The Ugley Vicar

It's official - not 'five marks of mission', but one

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:32:31 PST

No time for 'proper blogging' this afternoon. During the week, however, I read yet another document which referred uncritically to the 'Five Marks of Mission' as if they were the gold-standard of Anglican missional doctrine. The problem is, this overlooks the fact that these 'marks' have already been critiqued by the body which produced them, which decided they weren't quite right.

Following a review process begun in 1996, this body stated, "we have come to believe that, as our Communion travels further along the road towards being mission-centred, the Five Marks need to be revisited."

I do wish someone would tell the Church of England this.

Meanwhile, rather than rehash the material, I have simply cut and pasted from my book the relevant section (the footnotes are in the actual text). I hope this might give you some ideas ...

Reasserting Evangelism

We referred earlier to the ‘Five Marks of Mission’, which have come to function as an unofficial, but highly popular, summary of the Church’s raison d’être. The adoption of these ‘Marks of Mission’, however, has had serious consequences for the Church.

Thus, Martin Davie, in his A Guide to the Church of England, asserts on this basis that, “the Church of England ... sees mission as something that involves more than simply evangelism.”²⁹

Indeed Davie explicitly critiques the definition of evangelism used in Towards the Conversion of England, quoting with approval the words of Paul Avis:

... mission is bigger than evangelization. Evangelization is a part of which mission is the whole. As Moltmann puts it, ‘[...] Evangelization is mission, but mission is not merely evangelization.’³⁰

The problem with this analysis is that it has been rejected by a subsequent Anglican body set up to continue the study of mission: the ‘Standing Commission for Mission of the Anglican Communion’, also known as MISSIO. According to its report on the Anglican Communion official website,

At its second meeting (Ely 1996), MISSIO began reviewing the 'Five Marks of Mission' as developed by the Anglican Consultative Council between 1984 and 1990. We recognise with gratitude that the Five Marks have won wide acceptance among Anglicans, and have given parishes and dioceses around the world a practical and memorable "checklist" for mission activities.

However, we have come to believe that, as our Communion travels further along the road towards being mission-centred, the Five Marks need to be revisited.³¹

Crucially, and contra the assertions of Davie, Avis and indeed Jurgen Moltmann, the report goes on to say,

The first mark of mission, identified at ACC-6 with personal evangelism, is really a summary of what all mission is about, because it is based on Jesus’ own summary of his mission (Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 4:18, Luke 7:22; cf. John 3:14-17). Instead of being just one (albeit the first) of five distinct activities, this should be the key statement about everything we do in mission. (Emphasis added)³²

In other words, far from personal evangelism being a part of mission, it is (properly understood) the very heart of mission.

The reason for this will hopefully become clear if we look carefully at the definition of evangelism used in Towards the Conversion of England.

This states carefully and explicitly that to evangelize is “so to present Christ Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit, that men shall come to put their trust in God through Him, to accept Him as their Saviour, and serve Him as their King”. The last point, however, is often missed, even by those doing the evangelism.

Personally I find some difficulties (not to say confusion) in the ideas about justification being put forward by the former Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, and in some of the applications he suggests of the significance of the resurrection. However, I believe he is spot-on when he says that evangelism ought to be the announcement of the lordship of Christ:

... ‘the gospel’, in the New Testament, is the good news [...] that Jesus, whom ... God raised from the dead, is the world’s true Lord.³³

Our problem has been with the extent of Christ’s lordship. Undoubtedly this is in part because of our own sinfulness and the pervasiveness of sin in the world, which makes us unable to see what his lordship requires and unwilling to be obedient when we finally understand. In the former nations of Western Christendom it may also have been because the government and the laws did some of the work for us. Today, however, the challenge is perhaps greater than ever, and pastors must work harder to show what it means.

Crucially, we must see that evangelism does not consist simply of calling people to ‘get right with God’, but, through a right relationship with God, to ‘get right with our neighbour’.

Moreover, to serve Christ as King is not just a matter of tweaking our personal morality (mostly in the area of family life and sexuality), but in bringing every aspect of our lives under his rule and in extending his rule as far as possible into every area of life over which we have any influence.

Historically, we can find radical examples of English Christians doing just this in business life and in the political arena— unfortunately they are not usually the Anglicans! Nevertheless, there are surely lessons to be learned from how, for example, the Quakers who set up Boots the Chemists treated their workers.

Some may ask how this differs from the way that evangelicals in the 1970s and ’80s moved into areas like politics and social action. The answer is that we must see and show that our actions in this regard flow directly and explicitly from our obedience to the Christ who calls everyone to acknowledge him as Lord. We must ensure that, in the words of the Sermon on the Mount, people see our good works and glorify our Father who is in heaven. Our actions must be the natural basis for proclamation because they are themselves the fruits of obedience to the gospel.

Regarding the Church, therefore, we must not allow evangelism to be reduced to a ‘part’ of mission. It is sad to see as distinguished a theologian as Moltmann quoted saying that mission is “not merely evangelization” — as if there were anything ‘mere’ about the proclamation that Christ is Lord and the calling on people to obey his kingship. In the Church of England today as whole, however, that is often how evangelism is seen, and it is not long before it is reduced from being a part of mission to being an optional extra in mission.

But equally, we must not allow evangelism to be reduced to a personal call to change our views as to whether or not we believe in God and what we believe about ourselves and about Jesus dying for our sins. We cannot have Christ as Saviour if we will not have Christ as Lord. And his lordship must extend into every area of the lives of those whom he saves. There is a challenge here for the more conservative evangelical. But the conservative evangelical is also entitled to ask what has happened, institutionally, to the call to personal conversion.

Once again, nothing less than an institutional transformation is required, which needs a deliberate and conscious strategy. And therein lies our problem. Evangelicals will generally go on evangelizing, whatever happens in the wider institution. But this will not lead to a programme suitable to the conversion of England. That needs a bolder and more ambitious approach, yet at present there is no sign of that coming from the official, hierarchical, leadership. Given where we are today, then, how can we address the need for the transformation of the Church?

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

TV Soaps: Garbage in - garbage out?

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:46:30 PST

My revelatory moment came with the words, "Coronation Street's on, they're having a row."

Back came the question, "Who's having a row?" and suddenly I realized: I didn't know who, but there's always someone having a row, or having a go at someone else, or cheating on their partner, or plotting something.

Wherever you go in soapland, there's always sour looks and mean deeds.

Now there's an acronym in the world of computer programming: GIGO, which means 'garbage in, garbage out'.

If you input erroneous data your results won't suddenly become Nobel Prizewinning stuff. If your programme is corrupted, don't expect it to run.

And it is often assumed that the same applies in the world of home entertainment. If someone constantly watches violent horror films, it is hardly likely to have an edifying effect. If they are addicted to violent pornography, not only is there something suspect about their inner workings, but they are likely to be exacerbating, rather than helping, the problem.

So why do we assume TV soaps are any different?

Of course there is the excuse, they're not real life. They just exaggerate the kind of things that go on in real life for entertainment.

True, but there are other things that go on in real life, that don't get exaggerated for entertainment in the soaps. There's heroism, there's self-sacrifice, there's kindness and helpfulness.

According to a report in the Daily Mail, Pam St Clement, who used to pay Pat Butcher in East Enders, voiced something of the same concern: I'm not too sure that one little area of London has quite so much violence and adultery as ours does," she is quoted as saying, adding, "Maybe in the search to be over [sic] more interesting we are always pinning stories on things that are ever more 'out there', rather than remembering that good stories are about what happens in people's hearts and in their relationships."

But as we know, in their efforts to be 'out there', soap writers have aimed to be opinion shapers on the subjects of death, sexuality and so on, as well as entertainers. Yet if they believe they can shape opinions, would they deny they can shape a 'mood'?

When I was a schoolboy, our deputy head always seemed to end the last assembly of every academic year with a reading from St Paul's letter to the Philippians, ending with these words: "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

It was meant as a moral exhortation, and by constant repetition it must have got through even my schoolboy skull. And there's a double lesson in itself.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Real Easter Eggs

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:02:47 PST

In the usual spirit of responsible journalism, I haven't had time to check all the details on this one, but apparently there are 'Real Easter Eggs' out there that some supermarkets aren't interested in stocking.

They seem like a pretty good idea. Easter eggs are an extortionate way to buy chocolate generally. If it's chocolate you want, just buy a big, cheap slab of the stuff. Cadbury's Dairy Milk in the mega-size usually does me for a while.

But if you're going to spend money on Easter Eggs, surely you might as well do it wisely. So here's a direct link to the Real Easter Egg site, where you can order them. They're Traidcraft and all that, so the guilt of expensive chocolate is somewhat assuaged.

Apparently the Bishop of Chelmsford also thinks this is a good idea - another reason at the moment for appreciating his ministry.

Chocolate and a chance to 'stick it to the man'. What's not to like (as they say)?

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Now on Amazon: "A Strategy that Changes the Denomination"

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 03:54:29 PST

I just checked, and A Strategy that Changes the Denomination is now available on Amazon. They are charging the full 'list price' (£6.50), but it is eligible for free delivery. This is comparable with the combined £3.52 cover price and £2.99 postage if you order from Lulu (£6.51), but bear in mind that Lulu often offer discounts.

BTW I was amused to note that someone on Amazon is offering it 'used' for £18.50.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Buying a telescope? A couple of tips

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 02:23:21 PST

I see from the Daily Mail that there has apparently been a surge in people buying telescopes as a result of the recent ‘Stargazing Live’ programme on BBC2.

As a bit of a ‘dabbler’ myself (I actually have a minor qualification in astronomy from my university days), I think this is basically a good thing.

However, when it comes to buying a telescope, there’s a couple of tips I’d like to share — and I’d invite others to contribute their own.

First, forget magnification. It’s complicated to explain, but magnification figures can be very misleading when it comes to what you’re going to see down the telescope when you finally get it set up.

Instead, go for ‘width’ — the bigger the aperture, generally the better.

Think of light like water. Imagine its raining and you put a tea cup and a washing-up bowl out in the garden. After twenty minutes, which one’s going to contain the most water? It’s going to be the bowl. Because it covers a bigger area than the teacup, it will have been able to catch more of the rain.

The same with light coming from the sky. A 4" wide telescope will capture not just twice as much light, but four times as much light as a 2" telescope. This means you will see much fainter objects.

But don’t expect to see views like the pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope. With a decent 4" telescope, the Andromeda galaxy — one of the biggest and brightest ‘deep sky objects’ — is still only going to look like a faint fuzzy patch.

On the other hand, the moon and the planets can be quite stunning. But here another rule applies regarding telescopes.

Basically, telescopes come in two kinds: refractors and reflectors. Refractors, you look straight through the tube — think Lord Nelson. Reflectors, you look into it sideways. (There are complicated variations on reflectors, but hey, you’re a beginner, right?)

Due to the way they’re made, reflectors are shorter and they tend to allow big apertures at lower costs. Refractors are longer, and you pay much more, proportionately, for large apertures. BUT refractors give sharper planetary viewing at smaller sizes than do reflectors. So if you want to view the planets — and there’s a lot to see right now — a smaller, quality, refractor might be better than a larger (but not quite large enough!) reflector.

Even so, the rule above still applies — magnification is not the first concern.

The other thing to bear in mind is what you’re going to put the telescope on. If this is your first venture, you’ll probably be OK with a package of telescope and mount, and don’t worry too much about fancy things like motor drives and ‘Go-to’ mounts. Just whack the thing on a tripod, have a look round and if you enjoy it, upgrade when you get bored.

But if you’re reasonably serious about this, look carefully at the mount you’re going to buy. Bear in mind, you can always stick a better telescope on a good mount, whereas a flimsy mount, or an unreliable tracking motor, means even you best viewing efforts will be frustrated.

And another thing — don’t neglect simple binoculars. In fact, for the complete beginner these may be a much better starting point than a telescope.

Personally, I would recommend getting a pair of ‘specialist’ astronomical binoculars. I have a pair of these ‘Revelation’ binoculars from Telescope House. On a limited budget, you would be hard-pressed to do better. They cost me more than the current £55, and they will give you that ‘wow’ factor if you point them at the right part of the sky.

Notice they are 15x70. That is to say, they ‘only’ magnify 15 times (though that’s a pretty big seagull at 100 yards). But they have a 70mm aperture. That’s 2.75 inches — as big as some telescopes. They’re heavy — you’ll get best viewing by putting them on a stand, so don’t forget to buy the tripod adapter as well. But a camera tripod, or even a tall ‘monopod’ will do (it needs to be tall if you’re over 6ft, like me).

Get your kids a pair of these and they will have something that really will last them years, even if they graduate later to a telescope. It is much easier to pack the ‘bins’ and whip them out when needed than to do the same with a 105mm Meade, believe me! (And if you have the money, look at the next size up, though bear in mind that these ‘astronomical’ binoculars are less suitable for daylight work, like birdwatching.)

Finally, much as I appreciate Amazon, this really is a case where I would recommend going to and buying from a specialist suppliers. Telescope House in Tunbridge Wells give a good service in my experience, as do Green Witch (I think it’s a word play on Greenwich, where the Royal Observatory was once located), though they have now moved from their Cambridge location. (Please don’t get their advice then buy from Amazon — that is just wrong.)

Enjoy. But bear in mind, its blooming cold out there.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Holy Communion: Jesus Christ Inc.

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:15:17 PST

Battling to prepare a Lent course on ‘the local church’, I have drawn on the definition given in the Thirty-nine Articles:

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. (Article XXIX)

In preparing a unit on ‘the sacraments’, however, I have been struck by how Paul’s theology of the Lord’s supper dovetails with his concept of the church itself.

In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 he asks rhetorically,

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. (NIV)

However, their behaviour at the Lord’s supper is a contradiction of this principle: “you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing” (11:22). In saying this, he famously warns against those who eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner (11:27) who are therefore “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord” because they fail to recognize the body of the Lord (11:29).

It is very clear, though, that whereas the body and blood in v 27 is that of Jesus himself, the ‘body’ in v29 is the church. Paul has switched references, just as he does earlier in the chapter when he talks about the ‘head’ with (at least) three different references.

So by the time he gets to chapter 12, his ‘body’ language is focussed entirely on Christ’s body as identified with the church:

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. (12:12)

Notice, he does not say, “So it is with the church,” which is how we often preach this passage. We tend to reduce the statement to a simile: “the church is like a body with many parts” — which is true, but not the truth Paul is conveying. For Paul at this point, church and Christ are interchangeable, and his sacramental theology is fundamental to this understanding:

For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. (12:13)

The diversity of the church is not that of a group who bring diverse skills to a task, but of a single body which has different organs and limbs:

Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. (12:14)

And therefore the behaviour criticized earlier at the Lord’s supper is not merely ‘impolite’ but a contradiction of a fundamental theological reality:

But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honour to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. ... Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. (12:24b-25, 27)

So when the ‘one bread’ of the Lord’s supper is broken and distributed, it is not eaten by individuals. Rather, like food going into our mouths, it feeds the organs and limbs of one body.

The message of holy communion is therefore not just that Christ died for us individually (though of course it is that) but that Christ thereby ‘incorporates’ us into himself and thus joins us to one another.

I cannot therefore make ‘my’ communion. I can only join with making ‘our’ communion where the one Body feeds through the Head on the healing fruit of the true ‘Tree of Life’.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Why evangelicals should go to their diocesan fellowships

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:07:45 PST

I have posted earlier a comment about how evangelicals (I mean clergy especially) treat diocesan evangelical fellowships the way we don't want people to treat church on Sunday, and I believe it is worth highlighting.

Most of us get pretty frustrated if people habitually only turn up for Sunday church when it suits them - when they aren't visiting relatives or shopping or taking the kids to football, and so on.

The reason for this, however, ought not to be that it makes our numbers look bad or makes us personally frustrated after all the work we put in. Rather, it should be the reason given in Hebrews 10:23-25:

Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another —and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (The Holy Bible : New International Version, electronic ed)

We should be in church for one another's sake - not for our own sake alone. And we should be at the Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship for the same reason.

Goodness knows, we need —as much as the laity —encouragement to hold unswervingly to our hope (how often do clergy who drift from evangelical fellowship drift, a few years later, from evangelical doctrine?), to spur one another on to love and good deeds, and to recall the coming day of judgement when our own ministry will be revealed as building on gold and silver or hay and straw.

And if your DEF doesn't deliver that encouragement, then take action to make sure it does. But do not give up meeting!

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

This week at the CEEC

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:10:08 PST

I spent much of Thursday this week on a meeting of the Church of England Evangelical Council.

The train journey down (as my Facebook friends will know) was a delight, travelling in the new Stansted Express rolling stock and getting free WiFi in second class — plus an entire section to myself. It was far better than working from home. They even brought coffee round!

However, the CEEC, which meets at the All Souls Clubhouse, frankly struggles to meet its aims.

As I have said in my book, this is partly because we are expected to express the views of an evangelical community which cannot get on with — or in many cases even bother to meet up — with one another on the ground.

Twice in the past few months I have heard of diocesan evangelical groups which have voluntarily shut down, first in Manchester then in Rochester, and one has to ask how the late, lamented John Stott would have viewed this situation.

Stott did probably more than anyone, in his own lifetime, to hold evangelical Anglicans together and unfortunately, this has long been a necessity. Twice in the last century or so, evangelical Anglicanism has gone through a kind of ‘super-nova’ outburst, whereby internal divisions have been followed by the departure of an ‘outer shell’ into theological liberalism, leaving behind a diminished, though more conservative, core.

This happened once following the ritualist controversy of the nineteenth century and the second time in the era around and shortly after the Second World War. The book to read on the former is James Whisenant, A Fragile Unity: Anti-ritualism and the Division of Anglican Evangelicalism in the Nineteenth Century (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003). The book on the latter is probably Oliver Barclay, Evangelicalism in Britain 1935-1995: A Personal Sketch (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1997).

As was reported at the meeting, vacancies on the CEEC are being filled by default, without any contested elections (indeed I myself was re-elected in just this way). In recent years, the CEEC has been accused of being unrepresentative — a ‘rump parliament’ of conservatives — but the sad truth is that people do not step up at the local level to revitalize evangelical fellowships. Indeed a young evangelical of my acquaintance who tried to interest others in one of the now-defunct fellowships was told it wasn’t really worth it.

In recent weeks we have heard a lot about the ‘John Stott legacy’, which by common agreement is that he left evangelicalism generally, and evangelical Anglicanism specifically, much stronger. And regarding the intellectual calibre of some of the movement I am sure that is right. But ‘politically’ I am not convinced. In fact, I believe we are about two-thirds of the way through a third evangelical ‘super-nova’.

The trick is, though, how to avoid history simply repeating itself. This is one of the motivations behind my book: A Strategy that Changes the Denomination. I firmly believe that evangelicals have partly sown the seeds of their own division by consistently failing to have such a strategy and a proper vision for the church. This is a problem today for both ‘conservative’ and ‘open’ evangelicals.

Contrary to what someone told me at the CEEC, I do not believe I have all the answers. But I do believe that better answers are available than the approaches we have used so far. It is not sufficient for evangelicals to accept being either a ghetto (bounded by signs saying “Bishops Keep Out”) or an enclave (where we do our ‘evangelizing’ thing and let the rest of the Church of England get on with their respected tradition of not evangelizing).

I also firmly believe that God’s instrument of evangelism is the church, international, national and local — mission agencies are (as someone once called the cults) the ‘unpaid bills’ of the church. They are the evidence that God’s instrument of witness to the world, the Body of Christ made visible where the pure word is preached and the sacraments duly administered, is currently not up to the job.

And there is a job to do! I just doubt that we are yet getting down to it.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

What on earth do vicars do with their time?

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:38:47 PST

One of the things that the Church of England’s bureaucracy has manage to come up with following the introduction of ‘Common Tenure’ is the so-called ‘rôle description’.

No doubt this seemed like a good idea at the time. No doubt someone thought it would be a way of regularizing or systematizing the perhaps rather-haphazard assumptions that are made about clergy and the work they do.

Unfortunately, they reckoned without the capacity of human beings in general, and people who don’t actually do a job (or perhaps even understand it very well) to screw things up when they get their hands on them.

If you don’t believe me, here is an actual rôle description for a vicar’s post currently being advertised in the Diocese of Chelmsford. Just to save you counting, there are thirty-four paragraphs under the list of specifics. Read them and choke on your coffee.

(i) General Statement of Purpose

All incumbents are Priests in the Church of England whose responsibilities and duties are set out in the Ordinal. Incumbents are additionally licensed by the Bishop to exercise a shared ministry of leadership in a particular context where they will usually be the representative, public face of the church

1. The provision of evangelical, Bible-based worship, administration of the Sacraments, preaching, education, pastoral care, nurture, service, evangelism and leadership that is both Kingdom focussed and a locally relevant response to the Five Marks of Mission in order that:

a. each worshipping congregation is a transforming presence in and for their local community and is connected with the wider church and world, and

b. the vocational gifts and ministries of the whole people of God are discerned, developed and deployed.

2. The collaborative exercise of leadership with the Bishop, other clergy and lay people in the benefice, deanery and diocese to further God’s mission and ministry.

3. The blend of congregational, local community, and wider civic, social and/or church involvement that every licensed clergy person is expected to exercise.

(ii) Specific Statement of Purpose and Key Responsibilities

The following eight sections summarise the main duties and responsibilities of an incumbent of [...]. The balance between what is done personally and what is delegated will vary widely, but in every case the responsibility for ensuring these things are addressed lies with the incumbent (in some cases jointly with the PCC). The exercise of ministry should always be collaborative and make use of the gifts entrusted by God to his people in each particular place. It will be important to have in mind the demography and geography of the parish and its place in the town of Chelmsford so that the appropriate needs of different ages, backgrounds and stages of faith can be addressed

1. Mission, Service and Outreach

develop a ministry that gives expression to each of the Five Marks of Mission

provide opportunities for individuals to discover and learn about the Christian faith

interpret the Gospel afresh for this generation in this context, which may include new forms of church and discipleship, to lead new people of all ages and backgrounds in their walk with Christ

open up the power of the Holy Spirit working in existing Christians to show God’s love in action through evangelism, service, witness and discipleship

make use of opportunities for outreach and service to the community, collaborating where appropriate with other churches, agencies, community organisations, local authorities and institutions

engage with local, national and world mission and development agencies.

2. Leadership and working collaboratively

lead the benefice in discerning, setting and holding its vision within the context of the deanery and diocesan vision and strategy

motivate and empower members of the church, to achieve that vision

build up the community of faith, sharing ministry as appropriate and working collaboratively with others, (including clergy colleagues, churchwardens, PCC, staff and volunteers), so that individuals’ gifts and talents are identified and used effectively

work with other churches in the deanery in implementing the deanery vision and play a full part in the life of the Deanery Chapter and Synod.

partner with ecumenical colleagues and churches whenever appropriate

3. Worship, prayer, preaching and teaching

oversee a pattern of evangelical Bible-based worship and prayer for all ages and stages of faith

oversee a programme of teaching and preaching which supports the Church as a learning community, develops its faith and responds to the needs of different ages and levels of faith

interpret and preach the gospel in ways that encourage faith development, adapting content and style for different audiences, occasions and purposes.

4. Pastoral care

oversee the structures and resources to provide appropriate care to the congregation and community

lead the provision of pastoral care as appropriate, including baptism and marriage preparation, care to the sick dying and bereaved, individual support and visiting

show awareness of own limitations and boundaries; and of other individuals and agencies to whom referrals can be made.

5. Discipleship, Vocation and Stewardship

oversee appropriate preparation for baptism, confirmation, communion and discipleship that encourages life-long growth and development

encourage a culture in which vocational discernment and response is a natural part of the church’s life

enable every Christian to discern their calling from God and to use the gifts, skills and experience that have been entrusted to them in the family, church, workplace and world

ensure that each person receives the appropriate support and training to exercise their ministry in response to God’s calling

lead by example and teaching on the responsibility of stewardship and giving. Encourage the congregation to meet their proper obligations to the benefice and to the wider church. Work with the PCC to develop its current policy of mission giving

6. Parish Organisation and Communication

ensure that structures and resources for parish organisation are appropriate, including clear boundaries and accountabilities of roles

ensure that structures, processes and policies in relation to services, weddings, baptisms and funerals, health and safety, child protection, finance, fabric, staff employment and management, etc. to meet diocesan and legal requirements

communicate effectively and appropriately in both written and verbal form with people of all ages and situations in society, inside and outside the church

undertake personal administration, planning and organisation in a collaborative and open manner with appropriate delegation. Ensure meetings are planned and chaired effectively.

7. Personal development and spirituality

be a person of prayer with a clear reliance on God and an obvious and outward-looking faith

model an appropriate pattern of work that enables a rounded spiritual and personal life while meeting the proper demands of ministry.

Continue to develop personal skills and knowledge in relation to ministry through appropriate use of CMD grants and relevant reading, study, consultancy, training courses and workshops

maintain a worshipping and prayerful spiritual life with appropriate support structures (including spiritual direction, networks of support and regular retreats)

make full use of time off to care for self, household and personal relationships, including adequate time for family life, friendship, recreation, renewal and personal health

8. Wider Ministry

serve beyond the parish at local, deanery, diocesan and national level by offering time, wisdom and skills to serve the wider church’s ministry and mission.

play an appropriate part in the civic and community life of the locality (e.g. governance of local schools and/or charities)

learn from the traditions and diversity of the wider national and world church.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Epiphany: the visit of the magicians

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:02:28 PST

Notes for a sermon preached last Sunday, 8th January, First Sunday after the Epiphany:

Recently on TV it was announced that the Duchess of Cambridge was going to work as a volunteer with Beavers and Cubs. This is a very good thing to do, but what really struck me when this news was announced was the female volunteer who talked about the cubs and scouts doing their astrology badge.

Now I’m pretty sure she meant astronomy, but a lot of people make the same mistake. In fact it is one of the favourite bugbears of Sir Patrick Moore who gets understandably annoyed.

Astronomy is an objective science. Astrology isn’t.

But more than that, as far as the Bible is concerned, astrology is a false religion, along with spiritism and so on.

Deuteronomy 4:15-19, which forbids idolatry, includes in this worshipping the heavenly bodies:

You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.

Astrology is a false religion because it ascribes to created things powers which belong to God alone. The nations could worship the heavenly bodies, but not Israel, because Israel belonged to the true God who had made the heavens and the earth.

Which is why it is a bit surprising when we read about the visit of the ‘wise men’ in Matthew chapter 2, because the word Matthew uses to describe them is ‘magi’ — singular ‘magos’ — which actually means a magician.

In Acts 13:8 we read about a man called ‘Elymas’ who we’re told is a false prophet and a ‘magos’ — a sorcerer. And in Acts 8 there is a man called Simon who, verse 12 tells us, used to amaze the people with his ‘mageia’, or sorcery.

The word ‘magic’ is related to the word ‘magos’ and ‘mageia’.

So what is going on with the visit of the ‘magi’? Does it mean, as someone once suggested to me, that astrology isn’t so bad after all?

That would be a very odd conclusion, and certainly one that isn’t supported anywhere else in Scripture, so what is going on?

The first clue, I think, is the introduction to Matthew’s gospel, which is one long genealogy, a list of names, beginning with Abraham and ending with Jesus.

Most of the names are unfamiliar to us and unprounceable, but we don’t have to know all of them to get Matthew’s message, because he sums it up for us in v 17:

Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

Notice, Matthew divides Jewish history into three periods marked by four events: Abraham, David, the Exile and the Christ.

The Exile had ended in about 536 bc, so an awful lot of history had happened since then and the birth of Jesus in the final months of Herod the Great. But the Exile potentially has some relevance to the visit of the magi.

I’ve mentioned places in the New Testament where ‘magi’ are mentioned, but for Matthew’s original audience ‘magi’ would be familiar from the Old Testament.

In the Greek translation of the book of Daniel, which is the version they would have read, there are several references to ‘magi’, who were part of the retinue of the Babylonian king — in fact these are the only OT references.

But in the book of Daniel, it is Daniel — the Jewish exile in the pagan court — who shows up the ‘magi’. 1:20 sets the tone for the book:

In every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king questioned [Daniel and his companions], he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters [magoi] in his whole kingdom.

Throughout Daniel whenever there is a conflict between the Babylonian magoi and the Jewish exile, it is the Jewish exile, Daniel, who wins with his wisdom.

Now of course not all these Jewish exiles in Babylon came home. Some of them stayed, and it may well be that their influence inspired ongoing interest in Jewish affairs amongst the ‘magi’ of that culture.

But as readers of Matthew’s gospel, we can see their visit as an astonishing turning of the tables.

In Daniel, the magi are pagan astrologers, whose wisdom is no match for the Jewish exile in the pagan king’s court.

But look what happens when the ‘magi from the east’ arrive at the court of king Herod. Instead of Jews in exile showing up the pagan ‘magi’, it is the magi who show up the Jewish wise men on their home turf!

The Jewish court is completely wrong-footed — no one even knows the king is to be born! So Herod calls in his ‘wise men’, v 4:

When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: “ ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.’”

It’s the right answer, from the right source. They’ve gone to Scripture and it’s told them where to look.

But what happens? No one goes to check it out, and Herod’s only concern is to kill off a potential rival, which is why the wise men are warned to return by a different route, not to report back to Herod.

The visit of the magi is surprising, but it is surely meant to be surprising. It is meant to give us a foretaste of things to come, for the climax to Matthew’s gospel is the message Jesus gives to his disciples at the end of chapter 28:

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Mt 28:18-19)

This is not about rehabilitating astrology, but it is about those people who up until now have worshipped the sun and the moon and the stars — things Deuteronomy 4:19 says have been “apportioned to all the nations under heaven”.

The great moment in the story is in v 11, where the magi bow down and worship Jesus, the king of the Jews. Matthew is telling us that the birth of Jesus is not just the end of the great period from the Exile to the Christ, it is the beginning of salvation that will finally bring in all the nations estranged from God.

And this should teach us something about ourselves and our world, which is that the gospel message is for all people and all nations.

There are many people out there still worshipping images, still worshipping the sun and the moon and the stars, or still believing that their lives are controlled by fates and forces.

At around the time that the news came about the Duchess of Cambridge, many of you will also have heard on the news about a trial that has just started at the Old Bailey of a man and woman accused of killing her brother because they thought he was practising witchcraft.

People in these cultures don’t regard witchcraft as nonsense, they are very frightened of it, and they are frightened because they believe it gives people power which they can use to hurt others.

It is extraordinary that there is more fear of witchcraft in 21^st century London than there was in Victorian London. And it would be a great cruelty to say, “This is part of their culture, we must not try to challenge or change it.” The gospel is for people caught up in witchcraft, and it delivers them from the fear of witchcraft — but this isn’t just about ‘foreign’ cultures.

A couple of weeks before Christmas, I had to have an injection in my shoulder. The medic about to administer the injection told me there was a very slight risk of infection but “touch wood” everything would be OK.

I told them that I didn’t think the wood god was going to be much help to either them or me. I’m sure they wouldn’t really put that down to touching wood and I don’t think they’d thank me if I phoned up and said, “My shoulder’s a lot better now — just as well you touched wood, isn’t it?” But you see how powerful these things are, and the gospel has a message for people caught up in that sort of superstition and fear.

Or again, every year, hundreds of thousands of Muslims travel to Mecca on pilgrimage, part of which is to circulate around the sacred shrine of the Ka’aba in Mecca itself.

And the ultimate experience if you do this is to touch the black stone at the corner of the Ka’aba because, according to Muslim tradition, that stone fell from heaven and was originally white, but now it is black because it absorbs the sins of anyone who touches it.

So the gospel has a message for people who believe a meteoritic stone takes away the sins of the world. You may ask what is the difference between that and believing that a baby in a cradle in Bethlehem takes away the sins of the world, but of course it is different if that baby is the creator of the world, whereas the black stone is just a created thing.

All these people need the gospel of Jesus Christ. Whether they are trapped by astrology, or superstition, or witchcraft, or one of the world’s great religions, what they need is to come and worship Jesus.

What we need is the confidence in him to tell them.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

25% off 'A Strategy that Changes the Denomination"

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 09:56:42 PST

Valid until the 6th January if you enter code ONEMORETHINGUK305 at the checkout. Savings of up to £150 on orders.

Click here to view or order.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Born that man no more may die

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:53:46 PST

“I always see the death’s head lurking. I could be sitting at Madison Square Garden at the most exciting basketball game, and they’re cheering and everything is thrilling, and one of the players is doing something very beautiful — and my thought will be, ‘He’s only twenty-eight years old and I only wish he could savor this moment in some way, because, you know, this is as good as it’s going to get for him’ ... The fundamental thing behind all motivation and all activity is the constant struggle against annihilation and against death. It’s absolutely stupefying in its terror, and it renders anyone’s accomplishments meaningless. As Camus wrote, it’s not only that he dies or that man dies, but that you struggle to do a work of art that will last and then realize that the universe itself is not going to exist after a period of time. Until those issues are resolved within each person — religiously or psychologically or existentially — the social and political issues will never be resolved, except in a slapdash way. They’ll never be resolved as long as people wake up each day and worry that they’re finite, that they don’t know why they’re here or where they’re going or when they’re going to die.” (Attrib. Woody Allen, in Ortlund, Raymond, Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996, fn 69 165).

*******************************

Hail the heav’n-born Prince of Peace,
Hail, the Sun of Righteousness
Light and life to all He brings,
Risen with healing in His Wings.
Mild, He lays His Glory by,
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth,
Born to give them second birth.

Hark! the herald angels sing,
“Glory to the New-born king!”

(Charles Wesley et al., ‘Hark, the Herald Angels Sing’)

*******************

“God sent into the world a unique person - neither a philosopher nor a general, important though they are, but a Saviour, with the power to forgive.” (HM the Queen)

********************

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death — that is, the devil — and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. (Heb 2:14-15)

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Opportunities and Perils for the Church of England

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 00:36:13 PST

This month's 'Anglican Update' for Evangelicals Now:

As never before in my own lifetime, the Church of England is at a crossroads moment of great opportunity and yet great peril.

I have mentioned before in these columns the opinion of a colleague on the Crown Nominations Commission that the senior ministers of the Anglican Church are “staring into the abyss” when it comes to declining numbers.

Consequently, a new breed of bishops is emerging who are ambitious for church growth. At the same time, existing bishops and their dioceses are being required to come up with proposals to reverse the decline.

Just a month ago in our own diocese of Chelmsford, I thus found myself for the first time sitting listening to a bishop, who had just come from speaking at an evangelistic event himself, telling a gathered group of his clergy how to do evangelism.

Wherever this is happening, it clearly presents even the most conservative of Evangelical Anglicans with the opportunity for involvement not just in the evangelism itself but in the structures of their diocese.

Some may find this extraordinary — not that a bishop should be doing such a thing, but that it took so long for it to happen. Surely the Church of England has had Evangelical bishops before now? And indeed it has, but sadly they have almost to a man failed to produce a more ‘evangelizing’ denomination. In our case, that has been achieved by a man from (formally speaking) a Liberal-Catholic tradition.

And therein lies the peril, for at the same time as these developments are taking place, the Church is under immense pressure, both from without and within, to change its teaching and practice on human sexuality.

Early in December there were headline reports about the Church’s refusal to allow the registering of civil partnerships on its premises. But in a subsequent interview on Radio 4’s Sunday programme, the Bishop of Burnley made it clear that this prohibition could be overturned by the General Synod.

At present that would not happen, but already on the bench of bishops there are several, including some self-identified as Evangelicals, who would not uphold orthodox teaching. Moreover, the House of Bishops itself has recently set up a ‘review group’ to look at the whole issue of civil partnerships and specifically to consider whether clergy in such partnerships could be made bishops.

Furthermore, back in July the House announced the commencement of “further work on the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality more generally”. It would be surprising if none of the ‘unorthodox’ bishops found themselves involved in these processes and (sadly) just as surprising if the orthodox stood up to them robustly.

Meanwhile, increasing numbers of churches are openly identifying themselves as ‘inclusive’ regarding sexuality. Doubtless the pressures for this come from the clergy. The laity are generally more traditionalist. But as society as a whole has shifted ground on the subject, so it is becoming easier for Liberal clergy to persuade their congregations to accept the changes. The significance of this will be seen, no doubt, in Synod elections a few years hence.

The orthodox therefore face a difficult challenge. On the one hand, it is vital that they do not withdraw from the institution just at the point where the whole issue of gospel proclamation can be brought to the fore. At the same time, they must develop and make the case for sexual orthodoxy and, if necessary, must be willing to confront even those bishops who are leading the evangelistic charge in their dioceses.

These are difficult days indeed, but in God’s plans nothing that hasn’t been thought of already.

John Richardson

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Her Majesty nails it again

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 08:51:48 PST

For the last few years, the Queen's Christmas speech has been far and away one of the clearest 'religious' messages of the season -- far better than any of the clerical offerings. This year seemed to be even more so. Is she trying to tell us something?

Here's the last bit, but the whole is worth reading:

God sent into the world a unique person - neither a philosopher nor a general, important though they are, but a Saviour, with the power to forgive.

Forgiveness lies at the heart of the Christian faith. It can heal broken families, it can restore friendships and it can reconcile divided communities. It is in forgiveness that we feel the power of God's love.

In the last verse of this beautiful carol, O Little Town Of Bethlehem, there's a prayer:

O Holy Child of Bethlehem,
Descend to us we pray.
Cast out our sin
And enter in.
Be born in us today.

It is my prayer that on this Christmas day we might all find room in our lives for the message of the angels and for the love of God through Christ our Lord.

I wish you all a very happy Christmas.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Our Carol Services Sermon

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:22:28 PST

What do the following pairs of people have in common?

John F Kennedy and C S Lewis
Michael Jackson and Farah Fawcett
Christopher Hitchens and John Hucklesby

The answer is that each died within a few hours of the other.

John F Kennedy, the 35^th president of the United States, died the same day as C S Lewis, a Cambridge academic famous for his Christian writings and broadcasts.

Michael Jackson, one of the all-time greats in the world of pop music, died the same day as Farah Fawcett, whom some of us will remember as a member of the original Charlie’s Angels.

And Christopher Hitchens was a writer, journalist and militant atheist who died on Thursday last week. But who, you may be asking, was John Hucklesby?

Well, as some of you know, John was a long-time member of the congregation at St Peter’s, Ugley. A fervent, believer, John was a man with a passion for God and a deep love of his Saviour.

Christopher Hitchens died a week ago on Thursday, John Hucklesby died the following Friday morning, and I couldn’t help remarking on the circumstances of such different men departing this world so close to one another.

Following his death, on Radio 4’s Saturday Live a resident poet wrote this obituary for Christopher Hitchens:

So long then Mr Hitchens,
Your perfect rage still burning bright.
Off to meet your maker,
Or maybe not, if you were right.

And that’s the problem, isn’t it? Christopher Hitchens was either right or he was wrong. Either there is a God or there is not. There is no ‘in between’ on this one, where we can agree to differ and both be right in our own way.

If he was right, and there is not, then in a sense he wins. But it is a Pyrrhic victory, for if there is no God we are all ultimately losers in the game of life. The one thing in that case that Christopher Hitchens will never be able to say to anyone is, “I told you so.”

But what if he was wrong? What if there is a God, and on Thursday last week Christopher Hitchens indeed went to meet his maker?

You see it isn’t quite right to describe Christopher Hitchens as an atheist. He described himself as an anti-theist. It wasn’t that he disbelieved in God, the way I disbelieve in leprechauns. He raged against God.

He said, for example, that heaven was like a kind of cosmic North Korea. And if God did exist, said Hitchens, heaven would be hell for him.

By contrast, when my wife Alison and I saw John Hucklesby on Thursday night, we found a man ready for heaven and rejoicing at the thought of going to be with his Lord. I prayed for him, and he prayed for me. In fact I especially asked him to pray for what I’d be saying to you now, so if you don’t like it blame him!

Now the news of the deaths of these two men, the atheist and the Christian, produced in me joy on the one hand and sorrow on the other.

But which is which? Whose death do you think gives me joy and whose gives me sorrow?

Well of course is it John Hucklesby’s death that gives me joy.

On Friday morning I wrote on Facebook (as you do these days) a brief note about John’s passing, which ended with words from the bidding prayer at the original service of nine lessons and carols: “Today,” I said, “he rejoices ‘upon another shore, and in a greater light’.”

There can be no sorrow in that. But what of Christopher Hitchens? If he was right, he is nowhere. If he was wrong, he is somewhere, but he didn’t want to be in heaven, so where else could he be? Either way, one can only feel sorrow.

You see, in the end, you can only be one thing or the other. The agnostic must make their mind up and become a believer or an unbeliever, and the atheist will, in the nature of things, become an anti-theist in the face of belief

Christopher Hitchens once wrote a book titled God is not Great, which might sound a bit like me writing a book called Leprechauns are Lying about the Crock of Gold at the End of the Rainbow. But I wouldn’t do that because I really don’t believe in leprechauns, whereas Hitchens, who professed not to believe in God, somehow seemed to feel that the God who didn’t exist was nevertheless in some real way evil.

And so if heaven was a kind of hell for him then hell would be a kind of heaven, where he could go on rejecting God forever. And that is a terrible thought!

But why is John Hucklesby with is Lord today? Certainly not because he was a good man — certainly not in his view. And not because he was a better man than Christopher Hitchens — in fact they both drank like fish and smoked like chimneys, which in both cases probably hastened their death.

Some time ago, however, John told me that the passage he wanted me to preach on at his funeral was the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

This was a story Jesus told about a man who went out early in the morning to hire some labourers to work in his vineyard. And throughout the day he kept going back to hire more labourers. He did this at the third hour, the sixth hour and the ninth hour.

Finally, at the eleventh hour he picked up some men who’d been waiting all day. These would have been the least competent, the least able of the lot, and they only had one hour’s work ahead of them.

When it came time to pay them, the men hired first got a day’s wage, as agreed. But then those who’d been hired at the third hour also got a full day’s wage, as did those hired at the sixth and ninth hours.

Finally, those hired at the eleventh hour came to get their wages, and they got a full days wage as well, at which point the men who’d worked all day began to complain — “Why should they get the same as us?”

The vineyard owner’s reply was simple: “It’s my money and my choice to be generous with it. Why should you complain?”

John understood the parable. He knew he was a latecomer — someone who had only come to know Christ at the eleventh hour. And therefore he knew that his reward of heaven was a result of God’s generosity towards him, not his service of God.

In other words, he understood grace — God’s riches, at Christ’s expense.

Contrast this with what Christopher Hitchens thought about God. He once said that believers have all their work ahead of them when they die — praising the dictator God who made them. John Hucklesby believed he had all the joy ahead of him — praising the Saviour God who saved him.

I’ll let you decided who’s right. And I have to let you decide which you want to be.

All I will say is that you can either have a slightly cynical Christmas or a very merry one. It’s up to you.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Removing XP Security 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:10:21 PST

(Update: Although what I posted below was the method I used to resolve this issue, I have found a link to Norton/Symantec offering a free tool to remove this program. You may like to try that first. Note that if you enter Windows Task Manager, you may find the XP Security program running as wdt.exe, which I found I could safely stop. The trouble is, it will reload when you try to get online. You need to close all the 'fake' windows to get past it and browse the internet. Good luck!)

There aren't many people who deserve to be hung up by their goolies, but the devisers of XP Security 2012 certainly come into that category.

Somehow my wife managed to install their scam software on her half of the desktop PC this morning and it has taken me an hour plus to remove it. In a moment, I'll tell you how (as usual the time went in finding the solution, not applying it).

For those of you unfamiliar with the product, XP Security 2012 flashes up a series of fake 'security alerts' on your screen. These, however, look incredibly like the 'real thing' from Microsoft - so much so that, despite being a long-term PC user, and innately suspicious, even I was nearly fooled.

The programme will tell you that your firewall and automatic updates are turned off (which they were, but I suspect the programme had done that itself.) It even runs a fake 'scan' of your computer in front of your eyes, telling you that all sorts of worms, viruses and trojans are installed.

If you will only register and buy the full version, XP Security 2012 will get rid of them for you.

The trouble is, the whole thing is a fake, a scam, a con-trick, and undoubtedly illegal, given that the software adjusts the settings on your computer to do things you don't want it to do - so that, for example, every internet-using programme you try to open is blocked. Moreover, I suspect that some of the advertised removal systems may just be trying to take advantage of the problem.

(Incidentally, if you run Windows Task Manager [ctrl] [alt] [del] I think you'll find the offending .exe file running as Wdt.exe. Closing it gets rid of the problem temporarily, but it will keep 'reactivating', for example if you open a browser.)
So what to do? In my case I simply used a registry restoration point. Click [Help], search for 'system restore' then selext [Run the System Restore Wizard] and let the wizard do the rest. I went back two days to be on the safe side. You could try [Run System Restore in safe mode] as an alternative. You should be able to undo this if it doesn't work, and please be aware as always I'm not guaranteeing the safety or security of this - it just worked for me is all.

However, I then used 'Iolo System Mechanic', which I have on my machine, to 'repair' the registry and to delete all cached internet files and temporary windows files in the hope this might have got rid of the problem files which must have been downloaded somewhere.

I had to reboot the system a couple of times to get everything back to as near normal as possible, but it all seems OK now.

If anyone else has found this approach works, or if they know any undetected hazards, please post a comment.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Is 'touching wood' a religious gesture?

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:58:27 PST

I ask this because a short while ago I received a steroid injection for a painful shoulder joint. One of the medical practitioners involved explained that there were very few risks involved (I had to sign a consent form) - it could lead to an infection, but "touch wood" that wouldn't happen.

Having frequently commented on this in sermons, I felt obliged to point out that the wood god wasn't going to help either them or me, but that I'd every confidence in the procedure.

As far as I'm concerned, that's an end to the matter. But in these days of the litigious mentality which sees the need for recourse everywhere to rules and regulations to uphold 'my right' not to be offended (or is it just 'my right' to take offence?), I couldn't help wryly asking what might have happened had - perish the thought - the same person appealed for help at that moment to the God of Israel rather than the demiurge of the nearby bookcase.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

An Episcopalian review of 'A Strategy that Changes the Denomination'

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 23:45:45 PST

Thanks to Philip Wainwright for the review and Bruce Robison for the original tip off, who also blogs here and here.

Evangelicals and the Transformation of the Episcopal Church
[...]
Richardson’s book may not attract much interest at the highest level of the Church of England, or even of the power structures of contemporary evangelicalism, but I pray that it will be read by others, especially in the Episcopal Church, and will one day be looked back on with the same respect with which Richardson describes Towards the Conversion of England. It’s not expensive. Order one for yourself here, and one for someone you know in the Episcopal Church.

Read the rest here.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Canadian gay culture - one view from the inside

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 03:10:09 PST

Looking for something else online, I came across this article written in September this year, from a Canadian newspaper. Just occasionally it helps to get an 'insider's view' of something. It probably won't cheer up your Christmas, but it is worth a read. 'Poignant' is probably the word.

"Life After Death" by Michael Harris

... My peers and I are supposed to be “over” our gayness. It’s unfashionable to have gay-related “issues.” Many of us consider the gay newspaper Xtra passé. Even the gay bars are tired spaces, for the most part, and younger crowds prefer one-off parties at weird hotel bars that aren’t explicitly queer.

I partake in all this, and enjoy it. But the impulse to do away with the ghetto and focus instead on social autonomy is also a flawed, neo-liberal ambition. We like to believe we are masters of our own fate (even as proponents of “free will” have a hard time explaining why poor people consistently produce poor children). Culture matters, actually, and nowhere is this more evident than in HIV test reports. Aboriginals comprise about 4 percent of Canada’s population, for example, but make up 6 to 12 percent of new cases. Race even affects the way people become infected. Aboriginals most often become positive via intravenous drug use; among Latin Americans and Asians, it’s mainly gay sex that leads to infection. Among the black population, heterosexual contact is overwhelmingly the cause. HIV preys on a culture’s fault lines. Like many diseases (tuberculosis in Buenos Aires, say), it is a litmus test for class distinction.

Single gay men in Canada are up to six times more likely than our heterosexual counterparts to kill ourselves. We tend to smoke more, drink more, use more illicit drugs. In a 2003 clinical guide, Dr. Allan Peterkin and Dr. Cathy Risdon estimated that the lifespan of Canadian gay men is between twenty to thirty years less than the average.

HIV, then, is a rude reminder that our civil rights movement is incomplete. How can I feel like an equal when gay men are damned to abbreviated lives? ...

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

What they're saying about 'A Strategy that Changes the Denomination'

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 04:21:03 PST

I particularly like this endorsement from Sam Norton at the Elizaphanian blog:

"I've recently read John Richardson's 'A Strategy that Changes the Denomination' which I thought was rather good."

The rest of the post (about Rev. and other matters) is worth reading too.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Rev., the Happy Ending?

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:17:49 PST

Earlier today I posted about the BBC sitcom Rev. At least, it is called a sitcom, but there didn't seem to be much 'com' in episode 6.

There is, however, a seventh episode scheduled for next week, so perhaps all is going to come good in time for Christmas (in our time, if not theirs).

That being the case, what will happen?

For Adam and Alex, the answer's obvious - she gets pregnant. That would be nice for them, and no one could begrudge their 'success'. Plus we'd no longer have to watch clips of them having desperate sex.

For Adam personally (given his apparent pledge), giving up the booze and cigarettes would also be a plus (and would make kissing him a nicer experience for Alex - see above). Everyone wins.

Alcoholic unemployed Colin is another easy one. Drying out. Getting a job (and keeping it). Sorted.

Adoha needs a man who is not called Adam Smallbone. I doubt whether it should be Colin and it is scarcely conceivable that it could be Mick unless his schizophrenia clears up.

The latter seemed to be making progress in a slightly sideways manner in an earlier episode, but I doubt whether he is yet husband material. However, if Santa brings him a new toothbrush he might reap the benefits in other ways.

Headmistress Ellie could probably also do with a bloke. She had one a couple of episodes ago, but he got killed in a traffic collision (fans of Hot Fuzz please note, not a 'road accident'). Which reminds me, there don't seem to be too many stable relationships around St Saviour's in the Marsh.

Nigel, the Reader, desperately wanted to be a priest in episode 6, but that ain't gonna happen even in fiction (is it?). And apparently he's got a girlfriend. He does, however, spend an inordinate amount of time hanging around in St Saviour's itself, which is a pretty sad place, so perhaps 'a life' would be best for him.

The problematic one is gay Archdeacon Robert. He's been getting more 'openly' so since the second series began (I preferred it when it was obvious but un-stated - much more realistic in fact). What he wanted in episode 6 was to be made a bishop. What I wanted (until episode 6 where he was outed) was to see his expenses sheet, given his propensity for driving (or indeed in episode 6 just sitting) around in black cabs. What will the writers have under the tree for him? Unless the series heads off into some parallel universe, preferment will have to wait (at least until series 3). Of all the characters, oddly he's the one I could most see undergoing a profound spiritual transformation, so let's leave him with that and let's leave you, the reader, to decide what it would mean.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

'Rev.', the Sad Heart of Anglicanism

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 03:05:18 PST

Having heartily disliked the BCC TV series Rev. the first time around, but aware of (and indeed encouraged by) some people who thought it was great, I have assiduously watched the second series up to the sixth episode (I gather there is one more scheduled — a ‘Christmas special’ perhaps?).

I am still polarized from its admirers. One reviewer in the Telegraph described it as having done “much to prove that sitcoms can ... still make you gag on your risotto with laughter” and I’m with him up to the last two words. However, I’m a bit clearer as to why.

The reason I dislike Rev. so much is, I suspect, that like Father Ted, it has actually captured quite well something of its subject matter. In the case of the latter, it is the madness of certain aspects of Roman spirituality and culture. The presentation, however, is frequently hilarious, regardless of the ‘situation’ bit of the ‘sitcom’.

Of course this can sometimes be painful, such as the excruciating build up to Ted greeting Richard Wilson (playing himself) with his Victor Meldrew “I don’t believe it” catch-phrase. You know its going to happen, but part of you is saying, “Stop!” Nevertheless, the release evokes laughter, not pity.

Rev. also captures an element of reality. Indeed, there was a rather neat coincidence in that the day I watched the episode involving the ‘exorcism’, I’d been asked to deal with something not dissimilar locally. (Interestingly, when I shared this with a clergyman, now retired, who used to work in the patch close to that covered by Rev. he told me it happened “all the time”.)

Unlike Father Ted, however, Rev. is shot through with pathos. At one level this simply means they are different and there is no harm in that. But the pathos of Rev. derives from the lives of those it depicts, and in many ways they quite accurately represent the sadness at the heart of so much Anglicanism. And yes, this makes me uncomfortable, but it is the discomfort of someone watching a fictional account of something painful they see in reality — and there is surely no harm in that either.

So we have the vicar’s wife committed to her husband but resentful of his job (though isn’t that true of other wives competing with other demanding careers?). We have the tiny congregation in the vast building (though contrast this with an Anglican church I know in east London which draws a multi-racial congregation of almost three hundred every Sunday). There are the vicarage ‘callers’ after handouts (a bane of urban ministry). And at the centre of it all, there is Tom Hollander’s well-meaning Rev Adam Smallbone.

Indeed the key to his character is the phrase ‘well-meaning’, for although he means well and tries his best, Smallbone is as lost as anyone else. He talks to God (in a whimsical way) but he leads a god-forsaken existence.

What keeps him in the job? Bearing in mind he is a fictional creation, nevertheless one would hazard a guess that it is his basic decency and a faith in something. But behind this there is an enormous amount of ‘force of habit’. This is what he does, he doesn’t know how to do anything else and for the time being there is (just) enough money left in the coffers to keep paying him to do it.

As he said in the latest episode, he feels he ought to be a priest. But if you asked him whether he thought anyone else should be a Christian there’d be, one suspects, a significant pause before you got an answer, and it wouldn’t be an unqualified ‘yes’.

Smallbone is definitely not an evangelical — not in the sense that he doesn’t hold certain doctrines, or sing certain songs, or have certain social attitudes, but in the sense that he has no word from God and no announcement to make to the world.

At the end of the most recent episode, there was a kind of Blackadder Goes Forth moment, as the lead characters each took a seat in Smallbone’s church, separated by miles of pews and lost in their own isolation — the benign but confused vicar and his loyal but semi-detached wife, the ambitious gay Archdeacon ‘outed’ as he was being interviewed for preferment, the lay reader who had tried to blackmail the aforementioned Archdeacon (who went along with it for his own career’s sake) but who was subsequently turned down for the priesthood, and the alcoholic ‘hanger-on’ fired from his latest job (where he had been cheating his employer).

As they gather, in the background Nina Simone sings “we have each other, and our love will see us through”, courtesy of an old lady we see Smallbone visiting in the opening scene.

What these people need, of course, is a saviour. The tragedy for them, and for many in the real-life Church of England, is that they are cut off from him by the very situation in which they find themselves in the church.

John Richardson
16 December 2011

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Putting things in perspective

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 07:44:59 PST

If I’ve done my sums right:

There are 31,536,000 seconds per year.

According to modern cosmological theory, the universe is 13,500,000,000 years old.

So since ‘time’ began, there have been 425,736,000,000,000,000 seconds.

According to Prof Brian Cox, “As a fraction of the lifespan of the universe … life, as we know it, is only possible for one thousandth of a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billionth of a percent.”

That is to say,
1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th
of its total duration.

The shortest period of time possible is reckoned to be a Planck Moment which is 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of a second.

Since the Big Bang, there have therefore been
4,257,360,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Planck Moments.

Thus, according to these figures, if the percentage of the total life of the Universe during which life is possible were expressed as a fraction of time since the Big Bang until now, it would last approximately 0.000000000000000000000000000043 of a Planck Moment. Give or take.

( I’m preaching on Ecclesiastes at the weekend, which I think is a great book for putting life in perspective.)

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

For Magazines: Why not civil partnerships in Anglican churches?

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 08:27:25 PST

As previously, this has been kept to a length and style hopefully suited for parish magazines and the like. The article is about 600 words. If you use it, please give appropriate credits.

*****************************
Why not civil partnerships in Anglican churches? (By Rev John Richardson)

To answer this question we must first venture into territory unfamiliar to all but a very few.

Most people imagine that this is simply a matter of ‘inclusion’, allowing the ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ minority to enjoy the privileges of the ‘straight’ majority. Church ceremonies, they believe, should be open to everyone, and indeed it is the government’s clear intention that this should be so.

But as experts in this field are well aware, things are far from being that straightforward. One such is Professor Adrian Thatcher, a Research Fellow in Applied Theology at the University of Exeter, and a strong advocate of change in church policy.

In a paper presented to the 2011 ‘Inclusive Church’ conference, he wrote as follows:

... there are other sexualities than straight and gay. Intersex, bisexual and transgender people, are generally excluded from the rigid and inadequate frameworks within which the Church discusses sexuality ...

And he added,

... sexual inclusiveness will not be complete until they too feel wholly affirmed as members of the Body of Christ. (‘Gender and the Gospel’, Nov 2011, p1)

What Thatcher says about the Church, however, is clearly the intention of others for society in general. For them, the idea that the world divides into either ‘straight’ or ‘gay and lesbian’ is already outmoded. Instead, human sexuality has a multitude of expressions.

According to Thatcher, “new research in Classics, New Testament Studies, Medical History and Queer Theory” are revolutionizing what has until now been a “sterile theological discourse”.

And if you’ve never heard of Queer Theory, you really don’t understand the current debate.

The fact is that in the long term the aim is not simply the inclusion of people in the existing institution of marriage but to go on broadening the patterns of relationships society accepts and endorses. Marriage, Thatcher notes, “is a flexible institution that has incorporated many changes”. The only question is “whether marriage can accommodate the change that some same-sex partners want” (p14). If not, then presumably other relationships will be have to be found.

It is against this background that we must understand the position of the Church of England. For Anglicans, marriage is not a “flexible” institution but a divinely ordered one, which ultimately reflects the relationship between God and his people.

What makes a marriage ‘marriage’ is two things: covenant and sex.

Where there is no covenant — no promise ‘to have and to hold ... till death us do part’ — there is either promiscuity (expressed in the prevalence of sex outside marriage) or widespread unfaithfulness (leading to divorce and marital breakdown).

Within the marital covenant, however, sexual activity is properly channelled — to bearing children and building love.

But as even Adrian Thatcher recognizes, sex is inextricably linked with reproduction: “Beings who reproduce,” he writes, “need to be sexed”, meaning they must have one of the two genders (p9, his emphasis). Thus although health issues and age may impose limits on fertility, ‘sexual’ intercourse is intercourse between two people of opposite sexes. ‘Same-sex’ sex, by contrast, is a contradiction in terms.

The Church of England has therefore taken the view that it will only recognize and bless ‘opposite sex’ unions as having the status of marriage. And insofar as civil partnerships are already widely treated as ‘gay marriage’ (as any follower of Coronation Street will know), it would thus be inappropriate for Anglican ministers to conduct them in church.

Ultimately, therefore, those who question the Church’s stance need to ask where they themselves would draw the line. The answer matters not just to us but to the future of our society.

(John Richardson blogs as The Ugley Vicar)

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

30% off 'A Strategy that Changes the Denomination"

noreply@blogger.com (Revd John P Richardson) — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 00:27:55 PST

"[An] excellent and thought-provoking book. It ought to be read and pondered by all C of E evangelicals." John Pearce, former Rector of St Anne, Limehouse.

Lulu.com are offering a special deal on books until Wednesday (ie tomorrow!).

Entering the code "WINTERSAVEUK305" at the checkout will entitle you to a discount of 30%, up to a total saving of £100.

Click here to purchase or review.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend: