One addressed to “the boys”

Way back last year (13th December, to be precise) Rachel Held Evans wrote a post on her blog entitled “…your daughters will prophesy”. One comment on that post started a train of thought that has been haunting me ever since. The comment was this:

“someday when Christ asks me to account for how I used my gifts, “the boys wouldn’t let me” will not be an acceptable answer.”

Now both Rachel and her commentator are living in an American church culture in which the issue of women in church leadership and ministry is a hotly, some might say ferociously, debated issue.  Many big-name pastors (whom I shall not name here) appear to have big theological objections to the whole idea that women might have something to contribute to this area. As a former opponent of the ordination of women to the priesthood in the Church of England, I know the arguments advanced for this point of view, and they have resurfaced in the current debates about women in the epsicopate in the Church of England.

My train of thought, sparked by the comment on Rachel’s blog, was this: suppose, just suppose, that those of us in leadership are accountable not just for how we use our own gifts and talents, but also for how the other gifts and talents that God has given his church are deployed. As I look around me I see many women who have undoubted gifts for pastoral ministry, teaching, evangelism and countless other things, including leadership within our churches. Some of these are using their gifting and are being used well and encouraged by their churches. But others most definitely are not. And before someone else says it, this does apply to many men too! We are not always good at using and developing people, full stop, but in the case of men we don’t tend to make such a theological song and dance about it (unless of course they are gay or transexual – but that is another discussion).

Rachel’s commentator understood that “the boys wouldn’t let me” was not an acceptable defence for her letting her own God-given gifts go to waste. To those who oppose the idea of women in church leadership, especially male leaders, I want to ask: will it be acceptable for women’s gifts to be buried in the ground, unused?

In the parable of the talents/pounds (Matthew 25:14ff.//Luke 19:11ff.) those servants who step out boldly, who take the risks, reap the reward not only for themselves but for their master, too. The one who buries the talent they have been given acts out of fear, and ends up losing even what they have. I believe that churches and leaders who ignore the gifts and people we have been given are, ultimately, working against God’s Kingdom.

And, boys: “but they were women,” will also not be an acceptable reply.

St. Paul and the poor

Today the Church commemorates and celebrates the Conversion of St. Paul. It is one of those feast days that even made it into the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a festival of major importance.

For many Christians, this feast focusses on Paul’s experience of Christ while travelling on the Damascus Road. We talk colloquially about a “Damascus Road experience” to mean a sudden and instantaneous change of heart and mind. But although Luke’s account in the Acts of the Apostles certainly gives the impression of such a change of heart, the story that Paul himself tells in the Epistle to the Galatians tells a somewhat different story – one of an extended period of re-evaluation in Arabia before his reemergence on the public scene. Like Jesus’ childhood, biblically this is Paul’s “hidden time,” and I want to suggest that, notwithstanding the dramatic story with which we are familiar, it is this more extended process that is the real “conversion of Paul.” It is what brings about the real change in Paul’s lifestyle and thinking. The Damascus Road experience is simply the trigger for the whole process.

This is, of course, slightly at odds with the thinking of some evangelical Christians who view “instantaneous conversion” as the norm and view any other type as either invalid or somehow inferior. (Fr. David Cloake writes a heartfelt piece about this here).

Paul’s account in Galatians goes on to describe two meetings he had with some of the apostles in Jerusalem. The first appears to have been to establish his credentials and a relationship with them, the second, some fourteen years later, to seek their blessing on his mission to the Gentiles. In both instances things seem to go well and the blessing is given, though subject to a caveat which is rather overlooked in some circles today:

They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do. (Galatians 2:10 NRSV)

Sometimes I hear some Christians say that the Church is not called to address poverty and social issues but to “preach the gospel.” For some evangelical Christians “remembering the poor” smacks of the “social gospel”, a phrase which is pejoratively associated with “liberal Christianity” in those circles. However, it appears from the New Testament that Paul, like Jesus and the other apostles, was concerned with not only the spiritual but also the material condition of those at the bottom of the social heap, those on the margins of society. The Jerusalem church, as shown in the early chapters of Acts, seems to have contained more than its share of widows and orphans, who were supported by the rest of the church’s members. And although nether Luke nor Paul seem to make much of a deal about it, it is clear from this verse that this same concern existed among the churches with which Paul was associated.

This is an aspect of the Gospel which I believe is something of a litmus test for the health of the Church in its teaching and praxis. It has been embraced by Catholic, Orthodox, Liberal and Evangelical alike, but has always needed those of strong minds to recall the Church to its mandate. St. Francis’ views were controversial within the church of his day, and St. Ignatius of Loyola’s in his. Wilberforce and Shaftesbury equally faced down opposition. However, it is not simply the holding of the views that is the really controversial bit.

The really controversial bit, the bit that gets people talking and stirs up the opposition, is actually living it out in practice.

 

Christian unity? Oh, that…

So, as of yesterday, we are in an octave (eight days) of prayer for Christian Unity. It may be me, or where I live and minister, but it is my perception that this is treated as of rather less significance than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Maybe we feel that much of the ecumenical work has already been done, or that the results of several decades of effort has yielded so little in the way of visible progress towards unity. Or perhaps we have so broadened our definition of unity that we no longer feel it there is anything to work and pray towards. How high a profile does this Week of Prayer have among your local churches?

Christian Unity is often thought of as something to left to the enthusiasts. Christians brought up in earlier generations often have a clear sense of denominational identity that sees members of other denominations as, indeed, “other”. Younger Christians may wonder what all the fuss is about – after all we are “all one in Christ” – aren’t we? We attend the nearest church that provides a reasonable fit for our theological and cultural expectations (not necessarily in that order). The institutional governance side of church is irrelevant – right?

Well, I think that these issues are NOT irrelevant. Our relationships with one another are of supreme importance, but they are not limited simply to our private, inter-personal relationships. Our institutions are (or should be)  there to help us relate to one another in a Christ-like way, but they can be (and sometimes are) used to exclude and set boundary markers that are unhelpful.

I think that my sabbatical experiences have made me more eager to work and pray for our Christian Unity than ever before. I was “emotionally ambushed” a number of times, and a couple of these related to our unity in Christ. On one occasion it was hearing sung the words of the hymn “Let us build a house” that did it.

On another occasion we were with an English-speaking RC congregation in Rome where the priest encouraged the congregation to pray for some Anglican-RC consultations taking place that week, at the end of which an NZ Anglican bishop would preach at Evening Prayer the following Sunday. Both experiences left me longing for a Church where we are able to share real unity and fellowship in spite of theological diversity.

But this applies not only to inter-church, inter-denominational relations, but within our denominations as well. We have a tendency to bandy around various labels – liberal, conservative, evangelical, catholic, charismatic etc. – which are intended to pigeonhole people. (And doesn’t it save us having to think about what we/they might actually believe and have to teach us when we are fighting our corner)! Eric Kyte has a “rambling thought” about Churchmanship and labels at The Elves Are Heading West.

The author of John’s Gospel tells us,

And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.
(John 1:14 NRSV – emphasis mine)

Perhaps in our concern for truth we could all show a little more grace and humility. It is John’s Gospel also which records for us Jesus’ own heartfelt desire for unity among his followers. So let’s make it our prayer too.

Heavenly Father,
You have called us in the body of your Son Jesus Christ
to continue his work of reconciliation
and reveal you to the world;
forgive us the sins which tear us apart;
give us courage to overcome our fears
and to seek that unity which is your gift and your will;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.