Remember the fuss over atheist slogans on buses a while ago? Well, now religious bus posters are in the news again. The group Catholic Women's Ordination have decided to put up bus posters urging the pope to ordain women as priests, during his visit to Britain later this year.
I don't expect Benedict will even see any, but it will raise the issue's profile. While I don't like to see fellow Christians of whatever banner humiliated or embarrassed, I think this is a good thing. The Roman Catholic church has made some almost schoolboy errors in dealing with this topic, notably the recent stories about classifying attempted ordination of a woman on a par with child abuse. Unfortunately, while the Roman Catholic church's welcome attempt to show that it was taking child abuse seriously was entirely overshadowed when they announced that ordaining women was, similarly, a serious offence against the church.
Leaving aside the question of whether ordaining women is right or wrong, I can see why they're concerned people would ignore the church's authority and that given the sensitive, controvertial nature of the issue they'd want it to be dealt with by the highest central authority. That makes sense (more or less, if you consider women's ordination an important issue as they do). It also makes sense to have priestly child abuse dealt with by the highest central authority. What dosn't make sense is to appear to link them together in documents to go to the press. That's not good PR, and surely someone should have noticed (see this for more comment).
But the C of E's recent arguments show us that we've got nothing to be complacent about. Personally I've been getting annoyed when 'evangelical' is almost invariably used to mean 'conservative.' Yes, some evangelicals are. I'm not. Nor are quite a lot of others, at least on the issue of women bishops. The church contains a wide variety of views. Please don't paint us all with the same brush!
Friday 23 July 2010
Wednesday 21 July 2010
7 links for bloggers
Another post! Can you guess that I'm bored this week? Anyway, here's an idea I've borrowed from one of my favourite blogs, but originating here (the list seems to vary between the two, I've left out 'most read' as I don't count readers- it would probably be too depressing!) The idea is to post links to 7 blog posts in different categories. It feels a bit like the Facebook crazes (the 'pick the last 10 people to write on your wall. Would 3 and 7 make a good couple?' sort) but here goes!
1. Your first post. An introduction, and not very interesting really! It was a couple of weeks before I wrote anything worth reading on a topic that bugs me, which was what I set the blog up for.
2. The post you most enjoyed writing. Probably the love of wisdom about natural things on the science vs religion debate.
3. A post which had a great discussion. People don't tend to discuss or comment much on my posts (probably because I don't think I have that many readers!) So the honour goes to the only post to attract more than one reader (besides me) to comment on it. Possibly my shortest ever post, and a blatent advert!
4. A post on someone else’s blog that you wish you’d written. So many to choose from! Recently I've been finding that when I want to blog about something, the Church Mouse has already done so better than I could, such as discussing the mainstream C of E's inability to present itself positively.
5. Your most helpful post. Well, there are several I wish some church leaders and/ or politicians would read. This, Welfare to work to washed up, is probably the one I'd most like to help people understand what it's like to be a young adult struggling to cope with some of the unfairness of life. This one also picks up some of the same themes.
6. A post with a title you are proud of. I try (often without much success) to make post titles vaguely catchy, often using alliteration. There were several last August that I rather like; Bananas, Bibleman and banging my head against a brick wall is probably my favourite.
7. A post that you wish more people had read. Many people seem to think that being a person of faith means you leave reason outside the door. I've tried several times to argue that this isn't the case, including this post on why I disagreed with a friend's comment.
Hmm, that's a few more than 7 links. Oh well!
1. Your first post. An introduction, and not very interesting really! It was a couple of weeks before I wrote anything worth reading on a topic that bugs me, which was what I set the blog up for.
2. The post you most enjoyed writing. Probably the love of wisdom about natural things on the science vs religion debate.
3. A post which had a great discussion. People don't tend to discuss or comment much on my posts (probably because I don't think I have that many readers!) So the honour goes to the only post to attract more than one reader (besides me) to comment on it. Possibly my shortest ever post, and a blatent advert!
4. A post on someone else’s blog that you wish you’d written. So many to choose from! Recently I've been finding that when I want to blog about something, the Church Mouse has already done so better than I could, such as discussing the mainstream C of E's inability to present itself positively.
5. Your most helpful post. Well, there are several I wish some church leaders and/ or politicians would read. This, Welfare to work to washed up, is probably the one I'd most like to help people understand what it's like to be a young adult struggling to cope with some of the unfairness of life. This one also picks up some of the same themes.
6. A post with a title you are proud of. I try (often without much success) to make post titles vaguely catchy, often using alliteration. There were several last August that I rather like; Bananas, Bibleman and banging my head against a brick wall is probably my favourite.
7. A post that you wish more people had read. Many people seem to think that being a person of faith means you leave reason outside the door. I've tried several times to argue that this isn't the case, including this post on why I disagreed with a friend's comment.
Hmm, that's a few more than 7 links. Oh well!
Monday 19 July 2010
Signs and wonders- scary and weird?
When I'm talking with my friends about the church, I find I have to spend a lot of time trying to defend the church from accusations of weirdness. Even discounting the odder forms of worship or evangelism that are around (I haven't yet forgotten an American evangelist earnestly insisting that bananas are proof of intelligent design because they're a convenient shape for our hands) it can be hard for those within the church to understand quite why those outside think they're so odd.
I'm not talking here about debates over ordaining women or gay people as bishops, which many outside the chuch don't understand, or about scandals like the current Catholic church and child abuse that are condemned by the overwhelming majority inside the church or out. I mean the practices we within the church consider normal, or at least usual, but which are quite alien to those not in the club.
Take singing, for example. I've grown up singing, like almost everyone within the church. But how often does your average person sing in public (outside church), once they've left school? Unless they're in a choir, not very often. So something so simple and so integral to the average churchgoer is actually likely to be quite alien to the general public.
If we are already making people feel uncomfortable just by asking them to sing, how much odder some other aspects of church must seem! Speaking in tongues for example. Or praying for healing. I've heard that there are fewer miracles in this part of the world than in (eg) Asia. This is often put down to a lack of faith among Western churches and/ or communities, but I wonder if perhaps there's another explanation. Such miracles, as seen in the New Testament, are 'signs' of the coming of God's kingdom- signs that God is working on earth through Jesus and his followers. But in our society I don't know if they would have that effect on people who didn't already believe in the supernatural. I'm suspect not. So I wouldn't be surprised to see fewer miracles. Perhaps we're shy of reporting those that do happen for fear of not being believed and being ridiculed.
Perhaps we're guilty of over-dramatising our faith. It is a life-changing experience, but God is interested in the small minutiae of our daily lives, not just the big things. Perhaps we don't even recognise some of the small miracles and answers to prayer because we're taught to look big. When the miraculous or supernatural are taking place it doesn't have to feel weird or even special. Sometimes people fall over or injuries are physically healed, but often- mostly- no one except you will notice that God is present. Present through a picture, the words of a song, a feeling, a sense, through a hug or the words of a friend- even one who doesn't believe. God works in each of us in different ways. He challenges us, yes, but he doesn't want to scare us. His love touches the world in many ways to do many things. It's right to make that known. But let's not scare people by it if we can help it.
I'm not talking here about debates over ordaining women or gay people as bishops, which many outside the chuch don't understand, or about scandals like the current Catholic church and child abuse that are condemned by the overwhelming majority inside the church or out. I mean the practices we within the church consider normal, or at least usual, but which are quite alien to those not in the club.
Take singing, for example. I've grown up singing, like almost everyone within the church. But how often does your average person sing in public (outside church), once they've left school? Unless they're in a choir, not very often. So something so simple and so integral to the average churchgoer is actually likely to be quite alien to the general public.
If we are already making people feel uncomfortable just by asking them to sing, how much odder some other aspects of church must seem! Speaking in tongues for example. Or praying for healing. I've heard that there are fewer miracles in this part of the world than in (eg) Asia. This is often put down to a lack of faith among Western churches and/ or communities, but I wonder if perhaps there's another explanation. Such miracles, as seen in the New Testament, are 'signs' of the coming of God's kingdom- signs that God is working on earth through Jesus and his followers. But in our society I don't know if they would have that effect on people who didn't already believe in the supernatural. I'm suspect not. So I wouldn't be surprised to see fewer miracles. Perhaps we're shy of reporting those that do happen for fear of not being believed and being ridiculed.
Perhaps we're guilty of over-dramatising our faith. It is a life-changing experience, but God is interested in the small minutiae of our daily lives, not just the big things. Perhaps we don't even recognise some of the small miracles and answers to prayer because we're taught to look big. When the miraculous or supernatural are taking place it doesn't have to feel weird or even special. Sometimes people fall over or injuries are physically healed, but often- mostly- no one except you will notice that God is present. Present through a picture, the words of a song, a feeling, a sense, through a hug or the words of a friend- even one who doesn't believe. God works in each of us in different ways. He challenges us, yes, but he doesn't want to scare us. His love touches the world in many ways to do many things. It's right to make that known. But let's not scare people by it if we can help it.
Wednesday 14 July 2010
Synod's choice
I'm trying to summon up enough enthusiasm to write about last weekend's Church of England synod and what their decisions about ordaining women as bishops mean. But in a way everything seems to have been said. The synod have probably made the best of a not terribly good job, and decided to risk offending traditionalists so much that they leave the C of E, in return for giving women bishops, when they finally appear, the same status as men.
Of course it will be very sad if this decision causes people to leave the church. Jesus taught us to pray for unity among Christians, and it's hard to be unified- or even to pray for unity- when you are caught up in a bitter struggle the meaning of Biblical texts. Perhaps, some say, we should compromise for the sake of unity- that both sides should compromise as far as they can, out of love for each other and for God, out of grace, to prevent a damaging split. That, if I am correct, is what the amendment proposed by the archbishops of Canterbury and York was an attempt to do, an attempt to salve the consciences of those who feel they cannot submit to a woman's authority; so that while those in favour would accept that another, male, bishop would care for the traditionalists, the traditionalists would recognise the validity of women bishops in principal.
But there are other considerations. It has been said, with much truth, that the church exists for the benefit of non-members (admittedly it often doesn't seem like that's the case!). Obviously a an organisation that is constantly arguing with itself isn't showing a very good image to outsiders. But then neither is an organisation that, from most outsiders and indeed most insiders' point of view, is still practicing sexism.
Obviously I'm not saying that the church (any church, not just the C of E) should just give in to society's pressures and accept society's values. That would leave us with no integrity. But if we want the church to be an active, outward looking community, we need to show that every member is valued. That means weighing up the choice of offending some of your membership, or looking increasingly old fashioned, irrelevant and unpalatable to those outside (and a large number within). It's not a choice to make lightly, or without much prayer, and I think synod have been thinking and praying about this for a long time. No one should be going into that kind of debate wanting to cause trouble or make things nasty, any sort of split should cause sorrow on both sides. But perhaps to agree to disagree, and not to rule out the possibility of working together in the future, is a better solution than to continue to argue, which can be more divisive.
Of course, probably a better option is to accept, gracefully, the arrangements that the synod has agreed on. But given that the media much prefer a story about disagreement than about acceptance and co-operation, I doubt we'll hear so much about the parishes and people who do just that. The church (perhaps because as a friend of mine said; "the more liberal people are, the more likely they are to feel the opposition should have a say, and less likely to make absolutist remarks.") isn't great at presenting the positive story. But I look forward to when the first women bishops are ordained, and hope that it will be celebrated as the milestone it deserves to be.
Of course it will be very sad if this decision causes people to leave the church. Jesus taught us to pray for unity among Christians, and it's hard to be unified- or even to pray for unity- when you are caught up in a bitter struggle the meaning of Biblical texts. Perhaps, some say, we should compromise for the sake of unity- that both sides should compromise as far as they can, out of love for each other and for God, out of grace, to prevent a damaging split. That, if I am correct, is what the amendment proposed by the archbishops of Canterbury and York was an attempt to do, an attempt to salve the consciences of those who feel they cannot submit to a woman's authority; so that while those in favour would accept that another, male, bishop would care for the traditionalists, the traditionalists would recognise the validity of women bishops in principal.
But there are other considerations. It has been said, with much truth, that the church exists for the benefit of non-members (admittedly it often doesn't seem like that's the case!). Obviously a an organisation that is constantly arguing with itself isn't showing a very good image to outsiders. But then neither is an organisation that, from most outsiders and indeed most insiders' point of view, is still practicing sexism.
Obviously I'm not saying that the church (any church, not just the C of E) should just give in to society's pressures and accept society's values. That would leave us with no integrity. But if we want the church to be an active, outward looking community, we need to show that every member is valued. That means weighing up the choice of offending some of your membership, or looking increasingly old fashioned, irrelevant and unpalatable to those outside (and a large number within). It's not a choice to make lightly, or without much prayer, and I think synod have been thinking and praying about this for a long time. No one should be going into that kind of debate wanting to cause trouble or make things nasty, any sort of split should cause sorrow on both sides. But perhaps to agree to disagree, and not to rule out the possibility of working together in the future, is a better solution than to continue to argue, which can be more divisive.
Of course, probably a better option is to accept, gracefully, the arrangements that the synod has agreed on. But given that the media much prefer a story about disagreement than about acceptance and co-operation, I doubt we'll hear so much about the parishes and people who do just that. The church (perhaps because as a friend of mine said; "the more liberal people are, the more likely they are to feel the opposition should have a say, and less likely to make absolutist remarks.") isn't great at presenting the positive story. But I look forward to when the first women bishops are ordained, and hope that it will be celebrated as the milestone it deserves to be.
Friday 2 July 2010
What did possibly go wrong.
I said I'd let you know. What went wrong next was that a soloist had to drop out the day before the show due to illness. But we coped, reallocated some solos and cut others. The show went very well, at least from my point of view. This Saturday we're taking it 'on tour' to Leeds with a reduced cast, so let's hope all goes well!
It still remains to be seen whether the 'Japanese Play' has escaped its' curse- although one principal did manage to hurt his knee and develop tonsillitis...let's hope that's the end of it!
Aside from that, it's not been the best week or two, with work being unpleasant and making me feel useless and no good for anything- if I can't even do a good job at my current job, what hope do I have of being any use in the sort of job I feel God might be calling me to? But then why would he call me to something I couldn't do? That makes no sense.
Various Bible verses tell us that we need to rely on God for our strength. For example:
It still remains to be seen whether the 'Japanese Play' has escaped its' curse- although one principal did manage to hurt his knee and develop tonsillitis...let's hope that's the end of it!
Aside from that, it's not been the best week or two, with work being unpleasant and making me feel useless and no good for anything- if I can't even do a good job at my current job, what hope do I have of being any use in the sort of job I feel God might be calling me to? But then why would he call me to something I couldn't do? That makes no sense.
Various Bible verses tell us that we need to rely on God for our strength. For example:
Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding
and lean not on your own understanding
Proverbs 3, v5.
I guess that's something I needed to be reminded of. And something I need to do. God chooses to use his people to do his work, and he strengthens them as needed for his work. So I hope he will strengthen me, and be able to use me. Even though I don't feel that I'm worth using.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)