By Rev Simon Taylor (updated 28.11.2012)

Don’t you lot know what you believe! It seems the the Church of England has failed in recent decades to communicate or impart depth in terms of doctrinal understanding.  Whether people agree with the decisions to date or not; the issue is not only about church order; it is about doctrine.  Doctrine cannot exist in an ivory-tower.  It has real impact and real repercussions.  If it did not then we would have no need for a doctrine of salvation, what happened on the Cross or the unique power of the Name of Jesus Christ.  The project of the Church is too important to be left to sound-bites…hence the length of these two documents!  Perhaps a wake up call to some Christians is to think through with greater clarity what faith means in active terms.  It may be that one corrective from all this is that more Christians will read more of Scripture with greater hunger for its meaning and discuss their questions with greater openess.

The vote was a somehow ‘affected’. People may not comprehend how synodical governance of the Church of England works.  To show just imprtant this is you have to know some history.  Clergy and bishop counsels were held from the 800s AD.  Synodical governance (a church version of a Parliament) in some form goes back to at least the 13thC in England.  A counsel was where clergy gave advice to bishops compared to a convocation (which Synod is today) where clergy (and now laity) give consent to Bishops regarding decisions. Synod does not hold a disciplinary role: this is held by each bishop and the church ‘court’.

The bishops should impose their will or change how the voting works. Unlike other forms of govenment, a Synod is about not being a top-down church but about consent and advice.  In the 1820s-1870s Parliament began passing so many church laws (an average of 25 a year) that people became concerned about the impression this gave regarding the Church of England and doctrinal decision-making. A concern developed that this was defining acceptable belief (called Erastianism: the political theory of State supremacy over Church). The role of Synod was explored and the idea of ‘via-media’, or the Anglican ‘middle-way’ of church and state was reinforced (compared to absolute-church papacy).  In 1886 the non-ordained (Laity) began to be involved.  In 1909 a new lay group was created for Synod: bishops, clergy, laity.  It created three houses with counsel and consent roles.  This was looked at again in 1919, 1969, 1970 and amended in 2003 through Acts of Parliament.  A high bar of 2/3rd majority vote was set.  The issues being discussed are more important than just changing the voting system.

Who is in the House of Laity; are they representative? People join the lay-house of Synod by being elected.  Every diocese has people who are voted for locally based on an election-hustings. In Guilfdford Diocese the 2010 elections were closely contested.  After appointment they are there to pray, discern and make decisions as they see best. Members are not meant to be one-trick ponies but Christians(!) and they may find themselves making decisions (such as recently?) which surprise even them.  There are over 200 representatives from across England, plus 2 people from religious Orders, then 3 from the armed forces and 2 more from The Church Estate.

All voting is by single transferrable vote.  STV is the method recommended in politics (and not used) by the Electoral Reform Society.  To ‘fix’ the election, using STV, of over 1/3rd of members  from across England in over 40 diocesan locations would be quite a feat.  Those involved in Diocesan structures know that the Church of England is quite well versed in sometimes lack of joined up ability!  ‘Fixing’ may be possible, but probable and Christian?

The laity didn’t do what we wanted and this is painful Who is ‘we’?  Politicans?  Women?  Men? Clergy? Bishops?  Those who voted for rmembers to Synod?  It does seem a strange thing to say, but even though most people want women to be bishops, maybe there is something Protestant and Church of England about the laity saying to bishops ‘not yet; not without another look at the documentation’. Yes it is painful.  It is a total mess. There are hurt people all over the place.  We seem to have people implying that as women voted against the measure they have betrayed women.  Conversely, there appears to be a sense of triumph from some quarters but this is profoundly ill-judged. Language of this nature seems to belong in other spheres of life rather than Christ’s Church.

Next time the legislation will give less to those who have concerns.  There will be a next time and it will probably come quite quickly.  2015 at the latest. It might give less care for conservative evangelicals and anglo catholics but it may be that everyone sits down and works something else out.  It may be that dominance gives way to complements.  It might be everyone takes a deep breath and realises that a solution has got to be found.  It may be that the three ‘groups’ listen with new ears.

Why couldn’t the legislation have given free-range to male bishops across diocesan boundaries?  This is what people wanted. It depends, in part, on your view of Christian Justice.  If Justice is equality then to have an hint of lack of possibility for women bishops would be an injustice of God.  If God’s Justice is contained primarily in the redemptive action of Christ on the Cross then you have greater leeway in exploring what Justice may look like in practical situations.  It also depends on your view of what are called parallel episcopates.

To allow a man to oversee ministry where a woman would otherwise have juristiction is an injustice to some, but an expression of justice to others.  What seems to have been the sticking point though was the word ‘respect’.  A female bishop was to be asked to respect the request of a parish for alternative oversight.  It occurs in some form already and has been in the rules since 1992.  Some people appear to have been concerned that ‘respect’ fell short of an undertaking and cited situations elsewhere as examples of concerns.  They may have misunderstood that governance, the authority of bishops and other issues are different in England than some places.  For others, asking a female bishop to respect co-authority would mean lack of apostolic authoity. It would create a second-class bishop and a completely different idea of something called epsicope (ministry of a bishop).  This is a very short so slightly stereotyped precis of two complex issues but this is the essense of that being grappled with by those in Synod.

Now we have a men only group in Parliament (ie House of Lords) Perhaps it is time to look at the ideology of an institutional, established Church.  That is a different issue but is is more complex than people may think.  A Constitutional Established Church, Monarchy and Parliament which has evolved over many centuies is not unpickable but it is more complex than a decison made on a single moment.  For Christians it means a question has to be asked whether a dis-established situation would also be a default to secular-humanism.  It may be something of a pandora’s box of questions but one which will not doubt have its day in discussion.  There are different views on the subject.

“Get with the project”  A leading politician from one party (but similar quotes could be taken from other parties on Question Time) appears to have suggested that there is ‘a project’.  It is an attractive and inviting statement but it may miss one point.  The Church of England will probably have women bishops in a short space of time but for an organisation with continuity from Christ (depending on your view of Catholic links) short-time frames may be out of step with political expediency.  The Church of England is not a political party but one expression of the visible and invisible eternal communion of the saints.  It is about election to eternity rather than political election.

You Christians can sort nothing out. Though not necessarily reported as such; the debates and vote were conducted with grace toward people.  In my view it was a model of living Christian witness.  If nations and other groups could work like this the World would be a better place.  Christ was in the midst of the Synod.

Quick fix. Society expects quick fixes yet Christianity holds to a view called ‘Reception’.  Reception is about how a significant theological view is tested, viewed and brought into the life of God’s Church.  Reception does not allow for anything which is contrary to Scripture.  It means things have to be shared and prayed through.  Reception in Christianity is not about a single vote or even a decade.  God’s timing is often longer than anything we can imagine.  We are to offer a corrective to people who put ‘myself, my rights, my interests, my timing’ first and point to God’s perspective.

Irrelevant church. One of the things being talked about in the media is the cultural relevance of the church.  Relevance is not the reason for doing anything in a church.  Yes, it is good to connect and be relevant but if relevance is the benchmark then we will simply be imitators of cultural patterns.  Christianity has a history of confronting and societal norms from slavery through to lack of care for the sick to absence of education.

Rejected women? The Church of England has not rejected women bishops.  The first person I saw interviewed after the vote was the leader of the Anglo-Catholic group.  I paraphrase, but he essentially said: Right, so now we sit down with everyone and work out how we do get this through.

Only a few people (6 to be precise) blocked everyone else having their way.  No.  This is misuse of numbers.  Six fewer than were required in one of the voting groups thought things were right to move forward with at this time.  Others voted the same across all three voting groups but in the non-ordained group this was significant enough to make the difference.

This is not democratic.  Why should a few people have the deciding vote against?  It is more democratic than other places.  The Church of England has deliberately decided that a 2/3^rds majority is needed across the board so that only things that everyone is satisfied with move forward.  There is a fascinating article on this at www.anglican-mainstream.net/2012/11/22/mr-speaker-guides-labour-mps-on-church-of-england-equality/

The Church of England has laid itself open to equality laws.  Some might be shocked that religion is exempt but let us turn this on its head: it leads to a government defining religious belief; that which is acceptable and the bits that do not fit.

There will not be women bishops.  This is a misunderstanding of the vote.  It is inevitable there will be bishops who are female because there are clergy who are female.  This was addressed in the 1970s and 1990s.  There is no theological reason for having female priests who are not then to be bishops.  The vote was really about how the Church of England accepts the historic, respected, widely accepted perspectives outlined earlier.  Enough people did not think that we as Christians were giving enough care for brothers and sisters in Christ that they were saying ‘no’ to it.

Why doesn’t the CofE just say ‘goodbye’ to ‘those’ people?  Well, some of them will be in Busbridge and Hambledon church.  It is not the Christian way: this is how non-Christians may behave by segregating but we are called to live together in harmony.  It isn’t a theory.  It is a Christian command.  Another reason we have not said ‘goodbye’ is because this is not what is called a ‘first order’ issue.  First order issues are those that affect whether we are sinless and redeemed people.  Second order issues tend to be about church governance and ‘order’.  It is more towards a first order issue for those of the Anglo-Catholic view because they would tend to say that in Communion there are special things going on regarding our forgiveness.  It is a second order issue for everyone else.

What if the government legislates?  It may do.  What a message that would send.  It would be strange to see such a situation in the same year that Christians have had reassurance after reassurance that the Church will never have to conduct same sex ‘marriages’.

Where next?  There will be female bishops.  This will be a welcome development for some but for other Christians with deeply held conviction based on Scripture this will be difficult.

The Bible is irrelevant or subjective then?  No.  It shows how important accurate, right reading of Scripture is.  There is a world of difference between looking into the Bible to discern God’s overarching pattern and distancing one-self from Scripture because it is a difficult read.

Women lost.  Men won.  This would be use the language of supremacy, winners, losers, the adversarial… if you listen to the wise people of the Church you will hear them talking about ‘healing, pain, sadness, hope’.  There were no winners or losers.  If there were it would be a contest or a political environment.

Where does Simon stand on this? Men and women are different.  The difference is primarily for mutuality within the marriage relationship and an expression of the completeness of God.  There is nothing in Scripture which prevents women exercising leading roles.  The issue of women in leadership is a second order one.  It does not impinge on holiness or sin.  The issue at hand has nothing to do with the validity or integrity of Scripture.  Accepting women as bishops is not a pathway to reducing the importance of the Bible so that other issues may creep in.

What concerns me is a notion that we really must have women bishops to be culturally relevant and that this will somehow connect church with society.  Relevance to me is about closeness to the Lord: how relevant am I to God’s design on my life and my soul?  If we live and walk this form of relevance then others will say ‘how did you work that one out as a church?’  We are a church of reconciliation and welcome – and this is a prime example of a time to live it.

Watching the media and political response; I am interested to see if we are entering a new phase where government begins to dictate into the situation and that assurances given about other issues hold validity.

What are the issues and why does it matter now? by Rev Simon Taylor

It matters because of the reaction within ourselves, about others and because of the political and media response.

Remember Laurel and Hardy?  Great story and one of them always ends up getting the blame or in a mess.  The story ends with it all sorted out and no-one gets hurt.  General Synod of the Church of England has been in the news this week and I almost want to cry out “what a mess you’ve got us into”. What will people think? Yet again the utterly irrelevant and behind the times CofE can get a knocking. Unlike Laurel and Hardy I suspect there are some genuine bruises and some really hurt people. We are not at the end of the story though.

On Tuesday evening two events occurred within two hours of one another. At General Synod the Church of England declined to move forward with plans to allow women who are ordained to be consecrated as bishops.  At Hambledon church the joint PCC met.

My opening remarks made reference to the mind of Synod as we now knew the outcome of the debate.  I did so not in some vague theoretically sense but grounded in the reality that Rev Catherine McBride was sitting to my right in the PCC meeting and that Rev Margot Spencer could have been there.

It was inevitable that there were a range of responses going through minds at PCC.  Some may be relieved, others saddened or even angry, quite a few might be perplexed: this is the 21^st Century after all. What’s the issue?

I opened the PCC by pointing out that the meeting was on the evening when the Church remembers King Edmund; who was murdered for his Christian faith in 870AD; and Priscilla Sellon for being “Restorer of the Religious Life in the Church of England” in the 1870s.  You may know that the 1860s-1880s were one of the ‘low points’ of the Church of England for many reasons.  Clergy were being taken to court for lack of Christian belief(!), it was sometimes seen as a state institution rather than a Christian organisation, new ideas about Scripture were developing and the Church of England seemed to lack the depth to offer a theological response.

A history lesson

The Church of England began looking at the idea of the role and calling of women in Christian ministry a long time ago.  The media suggests that it has taken 12 years to get to this week. This is not the case.  It has taken at least 100 years.  Some of the proponents of womens’ rights in general in the 19^th Century included evangelical leaders like Charles Spurgeon and William Wilberforce.  The first year of any priest is known as the ‘deacon year’.  James and David are both deacons at present.  Some people remain a deacon: ordained, with a collar, but not a priest.  In my own parish I came from a couple of years ago the current ‘vicar’ is just this: he is what is known as a permanent deacon and is a great chap who has continued to see growth in the church there.  He runs the church, leads services, leads PCCs, wears the collar but is known as a permanent deacon.  The relevance to the issue today is that the first deacon(ess – ie, female deacon) of the Church of England was in 1862.  The Church of England was seriously ahead of the game in bringing women to the fore in society!

Another date is 1975.  This is the year when the equality commission was formed by Parliament.  It was also the year that the Church of England affirmed that women could be priests (or substitute the word minister for priest if you like) but needed to take a period of time to consider this.  The Church of England began looking into the matter in the 1980s and in the early 1990s the decision was taken to allow women to be priested.  The intervening years had allowed space for some very significant prayer, theological analysis, discussion with other Churches, exploration of ramifications and debate.  It was felt in 1991 that a way forward would be to agree the ordination of women but defer the closing off of the discussion until a later date.  The close of discussion would be the mechanism for the consecration of women bishops.  This is an approach called ‘Reception’ and is steeped in the history of the Church.

A few people in 1991 said that ordaining a female was not the same as consecrating a bishop.  Most understood that in Anglican theology a bishop and a priest are essentially the same but with a different aspect of calling and vocation.  If there is a particular change in a person (called ontology) then this occurs at priesting.  The way you become a bishop is not by some ‘super lobotomy’ but by the authority (temporal) of the Archbishop and laying on of hands (spiritual) of a multiple of bishops.  They are saying ‘you now represent the world-wide church in a new manner’.

Why the delay in 1991? The Church of England, though slightly messy, tries to care for and listen to everyone and does pause to listen.  Also, it was recognised in 1975 and in 1991 that within Christianity there are, and have always been, two deeply held Scriptural views related to priesthood which would impinge on the theology of women bishops.

One is that men and women complement one another.  This is the view that when God created Adam and Eve he did so in a particular order.  There is Biblical literary, theological and Church History argument for this.  Man is to care for woman.  In the marriage service it is still possible for a woman to say ‘love, honour and obey’ in relation to the man.  It is the idea that men and women are not superior or inferior but are created differently by the Lord.  This view is often caricatured as ‘women must stay at home’ or ‘men must be in charge in the workplace’.  This is not the Biblical concept though.

Scripture seems to put complementing one another in a context of mutual care and respect not about roles and who can and cannot do things.  Where roles are delineated it is in a vision of a loving, caring, home scenario.  Where it relates to bishops is that for some Christians there is Scripture which states that living as complementary is God’s way.  To alter this order may damage the holiness of the Church.  Some may dismiss this view, but it has centuries of tradition based on Scripture and cannot be taken too lightly.  In 2004 a Synod report was published which explored this theology.  Synod was trying to allow room for this perspective within a branch of the evangelical tradition.

The other view is that of the Anglo-Catholic tradition of the Church of England.  In this theology of priesthood (called the patristic tradition) Jesus was a male, Adam was a male, all priests in the Old Testament were male and the Apostles of Jesus were male.  An argument that ‘this was due to the culture of the time’ seems to ignore the fact that the Old Testament and Jesus himself were never afraid to challenge prevailing cultures.  Jesus came not to remove the law, but to fulfil it.  For those within the Church of England who follow this view there is ample evidence of Scripture to draw on.

In terms of redemption and salvation; Jesus came to undo that done by Adam (theological called type and archetype).  A further complication for those following this interpretation of Scripture is that they do not believe that such a significant development as women bishops can be undertaken without reference to all Christian churches.  It is such a major development that they believe a universal Church Council should be called.  The Catholic and Orthodox churches will find the idea of a woman bishop as an enormous blow to the past fifty years of slow moves towards re-uniting the cousins that are Christian communities around the Globe. Some may dismiss this position but the Church of England has taken these questions very seriously and explored them in Synod’s 2004 report.

The impression may be that those who advocate the process for women bishops do not hold Scripture as the highest authority.  This cannot be so because Scripture is set as the primary authority of the Church of England.  Ignoring, reinterpreting to suit needs or redacting it to alter its meaning is not acceptable within the Church of England.

On the whole, those who affirm women as bishops do so by reference to Scripture as much as those who see this as a difficulty.  Where it speaks in passages people cite as relevant, there are widely recognised ways to understand the meaning.  Just one example: when Paul calls for women to cover their heads in Christian worship he does so within a context, yes; but this does not make the text irrelevant.  If it is the Word of God it has to remain relevant.   Here Paul is speaking about living within a prevailing culture and women who are Christians not alienating their non-believing husbands so that they too may come to know Jesus.  He is drawing attention to a focus on the calling of Christ and that all things are “rubbish” in human terms compared to the glory of Christ.  Scripture taken seriously is where the Bible speaks into every life and situation even when that situation is not part of the statements of the Word of God.

However, it is possible that there are a minority for whom reference to Scripture is unhelpful if it does not support being culturally relevant.  It is possible that for some who voted against women bishops the issue is not women bishops but something else.  It may be they believe that women can be priests but they are concerned that this is somehow a slip towards revision or realignment of Scripture.  Yes, it may sound like a ‘baby with the bath-water’ approach.  How can women bishops be the same as other issues that may hit the church? True, but this may be one of the unvoiced concerns behind the scenes.

Ultimately, the vote was not about ‘will there be women bishops’ but ‘when there are, what is the provision to be for fellow Christians who are following centuries of Christian teaching and Biblical interpretation and cannot accept this situation as it stands’?

We have a problem in the church.  I do not mean The Church; I mean this church. The Church can sort itself out. By the way, The Church has always had problems so nothing new there. No, I mean Hambledon; Busbridge and this local area. It is a Christmas problem and it is quite a good one to have. Last Christmas (2011) we ran out of room. Literally. In Hambledon church we had to seat fully grown adults in the rather tiny old child-choir stalls. Remember? It was quite good fun! At Busbridge people were quite literally turned away from one candlelit service because the doors could not be closed. I’m sorry if you missed out on the squash. Do join the fun this year.  It is worth it. With Catherine in Hambledon I am sure the church will be even more full during December. Thinking of Hambledon, don’t forget the utterly packed carols in the pub!

This has left me with a question for 2012: what is so special about Christmas? Why gather? What’s the draw? We’re told people are less religious. What is going on? I’m sage enough to know that there are many reasons.  Some are social, others about distant memory and yet others for vague, or even specific, Christian association or reason. Whatever the reason: welcome.

I for one can recall a moment when I would not have been classed as particularly religious by any stretch of the imagination. I just knew that I wanted to go to a candlelit Christmas service. If I’m honest it was nothing really to do with anything you would call ‘the Christmas story’. It was something about family, gathering, candles and sentiment. I wish I could add snow but back then I do not think it ever snowed at Christmas.

So, as I sat down to write this article I asked one of my children a question. “What’s so special about Christmas for you?” The response made me smile, “Because it is about Jesus and makes vicars happy and it gives Santa something to do”. I realised at once that though there may appear to be a paradox in there (can a vicar talk about Santa in the same breath as Jesus?) I had been given a golden illustration on a plate. Without stretching the statement too far I could build in a thought that Christmas is about a message of happiness, Jesus, and having a purpose in life. What a gift!

I would like to go a little further and say that there is something spiritual, for the soul, in all this. A theologian by the name of William Barclay once wrote about “the paradox of blessedness”. He was thinking of the story of the Christian Christmas when he wrote this.

The paradox of blessedness is when something positive comes out of that which might be a pressure, pain or difficulty. It is not to say that all bad things are ultimately good. That would be a very warped psychological or theological view to take.  For my son, amid the pressures of Christmas that he sees for his dad he seems to sense that it still brings happiness to this vicar; in the midst of a story of hardship, fear and childbirth there is a joy about a child named Jesus; and for poor old Santa working so hard with 12 hours to cover the whole UK my son sees that it is a good thing for Santa to have something to do. This is the paradox of blessedness in action.

There is something more to this ‘paradox of blessedness’ for our lives. People in the Bible who are called ‘blessed’ are those who have realised that God is at the centre of all things; in the midst of every moment; knows the mess and knows the joys. When Jesus arrives on the scene he destroys all ideas of blessing being about goodness, wealth, position or health. Blessing is about being in what he calls ‘the Kingdom of God’.  That kingdom, Jesus says, has come and He is it.  Everything has now changed.

For me, this is why Christmas is such a joy. Yes, it is about candles and atmosphere but it all points to something so significant I struggle, and fail, to put it into words. Instead, I’ll just play with the sentence my son gave me: “Because it is about Santa and makes Jesus happy and it gives vicars something to do”. If Christmas changes everything then I am now blessed, no matter what my situation. It is like a whacking great sign in the sky saying “All welcome, yes, All.”

Have a brilliant Christmas.

OK…who stole the sun?  Would whoever has taken it away please give it back?!

On a more serious note…the Olympics are here so here are two quotes:

 “A leader is best when people barely know he [sic] exists. When his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say, we did it ourselves.” Lao Tzu (Chinese philosopher 6^thBC)

We will soon be in the midst of the Olympics and because of this I have many Scripture verses to choose from. The Bible is full of sporting imagery.

Instead, I have chosen something which requires a little more thought. A few weeks ago I was asked to lead the opening prayers at Surrey County Council. The reason I used those quotes for a Council Chamber also stands for using them in a piece when we have a busy Olympic summer ahead of us. Not only that, we are in a busy time locally too. We have had Jubilee events and village fetes. In the church we have welcomed the Rev David Jenkins and the Rev James Gibson.  

David is already well known in Hambledon and is what the church terms a ‘locally ordained vicar’. James will be with us for up to half a decade before he goes on to lead a parish elsewhere. James explained it well when he was asked what the next few years will mean for both of them. He replied “we are vicars in training; with L plates on… we get to try things out and Simon gets to pick up the pieces”. David and James are both clergy across Busbridge and Hambledon area but it is likely that David will spend more time involved with Hambledon on a Sunday and James around Busbridge; if only because Catherine is overseeing David’s training and Simon doing the same for James.

If we look forward we have the church holiday club (23-27^th August) and then in September we are inviting everyone connected with the church to a special away-day together at King Edward’s School in Witley (30^th September).

In between it we have the Olympics. What does ‘wise as a serpent…’ have to do with all this?

Queen Elizabeth I used to attend thrice weekly court sermons and prayers during Lent by sitting at a window in her Whitehall Palace. During her father’s reign an outdoor pulpit had been built; facing the royal council chamber; and the preacher would stand and bellow at the Monarch sitting in their room.

In 1596 one Rev Anthony Rudd preached a sermon towards Queen Elizabeth where he dared to urge her “to prepare her soul for death”. The queen opened the window and shouted “that the greatest of clerks are not always the wisest of men”.

The queen may have been offended, but she was also accurate. We will see great achievement in the Olympic stadium, we have two great new clergy in the church team, we may have achieved great things in our own arena of work or life but the greatness of position does not automatically confer wisdom.

Snakes and serpents usually get a bad press in the Bible but to be wise as serpent means, like a snake coiled for the strike: discerning the motives of the heart, watching the eyes of those in the race alongside us and sensing the subtle movements of the soul. Wisdom in the Bible is often associated with prudence. Not running. Not forcing the pace for personal ends. Not taking unfair advantage. Not assuming that because you won one race you have the authority to assume you will always be the richest in the prizes and in life.

What of innocence as of a dove? Innocence does not mean giving your opponent the advantage in a race, business or life.  It is about protecting the integrity of your soul before God. The Rev Anthony Rudd had innocence in spades. He was innocent to speak the truth rather than offer something which would be a false promise. You probably already know that doves do not tend to bite in anger. They are not docile, but they are gentle.

What might gentleness of Christ appear like in the Olympics? In Busbridge and Hambledon as a growing church? In our own lives? The place where we are the ‘leader’ of a family, a community or a voluntary group? Perhaps it would look something like this:

A leader is best when people barely know he exists.

When his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say, we did it ourselves. Lao Tzu

Here’s to a great Olympics, Summer (with some sun?), Holiday Club and Church Away Day.

I have recently been on a leadership conference in London. About twenty of the church took time out to attend this two day event. How do you measure the success or effectiveness of two quite long, intense days of speakers, lectures, seminars, handouts and powerpoints? I remember once reading a booklet titled ‘Death by powerpoint: how to kill a meeting’. Powerpoints can be liberating or they can be mind-numbing. The key ingredient from the booklet was to use powerpoints to raise questions rather than deliver the answers.

The aim of the conference was to do something similar in terms of leadership in the areas of church, culture, commerce and community (four very neat ‘C’s). There were no simple solutions or short models to use as a tickbox. Instead, questions were raised. They were around the purpose of church in a local area; what it meant to lead an organisation – a finance house, a charity, school or a home-environment; and whether leading something is about the leader or about that being led.

It was a challenging time but also brilliant, not least because Catherine McBride was able to join us. Catherine is the new associate vicar in Hambledon. Many of you will have met Catherine by now.  If you have not, Catherine will be opening Hambledon Village Fete on June 2nd and speaking at the Jubilee Fete church service on the green at 10.30am on June 3rd. The service will be 45 minutes long and very child-friendly… and we are also planning to sing things like the National Anthem too.  If you would like a chance to chat to Catherine about the village, church, your experience of church (postive or negative!) then feel free to get in touch.

The overwhelmingly positive message of the conference for me was a thought which speaker after speaker returned to. They spoke of Christian faith, difficulties in leadership, mistakes, joys and endurance. They ranged from Tony Blair to an American church leader named Rick Warren; from Christine Caine who founded the ‘A21 Campaign’ against human-sexual trafficking to Hector Sants who was until recently Chief Executive of the Financial Services Authority.

Sants is on record as saying : “As a Christian, I feel strongly that… it is important to give back to the community”. The Guardian Friday 16th March 2012.

Giving back to the community is part and parcel of being a vicar in a local church, village or town. Catherine’s role is very much about being out and about, visible, leading the church into its place in the community. There are two aspects to Catherine’s post.  One is within Hambledon; leading the congregations, discerning the future, looking at the needs of the village. The other is a wider remit across Busbridge and Hambledon as Director of Discipleship. There are at least 15 weekly small groups who meet for support, community, reading the Bible, sharing meals and a host of other things. Catherine will oversee groups like these.  We are also developing a new set of forums which are open to everyone to ask questions about Christianity.  Her role includes helping to foster these engagements. The first one is being planned for September with a special meal…more details nearer the time.

The only way Catherine, Simon or any leader in any sphere of life can work effectively is by operating from within a sphere of integrity. Integrity is not the same as perfection. People make mistakes; even clergy and even churches!

Integrity is about an integrated life. If we live within integrity we will have the same attitude to a cleaner as to a chief executive.  We will not hold compartmentalised lives but ones where who we are flows freely across the totality of our actions. One speaker asked a disturbingly simple, yet powerful question: are you the same with your children as with your staff? Do you look at the same things on the internet in the company of others as you do when alone? If the answer is ‘no’, then you have a problem with integrity.

Integrity is the antidote to living in the shallow waters of an image-laden life. As a Christian, I would say that true integrity is seeing that I am made in the image of God, created for His purposes and destined to live a life shaped by following Christ. This leads me to a question: where are we, in our own lives, leaders from within a sphere of integrity? What-ever you lead; from a single parent home to the largest corporation in the UK; lead it with integrity and if you believe you are lacking in this, I would invite you to seek God in this.  If you have a spare moment, you could also pray for Catherine as she steps out in her new exciting, but enormous role.

“first sit down and count the cost”

I write this article in the same week that the churches that make up the congregations across Busbridge and Hambledon hold the annual church meeting. If this interests you then can I suggest you look at the church reports on the APCM page of the church website? It is possible that some may not be aware of the new site. It can be found at www.bhcgodalming.org. There are no prizes for working out that bhc stands for busbridge and hambledon church.

Within the annual report is a short story:

A father and daughter went for a walk up Cadir-Idris in Wales. The path was steep and on one side a yawning cliff dropped 1,000 feet into icy water below. The daughter loved to run and dance. She was used to doing this. She ran ahead up the slope impervious to the chasm on her left. Her father did not chase after her for he trusted that he had brought her up to know the path.

Eventually, the daughter came to an exhausted pause. It was then that the father approached “Why didn’t you run after me?” the daughter asked. “Because I knew that you would pause to look where I was” came the Father’s reply.

The reason this story is in the church report is to share a simple truth with the church. It is a truth I would suggest is worth sharing with everyone. Churches, and particularly those with clear Christian belief within the evangelical spectrum, can be places too full of urgent rush. Yes, sharing the saving message of Christ is of course important (to those involved in the church at any rate) but the end result can bring damage to the very people who make up the Christian faith locally if we run ahead of God.

The urgency of Christianity, the importance of growing faith, the dedication to following Jesus Christ can lead people into a decaying spiral of activity. Soon, the joy of that centring faith on Christ can be lost in the whirl of running the organisation. Church can become depressingly exhausting to be associated with!

Perhaps a vicar shouldn’t talk like this, but most readers will agree with the truth of all this. It seems strange to suggest that the very faith which brings salvation can also be like a noose around the neck unless we keep our eyes focused in the right place and purpose for it.

I would suggest this message to the church is just as important for those who are not currently part of a local church. If you substitute church for something else that matters to you; marriage, work, a hobby, gardening, politics, grandchildren…the very thing that brings joy or fulfilment can in fact become destructive and we may even be innocently complicit in ruining the things that we hold most dear.

At what point does something of joy, creativity and purpose turn into something less than positive? I would suggest that it is when its true worth or reason for existing is forgotten; it becomes reshaped and the reason for investment in it in the first place becomes mired in confusion. Jesus comments in Luke’s Gospel, “which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?”

If we remember why we are involved, what it is about, what the initial cost was; we will probably keep a Godly perspective on the things which matter most rather than convert them into something else.  Otherwise church becomes about my needs, my worship, my identity; Christianity becomes that which I wish it to be; work becomes who I am; children become commodities who attend the right school or wear particular clothing brands; and, just possibly, marriage becomes a politicised football.

Finally, on a completely different note we are pleased to announce that The Rev Catherine McBride begins here in May. This is a direct result of the response of the village over the past 18 months. Catherine will start by visiting various congregations in Busbridge and Hambledon. Her first major preaching engagement will be at the Hambledon Village Jubilee Jamboree Service at 10.30am on Sunday June 3^rd.  All are welcome to this special relaxed 45 minute family friendly service followed by games.  Why not bring a picnic along too?