She has some lovely cups on her blog right now.

For those who have not met her, Gwyneth is the artist who designed the glorious murals in St Mary’s

Abram’s Line, or Jesus’s Brood ?

This morning, the reading from Genesis which we had takes us back to the head of a rather large family tree. For the family of religious people who include the Jewish people, the Muslims and all the Christians look back at Abraham and place him fairly and squarely at the top of the tree.

Abraham (or Abram as he is still called in this week’s passage) comes at the top of the tree and gets called things like “the father of faith” or the “patriarch of patriarchs”.

There is quite a lot of effort being put into seeing Abraham as a figure who will unite people of faith. Its common when politicians face trouble between Christians and Muslims and Jewish people to appeal to Abraham as someone from whom we are all descended. “We are all children of Abraham,” they say, “don’t we all have more in common than we have that which divides us?”

I’m a little suspicious of this as I’m not sure I have that much in common with Abraham myself. Often the stories in Genesis elicit in my a kind of recognition. Adam and Eve seem to tell us so much about how men and women relate. The religious jealousy between Cain and Abel or the family jealousy of Rachel and Leah is all too real in the world I live in. The vanity of Joseph strutting about in his long sleeved fine robe seems, well, all too understandable to me!

But Abraham? What to make of him?

When we read this story of Abram this morning, perhaps we feel a little discomfort. Indeed, I rather hope that we do. For Abram is, to say the least a rather controversial figure in the way that he is presented.

Here are the problems:

• He comes from Iraq, to take the land which we might call Israel away from those who own it.
•
• His justification for this is that God told him so.
•
• He owns slaves
•
• He believes in a carnivorous God who seems to want the blood of animals, when the blood of human beings is not being shed in his name.
•
All this must give us pause for thought. Putting such a person at the top of our family tree is problematic. We have little time for land-grabbing leaders invading and capturing land in the middle east. We have little time for blood sacrifice. We have little time for those who would justify slave owning and the exploitation of women in the name of God. And the record of Abram’s relationships with women is particularly horrific. In short, as modern people looking back into the past, we do have a problem.

The language of patriarchy has infected the church and I dare say those other tribes who claim Abram as father, down the decades and caused untold damage to God’s people and God’s land. Reading the bible uncritically is a part of the problem. Reading the bible without asking hard questions perpetuates the problem. Reading the bible as though God were on the side of one tribal leader and not another is dangerous because unless we hold ourselves in check, we find ourselves doing the same thing.

If we read the bible like that, we can justify all kinds of things which are wrong. Stealing land. Exploiting women. Shedding blood in God’s name.

These things are not Godly. They never were. Not even when Abram did them. Isn’t there a better way to be?

The patriarchal mindset is religion’s shame. It is one of the reasons that people in the world just the churches harshly. Not least for they think that we are all preaching the same stuff all over again.

The interesting thing about this morning’s gospel is that Jesus challenges that whole mindset. You can hear the note of lament in his voice when he cries over the violence done to people in the name of Jerusalem. You can hear the sadness. The lament. The anguish. The prophets were killed there. Those who possessed the city stoned those who did not.

Jerusalem, Jerusalem. The stones are still flying in Jerusalem.

How often, says Jesus, How often have I desired to gather your children – all your children – together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings – and you are not willing!

And all this comes just after Jesus has said that they shall come from the east and from the west and the north and the south and sit down in God’s commonwealth.

What kind of family do you think you want to belong to? Descended from the line of violence, aggression and bloodshed or gathered with the rest of the brood, safe and secure under the warm wings of the mother hen.

Who are you? What is your inheritance. Who are you?

Part of Abram’s line?

One of Jesus’s brood?

The images which attract us are important. Some of those which come to us in the bible are no use now.

Patriarchy. Hierarchy. Male dominance. War. Violence

Safety. Security. Warmth. Comfort. Care.

We have choices to make.

This is a clear case where Jesus turns his face away from the hierarchy – away from Herod and his scheming – away from claims about land and kingship – away from those who have done violence in God’s name – away from those who have killed the prophets and throne stones in God’s name.

As time goes on, I think we discover that there are better ways to be. And the glorious task of God’s people is to discover them

Amen.

I don’t know why that’s not been possible, but I know it can’t be good news for those involved. Those involved include:

• members of the diocese (who are without a bishop)
• anyone who has already applied (because they are left in limbo even longer)
• the Primus (who faces more travelling for the process itself and a longer time helping to administer a diocese that is geographically challenging at the best of times)

It would be remiss of me though, not to point out that this is all happening almost a year since the College of Bishops decreed that some of the clergy should not be considered for election. No-one should be surprised if it is now the case (as seems likely) that it is difficult to find enough good candidates for the Episcopacy to fill a shortlist of three.

You see, last year’s decree (which I still maintain is a change to the way we elect bishops and thus an extra-canonical interference in the Canon 4 process) does not just affect gay people. There are all kinds of people who would be put off applying because of the moratorium declarations.

Gay people in relationships who are truthful about them are directly targetted by the bishops. However, they are not the only ones affected. Gay people who are not in a relationship might well be put off applying simply because of the prurient interest likely to be generated, should they be candid. Anyone with a gay family member might well be put off by the peculiarly nasty and uniquely Scottish moratorium on bishops even attending a Civil Partnership ceremony. I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that many straight people might be put off by the fact that the moratoria make, not only the sex lives of bishops public property, but also the hitherto private lives of family members. Others might be put off by the politicisation of the Episcopate along these lines which is a direct result of the moratoria – who wants to be part of this and represent such a view to the world?

The post of Bishop of Argyll and The Isles is probably never going to be an easy job. However, we are supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit works though our processes when they are applied properly and that someone, somewhere, is feeling called to this job in a way in which the diocese itself can affirm. When those processes are interferred with and manipulated by others on the basis of prejudice and discrimination, it is much harder to maintain such a lofty sense of what such a vocation means.

It is time for the damage that the moratoria have done to be undone.

Any diocese deserves to be able to consider from amongst the best people available who are prepared to undergo the rigorous interviews, vetting, public comment and terrifying Electoral Synods that make up the process. Right now, Argyll and The Isles, like any other diocese that may become vacant, cannot know that it is being offered such a choice.

With regards to the College of Bishops, j’accuse. I can do no other.

With regards to the Diocese of Argyll and The Isles, our prayers are with you.

Quite interesting, no?

Word size implies frequency of use. Now, what does this tell us about our church?

Evensong is at 4 pm on Saturday 20 February 2010.

Prayers to do at home during the week – here

Lentan Devotions, every Friday evening at 6.30 pm

This is a book (like many being produced currently) which many hands have contributed to. Different people (bishops, directors of ordinands, rural officers) from around the rural scene in the Church of England have each made their contributions. It is perhaps not surprising that these are most contentious when it comes to areas dealing with ministry. Once again, the rural strategy outlined here seems to be to find ever more inventive ways of providing ministry on the cheap to ensure that rural churches die more slowly. Once agan, collaborative ministry and ordained local (ie relatively under-resourced and undertrained) clerical ministries seem to be the answer.

It is the generalisations which stick in the mind long after reading this book. Apparently, for those living in these special rural places, in contrast to those living in towns, time may be “seen as cyclical…based on the seasons rather than just linear”. Has the author of this section (Amiel Osmaston) never met the academic year? “Rural spirituality,” she tells us, “was forged by those who were in touch with the soil and the seasons.” Is that paganism she is talking about or not? “In rural areas faith is often implicit, shown in practical works and relationships within the community”. Is that supposed to mean that it isn’t elsewhere?

Those of us who live in areas which are not deemed sufficiently rural should be rightly indignant at these holier-than-thou attitudes from those who live in the countryside. There can be no doubts at all that the experience of Christian Faith is shaped by its context. However, that does not justify such condesension towards the places where most people actually choose to live, as we find in this volume.

The truth is, the more that people make a case for the church developing strategies (and setting aside budgets) for the rural church, the more one remembers that Christianity started in a city and was passed from city to city in the ancient world. It is undoubtedly true that there seem to be a number of recurring neo-pagan spiritual responses that modern people make to being in the countryside. However, whether the church should encourage the notion of a distinctive ministry in such places is less certain. That rural ministry should be possible, is no doubt cause for celebration. That it should take up the time and energies of synods and assemblies is far less clear.

Re-shaping Rural Ministry
Edited by James Bell, Jill Hopkinson and Trevor Willmott (Canterbury Press £14.99)

When +Gene Robinson was here 18 months ago, he pressed several copies of a DVD into my hand before he leftt. It was the film For The Bible Tells Me So [DVD] [2007] which he had been giving away to those who had been invited to the Lambeth Conference. Its a very well made film about the ways in which churches deal with with scripture have an impact on families with gay members. One of those families is the Robinsons (ie featuring Gene’s parents) but there are four or five other families featured too.

Its a good watch, and I’ve a couple of copies in the office. If anyone in the congregation wants to borrow one of them, do let me know.