Good afternoon God,
I had always puzzled at how a loving God could, as Scripture so often tells us, visit the iniquity of the father onto the Children to the third and fourth generation.. sadly I now understand that what is meant is that the consequences of the initial 'sin' will reverberate and enslave subsequent generations.
It is in that light that I have come to view our current ecumenical situation.
I fully understand the origin of the dreams of ecumenism that once fired the young ministers of the Methodist and Anglican Churches during the 1960's and 70's - especially following the 'death of God debate'. I appreciate all that they managed to achieve with their zeal and enthusiasm.. but I have also come to believe you gave your answer - firmly and emphatically. You have made it clear that your 'broken body' is not ours to try and lump together again by our petty politics and power games. It is broken - to serve your purposes, not ours.
But the next generation of ministers, and those that have followed have nonetheless had to pay the price of those dreams. The amount of energy and money that has been spent on seeking so called 'Church unity' - ie on Church order, instead of on evangelism, social justice and pastoral care is - quite simply - frightening - and sinful.
And no - I do not understand it.
I am repeatedly told that full organic unity will better serve the mission of your Church - but the fastest growing churches in the world, both historically, and currently are those interested in mission and ministry, not those obsessed with bishops and clerics. They are those with people and salvation in mind, not Church order and interchangability of ministry. They are focused on worship and discipleship, not with whether a service of the Eucharist is 'proper' or 'authorized'.
The Pentecostal Church today is not interested in whether the world thinks it is 'orthodox' or 'respectable' it IS interested in saving souls. In Asia and Africa the Methodist Church is not concerned with whether it is part of the apostolic succession or not, it IS concerned with saving souls..
I am tired of being told that the Methodist Church once claimed that it was willing to take the historic episcope into its system - we once claimed a lot of things! Wesley believed in Witches, and thought tea was the devil's brew - we no longer do. British Methodists were once almost all members of the Temperance society - few are today, we once thought Roman Catholics were not even Christian - we no longer think so today - we MAKE MISTAKES in our discernment!
At the start of this century, we made it clear that we were no longer so willing to take the historic episcope into our system when Conference and the Methodist people declared that NONE of the possible options presented (including that of the president of Conference being made a Bishop) was acceptable.
Surprisingly God, you have shared with us some crucial revelations: You have shown us that that there is no difference in your eyes between laity and clergy, and that the Church really does not need bishops to engage in mission and ministry. You have revealed to us that the diaconate is a separate unique and complementary form of ordained ministry; that the laity can baptise and preside over the Lord's table without either acts losing their sacramentality or efficacy before You. That discipline and discipleship belong together. That Christian perfection is the goal you set before us, and most of all - that predestination in any form is not part of your Gospel of love and grace.
The longing of some Methodist men to be Bishops was/is I believe, another sickness and a sin in our church that some in this generation are growing a little tired of paying for. I believe you have made it clear that churches can work together without denying the gifts of grace that you have given to each. It should be possible for any church seriously committed to your gospel, to work for your glory without being made to adopt Bishops first!
So - yes, I am appalled at the re-writing of Methodist History in the JIC report coming before our Conference - Methodism divided after Wesley's death over church structure - and in particular over the doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers - ie over the equality before you, God of the laity and the clergy. Once again, our history is paraded as something shameful, when the truth is quite the opposite.
Lay and clerical equality is not an event in our past, but in our present. We have only recently finished restructuring our own Conference so that there is parity of representation between clergy and laity.
And where in the report is the recent Anglican history over this same period ? What of the flying bishops from other parts of the Anglican world brought in by London Churches to ordain the homophobic, or the success of the ordinariate and the dissent against women bishops -
The JIC report dares to suggest that the Covenant is a plan for greater Church unity but the Anglican Church has demonstrated a frightening inability to maintain its own internal unity.
A large part of what distresses me is the ignorance that has been perpetrated by our ecumenical work leading to the lie that there is little difference between Methodists and Anglicans. Most Methodists and Anglicans have no idea that the Church of England does not recognise Methodist orders. They have no idea that the Church of England will only allow a Methodist minister to conduct a 'Methodist' service in an Anglican Church - that we are not deemed worthy or 'holy' or 'ordained' enough to lead an Anglican rite - even though we train with Anglicans, share in various mission and social justice programs with Anglicans. And few will know - especially if these new ecumenical areas are implemented - that the difference is based not just on canon law - but on theology and doctrine.
I suspect that the proposed 'ecumenical areas' or 'local covenants' are intended to lead still more people to believe that there is no difference really - even though the actual difference cripples Methodist ministry and mission, further erodes Methodist identity and negates the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, and the revelation Methodism has received of the equality of lay and ordained. (To say nothing of gender equality)
I do not want to be a part of a church where so called 'unity' is more important than equality before you God. Please God, is there no way you can persuade the Anglican Church to focus on sorting out its own divisions and schisms and let this be the last generation required to wrestle with the consequences of the 1972 debacle?
Can we not just get on with the task of saving souls?
Monday, June 20, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Ministerial Extensions.
Good afternoon God,
It's that time in ministry again when I am trying to discern my calling - where do you want me to minister, what am I called to do next.. what is best for the circuit, what is best for me? (And by best I mean what is right by you!)
It's not easy - and I am grateful that I do not have to do it alone.
I have already met with the District chair and soon I will meet with the circuit stewards and they, in turn will discuss with the people I have been ministering too, all so that together we can discern your will.
It's a good system, at its best it can be supportive and affirming, albeit challenging and humbling. It's part of what it means to me to be an itinerant Presbyter in your service. The same process is used throughout the Methodist Church, whether the presbyter is a circuit minister, superintendent or district chair. It is a consultative process that provides feedback from which the minister can learn and grow in grace and holiness. The fact that it is a shared process throughout the ministry is important to maintaining trust and confidence in the system.
So I am somewhat saddened to learn from our Conference reports that the same process appears to have been short-circuited in the case of our General Secretary. The most important stage of all - the consultation with those being ministered to, has been compromised. The conversation with the equivalent of the Circuit Stewards has happened, and Conference will play the equivalent role of the Circuit meeting in either accepting or rejecting the recommendation being brought to them - but the recommendation does not appear to come on the basis of feedback from a full representative range of those that the General Secretary is called to minister to. If the report is to be believed, the ordinary members of the Connexion (and by Connexion I mean Connexion not Connexional Team) were not consulted.
The report tells us that
If the General Secretary is to do his job well, shouldn't some of the 'rank and file' of the Methodist Church have also been consulted? The long list of the great and good who were consulted makes me uneasy - is there really now such a division between our 'leadership' and our people?
If the only people to be consulted in the process of stationing a circuit minister were the district chairs and circuit stewards and their ecumenical equivalents - would the Church members be happy?
What a missed opportunity for the General Secretary (and Conference) to receive some feedback about his ministry from the people who will be most affected by the changes he suggests we adopt. I am aware that often members of the Connexional team receive negative emails, hate letters etc - but here was a chance for the Church to offer affirmation, and positive comments.
The General Secretary is much loved in the Connexion - surely he had the right to hear that?
His ministry has been appreciated by many - surely he had the right to learn why and discover what people have valued the most?
I have no doubt that those who were considering how best to do this whole process had the Church's best interests at heart - but on this occasion, I think they got it seriously wrong. It leaves me with the uneasy impression that the opinions of 'ordinary' rank and file Methodists don't count. Something I don't for one second believe to be the case.
I can only hope that it is the report, not the process that was flawed, and that a full range of Methodist members including those without 'rank' or office.. were indeed seriously consulted. It's only the General Secretary's right as a Presbyter in the Methodist Church seeking an extension to his appointment after all.
For what its worth - The General Secretary would have received my vote.
It's that time in ministry again when I am trying to discern my calling - where do you want me to minister, what am I called to do next.. what is best for the circuit, what is best for me? (And by best I mean what is right by you!)
It's not easy - and I am grateful that I do not have to do it alone.
I have already met with the District chair and soon I will meet with the circuit stewards and they, in turn will discuss with the people I have been ministering too, all so that together we can discern your will.
It's a good system, at its best it can be supportive and affirming, albeit challenging and humbling. It's part of what it means to me to be an itinerant Presbyter in your service. The same process is used throughout the Methodist Church, whether the presbyter is a circuit minister, superintendent or district chair. It is a consultative process that provides feedback from which the minister can learn and grow in grace and holiness. The fact that it is a shared process throughout the ministry is important to maintaining trust and confidence in the system.
So I am somewhat saddened to learn from our Conference reports that the same process appears to have been short-circuited in the case of our General Secretary. The most important stage of all - the consultation with those being ministered to, has been compromised. The conversation with the equivalent of the Circuit Stewards has happened, and Conference will play the equivalent role of the Circuit meeting in either accepting or rejecting the recommendation being brought to them - but the recommendation does not appear to come on the basis of feedback from a full representative range of those that the General Secretary is called to minister to. If the report is to be believed, the ordinary members of the Connexion (and by Connexion I mean Connexion not Connexional Team) were not consulted.
The report tells us that
First, soundings were taken from those who work most closely with Martyn
in the Connexional Team and from Chairs of Districts. A process was
then put in place whereby comments could be obtained from other Church
leaders in the United Kingdom, from the leaders of a number of partner
Methodist Churches and from other organisations and individuals with
which the Methodist Church works in close co-operation.
If the General Secretary is to do his job well, shouldn't some of the 'rank and file' of the Methodist Church have also been consulted? The long list of the great and good who were consulted makes me uneasy - is there really now such a division between our 'leadership' and our people?
If the only people to be consulted in the process of stationing a circuit minister were the district chairs and circuit stewards and their ecumenical equivalents - would the Church members be happy?
What a missed opportunity for the General Secretary (and Conference) to receive some feedback about his ministry from the people who will be most affected by the changes he suggests we adopt. I am aware that often members of the Connexional team receive negative emails, hate letters etc - but here was a chance for the Church to offer affirmation, and positive comments.
The General Secretary is much loved in the Connexion - surely he had the right to hear that?
His ministry has been appreciated by many - surely he had the right to learn why and discover what people have valued the most?
I have no doubt that those who were considering how best to do this whole process had the Church's best interests at heart - but on this occasion, I think they got it seriously wrong. It leaves me with the uneasy impression that the opinions of 'ordinary' rank and file Methodists don't count. Something I don't for one second believe to be the case.
I can only hope that it is the report, not the process that was flawed, and that a full range of Methodist members including those without 'rank' or office.. were indeed seriously consulted. It's only the General Secretary's right as a Presbyter in the Methodist Church seeking an extension to his appointment after all.
For what its worth - The General Secretary would have received my vote.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
A discpleship movement shaped for mission
Good afternoon God,
I have been reflecting further on the new direction for British Methodism being presented to the Conference this year in the hope of unpacking what it might mean for the ordinary church member.
The report states that 'The big theme of Connexionalism sets the context' in which all the remainder of the report must be read.
The argument is that Connexionalism is 'a Spiritual commitment' before it is a descriptor of Methodist 'structures, processes and systems'.
This understanding allows us to loosen the bonds that hold circuits and local churches together in such a way that
1) We can be more flexible about who is 'in full Connexion' with us - and why!
2) We can be more flexible about what a 'local Church', 'circuit' or even a 'District' is
3) We can redefine how Connexionalism is applied across the connexion.
How might this change things..
A fresh expression of Church might well become a part of the Connexion - but not necessarily a part of a circuit on the circuit plan.
A circuit or district could be created which is not defined according to geography but according to (for example) churchmanship.. so a network of fresh expressions across the country could become the equivalent of a 'District' or 'Circuit'. An ethnic fellowship could become the equivalent of a 'Circuit' etc. This makes it possible for forms of spirituality to flourish regardless of geography. So a youth church in an existing local Methodist Circuit might be part of a much larger national youth circuit and so would not be dependent on the presbyters and local preachers of their local circuit, but on those already engaged in similar work and worship.
The current principle that all Churches in full connexion are under the same 'discipline' and have access the same resources would no longer necessarily hold, meaning that the Connexion could decide where to focus and allocate resources (such as ministers, deacons, finance etc) according to where and how it is discerned that the Spirit is moving.
Ethnic groups/fellowships/churches can be part of the Connexion, as Districts or Circuits or churches allowing the richness of diversity to become a real factor in shaping Methodist mission and understanding.
For all this to happen - the Connexion rather than the local church, will need to become the primary body deciding what happens with our buildings and our boundaries.
Yes of course some of this could be seen negatively. It could be argued that introducing such phenomenal diversity will destroy what little is left of a distinctive Methodist identity, or that such diverse connexionalism will be impossible to 'discipline'. Small rural churches and circuits could well feel threatened or even abandoned. 'Traditional' Methodists who insist that we have always done it this way and so must always do it this way will undoubtedly feel threatened! But truth be told - this vision of Methodism is much much closer to the origins of Methodism than what we currently have.
Perhaps the most difficult change for some will be the loss of 'Church' in favour of 'movement'. This will undoubtedly affect our ecumenical relationships. Some of our existing ecumenical partners might balk at being so closely tied to a body that deliberately chooses to be in full Connexion (and hence - perhaps - full communion) with a Pentecostal 'circuit' or a Fresh expression youth 'District'.
It will be harder to define common ground when we are once again so diverse.
When we look less like Church because we are structured less like parishes and dioceses - we will however become more dependent on our theology and understanding of the movement of the Spirit to hold us together - we will need to draw more on you GOD than on CPD!
The potential - really is - staggering!
I have been reflecting further on the new direction for British Methodism being presented to the Conference this year in the hope of unpacking what it might mean for the ordinary church member.
The report states that 'The big theme of Connexionalism sets the context' in which all the remainder of the report must be read.
The argument is that Connexionalism is 'a Spiritual commitment' before it is a descriptor of Methodist 'structures, processes and systems'.
This understanding allows us to loosen the bonds that hold circuits and local churches together in such a way that
1) We can be more flexible about who is 'in full Connexion' with us - and why!
2) We can be more flexible about what a 'local Church', 'circuit' or even a 'District' is
3) We can redefine how Connexionalism is applied across the connexion.
How might this change things..
A fresh expression of Church might well become a part of the Connexion - but not necessarily a part of a circuit on the circuit plan.
A circuit or district could be created which is not defined according to geography but according to (for example) churchmanship.. so a network of fresh expressions across the country could become the equivalent of a 'District' or 'Circuit'. An ethnic fellowship could become the equivalent of a 'Circuit' etc. This makes it possible for forms of spirituality to flourish regardless of geography. So a youth church in an existing local Methodist Circuit might be part of a much larger national youth circuit and so would not be dependent on the presbyters and local preachers of their local circuit, but on those already engaged in similar work and worship.
The current principle that all Churches in full connexion are under the same 'discipline' and have access the same resources would no longer necessarily hold, meaning that the Connexion could decide where to focus and allocate resources (such as ministers, deacons, finance etc) according to where and how it is discerned that the Spirit is moving.
Ethnic groups/fellowships/churches can be part of the Connexion, as Districts or Circuits or churches allowing the richness of diversity to become a real factor in shaping Methodist mission and understanding.
For all this to happen - the Connexion rather than the local church, will need to become the primary body deciding what happens with our buildings and our boundaries.
Yes of course some of this could be seen negatively. It could be argued that introducing such phenomenal diversity will destroy what little is left of a distinctive Methodist identity, or that such diverse connexionalism will be impossible to 'discipline'. Small rural churches and circuits could well feel threatened or even abandoned. 'Traditional' Methodists who insist that we have always done it this way and so must always do it this way will undoubtedly feel threatened! But truth be told - this vision of Methodism is much much closer to the origins of Methodism than what we currently have.
Perhaps the most difficult change for some will be the loss of 'Church' in favour of 'movement'. This will undoubtedly affect our ecumenical relationships. Some of our existing ecumenical partners might balk at being so closely tied to a body that deliberately chooses to be in full Connexion (and hence - perhaps - full communion) with a Pentecostal 'circuit' or a Fresh expression youth 'District'.
It will be harder to define common ground when we are once again so diverse.
When we look less like Church because we are structured less like parishes and dioceses - we will however become more dependent on our theology and understanding of the movement of the Spirit to hold us together - we will need to draw more on you GOD than on CPD!
The potential - really is - staggering!
Friday, June 10, 2011
Methodism and the Nunc Dimittis
Good morning God,
It's an odd thing to say, but the General Secretary has helped me understand the Nunc Dimittis in a way I could never have believed possible before.. and its bitter-sweet. The same thing that makes me feel I really can die in peace, also energizes me and makes me long to live and see more of what you have granted us just a tiny glimpse of. I wonder if Simeon felt that strange mix of elation and peace, excitement and anticipation, longing and regret on seeing Jesus?
Ok, Ok the General Secretary's report is not quite in the same league in one sense - but it DID let me see Jesus - it DID open my eyes and offer me a glimpse of your salvation and filled my heart with hope - and dread - for the future.
The report is written in clear and accessible Godly language that draws on the riches of our tradition and the experiences and inspiration of past presidents - yet is still clearly profoundly prophetic. That it is YOUR word I have no doubt. Yes, it shows evidence of careful editing, there is no desire here to upset or offend, but this report also makes no apologies for the fact that should the Connexion be persuaded to follow the vision that you have given to the General Secretary and the Connexional team, it will be radically changed from what it is now.
Alleluia!
No minister likes to think that their ministry, their service to you God has been in vain. As with so many I have been more than disillusioned about the 'Church' and its seeming loss of passion for the gospel, commitment to mission, obsession with structure and form rather than Scripture and prayer.
The seemingly slow inexorable slide into Anglicanism, institutionalism, officialdom etc has depressed me beyond belief. The lack of godly language or the use of Scripture in our public communications, the absence of any real sense of direction other than a parroting of 'the priorities' had left me seriously questioning my vocation.
The words of the Easter liturgy spring to mind..
The General Secretary's report captures what Methodism once did best - move forward into the future, taking the risk of being different, radical, even passionate in a desire to serve You in obedience and truth. It then dares to spell out how that might still possible today before providing just a few small illustrations of what Methodism might look like if it chose to follow that route. And for the first time since the whole 'Team Focus' process started - I feel a part of the team again, as though the Connexion includes me in, rather than writes me off as a circuit minister.
THANK YOU TEAM
Yes, I know, this will be incredibly risky and painful for many in our Church to accept and adopt.
Yes, this runs the risk of initially at least losing us almost as many members as it potentially creates,
yes this takes us further than ever away from the careful steering towards respectable ecclesiology that has eaten up so much of our energy and vitality over the last 30 years -
but
by grace, by your wonderful powerful spirit God, we could actually do this - we could actually become a mission minded people once again, more worried about You than about our committees, buildings, titles, and personnel departments!
Provided we don't procrastinate.
I really want to be a part of this Lord.. not just witness the birth of it!
It's an odd thing to say, but the General Secretary has helped me understand the Nunc Dimittis in a way I could never have believed possible before.. and its bitter-sweet. The same thing that makes me feel I really can die in peace, also energizes me and makes me long to live and see more of what you have granted us just a tiny glimpse of. I wonder if Simeon felt that strange mix of elation and peace, excitement and anticipation, longing and regret on seeing Jesus?
Ok, Ok the General Secretary's report is not quite in the same league in one sense - but it DID let me see Jesus - it DID open my eyes and offer me a glimpse of your salvation and filled my heart with hope - and dread - for the future.
The report is written in clear and accessible Godly language that draws on the riches of our tradition and the experiences and inspiration of past presidents - yet is still clearly profoundly prophetic. That it is YOUR word I have no doubt. Yes, it shows evidence of careful editing, there is no desire here to upset or offend, but this report also makes no apologies for the fact that should the Connexion be persuaded to follow the vision that you have given to the General Secretary and the Connexional team, it will be radically changed from what it is now.
Alleluia!
No minister likes to think that their ministry, their service to you God has been in vain. As with so many I have been more than disillusioned about the 'Church' and its seeming loss of passion for the gospel, commitment to mission, obsession with structure and form rather than Scripture and prayer.
The seemingly slow inexorable slide into Anglicanism, institutionalism, officialdom etc has depressed me beyond belief. The lack of godly language or the use of Scripture in our public communications, the absence of any real sense of direction other than a parroting of 'the priorities' had left me seriously questioning my vocation.
The words of the Easter liturgy spring to mind..
If we have fallen into despair. If we have failed to hope in you, If we have been fearful of death, If we we have forgotten the victory of Christ. Lord, forgive us.'But on the eve of Pentecost you have answered my prayer by giving me a glimpse of a possible future..
The General Secretary's report captures what Methodism once did best - move forward into the future, taking the risk of being different, radical, even passionate in a desire to serve You in obedience and truth. It then dares to spell out how that might still possible today before providing just a few small illustrations of what Methodism might look like if it chose to follow that route. And for the first time since the whole 'Team Focus' process started - I feel a part of the team again, as though the Connexion includes me in, rather than writes me off as a circuit minister.
THANK YOU TEAM
Yes, I know, this will be incredibly risky and painful for many in our Church to accept and adopt.
Yes, this runs the risk of initially at least losing us almost as many members as it potentially creates,
yes this takes us further than ever away from the careful steering towards respectable ecclesiology that has eaten up so much of our energy and vitality over the last 30 years -
but
by grace, by your wonderful powerful spirit God, we could actually do this - we could actually become a mission minded people once again, more worried about You than about our committees, buildings, titles, and personnel departments!
Provided we don't procrastinate.
I really want to be a part of this Lord.. not just witness the birth of it!
Saturday, May 28, 2011
A rational, philosophical faith.
Good morning God,
In honour of this weeks lectionary reading from Acts - I would like to confess my own philosophical leanings.. and my puzzlement at those Christians who seem hell bent on pitting faith against reason, as though there were nothing reasonable or intelligent about either the Gospel or your continuing creative presence.
You who know how we are made, who gave to us this amazing thing we call curiosity and set in our hearts a hunger for the truth, seem to delight in communicating with us in riddles and parables. You invite our exploration, tease us with the possibilities that knowledge affords, and then gently persuade us to use the phenomenal intelligence of the whole of humanity to speculate and wonder at the mystery of creation and our place within it.
How sad that religion so often decries the great gift you give to us of collective intelligence, of the progress of knowledge and the slow but inexorable maturing of the mind of humanity. How pathetic when priests, the appointed guardians of the mysteries, perjure their calling by insisting that they already know what the truth is, that we need look no further, seek no harder. We can stop asking and stop knocking at your door because you have already said all you intend to say. The Bible says it all, and what it says is all that we need to know.
Thank you God - that you taught me better than to believe that!
The Bible is your word - but it is not your final word and you never meant for it to be understood literally. If Paul had realised he was going to be quoted for the rest of time, he would have undoubtedly chosen some of his words with more care! (The same can undoubtedly be said of Ezekiel and one or two other authors) The TRUTH of Scripture is not literal, it is alive: real truth is so much more than plain facts.
So I read with joy the following report in the American New Scientist
So at least some leaders of each of the three great faiths of the Book are united in the great battle against idiocy. It's a small start I know but could we dare to dream that in the not too distant future young and old will rise to the challenge set out in Scripture to grow and flourish as you desire us to. Will the world finally be free of the despotic idiotic presentation of you as the God who punishes thought and questions, doubt and insecurities, the God who is determined to keep humanity submissive and simple! (How on earth such people have ever squared this image of you with the fact that you also gave us mathematics and science I have never quite been able to fathom!)
Can we dare to dream of the day when Dawkin's savage ignorant God dies!
YES, YES and again YES!
And the best of all is, when we stop pitting reason against faith, when we stop demanding that people throw away their brains when they enter the Church, when we stop trying to defend you(?!) from the enlightened questions of your created offspring - then, and only then, will we understand what love really is.
Love that is blind is an easy love to hold on to. It is not the love of the cross which saw the pain and shame and yet still chose to love. If Jesus did not know what he died for - he died in vain. If he was not aware of the cost - it cost nothing - if his love was blind, it was no love at all.
Love which is pure faith is not the love of the Spirit which leads us into all truth about ourselves and then still demands us to love ourselves - completely. If all that we needed was the Good News of Christ, then why was the Spirit sent? If all that we needed was the Bible, why bother with the gift of tongues? If all that was said and done was all that you ever intended for us to know - why does the Spirit continue to breathe new life into your people, and impart new gifts of grace for this age?
Above all this - Love that does not dare to question is not the love of Christ who demands to know - 'why have you forsaken me?' Your love does not, nor has it ever, belittled the pain and suffering of your people. We hear from your own lips the question so many need the answer to. And in response we learn to listen as you plead in your love for us 'How long will you forget me?'
Reasonable rational knowing love, love which is not afraid of the questions as well as the dreams and aspirations of the other is the love that you ask of us. Not the love of a supplicant, fearful and afraid to do anything else, nor the love of the mindless adherent, empty and ignorant of why they do what they do. But the love of a child, trusting yet inquisitive, determined to grow and become all that they can be. Delighting in discovery, enjoying being teased by the puzzles and riddles you set them, and spellbound by the parables and the stories you tell.
This is the love that flourishes and lasts forever - for there is an eternity of mystery to explore and you seem to delight in the processes of revelation.
You are not unknown to me God- and I too struggle with the concept of resurrection, but nonetheless. you hold me enthralled by the very opportunity to discover more! I do not yet know what knowledge is, or understand how I know what I claim to know- epistemology is as much of a riddle to me as resurrection - but I am keen to try and make the leap from reason to faith and back again as required in order to gain the greater prize of a love that I can comprehend.
So thank you God for the way in which you continue to open my mind to the potential for greater understanding - for insisting that growth in grace and holiness includes growth in knowledge and understanding.
I look forward to learning more.
In honour of this weeks lectionary reading from Acts - I would like to confess my own philosophical leanings.. and my puzzlement at those Christians who seem hell bent on pitting faith against reason, as though there were nothing reasonable or intelligent about either the Gospel or your continuing creative presence.
You who know how we are made, who gave to us this amazing thing we call curiosity and set in our hearts a hunger for the truth, seem to delight in communicating with us in riddles and parables. You invite our exploration, tease us with the possibilities that knowledge affords, and then gently persuade us to use the phenomenal intelligence of the whole of humanity to speculate and wonder at the mystery of creation and our place within it.
How sad that religion so often decries the great gift you give to us of collective intelligence, of the progress of knowledge and the slow but inexorable maturing of the mind of humanity. How pathetic when priests, the appointed guardians of the mysteries, perjure their calling by insisting that they already know what the truth is, that we need look no further, seek no harder. We can stop asking and stop knocking at your door because you have already said all you intend to say. The Bible says it all, and what it says is all that we need to know.
Thank you God - that you taught me better than to believe that!
The Bible is your word - but it is not your final word and you never meant for it to be understood literally. If Paul had realised he was going to be quoted for the rest of time, he would have undoubtedly chosen some of his words with more care! (The same can undoubtedly be said of Ezekiel and one or two other authors) The TRUTH of Scripture is not literal, it is alive: real truth is so much more than plain facts.
So I read with joy the following report in the American New Scientist
Almost 13,000 Christian clergy have done it. Nearly 500 Jewish rabbis have too. Now, Islamic teachers, or imams, have begun signing an open letter declaring that there is no clash between their religious faith and evolution.The Imam Letter, launched this week in the US, is the latest challenge to fundamentalists of the three Abrahamic religions who reject evolution in favour of creationism. The Clergy Letter was launched in 2006 and now has 12,725 signatures, followed three years ago by the Rabbi Letter, which has 476 signatures.
So at least some leaders of each of the three great faiths of the Book are united in the great battle against idiocy. It's a small start I know but could we dare to dream that in the not too distant future young and old will rise to the challenge set out in Scripture to grow and flourish as you desire us to. Will the world finally be free of the despotic idiotic presentation of you as the God who punishes thought and questions, doubt and insecurities, the God who is determined to keep humanity submissive and simple! (How on earth such people have ever squared this image of you with the fact that you also gave us mathematics and science I have never quite been able to fathom!)
Can we dare to dream of the day when Dawkin's savage ignorant God dies!
YES, YES and again YES!
And the best of all is, when we stop pitting reason against faith, when we stop demanding that people throw away their brains when they enter the Church, when we stop trying to defend you(?!) from the enlightened questions of your created offspring - then, and only then, will we understand what love really is.
Love that is blind is an easy love to hold on to. It is not the love of the cross which saw the pain and shame and yet still chose to love. If Jesus did not know what he died for - he died in vain. If he was not aware of the cost - it cost nothing - if his love was blind, it was no love at all.
Love which is pure faith is not the love of the Spirit which leads us into all truth about ourselves and then still demands us to love ourselves - completely. If all that we needed was the Good News of Christ, then why was the Spirit sent? If all that we needed was the Bible, why bother with the gift of tongues? If all that was said and done was all that you ever intended for us to know - why does the Spirit continue to breathe new life into your people, and impart new gifts of grace for this age?
Above all this - Love that does not dare to question is not the love of Christ who demands to know - 'why have you forsaken me?' Your love does not, nor has it ever, belittled the pain and suffering of your people. We hear from your own lips the question so many need the answer to. And in response we learn to listen as you plead in your love for us 'How long will you forget me?'
Reasonable rational knowing love, love which is not afraid of the questions as well as the dreams and aspirations of the other is the love that you ask of us. Not the love of a supplicant, fearful and afraid to do anything else, nor the love of the mindless adherent, empty and ignorant of why they do what they do. But the love of a child, trusting yet inquisitive, determined to grow and become all that they can be. Delighting in discovery, enjoying being teased by the puzzles and riddles you set them, and spellbound by the parables and the stories you tell.
This is the love that flourishes and lasts forever - for there is an eternity of mystery to explore and you seem to delight in the processes of revelation.
You are not unknown to me God- and I too struggle with the concept of resurrection, but nonetheless. you hold me enthralled by the very opportunity to discover more! I do not yet know what knowledge is, or understand how I know what I claim to know- epistemology is as much of a riddle to me as resurrection - but I am keen to try and make the leap from reason to faith and back again as required in order to gain the greater prize of a love that I can comprehend.
So thank you God for the way in which you continue to open my mind to the potential for greater understanding - for insisting that growth in grace and holiness includes growth in knowledge and understanding.
I look forward to learning more.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
World Methodist Council seeks Youth and Young Adult Coordinator
The position of Youth and Young Adult Coordinator for the World Methodist Council involves the following priorities:
1. To provide continuity and sustenance of World Methodist Council youth and young adult programs.
2. To provide pro-active communication among World Methodist Council member church youth & young adult ministries as well as area youth & young adult networks.
4. To assist in the building of leadership among youth and young adults.
5. To facilitate and coordinate interaction among youth and young adult leaders around the world, enabling them to interact with each other.
JOB DESCRIPTION
1. To serve as the channel of coordination and communication among national and regional youth and young adult organizations belonging to the Methodist and Wesleyan tradition.
2. To act as the representative of the World Methodist Council youth and young adults in appropriate programs and activities related to the World Methodist Council in general.
3. To lead the implementation of youth and young adult programs as planned by the Council’s Youth and Young Adult Committee.
4. To initiate programmatic thrusts for youth and young adults in relation to the vision and goals of the World Methodist Council.
5. To promote and advocate World Methodist Council youth and young adult programs for purposes of financial support from various possible sources available.
6. To liaise with ecumenical and other relevant youth and young adult organizations.
7. The Youth and Young Adult Coordinator must report to the General Secretary of the World Methodist Council.
8. To serve as an ex-officio member of the World Methodist Council Youth and Young Adult Committee.
9. To perform such other functions as necessary in the attainment of the goals of the World Methodist Council and the Youth and Young Adult Committee.
REQUIREMENTS
May be up to 35 years of age at beginning of the five-year term. Active membership in a member church of the World Methodist Council for at least 5 years. Leadership experience with young people within the church on regional or national levels. Education, skills and talents appropriate for the successful performance of duties and responsibilities of the job. Preferably with the ability to communicate effectively in written and spoken English, and ability to communicate in at least one other language. Ability to travel internationally.
LOCATION
The position may be based in the country where the Coordinator chooses to live or at the World Methodist Council Headquarters in Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, assuming the following conditions are met:
o Easy access to an international airport.
o Strong communication infrastructure (reliable telephone, internet, postal service, etc.).
o Office (administrative) support from a World Methodist Council member church or regional network.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This is a part-time position for the five years of the quinquennium beginning in 2016.
SELECTION PROCESS
The World Methodist Council will widely publicize the position opening to all member churches and youth and young adult networks. Applications will be sent to Dr. George H. Freeman, General Secretary, World Methodist Council, P. O. Box 518, Lake Junaluska, NC 28745 USA, by June 15th, 2011, and presented to the Selection Committee. The Committee will review the applications and recommend the candidate to the Council for election.
Applications should include: resume or curriculum vitae, supporting letters from an active Bishop/Church President, the candidate’s pastor/minister, and youth or young adult organization (national, regional, conference).
British Candidates - you might want to talk to the Chair or Secretary of the British World Methodist Committee (Luke Curran or Anne Vautrey) or to Chris Elliott (Connexional Secretary) at Methodist Church House. Any difficulties - let me know.
This really is a GREAT opportunity to play in important role for the whole Methodist family.
1. To provide continuity and sustenance of World Methodist Council youth and young adult programs.
2. To provide pro-active communication among World Methodist Council member church youth & young adult ministries as well as area youth & young adult networks.
4. To assist in the building of leadership among youth and young adults.
5. To facilitate and coordinate interaction among youth and young adult leaders around the world, enabling them to interact with each other.
JOB DESCRIPTION
1. To serve as the channel of coordination and communication among national and regional youth and young adult organizations belonging to the Methodist and Wesleyan tradition.
2. To act as the representative of the World Methodist Council youth and young adults in appropriate programs and activities related to the World Methodist Council in general.
3. To lead the implementation of youth and young adult programs as planned by the Council’s Youth and Young Adult Committee.
4. To initiate programmatic thrusts for youth and young adults in relation to the vision and goals of the World Methodist Council.
5. To promote and advocate World Methodist Council youth and young adult programs for purposes of financial support from various possible sources available.
6. To liaise with ecumenical and other relevant youth and young adult organizations.
7. The Youth and Young Adult Coordinator must report to the General Secretary of the World Methodist Council.
8. To serve as an ex-officio member of the World Methodist Council Youth and Young Adult Committee.
9. To perform such other functions as necessary in the attainment of the goals of the World Methodist Council and the Youth and Young Adult Committee.
REQUIREMENTS
May be up to 35 years of age at beginning of the five-year term. Active membership in a member church of the World Methodist Council for at least 5 years. Leadership experience with young people within the church on regional or national levels. Education, skills and talents appropriate for the successful performance of duties and responsibilities of the job. Preferably with the ability to communicate effectively in written and spoken English, and ability to communicate in at least one other language. Ability to travel internationally.
LOCATION
The position may be based in the country where the Coordinator chooses to live or at the World Methodist Council Headquarters in Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, assuming the following conditions are met:
o Easy access to an international airport.
o Strong communication infrastructure (reliable telephone, internet, postal service, etc.).
o Office (administrative) support from a World Methodist Council member church or regional network.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This is a part-time position for the five years of the quinquennium beginning in 2016.
SELECTION PROCESS
The World Methodist Council will widely publicize the position opening to all member churches and youth and young adult networks. Applications will be sent to Dr. George H. Freeman, General Secretary, World Methodist Council, P. O. Box 518, Lake Junaluska, NC 28745 USA, by June 15th, 2011, and presented to the Selection Committee. The Committee will review the applications and recommend the candidate to the Council for election.
Applications should include: resume or curriculum vitae, supporting letters from an active Bishop/Church President, the candidate’s pastor/minister, and youth or young adult organization (national, regional, conference).
British Candidates - you might want to talk to the Chair or Secretary of the British World Methodist Committee (Luke Curran or Anne Vautrey) or to Chris Elliott (Connexional Secretary) at Methodist Church House. Any difficulties - let me know.
This really is a GREAT opportunity to play in important role for the whole Methodist family.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Ground Zero and the meaning of death.
Good morning God,
When president Obama visits Ground Zero today, he will meet with representatives of the families of the victims of the September 11th terrorist attack. In so doing, he will underline the importance of the deaths which occurred on that day to every American. Although they did not choose to die, and I doubt had any desire to become martyrs to the American way of life, nonetheless their deaths forever changed the history of world.
But what is it that makes some deaths more meaningful than others? Why, for example, are the deaths of the victims of 9/11 any more 'life-bearing', any more worthy of national and international respect and consideration, than the countless thousands who die before their time every year in America and throughout the world through want of proper health care, or through gun crime?
The names of those who die from curable diseases, from famine, flood or tornado, who also did not choose to die, are not carved in stone. They often have no memorial, no 'Ground Zero' to draw people's attention to their loss, but surely they are as much victims of providence as those who died on 9/11? Their lives were just as important to you God, and to them as those of the victims of 9/11 - but apparently they are not as important to us. Why not?
Is it simply that all the deaths from 9/11 all occurred at the same time, at the same place?
Is collective death more important than individual death?
Or is it just that it is more visible?
We have come to believe that death should be a private family affair, something that occurs at the end of a long and fruitful life. We should die surrounded by our loved ones, in no pain or distress, with a priest or a minister to hand to assist us as we transition to the life after death promised to us in the Scriptures.
Public deaths are abhorrent, terrifying and offensive to us, they force us to see our own mortality, our vulnerability. They don't allow us to excuse ourselves and look away. They teach us the truth of the saying 'there but for the grace of God go I' and how little control we actually have over whether we live, or die.
Ground Zero has become a public monument to the mortality and vulnerability of every human being. Including Osama Bin Laden! It is a reminder that no matter how charismatic, powerful or wealthy a person or a nation becomes, death can still come suddenly - like a thief in the night - and steal away the future hopes and dreams.
Through the death of Osama Bin Laden, it may be possible eventually to prevent more terrorist attacks, more public, collective deaths. The Western 'way of life' may be a little more secure. Unless of course, the real threat to it lies, as it always has, in our refusal to see, and be changed by, the thousands of silent. hidden, passed-over deaths of the poor and the hungry in our midst.
When president Obama visits Ground Zero today, he will meet with representatives of the families of the victims of the September 11th terrorist attack. In so doing, he will underline the importance of the deaths which occurred on that day to every American. Although they did not choose to die, and I doubt had any desire to become martyrs to the American way of life, nonetheless their deaths forever changed the history of world.
But what is it that makes some deaths more meaningful than others? Why, for example, are the deaths of the victims of 9/11 any more 'life-bearing', any more worthy of national and international respect and consideration, than the countless thousands who die before their time every year in America and throughout the world through want of proper health care, or through gun crime?
The names of those who die from curable diseases, from famine, flood or tornado, who also did not choose to die, are not carved in stone. They often have no memorial, no 'Ground Zero' to draw people's attention to their loss, but surely they are as much victims of providence as those who died on 9/11? Their lives were just as important to you God, and to them as those of the victims of 9/11 - but apparently they are not as important to us. Why not?
Is it simply that all the deaths from 9/11 all occurred at the same time, at the same place?
Is collective death more important than individual death?
Or is it just that it is more visible?
We have come to believe that death should be a private family affair, something that occurs at the end of a long and fruitful life. We should die surrounded by our loved ones, in no pain or distress, with a priest or a minister to hand to assist us as we transition to the life after death promised to us in the Scriptures.
Public deaths are abhorrent, terrifying and offensive to us, they force us to see our own mortality, our vulnerability. They don't allow us to excuse ourselves and look away. They teach us the truth of the saying 'there but for the grace of God go I' and how little control we actually have over whether we live, or die.
Ground Zero has become a public monument to the mortality and vulnerability of every human being. Including Osama Bin Laden! It is a reminder that no matter how charismatic, powerful or wealthy a person or a nation becomes, death can still come suddenly - like a thief in the night - and steal away the future hopes and dreams.
Through the death of Osama Bin Laden, it may be possible eventually to prevent more terrorist attacks, more public, collective deaths. The Western 'way of life' may be a little more secure. Unless of course, the real threat to it lies, as it always has, in our refusal to see, and be changed by, the thousands of silent. hidden, passed-over deaths of the poor and the hungry in our midst.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)