Birmingham Central Hall.....Hidden Space or Living Heritage?

Today my lunch break from work was spent wandering around the old Methodist Central Hall in Birmingham, where Birmingham's Hidden Spaces are holding an exhibition until tomorrow.

I hadn’t been in there before, but I had heard about its history. There are various outlets around it and back in the day it had been a big rave venue. These days it has been a club, but it has lost it's licence and a recent appeal and so it's future is yet again up in the air. I knew it wasn’t in great shape, but I was shocked by the level of disrepair within there. There is a major investment needed in this building which is grade 2 listed as you will see from the pictures I took in there.

Wandering around this building that the Methodist Church had sold some time ago I was deeply moved. There was an emotional reaction which I wasn’t expecting.

As I looked around there was something within me which was trying to make sense of it all. This was not just a building, this was the former spiritual home of some of those I worship with and some of those who sit in congregations I preach to when I am fulfilling local preacher appointments. It is also the building that I pass every day on my work in a university chaplaincy which is on the campus which lies in the shadow of this great building.

In an effort to make sense of it all I turned to the work of Rev Dr. Joanne Cox-Darling and a paper within the Holiness Journal, which Wesley House, Cambridge produce. The article I turned to was Mission-shaped Methodism and Fresh Expressions. Now, before I start I want to make clear that I am aware chaplaincy is not a fresh expression, as such. However, as Kate Pearson identifies within her chapter in Ross and Baker (eds) Pioneer Spirituality: Resources for reflection and practice there is an overlap between chaplaincy and pioneer ministry.

Within her article Cox-Darling has a section on Central Halls which she quotes one minister as identifying as “the Fresh Expressions of their day.” She goes through and identifies some key aspects of their theology and ecclesiastical practice which were important and went beyond the buildings.

As I read through this article and reflected on what I had heard a guide in the Central Hall say with regard to what she thought had contributed to the demise of the central hall I was conscious that within our work we need to recognise far more the inheritance we have and the link to those who were there before, sometimes in the same physical area.

Cox-Darling talked about Central Halls having their own standing orders and legal status, giving a flexibility. When I compare my role and place as a chaplain, who is not ordained and is answerable to an ecumenical management committee of whom the Methodists are a part to my husband and the world he is entering as a student presbyter I appreciate that I do have a freedom others don’t. I do have far more flexibility in my ministry.

The guide at the exhibition had explained that the physical geography of the area had changed and that contributed to the decline of the Central Hall. In the early twentieth century the area was an urban one on the edge of the city centre, surrounded by houses where the universities now stands. For the Central Halls, Cox-Darling argues, “the context is the primary focus of mission and ministry, not necessarily to the original inhabited congregants. “

 

Today chaplaincy exists not only within the university where I work but also amongst the retail community in the city centre. There is also a Methodist Deacon who has a city centre focus within the area. Reading Cox-Darling reinforced something that has been there in various ways all year as I have thought about our proximity to the old building, we in those roles are in a very real way the current incarnation of the Central Hall.

She goes on to talk about the way in which “the missional theory of Central Hall ecclesiology maintains a focus on contextual appropriate service to a local community and a relevant vehicle for authentic and passionate communication of the gospel.” This acts as both a comfort and a very big challenge to me. This isn’t about proselytising, that is clearly not something we can (or wish to) do in this context. It is about being there and being honest why you’re there and sharing God’s love in a way which is real and passionate.

For the most part, as I explained in a recent piece for the circuit bible study material linked to Holy Habit on service, that translates to those things which get built upon filling or emptying the dishwasher and setting out chairs. It is the hospitality and being about which builds relationships and it is through them you not only get to support Christians but most importantly to come alongside and share God’s love with those who are unlikely to set foot in church and learn from them as they to show God's love too (even if they would not name it as such). Put like that, I think that a lot of what was going on in the central hall probably isn’t too different from what we do in our context.

So whilst the building might be crumbling I would like to think the spirit of Central Hall is still there and yes, it is there in fresh expressions and inherited church but it is also there very much within chaplaincy.

My understanding of the heritage I have as a chaplain in the context within which I work has grown as a result of the visit to this space and the wrestling which accompanied it. I still have questions relating to what I saw today and am still disturbed by aspects of it but thanks to the insight of Cox-Darling I am not despairing rather I am humbled as I realise that it is my turn to hold their baton for a season. 

Response to Marriage and Task Group Report and Open Church Charter

This past week has seen the publication of two important documents relating to the church and LGBT+ people. The first is the Oasis Foundation Open Church Charter and the second is the Methodist Church Report toConference from the Marriage and Relationships Task Group (report 29 in the second part of the Methodist Conference Agenda).  At the outset I want to say I am supportive of both documents and wish to express thanks to those whose hard work has produced them. What follows is intended as a supportive critique rather than negative criticism.

I will start with the Methodist Report. My first question point comes from the legal implications. As the report does explicitly mention trans issues within it I would suggest that this section also needs to include that ensuring that legislation related to gender recognition is duly considered. This is relevant to marriage and relationships because if one looks at the legislation one will see there is a grey period where a trans/ cis couple which was previously same sex may are legally be considered to still be of the same sex if the trans person has not gained their gender recognition certificate. The legislation does not allow for them to remain in a civil partnership but for the gender recognition certificate to be granted they must be married. The Equality Act 2010 states that trans people who are going through gender reassignment cannot legally be discriminated against in the provision of goods or services (and as the working group report does state) there is no religious opt out on the law around those going through gender reassignment.

With regard to the report this is picked up in 3.2.2.b.ii “A reality is that the marriage of transgender people in church may be already be happening, because the authorised person and celebrant would probably not know a person’s gender status other than what is on the legal documents. If the Task Group recommends that the definition of marriage be revisited and if that revisiting recommends removing or widening statements around gender, then the issue of transgender in relation to the marriage definition would be irrelevant – although there would continue to be pastoral responsibilities.”

This paragraph is important because it shows that currently, as explained above trans issues are currently relevant in the discussion of marriage and relationships and will only cease to be so if the task group recommend the definition is widened.

 With regard to the definition around homophobia I understand how this came out of the 2014 report and why, as a result of this, it would be outside the remit of the group to also say that definitions of transphobia and biphobia should be excluded within their discussion. However, if a definition of homophobia is going to be included with the CPD document I believe that definitions of transphobia and biphobia should also be included, thus I would argue that these issues also need discussing with Faith and Order in relation to 2.1.4.

What this document is, quite unintentionally doing I believe, is reinforcing the privilege of gay and lesbian people within discussions on LGBT+ (which then serve to make invisible or secondary the concerns of other groups within that spectrum who are impacted by both prejudice and lack of visibility within the church). Following on from this it is important to understand that gender queer people do not have the legal protection that those going through gender reassignment do. Whilst the report recognises and explicitly mentions intersex people it makes no reference to those who are gender queer and does not refer in any way to the problems which the use of binary language in the documents being discussed may cause to those who have a non-conforming gender identity and those seeking to minister to them within the church when it comes to marriage and relationships. In terms of listening to each other I think it is vitally important that these minority within minority voices are heard and that we consider what policy reflects the world we are in now. This is particularly important with regard to the development of scriptural understanding and theology. This is an area where the Methodist could take a lead in producing some excellent scholarship if it included the full spectrum of identities in the work it understands it needs to produce to examine the issues in a truly Methodist way.

I am not sure if relevant documents relates only to documents which have been to conference but I would argue within the Methodist Context the document We Are Family which was a piece of research sponsored by the Methodist Church is also a relevant document to be considered when looking at the issues here.

The fact we can remain united whilst holding disagreement on some issues and disagreement on the dominant interpretation of scripture is important and I am glad the report has underlined this. The model statement on Living With Contradiction in 1.5 is quite moving and I believe should be held up as a model of good practice.

The EDI toolkit produces excellent resources and I would argue needs to be much more widely available. I understand why it takes the form it does but because of the wider importance and use of a number of the documents I would argue they do need to be made more easily and freely available via the Methodist website.

The issue of shared premises and legislation raised in 2.4.1 links to the second point of the Open Church Charter and explains why the term “within the scope of current British law” is so important.

The report brings to light the problems for churches who share premises. Whilst this is a minority problem at the moment I believe if the URC were to say it became a congregational issue and vote denominationally to allow congregations to hold marriages on the “opt in” basis that the number of problems could increase. Whilst understanding about the wish not to pre-empt conclusions I think the delay may be problematic and cause deep hurt in churches which may in the next couple of years wish to “opt in” if the denominational barrier within the URC is removed but are told the discussion cannot even begin to happen because of their Methodist partners providing a legal bar on this. As the report makes clear within it the URC is due to come to a conclusion in July of this year and the Book of Reports 2016 which has been published by the URC ready for their General Assembly (page 32) shows that they are taking the view there is no common view and so recommending it come down to individual churches.

I am pleased that the wording being looked at by various committees in relation to 2.5, on the provision of assistance, is including “other immediate family members” as it widens the scope to not only include assisting partners but also adult children who may for various reasons still be dependent upon their parents.

The discussion of the impact of our understandings and policy on marriage and relationships upon mission is one which is both informative and moving. The discussion shows a real understanding of many of the issues involved and the understanding of what the impact of this issue has been on some church leavers.

The pastoral issues raised show insight and are very important too although at times the insertion of the words “and gender identity” would be helpful too. This is one of the strengths of the Oasis document. It is not cis-normative in its language and outlook.   

3.1.2 is an important piece of this document and it is good that there was work between Faith and Order and the working group on this. Within the issues linked to the view marriage is for procreation I think that further work might be done to look not only at same sex marriages but how this understanding needs to be examined in the light of the marriages of those heterosexual couples who choose not to have children or cannot have children, and those older couples who might marry late in life. This is again a rich area for theological reflection if the church chooses to invest in it.

I want to look at 3.2.2b, already referred to in detail. The argument that there is little or no biblical material on gender identity is true to some extent, however emerging scholarship and theology is being to develop this particularly in how it links to existing liberation theologies and the scholarship around them. The reality is indeed that gender identity is more complex is true and so it is a pity that nowhere in the document there appears to be reference to the concept of “gender queer” or “non-binary” and transgender is in there instead of trans*. Now, I know that much of this will have been based on the consideration of the knowledge of the readership but I do wonder how much actual trans input there has been on this. It is right and proper and really good that the report recognises that gender identity is different to sexuality but there is a complex connection between the two which may exist. I think this is something that all sectors of the church need to look at in more detail, particularly as the number of people who identify as trans and those close to them is growing within the church as a whole, as well as becoming more visible in society.

The recommendation of the EDI to produce some simple guidance on trans is important, although I believe the wording should relate to gender identity as a better and more inclusive term. I also believe that within this there should be specific work, guidance and resources given to providing some resources around the pastoral care of the friends and family of trans people. This is important in relation to issues of loss I have talked about extensively elsewhere within previous posts on this blog.

With regard to the preparation of appropriate marriage resources this is where working with organisations such as the Oasis Foundation, (whose charter explicitly refers to marriage preparation within it) may be useful. Traditionally we have focused on looking at ecumenical partners. I think in the current age it may be useful to look at what para-church groups and organisations can be seen as useful partners too with regard to this type of thing.

The report highlights the excellent work being done by other working groups within the church and the need for joint working. What I think the references to the working group and EDI work, amongst others, do is identify why there needs to be a more joined up approach at times within the church.

What about putting on a national Methodist equality and diversity conference where all the groups concerned with and working on the issues related to the wide range of these areas of diversity and inclusion can come together and share their experiences identifying the common ground between them and how this can be Connexionally harnessed.

The recommendation in 3.2.2 is welcomed but I am concerned about the wording for the reasons previously mentioned. I think the inclusion of the term “non-conforming gender identity” would be an important amendment to make.

With regard to the issues of non-participation I would like to add that within one circuit there was selection of those asked to participate and that to break through that system one had to be eager enough to pursue information on when the consultations were taking place.

As explained in a previous post on this blog I agree the concentration on same sex marriage issues was a shame., especially in light of the range of excellent resources provided to take the discussion beyond this. 

I was heartened by the way in which the youth participation strategy has been taken seriously with regard to this issue and the feedback from 3 Gen has been extensively included.

So the overall conclusion of the task group is we keep on talking and we keep on working on things. On one hand this is really frustrating and I want to scream….can we just get on with it. On the other the way this is being handled is bringing real fruit. There is, through this report, a motion on looking properly at trans issues going to conference and there is real discussion going on about change.

My worry is something which has been reinforced by looking at the conference agenda more widely….do we want to carry on talking until the Anglicans have sorted themselves out and so we can put in place policies which more closely mirror theirs? I know a lot of work went into this report and I do not believe that is the motivation of the working group….but I do wonder if it is the motivation of some others in the church.

As I finish though I want to reinforce my thanks to those who have put this report together and all those who have been involved in helping facilitate the discussions. What we are doing, when compared to many of the other denominations via the resources put together through this group and via the EDI, is actually putting together a lot of good practice.

It does highlight though a worry I have with the Open Church charter. Whilst I fully support it I do worry that point 2 within the charter, because of the messy situation within our denominations, may put people off from signing. Now I know it has been carefully worded to say: “Within the scope of current British law we will offer marriage to couples regardless of gender identity and sexuality and where this is not allowed under law, we will offer celebration, preparation and support for same-sex marriage partners in loving, healthy monogamous relationships” but I still worry if it might cause churches who would otherwise be quite happy and willing to sign to delay.

A long post I know but I hope you appreciate why this one had to be.

Hope in the Methodist Model

A couple of weeks ago I was thinking about the “Facilitated Conversation” I’m off to tonight with dread. Do I really have to sit through rehearsing the same old arguments again? I know more than one person who has decided the whole thing is so boring now they are just opting out of being involved. However, over the last couple of weeks I have been thinking and reviewing some new resources which have come out and have changed my mind.

Firstly, this is not just about hearing the same old arguments about same sex marriage, Methodist Conference have given us the chance to ask ourselves if we want to go on a different journey to the one most of the  other denominations have chosen to go on.

Let me explain myself. The questions that Methodists are being asked in the consultation are:

Whether the Methodist understanding of Christian marriage should be revisited

Whether the 1992 Conference Statement "A Christian Understanding of Family Life, the Single Person and Marriage" should be updated.

The Marriage and Relationships Task Group has asked the Connexion to particularly consider and feedback on:

What missional and pastoral opportunities and challenges could result if the Methodist Church decided to revisit its definition of marriage?

What missional and pastoral opportunities and challenges could result if the Methodist Church decided not to revisit its definition of marriage?

Yes, these questions do include looking at the impact of the government changing the definition of same sex marriage and whether we should change our definitions in line but they also go beyond it. The church is also asking whether we need to re-examine our previous understandings on family life and singleness more generally. This gives us the opportunity to build upon the We Are Family research that the Methodist Church published last year which focused on the changing face of family in relation to children and families work.

The Church are also asking explicitly about missional and pastoral opportunities and challenges. My understanding is whilst other denominations may be touching on these things they are not explicitly asking them to be discussed. So whilst I have clear views on the first session which I will come to in a moment I am excited by the second question and I hope in the conversation I attend tonight there will be opportunity to discuss that in detail.

The second thing that has made me feel less cynical about the whole process is seeing the resources which the Connexion has recently made available as well as knowing they have more materials on the way to foster genuine debate and understanding between different views with an equality course (covering a whole range of equality issues not just sexuality).

The resources recently published include clear guidance on what is and isn’t homophobia. This is a particularly useful resource which I think will help people on both sides of the debate because it gives a framework in which people can talk to each other knowing where the appropriate boundaries are. As far as I understand it we are the first denomination to publish such clear guidance about what is and isn’t acceptable for those who disagree with same sex marriage, particularly, to say.

They also include a really helpful video cast conversation between two members of the working group the Methodist Church currently has on this.(The resource list linked to earlier has short and full versions). The conversation outlines both the breadth of the discussions but also what is really at the root of the debate – the question of which scriptural passages we should regard as of primary and fixed and which we should regard as secondary and more contextual. The video also makes the point that we need to learn to live with difference because whatever happens that difference is going to be there for many years to come. I find this resource exciting because it makes the point that if the church were to really engage with this we will find ourselves going much deeper into scripture and thinking about how we handle it as well as learning more about how to live with contradictory understandings (something I think is ever more important).

The other things which have excited me about the process as I have thought about it is the way in which questions about mission are being focused upon as well as pastoral understandings.

I am excited by this conversation because it has the potential for us to enter much wider discussions about mission in different contexts. In some situations we know a change to the current definition would cause significant challenges whilst in others it would open many doors. Thus, in even having this conversation we are thinking about contextual mission rather than generic mission.

So as you can see the Methodist Church discussions have a creative potentiality in them which I have not seen in the discussions from other denominations.

I have also been excited to see on the Alton Methodist Church site which Google helpfully directed me too Roots (a resource for preachers and worship leaders I am not often overly keen on) has produced some excellent resources to help various ages (including children) talk about how to live with difference. This resource has been produced to accompany the conversations but I believe is certainly very useful independently of them.

Now, within this I do not want to diminish the importance of the campaign for a recognition of all legal marriage by the church but I am saying that a conversation which stops at that and continues with the well-rehearsed debates is missing the opportunities which the Connexion is showing can come from the discussions.

With regard to the missional opportunities my own view is that whilst I can see they become harder in some communities I know that a revisiting will provide some really positive opportunities. The one good thing to come out of the mess we currently have and the campaigns to promote equality seems to be that the secular LGBT world is taking religion and faith more seriously and seeking to be more open to it. The theme of the current LGBTHistory Month is Religion, Belief and Philosophy. As part of this the LGBT campaign group Stonewall have produced a series of short biographies on LGBT people of various faiths. It has been humbling that through this my husband has been given the opportunity to share his testimony and faith with a larger number of people.

* post yesterday evening comment.....disappointed! The conversation was very positive - too positive in many ways as it was clear not all voices had chosen to come along to be heard.

Most worryingly the conversation was only on the first question and only looked at marriage not marriage and relationships. There was no reference to the 1992 Conference Statement. What I must gather from this is that there is not consistency across the Connexion on how this has been handled on the ground. The facilitators were very good it just seems that messages have somehow got a little mixed up on what questions Conference wants feedback on. If somebody could clarify is it just the one question our District is addressing or is it both as is inferred by the introduction to the main web page on the Methodist Church page and as explicitly referred to on the Alton Methodist website, linked to above it would be useful.

Up and Coming in the LGBT world

Recently I listened to a podcast on the Methodist website from a couple who run the Lincolnshire Parents of LGBT children support group. They were speaking about the journey they have gone on and how it has inspired them to support others. Listening to it was encouraging for a variety of reasons. Firstly, it was inspiring to hear their story and how that being faced with personal challenges had led them into being able to support others. Secondly, it was good to hear how the support that Two:23 and the group it runs for parents together with Diverse Church is developing into inspiring regional groups such as this and finally it was great to have another example of the Methodist Church seriously engaging with trans.

The support now being provided for parents through Lincs Parents, Eklektos and Diverse Church Parents - part of the wider Two:23 and Diverse Church family, which, to the observer such as myself, continues to grow in ways which seem to confirm God’s blessing is something I think is incredibly important. It is important to note that these ministries are seen as something positive which are being offered in addition to groups like Fflag not in competition to or in replacement to them.

It also prompted me to think about how it was probably time I did an overview of what’s going on at the moment because as ever the sands have been shifting in the Christian LGBT area.

One of the most significant changes over recent months has been Jayne Ozanne taking over at the helm of Accepting Evangelicals. Jayne is somebody who has previously been part of the Archbishop’s Advisory Council which I understand from those who can translate Anglican structures and processes for me (i.e. Karl) is quite an important group. For those unfamiliar with her the interview she did with Ruth Gledhill in February is worth a watch. Readers in Kent may be interested to know she is speaking at an event in Whitstable on 6th June which was covered in an article in the local newspaper.

Keeping on the Anglican theme the facilitated conversations are underway now and there seemed to be mixed responses to them emerging from participants. Rose Grigg talked of her experience in quite positive terms on her blog. Thinking Anglicans have posted Erika Baker’s reflections which have also been positive talking of “hope”. Canon JeremyPemberton however has not been so positive in his reflection. Whilst he recognises how well the sessions have been organised and led he writes a piece which highlights the reality of the situation when some from the conservative evangelical position refuse to attend and how he found the experience to be “demeaning and infuriating”. The Changing Attitude website is a good place to look to keep informed on what is coming out of these meetings from a LGBT perspective.

Of course it is not just the Anglicans who are having important conversations at the moment in one form or another they are taking place in most of the Protestant denominations at the moment.

This week the Church of Scotland meets in Edinburgh and their General Assembly will be making important decisions regarding ministers in Civil Partnerships and in marriages which are between two people of the same sex as reported in this BBC article.

The URC has been seeking to come to a consensus and has been facilitating discussions within local congregations and more widely within the organisation about congregations being able to decide whether to conduct same sex marriage. The results of these discussions show the the division on the matter in that congregation is split between roughly two thirds being in favour of congregations being able to choose for themselves and one third against. The denomination’s council met this month and has voted to pass a resolution from a working party recognising the ongoing division on this matter and taking the discussions on at local synod level for a final decision to be made at the General Assembly in 2016 rather than recalling an emergency meeting on this issue in June according to the papers which the denomination publishes on line.

The Methodists are continuing their discussions on the matter and their discussions are due to go to conference in 2016 also. Within the denomination Outcome is the group who campaign on behalf of LGBTQI people and they continue to positively move forward in their work. They are holding their annual general meeting on 30^th May in Manchester and amongst the speakers on that day entitled ““An Inclusive Church: This year, Next year, Sometime, Never” will be Vice President of Conference Mrs. Gill Dascombe. They are also holding a fringe meeting at Methodist Conference in Southport on Monday 29^th July. The meeting on 30^th May will be important because they are also announcing their strategy and a resource to explain it to others.

The Baptists Fresh Streams Network has put up a range of resources on their website. Also within this denomination Affirming Baptists, the group working to support LGBT Baptists and their allies, is continuing to grow and develop their work. They have a bright updated website which is advertising an event on 18^th July Continuing the Conversation which is aimed primarily at those within the denomination and is “an opportunity to hear and share about engaging pastorally and in gospel mission with those in same-sex partnerships”.

Many of the groups mentioned above together with others will be part of the Christians at Pride group who are aiming to provide a positive Christian witness as part of the Pride in London celebrations next month, which will include more groups than ever. (This does provide some issues personally because Karl will be there with Santander who have been proactively developing their LGBT network and along with Facebook and others are amongst the new groups have registered to be on the parade this year and so I have to decide whether to go along with him or be part of this group). There has also been a call via face book for supportive clergy to come along wearing their clerical collars in order to counter the view many of the public, particularly within the LGBT community that the church and clergy are all anti-LGBT. If you are coming along on June 27^th to that event please try and wear purple.

On the subject of clergy who can legitimately wear purple lots of the time Bishop Alan Wilson recently spoke at the LGBT Fellowship Hulland East Riding. The Bishop of Buckingham was also one of the speakers at the recent Oasis Open Church event on Sexuality which Ekklesia reports was a positive event. Another one of the speakers at that event was Vicky Beeching who was also a speaker at the GCN conference in the USA earlier this year and her talk is available online. She has also been appointed as an advisor on LGBT issues and religion to the United Nations. It is important, though, as we think about these speakers and praise their efforts not to question where we think issues of integrity may exist and a good place to find some of these questions is on the God Loves Women website where the writer has raised some important and interesting questions.

Bishop Alan is also due to be the speaker at Two:23’s next meeting on 13^th June. Podcasts from recent speakers at Two:23 including youth worker Jo Dolby who spoke movingly and Greenbelt Festival regular Dave Tomlinson are also available on their website.

 

The LGBT Fellowship have also had LGCM’s Tracey Byrne and Stonewall’s Ruth Hunt as speakers at an event previously. Ruth Hunt is the keynote speaker at this years LGCM annual general meeting and national gathering which is happening in Nottingham on 6^th June. Stonewall is also moving forward in the development of incorporating the T into their work and is currently appointing a trans advisory group in order to help them do this. The Quaker LGBT+ group QLGF are also taking on board the T and their website advises on October 31^st they will be holding an event which will be focused around listening to the experience of trans and gender variant people.

The work of Catholic LGBT group Quest continues to grow and is encouraging to see that in the past week they have celebrated mass with Cardinal Vincent Nichols. Apparently this is not the first time that Cardinal Nichols will have met with LGBT Catholics but it is the first time that it will have been publically announced and so that is encouraging.

A final interesting developments, more generally to note, are that Inclusive Church has published two more books in their series on inclusion and by definition exclusion. Today in Guildford they are launching their Ethnicity and Gender books which go with those already published on sexuality, poverty, disability and mental health. All are published by Darton, Longman and Todd.

Preach Magazine - Review

Recently I reviewed the new Methodist magazine - the connexion - which to be honest wasn't the most favourable review I have ever written. One of the reasons I think I was so under-whelmed with it was because I was comparing it to Preach, the recently launched LWPT magazine which we receive. This  magazine also has good electronic material on it's website.  In this review I am going to be looking at Preach and contrasting it with the connexion because I think there are important lessons to be learnt here.

The first is the paper. Whilst the connexion is a thin publication on that shiny paper which you hope you don't spill coffee onto because you just know it will go right through Preach is on a thick good quality paper which feels much better to handle.

The cover of Preach is bright and vibrant being turquoise with a contemporary type face and image. It invites you to pick it up and read it.

In this second edition of Preach the dominant theme is the environment and how to engage with and preach on this theme. However there is also good practical advice on how to use and look after your voice as a preacher amongst other things.

With regard to contributors they come from a range of denominational backgrounds and include names familiar to those who inhabit the Twittersphere including Baptist minister and blogger Richard Littledale and Gogglebox vicar Kate Bottley.

The environmentally themed articles include Waking the Sleeping Giant: Creation and your Congregation by Will and Pip Campbell-Clause, founders of Cactus and initiative to help church communities engage with the mission of creation care which could be seen as a useful beginners guide through the creation texts. There is also an interview with Peter Harris who is the founder and president of A Rocha International. Margot Hodson a vicar in Buckinghamshire and specialist in environmental theology gives some practical advice on preaching on several specific passages of scripture. Dave Bookless who is Director for Theology, Churches and Sustainable Development at A Rocha challenges our understanding and engagement with this issue through an in depth testimony article. Nigel Hopper, another A Rocha staff  member talks about eco congregations giving some examples including a Baptist Church in Tring and a Methodist Church in Nottingham.

Richard Littledale has a clever article entitled, reduce, reuse, recycle which is actually about the use of sermons you've used before. Whilst deceptive, appearing initially to be another eco piece it was really thought provoking. Another thought provoking piece was this edition's Preach the News article on Ebola from Martin Saunders former editor of Youthwork Magazine.

The point about the whole magazine was the theme was clear and constant - the magazine itself is for preachers of all levels of experience and this edition was focusing primarily on the environment. This clear focus even extended to the book reviews which were dominated by environmental theology books with some preaching and other Christian books thrown in. This did mean some of the books reviewed were somewhat dated, and I would like to see more contemporary reviews in here. However, they were clear and interesting reviews with a good staring system.

What I really like about this magazine is it felt like the people putting it together cared about the reader. I am not sure if this is an age thing or not because there was one letter included which indicated an older reader had found the format of the first edition inhibiting.

One final aspect which is a strength of both magazines is the poem and image towards the end. Oh and in Preach there was a Dave Walker cartoon entitled The Sermon. Dave's cartoon church work is always good for raising a smile.

Did I feel more of a community of preachers reading this magazine? Yes, I did and not just a community of LWPT preachers. I felt part of a wider ecumenical community serving God in this way. This community feeling starts from the first advert for Preach It! 2015 a one day event for preachers - when you see an event sponsored by a range of organisations including LWPT in Reigate on June 23rd. Yet, with an advert for MET (Methodist Evangelicals Together) at the end, it still retains a feeling of being, at least in part, a Methodist publication. I hope those producing the connexion read their copies of Preach and take note.....this is what a good, relevant magazine looks and indeed feels like.

Pink Greenbelt Overview

Before Greenbelt started we were joking it was the Pink and Green festival this year; there seemed so much related to either LGBTQI inclusion or the environment. That may be a little unfair, Greenbelt was and is so much more than that, but there is an element of truth there.

I want to reflect a little on some of the pink and what we might learn from it, (and this will be a longer post because I want to draw out particular points). It won't be a comprehensive review of all the LGBTQI events, particularly as due to a clash I wasn't able to attend the Outerspace Eucharist, something I know when really well again this year. I was also only able to attend the first part of one of the most significant events over the weekend where Vicky Beeching was chairing a discussion on the changing nature of marriage. I didn't get to the My Burden is Light worship from MCC Pentecostal. I did go to an excellent session led by Jacqui Lavelle of NE Gay Asylum Group which looked at the issues around LGBTQI people searching for sanctuary and asylum but I believe that will need to be the topic of a separate post and so am not covering it here because I don't want it to get lost in this.

The pink side of Greenbelt is nothing new on one level. They have been an inclusive festival for many years welcoming Gene Robinson, Peter Tatchell and James Alison to speak amongst others in the past, and their talks have directly addressed issues around sexuality. Other artists and speakers who have been welcomed not talking on these topics have also been LGBTQI. Outerspace and before them Safety Net have also provided a valuable role for many years, indeed the yearly Eucharist played an important role in my own coming out. There was something significantly different going on this year though, which tapped into the overall zeitgeist of this summer. What follows is an overview of panels which contained gay and straight speakers and a queer only panel discussing what could be described as pink material or issues with a pink tinge.

The panel I only managed to catch the first part of was chaired by Vicky Beeching and saw Prof Linda Woodhead, Sara Miles and Prof Robert Song discussing with her what it might be to reimagine marriage. Whilst Robert Song, who has a new book coming out in September, Covenant and Calling Towardsa Theology of Same-sex Relationships took the more cautious approach all of them were broadly accepting there were no real voices of dissent on this panel. Now on one level that is brilliant, as was the standing ovation Vicky got when she came onto the stage but it does worry me. A year ago I was chatting with a good friend who comes from a far more evangelical part of the church and who has been graciously journeying but is still in a very different theological place and she expressed the worry about what place there was for people like her at Greenbelt. Whilst I celebrate panels such as this on many levels and they make me breathe a huge sigh of relief I do worry that we are finding ourselves excluding people such as my friend by not including those theologians who come from different places but know how to express their views graciously.

On Monday morning Rachel Mann, who was chairing the panel We're Not an Issue, We're A Gift, opened the session with a couple of one liners related to "the day the gays take over the big top" and the "coming out event at Greenbelt". The reasoning she gave for these comments was whilst the voices of Gay Greenbelters had been there for many years it was the first time there had been an exclusively queer panel in a venue that size discussing sexuality and gender issues. The contributors were PadraigO Tuama, Sara Miles, Karl Rutlidge and LGCM's Tracey Byrne.  Previously such events had been fringe events organised by Outerspace in small venues. It was followed by a worship event co-ordinated by Byrne where there clerics from the CofE, URC and Methodist Church spoke together with a potential CofE ordinand where the focus was on the position with the main protestant historic denominations regarding same sex marriage.

During both the panel discussion which was followed by a q&a and worship session there was a focus on the positive contribution LGBTQI already make and want to continue to be able to make. There was implicitly within this a questioning of power and the ability of oneself to express a full god given identity, it was a point Padraig made more explicitly towards the beginning of the session. There were also points made about the way it enabled queer people to stand with and on behalf of others at the margins. Sara explained in her community Pride was seen as the feast of the unclean and Karl spoke about this experience of being involved in TDOR events. There was also discussion of the community aspect of experience. Tracey spoke of the disconnect between what is happening on the ground and what the institutional bodies and structures are saying making the point that experiences need articulating back.

Some of that experience was articulated back during the q&a part of the panel session where people discussed their own, often painful, experiences as they asked questions.

The q&a was important because it highlighted the problems on the ground which still need to be discussed, often in smaller spaces for example where straight allies involved in good practice find themselves isolated by other churches.

I want to pick up on two specific things which came out of the sessions which I found interesting. The first was the way in which the voices being given platform were from the historical churches and denominations yet within the questions we heard the voices of the Pentecostals. I want to argue there needs to be much more of a public engagement and working with those who are willing from the new church networks and neo-Pentecostal movements. Now, I am not naive I understand very well the problems and real dangers involved in this in terms of jobs, ministries and so on but I am very concerned that as we enter two years of listening in the historical denominations that the voices or stories of the other churches are being lost and the differences between the more conservative evangelicals and others are being further entrenched. I believe this is particularly important in light of the figures Linda Woodhead gave in one of her talks about the changing religious landscape in the UK. We need to find ways to engage with these people, even if it is not directly. Going back to my earlier point this is why I am worried that the voices of Greenbelters with more conservative evangelical views are not being heard as they once were around the festival or beyond.

The second thing is specifically Methodist, but I believe may reflect something wider. During the discussion Karl had a bit of a mind blank regarding the significant difference between the CofE and Methodists after conference; i.e. our queer clergy can marry and not lose their jobs - something somebody rushed up to correct during the q&a. However, when he was asked about the Methodist position he highlighted the fudge the Derby resolutions gave essentially the two denominations are in a similar place at the moment, but the Methodists are being more compassionate about it. Stephanie Jenner, a Methodist Superintendent, gave a far more optimistic view in the worship session saying Methodists were great on everything, CPD (the Methodist law book) said they had to be. She seemed to suggest it was a foregone conclusion that in two years time that Conference will reach the positive outcome. The reality which is somewhere between the two and far more complicated than I think either of them was ready or perhaps able to outline in that setting was illustrated by a question from Sally Coleman, a Methodist Minister and talented poet/blogger, during the q&a of the first session. She asked about what you do when you are totally affirming, working with those the church and wider society judge to be outsiders from a wider range of backgrounds and then get excluded by those locally in other churches, including from your own denomination. The reality, which the question highlighted, reinforcing the findings of the consultation, was that in some areas it is far harder than in others and you can have all the regulations in the world but if others are of a different view it becomes extremely difficult. Experience within these denominations depends upon what others, particularly those in positions of power do and say.

The highlight of the whole festival for me (from any perspective) was a young people's session I had the privilege to witness. Sally Hitchiner and some of the young adults from Diverse Church - both queer and straight allies - were facilitating a session in the Den which took the form of a brief bit of storyvism (where the young adults told their stories) and the young people breaking off into buzz groups to discuss questions before feeding back. The level of integrity, intelligence and respect in that session coming from the ordinary young people who had packed the tent to overflow was amazing. They were the model of what the rest of the church should look like when discussing this issue. During the discussions LGBTQI and a-sexual youth had the confidence to feed back together with straight youth, sharing their own stories and opinions. The difficulties faced by those coming out in rural contexts were bought up and highlighted as an area which needed wrestling with and there was an understanding that some would be living in situations where safeguarding issues may be a necessary concern to take into consideration when bringing up the subject with parents, for example. On the question of whether there was a need for role models there was real debate and respectful disagreement with excellent points being made by all. I think I am not alone in being an adult who felt privileged to witness that session and learned something important from the way those young people were conducting themselves. As we came out of that session we saw a rainbow in the sky above the site, it was very fitting.

I recently read an article on Generation Z by Angela Cross-Bystrom which I had treated with a certain amount of scepticism. However, having witnessed this youth session I think she is on to something. This generation are socially maturing at a much faster rate and are hugely more aware than those who have gone before them; their discussions are operating on a whole different level which we need to learn from. I never thought youth participation was an optional extra, but having watched them in action I think it is an absolute necessity for the church and wider society.

Somewhere Over the Rainbow

The baptism of a child is a joyful event, a time for celebration, and so it was on Sunday 5th August when Odette and Lee Mould brought baby Joseph to Stony Stratford Methodist Church. Yet, as friends, godparents and family, including Joseph's older brother and sister, joined together with the regular congregation and Rev. David Moore and Mrs. Jane Wass, who were leading the service, there was an awareness that somebody who should have been there was missing.

Joseph's sister Jessica was there with the rest of the family. She had been born a twin but in 2009, when she was just five and a half, her twin brother Harry died. Harry was missing from the service but was remembered and acknowledged in the midst of the celebration. David, who had baptised all of Odette and Lee's children and was leading his last service, prayed to the "God of us all, of the living and the dead."

In the first part of his reflection Rev. Moore described how Joseph's parents were not strangers to the church, but rather "near neighbours, local companions, friends and co-workers with Christ through their work in supporting children who had been bereaved." He continued, "This man and woman dug deep into their personal darkness and found ways of not being defeated by death! They somehow found themselves doing things that once they most probably would never have dreamed of doing."

He was making reference to Harry's Rainbow, the charity that Odette and Lee formed in 2011. Harry's Rainbow supports bereaved children and their families in Milton Keynes and the surrounding area. They offer resources, group activities, trips and outings to children affected by the death of a significant family member, such as a parent or sibling. There is also a monthly ‘Rainbow group’ for the children and their families.

Within his reflection on the story of the feeding of the five thousand, which was illustrated on the screen by Eularia Clarke's 1962 contemporary picture (which is part of the Methodist Art Collection), David spoke of the way in which Odette and Lee find it hard to attribute universal significance to modest personal deeds. He continued that by being part of the story of struggle, defeat and victory, they stand tall in God's estimation. He referred to the way Harry's Rainbow testifies that the unimagined can occur - support, hope and new life can bubble to the surface.

The service ended with a moving musical meditation, which was very meaningful to baby Joseph's family and friends, who included members of the Harry's Rainbow core team. The meditation was Judy Garland singing the timeless words of ‘Somewhere over the Rainbow’. .The poignancy in those simple words reflected the mixed feelings of celebration and emotion within the service. At the end of the song, the Reverend Moore simply said "the end” which was his code for ‘after 60 years of preaching this is my last time conducting a Sunday service’.

If you wish to support Harry's Rainbow full details can be found on their website: http://www.harrysrainbow.co.ukhttp://www.harrysrainbow.co.uk/ .

Photo by Derek Beaumont

My note just for this blog: I was asked by David to go to the service and write it up to distribute a report on afterwards. This was a great honour and I felt very blessed to be able to witness this service. I have distributed the article above in various directions.....but please share if you feel appropriate. Thanks to Derek for providing me with several images. I include another picture which to me sums up the spirit of the occasion.

Responding to the Methodist Working Party on Marriage and Civil Partnerships Report

The second volume of the Methodist Church Annual Conference Agenda was published today. Within it were many important documents but there are a couple of particularly significant reports within it which are probably of interest to people beyond the Methodist Church. One relates to "Statistics for Mission" and the second is the report of the "WorkingParty on Marriage and Civil Partnerships." Within this post I am going to be reflecting on the latter of the two.

As I write this I have to outline my own position, for readers who may be new to this blog. I am a Methodist Local Preacher and member of a local fellowship who is writes this blog very much in a personal capacity. I am also a gay woman who is in a civil partnership with a female to male trans man currently going through gender reassignment. In line with the requirements of gaining a GRC we are planning to transfer our civil partnership to a marriage, because the legislation currently forbids us from keeping our civil partner status if my husband is to gain his gender recognition certificate. This is a personal response to the report and on that basis I make no apology for this post being subjective.

I want to start my response by paying tribute to the members of the working party. I know a couple of them, but the majority are unknown to me. Together they have produced a document which shows real sensitivity whilst coming to difficult conclusions.

I am personally disappointed by some of the conclusions reached within the report. However, in contrast to certain similar documents published by other denominations, this has been sensitively written and one cannot fault its apparent understanding of the issues involved. One example of this understanding is how the working group have drawn attention within the report to responses making reference to trans, intersex and bi exclusion.

Often reading such documents as a gay Christian I have been made to feel that we (gay Christians) are an unwelcome problem to be dealt with or that our feelings of dismay when reports such as this are published are not at all understood. This report didn't have that problem. Throughout it underlines the way it believes LGBTQI people should be treated by respect. Paragraphs 70-73 of the report outline there was dismay amongst the working party at the homophobic attitudes displayed by a small number of respondents to the public consultation. There is also a recognition of how disappointed some will be with the recommendations that the denomination should not to revisit the Methodist understanding of the meaning of marriage. The report refers to the way in which they might interpret them as not standing up for justice and rights of people whatever their sexuality.

Therefore one of the resolutions going to conference relates to clarifying what is and isn't homophobic language and instructing conference, if the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion unit think appropriate, to bring a formal statement to conference on the issue. I think this would potentially be very helpful for a wide range of institutions not just the church.

With regard to the discussion of what is and isn't acceptable language there was one section of paragraph73 which particularly stood out. It says: "There is a limit to what is acceptable and where that is over stepped it needs to be taken seriously in the same way that we as a Church have done in declaring that “racism is a denial of the Gospel."

 

The report methodology was clearly outlined and explained. In addition to a literature review there was the collation of quantitative and qualitative data. What I was pleased about was the way in which it was clear there was an emphasis on the qualitative data. This had involved a real listening process. The few quotes peppered through the report illustrated this. One of the criticisms levelled at the Church of England amongst other organisations is they have not really heard what is being said by LGBTQI people or their allies. This report demonstrates that both hearing and understanding have taken place.

 

The key recommendation in the report has been to institute a listening period of genuine "reflection and discernment" which will feed back to Conference in 2016. This may be seen by some as a delaying tactic, but I think in light of the announcements made by other denominations it was to be expected. What is slightly different to the responses of some other denominations is that the report put forward some serious ideas about how to help people engage with the issue.

The recommendations being voted upon at conference include the following which I feel has major significance if followed through:

"40/4. a) The Conference adopts the recommendation contained in paragraph 157 and appoints a task group on marriage and relationships to be responsible for the implementation of the work. It recognises the significance and therefore the need for adequate resourcing and support of this work.

b) The Conference directs that the tasks which the group shall work to implement shall be as follows:

(i) to seek to engage the Church more widely in exploring the two major themes of

i. living with contradictory convictions, and

ii. the nature of the authority of the Bible by drawing upon the existing material produced connexionally and identifying other ways of resourcing and encouraging these conversations throughout the Church;"

 

That resolution also proposes that the Conference should vote:

 "(iii) to explore in depth the implications arising from the divergence between the Methodist Church’s teaching on marriage and the legal definition and concept of marriage now applying in England, Wales and Scotland. These explorations should include

i. the missional challenges involved

ii. the tradition and experience of the Christian Church in living in contexts where its values, teaching and practice as to marriage have not been shared with those of the surrounding society

iii. the considerations for and against the continued involvement of the Methodist Church in the solemnization of (opposite sex) marriages;

(iv) to find ways to encourage Local Churches (and if thought necessary, equipping them with pastoral and teaching resources) to welcome same sex couples and their families and to enable their participation in the life and worship of the Church;

(v) drawing as appropriate upon the theological material already produced by the Faith and Order Committee and in collaboration with that committee, to develop resources to help people to explore the teaching and practice of the Church in relation to cohabitation"

  

The reasons I am encouraged by this resolution is that it comes out of the reports underlining of the fact to hold a different interpretation of the bible to others is not to deny the authority of scripture. It does acknowledge that some will disagree with seeing it in that way.

I am also particularly encouraged because the report as a whole and this resolution recognise the missional issues and problems which are connected with the position being put forward.

 

Too often I have found that LGBTQI people such as myself are accused of not caring about the bible (and of being liberals on this basis) and not caring about the gospel. I am an evangelical Christian who really does care about the authority of scripture and has a heart for mission. This report and recommendation allow for recognition of that whilst seeking to ensure those with more traditional interpretations are also heard and can feel listened to.

 

The door to changing understandings of marriage has not opened with this report, but the door has been opened for more in depth discussion as to whether civil partnerships should be celebrated within church and to wider discussions on family and relationships.

 

Very importantly the report and resolutions coming out of it are seeking to ensure that the measures protecting clergy as well as lay people in civil partnerships are extended to those within same sex marriages. There is also a resolution seeking to give provision for the protection of those who are already in same sex marriages should the main resolution not be passed. This is a significant difference to the CofE approach on the issue and one to be welcomed.

 

In the report and responses it is interesting to note the part the URC position at the moment has played. The URC have yet to report on their position and won't do so until after the Methodist Conference. They are one of the major partners to the Methodists. This looks as if it has had a positive impact on what has been proposed.

 

Amongst the international responses reported I was most interested in that from Uruguay given in paragraph 123. It explained because of their experience of living under a dictatorship that protection of all human rights was important to their church. This showed how within some countries there is an intersection between liberation theology and attitudes towards sexuality and gender issues.

 

I want to draw out of the report was that just before the closing date of the consultation there was a surge of responses as a result of online activism from those resisting change. These were taken into account but so was the way in which they altered the pattern of responses up to that point. This shows wise discernment by the group.

Finally, the breakdown of the statistics for the responses cannot be taken in isolation. The data they give has to be seen in relation to the wider statistics of the church, particularly those in those mission statistics I referred to at the beginning. The age distribution within the Methodist church and the attitudes of the different cultural and age groups need to be considered in light of that data and I believe the working group have to some extent done that. However, they have also recognised if that demographic data is to change some decisions which some older people may struggle with may need to be taken.

 

All in all whilst I believe this just one more frustrating step in a journey I wish were over, in some ways, it is also a very hopeful document. I hope that the recommendations including the one which would provide full on going protection for all same sex couples in marriages whether lay or ordained are passed. I look forward to engaging in the conversation and learning much from all positions in the listening process.