Remembering Names

In the whole 'les choses est contre nous' thing here is a tale which is true but shouldn't be. I will change some names.

In a certain church there is a certain vicar who manages to keep his head above water with names but, if the truth be told, isn't as good at remembering them as it sometimes looks.

Lets call two of the men, both married and both of similar ages, Len Brown and Pete Jones. And because they are both short and simple names he sometimes, when they are together, has to work hard to call Len Len and Pete Pete.

He make a new pastoral contact, someone who will clearly be taking his time up for a while to come, who is also called Len. No problem.

Until he gets an email from new Len and discovers that Len's surname is Jones. He now knows three men of similar age and background called Len Brown, Pete Jones and Len Jones.

If I, oops I mean he calls them all 'mate ' do you think they'll mind?

Someone is having a laugh.

Torching Nailsea

And so it came to pass that out of the side streets and cul-de-sacs of Nailsea, out of the mist, came a hoard of zombie-like creatures all converging, glazed-eyed on a central spot.

For sure many of these had no idea there were two 6.30s in a day.

It was strange. The only other time everyone in Nailsea gets up and does community stuff is when it snows.

Still, the church gave away 150 free teas and coffees as we watched the cavalcade from our own grassy knoll. A procession of police outriders passed, all waving (they got the bug), and then some big-screen adverts for fizzy drinks sponsors and finally, clad in a white tracksuit, came our torch bearer.

After doing that very 21st century thing of twirling for photographs the procession er, processed on into the gloom.

Another community has been Olympic-hyped.

It was good to see my old friend Jim, working on the vision mixing but managing to pop out on to the back of his bus to spot us at just the right time. I believe he is very bored, and it's only week one.

No Sense of Direction

I don't have a great sense of the ceremonial so this is more a how-it-felt post than a what-to-do. But hear me out.

Last night I went to the induction service for a new Team Vicar in the Yatton Moor Team Ministry. It is good to turn out to welcome new clergy and I do so whenever possible. The invitation placed our robing in the Newton Chapel and a kind sidesperson pointed me there on arrival. For those who know their church layout it was in the north-east corner.

At the start of the event those of us who were robing had been given no idea where we were going to sit eventually but the reassuring presence of a verger to follow was enough. We embarked upon the processional hymn with a slight sense that we might be taken somewhere helpful and not the undercroft. Robing normally guarantees you a good seat.

Out of the side chapel we went and down the south aisle to the west end. We turned left and left again and walked up the main aisle where we were stopped in turn to reverence the altar (evangelicals will use the phrase 'bow unnecessarily' at this point).

Still no seats. Must be in the Chancel. Then, instead of walking either side of the communion table, we turned left again (those paying attention will realise we are now on the home straight of a complete lap) and then turned right back into the Newton Chapel from whence we had come three minutes earlier. Then we took another right through a small gap and arrived at our seats, behind the communion table and Bishop, three metres from where we had started.

Because it is a Team Ministry there were five sets of church wardens to accompany processions. I have seen fewer sticks at a Harry Potter convention. The service progressed as expected and as we reached the finale and blessing it occurred to me that we might have to do the same again in reverse at the end. A chuckle began to get hold of me.

We did not get moved during the final hymn so I thought we might have got away with it. Then the organ struck up, the black-clad, stick-bearing verger re-appeared and we went into the outskirts of the Newton Chapel. We could indeed have turned right and disrobed but turned left, left and then right to go back down the main aisle, were halted at the crossing (give way to traffic from the south) to give priority to the choir (who had stalls in the south-east corner) and were then led south, west, north and east (passing tantalisingly close to the buffet but we were not allowed to duck out) and back into the Newton Chapel.

The service normally lasts an hour but a new incumbent, not wanting to miss anyone off the thank-you list (quick tip - people need food more than thanks at these things), and ten minutes of processing, extended the time to eighty minutes.

I apologise for the expression on my face during the final procession. I had a hankie in my mouth.

56 Up

I caught up with Michael Apted's amazing documentary series this week. Don't miss it.

Back in 1983 Anne Long gave a series of sociology lectures at St John's College, Nottingham and used the series, at that stage 7 Up, 14 Up and 21 Up to illustrate and start discussion. I was hooked and have watched it ever since. I guess being within twelve months of the age of the studied people makes a difference to one's enthusiasm for it. It could have been me.

The conceit was that at seven years old it would be possible to see what sort of adult the subject would turn into. 'Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man', was the catchphrase.

Although a normal value judgement in 1964 Apted accepts the criticism that he would have chosen more girls and ethnic minorities. The social mix of the 20 chosen in 1964 looks awkward today.

What is fascinating is that some lives have gone in very predictable directions whilst others have had unexpected journeys. Divorce has been incredibly common but death has not reared its head yet. Of the fourteen chosen to study from the original twenty all are still alive. Some of the people have dropped out from time to time but for 56 Up thirteen of the fourteen are available.

Apted is in his seventies now, his voice remaining a distinct and reassuring link between the programmes. 56 Up may have been his last one. He may choose someone to whom he passes the baton.

With the benefit of hindsight it might have been good to choose a new group of seven year olds to follow every seven years so that we had a constant comparison to make. Maybe that would have been too much to bear for the subjects who report that journalists make their lives a misery for a few months every seven years; not something they signed up for.

If you haven't seen the latest instalment then watch it here.

There is a good background article on Wikipedia.

I note what I would have been, with the possible comments of the documentary makers after:

7 Pupil at a boys primary school, Chigwell House, Edgbaston - fee paying (privileged)
14 Pupil at King Edwards, Edgbaston - fee paying but got a free place (predictable)
21 Clerk at Eagle Star Insurance (documentary would say under-achieved)
28 Training for ordination, married for six years, two children (dramatic change)
35 Doing a second curacy in Chester-le-Street, still married (predictable)
42 Living in Leamington Spa, heading up youth ministry for a para-church organisation, still married, teenage children (predictable)
47 Leamington Spa, Still married. About to leave para-church organisation to become part-time minister and part-time writer. Struggling with health. One son at university, one returned to living at home. (Not quite as expected)
56 Back in full-time parish ministry, living in Nailsea, sons left home. Married thirty-five years. (Turned things round a bit)

Possibly the documentary makers would have delved into issues of faith, financial struggles (especially in early years of ministry) and health. At some points in my ministry answering direct questions about such things too honestly might have cost me my job.

Time, Favourites and the end of Easter

Having two sons with great Hebrew names has been a source of much preaching material over the years, although about twenty years ago I gave up ever using any of it when they were in the congregation.

Older's name means 'favourite son' and younger's 'gift of God.' Asked to explain (to them) I always say that God gave us a gift of another favourite son. A second favourite, not a second-favourite.

A few years ago Mrs T received a birthday card saying:

From your favourite son:

1980 (undisputed)
1981 (undisputed)
1983-2004
2006

This is what passes for humour in our family. Intellectually rigorous and well crafted. (Those would have been good names for sons too.)

Older conceded that his younger brother may possibly have been our favourite in the year of his birth and the year that he graduated but otherwise he was supreme.

If our sons want to outdo each other in trying to be our favourites it seems that we are the only winners so why not play along? It can only improve the care home quality.

Anyway it is always a moment for a ponder when a son passes a birthday ending in a zero so I note that my baby was thirty at the weekend and move on.

I can be back at his birth in the blink of a minds-eye, yet the Sundays after Easter seem to have gone on for ever. Ten minutes on a piece of gym apparatus seems much longer than an ordinary ten.

Yesterday's readings, at the end of the Easter season were a lovely combination of reminders from Isaiah, John's Gospel, John's letters and Luke's Acts that the God of the Bible has no favourites, whatever you may think of his relationship to the people he brought out of Egypt under Moses. Come all who are thirsty. There is no alien exclusion. Roman centurions receive the Holy Spirit, amazingly. Everyone who believes.

I was preaching yesterday in Nailsea and Tickenham. It was probably under water when much of the Bible was written down. Ends of the earth? It wasn't even earth. And yet the gospel reached us. No favouritism. None at all.

It didn't catch on quickly enough and Paul had to write correctives. Galatians 3:28 isn't a well-done-carry-on but a sort-it-out-now. We find the same in Ephesians.

Now. Do our churches have favourites? We may say not, but look at the complexion, wealth, age profile and gender and ask again.

It is my birthday soon. Favourite son competition is back on.

Integrity

I have been listening to Nicky Campbell's phone-in on Radio 5 just now. An interesting theme developed of caller after caller who was disillusioned with politicians apart from those of  'character.'

One, not untypical, remark was from a caller who said he might vote Respect or UKIP. In other words the extreme left or the extreme right. Another said she only liked William Hague out of the lot of them.

I, a natural centrist although I don't think the socialist experiment has ever been properly tried let's watch France for a bit, find myself breathing a sigh of relief when Ken Clarke comes on to answer questions about his brief, honestly, engagingly and openly.

Have we got to a point where policies really don't matter as long as you are sincere? Or are we just reaching for the prop of integrity in an era where politicians won't tell us what they will really do for fear it would stop us voting for them? 33% turn-out last night. In the Bahamas recently it was 97%.

Clash of the Seasons

The last bag of purple sprouting broccoli arrived in the same veggie box as the first bunch of asparagus.

Chop the asparagus into one inch pieces.

Separate the broccoli florets from the stalks. And chop the stalks small removing any woody ends.

Chop and stir-fry an onion in some olive oil with a hint of sesame oil, until soft.

Add the stalks of both veg. Fry for five minutes.

Add the florets of both and fry for two minutes.

Add some anchovies and a little anchovy oil plus pepper (anchovies are salty enough for most tastes). Mix for 30 seconds more.

Serve at once with crusty bread from Nailsea market.

Belting.

Explaining Yourself

Forgive me for incredulity but I can think of no other word to describe what has been going on in the Culture Secretary's mind this week. I wish him no ill and believe Jeremy Hunt MP is innocent until proven guilty, but let me try to chronicle what has happened:

1. Allegations of corruption have emerged that he and his office were less than impartial in considering an application from a Murdoch Company.

2. He denies this.

3. Later he sacks a senior adviser for doing one or two underhand (underdesk?) things under that precise heading.

4. Now he asks for the opportunity to attend an enquiry into something parallel, maybe complementary but different, at an early stage, in order to set the record straight.

How does he reach this conclusion? All he has to do is imagine the worst questions an inquiry into this behaviour might ask and answer them. He could, in other words, be completely and utterly open about what has happened. He could podcast, try another statement to the House, write a full and frank newspaper article or blog and engage with comments. He won't. In this day and age there are so many ways to be open and yet politicians again and again want to take their chance with a grilling. They seem to believe that they can rely on their ability to get through a question and answer session, possibly evading some questions or muddying other issues, and then saying to the press afterwards 'I've made it clear and was glad of the opportunity to clear my name.'

Let's face it. Apart from issues of national security the social media generation are highly suspicious of anyone who isn't completely open about everything all the time. We tell each other stuff and are happy to engage with each other. A decision to be a politician is a decision to be open to scrutiny and open in response to scrutiny.

Even Cameron, about whom I am still uncertain, wisely offered an open response to the question the other day of how he found time to play tennis then dine his wife when the country was in a mess. I don't think he needed to be shy about those two things and am glad he wasn't.

We are entering a new age of openness. It is scaring the old guard but they need to live with it. If you don't have an accessible social media profile people will soon be more suspicious of you than if you do and occasionally admit to short-comings.

Philosophy Rules

I really loved the series of Public Philosophy programmes on Radio 4 with Michael Sandel. Only three of them and they are over now but still available on the iplayer, maybe here. 45 minutes each.

This is not about the issues although, for the record, they were:

1. Should universities allow a certain number of people from poor backgrounds to access places, regardless of exam results?

2. Should a banker be paid more than a nurse?

3. Should you pay people to get healthy?

I want to comment briefly on why I loved the programme. We work in this country on a very legal model of debate. A case is put. It is countered. It is questioned until it squirms. That is seen as success. Paxman's famous assessment of his own work on Newsnight was, 'Why is this lying bastard lying to me?' It doesn't allow a case to be nuanced and tends to entrench the interviewee rather than allow them to change. I doff my cap in passing to Ken Clarke for being prepared to answer journalists' questions whatever brief he holds. He squirmeth not.

The Public Philosophy programme's approach was to take a straw poll and then ask a representative of the minority view to speak (if there was one) or to put an opening question. Sandel, always courteously and succinctly, summarised the point just made, using the contributor's name, and then either teased out the view a little more, or put it to someone who held a different view.

He set up examples to test theories. He retained good humour. No-one was put down.

It was just simply a joy to listen to and proof positive that people with differing viewpoints, arguing clearly, well-refereed and listening to each other, can make more progress than a cross-examination will ever make.

Public Philosopher 1 Moral Maze 0.

How Men React

A sermon preached at Holy Trinity, Nailsea last night. Part one of two on reactions to the resurrection. Do males react differently to females?

The Resurrection changes everything

1. Jesus Appears to the Men

Readings: Mark 16:9-20 and 1 Corinthians 15:12-19

'Is the response to the resurrection different for men and women?

'The central pillar of the Christian story is that Jesus rose from the dead. In the evening services we spent the first part of the year following Mark's Gospel. We return to it for the last time and ask in what way did Jesus appear to the men of his small group of remaining disciples. What did he do/say? How did he address them? How did they react? Was there anything specific about the way Jesus dealt with men?

'Is there a clue here in how men react today? What transforms a man? Is there some help in how we reach men now with the good news of the risen Christ?'

That was the brief. Not so brief really. Here goes.

As I embark on this sermon I offer a warning that there will be some generalisations to save time. In life there are different reactions to different circumstances and many are predictable by gender, to some extent. To some extent. Women are generally better at reading emotions than men but that doesn't mean you won't find a man who is good at it or a woman who is poor. Men are better at spatial awareness than women but that doesn't mean all women can't pack the dishwasher properly.

'Male' reactions are not just found in men and vice-versa.

Wise person once said the world divides into two types of people - those who divide the world into two types of people and those who don't.

We like to. Mars and Venus. Simon Baron-Cohen.

Is there a difference in how the men and women in the group of disciples reacted to meeting the risen Jesus?

That was the introduction. For the systematising men here who want to know where we are at any given time, there will be 2 bits of research to tell you about, then 3 key Bible passages and finally 5 conclusions and it will take about another 20 minutes.

Two bits of research:

1. Men research. I had breakfast with a group of seven guys yesterday. All white aged 45-75. I told them what I was preaching on today and asked their advice. I will now tell you what they said, in order, without edit:

• Today people tend to question everything they are told
• Conspiracy theories are always men
• Women more prone to door-to-door sales
• Men like doing rather than sitting down, thinking or confronting. When we finish our breakfast we all get stuck into cleaning up and get the jobs done without talking about it.
• In international politics the advice of women is not usually taken in the middle-east or Afghanistan
• In the Bible women proved themselves by always being there at the difficult times (is that why Jesus revealed himself to them?)
• Men not so good at picking up vibes
• I don't like being in a room full of strangers but my wife is fine at that
• Where I work women in the 'fast-stream' are far more amenable than the blokes who are always annoying
• Men less willing to admit ignorance, ask directions, question something going on we don't understand. We tend to say we understand before we do
• Did Jesus reveal himself to women by design or by accident?

Now that is just to give you a flavour, especially the women here, of the way a male mind tends to tackle the question. It's not right or wrong.

Notice something. That wasn't a conversation. A group of guys starting a conversation will all tend to have some sort of opening gambit and eventually settle down on one thing worth discussing. Notice how those statements all wandered around the question, getting nearer and nearer, before actually beginning to answer it.

2. Bible research. I'm going to list the pieces of evidence about the resurrection we have in our Bibles then call in at three of them. If you want to flick through your Bibles and follow me at this point that would be fine.

Matthew 28:1-10 (Women at the tomb)

Matthew 28:11-15 (Guards told to say the disciples stole the body)

Mark 16:1-8 (Women, terrified, silent)

Mark 1: 9-20 (more later)

Luke 24:1-12 (Women. Peter runs to the tomb)

Luke 24:13-35 (Road to Emmaus. Gender of one of the two disciples not known)

Luke 24:36-48 (Jesus appears to all the disciples. Eats. Touch)

Luke 24:50-53 (Ascension)

John 20:1-9 (Mary Magdalene tells others tomb is empty)

John 20:10-18 (Mary Magdalene)

John 20:19-23 (Disciples in locked room)

John 20:24-31 (Thomas)

John 21:1-14 (Disciples and 153 fish)

John 21:15-25 (Peter's reinstatement)

Acts 9:1-9 (Saul)

1 Corinthians 15:1-8 (A list of those including 500)

Let's look at a few male reactions to the resurrection in our Bibles - I'm going to call in at three places, but let's remember this. Most scribes in those days were male. Males were better educated and got the best jobs. So all our verses about the resurrection, male or female witnesses, have probably been through a male filter. All of them.

Three key passages:

1. Mark. Mention earliest and most reliable manuscripts. 9-20 a summary of other sources. Men find that little note interesting and like the idea of digging into it to find out what it means.

Someone looking for harmony and consistency between accounts. v8 is a better ending for Mark's piece of literature because of Messianic secret. That appeals to people with a sense of order. Do men have a better sense of order than women?

It is important that he appeared to women first. In those days women's evidence was deemed unreliable. It took the witness of two women to successfully counter the argument of one man in court. If one were inventing a story about resurrection why would one make the first witnesses female?

Almost certainly a person making up such a tale would not invent a woman as the first witness. And as you can see from the text, they weren't believed.

So Jesus delivers a telling-off to the disciples for not believing the women, or the two on the road. Then he does the most man-friendly thing in the whole gospel. He explains that if people go into the world and preach the gospel it will work. And here's how you will know. Stuff will happen (v17 -signs). Men like things that work. The last verse of Mark's Gospel tells us 'It worked.'

2. Doubting Thomas (twin). John 20:24-31. I want evidence. A woman says 'It is absolutely impossible to get the car boot shut; it's broken.' What does a man say? A male reaction to anything impossible, unusual or exciting is 'Let me see.' 'Let me check.' 'I don't believe it.'

John tells us that his gospel is written for men (20:31). You want to see the nail marks. This is written for those of you who can't handle the nail marks.

3. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. Is he writing to men when he says - here are some people you can check with.

What can we learn for today about telling men and women about the glorious news of the resurrection?

1. Men will want to enquire, check out, be curious, take apart. A Bible study where the resurrection accounts are laid side-by-side and studied for discrepancies will appeal to a man. A person giving their testimony and then being quizzed will appeal to a man. A chance to live it out, give it a go and see if it works will also appeal.

Dare we invite men to become Christians, full-on, for ten weeks - the 10 week challenge - and see if it makes a difference.

2. Once convinced men will be loyal supporters and followers. They may tag along when unconvinced but if nothing grabs their interest or imagination they will drift away. If convinced they will probably convince their family.

3. Men like all-male company more than women like all female. As an evangelistic strategy if a church only has the energy to run a men's group or a women's group it should run a men's group.

4. People will make men curious if they are interesting. But most men will get to know you by telling you things about themselves, whether you like it or not. Asking men questions about themselves and listening to the answers will usually bear fruit.

5. One of the things many women find hard to learn when first involved in a partner relationship with a man is this. I make no apologies for it and try hard to change but it is a gut thing. You can tell me what to do; you can't tell me how to do it.

I am quite prepared to take responsibility for whole areas of domestic life as long as I can invent my own way of doing it. If my wife wants things done her way then she can do them.

If I am like that and am not atypical then telling a man to devote his life may not be as problematic as we think it is, as long as we don't tell him how to do it.

Become the loyal servant and follower of God and work out the implications for yourself. Don't ask for directions.

Wouldn't that be fun?

Wouldn't that be risky.

Hang on. Mark 16:15. 'Go into the world and peach the good news...'

And the men didn't reply. 'Jesus wait. Wait. There's no instruction manual. You've forgotten to tell us how...'

A Cute Systematising Male

I am not an acute systematising male. OK not that acute. But I do like to know where things are. I am strangely comforted by the existence of archives. I like it that there are lists of books I've read, movies I've seen and albums I own.

There is a difference between knowing where things are and tidiness. Quite a few men I know work in squalor but know, geologically at any rate, where things are. I am a bit too cluttered for my own liking (study not big enough to be an office and a library) but pretty ordered.

Put the files you reach for most often in different coloured folders so they stand out.

I have been saying Morning Prayer at 8.30 on a Wednesday morning with a different group of people over the last few months. It has become the hinge-point of my week. I am not especially fond of Morning Prayer - it is simply something I do - it is a marker. After Wednesday's is over I know where I am. Or should that be when I am?

I can be more interested in the variety of people I know than in the people. They can be like the contents of a 'people I have met' list.

Being at my desk, gently thinking, planning and allowing God to overhear should he wish to, early on a Sunday morning has become the norm. I like it (but need to schedule a snooze at 4-5p.m.). Twitter has put me in touch with others doing the same. It is a new sort of fellowship; silent and distant communion.

It prepares me for the real people who are, to some extent, an intrusion into my private magic. And not to treat them like that.

Thoughts settled now. Everything in its right place. Lovely. Off we go.

Gym Changing Rooms

There is a very white, over 50, male, west-country bias in the gym I go to but over-hearing conversations is fun. Clearly casual racism is not a spectator sport I am proud of but it is hard to know precisely where to complain. Some of the everyday prejudice comes so naturally to these guys it is hard to be moved by anything but the more extreme examples (that thought from David Lodge in his novel Nice Work).

Obviously I use the male changing rooms so my sample is limited. Some of the conversations are so personal, so detailed, that I can't believe those involved really are happy that complete strangers overhear them. I have never got any change out of Pete, even when smiling and saying good morning, so I expect he'd be surprised I knew his name and even more surprised I could speak freely of his Viagra prescription.

Today a loud-mouthed regular (LMR) was getting to know another guy. Turned out the other guy was an experienced yachtsman who had taken part in serious races. LMR had been on one boat trip once and decided that the best getting-to-know-you tactic was to tell experienced sailor (another Steve, again he doesn't know I know) all about his one trip. The story went on for ever and probably eliminated this developing relationship from Steve's enquiries.

At the end of the conversation LMR announced that he would like to be buried at sea. I revealed my identity and offered to conduct the service. A voice from across the changing room said 'Make sure he's dead first.'

All footballers are liars

I was a slightly weird footballer. You'll have to take my word for it but I combined a desperately fierce and combative approach with a fair spirit. I never did that stupid thing of appealing for a corner if I knew it was a goal kick. After a while I gave up appealing altogether. Waste of effort.

I came close to cracking. One day one of my team-mates appealed for a throw-in which should have been given to us. The ref gave it the other way and, in defence of his decision, pointed at me and said, 'Well he isn't appealing.'

All jokes about me being appealing belong in another article.

I have always felt that my unilateral decision to 'leave things to the ref' bore little fruit and even refs were suspicious of it.

But the opposite extreme, which is what we have now, where everyone appeals for everything, is counter-productive surely? Someone gives a gentle push and a liar goes down as if shot. A shot is not saved and the liar covers his own inaccuracy by appealing for a corner. A defender misses a tackle and a liar deliberately trips over the outstretched leg. A liar performing as a pundit says 'He had a right to go over it.' A liar, who has tripped an opponent and hurt him, tells him to get up and stop faking.

There are moments of sportsmanship, reprieve and empathy - of course - but can my readers nominate any players who consistently avoid over-appealing, bad-mouthing referees and exaggerating injuries? I haven't seen him enough in the flesh but I suspect Phil Neville may score quite high.

Good Friday Music

Here are the four pieces of music I used for Good Friday yesterday in case anyone wants to follow up, purchase or download.

The Glassmaker

Wetherspoons have opened a new pub, The Glassmaker, in Nailsea. Picking up on the available metaphor they have made it very glassy and shiny. One light fitting made out of old bottles is very nice.

The rest is full of tiles and a big glass skylight which I hope gets cleaned regularly. Wetherspoons don't so much modernise a pub as post-modernise it. All the chairs and tables are old and don't match each other. Last night there were too few chairs and people were constantly borrowing and moving them. A central display is made of old books.

The Glassmakers, like most Wetherspoons pubs has no TV or live music. Last night it was noisy with conversation and ramming with people, especially the young. Three bouncers and many 'Are you 21?' badges didn't seem to have worked that well.

They are also cheap. I doubt if the £2.99 breakfast contains any well-treated animals but it is a bargain for the hungry. I gather they buy up large quantities of beer near its sell-by date which they can shift by having so many outlets. I've never had a magic pint in Wetherspoons but rarely had a bad one. Again the beer is cheap. Bath Ales Barnsey was fine but Mrs T's glass of pinot grigio, from a dispenser not a bottle, was horrid.

A good acquisition for Nailsea town centre. I hope it brings life and employment. It may get some tenants into the empty shops nearby. Will pop in again during the day this week and see how it changes. Had a nice chat to a guy waiting for a friend to turn up. Conversations with strangers in pubs is not very common in Nailsea. Hope it continues.

More members of our church communities should be in there. It is the place to be.

Redefining Marriage - a discussion

An enjoyable discussion last night at Holy Trinity, Nailsea about redefining marriage.

Here is the script I worked from but you might need to check it against my precise words. The whole discussion was recorded and will appear on this list later in the week.

I began with a few unrehearsed comments and I apologised that there was some duplication (but actually not much) between what I said and what the first speaker said:

Script begins
How should Christians, both individually and collectively as church, respond to the government's proposal to change the definition of marriage?

There are two parts to this question as posed. How should Christians respond to something individually, and then collectively.

But first:

1. Error in question premise. There is as yet no proposal. The government gave notice earlier in the year of its intention to consult. On March 15th a 12 week consultation period began. No proposal has been made. Yet.

The response of some Christians to this suggestion of consultation was a petition. I think petitions are often signed by lazy people who have allowed someone else to do their thinking for them.

The petition said:

'This petition asks the government to fix the legal definition of marriage as '...the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.'

Most legal definitions in this country are established by case law. The current legal definition of marriage was established in the case of Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee in the middle of Queen Victoria's reign. Sir James Wilde, later Lord Penzance said that he conceived of marriage, as understood in Christendom, as '...the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.'

So the petition asks for no change from that except that it be fixed by legislation not judiciary.

2. How should Christians respond collectively? Christians are not a group of people who have any mechanism whatsoever for responding to anything, anywhere collectively at any time. In effect this part of the question asks me, 'What should all Christians think?'

And most people in the world probably think the world would be a better place if everyone thought like them. A moment's thought tells us that this would give us a less interesting world. If the whole world were West Bromwich Albion supporters with whom on earth could I argue football?

Christians love the idea of strong leadership setting out what everyone should think until the point that they disagree.

Should we indicate that our church is in favour of signing the petition by a majority of 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 or whatever it turns out to be. I really have no idea but imagine if it comes to a vote I will lose.

So that takes me to the only part of the question I think is worth bothering with and that is part one.

3. How should Christians respond individually?

I wrote about this in a blog post on 27th February 2012 and asserted that Christians should not sign the petition. I believed they would be seen as homophobic, a word which has subtly changed its meaning recently and most people take to mean 'anti-homosexuals' rather than 'afraid of homosexuals' its literal meaning.

Writing in The Guardian last week Lucy Mangan told the story of how she was drawing closer to the Christian world by her involvement in a church run play group but was utterly put off by the way the petition we are talking about was peddled in the group. In her words:

It was a reminder that even if you love the language of the church and much else about it, you've got to stay alert to its threats.

So, thank you, playgroup lady. I was drawing closer. I shall keep a safer distance from now on.

My own view is this. I believe sin should be condemned. I know of lovely Christian people who think that a lifelong, to the exclusion of all others, same-sex, sexual relationship is not sin. I know of others who think it is and that all same-sex sexual expression is sinful. One group argue from the scriptures' clear prohibitions; the other argue that the Bible's teaching on this is culturally bound and needs reinterpreting.

I cannot give my opinion on who is right, even if I knew for certain, without upsetting a load of my friends. So I will not. I will at all times spell out the dispute without taking sides. This has led me to welcome gays to my congregations without criticism, implied or otherwise. This has led to me responding to a request to speak at the blessing of a civil partnership.

I do not think that marriage is threatened by being re-defined. I think that Christians are still free to make the rules in their own meeting places. I think that as soon as we have sorted out the complete hash many have made of heterosexual relationships we might be freer to chuck the first stone.

How should a Christian respond to the governments' consultation and the petition? Read it and think for yourself.
Script ends

There were three 'opinions' given (this was the second of the three) and then there followed some discussion and questions. The recording caught most, but not all, of the questions delivered by roving microphone.

Two other links. If you missed the email discussion between me and Anthony Bush a few weeks ago you can catch up with it here.

A few years ago I contributed a chapter to Sex and the Cynics (Damaris) edited by Tony Watkins. It remains the best attempt I have made personally to set out my position on biblical love and intimacy. Click on the link to buy it from Amazon. There are other chapters about how the search for love is portrayed in the movies.

Stupid Questions

When I helped run a summer houseparty for teenagers we were fortunate enough, for ten years, to hire Ellesmere College in Shropshire. Amongst its many fine facilities the school boasted a nine hole, par three golf course. They asked us to make sure our members did no harm to the course (which was good but not great) and so we invented a test question which, if failed, meant that members could only play under supervision. The question was this:

Which club should you use on the greens?

This week I heard, as many of you may have done, of a woman burned badly whilst transferring petrol from one container to another in a kitchen where the cooker was on.

Whilst wishing the unfortunate lady concerned a swift recovery from her nasty injuries I was wondering this week if we ought to have a test question for anyone wishing to purchase petrol to put in anything other than a vehicle's tank. How about:

Name one thing that may cause petrol to burn?

Discipline

Interesting discussion on Radio 4's Today programme this morning at about 8.25.

A report on the riots in England last summer has concluded that a lack of support for young people contributed to the unrest and that we should all be doing more to help young people develop what they call "character". Serge Cefai, headteacher at the Sacred Heart Catholic School in Camberwell, and Camila Batmanghelidjh, founder of the charity Kids Company, discuss the recommendations of the report.

Now this was a ready-to-use piece of polarisation which barely needed assembling once removed from the box. It would be my guess that a Catholic school might be more disciplinarian than average; a founder of a work for disadvantaged kids the opposite. The headteacher began with the statement 'I find it a bit insulting...' and we were off.

The school's point of view, we were told, is that children need the comfort of knowing where the boundaries are and how people will react when they are crossed. The response was that this teaches a hatred and fear of authority for those who find it difficult and anyway in the 'real world' (love it that schools are not thought to be part of the real world) reaction to line-crossing is not always the same.

As a friend at Morning Prayer said just after, you only have to look at the amount of people who drive whilst phoning or texting to know that the fear of line-crossing is hardly a massive success. The world outside schools does teach that it is OK to disrespect authority if you can get away with it. So maybe we need a less utilitarian and more altruistic approach to life. And the youth worker's point was that you love people into conformity, you don't scare them.

As ever the truth lies somewhere in the middle and needs pondering.

So we went on into Morning Prayer and read from Hebrews 12:

And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as children? It says,“My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his child.”

Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate children at all. Moreover, we have all had parents who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! Our parents disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

And pretty soon our post-reading discussion included the comment that the parents were to blame, we were all going to hell in a whatever you go to hell in these days, too many people broke the law and wouldn't if punished harder and that if you looked into the Bible too deeply you got a headache so it was best to take it simply on trust.

My response is that everything is character building and it is another brilliant little expression, like 'Big Society', that will provoke a lot of discussion whilst being completely unassessable.

Pastors Causing Pain

See, here's a question. For ministers of the Gospel mainly but others may join in. If you absolutely knew you would grow the church by 100 people tomorrow but 5 would be so upset at the methodology they would leave, would you do it?

Let's say all other things being equal. You are not allowed an 'it depends' answer. You have researched and your methodology is not illegal. It is good. It will lead to long-term new converts and disciples of Jesus. You cannot stop the leavers leaving and they will blame you for the rest of their lives for 'ruining their church.'

You are not allowed to say 'It's not all about numbers.' I've reduced the problem to the state where it is.

What amazes me is that some of you are now umming and arring (never written that before, is that how you spell those words?) about this. You are genuinely considering not growing your church by 100 in order to keep 5 happy.

I don't understand you (and you probably me).

We sometimes have to make decisions that may upset people but are for the greater good. Empathy and pastoral care just get right in the way.

The world divides into two types of people and you are the other type. You probably wonder how the person who gave the order to drop the first atomic bombs slept at night. My guess is that he did the maths and then slept fine. And that will sound appalling to you.

Hospitality

In the interests of openness I would like to put on record that I have entertained in my private residence and elsewhere a number of people over the last few days. Granting these people access in no way conferred advantage on such guests and very little money changed hands for the privilege.

The Archdeacon and Mrs Piggott were provided with a light supper on the evening of the Trinity House opening. No job offers have been forthcoming.

Mr Anthony Miles was provided with a coffee during which I agreed to write a small paragraph to promote a charitable work he is planning so who is the loser there?

The leadership team were provided with a lunch of considerably higher quality than the donations they made towards its cost I mean I ask you who is doing whom the favour here?

Mrs Tilley was entertained on a number of occasions with tea on the table when she got in from work. This encouraged her to continue investing in our retirement housing and to provide occasional physical favours. Not going that well so far. She was also taken to Nailsea's premier (OK only) curry house but this led to wind not intimacy.

Ms Jennifer Rodd was entertained to coffee shortly after which she made her excuses and left for Tanzania. It is not thought this exit was related to the quality of the coffee or company.

Offers to 'Get anything you want on the PCC agenda for cash' were not responded to favourably but still stand.

In future I will produce a quarterly account of any kitchen suppers which will include a description of the guests' attempts at dressing appropriately and emphasis on what level of jauntiness I exhibit when descending the stairs to answer the door.

Steve Tilley was talking to himself.

Mick's Metaphors

Heard this morning on Radio 4 Today after an item on criminals meeting their victims though the intermediary action of prison radio:

The atmosphere I guess you could have cut it with a knife; it was electric.

Dangerous work this atmosphere cutting.

1 in 5

You will know, regular readers, that this blog gets profoundly irritated when statistics are used badly in the media. That irritation reaches seismic proportions when it is allegedly smart people who try and say intuitive things about stats without thinking first.

So, with the possible caveat that there may be a misquote in the ipaper, this from Sanjay Sharma, professor no less, of cardiology at St George's Hospital, Tooting, south London, who runs a screening unit for sports people. We are talking about the collapse of Fabrice Muamba in Saturday's FA Cup tie at White Hart Lane:

I am surprised it was not picked up. The medical screening these players get is extremely comprehensive. It will identify 80 per cent of conditions causing sudden death.

If 20 per cent of conditions are not found then that is one in five. A sudden collapse is a rare event (but the papers have recently given details of four or five in the last few years) and I think a professor of cardiology should rein in his surprise and instead be amazed at how lucky he has been to date.

We continue to pray for Fabrice Muamba's recovery but our optimism about the future should be tempered. An 80 per cent effective screening process is good but not great. One in five of the people who have a rare heart condition (so a small group) will be playing without knowledge of it.

God's Church; My Place

My next book comes out in June. Click here to pre-order from BRF.

Praying?

A wise army chaplain once remarked that there were no atheists in foxholes. The late Tom Smail quoted the philosopher Bertrand Russell describing the view from his coastal home, 'I have to hang onto the gatepost to prevent myself having a spiritual experience.'

The terrible plight of Bolton Wanderers footballer Fabrice Muamba, who collapsed during the Spurs v Bolton FA Cup tie on Saturday, has left many of his fellow players remarking that they are praying for him.

I wonder if popular culture is now ready for a course on prayer as an evangelistic strategy? People who are praying but do not know the one they are praying to may need some help. Something drives many people to prayer when crisis knocks on the door.

We ought to be better at talking about why.

Trinity House, Nailsea

Trinity House - Nailsea

On the eve of the opening of Trinity House - the new hub of Holy Trinity and Trendlewood Church's inter-action with the community - a few reflections on where we've come from.

It was in November 2008, the Diocese of Bath and Wells having decided to sell its Rectory as unsuitable, that the Church Council registered its regret at the parish shrinking its historic footprint at a time when growth was top of the agenda.

At the next meeting it set in action a working party to look at the possibilities of retaining the Old Rectory. There were some high profile resignations from the Church Council at the very idea of undertaking such a project in a recession.

Over the next few months two things became clear. There was a gentle move towards wanting to keep the building and a realisation that we still didn't know quite what we wanted to do with it. But we couldn't do anything with it if we didn't buy it. This tension was at the heart of the plans from then on.

I'll cut to the chase. We believed firmly that if this vision was of God then all we had to do was proceed with it and those he had called to do it he would equip. In January 2010 a gift day produced £200k and further pledges of £380k over ten years. A further gift day last year gave a £100k lump sum and increased that ten year pledge to £400. This enabled us to buy the building, schedule the work and this week receive the completed (OK, almost completed, there's a few bits outstanding) project from the contractors on budget and on schedule.

The amount of money raised is astonishing. Some people have abandoned plans to buy a new car and handed over the money. Some have delayed plans to upgrade their kitchen and donated. Some had cheaper holidays and gave the church the difference. Others took money from savings set aside to buy property of their own one day. There were very few grants received and all the income is being tithed to other projects that are less fortunate financially. We have already given £50k to the town's Tithe Barn renovation and enjoy that building nearby too.

The amount of volunteer time has been amazing. A recently retired architect project manager working for nothing was more than we could have expected. There were many others.

We now have offices, meeting rooms, quiet space, youth rooms and two flats to rent out. And space to meet in when we do the final part of what we call The Trinity Project and modernise our church lounge - The Trinity Centre.

Money is still a struggle. The church has a deficit on its budget for 2012 and not enough money, yet, to finish the project.

But Trinity House looks great. Indeed the moment the builders revealed the newly rendered and painted exterior we all got that wow factor. From 'I wonder if' to 'Here are the keys' in just over three years. God called and God equipped. Can't believe any other version. Please pray for us to use our new asset wisely.

A Chat with Myself

Interesting Clergy chapter session yesterday on burnout. How do you keep yourself sharp, enthusiastic, on top of your game and in it for the long haul as a minister?

Priesting 1985

Stuart Taylor was our guide for an hour or so and one of the first things he asked, which I had to stop myself carrying on doing in the meeting in order to engage with the rest of the material, was this; what would your current self want to say if you could go back and talk to your self on your ordination day? For me this goes back twenty seven and a half years and I realised I had quite a lot to say. I thought a blog post might be useful, especially for those preparing for ordination (thanks Adam for the encouragement).

The sub-title of Stuart's presentation was 'Working pastorally with highly dependent people.' I think 'highly dependent' is another way of saying 'awkward'.

Late 1980s. Oh dear, oh dear

The first two things I would say to myself are these:

1. Don't make any highly dependent people highly dependent on you. There is a limit to how many you can cope with and all will distract from church growth. The people highly dependent on you have a special name - family.

2. Approach all people with a sense of curiosity. What makes this person tick? Why are they angry all the time? What is the best way to say things to them so they will hear? How have they been fearfully and wonderfully made? Then they become your learning project. They will teach you to be a better communicator. The fact that they are a pain may be mildly irritating sometimes but it is not within their gift to make you angry. Your own anger is your responsibility. Do not allow others to control it.

But now to some bigger things. Steve (St was not born until 1998ish) in 1984 was a bit impatient. He had more time than he thought to change the world. Even if he couldn't finish the project in his own lifetime he could still infect a few others with his opinions (a Clucasism) and hope they caught the vision. I'd tell him:

Don't brush your teeth using the bathroom water. It's from a stagnant tank in the loft.

Late 1990s - facial hair gone

Start your writing career now. Don't wait.

One day you will do funerals well without stress, excessive preparation or nerves. That day will come much sooner than you expect.

Despite the apparent kudos resist the alluring job at CPAS. It will break you. But that will mean a sacrifice for your family so consult them carefully on your third job.

Ignore the doctor's advice about your bad back. Don't rest if it hurts. It is hurting but there is nothing wrong with it and it will stop hurting if you exercise through the pain barrier. You'll get four years of your life back.

Money will be alright in the end.

Never touch the flowers in church. Never exhibit any skill at practical tasks.

If you have nothing to do, do nothing.

It is not a sin to go to the cinema when it is not your day off.

Only do what's urgent and important. Sometimes sitting down and planning a five year strategy is urgent and important.

Throughout your ministry people are going to think it's great that someone like you is a clergyman. Sometimes that will be because you're normal; sometimes because you're not. Live with it.

Learn to spell edgy before you start using it.

The best gift you can give your children is to love their mother.

Nailsea Licensing 2006

Over the years you will feel that somehow you have been black-balled for preferment, speaking opportunities and selling books. You may have been but you'll never know. This despite everyone, most of the time telling you you are a good speaker, writer and leader. It's not important. You will find that it is because God called you to the grass roots and wants you there come what may. Promotion is a blind alley. Who cares what's down a cul-de-sac?

After about ten to fifteen years you will be able to do all occasional office preaching without notes.

When you have an average day you are still good. Try not to have bad days though.

Never come back to work on a Sunday after a break.

The best manager to managed question is, 'How can I help you do your job better?' (Richard Owen)

Put time in your diary to write notes or minutes after the meeting.

Leave a space in your diary after appointments if you anticipate they will leave you thinking.

Pick your battles. Choose ones you can win. You will lose some. Choose ones you are prepared to lose.

Reconciliation is way better than compromise.

Know the difference between real and apparent work (Clucas again). Some of your job you will enjoy so much it doesn't feel like work. Some of your private life responsibilities you will not enjoy so will feel like work. Don't do all the things that feel like work on the same day.

Index your quote book. The job will get worse and worse and in twenty seven years time you won't be able to find anything or imagine ever having the time to do it before you retire.

You will write the only Christmas newsletter your friends look forward to reading. This is a good use of your time.

Use aardvarks wisely. An aardvark on a list will help you to remember the thing you didn't put on the list. An aardvark is the mistake you want everyone to spot so that they don't see the mistake you don't know you've made. Never reveal this thought to a soul.

Also, put aardvark in your mobile contacts list (you won't know what a mobile is but it will be important) and give it your own mobile number. Then you will never be in trouble when you accidentally sit on your phone in a meeting.

Know that one day you will be able to write your thoughts on twenty seven years of ministry and put them in a place where anyone in the world can read them without leaving their desk or paying. Stop laughing.

Thanks Stuart.

Human Rights

An advert caught my eye in theipaper last Friday. Surrounding a picture of a pair of hands holding a tablet device bearing the picture of a besuited man holding a baby and a briefcase, was this text:

iDad

Every child deserves one

It's brilliant. In every sense of the word.

iDad is the world's most advanced parenting device and comes with a lifetime guarantee.

Having a a father is a human right  www.idad.org.uk www.fathers-4-justice.org

You can see the ad here.

Now I have a soft spot for fathers-for-justice as an organisation. I understand their point. In divorces dads often get a poor deal and I support the aims of those dads who wish simply to have more and better access to their children. I also think their campaigns have been amusing and awareness-raising. This latter one is no exception so full marks so far.

But, and there is a but, I stopped in my tracks at the sentence 'Having a father is a human right.' Doesn't that smell wrong to you? If it was a human right we would make sure everyone had one and in the case of bereavement would insist that a replacement be brought in. How can we go about legislating for that right?

I think everyone deserves the possibility of a good relationship with their father, as long as both parties are willing. I don't think you can call something a right if it takes two people to agree before it can happen.

Light Relief

Right. Come in. Sit down. Thought you might need a bit of a break from me and Big Tone resolving our differences over homosexuality. I know most people resolve their differences over a beer but what can you do? See previous post if you don't know what I'm on about but I warn you - it's a long one. The post that is. Your mind. Wash it now.

I have discovered a few interesting things over the last few weeks. One of them is that I get on with my work at home more effectively when there are people working in the other room. It seems easier not to be distracted by a Killer-sudoku online or Facebook when two plumbers are discussing your water pressure in the kitchen next door to the study. Thanks Ben and Dan. Your company for the last, gosh has it been, four weeks has been a joy. They even know where the tea is kept and make their own now.

So when Trinity House is open for business it will include an area where those of us who normally work at home can work communally and I think I will pick some time each week when I can be found there.

Back to builders a moment though. Is it something in the genes that means that if there are twenty tasks to do in someone's house they start all of them then finish in the apparently random order 3, 14, 15, 2, 8 ...? I know things have to dry and it's bad being outside in the wet but this doesn't explain all their decision making. Today they are laying slabs and possibly vinyl. When I get back from the gym I hope I don't find a slabbed bathroom. And vinyl may be the only thing in the world slipperier than the decking they've taken up.

Still, my new garden wall is. Very still. Not leaning at all. Holding back the hill better than the previous one. That lawn is going nowhere now. I reckon I could defend myself against the Visigoths from behind that wall. I know that's no way to talk about Cleeve Place. Then again.

Now to the embarrassing news. The cleaners found an ear-ring. Female's, clipped not studded, with a single clear stone probably-not-a-diamond but what do I know? Not Mrs WWA's though. I fessed up straight away. If you have jettisoned an ear-ring at Vynes Mansions during the last couple of weeks please produce the matching one as evidence and if you fit the unlikely description of being fitter than Mrs WWA please swear on your mother's honour that we weren't up to anything.

Took the bed apart to fit the new carpet in the bedroom. Re-assembled bed squeaks. Pah!

Mustard Seed Shavings sold 19 copies in the period July-December 2011. I suspect my publishers are disappointed about that. Certainly the Trinity Project, who get the royalties, will be. Despite being told I can write a bit by most people who ever read my guff I've never been able to sell books. I stand by it as a useful work to give at confirmation though, or for new Christians and enquirers.

Now I'm off to escape the sound of ground being prepared for slabs. Laters.

Redefining Marriage

Many of you will know Anthony Bush of Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, Wraxall. He wrote to our church leadership team about the consultation on redefining marriage. After an exchange of emails he and I have agreed to publish our correspondence in the hope that it may inform the debate. It is quite lengthy but I hope helpful.

Dear HT Leadership Team,

Conscious that Noah would have been in the heroic book of failures had he taken same-sex couples on the Ark (especially his family) and that he was a preacher of righteousness I am trying to follow his lead.

Hoping that HT might discuss the subject I am enclosing a letter I have sent to some in the press and most of it to the Prime Minister.

With best wishes,

Anthony

'So Cardinal O’Brien is reported as saying Britain would be shamed in the eyes of the world by the grotesque madness of redefining marriage to include same sex couples. Not the Anglican moderation we are used to, but understandable. Many of us are searching for God’s mind in this, aware that, for the Israelites entering the profligate Canaan and Christians struggling to please God in promiscuous Rome, Corinth and Ephesus, the Old and New Testament texts were given. These texts unambiguously prohibited both homosexual acts and heterosexual adultery with equal clarity and force (Lev 18:22-4, 20:10,13, Rom 1:26-7, 1 Cor 6:9-10, 1 Tim 1:8-10). The argument that marriage is about love not gender parts company with Genesis 2:24, where it is all about gender. Love was and is a luxury extra, and remains all too transitory.

'All of us are trying to help ourselves and others reach heaven and please God. Some of us might want to put a more pastoral angle to these texts in the light of young adolescents with ambiguous sexuality until they are perhaps 25, in an age where experiencing sexual activity of some sort seems to be an increasing media imperative. Temptations or tendencies should be absolutely free of condemnation, but lots of young people are confused and easy prey to media writers, commentators and others grooming them for promiscuity of any sort. Chastity is ridiculed and any sexual temptation used as a means of fixing a person’s sexuality far too young. It has always seemed to me that God was fierce in His apparent prohibition of homosexual acts not only because He wants procreation, but also because they were easier to fall for than the harder work of forming heterosexual friendships and marriage. And casual sex of any form is easier to fall for than patiently working at a prospective exclusive, loving, life-long marriage.

'I could myself so easily have become a homosexual, but for the prohibitions of the day and the intervention and help by some caring people and some sensitive spousing. Our 4 children, 14 grandchildren and Golden Wedding last month are a consequence. I hope Christians will discourage the State from rushing into redefining marriage just because a vociferous few covet the same name for a different union. They cannot use “husband” or “wife”, so why are homosexual couples not content with the legal rights of marriage they already have in a civil partnership?'

Anthony,

As many of my colleagues know I disagree most strongly and have written why here. Even more though is that, whatever our intention, we will be seen as homophobic if we object to the change of definition. This is a time to keep our heads down.

You may not know that many gay and lesbian couples do choose to identify their partner as their husband or wife.

You know that you and I disagree in many ways in our interpretation of a scripture. I join with you in condemning promiscuity and sex without commitment. I part company with you in your willingness to condemn loving, permanent, same sex, to-the-exclusion-of-all-others relationships. I will not.

St

Hi Steve

Thanks for your reply. Robust as I would expect from you, but in my opinion you are not right, as you would expect from me!

First, you apparently ignore the Biblical evidence advocating heterosexual marriage over homosexual acts. Yet Scripture is given for our good and for everyone’s long term health and wellbeing. You use the emotive word “homophobic” to imply a persecution of downtrodden people. I am opposed to the wrong use of explosives/fire, of soil/mud, of laser/light not to persecute the users, but would want these used correctly.

Wikipedia suggests that in 2008, 6% of the country described themselves as homosexual or bi-sexual. I am sad for them and in the next generation would hope that number was reduced. You are saying that we, or is it I, will appear homophobic (defined on the Web as ‘with contempt, aversion, or irrational fear of homosexuality?’) if I want the definition of marriage to remain. As is so often the case with an angry minority, the opposite is the case. Why should a tiny number insist on a change of definition to suit themselves? And then call us homophobic if they don’t get their way?

I am not contemptuous of homosexuals, I talk to some often without aversion, I have no fear whatever of them, I want them to know Jesus loves them, but God does not approve of homosexual acts. God is also against adulterous acts, but he is not against all those with heterosexual inclinations or homosexual inclinations, He has better plans. I think homosexuals are too often heterophobic, in the sense of having irrational fear of a close relationship with the opposite sex; and I would like them helped and delivered.

As Dr Christopher Shell, writing to the CEN this week suggested, heterosexual and homosexual intercourse should not be equated for “six massive differences. The latter bears no fruit, making its biological purpose questionable. It’s high risk even without promiscuity. It involves penetrating a sphincter. It involves no lubrication. It involves a wall-lining only one cell thick (so that contraception dangerously increases pressure on surrounding skin). It involves micro-fold cells which actively attract microbes. How are we either loving or intelligent if we normalise this?” Dr Shell asks.

I know pastors like you Steve do not want to appear judgmental. I wholly understand that and the motive is probably good. But the prophetic can be lost and thousands will suffer if we fail to teach what Jesus taught. My reading this morning was Matthew 5, and there is some very tough stuff in there, including v 17-20 and lots more which will probably never be covered at HT if we are only concerned about not appearing judgmental. More important is winning people for heaven and God being pleased with us. I think people will know whether we love them by how we do this.

I expect we agree on this bit anyway.

Your brother in Christ

Anthony

Well Anthony,

Here we are again. I do enjoy our little chats online although you are an infuriating debating opponent. One moment we are talking about a legal definition and suddenly the discussion has broadened out into all sorts of other areas. It is this particular tendency of the anti-homosexual-practice lobby that so inflames matters.

Still. To take your points in order (and not raise any new ones):

Just because I didn't recite all the biblical evidence dos not mean I ignore it. I take my Bible seriously and it is my more or less constant companion. I do not believe the culture of the Bible world (spread over its two millennia) says anything about the one group of relationships we are talking about - the long-term, committed, same-sex, exclusive ones. It seems to me to be anti homosexual offenders and to have ritual, cultic and casual prostitution in mind in its criticism. The world of the Bible starts (if you take it all as history, which as you know I don't) with the confusing question of who Adam and Eve's children were fruitful with, goes through a period where a king has 1000 wives and concubines but is only criticised when they lead him to foreign gods, and ends with an instruction that a leader should be the husband of but one wife (so presumably a follower can have more). In other words there is a developing understanding of relationships and our job is to apply the principles not get stuck with the precise examples.

I used the word homophobic not to accuse you but to anticipate what you will be accused of if you say what you believe in public and loudly. You are wrong when you talk of an angry minority. I think the majority of society are now becoming comfortable with the presence and aspirations of gay people. Many people will not object to the change of definition being debated.

No-one, as far as I know, has accused you of being contemptuous towards homosexuals. If they do I will defend you. I have seen you in action. You are not.

Dr Shell accidentally betrays his disgust. Whilst I didn't intend this to be part of our discussion it gives the game away. Like it or not people have been having sex without the prospect of procreation for a long time now. I am up to 27 years and counting. There is no limit on where you can put lubrication. Anal sex is not only a homosexual phenomenon. Imaginative sex can take place in many different ways and, maybe, a hint of danger makes it better. Who knows what turns people on?

I have no problem with being judgmental. I judge, and pronounce, that our church is insufficiently geared towards the alien and the stranger and the poor and I said so on Sunday. I have great problems with being judgmental about something that needs attract no judgement.

I am sure that one day we will find out, when the dead rise again to be in the place where there is no marriage, what it was we were striving after in all these messy and complex human relationships. Meantime let's tread gently. I am not even going so far as to say that same-sex, exclusive and permanent relationships are undoubtedly all OK. All I am saying is that I will not condemn them and do not think other Christians should.

I would be happy to make our correspondence more public. Would you?

Have a good day my friend,

St

Hi Steve

Thanks for your thoughtful reply and yes I would be delighted to publicise our correspondence further, though if my opponents are like the last ones my staff may not thank me for the next two years of demonstrations!

I am glad to hear you take your Bible seriously. However you have a liberal tendency to write off lots of it as being culturally out of date. When I was on the General Synod’s Marriage Service Revision Committee in 1982 we had difficulty finding a Biblical example of a monogamous marriage. Isaac is the only certain one in the whole Bible. That does not alter Genesis 2:24 for those of us who believe Genesis is God’s word about marriage, confirmed, word for word by Jesus and Paul. Most Biblical teaching about marriage implies its purpose is physical union more than for breeding babies and you are unfair on Dr Shell by saying his comments about anal intercourse betray his disgust. He is reminding us which orifice was made for what purpose and which defences they have naturally and which they don’t.

When I was in Nigeria the reason for “husband of one wife” became highly relevant as lots of Muslims were becoming Christians having up to 4 wives. European missionaries made them divorce all but one, so the CAC started as an indigenous denomination (to whom I was preaching) with more compassion for the wives, but the pastors only had one wife.

You seem to be selective about which homosexual acts you think the Bible indicates are wrong, quoting the NIV (UK) translation of 1 Cor 6:9, arsenokoitai, (literally man-coitus) as “homosexual offenders” to mean homosexuality with ritual, cultic or casual-only meaning. The original NIV and other translations have “men who have sex with men”, or men who practice homosexuality, or homosexuals. The OT law points to all homosexual activity being wrong, because the Israelites were told (Lev 18;22) “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable”. That sounds clear. Before you suggest its context makes it a text for its time only, then follows an anti-bestiality command, with the reason “that is perversion”. These are preceded by hygiene laws with no moral comment, and by the laws of incest (for the first time, probably, as Abraham’s marriage with his half-sister was the blessed one). These incest laws were evidently needed now, despite the Pharaoh’s being compulsorily incestuous for god to marry god. They also remind us where Adam’s descendants came from - marriage between his children, likewise probably with Noah, for those of us happy with the historicity of the whole text. The gene-pools would have been strong and unlikely to produce harmful mutations through close breeding, for thousands of years. Indeed lots of animals breed that closely now with no harmful effect.

So I cannot see that you have any grounds for saying God’s view of same-sex activity depends on how serious or permanent they appear to be. “Detestable”, sounds very different from His view of creation after He had made both male and female as being “very good” (Gen 1:31). In Jesus day homosexuality was probably unknown in Israel but widespread in the Roman Empire (especially its emperors) so Paul mentions it to warn the Romans, Corinthians and Ephesians, as I quoted last time.

I am all for treading gently. No one wants to be condemning, but we have young people looking for guidance, struggling with their sexuality and making friends and decisions which could mean they marry and have children or not. There is also a Gay Pride lobby who are keen to get into schools and “help” the children. I personally feel sure lots of youngsters who end up homosexual could have become heterosexuals with the right encouragements. I am one who narrowly escaped, so am biased. My book in April will tell more.

In many ways this is a similar debate to the remarriage after divorce one, which I was also deeply involved in on G Synod. That one was partly about how marriages begin, the choice of spouse and purity or otherwise before marriage; the effort each side puts into keeping the marriage hot and free from predators. Obviously those who are on their second marriage will not like first timers being told those words of Jesus that suggest remarriage equates to adultery. So the church is silenced for fear of sounding condemning. Perhaps many of the voices that shouted “crucify him” were of those whom He upset.

In case we all need to know how many people the redefining of marriage is for, the ONS states there were 6281 civil partnerships formed in 2009, which were 2.7% of the number of marriages that year. It is difficult to compare break-ups at 5.5% for CP’s as they have only been going since 2005. I would expect them to be far less, as children are a huge extra strain on marriages, so marriage is so much more difficult than CP that for this alone it deserves its own exclusive name. I would be happy to leave Civil Partnerships as they are, with that name, or invent a new name for them.

A la prochaine fois – meilleurs voeux

Anthony

Morning Anthony,

We might have gone as far as we can because we have isolated the one thing we disagree about - our use of Scripture.

Trouble is I love watching the twists and manoeuvres extremely conservative evangelicals have to make to preserve their insistence upon historicity in the Bible. I would find it great sport if it wasn't so sad to the outside world that there are still people out there who hold such views.

I will not publicise this if you don't want me to but I had in mind putting it on my blog and telling my Facebook friends and Twitter followers where it was. Of course you can do likewise and we might be able to step back and watch the debate in the comments box. The blog traffic is not particularly heavy - 100 or so people a day at the moment tops.

I will not accept '...you have a liberal tendency' as anything other than praise. I know what you mean by it but it seems to me that we are all liberals when it comes to the Bible - we simply draw the line in different places. For me a liberal wants to give fellow humans as much freedom as the Bible describes God giving all of us. And a liberal approach to the Bible sees it as divinely inspired but as an agreed starting point rather than a fixed end (Rowan Williams' expression). 2,000 years of history gives us many things that the Bible knew nothing of and we have to apply its principles rather than look for proof texts (often out of context). For Jewish scholars the whole business of Midrash - discussing the scriptures - was as much doing scripture as reading it. I am tentatively trying to work out what it means to be liberal and evangelical.

Genesis 2:24 says 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother...' It is not obvious which of the previous clauses is the reason:

Because he needed a helper

Because the woman was made from his rib

It seems to me to be a story to answer a child's question about why people leave home. It can't, by itself, be used to support monogamy. We must beware of asking one text to bear more weight than it can.

And I am unconvinced by your specific quotations from Leviticus. It seems to me that the past is another country and they do things differently there. We can admire the desire of the fledgling community of Israel to keep themselves pure and holy listening, as they thought they were, to the voice of God the while, but we have to beware of cherry-picking our favourite prohibitions from the Law whilst ignoring the clear, apparently divinely condoned acceptance of destroying whole ethnic groups, stoning people to death for what we would now call relatively minor matters and a whole bunch of stuff about fabrics and spots.

I look forward to your treatise on orifices and their specific purposes. Do you mind if I pick my nose while I write? No-one is looking.

I'm not sure people will find it easy to listen to examples from Nigeria these days as a place of reason and tolerance but I accept that our Victorian missionaries did harm as well as good.

Your church would obviously be quite a hard place to be a divorcee, a homosexual and a liberal. I hope mine isn't. What have I achieved if I tell someone who is on their second marriage that they are committing adultery?

And finally I fear that your closing paragraphs anticipate a disaster that will simply not happen, a floodgate that will remain resolutely closed. If people, who are gay, opt to live an openly gay lifestyle it is not the thin end of any wedge. If some Christians, who are gay, choose to read the scriptures carefully and come to the conclusion that God is interested in mutual encouragement and support one for the other just as much as he is about procreation, I will not condemn them. If some of those want to enter into life long commitments I will not condemn them. If some of those wish to call their relationship 'married' I will not condemn them. If they wish to find some way to raise children as a couple I will not condemn them.

I'll look forward to reading your book.

I'll let you have the last word. Once you have replied I will put this on the blog unless you tell me not to.

Given that we seem to have changed our greetings into a foreign tongue (for added gravitas?) then I sign off as all Brummies do,

Tarrarabit.

St

Hi Steve

Thanks for your amusing caricature of my position. I smiled quite a lot and you deserve readers of your blog as you are an entertaining writer.

However as you know you are the same age as my children so I would expect you to have a different set of understandings of Biblical text. The beginning of WW2 saw this country extremely serious about calling on God and expecting His help. He appeared to give us astonishing deliverances. My book expands this. Subsequently the secular world and much of the church moved from this dependence on God and sincere search for His will in the Bible, to a more man-centred theology, with God brought in often, but not as final arbiter. Post rationalism has become the norm; if it feels good it is probably OK as long as no one gets hurt. The trouble is people do get hurt, often quietly. What God thinks about it is assumed to be fine; He is a nice forgiving guy. He doesn’t want anyone to perish, it says, so do what you like, He will have you in the end. Going to church is not one of those things, so those churches’ attendances are declining.

As you know there is also a conservative wing of the Church that thinks largely as I do. You cannot be ignorant of this position, so you must choose to parody it and ridicule it for other reasons; perhaps entertainment on the blog? If I am to take your reply seriously it will probably not make entertaining reading, though a few might get through it.

When Christina and I were married divorces stood at about 30,000 per year. Quite worrying, because in 1858 (or so) there were 2, when divorce first became permitted, and there were about 2,000pa until WW2. Divorce law was sought by liberals, promising that a tiny number of people were hurting badly from bad marriages, but after a few years of bulge the figures would settle down again. They were warned it was Casanova’s Charter and divorces would double, we needed to put in place marriage preparation, marriage counselling or the social fabric of the country was in danger. We would become the divorce capital of Europe, hurting single mothers and disfunctional children. They denied it vehemently or course and it went ahead. 8 years later divorces were 110,000, and another 6 years later they were 168,000. We have become all that was prophesied.

My book will show you our response. I am skeptical about younger people who were never taught their history. The law on abortion was changed with similar promises, sex education and contraception were introduced into schools without any moral background. We warned that we would become the abortion capital of Europe, the unmarried mother capital, etc. Sadly all this has happened. Where were most theologians? Living blameless lives answering questions no one was asking.

So I am skeptical about your plan to keep your head down over homosexual marriage and let this all pass; because you think no one will really be badly affected. I foresee much more inflationary consequences, as I suspect do the advocates of change. You have been warned.

My own take on all of this is that the church has lost conviction about God. There is lots of talk about loving neighbours, doing stuff in the community, living good lives if possible. But most people do not really think God is there, and if He is, then He is not particularly interested. “Do you believe in God?” I often ask. No nature all came from the big bang and evolution.

So I am not going to deal with any of your parodies of Old and New Testament verses. I am just going to say that God in His mercy can forgive all the messes we have made and do make every day. Repentance and seeking Him are key to His revival. No one is turned away, no matter how many abortions they have had or how many marriages. Jesus still says “neither do I condemn you, go and do not sin again”. We desperately need to be forgiven and filled with the Holy Spirit daily and have the courage to reach people where they are, in all the ways He can inspire us. This will need considerably more courage than is usually displayed by God’s people, but it is not too late.

I hope we are concluding on common ground, Steve. I will be delighted to discuss any of this again when we next meet.

With my love in Christ

Anthony

Thanks Anthony,

Profoundly tempting as you have made it for me to want to write again I will, as promised, not and will now publish and let people make up their own minds.

St