My Service

My Service for the Hull Unitarians can be read in full (hymns except my own one excluded) and reflects the fact that today is the Ninth Day of Ridvan for Baha'is. As can be seen, my view of the Haifan Baha'i Faith is highly critical and prefers individualist diversity and derived unity rather than uniformity.

Update: The sermon was too long, I considered, and I chopped out some personal reflections.  The document with the linking above reflects what actually was said.

The Final Countdown

As everyone now knows, the final tally is 18 for and 26 against. York was no surprise, Newcastle was pleasing. The province of York had a majority for but was well outnumbered by the majority against in the province of Canterbury.

The bishops were out of touch, with 6 dioceses against only: Bishops against: Liverpool, Bath and Wells, Derby, Salisbury failed to approve, Lincoln, Manchester.

18 for

Lichfield: Bishops: 4 for, 0 against; Clergy 39 for, 11 against, 1 abstention; Laity 57 for, 9 against, 1 abstention.

Durham: covenant approved

Europe: Bishops: 2 for, 0 against; Clergy 21 for, 1 against; 2 abstentions; Laity 20 for, 3 against.

Bristol: Bishops 2 for, 0 against; Clergy 14 for, 9 against, 1 abstention; Laity 17 for, 3 against, 3 abstentions.

Chester: Bishops: 3 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions; Clergy: 22 for, 14 against, 5 abstentions; Laity: 26 for, 23 against, 5 abstentions.

Norwich: Bishops: 3 for, 0 against; Clergy: 26 for, 10 against, 1 abstention; Laity: 19 for, 15 against, 1 abstention.

Carlisle: Bishops: 2 for, 0 against; Clergy: 19 for, 13 against, 2 abstentions; Laity: 33 for, 17 against.

Coventry: Bishops 2 for, 0 against; Clergy: 22 for, 7 against; Laity: 26 for, 2 against.

Bradford: Bishop: 1 for, 0 against; Clergy: 15 for, 9 against, 2 abstentions; Laity: 16 for, 15 against, 3 abstentions.

Canterbury: Bishops: 1 for, 0 against; Clergy: 26 for, 14 against; Laity: 39 for, 13 against.

Sheffield: Bishops: 2 for, 0 against; Clergy: 16 for, 6 against, 1 abstention; Laity: 31 for, 9 against.

Winchester: Bishops: 3 for, 0 against; Clergy: 22 for, 11 against, 4 abstentions; Laity: 38 for, 10 against, 2 abstentions.

Blackburn: Bishops: 2 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions; Clergy: 40 for, 7 against, 1 abstention; Laity: 33 for, 16 against, 1 abstention.

Peterborough: Bishops: 2 for, 0 against; Clergy: 22 for, 19 against, 1 abstention; Laity: 28 for, 13 against, 7 abstentions.

Exeter: Bishops: For: 3, Against: 0; Clergy: For: 28, Against: 8, Abstained: 1; Laity: For: 30, Against: 20, Abstained: 2.

Southwell and Nottingham: Bishops: 2 for, 0 against; Clergy 15 for, 5 against; Laity: 31 for, 6 against, 1 abstention.

Chichester: Bishops: 2 for, 0 against; Clergy: 29 for, 9 against, 1 abstention; Laity: 39 for, 25 against, 1 abstention.

York: Bishops: 4 for, 0 against; Clergy: 26 for, 5 against; Laity: 38 for, 5 against,  1 abstention.

26 against

Birmingham: covenant defeated

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich: Bishops 2 for, 0 against; Clergy 9 for, 29 against, 4 abstentions; Laity 8 for, 33 against, 9 abstentions

Truro: defeated by over a two thirds majority in both Clergy and Laity

Wakefield: Bishops 2 for, 0 against; Clergy 16 for, 17 against, 1 abstention; Laity 10 for, 23 against

Ely: Bishops: 1 for, 0 against, 1 abstention; Clergy: 16 for, 23 against, 1 abstention; Laity: 19 for, 19 against

Liverpool: Bishops: 0 for, 2 against; Clergy: 10 for, 26 against, 1 abstention; Laity: 8 for, 28 against, 5 abstentions

St Albans: Bishops: 2 for, 0 against; Clergy: 21 for, 31 against; Laity: 17 for, 44 against

Ripon & Leeds: Bishops: 2 for, 0 against; Clergy: 12 for, 22 against; Laity: 8 for, 17 against

Southwark: Bishops: 1 for, 0 against, 1 abstention; Clergy: 10 for, 27 against, 2 abstentions; Laity 21 for, 32 against

Worcester: Bishops: 2 for, 0 against; Clergy: 5 for, 19 against; Laity: 6 for, 22 against

Bath & Wells: Bishops: 0 for, 1 against, 1 abstention; Clergy: 17 for, 22 against; Laity: 18 for, 23 against, 4 abstentions

Chelmsford: Bishops: 2 for, 1 against, 1 abstention; Clergy: 27 for, 29 against, 7 abstentions; Laity: 31 for, 30 against, 3 abstentions

Hereford: Bishops: 2 for, 0 against; Clergy: 15 for, 15 against, 1 abstention; Laity 21 for, 23 against, 1 abstention

Derby: Bishops: 0 for, 1 against; Clergy: 1 for, 21 against, 2 abstentions; Laity: 2 for, 24 against, 2 abstentions

Gloucester: Bishops 1 for, 0 against, 1 abstention; Clergy: 16 for, 28 against, 1 abstention; Laity: 14 for, 28 against, 6 abstentions.

Leicester: Bishops: 2 for 0 against; Clergy: 15 for, 21 against, 3 abstentions; Laity: 21 for, 14 against, 4 abstentions.

Salisbury: Bishops: 1 for, 1 against; Clergy: 11 for, 20 against, 2 abstentions; Laity: 19 for, 27 against.

Portsmouth: Bishop: 1 for, 0 against; Clergy: 12 for, 17 against; Laity: 13 for, 17 against, 2 abstentions.

Rochester: Bishop: 1 for, 0 against; Clergy: 8 for, 30 against, 3 abstentions; Laity: 14 for, 26 against, 7 abstentions.

Sodor and Man: Bishops: 1 for, 0 against; Clergy: 5 for, 12 against; Laity     21 for, 15 against, 1 abstention.

Guildford: Bishops: 2 for, 0 against; Clergy: 14 for, 22 against, 1 abstention; Laity: 23 for, 18 against, 2 abstentions.

Lincoln: Bishops: 0 for, 3 against; Clergy: 6 for, 28 against; 3 abstentions;     Laity: 2 for, 34 against, 2 abstentions.

Oxford: Bishops: 3 for, 1 against; Clergy: 14 or 15 for, 36 or 38 against, 2 abstentions; Laity: 32 or 35 for, 24 or 29 against, 3 abstentions.

London: Bishops: 2 for,1 against; Clergy: 17 for, 32 against, 1 abstention; Laity: 26 for, 33 against, 2 abstentions.

Manchester: Bishops: 1 for, 2 against; Clergy: 15 for, 25 against; Laity: 12 for, 23 against, 7 abstentions.

Newcastle: Bishops: 2 for, 0 against; Clergy: 8 for, 18 against; Laity: 14 for, 15 against.

GAFCONK Cookbook

Leadership Conference, London 2012 of GAFCONK/ FCAFF

Archbishop El Cid Wahahbalula
Chairman’s keynote address
Monday 23rd at St Marks Battersea Drop

A Global Communion for the sixteenth Century:

Praise the Lard!

Now it is so good to be with you all once again as we gather from over thirty countries to do some plotting in our quest to grab the steering wheel of the Anglican Communion. What a joy this is. We are indeed a global communion for the sixteenth [16] century.

The Lard is going to lead us and give its guidance in getting a bit more slippery in how we overcome the continuing crisis which afflicts our Communion. I want to flame my address with some words of recipe which I believe are a particular word from the Lard for us right now.

To get a bit hard I am going to refer to the profit Formica®, a High Pressure Laminate (HPL) manufactured through fusing multiple layers of impregnated kraft paper under high pressure and temperature to create a hard wearing, durable and hygienic surfacing material.

This will give us something really solid to work on as we design our next steps for everyone else.

He has showed you, O man, what is good.

And what recipe is required of you?

To fill jugly and measure Percy

And get your peas out of your pod.

What's the recipe today Jim?

This is the greatest question facing us this week. We know the will of the Lard, because they don't and we do. God does not play games with us - no he cooks. He is the big recipe mango in the sky. It's not about our ingenuity or imagination, although it is. He does not play games with us. He cooks through the scriptures of recipes. We just obey ourselves and start cooking Let's see those red tomatoes held high.

What does the Lard require? Basically, some more familiar recipes. Go to the supermarket and buy some predictable and familiar lines.

I want a pound of sugar, a quarter of tea, some carrots for Mrs Bunny,

And something extra special for tea, a great big pot of honey.

Some jars of jam, some slices of ham,

A doughnut and a bun,

And a great big packet of Ricicles

Is sure to be lots of fun!

We can then trot them out. Cooking is not escapism, but facing things as they are in the confidence that God will act. The crisis we face is also an opportunity knocking. Eat your greens, Hughie. The orange can be traced back many years. The unprecedented challenges to Anglican identity forced upon us by the revisionist cookbooks mean an historic opportunity to rediscover the distinctive sixteenth century Anglican Reformers and their grub.

God will choose his own time, but we will help him along by giving history a push. An modern oven speeds just things up or use a log fire.

We cannot treat this as simply an institutional crisis. The breakdown of the existing governance structures of the Anglican Communion is a symptom of a deeper problem. The recipe we have been given simply doesn't hold the pudding together. And the first course is a mess. The Anglican pottage no longer commands confidence. Yucky dick.

If it were merely an institutional problem - the knives, forks and spoons - then we would have expected that the heavy investment made in Anglican Covenant would have brought a resolution. The Anglican Covenant was "Fatally flawed!" It had become clear that it was little more than a form of words to disguise conflict rather than resolve it. But the liberals saw that off, and let's give them the glory. So  now with the rejection of the Covenant, even in the Church of England itself, there's no more just messing with the spoons and forks - you've got to get the ingredients right. The heart of the crisis we face is not institutional, but spiritual.

Formica can ask ‘what does the Lard require?’ It requires better ingredients. Am I making myself clear? Is the washing up done?

Remember 1998 when a minority including Rowan Tree tried to represent a minority view, to bend the word of God to fit the fashionable ideas of their cultural context when they should have bent to our cultural context?

That's where it went wrong - tolerating minorities. Their strategy has been to continue dialogue endlessly in order to wear down resistance while all the time pursuing their self determined mandate of radical inclusion. They want us to use our intelligence to extract ‘deeper truths’ of God’s revelation concealed below the words themselves, and that will never do. We want to use the stupid route of reading off the ink of the page. If it says 'half a pound of tuppenny rice', that is what it means.

Translating into different languages never alters meanings, does it? And what's all this grammar of obedience tripe? Search me. The ‘grammar of obedience’ is a theological Trojan horse for profound disobedience. It produces undercooked grub.

When we met in Jerusalem we were able to have a small committee in a back room of conservatives who produced a text for everyone to sing about and get cooking. Compare that with Lambeth 2008 which was all talk talk talk like where can you find the toilets to wash your hands. No shared mind and no attempt to resolve the substance of the fundamental doctrinal and ethical differences which have been so destructive to our uniformity. Back to Mrs Beeton, that's what we say. And Delia Smith is about the only revision we'll accept.

In Jerusalem we got cooking, including on the mountain top. But we have to come down from the mountain top to actually eat the grub. Formica lets us do this and we will: it is not a matter of following our subjective dreams and feelings, but being true to the views concocted in previous centuries to which we give priority - let the sixteenth century reign again!

This for me is a personal truth and so there is mine and then yours and yours and so on. It is these qualities that we need to animate our Global fellowship as we move forward together. As a powerful movement of renewal and transformation for that is what we are.

OK, we have been a bit slow. We did set up a rival Church in America - a bit of a messy dog's dinner we admit. Last year, it became clear that provision need to be made for England too. The Anglican Mission in England was formed. It'll be a bit tricky stealing the family silver tea service in England, but we can think of a few dioceses where churches might ignore the incumbent bishop. Chuck us out we dare you!

We mustn't get infected too much by cynicism and pragmatism that can creep in when issues of power and influence are at stake. Being a Religious Trotskyite though does need a bit of deviousness. But as well as being vigorous with the spoon we can be kind when we use it to tap people on the head.

We are not setting ourselves up above the recipes, but recognise that the food finds us and there are lots of varied recipes around the world. So what is the recipe today Jim?

1. The northern cookbook should now be replaced by the southern cookbook, and spread a few seeds into the mix. We will decide not just the recipes but who controls the cookbook and who operates the oven.

2. We should open some bottles of wine and put them in a new wineskin. This will give us a bit of a tipple. We can build a new wine cellar and call it after the old one. We then control all the wine.

3. We must resist the temptation to be lazy. We have to do the theological heavy lifting so essential to get the food into and out of the oven. Don't forget to use oven gloves or a thick cloth folded over. The food has to be good old sixteenth century fayre, nourished by biblical recipe teaching straight off the page. Equally we need our own cooks, chosen by us, from our cookery colleges, otherwise we'll just have more secular ideologies shaping liberal and revisionist fast food from the other cooking colleges.

Don't forget the big cook-in in 2013.

Meanwhile let's hope we get a godly leader of God's people for the next Archbishop of Canterbury. After all, not all the candidates are godly. If we don't approve, we won't accept it. We'll try to elect a chairman anyway, for the Primates Meeting, run from our special Primates Council.

Better to Prepare?

I'm wondering if it isn't better to prepare for a service less not more... Sunday I did prepare hymns so that we had a Unitarian version of the Seafarer's Hymn (for those in peril...) - it appears in no hymnal because the original has a trinitarian structure. This followed the rumoured to be Titanic hymn. Two others were non-themed liberal singalongs. The sea was a subtheme only. I read out two passages from Donald Coggan on preaching, with the analogy of the music maestro and highly skilled costly performance that is to 'get out of the way' and let the composer come through. Preaching isn't to be like the River Meander he said, but to do something. So I preached. Other Churches preach the gospel, I said, so the idea is the best preacher lets the Holy Spirit come through. And just in case they don't preach the gospel, the sermon in the Eucharist service is followed by reciting the creed. Obviously Unitarians are limited to opinions: we are in that sense religious humanists. But the equivalence is to say something that causes the best of reflections in people listening in developing their own thoughts, making their own growth. And I said this without any notes. Due to operating the music equipment, I was sat, and said this into the microphone on a table from where I'd conducted the whole service.

Next week is my service and I've written about uniformity verses unity, and using the Baha'i Faith as an example of uniformity (and therefore every leader faced a split, and covenant breakers all along the way). Those who syncretise into a 'higher' religion end up producing just one more religion. The Baha'is do not have male-female equality (also intolerant of homosexual partnering), they do not accept science so that there is no religion-science dispute (e.g. they accept "something like" evolution because Abdul Baha didn't accept Darwin), and as for independent search for religion - once you sign up you accept the infallibility of the texts of Baha'u'llah, Abdul Baha and the writings of Shoghi Effendi and the democratic centralist commands of the male-only Universal House of Justice. You only get unity if you can mature enough to have diversity, and mature religions gain a spectrum that in part allows for and accepts change (whereas the Bahais are a late nineteenth and early twentieth century snapshot of limited modernity coupled with some premodern religious inheritance). Perhaps Non-Haifan Bahais (covenant breakers and those who grew weary of the administrative and financial burden) might show a way forward regarding diversity.

But these are many points, and a script to make them, whereas my homily unscripted was straight to the point and without detail.

When it Turns Nasty

In the continuing Anglican wars over homosexuality, a number of clerics have made a more positive sound, one in favour of (the still unequal) civil marriage for gays and lesbians (Thinking Anglicans reproduces). That's to the good. So is a reminder of the possibility that Jesus could have had gay orientation himself, first highlighted in recent times by the late Hugh Montefiore. One context now is a huge amount of damage being done on the Fulcrum pages so that its leadership has tried to calm things down with a further thread. One of those who has changed her mind recently also appeared to ask for some tolerance. One ordained contributor to give his experience as a gay man has had his ministry, even his Christianity, trashed by one contributor in particular but by more in actuality.

I knew this would end in tears, simply by those who regard the Bible as a rule book and who keep quoting the 1998 Lambeth Conference 1:10 resolution as if it is uncontested law. It is usually backed up by the present (retiring) Archbishop of Canterbury affirming this as 'the Mind of the Communion' and that if he says this with a different private opinion then this must be right. Keep repeating something and argument becomes blocked, keep repeating something and it is as if true. There is no Mind of the Communion, and nothing has such authority, and that resolution was concocted in the teeth of division and opposition assisted by an incompetent now former Archbishop.

When training to be teachers we were told that a technique to block an unruly pupil who wants to question decisions is to use the broken record technique, which is to repeat the same point back to every point and wear down the pupil in order to enforce the decision.

The broken record seems to be this: that the Bible is a consistent revelation of the mind of God and Christ, so that if Paul says something then it's as good as Christ saying something, and it is all of God anyway. It is surface read, so little is given to academic biblical criticism, but this still comes through doctrinal eyes (the New Testament itself involves a mixture of doctrines). That doctrine developed after the Bible doesn't seem to matter to these folks, in that they read it back in; that there were different cultural contexts (and indeed from today) seems not to matter either when supernature is involved. Biblical critics argue whether there is even a 'fall' in the Bible - the Jews and Eastern Christians don't seem to think so, but evangelical Christians depend on it as an explanation for temptation against God to be overcome. You then get resolutions in support of a surface view, to be quoted, like a QED. Just repeat.

On this basis, then, the Bible is a book of rules. There is some ambiguity about the role of women, so wriggle room allows some toleration of variation on inequality. But when it comes to gay sex, there is no text in support and enough against and on this basis the rule applies and makes a definition of whether you are a) evangelical or not or even b) whether you are Christian or not.

To be for God is to be against sin, and at the very minimum is a required celibacy; but better still is for the individual to undergo techniques for sexual reorientation because it should follow that gay orientation is unwanted. To fail to do at least one is to prefer sin over God and this further defies the position of the Church, both Anglican and wider afield. You are just about allowed sexual orientation because that is like experiencing a sin to steal or murder, and we all have dislikable tendencies and experiences to overcome. Then comes the emphasis that this is the only way to be Christian, and furthermore those who insist on another view should be shunned and isolated - rejecting those 'brothers' who claim to believe but do not actually believe. The homosexual issue is thus the issue on which to judge whether the other person is in or out of fellowship. That this is sheer intolerance is irrelevant to those who follow the scriptural rule book.

Some go on further than this with a very Puritan predestination belief in the wrath of God, as if the sociology of knowledge has not changed since pre-Enlightenment days. They don't even seem to have caught up with Thomas Aquinas or Richard Hooker and the incorporation of reason and observation (never mind science). It's all revelation and rules.

To gay people, in or out of loving and active relationships, who are active Christians too, this becomes utterly offensive. Some are simply laying down the law and causing, with persistence, ruptures in the broader Christian community.

I can't very well pitch in because I don't take the label Christian and certainly do not regard the Bible as normative. The Bible knows nothing about science, or about sexuality - it's pretty hopeless regarding history too. It does not supply this kind of information. To turn a cultural and theological set of books (with some included that need not have been, and some missing that could have been added) is simply ridiculous. Even if one accepts some forms of supernatural causality, the Bible is open to levels of (even positive) criticism that render its use as a rule book impossible.

The point is, however, that people are determined to have this war. They are determined to alter institutions to reflect the divisions of these viewpoints. In my view, the intention of unity in such a situation, in which a former gay inclusive theologian as Archbishop also applies 'the rules' internationally (as in that Advent Letter of 2007), thus bending over backwards to his one time opponents (he is theirs if they are not his) was never going to succeed.

The way to tackle this is establish your grounds for toleration and the general bases for biblical use and build in flexibility for change. Have that and then defend it. Then let the people who insist on fighting do their own thing - let them carry out their threats and departures, to see if they will and how much they do. They will be the ones who have to leave. At least then there is a chance that Christianity will not be associated so completely with bigotry and intolerance.

If not, then these new definers of Christianity will slowly remove the tolerant, almost one by one, and in frustration, anger and bitterness. Even Fulcrum, that played the Archbishop's misdirecting card, and has included some moderately worded exclusion of its own, has become shocked. It is a very nasty, inhuman, intolerant part of the Christian religion in play.

(Meanwhile two dioceses have voted in favour of the Covenant. Too late!)

Making a Hymn Available

Theology isn't everything with hymns; some express sentiment simply through singing and relating to a longstanding traditional hymn and tune. There's an obvious reason the following hymn (before alteration) hasn't appeared in Unitarian hymnals, because its core verses are trinitarian and about salvation. So add in some of those extra verses and change a few words, and it is a usable hymn. We in Hull should be able to use it:

Eternal Father, strong to save,
Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,
Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep
Its own appointed limits keep;
Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea!

Eternal Father, Lord of hosts,
Watch o'er the souls who guard our coasts.
Protect them from the raging seas
And give them light and life and peace.
Grant them from Thy great throne above
The shield and shelter of Thy love.

Lord, guard and guide the ones who fly
Through the great spaces in the sky.
Be with them always in the air,
In darkening storms or sunlight fair;
Oh, hear us when we lift our prayer,
For those in peril in the air!

O Unity of love and power!
Our brethren shield in danger’s hour;
From rock and tempest, fire and foe,
Protect them wheresoe'er they go;
Thus evermore shall rise to Thee
Glad hymns of praise from air and sea.

From William Whiting, 1860; Mary
Hamilton, 1915; George Jenks, 1955.

Screech!

It's the Amber Light (was Green) for the Church in Wales/ Yr Eglwys yng Nghymru, with the amber light replacing green due to the position since taken up by the Church of England. Well, in my Highway Code (Rheolau Ffordd Fawr) the next light after amber is Red. It wants the Anglican Consultative Council (and not some still enthusiastic bureaucrat) to say as to what now with the Covenant process. Try stuck somewhere in Offa's Dyke (and that's a ditch, not a lesbian - Clawdd Offa).