80 and out

In a few days I shall be 80. Time to retire from blogging and Facebook posts.  You will be spared my cynicism. Thank you to all who have contributed comment on my posts.

Targeted intervention

 A charity I supported over many years is about to close on account of financial fragility.  It has fallen victim to reduced income from individual and corporate donors, charitable trusts and contracts with statutory bodies.  The charity in question is Mental Health Resource based in Tunbridge Wells offering a wide range of services for individuals with mental health issues.  It is a good example of targeted intervention.  Lives of individuals will be diminished by the effects of closure and doubtless there will be additional calls for assistance directed to statutory agencies: probably at greater cost than continuing to fund the charity.

A charity that did close was the Panda Playgroup located in an area of multiple deprivation,  Established by a local councillor it provided support for  pre-school children living in high rise flats.  Pre-school members of families in the area living in poverty or destitution were referred by the local authority's social services department.  The charity had a high staff/child ratio.  Children enrolled by the playgroup were often not potty trained, well behind in language development, lacked social skills relevant to their age and a few were prone to violence.  The charity employed a family liaison officer (FLO) who provided assistance to parents on a wide range of matters.  The FLO work was commended by OFSTED as an example of excellent practice.  The charity was mentioned in a House of Common debate as being an excellent example of targeted intervention.  And then the wheels fell off.......

The borough council decided to close the community centre in which the charity was based.  The county council library housed in the building also was closed.  The library and community based activities were moved to a new building that unfortunately was not playgroup friendly in that there were no security arrangements to isolate the playgroup from the rest of the centre.  But not to worry, the county council was to open a new Surestart and the playgroup might transfer to that location.  However the Surestart staff/child ratio was low and the children Panda catered for would be mixed in with children from more affluent backgrounds.  The staff and the trustees of the charity determined it would not work and so it was decided to close the charity.  Thus a valuable resource was lost and that showed through in the years that followed by increased pupil  behaviour problems at the local primary school.

Targeted intervention works.  It assists individuals in need of support and is far cheaper that the long-term costs occasioned by non-intervention.  

If the concepts of love your neighbour and human rights mean anything it must mean that assistance is given to to those in need of additional support, not having to rely on the capricious nature of funding or the vagaries of political projects notable for their short-termism.  In other words systemic change to achieve social justice. It is a mantra of Liberation Theology and of progressive theology but sadly there is little evidence of successful achievement.  We are all too busy scrabbling about for funding to keep going activities  assisting individuals at point of need.  Rarely do we consider the wider picture.  Yes, there are learned reports gathering dust:  but where is the action?  Where and who are the influential effective proponents of systemic change today?  We are lost in an sea of managerialism and fiscal policy, fudges round the edges.  We fail to root out the deep causes of inequality, poverty, discrimination and marginalisation and plant something better.  

Social Justice: role of faith organisations (4)

An organisation I had the privilege of being a member of was the Tunbridge Wells Churches' Social Responsibility Group (TWCSRG), a charity with a board of trustees consisting of nominees from churches.  Trustees came from evangelical, liberal and traditional wings of  parishes of the Church of England, Baptist, United Reformed,  Roman Catholic and Methodist churches.  The Salvation Army was represented by the local corps' officer and there was a trustee nominated by Tunbridge Wells Evangelical Fellowship congregation: a cross-section of doctrinal and theological positions united in the pursuit of social justice.  

As a charity TWCSRG was completely independent of all denominations and this eventually led to some friction and the winding up of the charity, its work subsumed in the local Churches Together organisation.  

TWCSRG sought to assist individual churches engaged in, or proposing to engage in, activities to provide assistance to individuals at point of need or to develop community outreach. It supported non-church organisations with a christian ethos and worked in collaboration with secular organisations.  

Church in Society, a venture of the Joint Canterbury and Rochester Diocesan Board of Social Responsibility of the Church of England, provided invaluable advice and counsel.

TWCSRG took upon itself the role of discussing issues with the borough and county councils.  Specific areas of work were:

* Gaining recognition for Tunbridge Wells as a Fairtrade town.

* Campaigning for the establishment of a credit union, eventually set up by the county council with a big injection of seed funding.

*Contributing to the development of the borough Community Plan. TWCSRG succeeded in gaining a place of the steering group charged with publishing the plan and its representative became the chair of the steering group. 

The role of faith organisations in providing resources for the community is underrated by the public and the statutory sector. It is important that churches publicise the range of services they provide and its effects on communities.  I  believe it is vital to have a local directory of services managed by faith groups and use it to impress on statutory bodies in particular the value they represent both financially and to individuals and communities. Where we think the policy of a statutory organisation is misconceived or not working as intended efforts should be made to draw attention to the issues involved and press for change.  In other words we need to engage with those with power and seek to influence them but in a spirit of collaboration and when appropriate compromise.  

Engaging with politicians can be rewarding, but politics is a very rough mileu, not noted for tranquility, and we must be prepared to be tossed about and shaken, but not downtrodden nor dismayed. The pursuit of social justice takes us out of our comfort zone. We need to build resilience and confidence in ourselves and others to engage with those who may not share our values or concerns. 

Social Justice: role of faith organisations (3)

 I feel impelled to tackle issues of poverty, deprivation, exclusion and marginalisation, not because I desire to follow the teaching of Jesus, but as I consider it the correct thing to do. Neverthless the teaching attributed to Jesus is persuasive so I accept that the relationship between what I believe and the message of Jesus is a symbiotic one that determines my action.  I, along with many others, tackle issues not because we are followers of Jesus but simply because we consider it imperative  to engage in such issues.  Engaging in activities simply to promote your faith betrays an ulterior and ultimately unworthy motive.

An example of such a background is to be found in a community interest company formed by three individuals, two of whom were of an atheistic disposition and the third from a faith background.  Orginally the plan was to develop foodbanks but in the event something quite different developed: a community cafe in a healthy living centre!

Capital costs were met by an interest free loan from a local authority and revenue costs from a small number of charitable trusts.  The cafe opened for business with a paid manager/chef and an assistant.  Food was secured from Fareshare, an organisation distributing surplus food donated by food manufacturers, wholesalers and supermarkets. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) provided individuals on long-term benefits to work at the cafe and the cafe organised a 13 week day-release course at a local further education college. Individuals completing the course successfully were guaranteed a job interview at a major shopping centre.  The DWP was delighted with the success of the venture and there was hope that it might be rolled out to other locations: sadly this did not happen.  The cafe manager supported course members and customers with a signposting service to agencies.

Although the DWP was a major beneficiary of the project it offered no financial assistance.  The cafe income did not meet running costs, so after repayment of the loan to the local authority, it was decided the struggle to secure revenue grants from charitable trusts was too much and the project closed, a fate that has befallen many local charities.  

As I was an independent contractor working for a churches' social responsibility group I was in a position to assist with the formation of the company and its early work.  However, there was no other faith organisation involvement.

Social Justice: role of faith organisations (2)

 The Eldonian dream: Inside the fight for Liverpool’s community housing utopia | Liverpool | The Guardian

‘Posh-poor divide’: the rise in areas of England where wealth and deprivation appear side by side | Inequality | The Guardian

Both links above refer to issues of deprivation and the problems faced by voluntary organisations and individuals wishing to be drivers of change for the better, however 'better' is defined.  Although not specific to faith organisations the issues raised are of relevance to all organisations, including faith organisations, intent on 'improving' the lives of people living in areas of multiple deprivation. Before engaging in any activity please read the two articles and understand the issues and problems to be faced.  Together they are salutory lessons in what does go wrong and how slow the process of beneficial change (if any) can be: unremitting toil.

I declare an interest: I was active in one of the areas mentioned in the reports, ultimately unsuccessfully.

An example of what went wrong where a faith organisation was involved follows.  Again, a cautionary tale:

The Church of England parish church on the top of the hill has a large well-heeled congregation ministered to by a vicar and a curate. At the bottom of the hill is a council estate built in the 1960s. There are rows of terraced houses, blocks of flats and a shopping parade. At one end of the parade is a doctor's surgery, at the other a library. In-between one retail outlet is trading,  the others are empty. The church had no presence on the estate and very few residents made the trek up the steep hill to the  church.

The people living on the estate had a typical socio-economic profile. The church decided to take a lease from the borough council  on two of the retail units and turn them into a cafe, an activities area and a skills training workshop. The new centre was managed and run entirely by church volunteers.  Although the centre is busy it was noticeable that most of the clientele is not from the estate.

After the initial enthusiasm interest started to wane.  Then a 'big hitter' joined the congregation. An independent charity was formed as a limited company to run the centre. Trustees were nominated by the church along with representives of the borough and county councils, but no local residents either nominated or identified for future nomination. The borough sold the retail units and the county the library to the charity for nominal sums.  In return the charity raised a large capital sum from major philanthropic trusts and the Lottery. A complicated binding agreement was drawn up between the Lottery, councils and charity.

The money was used to renovate the buildings, build an extension and repurpose the library with the use of movable shelving thus enabling the space to be used for church services,  childrens' parties and other events. Part of the building was developed as a secure area for nursery provision. A small meeting room enables residents to meet councillors,  housing association managers and the like to discuss problems.

The new centre provides a range of services and activities for all age groups. The downside was the reluctance of the vast majority of people on the estate to become involved. This sadly is a feature of many secular and faith based community centres. The roots of the problem were first a failure to engage at the planning stage with the local community using appropriate methodology: secondly a failure to encourage real and not token ongoing community participation in running the centre. There was no sense of community ownership.  There was no community association to engage in dialogue, nor were opinion formers on the estate identified.  And there was no pub!

Inevitably there has been a reduction in activities.  The cafe closed, the nursery shut down and the library is under possible threat of closure as the county council seeks to cut discretionary budget expenditure.  Added to this the demolition of social housing flats is leading to a change in the socio-economic profile of the estate and the need and demand for community services and activities is declining.

Social Justice: role of faith organisations (1)

In 1942 the Beveridge Report, commissioned by the United Kingdom government, was published.  It laid out in detail the social/class distinctions and distribution of wealth brought about by the social and economic conditions in the 1930s, exacerbated by the effects of the Second World War.  It set out a vision for a post war UK that would at the very least mitigate the effect of the major causes of disadvantage.

Five 'giants' were identified in the Report:

Want: to be addressed through a comprehesive scheme of national insurance building on the National Insurance Act 1911, the brainchild of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George.

Disease: To be addressed by the formation of a state-owned National Health Service, free at point of need.

Ignorance: Lack of education and educational opportunity.  The Education Act 1945 introduced a new pattern of education provision.

Squalor: A post war house building boom, partly as a conseqence of rebuilding after bomb damage in the war, but also to tackle slum properties and issues surrounding the close juxtaposition of heavy industry and housing.

Idleness:  Forced unemployment in the 1930s led the Report to argue that policies should seek to secure full employment.

The Education Act preceded the Labour government under Clement Attlee elected after the end of the war.  The new government set about implementing the provisions of the Beveridge Report along with legislation to nationalise heavy industries and utilities.

The relative success or failure of successive governments to achieve the vision set out in the Beveridge Report  is illustrated starkly by the reports published in 1984 by the Church of England: Faith in the City and Faith in the Countryside.  They painted a depressing picture.

Fast forward forty years and read reports by organisations such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and it becomes apparent quickly that whilst some of the issues identified by Beveridge have been addressed there is much still to do to tackle poverty and its causes, as well as issues of discrimination.

One of the problems is that there is little appetite by a majority of the electorate to demand change to eradicate disadvantage, a point well-made by JK Galbraith who argued (in a USA context) that there exist the economic means to effect change but self-interest means there is no will to do so.

The gap between government provision and individual need has been met in part by the work of numerous faith and secular organisations, both locally and nationally based. Some go beyond providing help and campaign for systemic change to achieve social justice. This non-statutory sector includes charities and community interest companies.  Some charities are limited companies, other unincorporated associations.  The sector is chaotic, there is overlapping, gaps in provision but one factor coming to dominate is financial fragility as funding from individual donors and companies, statutory bodies commissioning work and charitable trusts slows down or dries up.  It makes longer-term planning impossible as organisations struggle to survive in a threatening economic climate and onerus regulatory control.

Religious bodies  and other faith based organisations have a long history of participation in the charitable sector.  They are not immune to the problems faced by secular organisations.

For my part I have been convicted of the ideas attributed to Jesus as set out in the synoptic gospels and in particular the Sermon on the Mount, the parables and the injunction to love your neighbour.   The ideas of Liberation Theology and progressive theology have had a major impact on my attitudes, particularly the work of Gustavo Gutierrez, Jurgen Moltmann and Martin Luther King Jnr.

How to bring theory to bear on the ground, to drive action at local level, is the subject of my next post.

 

Such a shame

Small charities (less than £1m a year income) are having a difficult time, particularly those at the lower income levels. Falling revenue and rising costs means many are becoming even more financially fragile.  Taken together with the onerous regulatory regime of charity law and, if the charity is a limited company; company law, is it any wonder trustees/directors retire from the unending battle to keep their charities afloat.

Employment costs are increasing, prices are rising across the board: all outside the control of charities.  Income levels are falling, either through lack of donations from individuals and companies,  reductions in grants from charitable trusts, or through cutbacks in contracts for services commissioned by central and local government and statutory agencies.

This week Mental Health Resource (MHR), a charity and limited company based in Tunbridge Wells, announced that after 32 years of providing services it is closing in January 2026 citing financial fragility as the cause.  

I declare an interest.  I was a director of MHR between 2003-2012, invited to join as I was chairman of Tunbridge Wells Churches' Social Responsibility group.  The charity owns The Hub, a building housing the charity's offices, a kitchen/cafe/lounge area,  a craft area and meeting area.  The charity has a garden.  MHR has an outreach service in locations outside Tunbridge Wells offering a safe environment for clients to meet.  An advocacy service provides support for patients in NHS facilities, there are programmes for young people and courses for employers on how to handle matters regarding employees with mental health issues.

Overall MHR is playing a significant role in the health and wellbeing of vulnerable individuals.  The expertise within MHR is to be jettisoned - at cost to the clients, to the wider community and to statutory bodies.  Clients are to lose a lifeline, and it is probable that statutory bodies will have to intervene and that will cost a lot more to address than the services provided by MHR.

Sadly what is happening to MHR is not an isolated instance of the problems facing well run charities.  Foodbanks are closing, community facilities closed, services reduced.  For many individuals there is a substantial deterioration in quality of life.  How can we as a purportedly caring society allow this to happen?

There are serious political issues on the allocation of resources to consider, but where is the pressure demanding change to come from?  Faith organisations themselves have invested heavily in providing services to communities but they need to do more to demand of government systemic change to a rotten system facilitating social injustice.

At the micro level faith groups should be looking to assist local charities, providing accommodation, administrative support etc as well as entering into collaborative arrangements to raise funds.  The alternative is hand-wringing, shrugging of shoulders and sympathetic sighs.  

Individuals are being damaged.  It is a disgrace and a tragedy. 

Why do we do it?

Why do we do it?  The 'it' refers to assisting individuals at point of need and campaigning for systemic change to achieve social justice.  Why do some individuals participate in such activities but not others?  In other words, what motivates some  people to be altruistic?  

Over the years I have met many people engaged in activities helping others.  Some clearly are inspired by their faith; many are agnostic or atheistic in outlook, some are poor, some rich, of all sexual orientations and races.  Some people are motivated by the circumstances of their lives, or by experience.  Is there something innate that leads some people to be altruistic, but not all?  Is being non-altruistic related to selfishness, bigotry, greed, peer pressure, experience, background, expectation?  It is tempting to think so but is it a false assumption?  Many engaged in helping others themselves live in deprived circumstances. Is the pursuit of material possession a distinguishing factor?   My thinking is that there are so many variables  and caveats that it is not worth seeking to understand why people are altruistic: just be thankful that many are.

Why do I do 'it'.  What motivates me to seek to assist people to enjoy 'better' lives?  It's not as though I woke up one morning and declared I was going to engage in charitable work!  I was raised in a family that had a caring ethos, my experiences as a child and a teenager influenced my thinking as did the reading material available to me.  University education at an institution renowned for leftist thinking led me to embrace the political philosophy of democratic socialism and that has stayed with me (with some aberrations) for the last sixty years.  

My early adult life was free of any faith interest.  I was keen on advancing my career and the material benefits it brought.  Then I met an individual of strong conservative evangelical persuasion that led me to read the bible.  Over a period of five years I came to the conclusion that the teaching attributed to Jesus was compelling, but not the writings attributed to Paul.  I came to accept there is no metaphysical or anthropomorphic god and the bible is of human origin.  

It would be incorrect to state my helping individuals and campaigning was, and is, motivated solely by the example of Jesus nor that my activity led me inevitably to follow the teaching attributed to Jesus.  There is undoubtedly a symbiosis between the two but this has to be set in the context of my life experience.  

Some say that the bible should be read through the lens of love, that Jesus is love.  But to show kindness, concern etc for others is not dependent on any faith based source.  We are all capable of love, by choice, independent of any faith considerations.  For me the teaching attributed to Jesus acts as a source of inspiration and motivation for what I do.  Others find motivation elsewhere.  Put simply: you don't have to be a person of faith as a prerequisite to showing love by practical action to assist others. 

 

Recap Two

In accepting the premis that all scripture is of human conception/inspiration the question arises as to how it should be read.  Should we use the methodology of literary criticism applied to the writings of Shakespeare, Twain etc.?  What is the impact of postmodernism on our understanding and application of texts?  As I struggled to answer these questions I published the following blog post.

Hello. Have you read all my posts? You have. Congratulations, or should that be commiserations? A set of disjointed ramblings they may be, but I trust I conveyed my empathy for an approach to Christianity rooted in postmodernism and deconstructivism with strong elements of liberation theology, liberalism and progressivism thrown in. I call it a melange of strands of theological ideas, although others may not be so polite.

My background is in law as a student and a lecturer in jurisprudence and legal theory. In this post I plan to concentrate on how judges in common law legal systems in the UK and USA decide cases and how the process has parallels to assist our understanding scripture.

Apart from statutes English law is based on the common law as ameliorated by equitable jurisdiction as will be explained later.   

 Common law is so-called because it applies across England and Wales. It consists of judicial decisions in legal cases known appropriately as case law. Case law consists of published reports that set out the facts of a case, the consideration by the judge(s) of the relevant law (as they perceive it), the reason(s) for the decision and judgment. We have a system based on precedent which means later cases with similar facts should be decided in like fashion to earlier cases in order to produce 'certainty'. Simple really, but no, judges will distinguish cases on the facts so as not to have to follow the decisions in earlier cases. 

Judaism had, and has, professions engaged in interpreting the Law, not just to circumvent a specific rule but also to apply it in vastly changed societies. It is the age old battle between either rigorous rigid adherence to the original rules or applying fluid and flexible interpretive methods: in Christian circles a battle continuing to this day in interpretation of the Old and New Testaments.

The judiciary may find another way round decisions in earlier cases by applying their equitable jurisdiction. There are a number of maxims or principles of equity which set out the parameters within which judges may exercise this jurisdiction. Equitable jurisdiction acts as a supplement, not as a replacement to common law. It seeks to produce fair and just outcomes for individuals in the circumstances where equitable maxims may be applied. 

Concepts of fairness and justice are central to Christianity yet sadly there are those who interpret the bible in a narrow rigid manner and would exclude other interpretive methods which seek to apply the broad concepts articulated by Jesus.

 It is said that in England judges do not make law. Law making is for the Crown in Parliament through legislation. The judiciary is a mere interpreter of statutes and subordinate legislation. There are clear rules of statutory interpretation.

But what are we to make of the common law? After all, it is not made by the legislature but exists in law reports over which Parliament has no authority. Legislation may be passed to overrule or amend the common law. The myth is that judges do not make the common law, they merely interpret it. This is nonsense intended to divert attention away from the ability of an unelected body of judges to make law. 

A simple illustration of the myth. Regard the common law as a lump of potters clay. The clay may be made into all manner of shapes but it stays a lump of clay. No new clay has been created, it has simply been moulded into a new shape. The common law is shaped and moulded by the judiciary, but nothing new is created. The common law is being applied to the facts in cases, not being changed by novel judicial ideas. Nonsense.

Instead of common law think Old and New Testaments. Think of these as a lump of clay. How is this clay shaped and moulded? How is it applied to modern society? Who is responsible for determining the meaning of scripture and its application? Who indeed?

Do you consider the meaning of a passage of scripture without any preconceptions? Highly unlikely. We do not act and think in a vacuum: in the background or foreground there are influences at work as a consequence of our knowledge, experience and motivation. Family, economics, politics, social policy, educational attainment, employment, class, income, hobbies, faith, newspapers, television et al all conspire to shape our opinions, our thinking, our action. Whether it is a judge deciding a case, a bishop commenting on a theological issue, or the man at the bar in the pub holding forth there is a complicated potpourri of factors shaping their thinking.  

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was a long- serving judge of the USA Supreme Court and a distinguished jurist. He coined the phrase inarticulate major premises as a description of how in deciding cases judges take into consideration factors outside the facts of a case and a logical application of the law to the facts, sometimes knowingly, sometimes unconsciously. In other words, a cartload of baggage. What baggage do we bring to our interpretation of scripture? When reading opinions on the meaning of scripture we should ask what agenda the author is promoting. Consider this statement by John Piper a USA Baptist minister and theologian. 

"If you alter or obscure the Biblical portrait of God in order to attract converts, you don't get converts to God, you get converts to an illusion. This is not evangelism but deception."

In other words, if you don't accept Piper's interpretation of scripture you are deluded and deceived. Piper bring his inarticulste premise to bear on biblical interpretation.

Holmes was a prolific writer. Below I have summarised three points he made concerning his understanding of the law, points which may be equally applicable to our understanding of scripture.

* The life of the law has not been logic it has been experience.

* Law is a set of generalisations of what judges did in earlier cases.

* Words are the skin of living thought.

I proffer the thought that our understanding of scripture should be akin to that of Holmes in respect of the common law. Postmodernism has drawn out the fluidity of words. Faith is not based on pure logic but on hope and experience. We should not interpret scripture as a set of static, rigid, fixed rules but as fluid and dynamic guides to faith.

According to Oliver Wendell Holmes the law has no metaphysical or natural law basis. It is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky.

 "The prophecies of what a court will do in fact and nothing more pretentious are what I mean by the law."

Such an approach applied to scripture would not commend itself to bible literalist fundamentalists, but should pose no problems for those whose doctrinal belief is that scripture is human inspired.

We may take inspiration on how scripture should be read by referring to Holmes observations on the method that should be adopted to applying the provisions of the USA Constitution. Unlike the UK the USA has a written Constitution. Holmes argues that the Constitution should not be read as a statute is but as the common law is read.

"The provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas that have their essence in form: they are organic and living institutions. Their significance is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and line of growth."

When interpreting scripture I commend the approach outlined above. We have a living document relevant to our time. Therefore, we must interpret scripture accordingly. Our understanding and application must not be hampered by interpreting scripture as we would a statute. 

Beware those who seek to control, or guide us towards a static exclusive introspective faith/belief/opinion. Embrace those who guide us towards a dynamic, outgoing and inclusive understanding. Throw out legalism, welcome reading scripture through the lens of love.  

The twin tyrannies of literalism and legalism continue to haunt our understanding of and acting on the dynamic principles of Christian faith as stated by Jesus in the two great commandments. Two simple yet profound principles urging us to take action: to love God and to follow him in the pursuit of justice. The synoptic gospels contain numerous examples of Jesus tackling literalism and legalism as well as their purveyors. It serves us well to consider how Jesus challenged the gatekeepers of his time and in so doing equip us to counter present day proponents of literal interpretation and narrow legalism.

In Matthew 5 there is a phrase used as a formula to contrast a rule and the interpretation placed on it by Jesus:

"You have heard that it was said......But I tell you."

In each case Jesus develops a broad principle out of a narrow rule.

Matthew 23 and Luke 11 expound the views of Jesus on the attitudes and behaviour of the Pharisees and the experts in the law. It is an exposition of all that Jesus considered to be wrong with the law and its interpreters and practitioners. It is unremittingly harsh. Two examples:

"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practised the latter without leaving the former undone." Luke 11:42

Justice and the love of God: the two great commandments. A move from rules to principles.

"You experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not Lift one finger to help them." Luke 11:46

Jesus freed us from the burden of the law by fulfilling it in the two great commandments. The restrictive narrow rules are swept away on the wave of dynamic enabling principles.

A further illustration. In Mark 3 we read of a man with a shrivelled hand who was healed by Jesus on the Sabbath contrary to the law. Jesus said: 

"Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?"

Jesus challenged the religious leaders of his time. He challenges us to do likewise, to confront those who would seek to deny and exclude individuals from Christian communities by hiding behind doctrine, legalistic or literal interpretation of scripture. Instead, read scripture through the lens of love.

Recap One

When I commenced my blog it was with the intention that it would subject my musings to public gaze and comment.  Also, it was a convenient way to put my reflections into a format that is easily accessible. For your delectation is one of my earlier posts that I think is indicative of my current thinking.

Deconstruction Ramble

Well here we are in the world of Don Cupitt, Friedrich Nietzsche and Jacques Derrida. All challenging philosophers for a Christian. It is not my intention to write summaries of the main arguments of the aforementioned. Rather, there follows observations there to be shot at. It is a series of jottings and certainly not a dissertation. 

So, take a deep breath and plunge into the subject, well at least dip a toe in the water. Is there a god or God? Does God exist and if so where and how? Is God a creation of human imagination and non-existent beyond that? Is scripture divinely inspired or simply the product of the ponderings of humanity? Is religion an opiate of the masses, a means of social control, or is it a vehicle for freeing people from the chains of enslavemen and oppression, or something else? Take your pick. You can argue with people until you are exhausted but it is impossible to 'prove' one opinion to be correct and others wrong. You cannot make a fact out of an opinion or an 'is' out of an 'ought".

So what turns an individual into a person of faith? A damascene conversion, a feeling of being 'strangely warmed' (John Wesley), knowing and seeing Christians in action, convinced by reading scripture, or some other experience?

A definition of faith is to be found in Hebrews: 11.1

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (NIV)

"Thus we have confidence in what we hope for. Faith is not proof or evidence of what is unseen. Rather it is the mode by which invisible realities become real for humanity. Faith is not inferior to knowledge, it is the proper mode of knowledge in relation to unseen realities." (Montefiore)

Catholics stress the importance of three strands identified in the writing of Hooker: scripture, reason and tradition. Protestants emphasise the primacy of scripture, although sadly interpretation is sometimes marked by an absence of reason or plain commonsense. Possibly the motivation for this is a longing for certainty and proof, which of course is illusory. The fundamentalist literalist approach to biblical interpretation is driven by this yearning for certainty and proof. Any suggestion of alternative interpretation is anathema to such a mindset, a mindset inimical to a better understanding of the Good News of Jesus. Such an approach makes its followers slaves to a text, not free to enjoy the fullness of God's love.

However whilst a person may lack faith nihilists such as Nietzsche claim it is a wasted effort to seek God. God does not exist, so faith is useless. There are no overarching metaphysical entities that are the source of objective truth. To claim otherwise is to be deluded. Of course this is merely an assertion and we may choose to ignore it, indeed as Christians we reject it, or don't we?

Charles 1 head was chopped off and thus ended the application of the concept of the divine right of a monarch to rule unfettered, at least in England. With him died the application of the concept that a sovereign is pre-destined by God, receives his/her authority from God and has no duties or responsibilites for the citizens of the realm. 

 In its stead a new concept. A sovereign could only rule with the consent of and within limitations imposed by Parliament, there being a contract, express or implied between the sovereign and the people. A metaphysical concept replaced by a human concept. The link between God and the sovereign had been severed and replaced by a contract between the sovereign and the people to rule in the interest of the latter. It is a transfer of power. Is such a transfer contrary to scripture and worthy of literalist fundamentalists angst? Doubtless they will contrive an unconvincing response.

Can we be Christians without a belief in a metaphysical god? The Sea of Faith movement has it that we can. I know Church of England clergy who hold this view. The old joke is that when the Creed is recited at a service such a minister says 'I believe' then crosses his/her fingers!

Deconstructivism is a postmodernist development attributable to Jacques Derrida. Concepts are based on the subjective meaning ascribed to words by the reader and in understanding this meaning we use words which in turn are understood by other words ad infinitum. Therefore the meaning of words is fluid and this makes it difficult to have a clear definition of concepts such as justice, faith and truth. It follows that meaning is subjective and of human origin and not objective and of metaphysical origin. All objects have meaning only through being defined by language. The implications of this for biblical interpretation have been mentioned in earlier parts of this blog.

The Sea of Faith movement is deconstructivist and akin to Dietrich Bonhoeffer's concept of 'religionless Christianity'. Such Christianity is a way of life based on subjective understanding of the meaning of the words of Jesus: not on systems of belief, doctrines, dogmas and rules: nor on the rites and rituals of churches falsely cloaked in supposed objectivity. 

But is this all this postmodernism too bleak for Christians to contemplate? Does it reduce Christianity to a secular prospectus? I shall explore this in more detail in future posts. I am outside my comfort zone, so for me it will an interesting journey.

Are the phrases 'Religionless Christianity' and 'Secular Christianity' oxymorons? Do labels matter given the baggage attached to them?

Postmodernism eschews all metaphysical concepts. There is no God laying down absolute rules. All rules are made by humans, are subjective and fluid as they are interpreted as to their import through language. Postmodernism argues that claims to objectivity by the church are a means of its securing power and control over people, in other words guardians and gatekeepers of the only truth. The literalist Christian mindset endorses and promotes the objectivity approach.

The Progressive Christianity approach may offer a way forward as well as making sense of Bonhoeffer's phrase 'Religionless Christianity'. 

Religion is not a synonym for faith. We considered in an earlier the meaning of faith as set out in Hebrews 11:1. Religion is bound up in church doctrine, dogmas, creeds, rules, regulations and approved scriptural interpretation. You join the club and agree to obey the rules. Religionless Christianity simply rejects these hindrances to faith.

According to this approach Christians should concentrate on action to apply the teaching of Jesus. Jesus is the focus of an active faith. What this means for individual Christians and the hoped for impact of the approach will be teased out in future parts.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer coined the phrase 'religionless Christianity' to encapsulate his understanding of christian theology. His ideas are of relevance in the postmodernist world. The two key concepts are:

1. The need for intercessionary prayer, bringing before God those suffering injustice, identifying with them and praying for power and strength to stand up for what is right and just, not leaving nor expecting God to act.

2. We should seek to follow Jesus by engaging in action to promote justice for the marginalised and oppressed in our world.

In other words we should pick up our cross and follow Jesus into battle for the poor in society, not by mere intellectual assent, but by our actions.

Our focus should be on Jesus, not the religious trappings of doctrine, creeds, dogma and gatekeepers.

Bonhoeffer is promoting the centrality of the two Great Commandments and the imperative of our engagement through action, costly though it is.

Love God, love others. Don't just think it, do it.

Just musing......

I do not discuss or argue as to the existence of god as all debate is speculation, opinion, not based on verifiable facts.  What is the point of engaging in such fruitless activity?  Following on from this is my opinion that all scripture is of human origin: not the word of god, not inspired by god.  

Scripture is useful in that it sets out human ideas about the nature of society and suggests roles for us.   It is not a set of statements by a metaphysical entity laying down objective truths.  We may choose to follow the recommended behaviour set out, but we are not bound by it.  There are no god given rights, only rights humanity, or sections of it, lay down and seek to achieve adherence to through moral/ethical persuasion, or by the use of legal force.

Individuals may have faith, belief or be of the opinion that there is a god and that god inspires scripture.  So be it.  A person is entitled to their religious views so long as there is no attempt to impose it on others, again by persuasion or force. Freedom of religion is freedom to hold one's opinions: it is not freedom to force them on others.

I choose to follow the teaching of Jesus on social issues by helping people at point of need and campaigning for systemic change to achieve social justice.  I do not do this because of the teaching of Jesus, nor is it the case that my activities have led me to follow the teaching as set out in the synoptic gospels.  Insofar as a label is helpful I describe my political philosophy as democratic socialist.  In reality the matrix or melange of political, social and religious opinions, allied to experience in complicated and multi-layered to the extent that I find it hopeless to attempt to discern a predominant factor in my thinking and behaving.  

I have abandoned the study of  philosophies and theories, whether of the political, religious, social or economic varieties, in a search for 'truth' or enlightenment.  Instead I am set on the practical work of assisting, directly or indirectly,  people  at point of need along with supporting national campaigns on issues that interest me. 

Nostalgia

I penned what follows in 2010. Then I was accused of being a bloody -minded, pain in the backside, argumentative agitator. Some think I am still...surely not.

"I have written to the Bishop of Tonbridge and the Archdeacon for Tonbridge as follows:

'Dear Bishop Brian and Archdeacon

Below is an article I put on my blog a few weeks ago:

‘The imminent demise of Church in Society (an independent charity underwritten by the Church of England Canterbury and Rochester Dioceses) is a sad development. It calls into question the commitment of the Church of England to tackle social responsibility issues at a strategic level. In the 1980s the Church of England published Faith in the City and Faith in the Countryside both of which were devastating critiques of the failure of government to tackle problems of social exclusion.

At a time when a draconian cut in public expenditure over a long period is inevitable it will be the voluntary sector (including faith organisations) that will have to pick up the pieces. The disappearance of an infrastructure organisation that could (a) support front-line work by churches, (b) campaign for policy changes, and (c) represent the Church on strategic partnerships in Kent, is an absolute disgrace.

The two dioceses have shunted social responsibility into a siding. So far nothing has appeared in the public domain about how the two dioceses will ensure the continuation of the work of Church in Society. My guess is that the work will be farmed out, be fragmented and ineffectual.’

I spent the best part of fourteen years as either secretary, chairman or project developer for Tunbridge Wells Churches Social Responsibility Group and during all that time the organisation received support from CIS, in particular David Grimwood, Jane Winter and John Cunningham. To whom will TWCSRG (soon to be part of Tunbridge Wells Churches Together) turn for support, and in particular support that is authoritative and experienced in social responsibility matters?

The Group achieved a great deal in recent years including:

· A leading role in the development of Tunbridge Wells Community Plan

· A significant role in Tunbridge Wells becoming a Fairtrade town

· Worked hard to develop a credit union. The fruit of that work has been the very recent formation of Kent Savers Credit Union

· Helped establish the Good Neighbour Project in Tunbridge Wells

· Brought together churches of different denominations to work together on social responsibility issues

· Has supported Number One Community Trust, Sherwood Peoples Action, Tunbridge Wells Mental Health Resource, the Bridge Trust and Tunbridge Wells Street Teams.

· Played a leading role in the West Kent Community Legal Services Partnership

Had it not been for the support of CIS much of what has been achieved would not have happened.

I am appalled at the behaviour of the Rochester Diocese towards Tony Cross.

Currently I work in the voluntary sector and the sector has adapted to meet the challenges of reduced statutory funding. My feeling is that CIS should have been given the opportunity to produce a new business model to ensure its continuation.

Last September I was sounded out as to my availability to become a director of CIS. I assented to my name going forward, but heard no more. I have many years experience in the voluntary sector, including being chair of Voluntary Action West Kent, Vice-Chair of the Bridge Trust, Chair of Crossroads Carers, Chair of Number One Community Trust, Chair Allsorts Edenbridge Holiday Club, Chair Panda pre-School Playgroup and much more besides.

What I find objectionable is that no consultation has taken place with organisations or individuals who could have come up with a workable model.'"

My opinion........

My opinions change as I am exposed to new experiences and, new to me, ideas, concepts and facts.  In other words, an ongoing reassessment.   Currently in matters theological my ideas are a mix, mishmash, melange, of the ideas developed by a wide range of theologians and others. I cannot lay claim to any original thought (very few can).  The 'fun' is to discern from where elements of my current thinking come.

I gave up the quest for objective truth many years ago: recognising the difference between 'is' and 'ought', that facts and opinions are distinct and the latter cannot become the former despite the efforts of those who seek to convince us otherwise.  I have developed a sense of scepticism, particularly in regard to statements claiming to know the truth and seeking to inculcate it in others.

An opinion: we do not know if there is a god: if there is we have no knowledge as to its nature.   I do not have faith, belief or hold to the opinion that god is a metaphysical entity, nor that god is metamorphic and can be spoken to, listens to us, responds to us or directs us.

It follows from this that a religious text is neither the literal word of god, nor inspired by god nor infallible  Religious tracts are entirely human constructs conveying the thinking of the authors as interpreted by the reader. Ascribing a text to god does not make it a sacred document.  The fact that an idea is expressed in a religious  text does not make it an objective truth laid down by a metaphysical source. Simply claiming an idea is of divine origin does not make it divine.  Think of the ongoing damage suffered by women and  LGBTQIA+ individuals by claims of divine guidance or objective authority in the scriptures.

The idea that words have one fixed meaning is false.  We can only use our own interpretation as to the meaning of words.  Does the context of the time in which it is set render the words meaningless or inapplicable in today's context, or are the ideas the words convey relevant today?  

I do not know if Jesus was a real person or the creation of the authors of the synoptic gospels bringing together custom, myth, fable, metaphor, symbolism etc.  What its important are the ideas conveyed in the gospels and attributed to Jesus: concepts of kindness, love, service, justice, care for the marginalised and downtrodden.  One does not have to be a Christian to live in accord with these concepts: humanist, atheist, agnostic, follower of other faiths may all, and do, subscribe to these ideals.  But they are a matter of choice, not some objective truth from a metaphysical source.  Others choose to live in other ways.  Ethical choices are made: sometimes society in the form of legislation or peer pressure intervenes.  Choices are made: it is subjective, there are no objective standards or norms outside those either we as individuals or society decide to impose.

I seek to follow the teaching ascribed to Jesus because I find it compelling.  It is my choice arrived at in light of my experience, understanding and current lifestyle.  It is mental acceptance that I seek to turn into action.  

The story of Jesus is that of a radical rebel, a revolutionary, who challenged the religious, legal and political establishments.   His concern was for the have nots: women, children, the poor, the imprisoned, the marginalised, the disadvantaged.  Today there are many who seek to help those in need and to tackle the causes of individual and social injustice.  Some take their inspiration from the message attributed to Jesus, some motivated by other sources.

Of love, kindness, justice and community

 It is a long-held opinion of mine that the belief system as encapsulated in the Nicene Creed is far removed from the teaching of Jesus with his emphasis on loving your neighbour, kindness, helping, justice and sense of community.  The following articles express in excellent fashion these themes and I commend them to you for your attention.  

Progressive Christian Network Britain  (PCN Britain):

CHURCHES, WAKE UP! Carl Krieg, Ph.D. who describes himself as “progressive mainline”, offers a critique of the Church and a vision for the future. https://progressivechristianity.org/res.../churches-wake-up/ He suggest the following: “Change the message, returning it to what Jesus actually taught and did. That change is basic, and it conforms to what people need and want to hear because everyone understands love. The current images of what the church represents- sacrifice on a cross, walking on water, even hell- must be replaced by images of love and community, images that represent who God is and who we are. A non-dogmatic approach is mandatory and would open the doors to people who come from different backgrounds and are at differing stages of life and faith formation. There must be no room for a fundamentalist attitude of “here it is, take it or leave it”. It is that attitude, masquerading as faith, that made the pews empty in the first place. The purpose of the church is not to convert, not to get people to join. The purpose of the congregation is to continually grow in awareness and fellowship within itself, while also providing for society at large a welcoming place where spirituality, love, and justice are practiced. Should those efforts prove successful, growth will come naturally”.

Kris Kratzer:

Salvation only becomes real in your heart the moment you realize that you were never lost to begin with. Everything else is religious poison pimped as the cure.

Because God doesn't give us a new heart, God reveals the beauty and goodness that was always and already there.

So, the Gospel isn't about getting people into heaven, it's about bringing wholeness to the earth and all humanity, here and now.

That's why Jesus was never focused on believing a set of beliefs, but on loving extravagantly. Actions mean everything, so much that, for Jesus, he counts them all as belief.

For Jesus, lip service is nothing, human service is everything.

Therefore, heaven or hell was what you brought to earth and its people, before it ever became your eternity.

Because, when it's all said and done, your heart is where you spend forever.

Jim Rigby:

WAS THE EARLY CHURCH "SOCIALIST?"

I know it can be a jolt to hear anti-capitalist sermons at a Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas. I understand some people assume I am projecting modern leftist thoughts onto a first century religion that was focused on a pie in the sky heaven, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

The early church was a clarion call for economic justice for all people. The economic justice called for by the Jewish prophets may not have been Marxist, but it WAS a call to value universal human rights over regional property rights. The early church called followers to serve our ENTIRE human family, not just our own nation or culture. We do not have to use the words “socialism” or “capitalism” to understand the early church but we do have to weigh ANY economic system by how it cares for the poor and sojourner.

Judaism and the early church weren’t persecuted by Rome because of their theology. They were persecuted for political reasons, namely because they refused to participate in the violence and hoarding required by any empire, including the American Empire today. When the bishops were brought together by the Roman emperor and told to reduce Christianity to creeds and rituals, they were were actually being told to renounce the the core teachings of Jesus and to take up the hymns and creeds to a dead savior. Defined by rituals and theology instead of ethics, the church could now violate everything Jesus taught and still call themselves “Christian.” By removing the Sermon of the Mount from the center of Christianity the church could now praise Christ and serve Caesar.

Obviously, capitalism was not a developed system in Jesus’ day, but the Jewish religion was incredibly clear about not enriching oneself through charging interest. The practice was called “usury” and it would include unregulated capitalism as a source of evil. Here are some quotes from the early church that can help us better understand the heresy of MAGA Christian Nationalism.

Saint Basil the Great condemned using property rights as a justification for economic inequality. He compared it to someone who claims seats in a theatre and will not let late comers have them. Basil said, “That’s what the rich are like; having seized what belongs to all, they claim it as their own on the basis of having got there first.” Saint Basil is also quoted as saying, “When people strip others of their clothes, they are called “thieves.” Should not those who have the power to clothe the naked but do not be called the same? The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry. The cloak in your wardrobe belongs to the naked. The shoes you allow to rot belong to the barefoot. The money in your vaults belongs to the destitute. You do injustice to everyone whom you could help but do not.”

Saint John Chrysostom said, “Mine” and “thine” – these chilling words which introduce innumerable wars into the world – should be eliminated from the church. Then the poor would not envy the rich, because there would be no rich. Neither would the poor be despised by the rich, for there would be no poor. All things would be in common. He also said, “I am a Christian. One who answers thus has declared everything at once—their country, their profession, their family; the believer belongs to no city on earth but to the heavenly Jerusalem.” (St. John Chrysostom 347CE – 407CE)

Many early church screen converts based more on justice than piety. Hippolytus (170AD – 236AD) wrote: “The professions and trades of those who are going to be accepted into the community must be examined. The nature and type of each must be established… brothel, sculptors of idols, charioteer, athlete, gladiator…give it up or be rejected. A military constable must be forbidden to kill, neither may he swear; if he is not willing to follow these instructions, he must be rejected. A proconsul or magistrate who wears the purple and governs by the sword shall give it up or be rejected. Anyone taking or already baptized who wants to become a soldier shall be sent away, for he has despised God.”

Christian Nationalism may feel very pious, but what kind of peacemaker will kill other people because they were born on the other side of an imaginary line? The early church was also clear that the new faith needed to be international if it was going to be an answer to war. “Shall we carry a flag? It is a rival to Christ.” (Tertullian 160CE – 220CE).

Jesus lived long before Marx or Adam Smith. No one really knows what he would think about either system, but what is clear is that no economic system is a justification for economic injustice. What is clear is that Jesus was not talking about pie in the sky salvation so much as making it on earth as we want it to be in heaven. It seems to me Christian nationalism is a heresy completely repudiated by the early church.

Article by Colin Coward

A call to action by Colin Coward 

Unadulterated Love

Changing Attitude England’s campaign goal: Full equality for LGBTQIA+ people in relationships and ministry

Colin Coward November 4, 2025

In 2017 Changing Attitude England proposed a simple goal for the outcome of the Living in Love and Faith process for LGBTQIA+ people. It is for us the synthesis of the Archbishops’ proclaimed ambition to achieve a Radical New Christian Inclusion: 

Full equality for LGBTQIA+ people in relationships and ministry

At a recent Conversation on Race and Faith, a Black History Month event held at SAINT church, Shoreditch, Professor Robert Beckford, theologian at the Queen’s Foundation Birmingham outlined steps towards the action people of colour should be taking and named LGBTQIA+ people as needing to take the same steps.

In Theology

We need to understand that grace means everyone is made in the image and likeness of God according to the Bible. We bear the image of a multitude in God.

We need to understand that the divine nature of God and the model of the Trinity means showing respect, making room for each other, creating inclusiveness and freedom.

Christians are called to follow the sanctified life, loving the stranger and the enemy.

We have to translate the sanctified life into actions to achieve radical structural change.

By Action

We go to work, organising ourselves to challenge the Christian Nationalist discourse.

Those of us wanting to oppose and change the narrative have got to be an active part of the solution.

We need to form communities of resistance offering counter-cultural models in the Church.

We need to develop our moral courage. Are we prepared to stand up and be visible and audible, doing and saying the right things?

The Implications

Changing the structures mean changing how people are trained for ministry, integrating black and liberation theology in courses. The curriculum has to be changed because at the moment the theology taught results in racism. [Robert would say the same about LGBTQIA+ Queer theology]

Those who are doing the teaching have to be scrutinised to ensure the theology is inclusive, radical and interventionist.

We have to ask the question: what would the heavenly radical Kingdom of God look like with LGBTQIA+ folk on the Board?

In conversation with Robert at the end of the event, he wondered what the attitude of the SAINT churches was to LGBTQIA equality since the mood turned notably cold when he’d referred to us. They are not pro-gay equality, I said. A few moments later I asked one of the SAINT church leaders what their policy about LGBTQIA+ inclusion was. He declined to answer. I have received the same response in every SAINT and HTB church plant.

History and Context:

The Rev Malcolm Johnson, in his time as Rector of St Botolph’s Aldgate, 1974-1993, conducted over three hundred blessings of lesbian and gay couples.

If Changing Attitude England were still a registered charity with a legally constituted Board and I still had an active support network I would be circulating them and discussing with them an action plan based on and developing Robert Beckford’s suggestions. We, together, would be forming ideas to put to local groups and the national network presenting ideas for people to ‘go to work’ on.

Being at the table

If we were at the table of the House of Bishops, open, visible and articulate pro-full inclusion LGBTQIA+ people, then our voices would be heard and the experience of many of us being sexual people in lifetime intimate relationships would be recorded alongside the voices of conservative evangelical anti-full inclusion bishops.

We would be able to argue for the best path to follow to achieve the radical new inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people implied by the Archbishops.

Canons

Professor Helen King recently set out with clarity the routes for change possible under Canons B 2, B 4.2, B 4.3 and B 5.

Canon B 5 was used to commend the used to commend the use of the Prayers of Love and Faith in the context of existing services.

Canon B 2 could/would be used by means of the full synodical legal mechanism to allow the use of stand-alone services of blessing anywhere.

Canon B 4.3 would allow individual diocesan bishops to authorise the use of stand-alone services in their diocese.

Canon B 4.2 could be used by the Archbishops to authorise the use of stand-alone services anywhere and everywhere.

Using Canons B 4.2 or B 4.3 would raise the possibility of a legal challenge from the Alliance conservative forces. My research over the past three months in the dioceses of London, Winchester and Chichester has unearthed information about what is going in the contemporary HTB/Alliance/Church Revitalisation Trust axis. Their clergy and congregations can be subjected to a counter legal challenge by us because of their failure to worship using orthodox, approved forms of service.

We, progressive, inclusive movements and individuals in the church seem to be unaware of the extreme danger to the kind of Christian life that has been normative for us, let alone the kind of radically new inclusive Christian live we dream of for the future.

Thirty years of transformation and resistance

In the past thirty years England has enshrined in law transformational legal changes affecting the status and lives of LGBQIA+ people. The same cannot confidently be said for Trans people, sadly.

Over the same period the Church of England has failed to undergo a similar transformation, traumatised by the 1998 Lambeth Conference, Resolution 1.10, the failure to appoint Jeffrey John as bishop of Reading, the election of Gene Robinson as a bishop and the creation of GAFCON.

The optimism raised by the Archbishops with their vision of a new radical Christian inclusion, responding to the transformations enacted in civic society of which the Church of England is an integral part, has been hugely disappointing. Counter-revolutionary forces have been allowed to slow and derail progress towards full and equal inclusion for LGBTQIA+ people in the CofE that matches our inclusion in wider English society.

It’s time to go to work

It’s time to organise ourselves, challenging status quo narrative, forming communities of resistance, offering counter-cultural models in the Church, develop our moral courage, standing up visibly and audibly, being active agents in pursuing the full equality of LGBTQIA+ people in the Kingdom of God.

You are part of the solution

You, reading this blog, have a voice and a conviction. You can do things to create the change we envision. Engage with your local clergy, congregation, friends, PCC, Churchwardens and allies. Ask them to join you in committing your local church to as fully inclusive agenda as is possible, including the public blessing of same-sex relationships, CPs and marriages.

Encourage the other progressive organisations, Together, Inclusive Church, Equal, Open Table, Network to find the courage to work for transformation by challenging the failure of the House of Bishops to commit to a radical new Christian inclusion for LGBTQIA+ people. Affirm lesbian and gay clergy in their relationships, in a civil partnership, and those dreaming of marriage.

Take courage yourselves from the courage shown by the Deans of Canterbury, Southwark and Salisbury in writing and preaching about the transformative vision we share and the isolation and abuse we endure.

Please repost this blog; copy and paste the text if you wish.

You are part of the greatest resource in the Church of England – people with vision and a passion for the Gospel proclaiming the inclusive good news of life in all its fulness.

To transform our vision into reality I’m going to need help and we are all going to need help. Join the Changing Attitude Facebook Group and engage with each other there. 

Contact me directly if you want to volunteer to help: ccmcoward@aol.com

 

Influences

In my early childhood there were no pre-school play groups.  When you reached a certain age you attended the local state primary school.  Unlike today there was no choice involved: live in the catchment area of a school, then it was the one you had to go to.

There were no school uniforms and it became apparent to me that some of my peers came from well-to-do families, others from financially poor families. This showed itself in how pupils dressed, toys and lifestyle.  Some kids had holidays at the seaside, or even abroad, others had no holidays away from home.  Thus it was that I came to understand that not all have equal opportunities and ambitions.

I passed the 11 Plus examination and was rewarded with a place at the local state boys' grammar school. The demarcation of kids at this age was stark.  Grammar schools opened opportunites for an education leading to university, the professions, senior positions in government etc.  Secondary modern schools were for those society expected to undertake 'other' work: labourers,  factory workers, janitors, miners,  etc.  

My understanding of how 'the system' worked was brought home to me by the streaming system at my school,  The top stream had all the better teachers and pupils were pressed to study harder.  Top stream pupils were the ones expected to do well in examinations and gain entry to top universities. I noted that pupils in the top stream were not there on intellectual ability. Places were reserved for the sons of the local establishment: sons of vicars, local government officers and councillors, doctors, solicitors, accountants, local trade union leaders, business leaders etc.  Selection based on class and status.

Thus it was that my embryonic ideas formed that we were not equal, that society was geared to maintaining advantages for some.  In other words what I came to know as systemic injustice.

I was fortunate to make it to university.  My studies for a law degree led me to understand how politics and law could be used to either protect those with privilege in society, or as a vehicle for change.

I  read "The Affluent Society" by John Kenneth Galbraith.  He argued that economics was not, as I had studied at school, a set of self-standing, inviolable, unchanging rules.  Rather the rules are a complex product of the cultural, economic, social and political context in which they are applied. 

Galbraith identified what he described as the 'underclass' by which he did not mean the criminal classes: rather he meant individuals who undertake poorly paid work, live in bad housing, have poor health provision, poor working conditions, poor public transport, poor education etc.  This underclass sustains the living styles of the affluent classes.  Society has it within its power the resources to remove systems that produce this disparity: but chooses not to.  

It was against this background that I came to support the political philosophy of democratic socialism.  Many years later I found myself penniless, homeless, jobless and divorced.  It was this experience that turned me towards reading the Christian bible:  in particular to the teaching of Jesus.  What I read resonated with my political opinions.  So, my understanding of the message of Jesus reinforced my support for democratic socialism whilst at the same time I was understanding the message of Jesus through the lens of democratic socialism.  

A coming together

The following is a composite taken from previous blog posts. 

Do we consign our knowledge, understanding and experience into separate silos? Are there ring-fenced divides between your personal and public persona, your political, theological, scientific, economic and social ideas, or do you interrelate them? More importantly, does one idea dominate?  Do theological ideas determine your political ideas? Does your family background or life events strongly influence your thinking, deliberately or subconsciously?

I subscribe to the political philosophy of democratic socialism. To what extent is this a consequence of my upbringing and life experience and my theological ideas? What I do say is that my political and theological stances are a result of interaction of a number of factors and that change of opinion in respect of one factor effects change in others.  I suggest we move away from a mentality attempting to consign ideas into silos. Instead see our ideas as an ever-changing kaleidoscope affecting our thoughts across the gamut of disciplines.

For the past 30 years I have engaged in the pursuit of social justice by campaigning for systemic change to the structures of society causing injustice. Alongside this I have been involved with faith and secular organisations seeking to alleviate the symptoms of injustice, in other words helping people at point of need. It has been a a long, tortuous journey. Along the way I have engaged with faith, secular, business, political and governmental organisations. It has been humbling to meet and work with people with similar motivation to mine, many of whom have done and achieved far more than ever I could.

The war on poverty, marginalisation, exclusion and discrimination is ongoing. Some battles have been won but the forces ranged against social justice are deeply entrenched. They will be for many years unless there is favourable major political upheaval.

My motivation was and is a decision to follow and promote the concept of love your neighbour and in particular its expression in the principles attributed to Jesus in the christian New Testament. These principles may be discerned by reading the Synoptic Gospels with particular regard to the Sermon on the Mount and the parables. Within the gospels are comparisons with statements in the Old Testament that illustrate the distinction between a legalistic rule-based approach and an approach founded upon the sweeping principle of love.

The message of Jesus is profound and deeply attractive. I don't know if Jesus was an actual person or the product of myth, folklore, symbolism, metaphor or custom, but it doesn't matter. No, really it doesn't. What does matter are the principles to be discerned from the texts: a broad, expansive guide to equality for all and not a rigid set of rules.

My theological and political ideas have distilled to this: love your neighbour, help them by alleviating the symptoms of injustice: campaign for systemic change in society to achieve social justice for all. Now I am firmly of the opinion that what matters is not a set of beliefs.  What matters is behaviour, action, loving neighbour, not just as theory but as practical action, helping individuals at point of need and campaigning for systemic change to achieve social justice.

I do not like to use labels to describe my theological thinking. No one label fits the bill for me. My current thinking is a fluid mixture, melange or mosaic of inter alia postmodern, Quaker, humanist, existential, progressive christian, liberal christian, liberation and deconstructivist concepts. It is not based on certainty, not on blind belief. It is like the sand of the desert, ever moving, restless.  But of course my theological thinking has to be seen in the context and influence of social, political and economic ideas together with my life experience.

Silo or kaleidoscope?

Do we consign our knowledge, understanding and experience into separate silos?  Are there ring fenced divides between your personal and public persona, your political, theological, scientific, economic and social ideas, or do you interrelate them?  More importantly does one idea dominate?  Do theological ideas determine your political ideas?  Does your family background or life events dominate your thinking, deliberately or subconsciously?

In a United Kingdom context I subscribe to the political philosophy of democratic socialism. To what extent is this a consequence of my upbringing and life experience and my theological ideas?   What I do say is that my political and theological stances are a result of interaction of a number of factors and that change in attitude in respect of one factor effects change in others.  

So, I suggest we move away from a silo mentality attempting to consign ideas into silos.  Instead see our ideas as an ever-changing kaleidoscope affecting our thoughts across the gamut of disciplines.

Time to move on.......

Recent decisions by the Church of England House of Bishops regarding the Living in Love and Faith process, allied to the failure of 'my' parish's Parochial Church Council to support the prayers of blessing in Prayers of Love and Faith on the odd ground that they are discriminatory - yes really!,  has led me to consider my position as a member of the Church.

I appreciate the language of the Book of Common Prayer and choral evensong in much the same way one might be enthused by  drama or operatic performances. The message might not convince, the performance sublime.  I shall continue to attend services as spectator rather than  participant.

Readers of this blog know I do not like to use labels to describe my theological thinking.  No one label fits the bill for me.  My current thinking is a fluid mixture,  melange or mosaic of inter alia  postmodern, Quaker,  humanist, existential, progressive christian, liberal christian, liberation and deconstructivist concepts.  It is not based on certainty, not on blind belief. It is like the sand of the desert, ever moving, restless.  

Gloom and despair

 The decision of the Church of England's House of Bishops effectively to kill the Living in Love and Faith process has caused gloom, despair, despondency, anger, rage, fury, sadness amongst the clerical and lay Anglican LGBTQ+ community, whilst the supporters of The Alliance and the Church of England Evangelical Council are rubbing their hands with glee.  Sadly bullying tactics: withholding money, threatening schism have paid off.  The bishops have funked it and are hiding behind as yet unpublished advice setting out theological and legal impediments to standalone services of blessing for same-sex couples and provision for clergy to marry same-sex partners.  

There are those whose argue that standalone services are permitted within the existing framework (see earlier post).

The bishops claim to be seeking unity but, having caved in to forces that have acted schismatically, have now deeply upset another constituency.  Unity is not achievable and in pursuing the myth that it is bishops have lost respect and trust. The only hope has to be that the House of Bishops will reflect on the appalling damage that has been wrought and have a change of heart before the next General Synod.  But don't count on it.

One consequence of the House of Bishop's statement has been to fire up organisations like Inclusive Church and Together for the Church of  England to counter the malign influence of the Church of England Evangelical Council and The Alliance.  

Crumbs of comfort? A call to action!

The following article was published on inclusiveevangelicals.com website. Following an introduction by David Runcorn there follows an article by the Revd. Canon Simon Butler, one time Prolocutor of the Canterbury Convocation.

The article is an important contribution to the debate following the recently published LLF material by the Church  of England on the House of Bishops' discussions. The House of Bishops have stalled (killed?) any meaningful progress in proceeding with Living in Love and Faith,  much to the dismay, despair, indeed anger, of the LGBT+ community who feel they have been sold down the river by bishops seeking  a spurious, unachievable unity within the Church of England.

Clergy is non celibate gay marriages have had their hope of progress dashed and there will be no progress towards permitting same-sex marriage in Church of England authorised services until a two thirds majority of each House of General Synod agrees.   

It has been suggested that even stand-alone services of blessing in church of  same  sex couples are not permitted, although blessings within an authorised service are to continue. But is it a doctrinal issue requiring two thirds majorities? Rightly in my opinion the writer of the article begs to disagree.

The following article hopefully will lift some of the despondency and anguish currently felt in liberal and progressive circles.

 

Crumbs of Comfort: Standing together for Standalone Services

Writer: David Runcorn

Canon Simon Butler was for some years one of the most senior priests in General Synod and a member of the Archbishops' Council. He is Rector of Holy Trinity & St Mary’s Guildford .

'The crumbs of Living in Love and Faith (LLF) are meagre. Institutionally-speaking, the Church of England is almost as unwelcoming to those LGBT+people who wish to celebrate their life-long commitment before God as it was before LLF began. Whatever happened to “radical new Christian inclusion”?

Personally, it is deeply disillusioning. Once more, my work as a priest has been undermined by the actions of the House of Bishops, my calling questioned, our classic Anglican welcome to all compromised. The bishops forever tell us to be hopeful, to keep faith, and always disappoint, often diminishing my sense of vocation into a job. Their decisions this week will have the effect of doing this for many, condemning the Church to a morale-sapping war of attrition.

But however passive-aggressively hostile the Church of England remains for same-sex couples, at the local level things are often different. At Holy Trinity & St Mary’s, Guildford, I have used Prayers of Love and Faith(PLF) in two standalone services since they were permitted and would welcome further enquires (check the website!). They have been simple occasions of quiet joy. The pastoral task laid upon me by my ordination vows and the mission of God in this community is more important than allowing an illegitimate request from the House of Bishops to get in the way.

Illegitimate? Absolutely. Throughout the LLF process in General Synod, I asked the House of Bishops repeatedly what prevented me from using the PLF resources in standalone services. The response was always the same request: please don’t. Now, with the news that the bishops want clergy not to use PLF resources in standalone services until General Synod has achieved a two-thirds majority, is this anything more than a reasonable request? I say that it is. I say it is an illegitimate piece of overreach by our bishops that clergy are at liberty to ignore.

At my licensing, I made a solemn affirmation of canonical obedience to my Bishop (I don’t swear oaths on conscience grounds). In granting me his licence, my Bishop gave me the liberty to exercise my ministry within the bounds of the doctrine and Canons of the Church of England. It’s a quid pro quo: clergy minister within those boundaries, our bishops give us freedom to minister according to our consciences to the fullest extent of those boundaries. (I note in passing the widespread disobedience to the Canons by Evangelicals and Catholics that is never challenged. Liturgical illegality is endemic among Charismatic Evangelicals[1]; bishops wave monstrances at Benediction without a second thought).

When the House of Bishops published and commended the PLF resources they declared that there was nothing in them contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England. They permitted them to be used in existing authorised services, but not in standalone services. This was a liturgical innovation for our Church – worship resources that can only be used in certain services and not in others. Ironically, such a change may itself require a two-thirds majority in General Synod!

When I have offered standalone PLF services in the past two years, following a unanimous PCC decision, I have done this because the Canons of the Church of England permit it. Canon B5 (On the discretion of ministers in conduct of public worship) is quite explicit: “The minister having the cure of souls may on occasions for which no provision is made…use forms of service considered suitable by him [sic] for those occasions and may permit another minister to use the said form of service.” They must be “reverent or seemly” and shall “be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.” In short, I am using the discretion given to me at my licensing to exercise pastoral ministry within canonical boundaries. I understand that the legal and theological advice the House has recently received says nothing that would contradict this view.

I would go further – something the bishops have accepted throughout LLF despite the objections of conservatives: that there is legitimate disagreement about what is an “essential” matter of doctrine. With such latitude, faced with a simple request not to use the resources in standalone services, I believe I am free to say, with politeness and respect, “you ask of me something you are not at liberty to ask.” Less politely put, “wind your necks in.”

Some clergy will be worried about being disobedient to their bishops, but I hope this makes it clear that this is a matter of canonical freedom that already exists for clergy, and that it would be an illegitimate use of episcopal power, if not a matter of discipline, for a bishop to threaten those who do with any repercussions. It is time to challenge the bishops here, especially as they have so clearly buckled to the threats and deep pockets of The Alliance.

But perhaps the bishops aren’t saying quite what we think. I think it is possible to interpret the bishops’ decision on standalone services as simply saying that it would require a two-thirds majority in Synod in order for them to become an authorised liturgy; and not that clergy should desist from exercising their existing discretion in the Canons to conduct standalone services. I shall be continuing to do offer such services, and would welcome the opportunity to challenge the legal basis of any attempt to prevent me.

When the Gospel was preached in synagogues by the early followers of The Way, it often faced opposition. The response of the disciples was to turn to the Gentiles. Faced with the inability of the institutional church – led by its bishops – to allow the good news of God’s love to be available to all who love well and with holiness, perhaps it falls, despite the inevitable postcode lottery, to the parochial clergy of the Church of England to do what the bishops are clearly unable to do.'

[1] In his most recent Ad Clerum a diocesan bishop writes “I would love to see every church re-establish a communal confession and absolution.” I would expect a bishop in the Anglican tradition to require it!

I would like to see Together for the Church of England compile a directory of parishes willing to hold stand-alone services of blessing.  Like Simon Butler I too would welcome guidance on the legal basis for preventing stand-alone services.  

See this comment by Robert Thompson

'Simon Butler speaks I think for the majority of clergy here ♥️;

Now is the time to simply do ‘stand-alone’ services for happily married #LGBTQIA+ couples even if the @churchofengland bishops @CottrellStephen @bishopSarahM & the rest of them have said we can’t. 

The vicious campaign against allowing even this minute piece of pastoral care, has been constituted by deeply un Christlike bullying: the withdrawal of contributions to dioceses, threats to leave the church if it was allowed…

The irony here of course is that this has been done by many of the same people who disregard using common prayer, proper liturgy & virtually every other piece of our inherited polity….

There is much nonsense that so many are allowed to get away with & it includes real harm to queer people through conversion therapy & prayer ministry & yet the bishops in the face of such abuse to nothing at all.

Now is the time to challenge their collective immorality. Now is the time to say enough is enough. Now is the time to bless love in its wonderful, colourful, variety of forms.  

May God’s reign of justice & peace come. 🌈🏳️‍⚧️'

Since publishing the above I have read this excellent article by Nicholas Adams:

Adversaries: Living in Love and Faith

Adventures in the Theology of Disappointment

The Bishops of the Church of England have decided together that there will be no change in the foreseeable future to its practices in relation to gay couples.

This means that there can be prayers for married couples in regular church services, but no special services. It also means that gay clergy cannot get married at all, whether in church or in a civil marriage.

(Those interested in the technicalities: these deeper changes require legislation of a kind that is almost impossible to obtain in practice.)

Why?

What they say: unity is more important than change.

What they mean: a powerful minority has got its way.

Minority? Yes, it is a minority who are determined that there should be no marriage services for gay Christians. This requires a bit of nuance, which I shall now attempt.

Meanwhile: a conservative Anglican group of African and other bishops has just (days ago) expressed its dismay at the news that a woman who refuses to denounce homosexual marriage has been named the next Archbishop of Canterbury. This group, Gafcon, is all male in both its leadership and its advisory group. Unity is already under threat, in other words.

Living in Love and Faith is the name of a process, now five years old, for encouraging conversation between those in the Church of England who hold different and often opposing views about gay relationships.

It has an odd and unsatisfactory character: the idea was to bring together opposing sides. 

This is odd and unsatisfactory because, well, it establishes the reality of opposing sides.

There are indeed opposing sides, namely those who strongly affirm gay relationships and those who strongly denounce them. Members of these groups are not going to change their minds and do not expect to change the minds of their opponents. They were already in an adversarial relation.

But a lot of CofE folk were in 2020 trying to figure out what they thought; or they were thinking one thing but open to thinking another; or were changing what they thought. What side were they on? Neither. Were they in adversarial relationship with others? Not really.

Living in Love and Faith was not intended to create opposing sides. But its adversarial structure (to be contrasted with its non-adversarial tone and intent) in practice led individuals and even churches to declare which side they were on before the process got underway.

The adversarial structure created adversaries.

A contrast with a General Election is instructive. We know that there are many people in England who do not belong to a political party and whose vote is uncertain. And they do not need to declare their vote. But in the LLF process, the structure encouraged people to think of themselves as members of a party, and encouraged them to declare their allegiance.

This has had some bad effects.

Those with complex or shifting views ended up declaring simple and static views.

Those with affirming views who were part of non-affirming families and churches ended up declaring non-affirming views.

Those who might have been slowly (or quickly) changing their minds ended up stuck where they began.

Why? Because of the dynamics of families and churches, and especially in relation to things like sponsorship, patronage, and employment.

These bad effects create further odd effects.

For example, if someone declares that they are affirming, they are probably affirming. But if someone declares that they are non-affirming, they might be non-affirming, but they also might be stuck.

Living in Love and Faith was intended to unstick things, but for the most part it has created quite a large group of stuck Anglicans who declare themselves non-affirming because there is no way out. The adversarial structure requires them to declare allegiance to a party to which they do not necessarily belong.

It's as though a group of benign Christian physicists, faced with Schroedinger's cat, decide that the box should always be open from the start. Except that in this case, it turns out that the cat is always dead.

There are in fact many non-affirming churches with a significant number of members who are affirming. That is true of my own. But the LLF process inhibits finding this out.

This is especially true of a group often called 'conservative Christians' or, even more so, 'Evangelical Christians'. These groups display broad internal diversity. There are many within them who affirm gay relationships as fully Christian. But if their churches want access to the parallel financial structures of well-funded conservative groups, or if individuals want to be ordained in the service of their churches, they must declare themselves non-affirming. Which they do, with all the moral horror that accompanies it.

It is possible to denounce such folk as spineless, or cowardly, or worse. I take a different view. It costs me nothing to declare that I affirm gay relationships as fully Christian. I am slow to judge those for whom the cost is significant. 

The House of Bishops statement on 15 October is, I think, the outcome of a series of forces that are not readily observable. 

It will appear that 'the church' is inhospitable to gay couples. But this is, in a very real sense (old Anglican joke!), not true. Or not straightforwardly true. 

As long as there is an adversarial process, which is what LLF is, and as long as everyone must look inside the box at the start, which LLF encourages, there are going to be odd and unsatisfactory effects.

I now refuse to believe certain people when they say they are non-affirming. If I can see powerful family and community forces in the structure of their lives, it seems to me reasonable to suppose that they have effects. Obviously in one sense they *are* non-affirming: they refuse to affirm. But it seems to me reasonable to work on countering the forces more than the person.

Living in Love and Faith may concentrate dangerous and damaging forces in a way that distorts the moral lives of Christians. This is of course directly in contradiction of its intention and its tone.

The damage will take a while to undo. 

The chief form of repair will be to encourage forms of action which are non-adversarial.

This is very hard. So many of our structures are adversarial because our social histories are so adversarial: in education (the 'defence'), in law ('prosecution and defence'), in sport (the 'attack and defence'), in news media (the interview), in debate (two sides), and so on. It's relentless.

For the philosophers among us this is guided more deeply by binary patterns of thought and two-factor logics. These are perfectly normal and healthy under certain conditions. But they can become toxic when a generous approach to difference is required.

For those in anguish at this episcopal result, these reflections are not obviously encouraging. I'm basically saying: it appears worse than it is.

But this is increasingly the form which hope takes for me. It is tempting to be clever and say that LLF is too much living and not enough love and faith. 

But I want to say this:

Do not allow others to persuade you that all is lost.

Do not believe people who tell you that evil has triumphed.

Refuse to listen to those who say we are adversaries.

We do have adversaries and we have a moral duty to stop them.

But the number of adversaries is fewer than we might suppose.

Those who are not divided can resist division.

If we are not divided, we remain difficult to conquer.