: Drug Addiction, poverty,prostitution as well depression and other problems that made life seem hard and pointless. Towards the end of each evening, an Invitation was made to all to accept Jesus Christ into their lives and for those who are practising Christians to re-dedicate their lives. It was a powerful and emotional event and experience for all that were there.
Denominational affiliation played no part, for it was believed that it went right across the board and the attendence came from small groups to Greg Laurie's own church: Harvest Fellowship in Riverside. A large number came from across the country as well as overseas.
The music of Leyland added a bonus to all who were there.
A stadium that is generally the home to Baseball as the Home ground to the Los Angeles Angels in Aneheim, a stones throwaway from Disneyland, it was nothing short of magic to see such a faith based lively event that effected all that were there. The fact that Greg Laurie lost his 33 year old son: Chris not 3 weeks before, made everyone hang onto every word that was said, as grief was obviously being exerienced with every minute that Greg Laurie spoke.
Revival is happening and it is events that prove this, not just in Mega churches such as the ones that Greg Laurie ministers to, but every element of the Body of Christ and however it is expressed.
Tuesday, 12 August 2008
Welcome to America!
America is changing, the World is changing!
Cairo? No! Baghdad? No!
Los Angeles, California!!
Thursday, 7 August 2008
From the Press:The Three Challenges for evangelicals today By Revd. Dr. Martin Davie
The words of St Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:21-25 take us to the heart of the three theme of Bible, Cross and Mission which are the focus for the fourth National Evangelical Anglican Congress (NEAC4) this coming September.
First they explain why the cross lies at the heart of the Christian faith. It is because it is in the apparent folly of the cross that we find God's wisdom and God's power. In the words of Michael Green in his book To Corinth with Love:
What could be more ludicrous than to maintain in sophisticated Greek circles that God's wisdom and salvation lay in a despised and executed criminal? What could be more blasphemous to Jewish hearers than the suggestion that God's promised deliverance lay in a crucified man exposed in shame on his cross? Yet those who believed found that cross to both the wisdom and the power of God: God's wisdom in humbling pride and rescuing the hopeless, and God's power in breaking through the barrier of guilt and alienation which kept Jews and Greeks alike from God.
Secondly, they explain why we have to base our theology on the Bible. Although, as St Paul makes clear in Rom 1:19-20, the natural order objectively reveals God to us, in our fallen state we are unable to profit from this revelation. Our own natural wisdom only serves to lead us astray. It is through the divine wisdom manifested to us in the crucified Christ that we can know God rightly and the God given witness to Christ is found in the prophetic and apostolic witness in the Old and New Testaments.
Thirdly, they make clear what should lie at the heart of Christian mission. In recent decades it has rightly been emphasised that mission has to be about more than simply the conversion of individuals to the Christian faith. It has an inescapable social and political dimension as well. However, this having been said, we always have to remember that the primary calling of the Christian church is not to proclaim some programme for social and political change but to point to the crucified Christ as the sole answer to the deepest needs of the human race, to know what God is like and how our alienation from him may be overcome.
These verses also address the strengths and weaknesses of the three streams of evangelicalism that were explored at the recent Eclectics day conference at St Mary's, Islington.
The first stream, Conservative Evangelicalism, has rightly emphasised the importance of a cross-centred theology rooted in the teaching of the Bible, and it has also rightly emphasised the ever present danger of this theology being watered down by other forms of teaching that are rooted in human wisdom rather than in the wisdom of God.
All this is good. However, the weakness of conservative Evangelicalism lies in the fact that it can be tempted to ignore the fact that the message of the cross rules out all human boasting (1 Cor 1:29-31) including boasting about our own theological rectitude. That is to say, while it is vital to be concerned about theological correctness we must accept the fact that this should not be used as an excuse to sit in judgement on other people or avoid re-examining cherished formulations of the Christian message, and sometimes I think conservative Evangelicalism can fall into both these errors.
The second stream, open Evangelicalism, has rightly emphasised that if we are to preach the message of the cross effectively, we have to make connections between this message and the audience to whom we are preaching. That is why it has sought ways of re-expressing the evangelical message in ways that address current concerns and forms of thought. It has also rightly emphasised that the kind of disunity addressed by St Paul in 1 Cor 1:10-17 is incompatible with the reconciliation brought about by the cross, which is why open Evangelicals have worked to maintain the unity of the Church of England, and to foster wider ecumenical unity.
All this is good. However, I suggest that the weakness of open Evangelicalism lies in the fact that it can be tempted to water down the folly of the gospel message in order to make it more compatible with currently fashionable ways of thinking, and can be tempted to so emphasise the importance of unity that questions of theological truth are overlooked or set aside. To put it another way, if the temptation of conservative Evangelicalism is to say 'No' too loudly and too frequently, the temptation facing open Evangelicalism is to be too open and to say 'Yes' too much even when a clear 'No' is what is called for.
The third stream, Charismatic Evangelicalism, has rightly emphasised that in the New Testament the preaching of the crucified Christ was accompanied by acts of supernatural power wrought by the working of the Holy Spirit, and that we need to be open to these acts of power being performed in our day as well. It also reminds us that just as in New Testament times so also in our day such acts of power can often be very effective in creating an opening for the preaching of the cross.
All this is good. However, like the other two streams of Evangelicalism, Charismatic Evangelicalism also has its weakness, which is a temptation to an unrealistic triumphalism which can forget the fact that the message of the cross is about power manifested in weakness, and that often God's most important work is performed when there are no apparent acts of supernatural power and our prayers for God to act appear to go unanswered. As St Paul heard God telling him in precisely this situation: 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness' (2 Cor 12:9).
In summary, I suggest that if NEAC 4 is to succeed in taking Anglican evangelicals towards the future that God wants for them then there needs to be a concentration on the themes highlighted by St Paul in 1 Cor 1:18-2:5, and evangelicals need to have an honest conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of each of the three streams of evangelicalism so that they can learn from each other and go forward together, strengthened with a greater unity, to proclaim the message of the crucified Christ to a needy world.
Dr Martin Davie is a member of the Eclectics committee
First they explain why the cross lies at the heart of the Christian faith. It is because it is in the apparent folly of the cross that we find God's wisdom and God's power. In the words of Michael Green in his book To Corinth with Love:
What could be more ludicrous than to maintain in sophisticated Greek circles that God's wisdom and salvation lay in a despised and executed criminal? What could be more blasphemous to Jewish hearers than the suggestion that God's promised deliverance lay in a crucified man exposed in shame on his cross? Yet those who believed found that cross to both the wisdom and the power of God: God's wisdom in humbling pride and rescuing the hopeless, and God's power in breaking through the barrier of guilt and alienation which kept Jews and Greeks alike from God.
Secondly, they explain why we have to base our theology on the Bible. Although, as St Paul makes clear in Rom 1:19-20, the natural order objectively reveals God to us, in our fallen state we are unable to profit from this revelation. Our own natural wisdom only serves to lead us astray. It is through the divine wisdom manifested to us in the crucified Christ that we can know God rightly and the God given witness to Christ is found in the prophetic and apostolic witness in the Old and New Testaments.
Thirdly, they make clear what should lie at the heart of Christian mission. In recent decades it has rightly been emphasised that mission has to be about more than simply the conversion of individuals to the Christian faith. It has an inescapable social and political dimension as well. However, this having been said, we always have to remember that the primary calling of the Christian church is not to proclaim some programme for social and political change but to point to the crucified Christ as the sole answer to the deepest needs of the human race, to know what God is like and how our alienation from him may be overcome.
These verses also address the strengths and weaknesses of the three streams of evangelicalism that were explored at the recent Eclectics day conference at St Mary's, Islington.
The first stream, Conservative Evangelicalism, has rightly emphasised the importance of a cross-centred theology rooted in the teaching of the Bible, and it has also rightly emphasised the ever present danger of this theology being watered down by other forms of teaching that are rooted in human wisdom rather than in the wisdom of God.
All this is good. However, the weakness of conservative Evangelicalism lies in the fact that it can be tempted to ignore the fact that the message of the cross rules out all human boasting (1 Cor 1:29-31) including boasting about our own theological rectitude. That is to say, while it is vital to be concerned about theological correctness we must accept the fact that this should not be used as an excuse to sit in judgement on other people or avoid re-examining cherished formulations of the Christian message, and sometimes I think conservative Evangelicalism can fall into both these errors.
The second stream, open Evangelicalism, has rightly emphasised that if we are to preach the message of the cross effectively, we have to make connections between this message and the audience to whom we are preaching. That is why it has sought ways of re-expressing the evangelical message in ways that address current concerns and forms of thought. It has also rightly emphasised that the kind of disunity addressed by St Paul in 1 Cor 1:10-17 is incompatible with the reconciliation brought about by the cross, which is why open Evangelicals have worked to maintain the unity of the Church of England, and to foster wider ecumenical unity.
All this is good. However, I suggest that the weakness of open Evangelicalism lies in the fact that it can be tempted to water down the folly of the gospel message in order to make it more compatible with currently fashionable ways of thinking, and can be tempted to so emphasise the importance of unity that questions of theological truth are overlooked or set aside. To put it another way, if the temptation of conservative Evangelicalism is to say 'No' too loudly and too frequently, the temptation facing open Evangelicalism is to be too open and to say 'Yes' too much even when a clear 'No' is what is called for.
The third stream, Charismatic Evangelicalism, has rightly emphasised that in the New Testament the preaching of the crucified Christ was accompanied by acts of supernatural power wrought by the working of the Holy Spirit, and that we need to be open to these acts of power being performed in our day as well. It also reminds us that just as in New Testament times so also in our day such acts of power can often be very effective in creating an opening for the preaching of the cross.
All this is good. However, like the other two streams of Evangelicalism, Charismatic Evangelicalism also has its weakness, which is a temptation to an unrealistic triumphalism which can forget the fact that the message of the cross is about power manifested in weakness, and that often God's most important work is performed when there are no apparent acts of supernatural power and our prayers for God to act appear to go unanswered. As St Paul heard God telling him in precisely this situation: 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness' (2 Cor 12:9).
In summary, I suggest that if NEAC 4 is to succeed in taking Anglican evangelicals towards the future that God wants for them then there needs to be a concentration on the themes highlighted by St Paul in 1 Cor 1:18-2:5, and evangelicals need to have an honest conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of each of the three streams of evangelicalism so that they can learn from each other and go forward together, strengthened with a greater unity, to proclaim the message of the crucified Christ to a needy world.
Dr Martin Davie is a member of the Eclectics committee
Presiding Bishop to conduct post-lambeth live webcast 7th August
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori will conduct a live webcast to talk about the Lambeth Conference on Thursday, August 7 at 2 pm Eastern time (1 p.m. Central, noon Mountain, 11 a.m. Pacific). Originating from the Episcopal Church Center, 815 Second Ave., New York City, the webcast will be accessible through the homepage of the Episcopal Church's website. Questions will be accepted from the live audience and via email. Phone-in questions will not be accepted. The 2008 Lambeth Conference, which concluded on August 3, is a meeting of the bishops of the Anglican Communion held once every 10 years at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The 2008 Lambeth Conference drew 670 bishops from 37 of the 38 Anglican provinces; about 135 bishops of the Episcopal Church registered. For more information about the webcast, contact Neva Rae Fox, program officer for public affairs at the National office.
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
The Church and the Poor
For centuries,poverty has been the sickness, even sin that has plagued society.
As long as anyone can remember, there has always been groups of society needing assistance; therefore there has been some kind of structure to help the needy. The Church was quick to see this as a ethical and Christian requirement to help.
Victorian England has always been seen as the greatest example of both poverty as well as Christian charity; this may well be the case, but today, it is happening again, but sadly, the Church are not at the forefront of giving. While Missionaries continue to work throughout the "third World" offering help to all who need it, yet the western society that most of us live in, have become an "underclass"; we work, yet the salary hardly feeds a family, those who loose their job, eventually are forced out of their home, due to failing to pay for their rent or mortgage. The larger the family, the worse it gets. Churches talk about the poor, but many are on their own doorstep!
Where is the children's programme offered for free, where is the foodbank, where is a lunch being offered, where is the career/financial help, where is the Internet access for free to apply for jobs, where is the legal services offered for free, where is the support network? Nowhere to be seen sadly! Is this an example of Jesus? Not in my Bible. If we are to present in a living way, then we need to do it in a practical way, in a way that assists those around us.
As long as anyone can remember, there has always been groups of society needing assistance; therefore there has been some kind of structure to help the needy. The Church was quick to see this as a ethical and Christian requirement to help.
Victorian England has always been seen as the greatest example of both poverty as well as Christian charity; this may well be the case, but today, it is happening again, but sadly, the Church are not at the forefront of giving. While Missionaries continue to work throughout the "third World" offering help to all who need it, yet the western society that most of us live in, have become an "underclass"; we work, yet the salary hardly feeds a family, those who loose their job, eventually are forced out of their home, due to failing to pay for their rent or mortgage. The larger the family, the worse it gets. Churches talk about the poor, but many are on their own doorstep!
Where is the children's programme offered for free, where is the foodbank, where is a lunch being offered, where is the career/financial help, where is the Internet access for free to apply for jobs, where is the legal services offered for free, where is the support network? Nowhere to be seen sadly! Is this an example of Jesus? Not in my Bible. If we are to present in a living way, then we need to do it in a practical way, in a way that assists those around us.
Sunday, 3 August 2008
A Meeting of Change in the Church
Recently there was a meeting of clergy and theologians. But what is so important about that you may ask. It comprised of a variety of theological differences, so you may say and why wouldn't you, after all this is nothing new.
But this is where you are totally wrong!
First we have Reverend "A", Chaplain with years of experience, who spent his childhood as well as the early years in ministry as a Baptist, but after a few pastorates, he felt drawn to the Anglican church and now ministers as a Priest within the denomination.
Reverend "B" on the other hand was brought up as good old "True Blue"Anglican, but as he gets close to retirement, receives a Revelation from God, to leave the faith of nearly 60 years and become a Baptist, where he nows fulfills a second career as a Baptist Minister.
Reverend or should I say Father "C" was a good Anglican, but although brought up as Methodist, eventually follows his "Calling" to the Church of England, where for 30 + years is a parish priest for a growing congregation, but then following the ordination of women in 1983, he makes the brace step to leave a church for the second time in his life to evetually become a Roman catholic Priest.
Reverend "D" is a former Roman Catholic Bishop who "jumps Ship" and decides that the Anglican church is where he wants to be and so joins the small number of ex-catholics who are Anglican Priests.
Reverend "E" is the woman of the group; brought up Roman Catholic, gets divorced, cut off from the church ,and as a struggling single parent finds comfort with the United Reformed Church, where she evetually follows a call to become a URC minister.
All share the common history of having left their original Denomination, all left due to painful experiences as result of their orginal church family failing to accept their struggle, resulting in the fact, that all of them were left with a vital decision. Do I stay, knowing that those within do not accept me or my position or do I leave and go where I will be accepted, even though I am "stepping Out" of my own true faith, culture and even theological position, which has been forced to change to find acceptance away from my own upbring.
If this group had not suffered the way they did, would they have left? If they had not, would they had the same influence & impact with the Denomination they departed from? Their decision to leave became the topic of this meeting. The ordination of women, the acceptance of Gay priests, the accepting of Gay Unions, the destruction of "truth" and moving away from scripture was what finally made this group. All of them include one of those items on their list, some more than one.
So what did they learn, so that we can learn? We do not really know. Some decide to accept that there is room for all, whatever your Denomination, others feel that you cannot fight within, with facing a position of compromise! The decision is personal.But the result from all, is that they expressed and showed zealous behaviour for their "new" Denomination and nothing short of condemnation towards which they had left! The Church, as the Body of Christ, is fragmented and broken; broken as Christ was on the cross, but unlike Jesus Christ, the Church is very unlikely to resurrect, but infact to be cut down, forced into schism, growing further apart to the point of acting in resemblance to overseas nations in talks with each other; alot is said, but very little down and in the end, each one believes that they are right!!
But this is where you are totally wrong!
First we have Reverend "A", Chaplain with years of experience, who spent his childhood as well as the early years in ministry as a Baptist, but after a few pastorates, he felt drawn to the Anglican church and now ministers as a Priest within the denomination.
Reverend "B" on the other hand was brought up as good old "True Blue"Anglican, but as he gets close to retirement, receives a Revelation from God, to leave the faith of nearly 60 years and become a Baptist, where he nows fulfills a second career as a Baptist Minister.
Reverend or should I say Father "C" was a good Anglican, but although brought up as Methodist, eventually follows his "Calling" to the Church of England, where for 30 + years is a parish priest for a growing congregation, but then following the ordination of women in 1983, he makes the brace step to leave a church for the second time in his life to evetually become a Roman catholic Priest.
Reverend "D" is a former Roman Catholic Bishop who "jumps Ship" and decides that the Anglican church is where he wants to be and so joins the small number of ex-catholics who are Anglican Priests.
Reverend "E" is the woman of the group; brought up Roman Catholic, gets divorced, cut off from the church ,and as a struggling single parent finds comfort with the United Reformed Church, where she evetually follows a call to become a URC minister.
All share the common history of having left their original Denomination, all left due to painful experiences as result of their orginal church family failing to accept their struggle, resulting in the fact, that all of them were left with a vital decision. Do I stay, knowing that those within do not accept me or my position or do I leave and go where I will be accepted, even though I am "stepping Out" of my own true faith, culture and even theological position, which has been forced to change to find acceptance away from my own upbring.
If this group had not suffered the way they did, would they have left? If they had not, would they had the same influence & impact with the Denomination they departed from? Their decision to leave became the topic of this meeting. The ordination of women, the acceptance of Gay priests, the accepting of Gay Unions, the destruction of "truth" and moving away from scripture was what finally made this group. All of them include one of those items on their list, some more than one.
So what did they learn, so that we can learn? We do not really know. Some decide to accept that there is room for all, whatever your Denomination, others feel that you cannot fight within, with facing a position of compromise! The decision is personal.But the result from all, is that they expressed and showed zealous behaviour for their "new" Denomination and nothing short of condemnation towards which they had left! The Church, as the Body of Christ, is fragmented and broken; broken as Christ was on the cross, but unlike Jesus Christ, the Church is very unlikely to resurrect, but infact to be cut down, forced into schism, growing further apart to the point of acting in resemblance to overseas nations in talks with each other; alot is said, but very little down and in the end, each one believes that they are right!!
A Broad Church, Narrow Minded?
Who cares if the Church of England tears itself apart this weekend? Its million active members in Britain are barely ahead of the Roman Catholics, from whose church it separated five centuries ago, and the 930,000 practising Muslims. Only 15% of babies are now baptised into the Church of England and few of them are likely to graduate to church membership.
Schism is the occupational disease of religion. If, through the defection of ecclesiastical conservatives, West Indians and Africans, there are soon to be two Anglican churches in place of one, most Britons will just not notice. But their established church remains a substantial national institution, custodian of British values even to the many who do not patronise it. When it suffers an attack of episcopal knife crime, a message goes out that “the centre cannot hold”.
The cause of the conflict, the gender and sexual orientation of bishops, is as arcane as the Pelagian heresy. It is sadly ironic that the church should be headed at this time by an archbishop, Rowan Williams, whose personality seems more ideally cast for martyrdom than leadership. His saintly pain at the refusal of the contending parties to hear his lofty platitudes has become a national agony.
Many find it unbelievable that a movement dedicated to peace, love and brotherhood should in 2008 find itself debating the ecclesiastical significance of 1st-century texts on sexual behaviour. No less baffling is that this has led to what amounts to illegal discrimination in appointments. African bishops may regard homosexuality as “an abomination”, but that is not the view of the British parliament. There should be an end to it.
The visible loathing of some Anglicans for gays and women – expressed in terms that would have them prosecuted in any other walk of life – is indefensible. The British make much noise opposing the intolerant practices of Muslims and other imported religions. They seem deaf to the intolerance of members of their home-grown church. That the conservatives have constant recourse to biblical texts has no more to do with the case than if Islamic scholars appealed to the Koran against the Crown Prosecution Service. The law of the land is the law of the land.
No less astonishing is that the parties are largely warring because the Church of England remains stuck in an imperial time warp. A global membership of some 80m – overwhelmingly in the new Commonwealth – is under the leadership of an archbishop in England, custodian of just a million souls, and a governing body meeting in Lambeth.
The origins of this dispute thus lie not so much in the biblical understanding of sexuality but rather in Anglicanism’s inability to handle global diversity in human behaviour. There is no way African cultures will regard sex in the same way as Asians or Europeans. Why does the church pretend otherwise?
This is a relic of the status of the Church of England as the established church in what was once a far-flung empire. It has struggled to mimic the diversity of the British Commonwealth, allowing archbishoprics to flourish and hierarchies to proliferate. But the trappings of doctrinal centralism remain in place.
The obvious solution to the row over gay and women bishops would be to live and let live. Let a thousand sexualities bloom under the capacious canopy of mother church. Do not impose on the cultures of Africa the sexual norms and gender equalities that have evolved under the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant aegis. There is no need for this dispute.
The trouble is that the English church failed to make a complete break with episcopal hierarchy at the time of the Reformation. It may have disliked the authority of Rome, but it liked that of Canterbury too much to dismantle its domestic power structure (and wealth). Unlike most reformed denominations, it kept its bishops. Scratch any controversy that has bedevilled the Church of England over recent years and you will find a bishop at the bottom of it. German and Scandinavian Christians have no such agonies.
The promotion of women, the ordination of gays, the fate of the Mappa Mundi, the affair of the Lincoln dean, you name it, a bishop has been involved. Last month 300 senior Anglicans met in Jerusalem to found the Global Anglican Future Conference in defiance of Williams. Every one was a bishop. The status – and sexuality – of bishops has become central to the dissension of the Anglo-Catholic wing of Anglicanism. It sees them as part of the apostolic succession and thus offering an emotional link back to Rome and the possibility of reunion.
It was just this link that the Scots Presbyterians shrewdly refused to countenance in the 16th century. It was just this hierarchy to which the Methodists objected in the 18th century. A modern church, said Wesley, should “think and let think”.
The iconoclastic Anglican author, Theo Hobson, wondered out loud last week, “If bishops were no more, would we miss them?” The 650 (out of 880) who have gathered this weekend at Lambeth are like admirals: the fewer souls in their charge, the more they multiply.
For the rest of us this would be of no account if the Church of England were not still in a position to deliver a modest punch. By virtue of its history and status, the church offers community leadership, however imperfectly, to a nation whose governments have done everything to exterminate communal authority. In some places Anglican clergymen are a one-stop shop for everything from marriage guidance to crime busting.
Even the most ardent atheist must accept that local churches, with their youth clubs and outreach programmes, are probably the largest unofficial social work agency in Britain. Their value to the state must run into billions of pounds, all free at the point of delivery. Priests are often the only resident professional presence in the grimmest urban areas.
Church buildings, many of them glories of medieval and Victorian architecture, are also prominent monuments. They are the museums of the people, galleries of vernacular art and custodians of local history. England’s landscape is inconceivable without them, yet the public money spent on them is paltry.
This is not just a historical foible. A successful working church is a force for social cohesion of all faiths and none. As Britain absorbs diverse immigrant groups, religious allegiances can bring them together or drive them apart. It is shocking that so little attention is paid to the latter danger in the rush to establish blatantly divisive faith schools.
The fracturing of the church might seem no more than a bad-tempered conversation in the privacy of a close. But it is reinforcing the image of organised religion as a force for intolerance. This can only impede the good work that churches do on the ground.
Talk of conservatives occupying the church chancel and the radicals the nave, of services (or entire churches) being segregated between gender-specific priests and communicants, is a measure of how far this once broad movement has buried its head in schism.
It is easy to conclude that the best way out would be to split again and allow each faction to worship in its own way. That should be abhorrent to all who believe that there is such a thing as community and that an institution called a church has a duty to supply it with social glue.
Schism is the occupational disease of religion. If, through the defection of ecclesiastical conservatives, West Indians and Africans, there are soon to be two Anglican churches in place of one, most Britons will just not notice. But their established church remains a substantial national institution, custodian of British values even to the many who do not patronise it. When it suffers an attack of episcopal knife crime, a message goes out that “the centre cannot hold”.
The cause of the conflict, the gender and sexual orientation of bishops, is as arcane as the Pelagian heresy. It is sadly ironic that the church should be headed at this time by an archbishop, Rowan Williams, whose personality seems more ideally cast for martyrdom than leadership. His saintly pain at the refusal of the contending parties to hear his lofty platitudes has become a national agony.
Many find it unbelievable that a movement dedicated to peace, love and brotherhood should in 2008 find itself debating the ecclesiastical significance of 1st-century texts on sexual behaviour. No less baffling is that this has led to what amounts to illegal discrimination in appointments. African bishops may regard homosexuality as “an abomination”, but that is not the view of the British parliament. There should be an end to it.
The visible loathing of some Anglicans for gays and women – expressed in terms that would have them prosecuted in any other walk of life – is indefensible. The British make much noise opposing the intolerant practices of Muslims and other imported religions. They seem deaf to the intolerance of members of their home-grown church. That the conservatives have constant recourse to biblical texts has no more to do with the case than if Islamic scholars appealed to the Koran against the Crown Prosecution Service. The law of the land is the law of the land.
No less astonishing is that the parties are largely warring because the Church of England remains stuck in an imperial time warp. A global membership of some 80m – overwhelmingly in the new Commonwealth – is under the leadership of an archbishop in England, custodian of just a million souls, and a governing body meeting in Lambeth.
The origins of this dispute thus lie not so much in the biblical understanding of sexuality but rather in Anglicanism’s inability to handle global diversity in human behaviour. There is no way African cultures will regard sex in the same way as Asians or Europeans. Why does the church pretend otherwise?
This is a relic of the status of the Church of England as the established church in what was once a far-flung empire. It has struggled to mimic the diversity of the British Commonwealth, allowing archbishoprics to flourish and hierarchies to proliferate. But the trappings of doctrinal centralism remain in place.
The obvious solution to the row over gay and women bishops would be to live and let live. Let a thousand sexualities bloom under the capacious canopy of mother church. Do not impose on the cultures of Africa the sexual norms and gender equalities that have evolved under the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant aegis. There is no need for this dispute.
The trouble is that the English church failed to make a complete break with episcopal hierarchy at the time of the Reformation. It may have disliked the authority of Rome, but it liked that of Canterbury too much to dismantle its domestic power structure (and wealth). Unlike most reformed denominations, it kept its bishops. Scratch any controversy that has bedevilled the Church of England over recent years and you will find a bishop at the bottom of it. German and Scandinavian Christians have no such agonies.
The promotion of women, the ordination of gays, the fate of the Mappa Mundi, the affair of the Lincoln dean, you name it, a bishop has been involved. Last month 300 senior Anglicans met in Jerusalem to found the Global Anglican Future Conference in defiance of Williams. Every one was a bishop. The status – and sexuality – of bishops has become central to the dissension of the Anglo-Catholic wing of Anglicanism. It sees them as part of the apostolic succession and thus offering an emotional link back to Rome and the possibility of reunion.
It was just this link that the Scots Presbyterians shrewdly refused to countenance in the 16th century. It was just this hierarchy to which the Methodists objected in the 18th century. A modern church, said Wesley, should “think and let think”.
The iconoclastic Anglican author, Theo Hobson, wondered out loud last week, “If bishops were no more, would we miss them?” The 650 (out of 880) who have gathered this weekend at Lambeth are like admirals: the fewer souls in their charge, the more they multiply.
For the rest of us this would be of no account if the Church of England were not still in a position to deliver a modest punch. By virtue of its history and status, the church offers community leadership, however imperfectly, to a nation whose governments have done everything to exterminate communal authority. In some places Anglican clergymen are a one-stop shop for everything from marriage guidance to crime busting.
Even the most ardent atheist must accept that local churches, with their youth clubs and outreach programmes, are probably the largest unofficial social work agency in Britain. Their value to the state must run into billions of pounds, all free at the point of delivery. Priests are often the only resident professional presence in the grimmest urban areas.
Church buildings, many of them glories of medieval and Victorian architecture, are also prominent monuments. They are the museums of the people, galleries of vernacular art and custodians of local history. England’s landscape is inconceivable without them, yet the public money spent on them is paltry.
This is not just a historical foible. A successful working church is a force for social cohesion of all faiths and none. As Britain absorbs diverse immigrant groups, religious allegiances can bring them together or drive them apart. It is shocking that so little attention is paid to the latter danger in the rush to establish blatantly divisive faith schools.
The fracturing of the church might seem no more than a bad-tempered conversation in the privacy of a close. But it is reinforcing the image of organised religion as a force for intolerance. This can only impede the good work that churches do on the ground.
Talk of conservatives occupying the church chancel and the radicals the nave, of services (or entire churches) being segregated between gender-specific priests and communicants, is a measure of how far this once broad movement has buried its head in schism.
It is easy to conclude that the best way out would be to split again and allow each faction to worship in its own way. That should be abhorrent to all who believe that there is such a thing as community and that an institution called a church has a duty to supply it with social glue.
Saturday, 2 August 2008
What do Open Evangelicals believe?
What does "Open Evangelical" actually mean?
We are unashamedly evangelical in our commitment to the authority of Scripture, the need for personal faith, the uniqueness of Christ and the free gift of eternal life for humankind only through his death on the cross. We recognize the truth of orthodox Christian belief as expressed in the early Creeds of the Church. We are open in a number of ways:
Open to the world around us. If we are to communicate the Gospel effectively we must be engaged in a process of "double listening" to the Bible and to the world, hearing the questions and the insights of others around us, and working to hear the message of the scriptures in the light of this.
Open to God's work in other Christian traditions. Evangelicals do not have a monopoly on the truth, and through partnership and dialogue we seek to be open to learn from what God has done and is doing in other parts of His Church. This refers to other Christians in our own Western setting, but must also increasingly include the voices of our fellow believers in the Two-Thirds World.
Open to playing our full part within the Church of England. Following the lead set by the National Evangelical Anglican Congresses at Keele in 1967 and Nottingham in 1977, Open Evangelicals are committed to involvement in the structures of the Church of England and to making a significant constructive contribution to the direction of the Church's life. And finally.
Open to God saying new things through the Bible and His Spirit. Being under the authority of scripture means we may need to be ready to change our mind as we understand more fully.
This fully understood through the ministerial training that takes place at: Trinity College, Bristol and Ridley Hall, Cambridge in the UK, both of whom are leading exponants of the "Open" theological position, as well as John Stott & NT Wright.
We are unashamedly evangelical in our commitment to the authority of Scripture, the need for personal faith, the uniqueness of Christ and the free gift of eternal life for humankind only through his death on the cross. We recognize the truth of orthodox Christian belief as expressed in the early Creeds of the Church. We are open in a number of ways:
Open to the world around us. If we are to communicate the Gospel effectively we must be engaged in a process of "double listening" to the Bible and to the world, hearing the questions and the insights of others around us, and working to hear the message of the scriptures in the light of this.
Open to God's work in other Christian traditions. Evangelicals do not have a monopoly on the truth, and through partnership and dialogue we seek to be open to learn from what God has done and is doing in other parts of His Church. This refers to other Christians in our own Western setting, but must also increasingly include the voices of our fellow believers in the Two-Thirds World.
Open to playing our full part within the Church of England. Following the lead set by the National Evangelical Anglican Congresses at Keele in 1967 and Nottingham in 1977, Open Evangelicals are committed to involvement in the structures of the Church of England and to making a significant constructive contribution to the direction of the Church's life. And finally.
Open to God saying new things through the Bible and His Spirit. Being under the authority of scripture means we may need to be ready to change our mind as we understand more fully.
This fully understood through the ministerial training that takes place at: Trinity College, Bristol and Ridley Hall, Cambridge in the UK, both of whom are leading exponants of the "Open" theological position, as well as John Stott & NT Wright.
Women Becoming Bishops
The debate in General Synod in July 2008 concerning the ordination of women to the episcopate
has generated a great deal of media coverage and not a little speculation and misunderstanding.
We are aware that there will be a variety of reactions to the vote in General Synod. The fact that the
motion was passed by a two-thirds majority reflects a very strong affirmation of the ministry of
ordained women. We are also mindful that a third of the Synod voted against it. We believe that this
minority represents a significant number of people and their parishes, whose presence and ministry
among us we also value and affirm.
The partial and at times misleading reporting of the decision by sections of the national media has
perhaps obscured the very precise wording of the Synod’s decision. While re-affirming the view of
the majority that women should be admitted to the episcopate, it also affirmed that ‘special
arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a
matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or
priests’.
It resolved that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice and requested that
the drafting group should prepare draft legislation and a draft code of practice for the consideration of
Synod in February. It will be for the Synod, and in due course our own diocesan synod, to decide
whether the draft code is (to borrow the Archbishop of Canterbury’s word) ‘robust’ enough to provide
assurance for those who disagree with women bishops.
We recognise that there is a great deal of work to be done before suitable legislation can be drawn up
and agreed, and that discussion will be continuing for some years before it is enacted. We therefore
have the space for quiet reflection and continued listening to each other before the final decision
about the legislation is made.
We therefore urge everyone
• to pray for those who will be responsible for drawing up the legislation and the code of practice;
• to continue the fruitful discussions and exchanges of views that have already occurred, so that we
can all grow in our understanding of each other, and work with each other, in our common task of
bearing witness to Christ in the world;
• to participate fully in the process of discussion of the legislation through deanery chapters, deanery
and diocesan synods; and
• to refrain from pre-emptive actions or statements before the exact details of the legislation and
code of practice are published and agreed.
Finally, it remains our intention in this diocese to work for unity in mission and ministry with all
priests and church members alike. By maintaining good relationships of mutual affection and respect
we have the opportunity to model to the world a new way of dealing with differences and realising in
our own experience our Lord’s command to ‘love one another as I have loved you’.
Therefore we ask all to seek from God the grace to be charitable with one another, moderate in tone,
gentle in spirit, patient in listening, gracious in dissent and supportive of all who seek to lift high the
name of Jesus Christ in the world.
The General Synod motion moved by the Bishop of Gloucester:
That this Synod:
a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate;
b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the
Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to
receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;
c) affirm that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice to which all
concerned would be required to have regard; and
d) instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete
its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the
Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the
February 2009 group of sessions.
The motion was carried by a division of the three houses of Synod.
House of Bishops – For 28, Against 12, Abstentions 1
House of Clergy – For 124, Against 44, Abstentions 4
House of Laity – For 111, Against 68, Abstentions 2
has generated a great deal of media coverage and not a little speculation and misunderstanding.
We are aware that there will be a variety of reactions to the vote in General Synod. The fact that the
motion was passed by a two-thirds majority reflects a very strong affirmation of the ministry of
ordained women. We are also mindful that a third of the Synod voted against it. We believe that this
minority represents a significant number of people and their parishes, whose presence and ministry
among us we also value and affirm.
The partial and at times misleading reporting of the decision by sections of the national media has
perhaps obscured the very precise wording of the Synod’s decision. While re-affirming the view of
the majority that women should be admitted to the episcopate, it also affirmed that ‘special
arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a
matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or
priests’.
It resolved that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice and requested that
the drafting group should prepare draft legislation and a draft code of practice for the consideration of
Synod in February. It will be for the Synod, and in due course our own diocesan synod, to decide
whether the draft code is (to borrow the Archbishop of Canterbury’s word) ‘robust’ enough to provide
assurance for those who disagree with women bishops.
We recognise that there is a great deal of work to be done before suitable legislation can be drawn up
and agreed, and that discussion will be continuing for some years before it is enacted. We therefore
have the space for quiet reflection and continued listening to each other before the final decision
about the legislation is made.
We therefore urge everyone
• to pray for those who will be responsible for drawing up the legislation and the code of practice;
• to continue the fruitful discussions and exchanges of views that have already occurred, so that we
can all grow in our understanding of each other, and work with each other, in our common task of
bearing witness to Christ in the world;
• to participate fully in the process of discussion of the legislation through deanery chapters, deanery
and diocesan synods; and
• to refrain from pre-emptive actions or statements before the exact details of the legislation and
code of practice are published and agreed.
Finally, it remains our intention in this diocese to work for unity in mission and ministry with all
priests and church members alike. By maintaining good relationships of mutual affection and respect
we have the opportunity to model to the world a new way of dealing with differences and realising in
our own experience our Lord’s command to ‘love one another as I have loved you’.
Therefore we ask all to seek from God the grace to be charitable with one another, moderate in tone,
gentle in spirit, patient in listening, gracious in dissent and supportive of all who seek to lift high the
name of Jesus Christ in the world.
The General Synod motion moved by the Bishop of Gloucester:
That this Synod:
a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate;
b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the
Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to
receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;
c) affirm that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice to which all
concerned would be required to have regard; and
d) instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete
its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the
Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the
February 2009 group of sessions.
The motion was carried by a division of the three houses of Synod.
House of Bishops – For 28, Against 12, Abstentions 1
House of Clergy – For 124, Against 44, Abstentions 4
House of Laity – For 111, Against 68, Abstentions 2
What is a Liberal Christian?
Sometimes liberals are thought to be Christians who have backslidden; people who don't have enough faith, or are too "in the world." Actually, nothing could be farther from the truth. Liberal Christians are committed believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, who have thoroughly studied the scriptures and traditions of the Church, and have examined their faith in the light of reason and experience. They believe in:
Diversity
Perhaps the defining characteristic of liberal Christians is that they are comfortable with ambiguity and diversity. They realize that life is a complex spiritual journey, and that each person on that journey is confronted with unexpected revelations and unique experiences. Liberal Christians therefore welcome a variety of approaches to understanding God, and are open to new ways of talking about the divine. Religious questions are seen as complex, and answers only tentative. Certain that "now we see through a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12), liberals are cautious about making dogmatic statements or claiming to have a monopoly on the truth. They see the search for truth as an ongoing task, rather than one that has already been completed.
A Non-Literal View of Scripture
Conservative Christians are often content to answer religious questions by appealing to the absolute authority of Scripture. Liberal Christians, on the other hand, find such an approach to be flawed. Many see the Bible as a witness to revelation, or generally inspired, rather than completely inspired in all its parts. Just as Jesus was fully human and wholey divine, so one must also see the Bible as a product of both human and divine influences. Indeed, liberal Christians are quick to point out that the falleness and imperfection of its human authors gives the Bible an imperfect quality and authority.
Liberals view Scripture through a critical lens, and are not afraid to challenge traditional assumptions and interpretations. They rely heavily on higher criticism of the Bible, which looks into the origin and composition of the biblical texts, revealing a great deal about the human aspect of Scripture. Modern philosophical, biological, and cosmological theories that are well supported by evidence, and reflect the true nature of the world around us, can also shape the way liberals interpret Scripture. Traditional Christian doctrines, such as the Virgin Birth, the Atonement, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the Resurrection, are sometimes given new interpretations by liberals.
Perhaps more so than evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians, liberal Christians see the teachings of Jesus as having a central place. Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience are each given equal footing in determining Christian faith.
An Intimate, Personal View of God
Imminent and personal images of God in Scripture are attractive to liberals. For some this takes on the form of a belief in panentheism (Everything-in-God-ism). Liberals also see little distinction between the natural and the supernatural, and therefore do not look for "miracles" to confirm the existence of God. Instead, they feel that faith in God allows one to see the Spirit moving in the everyday stuff of life.
Universal Salvation
The concept of personal salvation is not typically stressed by liberal Christians. Accordingly, traditional images of heaven, hell, and the End Times are not given much weight in their theologies. When salvation is discussed, liberals are more apt to stress its "this worldly" aspects, and appeal to a universalist interpretation of Scripture when confronted with questions of eternal punishment and rewards.
For many liberal Christians, social justice is a central concern, and the transformation of society, rather than that of the individual, is more typically stressed. Equality for racial minorities, women, homosexuals, and the economically disadvantaged is seen as an essential part of the Gospel message. A concern for the environment, and other typically liberal social issues, also find a great deal of support among liberal Christians.
Fellowship & Community
Liberals tend to stress the centrality of community in the Christian experience. They can be found in almost all churches (from Roman Catholic to Southern Baptist), but tend to be in greater numbers in the mainline Protestant denominations: American Baptist Churches, USA; Disciples of Christ; Episcopal Church; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Presbyterian Church, USA; United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church. The Unitarian Universalist Association and the Metropolitan Community Churches are even more liberally minded.
Diversity
Perhaps the defining characteristic of liberal Christians is that they are comfortable with ambiguity and diversity. They realize that life is a complex spiritual journey, and that each person on that journey is confronted with unexpected revelations and unique experiences. Liberal Christians therefore welcome a variety of approaches to understanding God, and are open to new ways of talking about the divine. Religious questions are seen as complex, and answers only tentative. Certain that "now we see through a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12), liberals are cautious about making dogmatic statements or claiming to have a monopoly on the truth. They see the search for truth as an ongoing task, rather than one that has already been completed.
A Non-Literal View of Scripture
Conservative Christians are often content to answer religious questions by appealing to the absolute authority of Scripture. Liberal Christians, on the other hand, find such an approach to be flawed. Many see the Bible as a witness to revelation, or generally inspired, rather than completely inspired in all its parts. Just as Jesus was fully human and wholey divine, so one must also see the Bible as a product of both human and divine influences. Indeed, liberal Christians are quick to point out that the falleness and imperfection of its human authors gives the Bible an imperfect quality and authority.
Liberals view Scripture through a critical lens, and are not afraid to challenge traditional assumptions and interpretations. They rely heavily on higher criticism of the Bible, which looks into the origin and composition of the biblical texts, revealing a great deal about the human aspect of Scripture. Modern philosophical, biological, and cosmological theories that are well supported by evidence, and reflect the true nature of the world around us, can also shape the way liberals interpret Scripture. Traditional Christian doctrines, such as the Virgin Birth, the Atonement, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the Resurrection, are sometimes given new interpretations by liberals.
Perhaps more so than evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians, liberal Christians see the teachings of Jesus as having a central place. Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience are each given equal footing in determining Christian faith.
An Intimate, Personal View of God
Imminent and personal images of God in Scripture are attractive to liberals. For some this takes on the form of a belief in panentheism (Everything-in-God-ism). Liberals also see little distinction between the natural and the supernatural, and therefore do not look for "miracles" to confirm the existence of God. Instead, they feel that faith in God allows one to see the Spirit moving in the everyday stuff of life.
Universal Salvation
The concept of personal salvation is not typically stressed by liberal Christians. Accordingly, traditional images of heaven, hell, and the End Times are not given much weight in their theologies. When salvation is discussed, liberals are more apt to stress its "this worldly" aspects, and appeal to a universalist interpretation of Scripture when confronted with questions of eternal punishment and rewards.
For many liberal Christians, social justice is a central concern, and the transformation of society, rather than that of the individual, is more typically stressed. Equality for racial minorities, women, homosexuals, and the economically disadvantaged is seen as an essential part of the Gospel message. A concern for the environment, and other typically liberal social issues, also find a great deal of support among liberal Christians.
Fellowship & Community
Liberals tend to stress the centrality of community in the Christian experience. They can be found in almost all churches (from Roman Catholic to Southern Baptist), but tend to be in greater numbers in the mainline Protestant denominations: American Baptist Churches, USA; Disciples of Christ; Episcopal Church; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Presbyterian Church, USA; United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church. The Unitarian Universalist Association and the Metropolitan Community Churches are even more liberally minded.
