Chalke and the Oasis Trust.....Daring to be Daniels?

" But......we do still find ourselves in situations where we have to ask ourselves are we ready to be like Daniel and stand alone?  Are we ready to have a purpose and let it be known? Are we ready to take the real costs which might be involved?"

That paragraph from the short sermon I gave last Sunday evening seems very apt in light of the statements from the Evangelical Alliance (EA) and the Oasis Trust yesterday outlining the way in which the Oasis Trust have had their membership cancelled by the EA. The reason for the cancellation of membership as detailed in this statement is the refusal of Oasis Trust to give equal weight to both sides of the same sex debate on their website. The question is though which is the Daniel?

My guess is both would regard themselves as the ones being ready to stand alone, having a purpose and letting it be known as the old Sunday School song which inspired Tony Benn says. In this post I want to unpack this a little further and explain why I think that the Oasis Trust are the Daniels in this situation and what our response needs to be as a result.

Before I get there though I want to outline the case for EA being the Daniels. The argument that would come from them I guess is they are acting with integrity, keeping true to what they believe the correct biblical interpretation to be. Their stance on the issue is briefly outlined in this document.

I now want to examine the Oasis Trust position. As I do so though we need to realise there are actually a range of positions in the Oasis Trust and on their board. The EA statement acknowledges that the Oasis Trust council "have no corporate view on the matter". There is a clear view from the organisations founder Rev Steve Chalke, however. Chalke has talked of how his study of scripture had led him to believe he that faithful, monogamous, loving same sex relationships are ok in this Christianity magazine article published in January 2013. He has also talked of how Oasis, as the managers of a chain of Academies amongst other activities, have a responsibility to ensure that all their young people are supported and that messages aren't transmitted which may lead to the suffering of LGBandT youth in those schools.

In November Chalke was the key note speaker at a Two:23 event and both the Q&A with him and talk itself can be accessed on their website. He spoke of the financial cost which Oasis have suffered and the way in which partner organisations have also suffered as a result of their association with Oasis, as funding has been withdrawn by some supporters. Oasis is not alone in finding that those who disagree with same sex relationships have chosen to stop their charitable giving to organisations if they publicly speak out or indeed adopt inclusive policies. World Vision in the US tragically dropped their bar on hiring people in same sex marriages and then reinstated it two days later as a result of calls from some Evangelical leaders to withdraw funding from the organisation, as this Church Times story reports.

Into this situation come the EA with their request for the Oasis Trust to "adjust the content of their website/resources and social media output to equally profile the traditional Christian view". This is something which the Oasis Trust have said they have sought to do.

I want to pause here and reflect on the Daniel story because I want to make it clear that I don't believe parallels can be drawn to the first part of the story, where a deliberate plan was put in place. I hope and believe that this initial request to alter their website and social media was a genuine request not an attempt to trap the Oasis Trust.

As we have seen the Oasis Trust did seek to comply, (another difference to the Daniel story). I would add, having looked at the site, the unfortunate impact of the changes made is it is slightly harder to find the excellent resources available which are seeking to support churches in moving on with discussion on these issues of inclusion and human sexuality.

However, the EA have indicated that what the Oasis Trust have done is not enough for them. The notes at the bottom of the statement are interesting in this regard because they say:

 "Organisation and Church membership of the Evangelical Alliance involves not only an affirmation of the basis of faith but a willingness to abide by the guidelines of the relational commitments with a specific reference to good fellowship with other evangelicals."

I am not sure whether anything, short of removing the resources or distancing themselves from Chalke would have been satisfactory for some of the "other evangelicals" referred to in terms of enabling Oasis Trust to keep "good fellowship".

This is what brings us to the point where I believe we can find the parallels with the Daniel story. As I indicated in my previous post I really do believe that something significant is happening with regards to the LGBandT evangelical community in this country and a growing focus on discipleship, (and that is something I believe applies to both the affirming and non-affirming groups). What I believe happened yesterday is that the Oasis Trust were sanctioned by the EA for standing up for what they believe faith requires of them; i.e. working towards an inclusive society where everybody is valued. The Faithworks Charter outlines the values by which the Oasis Trust works, as a result of their faith and understanding of scripture.

Steve Chalke and the Oasis Trust have dared to stand alone in many ways. Chalke in particular has dared to stand by the principles of faith in which he believes and not be coerced, threatened or bullied into actions which would have gone against this or into a continued silence on the matter. In particular after careful consideration he did not let the threat of the withdrawal of financial support from the organisation keep him silent.  

Returning to last Sunday evenings sermon I concluded it by saying:

 "There was no sudden miracle which stopped Daniel facing the worst, where the miracle came was in the mist of the situation itself. God protected Daniel in the lions den. He sent an angel to be in there with Daniel at the worst possible time ensuring that no harm came to him.

I think God still can send angels and does but more often he uses other human beings to come alongside people in the really difficult times. He doesn't leave any of us truly alone, even though it can sometimes feel like that.

My final thought is that sometimes I think we are called to be the angels and the stand we are called to take is following Gods call to come alongside others who are going through difficult and lonely times, helping protect them."

I want to reiterate that point in this blog post. I believe those of us who think what the Oasis Trust have done is right need to stand alongside them now. I believe we can support them to ensure that this action, which could result in further withdrawal of donations doesn't negatively impact the organisation financially. I think we need to consider if our way of standing alongside the Oasis Trust and Chalke at this time may involve financial giving or getting involved in some other way. We can be the angels who protect Oasis Trust from the lions.

Final note for those who are wondering if it ethically right to support an organisation which is running academies and engaging with the dismantlement of the welfare state it is worth listening to what Chalke said at Greenbelt last year. He talked about the need to engage with what's happening even if you don't agree with it, (note you do need pay to listen to the whole talk, but it is worth it if you are interested in thinking about the ethics of involvement).

Happy, Hopeful and Rejoicing about LGBT Spiritual Growth

Over the last couple of months there have been a few things which have occurred which have made me pause, reflect and rejoice about the way the church in the UK in the widest sense is developing with regard to LGBandT Christians and the Spirit seems to be moving. It has been like seeing the buds emerge on the trees at the beginning of Spring.

One of those things was the announcement of Diverse Church which is a sister organisation to the Two:23 Network. This is a supportive organisation for young people aged 18-30 who are within evangelical churches. It has a closed Facebook page and as I understand it has a focus on discipleship and mission as well as support. Seeing the welcome this new group received on Twitter this week, from people with differing positions with regards to LGBandT issues, was heart warming.

Another bud of hope was the announcement of the Two:23 network they are having an extra meeting in June. In May they have respected Sociologist Dr. Kristin Aune, co-author of Reclaiming the F Word and Christianity and the University Experience: Understanding Student Faith amongst other books. The development of this network over the last couple of years into a space for Christians to come together to worship together and grow in understanding and discipleship has been important. Aune is speaking in an earlier meeting than planned as Bishop Alan Wilson has had to reschedule. Bishop Alan has recently spoken at the Changing Attitude Unadulterated Love event.

Additionally this week I read on Twitter that two figures who have had a significant role in helping try to move the dialogue on LGBandT issues forward in evangelical circles met together for the first time. This may seem like a small step forward but I regard the way in which people with particular giftings seem to be coming together as another sign of hope. One of these figures was Vicky Beeching who also tweeted this week she will be speaking on the topic of LGBT Theology at Greenbelt this year.

The announcement by Accepting Evangelicals that they have now launched a YouTube channel is another small but significant step forward. Amongst the videos is one with a couple who have also been involved in leading Affirming Baptists, a network which has been going for over a decade and which appears to have a new, much more visually attractive website.

As I decide to take a look around the websites of various organisations to assess what the current situation is I was pleased to see on the Inclusive Church website that Dartman, Longman and Todd are publishing a series of books on inclusion; the first two being one on Disability by John Hull and the second on Mental Health by Jean Vanier. The series also includes one on Sexuality by Susannah Cornwell. The Quest site for Catholic LGBT Christians in the UK had an interesting review of Faithful to the Truth: How to be an orthodox gay Christian on their site.

On the subject of books Queering Religion; Religious Queers edited by Yvette Taylor and Ria Snowden is launched in June. Linked to some of the material referred to in this book The Weeks Centre based at Southbank University is putting some of the material collected during their Making Space for Queer Identifying Religious Youth project together for an art exhibition.

With regard to Outcome the organisation which exists to support LGBT people (but primarily has it's focus on L and G) within the Methodist Church it is good to see that they have the President of Conference joining them to lead worship at their forthcoming Annual Public Meeting.

It has also been good to see the growth of the recognition of the T within many of these groups and so the support for that group is available more widely. It has also been good to see the start of a wider recognition of the B (bisexuals). One of the key figures who has helped the recognition and integration of the T is Rachel Mann a trans, lesbian, Anglican priest who is also an author and speaker. Her book Dazzling Darkness has helped take recognition and understanding forward in a significant way. Mann has been one of the first speakers for LGBT Christian Fellowship Hull and East Riding, one of a number of new regional groups emerging. Another aspect, highlighted on the Quaker Lesbian and Gay Fellowship (QLGF) site is the openness the new head of Stonewall has shown to working with the Trans community. 

With regards to other established groups MCC continues to grow as a denomination. LGCM I note has Prof Robin Gill speaking at their forthcoming Annual General Conference. The blurb on the LGCM website quotes Gill as saying, "From my study of the Synoptic Jesus I have concluded that four virtues are especially important and distinctive, namely: compassion, care, faith and humility (together with a strong condemnation of hypocrisy). I would plan to talk at some length about these four virtues and one condemnation which I believe are crucial for all interpersonal relationships, including sexuality".

One of the things I find so exciting about all this is the way in which LGBT Christian events are now not ghettos where the politics or pain are exclusively focused upon. It's not about sharing sad stories and getting angry now, although support is still there and the fight for equal rights and recognition does continue. What has happened is a shift to worship, theological reflection and discipleship building as the core themes. There is also a greater support from straight allies and blurring of the lines between who is gay, straight, bi or trans. Speakers are speakers who are good and relevant their orientation is no longer an issue, the focus is now on the content of their message.
*Note in preview the last paragraph is showing up in a different font, no idea why it is doing this and can't seem to fix it so apologies.

Responding to the CofE response

The Church of England has submitted its response to the government consultation on the future of Civil Partnership, (which closes on Friday), and this post is my response to that. I have to be clear that I am writing this full of the anger and pain of my initial reading, rather than waiting to calm down.

Before I get into dealing with content of the response which represents the Archbishops Council and House of Bishops I want to clarify my own situation, which is more fully detailed in this post I wrote responding to the House of Bishops Pastoral Response to Same Sex Marriage. I am a cis gendered person who is in a civil partnership with a transitioning male. In order for him to get his Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) we will need to transfer our civil partnership to a marriage. If civil partnerships are revisited it may provide us with the opportunity to stay in our civil partnership thus allowing me to retain my identity. If it is not altered we will have to transfer to a marriage before the GRC is granted (whilst my partner still has the same sex birth certificate). The other choice we have is to dissolve our  relationship totally before the GRC is granted and then get married afterwards losing a range of legal rights. We would like to retain our civil partnership but are not allowed to. Married couples where one is trans are no longer required to transfer their marital status in this way for a GRC to be granted.

I am not a Church of England adherent, rather I am a member of the Methodist Church. However, I am living in an ecumenical area and the denomination is on a journey of working more closely with the Church of England.

The response is calling for retention of Civil Partnerships but asks for them not to be made open to opposite sex couples. It also explicitly refers to people in the situation myself and my husband are in but without apparent understanding of the GRC process and the order in which things work.

With regard to the importance of keeping civil partnerships it makes an argument based upon the view that marriage and civil partnerships are inherently different. It also says "If civil partnership was to be abolished, such couples would be faced with the unjust  choice of either marrying (which might conflict with their religious beliefs about the nature of  marriage) or losing all public and legal recognition of their relationship." What this last sentence fails to mention is that based on the most recent Church of England guidance clergy from that denomination who are in civil partnerships would face the choice between losing the public and legal recognition or losing their jobs. Thus, the retention of civil partnerships is vital if the Church of England is to maintain its current position.

The next part of the response asks that new civil partnerships also continue to be granted. This part of the response is focused around having respect for those who have beliefs about the nature of marriage being between a man and a woman being respected.

With regard to civil partnerships being opened up to opposite sex couples the opposition given relates to their argument that the need for civil partnerships comes from marriage being distinctly different from other forms of partnership and being specifically between a man and a woman.

With regards to the potential costs of getting rid of civil partnerships the issues relating specifically to Church of England clergy are not mentioned.

Then comes the part of the response which refers to the situation of couples such as me and my husband. I am going to copy this in full so people are clear on what is said before I unpack it.

"Paragraph 3.19 notes the question of couples in a civil partnership where one member undertakes gender reassignment. They would currently have to dissolve their civil partnership and then marry. We agree that it should be made as straightforward as possible for such couples to translate their civil partnership into a marriage, just as same sex couples currently in civil partnerships will be able to make the transition into marriage once the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act is implemented. Such a couple would have made the transition from being, in law, a same sex couple to being an opposite sex couple, and we see no reason why the category of civil partnership should be  extended to opposite sex couples who currently have the option of marriage. However, we believe that, because the relationship remains one between the same two individuals, and where their bonds of affection and commitment are untouched by the gender reassignment of one party, the transition to marriage should be made in such a way as to emphasise the continuity of the relationship."

The current legislation in fact allows for us to transfer our relationship to marriage and then to remain married. The situation will be that it will be regarded as a "same sex" marriage by those who seek to make a distinction on the basis of a gender from the point at which is transferred to the point at which the GRC is granted. It would only be dissolved if we sought to avoid falling for a short while into that category which the church will not recognise as legitimate. The writers of this response have gotten hold of part of the issues involved but not the full picture. In seeking to respond sensitively and compassionately they have created another contradictory mess.

They give no idea of what alternative transitional arrangements should be and or when they should be made. One can only assume they are advocating the idea that when a GRC is granted that is the point that a switch in relationship status should occur. This would require a significant amendment to both the Same Sex Marriage Act and the Gender Recognition Act, although to be honest if I have to transfer I would prefer it to take this form. 

I find what they are saying regarding the "transition from being, in law, a same sex couple to being an opposite sex couple" and not seeing any "reason why the category of civil partnership should be extended to opposite sex couples" interesting. The central thrust of their arguments for keeping civil partnerships and the difference between marriage and other forms of relationship seems to be based around biological understandings of what it means to be male and female and around understandings of sexual behaviour in same sex and opposite sex relationships. In the case of female to male transition a significant number of people choose not to have phalloplasty  (genital surgery) due to the level of risk involved. Thus in such relationships the sexual behaviour is exactly the same as between lesbians, whom they won't allow marriage to.

There is a clear recognition of the correct gender status of the trans person in this statement, but if this understanding is followed through it invalidates many of their previous arguments against marriage being legitimately between people of a same sex. This part of their response appears to be a position of convenience rather than a well thought out response. It seems to me that the CofE are wanting to have it both ways. They clearly want to hold on to the position already stated that they feel same sex couples should be in a civil partnership rather than marriage and that civil partnerships should not be open to opposite sex couples. However, gender is not as clearly defined as they would seek to claim it is and the existence of trans couples such as ourselves gives a real problem to the arguments they are making.

The problem with the law and this response to the consultation is it seeks to work on binary categories and understandings of gender and relationships which we are increasingly seeing as inadequate. Couples such as myself and my partner in many ways go beyond the existing categories or the traditional understandings they are based upon.

An additional note is that by using the binaries and seeking to promote categories of relationship based upon them the CofE is totally ignoring the reality of gender queer people whose gender identity goes beyond being male or female.  

In terms of a Methodist response to the Civil Partnership consultation it doesn't seem one has been published, which makes sense as the report from the same sex marriage consultation is not available yet.

Being Led into the Wilderness

Ric Stott has been exploring Lent and talking about the freedom which comes from getting lost. He is an artist who is also one of the Venture FX pioneers. Within his post he talks about the way in which getting lost is a terrifying experience which goes against our natural instincts yet can give some new and interesting results.

I largely agree with what Ric says but I want to take issue with a tiny part of it. Within his post he talks of Jesus getting lost in the desert but omits to mention that Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert.

It might seem like a small thing but I think it's really important because getting lost implies an accident or mistake of some kind, but this was a place Jesus was intentionally led into, there was no accident about it.

At the beginning of Lent Jesus being led into the wilderness was a theme I found myself exploring within a sermon and part of the conclusion I came to was that Jesus was led out into the wilderness because he needed some serious thinking space. The Spirit led him into this wilderness because he needed to be alone to work out what he was going to do. He needed to be away from everybody else's advice to be able to hear God and to come to his own conclusions about the future without all the outside voices crushing in.

This being alone is something in our modern society we can find difficult. There are many people now who feel uncomfortable with silence or with the thought of not having access to the latest information at the tip of their fingertips.  But there are times when we need to give ourselves a chance to be alone with God and times we need to allow ourselves to be led into the wilderness.

I would say moving into the wilderness is difficult in part because being or feeling alone isn't easy. Being disconnected from the centre of things can make us feel uncomfortable. Spending time being rather than doing is challenging because we can't hide from our thoughts in the same way as we can when we are in the middle of activity.

Recently I read Digital Vertigo: how today's online social revolution is dividing, diminishing and disorienting us . It's an interesting book which discusses the reasons for the rise of social media and highlights the dangers of it. One of the things it makes clear early on is that it is getting increasingly difficult to get lost. Whilst we may think we are embracing increasing freedom via digital and mobile technology Andrew Keen, the book's author, argues that we are becoming increasingly constrained by rules and understandings of identity. I would argue we are also being put in a position where it is increasingly difficult to have the time to think without others influencing our thoughts.

I believe the Spirit does still seek to lead us into the wilderness so, as Stott says, we can encounter God, each other and ourselves. What we need is the courage not to get lost but rather to be led into this place and that may mean turning off our technology in order to be able to hear ourselves think.  

As I've written this Rachael Held Evans has come to mind. In the mist of debates around evangelicalism and the debates around same sex marriage and the World Vision flip flop (mess) she has posted about needing some time out. In the mist of all the current debates too many people seem to have become entrenched in identity labelled positions. Too many seem to be feeling wounded and hurt by a debate which is pitting friend against friend and losing sight of what we have in common. Perhaps there is a call for us to get out of those trenches and start be led into the wilderness but as Ric has made clear "it's an experience which is as terrifying as it is liberating".

Reflections on my journey as partner of a trans man

As regular readers of this blog will be aware my partner is a trans man, i.e he is going through gender reassignment from female to male. Occasionally I have time to stop and reflect on the steep learning curve I've been on. I want to take this opportunity to share some of the knowledge I've gained on how to support a trans person, as a result of my times of getting it right and wrong.

1. Be aware of your language and the impact it can have.

In the beginning I had to have it explained that tranny is a hate term and under no circumstances to be used. But it goes beyond this I have inadvertently hurt my husband at times through my use of language and have only realised when I have spotted his body language. An area of particular discussion and misunderstanding was my use of the language of disability, because it was the only way I could get my head around being transsexual not being a choice and requiring medical treatment including surgery.

2. Sensitively communicate your own understandings and fears of what is happening

Following on from the point above, when I explained to my partner why I struggle using anything other than the medical model to process the transition we came to an understanding about the paradigms each of us were using and why we were using them. Throughout the process it has been important for me to explain what my fears are so that, on occasion, they could be totally quashed for the nonsense they were, but at other times they could be appreciated for sensible concerns. Throughout the process what has been important is to create an environment where the one emotion which is avoided is guilt. My husband can't help being trans any more than I can help struggling with some aspects of it.

3. Get to know the practical difficulties your partner is facing

Being trans creates practical difficulties for the person going through transition. I learnt pretty early on that for my partner there are two quite big ones. The first was using toilets in public places. There are some environments where using the male toilets can be difficult for him, particularly if they are busy or the doors on the cubicles are a bit dodgy. I have learnt that when making decisions as to where to go thinking about that is important. I am becoming somewhat of an expert on knowing where to find gender neutral toilet facilities.

The other big practical problem has been finding adult masculine shoes in a small enough size. This was something I knew was a real source of difficulty for my husband and so I did some searching around and we discovered Dr. Martens were the best brand to go for. They've recently opened a store locally, and in the sale I noticed they had some shoes which were ideal for the look he is developing on special in the sale. Knowing the issue I immediately went in to check if they would still be available later on, and when the answer was negative I got them there and then.

4. Understand the law is an ass but going with the flow is important

In this post I explain about the wonders of the GRC system and the nonsense of the spousal veto which I am expected to engage with. Whilst I do consider the law an ass and would be quite happy to dig my heels in, saying I want to stay in a civil partnership with him or refuse to sign the spousal veto because I think having to exercise power in that way is repugnant I know I can't. I know that in the coming months when he applies for the GRC it is one of the most significant steps in his transition process and I just need to go through the process of jumping whatever hurdles the law puts up so he can get that bit of paper.

5. Be ready with hugs

Going through transition is never easy for anybody. However, liberating it may be as a process it does involve facing up to the gender dysphoria, going through a process of assessments in order to access treatment, taking hormones, surgery and facing a world which doesn't understand and has a tendency to stare at anybody it views as different. There is also a great deal of fear of rejection which goes along with this journey. Add in the fact that most trans people face some kind of verbal or physical abuse at some point in their journey and you will understand at times it can be an extremely painful process sometimes. Therefore, you do need to be ready with hugs sometimes.

6. Trans isn't the defining feature of the person

My husband has a range of attributes and features beyond being trans. His gender identity is only part of who he is and it is certainly not the defining feature. I have chosen to stay with him because I fell in love with a range of things about him before he came out as trans; his intelligence, his faith and his sense of humour amongst other things. Those things are still there and are far more important aspects of him than the fact he is trans.

Using Hornby to help us read Hagar

Long Way Down is a new film adaptation of Nick Hornby's book about a group of people who meet at the top of a notorious suicide spot, ready to throw themselves off, but due to the presence of each other don't jump that night. It is a bigger budget film than Fever Pitch, his first film to be adapted to the big screen, and that is clear in some ways. However, it retains a special charm which is unique to his work, I think, and which Fever Pitch best exemplifies. This charm comes from the way in which Hornby details the complexity of humanity in a way which combines humour with a rare observational skill. Within this he captures something which can be found across cultures but is particularly British.

As I say being suicidal is a central theme to the film but so too is overcoming those feelings. There is also talk of an angel which comes into the film, although this is an invention to make their story more fun as they engage with the media.

I want to go back to Hagar's story which can be found in the bible in Genesis  21 verses 8 -21 and look at how we can be helped to better understand it and how to help communicate it to a contemporary generation if we view it through a similar lens to Long Way Down and through the writing of Nick Hornby.

The first thing about Long Way Down is the characters involved present us with a picture of humanity which isn't always pretty and contains information which may revolt us on one level. Martin is a character whose media career is in tatters after he has been to prison after sleeping with an underage girl for example. Yet, we are taken on a journey which enables us to move on from that to look at the bigger picture, whilst never being asked to excuse an act which we may find abhorrent.

This approach of looking at the story without making moral judgements about the characters is useful to help us engage with Abraham and Sarah as key figures but people whose mistakes are at the root of Hagar's pain. Using this technique we can explore what it might have meant to Abraham to be a Ishmael's father and yet have to send him and Hagar away.

Secondly, Hornby uses within the film is to look at difficult topics as part of life without getting hysterical about them. It is a fact that many people have suicidal feelings at different points in their life and will sometimes act upon them. Hagar was suffering from depression as a result of her experiences and for her laying down her son to die when their food and drink had run out and then preparing to die herself was the logical consequence of what she had to face. The suicidal feelings or feelings of despair are not put forward as anything other than what they are, logical responses to difficult situations in which people find themselves or ways to deal with not being able to cope with facing oneself.

Yet, within the film there is a clear message that whilst suicide and giving up on life may be logical responses they are not the answer there is something more to life and life can change. This is the case for Hagar too. She does have an encounter with an angel and it does change her life by pointing her to resources which can help her - in this case a well. We don't know fully what happens to Hagar and her son Ishmael, just as we don't know fully what happens in the lives of each character in Hornby's film. However, we do know that Ishmael grew up learning successful hunting skills and that Hagar was able to provide the dowry to be able to find him a wife from her own people in Egypt. It doesn't matter that we don't know the detail in either the film or the bible story. What does matter is that we know that after an initial experience these people were able to change their lives around in a way which may not have been easy for them but which was positive.

One of the characters in Long Way Down is a single parent of a severely disabled son. And whilst the single parent aspect is not really explored in this film it is something Hornby has come up in other of Hornby's books adapted for film. About a Boy, takes up this theme and shows the despair which can come from single parenthood too. The early part of Fever Pitch also has single parenthood as a sub-plot theme. They are always portrayed as normal people who happen to be single parents either with or without the care of their children. Whilst the impact of that might be depression or difficulty it is not the sum total of who they are. Through their interactions with others their lives are changed in positive ways.

So I challenge you to re-read the story of Hagar and Ishmael as if it were a Hornby novel or the script of one of his films and see it appears to you then. It may help you to see what this story of an ancient single mother has to say to a contemporary audience.

Women's World Day of Prayer

Tomorrow (Friday 7th) is the Woman's World Day of Prayer (WWDP). This is an annual international event which happens around the same time as International Women's Day, (which is the 8th March). Every year there is a focus on one country, and the women of that country are involved in putting together the worship resources. Last year it was France, this year it is Egypt.

It has a rich history beginning in the 19th century in North America and spreading to the UK in the 1920s and 1930s. Thus, it provides a direct link with first wave feminism and the spiritual thread of this movement which saw women working for equal participation during that period, although often not connecting directly with the formal Feminist movement.

Men are welcome at Women's World Day of Prayer events, but this is essentially a feminist celebration of international sisterhood and shared faith - although many of those involved would have 40 fits if they heard people using that sort of language in regard to this event. I was therefore relieved to read on the website that the UK WWDP committee had decided to retain the word "Women's" in the title. There had been debate about this over the last year, but apparently 90% of responses indicated that in the UK the gendered title be retained. The website indicates the question hasn't gone away forever, but for the moment we can continue to celebrate this as an event put together by women.

For me this is one of the most moving and important services I will attend annually. There is something about these services and the way that they are designed so many of the participants find themselves contributing in some way that touches me very deeply within. These services also teach us much about the experience of women in different parts of the world, whose stories may not otherwise be heard. They are, even if the language is never used, in their own ways celebrations of Christian feminism or at the very least the principals at the root of it.

The bringing together of women of different ages and denominations from a variety of different social and cultural backgrounds is a very powerful.

As I looked at the revamped UK WWDP website and the images on it I felt sad that the pictures of the women on there didn't seem to fully reflect this rich diversity.

The website does give details of local services, although it appears not all are on there. When I put Milton Keynes in the website the ones at the Church of Christ the Cornerstone tomorrow didn't come up. The details are, however, on the new - somewhat busy - Cornerstone website if you are interested in attending the services at either 12:30 or 6pm. All would be more than welcome.