Learning Things Too Late

I should have known that. People who are genuinely honest with themselves will say this more often than they put up a fight to defend their ignorance. It is an attitude that takes joy in discovery. I commend it. Here are two things I learned too late in my ministerial career.

Hearing Lady Hale on Desert Island Discs reminded me of her most splendid piece of teaching. In dealing with the massive matter of whether it had been against the law to prorogue Parliament she read a verdict which broke this complexity down to four simple questions:

1. Is this a matter on which we are able to rule?

2. What is the relevant law?

3. Has it been broken?

4. What should be the remedy.

For the last few years I have adapted and applied this to almost every meeting I have been responsible for when setting an agenda and leading a discussion to a conclusion:

1. Is this anything to do with us?

2. What are the parameters of our discussion?

3. What do we need to put right or improve?

4. What needs to happen now?

The second is like, namely this. I met a wise old priest who taught me to avoid the self-importance that comes with assuming that when someone shares something with you it is down to you, and you alone, to deal with it.

Given that pastoral problems normally lead to talking he used to reply, when confronted with such, by saying something along the lines of, 'That must be really difficult for you. Do you have someone you can talk to about it?' On many occasions the answer turned out to be 'yes' at which point he would pray for the relationship and commend it with thanks.

In effect he was praising the sharer for the good judgement they had made so far. This also sorted out the folk only he could help.

I tried it a few times. It worked and was well received.

Anonymity

What started me thinking was this. An anonymous blogger and Twitter/X poster known as The Church Mouse (@thechurchmouse ) posted a thread about the process to elect a new Bishop of Coventry. Using publicly available documents he (we know Mouse is male but that's all) suggested that one parish had been less than clear in getting two people with similar divisive views (vicar and PCC member) onto the 14 member Vacancy in See Committee.

A friend replied 'Oh the irony ... an anonymous mouse complaining people aren't being open and transparent.'

I felt a bit busted. Then cross. Then thoughtful.

There is a strong tradition of anonymity in public writing. The commenter and I are both Christians and have given our lives to public ministry based on a book that is less than clear about its sources and authorship in many cases.

Newspaper leader writers do not give their names to their pieces. It is not that they are a secret but that the view in a leader is that of the paper not the person.

I read along piece about the history of anonymity in early 20th century writing:

Anon is Not Dead: Towards a History of Anonymous Authorship in Early-Twentieth-Century Britain

Reasons for choosing anonymity included those we have discussed as well as a desire to avoid fame and a lack of need for remuneration. It emphasises the long history of anonymity and pseudonymity.

There was a tradition of the preface to Crockford's Clerical Directory being written anonymously but in 1987 a furore arose over that year's long essay. John Habgood, then Archbishop of York, took very public umbrage to the piece and, unusually, this led to a media frenzy to discover who had written it. Afraid of being discovered the author, Gareth Bennet, took his own life. Coincidentally, one of the matters of which he was critical was the working of the Crown Appointments Commission.

Recently The Secret Barrister and The Secret Footballer, to name but two, have been able to give inside information on their professions whilst staying anonymous.

On the one hand this allows them to be kept safe. Or keep their jobs. On the other it looks like they are hiding something.

In my years in ministry I never allowed an anonymous letter to change my mind or views, but I did dwell on and review the things they wrote about when I received them.

There is an easy, lazy response available in rhetoric, often used in courts where juries don't understand the methodology and also in political debate. It goes like this:

Court
Barrister: You are an expert?
Expert: I have these qualifications...
Barrister: Wasn't your opinion found wanting in the case of...
Expert: I have been used on many occasions and found helpful
Barrister: Answer yes or no please...

The idea of the expert being wrong has been put in the jury's head with the expert seeming reluctant to admit it.


Politics
Candidate 1: As Winston Churchill so rightly said...
Candidate 2: I don't think you are in the same league as Winston Churchill

It doesn't matter what the quote is. The idea of the candidate comparing themselves as an equal to a great and respected orator has been put in the audience's head.

So I have a problem with arguing with the anonymity but not the substance. It feels a bit like a gnat has been strained and a camel swallowed. On the other hand we have to trust Mouse when he says 'I’m not standing for election and making important decisions...' without evidence, apart from ten years plus of his, relatively consistent, views.

There's the rub. A one off anonymous tweet is hard to assess. Axes are probably being ground. But a long-running, obviously informed anonymous commentator seeking clarity. I get that. If you want to ignore everything Mouse says because you think he's a coward or hypocrite that is your prerogative. But I don't think it's wise.

It is hard not to engage with press interest in a leaked document even if you think it shouldn't have been leaked. Mouse is not a whistle-blower although he has singled out an individual from a position of anonymity (I've chosen not to because the individual is a friend, albeit one I have often disagreed with).

There is a long and glorious history of anonymous writing in this country. Long may it continue.

Nobody expects...

Try to remember to expect the unexpected. I recall this, learned thoroughly in about 1991 or so. At St Mary and St Cuthbert, Chester-le-Street (quite a mouthful) there was a 6.30 Tuesday evening simple communion service. It attracted between 5 and 10 people, for most of whom it was the only service of the week. When it was my turn to cover the format was straightforward. We offered a 5 minute thought-for-the-day type sermon, based on one of the readings, often the Gospel. I confess that it didn't take a huge amount of preparation. At that stage in my ministry I was speaking on about 150 occasions a year and had become confident in my ability to assemble a coherent short talk at no notice.

This went well until six members of the Church of England's Liturgical Commission, meeting nearby for a working residential, pitched up unannounced. We used the readings from the previous weekend which had been Trinity Sunday. I think they might have heard better sermons on that subject over the years. They may well also have been presided over by someone more familiar with the seasonal alternatives. Maybe someone who cared.

I have tried to prepare for the unexpected ever since but must confess a wee bit of complacency might have sneaked in since retirement.

Last time I presided at Abbots Morton I had three in the congregation plus me. Humans that is. And two dogs so it was an eight all draw in legs. I was not expecting revival at Easter 2. Then, last Saturday night I received a message from the Rector:

'I am delighted to say that I have recruited two excellent readers for you...

'One is D who teaches people to do public speaking and the other is C who is a retired BBC Midlands Today journalist.'

Well that raised the stakes. I didn't cheat and over-prepare just because of the guests and I am confident in my delivery these days.

I had seven and one dog, which is pretty damn close to revival round these parts. Feedback was good. Both readings were done very well. The dog tried to bite me.

Welcome News

Good morning and welcome to St Whatsits on this beautiful spring/summer/autumn/winter morning.

Good morning and welcome to St Whatsits. It's a (dull/wet/miserable/god-forsaken) day out there but we have a warmth of fellowship in here.

Heard those? I have a bit of trouble with the gushy sentimental opening line of a church service - well intentioned I'm sure - which suggests it is wonderful to worship the Lord on a day when the sunshine lifts our spirits or that the worship is an antidote to gut-sapping weather.

My problem? My spirit is not particularly bound to meteorology. Granted this England has provided consecutive weeks of summer greyness, which is the teensiest bit depressing although mainly because I like shorts and T-shirts. Other times I am longing for rain after weeks of drought and the 'beautiful summer morning' line feels insensitive. And when I have hay-fever I want the weather outside to be frightful and the fire so delightful and I don't care who disagrees.

So many more things than weather come into a church service with me and affect my capacity to worship. I'm a big fan of 'Good morning and welcome to St Whatsits' followed by a singable hymn/song and a few minutes for the liturgy to do its work. Then I might be able to get in touch with how I actually feel, regardless of the rain and its sweet memories.

And I don't know where you put the notices either.

Morning

One of the changes I made in my last two parish posts was very subtle, and I doubt if it was noticed or has lasted. It was certainly never commented upon. They were both places where, on arrival, I learned that the habit of the service leader on a Sunday was to say 'Good morning everyone' and then wait for a reply. 

Now, there is a way of making it clear, although you need some timing skills, that you expect a reply. If you don't have those skills the response will be a bit hit and miss and you will not be sure if the congregation is with you. At this point comedy value can be extracted by doing the pantomime thing of saying 'There's nobody here. I'd better try again.' Any children in the congregation will now shout back, at minimum.

For an example of expecting a reply when you have no communication skills try the Liz Truss cheese speech (I found it by googling that word string, so popular it has become).

So I always begin services with:

'Good morning and welcome to <name> church. If you are a visitor, newcomer or just passing though it is great to have you with us.' No reply required.

I thought of this because I now attend a church where each of the first three people to stand up front tends to say good morning, although few are looking for a reply when they do it. The service leader says good morning and welcomes the notice-giver who says good morning who quite often then introduces a second notice-giver who then says good morning and it is not unknown for further good mornings to be issued by the lesson reader and the preacher. One service leader also regularly includes some weather-based commentary and yesterday some how-to-behave-in-the sun advice. Amazingly it is not a place where people are often late yet we usually don't start the service within ten minutes of the advertised start time. At my last parish 25% of the congregation arrived after the welcome.

The thing I love most of all is that I am now retired and this is not my problem and does not annoy me. It's a local church full of local people being normal. What's not to like? Good morning.

Get the Reference

I am reading The Cut by Chris Brookmyre. He used to write very dark crime dramas bordering on science fiction, full of contemporary social commentary and black, black humour, as Christopher. Now, as Chris, it is all a little more tempered and very plot-driven. Often who-dunnits or what-have-they-duns.

A few books back he dedicated one to Billy Franks. I discovered we shared a love of Billy's (RIP) 1980s' band The Faith Brothers. At the beginning of The Cut there is an unacknowledged quote from a Faith Brothers song. I got it. I got the reference. Throughout the novel the two protagonists joust with movie references. Not being such a movie buff I missed a lot. But I felt I had been invited deeper into the book's world than others, for which I was grateful.

In my final appointment in ordained ministry one of my tasks was to be Vicar of Trendlewood Church in Nailsea. Its birthday was Palm Sunday 1989 and so yesterday it was 32. Many churches have saintly dedications, some stranger than others. I enjoyed St Leodegarius (Basford, Nottingham) the most, until I met St Quiricus and St Julietta in Tickenham. Who they? I know now. You can google them too.

More common church dedications are to All Saints, Holy Trinity or Christ Church. There's one of each of those within a mile of my house. Really. I guess Trendlewood would have to call itself the Church of the Triumphal Entry. Unlikely.

Yesterday there was a procession between the two churches of the soon-to-be Harbourside Benefice of Bristol we have been attending since I retired. We walked from HTH (Holy Trinity, Hotwells) to St Stephen's, Bristol, pausing to pray at the boundary between the two parishes which made us late. I enjoyed not being responsible for the lateness whilst failing to avoid noting the things which had caused it. Old habits.

The thing that made me ponder was that we were invited to give palm crosses to any who asked us what was going on. I reckoned that a palm cross was a visual aid, of course, but the answer was considerably longer and wrapped in Christian heritage and tradition, missing donkeys, Pastoral Measures and Scripture. And that's the thing. You needed to get the many references.

The telling of the Palm Sunday triumphal entry into Jerusalem by Jesus in the Gospels (it's in all four of them) is littered with references. If you saw a man entering on a donkey you may not have known this was referencing Zechariah 9:9. You may not have recognised the shouts of praise were from Psalm 118. You might have known that crowds were encouraged to line the street when Roman dignitaries came to town but that, thus-forced, they often remained completely silent or even turned their backs. The comment that, if silenced, the stones would cry out references this. The extended metaphor of Jesus on his ass was not for all.

I have always subscribed to the school of Christianity that is a little timid about worshipping on the street corners and would rather Christians referenced acting justly and loving mercy as interest-gathering activities. Look how the Maundy Money thing has become about the Queen not about the poor.

There isn't long enough to explain how we got to processions, parish boundaries and palm crosses in the time it takes for one person to walk past another. You have to hope that interest is piqued and eyes are opened. But what a joy it is to discover you are deeper inside a fabulously mysterious story than others because the author has posted a riddle of an invite and you got it.

Welcome to Holy Week my friends.

Take your shoes and socks off; it's right around the corner.

Expressions and Sell-by Dates

There is a certain wing of the evangelical church which has only one cause for praising a speaker. Were they clear? Clarity is all. Obfuscation is frowned upon. Even metaphor is treated as suspect.

At a training day on Fresh Expressions recently (it's a church thing) we spent the first few minutes, almost inevitably, discussing what the expression Fresh Expressions expressed. Forgetting my long held view to never be part of a group that didn't know what it was doing there, I joined in.

And almost equally inevitably, somewhere along the line, we decided that it depended what words followed the expression. Fresh Expressions of what? Christianity? Ministry? Church?

A few weeks prior to that I had been involved in a discussion about various old election mantras from the major parties. We got on to the 'Big Society' thing that Cameron's Conservatives invited us to be part of. One of the advantages of  an appeal to the county summarised by an apparently meaningless expression is that it generates discussion.

I probably had more conversations about Big Society around that time than I would have done if its meaning had been clear. Was that genius or luck? Probably genius. Cameron was in advertising.

A few weeks after I arrived in this diocese (Bath and Wells) I found myself in a room discussing a little soundbite of a previous bishop - thinking different. Quite a few of the clergy were up in pedantic arms because they thought it should say - thinking differently. Pleased with themselves a few smug titters moved round the room. I was trying not to say anything because I was the new kid but I cracked. 'You only want it to be an adverb' I said because you think 'thinking' is a verb.

There was tumbleweed I swear. No-one understood me so I had another go. 'It's about missing words' I said. If the missing words are 'Are you...' then you need an adverb. If the missing words are 'Is your...' then you need an adjective.

I do myself no favours by putting things in a convoluted way but, in my defence, I really enjoy doing it.

There is a place for pith. But sometimes the absence of it is more effective. A lack of clarity is not always undesirable. May I do my punchline please? Thank you. I've been taking the pith for years.

A Brief History of Orders

I often get asked about the difference between various levels of orders and types of clergy. Here's a go at an answer that won't help much:

First there are are curates who come here to train

So they don't make the same mistakes over again
Stay for the long haul through fire and rain
Embrace the diaconate; try to stay sane

Pioneer ministers - new on the block
Out on the edges and far from the flock
Their lack of traditionalism can be a shock
But give it a few years before we take stock

Associate Vicars are semi-detached
They're like normal clergy with more jobs attached
Missional policies all newly hatched
Youthwork and priesthood and culture all matched

Who'd cure souls if there wasn't a vicar
Listen with patience then make us go quicker
Move us to healthiness when we are sicker
And manage to do this without too much liquor

Rector or vicar - you may find a tension
In fact they're the same but a different dimension
Subtle distinctions not worthy of mention
It makes little difference to the size of the pension 

Ridiculous is the next stop from sublime
An Area Dean at the heart of my rhyme
The powerless in middle management time
Installing potential and sniffing out crime

Sub-deacons, precentors, some canons and more
Lead worship more formal (they mainly do awe)
Processions and vestments and knowing the law
You want charismatic, they'll show you the door

The next, ex cathedra, will rarely be seen
At home in the structures; liturgically keen
Magnificent, masterful, moody and mean
You pay to get out if you chat with the Dean

If you're an archdeacon the pleasures are fleeting
You get to enjoy on the way to a meeting
Remember the name of the one you are greeting
And never look bored at the mention of heating

Who'd be a bishop you need to be strong
The pay is depressing the days are so long
You only get noticed when things have gone wrong
Lamenting more tempting than cheerful song

Assistant and suffragan ones are the crew
They do all the jobs that the Lordly won't do
While other diocesans, forming a queue
Head up committees, enquiries anew

In charge of a province archbishops are found
Inspiring, accomplished, respectful and sound
Head in the heavens and feet on the ground
Episcopally governed, synodically* bound

If the least will be most and the most will be least

Then the line might go backwards to enter the feast

To the sick and the sad, the perverse, the deceased 

Well after the first year we're all 'just a priest'


(*for 'synodically' the spell-checker suggests 'spasmodically')

St Perran's Day 2020

Thought for the Day

As delivered at BBC Radio Bristol this morning. Someone had decided to include 'Area Dean of Portishead' as part of my biography and introduction. Journalists eh? They find stuff out. To which presenter Emma added 'King of Portishead' later, which I'm not sure is quite in keeping with the Church of England's desired humility from its ministers so let's move on:

I was listening to some pastors from the States. The conversation turned to church-growth.

I have a vested interest in this question. I am trying to grow a church but am doing it without having a building. In addition to Trendlewood Church I now have some responsibility for a second one that doesn't have a building - it's a congregation that meets in the parish of St Andrew's, Backwell once a month, so we've christened it 'Andy's'. Both Trendlewood and Andy's meet in schools.

My American buddies explained that when their churches got too big for the buildings they started in they bought some land on the edge of town and built a new one. Everything's bigger in the States. There's room.

Not so easy here, as any conversation about a new piece of infrastructure will tell you. In a country where loads of people have nowhere to sleep a stadium is hosting a sleep-out, whilst planning an Arena which will welcome 4000 people eventually.

We forget that every church in this country, yes every single one, was once planted. The Christian faith was fundamentally nomadic. 'Foxes have holes and birds have nests but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head' said Jesus once. But, someone remarked at a preachers group I was at on Monday evening, even the stories Jesus told were about land ownership, gates and wells. We settle down. We get cozy.

The Christian faith has got a bit comfy in its buildings, although that might be the worst choice of word I've ever made for some of the pews I've experienced.

But don't we all find it hard to walk away from what we have set in stone and start something new.

Thought for the Day

As delivered just now at BBC Radio Bristol's Breakfast with Emma Britton:

Friend used to work for a bank. He was paid to anticipate the future. He looked at political, social and international trends and the value of investments. When we first met he was taking a five to ten year look at a relatively stable market. Then the crash of 2007 happened. We had a little joke:

'When's the future John?'

'About half past three.'

John's retired now. I bet today he'd have trouble predicting the future more than thirty minutes ahead. I had three goes yesterday evening at a thought based on a General Election and democracy - things moved on so quickly I had no idea how to get it to be relevant for this morning.

We're also having trouble with the past. In a city built, to some extent, on the profits of slavery we're trying to work out how to own that with appropriate repentance. Plus, we were trying to build at a bus depot when we found a bomb from 78 years ago.

We may have finished with the past, but the past's not done with us.

Tomorrow many churches will be open for those who find the current political uncertainty worrying and need a place of quiet space. Perhaps prayer. If your attitude to an election is depression and your uncertainty about the future is draining why not set aside time to find something deeper? Maybe find a truth from the past, for now and to take into the future.

You might ponder the beginning, where the Bible speaks of deep truth that was there at the start; the middle where it is revealed in the man Jesus and the end where every tear will be wiped from our eyes. Bigger than Brexit. You betcha.

Training Exercise on Pursuing a Vision

Here's a little exercise I used yesterday, an amalgam of several other games. The bigger the group the better it works:

1. Invite people, alone and quietly, to think of one favourite food they would order if going out for a one course meal.

2. Invite them to think of a couple more things (second favourite, third favourite).

3. Tell people that the aim of the game is for the whole party to go out for a meal and order the same thing. Do not repeat this, ever. Now invite them to find a partner. The two of you have to go out for a meal and order the same thing. What will you order?

4. Twos get into fours and agree.

5. Fours get into eights.

6. Continue for as long as it is fun.

When it becomes obvious that the room has polarised into non-negotiating groups, sit everyone back again, especially the group of sixteen who, with their backs to the wall, are shouting lasagna at the rest of the room in a football chant (yesterday's experience). Take a calming moment or two, then the best bit of this is the debrief. Questions to discuss:

A) At one point did you stop looking for compromise and become intransigent?

B) How can an organisation pursue its vision unless everyone buys in?

C) How do you avoid a 'lowest common denominator' vision where you all go out for gluten-free, non-dairy cheese sandwiches or suchlike?

D) Who can remember the aim of the game?

Feel free to select and adapt as you wish. If any user finds a room that can come to agreement treat them like gold and praise them as such

Why I am an Anglican

We have been preaching a few one-off sermons over the summer on matters that are close to the preacher's heart but never come up otherwise. On Sunday I spoke on Why I am an Anglican. It contained some fairly un-nuanced church history and not enough detail but I thought turning it into an essay might be useful so here goes.

Personal Background
I have been a member of the Church of England all my life, although for the first sixteen years I didn't acknowledge it.

My parents were married in a C of E Church. I was baptised in a C of E Church. I attended a C of E Church as a child with my family occasionally but it was dull and frightening (an ingenious combination). I was converted by the ministry of a C of E youth group leader and a C of E leaflet deliverer and the houseparties run by a C of E parachurch mission agency for whom I eventually worked for ten years.

After marriage in a C of E church Liz and I spent six weeks at a Baptist Church. Truth be told it wasn't, at that time, the theology that turned us back but the emotional reaction that it simply felt wrong. Like wearing your watch on the other wrist or sleeping on the other side of a double bed.

So we stuck with our local parish church where we served and from where I heard the first tentative voice of a call to the ministry which has taken us since then to a C of E training college and then four different C of E churches. I think I am an addict now.

I am therefore emotionally an Anglican.

The emotion of gratitude for what the denomination has done for me.

The emotion of contentment that, looking back, I can see what I was doing in each place and why.

History
In Isaiah 49 the prophet hears that it is too small a thing for the words of the prophet to only be local. Despite the prophet feeling disappointed and exhausted his words are for ends of the earth. My home town now was the ends of the earth to them then, six centuries BCE. Low-lying as it is, it may not even have been earth.

Jesus was a Jew; the first Christians were Jews; the first churches in synagogues. Then they moved out.

The first division was between east and west, Roman and orthodox, around the fifth century over doctrine, as the creeds we still say were being formed.

The gospel came to this country seriously around this time. The first preachers had been Roman traders, including the stories of Jesus with other pagan stories. Augustine was sent by Rome and preached the whole gospel in the late sixth century CE.

Viking invaders wanted nothing to do with it and ransacked Christian communities but the Normans embraced it and energised a massive breadth of church-building.

A Jesus-centred Reformation across Europe in the fifteenth century may not have reached the British Isles but coincided with an awkward matrimonial tiff Henry VIII had. Since the Pope would not allow him to divorce a wife he chose to divorce the Pope instead.

The Church of England became established and Bishops eventually took seats in the House of Lords. The introduction of the 1662 Prayer Book meant that wherever you went in the country if you entered a C of E church on a Sunday or for a wedding, baptism or funeral you would recognise the liturgy, and it would be in your language of English, not Latin. And residence was eventually assumed to confer membership. Live in the parish and vote for the Church Wardens. Live in the parish and be baptised, married or buried in your local church - the only small print in the Prayer Book is that baptism can be delayed a short while for a period of instruction. Also in the Prayer Book is the idea that anyone can take communion. It simply makes the assumption that you will be confirmed or 'desirous of confirmation'. There is no time scale stated for that. You should not be a notorious or evil liver.

Reformation and establishment led to a huge persecution of those Catholics who did not want to be reformed, dissolution of the monasteries, whitewashing ornate church wall paintings and appalling violence to those who continued to pay allegiance to Rome.

The Catholic movement went two ways. There was a gradual toleration of Roman Catholic and indeed other faiths after the Civil War and the re-development in the nineteenth century of an Anglo-catholic element within Anglicanism.

Which is roughly where we are now with the exception of the development of new denominations around the preaching of the Wesleys (Methodism), an insistence on individual conversion and profession of faith at an adult age (Baptist) and various others.

One person once remarked to me that when two Christian organisations merge a third is formed.

In the middle of the twentieth century Archbishop William Temple re-imagined the desire to be a church that served the whole country. The parish system had been developed and refined by then but the nature of the broad-church C of E was that very different theologies could reside next to each other. Temple said he had a vision of 'The Gospel to every man's door with a single eye to the glory of God.'

Canterbury is now the head of the C of E and the headquarters of the word-wide Anglican Communion although holding this together is problematic without an agreed understanding of the ministry of women and sexual ethics.

But I am therefore historically an Anglican.

Apologetic
I am reformed. I look to Canterbury not Rome for leadership but do not see the Pope as the enemy.

I love the idea that every blade of grass in this country is some parish's pastoral responsibility and every person's door is some church's responsibility to provide spiritual resources, even if it only starts with a simple cake (my church gives cakes to newcomers in the locality).

But I am catholic (as in 'worldwide') which means, since the C of E broadened, that all C of E churches share a responsibility even though the service you experience may not be the same in every building any more. But the flip-side to that, with the ease of modern transportation, is that if you don't like what's on offer in your C of E church you can travel to another one. All we ask is that you share our mission to the geographical boundary for which we have responsibility here - Trendlewood. And as you know, it is my passion to make it possible for there to be an expression of church nearer your home and with Andy's (meeting today) we are well on the way to achieving that for our Backwell members.

And I love the formal structure (not the pageantry though) that we are episcopally led and the legal structure that we are synodically governed. Our church council can introduce a motion to Deanery Synod which can discuss it, pass it and take it to Diocesan Synod which can do likewise to General Synod and we can, theoretically, change the rules of the whole church from Trendlewood if we can make the case strongly enough.

And the structure that, within a diocese, we try to organise the finances such that those best able to finance ministry serve those in more deprived areas. Even before I was Area Dean and Trendlewood was independent I said, regularly, that we should pay our Parish Share with gratitude for the ministry it makes possible. It is more money that goes where we can't go and reaches those we can't reach. 100 years ago clergy in wealthy parishes were paid more than clergy in poor areas. This has changed.

But also theologically, I know of no way to treat someone as a Christian other than to baptise them. It is how the Acts of the Apostles describes conversion. Whole households are baptised.

That means we need another sign of profession of faith at maturity and that is where confirmation comes in. A statement of personal faith for those baptised as infants, and all baptised in other denominations. And a prayer to receive all the gifts necessary, from the laid-on hands of a bishop, to be a member of this broad church.

John Stott said once that if asked to describe his faith he would say he was first; a Christian. Secondly an evangelical Christian (one who believes that God has done everything necessary for salvation in Christ and that the Bible contains all we need to know of these things necessary for salvation and to live as a Christian). Thirdly he was an Anglican evangelical Christian. He would place the adjectives in that order.

I am an Anglican not just because it is the most convenient ship to fish from but because my service has its place here and, if all the other denominations disappeared tomorrow, not a single house or field in Nailsea, Somerset or England would become unprayed for.

So I am therefore missionally an Anglican as well as historically and emotionally.

Conclusion
I don't just think that the Church of England is a nice part of a Church of God which could manage without us. I think it is the rock which enables the other churches to exist. It is the voice of the church in this country. It has the legal responsibility to spread and share the faith. It is a body of many parts.

Whereas once my membership was tentative and awkward, today it is as close to passionate as I get. We (yes we) should not need to ever form or join another church. For we have all the gifts and power we need to change this one.

Although you may know the expression, that if you ever find a perfect church don't join it. You'll only spoil it. Is the church full of hypocrites? Yes. One more won't make any difference.

Missionally I agree with it
Historically I understand it
Emotionally I love it

Thought for the Day

As delivered at BBC Radio Bristol this morning. Someone had broken all of a Bristol pub's windows with a hammer, for the second time. And reporter James Hanson had been learning to ice Bake Off standard cupcakes. I had one. It was lovely.

Over the summer at my church we've been looking at a strange list of characteristics. St Peter suggests in a letter that Christians should add to their faith these six things:

'Goodness, Knowledge, Self-control, Perseverance, Godliness and Mutual Affection.'

It feels a slightly odd command, since 'by faith alone' is a central tenet of Christianity. You can't add anything to what Jesus has done for you. You can't make yourself more saved.

But working through the list we have come to the conclusion that there are things that would make us a better example to others.

Which bake-off contender hasn't found that it took perseverance to learn their piping skills? How much self-control do you need not to be angry with someone who constantly breaks your windows?

But, without victim-blaming, we have found that each of the qualities adds something to our character. Goodness? Well it's better to be good than bad. Knowledge? Surely growing in our understanding of the world is helpful. Likewise self control trumps lashing out. Perseverance giving up, godliness devilry and mutual affection is an advance on hating everyone.

Next Sunday I'm going to ask the congregation to decide which is their weak spot and we'll pray for each other to do better.

Now clearly window smashers should get a life rather than wasting other people's. Do something useful with their hands and their hammers.

Lock em up or educate them? Perhaps we'll leave that one to the politicians, once they have a moment.

But what about you? Which is your weak spot? And, here's your homework, do you want to improve?

39 Articles - A Summary

THIS Book of Articles before rehearsed, is again approved, and allowed to be holden and executed within the Realm, by the assent and consent of our Sovereign Lady ELIZABETH, by the grace of God, of England, France, and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, &c. Which Articles were deliberately read, and confirmed again by the subscription of the hands of the Archbishop and Bishops of the Upper-house, and by the subscription of the whole Clergy of the Nether-house in their Convocation, in the Year of our Lord 1571.

This paragraph is how the 39 Articles end. We discussed earlier how the job of the ordained in the corridors of the good and the great is to speak truth to power. Bishops in the House of Lords have that responsibility. Trouble is, dumbing down at the other end of the priestly spectrum does not mean we should see our job as speaking truth to stupid. But we might accidentally behave like that. Sorry.

In one of his essays Martyn Percy uses a wonderful quote from writer Bill Vanstone about the Church of England, 'Why, he asked, is it like a swimming pool? Answer: all the noise comes from the shallow end.'

This last few weeks has been an opportunity to have a go at some of the harder and deeper things, understand them, and try to make their meaning plain. You will be the judges as to whether I have succeeded.

These 39 Articles were set out at a time when the Parish Priest was often the most educated member of the community and had a leadership role because church and state were connected.

I take from this exercise not a desire to be shouting spiritual truths into the shallows as an over-confident deep-ender. No. I want more people to come to the deep end. There are things to explore and it's not dangerous. Try swimming. You can do it. Let's have deeper conversations.

Sincere thanks to my companions on this journey:

On the Thirty-Nine Articles (Conversations with Tudor Christianity)

Oliver O'Donovan

SCM 2011 (1st published 1986)

Thirty Nine New Articles

Martyn Percy

Canterbury Press 2013

Reformed and catholic; happy Easter to you all.

So Who's in Charge? - Article 37/39

XXXVII. OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES

THE King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.

Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.

The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences.

It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.

The Queen is the boss of the church in 2019 in our Constitutional Monarchy; Defender of the Faith. Remember the fuss when Prince Charles said he would prefer to be 'Defender of faiths'? Article 37 says no. The Monarch would expect the clergy to look after the church but she looks after taxes, the administration of national justice and conscription to a fighting cause.

What we find here, as we have discovered in other Articles, is that the monarch is subject to the word of God (Scripture) but only in all things legal and honest do church members bear due allegiance to her. That expression 'in all things legal and honest' has been carried down into contemporary licensing services for new minsters in the Church of England where we offer due and canonical obedience to our Diocesan Bishop only in such terms. We can be taken forward no further than the Bible allows us to be taken. And of course some of the current disputes about episcopal authority are over the acceptability within Scripture of, for instance, female headship and same-sex partnerships.

O'Donovan points out that the organisation of society, very differently done between Tudors then and liberal democracies now, is not something on which Scripture has a view. Today we view the church as believers gathered out of society; the Tudors did not.

The unwitting testimony (if we can call it that) of our Bibles is an observation of the way land-grabbing led to settled societies which were occasionally conquered by other settled societies anxious to increase. Step on to the stage Assyrians, Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Hebrews and Romans to name but six and not in the right order. Scripture is interested in behaviour in the light of events. The Bible sets out the idea that after losing a battle the only attitude to have before God is penitence.

And the job of the prophet, in the courts of kings, was to speak God's truth to power, often at personal cost.

Nothing Changes Here - Article 34/39

XXXIV. OF THE TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH

IT is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.

Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

'The choir are singing 'Thou Visitest the Earth' at Harvest', said my training incumbent.

'Didn't we sing that last year?' (my first) I asked.

'As it was in the beginning, is now...' he replied.

It was indeed a church where the hymn line 'nothing changes here' was sung with more than the usual amount of verve.

But Article 34 gives local churches wriggle room to deviate from a national norm in unimportant matters, and for individuals to deviate from the local norm in their private devotions. But traditions and ceremonies, part of the 'common order', are to be respected.

Where does that leave us, a little planted church in a small part of Christendom? I once asked my neighbouring, previously mentioned, more Catholic colleague about this. As we considered what rites and ceremonies (to use the old expression) we were going to establish in a new church plant I wondered what he considered was the minimum such a church should do to consider itself part of the Church of England's fold. He didn't think for long. 'It should put itself under the authority of the Bishop' he said. It took me aback in its simplicity and elegance. Of course. We can all unite round that. I don't have to be abundantly clear with my diocesan authority figures about everything that I am doing which is close to the edge of legality or a few steps beyond. I simply need to make it clear that I am under their authority and if they ask me to step back then back I will step.

National churches can change things that national churches have decided to do. To paraphrase Woody Allen, traditions are no more than the illusion of permanence.

All things be done to edifying may take a litle longer, but bear with.

How to Avoid the Excommunicated - Article 33/39

XXXIII. OF EXCOMMUNICATE PERSONS, HOW THEY ARE TO BE AVOIDED

THAT person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto.

Every year there is an award given to the book published with the weirdest title. The prize has been won by:

The Book of Marmalade: Its Antecedents, Its History, and Its Role in the World Today (1984)

Greek Rural Postmen and Their Cancellation Numbers (1996)

Cooking with Poo (2011)

But my favourite was 1992's 'How to Avoid Huge Ships'.

A bit of light relief for you there, but it came to mind because it reminds us that avoiding things is not as easy as we might think. It was discovered by archaeology that some of the 'ritual washing pools' described in the New Testament had a single stairway entrance with a central rail. This rail seemed far more sturdy than one would expect. Experts realised that a substantial division existed between the way in and the way out so that those on the way out did not accidentally touch those on the way in and have to go down again 'trapped in a clean/unclean groundhog day' (an expression I heard theologian Crispin Fletcher-Louis use at a New Wine Summer do a few years back).

The Article is clear. The excommunicate should be avoided. Probably, living in smaller communities then, with the church as the hub of communication, all offenders were well known. One would be in trouble associating with such people.

Many of the Reformers were excommunicates themselves. But, they would argue, by order of the church not Christ. They might, as O'Donovan discusses, have considered doing away with the idea of excommunication all together. Instead they opted for it not necessarily being permanent.  An appropriate judge could decide that a person could return by penance.

They were bit down on publicans in those days too. We have let that idea lapse.

We're Not Worthy - Article 26/39

XXVI. OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF THE MINISTERS, WHICH HINDERS NOT THE EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENT

ALTHOUGH in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.

My College Principal used to say 'A clock that strikes thirteen is not only wrong once but also casts doubt on all further teaching from the same source.' So it is tempting, on discovering that your favourite theologian has been stealing money from her organisation, to disbelieve everything she ever wrote.

One of the things the Church of England has which may, at first, seem weird is a theology of intention. That which we intended to do can be deemed to have been done even if it was not done wholly, completely and utterly properly or, in the case of this Article, was done by evil men.

So the efficacy of Holy Communion, to the recipient, is not changed by the discovery that, at the time the vicar was having an affair with the Church Warden.

A marriage is not voided by the accidental use of the wrong words in the vows. And so on.

That we have safeguarding issues is sad, but not entirely unexpected, given that the church consists of sinners led by sinners. Evil ministers ought to be held to account, but their ministry up to that point can still be said to have been effective.

It is interesting that this Article begs many questions about the behaviour of the priesthood at the time. Enquiry into calling was a bit more hit and miss then than now. We still manage to ordain a few chocolate tea-pots but possibly slightly fewer criminals.

I am aware some of my ministry friends have chosen to rid themselves of the written works of those who have been found guilty of sexual misconduct. Respect to them. But I fear that such an attempt to purge the evil from the good is doomed to failure and Cranmer knew this. God bless the 'ever mingled' good and evil church.

Hocus Pocus - Article 24/39

XXIV. OF SPEAKING IN THE CONGREGATION IN SUCH A TONGUE AS THE PEOPLE UNDERSTANDETH

IT is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have publick Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.

The very language of Article 24 is not easily understanded of the people. But this is not about reducing clerical input to kids' talk; it is about doing it in English. That is its precision.

Latin had been the language of the church. And almost nobody understanded it. When the celebrant stood with his back to the congregation and said 'hoc est corpus meum' all the people at the nave end, separated by sanctuary rail, chancel/choir and rood screen heard (in the days before PA) was 'hocus pocus'. Which is as good a story of the origin of that expression that I have heard.

We still have many discussions in the church about the nature of religious language. From time to time I try to explain short words that have specific theological meanings – sin, the Word, saving. And any foreign words that we still use – hosanna, hallelujah, maranatha. Should we keep it simple? Or should we make sure we explain? Or should we ask people to make an effort to understand? That is its problem.

Church services should feel special, carefully crafted and understandable by ordinary people. That is its principle.

General Church Councils - Article 21/39

XXI. OF THE AUTHORITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS

GENERAL Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

Here's the real break with Rome. In the battle between God's living Pope and God's living word it is the word that wins. Every time. So even a General Council of the church, however unlikely that sounds today, can err if it does not place itself at the feet of the Scriptures.

I don't know what standard people running Confirmation preparation in the Church of England require these days, but O'Donovan points out that the Reformers were of the mind to require confirmands to know the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments (which are in Scripture) and the Apostles' Creed and the Catechism, which are not. However they would argue, I'm sure, that the latter two could be deduced from Scripture and are certainly not contrary to it.

By the time I was confirmed in 1974 no such commitment to memory was needed, although Don Humphreys made me learn quite a few verses.

We may well ponder awhile on the possibility of there ever being another General Council of the Church. Who would need to be invited? And who does the inviting? The article says 'Princes', which means those in authority in the land, deemed to be the monarchy in authority over those in authority in the church. You have two hours. Ask for more paper if you need it.

I end this post with a remark made by a co-writer, Alan Hewerdine, back in the 1990s. I have never bettered it. He said, 'When two Christian denominations merge, a third is formed. Be very scared of General Church councils and try to avoid them.