I'm on the train...

Let's pretend: you've phoned me, and I'm shouting so that perfect strangers can hear everything. As I type this, the girl next to me (whom I don't know from Eve) has just begun to speak, and has uttered the magic words:

I'm on the train.

Her life is unfolding for me to enjoy. I'm closing my ears and opening my heart to you instead. Maybe she'll log on later and read this. For all I know. A thousand of you a month do; that's more people than I send birthday cards to so one or two of you (perhaps the ones in North Korea) are unlikely to be people I know well.

Anyway. It's been a while, and stuff has been happening.

Firstly, I've been quiet politically & I've had complaints. All this pro-gay marriage stuff. I'm just selling the Coalition line. I'm told I wouldn't have been so generous if Gordon Brown had been behind it.

Well, that's true. But Gordon Brown would have done it all rather differently. And with such a sulky face.

The Coalition have been having a rough time of it; messing up tax benefits for charities, the elderly, everyone - except the wealthy. I don't mind that Dinner with Dave costs £250,000. You should see what I charge; I think he's underselling himself. I do mind that churches which rely on poor people to get by (and used to catch the odd break when repairing the roof) now simply have to ask poor people to give more. I do believe Honest Dave cares; but cutting that particular corner at the same time as cutting the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p felt awkward.

That tax break also feels awkward to all charities who rely on the occasional big donor. Rich people give big & reclaim tax on giving; it costs them more now to give, and that's a disincentive. Not very Big Society is it?

Yes, yes, we're all in it together. Top tax rate down from 50p to 45p; stamps up from 46p to 60p. Everyone suffers. Errr...

Dave does his best. You have to give it to him. No you have to; he's listening in on every conversation, apparently, or at least will be if he gets his way & then tries you secretly for what you said secretly. Still, on the whole, I'm happier with Dave listening in than Gordon Brown. Or Rupert Murdoch, who's been doing it for years. Allegedly. (For the benefit of Dave, and his horsey friends, just in case they number amongst the 973 people I don't know who read this.)

I'm still on the train. In Doncaster. It's the safest place to be. In Doncaster.

Keeping it political, it's been very exciting in my neck of the woods, I actually know someone in Gorgeous George's constituency of Bradford West. What a turn up for the books! Ed Miliband's party failed to do something that nobody could fail to do! (Miliband: the smallest unit of opposition; thanks to whomever spread that on Facebook.) Gorgeous George turned up, called Bradford 'Blackburn' (where I also know people, co-incidentally), smiled a lot, said the war in Iraq was terrible (so was the war in Crimea - and I think no-one is running on that one either any more) and won by a landslide.

Lesson: bi-elections are won by the politician who shakes the most hands, smiles the most, proclaims his/her love for peace the loudest, and is photographed the least with Ed Miliband or George Osborne. Knowing the name of your constituency is not essential. Especially if many of your constituents aren't sure either. Allegedly. (Again, for Dave. And anyone who may or may not ever have known anyone who may or may not ever have fed apples to a retired Metropolitan Police horse.)

In personal news - it's almost Easter, or as I would have called it last year, Holy Week. Not that that's a personal thing. Many people know this. That it's Holy Week, that is. Just not so many where I work. Certainly fewer than where I used to work. And I am about to not work at Easter for the first time in eighteen years.

Calverley Church had it's annual meeting last weekend, and it was well done & John (the vicar) spoke movingly. I thoroughly enjoyed not running it. Not preparing it. Not dealing with the three people who tell me how to do it better, and do so at great length.

I'm on the train - and as I sit here, counting my blessings and smiling at the public woes of others, I want to stop, to pull the safety cord and make everyone realise something.

Honest Dave is right.

We are all in this together. That girl whose conversation I tried not to listen to. The rich who might pay more tax. The poor who end up footing church & charity bills they can't afford. Honest Dave & Gorgeous George & even Gordon Brown. Not to mention unmentionable horsey people who may or may not have been in the employ of Australian media barons. The congregation at Calverley. Friends in Pontypridd. Those who know what Maundy Thursday is all about and those who wonder why a day of the week would get such a confusing name.

I am enjoying leading worship & preaching at Calverley - doing ministry without carrying responsibility. A great combination. And anyone who gets to do something without actually being responsible is easily and quickly critical of others. I'm on the train; I'm not driving it. I can speak to others. Write a blog. Watch the scenery. Complain about the speed.

It's so human.

Honest Dave is right.

And his Easter message may not be perfect theology, but a little pulling together, recognising our own humanity, our frailty and fallibility and ability to reach out and help and affect the people around us, has a massive potential. Easter is a time of death and resurrection. Dying to self & rising to Christ, dying to selfishness and rising to the glory of all that God has for us as we serve him in and through one another.

Perhaps the train might be Holy Week, and the destination the glory of all that lies ahead. And perhaps as I listen to my clever-cleverness I might let it go and aim for something better in what is to come. Dying to the cheap laugh and easy critical word. Rising to love.

I'm on the train; but I'm heading somewhere better.

cake and eating

There's a reference in the Guardian to a poll for Catholic Voices (whatever that is; I'm reckoning on it not being progressive or protestant, just a guess) which says that out of 2,000 people polled 70% say "Marriage should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman".

The Guardian writer comments, a little narkily if you ask me, that this is obviously wrong as 70% of people aren't against divorce.

On one level he makes a fair point - the problem with polls is that you always get the answers you want to. At St Catherine's we needed to show that we had done some research about the use of the church hall, and we put out a questionnaire on this basis. We worked hard at framing the questions in a way that we wouldn't simply be laughed at by the funding bodies for pointless answers: but this is harder than it sounds, because every such poll is sponsored by someone... If Richard Dawkins had written our questionnaire, we may have found that there weren't  any older people in Pontypridd, or that people felt the last organisation fit to help them was the church. When we asked, we got the answers we wanted. Crazy.

Actually, I see an awful lot of hope and good in this poll from Catholic Voices, even if what they were in fact doing was something I might not agree with. We'll come back to that. What is good here is this: I complained in my recent blog about the Coalition For Marriage that they were totally silent on the idea of marriage as a commitment for life. Love is for life. So they are. But this Catholic poll brings that back, front and centre.

"Life-long exclusive commitment". Those are beautiful words. Almost impossible in today's ephemeral, throwaway world, but beautiful. We should hold ideals as precious and holy. Catholic Voices (oops, in typing I missed out the 'o' in that word, how Freudian) do everyone a great deal of good by placing such a holy ideal slap bang in the public domain. Love is for life. That's not easy, but great things often are hard, and hard won, and their value comes not from their ease but from the victory of the struggle and the longevity of the experience. Love is for life. People are not throwaway. TV & the films have it all wrong, and sell all the world and you & me terribly, terribly short. We are awfully impoverished by expectations of failure and the concept of the 'next time'. First love should be forever love.

And here's the thing - a poll that says 70% of people get the ideal.

That's fantastic. Wonderful. 70% of people get the ideal. Want it, even, maybe. I bet a fair number of those people themselves are not living it. Have crashed and been burned. The world is not ideal, and yet we as people know what ideals are and still hold them dear. That is the beauty of life.

Because here is where I differ from Catholic Voices. (And this is what I said I'd come back to, earlier.) Their agenda is to be part of the movement that works hard to persuade the Government against going ahead with its agenda to open up marriage to gay people as well as straight people. The 70% for them are saying "no gay people should be married". (That's possible, of course - if you think 70% of people are in fact against divorce.)

But actually, I just don't get that there are different sides here. I don't get why there should be. This is about one place where I can have my cake & eat it. I've spent years of my life preaching everywhere I can about a God who loves people - simply loves people, people without qualification. "For God so loved the world (yep, the world, everyone) that he gave his only Son that whoever (yep, whoever, absolutely anyone who should do this) believes in him should not perish but gain everlasting life".

Of course, the majority see marriage as an ideal that involves a man and a woman and no-one else and lasts for life. Of course this happens - firstly, the majority are straight! That should be their ideal! But face it,  in the real world, stuff happens to married people - and then what? Are those marriages unreal? Wrong? Invalid? And when they have broken, and people want to try again, are second marriages not marriages? Or if we are simply afraid of breaking the ideal, are struggling marriages not marriages? And once we have accepted that we can be real as well as ideal, moving away from the majority understanding of what ideal is, are marriages that are between a man and a man also to be excluded because they don't fit the description on the polling card?

Minority situations don't destroy the majority ideal. They don't say - that's wrong. The majority ideal is right. But it's not exactly right for everyone, for all kinds of reasons. And where someone is in the minority, the gracious majority ideal doesn't crush them, sometimes it heals, and sometimes it expands, confidently, because it is so wonderful and will not lose itself - how can it? The minority should never set the ideal - break up; infidelity; transience; or even that the partners should be same sex. That would be stupid. But crushing the experience of the minority and excluding those for whom the ideal is impossible is also, well, not generous.

I am thrilled at this poll; to be able to produce such a great ideal so strongly in our contemporary culture is quite a feat. But ideals must be used to inspire, not to condemn. And where people don't fit, can't fit, the ideal is not questioned, instead it warmly opens its arms and draws others in.

We shouldn't take sides and make people oppose people. Because this isn't about ideas - it's about people opposing people. Real people. People who live and breathe and love and laugh and care and pray and cry and feel - married people, straight people, gay people, parents, children, lonely people, people in and out of love, people who feel valued and who feel walked over time and time again - on every side of every argument. Not ideas. People.

Love bade me welcome...
For life. Exclusive of others. But same sex? If that's you - then come here.
You've been broken in a different relationship, but need to start again? Then, with care and love - a fresh beginning, for your new life. Exclusive of others, with sins forgiven and memories healed, man and wife. If that's you - then come here.
For life. But you strayed; then come back, and seek help, and forgiveness, and learn how to be faithful and faithfully loved once more. If that's you - then come here.

Either that, or we have rules that break people. Ideals that inspire or institutions that kill. Marriage is a gift of God, and his gifts bring life - to everyone who wants them.

I don't want to be right

So, a while back (see here) I reviewed comments made by the Archbishop of York on changes in marriage law. I didn't agree with him. I didn't just review him here, I actually emailed him, and I received a very generous email back from his chaplain, Richard.

We got into an email conversation, and today we met up at Bishopthorpe, the Archbishop of York's palace (which really is a place - see picture). Richard is a very thoughtful, kind bloke, and I enjoyed our conversation around the issues involved. As I am preparing to get back to work, it was good to get out & see how fit I was to drive & simulate being a normal person again.

Richard started our hour together by showing me around Bishopthorpe, and as we started the tour we bumped into a short man with an unforgettable smile. "Good morning," I said; "Good morning," replied Archbishop John Sentamu.

Our conversation was wide-ranging and thought-provoking. I am reminded of a question Berkeley asked me: is my current position one I have always held? No is the answer to that.

In Christian life, I hope we all walk with Jesus. That walk is full of life and surprises and thought and change. I would worry if my theology was identical now to the 21 year old version of me. Or the 32 year old version of me. We should grow. We should develop, not because the Bible changes but because we do - because we grow, because we have more of Jesus in our lives and in our experience.

This allows for mistakes.

Mistakes in our past. In our present. In our future. We will never be perfect, but if there is life in our spiritual life, if there is room for room-for-growth, then I think we have the Holy Spirit and the chance to be molded more into the image of Christ. Here's what's wrong with me - I don't want to be right: I want to be righteous - in relationship with Jesus come what may.  

radio memories

In the rollercoaster ride of the last few weeks, my health took another swing downwards last night as I seemed to endure a mild fever. Alternately shivering with cold & too hot to keep the duvet on, I think I must have picked up a short-lived bug. Today I have slept most of the day, and although I'm fairly washed out, I'm a lot better.

However - I certainly wasn't up to going to Church today, and that's fairly unusual. I really don't miss very often. I'm the kind of guy who ends up in a service in a language I don't understand when on holiday just to worship & be with God's people.

But I do have a fall-back. During my St Catherine's years, we recorded four radio services for BBC Radio Wales, and I have them on my iTunes player ready to listen to. I have the songs form the broadcasts separate, so I can listen to them as worship music - they are a lovely reminder of great times, and a super selection of songs we valued in our worship.

This morning I listened to "Listening to His Voice", a service first broadcast on Father's Day 2004. It works through the idea of listening to God and being obedient to what we hear. Songs included My Hope is Built, my version of The Lord's My Shepherd, I Hear Thy Welcome Voice, & Jesus in The Name We Honour. Classics of our worship together. There was a bit of John's Gospel, some Moses, some Samuel, a bit of Isaiah and lots of lovely voices from that period in church life. Miles who was so important to so many, Gill Morgan who was leading services at that time, Joseph Davies when he was really young, lovely Phil Cox who is much missed, and John Murphy of beloved memory.

Hearing the voices of those who have gone before was a special treat. I do often say that those who have gone have not "gone" but "gone before", and the communion of saints as a concept in Christian theology is about how all God's faithful people from all times & all places are worshipping together. He is the God of the living, and in Him, we are all alive. Today I worshipped with Phil & John, who have gone before, and it was a delight to hear them as I did so.

It was also a delight to hear Joseph Davies sounding so young. He, his Mum & his Dad have been a lovely thread through my Ponty years, and I am enormously grateful for their kindness & humanity & all that they offered me.

Worshipping God is not best done by yourself. We are part of the larger body. Physically I was alone this morning, but in heart & soul I was surrounded by saints & angels.

PostScript

Now this coming Thursday St Catherine's have their new vicar officially instituted. A great day for him, his family, and for St Catherine's. I wish all of you great, great joy! The Lord bless you in all that lies ahead; may you know more of that blessing than you can ask or imagine.

pleasant memories

Sometimes, when you remember something, it seems like the past was always so much brighter. Things were better way back when.

If only you had a time machine just to check if it were really so... Well, this week, it feels like I've been granted a time machine, and the results have been lovely.

I wrote, a couple of posts back, about picking up a CD copy of the very first Syd Lawrence LP I ever had off Amazon. To be fair, not quite a copy - but the tracks off that LP all appeared a year or two later on a double LP, and it's that version that's come out. The LP I had is pictured here. Amongst Big Band aficionados it's embarrassing to admit it, but my way into the genre was through Glenn Miller music. I then add - but of course I subsequently discovered much, much more!

It's cool to like Basie, Ellington, Heath, the later Herman stuff, Kenton (it's also a bit geeky to like Kenton, either that or very clever) and so forth. But Miller? Please.

Jazz musicians - those who are self-consciously more than merely players in a swing band - never tire of looking down their noses at Miller music. After a while, you catch on and realise the errors of your youth and learn to forget that you ever really enjoyed In The Mood or knew the words to Chattanooga Choo Choo. Except ironically.

And then the time machine - the CD. You see there was always a myth about the early Syd Lawrence band playing Miller music - it was supposed to be just like the original, so close you couldn't tell the difference.

Baloney.

Here's Syd playing Pennsylvannia 6-5000 in 1970:


And here's a recording of the Miller band:


For me, Syd takes the original, and then adds something. Zest. Pizazz. Swing. He lifts it, and doesn't play it as it should sound, but as it could sound. Syd's trumpet solo at about the minute mark is glorious, and the rhythm section feature just afterwards could be Basie. The Miller version sounds straight-laced and a bit tired and like a dance band not a Big Band at all.

No wonder I fell for this stuff. By the time I first saw Syd's band at the end of 1979, the personnel had changed quite a lot from that 1970 clip - and I still think Syd's first band was his best - but this version of Caribbean Clipper from 1987 is the band I knew. Still swinging. Freddie Staff on lead trumpet, Ronnie Verrell on drums. All still belting out Miller music as it could be.


Don't get me wrong - I love the band that bears Syd's name today, years after Syd has left us. But they don't quite have that same passion for the Miller stuff, and although they play amazingly and I think they are fantastic (I especially love their originals, and their Basie) Syd's understanding of the Miller music and what it could be, how it could be played, the special quality he could bring to it - that has gone with him. He was quite a remarkable musician, and I have never heard anyone play the music he loved anywhere near as well as he did.

So. I have had my time machine. A CD from Amazon. I have had the chance to remember again how brilliantly something sounded in my youth - and I was right. It was brilliant. It wasn't my youthful ignorance. It was actually that good. No wonder I fell for it, and I am falling for it all over again - only, when I first heard that LP in September 1979, there was the matching reality to go and hear. Today's Syd Lawrence Orchestra are great, they play their music better than any other Big Band around, but without Syd they can't transform Glenn Miller's music into the magic Syd achieved. I don't think anyone could.

So I'll pop that CD on again, and enjoy the sound of it, and the very pleasant memories, and the fact that sometimes things really were that good. It's here on Amazon, and it's great.

be careful what you sign

 

At St Catherine's I conducted 80 or so weddings. It was always a privilege. The minister has a special view of proceedings matched by no-one else - you get to see the nerves, the hopes, the fears, the little signs that go on between people. Mostly, you get to see the love up close. 

It's terrific! So I support anything that supports marriage.

But I won't be supporting the Coalition for Marriage's online petition that is currently doing the rounds, & I urge you to with-hold your support as well.  

Let me explain why.

The Coalition for Marriage, on their website, have as their tagline "Don't play politics with marriage". That, however is exactly what they are doing here, and a quick look at their four statements of belief make it clear.

1.MARRIAGE IS UNIQUE: Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father.

What's wrong with that? Well, it's a bit of a twisting of history. A man & a woman? Virtually all human societies? Well, except for pretty much all Islamic nations where polygamy is still legal; and many Buddhist ones; and of course throughout Old Testament times in Israel itself polygamy was common - think David, think Solomon. Marriage has changed a lot over the years even in Anglican England, where current practices have been shaped by hundreds of years of legal, parliamentary interference as well as pure Bible thinking. After all it's not that long since any argument about the uniqueness of marriage would have referred to its "for life" status. I'm a wee bit disappointed this coalition doesn't dare go there.

2.PROFOUND CONSEQUENCES:   If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People's careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?

What is the logic here? This reeks of scare tactics, of Reds under the beds, of finding enemies & making people who are different into people who are evil. That's just not on. I tell you, traditional marriage has been redefined - in my time as an ordained priest - and these guys are happy with it. The change that says "divorce is OK" is in many ways far more fundamental than the change that these guys are wanting to object to. For here we are getting to the core of things. Really, they aren't just saying "marriage is good" they are saying "marriage for straights is good". They are kind of happy with the sentiment that second & third marriages are fine, for people should be allowed to make mistakes. Now, I agree. But I think all people should be allowed that right - the right to be wrong. And I’d argue it's the Church's role in the midst of that to stand tall and and say "BUT the ideal is love for life". 

Love is no respecter of orientation. And if someone is gay, why should their love be worth less? Why should we not offer them the same recognition, the same hope, the same joy? The same opportunity to begin a life - or to make a fool of themself? 

This sidelines no-one. Careers aren't harmed. As a minister I married some divorced people, and not others, so why not grant the church that role when it comes to gay weddings & the state the blanket duty? And why don't we, the Christians, instead of fighting a line that sounds frightfully close to "these dreadful people aren't quite as good as the rest of us & their love certainly doesn't get to qualify as being on our level" shout out that marriage is for life? For life! Love is for life! Let's have schools teach that new definition in the mix. 

What's to stop polygamy being allowed? For goodness sake - it already is for Moslems. And so are arranged marriages, for various sections of society, and though I don't like these, I don't think they belittle the way I'd want to get married. Creating monsters reveals ignorance. Get over it.

3. NO NEED TO REDEFINE: Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there's no need to redefine marriage. It's not discriminatory to support traditional marriage. Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

In our munificence, we have granted these people certain privileges, why are they asking for more? Where do they get off? You'd think they thought they were equal to the rest of us!

That's the issue here. This point simply stresses how much the Marriage Coalition doesn't like gay people who want to enjoy equality with their straight peers. Who want to be looked at in the same light and given the same respect and name. Who don't want to be told, "Yes, but you're not married". Gays don't want to stop anyone else getting married. They don't want to devalue marriage. They just want to have access to the same rights as everyone else. Same taxes, same vote, same value on their love. They aren't re-defining anyone else's marriage, but everyone else gets to define their relationships. Gay people don't get to tell straight people the value of their love; straight people like the Marriage Coalition believe its their right to judge others. I'm not sure it should be like that.

4. SPEAK UP: People should not feel pressurised to go along with same-sex marriage just because of political correctness. They should be free to express their views. The Government will be launching a public consultation on proposals to redefine marriage. This will provide an opportunity for members of the public to make their views known.

Because of political correctness? That doesn't enter into it. How about - because of fairness? Because of love? Because people are people? Because there's something wrong here and we can right it? How about because people feel second class & as Christians we should always fight to put that right, even if we are uncomfortable with the outcomes of that fight? It's better to raise people up than to put them down, period. That's not political correctness, that's what Jesus did. I can just see him now - he's spoken to some Canaanite woman, or to a gentile centurion, and in the background a fundamentalist pharisee says, "Political correctness gone mad; call himself the Messiah? No Messiah of mine would be seen dead talking to these folk." 

Jesus smiles. Half turns, holds his hand up and speaks just loud enough for everyone to hear: "But who needs a doctor? The well or the sick? You should learn what the Scripture means when it says - I desire mercy, not death."

Don't play politics with people. Don't play politics with love. Don't play politics that make some second class - it's unlovely, uncaring & unChristian. We may or may not be fans of marriage being for everyone regardless of orientation, but I urge you not to become one of those who thoughtlessly adds your name to the number of those who sign this petition. It's not nice.

old and always new

Enforced bed rest means I am working my way through several DVDs that I have been meaning to watch for a while. I confess, I think I have a crush on Ryan Gosling. Carey Mulligan and Christina Hendricks in Drive is surely overcasting...

But I've also been listening to some great music.

In the summer of 1979 I was shopping in Manchester & on a pure whim bought myself the sheet music for In The Mood, and thus began my life-long love of Big Band music. I got home and my Mum had a Syd Lawrence LP with his band playing a load of Glenn Miller tunes including that one. The original, 1969 Syd Lawrence LP. I was hooked.

Vocalion have now brought this out on CD - in the version that came out a couple of years later with twice as many tracks on it. Those 1960s Phillips recordings are astounding. The Syd Lawrence Orchestra in its early days was as good as it ever got. It is all Miller stuff, which isn't my favourite Big Band music - except when it is played this well. And this is astounding. Astounding. The love of Syd for this music pours out of every bar, and I am falling in love with it all over again. It's all here - In the Mood, St Louis Blues March, American Patrol, Chattanooga Choo Choo - and each one perfect.

As someone who had the pleasure of hearing Syd, and who still loves to go see the band that bears his name these days, there is a special thrill in hearing again Syd's own trumpet playing of precious memory. Just the odd bar every now & then, and the very occasional solo. Syd was a fantastic trumpet player. He sets this music alight every time he's there. Magic.

I also downloaded another double album - this one by the Ted Heath Band of the 1950s. It features two 'live' concerts recorded at the London Palladium in 1955.

1955. So it's in mono. And you don't care. Decca were the cat's whiskers at recording Big Bands, and the depth & accuracy of this concert performance is so perfect it shames most modern, digital, stereo bells & whistle attempts.

There are 26 tunes - some I didn't know (The Great Lie - fantastic swinging jazz) and some I know very well (Woodchoppers & Flying Home are both pretty much in these arrangements featured on the 1969 studio Swing is King album, one of my very favourite of the genre). All are knock-your-socks-off Big Band gold. The best British band ever playing at the height of its powers. The jazz tenor on I DIdn't Know What Time It Was is stunning. In style, it's very different from Syd's tribute to Miller, as this music comes from a different time and is much jazzier and frankly more to my mature musical tastes than the Miller stuff that first brought me into the Big Band fold; but if you have any inclination towards music of this type these are both fantastic recordings to go for.

Just a note - as far as I can see, the Syd Lawrence one is only available as a CD. And the Amazon price is shocking, but there are other sellers listed who offer a decent alternative under a tenner, both here & in the States. Meanwhile the Ted Heath recording only seems to be a download, but at £4.49 it's a no-brainer. Do it!

Richard Dawkins Is Partly Right

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason (you couldn't make it up) has revealed that not all Christians are Christian (ditto).

I have so many jokes going around my head right now - but actually I want to stop and take this seriously. Because Richard Dawkins is partly right, and there is stuff here that we Christians need to recognise.

When, in his Radio 4 interview, Dawkins made a colossal ass of himself by not being able to give the full name of the Origin of the Species, he could have sidestepped the whole problem by being charming and self-deprecating & honest. Giles Fraser asked if he knew the whole title (in order to show that fact based knowledge about detail wasn't the be-all-and-end-all as presented in Dawkins' report about Christians) and Dawkins said "of course" he knew the title. "Go on" said Fraser, or words to that effect, and then we had umming and erring and a glorious "Oh God" & a wrong answer.

If Dawkins had said, "I hope so, but I don't look at it with religious fervour so I might get this wrong" then he would've come out with no problem. Pride made him look stupid and lost him the whole debate.

This is my point.

We as Christians have a lot of pride here, and Dawkins has a lot that we need to hear. He is partly right.

The 2001 Census says 72% of people in the UK self-identify as Christian: they say they are Christians. Dawkins did a big survey in 2011 and says that number is down to 54%, though the census figure is not yet available. Straight away, we fight him - ridiculous, how dare he say it's so low!

But isn't our evangelism based on the presumption that the reality is far lower? Indeed, isn't it actually based on the very things Dawkins looks at?

For example, only 15% of the population (according to Dawkins) call themselves Christian because they believe in the teachings of Jesus. Most people in the survey say they are Christian cos they want to try to be good. Don't we actually agree with this? How many of us have said something like: "You think you're a Christian just because you're trying to be good? All your good deeds are filthy rags next to Jesus. Imagine trying to be that good - he's the standard!" What's the difference between us & Dawkins here?

I suppose one difference is the point we are making.

His point is not to show that something better is available, but rather that with so few "real" Christians around, how can Christians expect to have a special place in society, expect Bishops in Parliament, expect special treatment in law, expect to have their opinions listened to in the public arena any more etc etc etc. And that's why we get all defensive, why we claim he's wrong, wrong, wrong, and why we delight in making fun of his mistakes. But there's more here we need to see. We need to move away from being defensive. He's partly right, and we can gain from this if we will stop being so aggressive.

He goes on: Dawkins says only 40% of Census Christians read the Bible without being forced to. The remaining 60% clearly aren't proper Christians. He says two-thirds don't believe in the physical resurrection so are obviously fake, and that over half don't think Jesus is the Son of God. Christians aren't Christian!

And what is our reply?

We say: who is Richard Dawkins to judge people's souls? Who is this atheist to make such a call on other Christian people's lives? If they want to self-identify like this, let them. We tell stories of how we ourselves came to faith, knowing nothing, but how it was real none the less. We embrace those newspaper columnists (in the Mail & the Guardian!) who make fun of Dawkins & who ridicule secular extremists as "un-British" and find in them new friends. We see (suddenly) a great British hinterland of positive, if gooey, Christianity.

And then next Sunday many of us will go into our pulpits and say  - it's not enough just to come to church, it's not enough if you don't believe in a physical Resurrection, it's not enough to leave your Bible on the shelf through the week, it's not enough to call yourself a Christian but never darken the doors of a church... Make these choices and you aren't a proper Christian! And we will say this without a hint of irony. We will judge people just as cheaply and because we hope we are doing it in order to offer something better we will think it's OK.

Is it?

What if Dawkins' figures can help shake us from complacency and help us be better at helping others? What is these figures show us that there are loads of people who - for whatever reason - self-identify in some way as Christian, even if there are 'gaps'. Let's embrace them warts & all, and help bring about a deeper knowing.

Dawkins says only 25% of the population have been to church in the last year outside of a wedding or a funeral. That's less than half of the self-defined "Christians" out there.

Well - I'm amazed 25% of people have been to church this year. Fantastic! Long may that continue! That Dawkins sees half the Christians not going to Church & therefore calls them not proper Christians - here he fails to understand something that has always been a cornerstone of Reformation theology.

There is the Church visible, and the Church invisible. The Church as it is seen on earth - the people who attend; and the true believers, whose identity is known for sure only to God, though we get a pretty good idea from the fruit that comes from their lives. I'd say I've known people who show up & show very little sign of any real faith; but I'm not their judge. I also know people of real faith who have been damaged by the institution & aren't part of any fellowship right now. Dawkins doesn't get this. It's a bit subtle.

Our challenge is to build on this, to embrace everyone who comes so that what they find is both sort of what they expect (so there's no alienation) and better than they expect (so that they might come again). This is the hard work of every parish. It's adoring the Baby and finding new, warmer bathwater.

Dawkins says that socially most people - most Christians in his survey - have secular moral attitudes. He cites morality around marriage, around abortion, around gay rights. How has the church become the enemy here? As a card-carrying evangelical I upset many people with my attitude on gay rights, but I'll do it again. I think people have this right, and the church wrong - I think the church is pretty much unchristian on this and needs to sort itself out; when did Jesus back the religious texts against outsiders, oppressed people, those hurt by rules & priests & the orthodox powers of the day? He loves people and makes all people equal. We have to work that out, and if we don't we aren't working Christianly. That's not a secular agenda, Dawkins is wrong, it is the people understanding something fundamentally right. And marriage - we have a problem because for 200 years the state has given us one version of what this is & the church has colluded. What the church ought to be fighting for is not "marriage is for straights" but "marriage is for life", and pushing that agenda time & time & time again. Relentlessly & compassionately and positively in a world that throws every second person in the garbage can every ten seconds. And the church should never make life political - love stops at that point. Abortion is painful on seventy two levels. Of course I am pro-life, I am pro-people. I am pro-love. I am pro-everybody, and so should be the church. Or we make some less than us and us more than others and at that point we have lost what makes us Christian, we have lost Jesus.

We have lost humility - the humility that says: "I ought to pray more; thanks Richard for the reminder."

"I don't read the Bible as much as I should, no. You've made me think. Thanks, Richard."

"I do disagree with the church on gay rights. We'll sort this out; people are precious - God loves us you know. Thanks, Richard."

"Name the first book in the New Testament? I'm on the spot now - gosh, Richard, you're making me look stupid! But that's OK."

Humility that says: I want to help people come to know Jesus more. How can I learn from Dawkins & make this more inviting, instead of saying always "You don't make the grade yet do you, you aren't quite the real deal?" or some variation of that? That's hardly a loving way in, is it?

Because if we can find such humility, it's not just us that win. If more people get a better sight of Jesus, it's everyone.

Dick France

I have just heard, courtesy of Graham Tomlin on Twitter, that Dick France has died.

Dick - RT France to many - was a phenomenal Bible scholar, particularly in Matthew, but also in Mark's Gospel. I knew him all the way through to his retirement in mid-Wales, but perhaps best as principal from my time at Wycliffe Hall.

Best, but not first.

When I first knew Dick he was principal of what was then called London Bible College, I think. I'd finished grammar school & got my place at Oxford, but hadn't yet gone. And, for whatever reason, suddenly I began to think maybe I shouldn't go. Maybe I should go to Bible College instead. I was a very enthusiastic 18 year old.

I applied, and went for interview, and was sure as I prayed about it I was doing the right thing. Lots of the Christian people around me were encouraging me. Dick interviewed me, and said - perhaps this was one of those Abraham & Isaac moments in life. Not that God wanted me to give up a place at Oxford, but wanted me to be willing to. Go, do my history degree, live a bit, and then come back & he'd see me again.

I never went back to London Bible College. But when I went to Wycliffe for interview, he was principal there. He started the interview by saying - Put my mind at rest. Are you the same Marcus Green I saw some years ago in London? How did all that work out?

How did all that work out? Without that experience, and the certainty I got from it that Oxford was the right place for me, I don't think I would have lasted. I was overwhelmed & homesick & a fish out of water in my early days there. The lad in the room next to me did leave. But I stayed - & eventually settled, & eventually loved it. And Dick played his part in that being true.

At Wycliffe, we had occasional run ins. I was hardly a model student. But we were always (at times devastatingly) honest with each other, and I learned to respect him enormously. He was constantly there to help. I found it hard to find the right first post after college. He found it for me.

We kept in touch. When I wrote Salvation's Song, I spent some time with him, asking questions, seeking advice. He was invaluable. Not agreeing with me, but pushing me, making me think, making me try harder.

In Pontypridd there were a couple of moments when I saw him because I was struggling personally. He quietly encouraged me and helped me carry on. I got to know that drive up the A470 to Llangelynin quite well. Beautiful - no - one of Britain's most stunning roads actually.

And, of course, in Pontypridd, Dick had groupies. I discovered this quite by chance. We were studying Mark, I think, in homegroup, & Kirsty & Rhian decided to do extra study together. They found Dick's commentary & used that - and loved it. They were BIG fans. When they told me, I said I'd get him to come & do a day for us in Ponty & they couldn't believe I knew him. They were truly awestruck. So we did it - a fantastic morning, looking at how the Old Testament & New Testament work together, focussing on Hebrews, but using some Matthew stuff as well, and Dick was wonderful. Perfect for a parish setting. It was a huge success, and Rhian & Kirsty, pictured, were thrilled!

Dick & Curly came down for a few days in Cardiff on that trip, and I took them one evening to a heat of the Cardiff Singer of the World competition. It was in June 2009. We had a super evening, and he enjoyed the singing enormously.

Dick was a scholar, a wise man, a thinker, a leader, a pastor, a gentleman and an inspiration. He made his mark on many, many people's lives. I'm glad mine was one of them. I shall miss him, but I can picture him now quietly revelling in his Lord's presence and wondering at things I would only half notice. His face always took on a certain expression when he was considering something, and he could do it & smile at the same time. I'm imagining that, now.

The funeral is set for Friday 17th, and recovering from my operation as I am, I fear I will not be well enough to go. It is not because I do not want to or do not care. And though I know he would understand, still I wish it were otherwise.

Thank you Lord for allowing me such a friend. Bless him, dear Jesus, beyond my mind's ability to ask.

recovery

"Are you feeling drowsy?" asked the anaesthetist. "No," I replied.

And in a moment it was two and a half hours later & I was being brought round in the recovery room. A small op on my back was over, and it was time to start getting better.

I'm grateful for much care & prayer from many people. I'm grateful for the presence of Jesus through all this. At New Year I was with Chris & Ruth when I dreamed I would be having this op on February 9th, & I got home to the letter that had the date in it. On Wednesday evening, before going into hospital, I was again dreaming - this time of being with a group of friends, driving in the desert, and reading from Matthew's Gospel to them. The verse I focussed on was:

But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

Of course, the words that follow these are:

Therefore do not worry about tomorrow. 

I was worried; so these words made themselves heard loud & clear.

Generally, this is a time of remembering priorities. As a worshipper of Jesus, putting him first, his kingdom, the relationship with him, and trusting all else to second place - this is an important order of my life. It's good to know it seeps so deep it lies in my subconscious. It's comforting that in the re-ordering of my life that is still happening, God finds space in the quiet of the night to make sure that the most important truths will out. 

You never know what life throws at you. But taking life as it comes, and making the most of it - that's the trick. I may have felt drowsy after all, but I hope I didn't miss anything. I hope I don't miss anything. Salvation is, after all, about the road to recovery, and I have songs to sing along the way.

scary snow

I left David MacInnes' glorious 80th birthday party & started to head home. The forecast was for heavy snow over the entire 200 mile journey, and it had already started before I left Oxford.

"Lord, keep me safe..."

Within 30 miles I was driving in impassable conditions. Still, only another 170 to go.

I have never seen anything like it. I actually didn't see the road for 60 miles at one stage - and this is driving on the M1, mind you, the main motorway artery in the country. Too much snow on it. Even when the car in front was close enough to make tracks, they were still white in the glare of my headlamps. Occasionally, there were lit stretches of road, which were much easier. Finding yourself in the middle of a six-lane highway with no idea where the road is in front of you is a fascinating experience.

I wondered about pulling over (for those of you thinking this might have been a sensible option) but I wanted to get home. So on I drove.

About Sheffield, I caught sight of tarmac again, and conditions eased all the way up until I reached Leeds & then had to negotiate side roads...

Why press on? Tomorrow I am leading worship for the first time in Calverley church, and I don't want to miss it. This has been some week: Matt has been really ill, but is much better. I have had interesting news about the recovery time for my little back op next week. And David's party, thrown by the indefatigable Clare was a glorious occasion with lots of friends, and lots of memories. Being here in my local church tomorrow is somewhere I want to be. I have reasons to be thankful, and a community in which to sing. So on I drove.

And we got here, even if at the last we skidded rather than smoothly parked the car. The house is looking lovely in the snow. And Matt is glad to be home too. I am thankful for the end of today's journey, and for the continuing one I experience in my life here.

watching and waiting

And a switch is flicked, and the remarkable health and vigour Matt has been enjoying since the New Year is all but extinguished, in a moment.

I came home from work, and he was clearly in pain. Shivering, cowering, barely able to move. A shadow of himself.

Is this it? Is this how we end? I remember Charlie's last months, the wondering, the hoping, the vacillating between the heights of health and the troughs of despair. "What next?" was always on my mind. And, "Heal him, Lord". And, "Take him".

That's the rub. Wanting this to last for ever. Wanting him always to be here. Wanting him to go peacefully and to have a swift and easy end. Wanting it to be over. For him, that he wouldn't suffer. For me, that I wouldn't. For us both, that we might have as much time yet as possible. This is the essence of conflicting emotions.

And the vet has done his magic. After a night of presuming the worst, a morning of receiving relief. My beloved heart beats on. I settled him back in the house, drove to work, and after a brief moment's discomposure made my way through the day.

Oh this is better than last time. With Charlie, I was still in parish ministry. Facing my own grief I had to help all kinds of people through theirs. It was my job to wade into everyone's emotional maelstroms & guide them, beaconlike, home. Now, I just go to my desk, speak of research projects, funding & alumni. This time work is a release & a relief and an aid to getting through, rather than a wrench and a side-piercing wound and a guilt-inducing reminder of my failings as I feel unable to be who I feel people need me to be. Amazingly, working methodically & slowly, I got a remarkable amount done today.

Matt is doing well. He is in pain, but the vet thinks he will get through this. This is just practise. Oh my.

pride & prejudice

The wonderfully exuberant Archbishop of York has a couple of pieces in today's Telegraph. I was alerted to them by his twitter feed:

Gave Telegraph a wide ranging interview http://tinyurl.com/7jlekdm & http://tinyurl.com/83222dm Hope people read full interview not just the headlines.

One of them is about the church's response to the government's proposals for gay marriage, & the other is about his current trip to the West Indies. In the second there is a comment which I feel reflects on the first, though they are not ostensibly linked.

Let's do this bit by bit. The first piece tells us that the Archbishop is against changing the law on marriage; it isn't the State's job to interfere here. Marriage is between a man and a woman. For a prime minister to think he can alter this is for that man to become like a moral dictator. Not that he's against change - he points out that the bishops in the House of Lords did not try to stop Labour introducing civil partnerships in 2004, giving homosexual couples improved legal rights, and adds that his stance on marriage doesn't mean he wishes to "diminish, condemn, criticise, patronise any same-sex relationships because that is not what the debate is about".

In the other article we read: 

The Archbishop said he never encountered racism from fellow clergy in his rise through the ranks of the Church of England. 

Here's my reflection.

I am quite astounded Dr Sentamu never experienced open racism from clergy in the C of E. I'm sure it exists. I'm sure of this not because I think clergy are evil, but because bad attitudes are carried by good people. We fail unexpectedly. Without realising what we just said. That he never suffered from such prejudice is amazing. Wonderful.

Unfortunately, I worry that his article & the views he expresses within it means that any gay clergy reading it couldn't offer the same life story "I've never experienced any homophobia from clergy in the C of E". Not because I think the Archbishop is evil or bad, but because bad attitudes are carried by good people. We fail unexpectedly. Without realising what we just said. 

You see: I have to differ with Dr Sentamu - it is absolutely the State's job to set the rules around what constitutes marriage. It always has been. For us in Britain, this has been confused by a remarkably strong Christian heritage and a remarkably strong National Established Church. But the State sets the rules. The current rules around marriage are set by Parliament, and have been for - well, pretty much for ever. Even the bits that reflect what we do in church, including the C of E are set by Parliament, though the exact liturgies are brought through denominational committees. Still, they have very strict rules surrounding them. C of E (and bizarrely Church in Wales, disestablished Anglican ministers!) are public registrars for the purposes of marriage, according to law as established not just by Synod but by Parliament. This has always led to tensions: for example, when the church doesn't know how to deal with divorced people, but the State says they may re-marry, what do we do? Answer - eventually go the State's way. In flat contradiction to the plain reading of the Bible & hundreds of years of history, to which the Archbishop appeals in the Telegraph.

Marriage may well be ordained by God. But it is governed by the State, and if he doesn't understand that, he needs to go back to college. This is a compromise situation, and always has been for the C of E. If you don't like it - tough.

Given that, I'm afraid the next step in the argument is frighteningly simple. Are gay people people? Are they as human as straight people? Or do we live in Nazi Germany and have second class humans wandering around after all? Because if everyone is actually human, then everyone gets the same deal whether we like it or not. The same rights, the same taxes, the same vote. And, actually, this is FUNDAMENTALLY CHRISTIAN. God loves people. Sinners as much as saints. Jews as much as Gentiles. Women as much as men. Slaves as much as free. Straight as much as gay. There are no second class human beings.

Christians should be at the front of any queue where there are human rights of equality being fought for. Even if we don't like what the results of that fight will bring. We do it because we love people, because Jesus died for all. Even for me. To do anything less is to fail in the great command - Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbour as yourself. 

To read "the bishops in the House of Lords did not try to stop Labour introducing civil partnerships in 2004, giving homosexual couples improved legal rights" as a positive should stick in any Christian's heart as total failure. If people have poor rights, we don't STOP THEM BEING IMPROVED. We fight for them until they have everything they could possibly want, until they are truly equal - even if we don't like the results of the fight. We do it because we are called to love. Presenting the sentence at the top of this paragraph as a positive is, I am afraid, being guilty of casual, unintentional, but definite homophobia. It is precisely to "diminish, condemn, criticise, patronise any same-sex relationships" and that is exactly what the current proposed change in legislation is looking at putting right - because the status quo fails to take seriously that here are people not being treated as equal people. As less-than. 

I don't care if the church has gay bishops. Couldn't be less bothered. But I do care that her leadership understand that all people are people, all are loved by God, and that whatever our doctrine and standards are, we have a God who loves all and who has charged us to do the same. Offhand remarks that build cast-iron policies which confirm the reduction of some people to a less-than status when placed next to their neighbours will not do. Will not do. 

I am sure the Archbishop will never read this, but here's what I would say to him: genuinely I am thrilled you were spared being subjected to racist prejudice as you worked through the C of E. Now, please understand there are others who suffer prejudice and are treated as second rate in our churches and in our land because of their sexuality, and for many other reasons, and please don't merely 'not stop them' having a better lot. Please, with your history, please be at the forefront of fighting for their equality, even if you don't always understand them, just because they are people. 

I can't help feeling that if we truly do this as a church, we will make so many friends that our doors will be beaten down by people wanting to know why we care so much.

gratitude

So I am in Wengen for a week, enjoying perfect snow and now wonderful blue, sunlit skies. My gold skis are shining brightly as they speed over the white expanse, and I am having a great time.

Today was especially wonderful.

I spent the day with Sheridan & a group from the DHO (Downhill Only Club) as we explored the Murren side of the resort. In all honesty, I have never really enjoyed skiing on this side of the mountain, but I'm prepared to accept that this prejudice comes from my early days on skis and bears no relation to rationality. Now, I simply don't know these parts, and so I avoid them.

However, a day with Sheridan guiding us around is always a pleasure, and although the first couple of runs made me go, "Oh yes, I remember - DHO speed. Fast;" I soon forgot that I'd had to find an extra gear and just enjoyed the flow.

Of course, the highlight of this side of the mountain is the Schilthorn, famous as Blofeld's lare in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I've often been up on the cable car, enjoyed the view from the restaurant at the top - and caught the cable car down. I've never skiied it before. But today was the day. Dressed in black, with my trusty Volants on my feet, I was ready. Ready as I'd ever be.

Of course, I had no idea that the top of the run, the scary bit, was not simply very long and very steep - but also in the current conditions covered in moguls. Bumps. Requiring a particular skill some of you will have, but which is only occasionally something I possess... and then seldom beyond a certain degree slope. This was way beyond that degree. Mercifully I had amazing friends from the DHO to guide me down, and though I took a couple of tumbles (one rather spectacular) and would score zero points for style, I made it. There was a moment I felt I'd lost my head battle and could have cried when I looked down and felt that I'd travelled miles and there seemed to be the whole slope still ahead of me, but then I actually started to enjoy the experience. Earlier, I'd been working my hardest to appear to be a decent skier as I was travelling with everyone and thus not quite relaxing; now I really could not pretend, I failed again & again & began to just be and be myself and enjoy the whole darned show. It was - exhilarating. Totally beyond me, and totally wonderful. Stuck on a mountain with no option but to keep going, I guess I had to trust the skill I had (small measure) and the people I was with (wonderful, just wonderful) and I suddenly loved it. Amazing. All my natural reserve let go for a moment. The sun, the beauty, the wonder - the stillness of the Spirit holding me and keeping me safe. Awesome.

I should have been exhausted. I was. I am. But I kept going & we skiied for ages afterwards, and actually I felt like I could have carried on.

Perhaps it was the remnants of a dream I had last night still easing their way into my subconscious.

Is it a human condition to doubt that we are loved, or does no-one else struggle with this? In my former life as a vicar, people often told me how much I was loved. I never believed it. I felt I was loved for my role, for what I brought to the parochial table. For gifts (gladly) offered, and for time (gladly) spent. The confusion of the professional & personal "me" is always a difficulty for a pastor. It is easy to accept the good one does (and also the good one does not do) and to acknowledge it as service. It is hard to feel loved simply for being oneself, as it is so hard to divorce the actions of the role from the simple person inside. So (I am guessing like many people do) I chose to accept the kind wishes given as professional regard. And park it as such under "not quite personally relevant".

And yet last night, from nowhere, indeed if anything against my experiences of the previous day where I had received an email whilst on holiday which had stressed me and which had made me feel small and unloved at first, before trying to respond in a way which might be more helpful (though didn't deal with my own feelings) - from this place I had a dream where someone I do not know, a person called Paul, offered to do a small task and did it to show me I was loved. The task was inconsequential. My reaction in the dream to being told why it was happening was extraordinarily emotional.

Because - I felt loved. Genuinely. Not for what I do, or for a role I inhabit, or a task I fulfil, but I felt loved. Me. This was done for me. I awoke and wondered at the power of this thing. This simple act revealed a love I talk about all the time - how God loves us, me you, each and every one of us; and yet I have seldom felt the truth of that love as I felt it in that moment. A person I had never seen did a small act that made the power of God's love overwhelm me. I was loved.

And then I had a glorious day. A gift. An exhilarating time. Safety in extremis. Beauty and majesty all around me and kind people and glory.

So perhaps the remnant of the dream took away fear, and replaced it with something else -

Gratitude. Felt in my sleep, deeply, and on the mountainside, wonderfully.