Rector's blog

Last night 30 people met for the discussion about the issues raised by the government’s consultation on “Equal Civil Marriage”.  The atmosphere was respectful, honest and honouring of each other’s questions and searching.  There were visitors from other churches bringing significantly different approaches to how we handle the Bible and church teaching.  We benefitted from each other’s presence.  I had been anxious about the evening – but was deeply moved by the quality of what was said and the time we spent together.  A few reflections:

There was a useful recognition that Marriage can be called a sacrament.  I use the term in the widest meaning – for though the Roman Catholic Church has for 700 years declared that they recognise seven sacraments, the Church of England has rather acknowledged two sacraments that arise from Jesus’ own life: baptism and Communion (Marriage thus not being one of the “dominical” sacraments).  However, the word ‘sacrament’ can be used more generically to refer to an action or part of human living where we learn about God, and can recognise God’s special presence.  Marriage is sacramental; icons have that same sort of presence; and there is that lovely line from the hymn ‘An upper room did our Lord prepare’ which goes: “for service, too, is sacrament”.  We all wanted to affirm that the context of a life-long partnership enables us to grow in intimacy, commitment and courage, which is what happens when we are in the presence of God.  That can happen whether the partnership is of two people of opposite genders or two people of the same gender.  So affirming the sacramental nature of such partnerships is very important, and may make it easier to deal with questions that seem problematic but should be of secondary importance.

Concern was expressed that the Church of England (along with other churches) appears to be about to go through the same sort of pattern of changes as happened over the last 30 years when divorce has gradually become “normalized”.  By this I do not mean that we don’t take divorce seriously – but the church has adapted its rules and behaviour so that, as well as affirming the great importance of marriage, we can now also deal positively with situations of divorce and re-marriage.  But this cultural change within the church has been grudging, hard fought and produced many casualties along the way.  Do we really want to resist similar social changes (as regards civil partnerships and ‘equal civil marriage’) in the same mean-spirited way?  What would it take for the church to get on the front foot, and be seen as a community of faith that has the resources positively to imagine new possibilities?  To paraphrase the Prime Minister, what would it take for an archbishop to say “I support Gay Marriage, not in spite of being a Christian, but because I am a Christian”?

Towards the end of our evening I put the following questions to a straw poll:

do you want me to make a contribution to the government’s consultation based on our discussion tonight?

do you want me (in my synodical roles) to press for a change in the Church of England rules so that Civil Partnerships can be blessed in churches?

if that rule change happens (which will allow individual parishes to make decisions affecting what they offer), do you want Holy Trinity and St Mary’s Guildford to register itself as a parish which will bless Civil Partnerships?

in anticipation that a rule change may be coming our way, do you want me to be open to leading such blessings now?

All questions were strongly endorsed and supported – with a small indication that we may need to handle the publicity around question 4 carefully.

And finally, there was the big question – in giving people a chance to express their personal opinions about the way forward for the country, I outlined two options.  Option 1 is that as a nation we should recognise, endorse and celebrate Civil Partnerships, honouring them with high social status as much as we do Marriage now.  In comparison with Option 2, this acknowledges a difference between the two institutions of Marriage and Civil Partnerships, though the legal protection afforded by people entering into either institution is the same, and the status of both is “an honourable estate” (to quote the Book of Common Prayer).  Option 2 on the other hand recommends that as a nation we have one institution called Marriage, which would be open to couples of the same sex or different sexes.  This emphasises what such relationships have in common: life-long bonds that are faithful, stable, generous, sacrificial, courageous, adventurous, loving, supportive…. are life-enhancing, both for society and for the individuals involved.

At the end of the evening, I gave people a chance to declare where they stood.  A few wanted neither option, seeing both as steps too far.  About 10 people abstained – some acknowledging openly that it is uncomfortable and disappointing that there is not yet a clear common position that we can all endorse.  About 8 supported Option1; about 12 supported Option 2.

So what now?    The easiest thing to say is that I hope there will be changes about the religious blessing of Civil Partnerships soon.  It will be important how this is done, and the attitude that is displayed within the church as such change happens.  It will also be important to see how widely people want this simply as a first step to more far reaching changes.  I am still keen to hear further opinions.  The “gay community” (as it is sometimes misleadingly called) is many layered and has a range of opinions on these matters.  We need to be careful to include those most closely affected in such discussions, and be careful about anyone claiming to speak on behalf of others.  We also need to be sensitive to the consequences of changes – what is right for us (as individuals or as a country) may not be right for others.

It felt an honour to be part of such a discussion.  I am very grateful to all those who took part.

It’s been a bit of a struggle this week to prepare material for the discussion that I am hosting tomorrow evening in response to the Government consultation on “Equal civil marriage”.  Let’s not beat about the bush: having read the paperwork from the Equalities Office, they are making proposals and not consulting.  They declare clearly their desired outcome – and they are therefore searching to hear voices that agree with them.  As well as reading their material, I have been reading church-based articles such as letters from Roman Catholic bishops, and an advisory document from the Church of England Evangelical Council (which tells you the “right” answer rather than advises you about the issues).  There is not much discernment going on – not much searching after good practice and what will strengthen community and individual lives.  I am reminded of the phrase from an intemperate and busy leader: “when I want your opinion, I’ll tell you what it is”.

GK Chesterton wrote “we do not protect the truth; the truth protects us”.   In the ordination service for Bishops, they are charged to maintain the unity of the church, uphold discipline and guard the faith.  It’s the last phrase that can beguile and mislead bishops into inappropriate behaviour.  Some behave as though they are the mouthpiece for the faith – what they say is, by definition, God’s truth.  Some behave as gatekeepers to the faith – as though ordinary Christians cannot reach the truth except through the teaching of a bishop.  Some behave as though the faith is permanently under attack – as though they alone are the ones who must preserve the faith undamaged for the next generation.

In contrast, I believe that truth and faith are plentiful – abundantly revealed and held in different ways by people who aspire to live godly holy lives.  Searching after goodness is itself a sign of Truth.  From the earliest narratives in the Old Testament we read of God revealing commands, ideals, beauty and holiness (in other words, truth in its many varied forms) to the whole people of God.  Time and again, the rulers – whether they were judges, monarchs or priests – sought to be the sole mechanism for dispensing God’s wisdom.  But the prophets time and again blocked that way, reminding all the people that they could not escape responsibility not only for living truthfully, but also passing that on to the next generation.

Nowadays people will talk of “multiple intelligences” – in other words, that human beings can be intelligent in many different and incomparable ways.  David Beckham is a classic example – a man who has more intelligence in his feet than the whole House of Bishops do (in their feet).  Rowan Williams uses the phrase “only the whole church can tell the whole truth”.  If we restrict ourselves to one avenue of hearing God’s wisdom, we are shutting ourselves off from some of what we may need to hear, and some of the people to whom we may need to listen.

Seeing it in this way, guarding the faith becomes about ensuring that revelation is heard, that quiet voices are listened to, and that the community of faith is a place of encouragement and strength so that, for each one of us, our lives boldly proclaim the challenge of what it means to fight against evil and to follow Christ.

I am off to St Columba’s Retreat House tomorrow, with Jane, Brian, Rod and Jonathan (the parish clergy team).  Theresa Ricketts is joining us too for 24 hours away.  We do this roughly every two years, so that we have quality time together, outside the normal pressures of meeting on weekday evenings.  We will cover a range of issues – I have been asked to lead a session on delivering worship.  As a student I did a lot of drama, both as an actor and a director.  I use the same skills when I prepare for worship, always trying to see how things will appear from the perspective of the audience/congregation.  Too much worship that I experience elsewhere seems to centre on what the priest is doing and saying.  I am interested in combining a high level of participation with a low level of demand (so that worshippers can be free to think, dream, pray or drift off to wherever they need to go).

“Participation” is a key word for two other topics that are filling my mind at the moment.  Guildford Methodist Church has invited the St Mary’s congregation to join them for worship this coming Sunday at their church in Woodbridge Road.  Actually they want to extend the invitation to those who may be interested from the Holy Trinity congregation.  As we grow closer together with the Methodists, it will be important for us that many are supportive of this at an appropriate level of participation without too much demand.  It would be a shame if everyone left Holy Trinity this Sunday for the Methodists – and equally a shame if no one went!

I am also aware that we are in the phase of the parish’s year when we have invited people to reconsider their financial giving to the parish.  I was so pleased when someone, earlier this week, expressed appreciation for the way we are leading this annual renewal process: informative, inviting, displaying an excitement about parish life and an openness for others to join in.  Renewing our giving is largely about inviting participation – not placing a burden of “ought” on people’s shoulders.

There is a great phrase in the collect for this week (from the Book of Common Prayer).  It mentions God’s command and promise – and the verbs that you might expect would be that we do God’s command, and receive God’s promise.  But the prayer does not say that – we pray that we may love what God commands and desire what God promises.  Both those verbs are far more participatory – we are intimately and fully involved in the building of God’s kingdom.  That is the graceful invitation: will you accept?

I am having dinner with the Dean tonight.  Just before he was installed as Dean in 2002, I arranged a lunch so that he could meet some of his fellow clergy in this Diocese.  Ten years later, it seems right to say a “thank you” – on behalf of myself and this parish – to Victor.  After Evensong this evening, we will hide ourselves away in a discreet location in a café in town – but the laughter and loud voices will still probably disturb those dining nearby.

For Victor is a great provoker – his behaviour as well as his words demand reaction.  In this way, as in many other ways, Victor is Christ-like.  Jesus would not have been an easy man to be alongside.  Jesus’ words and behaviour so often nudge us off balance; we have to move on, having heard powerful words of kindness, justice, ideals or judgement.  We should not seek to domesticate Jesus – not one has quite yet managed to domesticate Victor either.

So he may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but he has brought new life to the Cathedral – and there has been much joy (in heaven as well as the Cathedral).  Speaking personally, I also have experienced Victor’s amazing pastoral skill.  Every so often I have had a formal Ministry Review with Victor during which he has always left me feeling better about myself and my ministry, as well as recognising more clearly what new possibilities lie ahead.  He has also advised me well when relationships within the parish and diocese have been difficult – never taking sides, but always showing understanding.  I knew Eric James, who died last week, both personally and professionally.  He was a great priest, a wise preacher, and a courageous prophet – a giant of a man who will be seen to have significantly affected ministry in the Church of England over the last 40 years, though he never held high office.  Victor is close to being in the same category – rare in these days – but as he has, I hope, at least 20 years of “retirement ministry” ahead of him, it is too soon to write Victor’s obituary.

So, I give thanks for Victor – we, as a parish, can give thanks for his support and example, and for his continuing advocacy for the distinctive ministry of this parish as well as his delight in the close links we have with the Cathedral.  That merits a supper tonight – and we can enjoy Choral Evensong (sung by our choir with the Cathedral choir) at the Cathedral on May 20^th.  Finally there will be Victor’s farewell service at the Cathedral on June 17^th, before he puts on his carpet slippers and moves back to London for a disgraceful and eventful retirement.

There was a very heavy and full agenda at the Archbishops’ Council today.  We had to begin with five major financial items (you may have noticed that I will not divulge information that properly only belongs within the Council, even though it may not be confidential – but I feel I can report on general discussion).  When we came to the final item, Rowan asked – nearly begged – us not to spend too long on it.  “Do we want to commission this work?” he tentatively asked.  A chorus of “no” despatched the agenda item in less than five seconds.  Just as well really, because this project might have cost £1800 – which, given that the annual budget is for £28M, suggests we should not have been discussing this in the first place (political reasons for it being on the agenda, I guess).  Anyway, in the budget discussion I was taken to task for querying one line of the budget – but since we spend £12M on that I felt it right to ask something.   “Why” I queried, “are we spending £12 million on training people for ordination?”  I was not questioning the amount, or the fact that we need ordained ministers in the church.  But asking Why is a good way of requiring someone to articulate what otherwise can be taken for granted.  Indeed, an answer might provoke questions such as – why are we not spending more?  Why are we not allocating some of this for lay training?  What happens if we suddenly have a lot more ordinands (the Church would be hard pressed to fund that)?  Every other budget line has to justify itself – nothing should be sacrosanct from being questioned.  Perhaps especially the ordained ministry.

The trickiest item on the agenda was consideration of the Church of England’s response to the government consultation on Gay Marriage.  I stressed that Marriage, as an institution, does not belong to the church.  We might have experience and teaching of what makes for good marriages – and how marriage is an honourable estate, contributes to the common good, and worthy of taking seriously by all who value community as well as personal happiness.  But we cannot expect the government to listen to us merely because we are the Church of England, nor simply because we believe that the nature of marriage is somehow authorised by God.  We have to explain, persuade and convince others of truth on terms that they will understand and accept.  There is a tradition of pastoral theology in the church that wants to root human well-being so clearly in what is taught in the Bible that it becomes inaccessible (or, worse, unwelcome) to those who do not share our starting point.

Perhaps the common theme in these two moments from our meeting is that hard work may be needed to justify and explain what is most obvious (and not what is unusual).