calling all Anglicans

[ionesmum]

What do you make of the statement today re the gay issue?

Also, what do you make of the CofE in general?

I'm struggling to stay with the church at the moment, and could really do with some fresh perspectives on things.

But if the Churches in Africa are indiginous and don't depend on us for anything, what does it matter if they disagree radically about homosexuality, women bishops, whatever and break away? If "our" view is the more enlightened one, aren't they attempting to stifle the progress that has been made in the UK towards inclusion of minority groups (women, gays), why should we encourage them to stay with us and pander to their outdated views?

Goodness, hope I'm not coming across as some kind of little englander- I'm really so wishy-washy that I wouldn't want to offend anyone by disagreeing with them, but can't see that it's a major problem if the African churches break away. Does the Church need them for some other reason, or is it simply a case of trying to keep the family together by coming to a negociated settlement, which by its very nature takes ages and ends up upsetting everyone along the way?

thanks Geordie, I will be in touch. One thing I do know is that I have far more to offer since becoming a mother, I knew nothing about life before. I'm not saying that's how it is for everyone, but it is for me.

To come back to the Africa thing, I don't necessarily disagree with you - it's a very difficult subject. I think what I am trying to say is that the African leaders could take a more Christian attitide to gay people without necessarily having an Western-style understanding of sexuality. There is no reason why they cannot accept celibate homosexuality. I think (although I may be wrong) that a number of Western primates believe that one day Africa will 'catch up' with the West and come round to a more liberal way of thinking - and I don't see that happening. We come across as very arrogant in this and I do believe it is one reason why the African churches so entrenched against a more liberal stance. It does go back to what you were saying about colonialism - I think they see this as an attempt at cultural imperialism on our part.

I am sure that Rowan Williams does find it all very distressing, but I really don't see how anyone with his conviction on the gay issue could go against his beliefs in this way. I just don't see how keeping the AC together is worth such a compromise.

mind you, I can talk - last week I was ready never to set foot in an Anglican church again; as of yesterday I'm on the deanery synod...

Ionesmum: "last week I was ready never to set foot in an Anglican church again; as of yesterday I'm on the deanery synod... "

lol!

I see what you mean about africa catching up- I certainly agree that they will not become more liberal. I however hope they become more enlightenned- even if that is not in the way that the west expects!

Power games! Basicaaly maybe what's happenning is that who 'controls' the anglican communion is up for grabs now...and different people are flexing their muscles!! Africa, America, England
etc....

I agree that negotiating some sort of acceptable path to maintain unity is impossible and painful...and that at some point churches should leave...there is a limit..... BUT in the case of Africa..they are in the majority position...so who should leave? Or is there is a split..who can legitmately call themselves the anglican communion? (sorry being provocative )

Geordie, I think that the Anglican communion will have to split - it will have to break before it can be fixed. And I fail to see why the CofE is conforming itself to a more conservative agenda when that is not the will of the majority of its members. I think there are a lot of power games going on - one of my problems with Anglicanism is how political it is. I also think that the CofE will have to change radically - it seems so intent on hanging onto things that are barriers to faith.

MP It's a long story...

Geordie: Your points are v. interesting about a third province, but I can't see anything else happening. I don't see how Synod can put off having women Bishops, it doesn't make any sense. The 'experiment' of ordaining women has proven itself to be successful, end of story. To be honest, I think that parishes such as mine are so anti-women (I believe taking its lead from the PP in our case) that a lot of people are actively keen to have a third province. It's depressing.

The problem with a third province is that I think a lot of parishioners in my church (for example) will leave because they will no longer feel themselves to be properly a part of the CofE in a third province. Also, I think there was some sense in some parishes maintaining caution WRT ordaining women, but now it seems to me that the experiment has worked (as I've said) and the arguments are much less convincing.

When my parish originally voted for the resolutions there was a 50/50 split within our PCC, which gives me some glimmer of hope that in the event of a third province, we might possibly agree to stay within the main CofE - or at least it will raise the debate again which I think would be welcome.

Anyway I'm waffling. Would you mind if I CAT you Geordie - I'd like to hear about your experiences as a mum working in the church?

WRT the homosexual issue and splitting (all these expressions seem so Freudian - the BBC actually wrote that the Anglican church "would ask members to withdraw to prevent splitting" which seemed VERY rude to me!) - I think a break is inevitable, it is just a matter of whether it is now or in 20 years. The issue won't go away and if things remain the way they are then it will be a witchhunt every time a gay member of the clergy is promoted.

What price unity? That's the question. The price at the moment seems to be that we are maintaining unity at the cost of doing the right and Christian thing.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is if the Anglican Communion were to split. Then, the two sides would just be like any other protestant denomination, but would continue to be our brothers and sisters in Christ.

The church has been splitting ever since it was created. If it makes those who have a particular philosophy to be become a clique, what benefit is there in toning down your own belief to accomodate them. It doesn't mean we have any less in common with them if there were to be a split. And with the Open Table policy of the church (both wings, I believe), it doesn't even prevent the taking of communion in the other church.

I guess one issue is that the liberals tend to need the conservatives to carry the can, financially, so that would be a problem for them if they were to go their own way. Their churches would probably close.

MP - I couldn't agree more. The point I was trying to make (badly!) is that whether or not Africa has the same understanding as the West with regards to homosexuality is irrelevant. We all believe in the same God and read the same Gospel. It is unchristian for Peter Akinola to say that human suffering is of no consequence - it goes directly against everything that Jesus teaches. It is equally unchristian to liken homosexuals to 'dogs' (can't remember if that was PK or someone else). And it is unchristian for certain primates to host a celebratory dinner after their 'victory' in getting ECUSA and Canada suspended. I don't see how a change in their understanding of sexuality would make a great deal of difference.

Ameriscot: "the liberals tend to need the conservatives to carry the can, financially, so that would be a problem for them if they were to go their own way. Their churches would probably close."

I think the issue would be more the CONSERVATIVES going their own way. If a decision is going to be made that will cause a split, it will be a pro-liberal decision.

What evidence do you think there is that the liberals need the conservatives to carry the can? Do you mean in America? I don't think Canada will have any problems - I've noticed that lots of their parishes have "Golf and Spirituality" courses...!

This is something I think would be a problem for Conservative churches such as my parish - If they didn't have the support of the diocese I don't see how 100 people can expect to support a full-time priest and run a massive ancient church. Makes no sense to me.

IMHO it might be a good thing if churches did close. Then perhaps the Church could get away from its obsession with buildings and heirachy and get back to what it was intended to be - the Body of Christ.

mp- of course you can CAT me- I have been thinking lots over the last few days about the women bishops stuff...it's interesting to hear from someone in a parish like yours.....

Big sigh.....it is interesting to hear how other anglicans feel about very public issues like the homosexuality stuff....like everyone I get annoyed and frustrated....
at the end of the day it's the ministry that counts to me....but trying to be christlike is hard...esp when the example set by the pulicity and the public figures confuses the people i try to minister too! It confuses me enough sometimes....

I just remind myself of how much contreversy Jesus lived amongst and how he was not accepted by the religious in his society.....that helps me!

No, I'm thinking of this country.

Having attended a Deanery Synod meeting this week, and looking at the various churches in our deanery, the liberal ones are the ones that can't afford to run themselves (let alone fund outreach projects and missions) because of small numbers of parishioners - they rely on contributions from the conservative churches which have large and growing congregations.

It's simple arithmetic, really.

Buildings are important though - although "the church" is not the building, a decent meeting place is required.

We re-ordered our Georgian church building in 1999 - took out the Victorian pews and replaced them with chairs, installed underfloor heating and carpets, built a raised dais with baptistry, and repainted the lot in authentic Georgian colours, and later installed a screen and projector. The building is now amazing and the congregation has grown from 350 regular Sunday worshippers to 500 in 5 years.

The objective for the reordering was flexibility, visibility, audibility and accessibility - qualities we thought important for bringing the word of God to the people.

Another point on money...

Our church has an annual budget of around £250k, and we have a vicar, a curate, a youth worker, a student worker, 2 administrators, 3 mortgages. We give 10% to mission partners, and have plenty left over that whenever we ask for money for our groups, it is given without question.

Ameriscot, I do take your point, but maybe in a Georigian church these things are more possible. Our churches are medieval, and trying to get anything done is impossible. Trying to heat it is a joke - being in a rural area we have to use oil and we can't afford it - something like underfloor heating is a non-starter. Then you've got the village heritage mob, few of whom are churchgoers, who won't allow us to take ot the manky old rotten pews and replace them with decent chairs - which, in turn, would allow us to make more use of the building in terms of community events. I like the words you used when re-ordering your church - here they seem to be: heritage; traditional; impractical; elitist. The building is in danger of becoming the object of worship. It stands between the community and worship; the school won't bring classes there any more, and it's not safe for toddlers. We have a decent well-ordered building (the village hall) but people refuse to use it. We are only a small rural community and have four such churches, when we only need one. We haven't a hope of getting the sort of numbers that you get. To maintain our buildings in a way that is both safe and suitable is unsustainable. Spending £100k on a building that is used by maybe thirty people a week maximum is immoral.

I think many liberals tend not to give so much to the church because they give elsewhere. There is a feeling (rightly or wrongly) among many people that I know that it is more effective to give money to causes that are directly saving lives than to the Church, which is often suspected of financial mismanagement.

It's hard, Ionesmum. We did come across problems with both the Georgian heritage people, and the Victorian heritage people - it took high level diocesan intervention to crack them . We also had problems with the descendents of people who donated things to the church, such as the pulpit. The local press loved the scandal .

Prayer was the most important thing, though. We knew that it was God's will to have the right kind of church building and persevered.

geordie, until recently I too lived in a parish that had passed resolutions A&B but not C. They've now been recinded, but I don't think we have a hope of getting a woman priest in. When I found out that the resolutions had been passed - unlike in morningpaper's parish it was kept very quiet - I was devastated. I couldn't conceive of bringing up my dds in a church that was so unjust to women. I feel the same way about women bishops - how can I explain to my dds why we don't have them? Justice is something that is so important to me - I don't mean womens' 'rights' but simple justice, which IMO is something that Jesus taught and which comes from God.

I still find it hard that so few churches address God as Mother. It's not political correctness, it's Biblical. I struggled for so long because I knew that there was a female side to God, but it wasn't until I was pregnant that a prayer experience enabled me to really understand that it was okay to believe it. Why don't the churches talk about this? The maleness of it all can be so alienating for women.

Then there's the latent sexism that affects everyone in the pews. How many men are on our cleaning rota? Our flower rota? Provide refreshments. You guessed it.

Living in a parish where women are excluded is a very painful experience.

Ameriscot, we have similar problems - for example the family of the man that made the pews still live in the village. You would not believe how high feelings run over those worm-ridden things. And in such a small community it'd be a very brave priest who decided to get rid of them.

And I don't know that it is God's will to have the building preserved here...one of my favourite Bible passages is the one in Acts about the early church meeting in people's houses. That seems a far more suitable idea for a community such as ours - we could retain one buidling for festivals and special occasions.

Ionesmum- 'living in a parish where women are excluded is a very painful experience'

Tell me about it!! My first experience of minsitry was in a parish like this. they took me on as a women lay minister (didn't have resolutions) and I was the first woman to 'work' in the parish...that year was awful...now that parish has resolutions. Mainly becuause they now have a pp who is anti!!! I must say the people were great...it was the clergy that bullied me into behaving in a more male way to be acceptable. That's something i have struggled with since- finding a way of ministering which isn't in the traditional 'male' pattern and still being accepted by the church. Becoming a mum really helped me see a way to do this...putting it into practise is tricky and it's even harder getting the church to recognise it as an acceptable pattern of ministry.

I see God as more female...but that's because i have a dad who isn't very nice and was mentally abusive over mum and me and bro for years. My mother however- is what i hope God is a bit like (only perfect as mum is not ). I also find being pregnant and a mother a deeply spiritual experience. The closest I feel I have ever been to understanding God as creator, parent etc

Have you read any Julian of Norwich...I find some of that really helpful in terms of expressing a more feminine spirituality....some Iona stuff is good...

Justice- agreed that is Godly- and that the church doesn't always seek such justice..not just in the area of women tho....fair trade, poverty etc etc
Although it is an issue of justice- it's also about a christian understanding of humanity. God created humanity in two forms, male and female. Christ came as male as that was most effective in fullfilling the prohets, mission in his time etc, a woman would just not have been heard in that culture and time. Christ came as fully human as to be androgenous (sp) would have been seen as sub-human. Just because Christ was male and not female- that does not make men more superior and effectively make women less than fully human. So for me a xn understanding of humanity is that male and female are fully human- both can represent God in the way Jesus did (as a fully human person). I realise that the creation story as told in Genesis can be interpreted to have set a hierarchy in creation...setting man over women..but I believe that Jesus set this into a newer context- where women were valued and restored to a place of full humanity (as he also did for children, mentally ill, sick etc etc).

Yawn...tired not sure if I am making sense!!

off to bed.

Message withdrawn

Actually I do personally invest quite a lot in the church building. However, the kind of church buildings a lot of parishes are left with are medieval - like Ionesmums says. When there are 8 of us huddling in this ENORMOUS cathedral like building on a Sunday morning it feels very odd.

Then again the town I'm in has perhaps 70k population and about 20 old churches. What a shame we can't come together! At least 3/4 of them would be better off as trendy wine bars.

My favourite church buildings are Catholic churches post-1960 - often built 'in the round' centering on the altar - very feminine in fact!

Ameriscot: I'm not wholly convinced by your argument about funding, mainly because a split-causing decision in this country would be a pro-liberal one, but also because all strands of church tradition are in decline - it's nice to pretend that the church tradition we feel is 'ours' is not in decline (and therefore obviously 'right'!) but the figures in this country are very very clear - all branches are in decline, with broad church slowest in decline but still in decline.

Ionesmum: Your thoughts on parish life and bringing up your children there are very like my own. Part of my problem is that the parish church I attend is next door to my house! I feel bad 'church shopping' (and having to travel by car) when I am living so close to the parish church. And I do feel that I do some good in the parish speaking up for the liberal parishioners (who are basically too scared to voice their opinion!) - particularly the retired clergy - we have a lot but they are all v. silent even though they are liberally inclined. But I do wonder all the time whether I'm doing the right thing.

Ameriscot: Your church building sounds lovely, I'm very jealous! Our parishioners take great pride in our 'ancient church' - but it feels more like a museum half the time!

Sometimes I think that the Anglo-Catholic worship movement is stuck with Catholic ideas circa 1900 - modern Catholic worship tends to be so much warmer and people-centred than 'Anglo Catholic' worship seems to want to emulate.