Delivery Slots

Forgive me accessing my inner Tim Dowling but this happened.

We bought a sofa bed. Quick tip. If you want a sofa bed demonstration in a furniture department and there are no partners (oops, what a giveaway) around to help, try doing it yourself, badly, and pretty soon you will be surrounded by advice.

We managed to purchase a product that was in stock, so delivery was agreed for next Wednesday which meant today.

'They'll text you the day before to give you a two hour window.'

Yesterday that text arrived and the two hour window was 7.00 a.m. - 9.00 a.m. The text also said they would message again when half an hour away.

'What shall we do?' asked Mrs Dowling (see how it works).

Now I know what the answer to this question is. If it had happened that I had been home alone to receive the delivery I would have set an alarm for 6.45 a.m., popped on some clothes, made a coffee and had a look at my phone to see if they had been in touch yet.

However anticipating that, as ever, there are two ways to answer a question such as this, my wife's way and the wrong way, I provided this answer aloud:

'You set your alarm and then bring me a coffee in bed.'

She looked a little sad for no reason but no more was said.

This morning I heard Mrs D get out of bed (but not her alarm) and a short time later a cup of coffee was indeed placed at my bedside. I popped to the loo (noting that the heating had not yet come on), came back to bed, had a sip of coffee and checked the time. 6.16 a.m. This, we note, is 14 minutes earlier than the earliest possible half hour notice text. I went back to snoozing.

At (I calculate) 6.31 a.m. a voice on the landing disturbs my slumber to say the delivery will be at 7.00 a.m. I go back to snoozing.

At 6.45 a.m. I find myself fully awake so turn on the light and grab something to read while finishing my lukewarm coffee.

I am collecting outrageous quotes from HTSI (The Financial Times' weekly guide to spending lots of money) and find this, 'If you want to achieve your dreams you have to hustle.' Suppose your dream is to be nice to as many people as possible?

At 6.59 a.m. I hear a van arrive in our quiet cul-de-sac. I get out of bed and put on some joggers and a t-shirt, insert my teeth and smooth my hair over.

At 7.00 a.m. there is a knock on the door. I wander downstairs and answer it (there is no sign of Mrs D). A man with a large box asks where I want it?

'Would upstairs be OK?' I ask.

'Sure', he says, far too cheerily for 7.01 a.m.

Mrs D joins us during the second box (of three). She whispers that she was in the loo (at precisely, precisely mind, the time they said they would be here).

I am now writing an amusing anecdote having wished five friends a happy birthday, prepared and eaten my breakfast, sorted out the washing, and read HTSI, Feast and the Church Times. I've even had an internal dialogue about Oxford commas. Not happy with the result.

I have never heard the sound of a sofa bed being assembled upstairs but I'm taking a wild guess. I am pressing P for publish whilst still within the two hour delivery slot.

Married Vicars and That - Article 32/39

XXXII. OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS

BISHOPS, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

Why this Article? Clearly not so I could bring 34 of my 41 married years into the ordained ministry although that is a blessing.

No, the church had, at the time of the Reformation, taken on a post-monastic tradition to clericalism and insisted on an unmarried, celibate, male priesthood.

But marriage or singleness is a discretionary matter within the new Testament. There are no special stipulations for leaders, priests and deacons.

So priests in the Church of England can arrive married and be married once ordained. Bible trumps Pope.

O'Donovan points out that Articles 32-36 are about discretionary matters within the church. 37-39 will be different. These articles were honed at the time of the Divine Right of Kings and therefore tend to separate those matters which are separate to the State form those which are bound up with the State.

At a time when our country's constitutional monarchy is being stretched to breaking point and may need substantial re-imagining we do well to remind ourselves, as the Reformers did, that Kings have to obey God. Or else.

Wives Submit to Your Husbands

I have been asked to make the text of my sermon from last Sunday on Ephesians 5:22-33 more widely available for discussion. Here is the text, slightly adapted for the wider audience and with some of the more stupid stuff edited. You can listen to the delivered version online if you want warts and all. Be gentle with me brothers and sisters:

It's been good to sit at home and wonder what people have been preaching on Ephesians while I was on sabbatical leave last year.

I think my summary of what I have heard from those of you who have listened to sermons in the series so far is that they have been challenging - challenging about belonging to the church and challenging about relationships.

So, not because you haven't been listening, but to show you that I have. And because we've had Christmas and New Year since the last in the series, let me summarise:

In Ephesians 1 we read of God's will for humanity. It is God's will to save us and he has acted in history to do this. The prayer for the Ephesian church is that, having been saved, they may grow to maturity.

Chapter 2 explains that there is nothing we can do to earn our own salvation. God's grace and Jesus' death on the cross bridges the gap between humans and God. There are no longer barriers. The church is for everyone. It goes on to say, in Chapter 3, that no-one is excluded from the church and we need to understand the extent of God's love.

In Chapter 4 we learn that this diverse group of people, the church, have different gifts and using them is how the church reaches maturity.

So when we reach chapter 5 and today's passage the letter has been outlining the standards which God expects of his new society, the church; now it gets on to the implications of those standards for relationships.

And the relationships we look at are relationships in the home; relationships that were probably represented in every congregation that first heard this letter read. Husband and wife; parent and child, master and slave.

The church in Ephesus was formed in the fire of Paul being publicly maligned, extraordinary miracles, false prophets, riots and beatings. Paul's farewell speech is a classic example (Acts 20) of Christian example. He says: 'You know how I lived all the time I was amongst you.'

There is some dispute as to whether this letter came from Paul's own hand or his school of thought, but we know about Ephesus and its difficult start as a worshipping community.

The key question for today's student of the Bible is this; which of the Bible's teachings are timeless as written and which are culturally bound?

If a teaching is culturally bound then we need to look at the principles involved and not the specifics. This will be more obvious when we look at the relationship between slaves and masters later. In Bible times slavery's existence was an assumption. The Bible's texts do not challenge it. But since the early nineteenth century all civilised societies have opposed it and worked for its abolition in its many forms.

And so to our passage. At the time of writing there was a hierarchy which was undisputed. So our three sections that follow v21 and its idea of mutual submission emphasise the submission, in those days, required of wives to husbands, children to parents and slaves to masters.

Tom Wright, in his commentary, points out that St Paul lived in a world where women were considered not only inferior to men but also they were people who had bodily functions that might make a man unclean.

In John Stott's 1979 commentary he says:

Now the very notion of submission to authority is out of fashion today. It is totally at variance with contemporary attitudes and permissiveness and freedom. Almost nothing is calculated to arouse more angry protest than talk of 'subjection'. Ours is an age of liberation (not least for women, children and workers), and anything savouring of oppression is deeply resented and strongly resisted. How are Christians to react to this modern mood

Stott then goes on to argue that although slavery is, rightly, now outlawed, obedience to parents by children is not. He equates the authority a husband has in the household as more like the latter than the former.

1979 was a long time ago. I'm not sure I agree. But let's start with three statements we should all be able to agree with:

1. In a Christian household all should be under the authority of Christ. Nobody should forbid that which Christ encourages nor allow that which Christ condemns. So whatever authority is up for grabs it has to be limited authority.

2. Secondly Galatians 3:28. Paul is clear that there is equality in Christ.

3. There is nothing wrong with a woman choosing to exercise submission to male authority in a household. We have moved on from the ages when this was the done thing. It is no longer compulsory; but it is not disallowed.

I don't think we want to argue with those three.

Stott sees a complementarity of roles but in the context of equality. Tom Wright argues that society has made a mess of marriage and that male authority, exercised under Christ's authority, would be the answer.

What do we say?

Whatever we say, we say in a country with a Queen and a female Prime Minister.

Whatever we say, we say in a church with female bishops.

I think we say that leadership is always necessary. Where there is no leadership the people perish. So a couple need to work out, and if they have children model to those children, how decisions are taken.

I think we say that for Christians submission to Christ is always necessary. This is the mutual submission of both parties in a couple submitting to a higher authority. This is the background (v21) of all the relationships discussed.

And I think that we say that this passage suggests that the individuals in a relationship need to love each other, submit to each other, love themselves and be willing to make the sort of sacrifices for each other that Christ made for his church.

Marriage vows are a covenant, not a contract. It is not 'I will do this for you if you do this for me.' It is 'I will do this for you, whatever.' It should not be entered into lightly or selfishly but reverently and responsibly in the sight of almighty God.

It is appalling that in 2018 there are still abusive relationships.

It is appalling that in 2018 women still earn less than men in many situations where they do the same work.

It is appalling that in 2018 marriage relationships break down too easily and are discarded not repaired. As society becomes increasingly throw away with its domestic appliances it should avoid being like that with its domestic arrangements.

But these things do occur. The terrible way women generally have been treated by men, particularly in politics and the arts as we have discovered recently post-Weinstein, is national news. It is good that women have spoken out loudly #metoo

There is, I think, a responsibility on Christian men to speak out for the rights of women.

Our passage's big theme is this - we should allow each other to thrive. Marriage should be liberating not stifling. Freedom in a framework. Trust. Mutual flourishing.

If you are considering whether someone is Mr or Mrs Right and making a commitment of marriage with them? Well it is not a matter of wondering if they might be the right one. It is a matter, as soon as you are married, of treating them as if they are.

But if you are a Christian and they are not it will be hard for this passage to be authoritative for your relationship.

It is clear to me that this sermon could be a series on relationships, and may need to be.

39

Articles of Religion?

Steps?

Number of lashes St Paul got, assuming he was good at maths and that is what he meant by 40-1?

Memorable uses of the number indeed.

But today it is the number of years for which Elizabeth Christine Anne (the current Mrs Tilley) and James Stephen have successfully troth-plighted.

This one's a keeper I reckon.

Quote Book Index 331-340

In case you haven't been keeping up, I am slicing up the job of indexing my quote books by doing it ten at a time as often as possible. I call it eating a slug. If you really, gotta, have to eat a slug you want that critter thin-sliced. I will reward your continuing to read by publishing the best of each ten. This latest, from Richard Foster's book 'Money, Sex and Power', is important and also why Monday is the only night of the week on which I will organise a business or training meeting for the home team:

340. The church understands and seeks to enhance ... efforts to cultivate a strong marriage and family. The church refuses to frustrate these goals by proliferating meetings and commitments that separate the family unit.

Redefining Marriage - a discussion

An enjoyable discussion last night at Holy Trinity, Nailsea about redefining marriage.

Here is the script I worked from but you might need to check it against my precise words. The whole discussion was recorded and will appear on this list later in the week.

I began with a few unrehearsed comments and I apologised that there was some duplication (but actually not much) between what I said and what the first speaker said:

Script begins
How should Christians, both individually and collectively as church, respond to the government's proposal to change the definition of marriage?

There are two parts to this question as posed. How should Christians respond to something individually, and then collectively.

But first:

1. Error in question premise. There is as yet no proposal. The government gave notice earlier in the year of its intention to consult. On March 15th a 12 week consultation period began. No proposal has been made. Yet.

The response of some Christians to this suggestion of consultation was a petition. I think petitions are often signed by lazy people who have allowed someone else to do their thinking for them.

The petition said:

'This petition asks the government to fix the legal definition of marriage as '...the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.'

Most legal definitions in this country are established by case law. The current legal definition of marriage was established in the case of Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee in the middle of Queen Victoria's reign. Sir James Wilde, later Lord Penzance said that he conceived of marriage, as understood in Christendom, as '...the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.'

So the petition asks for no change from that except that it be fixed by legislation not judiciary.

2. How should Christians respond collectively? Christians are not a group of people who have any mechanism whatsoever for responding to anything, anywhere collectively at any time. In effect this part of the question asks me, 'What should all Christians think?'

And most people in the world probably think the world would be a better place if everyone thought like them. A moment's thought tells us that this would give us a less interesting world. If the whole world were West Bromwich Albion supporters with whom on earth could I argue football?

Christians love the idea of strong leadership setting out what everyone should think until the point that they disagree.

Should we indicate that our church is in favour of signing the petition by a majority of 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 or whatever it turns out to be. I really have no idea but imagine if it comes to a vote I will lose.

So that takes me to the only part of the question I think is worth bothering with and that is part one.

3. How should Christians respond individually?

I wrote about this in a blog post on 27th February 2012 and asserted that Christians should not sign the petition. I believed they would be seen as homophobic, a word which has subtly changed its meaning recently and most people take to mean 'anti-homosexuals' rather than 'afraid of homosexuals' its literal meaning.

Writing in The Guardian last week Lucy Mangan told the story of how she was drawing closer to the Christian world by her involvement in a church run play group but was utterly put off by the way the petition we are talking about was peddled in the group. In her words:

It was a reminder that even if you love the language of the church and much else about it, you've got to stay alert to its threats.

So, thank you, playgroup lady. I was drawing closer. I shall keep a safer distance from now on.

My own view is this. I believe sin should be condemned. I know of lovely Christian people who think that a lifelong, to the exclusion of all others, same-sex, sexual relationship is not sin. I know of others who think it is and that all same-sex sexual expression is sinful. One group argue from the scriptures' clear prohibitions; the other argue that the Bible's teaching on this is culturally bound and needs reinterpreting.

I cannot give my opinion on who is right, even if I knew for certain, without upsetting a load of my friends. So I will not. I will at all times spell out the dispute without taking sides. This has led me to welcome gays to my congregations without criticism, implied or otherwise. This has led to me responding to a request to speak at the blessing of a civil partnership.

I do not think that marriage is threatened by being re-defined. I think that Christians are still free to make the rules in their own meeting places. I think that as soon as we have sorted out the complete hash many have made of heterosexual relationships we might be freer to chuck the first stone.

How should a Christian respond to the governments' consultation and the petition? Read it and think for yourself.
Script ends

There were three 'opinions' given (this was the second of the three) and then there followed some discussion and questions. The recording caught most, but not all, of the questions delivered by roving microphone.

Two other links. If you missed the email discussion between me and Anthony Bush a few weeks ago you can catch up with it here.

A few years ago I contributed a chapter to Sex and the Cynics (Damaris) edited by Tony Watkins. It remains the best attempt I have made personally to set out my position on biblical love and intimacy. Click on the link to buy it from Amazon. There are other chapters about how the search for love is portrayed in the movies.

Redefining Marriage

Many of you will know Anthony Bush of Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, Wraxall. He wrote to our church leadership team about the consultation on redefining marriage. After an exchange of emails he and I have agreed to publish our correspondence in the hope that it may inform the debate. It is quite lengthy but I hope helpful.






Dear HT Leadership Team,






Conscious that Noah would have been in the heroic book of failures had he taken same-sex couples on the Ark (especially his family) and that he was a preacher of righteousness I am trying to follow his lead.






Hoping that HT might discuss the subject I am enclosing a letter I have sent to some in the press and most of it to the Prime Minister.






With best wishes,






Anthony









'So Cardinal O’Brien is reported as saying Britain would be shamed in the eyes of the world by the grotesque madness of redefining marriage to include same sex couples. Not the Anglican moderation we are used to, but understandable. Many of us are searching for God’s mind in this, aware that, for the Israelites entering the profligate Canaan and Christians struggling to please God in promiscuous Rome, Corinth and Ephesus, the Old and New Testament texts were given. These texts unambiguously prohibited both homosexual acts and heterosexual adultery with equal clarity and force (Lev 18:22-4, 20:10,13, Rom 1:26-7, 1 Cor 6:9-10, 1 Tim 1:8-10). The argument that marriage is about love not gender parts company with Genesis 2:24, where it is all about gender. Love was and is a luxury extra, and remains all too transitory.






'All of us are trying to help ourselves and others reach heaven and please God. Some of us might want to put a more pastoral angle to these texts in the light of young adolescents with ambiguous sexuality until they are perhaps 25, in an age where experiencing sexual activity of some sort seems to be an increasing media imperative. Temptations or tendencies should be absolutely free of condemnation, but lots of young people are confused and easy prey to media writers, commentators and others grooming them for promiscuity of any sort. Chastity is ridiculed and any sexual temptation used as a means of fixing a person’s sexuality far too young. It has always seemed to me that God was fierce in His apparent prohibition of homosexual acts not only because He wants procreation, but also because they were easier to fall for than the harder work of forming heterosexual friendships and marriage. And casual sex of any form is easier to fall for than patiently working at a prospective exclusive, loving, life-long marriage.






'I could myself so easily have become a homosexual, but for the prohibitions of the day and the intervention and help by some caring people and some sensitive spousing. Our 4 children, 14 grandchildren and Golden Wedding last month are a consequence. I hope Christians will discourage the State from rushing into redefining marriage just because a vociferous few covet the same name for a different union. They cannot use “husband” or “wife”, so why are homosexual couples not content with the legal rights of marriage they already have in a civil partnership?'












Anthony,






As many of my colleagues know I disagree most strongly and have written why here. Even more though is that, whatever our intention, we will be seen as homophobic if we object to the change of definition. This is a time to keep our heads down.






You may not know that many gay and lesbian couples do choose to identify their partner as their husband or wife.






You know that you and I disagree in many ways in our interpretation of a scripture. I join with you in condemning promiscuity and sex without commitment. I part company with you in your willingness to condemn loving, permanent, same sex, to-the-exclusion-of-all-others relationships. I will not.






St










Hi Steve






Thanks for your reply. Robust as I would expect from you, but in my opinion you are not right, as you would expect from me!






First, you apparently ignore the Biblical evidence advocating heterosexual marriage over homosexual acts. Yet Scripture is given for our good and for everyone’s long term health and wellbeing. You use the emotive word “homophobic” to imply a persecution of downtrodden people. I am opposed to the wrong use of explosives/fire, of soil/mud, of laser/light not to persecute the users, but would want these used correctly.






Wikipedia suggests that in 2008, 6% of the country described themselves as homosexual or bi-sexual. I am sad for them and in the next generation would hope that number was reduced. You are saying that we, or is it I, will appear homophobic (defined on the Web as ‘with contempt, aversion, or irrational fear of homosexuality?’) if I want the definition of marriage to remain. As is so often the case with an angry minority, the opposite is the case. Why should a tiny number insist on a change of definition to suit themselves? And then call us homophobic if they don’t get their way?






I am not contemptuous of homosexuals, I talk to some often without aversion, I have no fear whatever of them, I want them to know Jesus loves them, but God does not approve of homosexual acts. God is also against adulterous acts, but he is not against all those with heterosexual inclinations or homosexual inclinations, He has better plans. I think homosexuals are too often heterophobic, in the sense of having irrational fear of a close relationship with the opposite sex; and I would like them helped and delivered.






As Dr Christopher Shell, writing to the CEN this week suggested, heterosexual and homosexual intercourse should not be equated for “six massive differences. The latter bears no fruit, making its biological purpose questionable. It’s high risk even without promiscuity. It involves penetrating a sphincter. It involves no lubrication. It involves a wall-lining only one cell thick (so that contraception dangerously increases pressure on surrounding skin). It involves micro-fold cells which actively attract microbes. How are we either loving or intelligent if we normalise this?” Dr Shell asks.






I know pastors like you Steve do not want to appear judgmental. I wholly understand that and the motive is probably good. But the prophetic can be lost and thousands will suffer if we fail to teach what Jesus taught. My reading this morning was Matthew 5, and there is some very tough stuff in there, including v 17-20 and lots more which will probably never be covered at HT if we are only concerned about not appearing judgmental. More important is winning people for heaven and God being pleased with us. I think people will know whether we love them by how we do this.






I expect we agree on this bit anyway.






Your brother in Christ






Anthony










Well Anthony,






Here we are again. I do enjoy our little chats online although you are an infuriating debating opponent. One moment we are talking about a legal definition and suddenly the discussion has broadened out into all sorts of other areas. It is this particular tendency of the anti-homosexual-practice lobby that so inflames matters.




Still. To take your points in order (and not raise any new ones):






Just because I didn't recite all the biblical evidence dos not mean I ignore it. I take my Bible seriously and it is my more or less constant companion. I do not believe the culture of the Bible world (spread over its two millennia) says anything about the one group of relationships we are talking about - the long-term, committed, same-sex, exclusive ones. It seems to me to be anti homosexual offenders and to have ritual, cultic and casual prostitution in mind in its criticism. The world of the Bible starts (if you take it all as history, which as you know I don't) with the confusing question of who Adam and Eve's children were fruitful with, goes through a period where a king has 1000 wives and concubines but is only criticised when they lead him to foreign gods, and ends with an instruction that a leader should be the husband of but one wife (so presumably a follower can have more). In other words there is a developing understanding of relationships and our job is to apply the principles not get stuck with the precise examples.






I used the word homophobic not to accuse you but to anticipate what you will be accused of if you say what you believe in public and loudly. You are wrong when you talk of an angry minority. I think the majority of society are now becoming comfortable with the presence and aspirations of gay people. Many people will not object to the change of definition being debated.






No-one, as far as I know, has accused you of being contemptuous towards homosexuals. If they do I will defend you. I have seen you in action. You are not.






Dr Shell accidentally betrays his disgust. Whilst I didn't intend this to be part of our discussion it gives the game away. Like it or not people have been having sex without the prospect of procreation for a long time now. I am up to 27 years and counting. There is no limit on where you can put lubrication. Anal sex is not only a homosexual phenomenon. Imaginative sex can take place in many different ways and, maybe, a hint of danger makes it better. Who knows what turns people on?






I have no problem with being judgmental. I judge, and pronounce, that our church is insufficiently geared towards the alien and the stranger and the poor and I said so on Sunday. I have great problems with being judgmental about something that needs attract no judgement.






I am sure that one day we will find out, when the dead rise again to be in the place where there is no marriage, what it was we were striving after in all these messy and complex human relationships. Meantime let's tread gently. I am not even going so far as to say that same-sex, exclusive and permanent relationships are undoubtedly all OK. All I am saying is that I will not condemn them and do not think other Christians should.






I would be happy to make our correspondence more public. Would you?






Have a good day my friend,






St










Hi Steve






Thanks for your thoughtful reply and yes I would be delighted to publicise our correspondence further, though if my opponents are like the last ones my staff may not thank me for the next two years of demonstrations!






I am glad to hear you take your Bible seriously. However you have a liberal tendency to write off lots of it as being culturally out of date. When I was on the General Synod’s Marriage Service Revision Committee in 1982 we had difficulty finding a Biblical example of a monogamous marriage. Isaac is the only certain one in the whole Bible. That does not alter Genesis 2:24 for those of us who believe Genesis is God’s word about marriage, confirmed, word for word by Jesus and Paul. Most Biblical teaching about marriage implies its purpose is physical union more than for breeding babies and you are unfair on Dr Shell by saying his comments about anal intercourse betray his disgust. He is reminding us which orifice was made for what purpose and which defences they have naturally and which they don’t.






When I was in Nigeria the reason for “husband of one wife” became highly relevant as lots of Muslims were becoming Christians having up to 4 wives. European missionaries made them divorce all but one, so the CAC started as an indigenous denomination (to whom I was preaching) with more compassion for the wives, but the pastors only had one wife.






You seem to be selective about which homosexual acts you think the Bible indicates are wrong, quoting the NIV (UK) translation of 1 Cor 6:9, arsenokoitai, (literally man-coitus) as “homosexual offenders” to mean homosexuality with ritual, cultic or casual-only meaning. The original NIV and other translations have “men who have sex with men”, or men who practice homosexuality, or homosexuals. The OT law points to all homosexual activity being wrong, because the Israelites were told (Lev 18;22) “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable”. That sounds clear. Before you suggest its context makes it a text for its time only, then follows an anti-bestiality command, with the reason “that is perversion”. These are preceded by hygiene laws with no moral comment, and by the laws of incest (for the first time, probably, as Abraham’s marriage with his half-sister was the blessed one). These incest laws were evidently needed now, despite the Pharaoh’s being compulsorily incestuous for god to marry god. They also remind us where Adam’s descendants came from - marriage between his children, likewise probably with Noah, for those of us happy with the historicity of the whole text. The gene-pools would have been strong and unlikely to produce harmful mutations through close breeding, for thousands of years. Indeed lots of animals breed that closely now with no harmful effect.






So I cannot see that you have any grounds for saying God’s view of same-sex activity depends on how serious or permanent they appear to be. “Detestable”, sounds very different from His view of creation after He had made both male and female as being “very good” (Gen 1:31). In Jesus day homosexuality was probably unknown in Israel but widespread in the Roman Empire (especially its emperors) so Paul mentions it to warn the Romans, Corinthians and Ephesians, as I quoted last time.






I am all for treading gently. No one wants to be condemning, but we have young people looking for guidance, struggling with their sexuality and making friends and decisions which could mean they marry and have children or not. There is also a Gay Pride lobby who are keen to get into schools and “help” the children. I personally feel sure lots of youngsters who end up homosexual could have become heterosexuals with the right encouragements. I am one who narrowly escaped, so am biased. My book in April will tell more.






In many ways this is a similar debate to the remarriage after divorce one, which I was also deeply involved in on G Synod. That one was partly about how marriages begin, the choice of spouse and purity or otherwise before marriage; the effort each side puts into keeping the marriage hot and free from predators. Obviously those who are on their second marriage will not like first timers being told those words of Jesus that suggest remarriage equates to adultery. So the church is silenced for fear of sounding condemning. Perhaps many of the voices that shouted “crucify him” were of those whom He upset.






In case we all need to know how many people the redefining of marriage is for, the ONS states there were 6281 civil partnerships formed in 2009, which were 2.7% of the number of marriages that year. It is difficult to compare break-ups at 5.5% for CP’s as they have only been going since 2005. I would expect them to be far less, as children are a huge extra strain on marriages, so marriage is so much more difficult than CP that for this alone it deserves its own exclusive name. I would be happy to leave Civil Partnerships as they are, with that name, or invent a new name for them.






A la prochaine fois – meilleurs voeux






Anthony










Morning Anthony,






We might have gone as far as we can because we have isolated the one thing we disagree about - our use of Scripture.






Trouble is I love watching the twists and manoeuvres extremely conservative evangelicals have to make to preserve their insistence upon historicity in the Bible. I would find it great sport if it wasn't so sad to the outside world that there are still people out there who hold such views.






I will not publicise this if you don't want me to but I had in mind putting it on my blog and telling my Facebook friends and Twitter followers where it was. Of course you can do likewise and we might be able to step back and watch the debate in the comments box. The blog traffic is not particularly heavy - 100 or so people a day at the moment tops.






I will not accept '...you have a liberal tendency' as anything other than praise. I know what you mean by it but it seems to me that we are all liberals when it comes to the Bible - we simply draw the line in different places. For me a liberal wants to give fellow humans as much freedom as the Bible describes God giving all of us. And a liberal approach to the Bible sees it as divinely inspired but as an agreed starting point rather than a fixed end (Rowan Williams' expression). 2,000 years of history gives us many things that the Bible knew nothing of and we have to apply its principles rather than look for proof texts (often out of context). For Jewish scholars the whole business of Midrash - discussing the scriptures - was as much doing scripture as reading it. I am tentatively trying to work out what it means to be liberal and evangelical.






Genesis 2:24 says 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother...' It is not obvious which of the previous clauses is the reason:






Because he needed a helper


Because the woman was made from his rib






It seems to me to be a story to answer a child's question about why people leave home. It can't, by itself, be used to support monogamy. We must beware of asking one text to bear more weight than it can.






And I am unconvinced by your specific quotations from Leviticus. It seems to me that the past is another country and they do things differently there. We can admire the desire of the fledgling community of Israel to keep themselves pure and holy listening, as they thought they were, to the voice of God the while, but we have to beware of cherry-picking our favourite prohibitions from the Law whilst ignoring the clear, apparently divinely condoned acceptance of destroying whole ethnic groups, stoning people to death for what we would now call relatively minor matters and a whole bunch of stuff about fabrics and spots.






I look forward to your treatise on orifices and their specific purposes. Do you mind if I pick my nose while I write? No-one is looking.






I'm not sure people will find it easy to listen to examples from Nigeria these days as a place of reason and tolerance but I accept that our Victorian missionaries did harm as well as good.






Your church would obviously be quite a hard place to be a divorcee, a homosexual and a liberal. I hope mine isn't. What have I achieved if I tell someone who is on their second marriage that they are committing adultery?






And finally I fear that your closing paragraphs anticipate a disaster that will simply not happen, a floodgate that will remain resolutely closed. If people, who are gay, opt to live an openly gay lifestyle it is not the thin end of any wedge. If some Christians, who are gay, choose to read the scriptures carefully and come to the conclusion that God is interested in mutual encouragement and support one for the other just as much as he is about procreation, I will not condemn them. If some of those want to enter into life long commitments I will not condemn them. If some of those wish to call their relationship 'married' I will not condemn them. If they wish to find some way to raise children as a couple I will not condemn them.






I'll look forward to reading your book.






I'll let you have the last word. Once you have replied I will put this on the blog unless you tell me not to.






Given that we seem to have changed our greetings into a foreign tongue (for added gravitas?) then I sign off as all Brummies do,






Tarrarabit.






St










Hi Steve






Thanks for your amusing caricature of my position. I smiled quite a lot and you deserve readers of your blog as you are an entertaining writer.






However as you know you are the same age as my children so I would expect you to have a different set of understandings of Biblical text. The beginning of WW2 saw this country extremely serious about calling on God and expecting His help. He appeared to give us astonishing deliverances. My book expands this. Subsequently the secular world and much of the church moved from this dependence on God and sincere search for His will in the Bible, to a more man-centred theology, with God brought in often, but not as final arbiter. Post rationalism has become the norm; if it feels good it is probably OK as long as no one gets hurt. The trouble is people do get hurt, often quietly. What God thinks about it is assumed to be fine; He is a nice forgiving guy. He doesn’t want anyone to perish, it says, so do what you like, He will have you in the end. Going to church is not one of those things, so those churches’ attendances are declining.






As you know there is also a conservative wing of the Church that thinks largely as I do. You cannot be ignorant of this position, so you must choose to parody it and ridicule it for other reasons; perhaps entertainment on the blog? If I am to take your reply seriously it will probably not make entertaining reading, though a few might get through it.






When Christina and I were married divorces stood at about 30,000 per year. Quite worrying, because in 1858 (or so) there were 2, when divorce first became permitted, and there were about 2,000pa until WW2. Divorce law was sought by liberals, promising that a tiny number of people were hurting badly from bad marriages, but after a few years of bulge the figures would settle down again. They were warned it was Casanova’s Charter and divorces would double, we needed to put in place marriage preparation, marriage counselling or the social fabric of the country was in danger. We would become the divorce capital of Europe, hurting single mothers and disfunctional children. They denied it vehemently or course and it went ahead. 8 years later divorces were 110,000, and another 6 years later they were 168,000. We have become all that was prophesied.






My book will show you our response. I am skeptical about younger people who were never taught their history. The law on abortion was changed with similar promises, sex education and contraception were introduced into schools without any moral background. We warned that we would become the abortion capital of Europe, the unmarried mother capital, etc. Sadly all this has happened. Where were most theologians? Living blameless lives answering questions no one was asking.






So I am skeptical about your plan to keep your head down over homosexual marriage and let this all pass; because you think no one will really be badly affected. I foresee much more inflationary consequences, as I suspect do the advocates of change. You have been warned.






My own take on all of this is that the church has lost conviction about God. There is lots of talk about loving neighbours, doing stuff in the community, living good lives if possible. But most people do not really think God is there, and if He is, then He is not particularly interested. “Do you believe in God?” I often ask. No nature all came from the big bang and evolution.






So I am not going to deal with any of your parodies of Old and New Testament verses. I am just going to say that God in His mercy can forgive all the messes we have made and do make every day. Repentance and seeking Him are key to His revival. No one is turned away, no matter how many abortions they have had or how many marriages. Jesus still says “neither do I condemn you, go and do not sin again”. We desperately need to be forgiven and filled with the Holy Spirit daily and have the courage to reach people where they are, in all the ways He can inspire us. This will need considerably more courage than is usually displayed by God’s people, but it is not too late.






I hope we are concluding on common ground, Steve. I will be delighted to discuss any of this again when we next meet.






With my love in Christ






Anthony










Thanks Anthony,






Profoundly tempting as you have made it for me to want to write again I will, as promised, not and will now publish and let people make up their own minds.






St

Marriage Words

When the Pilgrim Fathers popped off on their little adventure they took with them a number of words in common usage at the time. When a language changes location the process of evolution begins upon it. Some words they took with them died out but continued here in the UK; others died out in the UK but survived in the Americas. Fall for autumn would be a good example - we used to use it here all the time. It is wrong to call it an Americanism.

And look at the history of our English language in England. Our words come from all over the world.

Trying to stop the evolution of language is a bit Canutey. And by the way I think his name was C'nut or K'nut. It evolved. In particular at the teenage level words are reclaimed and relocated all the time. Is that a good thing? No, it's wicked. It's mint. It's top drawer pants.

So a petition dropped in to my in-box this week asking me to support the Coalition for Marriage petition.

This petition asks the government to fix the legal definition of marriage as:

...the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Trouble is that the law defines current behaviour almost as often as it restricts it. Lots of same-sex partners, now civil-partnered officially, refer to their other-half as their wife or husband and their status as married. We can't stop them doing it, despite whatever the law says.

Furthermore the definition means we need to find some new word for the status of those who have married for a second or third time after a failed 'to the exclusion of all others' relationship.

There are things to get excited about in this life. Maybe us heterosexuals should get more concerned about setting a better example of how to sustain a wonderful, long-term, to-the-exclusion-of-all-others relationship. Then we would define marriage rather than asking the courts to. I'm not signing.

Faithfulness

There's a new post on the Nailsea People site about the south-west allegedly being the kingdom of marital infidelity. I managed to get a quote into the story to paint a slightly more optimistic picture. Read it here.

Marriage and That

What is the secret of a long and happy marriage? I know that the ultimate assessment can only take place when parted by death but it will be a tad tricky to do it then. Three days short of a thirtieth wedding anniversary might be as good a time as any for a few reflections.

Liz doesn't blog, and doesn't read this unless I tell her to absolutely. That may be secret number one.

Have a few adventures together. Do a few things as a couple that neither of you did apart. Discover some places, people and experiences jointly.

Support each other in your individual interests but don't feel you have to take up each other's hobbies.

Even if you must have a joint bank account, keep some place where you have your own money, to do with what you want without asking your partner. I don't want to know, from our joint bank statement, how much my birthday present cost.

Learn quickly about the petty things that cause more pain than they possibly should? I hate sitting in rooms with the doors open. Liz hates an untidy kitchen. Many couples can cope well with both these things but it makes our mutual lives easier if we acknowledge what annoys our partner and try not to do it however trivial it might seem to us. Toothpaste squeezing used to be the example of this but my toothpaste now resembles a small pump action military device.

If you have children, the greatest gift you can give them is to continue to love their other parent, even if sometimes this means spending time with each other not the kids. What price a stable, loving home to walk into after a bad day at school?

Have some secrets between each other that no-one else in all the world knows and take them to the grave. The surviving partner can then publish if they want. Examples of this might be no don't blog them you idiot.

Share the tasks equitably (men I'm talking to you). If both partners have full-time jobs then share the washing, cleaning, ironing, cooking, shopping, gardening and DIY equally unless there is clear agreement not to from the outset.
The partner with the higher cleaning standards should be in charge of the cleaning.
Don't change the rules without talking about them first.
Men (again). You can say 'no' when asked if an item of clothing suits but you must be prepared to follow through on this and help advise on shopping trips.
Work out what to say when asked, for instance, 'Does my bum look big in this?' Especially if the truth is a bum that looks big in everything. You won't be able to recover with the '...but I like big bums' line. This is an example right.
Know when to drop everything and pay attention.
Women usually need to talk about their day and what men need to do is listen with attention not offer fix-it advice. Men usually need to go and hide for a bit before they can talk things through.
All men are on the Asperger's curve somewhere.
Not during the football or during the Archers or during the Now Show.
You'll never agree about Frank Sinatra.
Her being a Villa fan is proof it was love.
Sickness, poorer and worse are in there for a reason.
I'll possibly write some more when I've heard the reaction to this lot.

Pearly Things

On September 10th 1977, in photos that make me look approximately 14 and a true victim of the fashion impact of glam rock and Derek Hobson's ties (a TV presenter back then), I married Mr and Mrs Bill's oldest daughter.

She, clearly not entirely aware of the depths of patience, tolerance and stability that would be required to pursue a relationship with such a mardy-faced nutter, nor the many regional accents her husband would encounter and be forced to try out on the journey, stuck it for, to date, 29 years 11 months and 10 days.

She has been a widow to alternative music, West Brom cup final defeats and victories, a lounge full of only Subbuteo for about ten years, a succession of youth groups who considered the house their own, four long-term house guests when we had no spare rooms, two sons who stayed longer than expected, bless, and at one time a male labrador who didn't consider personality crises should be restricted to humans.

Through all this she has pursued a second career with some success and shown little fragility of character apart from when within ten miles of a clothes store.

We had a party for our silver and it was fun. Five years on seems a bit soon for a repeat so here's the plan. On Saturday September 8th we will be in the Old Barn at Wraxall for the evening and will buy drinks. If you reckon it is near enough to call by then do drop in for one or several ales. The Butcombe is excellent, the St Austell Tribute outstanding and even the Timothy Taylor has made it out of Yorkshire safely enough. There's cider too but we've begun to notice what that does to people after almost a year here moi luvvers.

There's no food (you'll see why if you come) although we may make some sarnies and there are take-aways in town. Beds for the night are also available for those who wish.

It will be a minor do and we won't stay out late as they make me work Sundays. Absolutely no presents please. We have enough stuff.

Adultery

I'm about to embark on an interview season and expect that somewhere along the way I will be asked about sex and my views on it. I've been thinking it through to try and come up with a better answer than:

What do you think about homosexuality?
Can we wait until after the interview please I'm not in the mood.

Perhaps I shouldn't go work at any church whose appointment committee failed to laugh at that point. It would be doomed to failure.

Anyway I digress and I must learn to stop doing that during the first paragraph. I read this in The Independent yesterday (nothing to quote from the newspapers for months and then two come along at once):

'Adultery is now a quaintly old-fashioned descriptive term used by church-men and other judgemental moralists. It is not a breach of a moral code, or even a defining constraint within marriage. Spouses who commit adultery are no longer considered to have undertaken an act that is contradictory to the spirit of their publicly celebrated relationship.

'An adulterer is no longer considered to be legally or morally at fault within a marriage.'
(Deborah Orr, The Independent 31/5/06)

This was all written in the fall-out post Deputy Prime-Minister perving his secretary's melons with his cocktail sausage, as the tabloids have helped us to understand.

But I must admit that I felt a moment of sadness at another degrading of marriage.

This blog has a range of readers, church-men, non-judgemental moralists and various points in between. Does this quote make you stop in your tracks? If I were to commit adultery (which I've spent many years trying really hard not to do) I would make my marriage vows into lies. I would be legally at fault (it's grounds for divorce after all), morally at fault and it would be contradictory to the spirit of my publicly celebrated relationship. Wouldn't it?

Views and comments really appreciated.