yrieithydd

May I speak in the name of the living God who is Source of All Being, Eternal Word and Holy Spirit.
I wonder what your reaction to the phrase “born again”?

Maybe you’ve been asked “have you been born again?” by Christians – possibly in the street but also at church.

In the last 50 or so years it has become a phrase associated with a particular type of experience of the Holy Spirit, often involving speaking in tongues, and sometimes it seems to be used to imply people who have not had that exact experience are lesser Christians, or maybe not Christians at all.

Tonight we are heard the passage from which this phrase comes. The NRSV (the translation we use for our readings) opts for “born from above” but other translations go for “born again” – the Greek allows both interpretations. And it is “born again” that has entered our discussions of faith.

Here we have a Pharisee, Nicodemus, seeking out Jesus, who may have been a fellow Pharisee although one who was perhaps going further or in a different direction from his fellows. Nicodemus recognises Jesus as a teacher who has come from God, because of the signs that he has been doing.

Looking back at the first two chapters of John’s Gospel, we have so far seen Jesus being recognised by John the Baptist when he was baptised; calling disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, Nathanael; then turning water to wine at the wedding at Cana; and at the Passover turning over the tables in the Temple, and maybe other signs – for John says “When he was in Jerusalem during the Passover festival many believed in his name because they saw the signs that he was doing.” Were there healings perhaps? Signs seems a bit broader than two actions.

Certainly enough to get Nicodemus’ attention. Who seeks him out, “at night”, when it was quieter and maybe less open to being observed by others. Some commentators read a spiritual significance into the “dark” but these make me uncomfortable both for anti-semitic implications (of the Jews being in spiritual darkness) and the way tropes of light and dark have fed white supremacy and the lie that people with darker skins are inferior to those who are fairer, a point made by the South Asian Bible commentary on this passage.

A friend of mine who is autistic has pondered whether Nicodemus might be autistic. In that reading, maybe seeking out Jesus by night was about being in a less sensory overwhelming environment – not in a large crowd and only the light of the moon – which was presumably still fairly full as we are at or just after Passover.
Nicodemus’ response to Jesus’ statement about being born again is a literal one – ‘How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?’ which is not what Jesus was talking about. He is talking about spiritual birth. “no-one can enter the kingdom of heaven without being born of water and Spirit” – does the reference to water here point to baptism? Jesus was himself baptised by John at the start of his ministry and it is the way that we are incorporated into the church. There are strands within Christianity which would say no this isn’t about baptism, that is an empty ritual which doesn’t guarantee spiritual birth. But that’s not been my experience of baptism. I was baptised as a baby at 2 months old and have grown up within the family of faith and come to claim that faith for myself. Others I know have been baptised after a conversion experience. Our journeys are different – the wind/spirit blows where she wills – but we encounter the spirit and something happens. For some that may involve signs such as speaking in tongues, but they are not compulsory. Paul writes about this in his first letter to the church at Corinth. He values tongues, but points to a more excellent way, the way of love. And Jesus here shows the cost of love as he points to his being raised up like the serpent in the wilderness so that that the world, the cosmos, is not condemned but saved. Something I talked more about when I preached on this passage on Holy Cross Day in September.

The passage we heard from Paul’s letter to the church in Rome has a similar theme. It’s not what Abraham did that was important but his belief/trust in God.

I struggle at times with Paul’s theology, or maybe with Calvinist readings of Paul which have dominated a lot how we read Paul. As with the language around being born again, there are those who use Paul’s words about faith and works to condemn other expressions of Christianity. To say claim that we’ve got it right and those people over there have got it wrong. But Christianity shouldn’t be about oneupmanship! We aren’t born again to smugness. The spirit blows where she will.

It’s hard to talk about this without ending up implying I’ve got it right and those people over their claiming their right are the ones who are wrong. But I think it’s about humility. It’s not about us, but about what God has done. We can tell others about the way in which Jesus’ death and resurrection has taken the pain and wrongness that we inflicted on the world and broken that cycle of violence.

And yet, we still see the cycle of violence continuing in our world. War is still happening. Christians support Trump who yesterday caused the bombing of a girls school in Iran. And Christians have been involved in horrors such as slavery and boarding schools for indigenous people and mother and baby homes.
So this Lent, what do these passages say to us, in 2026, in uncertain times? How do we build community that includes? That lives in the light of cross and the breaking of the cycle of violence? That says to those who would divide us that God came to save the world, not just Christian? That seeks to understand rather than hate?

I often pondered doing a narrative sermon in the voice of one of the characters, but had never found one I could find that voice for, not even the bleeding woman. But for the Conversion of St Paul last week, pondering it from Ananias view came to me.

( Sermon in voice of Ananias )

So a few weeks ago - 4th July to be precise, I was contacted about whether I was going to Greenbelt and whether I'd be interested in being involved in the OUT eucharist at Greenbelt. I said I'd be there, and was interested, though I'd have to arrange the time with my volunteer team leaders. On 10th July, this developed further into being asked to preach. After some time, and wibbling and talking to various people and remembering a TSSF principle, I eventually agreed.

I wrote what I could and printed what amounted to two drafts, neither of which really worked, on Tuesday evening before leaving for GB on Wednesday. On Saturday morning I sat down with the drafts and scribbled over them and came up with something that made more sense, but had interesting navigation! People have said good things about it (and not just the people I knew, and not just to me) and a couple asked for the text, so I've tried to type up my notes. I ad libbed slightly in places and I've tried to add the one I remember best in, but I haven't tried to remember how I expanded the bullet points about the state of the world and the church.

The readings were "verses from Isaiah 43" (actually Isaiah 43:1-4, 14-21) and Luke 19:29-40

( Text under cut )

Current Mood: affirmed

As well as being Sacristan at On Fire Mission this year I was also asked to lead Morning Prayer on Tuesday with a theme of justice. I started with Common Worship Daily Prayer for St Mark's Day but varied the readings to passages with a strong justice theme and based the prayers around quotes from Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail. A couple of days beforehand I decided to add images to the slides for the prayers. ( The images and words are below the cut )

I need an allotment icon!

( Allotment Doings )

Sermon for Epiphany 3, Year A
St Nicholas Church, Leicester, 22nd January 2023

1 Corinthians 1.10-18
Matthew 4.12-23

“I’m for Philip North”, “I’m for women priests”, “I’m for equal marriage”, “I’m for biblical marriage”

If like me, you’ve spent time on Twitter in the last couple of weeks, or even if you have just been paying attention to Church news, you may recognise the arguments and the way in which Christians, particularly Anglican and specifically CofE Christians have been shouting at each other in *and within* our various tribes.

I can’t criticise – I’ve been shouting along in various debates – despite the fact I’ve also been sitting with tonight’s readings and particularly the epistle since Manuela and I agreed I’d preach tonight a couple of months ago. And realised that I needed to tackled the reading about unity here in St Nicholas because unity so often feels as though it is weaponised against us. We can’t have equality because others will break up the Anglican Communion if we do.

We may know the ins and outs of our current debates. We’re probably less clear what the Corinthians
were arguing about – what were the differences between Paul, Apollos and Cephas? Acts and other parts of Paul’s letters give us clues. Apollos is mentioned in Acts 18 and 19, when he comes to Ephesus after Paul has visited briefly. He is “well-versed in the scriptures” “instructed in the Way of the Lord” spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus – BUT “knew only the baptism of John”. Priscilla and Aquilla (who had come from Corinth with Paul), explain things more accurately and then Apollos goes over to Corinth and Paul comes back to Ephesus to find believers who haven’t heard of the Holy Spirit and have only received John’s Baptism. So they are baptised in the name of Jesus and Paul lays his hands on them and they receive the Spirit Later, in the letter to the Corinthians, Paul says “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth” .

Cephas is probably better known to us as Peter. We heard in last week’s Gospel how, according to John, Andrew tells his brother Simon about having found the Messiah (anointed one) and bringing Simon to Jesus who says “‘You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas’ (which is translated Peter)”. We know from Acts that Peter and Paul disagree about expectations on Gentile believers – do they have to be circumcised or not?

This was a bitter disagreement and Paul gets passionate about it; in the letter to the Galatians we read ”I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!” So Paul isn’t afraid of disagreeing with his fellow Christians, and yet, tonight we hear

“Now I appeal to you, siblings, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you should be in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you should be united in the same mind and the same purpose.”

Paula Gooder in her book Lydia, which imagines the Church in Philippi when it receives Paul’s letter, explores a similar passage in Philippians 2 about thinking the same thing. Syntyche points out it’s impossible and Ruth asks who gets to decide what the one thing we’re allowed to think? But Manius uses the context of the rest of the letter to tease out what it might mean, pointing to the passage that says “Don’t act from selfish intrigue or vanity, but in humility regard others as better than yourself. Don’t look out for your own concerns, but let each person look out for the concerns of others” and when some of them still don’t really follow, Caius points to two other characters who are not in the church and have been locked in a struggle to show who has the most power and influence and says

“I realise now that this is who I used to be. It consumed me. I’d have done anything to end up on the top of the pile. The problem is that there’s always another pile, always someone above you. It never ends. What Paul is talking about is another way of being. If we genuinely do believe that Jesus Christ has changed the world, if we know what love is, if we understand companionship in the Spirit, if we want to stand up for compassion and kindness, there’s only one thing for us to do. We stand together. We don’t celebrate ourselves and our own worth, we celebrate each other. Paul isn’t talking about us agreeing with each other all the time. He is talking about standing shoulder to shoulder, side by side, supporting each other when we need it, rejoicing in each other’s strengths, not in our own”.

It’s about solidarity. I’m reminded of Mark in the film Pride pointing out that the Gays and the miners were hated by the same people and so they should stand in solidarity

The Greek here for “in the same mind” is εν τω αυτο νοι and νους “mind” is at the heart of the Greek translated as “Repent” in the Gospel μετανοειτε . To be a Christian is to think differently. The closeness of the Kingdom of heaven changes things.

But what does this mean in our current debates?

The Bishops have finally published their response to Living in Love and Faith and the arguments continue! Feelings of anger, disappointment, anxiety, frustration run high. It has gone too far for some and not nearly far enough for others.

The Church Times headline was “Bishops propose blessing same-sex unions, but resist calls for marriage”.

This sets it up as a loss for those of us who want the church to celebrate marriages regardless of gender in church. But I am not sure that this is entirely fair. And if we are to have the same mind, we need to be fair to each other’s positions.

As far as I can tell, the reason the response doesn’t go as far as proposing a change in our doctrine of marriage being between one man and one woman is because for such a change to get through Synod it needs a 2/3 majority in each house. We saw in November 2012 great disappointment when the motion to allow women bishops fell short the needed 2/3 majority in the House of Laity. Someone I follow on Twitter commented that they had gone through all the statements of those elected to Synod in the Houses of Laity and Clergy last year, and it was clear from them that over a third of each house is opposed to a change to the marriage canons. The bishops say in their response “While there is a range of convictions held by the bishops about this important matter, we have not found sufficient consensus to propose a change in doctrine at the present time.” I take “sufficient consensus” as meaning “enough to change the canons”, i.e. 2/3rds. To take forward a proposal that is highly likely to fail (though does that downplay the role of the Spirit in the deliberations of General Synod) would result in more heartbreak. And while at times in following General Synod debates since I watched the 1992 debate on women priests as a 13year old newly confirmed person, I’ve been frustrated by having to get a 2/3rds majority, the Brexit referendum made me realise that there are good reasons for needing them!

The Archbishop of York at the press conference said he thought the response led us into “a good place”, I’m not quite sure I agree with him, because there is still a way to go, but I think it is a better place than we were in, and on a route to a good place.

There is also a lot that is still undecided. The Prayers issued are a draft and Synod is going to have a day of working in groups on them and feeding that back. Issues in Human Sexuality is going and will be replaced by new Pastoral Guidance but that is still to be worked out and this is what will say whether priests are allowed to be married to someone of the same gender.

Some of you may disagree with me, and think that I’m misguided in my reading of the response and ready to settle for too little. That the response is too little and too late. And I do not want to tell you how you should feel or shut down your response in the name of unity.

But I am challenged by tonight’s reading and am trying to let it influence how I respond in these debates, even though I think I’ve probably failed several times in the last week.

Paul brings us back to the central point – it’s not about who baptised who, or who wins at what argument, but about the cross which is:

foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God

And returning to our gospel, it’s about continuing to repent, to change our minds, and to follow Jesus and see the good news of the kingdom as lives are changed and people healed.

So when I put an offer in on my flat in March, I also investigated local allotments and found some just over the main road. I enquired then (it might have been April) but there were no vacancies at that point, but I was put on a list. Flat buying then took forever, finally completing on the day of the mini-budget (leaving me a bit smug as my 5 year fix is looking rather nice now). Just as I was wondering about a follow up email about allotments the secretary got in touch to say there were now some available and so I arranged to see a man about an allotment after work one Tuesday in October and signed up for a very nice south facing sloping plot with a shed and some fruit trees.

It's not massively overgrown but obviously hadn't had much done on it last year (previous holder's health declined). So there's digging to be done.

( Record of what I've done mainly for my own memory )

“A wandering Aramean was my ancestor …”
Thus begins what could be seen as an early Jewish “creed”. Not statements of abstract belief but a story. I do this thing now because of the story of God interacting with my people. In Deuteronomy 26, that thing is bring the first fruits of the harvest to God. We do this thing now – share bread and wine – because “on the night when he was betrayed, Jesus took bread…”

The stories we tell are important because they shape the way we see the world. I love watching NCIS but I’m deeply unsure about one of the underlying stories it tells – which is that it’s ok for the goodies to shoot the baddies, although there’s an underlying backstory for Gibbs which sometimes emerges to ask questions about that assumption.

We see the importance of stories in the invasion of Ukraine – Володимир Зеленський (Volodymyr Zelenskyy), the Ukrainian president said in a speech to the people of Russian “The Ukraine in your news and Ukraine in reality are two completely different countries. The most important difference is ours is real. You are being told that we are Nazis”. He continues with stories about the fight against Nazism, both national and personal, in the past.

Our stories tend to portray us as the goodies and the other side as the baddies. But the problem is the other side have stories too and they see themselves as the goodies and us as the baddies – see how the West and NATO are portrayed as the aggressors by the Russians. I saw a tweet a couple of days ago pointing to a C4 interview with a support of Putin who justified the deaths in Ukraine by reference to the killing of civilians by the US and UK in Iraq in 2003, in Belgrade, in Afghanistan. And sadly the Patriarch of Moscow is justifying the invasion as against evil forces. And throughout history the Christian church has justified wars.

Lent is a chance for us to go back to our stories and ask questions. Jesus after his baptism goes out into the desert and is tempted by stories – “If you are the Son of God….” And Jesus answers with stories “it is written…”.

What will we do to deepen our engagement with the stories this Lent? I have bought a Lent book which engages actions of the Easter story and hope to be disciplined about reading it.

Prayer for Ukraine
The Fellowship of Reconciliation which founded by a handshake between a German Lutheran and an English Quaker on the eve of the first world war and continues as an international movement of people who commit themselves to active nonviolence as a way of life and as a means of personal, social, economic and political transformation and of which I am a trustee is holding Friday evening vigils for which you can register via this link

(Written for the St Nick's Leicester weekly update - it's not the piece I was planning on when I agreed to write it a couple of weeks ago when I was thinking about revisiting my Pianos and prayer analogy formed in arguing about spiritual disciplines with I think a Sydney Anglican (though I thought it was about Lent so I might be wrong about who the shipmate was too), but world events changed my mind)

Given that I just invented a curry which was rather nice, I'm going to write down what I did for future reference.

1 small/medium aubergine
1 onion
1 yellow pepper
2 heaped tsp Garam Masala plus some to sprinkle
1 heaped tsp Turmeric
1 flattish tsp Paprika
Pre sliced ginger
garlic puree
tomato puree
vegan bouillon
water
4 mushrooms
Creamed Coconut (about a inch of the box I opened a while ago)

Dice the aubergine and sprikle with Garam Masala and oil and roast (I did 20 mins on c-4 in the microwave/oven combi which is micro, grill, oven). I set it for 25 but decided after 20 it was done.
Meanwhile slice/dice and onion (I did half just as slices and half diced) and fry gently while the aubergine cooks
Mix together the ginger (I fished some out with a fork), spices, garlic puree and tomato puree and vegan boulillon (I didn't measure the purees just squeezed a dollop of each).
Slice the pepper and dice the mushroom
When the aubergine seems done add the spice mixture and fry off, then add the pepper, mushroom and aubergine and some water. (I mixed the spices in a small gin glass and then rinsed that out with water) and simmer. I left it for about 20 minutes (while the potatoes I was serving it with cooked.
Stir in the creamed coconut until it all dissolves. Serve

As part of the online On Fire Mission, I've just watched online Benediction and I want to record some thoughts. It was pre-recorded not live which I wasn't sure about in the first place, and I watched it an hour later than the premier because of my theology class.

For more of the time the Blessed Sacrament was there as a photograph on screen not a video. I found this strange. I'm trying to articulate why but staring at a photograph of the Blessed Sacrament felt to me a lot less contemplative and connected than watching a video of it. I think it's to do with time. Sue Wallace did an FB benediction at some point last year and that was live streamed. Ok, so there's a delay on FB (about the length of the Sanctus I found last week when livestreaming a Eucharist and checking in on the sound levels), but there is more of a connection to the contemplation. But even a video disconnected in time would to me be better because there is the time of the camera staring at the sacrament on my behalf. If I were to go back on find the video of Sue's Benediction it would feel better than looking at a photo embedded in a video.

A couple of times during the video, the monstrance was picked up and moved around by unseen hands. This was just distracting to me. I ended up saying to myself - I can't focus on the sacrament if it keeps moving. This is was in fact a prompt to a theological reflection in that God doesn't stay still and calls us onward, so maybe I need to learn to able to focus.

I was also distracted in the Tantum Ergo by thumpy chords which just stressed me out. It probably worked for some people, but it just pressurised and an assault on my ears.

For the actual moment of benediction we did see the priest picking up the monstrance which did help.

Then this morning, the key note was given by the priest who'd done the Benediction. He is convinced of the need to be online and has deepened in his understanding of Spiritual Communion which he sees as underlying all sacraments but interestingly he comes to the conclusion that it is not possible to consecrate the elements digitally.

In response to a question from me, he did not seem to distinguish between different ways of being online whereas I experience Zoom, Livestreaming and prerecorded in very different ways. I can see them all having their place, though on the whole I personally don't find prerecorded particularly helpful (but recognise that it can work for others, especially those who may have responsibilities which mean engaging at a set time might be hard). But when it comes to discussions of online consecration, I can see a stronger argument for doing this via Zoom than via the other two because it is happening at synchronous gathering with two way interaction. So those present could hold their bread and wine up to their cameras so the priest could see what they were consecrating which is something which doesn't happen even with livestream and the lack of interaction on prerecord makes it very differnt.

I have just sent the following to the Bishop of London and others.

I'm writing to you to express my disappointment in how you have failed to support Jarel in the current media storm surrounding him. My social media (facebook and twitter) feeds yesterday had a number of posts yesterday which offered a critique of the hype surrounding Captain Tom. It is noticeable that the one which has resulted in its author being pilloried is the one by the queer black man. Admittedly, it was probably the most stark and blunt of the comments I saw, but the reaction it has provoked has in fact proved the point Jarel was making.

There are, it seems to me, at least three levels to the story here.

The genuine response of many people to Captain Tom and the desire to help the NHS.
The way the story has played in the media and with the politicians (who haven't been funding the NHS or paying staff well for years). It is a nice feel good story which has been used to divert criticism from the failings in the handling of the pandemic. Where is the outrage over £2.75million a day being spent on consultants by Track and Trace?
And the wider larger narrative of British nationalism and the legacy of empire. Because he, like most of his generation, was a war veteran, the WWII narrative came into it. But that narrative is often used to obscure questions of injustice now: we can't be the bad guys because we defeated Hitler. Yet you can have a newspaper which tells people off for not wearing a poppy call judges "the enemy of the people" for holding the government to account.

Some people may have seen Jarel's tweet who were in the first group and were genuinely hurt by it coming at a time when their grief was raw and possibly Jarel's timing was off with that. But when can we have this debate and ask these questions?

Systemic racism is part of the situation we are in and the Church of England has shown some signs of wanting to get to grips with that systemic racism and yet, here its instinct is apparently to back down and appease the right wing media. Speaking the truth to power is not popular.

As a pacifist, I've wanted to say something about the everyday militarism of calling a man who left the army immediately after the end of WWII "Captain Tom" but was aware that people would take that as a slur on the man and not engage with the wider issue. Jarel took the decision to risk making the comment about the wider narrative.

The reaction has been predictable and I've been saddened by lack of support from the diocese. What part of the Digital Charter/Social Media Guidelines did Jarel's tweet break? He's been on the receiving end of abuse but he is the one being investigated.

I should say that I know Jarel slightly in person having overlapped in Cardiff a bit and met at events such as the service outside Westminster Abbey while the military establishment met inside the Abbey to give thanks for the service of the submariners on the Trident subs. I hope that his voice will not be silenced.

So my resolve to blog each week, managed to founder on week 2. But if I write two posts today I can get back on track. Partly this was because last week I went back to mum's for a few days bubbling before my cousin's funeral last Tuesday, so I lost thinking time.

( Theodicy )

I was listening to the Daily Service on BBC Sounds the other day and two of the pieces of music features were Immortal Invisible by Walter Chalmers Smith (5 December 1824 – 19 September 1908) and Indescribable from a 2004 album by Chris Tomlin (born May 4, 1972).*

( It struck me that they would make an interesting comparison in old and modern hymnody. )

So after a FB friend mentioned it I've signed up for an online theology course with Sarum College on Developments in Modern Theology.

I've not paid the extra to do the essays (it was £80 for the course and the same again for essays) but I thought I'd try and blog about each subject for the purpose of making me process my thoughts.

So week 1 was "The Quest for the Historical Jesus". This was the topic I was least interested in.

My impression is that this was a 20th century liberal project which rather lost its way. Indeed, the lecturer (+Dagmar Winter Biship of Huntingdon) quoted a criticism of the First Quest being that they looked down a well and saw themselves looking back.

I found the principle of dissimilarity weird and pointless. Things are authentically Jesus if they differ from Judaism before Jesus and the practice of the Early Church. Given that Jesus was Jewish and the Early Church was trying to follow him, this seems problematic and based too much in what we in the west think are the issues with the early church.

The main thing that the lecture highlighted for me was that this is an area in which there is a massive gulf between the academy and the church. My sense is that the academy perhaps wants to throw too much out while the church is insufficiently critical and does a disservice to the "ordinary Christian" by not exploring biblical criticism and questions of differences between the Gospels. So you end up with "enlightened theologians" looking down on stupid believers and evangelicals thinking everyone involved in academic theology as godless liberals and if they want to do a theology degree and/or train for ordination they have to keep their heads down and not engage much or they'll lose their faith. (and this reflects things I heard as an undergraduate and later).

I do not want to disregard the Gospels as a source of historical information about Jesus, but I also want to be able to explore sensibly what the fact that there are two very different birth narratives in Matthew and Luke (how ever much we have harmonised them in the Nativity plays), and does it matter if actually we conclude that they are more theological than historical in content?

They both feel like they are trying to answer how "Jesus of Nazareth" can be the Messiah when the Messiah should come from Nazareth.

Matthew solves this by having Mary and Joseph, presumably long time residents of Bethlehem, though it's not quite clear, have their baby after an angel tells Joseph that his betrothed will have a special child and then after the Magi have brought their baby to Herod's attention, flee to Egypt to escape the massacre of the Innocents and then return to Israel but settle in Nazareth as Bethlehem is still under Herod's son and doesn't seem safe.

Luke OTOH has them as being residents of Nazareth who have to return to Bethlehem for a census for tax purposes. The guestroom is full so the baby is laid in the manger. They are seen by the shepherds, they do the purification stuff and go home to Nazareth and the baby grows up there.

Mark and John just start later - or possibly earlier in John's case (with the Divine Logos) and don't address the question and all Paul says is "Jesus was born of a woman".

The incarnation and the fulfilment of earlier promises is what's important.

My question which didn't entirely get answered, was what difference does the Quest make for us living our lives in the world today, with reference to Trumpism. I also asked about how to bridge the gap between those Christians who vote for Trump and those who ask questions like this and again I wasn't entirely satisfied with the answer. She was keen on the Quest for enabling dialogue, but in some ways intrachristian dialogue is not there in it, because some branches see even asking the questions as godless heresy and others sneer at those less enlightened.

I'm aware I'm treating this as a Liberal Evangelical dichotomy and this is something I got frustrated by as an undergrad, because I'm neither Liberal nor Evangelical, but I want to both think and reason about the Bible and faith in general and give weight to the Bible (and Christian tradition).

But equally, doing academic theology isn't necessary for everyone who seeks to follow Jesus in today's world. However, as someone who can't stop thinking, it needs to be a part of what I do.

Current Mood: thoughtful

Well, I eventually bought Frequencies of God by Carys Walsh which friends had decided to read as an online Advent book club, but not until after lockdown ended and then I've been poor at actually reading it and haven't been moved to blog before today.

But the time between getting into the Cathedral and the start of the carol service was a good chance to read reflectively (and having been put very near the dais, there was enough light.

It's based around the poems of R.S. Thomas and today's was The Un-born
The thing that struck me about it was the pronouns. I've been involved in various conversations of late around the pronouns to use for God and what I found very odd here is that the unborn child is "it" throughout. I've noticed some (usually older things) us it of foetuses and even small children and I find it very odd. It might make sense in German where it is Das Kind and Das Mädchen, i.e. grammatically the words for child and girl are neuter but I find it really odd and somewhat dehumanising. I tried playing with replacing it with they/them as I read it, but that still felt weird.

I'm not sure I really grasped what Thomas was getting at in the middle passage and Walsh's explanations didn't really elucidate the bits I didn't get.

"Was its part written" this had resonances with Psalm 139, but weirdly not with the bit that Walsh quotes.
She says she quotes vv13 &14, although in fact it's 13-15

¹³For it was you who formed my inward parts;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
¹⁴ I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
that I know very well.
¹⁵ My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.

But not verse 16:

16 Your eyes beheld my unformed substance.
In your book were written
all the days that were formed for me,
when none of them as yet existed.

Well I've now managed to finish reading LLF.

On the whole, I think it could be a good resource for the church to have the conversations she needs to have. However, I'm not convinced the conversations will happen.

It feels a bit basic to me in places, but that's because I'm someone who has read and thought and prayed about this stuff a lot over the last 20 years or so. It does a good job of setting out different perspectives fairly even handedly, although there are couple of places at least where they seem to be setting out something I expected I was going to agree with and then they'd go off at a different angle or in one case completely miss the point.

( Imago Dei and Gender and Disability Theology )

So I've started reading Living in Love and Faith

( Thoughts on the references to Asexual in the document )

Current Mood: frustrated

I've been doing the Difference Course for the last few weeks and tonight we briefly touched on Brexit and reasons why someone might hold one side or the other and how we felt in hearing those reasons.

The suggested reason from being pro-Brexit was that we would have more freedom outside the EU. And I found myself tensing up and getting really angry, because Brexit is taking away my freedom (to live and work anywhere in the EU)

Reflecting on it since, I think the reason I get so angry about it is that the underlying reason for Brexit is that rich tax avoiders do not like the fact that the EU has the potential to tackle tax avoiding and is less susceptible to the narrative of the owners of certain newspapers and they have been able to manipulate people who feel disenfranchised from Westminster politics and who are often not well off into voting for Brexit even though it will not actually solve the very real issues they do face. It's based on lies and will make some of the rich richer and the rest of us poorer.

Current Mood: angry

At Evening Prayer today (2nd June) one of the psalms set was psalm 135 which contains the verses:

The idols of the nations are but silver and gold, ♦
the work of human hands.

They have mouths, but cannot speak; ♦
eyes have they, but cannot see;

They have ears, but cannot hear; ♦
neither is there any breath in their mouths.

Those who make them shall become like them, ♦
and so will all who put their trust in them. R

And what struck me having seen the photo of the 45th President of the US standing in front of a church holding a Bible having had the police use tear gas etc to clear peaceful protesters out of the way was that the Bible has become an idol. Not of silver and gold, but of paper and ink. Just waving it around means nothing.

Yes, the Bible has been used for centuries to justify slavery and white supremacy but it has also been used to proclaim good news to the poor and liberation to those in prison. It is a complex text and has difficult and challenging passages and we need to grapple with those passages and with how those passages have been used to oppress and harm rather than liberate and heal. The church does not have a clean record on racism and colonialism. And yet, we follow a man who was executed by the state for being a troublemaker, who turned over the tables in the temple, whose mother, on meeting her cousin while they were both pregnant sang of God "casting down the mighty from their throne. We usually remember that meeting, the feast of the Visitation on the 31st May but because this year that was a Sunday and Pentecost, it was transferred by a day to Monday 1st June. The very day the president tried to use a Bible and church as props in declaring war on his own people.

How long O Lord?

Current Mood: angry

When I got back from my first On Fire Mission conference around three years ago, I drafted a post about being Charismatic and Catholic and what Charismatic didn't mean and then never edited it or posted it to anyone but me.

Before I went first, I told a friend about it and they were somewhat confused as in their experience, charismatics were evangelical and anglo-catholics were very very different. And they're not the only with that experience.

But what I vaguely saw before I went and what I have experienced through the last 4 conferences.

The spirit is at work in the sacraments and in giving gifts and growing fruit.

The liturgy gives structure to avoid excesses, the charismatic gives enthusiasm and emotion to stop it being dull ritual.

I love being in a space where there is an expectation that we will use our bodies and our emotions as we worship and that God will be active. People will cross themselves, bow, raise their hands and even (especially during Benedection) kneel or lie prostrate on the floor. During the prayer ministry after the services some may fall prone to the ground - resting the spirit. I'm still not entirely sure what I feel about this, but it can be easy to contemplate stuff horizontal than vertical.

I also love the inclusiveness of the space. The celebrants and preachers are using balanced gender wise and this year there was a clear statement in the conference booklet on inclusivity. There is no presumption that the only thing a disabled person wants is to be healed of that disability.

There is a bar and much fellowship happens there, until the small hours. Some people find it slightly peculiar at midnight when we burst into the Regina Coeli but we do try and explain afterwards.

When I first went I already knew several people (mainly via Twitter) but the first evening has a welcome reception for new people when more is explained about the conference and there is a chance to chat to the committee and others who've been invited along to be friendly. I went as a newby in my first year and the last two years I've been invited to be friendly. My plan not to talk to people I already knew was slightly modified this year as I realised the correct rule is people I don't already know at or via the conference as the two people I talked to when I arrived late were people I knew from elsewhere.

I feel massively refreshed from having been there. God was definitely at work in me (including dragging me out of bed after too few hours of sleep because I needed to be at morning prayer).

Profile

yrieithydd

March 2026

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Apr. 14th, 2026 09:03 pm

Recent Entries

Sermon for Lent 2

Ananias

Sermon at Out@Greenbelt Eucharist

Justice Prayers

Allotment

Sermon for Epiphany 3

Allotment

A Lent Reflection

Aubergine, Mushroom and coconut curry

Online Benediction and Online Church

Speaking out

Sarum Modern Theology - Theodicy

Modern versus ancient (ish) hymns

Sarum Modern Theology - The Search for the Historical Jesus

Advent Book Club - The Un-born

LLF mark 2 - Imago Dei and Disability Theology

LLF and Asexual

Brexit

The Bible as Idol

On Fire: Catholic Charismatics?