Mike's musings

Psalm 55:12-14

I hope that this quote wasn't aimed at me personally, though maybe it was:

 12 If an enemy were insulting me,
       I could endure it;
       if a foe were raising himself against me,
       I could hide from him.

 13 But it is you, a man like myself,
       my companion, my close friend,

 14 with whom I once enjoyed sweet fellowship
       as we walked with the throng at the house of God.

It came at the end of a comment by Simon on my entry for Tuesday. I'm also not sure whether the phrase "A very clever - if utterly dishonest - piece of spin" was aimed at me personally, though maybe that was, too.

I wasn't intending to spin. I've not caught much of the coverage. The quote I used was the first relevant one from Rowan that I could find. And maybe my post came over as too triumphalist.

But what I'm really feeling, deepest down, is joy. I truly believe that woman's ministry - women's full ministry, as lay people, deacons, priests, bishops and, yes, archbishops - is equal to that of men's in the eyes of the Holy Spirit. And I mourn for those who feel betrayed, and shut out, and for friends, in particular, who feel that way. But those who feel that they have been institutionally excluded, and their ministry belittled, and ignored, and spat upon, have a right to feel joy. And I hope that none of that joy is the perverted joy of seeing ones opponents downtrodden, because that's not what Christ taught us. I certainly don't feel that way.

I say again - I've not caught much of this. I wasn't there. I can't talk about people baying for blood. But I do know a number of people - more men than women - who have worked for this for years, because they believe so strongly, and theologically, that it is the right thing.

Simon - and all those who feel that we, and I personally, have played the part of Judas (as that section from Psalm 55 is often read) - I pray that we can find a way to walk together. Please remember what we have shared together. And I ask your forgiveness.

Amen.

Labels: forgiveness, friends, sin, women

Seminar yesterday

I forgot - I had a seminar yesterday. Richard, the staff member, was leading it: on the atonement. We had quite a discussion on the nature of sin. I take the view that sin and evil are pretty much synonymous, and without conscious humanity, there would be no evil. His theodicy is rather different to mine: he sees a broken creation, whereas I see a broken and fallen humanity. Christ dies on the cross, for me, to atone for humanity's sin, but for Richard, he atones not just for moral evil, but for the "evil" he sees in nature: the pain of a dying animal, and the death of an innocent neonate human baby.

I don't see evil in this way. For me, the phrase "the lion will lie down with the lamb" is allegorical, not literal, but if you take a view of creation that it is broken, then the Atonement must, I suppose, include this. My concern with this view is that I believe that God's grace is strongly shown through the natural world, and that any intervention that breaks the rules of that world - of what we call scientific laws - would be a denial, by God, of his grace and love.

Labels: ERMC, sin, theology

Psalm 78

(backposting) Not sure why I mention it particularly, but it's my very favourite psalm, despite being the longest one set for a single morning or evening in the old BCP. We used to sing some great chants to it at both Christ Church and King's, and it's lots of fun. It's set for the evening of the 15th, so I had it for evening prayer tonight. I also did quite a lot of reading about sin - particularly the original type - for the "Christian Belief" module that I'm doing for ERMC at the moment. That and the nature of grace.

Today I also met the churchwardens for the church at which I may spend my title post. A good meeting: we got on well, and I think it's important to have the sanity-check of a non-clergy view in these cases.

Girls to bed even quicker tonight, and Moo was back by 2130, so not too bad. Had a really nice long chat as we went to bed about her day away - she's doing a course - and what's going on with the girls. We don't often get the chance, as Miri's requiring attention, but she managed to stay in her own bed until 0400, which is almost a record at the moment.

Labels: church, ERMC, Moo, sin

Untouchables

I came up with this topic after a sermon last Sunday. One of the points the preacher made about the service on the Friday was that some people had made flippant remarks about it, and I was one of those people. I hope I made it clear to the people to whom I made remarks that I was joking, but I was disparaging about the tradition, and after the sermon, I felt chastened. It got me thinking, though, which I believe was the point.

I think most Christians would agree that Jesus went out of his way to spend time with, preach to and scandalise others about, the marginalised. And some of these would, quite literally, have been "untouchables" at the time: if you did touch one of these people, you were ritually unclean, and had to go through a variety of rituals before you could interact with other people. Examples? Dead bodies (widow of Nain's son, Lazarus, centurion's child), menstruating women (woman with the issue of blood for 7 years), probably the Samarian woman, gentiles (the centurion), and probably tax-collectors and publicans, too. Certainly prostitutes.

Things are different now: we don't have (in Christianity, at least) the idea of "ritual uncleanness", but what about how others in your congregation would feel about you if they found out you were talking to certain people? Drunks? The homeless? Drug abusers? Beggars? Sun readers? Guardian readers? Abusive atheists? Publicans? (Well, my congregation wouldn't mind my talking to landlords, I think.) Jews? Hindus? Fundamental Evangelicals? Anglo-catholics? Roman Catholics? Gays? Fox-hunters? Pornographers? Pagans? Satanists? People from Kettering? (Just checking, Gary, just checking.) Divorcees? Adulterers? Fornicators? Sabbath-breakers? Abortionists? Animal testers? Animal liberationists? Unmarried families? Murderers? Child abusers?

Some of these groups are pretty safe for most - some for few. But I suspect that for most of us, there are groups there that we would be unhappy talking to. That's fine: that's how we work, as part of safe, happy communities. And we have the excuse of our place in society, or our families, or time, or money, or, well, whatever. But look at the list above. Do you think that there would have been _one_single_ group up there to whom Jesus would not have talked? Who Jesus would not have loved? Who Jesus would not have forgiven? No.

I'm not a fan of the "what would Jesus do?" movement, because who are we to make ourselves Christ? But there are times when we realise that Jesus set us an example. And that to be Christ-like (which I believe is what we need to aspire to, though it is, of course, impossible, being as we're all sinners), we have to try to emulate his example.

This will be hard. But that's the paradox about "his yoke is easy, his burthen is light": there's hard work to do.

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of "Untouchables". 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:

• Mike Bursell muses about Untouchables
• David Fisher on Touching the Pharisees - My Untouchable People Group
• Michael Bennet writes Nothing more than the crust life
• Jeremiah at Models of church leadership and decision-making as they apply to outreach
• John Smulo talks about Christian Untouchables
• Sally Coleman shares on The Untouchables
• Sam Norton talks about Untouchables
• Steve Hayes on Dalits and Hindutva
• Sonja Andrews visits the subject here
• Fernando A. Gros speaks up on Untouchability And Glocalisation
• Phil Wyman throws out the Loose Lips - A "SinkroBlog"
• Josh Rivera does his stuff with the Untouchables

Labels: sin, synchroblog