Mary, Music and Movement

As I have been thinking about Mary and her experience of angels and pregnancy and birth it occurs to me how terrifying it must all have been for one so young, and how extraordinary her acceptance, obedience and faith were. She is a real example of a life lived by faith, of acceptance of God’s will and way, and of catching the breeze (or in her case perhaps the hurricane!) of the Holy Spirit and being ready to move in the Spirit’s flow.

Which reminded me of a conversation I had yesterday in the course of which I recalled a book I read some time ago which likened the Christian life to music and suggested that following Jesus is less like a classical symphony (where all the notes are set out clearly and are to be followed precisely) and more like jazz improvisation (where the basic key and rhythm may be set – although sometimes not even these! – but the within that the musician ventures forth, ‘feeling’ the music, interpreting it, and so forth).

And that is slightly scary!

But it is a picture that makes more sense of my Christian experience than one of rule following and precise ‘black and white’ responses. And it is an image which resonates a little with Jesus’ talk of the Holy Spirit and those who are born of the Spirit being like the wind. You don’t know where it comes from or where it is going.

Faith as improvisation, following like moving with the rhythm, Mary and all that jazz.

I find these concepts all rather inspiring and liberating…

Appreciating Advent

I love Advent.

I have never kept this a secret! I have always loved Advent. It is the sense of anticipation, the themes of hope, the focus on prayerful waiting, and so much more besides.

Sometimes I fear that the distinctive themes of Advent are in danger of being squeezed out, not only by the insistent commercial pressures of which we all know. For even in the church there can be, during Advent, a sense that Christmas has already arrived. All through December Christmas carol services intrude into the Advent preparations. And – yes – to me it can feel like an intrusion!

I know that this season allows us to connect with many in our communities who may rarely otherwise come around the church. I welcome this opportunity and do not at all resent it.

For me the question is much more one of how we – as a Christian community – hold onto the great Advent themes of hope and preparation in our worship and prayer.

So I am eager that we seek ways to meaningfully observe this wonderful season. How much more wonderful our celebrations of the Season of Incarnation will be if we first enter into the prayerful preparation represented by this Advent Season.

O Come, O Come, Emmanuel!

A Place to Talk Update

First of all, thank you to all who you who responded by posting here, or on facebook or (more often) by email; I appreciate your responses.

I was putting the possibility of a dialogue/forum ‘out there’ by way of testing the water. Is there a need? Are people wanting an opportunity for dialogue? Could this be a worthwhile venture if we can admit to uncertainties and be open in our dialogue?

Along with some of you who have responded in one form or another, I do believe that there is a need for open and honest dialogue on this issue… and most certainly on other issues too.

Some of you said that you thought I was ‘brave’. I did not feel that at all. As someone who is not gay, who is theologically orthodox, who owes much to and still affirms a great deal of my evangelical heritage and yet who currently ministers in a congregation who seem happy for me to raise these issues without concern or argument (whatever views individuals may take) made me feel that I was in the safest of places to help facilitate discussion.

I was wrong.

So here is my conclusion after careful consideration of the responses I have had, and especially those which for whatever reason were not publically made, but privately offered by email or via personal contact.

Many of you have said (in effect) ‘go for it David!’. Thank you. I appreciate your support. I would not have posted this if I had not been approached by several colleagues, the majority of whom would self-identify as ‘evangelical’, asking if I would facilitate some kind of forum as they were a) unsure that they still took the traditionalist line on this issue and b) were themselves a little wary of putting their heads above the parapet.

The odd thing is that only a few of these people have made any response to my blog (although I sent the link by email to several). I suspect I understand why. But as the aim was to see if there was a ‘market’ for this kind of forum, I feel I must conclude that there is little scope of such dialogue. And this makes me very sad.

There were those who suggested that this was not the ‘big issue’ and should not be considered as such. I totally agree (which is why – in my blog – the words ‘big issue’ are in inverted commas!) However, from the private approaches and responses I have had I realise it IS a big issue for many... a big issue for gay evangelicals who are afraid to ‘come out’ and a big issue for those who feel they still belong to the evangelical ‘tribe’ and yet question the received wisdom on this particular matter. For them the ‘issue’ is very big indeed. I suspect I would not have been approached by them, had that not been the case. So, while I agree that it OUGHT not be the ‘big issue’, clearly for many it is, and I think those who suggest that I should not get involved in this because it is not the ‘big issue’ are failing to understand what a big issue it actually is for a very large number of people; those who are gay and evangelical and who are afraid, and those who are evangelical and questioning and are confused. My recent experience suggests to me that this is far from a small number, and for them the issue is a very big one indeed.

Others have suggested that I am in a very small minority if I have not yet come to a firm conclusion on this issue. All I can say is that this is entirely contrary to my experience over the last few years. But (and here we get to the heart of the matter) I think that the majority of those who have not made up their minds are afraid to say so. It is safe to do so in private conversation and email exchanges. But – it seems – not so safe to do so in public.

This goes back to some of my previous blogs in which I have noted that I may have been effectively ‘de-tribed’ simply on the strength of my view on this issue (although my views are yet to be settled!) In recent months I have been told more than once that I am a ‘liberal’, which was a surprise to me! I suspect that it is simply on the basis of this issue that such views have been expressed.

So this brings me to the other comments I have received… all of them by email. There have been many affirming emails, and many emails wishing to enter into discussion and explore the issues. But I have been shocked and surprised by the angry and vitriolic emails. I honestly did not think we were still at that stage. And I did not expect such a reaction from within the Church of Scotland.

Having been in receipt of such comments and messages I now understand more fully than ever before why it is that a) my gay sisters and brothers feel so vulnerable in the church at present – and especially those who may have regarded themselves as in some sense ‘evangelical’ and b) why my evangelical friends who are asking questions about what they really believe on this issue are so afraid to put their heads above the parapet.

I am hanging onto the hope and belief that what I have experienced is but a very small and unrepresentative minority of folks and I KNOW that most of my traditionalist friends who may puzzle over my present views and uncertainty are yet full of grace in their comments and arguments. My experience of other comments has served to increase my respect for you guys (and many of you have been good at constantly commenting in public for which I am grateful). I hope you know who you are… I love you!

But in general terms this whole experience has been bruising.

I had hoped that there would be a significant number of those who had personally approached me who might have felt able to respond to the blog (even via the privacy of email)… only a few did. I had not bargained for the responses I did get, and I am not sure I am up for that kind of comment on an ongoing basis.

To those who do not believe this remains a ‘big issue’, let me say that my experience of this last 10 days is that it most certainly is… sad though that may be.

To those who felt unable to respond to my blog but for whom this remains a defining moment, I understand both your present situation and your fear of openly responding... let’s at least keep the door open.

To those who were encouraging, my heartfelt thanks. I would hope that we might yet manage a conversation that would allow for gracious engagement across viewpoints etc. I am genuinely sad that – for me – this does not after all seem like the time.

To those who would have wished to be part of a conversation… it may yet still be possible. I have not finally walked away from this. But it has not been an easy few days.

Meanwhile, I am going to start blogging on other matters…

A Place to Talk?

Something has happened over these last few days. Or, rather, a series of things have happened.

The first was that a reader of my occasional blogs got in touch and asked to meet. I had not been aware that he had been a reader of my blogs, but he wanted to chat about the ‘big issue’ (yes that big issue... gay relationships and the ministry and so on). And so we met and chatted. Both of us acknowledged that we came from backgrounds that were ‘evangelical’. We further acknowledged that we remained doctrinally ‘orthodox’, affirming without hesitation ‘the Word of God as contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the supreme rule of faith and life’ and affirming the creeds of the church. And yet, on the current big issue… well, we no longer find ourselves firmly in the ‘traditionalist’ camp.

Then on Sunday past one of the members of St Cuthbert’s said ‘You have not blogged recently’. Once again, I had not been aware that she read my blogs. But it spurred me on to re-engage with my blogging!

Finally, a few evenings ago, it was suggested by someone I know well and who has many connections throughout the church that if I were to think of providing a forum for discussion on the issue then it might be helpful. I am not sure I know all that lies behind this comment. I suspect that something had happened to prompt the observation. I can only guess. But perhaps all these incidents suggest that the time has come to do something.

So everyone, here goes…

… I have absolutely no interest in forming yet another pressure group or any association of people who simply wish to promote or reaffirm a pre-existing and fixed view on the question of the ordination of openly gay folks.

But what I would be willing to help facilitate is a forum / conversation / exploration with those who would not instinctively self-identify as theologically ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’, who take a high view of the authority of Scripture, affirm the faith once held by the apostles and enshrined in the catholic creeds, and yet who remain unsure about the ‘traditionalist’ views on THIS issue as espoused by those with whom they might normally otherwise agree. This would be a conversation which might include folks who take ‘traditionalist’ or ‘revisionist’ views on the ‘big issue’ but who are open to exploring with others and to changing their view, and who therefore wish to open up a debate with others in a context of (on the one hand) openness and genuine exploration and (on the other hand) Biblical integrity and creedal orthodoxy.

I realise that the preceding paragraph is extremely convoluted. But I hope you understand why and ‘get my drift’!

Let me know if you think this might be worthwhile. Ignore it (or tell me!) if you think it is a bad idea.... which it may be!

Luggage and Labels

I have told this story before. But perhaps I may be allowed to tell it again via this blog. I suppose it must matter to me.

It was 2001 and I was undertaking Study Leave and was spending my 8 weeks investigating the Alternative Worship movement in the UK and writing up my findings.

I travelled to several cities throughout the UK to visit alt.worship communities and to converse with a number of those involved.

One afternoon in York, having just come off a train from London, I repaired to a quiet pub for a pint, to read a bit and write up some of my reflections. A man approached me, “Excuse me, but do you know that someone has stuck a label on your back?” he asked. I had not realised that someone had attached a label to me, and was grateful that the man had pointed it out. I asked him to remove it. He did so, and handed it to me, and it transpired that it was a luggage label that adhered to my back from the baggage I had been lugging around.

I sat down, grateful to have been saved the embarrassment of walking around York with a label on my back, took a sip of my pint and then smiled. For much of my ministry - indeed for much of my Christian life – I had been struggling with ‘labels’ and with the baggage that seemed to come with them. I had been lugging this baggage around with me. Was it now time to ditch it?

Of course, the particular label that I had owned (at least to some extent) was ‘evangelical’. Until the last few years I have self-identified as an evangelical.

Why?

In part because I came to faith in that context, and – for me – trusting in Jesus was a very real conversion experience. Prior to that I had been heading on a trajectory (if I may use that word!) which was taking me down increasingly destructive roads (and having met a couple of those who were also on that trajectory in the intervening years, I am all too aware of where I may have been headed!).

The faith I found within the context of evangelicalism was liberating and radical. I felt that I had been ‘born again’. You don’t get much more evangelical than that! I was set on an entirely different (and life-giving) trajectory. How can I do any other than be grateful for the evangelicals who helped me find such a redeeming faith!

But it was more than simply personal experience: it was genuine conviction too. I believed (and I still do) in the Bible as the ‘supreme rule of faith and life’, in Jesus Christ as God the Son in and through whom God’s love is revealed and especially in the Cross, in the orthodox Christian faith as passed down through the centuries and especially as embodied in the Creeds; that this faith involves a personal response to the love of God in Christ and that such faith is transformative, and that we are called to proclaim the good news of God’s love in Christ.

And yet… and yet… even from my early days of faith I could never completely and wholeheartedly sign up. By the time it got to the late 1990’s I had found what I then thought was a neat way of dealing with it. When people asked if I was an evangelical, I would ask back ‘Is Tony Blair a Socialist’ (this was before we knew the answer was “No”!). My point of course was this, define what you mean by ‘evangelical’ (‘socialist’) and I will tell you. Like ‘socialist’, the word ‘evangelical’ can mean different things and covers a wide spectrum. I knew this to be true, but found that not all that many evangelicals in Scotland seemed to believe it! There was (is) a fairly narrow definition of ‘evangelicalism’ in our nation.

From very early on I had disagreements with other evangelicals. For a start I was attracted to the early charismatic movement which – let it be said – was very different in the early 1970’s from what it became. In these days (difficult as it will be for those who do not recall these times to believe!) charismatics and evangelicals were often in opposing camps. But then the charismatic movement of these days included many Roman Catholics, High Anglicans, ‘social gospellers’, contemplatives etc and was endorsed by the likes of Lord George McLeod who spoke at some of the early gatherings. In the light of all that, no wonder some of my evangelical friends felt ill at ease!

Then there was my love of liturgy and high church ritual. This made several of my evangelical friends decidedly squeamish! And I think they were puzzled that I did not join the Christian Union or the Theological Student’s Fellowship, but instead hung around the Anglican Chaplaincy (with its high church rituals and liberal theology!). But – truth be told – that nurtured my faith more than any of the meetings of the CU or TSF that I attended. But, more, I could never have joined the CU or TSF as I could not honestly sign up to the Basis of Faith. I may acknowledge the importance and significance of the death of Jesus on the Cross (and I do) but why do I need to sign up to ‘the substitutionary sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God as the sole all-sufficient ground of redemption from the guilt and power of sin, and from its eternal consequences’. I did not and do not believe that this one ‘theory’ of the atonement should or does define the nature of what God has done for us in Jesus.

(Oh, and perhaps it is worth noting that on those occasions when I did attend a CU meeting, none of these nice evangelical Christians ever spoke to me!)

Of course, when in ministry and I began to follow the Christian Year, suggested that care for and action on behalf of the poor and marginalised was an essential part of Christian mission, spoke about ‘peace and justice and the integrity of creation’, and affirmed the role of women in ministry (remember this was the 1980’s!) many of my evangelical friends were alarmed. My two contributions at the first General Assembly I attended as a commissioner were in favour of the abolition of nuclear weapons and the equalisation of ministers’ stipends – neither of these were great ‘evangelical’ causes (and yet I believed and believe that they are Gospel causes!). I was not toeing the party line.

What is worse, I was making new ‘friends’. When I commented to one of my new friends that I was amazed at how well we got on given that he was a ‘liberal’ and I was an ‘evangelical’ he was puzzled and said ‘But you are not an evangelical, David. You preach a gospel of love, not of guilt’. He was not joking… and it made me think.

But still I clung to the label. Partly because I could not (and can not) swallow all of the ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ positions either. I have always said how alone I feel in the church, and I still do. One joke that has run in our household for decades now is that we better not have a party to which we invite all our friends, for they would be shocked to discover who we associate with!

And partly because I still owe a debt to my evangelical friends of almost 40 years ago through whom I discovered a transforming faith in Jesus. And also because I still am a credally orthodox Christian who affirms that the Bible is the supreme rule of faith and life, who longs (and works) to see others discover a transformative faith in Jesus, who believes that proclaiming this faith is a central part of our mission. It also must be said that I remain very unconvinced by the ‘progressive’/’liberal’ stream of Christianity which seems to me to be so woolly and sterile and unlikely to have any impact in contemporary society.

So where do I stand?

I don’t know… and I despair.

However, the present controversies in the Kirk are pushing me towards a decision. Some (not all) of what I have heard from the ‘traditionalist’ camp in the current debate on ‘same-sex relationships and the ministry’ has deeply alarmed me. If I were to continue to self-describe as an ‘evangelical’ I might be associated with that kind of attitude.

What kind of attitude do I mean? Well, the constant use of the phrase ‘Scripture plainly teaches’ would be one example. How can a handful of biblical verses only three of which are in the New Testament, two of which are notoriously obscure in the original Greek be taken as ‘the clear teaching of Scripture’?

What is the ‘plain teaching of Scripture’ on women speaking in church (1 Corinthians 14: 34-35) or having authority over men (1 Timothy 2: 11-12), or on divorce (Mark 10: 11-12) , or on birth control (Genesis 1: 28 & Genesis 38: 8-10)… and on this last point, if anyone can find me any Scriptural warrant for birth control, I would be interested to hear what it is!

What is ‘plain’ about homosexual behaviour that is not ‘plain’ about these other issues?

Why is it that we can accommodate various views on these issues but not on the homosexual issue? My questions are not simply polemic; I really would like to hear the rationale.

I have read widely and fully on the present issues and – while I am not yet finally settled on my view, I have still have not come across any argument that convinces me that somehow homosexual practice is in a wee category of its own away from these other issues. And that makes me wonder if there is another subconscious agenda operating here…

And so my problem remains. If I continue to self-identify as an evangelical am I associated with those who are unshakeably sure that faithful homosexual relations are sinful (notwithstanding their accommodation of some of these other issues)?

That I do not feel comfortable with…

… but if I cease to identify myself as an evangelical it does feel like I am somehow being excluded against my will….

Trajectories and Tribes: Thoughts on being left out…

Thankfully it only happens very rarely, but it remains excruciatingly embarrassing for both parties.

‘See you tonight then’.

‘Sorry?’

‘At the party’.

‘What party?’

‘At Jenny’s!’

‘Um… I haven’t been invited to any party at Jenny’s’

Cue awkward and embarrassing silence…

In such cases the person excluded or forgotten probably feels more hurt than anything else. I suppose I feel a bit hurt at the moment, but more sad than hurt. And such hurt as I feel is not for me, but for the church and the process of discernment.

As people continue to react and respond to the General Assembly’s debate on the issue of ministers in same-sex relationships, so groups have been gathering to discuss what to do and how to deal with the implications of the ‘trajectory’ that has been adopted. There have been, and there are to be, meetings of ‘evangelicals’ to debate and reflect and pray. I have heard about these from colleagues and from postings on facebook.

But I have not been asked to attend any of them. I am not surprised. I don’t think that I would now be regarded as ‘one of them’. I saw on facebook another colleague ask if he could attend… answer came there none! That said, it is possible that although I was not invited, I could have attended anyway. Maybe I too should have asked. Perhaps I would have been welcomed. But my impression is that these were invitation only events (and if I have this wrong, then I apologise and will ask to attend next time).

But I do think that the likelihood is that I and others have not been invited simply because we do not necessarily or decisively disagree with the chosen trajectory of the General Assembly. In other words, this issue seems to have become for some colleagues the litmus test of orthodoxy. Why has this happened? Why this issue? Who gave to others the right to decide who is or is not an ‘evangelical’, or who is or is not included?

The late Michael Vasey, author of the book ‘Strangers and Friends’ was an Anglican clergyman, a self-identified ‘evangelical’ and openly gay. Several years ago, when I was having a discussion with an ‘evangelical’ colleague in the course of which I was explaining that I was no longer so sure that the church should hold the ‘traditionalist’ position, I mentioned Vasey and suggested that he was an example of an ‘evangelical’ who took a different viewpoint. My friend responded, ‘ah, but he is not really considered an evangelical anymore’. Why was he not? Because he was openly gay and espoused an ‘affirming’ and ‘accepting’ approach! (And – for what it is worth – there are many ‘evangelicals’ who take a revisionist approach. See http://www.courage.org.uk/, http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7051754.ece, http://www.eflgc.org.uk/, and so on and on… but I suspect that many would consider none of these people or groups is truly ‘evangelical’. Why? Because of the stance they take on this issue! Do you see what I am getting at?)

When Roy Clements – the former Baptist minister, conservative evangelical commentator and much admired preacher and speaker at big ’evangelical’ gatherings – announced he was actively gay, the invitations to speak ceased, his books (which were conservative bible commentaries and did not mention homosexuality at all) were withdrawn by ‘evangelical’ publishers, and he was shunned by his former friends.

His articles are worth a read http://www.courage.org.uk/articles/articles.asp?CID=4.) At one point he writes

‘We have always regarded ourselves most emphatically as “evangelicals”, and our theological position has not changed in anyway. But we have been denounced as “liberals” because we do not accept the purported “evangelical view” on the gay issue. There seems to be a determined attempt, at least by some within the evangelical camp, so to embed a particular view of homosexuality within the evangelical identity that there is no room left for dissenters like us. Indeed, the very existence of “gay evangelicals” has been conspicuously ignored in the entire debate.’

I do not wish to get into a discussion at this point on ‘labels’ and what they do or do not mean, nor on the various tribes of Christians within the church. Another day perhaps! Nor am I seeking to self-identify with, or exclude myself from any particular tribe. But it is interesting to note that where once I was included, now I feel myself to be excluded. And while my theological position in general has developed over the years and labels – however unavoidable – now make me feel uncomfortable, I still feel sad that it seems that I and others are not included in conversations, and I suspect this is because we take a different view on this issue. It seems that this has become the touchstone of orthodoxy.

But what really saddens me is that if we keep gathering to talk and pray in groups of people who share our views, then what results is not discernment, but reinforcement of existing positions.

Can we not talk together with those who take a different view or who do not yet know what view they take?

Can we not listen together, discover together?

Can we stop excluding one another from discussions and try to include one another in these conversations?

I hope so… I really, really hope so.

A Chosen Trajectory - The Assembly decides

Well, it was a tense and intense day at the Assembly, but the Church is now set on a trajectory which MAY lead to the the acceptance and affirmation of gay ministers in stable and committed relationships.

It is strange as - in my heart - I feel both relieved and hopeful - although my mind is still not completely resolved on the matter. Perhaps I still have to travel a little bit yet - but then I have already travelled a long way on this issue...

Conversations with some of my congregation today reveal that they too have been travelling and I was as immensely proud of those to whom I spoke today as I was of the General Assembly. Whatever my unresolved intellectual issues, I found myself turned off by the narrow apparent 'certainties' of the traditionalists.

But - like many others who share the relief and hope I am experiencing - there is a sense of sadness too. Sadness that many will feel very betrayed and bereft at the decision today and will think that somehow the church has moved away from true 'biblical' faith. I profoundly disagree with that perception, but I can understand their pain.

So let's all take a moment to feel their pain too.

And surely none of us - even those who are most committed tot he revisionist position - can feel anything but sorrow that some may chose to leave. I hope and pray that unity might still prevail. But I fear that there may be some - perhaps many - defections. And that is profoundly sad.

And spare a thought too for our sisters and brothers who are gay but who have felt it a matter of Christian faithfulness to struggle to maintain celibacy. No matter our views, these fellow Christians must feel a sense of abandonment and confusion this evening.

And I feel also for those sisters who are ordained ministers and adopt a traditionalist stance on this issue. If there is a split they must be wondering where their 'home' might be in the future.

The journey ahead will continue to be painful and difficult and the outcomes uncertain. Much prayer and considerable grace will be needed in the days to come...