The church is too slow

It took 20 years for the Church of England to agree to ordain women, from the point where it was first raised. That is quite extraordinary, in modern society. At the start of this time, the ordination would have been a radical and groundbreaking step, identifying the church as a leader in equality politics.

By the time it actually happened, it was playing a game of catch-up, trying not to be one of the last bastions of male privilege. While it was great for those who could then be ordained, it indicated far bigger problems in the church.


It then took another 20 years to propose making women bishops, which is ridiculous. If anything, it highlighted the gender inequality even more, because it quite simply denied certain top positions to them, irrespective of their qualification for the role. The fact that the first vote rejected the idea was quite unbelievable. 40 years after it had been established that there was no theological reason to deny women positions within the clergy, some within the church had still not got the message.

The whole farce has, without question, lost the church many people who are tired at the slow pace of change.

I should make it clear that, while the Church of England is very much the focus of this, most other churches show the same type of slowness in dealing with other issues, or even this one. There are churches who will not let women into leadership still (not just the Roman Catholics, who have a far bigger mountain to climb).


And today, the church is still struggling with homosexuality. Having congratulated itself on allowing women to be bishops, as if this is a radical move, it then turns on alternative sexualities and rejects them, flying totally in the face of the rest of society.

I don't mean that the church should be mirroring society. I don't think this is the biggest danger at the moment. Rather, the church should be leading society in terms of acceptance. They should not be accepting gays because society is - they should have been accepting of gays way before society did, and seeking to encourage them into stable, long-term relationships, rather than promiscuity, which was, at one time, rather more common (before AIDS made this far too risky). The church should be ahead of the curve, rather than objecting to conforming after the fact.


And this worries me because the church is liable to spend many years tearing itself apart over homosexuality (and then many more years over bisexuality, asexuality and all sort of other alternative sexualities) before finally being forced to catch up, having lost many more people. To be clear, the church still seems to consider sexuality in a binary sense (Homosexuality vs Heterosexuality), and hasn't really started to understand the breadth of sexuality that people express.

In this time, it should be accepting people irrespective of their sexuality, and looking at issues of gender fluidity. This will become accepted within our society in the next few years, way before the church has even acknowledged that it is a question that needs consideration. People should - of course - be accepted irrespective of their gender definition, but more than this, the church should be helping people acknowledge and understand their gender in far more fluid terms than a simple binary.

I am sure that there will be those who say "We never had gender fluidity when I was young. It's just a fad." I disagree. In fact, it has always been around and an issue, but you may not have met it for two reasons:

1. So many who could not resolve their gender in a way that society would accept either hid it or took their own lives. Both of these involve a life lived in pain and denial.

2. People who have gender questions would probably not come to you or to the church, knowing that they would be condemned.


The church is too slow. By the time it comes to ask important questions, most people have moved on. By the time it comes to answer them, they are seen as a dinosaur. While this is bad for the church, I am more concerned at the many people who are condemned, hurt, rejected and damaged while this process goes on. It is not acceptable.

Is this government a cult?

 A discussion on the Ship made me consider that this government might, in fact be a religious cult. Let me explain why I think this.

1. A charismatic leader. Well, some people think he is. A smooth talker at least. That is a good start, someone who seems to be able to convince people that black is white.

2. An unerring belief in their own ideas. Irrespective of how demonstrably wrong or mistaken they are, they still believe that the Tory Ideal for Britain. The problems are always something to do with either the precise implementation, or the refusal of other people to accept them properly.

3. Total dismissal of anyone who disagrees with their principles. We have most recently seen this in the gagging of government funded science, where scientists are not allowed to criticise the government if they are funded by them. But it is wider - they refuse to accept insight from anywhere that does not sign up to the Tory Way.

4. "It is the right thing to do" - I have heard this so often, it is becoming a Cameron mantra. But it is the justification for all sorts of things, and there is nothing to really say against it. "No it isn't" sounds like childish arguing, but often this is the appropriate response. It is a brilliant piece of strategy and a dangerous approach to governing.

5. "If you vote for anyone else, you will go to hell". We hear this - in various forms - so often. Labour will ruin the economy (like the Tories haven't already), anyone else is a waste, voting for the Tories is a vote for a Greater Britain. It is so like the language used in churches and cults - "Stay with us, however much we abuse you, because if you leave your worst nightmares will happen". It works in so many abusive relationships.

Earthquake, wind and fire

Recently, I have attended my first Quaker meeting, and it got me to thinking about how I experience God, and how that has changed. This is about those reflections, and where I have gone through to get where I am today. The idea of how things have changed partly reflects the words to Elijah - although not entirely. For me, God has spoken through the Earthquake, Wind and Fire, and is now, maybe, speaking through the Still Small Voice.

I used to meet God in the earthquake - the noise, the unsettled reality. That time and experience helped me see God wherever I was, at work, in the car, in the city. I was not having to go somewhere else to find God, to experience him, because I could experience Him in the business of life. I still can - I have not lost that, just moved on. God is there in the noise, the music, the chaos.

I also used to meet God in the wind - in nature. Seeing a sense of God in the natural is important, and reflects (as the previous idea does) something of a Celtic perspective. This is not about worshipping nature, but about seeing God as a creator God who can be experienced through the natural world.

Anyone who knows some of what I have been through in the last decade or so knows that it has felt like the fire. It has been a difficult few years, and I still hurt from them, but I have found a new experience of God in it all. In truth, I am struggling to say I have found an experience of God through it, but I can hope that I can say this in time. I have been through the fire, and I have not lost my faith, which might be all I can say.

And now, maybe, I can find him in the still small voice, that is the Quaker style. I can't say that I will definitely stay with them, but the approach of being quiet, listening for God, experiencing him in the quiet. I think he has always been there, but it has never been where I have met him. I think the silence is nothing like as oppressive as what I call "Anglican Silence". The silence can be broken, and there is an acceptance that for some people it will mean nothing. What is more, it is only an hour. That used to seem like a long time for me, but I have learnt to manage that. It might be old age (I am sure it is not maturity).

Additionally, the "Anglican Silence" (not just Anglican, but it is prevalent in some areas of Anglicanism as seen in silent retreats in particular) is very much about "providing some input and insight, and then being silent to consider this and pray about this. I have always found that insanely aggravating, because I want to talk about what we have heard, to think it through with others.

The Quaker silence turns this upside down. The silence - with any words brought during that - are the place where the insights come. There is time to consider them, to work with them in silence, but then there is time to talk and discuss (if needed).

I should clarify that this list is not a hierarchy. It is not that I used to experience God in one way, and now I have matured and experience Him in a new way. It is that I change, and develop, and add new ways of experiencing God. It is descriptive of my journey, not prescriptive in any sense.

Why Quakerism? I think I have had enough of services, of the songs, the sermons, the prayers, the words. I have heard them all, sung them all, spoken them all, and they are no longer ways that enable me to engage with God. Worship that has none of it is different.

Cancellation - a short story

Mum was furious, of course.

“That’s unprofessional, cancelling at such short notice. What are we expected to do now?” Of course, what she did was work furiously to find someone else. But it was never going to be the same.

I had been looking forward to this for so long, because this was going to be a very special event. I know it was only opening the town fate, but he was going to be here, and I – as mums only daughter – would be in charge of him, look after him for the hours he was around.

Of course, at school, this made me the centre of all attention. Everyone wanted to be my friend – except Jennifer Oswald, if I remember correctly, who though he was a creepy old man. But then, she was never one to go along with the crowd. I looked her up recently, and found that she had taken her own life many years ago. That shook me. I wondered when I read that.

And yes, I loved being the special one for a change. I loved all of the attention being about me – well, about him, but about me being the conduit to him.

When mum told me he had cancelled, my world fell apart. It might have been the last chance I had to meet him – he was doing less these days, and he was rarely on the TV. This was my one chance gone.

Needless to say, the day itself was an embarrassing failure, despite mum finding some soap star who could fill in.

It was a few years later that he died, and it all started. I couldn’t believe it when the rumours started, all those people telling lies about him. Why would they do that? Why would they say that stuff about him, my hero. Why would they tell all them lies about him? He would never do that – he loved kids. I couldn’t understand why so many people wanted to make him out to be a monster. Stupid cows – telling their stories for their minutes of fame.

Of course, now I realise the truth. Now I know what he was, I can see. It’s amazing what hindsight does. Now I realise that I had a lucky escape. I used to think that the weekend was my nightmare when I had missed my chance to meet Jimmy Savile. I now realise that it was my lucky escape from rape, abuse, a nightmare like Jennifer.

CFS and ME

At a recent visit to my doctors, she raised the possibility that I might have CFS, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, also known as ME or PVFS.  Which, I have to say, sucks big time.

So I have been exploring and considering what this might mean, what CFS might be caused by, at least in my case. I think I have come to an understanding that seems to work for me (and I am not offering any wider perspective, or any clinical perspective).

When I am ill, one of the things my body (and this is common to most people) does is goes to sleep. My mum says that I always used to do that, and I still do, because sleep is a natural healer. Often, when I am ill with a virus or similar, this works because the body has a chance to fight the problem, and I get better after a day or so.

The problem, as I understand it, is when this reaction goes out of control. In PVFS (Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome), the sleep response doesn't stop once the body is capable of handling the remaining infection. I have suffered with this before I think, and eventually I got over it - after three months.

The other time when it can kick in is when the body can tell that it is ill, but sleeping is not the solution. Depression is a case in point, when sleeping is unlikely to improve things. I suspect this is the case for me here, so I am hoping that this will lift given some time.

But this is not to dismiss the fact that ME can be, and often is, very long term - many years. I suspect this is still the same process, but where the response does not die away after time. the body continues to think that it needs to sleep to heal, but it doesn't.


So, that is how it feels. As I said, it is not a clinical assessment, just a representation of how it feels for me.

On a day when I have nothing else to do, I will sleep later than usual (9-9:30), enabling me to do a little bit, but nothing too strenuous. I will eat lunch around midday, and then need another snooze before being able to do a little bit in the afternoon. It is not unknown to be asleep or nearly asleep all afternoon. After tea, the evening is normally OK, but I am not a night owl, usually heading for bed for 10:00 - 11:00.

That has quite an effect on my life. I do manage to work, which is exhausting but satisfying. I know that I am fortunate to manage to work, despite the fact that this takes me out for the evening. What is more, it means that I cannot concentrate for a long period - this means that writing something like this blog is a struggle. Keeping the concentration to compose and type a piece of this is difficult.

"OK so it is just being tired then? I get that when I do too much". Once again, this is missing two of the three letters. The third word is "Syndrome", which just means that nobody really understands what it is about. The other two, that are so often missed are "Chronic" and "Fatigue".

"Chronic" means that it doesn't go away, it doesn't get better with sleep, it is always there, and there is no immediate chance of it going away. It is not just being really tired when you have been busy - it is being tired whether busy or not, whether you have had a good nights sleep or not.

"Fatigue" is not tiredness. It is the ache and struggle to move that comes with a body that wants to stay asleep, to recover, and not to have to move. And it is that ache that comes when you are so tired that your muscles are sore. And this doesn't go away with a bath and sleep.

So yes, it is real, and it is disabling.Over last weekend I was on a retreat, and I discovered what I could do, with no pressure. If I had a nap in the morning, and another one after lunch, I could cope and be gently sociable the rest of the time. I could do some writing and reading with this regime. One day I even managed to go out for a while (I would walk down the garden occasionally). That is about it. That is my ability without getting tired and incapable.

Against that it should be noted that I hold down a full time job. If you have understood that, you might realise just how much this costs me, how much it takes to achieve that and why I can do little else.

The virginity myth

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Do unto others

Matt 7:12 and Luke 6:31 is one of the often quoted core aspect of Christianity: Do unto others as you would have them do to you. As I was thinking about this recently and realised that it is not as self-effacing as it appears to be, and I had to consider whether this is because it is less altruistic than we understand, or that we need to re-express it in a way that reflects the meaning of the original.

The problem with it is that it focusses on the giver. It says, or implies, that the way the giver wants to be treated is the right thing for everyone. This can be patronising, but - more commonly - it can also be unhelpful. If what I want others to do for me is to leave me alone when I am struggling, then a strict interpretation of this means that I should leave others alone when they are struggling. Of course, not everyone wants to be left alone - some people find it better to have others around them, to be visibly supported. In this case, doing to others would be seen as a negative. Of course, it also works the other way round.

Now I am not suggesting for one moment that we abandon this passage "The Golden Rule" just because it can be misused. I think it is far too important to be simply ignored, rather, we need to work a little harder to properly understand the depth of it. I tend to reject the idea that it is intended as a justification for patronising people, because Jesus explains it as "summing up the law and the prophets", which do not patronise. So I am forced to consider how it should be expressed.

I think it might better be expressed as "Treat others how they wish to be treated, considering how you would wish to be treated in the same circumstances". Not quite as catchy, but changing the emphasis to the receiver, and what they want, not the giver. I might want to simply say "Treat others how they want to be treated", and this is, to my mind, the heart of it, but not the whole. It should involve asking others how they would like to be treated, but, for example, a thief might decide that he wants to be treated as if he wasn't a thief, and be allowed to get away with it. That is not necessarily the best for anyone.

So there is a part which also asks how you would like to be treated in a similar situation. However, this is a secondary consideration, and should be a more general aspect - "with mercy" would be a good answer here. The thief may want to be allowed to go free, but, if I were in a similar situation, I would want to not have to steal any more. I would want to be helped out of the situation I was in that meant I was stealing and had been caught. So punishment is appropriate, but merciful and with a view to redemption, not simply suffering.

We - Christians, the Church, Westerners - are very good at using this sort of passage to inflict our solutions on other people. I do not believe that was the intention,and I don't think that is how it would have been heard originally. The intention is not to focus on you, but to put you in the other persons place, and then to consider how you would feel - if you were actually there, rather than just hypothetically.

It is very easy to say "If I was unemployed, I wouldn't want handouts, I would want people to find me things to do in my lovely spare time". That is hypothetical, and probably not true. It is harder to say "If I was where they are, unemployed and asking for money, I would want someone to give me some money". That is really what it is about, actually putting yourself into their shoes now, at the point of contact.

In the end, it reflects a saying that I hold very close, despite the antiquated and trite language: "There but for the grace of God go I". I have never been able to rephrase this as succinctly, so I stick with this phrasing, and understand it as meaning that I might be in their shoes, were it not for some twists of fate. If I was in their shoes, I would want people to be good and kind to me, in a way that I want, not in a way that they deem is good for my soul.