Take, Eat...

The letter printed today in the Mirror and signed by 27 bishops, Methodist and Quaker leaders here reflects fairly, I think, experience on the ground. Anyone who helps at a foodbank will know that demand seems to be increasing. Those who are there regularly  are sometimes shocked by the stories they hear which are more reminiscent of Charles Dickens' portrayal of urban poverty than anything you would expect to find in 21st century towns and cities. Rural parts of the UK are also affected and poverty there is often exacerbated by lack of access to transport which is, of course, itself relatively expensive to afford.

The bishops' letter doesn't reflect the complexity of the situation. As the DEFRA report Household Food Security in the UK produced last June shows, the causes of poverty and sudden inability to meet the living costs of your family are multi-faceted. Contributory factors include job loss, job irregularity, sudden unexpected bills, withdrawal of of delay in receiving benefits (often without warning and time to plan), late payment of entitlements of various kinds. 

It would be helpful if the government was more transparent about what it is actually trying to achieve through reduction of welfare provision so that we know what we are up against. If it is true that they are actually prepared to push half a million people into hunger in order to force a situation where 'work pays' then honesty about their policy (much as I would abhor it) would help the voluntary sector to organise itself to cope. Church leaders are well placed to play an active part in doing this. If, however, the government is really unaware of the havoc its policies on welfare reform are causing, then serious re-education of MPs and Ministers is urgently needed. Church leaders are well placed to point this out and facilitate meetings.

Lurking behind all the party political point-scoring and the dubious analyses of causation is, I believe, a much more fundamental issue which, again, is very much the churches' territory. Food has become a scandalous problem in our society. It is a spiritual issue as well as a practical, political and economic one. How have we created an economy where we grow so little of what we eat, we pay farmers not to produce, we underpay some farmers for what they do produce and we allow supermarkets to control the markets and, worse, to scrap prodigious quantities of food every day? How have we become a society where sharing food is so ridiculously complicated? Families don't eat together, let alone regularly and normatively invite neighbours in to share food. Health and safety regulations mean that left over food cannot be shared and the ability to cook simple, cheap nutritious food from raw ingredients is almost dying out.

In some societies, when there is a shortage of food, people come together to cook and to eat. Preparing and consuming our daily intake of food is now such a privatised and individualised activity in the UK that we are finding it difficult to organise ourselves effectively when sections of society don't have enough to eat. I recently visited a home where there was food from the foodbank on the counter in the kitchen. The family, demoralised by anxiety and depression, didn't have the means to heat it or, really, the knowledge to make it appetising for the children. Next door, their neighbours were having similar problems.  

We have so lost the values that support social cohesion that we are slowly undermining our ability to do the fundamental thing of eating together, whether as a family or as a community, in times of stress and difficulty. This is a deep moral dis-ease. It is not by accident that a meal, the eucharist,  is at the heart of the Christian faith and the church's existence. To eat together, to share, not only food, but social contact is what makes us human in the image of God. What are we doing to ourselves when neighbours go hungry, millions eat alone and the answer to hunger is to hand out tins and packets (I'm not belittling the importance of this, but it is somehow a rather sterile action speaking of utility more than emapthetic compassion and the goodness of God's natural provision.) 

Last October, I wrote a post called 'End Go-it-alone Eating' here  At the time, I wasn't as aware as I now am of the crisis in food poverty. I was thinking more of general sharing and of our personal experience in North Yorkshire and Greece. But I think what I said captures the nature of the deep crisis we have over food - producing serious hunger in one of the most affluent countries on the globe.

Will you join me and thousands, or hopefully millions, of others in the End Hunger Fast this Lent? Follow the link to read about it on their website or follow them on twitter @EndHungerFast 

And I don't often say this, but well done the Mirror!  
    

What Are You Glad for?

This question may appear Pollyanna-ish but it contains a profound psychological truth. One of the most wonderful things about Jewish liturgy is the way in which the community and the individual are encouraged (nay, commanded) to bless God in every circumstance. A blessing is to be pronounced over food, land, descendants, homes, children, the future. In every conceivable circumstance, regardless of whether a person might feel like blessing God or receiving God's blessing or giving thanks, a prayer of blessing is to be pronounced and acceded to by the family or community. This is a sacred duty. 

If you read some of the blessings found in Judaism and then think of the circumstances in which they have been prayed, you cannot but be moved, and your soul opened up by the extraordinary generosity to which they witness. This is as true of the psalms as of the prayers offered up during the Holocaust. In these prayers, we see a human generosity that is reflected back from the very heart of God. And that is the power of blessing, isn't it? It opens us up psychologically. Think about it. I may be in any kind of circumstance yet there is God-given power to respond in the way I choose. I cannot sincerely thank my brother or pray God's blessing on my sister and yet hold bitterness towards them in my heart. Truly to bless another is an act of extraordinary power which sets the other free and also sets me free. Priests bless in a symbolic way, but all sorts of other people - mothers, fathers, guests, hosts, siblings, outcasts - bless too. If you cannot forgive someone, to read prayers of blessing and to acknowledge before God that you would like to be able to forgive may be a fruitful way toward release from your sense of injustice. But the power to choose the way lies with you.

So what is blessing? Do you recall an occasion when you were so overwhelmingly joyous that you could have included everyone, forgiven anyone and still had love to spare? That is the dynamic of blessing - that is how God looks on us. Blessing over-spills and runs into the meanest corners of our lives like a raging torrent. And so I come back to my question, 'What are you glad for?' What can you bless God for? For what would you like to be thankful? What are the deep sources of gratitude in your life at the present moment? Because, acknowledged, or overlooked, these are the sources of life in all its abundance.

I've been struggling quite a lot lately. The struggle to bless God or to feel blessed has pointed me to so many things I take utterly for granted on a daily basis. Had I been born 150 years ago, I would have been almost blind. I'm so short sighted I depend on contact lenses and glasses from the moment I open my eyes in the morning. I bless God for the miracle of sight. In another generation, I would not have been able to have a ministry as a priest because I am a woman. Whatever the difficulties, I bless God for that opportunity. Everyday I hear the stories of people who are approaching their death with courage and honesty and I bless God for their example and everything that I receive and learn from them. 

What are your deep sources of blessing? 

David Keen, on his blog Opinionated Vicar has encouraged us all to spend Lent being grateful rather than critical. This is very much within the Judaeo-Christian tradition of 'shalom', wholeness. To be profoundly grateful, even when there is only a little to be grateful for is, I believe, the key to life and love. It might seem naive, but it is, in fact, profoundly world-changing. 

End of Life Care: Ministerial Survey

Clergy and Lay Ministers please help!

A colleague is currently undertaking a research project for Saint Michael’s Hospice, in Harrogate. This piece of research seeks to build an understanding of the levels of expertise, training and confidence that British Anglican clergy and Licensed Lay Ministers (Readers) have in dealing with issues around dying, death and bereavement. The outcome of this project is to assess whether these groups have any training needs in the areas mentioned above and, if so, understand the training that may be needed.

As part of this project we are directly seeking the views of as many clergy and lay ministers as possible through a questionnaire. If you fit into either of these two categories, it would be great to hear from you.

Taking part is easy. The questionnaire takes just 12 minutes on average to complete. You can do it online by clicking on the link below:

Saint Michael's Hospice Clergy & LLM Survey

We know this area may be of interest to many of you and we would welcome any additional feedback on the project. You can get in touch by emailing jsingh@saintmichaelshospice.org or jhenderson@saintmichaelshospice.org 

Harrogate, North Yorkshire

Thank you!

A New Reformation

In Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale, the Pardoner's job is to travel around selling 'indulgences' - assurances that, for a sum of money, people's sins had been forgiven and their entrance to Heaven smoothed. At one point in the tale, he says that actually he could not care less whether 'their souls go a-blackberrying in Hell.' It was outrage at this kind of moral corruption that fuelled the Reformation and gave rise to the need for the Roman Catholic church also to reform itself at the Counter-reformation.

A modern woodcarving

Are we in a pre-second reformation place today? Robert Warner, in his article Why Young People Turn Their Backs on the Church here tells us that research shows that young people (a good number of whom would identify themselves as Christians and people of prayer) experience the church as as morally corrupt as Chaucer's medieval audience did. In a society where living together before marriage, the use of contraception, acceptance of gay and bisexual life styles and questions about end of life that challenge traditional values are all seen as normal, responsible moral stances, what does the church have to bring to the table?  'Senior clergy want the church to be more engaging without softening its traditional moral absolutism. One recently described modern Britain as 'floundering among meaningless anxiety and despair.' That is one interpretation of the revolution we have seen over the past 50 years. Another might simply be that' 'People have embraced a new morality and it is the church which is now considered immoral.' This is true even for many who consider themselves Christians. In a nutshell, the moral convictions espoused by society at large and 'new paradigm Christians' radically challenge some of the church's moral teachings and values. The church has been found wanting not only in these teachings but in its own failure to live up to them in profound, structural and persistent ways even when such behaviour is repeatedly uncovered and pointed out.

I was invited to speak, yesterday, at a meeting about the position of women in the Anglican churches in England and Wales. Having listened to an informative and well-reasoned presentation about the latest proposals for women bishops in the Church of England and the plans to accommodate those who will not accept them, I did my usual spiel about how extraordinary it was to be having such a conversation at all in 2014 in Britain. One of what looked like 3 women under 35 in the audience then commented that her generation find the church's apparent difficulty with women offensive. Young women today are not brought up to think that they will be barred from doing things because of their gender. Any organisation that attempts to do this ought to have a convincing rationale for its stance in order to have even a modicum of credibility and, in this respect, the churches specularly fail. An example might be the Armed Forces' arguments for the exclusion of women from some jobs; although some do challenge this, most can at least comprehend the arguments. Women coming newly into the churches, then, are  going to be brought up short by a massive shock (one described it as a 'body blow') when they realise there is a hidden agenda that constrains their role and contribution simply on grounds of their gender. I've heard this story time and time and time again over the past 10 years. It was certainly no surprise to see from Linda Woodhead's latest set of statistics in the Church Times this week that there is currently only 1 ordained woman under 25 and 19 under 30 in the Church of England. See Not Enough Boots on the Ground

So what does this new paradigm Christianity look like? What manner of reforming fire is sweeping through Christianity? At the Reformation 400 years ago and in the counter reformation that followed, it was a fire that destroyed or refined assumptions about the church's role in controlling sin and forgiveness (justification), about the place of the sacraments in that process and about the interpretation of scripture. The reformation that is gathering momentum today seems to me to be a fire that will radically redefine (if we let it) the church's role in controlling human relationships especially around birth, death and sexuality. These are essentially questions about our creatureliness and it is perhaps no coincidence that they are emerging so strongly at a time when our understanding about our relationship to the planet is also undergoing a revolution.

For some these changes cannot come quickly enough. For others there is great apprehension, not to say a sense of anxiety about major shifts in paradigm. Coming, myself, from a tradition that takes scripture very seriously and continuing every day to rejoice in the treasures found there, I see in the Biblical texts huge resources that fuel this refining fire. Not, I hasten to add, in particular passages cherry picked and strung together to support sociologically-driven arguments. But in the witness of the whole narrative of scripture. Over a 5,000 year period we do indeed find 'texts of terror' (whose function is more to describe an historical social order than to tell us anything direct about God or theodicy) for women, gay people, people of the 'wrong' ethnicity or clan or family. But we also find among the people who follow God most passionately an amazing range of relationships based on personal integrity - and the losing and finding of integrity. Courage, respect, patience and willingness to stand against the social norm when required to do so characterise these 'rainbow' relationships. Think of Jacob and Rachel, Ruth, Naomi and Boaz, Esther and her people, Jonathan and David, Mary and Joseph, Jesus and John, the beloved disciple.We also find people whose relationships break down (Joseph and his brothers, David, Michal and Bathsheba) but who do not thereby cease to play a significant part in the purposes of God. In the New Testament and especially the gospels, we have the surprising fact that relatively little mention is made of the place of marriage in the lives of those closest to Jesus - and this is a culture where family life and the bearing of children were highly prized. Instead, around Jesus, we find all kinds of friendship groupings - brothers and sisters, single and married women, single and married men, small groups of women and men friends for whom Jesus Himself is said to have felt differing degrees of friendship and love. 

Picture taken from the Baylor Proud website, 'Helping Churches Welcome Kids with Special Needs'

What leaps out from the pages of scripture is that relationship with God, the courage to be true to oneself, and the wisdom to do this in the social setting in which one has been placed so as to bring good and remain true to God's purposes are what matter. Unless the churches of the twenty first century rediscover this, they (we, I should say) will wither on the vine and struggle to bear fruit. Unless we respond to the spiritual and moral evolution around us we will increasingly be accused of hypocrisy and immorality by younger generations who have been touched by revolution that is already far advanced.   

Fresh Thinking About Church Growth

Before Christmas we held a Light Up a Life event at the Hospice where I work. Over 800 people turned up on a chilly evening and stood or sat under the trees in the grounds. What did we do? We sang, we listened to music, we heard stories, we lit up a Christmas tree, we fell silent and remembered, and we crammed ourselves into a marquee for food and drink. Some hugged and exclaimed as they met staff or other families they knew, some sat quietly and pensively, wanting to stay with their own thoughts, some slipped away unobtrusively into the gathering darkness. A lot of thought and organisation had gone into the event by many of the staff, volunteers and patients. The chief exec and the chaplain briefly introduced items and people, made a few announcements and ensured that everyone knew what was happening but there was no very obvious sense that someone was 'up front in charge'. Clearly there was something spiritual going on in many people's hearts and minds. There were considerably more people at the event than there had been the previous week at the hospice's Light Up A Life carol service in the cathedral.

Linda Woodhead writes, this week, in a Church Times article Time to get Serious , about the evidence for the decline of the Anglican church in the UK. John Binns, in A Language Designed for Insiders , then makes some interesting comments about the powerful potential of the very worship that includes the already-committed to exclude almost everybody else - and you can see this illustrated in David Walker's apt cartoons. Linda makes the point that trends in decline do not necessarily continue to the point of annihilation. Indeed, I remember that when I was at theological college in the 1980's we worked out that, on then-current trends, the Church of England would cease to exist in 2009. Well, of course, it hasn't. But the situation is pretty serious.

When we think about church growth we seem, I think, almost always to be asking the wrong set of questions. Much of what I read about 'church growth' in fact explores the reasons for church decline. Commentator after commentator asks, 'What are the reasons people are not coming to church?' This leads to huge amounts of hand-wringing, guilt and fear, perhaps especially among clergy who work in situations where there is serious decline. It also leads to too much concentration on 'being welcoming' without any research to show what in fact people find 'welcoming'.

Instead, why don't we ask, 'Why would people come to church?'  Organisations that have energy and the power of attraction are usually focused on what they do believe and what they do offer, not on the stumbling blocks to engagement. They are communities of hospitality gathered around shared values and purposes. I asked some of our Light Up a Life attendees why they might think of joining in a worship activity. The answers went like this.

To take a bit of space out of my hectic schedule.
To participate in something that takes you beyond yourself.
To be able to share your concerns with people who will understand.
To be challenged about the things I know I avoid or get lazy about.
To learn about Christianity - to ask some of the really deep questions I have.
To be with people who are searching for God or love or something.
For a bit of peace.
To be close to our loved ones.
I think it's helpful to hear stories that make you think.
To find some strength to carry on.
As a resource for inner light and peace.
To help me find ways of explaining things to my children.
If I felt the other people wanted to get to know me I might go.
I'd hope to discover the wisdom I need to tackle things that are going on in my life.
I'd like to know more about how you can pray and what happens when you do.
I'd like to be able to go just for a bit - if you could come and go like we did here.
I need to see forgiveness - I need it for myself but I need to see it in other people's attitudes too.

If that's what some regular non-worshippers would come to church for, what shape would worship need to take, how would it look and what attitudes and behaviours would need to be in evidence? What language would be accessible? 

I have recently discovered the blog Church in A Circle. Written by Kathleen Ward, it  explores new ways of being church and, in particular, of worshipping. It's grounded in the experiences of an actual worshipping community founded by Kathleen and Kevin-Neil Ward. In regular short posts, Kathleen describes ways of worshipping that are certainly more in tune with the some of the things my little research group told me. The subtitle of her blog gives an idea of where she is coming from - 'From monologue to dialogue. From audience to participation. From performance to empowerment.' You can read it here

The clear message is, I believe, that churches must focus on positive questions like 'What are people looking for?' 'Why would they come?' and 'What will they find that is good here?' 'What will they understand?' 'What is meaningful?' As we discover answers (which we will), we must do, and do more of those things. And as Church in A Circle finds, this will involve a radical revisiting of power structures, learning styles and  physical environment in order to help people reconnect with the treasures of gospel and tradition. This is non-denomnational work but it will have to have profound consequences for the organisational and governmental structures of the churches - and the question for the Anglican churches is, can we respond to this and can we do it quickly enough and in sufficient depth? 

Women Against War

One of the books that moved me most as a teenager was Vera Britten's Testimony of Youth. It is the story of her life and work as a VAD during the First World War. She tells how, by the end of the War to End All Wars, she had lost her brother, her fiance and almost every young man of her acquaintance. Yet she kept working as a nurse and saw some of the worst horrors of the wounds inflicted by the conflict. After the war was over she used her experience in the service of her political commitments. How, you wonder, did she accomplish all this and emerge as someone of sanity, vision, commitment and energy?

2014 is undoubtedly going to be a year of WW1 Memorials. Jeremy Paxman is already presenting his personal take on the war in a series of documentaries. If I am not going to get war-fatigue by the end of the year (and presumably we will have the same again in 2018) I feel I need to focus my own remembrances in some way, just as Vera used her own experience to launch and shape her future campaigns. 

My grandfather fought at Passchendaele and came home one of the generation of very silent men. He would sit drumming his fingers and gazing into space for hours, as if in a place where no one could reach him - as indeed he probably was. My grandmother was fierce in her pride in what he had endured and her determination to work for something better. She was one of that idealistic generation who perhaps thought that, had women gained the vote earlier and therefore had more influence in the political arena, such a war could never have happened. (We might not share that rather naive optimism today, but I find I have to admire it.) I remember her telling me the story of the first Soroptimist meetings she attended. There was great excitement as his was a truly local and global movement, formed in 1921, with high ideals which included a vision for bringing professional women together to harness their skills and work on the international scene for peace. It grew out of the determination (ultimately unachievable) that the only way to honour the dead of the Great War was to work tirelessly to ensure that such a conflict would never happen again. The name, taken from the Latin soror (sister) and optimus (the best), signifies that these women would come together from across the world to bring about the best that could be achieved by and for women. They would seek peace, equality and international goodwill, ensuring that women and women's perspectives were represented at international level, initially through the League of Nations. Today the Soroptimist NGO has significant representation at the UN and works to create ways to transform the lives of women and girls and to bring about peace in war torn zones.

Soroptimist International 

This week I have read so many stories of women being excluded or only partially included in talks that are set to bring about new political order - in Iraq, in Syria, in Afghanistan, in Egypt. I have also read about how the Central African Republic is bucking the trend in having Catherine Samba-Panza as its interim President; she has 'inherited a hellish legacy that leaves her trying to pull her country back from the brink of civil war,' (David Smith, The Observer here) So I thought that a good project for the blog, this year, will be to try to follow the fortunes of some of these groups and individuals throughout the year. How far are women realistically able to shape government after conflict and civil war? Has their influence grown and do they bring anything distinctive to the table?

Slightly Confused on World Hijab Day

It's World Hijab day today when women of other faiths and non-hijabi Muslim women have been wearing the hijab in solidarity with their Muslim sisters and in order to try to experience a little of what it's like to cover up. The main aim of the exercise is, I think, to help us all be a little more nuanced in our understanding and to dismantle unhelpful stereotyping. At the end of the day, I find I don't really quite know what I think about the wearing of the hijab.

Let me say straight off that I think all women (and men) should be able to wear whatever they deem appropriate without being derided, spat at, persecuted by comments or attacked either verbally or physically. I deeply respect my Muslim sisters who wear the hijab and I understand that it is worn for many reasons including as a sign of obedience to Allah. It is something which is central to faith and self respect and signifies modesty and a belief that the personality should shine through rather than allowing a woman to be judged by her natural appearance. (Of course, she still has an appearance when wearing the hijab and in fact her sexuality does not disappear but is presented differently.) There are many different interpretations within Islam of the exact significance of the wearing of the hijab. Most of the Muslim women I know say that they choose freely to wear it.

However, I do see some latent dangers in communities understanding the wearing of particular types of dress as directly related to a person's identity in the eyes of God or the Divine. There is, I believe, no 'ontological' or absolute religious reason for dressing in a particular way. As a Christian, I always wear a cross and, as a priest, I often wear a dog collar and special robes or vestments. I'm proud to do so as a way of showing the world that I am a Christian. Some of these clothes have deep spiritual significance that links me into the whole Christian tradition and into the community of believers today. But I understand these forms of dress, while very significant, as cultural expressions of my faith. The wearing of them does not, of itself, make me more or less pleasing to God, more or less holy, or more or less connected to the Divine. It is a means of saying to the culture I inhabit, 'I'm a Christian' and perhaps, 'I'm a particular kind of Christian.' And the clothes themselves are a means of reminding myself about certain precious beliefs and behaviours. The wearing of religious clothing is fine until it becomes an absolute requirement that allows one group control or coercive power over another. Religions that put what a person wears on the same level as how God sees them or how that person relates to the Divine are in grave danger of foisting the cultural norms of one age, place or group onto another time, place or group in inappropriate ways.

So, 

• Yes to all people being able to wear what they believe their faith requires of them without fear of ridicule or persecution.
• Yes to the adjustments we need to make in a multi-faith and multi-cultural society in order for this to happen.
• Yes to the sense of modesty and self respect that many Muslim women say the wearing of the hijab brings.
• No to forms of dress that effectively curtail a person's ability to engage in their culture in a safe and meaningful way.
• No to forms of dress that diminish, belittle or restrict a person.
• No to forms of dress that are imposed without the full consent of the person wearing them or through subtle pressure. 

(And please take those last two bullet points as as much comments on western European dress as on traditional Islamic dress.)