Dear all.

 

All the activity in my neck of the woods was at Winston parish church last week. On Thursday we scattered the ashes of Canon Jack Lee Warner, a former vicar of Gainford and Winston. His final resting place was the location he loved the most in all his years of ministry.

On Friday evening the preview of the Flower Festival for raising funds to replace the church roof attracted over 100 people. The concert was fronted by Trevor Woods, in his own inimitable style. Special thanks also to Vera Featherstone and to a wonderful singer, a local woman called Roz Smith. Afterwards we were met by mountains of food and drink in the village hall where I indulged my other thwarted career as a barman - "Same again sir?". On Sunday morning at the baptism of Oliver Risbey it felt like we were holding it in Kew Gardens - wonderful!  Financially, and in every other way, it has exceeded all our expectations and then some! We were hoping to make over £2000 this weekend. But actually we are now well over £5000 with some monies still to come in! I know - I was stunned as well. A big Thank you to everyone involved, both up front and behind the scenes.

 

On Sunday evening I was invited to preach at the Churches together in the Upper Dale united service at Forest. It was lovely to see so many people - around fifty I'd say - in this isolated spot to worship God together. Revs Chris Elliot and Anne Freestone led the service. (The singing was excellent!). Also Lord Barnard was in attendance and he presented Mrs Mary Bell with a gift in recognition of her long years of service at Forest church - 35 years as church warden - wow!! l preached on the "Burning bush" and "Nicodemus" readings which provided an embarrassment of riches indeed. A thoroughly enjoyable evening.

 

On Thursday the 3rd June, noted academic Rev'd Dr. Walter Moberley will be giving a talk at St. Mary's Barnard Castle at 7.30.

 

The New Testament reading from Galatians is very interesting. St. Paul says that the gospel he preaches - the gospel of Grace - was not made known to him by other Christians but by direct divine inspiration. Don't forget that St. Paul did not know Jesus in life. And he was a fierce persecutor of the nascent Christian church for daring to challenge the religious status quo. Paul's first "meeting" with Jesus was on the road to Damascus in a strange vision. This deep encounter changed his life and eventually his beliefs. His encounter, which happened long after the forty day period after the resurrection, he puts on exactly the same footing, in kind and likeness as the post resurrection encounters of the other disciples - so he feels entitled to call himself an "apostle", just like the eleven.  

After this strange encounter he needed time to think, so disappeared to Arabia for a time (Galatians 1:17) before returning to Damascus. It was three whole years before he went to Jerusalem and there he spoke to only two people - St. Peter and Jesus' brother James who obviously because of his familial connection to Jesus had quickly assumed control of the Jerusalem church (In life Jesus' family had been sceptical of their brother's claims to say the least). Why else, apart from family ties, would none of the eleven have taken control? James even usurped St. Peter!

 

After that it appears that St. Paul went home to Tarsus for a number of years after being warned in another vision from Jesus which occurred "in a trance" (Acts 22: 17,18) while he was in the Jerusalem Temple that his testimony would not be accepted by the young church - in fact some were trying to kill him!  Note: Conflict and suspicion and rivalry between Christians on how to interpret the Christ event was there right from the very beginning.

And that may very well have been that, had it not been for a man called Barnabus. It was Barnabus, now the leader of the church in Antioch who sent for Paul to help him there. When Paul had been in Jerusalem all those years earlier Barnabus was the only one who had believed that Paul was a true apostle (Acts 9: 27). Paul left his home in Tarsus to join with Barnabus in Antioch for a year before the famous missionary journeys started - a commission again given "by the Holy Spirit"  significantly given to both Paul and Barnabus while he and Barnabus were fasting and praying (Acts 13: 1-3). Quite a story.

All in all, although it is hard to be precise, Paul did not start his famous missionary journeys until about fourteen years after his conversion.

 

When I took my parish to Israel/Palestine on pilgrimage in year 2000 I deliberately would not fly El Al and would only use Palestinian guides and tour operators and coach operators and would only stay in Arab Christian hotels and set up meetings with humanitarian groups, as well as meeting with ordinary families in Bethlehem to eat with them as an act of solidarity and toured the "other" Bethlehem, the Deheisha refugee camp. I was careful never to put money into the hands of Israelis if I could possibly help it. I saw it as my Christian duty to stand alongside the oppressed against their oppressors. It was my form of passive resistance to the regime I suppose.

I was very strident in those days and age tends to temper your views. Since then I have tried very hard to try and appreciate the Israeli side of the conflict - I really have -- and appreciate the right to self defence but the brutality and racism of the state of Israel always floors me. The flotilla they attacked was carrying humanitarian aid to the stricken people of Gaza - remember them? Possibly not, they are poor and stateless, starving and defenceless - the very people I think Jesus would be standing shoulder to shoulder with. I'm sure that the action will be "strongly condemned" (YAWN) by the international community. As a Christian I know in my heart that peace and negotiation should be the way forward but unfortunately the reality is that the international community has proved that it will do nothing to help the Palestinian people so they are left to fight their battle alone, and so the painful truth is, they feel they have to either fight or consign their children to a life of destitution, living as second class citizens in dire conditions in refugee camps. In their position what would you do?

 

In the next few months it is widely expected that the final hurdles stopping women being made Bishops will be overcome in the Church of England. Significantly it is expected that those who oppose the measure will not have automatic right to oversight from a male Bishop. For the "traditionalists", after women are made Bishops it also means that will never be sure even if they have a male priest that he was not ordained by a female Bishop rendering him "invalid" in their eyes. 

 

As  you read the above statement you may get a feeling of incredulity or sublime indifference which will put you on a par with the vast majority of the population but nevertheless, strong opposition to women Bishops will come from within the church and could split the Anglican communion and the church of England still further so I think it wise to know what the opposition is and where it comes from. The opposition will come from two areas, Tradition and Scripture and so, as a strong supporter of women's ordination, I will try and outline their opposition and as best I can then offer my own critique. As ever, it is for you to decide!

 

First up - Tradition. Actually this takes two similar and interconnected forms. The first one is inherited cultural tradition which says that the man is in charge. It says that traditionally in nearly all cultures that ever existed the man has taken the lead role, in society at large and particularly within the family. It is the way things are and how they should be!

The second form is "Church Tradition". It takes up the same theme as cultural tradition but then adds a twist. It says that because the church has never habitually ordained women in the past - then this must be divinely ordained. God must really want it this way and to do anything else is to go against God. They also say that the church of England doesn't have the authority to make what they would call such a massive and historic innovation.

My critique of Church Tradition is the same as for our cultural tradition. Men and women are indeed different but complimentary and above all must be treated equally. Difference is not an excuse for dominance. I think that the Jesus way is to transcend tradition and culture. Jesus was a revolutionary and his ministry attracted lots of women drawn by his open and inclusive teaching. Jesus was at odds with his own tradition and he re-wrote the social rule book. Many of his inner circle were women. Traditionalists also say that Jesus only chose male disciples, so a woman cannot be a priest. I would retort that Jesus only picked Jews as well, so perhaps we are all invalid! The issue of authority is a red herring I believe. If we had to wait for a genuine ecumenical council to decide such things we will be waiting for a very long time indeed - and we just don't have that long. The last genuine ecumenical council took place a thousand years ago and we have since splintered into a thousand different denominations. The reality is that each communion, led by what it feels to be the prompting of the Holy Spirit must be able to decide for itself. 

 

And now Scripture. Along with the traditionalists there will be some from the more fundamentalist sections of the church - some will be members of the Group called "Reform" - who will say that ordaining women to any position with a leading or teaching capacity over men is expressly forbidden by the revealed word of God! They subscribe to a doctrine they call "Male Headship". In listening to what they say I discern two appeals to scripture. The first comes from Genesis and says that the man was created first so a women is secondary and subservient to the man (Man's helper) and then specifically to various words and sentiments expressed by St. Paul which they say expressly forbids it. Here is a sample from 1 Corinthians 14: 33-35 "As in all the churches of the saints the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church"

My critique. The appeal to Genesis ignores the other creation story (yes, there are two!) where Men and women are created in God's image together and are equal. St. Paul I suggest is merely formulating the cultural context (see above) in which he lived and found himself. After all, neither Paul nor anyone else in the New Testament actually condemns slavery either because it is so part and parcel of their inherited culture! Ephesians 6:5 says "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters". But slavery is now rightly seen as being abhorrent. Their choice of scriptural reference points is very narrow and literalist. This is Paul speaking from within his culture -- not a divine command. If we followed to the letter what Paul says and called it a divine command then a woman would not be allowed into church without wearing a hat either or she would have her hair shaved off. 1 Corinthians 11:6 says "If a woman does not cover her head she should have her hair cut off"  -So there!  As Bishop Jack Spong former Primate of the Episcopal Church of the USA said. "I love the Bible. I take it all very seriously. I take none of it literally"

 

The progressive position is that God has a passion for Justice. Just read the Bible and see! The reason that progressives are so passionate about women's ordination, as well as the ordination of practicing homosexuals is that they think it is plainly a question of Justice and equality, things of which as Christians we should be very passionate. Where the church should be taking a strong lead we are in fact years behind secular society which is now able to lecture the church about freedom, justice and equality. Men and women are different but complimentary. The wholeness of Christianity is lacking when one section of humanity is deliberately excluded. Let us open up the way for women Bishops quickly and rejoice in the fact.

 

We must think about what messages we are sending out to the people of Britain through these internal discussions. Currently many people can be excused for thinking that what is most important to Christians is who they sleep with at night. In a few months they may think that what defines us is whether we think that women are equal or second class citizens. Neither in my view is very edifying.  

 

The Prayer for Today is by Benedict of Nurcia (circa 550 AD)

 

 

Love and peace

 

Martin