Author: Rev Dr Langley Mackrell-Hey

Posted on

Tending to those half-way down the mountain. Embracing and Communicating change. February Message for Circuit Service 2 Kings 2:1-12, Mark 9:2-29

Our mission – wherever we are, is to share the Good News of Jesus Christ and show God’s love through worship, witness, and service.

If you’re part of our Crowland community, you’ll recognise reflections here from a sermon I delivered right before Lent—a message that’s stayed with me, I have not been able to shake it off. But the context for today is different. It is wonderful to see people here from across the circuit. As we all know, we are navigating through some tough times, actively seeking where God wants us to go next. Accepting that change needs to happen, and talking about change, and making decisions for the future, is difficult. Today I feel led to stress how important it is that we are open to the Holy Spirit. As for the transfiguration, I have been led to think about the parallels between where we are now, and the questioning and chaos that is going on half-way down the mountain, where Jesus steps in and brings healing and peace. We need to listen to Jesus.

Elijah and Elisha – 2 Kings 2:1-12

Elijah and Elisha are two of the most significant prophets in the OT. Elijah is the older one – his name means my God is Yahweh. Elisha’s name means God is Salvation – God has the power to save and sustain life. They belong to a community of prophets. They are celebrated for leading God’s people through a time of crisis and change. They called people back to worshipping the one true God, rather than false god’s, and to honouring God’s law. But now there is another change. Elijah’s ministry will close, he will be taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot, and Elisha will take over. It is easy to be distracted by this vision, but the real story is of the intimate relationship between Elijah and Elisha, and how Elisha struggles with change. He does not want to be separated from Elijah. When he turns up for worship and sees the other prophets, they say to him. ‘You know that this is the day don’t you’ – I paraphrase – and Elisha says – and this is exact – Yes I know, so be quiet’. In other words. I know. I don’t want to talk about it.

2 Kings 2: 3,5

How revealing that is! Elisha, faced with the prospect of change, and an uncertain future, says what all of us say directly to others. “Don’t say anything”. “I don’t want to talk about it”. And the same is true for us as we are in this moment where we are questioning what is sustainable for us as a circuit of churches with staff – not just financially, but in terms of energy – and seeking God’s will. According to the human playbook our first response is predicted to be, ‘We don’t want to talk about it’. But we have no option. No matter how painful it might be, and how insecure we might feel. I am always moved by leading the covenant service. I am moved not just by the prayer, but by the preamble. To receive from God, we need to give from God, we need to make ourselves vulnerable. If we honour God, God will honour us.

The other important thing about this story is having accepted that change is going to happen, Elisha asks for a double portion of Elijah’s spirit – the Holy Spirit. Elisha has seen the divine spark at work in Elijah, and reasons that this is what has made him robust in times of great challenge – there was one moment – after he had defeated the false prophets of Baal – when Elijah ran away. He thought he would be better off dead but he is visited by an angel and hears God in the still small voice if you remember. And he recovers. But Elisha can see that it is the divine spark – the Holy Spirit that sees Elijah through that. We understand that the Holy Spirit is our comforter, counsellor, helper, friend, the one who convicts us, and the one who empowers us. We can face all things if we ask God’s spirit within us. Without the spirit we are nothing but dust in the wind.

Elijah and Elisha cross over the Jordan. It is symbolic as a place of transition. Are you at a life-changing moment?

Sandra – who is involved in our livestream worship community said this – it is hard to choose from so many life changing moments when God has moved mightily and amazingly in my life – sometimes at times of real difficulty – each strengthening and deepening my faith. I remember one time when I was searching for work and felt drawn to work for a mental health charity. I encountered many battles for others. Many lives were changed including mine. I often see God’s hand at work in bringing volunteers alongside me. The work kept me sane and helped my family. It is difficult to be brief on how God has been with me over the past 15 years.

Elijah and Elisha’s journey across the Jordan reminds us that we all face moments that can change our lives. But change is not all bad. Change can be exciting. Rewarding. Sometimes small changes have big consequences. And how might God be calling your church to embrace change. One thing covid did, peculiarly, is to accept that we had to do things differently, but I think we are at risk of backsliding and taking comfort now things are more settled.

Let us move on to the Transfiguration and exorcism
(Mark 9:2-29)

It is easy to be distracted by Jesus, whiter than white, transfigured on the mountaintop.

It is easy to be distracted by His conversation with Moses, the greatest high-priest known to Israel, and Elijah, one of the greatest prophets known to Israel.

It is easy to be distracted by Peter’s clumsy offer to set up tents. There was Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, talking about how Jesus’ mission would unfold (Luke tells us that), and Peter may as well be asking if anyone wants tea, biscuits, and cake. Peter, you might be missing the point here! There might be something more important going on!

Jesus is trying to give Peter, James, and John – three of his key leaders – confidence by allowing them to see this. The point of it all is the voice from heaven that says to them ‘This is my beloved Son. Listen to Him’.

Another of my church leaders – who has experienced the death of her teenage son some years ago, said this; ‘Listening to Jesus has made a big difference in my life, especially at the hardest points when I felt so alone. Knowing the Holy Spirit is in and around me and my family and friends, gives me hope for the future’.

And so there we have it. In our own lives, within our Churches – as well as being open to the Spirit, we need to listen to Jesus. One of the most heartening pieces of feedback I have had from one of our church leaders is that whilst we need to look at what our finances say, and be honest about the people and energy we have, we also need to have faith. Let us be sure that we are not too earthly in our thinking to be of any heavenly use. Neither should we have our head in the clouds. God has great things for us. If the attitudes of James and John are to go by though, we cannot comprehend what that will be because our God is too small, and we only think in certain ways.

Down the mountain

For me it is impossible to remember the transfiguration without being honest about the chaos that is going on down below – that Jesus steps in and sorts out. For today we will forgo a detailed look at the difference between exorcism and healing. The point is that Jesus steps into a chaotic situation, where I am sure that everyone has their ideas, and everyone has an opinion, as a family is in crisis and a young boy is desperate for release.

You can either view this as how we can have spiritual highs in one place, and spiritual lows in the next. I remember visiting one of the members of our churches, who has since passed away. Although it was sad, it was deeply important, and it left me feeling that I had done some good. She knew she had little time left. She recognised me. She said my name – and there was such appreciation in her voice. We prayed. We prayed against her fears. We prayed for her peace. Then I left the ward, to find a message pinged on my phone, and chaos unfolding at Westgate New Church on the day that we were expecting people for BoB, our lunchtime fellowship.

The problem half-way down the mountain was that the toilet floors were being replaced, the contractors were in, but somewhere along the line there had been ‘a communication issue’! To make things even more challenging, the contractors thought that we could work around them – but they struggled to understand our context. I mean, when we looked at the access we had, it would have meant asking those who come, and who use walking sticks and strollers to shimmy down the main corridor with their backs to the wall! And as for the kitchen floor that had been repurposed as a cutting station – we will say no more – there was nowhere for Suzanne to cook. What started out with good intentions descended into chaos – and then organised chaos as we had to cancel BoB.

There was a period of frantic activity as we tried to call round everyone before they boarded their local bus to reach us. And then we had to work out what had gone wrong. I should say that the story ends well. We have new toilet floors and a new kitchen floor. I think that is enough of an example of chaos down the mountain. I won’t even mention the tarmac lorry that arrived ahead of schedule the other day because another contractor was so pleased with the progress that they were making that they delivered early!

I should say thanks to Bernie for his work at Westgate New Church, and all those other property secretaries who help across our churches, and to our trustees. But here is the important point – when we survey the scene halfway down the mountain – whilst we can be frustrated, annoyed, trying to work out who arranged what, frantic in our efforts to sort everything, ultimately we will find a way through the chaos so long as we remember that we are routed in Jesus, that we treat each other with grace, and that we keep the main thing the main thing. Whilst BoB did not happen, every person knew that they were cared for. And those new toilet and kitchen floors are lovely! Remember that God is with you when you encounter chaos halfway down the mountain. Remember that how you behave when you are halfway down the mountain is crucial because it is a witness to others.

Another way of looking at this link is how the mountaintop is where the leaders gather – the mountaintop for us might be our Circuit Leadership Team, our Circuit Meeting, our Treasurers meeting, our Gathering, our Circuit Services – the places where the core gathers, and then down the mountain is where the rest of our churches are at. And communicating to the crowd is a nightmare because it is about the challenge, it is about the process, it is about the people, and it is about what we can, and cannot do, and it is about trying to involve as many as people as possible as we strive to discern how God is leading us to work together in the future. Some people are early on in that conversation. For others it is new.

And there are the insecurities. Shortly, the Circuit will be publishing the findings from our first gathering. These are really encouraging. To give you a teaser; we celebrate these Circuit Services and our involvement in Social Action are things we celebrate, we mourn Numbers at Worship, and our decline in membership but nonetheless celebrate new members that have joined us and become involved. People see music as being of deep significance to our Methodist identity, followed by Pastoral Groups, Social Action, and our link with Connexion and District in equal measure. But there were three written points that betray our fears – amongst the positives there was one written comment that I need to address – there were three but the other two – we need to act now, and we need to think through the scenarios, are in play, even though yes, I would prefer the future to be sorted in one nice, easy move.

The point – just one worrying comment, among many positives, is that we, as a circuit, already know what buildings are going to close. And by buildings what I think the person really meant was churches. (The feedback is anonymised to encourage people to be honest, open and transparent). That’s the fear that is getting in the way – the fear that someone somewhere will close your church. Well, allow me to assure you. Nothing is decided. More than that, there is not a boardroom where a group of directors make decisions that you are not involved in. There is no them and us. There is no church and circuit. We are all the circuit. The circuit meeting is filled with representatives from your churches; stewards, treasurers, and more.

There are exceptions, and they are not set by us – if your numbers fall or you cannot function, there is no option but to close or merge, but beyond that, you have the power. And think about it – none of us would want to force things – that would be counterproductive – we are One Body and we are rightly reluctant to cut off one bit because we say it is not needed. But we do need you to be honest and help us find a way forward that is sustainable. And I am hoping that because you have the security, you are better placed to ask yourselves the challenging questions. How might God have a better future for you? For your church?

We do need to act now. To which I respond, we are acting now, yes there is an urgency, we do have a plan – but informing and mobilising people takes time. We need your help. We need to help people understand and take people with us. Personally, I have a mix of vulnerability, and excitement about the future. I am mindful that we have people’s lives in our hands. I am mindful that we are dependent on people’s generosity. I can see where the future leads if things do not change. But God is a God of change.

Let’s revisit what Jesus says when he is confronted by the chaos.

Jesus comes down the mountain, he sees chaos, and at the heart of this chaos is the struggle that the disciples are having to bring healing to a young boy. He is clearly frustrated. I close with three lessons. First, he looks on the scene and declares:

You unbelieving generation, how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you?

Now, I think that is a word to those of us who have caught the vision that God is doing a new thing but are frustrated in how difficult it is to communicate this to the crowd. The good news is that Jesus felt it. Take comfort in that. Take comfort in how the story ends, with a healing, but remember that you are not Jesus, and criticising people for their lack of faith, when you think you have it, is probably not a good idea! We need to take people with us. Note that Jesus’ focus is on a generation, a group of people, not just one or two. Mark 9:19

Second, Jesus affirms the importance of belief. Do you believe that Jesus can make a difference to your life, your church, your community. The father of the boy says he believes, but there is an element of unbelief there – ‘I do believe, help me overcome my unbelief’. Is that not true of us all? Mk 9:24

Third, Jesus talks about the importance of prayer. Leaving aside a complex look at healing and deliverance, it is prayer that focuses and changes the mood of the scene here. Prayer puts the focus on God rather than our wisdom. As I stand in the middle of lent, I am minded that our focus needs to be on prayer – and repentance, to allow God to work in us, see things God’s way, and to be open to change.

There is one final point. If you notice, Jesus tells Peter, James and John not to speak of the transfiguration until his death. He also tells people not to disclose that he is the Messiah. This is known as the Messianic Secret. My first thought was this was a strategy from Jesus to ensure that He is gossiped about – since when you ask some people to keep a secret, they think it so precious that they share it everywhere. But no, Jesus tells people to hold back – people will not understand his role, he is managing the timing of his death, he is wanting time to prepare the disciples and for their faith to grow, he does not want unwanted attention from the authorities.

You however can gossip as much as you like….

Tell people newcomers are finding a home with us.

Tell people how faith has guided and been precious to the faithful who have died.

Tell people how by working together we are helping people who face, illness, poverty, sickness, and injustice.

Tell people our churches are actively changing lives.

Tell people, despite the challenges, God’s support never wavers.

Tell people God will provide, but we will need to give something ourselves.

Tell people every prayer, every service, brings us closer to God’s vision.
Tell people every act of faithfulness truly counts.
Tell people with God, we risk nothing and stand to gain everything.

Tell people that God has a promising future for us.

Tell people we’re seeking God’s direction in every step we take.

Tell people that we have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

Tell people that just as Jesus died and rose again, we are being raised.

Amen

 

Posted on

Let go of the grave clothes: Easter Message from Rev Langley

We like to think that the resurrection solved everything for the disciples. Sadly, it did not. It takes time for our minds to focus away from the all-consuming grief that comes from our witnessing death, or hearing word of it. In Mark’s gospel, the women prepare to anoint a dead body, and are more concerned with how they will roll the burial stone away. They arrive to find that the problem has been solved for them. Having heard news from the angel that Jesus has risen, they leave not in joy but in confusion, terror, and fear, tinged with amazement. In Mark’s gospel we read how the other women were so overcome with mourning and weeping that when Mary tells them that Jesus is alive, they will not believe. In John’s gospel, Mary Magdalene assumes that someone had stolen the body. Her grief is so locked in that even when Jesus speaks to her, she does not recognise him. Not until He says her name. Whilst He does break through with Mary, the disciples – let’s not forget that the women were disciples as well – were in death mode, unable to comprehend what had happened. Who can blame them?

As I walked through Good Friday to Easter Sunday, a phrase would not leave my mind. ‘Let go of the grave clothes’. Whilst I admit that there is no scriptural reference to support this (the grave clothes are visible in John’s account, but no one touches them), I would suggest that this is an important principle. There is, arguably, a link with Mary who embraces Jesus, leaving Jesus to say, ‘Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father’. Without seeming to be disrespectful, I am not sure that Jesus is saying that He has so much power in him from the resurrection that Mary is likely to get a lightning bolt if she holds on for any longer. I think it is to do with how the Jesus she is clinging to is far too human in her mind to be of any earthly use. So, ‘Let go of me Mary.’ Or to put it another way, let go of the grave clothes (which were admittedly whiter than white).

This is my word for you, for your church, for us as a circuit. So often, the Jesus we look to, even when we know Him to be resurrected, is far to earthly in our minds to be of any heavenly use. Our God is too small. We are so locked into the expectations of decline and death, that we have little hope of realising the resurrection. And yet Jesus is so much more, and offers us so much more than we can perceive. In our lives, in our churches, in our circuit, we can so often be clinging on to the grave clothes to preserve what has been, rather than looking to Jesus who promises are new way of life; a new way of doing things that will yield results that are far beyond our expectation. The Kingdom of Heaven is come here on earth. Let go of the grave clothes.

God bless you this Easter.

Posted on

Forgottenheimer: Oppenheimer’s undetonated bomb, and a missed opportunity – contains spoilers

Oppenheimer. Universal Pictures,

It seems somewhat late in the day to be writing about Christopher Nolan’s latest film, Oppenheimer. In part, that is because my emotions and reflections have turned out to be just as complex as Nolan’s own narrative. I have been searching for clarity.
I will therefore get straight to the point. If you will forgive the hyperbole, in my view Nolan’s epic, despite its multi-layered narrative and wonderous cinematic creativity, is deeply disappointing. That is because it is the only film in history that we expected to bomb but in reality, lacked impact. Whilst I find myself questioning whether I should go back and rewatch the film for anything that I have missed, one of the most telling markers of good storytelling is that you are so drawn in that you cannot fail to take its themes home. Even without being particularly visceral, a good film will return to you and invade your thoughts when you are back home doing the hoovering.

Piecing together the narrative

In the case of Oppenheimer, my only thoughts were ones whereby I was trying to piece the narrative together. In order to enjoy this film you will need to understand the historical context in which it takes place. Heck, you may even find it easier to read the text from which the film was inspired, American Prometheus (Bird & Sherwin, 2021) in order to be adequately prepared. Oppenheimer was the architect of the atomic bomb, in a race against time, developing a weapon that could arguably end World War II before our enemies made their own advances. He was a theoretical physicist who displayed some uncomfortable personality traits – including, according to the film, lacing his lecturers lunchbox apple with cyanide. He was a hero one minute, but derided the next. President Trueman, for example was unimpressed whe Oppenheimer shared his concern that he felt he had blood on his hands, famously derriding Oppenheimer as a ‘cry-baby’. Oppenheimer’s reluctance to support the further development of a hydrogen bomb, as the United States hurtled towards a cold war, led some politicians to be sceptical of his support – and the easiest way to disempower him was to question his loyalty to the states by suggesting he had communist sympathies and may have leaked secrets to the Russians. This set in motion an enquiry as to whether he remained suitable to continue working for the United States Atomic Energy Commission.

Perhaps it is the way that my mind works; as I viewed the film I had to think back to my university lectures in Physical Chemistry, trying to remember the composition of the bomb, and how the nuclear material needed to be refined (illustrated by an increasing load of two sets of marbles in a two fish bowls). If this were a lecture, and I was in the audience listening, I would have been sitting there nodding politely, perhaps even smiling whilst wondering whether I was the only one not quite understanding what was being said. It was like reaching the point in a Maths lesson where you are really not following, and the teacher has no idea. This way in which the narrative of this film weaves about is a nightmare! It is filled with flash-forwards, and flashbacks, in colour and black and white, with I believe, colour representing the memories of one of Oppenheimer’s detractors, Richard Strauss. And yes, I did not realise that until I read a review from someone else. Significantly, YouTube and the internet are full of articles that break down and explain the narrative.

A crime against humanity

My primary concern is that I didn’t feel a profound sense of Oppenheimer’s moral turmoil following the bombings. We should be acutely aware of the sheer devastation caused by the uranium fission bomb (‘Little Boy,’ equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT) on Hiroshima and the plutonium implosion bomb (‘Fat Man,’ equivalent to 21,000 tons of TNT) on Nagasaki. This knowledge should be seizmic in our souls.

Little Boy – US government DOD and/or DOE photograph, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

U.S. Department of Defense, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Fat Boy U.S. Department of Defense, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Atomic bombing of Japan. Left picture : At the time this photo was made, smoke billowed 20,000 feet above Hiroshima while smoke from the burst of the first atomic bomb had spread over 10,000 feet on the target at the base of the rising column. Six planes of the 509th Composite Group participated in this mission: one to carry the bomb (Enola Gay), one to take scientific measurements of the blast (The Great Artiste), the third to take photographs (Necessary Evil), while the others flew approximately an hour ahead to act as weather scouts (08/06/1945). Bad weather would disqualify a target as the scientists insisted on a visual delivery. The primary target was Hiroshima, the secondary was Kokura, and the tertiary was Nagasaki. George R. Caron, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The wide variation in the death toll stems from the inadequate record-keeping at the time. Estimates range from 129,000 to 226,000, complicated further by the distinction between immediate casualties and those succumbing to radiation poisoning. What I want to emphasize is that although Oppenheimer’s flashbacks touch upon this terror, it is presented fleetingly, assuming that the audience is already aware of the unimaginable scale of destruction caused by these weapons.

Photo of what became later Hiroshima Peace Memorial among the ruins of buildings in Hiroshima, in early October, 1945, photo by Shigeo Hayashi.

 

The patient’s skin is burned in a pattern corresponding to the dark portions of a kimono worn at the time of the explosion. Japan, circa 1945. Gonichi Kimura 1945 National Archives at College Park, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

 

Siblings losing their hair. The younger brother died in 1949 and so did the elder sister in 1965 of aftereffects of atomic bomb. Kikuchi Shunkichi日本語： 菊池俊吉, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons1945.

This, in my opinion, is the major flaw in “Oppenheimer.” In fact, judging by the numerous explanatory articles and videos available online, you might find yourself needing a manual to decipher this film before delving into introspection. I may be simplifying things, especially considering the film’s title is “Oppenheimer” – centered on the individual rather than the bomb itself. Nevertheless, even when Oppenheimer’s opposition to the United States developing a hydrogen fusion bomb becomes evident, the lack of vivid description (beyond cold facts and figures) of what ground zero looks like for a ‘typical’ nuclear bomb means that the audience can’t fully grasp the gravity of the situation and the depth of Oppenheimer’s emotions. Time Magazine, citing a nuclear engineer at Berkeley University in California, underscores that a hydrogen bomb would possess a hundred to a thousand times more destructive power. [2]

A missed opportunity to tell the story to younger generations

Regrettably, this film is rated 15 in the UK instead of 12A. While I acknowledge that the themes in this film are mature and warrant parental guidance, I believe that the ages between 12 and 15 are crucial for helping young individuals contemplate actions, consequences, and the world around them. The language used is relatively mild, but there are instances of obscenities. Similarly, the intimate scenes, though mild and potentially relevant in terms of conscience and key narrative themes, come across as overly clever and, in a way, overly theatrical. This approach diminishes the gravity of these moments and, frankly, feels somewhat absurd.

For instance, in one scene, Oppenheimer’s relationship with Gene Tatlock, who is also having relations with the Communist Party USA, is depicted with them in bed. Oppenheimer’s mind seems preoccupied with theoretical physics and matters of conscience, while Gene takes control of the situation by sitting on top of him, grabbing the Bhagavad Gita from a shelf above his head, and reciting the line “Now I am become death, the destroyer of souls.” This phrase is, of course, repeated by Oppenheimer later. In another scene, Gene and Robert sit naked, facing each other, as a portrayal of the competing desires between Gene and Kitty (Oppenheimer’s wife) begins to unfold, with Gene vying for dominance in their love triangle. These scenes are not explicit or titillating; they are more commonplace, peculiar, and a sophisticated, creative effort to highlight Oppenheimer’s character flaws and how he is both the instigator and victim of his own inner turmoil. They certainly do not offer gratuitous moments through pornography. I’m not convinced that they add significantly to the script, and I believe they could be portrayed differently for a younger audience.

While I’m tempted to delve into the discussion of what content should be accessible at various age levels, my main point is that even if the film did underscore the gravity of the nuclear experimentation and the ethical dilemmas it raised, its UK age rating makes it inaccessible to those under the age of 15. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that our young people should be as well-informed about the threat of nuclear warfare as they are about the Holocaust. “Oppenheimer” represents a missed opportunity, especially with its release date on July 21, 2023, so close to Hiroshima Day on August 6th. [3]

A cult following?

While the film may not have a significant impact in certain areas, I have no doubt that it will gain a dedicated following. It’s not entirely accurate to call it a “cult following” because the film isn’t meant for mere entertainment; rather, it’s a vehicle for understanding how personality, conscience, power, authority, and consequences intersect. It delves into the connections between theory, practice, and perceived risk, as well as ethics and utilitarianism.

Oppenheimer is initially celebrated for his work at Los Alamos but later faces derision from those who question his loyalty. Strauss is motivated to undermine Oppenheimer after witnessing a conversation between Oppenheimer and Einstein, which leaves Einstein seemingly indifferent towards Strauss. This eventually leads to Oppenheimer losing his security clearance. However, Strauss’s ambitions for a senior political role are thwarted when it becomes clear that his vindictiveness, exposed for all to see, was the driving force behind this move. Consequently, Strauss fails to garner enough votes in the Senate for his appointment. This power struggle, rather than the ethics of nuclear warfare, becomes the central lens through which the story unfolds.

Ultimately, Oppenheimer is finally recognized for his achievements by John F. Kennedy. In all of this, Einstein’s earlier words to Oppenheimer, that he will be praised for his actions because they benefit those who applaud him, prove to be true. After unleashing the nuclear bomb, Oppenheimer becomes a pawn in a political game. Therefore, the film’s reluctance to help viewers step into the narrative by providing a clearer backstory is what prevents it from making a more profound impact. Regarding the bomb’s impact, longer moments of reflection, possibly with silence, showcasing the devastation and fires, could have underscored this point. Such scenes don’t have to be visceral; they simply need to be telling.

Looking for the spiritual core

For those seeking a deeper, spiritual reflection on the significance of Oppenheimer’s story, CBS News provides profound insights through a 1965 interview. Oppenheimer’s responses to the newscaster’s questions followed a somewhat expected pattern: he viewed the bomb as a necessary evil, a harsh measure taken with reluctance, aimed at preventing further suffering. He candidly admitted, “You naturally don’t think of that with ease. I do not think our consciences should be entirely easy.” However, a sense of caution pervades Oppenheimer’s responses. He appears to sidestep personal reflections and instead emphasizes the collective conscience of the era. Based on the information available to him in both 1945 and 1965, Oppenheimer seemed to believe that the use of the bombs was justifiable.

Nonetheless, I was deeply struck by the contrast between corporate and personal conscience. Regardless of the rational arguments constructed by others to justify the use of the bomb, did it still conflict with Oppenheimer’s personal conscience at the time, even if it seemed rational on the surface? Regrettably, this is a question that remains unanswered, as Oppenheimer carried it with him to the grave and beyond, leaving us with a perpetual ethical dilemma.

Curiously, just as the film inadequately references historical context, it also fails to explore the divine or our responsibility to it, except for Oppenheimer’s misquoted words from the Bhagavad Gita, which the audience is left to interpret. It’s worth noting that this Hindu epic involves its hero, Prince Arjuna, conversing with Krishna, an incarnation of the god Vishnu, who is the preserver and protector of the universe in Hinduism. Arjuna is uncertain about how to handle a family conflict, and Krishna convinces him to fight. However, when Krishna reveals his true power, the world seems to burn (to borrow your phrase), and Arjuna pleads with him to stop. In this sense, Krishna to Arjuna is what nuclear research is to science—initially desiring the benefits but recoiling once realizing the destructive force unleashed. The parallels between these narratives are striking.

Oppenheimer harnesses nuclear science but is cautious about the consequences and where it might lead. However, the film unfortunately doesn’t delve further into this aspect to shed light on Oppenheimer’s awareness of his accountability to the divine. It seems that featuring Oppenheimer’s reference to one of Hinduism’s sacred texts should prompt consideration of the idea that regardless of our individual beliefs about God, there is more at play here than a limited human-centered ethical conversation.

Oppenheimer, and Physicists ‘knowing sin’

Interestingly, Oppenheimer did speak of sin relatively soon after the bombings, and so it would have been possible to begin to enter this territory. Personally, I would not be looking for the film to do more than introduce the question – because we can reflect on it in the car park later. But to close, during his 1965 CBS interview, Oppenheimer stated:

“Long ago I said once in a crude sense, in which no vulgarity and no humour could quite erase, that ‘Physicists had known sin’. I didn’t mean by that the deaths that were caused by the result of our work. We had known the sin of pride. We had turned to effect in what proved to be a major way the course of man’s history. We had the pride of thinking that we knew what was good for man, and I do think that this has left a mark of many of those of those who were responsibly engaged. This is not the natural business of a scientist.”

Regrettably, from my perspective, while “Oppenheimer” possessed considerable beauty, creativity, and an unmatched level of sophistication within its intricate and multilayered narrative, it failed to make the impact it should have. It may not be a total disaster, but it certainly fell short of expectations. “Oppenheimer” runs the risk of fading into obscurity and becoming “Forgottendheimer” because it places too little emphasis on the crucial ethical question of whether it is morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons and the complex personalities and dynamics that are involved in making such a decision.

[1] Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – Wikipedia
[2] https://time.com/4954082/hydrogen-bomb-atomic-bomb/
[3] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/08/06/japan/hiroshima-attomic-bombing-78th-anniversary/
[4] (26) From the archives: Robert Oppenheimer in 1965 on if the bomb was necessary – YouTube 2:15

Posted on

Reflection and Eucharistic Prayer based on Jesus’ response to the Canaanite Woman seeking Deliverance for her Daughter

This communion liturgy was written for cafe worship and in response to the challenging dialogue, in Matthew 15:21-28.

The Canaanite Woman, Les Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry, Folio 164r, Condé Museum, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Matthew 15 describes a visit made by a woman to Jesus, then in Gentile territory, She was desperate for Him to deliver her possessed daughter. Jesus’ response, “Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs”, has proved one of the most challenging sayings of Jesus because, from a cursory reading, it appears to support the discriminatory and inhumane attitudes shared by many of his compatriots, towards the Gentiles.

Whilst the principle that Jesus comes to the people of Israel first, and then to the wider world is understandable, we are made distinctly uncomfortable by how Jesus’ words could be taken to uphold some kind of two-tier hierarchy (in which ‘they’ (the Gentiles) are favoured less than ‘us’.

Michael Angelo Immenraet, Jesus and the Woman of Canaan. Between 1673 and 1678. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. Complete with large dog. Spot the look of surprise on the face of the nearest disciple. Michael Angelo Immenraet, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

This is not helped in the least by his referring to them as ‘dogs’.

Softer readings of the term, derived from the original Greek (which means ‘puppies’ rather than the ferocious animals we might assume), do little, in reality, to counter this. Meanwhile, the suggestion that the word for ‘dogs’ in Greco-Roman contexts, was also used to refer to philosophers, is tempting to hold on to (as if Jesus is saying that his truth claims need to be received as more than philosophical ideas that are up for debate).

However, Jesus is too far removed from this context for this to offer any kind of reprieve. The Gentiles knew that they were despised by their neighbours. Our only hope, unless we suggest that Jesus is having a bad day, and has been caught off-guard, is that he is saying it sarcastically, as if this phrase, ‘It is not right to take food for the children and toss it to the dogs’, is a common saying that Jesus is ridiculing. However, there seems little evidence of this, and we cannot know the tone in which Jesus is speaking.

There are, however, some positives. In the first place, the woman, an outsider, is prepared to risk people knowing that she has approached Jesus. Second, this seems to be a rare occasion where the person – let alone a woman – challenges Jesus and leaves affirmed. Her response, ‘Even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs’, is met with praise and the declaration that her daughter has been healed that instant. The core message is that Jesus, most likely seeking solace, tolerates being disturbed by someone in great need. The woman’s humility and persistence changes her life, and the life of her daughter.  Beyond this is the fact that whilst Jesus’ initial response leave us perplexed, He nonetheless disregards the boundaries of religious tradition that would have forbade He even talking to this woman, let alone bringing healing to her family.

I commend this liturgy to you, to use or edit as you wish. As general guidance to those ministers who are looking to write their own liturgies, page 221 of the 

Methodist Worship Book is a significant help. My personal experience is that this freedom that is offered to Methodist presbyters can be particularly helpful in ecumenical settings, given how we can shape our liturgies around particular scriptural and missional themes. This liturgy features elements of the Methodist Communion service for Pentecost (also for renewal, and emphasising the power of the Holy Spirit), aspects of Ordinary Season (1) – particularly a rewording of the familiar prayer recognising that we are not fit to gather the crumbs up from the Lord’s Table.  The Liturgy borrows from elements of the Iona Tradition by placing the Peace at the end, rather than at the beginning. Here, the emphasis is on how, having shared in communion, we find greater peace, and are drawn to a deeper level of commitment, then we were when we first began. We are a people who are now compelled to live at peace with each other, to respond well to those in need, and to bridge the divide. Meanwhile, the Lord’s Prayer is entered into earlier, as we emphasise that God meets our daily needs and that this rite is both a reminder and a fulfilment of this. 

One line is derived from considerable reflection, in that we pray that God would ‘help us unravel those strands of our traditions (sic.) which we have spoilt, that now limit our love’. This is rooted initially in the idea that aspects of the Pharisaic Tradition which were intended to help people draw closer to God had in fact become more insular and created division. A more detailed analysis of that paradigm is not possible here, but Jesus is clear in his speaking out against rules that misunderstand the action itself (ie food laws or washing hands) with the point of the action (this should be an outward sign of an inward commitment to righteousness, rather than a display for the sake of one’s one pride). Meanwhile, my emphasis is on how we can spoil the best of our inherited traditions in much the same way; we have the tendency to cherish the past to the point that we end up not preserving a mission but a living museum of what used to work. And in the worst of cases, we withdraw from the world, feeling resentful of those in our communities who do not seem to be supporting us. We say, ‘We are here for anyone and everyone just so long as they are prepared to walk through the Church doors’.

This is, I grant you, a pessimistic view of church where amazing things are happening, but our overriding learning from Fresh Expressions, and then New Places for New People, and also Church at the Margins, is that we still need to encourage each other in reaching out to new people who are not yet members of the church, and to be open to the kind of changes that need to be put in place so that the Church meets them where they are, rather than expecting them to conform to a model of church that may work for us, but may be less than ideal for them. We need to visit the land of the Gentiles and to be receptive.

Another element from the Methodist Worship Book which may prove helpful, especially in countering any sense of hierarchy, and emphasising mutuality, is for the President to adopt the confessional stance laid out in the Second Preaching Service within the Worship Book, Section B. Here the President would lead the way in confessing their own sins, with the pardon being pronounced by the congregation,  and then the congregation confessing their sins to the President.

I confess to God and to you
that I have sinned in thought, word, and deed;
May God have mercy on me.

May God grant you pardon
forgiveness of all your sins
time to amend your life,
and the grace and comfort of the Holy Spirit, Amen

Silence, after which the people say

We confess to God and to you
that I have sinned in thought, word, and deed;
May God have mercy on me.

May God grant you pardon
forgiveness of all your sins
time to amend your life,
and the grace and comfort of the Holy Spirit, Amen

_______________________

The Creed 

The Offering

The Lord’s Prayer

The Lord is here. His Spirit is with us.
Lift up your hearts. We lift them to the Lord.
Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right to give our thanks and praise.

Almighty God. At the beginning of time, your Holy Spirit
hovered over the surface of the deep.
You formed the heavens and the earth.
You brought light to the darkness, and life to all.

You convict us, and draw us,
that we might turn to you
and know life in all its fulness.

We remember your faithfulness through the generations
And how your covenants unfolded.
You raised up a holy people to reflect your love for the world
so that we might find purpose, and care for one another.
You sent prophets, priests, and kings to lead your people.
You defeat sin and death, and all that oppresses.

We give thanks today, that despite our sin:
Our tendency to withdraw from you, and from each other
Our lack of humility and willingness to embrace the risk of rejection
Our negligence, weakness, or even deliberate intent:
You sent your Son Jesus, so that you, the one true God
who was unknown, or overlooked and forgotten by so many,
would be revealed through His exorcisms, healings, and nature miracles.

And so with angels and archangels
and all the choirs of heaven
we join in the triumphant hymn:

Holy Holy Holy Lord
God of Power and Might
Heaven and Earth are full of your Glory
Hosanna in the Highest
Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord
Hosanna in the Highest. 

As we gather at this table, we remember Jesus’ final meal.
Where, as the future looked bleak,
worry, confusion, questioning, and betrayal hung in the air.
We acknowledge Jesus’ sacrifice, dying on the cross for us:
Journeying unto death so that we might be shaken to our senses.
He who welcomes our questioning, who loves beyond the border
urges us to seek the Father’s forgiveness and love our neighbour

Whilst we are saddened by Jesus’ death, we rejoice in His resurrection
and the knowledge that your Kingdom is here, is coming, and knows no bounds:

Christ has died, Christ is risen, and Christ will come again.

You lead us from longing to belonging.
Although our life may be challenging.
Although love’s cost, paid through grief can be great.
Although we may feel at times abandoned and lost.
You never leave us, you are our comforter, counsellor, helper, our friend.
When we are weak, we are carried by our church family.
When we are strong, we join our church family in carrying the weak.
Your spirit convicts us as to how, and where, you are leading us to serve.
You call us to welcome the stranger, to question that which divides us,
You call us to unravel those strands of our traditions which we have spoilt,
that now limit our love
We give thanks for those who stand with us now, whom we cannot see,
those who join with us in worship, prayer and service.
Who together with us, and the angels and archangels
praise you, and proclaim the eternal truth:

Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord.
God of Power and might
Heaven and earth are full of your glory,
Hosanna in the highest
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,
Hosanna in the highest.

We remember how, on the night before he died Jesus took bread, broke it, and said, ‘Take, eat, this is my body’, and how he took the cup saying. ‘Drink from it all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’.

We offer you these gifts of bread and wine, and with them ourselves, as a holy living sacrifice:

You send forth your spirit.
You bind us in love.
You renew the face of the earth.

Pour out your Holy Spirit so that these gifts of bread and wine
may be transformed and may become for us the body and blood of Christ.
Unite us with Him forever
And bring us with the whole of creation
To your eternal Kingdom

Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all blessing and honour and glory and power
be yours forever and ever, Amen.

The bread is broken in the sight of the people.

We break this bread to share in the body of Jesus Christ

Lord, we come to your table in humility,
trusting in your mercy
We are not deserving of the crumbs under your table
but it is your nature to bring healing
and to shape us into the people you are calling us to be
So feed us with the body and lifeblood of Christ
so that He may grow in us, and we may grow in Him.

The bread and wine is shared; helpful options here, which reinforce the theme of Jesus calling us to love our neighbour, is for the bread and wine to be shared amongst the congregation by passing it to each other.

The Peace

The Peace of the Lord, which surpasses all understanding and knows no bounds, be with you now and forever

And also with you

Posted on

It’s a Barbie World, and I am still making sense of it all

As I write I am recovering from the Barbie movie. I went because I thought it was no use hearing the opinions of others – I needed to judge for myself. The film reviews had already painted this as a movie that whilst being almost cartoonish in style, made some playful but poignant observations about the assumptions we might make about gender roles. Herein, there is a mix, some of these might be unconscious, and some we may be fully aware of, and regret. If anyone was looking for a sequel to our Methodist Church Justice, Dignity, and Solidarity training, looking through the lens of gender, I would consider this to be compulsory viewing.
In the sky, a large styled pink “B” with Margot Robbie as Barbie sitting holding out her right arm and Ken lying down in an angle with his head resting on his right clenched hand. A tagline reads: “She’s everything. He’s just Ken.” The poster art copyright is believed to belong to the distributor of the film, Warner Bros. Pictures, the publisher of the film or the graphic artist.

 

A helpful film makes you think. While Barbie does touch upon the well-rehearsed and valid aspects of patriarchy’s impact, it avoids the increasingly hackneyed, sensational, and hostile arguments put by its most vehement proponents. Curiously, while the film implicitly addresses concerns over male dominance, it also takes aim at a particular brand of feminism promoted by Mattel, the producers of the Barbie doll. Whilst this brand of feminism is credited for broadening horizons for girls worldwide, it is criticised simultaneously for perpetuating unattainable expectations regarding appearance and career, impacting many negatively. Barbie is among others a film director, film and music producer, teacher, dentist, doctor, paratrooper, campaign fundraiser, police officer, architect, astrophysicist – the list is endless. In my view though it is not accurate to say that there are fewer less skilled roles for Barbie: there are. Nonetheless, one of the striking moments in the film is where Barbie from Barblieland enters into conversation with Sasha, a young adolescent girl living in the real world, who states, “Barbie, you’ve set feminism back by 50 years. Every woman feels bad about herself when they see you. You’re a fascist!” That comment made Barbie cry.

Cover of Earring Magic Ken. Fair Use; Used for purposes of illustration

The narrative is supported with barbs towards Mattel (which could be also read as product placement); all Ken wants lives to be acknowledged by Barbie and gets no attention; his only friend Allan was discontinued after rumours began to circulate that he and Ken’s relationship was more than platonic. Then again, Allan returned as Midge’s husband in the 90’s – but sadly, they did not survive for long. Indeed, Pregnant Midge (who also came with a toddler and pram) was also withdrawn in fear that Mattel might be promoting teen pregnancy unwittingly. Earring Magic Ken was withdrawn, again, because of how gay he seemed. Palm Beach Sugar Daddy Ken (with an $82 million dollar fortune) was scrapped – this should be celebrated since Barbie does not need a sugar-daddy. Even Tanner, Barbie’s dog, is withdrawn because he defecated unsafely. (In truth, it was the magnet inside, unsafe for children that did it, rather than the defecation which was seen as a marketable add-on).

It was the line about fascist feminism that shocked me most. Gretta Gerwig’s willingness to champion the feminist cause and yet, at the same time, to be critical about the less helpful aspects of the Barbie project is refreshing. It brings self-reflection and honesty to the table. What interested me more however is a broader thought, derived from Gerwig’s work – that in declaring the freedoms we hope for; in our pressing hard to redress the balance, in our discourse, in our practical action, if we get the balance wrong, people see hate and intolerance justified under the guise of a just cause rather than love. Calling what are left wing movements towards greater freedom ‘fascist’ is peculiar, because fascism has historically been anchored to far right ideologies, where violence is used to bring about suppression and conformity. Even so, however framed,  intolerance-whilst-arguing-for-tolerance is indeed a marker of our times. It is the big question we are all wrestling with. It is, for example, at the forefront of Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil’s action. We all care for the planet but to what extent can campaigners disrupt lives to promote a worthy cause? The issue is that many onlookers are suspicious of simplistic arguments, and disagree with the form of protest. Moreover the accusation that extremes of feminist activism might have fascist tendencies could almost have been lifted from the playbooks of Andrew Doyle (GB News), Piers Morgan (TalkTV), or Richard Madeley (Good Morning Britain).

Where then does this leave us?

I entered a Barbie world, and I am still making sense of it all. In recent weeks I have been considering Jesus’ parables. Rather than beginning by exploring their meaning (which almost defeats the object), my approach has been to explore why Jesus spoke in parables in the first place? In my view, this has something to do with how Jesus manages conflict. Whilst Jesus can and does speak the truth directly and uncompromisingly (ask any of the scribes or Pharisees who were about to stone the adulteress – ‘Let He who has not sinned cast the first stone’, or derrided by Him publicly as ‘whitewashed tombs’ or a ‘serpents’ – John 8, Matthew 23), Jesus also manages conflict by speaking in parables. Whilst Jesus’ parabolic teaching is judgmental in the sense that it allows Jesus to point the finger at the state of the world, and what Kingdom values look like, Jesus does not poke people in the eye.
A helpful example is that of the lawyer who asks Jesus ‘Who is my neighbour?’ Jesus does not respond by saying, “What a stupid question. Whatever a neighbour is, let alone a good neighbour, it is definitely not you!” No, he tells a story. He invites the lawyer and the bystanders to step into a scene and think through their values. Who is our neighbour? How should we behave? In essence, Jesus states that our neighbour is whoever is beside us, or who we pass by, and we are called to love them, even if we have been conditioned to hate them. Whilst the message is personal, it is not given as a personal barb. It does not try to settle arguments by destroying the person we are trying to persuade. There is something in this, in how as Christians we seek to help people engage in issues of Justice, Dignity, and Solidarity without increasing conflict and hostility, by helping us all see life from a different perspective.

Compulsory viewing?

I believe that Barbie should be compulsory viewing because it presents a unique perspective on the place of men in feminist debates, shedding light on gender expectations and the influence of patriarchy woven into the film. The initial scenes, where girls reject the traditional baby dolls they were given as children and exchange them for Barbie, are both poignant and harrowing, demanding our attention. Witnessing this powerful portrayal of societal expectations and gender norms, I could not help but be deeply moved.

Even so, this marked the outer limits of Barbie’s rebellion. As one of the few males in the cinema, I found myself drawn not only to the message of women’s emancipation but also to the introspection it prompted regarding male dominance as a product of patriarchy. Instead of feeling alienated or blamed, I felt invited to be a part of the solution and engage in the conversation with warmth and understanding. This movie challenges us all to confront the legacy of patriarchy and its impact on shaping unconscious biases – and it is refreshing to see how the complexity around this is acknowledged. There is an irony throughout the film where the kind of lines that might appear on a protest placard are delivered with a level of sarcasm, suggesting that creating a utopia is not as simple as we might imagine.

By addressing gender expectations, Barbie encourages us to reflect on the ways in which societal norms have shaped our perspectives, and it motivates us to actively support the broader movement for gender equality. It is essential that we foster an environment where individuals of all genders can come together in dialogue, acknowledging the influence of patriarchy while striving to create a more inclusive and equitable world. Barbie compels us to embrace change, think critically about gender roles and their limitations, and to be aware of how patriarchy has historically promoted male dominance, which has, in turn, disempowered women.

Similarly, given the film’s thought-provoking critique of Barbie-feminism; “Thanks to Barbie, all problems of feminism and equal rights have been solved”, I find myself anticipating how a more comprehensive critique of matriarchy might surface in wider society. At present, this feels underdeveloped. Exploring both sides of the gender debate will further enrich our understanding and pave the way towards a more comprehensive and nuanced conversation about gender dynamics.

References:
Morgan, Piers, ‘Vile woke fascists bullying us over ‘trans’ rapists and gender-neutral awards pose a severe and unexpected threat’, 150123, https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21162988/piers-morgan-transgender-protests/
Lewis, Isobel, ‘Good Morning Britain: Richard Madeley criticised for calling climate activist a ‘fascist’, 140921 https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/richard-madeley-gmb-climate-protest-b1919758.html
Doyle, Andrew, We should stop letting activists get away with redefining words to suit their political purposes, 300122, https://www.gbnews.com/opinion/andrew-doyle-we-should-stop-letting-activists-get-away-with-redefining-words-to-suit-their-political-purposes/216297
Posted on

Recognising the prophetic question and thinking about the five P’s

Recognising the prophetic question

(An edited version of this article featured in the New Places for New People blog for the Methodist Church of Great Britain).

When you see the prophetic it stands out like glitter reflecting the light. Scene here – glitter remains spilt outside Messy Church (biodegradable of course)

 

Methodism is full of meetings. I don’t mind that, just so long as our meetings are grounded in prayer, have purpose, and we are making progress. Many of us who chair meetings or who take an active part are able to identify when we are not at our best. We all know of meetings where the minutes have served more as a reminder of what we promised to do months ago but have forgotten. Alternatively, we will know of meetings where the focus seems to be on keeping the show (of ‘church’) on the road by shoring up what is barely working, rather than being honest about what needs to change.

Have you heard of the five P’s? I am not sure where I first heard them. There are most likely variations but I remember the phrase, ‘Prayerful Preparation Prevents Poor Performance’. Herein the notion of ‘performance’ (a word that does not come naturally) needs to be coaxed within our understanding of discipleship, and how if we want to grow the church, we need to start by making disciples. In NPNP settings, where we have clear intent, where our focus is on growth and sustainability, a prayerful approach to preparation comes naturally. In a smaller setting, if people are not coordinating well and working as a team, things fall apart quickly. The same is true of established settings, apart from it can be easy for us to be lulled into a false sense of security because ‘we have always been here’.

There is a phrase I want to add to the five P’s. It feels clumsy, but I think it is invaluable – Prayerful Preparation – that is open to the prophetic – Prevents Poor Performance. Perhaps a wordsmith can come up with something more succinct. This addition comes from my experience in a church meeting where, aside from the well warranted need for us to maintain our building, one of our members asked the question, ‘How much money are we spending on people rather than buildings’? Before you, the reader, recoil because our buildings need maintenance, and we often find ourselves in a non-negotiable position, I would ask you to suspend judgement and hear me out. This was an important question – a prophetic question born out of holy disquiet, and it needed unpacking. What is the underlying concern here? How, if aired, might it help the community focus on its sense of call? In our context we still opted to carry out this work but we intend to spend more on people – a layworker in fact, part-funded through a bequest.

Those of us who chair meetings, and those of us who are key leaders in churches and NPNP ministries have a responsibility to draw out the prophetic voice. That is a challenging task because biblically it would seem that prophets are always at risk of having rocks slung in their direction. Hence sometimes, even though the prophetic question will not change a particular outcome (damp issues have to be dealt with), it can help shape a community. It can also call people back to a sense of accountability to each other, working together. That for me, is the difference between administration, which we all need, and solid Christian leadership. May the Lord be with us all, and may we not quench the Holy Spirit as we encounter the prophetic. Wherever we are.

 

Posted on

I might forget your name – but Jesus’ won’t.

This article is dedicated to those who forget or confuse names and places easily, and who in trying to remember someone’s name can’t get another out of their head. Batman made an appearance in one of my recent services. Because I had called someone Robin by mistake.
Not a great image to have in your mind during worship – By Greenway Productions-producer of both the television series and the 1966 film. – eBay itemphoto frontphoto back, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=105593132
Once again, I continue to thank God for the new people that the Lord is bringing us, who are making Queen Street their spiritual home. My challenge is how I get to know you all. I need to be honest and share how I am absolutely terrible with names. It is something that I find deeply humiliating and difficult, because I love people and feel like an absolute idiot when I cannot remember someone’s name when I am facing them, or in passing conversation I get names wrong. My sister, who is a psychologist, says that I have dyslexia. It is more of a family joke but I suspect there is some truth in it. There is also a level of ADHD there. Yes, I am high functioning (I think people who have doctorates have to fall into this category). I am not a great reader – my attention span is short (research reading is different from novel reading). Whilst I don’t struggle with spelling, I do get place names confused. It is a cognitive weakness.
I remember on one occasion, when Ro and I were living in Yorkshire, we agreed to meet each other – she would do the shopping, and I would meet to help her pack, at Morrisons. That was four miles away. I ran to Tescos – which was four miles in the opposite direction. By the end of the day I had practically run a half-marathon. (And yes, I still can’t remember whether I have the names of the supermarkets right). In formal settings I tend to be fine, but those of you who see me at work in the vestry – say before a baptismal service – will know how carefully I sit there and write the names of the child and the parents – again and again, on every page of the liturgy. It’s the same with a wedding and a funeral. We all find our coping mechanism – but it is when we are off script that we find our weaknesses. And there are people who have it far, far, far worse than me. I mean, here I am writing quite naturally. You would not know. Unless you agreed to meet me somewhere and I had not written it down. I live or die by my diary! Fortunately mistakes happen rarely – but it shows when things are informal or when I am rushing. Getting days and dates confused when I am firing off e-mails rapidly is another one – but we all correct ourselves.
About a month ago, in a moment of hilarity, whilst confidently leading worship, I managed to rename Paul Abel – who was sat at the front – ‘Robin’. I did it not once but at least twice. The eyebrows usually give it away, followed by (once it became impossible to ignore, the question. ‘Who is Robin?’ – since ‘Robin’ was about to lead us in prayer. Thankfully we are a close family at Whittlesey, and I feel so loved and valued, so acknowledging it was easier – but I did feel like a right muppet. I know why my brain went where it did: Robin was the name of Paul’s former minister, who I talked with some time back. However, during the seconds that followed the only word association I could get if ‘Robin’ was not ‘Robin’, was ‘Batman’!) Thankfully I did not blurt this out. The conversation with my wife that followed was interesting. She is a saint. She keeps me grounded, and I don’t ask her opinion if I am looking for a soft answer but on this occasion she conceded that I did manage to pull things back from the brink. My concession afterwards; ‘I might forget your name Paul, but Jesus won’t!’ seemed to come from nowhere. And despite my human frailties, and my embarrassment, we were back on track. I think this was more of a prophetic utterance than due to any quick thinking or creativity on my part, since I was utterly vulnerable and more open to the Holy Spirit. I might forget your name but Jesus won’t. Just think about that for a moment.
This brings me, conveniently, to a point where I can focus on what we are about at Queen Street. I have been around for long enough to know that the mark of a loving church is that you can be open and vulnerable, and people will embrace you. That despite our weaknesses – and we all have weaknesses – people love us for our strengths, and for what we bring to the church community. People are asking me why we are growing at Whittlesey. I don’t have an easy answer apart from to say that as a church we know what we are about – who we are here for, and why. I also know that whilst I have a role, everyone gets that we all have a responsibility to nurture each other. We are here to lead people to Jesus, the one who knows our name, knows us, and has a purpose for our lives. Making disciples makes church. It does not work the other way round. And so this is why, even though the formula is simple, we are holding our revival service on the week after Pentecost. What we have is previous. We have a place where God is bringing healing in so many ways. Do come along. Do bring a friend. We will share the gospel. We may hear some testimony. We will offer prayers for healing and wholeness. We will make sure we give people an opportunity to give their lives to Jesus. We cannot lose. We cannot fail. Because God’s purpose is in this, and in all that we do. We simply need to be open to God. In a sense, it does not matter how many make it, or whether it is about renewal or first-time commitment. We are being faithful. And if you can’t be there, praise God that you will be where God needs you to be – with family and friends etc, and do please pray for those of us who are.
Posted on

We Believe: Churches Together in Whittlesey and District. This is what we stand for.

The statement below reflects Churches Together in Whittlesey and District’s ongoing understanding of how God is calling local Christians and churches to support each other in partnership. It is the culmination of a year’s reflection, as our shared values have surfaced through prayer, conversation, and action. (I write as one of the local ministers who is part of this group, with a sense of gratitude as our jouurney has unfolded).

The desire for churches to work together has renewed following the Covid-19 pandemic, as leaders have recognised that we can understand the needs of our community more by conferring with each other, and in certain areas we can have a far greater impact by working together and supporting each other, than working alone. We are One Body with congregations meeting in different times places, to accomodate different needs. My earlier article, ‘Churches Together, What’s the Point?’ highlighted that whilst there is considerable warrant on us striving towads gathering for shared worship, an alternative starting point – and arguably the more fruitful route in helping people discover the joy of journeying together – rests in shared mission. Whereas encouraging congregants to ditch all their morning services to gather in one place for worship is a challenge, sharing in mission, with opporutunities in different times and different places, may be more achivable. It also is highly relational; we then join for a joint service not because there is an ecclesiological edict to do so, but because we are connected to our friends in other churches and enjoy fellowship together. (I should say that we have had some success in joint worship, but the trust of my argument remains).

We Believe is not intended as a credal statement. It is a creed of sorts, fashioned around Jesus’ prayer for the disciples that they should be One, supporting each other through the hardship that is to come once Jesus is taken from them, and as they face persecution in the future. Its starting point is therefore about how we value each other, and how we relate well to each other, irrespective of the differences we share. We Believe, in my view, determinedly emphasises our common faith in Christ. It asserts boldly some key theological drivers.

If the Good Samaritan was good not just because he was caring enough to tend to the wounded man, but because he had the capacity to love the person that he had most likely been conditioned from birth to hate, then how much more should we be obliged to support our fellow Christians? Should not the love of God blow apart our differences?

God has called us as Christians (rooted in and living out our discipleship as part of a local church), to mission. There will be times when by working in partnership we can achieve more than if we work alone. To resist this is to work contrary to God’s purposes.

Whilst we regret the conflict that has existed, and remains (sadly in some areas) between Christians of different denominations, we celebrate the richness of our traditions, and with that our diversity. God would have us listen and learn from one another. Whilst we might yearn for increased unity, we recognise that diversity is a part of life, and for the sake of peace, and the Gospel, we must learn to live with contrasting convictions, and where we disagree, to disagree well. Our conflict must never obscure our shared belief in Jesus as Lord, and the mighty truth of the death and resurrection of Christ. (This, I must confess, is part of my Methodist identity, having surfaced as part of our ongoing discussions around human sexuality).

There is no place for self-interest and self-preservation in the life of the Church, as if we promote the life of our own church first and disengage in our support of others. There is no room for the fear that members from one church will leave for another down the road who is more appealing. The core task, for us all, is to discern and meet need. Our focus should not be so much on doing the work of the church, but on doing the work of the Kingdom, from which the Church, and local churches are birthed. We are not called to serve so much in our church, but in God’s Church, and it is God who has domain over what this looks like locally. Focus on building the church and we will be dead in the water. Focus on making disciples, and affirming constantly that we want them to find a spiritual home, a church, where they can be loved, love others, and fulfill their potential, and God’s blessing will come our way, irrespective of where they go. If your church has a reputation for nurturing people, it will grow. And we all have the capacity to nurture. What one person loves in worship style and approach will be different from another. (I won’t reveal my preferences but there are some churches that will uplift me, and leaders who I know I can always turn to, but by the same token, I know that there are churches that will not sustain me for where I am in my life right now. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. It is all part of the mix.

And finally, at this moment in our history, and whilst affirming the importance of conscience and freedom of religious belief and expression, as churches, working together, we need to assert ourselves in the fight against discrimination in all its forms. In this present hour, our concern continues for racial justice within the Church, and for the Church’s voice in affirming the dignity and human rights which should be afforded to those who are part of the LGBTQI+ community. In this respect, to remain silent would be to perpetuate, in some contexts, the untruth that the church is die-hard traditional, unconcerned, uncaring, and out of touch with reality. In respect of LGBTQI+ issues, whilst many within and outside the Church will appreciate that our debates will be multilayered, emotional, and complex, the more urgent message for us to relate is that as God’s people, we have compassion and we are clear about what we do stand for where human rights are concerned.

Below is the statement ‘We Believe’, agreed by Churches Together in Whittlesey and District.

We Believe

We believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and that He died for us, and that God raised Him from the grave by the power of the Holy Spirit. That same Spirit is at work in us.

We believe that Jesus’ desire for us that we would support each other, in remaining faithful to God and to each other, through the joys and sorrows of life. We are disciples travelling along the same road.

We believe that God has a mission to save the World from sin, death, and all that enslaves us, and that as Christians and local churches, we have our part in that mission.

We believe that by supporting each other in our discipleship, and the work of our churches, we can do more than if we were to walk alone. To this end, we assert that to work in isolation, where the possibility of partnership exists, is contrary to God’s will.

We believe that diversity is a part of life, and that inclusivity is an act. We embrace the diversity and richness offered by our individual traditions. We have much to learn from each other. Whilst our Churches may differ in certain areas of doctrine and practice, God calls us to live with contrary convictions, and where we disagree, to disagree well, in such a way that does not undermine the gospel.

We believe that God calls us to build the Kingdom, rather than to focus on building our local churches, but that in working for the Kingdom, our local churches will flourish.

We believe in One Church, which is God’s Church, of which we all share a part. We celebrate moments where this unity becomes visible.

Churches Together in Whittlesey in District affirms the Churches Together in Britain and Ireland’s focus on racial justice, the fight against discrimination in all its forms, and in particular whilst respecting the rights of conscience and religious freedom of belief for all people, stresses the dignity that should be afforded to those who are LGBTQI+, and affirms their human rights.

Posted on

Icelandic Pride Part 1: Pride is about Human Rights

During a recent driving holiday touring Iceland, it slowly dawned on our family that we had arrived during Pride Week. Initially, we bypassed the capital, Reykjavik (the home of 65% of Iceland’s population of 372,000 inhabitants, and potentially, the largest number of balloons). However, our first sight of Icelandic Pride did not come via public notices, balloons, or glitter, but by how at least two churches – perched on hills above local villages – had painted their steps in pride colours.

Church Steps, Holmavik, Langley Mackrell-Hey, 2022

 

Church Steps, Holmavik, Langley Mackrell-Hey, 2022

Granted, this was not the case in every town, but it was nevertheless eye-catching, impossible to ignore, and dominated the view. In some places, Pride was unavoidable; the rainbow was beneath your feet as you followed a walkway to a civic building, or in the case of Reykjavik, a street where the individual pride colours were the width of a running track lane.

Pride Walkway,Reykjavik. Langley Mackrell-Hey, 2022 (Permanent since 2019)

Here, by default or deliberate design, the rainbow pointed directly to the iconic Hallgrímskirkja Church tower, stopping at its precincts (which, to be fair had a design of their own). However, just in case you had any doubts as to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland’s solidarity with the Pride movement, in previous years, the central isle at Hallgrímskirkja drew the eye deliberately and unmistakably towards the Pride carpet laid over the steps that led the way up to the communion table. Sadly, I did not see inside the Church during our visit – because when I arrived they were holding a funeral.

The interior of Hallgrimskirkja Church in Reykjavik. Iceland.  (Taken 9 August 2020/Alamy 2023)

 

 

 

 

As a superintendent minister serving the Methodist Church here in the UK, I found myself in holiday-humour overdrive. Where did the authorities lie for this to happen in those churches that participated? Was the land owned by the council – and did they simply paint the steps up to the church, leaving the congregation to work out how they would respond? Had a group of Pride carpet-fitters conducted a series of raids, dressed in balaclavas (garishly coloured of course), and installed carpets thinking, ‘No one will see this until it is too late’? (This would be some achievement in the midnight sun). Or dare I believe that pride was truly owned by the people, and church people at that?

One short answer might be gleaned from the events at Glerá Church in Akureyri (Iceland’s second capital – population, 18,000), where the Pride flag is painted on the walkway leading directly to the doors of the church. Here, the council outlined its plans and asked the church if they would finish the job – and the church agreed. Reports highlight that permission from the church’s executive committee, ‘took a while, but was successful’.[1] I discern a measure of realism in that statement. Iceland is not a panacea of Pride, but it is getting the job done.

I have been stirred by Icelandic Pride. Before I say more, I must freely admit I am trying to piece a narrative together from very shaky foundations. We did not attend a Pride march. I could well be romanticising things because of the changes that I yearn to see in my own country, below the surface. I continue to seek clarity from the Church of Iceland about the passage of events. However, I cannot deny that away from the Pride march, where Pride found its way into towns and villages, the Pride movement felt like it was at a different stage compared to us here in the UK. Crucially, in Iceland, it feels as if Pride’s human rights dimension has taken centre stage. The question, if you are in Iceland, is ‘Why would you not be on board?’ All I saw was tolerance, kindness, and respect in all things, and bewilderment that anyone could be wary of Pride or even homophobic.

Embedded Icelandic pride

Icelanders are not the kind of people to throw volcanic rocks at those who disagree with them. There is however, understandably, some derision from within the LGBT+ community towards the conservative evangelicalism that reaches them, particularly from the United States. (And I say this as a proud, liberal evangelical ministering in the UK). For example, the Reykjavik Grapevine featured an article from one of its reporters, Sam O’Donnell, who relayed an account of a heated conversation between an American tourist and a church attendant at Hallgrímskirkja:

“Excuse me. Is that a rainbow flag in the church?” The tourist asked.
(It’s a fair question. The bright colours don’t always give it away.)

“Yes, it is,” responded the attendant, confirming that the tourist’s eyes did not deceive.

“Why would a church have that?”
(Another fair question. Churches have historically been in favour of executing gay people and not flying rainbow flags.)

“Because we believe that God’s love is inclusive for all people, irrespective of their sexuality or background.”
(This church aims to rectify history’s transgressions. Nice.)

“Jesus would never accept that.”

“Yes, he would.”

“No, he would not.”

“I’m afraid we will have to disagree on that.

O’Donnell writes as someone who grew up in what he describes as the ‘Evangelical Christian Church’, and asserts that he, is certain of God’s unconditional love and would ‘tell the haters to leave the judgment to God.’ His closing comment is that most Americans who visit Iceland realise this, and refrain from entering into theological debates with church attendants.[2] Nonetheless, his sideswipes against what has been done in the name of Christianity have significant warrants. More than this, I submit that O’Donnell is being generous in using the word ‘historical’. In 2019, Sky News reported that Detective Grayson Fritts, also a preacher at a small American church in Tennessee called for the execution of homosexuals[3], and in 2020, Newsweek reported that Pastor Dillan Awes stated that “every single” gay person in America should be executed by the government.[4]

We might be tempted to view O’Donnell’s thinking as a generalisation from the particular.  Locally, we may well know of Christians and churches that are sympathetic to or even directly engaged with Pride. The argument that the Church Catholic has been complicit in sustaining homophobia, is difficult to refute. (The Church Catholic with all its denominations and congregations is, after all, a large entity),  

I take as my definition of homophobia the guidance given by the Methodist Church in Great Britain.[4a])  At its base, homophobia is the denial of the image of God in another person, due to their actual or perceived sexual orientation. A homophobic attitude or action denies someone’s dignity and worth. It can manifest in physical violence and emotional or psychological abuse.  It may surface in stereotypes and assumptions based on a person’s active or perceived sexual orientation, or it may include language that is hostile, hurtful and offensive. Most recently it may result in coercive spiritual practice, such as conversion therapy. Significantly, it is not homophobic to hold to the traditional view of sexuality. 

Whilst I am tempted to follow this line and cite examples of homophobia within Church institutions, I am more aware and filled with more dread about those periods where as Christians we have been complicit in our silence. This, I feel, is the centre ground for the fight against homophobia today. I suspect that aside from those bold individuals who served the Church and yet felt comfortable asserting their identity and being transparent about their sexuality in the UK, the Church has arrived late to the Pride Party. 

My point in highlighting this story is not to shock the reader with visceral examples of where homophobic attitudes exist in church settings – or on its fringes. Calling for gays to be executed is hate speech, and it does indeed serve as a healthy antidote against our complacency, especially when the inhumane views of a protagonist in one part of the world can move from screen to screen and be available on a different continent, in one mouse-click. Neither is it to project the baseless view that all conservative evangelicals think the same. Indeed, I know of countless colleagues who whilst they are against same-sex marriage or undecided, are amongst the most loving, understanding, accepting, and peace-making people I know. They have wrested with their consciences and shed tears over this issue. Moreover, I have yet to meet personally a conservative evangelical who has called for the death of gays.

Rather, I recite O’Donnell’s story as I suspect that it reflects how Pride has become interwoven with certain sections of Icelandic culture. Culture being, ‘The way we do things around here’[5], or the way we do things when we are not consciously thinking about it. We do not know who the tour guide was (although I am assuming that they were not an ordained minister). We do not know their gender or sexual identity. But we do know that they had enough resource at hand, and were confident enough when confronted, to defend the church at some depth – even to the point of, “We believe that God’s love is inclusive for all people, irrespective of their sexuality or background.” That is quite a statement. Not simply ‘The Church believes’, but ‘We believe’. And so there it is – the centre ground in the fight against homophobia. Moreover, note that although O’Donnell is critical of this particular tourist and what they represented, it is he who celebrates the attendant’s response by summing up with, “This church aims to rectify history’s transgressions. Nice.” O’Donnell recognises that ‘This Church’ is different.

The Pride film on the journey back with IcelandAir, The Colourful spirit of Iceland, Celebrating Reykavik Pride) takes care to emphasise how the founders of the first pride parade were astonished by how the people of Reykjavik came out to support. Whilst there was work to be done to establish the legal rights of LGBT+ people, Pride was not an in-your-face, we-are-here-to-stay, protest movement. In fact, there was little protest. Rather, neighbours stood by the roadside to support those who were ‘different’; to affirm them and to assert that they had a right to be true to their own identity rather than living a lie by omission and hiding their sexuality. I am, nonetheless, discerning enough to suspect that at least some of this is the marketing on the part of Pride and IcelandAir to encourage tourism to what would appear to be one of the most gay-friendly cities in the world. However, it felt to me as if there was a difference and that somehow Iceland was further on in its Pride journey. One hypothesis is that Iceland’s unique size, small communities, and familiarity between people in certain regions, accelerated Pride’s growth. For example, Peterborough’s population is around 215,000, whereas the population of Reykyavik is around 131,000 and 233,000 within the wider region. Meanwhile, a city in Iceland comprises anything from 10,000 to 100,000 people. Whilst some rural communities are remote and isolated, if you paint a pride rainbow on a city or village street, everyone will know about it.

Contrasting with Pride in the UK – and changes in the Pride flag

Whilst we have Pride walkways in the UK, they are dwarfed by our civil infrastructure and not always obvious. Certainly not as obvious as a six-lane running track-width pride walkway starting at either end of town and stopping at the entrance to, say, our cathedral.  Even so, the painting of steps and walkways by councils is not new. Aberdeen, Bristol, Coventry, Derby, London, Liverpool, Plymouth, and Swindon, among others, have not been shy in their investment in paint. The flag is appearing elsewhere. Cheshire Police have modified the livery of their squad cars. At the Cricketing 100 match held at Manchester between Birmingham Phoenix and the Manchester Originals in August 2022, the base of the stumps were painted with the Pride Flag, and players were invited to wear rainbow laces in support of LGBT+ people – the latter being something that is far from new in sporting circles but now making featuring as part of the closeups and commentary. I even visited my local garden centre this afternoon to find that I could purchase a set of batteries in pride colours. More than this, varieties of the LGBT flag are growing, including the Social Justice Pride Flag by Moulee (2018) with its reference to the Indian self-respect movement, anti-caste and left-wing political movements. Meanwhile the light pink, white and, cyan additions within the Progress Pride Flag and the New Pride Flag (both 2018), emphasising the rights of trans-people, and trans-people of colour, are particularly striking.

2018 Social Justice Pride Flag by queer activist Moulee. Courtesy Wikipedia.
2018 Progress Pride Flag by Daniel Quasar. 5 half sized stripes representing trans and non-binary individuals (light blue, light pink, white), marginalized POC communities (brown, black), as well as those living with AIDS and the stigma and prejudice surrounding them, and those who have been lost to the disease (black). Wikipedia.
2018 New Pride Flag is a call to action for the LGBTQIA+ movement to center the movement’s most marginalized. It was designed by a two spirit Afro-Taino, Julia Feliz. Wikipedia.

Elsewhere in the world though, Pride can struggle to make it on to the pitch. The Pride armband, originally intended to be worn by the England football team in Qatar (along with six other European nations), was never worn by their respective captains in our recent World Cup.

One Love Armband Design. Wikipedia.

The idea originated in the Netherlands as a direct response and protest towards Qatar’s laws against homosexuality, and the discussion that ensued highlighted clear differences in the human rights stance in other countries. In a bid to ease the tensions, FIFA, football’s governing body, viewed the Pride armband as a political statement – and according to FIFA rules, equipment worn by players must not have any political, religious, or personal slogans. All it took therefore was the threat that participating captains would be served with a yellow card (two yellow cards in two appearances would mean that a player would forfeit the next match), for them to deflate Pride.[6] However, this saga raised significant attention in the UK. I am however questioning how the conflict over Qatar’s human rights record might have been reported elsewhere beyond Europe. It’s a shame that Iceland did not make it to the finals.

A significant twist

Perhaps complementing this discussion over Pride armbands, and hidden from more extensive commentary, was the fact that a ‘senior Qatari official’ alleged to Sky News that its representatives had approached FIFA having made plans before the tournament to suggest that captains be permitted to wear a ‘No place for Islamophobia’ armband. This featured a Palestinian headscarf pattern.[7]

FIFA claimed that it was unaware of such a proposal, and one wonders whether this was official posturing, but for the record, whilst I support LGBT rights, I am also against Islamophobia – the fear, hatred of, or prejudice against Islam or Muslims.[8] My concern is not so much the fact that people from different cultures may find that they hold contrasting world views and values. It is that where we disagree, we should strive to disagree well, and live in peace. It is that we learn to live with contrasting convictions. I recognise that to a degree, some differences seem insurmountable. How does a country that has been so deeply conditioned to reject homosexuals to the point that this is enshrined in law and punishment, undo such attitudes? And thus here we stand at the crunch point of liberation theology; how far should we be prepared to go to support our human brothers and sisters who are living under oppressive regimes and protesting for change? How do we work towards the coming of the Kingdom? What does non-violent protest look like? Let us not forget that whilst a select number of European teams looked to protest with Pride, the Iranian football team (and other high-profile athletes) faced arrest, torture, and death when they returned. And all they did was refuse to sing the national anthem, or if they were a woman, refuse to wear a head covering.

To conclude

Returning to Iceland – and with perhaps insights for elsewhere, what began as a focus on the recognition and rights of LGBT+ communities gains further traction when the focus is on human rights generally. Thus to argue against LGBT+ rights is to argue against human rights – and hence my initial point. The issue beyond this is how as Christians we respond. In my view, this point might be simple, obvious even, but it is an important one. Whilst we may know of people who struggle with anything other than the traditional view of human sexuality, and whilst the proportion of people identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB) in 2018 was 2.2% (Office for National Statistics [16]), we can all agree on the need to make progress where human rights are concerned. For the moment, Iceland seems to be heading in the right direction

This article is the first in a series detailing how my experience in Iceland has impacted my ongoing thoughts as a Methodist Minister serving in the UK. My thoughts do not necessarily represent the views of the wider Methodist Church. My intention in writing this article is to be open about my own thinking, in the hope that I can encourage others, and in the hope that I can learn through others as we enter into dialogue.

I am mindful of two further articles that could stem from this:

The second is a focus on how Pride and the decisions of the Icelandic government have influenced the Church of Iceland, which has now adopted gay marriage.  In particular, there is the potential to explore how the Icelandic Church is engaging with Pride today in a way of acknowledging its failings in the past, and bringing healing. 

The third article is focused on the Pride movement here in the UK, and in particular how the Church in the UK might engage with Pride. One key question is ‘What does Christian Pride look like?’, since whilst the Church may support the human rights dimension of Pride, we also look to retain a particular understanding of what healthy, holy, relationships look like. 

As a final note, I would like to thank colleagues and friends who have encouraged me to write about my experiences. Thus far, whilst I have journeyed with congregations as part of our Methodist Church God in Love Unites us discussions, I have been reluctant to put pen to paper. Part of this stems from the fact that I am straight and I would rather that the voices in support of Pride came from within the LGBT+ community. Meanwhile, the tone of the LGBT+ debate in certain circles is deeply unpleasant, with protagonists on both sides of the debate being openly hostile with each other, in a way that I can only describe as unchristian. This is particularly evident on social media, where the sound byte or video clip rules, where all humanity can be lost, and where hatred can surface so easily. As a minister, I strive to balance an openness about what I believe (It is impossible and unhelpful to hide this), whilst being willing to listen and support those who think differently from me. As I shall demonstrate no doubt in a future article, the fact that a church community may have agreed to register their building for same sex-marriages does not mean that they are free from pain over the issue. This will take some time. But crucial to this journey is the calling that is on us to create communities that are open, honest, respectful, and trusting when it comes to discussing difficult issues. Without this, we will make little progress. 

[1] https://grapevine.is/news/2022/06/16/glera-church-makes-statement-of-inclusivity/

[2] From Iceland — Tourist Vs. Rainbow Flag: 0-1, Rainbow Flag (grapevine.is)

[3] https://news.sky.com/story/tennessee-detective-calls-for-gay-people-to-be-executed-during-church-sermon-11742169

[4] https://www.newsweek.com/pastor-gay-people-solution-killings-bible-1714037

[4a] homophobia-edi-committee-guidance.pdf (methodist.org.uk)

[5] Widely referenced and originate from Deal and Kennedy in the 1980’s

[6] World Cup 2022: what is the OneLove armband and why did FIFA ban it? | Reuters

[7] Muslim nations proposed World Cup armband to raise awareness of Islamophobia | World News | Sky News

[8] Islamophobia | Muslim Council of Britain (mcb.org.uk)

[9] My Google search terms were ‘Methodist church gay marriage uk’ last checked 020123.

[10] https://www.facebook.com/peterboroughmethodistcircuit/

[11] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-61981557

[12] https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/first-same-sex-church-weddings-7827532

[13] https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/northumberland-same-sex-weddings-churches-24696986

[14] https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/20145259.hove-methodist-church-host-first-same-sex-marriage-summer/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YyxUz1LhSE&t=5s

[15] https://www.methodist.org.uk/about-us/the-methodist-church/marriage-and-relationships/archive-marriage-and-relationships-2019/managing-group-conversations-around-marriage-and-relationships/a-model-statement-on-living-with-contradictory-convictions/

Sexual orientation, UK – Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

 

 

Posted on

Christmas Message. There is Room for Hope, There is Room for Blossom, and for There is Room for You.

We are still in advent – but Christmas approaches. One of the texts that has resonated with me has been Isaiah’s prophecy that the desert will come into blossom as God brings restoration to a people who have been occupied by foreign powers, and whose communities have been decimated. Isaiah’s words are quite literally birthed from the rubble and give comfort to those who survey the scene as the dust swirls at their feet; the desecration of holy spaces, the buildings once used for one purpose now occupied by another, the absence of loved ones who have died or who have deported, and longing that separated families might regather. The parallels between this scene, and for example the ongoing conflict in Ukraine are profound and poignant – but the war in Ukraine continues. My prayer continues to be that the war would cease, that both sides observe the Geneva Convention (since conflict can bring both the worst – and the best – out of us), and that negotiations would ensue. 

It can be difficult to have hope that the blossom will come. And yet, despite this tragedy we have seen evidence of the best that humanity has to offer, as families from other countries have looked to house refugees. One important aspect of Isaiah’s prophecy is that we are not referring to how the seasons give rise to new growth, but how God can bring about the conditions by which that which is dormant within us can be brought to life. I note that whilst the spiritual dust swirls at the feet of those who have a direct connection to Ukraine, it also stirs at the feet of anyone here who experiences grief through the lost of loved ones, hardship as we struggle to pay the bills, and exhaustion as we battle the elements that can drain the life from us. But the blossom will indeed come, and there are times when you can see it blowing in the wind. These can sometimes be the briefest moments where we see God breaking through. In the simplest things.

I remember one moment this year when I prayed for someone who was homeless in Peterborough City centre. I had simply said ‘hello’, and a conversation ensued (as it often does). His story was difficult. When he said (almost in tears) that he would welcome a prayer I crouched down and asked, ‘What is your name?’ And that was the point where something changed because for him, to ask his name, was to give him dignity. For him it was, I hope like blossom in the wind. For me it was blossom because it demonstrated how people were open to prayer and the touch of God in their lives.

As I reflect on the Christmas story, I wonder how many places Mary and Joseph visited, only to receive the line, ‘Sorry we are full’, ‘Sorry we have no room’, ‘If only you had booked ahead earlier’. That must have been heartbreaking. However, I am more intrigued by the family who said, ‘There is no room’, and then stopped and looked at a heavily pregnant Mary and said, ‘But we can still find space for you.’ When it comes to loving our neighbour and showing it in action, we have more space than we think we do to make room for someone else. This can come, quite literally, as a revelation. Moreover, whilst some people have opened up their homes to support refugees, this openness can be shown in other ways. What does it mean for you to make room for someone in your daily living? Is it about us listening more and showing that we are willing to hear someone’s story when they share that they are in difficulty? Is it about us recognising that there is something we can do to support others that would have little impact on our routine; buying extra food and donating it to a food bank? Is it about giving just one hour of our time to volunteer in a warm bank? It it is about texting someone, to say, ‘Just checking you are ok.?’

Sometimes the smallest gestures have incredible consequences – let alone the feeling of fulfilment we get when we realise that we are making a difference to other people’s lives. One of the most moving things about our Livestream services has been the sense of community that arises as people from different places connect for a brief moment on the journey. The depth of sharing, caring, and praying is undeniable. However, whilst this depth of prayer and dedication to hearing the scrupture is wonderful, our desire is that those who are able become part of a local church – if they are not (almost all of them are). At the same time, we realise we are reaching those who are unwell, those who care for loved ones, or those who work shifts.  

The Methodist Church focus for this Advent and Christmas has been the truth that ‘There is Room for You’. God has a place for you, a space for you, and a plan for your life. That is good news. The Church has showcased examples (of which there are countless others), where there is room for (among others), people of all ages, orientations, and genders, where this room for families under serious pressure, room for those who are experiencing poverty, where there is room for those who are homeless, where there is room for refugees, where there is room for difference (and especially those who are neurodiverse). This is good news. However, as we know from Jesus’ ministry, what is good news for some, is bad news for others. The priviso is that because there is room for you, you need to make room for others. I am minded that as we journey through winter, and as people struggle with the cost of living and staying warm, there is no room for our insularity. We are a Church. We are not a private members club. Whilst we may well focus on creating warm spaces, if we seek to honour God and be faithful to the Christmas message, whenever anyone new comes, it is incumbent on us to show them a warm welcome. Insularity is a significant word is that to be insular is to fail to let others in because we are content with our own comfort or isolation, and we are unwilling to be troubled by the difficult experiences of others.

Let me put it this way. We long to experience God’s blessing. We cherish our friends in the life of the church. Sometimes we even feel so cosy we are nervous about how new people might change things – the feeling of a group or even what we do. But to turn the ‘There is Room for You’ paradigm on its head, why should God offer room for you if you are not prepared to make room for someone else? That’s the deal. Ironically if we are unable to do this, all we will face is loneliness, isolation, and ruin.

Every blessing

You can view the There is Room main video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-DxY1hSohE

There is Room monologue

 You can view the playlist for other videos on https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoWWaJT3-_P7oX7x8SmIdGQkANPBfzrc3

There is room. There is room, for you. There is a space in the world, for you. There’s a place in God’s story, for you. Love actually is all around, in the glistening lights, the warmth of the fire on winter nights. The ‘here-ness’ of you, and you, and you. Of course there is room. How could there not be when the music is playing, the people are praying and all of the universe is saying ‘you are loved’. This is where the story starts. The story that God is not apart. She’s here, right here. Whether you’re a wise man or a shepherd, feeling like an angel or holding a story that’s hopeful or shameful. This is the time when we welcome the stranger, like Mary welcoming men to the manger and discovering that these strangers, are angels. With messages of love for you and me, messages to hang on the Christmas trees of our hearts. This story is yours, because God is here, not there; near, not far, because Christmas is coming and of course, there is room.

Exit mobile version