Supermarket hosts harvest service

I got the impression that the reporter wasn’t himself overly impressed making some sarcastic comments, and I loved the comment from the boy who said “this has never happened to me before” (in all his 6 or so years!)

+Stephen talks about the church getting out of its buildings and going to where the people are, and I think this is a brilliant way for the church to engage with the community. A few weeks ago, the Bishop commented how people perceive  the Church of England to be the supermarket equivalent of Marks and Spencer, so great to see him frequenting Asda!

This may be more down to the BBC report, but it seemed to portray a “typical” view of church with traditional hymns. Of course, you can argue that people will recognise tunes like “We Plough the Fields and Scatter”, but I’m not sure if that is really the case. Whilst the older generations might, in this post-Christendom age where a significant proportion of people are “un-churched” rather than “de-churched”, this may have reinforced people’s stereotypes of the church.

Its encouraging to see a big national chain such as Asda up for involving the church. They must think it will be commercially viable for them to do it, and not going to upset their shoppers. Just a shame the BBC weren’t a bit more up-beat!

Thoughts anyone?

In case you’ve missed the announcement, the Revision Committee (as I understand it) are suggesting that a category of “super-bishop” is created, who will have episcopal oversight for parishes that cannot accept a female diocesan, or a male bishop who is involved in the ordination of women. The main issue is that these “super-bishops” will have their authority from legislation, rather than by a female diocesan agreeing to delegate responsibility to another bishop. Essentially, this means that a female diocesan bishop will not be the recognised leader of her whole diocese. Dave Walker has given a round-up of thoughts on this news from various media and bloggers.

I can understand to a certain extent why the committee have come to this decision. Those from traditionalist/conservative backgrounds are concerned that if delegation of authority was voluntary, then the Bishop could decide not to delegate her authority, leaving conscientious objectors forced to either leave the C of E, or accept the episcopal ministry of women, creating a schism in the Church. By having the right to seek alternative episcopal oversight engrained in statute, that risk is mitigated.

This doesn’t leave a very nice taste in the mouth, and I don’t think is respectful of the women who will become bishops. It implies mistrust, and that women bishops (and male bishops who ordain women) are second-class ministers in the church who can ignore them if they wish. What will happen if a female diocesan makes decisions that are unpopular? Will churches be able to use this rule as a way of choosing which bishop’s authority they accept?

Summarising this policy in a secular context, what about those who have an objection to accepting the authority of a Conservative Prime Minister? Should David Cameron become PM next year, can they seek alternative rule from a separate Labour/Lib Dem/UKIP/Green government?

This is obviously a hot potato, and the Revision Committee and General Synod are caught between a rock and a hard place. There is no possible way of pleasing everybody. Which begs the question, is it worth it? The Church of England is built upon the foundations of scripture, reason and tradition. If trying to change tradition is going to cause so many difficulties, then why do it?

Surely it is only worth all the pain and anguish this will cause if those who are in leadership in the church believe under God that it is the right thing to do. And if they believe that to such a certain extent that it is worth pursuing, then it has to be right for everyone, without any opt-outs. Because you can’t believe God is calling the church to a particular course of action, but say that not everyone has to follow it.

If the legislation to appoint women bishops was passed without any opt-out options for objectors, of course, significant numbers of people would leave the C of E. But if that’s what the leadership of the church believe is right, then that’s the risk to take.

Nailing my colours to the mast, I don’t have any problem with the ordination of women to the priesthood or episcopate. My understanding of scripture is that there have consistently been women appointed by God to positions of leadership, from Deborah in Judges, through to Lydia and many others in the New Testament. But I don’t want this issue to divide the church. And I don’t want women to be appointed as bishops, but then have others in the church not recognise their authority. I would rather retain the status quo.

What would I do? Prepare the legislation to consecrate female bishops with no opt-outs, no concessions, and see if it passes a vote. If General Synod aren’t sufficiently confident that women should be bishops, the motion will fall. If they are, it will pass. This would mean the church has to trust those elected to General Synod, that they discern the will of God. Those that can’t accept the leadership of Synod in this situation may well go elsewhere (whatever the outcome were), but that’s a risk leaders should be willing to take if they believe strongly in something.

Photo by Scott Gunn

Of course, what +Stephen is actually talking about is not where Christians should do their shopping, but encouraging people to “come as they are” to church – the theme of this year’s Back to Church Sunday initiative – and shed the image of the church as home of the middle classes.

Is it really that easy?

Firstly, BTCS as I understand it, is about individuals inviting people who have drifted away from church to come back. That means it relies on personal contact where there is already a friendship and degree of trust, and that the invitees will have some understanding and awareness of a church, so its not a concept that is completely alien to them. This is completely different to going out onto the streets and asking random strangers if they would like to sit in a pew on a Sunday morning (as the Guardian journalist seems to have done).

Secondly, individuals can try to put their preconceived ideas about the church behind them, but are they actually misconceptions? I”m sure many churches will put on a fantastic “show” this Sunday, and have enthusiastic welcome teams etc. What happens a week later when churches revert back to type, not necessarily because they don’t want to welcome newcomers/returners, but because the effort involved isn’t sustainable on a regular basis.

And do churches really want people to come as they are? The homeless guy who hasn’t had a decent wash for a few weeks? The alcoholic who’s downed a couple of bottles of White Lighting by 10 o’clock on Sunday morning? The prostitute who walks past the church in the morning having been “working” all night? The transvestite that the kids all snigger at? The gay couple living round the corner? The local youths that kick their footballs against the windows and graffiti on the church wall? The list could go on and on…Are we prepared to welcome people as they are into the church? Not just put programmes and courses on for them, or see them as the next counselling project, but truly welcome them into the church family as individuals made in the image of God for whom Jesus sacrificed His life?

No, I’m not either.

And as difficult as that is to admit, I think we need to be honest about it. Its easy to say “come as you are” if you’re like us, if you’re friends with us. It gets much, much harder when people are different and unknown.

I think +Stephen is right. The Church does come across as middle-class. But its going to take more than one Bishop, and more than one Sunday to change perceptions.

Image by LauraMary

We took the usual format of café, worship, talk, discussion, and prayer stations. I spoke on Matthew 2:1-12, focussing on how the Magi recognised, obeyed and worshipped God.

I found the preparation this month really difficult. I probably left writing the talk to the last minute, but also was stressing duringthe afternon over getting the church set up, as well as trying to sort out various techie stuff like video clips that weren’t working and created more problems than they were worth!

Having just finished the Ministry & Mission assignment on principles of ministry in the New Testament, this has consolidated a lot of the learning! I can see why Peter needed to appoint other people to help with the ministry (Acts 7) and what that says  about ministry not being able to done alone.

Now the protestant in me completely agrees with Rev Ewen Souter, and I have to admit to being a little surprised to discover that the church in question is Roman Catholic.

What I find more interesting amusing is the comment from the un-named worshipper:

“Pulling it down and putting up something that would look more at home on the side of a flashy modern shopping centre is not the way to get more bums on seats.

Next they’ll be ripping out the pews and putting sofas in their place, or throwing out all the Bibles and replacing them with laptops. It’s just not right.”

I know of a number of churches that have thrown out the pews, some (such as St Paul’s Onslow Square) have even dared to put in a few sofas! At Pip n Jim’s, we don’t have pew Bibles, but we do have a laptop which projects the Bible readings onto the overhead screens.

Why is this not right?

I do agree with Mr or Mrs Anonymous on one thing – whatever churches do cannot be simply about getting “bums on seats”.

But

The church is called to proclaim the faith afresh in each generation. Of course its important that the message doesn’t change or get diluted, but the media must be relevant to the culture of the day if the church is going to get the Gospel heard.

Whether that means a change in how churches use imagery, making use of technology in worship, or making the atmosphere of church buildings more welcoming and friendly, the most important thing is people get to hear the Gospel. If the church is seen to be to distant from society, people won’t want to hear the message we’ve got to share.

Update:

It appears the media (and I) confused two different churches by same name in Horsham: St John the Evangelist RC Church, and St John’s Broadbridge Heath, an evangelical Anglican church. The church in question is the latter.

TO THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF THE DIOCESE OF ROCHESTER

Statement on the crisis in Israel/Palestine by the Bishop of Tonbridge

A few short weeks ago I visited the Holy Land with a group from the Diocese of Rochester. We were there to meet individuals and organisations working for peace and reconciliation in that place, including Bishop Suheil Dawani, the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem.

Last week, on Christmas Eve, the Bishop preached in the Church of the Holy Nativity in Bethlehem. The world waits in eager expectation for people of goodwill, courage and vision to set aside personal agendas, to encourage a change of heart, to empower all people of faith to tear down the walls of cruelty, fear and hatred, he said, in the presence of the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayaad. He continued, We cannot diminish or escape from the challenges before us which are very real and confront our people. Peace, a just durable peace, is rooted in the reconciling love of God for all the people of this land.

In Gaza, just two days after the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, the people there were subjected to heavy bombardment by Israeli armed forces. As I write, the military action continues. The roots of the conflict in the Holy Land are deep and complex and while recognising the suffering of all parties involved, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are paying a particularly high price. The immediate cause of the present crisis is that, for many months, rockets fired from Gaza have brought terror and disruption to the lives of many living in Israel. This is unacceptable. Similarly, the reaction against Gaza, which has claimed many innocent lives and injured many hundreds of others, is disproportionate and equally unacceptable.

I am reminded of an African saying that when the elephants fight, it is the grass which gets trampled and this has been the case in the present crisis. As well as killing and injuring many innocent civilians in Gaza, the most heavily populated area in the world, it has also seen a number of innocent civilians killed and injured in Israel.

At this time of Christmas and Epiphany, Christians throughout the world are looking to the Holy Land in a spirit of joy and thanksgiving for the events of 2000 years ago: the realities unfolding today are anything but a cause for joy and thanksgiving. Commentators reflect that the seriousness of the situation should not be underestimated. As Christians we should pray both urgently and fervently.

May I ask, then, for you to pray that the spirit of peace and justice may influence those who make decisions about war and peace in the Holy Land. I also encourage you to pray for the casualties of war and for those who grieve for loved ones, as well as for those working hard to bring humanitarian and medical aid to those suffering in the war zone. Will you remember especially the Al Ahli Hospital in Gaza City, an Anglican hospital which has been serving the people of the area for over a century, as it struggles to bring healing and peace to all who come to its doors. Finally, do pray for all those in the Holy Land working for peace and reconciliation, that they may have the strength to continue their work in the middle of such daunting challenges.

May there be an immediate cease-fire so that the voices and actions of people of goodwill, courage and vision prevail.

+Brian Tonbridge
1 January 2009

Ruth Gledhill gives some interesting thoughts as to what these “complimentary” bishops may be called, while as may well be expected, Dave Walker has produced a cartoon in honour of the occasion.

Personally, I don’t have a problem, theological or otherwise, with the idea of women bishops.

But

I don’t want to see this issue divide the Church.

I’m certain that there will never be total agreement on this, but I think the church has survived so far without consecrating women to the episcopate so why rush it through now?

Part of the role of the episcopate is to promote unity both within and outside the church so I have some concerns about how the proposals will work. How will a female diocesan be able to exercise her pastoral responsibilities in her diocese if there are some in her patch who refuse to recognise her authority? What about at diocesan synod? Will parishes seeking alternative oversight want a seperate synod? What about parish share? How will parishes feel about contributing funds to a diocese they are effectively not in communion with?

Lots of questions, and I’m sure there will be many more.

This has made me quite conscious of how we pitch our public worship:

• How much of it should be geared towards newcomers?
• At what point do people become able to make the transition from seeker services/alpha etc and fully understand & engage in worship, particularly “wordy” liturgy?
• Can church services ever be culturally relevant & accessible to everyone?

Using café church as an example, it is a bit easier because there’s no formal liturgy, but the whole concept of sitting round a table and discussing things with people isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. Some people do like to come into a church building to meet with God and focus on Him without distractions from other people

So while café church may be a good way of making church accessible to some, the very same format is likely to alienate another group of people. In that case, what is a fresh expression of church? It may well be that in some churches/areas/cultures, a BCP Evensong could be something fresh that would make church more accessible to some. To use ++Rowan’s catchphrase, we need the mixed economy!

Man of Depravity suggests that this will become the fastest growing church in America.

I’ve heard Louie speak many times, and think both he & Chris are extremely anointed individuals. I’m sure that they’ve really spent time praying about this, and that God has put this call on them.

I do think this raises the question of “Celebrities” leading churches though. Will this become the fastest growing church because God will use it to bring about revival and lots of people will come to faith, or will it be because lots of people in other churches want to be at Chris & Louie’s church, and leave their current place of worship? Does it matter?

Church consumerism or “Church Hopping” seems to be on the increase, where people are constantly looking to get the best “service” they can. If the music/worship/teaching/ etc isn’t suiting them, they look for somewhere else. If a well known Christian celebrity comes to town, then that’s obviously the place to be!

Of course, in one sense, we are the one catholic and apostolic church, so where we actually worship probably doesn’t matter a huge amount as long as we’re in a place where we can worship God and grow in our relationship with Him, but some questions I have:

• What about the smaller, less famous churches who lose people to be at the next big thing? Do mega-churches with popular pastors/worship leaders find smaller churches are jealous at their perceived success, making unity difficult?
• Are mega-churches always successful?
• How difficult is it for leaders like Chris & Louie to keep focussed on Christ when they are seen as the celebrities?

I’ll post again when I’ve thought about those questions a bit more!