Marxism is alive and flourishing!

The contemporary narrative of social politics is often expressed in terms of power versus oppression. This comes from ‘Contemporary Critical Theory’ (CCT) which has become the dominant metanarrative in western cultures. CCT argues that in order to make things better the ‘oppressed’ need to be empowered to overcome their ‘oppressors’. It’s a model which, I’m sure you will recognise, finds its roots in Marxism. In a Marxist system the aim is to overthrow capitalism by empowering the oppressed workers (proletariat) to overcome the oppression of the wealthy (bourgeoisie). For our contemporary situation It’s not a model without some merit. Money, education, family connections, undeniably buy power, whereas poverty, lack of education and social standing leads to powerlessness. And worse, human nature means that the powerful easily adopt a ‘right to rule’ mentality (‘Old School Tie’), whereas the powerless may resign themselves to being ‘victims’ of unassailable oppression. This analysis is undoubtedly evident, the real issue is how to bring about change. To put it crudely, How do we empower the powerless? Should we use welfare as a tool to lift people out of poverty, or should we increase opportunities for education and meaningful employment to do the same? The answer is surely a combination. This is where party politics begins, a subject from which I will steer well clear!

Some observations

First cultural. Traditionally the ‘oppressed’ have been seen as those living in poverty. The attraction of Marxism at the start of the last century was that the unscrupulous, powerful rulers who kept the oppressed down by keeping them economically needy, could be brought to book and overthrown bringing ‘power to the people’. Notice that the ‘sin’ was being wealthy not being wicked. However philanthropic a wealthy person may have been he was still the enemy of the people. The sad reality is that this led to riots, revolutions, and even massacre as the powerless became the functional powerful. The oppressors ‘had it coming,’ this was payback.

But as our culture has moved nearer economic equality (there is certainly not the extreme poverty there was at the start of the last century, high earners pay high taxes, and there is largely equality of opportunity for most), other areas of inequality have come to the fore, ant-racism and feminism being two examples. Now, in seeking to empower the powerless, simple equality of opportunity (what we used to call colour or gender blindness) is not enough, that would in reality do little more than maintain the status quo. Today we provide positive incentives, training for the powerful to understand their oppression of others, and constant monitoring to make it happen. Everyone who is not GMH (Global Majority Heritage) is a racist and everyone who is not a woman is a misogynist. The result is that one organisation after another is accused of, for example, ‘institutional racism’ and employees are offered ‘unconscious bias’ training to recognise their racism. Quotas are sometimes introduced to empower the powerless in order to bring about proportionate representation, fairness. Often this looks like, and may indeed be, bias towards the ‘oppressed’ group. I am making no judgement here, there may be much good in these things. Where I do have misgivings, though, is when a reversed social imbalance results. Men (oppressors) can be the object of critical humour (eg. terms like ‘man-splaining’ or ‘man-flu’), whereas women (oppressed) cannot. It cannot be right to demean an entire group in this way. Isn’t mutual respect a better way forward?

And the latest group to be added to the oppressed/oppressor list is LGBTQ+. This is one development that makes the current debate in the Church of England so difficult. Which leads me to my second observation.

It is interesting to see how this fundamentally Marxist model has entered theology, to the extent that, in all but the most conservative circles, it has become the dominant, even the only, model for theological thinking. So called ‘liberation’ theology has, for some time, been the dominant paradigm for theological enquiry the world over. Theology of liberation, put simply, argues that the gospel is about freeing (empowering) the oppressed. The Bible (when it is used) is read through this lens with Luke’s Gospel a favourite. Jesus, a victim of oppression himself, is seen as one who empowers women, children, the sick and the outcast. In his oppression and death Jesus brings liberation and freedom for those who are oppressed while judging the wealthy guilty (eg. Luke 16v19ff). Now, of course, there is again much here that’s good. We needed to get rid of the Victorian thinking revealed in the verse (now thankfully always omitted) from Cecil Alexander’s Hymn ‘All thing Bright and beautiful; The rich man in his castle / the poor man at his gate/ God made them high and lowly / He ordered their estate. It is testament to the influence of liberation theology that we all (I hope) find this verse shocking and distasteful.

Liberation theology takes many forms: opposing racism, poverty, slavery; and pursuing equality and justice. For me the biggest problem with it is that it makes ‘liberation’ the entirety of the gospel, and ‘oppression’ the entirety of sin. Judgement is only in terms of oppression. Hope is liberation from oppression. The future picture of a perfect world is one where all are equal in every way. An enticing dream, and one that is surely partly correct. But without an understanding of the depth and universality of sin, and the need for God’s forgiveness, it can only be a caricature of the biblical truth.

My third observation brings us right up to date. The Israel Gaza war is a very complex situation with entrenched opinions on both sides. It is very difficult to make any comment on it without being accused of taking sides. The problem is that if we apply our ‘liberation’ paradigm to the situation, it is no help at all. Which side is oppressed? Is it the non-white people of Gaza living in poverty and hemmed in? Or is it the white Israelis facing constant opposition, threats, and terrorist attacks from groups pledged to Israel’s obliteration? And the oppressors? Who dare judge?

Lutheran Concision

Martin Luther, the great reformer, is known for his humour and also his direct speaking. You know where you are with Luther. He’d have made a very poor Anglican!

Following the General Synod last week I have just been sent this quotation from him. The language is a bit strong for some, but nonetheless challenging:

If any person dares to say that the church changes or does not keep Christ’s words and ordinance, then that person is also calling the holy church a renegade whore of the devil.

qui legit intellegat (let the reader understand)

If you ruled the world

A number of people have asked for my talk at the carol service last year. I’ve finally got around to transcribing and editing it. So here it is:

 

What would you do if you ruled the world? If you had absolute power to do whatever you like, whatever you wished for would happen.

 

Some of us might want to help Manchester United to win a few games! I guess for many of us, though, we would say, the old cliche, we’d bring peace to the world. I mean, this year has been terrible, hasn’t it? We’ve got two big wars going on now, Gaza and Israel, and Ukraine and Russia, and there are others going on as well that don’t make the headlines. And there are many other terrible things going on across the world, that don’t make the headlines. Wouldn’t it be great simply to snap your fingers and say, STOP! Then, maybe you’d want to, after bringing peace to the world, end poverty and suffering, so the world would be the wonderful place we’d like it to be.

 

What you’d actually be asking for is a world back to the way God created it! Do you remember, at the very start of the Bible we read about Eden and what that was like? It was a place with no wars, no poverty and peace. Everything was wonderful.

 

But moving on from that, if you were in charge of the world, and you were busy exercising your omnipotence, how would you achieve the things you want? If you had all the power to make any changes you thought necessary, what would you actually do? I think the first thing that would be really important to do would be to make a few judgments. Like it or not, some people and some things are good, and some people and some things are bad. Judgments need to be made. But on what basis are you going to make those judgments? You’d have to have some rules, wouldn’t you? But one person’s rules are another’s restriction of freedom. Would you be happy to restrict people’s freedom? You might wish to bring in internment of troublemakers like happens sometimes in war. Lock them away! But whose troublemakers? Your troublemakers or somebody else’s troublemakers? The problem is that it sounds a great ideal, but when you start to work it out, it just all begins to fall apart. I don’t think I would last very long before I was tearing my hair out and wishing I was not in control any more. There’s doesn’t seem much hope does there? But I can tell you one thing, though, that you wouldn’t do to put things right. You wouldn’t send a baby to sort it out! No. That would be ridiculous. Who would think of sending a baby to sort the world out? … Well, God did!

 

Now, in my garden, I have an ongoing battle with a buddleia. I absolutely abhor the things. I hate them! They just seed everywhere, and you can’t get rid of them. The one I have must be 100 years old. It’s got a great thick trunk, and I’ve been trying to get rid of it for 13 years. It’s a war! I’ve tried hard pruning, cutting it off at the stump, leaving it at ground level. The following year, it’s just as big as ever. I’ve tried weed killer, you know, the tough one. No effect. I’ve even tried hammering copper nails into it, a whole bag of them. They’re still there now, but it’s grown around them. Incredible. Then two years ago, I thought I’d got it. I used some specific tree killer. You cut it off, drill holes in the trunk, and pour this obnoxious liquid down the holes, and it kills it. It disappeared! … Until this year. It’s back again! How do they do it? It just keeps coming back no matter what I do. I am losing.

 

Now, the reason it keeps coming back is because I can’t get to the roots. They’re under the tarmac driveway. And I’m not going to get a JCB in to dig it up just to get rid of a buddleia. I can’t get rid of the roots. And while they are there, it will keep regrowing no matter what I do. You see, the heart of the problem with my buddleia is the roots. So, how does my buddleia help us fix the world? Well, it might help us understand the world in the first place.

 

Somebody has said, I think very well, that ‘the heart of the problem is the problem of the heart’. Now, I’m not talking about the blood pump, I’m talking about the heart of who we are, our desires, our hopes, our passions, our drives. That’s what your heart is, the things you are driven by. And, if I might be bold to suggest for a moment, for most people, dare I say all people, there is a drive, a desire to be in control, to run our own life. And that desire is in rebellion against God because God says, ‘live my way’. And we say, ‘no, I want to live my way’. And we see in the Garden of Eden, the fall, where Adam and Eve decided to do what they wanted rather than what God commanded. It’s no surprise, is it, that for many, many years the most popular song played a funerals was Frank Sinatra singing My Way. And we echo, ‘I want my way’.

 

Okay, so how can a baby help with that? How can a baby help with this heart problem of ours? Well, what if it’s no ordinary baby? What if this baby is somehow different? What if this baby actually is the creator and sustainer of the universe? The son of God. God himself entering his creation. What if it’s that baby? Could he make a difference then? Well, he then would be a baby that didn’t have our heart, that root of rebellion against God. He can’t rebel against himself. In fact, this baby is the only baby to be born that hasn’t had that heart problem. So, could he help then? Could he help deal with our heart problem?

 

Let’s think a little bit for a moment about this baby. Jesus grew up from being a baby, and he showed us love, truth, justice, righteousness. In fact, he showed that to such an extent that many people couldn’t stand to be around him because whoever was around him was made to look bad bby his goodness and perfection. Jesus shows perfect judgment. He shows us who we are, and he shows us by his life that, though we are not God, we sure want to be! And you see, that is the problem to which he then provides the solution. He was the perfect human being, the only perfect human being ever.

He was perfectly obedient to God. Always. He was honest. Always. Sacrificial. Always. Self-effacing. Always. Now, shouldn’t a world with somebody like that put him up on a pedestal and say, this is how we should be? But the world is in rebellion against God, and what the world did, rather than put him up on a pedestal, was to nail him to a cross to get rid of him. God became a man, and we put him on a cross because we couldn’t stand him, because we wanted to be God.

 

We’ve made a mess of the world, haven’t we? Humanity claimed to be God, but actually became a failed God, a caricature of God, striving to be God, but failing. And the result is the world we see.

 

The perfect God-man bought back the rebellious man for God. He brought back, if you like, the wannabe God, you and me, to the one true God. How did he do that? By taking our place before God’s judgment seat. That’s why Jesus came. So the world could be right. The only one able to make it right is the only perfect perfect. Jesus.

 

We need to recgnise this simple truth, God is God, and we are not. It’s hard to accept it, but that’s the truth. God became a man because we failed to become God. That is the wonder of Christmas. God stepping into this messed up creation, messed up by us, not by him, to put it right by his self-sacrifice so that we could be right with him and have an eternity with him in peace, justice and joy. Now, I trust that this Christmas you know that. This is the best news. A bay who can sort out the world. Starting with you.

General Synod

What happened at General Synod

Thank you to everyone who prayed for the meeting of General Synod, and especially for me. Your prayers are much appreciated. I know that many of you will have followed proceedings each day, but for those who didn’t here’s a summary the important parts of what we did:

Safeguarding Independence

Safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults has been a major difficulty in the church for the last few years. There has been disagreement, accusation, and downright failure. An independent review of safeguarding was therefore commissioned and brough to synod for consideration, along with a paper on the future of safeguarding in the church. The paper essentially proposed two things: first, that operation of safeguarding be moved from the 42 separate Diocesan groups, to one national independent body; and second, that a second group be set up to have independent oversight of safeguarding. Unfortunately, this paper was only issued a few days before synod met, allowing very little time for careful consideration. We decided, despite to a very vocal opposition, to come back to this at a later date.

Same sex blessings and services

We have been discussing these topics for a very long-time, but with little progress and no agreement. A majority of bishops, and a small majority of laity and clergy (around 55%) want radical change, while other bishops and a significant minority of laity and clergy (around 45%) uphold the global church’s traditional, biblical view. However, the Church’s doctrine is clear in its support of the traditional view of marriage, one man and one woman for life, and is supported by the canons (church rules). A change in a canon can only be achieved with a 2/3 majority in each of the three houses of Synod. We appear to have reached an impasse.

Martyn Snow, bishop of Leicester, has taken over from the bishop of London as lead bishop for the process. Martyn called for a ‘reset’ of the debate and offered ten rules that we might adopt and follow to enable further debate. His paper was debated, and some amendments (largely helpful in my view) were rejected. However, we never took a vote on the final motion because a (revisionist) member of synod called for a ‘move to next business’. This is an instrument in the standing orders that, if passed, stops the debate and moves on to the next agenda item. It also prevents the same debate coming back to synod. It’s hard to read this any other way than to say that the revisionists do not want to move forward together with conservatives. It’s hard to say where we can go next. Pray for Martyn Snow.

Parochial Fees

We voted to allow PCCs to retain the fee for clergy taking funerals in crematoria or cemeteries, rather than sending them to the Diocese. This requires legislation before it comes into practice.

Future Of Work

Following a motion from Oxford Diocesan Synod we discussed the impact of changes in the workplace, and especially the impact of Artificial Intelligence. We affirmed the dignity and value of purposeful work as a significant component of human flourishing.

Archbishops’ Commission on Families And Households.

We welcomed this report. Somewhat surprisingly, an amendment to “reaffirm the value of marriage, especially when loving, as providing the most stable and permanent environment for bringing up children” was defeated.

Church Commissioners’ Response to Links To Transatlantic Chattel Slaver

We discussed a presentation that included the Church Commissioners’ plans to set up a £100m fund to “enable grant-making, aiming to reach communities who have been impacted by the unjust legacies of African chattel enslavement.”

Estates Evangelism

Introduced by the ever animated and contagiously enthusiastic Philip North (bishop of Blackburn) we dedicated ourselves afresh to the goal of achieving a loving, serving and worshipping Christian community on every significant social housing estate in the country.

Clergy Pensions

Revd Dr Ian Paul introduced a private member’s motion. He demonstrated the eroding nature of clergy pensions with clear examples and costed proposals to address it. A debate followed with one speaker after another bemoaning the state of clergy pensions and stipends. There were numerous stories of hardship, some quite shocking. A unanimous vote asked for a review of clergy pensions and broader clergy remuneration.

Removal of Divorce Impediment to Ordination

As things stand a person cannot go forward for ordination if they have been divorced and remarried, and their previous partner is still alive; or if they are married to someone in that position. However, an exception can be made by seeking agreement from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. As there are now so many in this position, and so many appeals to the archbishops, the proposer of the motion asked that this bar to ordination be removed. An amendment was tabled suggesting that the appeal should go to the diocesan bishop instead, following guidelines produced by the archbishops. The amendment was carried, and the amended motion passed.

(I am grateful to Ian Burgess, EGGS member, for his report which formed the basis of this document)

How do we know what’s right?

Reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s ‘Life Together’ this morning I was struck by the realization that the underlying errors facing the church in 1930s Germany were the very same as those facing us today. How are we to determine what we believe? How are we ever to be confident in the truth? In the present debate in the Church of England opinion has been swayed by appeal to personal experience and emotional desires. While such arguments are powerful because they appeal to the human ego, they are not God’s way. Truth is external to us, it is found in God alone through His word. Bonhoeffer puts it like this:

“… how are we ever to gain certainty and confidence in our personal deeds and church activity if we do not stand on solid biblical ground? It is not our heart that determines our course, but God’s Word. But who in this day has any proper awareness of the need for evidence from Scripture? How often do we hear innumerable arguments “from life” and “from experience” to justify the most crucial decisions? Yet the evidence of Scripture is excluded even though it would perhaps point in exactly the opposite direction. It is not surprising, of course, that those who attempt to discredit the evidence of Scripture are the people who themselves do not seriously read, know, or make a thorough study of the Scriptures.”

For Bonhoeffer this was not just words. He lived it, and he died for it!

Preaching, Prophecy and Creation

When the Church of England agreed to consecrate women bishops, in 2014, the measure that was passed said that ministry at every level in the Church of England was now open to women alongside men. For many this was the end of a very long road in ecclesiastical female emancipation. The first female presbyters had been ordained twenty years earlier in 1994. What had been agreed, in effect, was that the ministries of men and women were now ‘interchangeable’. Whilst we must recognise that ‘interchangeable’ is not the same as ‘indistinguishable’ (that’s a subject for another day), the change represented an anthropological and ecclesiological milestone. The debate in General Synod, as is so often the case, was largely informed by social justice and secular values. This is not, in itself, invalid, of course, but we must also consider theological and biblical ideas when we assess the veracity of the conclusion for God’s church. There is a great deal of convergence between social, theological and biblical values, but not complete coherence. Where there are inconsistencies, the biblical and theological must be given priority in assessing questions of ecclesiastical polity. So what does theology and biblical studies teach us? A thorough treatment of this question would fill volumes, indeed it has! If you search theological libraries you will find many volumes, articles and papers on this subject. For our purposes here, though, I will focus on one key passage. 1 Corinthians 11v2-16:

2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

Paul commends the Corinthians. This may seem a little odd in the context of a letter where he seems to be spending the majority of his time castigating them for their errors, particularly errors where they have deviated from his teaching. It is hard to imagine, though, that they were bad in every respect. Paul is simply giving praise where it is due and, at the same time, preparing his readers for his harsher words to follow. This verse, then, forms an introduction probably to the entire section that follows in chapters 11 to 14 in which Paul deals with questions of church order.

3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Paul introduces this section by indicating that he is going to talk about the relationships between men and women. Two concepts are brought together here that need more investigation if we are to understand the rest of this passage. Our understanding of this verse will dictate our understanding of what follows. The questions we need to consider, then, are:

  • What does Paul mean by the word ‘head ‘?
  • How does the analogy with Christ and God (the Father) work?

First, is Paul is the word ‘head’ in the sense of ‘source’ or ‘origin’ in the same way as we might talk of the source of a river as its ‘head’? Thus, man is the ‘source’ of the woman in the sense that woman was made from man (cf. v8). So, there is no subordination, he is merely indicating origination. However , this view is not convincing. Partly because it is difficult to see why Paul should be making this point in this way here, when he makes it far more clearly and unambiguously in v8. But also because there is no way to see God (the Father) as the source of Christ (the Son) without falling into the Arian heresy (an early heresy that denied the doctrine of the trinity).

 

So, it is most convincing that Paul uses the word ‘head’ to mean ‘authority over’ and is thus introducing a concept of subordination. This may sound a little hard to our twenty-first century mindset, but please bear with me. This view is shared by most older commentators and an increasing number of more recent ones. It is also certainly the way Paul uses the word elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Eph 1:22, 5:2324, Col 2:10). The comparison with the relationship between the father and the son provides an understanding of the way this subordination works. Clearly Paul is not saying that a woman is ontologically (ie. in her being) subordinate to a man, this would be heresy when applied to the Trinity, the Father and the Son are clearly ontologically equal. What he is saying, though, is that there is a functional subordination. Jesus was under the authority of the Father despite being of the same essence (being), in the same way the woman should be under the authority of the man though they are equal in God’s eyes (cf. Gal 3:28). For us we may have difficulty separating being and function, but ‘We are what we do’ is not a Biblical concept. We are what we are in Christ.

4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head

5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonours her head it is the same as if her head were shaven.

6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.

First we need to ask, what is the nature of the covering? It seems to be something that was normal for women but abnormal for men. Paul is thus saying that men should be like men and women should be like women before God.

The second question is, who is being dishonoured? Is head here used in an anatomical sense to refer to ones-self (in this sense we might say ‘be it on your own head‘) or in the figurative sense of v3? I think the answer could very easily be both. For a woman to appear in public with her head shaved would have been shameful to both herself and her husband because she would have looked like a man. For a man to cover his head would be for him to shamefully depict himself as a woman which would dishonour God. This explanation is borne out by v7.

Paul is saying that he wants women to wear head coverings while praying and prophesying because to do otherwise would be to confuse the sexes and give the shameful impression that women are behaving like men. As Christians, of course, this is not necessary, men and women can both equally come before God as themselves. In Judaism, only the men were allowed to pray.

7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

8 (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.

9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)

This section adds further reasons to Paul’s previous argument. The principal is that one should always honour and respect the source from which one came. The structure is:

A    v4 – a man should not cover his head

B    v5-6 – a woman should cover her head

A’    v7a – why a man should not cover his head

B’    v7b-10 – why a woman should cover her head

 

The woman was not only made from man (and equal with him) but also to help man (and so functionally subordinate to him), this is supported in Genesis 2, it is the created order and it should be respected in worship.

10 That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

It is unclear here whether the reason is what has gone before, or what follows. It could easily mean both and this is how most translations render it. The real difficulty with this verse is the word translated veil. Literally it means authority. The best understanding is that the woman indicates that she is under the authority of her husband and is so maintaining God’s created order of which the angels are guardians. This understanding is supported by FF Bruce, one of the twentieth century’s most respected New Testament scholars.

11 (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;

12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.)

Paul wants to make absolutely clear that men and women are equal in Christ. Clearly, any talk of authority could lead to misunderstanding and the resultant undervaluing of women in the church.

13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

14 Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him,

15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Paul further reinforces his argument from nature. For a man to wear long hair in Corinthian culture is contrary to nature because it makes him look like a woman. For a woman to pray with her head uncovered is not right because she is taking the place of a man.

The last part of v15 is quite difficult to understand here. It is important to note, however, that the word for covering is different from that used earlier. The best sense may be that nature itself has given woman a covering thus indicating that she should be veiled (cf. FF Bruce).

 

16 If anyone is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

This is the final ‘nail in the coffin’ for anyone disagreeing with Paul here.

In this passage, then, Paul is making a very clear point. He introduces his argument about functional subordination between men and women and supports it by reference to the relationship between Christ and God (v3). He then goes on to support his argument from the prevailing culture (v4-6), from creation (v8-10), from nature (v13-15) and from the developing Christian tradition (v16). Alongside this Paul argues that men and women are ontologically equal (v11-12) in the Lord. Thus men and women are both free to pray, prophesy and participate in worship in the church so long as the gender roles are maintained. Men must be men and women must be women, and they are different.

What, then, is the place for women in worship today?

Unlike the synagogue, where women were not allowed to take part, Paul indicates that women are free to take a full part in prayer and prophecy within the congregation, but maintaining due respect for their gender. Women must not try to become like men in order to take part in worship, and men should certainly not try to be like women. The only caveat to this is that Paul does not permit women to hold a position of teaching authority over men. Women must be in functional subordination to men whilst at the same time exercising their is ontological equality and freedom in Christ.

What about women preaching?

This is something of a debated issue among complementarian churches (those who hold a doctrine of functional subordination). I think the answer to the question hinges on what we consider preaching to be. If it is teaching, then it seems clear then women should not be permitted to preach when men are present. This is view help by many. But is ‘preaching’ coterminous with ‘teaching’? I believe that while preaching may contain teaching, this is not all there is to preaching. Preaching in the New Testament is the application of God’s word to current situations. It is by preaching that souls are drawn to God in repentance, and closer to God in relationship. Preaching is enabled and empowered by God’s Holy Spirit. Otherwise it would be simply lecturing! Reading those last few sentences again I think it is plain that effective, anointed preaching is ‘prophecy’. It is God speaking to his people through His Word.

If preaching is prophecy, then clearly women are free to take part (cf. v5). The instruction to have their head covered (a cultural custom) is to show they are under the (functional) authority of their husband. This is a wonderful privilege for the whole church as we, together, exercise our freedom in Christ in worship, whilst retaining the creation order of men and women.

So, how does this ‘map’ onto Church of England polity?

This is a huge subject that can’t treat fully here. However, for me the outworking is: Women may be ordained deacon, but not Presbyter (or consecrated bishop). Women may be lay readers because they are operating under the authority of the incumbent (as, in fact, is anyone who occupies the pulpit). This is to set men and women free to exercise their God given gifts whilst, at the same time, maintaining God’s ordering in creation. When the creation order is broken then other errors soon result. But that’s another subject.

Church of England Foundations

When a new bishop is consecrated, the following statement is made:

The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

The question is then asked:

In the declaration you are about to make, will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making Him known to those in your care?

The key points to which they asked to assent are:

  1. The Church of England is not a autonomous organisation, but is part of the ‘one holy, catholic and apostolic church.’ This means we have:
    1. a history going back to the apostles,
    2. a heritage of doctrine and Christian understanding,
    3. accountability to the wider, trinitarian, church of God.
  2. What we believe is:
    1. revealed in the Scriptures. This is expressed at ordination where the ordinand is given a Bible as a symbol.
    2. expressed the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian creeds. These three creeds can all be found in the Book of Common Prayer.
  3. Specifically, the Church of England expresses truth is three foundation documents:
    1. The thirty-nine articles (found in the Book of Common Prayer and reproduced in our service books at St Botolph’s and ST Edmund’s).
    2. The Book of Common Prayer (1662). Notice that the BCP is considered doctrine, Common Worship (the main services used by the church since 2000) is not.
    3. The Ordinal. This is the form of service used for the ordination of deacons and presbyters, and the consecration of bishops.

Important matters of belief and practice in the church are codified in the Canons (church law). The Canons express clearly how the church is to be ordered and are, like any legal document, legally binding. You can find the Canons here. For our present considerations section A is of most interest.

What this provides is a framework with a huge amount of expression, and a range beliefs on secondary matters. This results in a church that is united around core truths, yet broad and open on secondary issues. This is the Church of England! And the bishops have all promised to support and defend it.

In November 2023 the house of bishops, though divided, led by both archbishops, failed in this responsibility.

What our bishops want

In preparation for the meeting of General Synod in November (13th-15th) the house of bishops met last week to discuss ‘Prayers for Love and Faith’. If you don’t know what these prayers are Church Society has produced a handy guide here. The bishops have suggested that these prayers be authorised for use, though not as official liturgy. This would lead to a full debate and vote in synod in 2025 to authorise similar prayers as liturgy. The bishops’ statement is here. Please pray about this. My view, and that of others, is that we cannot bless what God says is sin. Please pray that our voices will be hear in synod in November.

Here are some other useful comments:

Ros Clark of Church Society

Lee Gatiss of Church Society and erstwhile curate at St Botolph’s

Martin Davie of Latimer Trust

Statement from dissenting bishops – please pray for these bishops and give thanks for their brave stand.

What’s The Most Important Thing You Can Do For Your Children?

Have you ever been asked that question before? Even if you haven’t, I’m sure you’ve thought about it and I’m sure you’ve come up with a long list of possible answers. Here’s a few that I’ve thought about:

Make sure they eat a healthy diet.

Teach them to be kind to other people (particularly their siblings!).

Give them everything they need and much of what they want.

Enrol them into a good school.

I could go on…

Whatever else we think is important, I’m sure we would all agree that actually the most important thing we can do for our children, whatever their age, is to love them. But what is the best way to love our children? There is one word that comes to mind – sacrifice. In other words, putting their needs before our own. God knows a lot about sacrifice.

The Bible tells us that God loved us so much that he sent Jesus, his one and only son so that we might be given eternal life with him. And not just eternal life but ‘life in all its fullness’ as sons and daughters along with Jesus. That is quite staggering when you stop to think about it – I am a sister of Jesus! Take a look in the Bible at John chapter 3 verse 16 and also 1 John chapter 3 verse 16 (different books in the Bible but both verses speak about the love that God the Father and Jesus have for us).

It’s likely that we won’t be asked to give our lives for our children; but we are called to love them to the best of our ability, and I believe that to do that we must pray for them – often. None of us are perfect parents (sorry to break that to you) but we can draw strength and wisdom from the One who is. Parenting is tough; there are highs and lows, times of immense joy and also times of deep sadness but through all of these times we can and should thank God for each of our children and talk to him about our joys and sorrows, our hopes and fears for them.

Over the years I’ve found some books that help me to focus on praying for my child. The best I’ve found is called ‘Praying Through the Bible for your Kids’ by Nancy Guthrie. On each page, Nancy suggests some passages of the Bible to read. She comments on a verse or two and finishes with a prayer that you can pray specifically for your child(ren). If you read the Bible passages each day you will have read the entire Bible in a year as well as prayed at least once every day for your children – that sounds like a good plan!

It’s available from The Good Book Company and 10ofThose as well as Amazon and other retailers.

https://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/praying-through-the-bible-for-your-kids

God bless you as you parent your children, whatever age they are.

Helen