Anglican Ways: ON INCLUSIVENESS

Some confusion has arisen over what Anglican Ways means by ‘inclusive’. The difficulty appears to be either semantic or derived from a failure on the part of some to understand the nature of ‘inclusiveness’ and Anglican Ways. For that reason, it seems reasonable to give an account of what is meant by the term and the effect of that concept on the organisation known as ‘Anglican Ways’.

Different people have differing understandings of any term depending on their emphasis in education and appreciation of philosophical and theological concepts. Thus some clarification has become necessary at a level that gives expression to the depth of what is intended. In an attempt to convey both the meaning of the words employed and the intention of those words, I try here to unravel the concepts involved. Therefore, I set out a few basic ideas and their directional intention. Any organisation is subject to the understanding of its nature held by its members and their perceptions of its purpose, methodology and actions. How others perceive those things is dependent on the subjective approach of those others and often of their desire to reorganise a body to suit their perceived needs and peculiar philosophical approach.

Let me start first with the term Anglican Ways itself.

‘Anglican’ is a term of which we all believe we know the meaning. In short hand, it refers to those provinces of the Church which are in communion with the See of Canterbury and have usually derived from the missionary activities of the Church of England in various parts of the world. This diversity of location is most clearly seen as corresponding with the growth of the British Empire but is not confined to that ‘empire’ or indeed the present Commonwealth of Nations. Thus, Anglican churches can be found in the Middle East, European countries, South America and so on. The concept becomes loose in practical terms as there are other churches which enjoy a reciprocal relationship with Anglicanism though they are not Anglican. Some Lutheran Churches and Old Catholics have held this position.

Thus, ‘Anglican’ can be seen to embody a broad range of churches as well as a variety of theologies and ecclesiologies. All of these have a valid claim to being Anglican and all contribute something different and special to the whole body. Together they enrich one another and make a wonderful tapestry from many threads. Trouble arises when someone in one of the strands claims to be more right than the others and attempts to impose their beliefs and understandings on all the others without looking to see or understand the authenticity of differing models of theology and church. However, in general terms ‘Anglican’ is a broad concept accommodating many viewpoints, practices and even disciplines.

‘Ways’.
The use of ‘ways’ would seem self-explanatory but, in view of present misunderstandings, it seems that this too needs to be looked at more closely. The founding meeting of Anglican Ways (at which I was not present) deliberately chose this term with emphasis on the plural, in recognition of the many strands of Anglicanism referred to above. As I understand it, those present, were committed to a name choice that would make it possible for any group or individual to be a member of Anglican Ways on an equal footing with all others. Thus members of the ‘Latimer Fellowship’ or ‘Anglican Mainstream’ to name two such are welcome to join. Such organisations are also free to affiliate with Anglican Ways. The clear intention is that all are free to join and be members on the same basis as any others.

Paramount to Anglican Ways thinking is the triad of scripture, tradition and reason as espoused by the great divine Richard Hooker (1554-1600). It is also committed to a dynamic unity in which no part of the church seeks to dominate another or pre-empt the rights of another. In this it reflects the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury as ‘primus inter pares’ (first among equals.). The clear intention of the term is that all strands are treated equally and honourably without domination of one by another. It goes without saying that the proclamation and living of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is of primary concern and that the organisation is subject to that principle.

It also means that Anglican Ways will listen to viewpoints from many sources and seek to assess and evaluate those viewpoints in the light of the Gospel. In this it follows the liberal principle of being truth-seekers, always remembering that all truth is from God and as we come to understand it, our knowledge is expanded, as is our understanding of God. So it is that the use of ‘ways’ in the title expresses a great many things that do not appear on the surface and might not be obvious to the casual observer.

‘Inclusive’
Let’s start with the dictionary: (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993 edition, p 1338)
inclusive a. L16… 1 That includes, encloses, or contains; esp. that includes rather than excludes (also foll. by of); including much or all, esp. all incidental or accessory items ; comprehensive. L16 2 That is included. L16 - M18.
Inclusive adv. LME. So as to include the stated limits or extremes in a series.
(I have omitted derivations and other finer points.)
It is clear from the dictionary definitions that ‘inclusive’ does not mean ‘exclusive’, yet one comment I read appeared to embrace such a meaning. Oxford shows indelibly that ‘inclusive’ means to contain all or to be comprehensive. And it is this connotation of comprehensiveness that best fits Anglican Ways usage of ‘inclusive’. The clear intention is that all who wish to become members and subscribe to the nature of Anglican Ways, as described above, are welcome. Any exclusion is not exercised by Anglican Ways but through the choice of those who prefer not to join or be members for their own reasons. It would not be appropriate, though, for a Moslem to seek membership, for such could not subscribe to the beliefs, aims, organisation or practices of the Anglican Church, but it would be appropriate for any Anglican of any persuasion to seek membership and such would be welcome. Exclusion would only occur when the prospective member him/herself decided not to join for what they considered good reason. One of the essentials of Anglican Ways is openness and the willingness to enter into true dialogue with others.

If others do not see AW in that light the fault may well lie with them. No one member of AW has the authority or right to attempt to change any feature of AW to suit their own outlook. The organisation is committed to using democratic procedures and any changes or alterations must be by consensus. In other words, Anglican Ways is a true child and representative of the Anglican Church as it has existed for centuries.

The question now is, who is this inclusiveness offered to, which is a far more urgent and important question than who is excluded - which could be seen as another way of saying ‘not wanted’. The short answer is, all are welcome who count themselves Anglican, although Anglican Ways is not so wrapped in itself as to believe it can achieve the impossible of keeping Anglicans together.
Nevertheless, it is committed to playing whatever part it can in promoting unity and understanding among various factions. That there are individuals who fail to understand the goals of AW, is a measure of the shortcomings exhibited by all of us. AW seeks to disseminate goodwill and a sense of sisterhood/brotherhood among all members and potential members. That we perhaps fail is again tribute to our humanity and our failure to meet the standards of Christ.

Anglican Ways aims, as listed, describe ‘inclusive’ to be “of all without discrimination based on ethnicity, social, economic or sexual status.” That is not a definitive list implying that others are excluded but an attempt to include in a positive way some sections of the community who are often discriminated against. However, before considering what is meant and intended by that, I need to affirm that the inclusiveness or comprehensiveness exercised by AW first includes the various orders described under the section on “Ways”. All Anglicans have the right to membership and that cannot be stressed too strongly. Again I stress that any exclusion is by choice of the person who seeks to be excluded. At times that will include those who wish to refashion AW to conform to their own views, so again I stress that AW, in its aims and practices, is bound by consensus and orthodox theology.

That leaves the question of those groups listed as being among the ones included. Again it must be realised that that list is not definitive and that there may well be others who qualify to be on it but were omitted through oversight or a failure to recognise their existence. However a brief overview of each is in order,

‘ethnicity’
The earlier word for this was ‘race’. There is though, only one race of humans, for all are descended from a common ancestor. Ethnic differences depict the changes in some through isolation, in-breeding, geographical features and so on. It is also important to realise that cultural differences have the same spread, indeed may have a greater spread, than ethnicity. What we affirm is that all such are of equal value in the sight of God and cannot, and will not, be excluded on the spurious ground that they are different or that they do not fit. All such are an integral part of humanity and accordingly are children of God and cannot be excluded because of a perceived alienness.

‘social status’
Again, this is reasonably obvious. We include all strata of society, rich and poor, and in between. Much as some might detest the idea, ‘boy racers’ have as much right to membership as any other if it provides what they want. The point is, we do not exclude because we do like the look of someone. Again,the exclusion is the choice of the one who does not seek membership. The unemployed, the manager, the poet and so on are all potential members. It is their choice.
‘economic status’ This is really covered by social status. We will welcome the rich and include the poor for that is in keeping with the being of Christ, although we may like to see the rich show some responsibility for the poor. That though, will also be dependent on the nature of affluence and of poverty, all of which is a topic on its own.

‘sexual status’
For many this is the crunch point. The fact is, that between 8½%and 10% of the population is born homosexual. However, that is not the whole story, for the range of human sexuality is much broader than is generally known and acknowledged. There is a whole range of sexual types whose definition, physically, is indefinite. Unfortunately, the scientific evidence is often rejected by religious people who have little understanding of the facts or, worse, do not want to have their prejudices disturbed. There are latent homosexuals who often exacerbate the problem by their denial and persecution of homosexuals. In Hitler’s Germany, there was an analagous situation in which concentration guards of hidden Jewish descent exercised the greatest violence against Jews. Similarly, in South Africa, some of the fiercest in exercising violence against Bantu had a Bantu grandparent. Tragically, many discriminate against people of different orientation and so practise injustices to Christ. Much more could be said but the reality is that AW practises inclusion at all levels, and again I stress that exclusion is the choice of the enquirer.

A great deal more could be said on any or all of the above, but let it be enough to emphasise that Anglican Ways is a concept which, among other things, seeks to create dialogue and understanding, and to maintain inclusiveness. For those with ears to hear, the message is there, and easy to hear and adopt. For those who want their own way, there are probably groups to suit them or they can form their own.
John Fisher

A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE ON RECENT NEWS ITEMS

There are times when we get clusters of news items that seem to be related and give an indication of where our particular part of civilisation is heading. Over the last month we have had such a cluster.

Let’s start with the lady who died after the power was cut off. Conflicting pieces of evidence explaining this abound. The culpability of those involved is not clear. Was the contractor who turned the switch just doing his job? Was the power company and its parent body exercising a legitimate action to ensure its terms of payment were met? Did the victim understand her rights and possible counter actions? The questions are legion. But the crunch one to me is, who or what was responsible and must take the blame?

I want to say that the answer is simple. All of us. All of us for we have forgotten about community and concentrated on individualism The individualism which looks out for number one. Yes, I know there are lots of caring agencies and that many people watch out for their neighbours. But basically our society is centred on the individual. Add to that the prevailing hunger for money and the inevitable glorification of those in the money and we have part of the answer.

The other main item I found intriguing was the student who became a spy for an S.O.E. and shopped his fellow conservationists for a few bucks. He gave it out that money was the root of all evil and accounted for his action. He got the quote wrong, for 1 Timothy 6:7-10 reads that, “the love of money is the root of all evil”. Money itself is neutral and is necessary as a means of exchange. Love of money means that the accumulator will go to any lengths to gain the greater share and won’t worry about the other fellow. We need also note that money can bestow power.

It was also interesting to find that, although the Bishops of all the dioceses in Aotearoa/New Zealand, both Anglican and Roman Catholic, were in full support of the inter-faith conference and gave it their blessing. Brian Tamaki and his cultic group, Destiny Church, became a ‘sounding brass and tinkling cymbal’ as they railed against it and screamed for the recognition of Christianity as a State religion.

It is ironic that, like a number of politicians, he has invented a past nuclear family that could do no wrong. One has only to work as a welfare officer to know that this nuclear family is a myth and that familial dysfunction has been rife throughout our history. If that is not enough, we note that every age has looked back to a past time when families were great and perfect and youth behaved impeccably. That belief is older than Roman times and stretches back through Ancient Egypt to its predecessors.

In all of these the love of money has played a significant role. My last point, though, is slightly different. A recent poll was centred on which vocational or interest groups were most trustworthy. Significantly, some who made money were trusted. The whole thing was bizarre. ‘Trust me, I’m a sports personality’, read one headline. Firemen, police and others featured and, incredibly, psychics on one list I read. Truth is that most votes are given to professions we know or have had dealings with. The whole thing is subjective and totally unreliable.

Personally, I don’t find any group, as a group, trustworthy. I find that people are individually trustworthy, their occupation or profession being largely irrelevant. Some people are intrinsically trustworthy and display integrity; others do not. If I want a confidant, I choose someone who conforms to the principles outlined.

So, looking at these things, I deduce that we owe it to our neighbour to be there when needed and to be trustworthy people with integrity.

After Cain killed his brother, Abel, God asked Cain to account for Abel’s absence. Said Cain, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” God then made it clear that Cain was responsible for his brother. That message comes down the ages to all of us. As John Donne put it, “Do not ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”. We belong together and are part of one another. Jesus, Son of God made it plain that our neighbour is any person in need and that we all live in partnership with God and one another. The story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) shows this most graphically.

We offer a warm welcome to everyone who would like to attend our next seminar

ANGLICAN WAYS SEMINAR

GUEST SPEAKER JOHN BRUERTON

DATE 5th June 2007

TIME 5:30pm for 6:00pm

VENUE St. Michael and All Angels

Oxford Terrace

Light refreshments will be supplied

ANGLICAN WAYS GROUP

Minutes of the Anglican Ways Committee meeting held in the lounge at St Michael and All Angels, Oxford Terrace on Thursday 17th April, 2007 at 4.30 pm.

Chair: The Reverend Bob Peck

Welcome and Opening Prayer: Bob

Present: The Rev'd Bob Peck, Jenny Daniels, The Rev'd Jill Fisher, Peter Oakley, Michael Ladd & The Rev'd John Fisher.

Apologies: Michael Ladd (lateness), Marla Hughes

Minutes of the Previous Meeting: The minutes of the previous meeting were passed with amendment, that amendment being that the words 'Dr Lynda Patterson' be changed to 'The Reverend Lynda Patterson' in section 2 under Matters Arising, Jill Fisher/Jenny Daniels. Carried

Matters Arising: Article for the Press: This was deferred and an alternative Easter message submitted which the Press did not print.

Correspondence: Nil

General Business:

1. Moved that Jenny Daniels be authorised to investigate procedures for operating the website more effectively and to take such action as is appropriate. John Fisher/Michael Ladd Carried.

2. A Constitution: Following an informal meeting held on Thursday 12th April at 10.30 am, those .

present being Bob Peck, Peter Oakley, Jill Fisher, Jenny Daniels & John Fisher an amended draft constitution presented by Peter Oakley was discussed.

Reasons given for the need for a constitution included that it was necessary to ensure incorporation, this being essential if donations were to attract tax rebates; other reasons included that without a constitution certain undertakings would be difficult , if not impossible to implement. The publication of an occasional magazine being cited as among these.

The discussion was lively and resulted in some amendments to the draft, principally the inclusion of a new clause 2(c) incorporating the original statement of the groups aims etc as printed on the card advertising Anglican Ways.

Moved that the draft constitution as amended be adopted, Peter Oakley/John Fisher

Moved that the motion be amanded by substituting the word 'received' for the word 'adopted', Jenny Daniels/Jill Fisher.

The amendment to the motion was put with the vote being tied. After further discussion it was decided to put the amendment again after which it was declared carried. The substantive motion, as amended, was then put and carried.

It was then moved that a further meeting be held urgently to give all members an opportunity to express their views on the draft constitution which was to be circulated by e-mail in advance. John Fisher/ Michael Ladd carried.

The date for that meeting was then set for Tuesday, 8th May at 11.00 am in the St John's hall at Bishopdale.

It was moved that an occasional magazine 'Anglicaqn Ways' be implemented with Peter Oakley and Jill Fisher as joint editors. Peter Oakley/ Michael Ladd carried.

Moved that Peter Oakley be thanked for the time, effort and expertise he had put into the formation of a constitution and the creation of a magazine Jill Fisher/Michael Ladd carried.

The meeting closed at 6.25 pm

Next Meeting Tuesday 8th May, 2007 at 11.00 am at St John's Parish Hall, Bishopdale.

Remember our website: anglicanways.org Your contribution is always welcome.

Minutes of a Meeting of the Anglican Ways Group

Anglican Ways Group

Minutes of a Meeting of the Anglican Ways Group held in the Sunday School Hall of St John the Evangelist Church Bishopdale, on Tuesday 5 February 2007, at 10:30 am.

CHAIR: Fr Bob Peck.

OPENING PRAYERS: Bob.

PRESENT: Bob Peck, Jenny Daniels, Michael Ladd, John Fisher, Jillian Fisher, Charlie Batterbury, (minutes).

MATTERS ARISING:

Advertising for the Marla Hughes Seminar was put in the Press by John Fisher.
There was discussion on the arrangements.
Parishes were advertised by email. Each time there is an emailing, some more emails come back as wrong email or undeliverable, ones which went ok last time. So this happened this time too.
Lynda Patterson and John Bruerton seminar dates..
For John Bruerton, suggest 5 June. Bob will check for availlabiliity and topic.
For Lynda Patterson, suggest 4 September*. Jill will check availablility and topic.
Motion: “That Fr Bob Peck asks Mr John Bruerton to be our speaker on Tuesday 5 June, the topic to be negotiated by Fr Peck and Mr Bruerton, and that Rev Jill Fisher to approach Dr Lynda Patterson to be our speaker on 4 September and again topic to be negotiated with her. Time to be 5:30 for 6 pm”. John/Michael. Carried. * [Note, Jill checked, and date is now to be 11 September, not 4^th.]

GENERAL BUSINESS:

We should remind members a few days before, of an ordinary meeting.
Michael Wallace is being ordained Deacon on behalf of the Bishop of Dunedin by the Old Catholics in Geneva. John Fisher suggests we write a letter of congratulation.
A Labour Weekend Seminar was suggested, on the nature of human sexuality, because of all the misunderstanding and confusion re homosexuality. It would need to be done exceptionally well. Perhaps we could have a major teaching slot once a year.
NEXT MEETING: Tuesday 17 April, 4:30 pm in St Michael’s Lounge following Evening Prayer at 3:30 pm.

ARE THEY THE NEW PHARISEES?

I’ve always had a sneaking sympathy for the Pharisees; after all, they were the leading religious and spiritual folk of their day. They were zealous for God promoting his standards and expectations. They attended to worship, to the major and minor facets of behaviour all with the highest and most sincere of motives. They defined what was acceptable conduct always in relation to scripture and its interpretation, always with God and His standards in mind. They demanded that everyone conduct themselves in ways that were worthy and that the Law be not broken or treated frivolously. They were, in themselves, paragons of virtue and they demanded the same standards from everyone else. The Law was paramount. It gave definite answers to all questions concerning religion, redemption and acceptable conduct, both in religious and secular living. The Law was not to be broken or taken lightly.

Then an upstart young preacher came on the scene. He was a tradesman, son of a tradesman, scarcely educated. He broke the Law. He worked on the Sabbath healing people, sometimes in a Synagogue. He lampooned the Pharisees, called them by nasty names, told people they’d got it wrong and that God wanted to be worshipped freely and that love and faith and trust in God meant more than the Law. He told pointed stories. He even went further and spent time with outcasts, bad people and those who didn’t go to Church. There was even a claim that he was God’s Son and had special qualities and that, in fact, he was a king - The King.

This was bad. The Pharisees were responsible people so they did something about it. They got rid of Him, but the damage was done. The things he had said and done stuck. Among the things that stuck were Jesus’s stories. He had followers.

One of those stories had to do with a feast in which the invited guests failed to turn up so their places were filled with people off the streets, the outcasts, ne’er-do-wells and so on. The feast went ahead without the best people in attendance, without the religiously good and so on. Very pointed. Now I wonder, who are to-day’s outcasts? What created them, and shouldn’t we be inviting them in? Is it possible that a new type of Pharisee is responsible and continues to exclude them?

I believe so, for among the outcasts we have a new group - the homosexuals. Their existence has become an issue to some. It ought not to be so. They’ve always been with us but never so intensely identified and labelled as today. And for that we thank some religious people. They appeal to the Bible, but there is nothing therein that supports their understanding of homosexuality, and Jesus, the teller of stories, friend of outcasts, said nothing of it. They claim it’s a chosen life-style. The only research that supports that conclusion, is driven by erroneous beliefs. All such studies are methodologically and logically flawed because they seek predetermined answers.

So these new outcasts are created by the belief of some and suffer persecution, condemnation and discrimination at the hands of today’s righteous faith-keepers.

Recently, some of them went from Christchurch to Dunedin in an attempt to disrupt an ordination of a gay man in the latter city. In so doing they broke an ancient Church discipline in which Bishop and Diocese are supreme. Uninvited, they invaded another Diocese in the name of a pharisaic law, thus showing ignorance and the desire to persecute someone for the way he was created.

The same people wrote to the Archbishops endeavouring to have them endorse a legalistic interpretation of a study document - the Windsor Report . Ironically, where a custom and, by practice a law, existed, they ignored it; where there was none they invented many laws to support their beliefs.

The Christ moved beyond legalism to love, inclusion and acceptance and taught a new humanity, both in his life and in his statements and stories. Those who ignore this and create outcasts and persecute them have departed from the Gospel. They do not diminish the Christ. They cannot. They do diminish themselves, religiously, spiritually and as people.

I believe that the groups I write of have redefined the Christian Faith to fit their own preconceptions and to enhance their comfort zone. They fail to realise that the Church ever seeks truth and that open discussion and debate is healthy and life-promoting. Among their sins is that of requiring everyone to believe and do as they do.

JOHN S. FISHER (The Reverend)

ECCLESIASTICAL TITBITS X

A look back at the past year - 2006 - it now seems a long time ago - discloses a number of events, some trivial, some momentous but all signifying our attitudes, beliefs and customs. Taken together, they tell what we believe collectively about other people, our nation, city and the world. They can also be seen as defining future pathways and directions.

The so-called war on terrorism continued unabated with loss of lives on all sides. That is something that must be displeasing to God, call him God or Allah if you must. Muslims continued to kill one another, often employing suicide bombers, which I would see more as a practical atheism than anything sanctioned by God, particularly given the number of innocents who are maimed and murdered. They also took Christians captive, brutally murdering many.
The Taliban showed a resurgence in Afghanistan. In fact dissension and war seemed to be the norm over much of the world and, as always, the innocent were the major victims.
Locally, the environment took much attention with debate about global warming - is it happening, is it not happening? The ability of humans to go into denial here became most apparent. Inertia is the rule. Leave things alone and they will all be all right. Politics also stayed in the public arena. Perhaps one of the most significant disclosures was the relationship between Don Brash and the Exclusive Brethren cult. The cynical pursuit of power and wealth demonstrated not only how easy it is to depart from the Gospel, but also how self-centred 'religious' people, politicians and, indeed anyone, can become.

I think, though, that some local happenings best illustrate the direction society is taking. The young woman whose house was crowded out by an aggressive developer so that her enjoyment of her home and ability to maintain it were seriously compromised shows the lack of care and respect for people that is enveloping our society. In this case, the City Council was also at fault in that they failed to exercise their duty of care to those they represent. This action has been repeated. Unfortunately, the developer's behaviour was legal. It was not ethical, it was not moral and it was not righteous. In essence this action contravenes the Deuteronomic law prohibiting the shifting of a neighbour's boundary marker. These days it is not possible to move a surveyor's peg but the encroachment on another's property fulfils the same end.

I wonder, has the world not heard, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"? Or has it become negotiable? Civilisation, as we know it, was founded on co-operation, mutuality and the rule of law permeated by ethical understandings. Is that becoming a quaintness of the past and also negotiable?

PISCATOR

PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY

ADDRESS AND DISCUSSION

Speaker: Dr Marla Hughes

Topic: Inclusiveness

Title: "What did the eye say to the hand?"

or

"Through a glass not so darkly".

Venue: Parish Lounge, St Michael and All Angels

Oxford Terrace.

When: Tuesday, 6th March starting at 5.30pm

Light refreshments - gold coin donation

Sponsored by Anglican Ways

See anglicanways.org

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

BBC Radio 4

Thought for the Day, 21 November 2006

The Rt Revd Tom Butler

Good morning. The Archbishop of Canterbury starts his visit to the Vatican today and the standard story is that progress towards unity between the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican Communion has been set back, sadly, by the ordination of women as priests and bishops and the fracas concerning gay priests and bishops in the Anglican Communion. There is another way of viewing the same happenings. The Church of England sees itself as being both Catholic and Reformed, taking on many of the reforms of the Reformation Churches whilst keeping a continuity with the catholic nature of the ordained ministry. More than this, it is possible to see the Church of England as a Prophetic, Catholic and Reformed Church, thoughtfully and prayerful making the developments that the wider catholic and orthodox churches might wish to take into their system later. For example, at the reformation the Book of Prayer offered the people of England and subsequently people in other lands, worship in their own vernacular language. It took four centuries before the Roman Catholic church replaced the Latin mass by local languages as the norm of their worship. Again, the Church of England since the reformation has allowed its clergy to marry. It's only in the last dozen years that the Roman Catholic church in England has allowed former Anglican priests to become Roman Catholic priests, despite them being married, surely indicating that there is nothing theologically inherent preventing a married man being a priest. Now we have the development of women being ordained as priests in the Anglican Communion. The decision was taken to ordain them believing that this was a legitimate development of church order. Over two thousand have already been ordained in the Church of England, I have 175 ministering in my own diocese. Women now form half the candidates at every ordination. It's nonsensical to believe that there'll be any going back and nor should there be. Women priests aren't a problem they're a blessing, not only to the Church of England, but to the wider community and I believe to the whole catholic church in years to come. And what of gay priests? Of course there are divisions and splits in the Anglican Communion over this issue at the present time, and because we are a transparent church, the arguments are conducted in public. But Archbishop and Pope both know that they have serving their respective churches innumerable dedicated and devoted gay priests, often ministering in the most difficult and dangerous places on earth. They're not a problem. They're a blessing. We may be in the winter of church unity negotiations, but calling blessings problems isn't the way to move towards the spring.

---

This is a mailing from St Matthew’s, Westminster, which seeks to keep people informed of press comment in the UK concerning current issues in the church.

To subscribe: send an email to pressmail@stmw.org. Please give your name, where you are from, and the diocese to which you belong.

To unsubscribe: send a blank email to pressmail@stmw.org with ‘unsubscribe’ in the subject.

---

St Matthew's House

20 Great Peter Street
Westminster SW1P 2BU

Tel +44 (0)20 7222 3704

Fax +44 (0)207 233 0255

Location: click here

Reflections on Ecclesiastical Titbits IX

The story of Sodom has for many years been understood as representing a condemnation of homosexuality. From other Biblical references it is seen that the sins of Sodom were many and varied. Sins such as pride (Ecc16:8) (Wis. 19:13-14) and lack of hospitality (Matt 10:14-15) (Luke 10: 10-12), outweighed sexual sin. (Ez. 16: 48-49)

Therefore when members of the church chose to judge homosexuals as an unworthy minority, then such judges are themselves guilty of the sins of pride and inhospitality.

We cloud the issue by saying that gay and lesbian people can come and sit in the church pews. Then we again become exclusive, by saying they are not worthy to answer a call to be church elders or to ordination. By sitting in such judgement we are guilty of the sin of pride. As “Piscator” points out, there is no medical evidence that homosexuality is a chosen state. We are born as male or female, heterosexual or homosexual. That is, this is the way we are created. Who created us? God. God looked on his creation and saw that it was very good (Gen 1:31). I for one do not chose to say to God that he made a mistake when he created homosexuals, I would rather rejoice in all of God’s creation.

When members of one fraction of the church condemn the ordination of homosexuals or the consecration of women whose ‘call” has been recognised by their Bishops are we in fact questioning God’s right to call these people?

Yes Lord we know you teach us to show love to our neighbour, to welcome all people and care for them but please Lord don’t call anyone to ministry who does not fit into our pattern of “normal”

From Kotuku