Inconveniences and Opportunities

It's been an interesting week for the Church of England, to say the least.

On Thursday the Archbishop of Canterbury - Justin Welby, revealed that he had plans for the Church of England to back credit unions in a bid to compete payday loan companies out of existence. It was a move that for once saw widespread backing come in from outside the Church, rather than criticism or condemnation... even among hardened atheists. Yet even as the platitudes came in, the archbishop was about to discover all too personally... what a difference a day makes.

The very next morning news broke that the Church of England itself indirectly invested in Wonga, causing much embarrassment and irritation on the part of the Archbishop.   Many of the voices that had been so supportive just 24 hours previous, were now numbered among the mockers and scoffers who relish any opportunity to point out the Church's faults and failings.  Even Wonga themselves hit back with a parody of the 10 commandments in a new marketing campaign.

In truth it's not the first time the Church has been in trouble with where it invests money. I remember as a teenager being extremely disappointed when reading a story that the Church had investments in a subsidiary of the arms manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. Someone had told me a few years ago that this had been rectified and yet as Welby himself admits... where the Church decides to invest its money is a murky area simply for the fact that a hotel chain may seem an innocent enough investment, but it might choose in turn, to sell pornography to its clientele - something that an outside investor seemingly has little control over.

These facts may appear at first glance to be a major inconvenience and yet I can't help thinking that the recent turn of events has a precedent in the Old Testament. In approximately 640BC Josiah acceded to the throne of the kingdom of Judah. His father Amon had been an idolater but Josiah had not followed in his footsteps but instead chosen to try and follow God. 18 years into his reign, Josiah decided that he wanted to refurbish the Temple in Jerusalem.  He probably thought he was doing a noble thing and yet very soon after he began the venture, Hilkiah the High Priest shattered his illusions by walking into the royal court with a copy of the long neglected Law that he had discovered.  Josiah was so distressed by what he had read, that he tore his robes.

King Josiah and Justin Welby share this in common - they both started out on a godly venture only to be confronted by the shortcomings of their respective factions.

I find that often it is during the times we express a desire to serve God, that he tosses a grenade into the room to test our resolve and commitment to the cause. It is messy, it hurts, it is infuriating and it is embarrassing.  How we respond when faced with these inconveniences and difficult emotions defines whether or not we are truly called to the path of action.

How did King Josiah respond to his embarrassment and humbling?  Quite simply, he committed himself and his people to a series of reforms the like of which had not been seen before. His legacy is remembered fondly in the book of 2 Kings:

"Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to the Lord as he did—with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in accordance with all the Law of Moses."

2 Kings 23:25

So I think that over 2,500 years later Justin Welby finds himself in good company and can take solace from the fact that inconveniences like these.... are actually divine opportunities in disguise. What matters now, is where he and we go from here. Do we succumb to our embarrassment or do we, like Josiah redouble our efforts and go much, much further with our commitments than we originally imagined.  Early indications seem to suggest that this is exactly what the Church of England is priming itself to do and scrutinising more closely where the Church's money is coming from and going to is the first step on this path.

Similarities between Justin Welby's and King Josiah's trials

This encourages me and I think with a little imagination and some savvy alliances with a few pressure groups (such as the people behind No More Page3), we might be able to do something about hotel chains selling pornography to clientele as well. Maybe we won't eliminate it... but we could perhaps persuade a chain to abandon the practice and get them endorsed by pressure groups if they do so.

• How would you like to see the Church of England respond to the Wonga episode?
• Would you support a wider campaign of reforms within and outside the Church?

The Cathedral & The Crucible

Due to my inability to book holiday without procrastination I've been able to benefit from a fair bit of time off in recent days and as luck would have it, it transpired that events had unfolded to provide me with a unique opportunity.

 

Justin Welby - The new Archbishop of Canterbury, has been progressing through the country on a prayer pilgrimage ahead of his enthronement on the 21st March 2013. The second sojourn of his journey led him back to Coventry - the diocese where he had spent roughly 15 years of ministry, culminating in his tenure as Sub Dean and Canon for Reconciliation Ministry.

 

Having the day off on Friday, I decided to take part in the event - both the church I worship at and the church I grew up in  are part of the Diocese of Coventry and its cathedral is therefore in "old money" terms, my mother church. I decided that I was going to make as much of a day of it as I could and found myself strolling into Broadgate at the early hour of 8:30am. As I was early I wandered back and forth, to and fro as the market was being set up and the PA system was being rigged for the welcome address. I approached some local dignitaries... who promptly backed off, apparently intimidated- maybe it was a bad idea for a 6'4" leviathan to wear a hoodie, or maybe they were just picking up on some kind of Alcestrian aura emanating from me.

 

Drummers Leading Archbishop Justin to the Cathedral.

Eventually the Archbishop arrived and after a meet and greet with the local media followed by a welcome by Coventry's mayor and a brief prayer of blessing, those of us who had gathered made our way to the ruins of the old cathedral... led by some drummers. As we arrived, it became apparent that larger throng had gathered outside the cathedral and together we prayed through the Litany of Reconciliation.  Following this we all made our way into the cathedral, which had been divided up into a series of 9 prayer areas with different formats for different people to use.

 

I love Coventry Cathedral; for those of you who don't know, it is a relatively new building that is nestled among the ruins of its predecessor... which was devastated during the destruction of Coventry by the Luftwaffe. I like the distribution of stained glass windows... on the inside it looks very much like something that you might expect to find on the Minbari homeworld in Babylon 5.  I'm also extremely fond of the star and circular shaped chapels at each end. When you look back from the nave, the entrance window is filled with frosted figures of angels and saints that seem to hover above the ruins... keeping watch over the cathedral and the city.

 

Praying Amidst the Ruins of the Old Cathedral

As previously mentioned, I was there for the whole event and decided to work my way around the various stations as best I could... and aside from praying for the Archbishop made the day something of a prayer retreat... something I haven't done for a good while. Being fond of Celtic expressions of prayer, I made my way to the round Chapel of Christ the Servant. and sat there working through a few prayers.  I must have looked a little odd because I'd taken my shoes off... it's a biblical practice that I've adopted when seeking a deeper focus in prayer... and I guess I've picked it up off my old vicar, Steve Burch. Straight away I felt my thoughts being tugged towards issues that periodically cycle from latency to active burden in my heart. I felt very much hemmed in and awestruck.

 

Following this period, I made my way to a Powerpoint station which split the Lord's Prayer up in segments with a particular focus for each line... designed to take 15 minutes to work through. I then made my way down the nave and bumped into some folk from my hometown. I chatted with them briefly and tried not to draw too much attention to my shoeless condition (no luck there), I then made my way to a Labyrinth that had been laid out in the centre of the nave. Funnily enough, this actually required me to be shoeless and having read through the gist of the prayer format, I started out. It was not to be however, as I was yanked out by one of the people from Alcester because the hourly prayer led by Archbishop Justin was starting. I know he thought he was doing the right thing... but I was seriously getting in the zone and it disrupted me - he should have left me to it really... but never mind. A bit like not being able to get back to sleep having been woken by something, I joined the other people in the nave and prayed the hourly prayer.

 

Once this was finished, I made my way back to the Labyrinth... and what followed was by far and away the most profound experience in my day. The idea is that you make your way along a winding path towards the centre and eventually out along another path. There are stations along the route and there are no dead ends. After a period of focused reflection I made my way inward - the first part of which invited me to invoke God's mercy. Gradually I made my way along until I came to the Ignatian Examen... which had some techniques based on a paraphrase of Isaiah 48:

 

Come near and listen to this:
from the beginning I have never spoken to you obscurely,
and all the time these things have been happening, I have been present
Thus says Yahweh, your redeemer, the Holy One:
I, your God, teach you what is good for you,
I lead you in the way that you must go.
If only you had been alert...

 

The meditation required me to examine which part of the text jumped out most vividly to me (I've highlighted what I experienced for you). I felt extremely challenged by this... I'm very guilty of being the kind of Christian who looks for signs and desires wisdom before committing to a path... and I felt that I was being advised that I already know what I need to know... the silence that I have assumed to be in place... has not been real at all.  When you reach the centre of the Labyrinth, you are supposed to just get comfortable and allow God to have you... and not do it at "drive-through" pace... but to be still and wait for God.

 

The final station I came to as I was working my way out, was a biblical meditative vision quest; I'm very fond of these... and I think people should be aware they exist, because they are a powerful area of spirituality that largely remain untapped in the Western church while people flock to similar such things that are available from the more questionable sources in Eastern mysticism.

 

The passage used was the account of Jesus appearing to disciples on the Road to Emmaus. It invited me to breathe the air, to hear the dusty road beneath my feet, to see the hooded stranger and to communicate with him and talk about the kind of feelings that were associated with the people in the passage. I remember very strongly at the end of this meditation seeing Jesus give a wry smile and a wink before vanishing. I felt his reassurance and that he was filling me with hope for the road ahead.

 

As I drew to the end of the Labyrinth, a period of contemplative worship was being performed by a man called Jimmy Lawrence. I felt deeply moved and sang along solemnly. This drew  the next hour to a close and we prayed again with Archbishop Justin.

 

For the next hour I kept drifting towards the accompanied prayer area... but there never seemed to be anyone to pray with. I felt like I could have done with that at that time.  so for the next hour I sat and gazed at the baptistery window in silent contemplation.

 

Eventually hunger got the better of me and I made my way down to the refectory to grab some sustenance. As there were no empty tables, I found myself talking to one of the cathedral chaplains and a visiting couple. Halfway into our chat, the old lady asked me if I was a vicar. I said that no, I wasn't... and I had a familiar strange feeling in the pit of my stomach.

 

Just before 2.00pm I returned for the final hour of prayer and after Archbishop Justin had prayed with us... I decided with a small group of others to go forward and meet him.  Upon greeting him, I took the opportunity to pray over him for his ministry and he in turn prayed for me.  Following this I tied a prayer to the prayer tree and submitted some prayers to the prayer text service that was scrolling on a screen on the right of the cathedral.

 

It was an amazing experience. I truly feel God took a cacophony of emotions and experiences and forged them into something immensely powerful and awe inspiring.

 

I also think I know what that feeling I get when people ask me *that* question, is about.

 

It's embarrassment. I feel it may be akin to the feelings that Peter must have felt when people asked him if he was one of Christ's disciples in the early hours of Good Friday.

 

I think that gives me something really challenging to look at.... and requires me to act perhaps more swiftly than I might appreciate.

 

All in all, my time at the cathedral felt very much akin to being in a crucible.

 

Of Fathers and Unexpected Choices.

The last time I preached at church I felt quite awkward, I felt there was something in the air that resisted the topic I was talking on... so much so that it made me pretty tense and I rushed my talk. Thankfully this morning was an altogether different experience, which is just as well given that I stuck with a similar message as one of my central themes.

The passage I chose to preach on was 1 Samuel 15:34-16:13. It relays the story of how Samuel (still grieving over God's rejection of Saul),  travelled to Bethlehem to anoint the king's eventual successor - David.

Seeing as the Olympic Torch is due to pass through my town in matter of weeks, I decided my talk would carry an Olympic flavour to it. The first question I posed was this:

What connects these people?

The answer is that they have all been chosen to be Olympic torch bearers. The first two  (Diana Gould of London and Dominic McGowan of Birmingham), are the oldest and youngest people to have been chosen respectively; the latter four (Holly Parker of Redditch, Sandra Lopez of Miami, Youssou N'Dour of Dakar and Sophie Witherford of Malvern), are the torch bearers who have been chosen to run through my own town of Alcester on Sunday, July 1st. Of these, the most well known is going to be Youssou N'Dour (although many in my congregation had not heard of him), as he is is probably the most famous living musician to come out of Africa and for his work as a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations.

However the important thing about their selection is that it has nothing to do with athleticism. The people who have been chosen to participate in the Torch Relay are those who have been perceived as community heroes of some description. Between them, the people above (and the myriad of others), have clocked up a huge amount community work & voluntary service between them. The criteria for selection was not based on their levels of fitness... indeed there have been some torch bearers who have been running entirely on prosthetic limbs.

Well that in essence is what the passage today was all about. When Samuel was called to visit the household of Jesse in Bethlehem, he was presented with an impressive procession of young men. To my imagination, it must have resembled the conveyor belt from The Generation Game. Samuel saw their strength and stature and was clearly impressed by all of them.. and yet he was surprised to discover that God did not share his enthusiasm.

In the same way that the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG), used completely different criteria to what we might expect, God did exactly the same with regard to his choice of king. Who is it that God chooses? He chooses the runt of the family... the ginger (yes David's physical description says he had red hair), in short... exactly the kind of person who might get picked last by his peers in a school football line up.

The crux of what was happening here is found in verse 7:

"But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."

There's an important parallel and lesson here for us both nationally and locally; The Church of England and the Alcester Minster will shortly be due to choose a successor to their current leaders. As touched upon in my previous post, there is a heated debate going on with regard to who the next Archbishop of Canterbury should be. You see people advocating candidates on the basis that they are "liberal", or "traditional" or "evangelical". All the time it seems to me that they are looking for their candidate and not God's. As a character on Babylon 5 once put it:

"Sometimes we stand in front of the light and assume that we are the centre of the universe. God looks astonishingly like we do!"

G'Kar - Meditations on the Abyss

Aren't we all a little guilty of that from time to time? If we are honest (as we are called to be), aren't we?

The choice between a liberal candidate or a conservative candidate is a FALSE choice. In the wake of the election of Pope Benedict XVI, there was a debate on Newsnight as to whether or not the Papal choice should have been liberal or conservative. A woman was arguing strongly that the cardinals had let the world down by electing an ultra-conservative pope. Yet a Roman Catholic priest came back with a very valid comment. He argued that the duty of a pope isn't to be liberal or conservative, that shouldn't even come into the equation when choosing a new pope. A pope should be chosen because he is faithful to God.

That is God's criteria... while we stumble around looking for a candidate who scratches our particular theological itches, we should actually be hoping, praying and seeking out a man of God who is faithful to the will of God... our views and the views of the public aren't nearly as important as that. i can't state it enough.

However God's choice isn't just about people in positions of religious or secular authority. It is about us too. As unseemly as we may think we are, we too have a calling. We too (those of us who choose to accept it), have been chosen.

We stumble... we stagger and sometimes we fall, but it is at those times that God's grace shines so brightly in our lives and maybe that is a major reason why he calls us:

"Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things that are not – to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him."

1 Corinthians 1:26-29

How can God nullify the world's standards of success by using our weakness? Well perhaps on Father's Day, I can offer you a poignant illustration. In the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, British athlete Derek Redmond was preparing to run the race of his life; he was tipped for a medal in the 400 metres. The race began normally enough, but 150 metres or so into the race, Derek felt a twang in the back of his leg and a searing pain. He collapsed to the ground in agony as the rest of the racers sprinted towards the line. Broken and defeated, Derek had every reason to give up.

He didn't.

Redmond picked himself up off the ground and hobbled along the track like a lame chicken towards the finish line. As he did so, the officials and stewards ran up to him and tried to stop him... but he insisted he wanted to carry on. Suddenly from out of the stands, a short, stock built older man ran out and head for Redmond. Stewards tried to stop him too... but he shrugged them off. As he reached Redmond he told him that he didn't have to finish the race... he'd done enough. Redmond insisted that he needed to cross the line. The man put a hand on Redmond's shoulder and reassured him "then we are going to finish it together".

That man was Derek Redmond's father - Jim Redmond.

The two of them walked to the finish line and received a standing ovation from 65,000+ onlookers in the stadium. I can't watch the footage of that race without welling up, it speaks more to me of the Olympic spirit than even the largest medal haul of any athlete or nation. Furthermore I can't tell you who won that race... I can't even tell with certainty who went on to win the gold medal in the final... but I can tell you that I'll remember what Derek Redmond did until the day that I die.

 

That is what God can do in our lives with his grace. When we struggle or even fail, we have the cosmic assurance that 2,000 years ago a God came down to Earth to atone for our mistakes and make us whole again... and that every day he is with us in the power of the Holy Spirit... not content to watch from the stands, the Father draws near to us and brings us home, to his glory.

How deep the Father's love for us... how vast beyond all measure.

The Voice

I'm not a big fan of reality TV and don't tend to watch any of them unless I am with other people who are watching it, or find myself extremely pushed for something to do. That said in recent weeks I've stumbled on the odd performance on the BBC 1 show, The Voice.

If you aren't already aware, the show's initial twist/hook is that in the opening rounds, the judging panel didn't get to see the hopeful contestants. The idea being that they could not make preconceptions on a person based on their appearance or any back story... but solely on vocal talent. This sets it apart from its main rival on ITV (Britain's Got Talent), where judges form their opinion on who to take forward with other criteria.

It got me thinking about preconceptions in the church, especially as in recent months the ongoing debate between liberals and conservatives on such matters as women bishops, gay marriage and the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury has become more and more amplified. It is a matter that may also strike particularly close to home because early next year, the minster I worship in will be looking to appoint a new vicar/head of ministry.

To be honest I'm fed up with it all... I'm exasperated!

Those who are most vocal on either side of the divide seem so sure of its own position in matters of theology and scripture and community. Each tries to either batter the other side into submission using rhetorical blunt force trauma, or wrong foot them by concocting elaborate schemes. 

While outspoken liberals and conservatives bicker, the rest of the Church suffers

When did we become so sure of what God wanted... that we decided we'd make His decisions for Him? I think there is a severe, ever present danger in each one of us - the danger that we mistake the reflection of our own ego and its preconceived ideas, as being God's. Or perhaps it is a lack of spiritual confidence/maturity. We are so scared that if we don't speak for God, there will be awkward silence and nothing will happen... and we will look foolish. I don't believe any one of us is truly immune to these threats, because each and everyone of us carries within us the potential to be selfish and insecure; each one of us plays host to a sinful nature that even though it has been crucified (for those of us who accept Christ's sacrifice), constantly craves to put "self" on the throne of our hearts either as a result of hubris or insecurity.

I think our fear of losing control directly feeds into this danger and I think that we rely so much on our own convictions that we neglect or lose sight of the most important factor in the guidance and direction of the Church...

... The Voice.

No, I'm not talking about Sir Tom Jones, I'm talking about allowing God the room to intercede and intervene directly in our debates. I think we get so wrapped up in our own earthquakes, winds and fires, that we become deaf to what God is saying. I want to share two passages that I believe demonstrate his willingness to intercede directly in changing the direction of his Church. The first is from the Old Testament. It is quite lengthy so I won't be pasting it, instead you can read the passage by following this link.

In summary, Elijah challenged his opponents to demonstrate to the watching people through an act of power, that their god was worthy of following. Despite all their chants and efforts (even cutting themselves), no such demonstration was forthcoming. After rolling around on the floor and laughing at them, Elijah then made it impossible for his own altar to catch fire... and then called upon the The Lord.

What followed was the biggest barbecue in history.

The god who answers by fire - he is God.

But that's Old Testament... surely I'm not suggesting God is in the business of burning up people at Church who get it wrong? Am I?

No I'm not. But I do still believe God answers by fire.

Which brings me to the second passage:

Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way, and as they travelled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”  The apostles and elders met to consider this question.  After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.  God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.  He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.  Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?  No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

  “‘After this I will return
   and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
   and I will restore it,
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
   even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
things known from long ago.

“It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.  Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

Acts 15:1-21

Again it is a slightly lengthy passage but I think it makes the point eloquently. It demonstrates that God does still answer by fire - the fire of the Holy Spirit. When the Church hit a wall, a deep theological divide that threatened to split it or create a two tier system, they did not just argue amongst themselves and rely on their own understanding of God's Word... they left room for the Holy Spirit. Peter recounted his experience in the household of Cornelius, where the baptism of the Holy Spirit first came to Gentiles. Following this, Paul and Barnabas shared their similar experiences of the Gentile Christians they had encountered en route to Jerusalem... and how the Holy Spirit had been present then also.

There is a place for personal conviction... but it must take its place alongside the authority of scripture and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. We need to soak our churches in prayer... clothe ourselves in the Spirit and avail ourselves of all the fruit, blessings, gifts and tools God has to offer. As much as our humanity gets us into these situations... it is God's gracefully given divinity that will get us out of them. Conservatives who object to liberal attitudes need to remind themselves that you can't expect people to be refined by the Holy Spirit if you make it difficult for them to encounter him... by shutting the door to God's storehouses firmly in their face unless they change before they are convicted. Liberals need to be prepared to be honest and accept and respond to the Spirit's conviction if they find in their relationship with God that he is calling them to abandon something they otherwise understand or accept to be okay. We all have to do that sometimes... none of us "like" it, but spiritual maturity accepts God's discipline.

So all I'm saying in essence is that before we make any decisions about what God wants; let's open the floodgates and allow him free reign to make us into his people.

Liberal? Conservative? Let us not get hung up on these worldly positions, let us instead give God the floor. For when God answers... there is no longer any debate.

• How do you think the Church of England should resolve its issues?
• Have you seen the Spirit been poured out supernaturally in liberal/conservative churches?
• Share what happened if you are willing.

ABC... Easy as 1 2 3?

After reading about the Church of England's decision to allow open online consultation over the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury, and having read reactions from Vicky Beeching and the tongue-in-cheek folks at Ship of Fools, I felt inspired to write up my own "unique" look at some unusual alternative candidates who it might be worth considering.

Who Will succeed Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury?

If you are a regular follower of my blog... I think you know what to expect. A poll will follow at the end, which I would be honoured if you would please vote on... and remember it is just for fun. :)

Candidate 1: Gandalf the White (The Lord of the Rings)

As you are probably aware, throughout his tenure as existing Archbishop of Canterbury (and possibly even prior to this), Rowan Williams picked up the affectionate nickname of Gandalf. I even joked a few weeks ago that after his resignation, Rowan would return to the role as Rowan the White. However let us consider for a moment the possibility that the ACTUAL Gandalf inherited the role of Primate. Having one of Tolkien's Istari on board, would come in extremely handy. Apart from demonstrating powerful magical abilities, effective combat against the forces of evil and dispensing wisdom to the the peoples of Middle Earth, as Archbishop Gandalf would guarantee a world beating display of New Year fireworks along the Thames during his tenure. Oh and he already has a handy stick.

Candidate 2: Obi-Wan Kenobi (Star Wars)

If beards are your thing and you want an alternative to Gandalf, why not choose old Ben? In an illustrious career only slightly marred by one pastoral failure with an apprentice (although... true, it did lead to the subsequent near extinction of his order), Ben Kenobi would be a great choice for a Church of England seeking to reach out to a generation yearning for action and purpose, that feels forgotten and trapped in a bleak environment. Furthermore if anything nasty should befall him, he'll just return with an eerie blue glow and hand out even more inspirational advice to the Anglican Communion.

Candidate 3: Ambassador Kosh Naranek (Babylon 5)

Perhaps an outside choice in science fiction circles, Kosh might just prove to be an important bridge between a church that is sometimes perceived as distant and disconnected from society. The Vorlons faced similar accusations (Kosh himself didn't help by implying they took no interest in the affairs of others), however to the very contrary they had a finger in every single pie and were very involved in the affairs of others. The Vorlons in general were bastions of order... but Kosh demonstrated a genuine care and compassion for the aliens he encountered that was unique. It is true that half the things he said would confuse even the best cryptic crossword solver, but you can't doubt his motives or his achievements.... and although shy and retiring... when he comes out of his shell his actions can be perceived to be angelic.  However... be very wary of the guy who follows after him.

Candidate 4: Spock (Star Trek)

Spock would surely have to be the logical choice.  Although half human and capable of emotion, his unswerving devotion to the merits of logic would ensure that personal feeling would not compromise any theological debates. Also... let's not forget that Spock himself has a certain level of insight into the meaning of great personal sacrifice and resurrection which are surely invaluable. However, it should be noted that whilst logic and theology have their place and might endear him to some traditionalists, a lack of emotion might equally isolate him from charismatics and liberals... and this should be borne in mind.

Candidate 5: The Doctor (Doctor Who)

"It's a mitre. I wear a mitre now. Mitres are cool!" He's defended the planet Earth from hostile forces an innumerable amount of times, he has gone face to face with demons and even the Devil himself. Having been compared to a god on several occasions, could the beloved time-travelling wild old man of the universe have a realistic role in shaping the Anglican Church of the future? It is certainly true that Christians should be like the TARDIS (living lives that are bigger on the inside than on the outside), however churches should definitely be the other way round - bigger on the outside (in the community), than on the inside (within its walls). The Doctor would probably take issue with forms of worship that didn't get congregations to think about and engage with what they believed in... he'd be very much against anything that lulled people into what he perceived as a mindless conforming pattern like the Cybermen. However The Doctor would be excellent at travelling across the entire length and breadth of the Church of England with his TARDIS (only missing important appointments by a couple of years every now and then), and he could offer something unique that other candidates could not - a personal pilgrimage to see events from the Bible as they happened. Some might question whether a Time Lord who is difficult to tie down in any place and time is fit for permanent office, but let's not forget he held the Presidency of the High Council of Gallifrey for a time.

So there are my amusing alternatives. Please do vote and if you have any other alternatives or serious suggestions, please do get in touch and comment below... I'd love to hear what you have to say...

Who Should Be The Next Archbishop of Canterbury?

You Can't Please All Of The People...

... all of the time.

I've been gone along time again. Truth be known, I've been fairly exhausted in focusing my thoughts on other writing projects including preparation for my preaching efforts. Ive been feeling intellectually, spiritually and emotionally... somewhat drained.

But the hour is late (and I don't just mean that I'm typing in the midnight hour). A lot has happened recently in politics and it requires comment... so I had better at least try to weigh in with a semi decent effort.

Before exploring my motivation for writing this piece, lets look at the fundamental cause of the recent political troubles - the scandal over MP's expenses.

What has happened is simply disgusting. There is no other word that sums it up so succinctly.

Disgusting.

That so many of our parliamentary representatives have been caught red handed, angers the public deeply... and rightly so. I think deep down many people knew or at least suspected on some level, that this was going on...but just got on with their own lives... but it's now, when financial hardship begins to pinch that this issue is particularly sensitive (though I personally believe it should always be so). I think what has offended the public most deeply, is the fact that those who have been caught (to whatever extent), have actually tried to defend their position.

"I acted within the rules at the time" they cry. So what? They knew full well that the rules were wrong but they were content to ignore that little fact as they used the letter of the law to completely wallpaper over the spirit of the law.

The worst offenders have pledged to step down at the next election and have written cheques to pay back what they have stolen (for lets name the act for what it is).

Frankly this is not enough.

I don't agree with David Cameron's stance of using the outrageous crimes of his parliamentary brethren to get a general election (though it looks like events are conspiring to that effect anyway, irrespective of his appeals). It is not the time to make political capital out of this steaming mess (he knows his party is far likely to be less severely damaged by electoral disaffection).

However, I do believe that immediacy is needed. If it happened in any other workplace, the culprits would be on a charge of gross misconduct and out on their ear... and this should be no different.

I believe in every case where there is provable deliberate fraud, there should be a By Election... no matter how many seats that affects. Furthermore, as a gesture of goodwill, I believe the politicians should follow the biblical example of Zaccheus. He was the tiny taxman who defrauded his community out of their hard earned coinage. However, upon meeting Jesus... Zaccheus had a change of heart and offered not only to pay back what he taken... but to multiply it fourfold.

I'm sure if you suggested it to the MP's caught in scandal, they would be spitting their tea out at this suggestion... but here is my point. Giving back what they took, merely shows a grudging acknowledgement that they were caught red handed. It is not an act of contrition. True repentance requires that we go over and above what is expected of us on paper... we actually need to demonstrate a change of heart by what we choose to say and how we choose to act.

What is required for the main parties to regain some serious trust... is for someone to stand up and make some really tough calls... REALLY tough ones. Although Cameron has made a few steps along this road, none of the main party leaders have truly been active on this... or taken any risks. They promise reform but that takes time... and as the Bible teaches, you shouldn't put new wine in an old wineskin (or in this case "new rules in corrupt parliaments").

However, I wish to move on to my main point - tomorrows elections. There is a great fear and concern that the disaffection felt by so many over the sleaze allegations and expenses scandal will lead to the public abandoning the main parties and leaving several local and European seats ripe for picking by the hands of dangerous fringe parties such as the BNP

In fact, such is the concern that... last week the two leading ministers in the Anglican Church stepped forward and made a direct appeal against the BNP.

When I heard the joint statement issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury - Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York - John Sentamu that decried the BNP, I was deeply impressed.

Yet unbelievably, there was a barrage of letters in the press complaining that the Church of England should not be telling people how they should vote.

Under ordinary circumstances, I would normally agree... but these are NOT ordinary circumstances and the British National Party is NOT a normal political party.

We are living in extraordinary times... politics is in a state of complete upheaval. The row over MP's expenses has broken wide open.

Lets not forget that following the Holocaust, Pope Pius XII was strongly criticised for not speaking out against the persecution of Jews... in fact he did apparently make some critical statements... and gestures, but his contribution is largely regarded as too little too late and mostly given when it became politically safe/convenient.

Whether you believe his actions were sufficient or not, my point is that people were critical of him for not acting in the face of such an oppressive destructive political beast as Nazism.

Yet now, people are criticising churchmen for doing the opposite. Are they insane? Do they not see the parallels? It is absolutely right that the Church stands up against the BNP, particularly when it is a known fact that the party is making insidious attempts to win over Christians who are (rightly) annoyed at the prospect of political correctness seemingly stifling public expression of belief.

The BNP even claim Christ is on their side:

What would Jesus do?

Are they serious?

Let me punch a fundamental hole in their argument...

Jesus Christ lived as a Jew in a nation occupied by a foreign invader, one which despite allowing Jewish culture to continue... made sure it's own cultural ideas were firmly imprinted upon the land. How did Jesus treat these foreigners... did he endorse the idea of insurrection against Rome?

No he didn't.

Jesus Christ even went as far as healing a Roman official's son.

However, we are talking persecution are we not? So how did Jesus react to persecution... did he throw his lot in with the Zealot guerrilla terrorists?

No.

Jesus allowed the Romans to mock him, beat him to a pulp, flog him and crucify him... and he still had the loving audacity to call upon his Father to forgive them.

Ultimately, Jesus does not make a good poster boy for the BNP... and neither should any of us who are Christians.

You see if Jesus and his apostles (following the ascension) had not accepted outsiders... the Christian Church would be nowhere near as significant in size as it is today. Peter would not have met Cornelius, and salvation would not have been known among the gentiles. Similarly Paul... if he had not immersed himself in the many cultures of the Roman Empire provinces, would not have been able to use his observations of their customs, in proclaiming the Gospel to them.

And let us not forget that in following Christ, we admit we are aliens and foreigners on this Earth... and our "nationalism" is in the final analysis, reserved for God's Kingdom.

However, I don't need to go into a long and drawn out theological diatribe as to why Christianity is not compatible with the BNP's "policies".

All I need is Christ's summaries of how we should treat others around us:

"Love your neighbour as yourself"

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Matthew 5:43-48

If you have been tempted to vote for the BNP... or even if a small part of your heart sympathises with them; I urge you to take a good look again at the scripture above and pray about it. Weigh your heart against God's Word and see if in all good conscience, your position is defensible?

I make no secret of my vehement opposition to the very existence of the BNP and I feel burdened to speak out against them because of my conviction that evil succeeds when good men fail to act.

May God bless you all

N

Christmas Conundrums

I decided to write this blog in response to the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent comments on BBC Radio 5 as reported in the Times, with regard about the level of truth in the Christmas stories.

Before saying anything, I should point out that Rowan Williams actually does believe in the Virgin Birth himself, so his aim was not punch holes in the bottom of his own boat. His intentions were good - he was aiming to make the gospel message less hard to swallow for people on the outside.

Dr Williams is quite correct in his assertions about the Magi, we do know very little about them... and we have embellished who they were somewhat - but I do not doubt they made their accredited appearance; their gifts would have provided the resources necessary for Joseph, Mary and Jesus' time of refuge in Egypt. I also know that one of the reasons Matthew included them in his narrative, was that he was aiming to point out right from the very start that Jesus had come to be the Gentile Messiah as well as the Israelite one.

It's also true that we don't know exactly what was in the stable at the time of Christ's birth. I would hazard a guess that there were animals in there, because of the fact that Jesus was placed in their food trough upon birth.

It's also true that the weather in the Middle East is not the same as British weather...and that Jesus was not actually born at this time of year. The move to celebrate Christ's birth in December was a political one. However, you could argue that Jesus is like the British monarch, he has his actual birthday and an official one too. He is the King of kings, so it is totally appropriate as far as I am concerned.

As to stellar behaviour, the simple truth is we don't know what astronomical event was being observed, nor how the Magi with their background had decided to interpret what they had witnessed. The biblical narrative suggests that they reached Jesus later in his development, not whilst he was a baby. That doesn't mean that we have to dismiss the idea... we merely have to accept that there are other ways of understanding the star. Some are recorded here on Wikipedia.

However, the main controversy I wish to address is the issue of the Virgin Birth. Dr Williams believes in it... but according to a 2002 survey of 2000 Anglican clergy, many of them do not personally accept it, some do not even believe in the resurrection! I find that statistic quite disturbing, it is one thing to struggle with a theological concept as a believer... it is quite another to ask others to accept a belief you do not hold yourself. Some, like the chaplain who was denouncing the nativity as myth, are worse; they actively encourage people NOT to believe in the Virgin Birth. One wonders why they signed up in the first place. If you can't accept the basics of Christian belief... what business do you have shepherding a flock of Christ's sheep? It is being a blind guide to others. I sometimes think (whetther they are aware of it or not), that the reason behind some of these people's ministries is not divine calling... but self righteousness - "the Church is wrong, but I am right... I will show them". That is ego on the throne and not God.

Back to the Virgin Birth and I personally feel that it is pretty important.

If Jesus was born of a human union... there would be nothing to make him any different to us. He would be a sinful human because he would carry Adam's sin. He had to be perfect, he had to be supernaturally born in order to be free of the sin that he came to deliver us from. He also had to be human so as to be able to represent us. He had to be our righteousness and in his resurrection, our mediator.

The chaplain I spoke of yesterday and referred to above, spoke scientifically about our knowledge of conception and how it biologically works... but he missed the point. He was trying to rationalise the birth of Christ based on the observed scientific reproductive process with regard to a normal human child; not that of God translating himself into a human body. We have seen in cloning how genetic data can be completely removed from an egg and replaced with data from another being. There are so many different ways we could look at it scientifically and still not understand exactly what happened. You cannot reason everything out with God... sometimes you have to just accept it's above you... and run with it.

I disagree to an extent with Dr Williams. I do believe it's important to accept the virgin birth...I do agree that people who struggle with it shouldn't get hung up on it. Crucially what I am saying is that I don't believe you make Jesus Christ any more accessible by watering down who he is.

In 2005 Jamie Oliver had a problem with making school dinners. He wanted to replace turkey twizzlers and Frankenstein foods with real wholesome food... however he had to contend with school budgets. It came down to him saying something like "you could reduce the cost and get cheaper ingredients to a degree... but you could only do it so much. There comes a point where the end product isn't what you are advertising it as it anymore."

That's the problem the church faces if it constantly waters down the Gospel. It won't be proclaiming the Gospel any more... it'll be some other message; cleverly packaged but devoid of the power that only God could give it. I'm all for making the Gospel accessible - how many times have you seen me use popular culture or allegory here, in order to get the message across in a more understandable way? The one thing I won't do is change the essential message at the heart of the Gospel and that's because the message of the cross is God's wisdom and not man's. It is foolish to understand the Gospel on the world's terms, you have to accept it as God gives it to you. He took on human form and he died to deliver us from our sins.

Many of you here will go to church in the next 24 hours and hear the words from the following passage you hear every year... because it might be the only time of year you go, which is entirely your choice and privilege. However my challenge to you is to look at this passage and contemplate what it means to you personally, who is this child to you?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

John 1:1-18

May God bless you this Christmas. May you know him more deeply than you have ever known him.