Spirited Exchanges

Spirited Exchanges is coming to St Michael's.

Monday 2nd November, 7.45 for 8.00 pm at St Michael and All Angels, Amersham on the Hill.

Jenny McIntosh, co-founder of Spirited Exchanges will speak further about people leaving churches and why, and the experiences of people in this space and what might be helpful for them. Many have already left the church. Some have felt marginalised and misunderstood, others have felt controlled and disrespected. For most it has led to considerable upheaval in their faith understanding and practice and has often meant the loss of previously valued community. If you know of anyone who might like to come along please feel free to invite them.

Spirited Exchanges is a network offering support, encouragement and resources for people who are experiencing challenges to and/or the unravelling of their faith.

The Orthodox Heretic

Peter Rollins is a philosopher by profession, and founder and co-ordinator of IKON, an emergent church community in Belfast. In this book he explains by way of parables some of the ideas he has written about in his other books. He is much taken by paradox and many of the parables are paradoxical in nature. Not all of the parables stand up by themselves, but in the book they are all followed by an explanation (which does sadly undermine the power of parable). However, the parables and the following explanations provide serious food for thought about what it means to be a Christian and the nature of what belief is. He is clear that we are to think for ourselves (this was evidenced in a talk at Greenbelt where he said "I'm not sure that I believe some of what I'm saying") and in this book provides enough challenging parables to make us do just that. You may not agree with his answers, but thinking about what he is proposing will challenge what you do think and believe.

The Departed

Just watched "The Departed" and just looked up and found it won 4 Oscars. It was a good film, and yet I find myself in a weird place having watched it. It is all about moles and hardly anybody is what they seem to be - throughout the film they are all terrified of being exposed, and now, about an hour later, I find myself inexplicably in that paranoid place that they were in. Perhaps this is an example of the power of the movies.

I used to think that it didn't matter what we saw (although I have tended to steer clear of horror films), but after this experience I am more inclined to believe in the power they can have over us. Perhaps it is a case of it only being good films that we have to fear?

The Great Emergence - and Anglican issues!

I have recently been reading Phyllis Tickle on the Great Emergence. Two things struck me. The first was that she says that about every 500 years there is a shift in Christianity, and that one of the first signs of this is a breakdown in authority. Just prior to the reformation there were 3 Popes, so from a situation where people knew who was in charge now there was a choice. What struck me forcibly was the analogy with the current times in Anglicanism, where cetainly among some there is a desire for a strong authority, when in fact Anglicanism could almost be defined as not having an authority.

The other strand that I noted was a restatement of the old believe- behave- belong or belong-behave-believe. What was added to this was an explanation of the accompanying approach to people who want to join. In the old style there were lots of rules, and if you kept the rules you could belong. In the new approach there is a centre towards which people are drawn - but to which they don't have to sign up before belonging.

This is not perhaps quite the problem in Anglicanism at present but I can see many similarities. If we take the battle over homosexuality in Anglicanism then it is largely between those who think it is wrong and those who think it is right. What doesn't get much publicity is the approach that says that it doesn't matter! To be fair, if you are going to have an authorised ministry then it does matter, but this might explain why, although there are many to whom this does matter, there are a large number of people to whom it doesn't matter at all. Of course in some sense the "it doesn't matter"s are by default on the side of change, as they cannot see what the problem is in the first place!

Archbishops letter

Following the American General Convention the Archbishop of Caterbury has written that:

9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity. It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. ...

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2502

My concern about this statement is that it seems to imply that only those who fully live the Gospel are allowed to have a representative function in the Church. Now call me picky, but I don't think any of us achieve that. I know of one priest who says that churches should have a big banner over the door - sinners only - and I believe that that applies to the priests too. I also liked the story of the priest who was asked whether he was a Christian and he said "I'm trying to be". Having googled this I know that there are a large body of people who will say that being a Christian is about grace - fine - so what makes people ineligible for a representative role?

Or is this something to do with hypocrisy? Many of our other sins are hidden and known only to us. If someone is living in such a union, but hides the fact, does that make them fit for a representative function? I would argue not and that the action of the Americans is at least honest about where they stand in a way that the CofE isn't.

For me a large part of being a priest is about an openness and honesty about who I am - hiding away parts of myself for fear of what others might think or say is to me denying God - and yet I find myself doing it. But at least I confess it and don't make a policy out of it.

Abraham and Isaac

I regularly listen to Pray as you go and on Thursday 2nd July 2009 it included the reading about Abraham and Isaac (NRSV Oremus, Lots of others Biblegateway)

During the reflection on the passage they suggested that there were two alternative readings: that God was testing Abraham, or that this was the stage in history at which Abraham and the people recognised that God did not want human sacrifice and instead wanted humans to flourish.

My immediate reaction was to want to argue with that - there are surely so many more interpretations than just those 2 :).

My mind started drifting and I started going into sermon mode - thinking that surely it can be a metaphor for how God asks for our obedience. Then however I stumbled across the idea that it isn't an instruction, instead it is a warning - if we love God then we cannot deny him anything - and the warning is twofold - that if we do love God then the impact on our lives will be this big, and secondly that there are things which we should deny him - that he doesn't want us to sacrifice everything - ‘I have come in order that you might have life – life in all its fullness.’ John 10:10.

Thoughts around Communion

A number of different issues have all cropped up at once making me think about when people may receive communion. The first was that recently I have had reason to attend a number of Roman Catholic services, and I was shocked to discover the pain I felt at not being allowed to receive. And yet some were while I was on retreat (at Ampleforth), and I could have chosen not to attend any more communion services, but I did - at least in part to explore my feelings of exclusion. These were particularly acute on a couple of occasions when the words of the service felt particularly exluding:

"Lord, I am not worthy to receive but only say the word, and I shall be healed"

and

"Remember those who take part in this offering, those here present and all your people, and all who seek you with a sincere heart" (Eucharistic Prayer 4)

I also remember at my selection conference taking part in a conversation about communion before confirmation where another candidate reported that her granddaughter had asked "Granny, aren't I the body of Christ?" (from the words at the fraction "We break this bread to share in the body of Christ. Though we are many, we are one body,because we all share in one bread.").

It struck me that this comes down at least in part to Eucharisitic theology - after all, I realised that at Ampleforth I didn't share their understanding of what was happening to the elements - so what would receiving have meant? My theology in this space is very much one of community, and I recall a priest I know telling me that at theological college he had been told to receive each time he was present (after having refused as he felt unworthy) because in refusing there is a breach of community.

This was also highlighted in a recent discussion at church where we were talking about being a welcoming community, and it was said that we welcome everyone - I had to point out that we don't - the Eucharist is exclusive- even though we admit children to communion before confirmation (and here of course lies another problem - only the baptised - when in many cases it is Christian parents who have carefully thought about this who do not have their children baptised).

This was then followed at Deanery Chapter by a discussion on what common practise is - most said that if people put out their hands they would receive.
So... what does this all mean? As I was pondering this I stumbled over this report from the Episcopal Church.
I also had pause for thought, as I can remember attending a RC church many years ago and not feeling excluded - perhaps because I was less attached - so is there something about people desirous of receiving communion being in a state of being ready for baptism? (cf Canon B15A on receiving communion: "members ... who have been confirmed ... or are ready and desirous to be so confirmed").

It also struck me that in some senses people are perhaps behaving with more integrity now - If baptism is a big deal then it shouldn't be entered into lightly, and people shouldn't be "done". I think it also ties in with the fact that people don't "join" as much any more (sounding like and old codger), not just the church but anything - when we present quite a hard picture of baptism as "joining" perhaps it is no surprise that just as people now see marriage as the completion of a journey rather than the start of it, so they don't want to commit to baptism until they are sure.
Am I arguing for open communion? I don't know. Perhaps a better approach would be to teach more about baptism and encourage people to see it as the start of a journey - for after all we never end the journey this side of the grave! What I do know is that I feel drawn to the invitation to communion that goes:

Come, not because you must, but because you may, Come, not because you are strong, but because you are weak, Come, not because you are righteous, but because you sincerely love Christ, Come, not because you wish to receive the benefits that Christ may bring, but that you wish to be his disciple, Come, not to express an opinion or to make a statement, But to seek a presence and to pray for a spirit. Come - for Christ himself wishes to meet with you here.

and if an unbaptised person comes forwards and puts out their hands they will receive.

PS I forgot to add that recently I also attended a Greek Orthodox Church - but didn't feel excluded there, perhaps for two reasons: firstly many of the other attendees did not receive either, and secondly the liturgy was so far removed from the Anglican liturgy that it was difficult to recognise it as such - unlike the RCs, where the service is remarkably similar.

PPS and then I read this http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jul/04/st-gregory-food-pantry-san-francisco