Pope Benedict and all that

So this morning history was made with the Pope giving the "Thought for the Day" on Radio 4 after which John Humphries quizzed a leading English Catholic, Archbishop Bernard Longley,  with an emphasis on the issue of "change".  It was, of course, inevitable that if a Christian speaks out then there is likely to be some criticism following.  But i think it is worth reflecting a little on what was said, and I do this from my own theological understanding.

A few months ago the Pope visited the UK.  While I respect the view of the Roman Catholic Church regarding priestly ministry and the authority of the Pope it is not an opinion that I hold.  Indeed I hold one that is strongly opposed to both concepts, but one aspect of my ministry is to engage in dialogue with the RC church (and other traditions) and I do so expecting that dialogue to lead to change where change is needed (in me and my tradition as well as theirs).

One aspect that most - possibly all - reading this blog will not know is that ahead of the Pope's visit we received an exhortation from his office stating that when he came to the UK he hoped to share something of the message of the gospel and hoped that other Churches would be ready to exploit any interest that might be stirred through his visit.  This message was conveyed to me personally at an ecumenical meeting concerned for the evangelization of the people of the UK.

For me the outstanding feature of the Pope's visit was the biblical content of his talks and his encouragement that all people should seek a relationship with God in Christ.  Social and political issues he touched on were never divorced from that central message.  By contrast an other Christian leader made hardly any reference to scripture or the gospel beyond his comments on social issues in which there was no overt connection with the gospel.

This seamed to me to set out the Pope's position as one who clearly placed biblical authority above his own.  Again, for me, this was an interesting and encouraging revelation.

In today's "Thought for the Day" the Pope again asserted the biblical record of what Christmas is about and why Christ came into this world - it was for us and our salvation.  Since he had proclaimed the old traditional message of Christianity it was not surprising that in the interview that followed John Humphries brought up the opinion that the Catholic Church needed to change with regard to such matters as homosexuality, contraception and women in the priesthood.

In response Bernard Longley asserted that the Catholic Church had changed and was changing, citing two examples.  He firstly spoke of the Catholic Church's ecumenical dialogue and attitude to other traditions.  As one who has had a small part to play in that I can confirm that this has been interesting.  For example when at a meeting of Churches together in Britain and Ireland I was called on to present the case for "Lay Presidency at the Eucharist" at ecumenical gatherings (the Congregational view that anyone authorised by the local church can preside at a Communion Service) a Roman Catholic Archbishop was first to his feet supporting what I had said.  The second to his feet in support was a senior Orthodox cleric.   Ecumenical dialogue does produce change - or at least moderates attitudes.

The second defence that Bernard Longley drew upon was the Beatification of John Henry Newman.  He pointed out that (a) Newman sought to develop theology within the social context of his day, and (b) that Newman believed in hearing the voice of the laity. Here there are two interesting parallel's with my own tradition as a Congregationalist.

The first of these relates to a developing theology rather than one that is set in stone.  On the departure of the Pilgrim Fathers, Pastor John Robinson commented that "God has yet more light and truth to break forth from his holy word".  Some significant early influences in my Christian life held a more fundamentalist and fixed view but I am grateful that my own journey has brought me to an experience of developing theology.  The journey has been exciting and has made me more passionate about scripture, and delighted by those moments of the breaking of light and truth previously unrealised by me.  It has also made me unhappy to be identified by any label other than Christian (i.e. I do not want to be labelled as "conservative", or "liberal", or "charismatic" etc).

As to the second point relating to John Henry Newman since I do not recognise priesthood other than that of all believers and especially that of Jesus Christ in heaven, I believe strongly that all Christians are part of the laos (the Greek word meaning people) and play a part in the mediation of the understanding of truth.  But this is not the same thing as political democracy nor is it saying that what the Church should believe and stand for should be determined by the whims of secular society.  The abandonment of an understanding of the importance of scripture is a recipe for anarchy.

As Christians we have a duty to be careful about declaring what we hold to be true.  For me the scripture (OT and NT) has the important place but truth has to be exgeted (drawn out) from it.  Inevitably, we will do this from our various cultural and historical contexts and this will result in different opinions and understandings, each of which should always be considered alongside our own.  After all truth is something far greater than my mind can completely comprehend right now.

While there are some aspects of Roman Catholic teaching with which I wholly dissociate myself, I find myself not uncomfortable with people who wish to assert the central message of the gospel, that Christ came to save us and reconcile us to God, and who do not believe we should be blown about by every wind of opinion of unregenerate minds.

I welcome your comments.

The Weekly News

For a quiet week it has been very interesting.


Last weekend focused on events to support the work in Malawi of Torch Trust for the Blind, for which Doreen works as a volunteer two mornings a week.  The YP fund raising event on Saturday was amazing and we had a fairly full chapel on the Sunday afternoon and a very happy time of fellowship.


On Tuesday I was single handed at the prison for our final choir practice.  It went well.  On Wednesday the prison faith Centre was full with visitors and inmates plus governor and staff.  This was the annual Christmas Concert with Kettering Salvation Army Band and Songsters, traditional readings, carols etc.  My group of prisoners put on a playlet and a carol (sung to an old Roger Whittiker tune).  The lads were superb and afterwards I was inundated by people singing the praises of our choir.  I kept referring them on to the lads - many of who were glowing!


On Friday we managed to do carol singing around Theddingworth - well it's a small village.


To finish off the week I have been sending out my Christmas cards (not quite at the deadline) and running off copies of the new CD of "Treasured Gospel Songs".  These are mainly golden oldies.  If you don't get one in the post and would like one please let me know.  I will add a few more of these to the website at http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_music.cfm?bandID=1126380 as this will give you some idea of what is on the CD.


A friend tweeted me this week.  No one ever did that before!  Later the same friend sent a tweet with a link to a marvelous video on Youtube.  It really is great and I commend it to you shamelessly! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgtnNc1Zplc


This Sunday I am at Yelvertoft in the morning and singing at Theddingworth in the evening.  On Monday I will be a well known fictional character giving out presents at a local school.  I hope the beard doesn't scratch as much this year.  The burning question is, "Will any of the children know it is me?"


Then final preparation for the weekend and a few days of rest.


Happy Christmas!


Barry

Sign or Story?

As someone who has been active in rural ministry and mission all my life I am well aware that many rural Christians – including clergy – find engaging in evangelism within their village challenging.  Time and again I hear people saying things like, “Our lives are a witness” or “People know what we stand for”.  I have even heard a conference speaker state that the silent witness of church buildings is sufficient evangelism.  While our lives and possibly the buildings where we meet might well be an important sign of our faith, sign without story is never enough.

In Luke 2: 8-20 we read the story of the shepherds hearing about the birth of Jesus.  It begins with the shepherds getting on with what shepherds do at night in the fields.  They then see the angel of the Lord who tells them a story about a saviour and gives them information about a sign that will support the story he has told them.  Then comes the choir of angels with words about blessing that comes through God showing grace or favour.

They immediately determine to check it out for themselves, and find it exactly as they had been told. (You can forget about them taking sheep with them or offering lambs; sheep would have slowed them down and they were in a hurry.)

Three things then follow:

Firstly, they went and told others the story as they had been told it, causing many people to be amazed.

Secondly, what they told Mary got her thinking too.  I guess it confirmed all she had been told previously.

Thirdly, they went on their way (apparently back to the sheep) thrilled and praising God for what “they had been told”.

When Francis of Assisi said "preach the gospel always, use words if necessary" it was an exhortation to ensure that our lives provide adequate proof of the good news about Jesus.  But there are many people of faith – or even of no faith – whose lives are every bit as good as any Christian.  So sign will never be enough unless people also hear the story from our lips.

Please ponder the story of the Shepherds this Christmas and see how it relates to our lives today.  They heard a story and believed – saw the sign – and passed on the story with such enthusiasm that they too became a sign.  We have good news to share – God’s story that he wants your friends and family to hear.  Please share the story; live the sign.

Condemning burning the Koran

Some 47 year ago as God broke into my life I was happy to define myself as “evangelical”.  Now, though my core beliefs have not changed it is not a label I feel comfortable with.  Among the factors that have caused that change is people who are bigoted, like Terry Jones, the pastor of a small church in the USA whose offensive attitude has won him a spotlight over the last few days.

I have no hesitation in condemning what he proposes to do on September 11^th and stating that, in my view, he presents a distorted understanding of Christianity as set out within the Scriptures.  And that is the irony for by defining himself and his local church as “evangelical” he takes a position that affirms that the Bible is authoritative, and the guide for what he believes and how he behaves.  It makes me wonder whether he has read it carefully recently.  A further irony is that what he seeks to condemn by burning copies of the Koran is to condemn what most Islamic scholars would define as actions informed by a distorted understanding of the content of the Koran.

An Anglican bishop I knew once said that if the Carpenter of Nazareth would seem strangely out of place in the midst of all you plan to do, then all you plan to do has got nothing to do with God. 

Towards the end of the eighties Doreen and I made my first journey to Turkey.  This was my first engagement with Muslims.  I found them kind, generous, and very open.  From the start and over the passing years I have engaged in conversations about the Christian faith, often at their initiative.  I have even been invited into a mosque by the Imam to talk with children about Jesus Christ.  One school I had visited to assist with English lessons once asked me to provide an example of a Christian song we used in worship.  The following year as I walked through the gates of the school scholars greeted me by singing that song!

Our contemporary culture has benefited historically from Islam, as many Islamic countries have benefited from some aspects of Christianity.  In the UK today almost all of us enjoy good relationships and can engage in a healthy dialogue without compromising our beliefs in any way.  Throughout the Muslim world (most of which is moderate) there are indigenous Christians and indigenous Christian churches.  A few years ago in one such country Christians were invited onto a TV programme to talk about their faith.  That day an American website stupidly, wrongly and offensively put an image of that country’s flag with the Islamic crescent changed to a Christian cross.  That one act seriously set back the gospel and impacted on the lives of thousands of Christians.  My fear is that Terry Jones is seriously undoing years of patient progress in his blind ignorance.

I hope that Terry might discover – or rediscover – the Jesus of Scripture and become a true disciple.  If he does he will renounce his intentions.

The sin of sitting on the fence

I recently spoke on the phone with an elder in a church where I had formally been a pastor.  He now provides much of the leadership of this Independent Church.  In the course of our discussion he mentioned a now frail and elderly lady who had been a staunch member of the congregation.  I wished to be remembered to her but was conscious that I was probably not a favourite person to her.  I made reference to this and to the cause of our loss of fellowship - the discovery that a ministry colleague in the church had been serially sexually abusing young men.  The lady concerned, as far as I was aware, had stubbornly refused to accept the truth despite the testimony of many other people, including one of her sons.  Instead, as I was the one who had "blown the whistle" on the Christian leader she idolised, she treated me as an enemy.

The elder with whom I was speaking commented that he had been careful "not to take sides".  He said it as if sitting on the fence was a virtue.  But it left me angry.  When I first heard the allegation of abuse back in 1989 I discovered how abusers find collusion within churches and the victims get ostracised.  The consequences of holding a proper investigation into the allegations was too painful for most in the leadership at that time.  I already knew of one other person who had been a victim of abuse but who had "forgiven" the abuser because he thought it the right thing to do.  Over the following days I learned of one man who when just sixteen had been obliged to strip naked and share a bed with this man who fumbled for his genitals.  I also heard of another who testified to being locked in a room, threatened with a cudgel and raped.

I was frustrated by a church leadership team that would not address the concerns and the trustees of an evangelistic mission in which the abuser was both founder and director that refused to do the same.  It was not until I co-wrote "Time for Action" some twelve years later that I realised that I had to do something, even if no one else would.  I reported the matter to the police.  With greater understanding, personally and within society today, I realise that step should have been taken straight away.  The police investigated and the CPS brought the man to trial.  He pleaded not guilty, alleging that his victims had actually requested sexual activity with him, and so forcing two of his victims to relate the sordid details in open court.  He was found guilty and sent to prison, but he has never acknowledged culpability or apologised to those he hurt.

With less understanding in 1989 when the leaders of the church refused to take action I was faced with three possibilities.  I could over-rule my colleagues and proclaim the allegation publicly from the pulpit.  But by then the young man who was the victim had denied suffering this offence having been put under pressure by the abuser who had extremely good manipulative skills.  That, it seemed to me, would only create a horrendous mess with possibly no good outcome.  The second possibility would be for me to carry on at the church regardless.  That would have meant sharing a platform with the abuser and jointly administering communion.  I could not stomach that.  The remaining course of action was for me to leave the church immediately.  I had been a minister in the church for twenty one years; it seemed probable that someone might come and ask me why.  I provided a letter to the Church Secretary explaining the cause of this sudden development.

I suspect the contents of that letter were never read.  Not one church member made contact with me.  I dread to think what spin might have been put on my departure for it to apparently become accepted without one enquiring. As I had handed in my church keys on that day, the elder to whom I was now speaking had wept.  Now it was my turn to weep.  I could understand back in 1989 why some felt powerless and confused, uncertain what to do.  But in the light of a police investigation, several witnesses, a trial and subsequent  prison sentence surely there could only be one position for any responsible Christian to take.  That could not be on a fence!

The prophet Micah tells us what the Lord requires of us.  It is to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God.  All three have to be held in tension.  Where mercy denies the possibility of justice to the victims, or where the cries for justice drown out any possibility of mercy then we are not walking humbly with a God who calls us all to account for our sins, and only offers mercy where there is true repentance.

I am angry.  Angry at the abuser for what he did.  Angry for those whose lives have been messed up with the long dark shadow of sexual abuse cast over them.  Angry at Christian leaders who, like those in the church at Corinth fuss over the little things but fail to act justly against sexual sin.  I am angry because the same church leaders publicly disciplined two young Christians who were engaged and confessed that they had slept together before marriage, but when it comes to disciplining one of there own failed.

I am not so angry that I will attack my friend on the phone for what left me speechless at the time.  I do not want to create a problem for him.  The question is, if I fail to do so am I then failing him just as much as he is failing both the victims whom he should vindicate and the abuser whom he should judge?

Waitrose - Duty of care to customers?

In my previous posting about the exploding bottle of orange juice I carefully omitted the name of the company that made and sold the offending product that violently exploded in my car while I was travelling at 70mph on the M6 recently.  I wrote to them as soon afterwards as was possible urging them to reconsider their labelling, because in my opinion this was very inadequate.  Waitrose chose instead to deny any liability (that was expected) for the costs incurred and to say they hoped I would continue to be a customer! Now I think your opinion would be welcome.  
The section of the label that carries storage and use information is 25mm wide and 15mm high.  In this space they have squeezed 202 characters as follows:  Keep refrigerated. Once opened keep refrigerated below 5° C and consume within 1 day. Shake well, this is a natural product and may separate on standing for display until and use by date see top of cap.  
I tried to squeeze this amount of wording into the same size and ended up with a font around 4pt! The type size is too small for me to read with glasses in normal light.  If I improve the light or use a magnifying glass I can read it.

I could easily have been killed in this incident.  Even though I was at fault in that I had failed to follow the instructions I could not read and assumed that fresh orange juice should keep refrigerated for a week, some warning regarding possible fermentation and its consequences should be on the bottle.  A loud bang would have been scary enough but the additional loss of forward visibility while driving at 70mph on a busy road is no joke.

So for failing to read my letter carefully, and ignoring my encouragement to take customer care seriously I say "Waitrose - Shame on you!"

Breaking the Rules

A senior MP commenting on the revelation that a significant number of MPs have disregarded parliamentary rules regarding free trips and similar benefits from foreign governments commented that they did not need the rules to be changed what they needed was for MPs' attitudes to be changed.

That made my ears prick up.  We live in a society in the UK where many regard rules as something of an optional matter.  We are also much more concerned that others keep the rules than that we are made to obey them.  If you drive a car you will almost certainly know what I mean!  So long as no one gets hurt (as far as we  know) and we get away with it then it's OK.  But is it?  Having such a light attitude towards regulation is being one step away from anarchy.

"What we need is for people to change their attitude", he insisted.  Now that's interesting because that was exactly the message that Jesus proclaimed - especially to the hypocritical religious and civic leaders of his day who thought that they could "bend the rules to suit themselves".  The Greek word used in the first editions of the New Testament is "metanoia", which means a change of attitude.  It is still usually translated into an old English word - repent.  That carries some baggage that sadly gets in the way.  But the message is as needed in our society today as in the society into which Jesus was born.

If we want to be a part of a better society maybe we could all do with a bit more honest change of attitude.  What do you think?

Beware the Orange Bomb!

The day went with a bang - well, at least part of it did.  It was loud, unexpected and with terrifying consequences. I was on my way from Market Harborough to a small village in Shropshire where I was to lead the afternoon session in a kind of day conference for a Congregational church.  I was keen to get there as early as possible and get a "feel" of how the day was going, and so I set of around 8.30 this morning expecting to arrive by 10.30.

My route took onto the M6 within about 30 minutes.  It was a clear day with a motorway to match.  I guess I had been driving for about 45 minutes since leaving home and was close to Coventry when a really loud explosion sounded very close.  In the nanosecond that followed I guessed a tyre had burst.  But my mind changed a nanosecond later as the view out of the windscreen largely disappeared behind streams of sticky ooze, and orange juice dripped all over me from the roof of the car.  A bottle of natural orange juice that had been lying innocently on the passenger seat next to me had exploded.

The offending product had been purchased from a reputable company the previous week.  I had taken just one small drink and the bottle had been resealed and kept in a fridge.  Yes, the sell by date was 7th March and today was the 13th, but Doreen (my wife) thought it was a healthy drink and had been kept in the fridge and should be OK.  Obviously the brief time it had been opened was enough to start a fermentation process resulting in the explosion and my being soaked in the stuff and the front half of the car being liberally sprayed.  It's amazing just how far 500ml of orange juice will go.  It had soaked the steering wheel, my mobile phone, my sat nav, the gear stick and brake, the carpet, the roof the inside of the windows, the mirror and my glasses.

It was too big a disaster to sort out on the hard shoulder and I reasoned the most sensible thing was to make it to the Service Station which was only a couple of miles further on. Strangely the Service Station had the same retailer as the garage where I had purchased the exploding bottle.  The manager, a lovely young lady called Krystle, showed considerable sympathy and helped clean up the mess after taking photos.  I then had to head back down the Motorway to a branch of Tescos where I was able to purchase the much needed replacements for almost all the clothes I was wearing, which were well soaked, stained and smelly strongly of oranges.

Just as well I had started out early as I finally arrived just in time for the lunch break and 55 minutes before my session.  Happily the journey home later that day was uneventful.  The car is a mess inside still and will need total valeting.  It smells strongly of oranges.  I'm just grateful it wasn't worse.  I could have had a sticky end!

Mothering Sunday - what the Bible says about women

The following notes are some reflections on Mothering Sunday from back in 2003.  Understanding and attitudes evolve over time.  Much of my early Christian attitudes were influenced by a poor attitude towards women that made them subordinate to men.  But reading the Bible changed that view and I found myself a little angry when I come across such attitudes today.  This is not a masterly piece of writing on the subject but it might be worth sharing.

Today millions of people around the country are celebrating Mothers’ Day or Mothering Sunday.  It is not a Christian festival but many churches will also be marking this occasion in various ways.  Many will use it as an opportunity for outreach through family services.  Some will use it as an opportunity to advocate traditional family life and the value of motherhood within that structure.  Still others may take this opportunity to explore theologically the role of women within the totality of the church and the kingdom of God.  We are going to endeavour to follow that last course, though we may not want to abandon any other position entirely.

Probably the worst thing that could be done by a church on Mothering Sunday is to use the occasion to be patronising to women in general and mothers in particular, and to follow the well-worn paths that lead to the subjugation of women and girls within our society.  The gospel is about nothing if it is not about freedom, and we expect to find ample evidence for the absolute emancipation of women as we seek to exegete the scriptures.

The problem that we have when we seek for truth in scripture is remembering to leave off the spectacles of prejudice, which so easily distort our view.  There are two kinds of prejudice that I want to warn about today.  The first of these is the prejudice of a traditional view.  There are neat stereotypical images of the role of women and the nature of motherhood that have more to do with societal history than biblical exegesis.  However, churches and preachers have colluded to reinforce these images.  In the process some scripture becomes used selectively and some scripture is ignored as we start with our received understanding of what should be and then seek to support that view from scripture.

Theological reflection is a discipline that should mark every area of our beliefs and practises.  What we need to do is not start from a fixed position and look for support, but rather expose our opinions to critical examination in the light of scripture.  That may be uncomfortable and unsettling for those who have never experienced the glorious liberating and illuminating that it can bring.

The second kind of prejudice is that kind of radical attitude that reacts to the conservative in an extreme way.  Feminism is no longer something that is new.  The reaction of women both within and without the churches to oppressive regimes is immediately understandable.  Sadly the churches tend to adopt a conservative position and are therefore slow to catch up.  However, very many churches and biblical scholars have had to acknowledge that sometimes truth dawns more quickly outside the walls of the churches.  We should not be afraid to say so when it does.  But extreme feminism that reacts to such conservatism is in some ways as great a danger in terms of prejudicing sound exegesis as the conservatism against which it reacts.  On the other hand it is often only because extreme attitudes are expressed that people are nudged out of the rut.

We need at this stage to say something about the relationship between motherhood and the role of women in society and the church in general.  It seems to me that they are inextricably bound together since both society and the church have tended to present the role of women as finding fulfilment in marriage and motherhood. 

This idealistic view might be a consequence of the tyranny of patriarchy, whether deliberate or careless; what we can say is that it has been very oppressive of both unmarried women and childless women, as if they were somehow incomplete.

Such a view is oppressive and tyrannical and as such contrary to the gospel of Christ.

So we will endeavour to leave aside prejudice and, as best we can, seek to explore the truth.  We seek for that truth through the scriptures, which we believe to be the Word of God.  We are going to do this in three stages.  The first of these will be to look both at the nature of God and of humankind within his created order.  The second will be to note the development of the role of women throughout the Old Testament.  Then thirdly to look at the role of women through the teaching and actions of Jesus and his apostles.

The Nature of God and the created order.

Scripture reveals a God who is one yet three.  Each person of the trinity is complete and whole yet co-dependent and fully a part of the others so that we have three persons that are essentially one.  This is a mystery that is hard for us to grasp completely.  We could say that there is a single plural complementarity!

Sex and gender are a part of the created order.  In every plant and creature there is both male and female versions or parts – that which is capable of bearing offspring and that which is capable of fertilising.  There is complementarity and co-dependency in nature. This is true, though in a different way, for that which is androgynous or hermaphrodite where the complementary parts are found within single creature.

We get into difficulties when we try to define or describe God from that which he has created.  The Bible speaks of God as having eyes, ears, hands, and arms, but these are the attempts of human beings to understand and describe the divine.  They should not be taken literally.  Similarly we have problems if we try to define God by gender.  Usually we think of God as male.  The Bible reveals him as a heavenly father.  But it also attributes feminine qualities to him.

Isaiah 42:14 describes God as a woman in childbirth.  Isaiah 49:15 describes God like a mother unable to forget the child she bore.  Isaiah 66:13 describes God as a comforting mother.  In Psalm 131 David describes his relationship with God as a young child in the arms of its mother.  In Matthew 23 and Luke 13 we have the words of Jesus as he laments over Jerusalem and describes himself as a hen gathering its chicks under its wing.  All of these are powerful female images.  Jesus told parables to teach spiritual truths.  In one of these he depicts God as a woman seeking a lost coin (Luke 15:8).

For many people one of the most difficult things to accept is the use of the Hebrew word “ruach” to define the Spirit of God.  This word has feminine gender.  So in the Spirit of God hovering over the waters and bringing to birth creation out of chaos God is defined by the language of the OT writer as female.

We cannot conclude from scripture that God is absolutely male, no more than we can say that scripture leads us to believe that God is female.  We do better to infer that we cannot define God in terms of gender.  That has implications on the words we use in worship.  While I am personally very comfortable with addressing God as Father, I do understand those that have difficulty and even find this a barrier, either because of bad experience of fathers, or because they feel that it contributes to their subjugation and oppression.

We have two accounts of the creation of humankind.  The first of these in Genesis 1 shows both male and female created together in the image of God – both male and female.  They share an equal status in the created order with neither as superior to the other.  Here the word “man” (Hebrew “adam”) is used for both the male and the female as a generic term.  In Genesis 2 we have Adam formed first and Eve formed out of Adam.  Adam is shown is incomplete and being made whole by the provision of a suitable helper who is made out of his side.  That she came out of his side, and not his head or feet, may well have significance in symbolism.  The difference in order in Genesis 2 is the only difference from chapter 1.  There is no sign of superiority or inferiority here.  The image of God is seen in both the male and female humans.

The role of women in the Old Testament

As part of the punishment of Eve following the fall, she is to be dependent upon her husband, and he will exercise dominion over her.  This is not the original plan; it is the consequence of sin entering human nature.

The law reinforces this change in status.  The law is clearly given to man, and his wife is defined as part of his possessions within the Ten Commandments.  A woman giving birth to a female child is considered more “unclean” than when giving birth to a male child.  In many other ways the position of women as subject to men is affirmed.

There are some interesting women – occasionally in powerful positions – in the Old Testament.  Deborah was appointed a national leader of Israel, something the nation was adamant about.  Many women are singled out for their significance in the outworking of God’s redemptive purposes.  These include the mother of Jacob whose actions were significant in establishing the line of promise.  The mother of Moses ensured that the redeemer of Israel, and type of Christ, survived the annihilation.  Rahab played a significant part in the entry into the Promised Land.  Hannah’s deep grief brought us Samuel, and his significant ministry.  Ruth, an alien woman is a significant ancestor of Jesus.  Esther rises to power during the exile and saves her people.

So in the Old Testament, time and again, it is women who save the day, despite their general humiliation within a patriarchal society that excludes them in temple worship and from priestly ministry.

The teaching and actions of Jesus and his apostles

No reader of the gospels can fail to note that there is a radical shift in the way that women are treated.  Society treats them as second class, but not Jesus.  Luke 8:1-3 records the women helpers that travelled with Jesus.  Women – even those with an unhealthy past – are honoured by Jesus.  Deep spiritual truths are revealed to them (John 4 and John 11).  It is a woman who evangelises the city of Sychar effectively.  Despite Martha’s protestations that Mary’s place should be with her in the kitchen, Jesus affirms her right to be a disciple.  Ironically it was to women that Jesus first revealed himself as risen from the dead.  Those who because of their gender could not give evidence in a court of law were chosen by God as the primary witnesses of this great event.

As he hung upon the cross, where each breath cost him agony, Jesus spoke three times words of comfort or compassion.  Once to the thief beside him, once for the soldiers gambling at his feet, and once for the welfare of his mother.

The coming of Jesus heralded in the beginning of the kingdom of God.  One of the things that Jesus made clear by his teaching, attitude and actions is that women shared an equal part in this kingdom.

Acts 1:20 makes clear that women were included in the first church in Jerusalem.  They were part of the 120 in the Upper Room.  They would have shared in receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit and the fulfilling of Joel’s prophecy: “I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.”

Priscilla shared equally with her husband Aquilla in their ministry, recorded in Acts 18, just as Sapphira bore equal responsibility with Ananias for their act of robbery and deceit.  Later she is described by Paul as a “fellow worker”, and a church meets in their home.  Lydia, the first convert at Philippi clearly became a leader in the church there (Acts 16).  Phoebe is highly commended by Paul in Romans 16 as a minister in the church at Cenchrea.

Phoebe is highly significant not only because of the way in which Paul describes her but because Cenchrea is a Corinthian port.

Paul’s obvious respect for women should temper our understanding of his writing on the role of women in the church.  There is a strong case to be made that Paul is referring to female deacons in 1Timothy 3:11.  His comments about women keeping silent in 1Corinthins 14:34 are about maintaining a sense of order in church meetings.  A similar thought is expressed in 1Timothy 2:12 where he is clearly seeking to avoid a situation where a woman takes “authority” over a man.  The Timothy passage speaks of the woman being silent but the Greek word hear means quiet and refers more to character.  It does not imply gagging.  We should also note that this is Paul’s practise that is being described not God’s word that is being prescribed.

The early church was emerging from a strongly patriarchal society, yet it shows considerable liberality towards the role of women.  How they developed their theology and how they conducted themselves inevitably reflected something of the culture in which they existed.  Perhaps the most significant comment is to be found in Galatians 3:26 – 29 “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

In a secular society where women are accorded equal rights with men by law, how much more should the churches express that oneness described by Paul.  It is time to reaffirm that we are under a New Covenant.  The old order has passed away and in the kingdom of God women recover their status of equality with men.  Here we learn to submit to one another, to love one another as Christ loved the church and to honour one another in the Lord.

So this Mothering Sunday let it mean something as a result of our theological reflection.  Let us affirm not only our gratitude for the role of our mothers in giving us life, and for most of us, as those who nurtured us, but let us affirm every woman in their personhood in the image of God and honour him by honouring them.

Barry Osborne – Herstmonceux - Sunday 30^th March 2003

Values versus Doctrine

You might have picked up something of this in another part of my Facebook presence.  Some churches - especially those that are evangelical - seem to like to define themselves by the doctrines they hold.  These are often displayed in the entrance area of the church.  These mean little or nothing to almost everyone outside evangelical church traditions. 

In the church where I am a minister we recently decided we would rather be defined by our values than by doctrines.  Of course the values are informed by what we read in scripture.


We value all individuals, young and old, male and female, regardless of wealth, ability, or standing in society. We value communities in which individuals care for one another. We value the kind of love that puts other people’s needs before our own. 


We value justice for all people and long for a world where there is greater fairness and equality. We value truth. We value kindness and compassion. We value deeds more than empty words.

We value the peace that comes from respect for other people who might be different from us in some way. We value the kind of unity that can also celebrate diversity. In other words we value the kind of world about which Jesus taught and for which he gave his life.


Do you think that publicly publicising values rather than doctrines makes more sense for the wider public?

Not offending non-Christians

It's a long time since I posted anything on my "reflections" blog. When I started this blogging it was with a view to providing an occasional comment from a Christian perspective - and I was responding to the encouragement of a Malayan Pastor. There is an automatic link to my Facebook page, so anything I blog about gets posted as a "Note" on Facebook.

Here's the problem: Among my Facebook "friends" are many Christians but also many others who I know in various capacity, and who do not share my Christian faith and values. I don't want to offend them by constantly writing religious stuff (it would certainly be likely to be irrelevant at the least). On the other hand, there are various diary type jottings that some Christians might be glad to read but I don't then write it as I don't want to offend!

So I'm exploring adding a blogspot - or changing the blog I use now. If you read this and have any comments, advice, suggestions, please let me have them.