Church Times Podcast: Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani: Encouraging the weary with a word
Trevor Thurston-Smith The Pensive Pilgrim Clothes Maketh the Man : Do Vestments Maketh the Priest?
Richard Peers Oikodomeo Why is it so hard to talk about Walsingham?
Stuart Haynes Seen & Unseen How the curious react to creativity in a cathedral
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love Holy Spirit failure to update Church operating systems
Anon & Friends Surviving Church Weighing Church of England Safeguarding on the Scales of Justice 5
[the last in the series]
Dr. Guli Francis-Dehqani states that she rejoices ‘…when people come to faith, when congregations increase in size.’ The fact that she feels the need to explain this is revealing—similar to how someone might deny being an alcoholic. It makes the very opposite seem more plausible. The issue with her sermon is that it leaves no room for the possibility of the Holy Spirit giving people visions for growth. Instead she gives justification for clergy who have lost their sense of purpose. Her criticism of the overstaffed central church growth bureaucracy is welcomed, but would she be so critical of ‘wellbeing… Read more »
Can you give a biblical instance of God giving someone a vision of growth, in terms of bums on seats?
We are commanded to preach the gospel everywhere, making disciples, but are numbers ever specified?
The “every” in “every knee will bow” is a pretty big number for a vision. Also how about the early church had “day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved” Or even the specific “3000” added after Pentecost. You might say that specific numbers are not specified as a vision from God — however I don’t think that matters. Some people do find specifics useful – giving money is the obvious; people are asked to give sacrificially to church, but only when you tie it to maybe 10% of income or even better “we… Read more »
‘Every knee shall bow’ is surely for the eschaton. ’The Lord added to their number’ – Peter, John and the others didn’t get up saying ‘I’ve got a vision for 3000 converts today. And often the Lord didn’t add very many to their number; after Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill ‘some believed’. Often the response to the gospel was that those preaching it were imprisoned, beaten, or driven out. God calls us to be faithful in our preaching, in our living out of gospel values, and in love of others – and under persecution. The results are up to God.… Read more »
I think the Bishop of Chelmsford is like a breath of fresh air in what she says in the podcast. I hope the “centre”, especially the strategy enthusiasts, is listening carefully and not dismissing her.
Alleluia! A bishop willing to depart from the House of Bishops script. I’ll even forgive +Guli her use of the ‘i’ word – “being intentional in mission and ministry”. Must close – I’m off to the bookies to place a fiver on her for Canterbury.
Funnily enough, I did wonder if this was her setting out her pitch for the top job.
Many of us have had that thought.
Yes, hope is not a strategy!
Interesting talk by Guli Francis-Dehqani. I share her concerns about excessive bureaucracy, but looking at its most recent accounts, Chelmsford diocese employs 95 people, of which 6 earn >£60k and 1 earns >£80k, so she should know where to start.
Ouch. Support costs look very flabby to me.
How much should the principal (lay) staff of a Church of England Diocese be paid?
Commensurate with Archdeacons and Clergy – – maybe Bishop. But then it gets very difficult to compare because of the house which is either a bonus or not [as you don’t keep it after you retire]. So to what extent the Bishop’s house should be considered part of the pay-package — I think it could be argued as not. Certainly a lot of the house is for meetings and office space; the private-liveable space is probably a lot less than it looks on paper… but then they do get the use of e.g. the garden on weekends…. But if the… Read more »
So to pay commensurate with a Bishop would be approximately £50k + £20k housing costs: £70k, so not much or an argument for a pay cut. To pay senior staff in line with clergy – £30k + £20k = £50k, then Dioceses would stand little chance of recruiting sufficiently skilled and experienced people to fill their senior roles. I presume, in Chelmsford Diocese, the >£80k is for the Diocesan Secretary, and the £60k salaries are for various heads of services and departments. Given the Diocese’s assets, expenditure and number on the payroll they oversee, those top salaries are modest compared… Read more »
Regarding the Holy Spirit failure to update the OS by Colin Coward… I am very taken by his thoughts on needing to read up to date theology. I’m not sure to what extent I tentatively agree or violently disagree 🙂 Seriously – there are an a number of Bishops with PhDs in theology – do they not read up on modern theology – or just not the type that Colin thinks is best? And do to what extent does theology change – in the sense that – to what extent does truth change? Our understanding of it, and our ability… Read more »
Tim, thank you for reading and responding to my blog. We would have to ask the Bishops with PhDs in theology whether they do or not keep up with ‘modern’ theology, as you put it. Have they continued to read theology since completing their degree – and what was their theological milieu back then? The theology I value is the strand in theology, an evolutionary strand, that I’ve followed and read and pursued since the 1960. It isn’t ‘modern’, it’s evolving. Theology and human experience and awareness has always evolved. It is absolutely for me the evolution of a theology… Read more »
In today’s evangelical CofE God prefers to love some people more than others. That is a profound ‘truth’ revealed in the more ‘successful’ churches who don’t like “inclusive” theology.
Well, you know that’s not really a change for the C of E, is it? ‘The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate’ and all that? The C of E was entirely okay with class differences for centuries, not to mention slavery. Oh, and hardly a word was raised in the C of E about the carpet bombing of German cities and the indiscriminate killing of German women and children during WW2, so obviously the C of E’s God loved English people more than Germans and didn’t get too strict about all this nonsense of loving… Read more »
Most thinking Anglicans would agree that no debate is necessary about the morality of slavery or carpet bombing children. And yet years of discussion – mainly to accommodate evangelical objections – have been spent on the rejection of LGBTQ people. The more ‘successful’ evangelical parishes are proud of their biblical adherence to hatred of gay people. Loving your enemies is easier if you exclude them from your happy-clappy church.
‘Most thinking Anglicans would agree that no debate is necessary about the morality of slavery or carpet bombing children.’ Today they would, yes—but slavery was accepted and defended by the majority of Anglican theologians for centuries. As were class divisions and deference to aristocracy. My comment was not claiming that these are equally present today, but simply that they have been mainstream C of E opinion in the past. You say, ‘The more ‘successful’ evangelical parishes are proud of their biblical adherence to hatred of gay people.’ I have many conservative friends, both evangelical and Roman Catholic (let’s not forget… Read more »
Logical fallacy. Evangelicalism is chosen, being LGBTQI+ is not. Since, in 2024, Evangelicalism is pretty much defined as “a thin facade of Jesus over an intransigent substance of ‘hating gay/trans-people'”, I personally have no problem in saying “I hate the sin of Evangelicalism, while—with God as my help—loving Evangelicals.”
Tim is a vocal and active supporter of LGBT causes. So am I. But I agree with him that those who believe the Bible condemns homosexuality do not necessarily personally ‘hate’ LGBT people. Some just have an honest (though in my view mistaken) belief. Nor is there a direct equivalence between evangelicals and anti-gay people. There are many, many inclusive evangelicals; and, as Tim points out, the RC church also discriminates against LGBT people. Having suffered a good deal of discrimination myself, I appreciate that it’s difficult to remain measured in those circumstances. If we can manage it, though, we… Read more »
“But I agree with him that those who believe the Bible condemns homosexuality do not necessarily personally ‘hate’ LGBT people. Some just have an honest (though in my view mistaken) belief.”
IMO, for most that “belief” is just the facade they use to hide their hatred, on the same level of the racists who once used “the curse of Ham” as a justification for their evil. I am reminded of a cartoon of a man flipping rapidly through the Bible who, when asked what he is doing, responds “I’m looking for the evidence to uphold my preconceived notion.”
‘IMO, for most that “belief” is just the facade they use to hide their hatred’
But since you don’t have access to the secrets of their hearts, your opinion can only be tentative, right?
As I said to someone else here, I was on the conservative side of this issue for many years, but at no point did I hate gay people. If you want confirmation of that, I can send you a few email addresses. But I’m curious about your personal friendships with conservative Christians, Pat. Do you think your conservative Christian friends all hate gay people?
“Do you think your conservative Christian friends all hate gay people?”
All I can answer is “by their actions, you shall know them.” When my conservative Christian friends (and I have some) support both religious and political authorities who would deny gay people the same rights as straight people, what am I to think?
I don’t know if you were brought up with any strong set of beliefs. If you were, you’d know that it’s perfectly possible to believe something because you’ve always been taught it, without having any emotional investment either for or against. That was the case for me and thousands – probably millions – of others who were brought up to believe that the Bible’s teaching is our ultimate authority for belief and behaviour, and that the Bible condemns homosexuality – among a host of other behaviours. Like many thousands of others, I eventually questioned that teaching, studied the Bible, and… Read more »
What Janet said.
“…they just have a genuine belief that it’s wrong to ordain women.” But wrong why? Because they were told so when they were young? Have they not matured enough to seek knowledge and form an opinion based on that? I am reminded of two things, one from Scripture and the other from one of the great lyricists of the 20th Century: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” “You’ve got to be taught to hate and… Read more »
I’ll say again that it’s not necessarily about hate and fear. For many people, it’s just part of a vast integrated system of beliefs, practices, and culture. If those around you whom you love and respect or admire are all part of that system, you may never see reason to question it. Unless you’re born awkward, as I was, or there’s another factor that makes you begin to ask the questions. On LGBT issues, that may be knowing someone who’s gay, and whose life and faith are good examples. Integrated systems of life and faith have many positives and attractions,… Read more »
“I’ll say again that it’s not necessarily about hate and fear. For many people, it’s just part of a vast integrated system of beliefs, practices, and culture.”
And, in my experience, two of the things that system integrates are hate and fear (especially fear).
Which system? Conservative evangelicals? Roman Catholics? Orthodox? Orthodox Jews? Muslims?
Any “system” that legitimizes discrimination against a particular set of people based only on their existence and not their behavior.
As a gay man I have to say I see no difference between people who ‘personally’ hate me and people who hate me because of their ‘religion, though the latter have proved to be much more intransigent. There is a common fallacy of equating intent with effect while the reality for the hated is the same whether the hate is motivated by personal animosity, cultural background or religious belief. Just as love is love, so hate is hate. We can be all too willing to concentrate on the motivation of those promoting prejudice instead of the effects of their actions… Read more »
I feel this word hate is being used a lot in this context. Would anyone saying “I think it’s best that the only type of sex that takes place is hetero sexual in marriage, and if you are tempted to do otherwise you should resist” – would that be considered hatred? If so it seems that anything short of full agreement is a form of hatred… I’d like to imagine your view is a bit more nuanced, and it’s just your expression of views is influenced by negative experiences of how people who disagree have acted. But I don’t think… Read more »
Tim… I think it’s best only white people live in this community. I think it’s best only men should have an education. I think it’s best you don’t marry a Muslim Hatred is a spectrum. “negative experiences of how people who disagree have acted” Sexual orientation is a fixed characteristic not an argument to full or partial agreement. People do not queerbash because they disagree with your opinion; they disagree with your existence. I didn’t participate in LLF, it not being a safe space for LGBT people so perhaps I’d have felt better about my oppressors if I had and… Read more »
So based on the last of your 3 examples, would such a person hate Muslims or dislike Muslims? If they said I think Muslims should convert does is that still a hate or dislike, or something else? There is indeed a spectrum of possible feelings, and lumping them all together under a single word doesn’t seem helpful. Not least because, as you say you want people to listen… one goal of campaigns like an inclusive church is surely to teach /convert those with conservative views to change their minds. Not many who are told “you are full of hatred and… Read more »
I’m not sure the value of arguing semantics/pedantics, except as a distraction from the real problem- i.e. the continued and blasphemous discrimination against LGBT people in and by the Church of England. However… Like many words ‘hate’ has multiple uses as a word, there is at least an everyday meaning and a technical meaning. So, the CPS defines a hate crime as (my italics): “Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion;… Read more »
I absolutely agree we should treat LGBT people equally, and have been working to that effect for years. For the rest, see my answer to Pat above.
Black people were lynched by those who did not “personally hate” them. Jews were herded into gas chambers by those who did not “personally hate” them. All around the world, civilians are bombed and shot and raped by opposing militaries who do not “personally hate” them.
I am unimpressed with the distinction between condemnation (which often turns violent) for unjust cause, and personal hatred. By their fruits, they are known.
Those who lynched black people clearly did hate them. The Nazi regime did hate Jews. Some of the camp guards may not have personally hated Jews (or gypsies, or gay people), but were obeying orders on fear of their own lives, or their families’. There is a whole ethical, moral, psychological and emotional spectrum here which cannot be summed up by simply saying that every person who damages another, hates them. Having been discriminated against myself (as well as having been abused and assaulted), I’ve found that I only damage myself further if I assume that everyone who mistreats me… Read more »
…which was exactly my point. I suggest we focus on ending the damage, and not get bogged down on the nature of animus. [And to be clear, “damage” is defined by the damaged, not those doing the damaging!]
That is my point, too.
It’s interesting to watch as my theological identity is discussed and guesses are made about my inner motivations! ‘Welcome to my world!’ my 2SLGBTQI+ friends will say. I know! I was on the conservative side of this issue for many years (I no longer am, and in fact I’m one of the convenors of Inclusive Evangelicals). At no point at that time did I hate gay people. If you doubt that, I’d be happy to give you my daughter’s email address so she can confirm it for you. The classic definitions of evangelicalism include justification by grace through faith, the… Read more »
Dear Tim & Friar David. Your pacifisms cover thoughts that have longer worried me. I’m an old weapons man and long a student of war who in the 1991 Gulf War was a military Operations Analyst advising the senior British Army Commander on aspects of the forthcoming campaign and who, during the battle, climbed in and out of dead tanks (all Iraqi it so happened) recording the damage. Many were burnt out and I supposed the crew were in the dust on the floor. So I know of what I speak. My question to you is “What would you do otherwise?” If you… Read more »
Thanks for your question, Mike. Here are my thoughts. First, I freely admit that I am a theoretical pacifist. My life has never been in danger from the violent acts of another. What would I do if that were to happen? I hope I would follow my understanding of the teaching of Jesus, but of course I can’t be sure of that. Second, I don’t consider myself to be at liberty to make another choice. Jesus has commanded us to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies. Paul has taught us not to return evil for evil, but… Read more »
‘My response is, why can’t I start at 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles? The French and British imposed a hugely vindictive settlement on Germany, creating huge resentment and suffering, which made it very easy for Hitler to fan the flames. Imagine if, instead, there had been a Marshall Plan in 1919?’ Imagining for a second there was a blog called ‘Thinking Historians’ – there’s a school of thought that this is a received opinion that doesn’t bear scrutiny when you consider that the post WW2 settlement was *more* punitive to Germany (Marshall Plan or not) than the Treaty of… Read more »
Thank you for this very full, open and clear post.
I don’t agree.
The Church of England has disgracefully failed to issue a clear condemnation of the carpet bombing of Palestinian Children in Gaza and elsewhere. As far as I know (and I hope I am wrong) neither of our Archbishops have even mentioned Hind Rajab.
What exactly is the point of a Church that is largely silent in the face of such suffering ?
“But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
‘Gracious Lord – bomb the Germans.
Spare their women, for thy sake;
And, if that should not prove easy,
We will pardon Thy mistake.
But, dear Lord, whate’er shall be –
Don’t let anyone bomb me.’
John Betjeman
He could have been writing about Gaza, couldn’t he?
Thanks Tim. I twice thought about asking about the morality of carpet bombing children in Gaza, which I would argue does need some debate in Christian circles, but I twice deleted the draft post because I did not have the energy to cope with the likely push back.
It’s good that others are less prone to self-censorship.
Thank you. It was the nature of the replies received in relation to past posts submitted on that very subject (and also the silences of many churchpeople) that have led me to stop contributing to any Church blog for the last 7 months (save once here to provide references to two papers).
Amen to that, brother. Jed Bartlet’s call for a disproportional response has been heard loud and clear. Apparently it’s now entirely appropriate for a terrorist act that killed 1400 people to be responded to by military action that kills 40,000 people, injures hundreds of thousands more, and leaves countless numbers without homes, food, water, medical care etc. And Christians cheer for this and say ‘Israel has the right to defend itself’. This is not defence – it’s obliteration. Even if you believe in just war theory (which I don’t), this has long since departed from the rules of just war.… Read more »
It was not a ‘terrorist’ act. It was a legitimate act of resistance against an occupier. Can people just stop loosely throwing around the word ‘terrorist’. Who is causing the most actual terror in the world right now?
Putin, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Which one of those has dropped more than three Hiroshima’s of explosives, including white phosphorous and cluster bombs on one of the worlds most densely populated places?
You asked “Who is causing the most actual terror in the world right now? Hiroshima is not recent. No one is suggesting Israel’s bombing of Gaza is justified or proportionate. Putin is a murderous terrorist who has killed more people than the Israelis.
Really? Where? In Ukraine? On the basis that one white person is worth 100 brown people?
That is a preposterous accusation. The race of innocent victims is not relevant.
And how many Ukrainian citizens have been killed in the last two years?
Sorry, but targeting civilians is a terrorist act.
Which civilians? The ones in Gaza? The ones in Beirut? Or is it only white people that can qualify as civilians?
Matthew, that’s unfair. I’m the one who turned this thread to this subject, and I did it by referring to the suffering of Gaza. Here in Edmonton I”m personal friends with Palestinian, Syrian, and Jordanian people who have family in Gaza. i think what Israel is doing is out of all proportion to what has been done to them, and has gone far beyond the boundaries even of just war, if you believe in just war theory (which I do not). This does not mean that I think Hamas was justified in attacking and murdering innocent Israeli (and non-Israeli) civilians.… Read more »
How many of those ‘innocent’ Israelis were really innocent, and not IDF personnel? How many of those Israelis were killed by their own side? And how many deaths were there? 1200? 1400? Another round number with a couple of zeros on the end?
This sort of comment just shows how some people have lost their moral bearings. And proportionality is not to be judged by the numbers killed on 7 October (though no other country would take the blase attitude towards this taken by some in the west) but by the threat made by terrorist anti-Semitic groups to the existence of Israel.
Yes, he could have been talking about Gaza. Or Beirut, Tel Aviv, or Teheran.
Regarding the WW2 story – you may want to look up Coventry Cathedral, and how the prayer was ‘father forgive’ not ‘father forgive them over there’.
There has always been some people who think ‘they’ are the more deserving ones, whether in the CofE or elsewhere – – but I don’t think it’s fair to say it’s been universal truth.
In the 1990s I heard a C of E priest born in 1931 speaking at a remembrance event. He said that during the Battle of Britain he remembered the fighter pilots being in their planes above and the people in the churches below praying for their safety and success. I remember at the time wondering how God would answer a prayer like that. By protecting the British pilots from being torn up by .303 bullets, but making sure the Germans were killed instead? And how would he balance it with the prayers of German worshippers asking for the exact opposite… Read more »
My mother was in Coventry on 14th November 1940. My uncle was a pilot with RAF Bomber Command in 1940. He was involved in the bombing of the invasion barges at Dunkirk between 14th and 20th September 1940. Had the germans invaded Britain in 1940 Thinking Anglicans would have been one of the first casualties if it had existed then and my grandfather who was Jewish would probably have been deported to Auschwitz. My uncle was subsequently killed in the raid on Mannheim on 16th December 1940 which was ordered as retaliation for the Coventry raids. I think both my… Read more »
Tim, with regard to condemning carpet bombing you have totally forgotten Bishop George Bell, who made himself very unpopular in government circles by speaking out in House of Lords during the war. He is very much honoured in Lutheran circles in Europe – much more so than UK.
You are wrong, I have not totally forgotten him. If you examine my wording you will note that I said ‘Oh, and hardly a word was raised…’ Bishop Bell was the reason I said ‘hardly’.
In fact, Bishop George Bell, then of Chichester, spoke out strongly against carpet bombing and the like. He made a very powerful speech in the House of Lords in 1944 demanding the cessation of area bombing of German cities such as Hamburg. It is true that he was not supported by the Archbishops. The ABY of the time said “It was a lesser evil to bomb war-loving Germans than to sacrifice the lives of our fellow countrymen”. The speech earned him the enmity of Winston Churchill. Bell may have been a lone voice amongst the Bishops but he had the… Read more »
And as it happens the Church of England commemorates George Bell today, the day on which he died in 1958. The page at https://almanac.oremus.org/ contains a short biographical note.
Yes, that’s why I used the phrase ‘hardly a word…’ rather than ‘not a word…’
“I value radical theology that is exploring experience and finding language, metaphors and images that speak to me of God as my consciousness and spirituality have evolved.” I ‘think’ (if I understand this point correctly) is something I can agree with very much. finding ways of speaking to me (and wider to the world) in metaphors and images that work (such as an operating system) about the God who revealed themselves in Jesus. My use of the term ‘modern theology’ was trying to borrow from your blog. I’m not really sure if it sits right with me to consider theology… Read more »
“In today’s evangelical CofE God prefers to love some people more than others. That is a profound ‘truth’ revealed in the more ‘successful’ churches who don’t like “inclusive” theology.” Feels like you’re trying to cause a minor argument with someone. But realistically; I think that type of feeling always exists to a certain extent. I’m sure on all sides there are people who think “I go to this parish not yours- because I actually agree with their stances on X,Y,Z more”. I would like to believe we can learn to partner – and that “we are all Anglican” should be… Read more »
You seem to imply that Truth is something which doesn’t change but theology does. This might be a useful concept if we agreed upon what is true. Recently some evangelical parishes commissioned a number of lay ministers to promote the ‘truth’ about the rejection of gay people from the CofE. For them, hatred is part of the truth.
Well we obviously don’t all know the full truth (/likely no one knows) But as more of a “scientist and mathematician” by trade; I do believe that some things are just true “is 1 + 1 = 2 or = 3” but I also accept there are some things that may be true but we don’t have the ability to know this side of glory. As Paul said, now we see but through a glass darkly. The comment “someone recently said truth was a thing that I really don’t like” doesn’t really add much to the subject; other than to… Read more »
If we understand “truth” to be an embodiment of God then that doesn’t change.
But human understanding of “truth” most certainly does change over time.
The mistake that Evangelicals make is to imagine that the opinions of human beings two thousand years ago (even if they were divinely inspired and saints) is the same as truth.
Time and human understanding of the World did not stop at the time of Christ.
Re: Anon and friends very good and true. But I don’t agree with the conclusion that if “the Church” refuses to change it should lose its privileges. Rather, I suggest, if the current leadership of the Church refuses to change then it must be removed. Root and branch. Ecclesiastical self-government has been nothing short of disastrous. It is time it was brought to an end. The Scottish Episcopal Church prioritises episcopacy above establishment. The Church of England, so far, has both. The time may come when a choice has to be made between episcopacy and establishment. In theory some believe… Read more »
Dear FrDavid H, I am one of those subscribers to the TA feed who appreciates your contrariness and independence of expression, so I am surprised by your presumption that ‘no one is suggesting that Israel’s bombing of Gaza is justified’ in response to the Oct 7 Hamas attacks. Actually, many do suggest this, at least tacitly, because as Mike Nash has commented above, unless you are an actual pacifist (rather than an armchair one) then you must answer the question ‘what would you do otherwise?’ I recognise that this was in reference to justifications for bombing Nazi Germany; in relation… Read more »
Israel’s allies, including the UK, called for a ceasefire a few thousand Palestinian deaths ago. Many are aware that Netanyahu faces prosecution and has a vested interest in prolonging the war. Like Putin, he seems to ignore the suffering of innocent people to maintain his position. As a democracy, Israel is deemed to be morally superior to the axis of evil. Sadly, much of Israel’s moral authority has evaporated.
The ‘axis of evil’ that you invoke is a of course the term coined by George W Bush in relation to the ‘War on Terror’, of which this conflict may or may not be a part. But accepting your terms, the question I would ask is this: what relation does the ‘evaporation’ of Israel’s ‘moral authority’ have to the Jewish state’s continuing right to exist? Because let’s not forget that this is what this is about for the ‘axis of resistance’, as the text on the Houthi flag makes explicit: ’Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews’. I ask… Read more »
Israel’s moral authority has been weakened by the leadership of Netanyahu against whom thousands of Israeli demonstrators flooded the streets, particularly over his attempts to control the judiciary. Israel’s right to exist should not depend upon the morally questionable leadership of a potential criminal. Israel deserves better.