Mike's musings

Ordained. And out

I've made some great friends on the retreat: Chris, Sally, Neil, Paul, Geoff and Chris all spring to mind. I've rediscovered some friendships: Sue, Iain, Mandy and Terry particularly. And made more that I hope to explore in the next few years. After a last service in the morning and breakfast, we all got ready and the Colchester and Bradwell area ordinands headed off to Chelmsford Cathedral. I met Dad and Mum, and Moo turned up in good time for the sponsors' rehearsal/training thing. And after getting all vested up in cassock and surplice, stole ready to go, it was time to start.

The service was joyful. Just full of joy. Great singing, lots of grinning from me, and a few tears after the actual ordination (from me, that is: Kate, my mother-in-law, cried pretty much throughout). The actual laying on of hands was very powerful for me. Heavy, really heavy hands. But more than that. I closed my eyes and there was a great depth. Not an emptiness, but a great depth. I need to reflect on this, but it was very powerful for me.

And then I was wearing a stole, across my body, over my left shoulder, which is how a deacon wears it. And I received the host from the Bishop of Chelmsford, and the wine from the Bishop of Colchester, my area bishop, which was a particular privilege.

Now I'm a deacon.

We had a meal at home, and it was fantastic to see the girls: they were both so pleased to see me, as well.

And out

About three years ago, I was told very firmly that until I was ordained, I should keep quiet abut a couple of issues. These are:

• the ordination of women to the episcopate (women bishops);
• the position of homosexuals in the church.

I was ordained today, and the gloves come off. For regular readers of this blog and my friends , this is may be pretty clear already, but here's a statement or two.

I am disgusted that women cannot occupy every position in the Church of England that men can.

I believe that sexuality should have no impact on the treatment of any man or woman, whether lay, deacon, priest, bishop or archbishop.

I intend to campaign on these issues. I intend to engage with those who hold different views. And I hope to do so in love and respect. But this is where I stand. God help me.

(Oh, and this post is for Moo. My love).

Labels: ordination, sexuality, women

"So poorly based" - reflections on Christianity and homosexuality

Adam commented on my post the other day on Dar Es Salaam, saying:

I'm not Anglican, but it troubles me deeply that the Episcopal Church in the U.S. is taking this stand against the entire Communion on a matter so poorly based in Scripture and tradition.

I take a different view, as I think is probably clear from other posts. I think there are a few points here. All of this post is, of course, my opinion. I could be wrong on points of fact, and you may disagree with my theology.

First of all, I believe that one of the interesting things about the Episcopal Church in the U.S. is that it is run along much more democratic lines than most of the other provinces of the Anglican Communion. For instance, it is committees who choose bishops, rather than other bishops, and so it's difficult to "impose" solutions on a set of people who are not all ordained, and not "under the discipline" of the church. There are arguments here that lay people may be more prone to being over-influenced by secular society. But the other side of the coin is that if the Holy Spirit _is_ moving through society, then people who are more free of the strictures of a fairly rigid hierarchy (the church), and will be better able to reflect God's revelation as expressed through the wider world.

The second point is that I disagree that they are taking a stand against the entire Communion. There are other provinces - the Church of England, for instance - where the issue of homosexual priests, bishops and lay people is becoming an vexed one.

Third, I don't agree with the suggestion that this is an issue "poorly based in Scripture and tradition". I would say that the view _against_ homosexuality is much less strongly based in Scripture than has generally been presented. And the tradition is fairly modern - there was a much greater acceptance of a variety of homosexual expressions certainly up to the Reformation than there has been until very recently.

Fourth, we should bear in mind that the church is splitting largely down what we could call "interpretational" lines. Those who are of a fundamentalist - or at least literalist - bent tend to interpret the Bible in one way, and those of a more liberal theological background (broadly of the "historical-critical" school) tend to be less literal. Of course, there are issues around tradition, as well: some of those who take a view which foregrounds tradition will tend to take an "anti-homosexual" view. That's the standard Roman Catholic view. But we should be aware that a number of the fundamentalist parties - often evangelical - are seeking to use the homosexual (which tends to be very emotive) debate as a point of contention. It's sometimes less about this particular issue, but more about how the Bible is read. We should remember that there is a broader political agenda (sometimes) at work here.

Last of all, one thing that ECUSA are doing is treating homosexuals with respect and love. Not just clergy, but laity as well. The rest of the Anglican Communion (with a few exceptions) have agreed that they should listen to homosexuals and treat them with love and respect. I don't see that happening. With rare (but heroic) exceptions, the message to gay people - lay and clergy - is that they are _not_ listened to, not respected, and not loved.

And I _know_ what Jesus Christ would have said about the last point, if nothing else.

A declaration

I'm fairly safe. Maybe I should keep my mouth shut until I'm ordained - I've certainly been counselled to do that - but I'm from a "safe" church background, I've got an solid, safe academic theological background, I'm (very happily) married with a child (and one on the way), and I don't even have a family axe to grind. But I care about this, and I hate the fact that Christ's love is not being shown. And I need to stand up.

And there are more important issues. Violence against women, povery, global warming, persecution of Christians, persecution of non-Christians, despair, mental illness - where do you start? Not, for Christ's sake, with what people do in bed.

Labels: church, sexuality, theology

Dar Es Salaam

At the moment, the Primates of the Anglican communion are meeting in Dar Es Salaam to consider what to do about the fact that ECUSA (the Episcopal Church of the USA - US Anglicans) have appointed an openly gay bishop and have sanctioned blessings of gay partnerships in churches. Lots of the other parts of the Anglican church (which doesn't have a central power-base, or legal authority, unlike the Roman Catholic church) are very upset about this, and have threatened schism (a break in the church). In particular, a part of the Anglican church calling itself "the Global South" has set itself up against ECUSA, although there are groups within the US (e.g. CANA) who are also against the steps taken by ECUSA.

There are a number of blogs around on this, including a good videoblog and recordings of press conferences at AnglicanTV. You might also want to check out Thinking Anglicans, which has lots of links, and Changing Attitude blog. The last, by the way, assumes quite a lot of existing knowledge about the people and positions - it's worth reading back.

One of the really hard things that's happened this time round is that a group of 7 Primates have refused to participate in Holy Communion with the others. This is down from 14 on a meeting at Dromantine 2 years ago, but is a shocking, shocking move: it's hard to think of a stronger statement that people could make as Christians.

You might also want to look at the Anglican Communion Official Website.

Labels: anglicans, sexuality

Hallucinations

I really don't like hallucinating, which is something that happens quite regularly to me when I have a temperature. So, the last couple of nights/days have been interesting. I don't tend to see things, just know that all's not quite right: for instance, all I wanted to do last night was sleep. But no - the "helpful Christian voices" wouldn't let me. Sounds lame or scary, but it's just a bother, to be honest: I know what's going on, and I'm not ill enough to be taken in.

Having been awake most of the night, this came along. Don't know whether I should really be posting it, but hey...

The Conversion of Saint Raul, or "reclaiming a poster boy"

(Coming to us in the near future, if we're not careful...)

Raul sat on the train, feeling rather pleased with himself. They'd got 6 new ones in London - of which 4 were down to him, and 1 of which he'd claim as an "assist" - and he had a good lead in Bristol, which is where he was going now. He'd got the relevant bishops' emails (sometimes, it seemed, provided somewhat unwillingly, but OAfJ knew how to pull the relevant strings), and he had some good contacts in the local media. In fact, the national - and even international - media were beginning to take notice of the work of Outing Anglicans for Jesus, and there'd been quite a scrum when Raul had thrown the last incumbent's vestments onto the muddy street outside the church and ritually burnt them, before handing him over to his bishop. Of course, it wasn't all high-church Anglo-Catholics, so you had to pick your desecration carefully, and one of Raul's favourites had been a nasty piece of work called Stephen, who'd finally confessed when the OAfJ had thrown his copy of "The Message" onto a bonfire in the church hall car park.

Just then, as the train passed through a tunnel, there was a flash of light. Raul was blinded, and ducked down onto the floor, sure that the train had hit something, and that the carriage would at any moment start to buckle. However, nothing of the kind happened, and he was about to get up, when suddenly he heard a voice.

"Oi, Raul. Why are you picking on me?"
"Jesus Christ," blasphemed Raul, "who the hell's that?"
"Right first time," said the voice, "it's Jesus, who you're persecuting. Now, get up, get off at the next station, and you'll get your instructions."
The other OAfJ officers with Raul were flabbergasted - they'd heard the sound, but couldn't see anyone. Raul, trying to rescue something of his dignity, got up from the floor of the carriage, but when he opened his eyes, he couldn't see anything. So they helped him off at the next stop, which was Bristol Temple Meads, the city station. They found a hotel, but he was completely blind for three days, and didn't touch a morsel of food or a drop of drink.

Now, in Bristol, there was a rector of a church in the city who was called Andy. The Lord called to him while he was tidying up after youth club, "Andy!". Andy took his mobile out of his pocket. Caller ID showed "THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY", which he was pretty sure he'd never set up in his contact list, so he decided to go with it. "Yes, Lord?" he answered.

The Lord told him "Go to the Hotel Judas on Straight Street and ask for a guy called Raul Tarsus, as he's praying. In a vision, he's seen a man called Andy come and place his hands on him to restore his sight."

"Lord," Andy answered, "you've got to be joking. I've seen this guy in the news, and all the harm he's been doing to the community in London. And he's come here with authority from the bishops to out and defrock anyone who's even remotely queer."

But the Lord said to Andy, "Get off your backside! This guy's my chosen instrument to present me to that post-Christendom society you're always on about, the media, and all those so-called "God-fearing Christians". I'll show him how much he'll have to suffer for me."

So Andy, somewhat against his better judgement, made sure he still had his mobile (in case God changed his mind on the way), put on a rainbow bracelet (might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb) and headed off to the hotel. They showed him up at reception - he had his dog-collar on, after all - and, full of trepidation, he entered Raul's room. He placed his hands on Raul, and said "Brother Raul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the train here, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." Immediately, something seemed to fall from Raul's eyes, and he could see again.

Labels: illness, sexuality

Christians: choosing who to love

I'd hoped to spend some time on this, but as readers of entries passim will realise, I'm not at all well (update below), so I'm going to keep it short.

My intention had been to write from two directions:

1. as Christians, we don't get to decide who we should love: we're supposed to love everyone (including ourselves). This includes people of whom we may not approve - and I'm thinking in particular of gay, bisexual or lesbian people. And gay, bisexual or lesbian Christians, too.
2. we should maybe realise that other people don't get to decide who they love, either: and I'm thinking in particular of gay, bisexual or lesbian people. And gay, bisexual or lesbian Christians, too. God made each of us the way we are, and we must remember that Jesus told us to "love your neighbour as yourself", which means that we must realise that people must love the selves that God made them.

I'm not going to be drawn into the "paedophile debate": that's not about love, as it's not reciprocal, and is entirely about abuse. I'm talking about good, honest, human (and, through Christ's incarnation, divine) love.

Sorry to be blunt - I expect comments (though I may delay responding to them all until I'm rather better).

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of spiritual warfare. If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• Christian Sexuality as Ritual Worship at Phil Wyman's Square No More
• Christians: choosing who to love at Mike's Musings
• Loving God, Loving others, loving self- responding to the Goddess- a feminist perspective at Eternal Echoes
• Trinity by Mike Crockett
• Prophet's Passion at Adam Gonnerman's Igneous Quill
• A Love Supreme from Fernando's Desk
• What is this thing called love? at Steve's Notes from the Underground
• Love as it should pertain to us missionally? at Webb's Stumbling into the Kingdom
• Divine Eros by Handmaid Leah
• Loving the Other by John Smulo
• The Conjunction Between Sensuality and Spirituality by Matt Stone
• The Blogger Whom Jesus Loved at Jamie's More Than Stone
• Love Them Patriots at Calacirian
• I'm a better lover than I used to be... by Billy Calderwood
• Young people in on love by Tim Abbot
• The Art of Making Love....and Soap at Cindy's Tracking the Edge
• Being Missional: Love Comes Before Power by David Fisher at Be the Revolution

Update

For those of you with an interest, I'm definitely still ill. Got around 2 hours of sleep last night, woke up with a temperature and alternate shakes/sweats. Doc gave me antibiotics and the week off.

Labels: illness, love, sexuality, synchroblog

A petition

Please consider signing this petition.

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to prohibit discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities on the grounds of sexual orientation for the remainder of the UK at the earliest point possible."

Labels: sexuality

Recovery

I've got to get well soon. I'm not sleeping at all well, and having to sleep during the day for at least an hour during the day, and it's seriously, seriously deep. Coughing, still.

It's been an up and down day. I was a bit miz this morning, having upset Moo last night. Jo's been really hard work, and neither of us has really been feeling great. I had a sleep after we got up, felt guilty about it, took Jo to Long Melford for church, which was OK, but generally involved less liturgy, and more child-minding, than I'd really like. Very welcoming, and a good service, but (as I've mentioned in blogs passim, I believe) this taking a child to church has really opened my eyes to how we can't make assumptions about the extent to which people enter into the liturgy. We went out for lunch at the Bottle Hall pub. Good food, good beer, Jo was a pain. We went back home, but the day ended very well as I took Jo swimming. She loves swimming, and it really cheered me up, too. A good evening, too, and I did the ironing. We're watching the end of the 2nd Green Wing series. It's just genius, and it's got Sally Phillips (of, among other things, the fantastic Smack the Pony, yes, she's gorgeous, though I don't usually go for blondes at all) in it, too.

Spoke to Ian, Rector of Long Melford about the possible ERMC placement, and, feeling brave, gave him not only my contact details, but also the URL of this blog. He'll get the former anyhow, but the latter has some risks attached to it, particularly given Friday's posting. But I decided that honesty's the way forward. Heigh-ho. Ian - if you're reading, hi...

Labels: ERMC, illness, Jo, Moo, sexuality, sleep, swimming

Triumph of respect over intolerance

As you'll see on the Stonewall story, earlier this week, the Lords (the House of Lords, part of the UK's government) threw out the suggestion that the Bill to enforce equal rites for homosexuals should be amended. The amendments were basically to allow those people who don't approve of the sexual practices of certain people to discriminate against them. (Not, in my view, quite the way Jesus (known as "the Christ") would have behaved). It shouldn't be assumed that all Christians were for the amendments, as many protested against.

I'm hugely relieved and happy. I don't really have much more to say than that: that's where I stand. I'm happy to engage with people who disagree...

Labels: christianity, homosexuality, sexuality, tolerance