This month's letter
from the Rector,
Revd Michael Rusk

This year's letters

Jesus' words are an invitation to engage with the world - to identify with the poor and the needy and to respond to those needs by living sacrificially on their behalf. As we await our Lord's coming, just like the early Christians, we are called to live our lives in an entirely focussed way. As Paul writes to the Christians at Thessalonica:

Waiting, of course, is something that most of us are not very good at. Although the British have a reputation for stoically waiting in queues whether they are for the bus or for getting to the check-out desk, much of the rest of British society has abandoned waiting as a virtue. This is particularly so in the area of debt. Economists tell us that the average British family has debts over and above their mortgage of £25,000. That is a frightening statistic - a time bomb waiting to go off - and all because modern British society cannot have the patience to wait, and to save, and then to spend. Letters flood through our letter-box offering us the possibility of rescheduling our debts (these mail shots assume that we are all deeply in debt!), but even as they do so, they still offer us the tantalising possibility of us giving ourselves that special treat that we have been dreaming of, that holiday or car that we really deserve. And so the cycle of indebtedness is deliberately encouraged and cultivated. We are encouraged to accept its bondage as something that we should take for granted in this life, and it is only in the life to come that we shall be delivered from it.

As Christians we are encouraged to live by a very different set of values. By developing a spirituality that puts a positive emphasis on waiting, and by looking to Christ for true joy and fulfilment rather than on a limitless supply of material possessions, Christians can offer a fresh alternative to our impatient, judgement free modern world. Advent offers us the opportunity of waiting for God; of being aware of God's judgement - his displeasure at the chaos of our world. As 2003 draws to a close, many of us will conclude that our world is a less stable place than 12 months ago; that the war against Iraq, far from solving problems appears to have brought a whole multitude of others; that international terrorism continues to wreak its horrific havoc as witnessed by the attacks on the HBSC bank and the British consulate in Istanbul. Moreover, in this year of health scares - with fears of a new virulent flu in this country; from the recent SARS epidemic which became world-wide in a matter of weeks, to the agonising deaths of thousands from AIDS in Africa and beyond, we have felt more vulnerable than ever. The words of the familiar Advent hymn will be sung against this backdrop of insecurity and worry:

But there is hope. Hope that through the birth of Christ, God has given us a Saviour who will guide us through the storms of this life. Hope that we through our words and actions can change the world in the name of Christ. That is our calling. And every now and then we are given examples of how to go about this. The tributes to the Guardian journalists, Hugo Young, who died at the early age of 64, are a case in point. Fr. Dominic Milroy had this to say at the Thanksgiving Service at Westminster Cathedral:

"Hugo chose the Prologue of St John's Gospel to be read at his wedding to Lucy, and Lucy chose it again today in his memory. This is no accident. "In the beginning was the Word…a light shone in the darkness, and the darkness could not overcome it." The primacy of the Word was the driving force of Hugo's life…He was a servant of the Word. I don't just mean that he was a writer who loved words. For him the Word was the unique and ordained instrument in the search for divine and human truth. He knew, as all good journalists know, that words can be very noisy, and can be used in the service of violence, or lies and of what is now call 'spin'…Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his Nobel speech of 1970, quoted an old Russian proverb, 'One word of truth is of more weight than all the rest of the world.' (The Guardian, Friday 21st November 2003.)

Such an example gives hope but also challenges. It means that this Advent and Christmas is not just about a mad rush, an evasion of waiting and judging, but rather a journey to find through the grace of God, the divine Word that can illuminate and shape all our words and actions. Perhaps our adage this Christmas should therefore be: 'Talk less; say more!'

May God's blessing be upon you and your loved ones this Advent and Christmas.

Michael Rusk

November Letter

Dear Friends,

On November 4th, the eyes of the world will be focussed on New Hampshire in the United States. The reason for such interest in this otherwise quiet and often unreported part of New England, is that the Anglican Diocese of New Hampshire, having elected Canon Gene Robinson as their new bishop, will seek to have him consecrated on this date with the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA, the Most Revd. Frank Griswold, in attendance. Generally speaking, the consecration of a new bishop, while cause for local rejoicing, passes by unnoticed. But not in this case. Canon Gene Robinson is an openly gay man, who lives with his partner in a covenanted same sex relationship. This relationship is of thirteen years standing: prior to that Canon Robinson was married and is father to two children. Unlike Dr. Jeffrey John, who withdrew in the early summer from becoming Bishop of Reading, Canon Robinson has made it clear that he is not celibate.

The proposed election of Canon Gene Robinson to the office of bishop has provoked widespread concern both within the Episcopal Church in the United States and among Anglicans throughout the world. The General Convention of ECUSA approved Canon Robinson's election in early summer (according to reports that I have received, after four hours of prayer). At the same convention, instructions were given for liturgists to draw up pastoral services of blessing for those in same-sex relationships. My understanding is that the aim is to have these services available in Anglican churches in the States three years from now. There will a conscience cause for those clergy who feel that they cannot proceed with such services.

But the immediate and pressing issue is what happens if the consecration of Canon Gene Robinson goes ahead? In mid-October the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams invited the Primates of the Anglican Communion to Lambeth to discuss the crisis. After two days of talks, the Primates came to three main conclusions:

1) As a body of Primates of the Anglican Communion, "we must make clear that recent actions in New Westminster and in the Episcopal Church (USA) do not express the mind of our Communion as a whole, and these decisions jeopardise our sacramental fellowship together." Earlier in their statement, the Primates urged that all Anglicans take account of the recommendation of the 1998 Lambeth Conference on the need "to listen to the experience of homosexual persons, and to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ"; and stressed the need for "ongoing study on questions of human sexuality."

2) The legal structures of the Anglican Communion (or the lack of them) would be considered and recommendations made for change. "In most of our provinces the election of Canon Gene Robinson would not have been possible since his chosen lifestyle would give rise to a canonical impediment to his consecration as a bishop…Questions of the parity of our canon law, and the nature of the relationship between the laws of our provinces with one another have also been raised."

3) A twelve-month commission has been set up to work out how the Archbishop of Canterbury's role can help to maintain "communion within and between provinces when grave difficulties arise. We ask him now to establish such a commission, but that its remit be extended to include urgent and deep theological and legal reflection on the way in which the dangers we have identified at this meeting will have to be addressed." There is a particular concern for those congregations in New Hampshire who could not in conscience accept Gene Robinson as their Bishop.

The first statement where the Primates express their dismay and disapproval of Canon Robinson's ordination as Bishop is important but it would appear totally ineffectual. In Anglicanism, the Primates are a purely advisory body, and therefore in this case, can only wring their hands in despair. It was particularly discouraging to observe how it seemed to make no difference to the intention of Frank Griswold to attend the consecration of Gene Robinson. Ironically, the legacy that the Protestant Reformation has bequeathed to Anglicanism is that the discernment of God's will is left to the integrity of individual provinces and dioceses.

The powerlessness of the Primates, and the Archbishop himself, has led to the second proposal to review the legal procedures of how a diocese goes about the process of electing a bishop. The uncomfortable fact has emerged that provinces have their own procedures about how to elect a bishop. In one sense, this is something that has always been known but not thought through. I have followed with interest, for example, how the Bishop of Atlanta has been appointed: the short-listing of candidates by the Diocesan Appointing Committee; the interviews; the decision to appoint. What has been less clear is what structures does a province have which might bar a candidate from the office of a bishop? The archbishop on the Today programme on Radio 4, pointed out that Canon Gene Robinson, given his present lifestyle, could not be consecrated bishop in this country. It would therefore seem sensible to explore whether there could be a consensual procedure which all provinces followed in the election of a bishop. Another important issue is whether the appointment of a bishop should be left entirely to the discretion of an individual diocese, particularly if the decision has an impact on the whole perception of Anglicanism worldwide. Shouldn't there be some way in which the mind of the Anglican Communion could express itself, either through the approval of the appointment by the Archbishop of Canterbury or by some other method of validation

What is emerging here is a fundamental question about what it means to be part of a communion of worldwide churches. We have often heard the expression the "Anglican Communion" but what does it actually mean? How did it come into being? How is the Communion maintained? When did the language of "the world-wide Anglican communion" first emerge, and were there any structures set in place (apart from bishops being invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Lambeth Conference) to enable it to operate successfully as a body?

What has emerged in recent months is that the "Anglican Communion" is, to a large degree, a figment of the imagination, entirely lacking in appropriate legal structures to enable it to function in any meaningful way as a worldwide church. The reaction against the heavily centralised structure of the Roman Catholic Church has produced an Anglican church which wishes to be seen as a worldwide church, but which is entirely devoid of the centralised structures that would enable it to hold together. If Canon Robinson's consecration proceeds it will show the Anglican Communion for what it is: a federation of churches with no central command where rampant individualism is the order of the day. If there is to be any good to emerge from this whole sorry affair, it will be to examine ways in which the Anglican Communion can begin to operate in a more responsible way as an ecclesial body.

The reminder that Lambeth 1998 called for serious reflection on the nature of human sexuality is important. The Church of England is about to produce a major report on Human Sexuality and it will be interesting to see what it contains.

Basically, Anglicanism consists of the interaction of three major principles: scripture, tradition, and reason. In their statement, the Primates implied two things about scripture: first they affirmed "our common understanding of the centrality and authority of scripture in determining the basis of our faith." Secondly, they acknowledged that "a legitimate diversity of interpretation that arises in the Church…does not mean that some of us take the authority of scripture more lightly than others." The Primates therefore conclude: "we commit ourselves afresh to mutual respect whilst seeking from the Lord a correct discernment of how God's Word speaks to us in our contemporary world."

In this particular debate, the traditions of the church are much less significant than the importance of scripture. That leaves reason. Here Anglicans have a duty to inquire what is the latest medical and psychological understanding of human sexuality: is there a consensus of understanding emerging about sexual identity and orientation? Then there is a need to share such findings and together reflect on what implications they might have on our understanding of what it means to be created in God's image and to be human. After that, if what emerges differs significantly from scripture and tradition, then that has to be subject to further reflection, prayer and debate. The process is therefore one that cannot be short-circuited: it is a long, painful search, costly in terms of time and energy.

Two further thoughts: one, the challenge of the way ahead. Rowan Williams in his masterful study on Arius, the fourth century heretic, concludes:

"The loyal and uncritical repetition of formulae is seen to be inadequate as a means of securing continuity at anything more than a formal level; Scripture and tradition require to be read in a way that brings out their strangeness, their non-obvious and non-contemporary qualities, in order that they may be read both freshly and truthfully from one generation to another. They need to be made more difficult before we can accurately grasp their simplicities. Otherwise, we read with eyes not our own and think them through minds not our own; the 'deposit of faith' does not really come into contact with ourselves. And this 'making difficult', this confession that what the gospel says in Scripture and tradition does not instantly and effortlessly make sense, is perhaps one of the most fundamental tasks in theology." (Rowan Williams, Arius, p.236).

Secondly, a delightful passage from the 17th century Bishop of Down and Dromore, Jeremy Taylor, to give us reassurance and hope at this tumultuous time:

"I have often seen young and unskilful persons sitting in a little boat when every little wave sporting about the sides of the vessel, and every motion and dancing of the barge, seemed a danger, and made them cling fast on their fellows; and yet all the while they were as safe as if they sat under a tree, while a gentle wind shook the leaves into a refreshment and a cooling shade: and the unskilful, inexperienced Christian shrieks out, whenever his vessel shakes, thinking it always a danger, that the watery pavement is not stable and resilient like a rock; and yet all his danger is in himself, none at all without: for he is indeed moving on the waters, but fastened to a rock: faith is his foundation, and hope is his anchor, and death is his harbour, and Christ is his pilot, and heaven is his country…and if we do not leave the ship, and leap into the sea; quit the interests of religion, and run to the securities of the world; cut our cables, and dissolve our hopes; grow impatient, and hug a wave, and die in its embrace, we are as safe at sea, safer in the storm which God sends us, than in a calm when we are befriended with the world."

Michael Rusk.

October Letter

Dear Friends

Last month, all the clergy of the Diocese of Leicester were invited by Bishop Tim to the Clergy Conference held every four years at Swanwick in Derbyshire. The conference lasted 4 days, and the invitation was of the three-line whip variety. Among the speakers was Bishop John Pritchard - a former member of my congregation in Durham - now Bishop of Jarrow. Bishop John invited us to return to our parishes with the following sound-bits in our mind. We should Play with Fire - that is we should recover the awesome beauty and power of God in our worship Sunday by Sunday as well as in our spiritual lives as a whole. Secondly, we should Walk on Water. That means we should be flexible, always exploring new ways of relating the gospel to our highly fluid society. To be church today means to change and to change often. New forms of worship, new ways of being church, new ways of relating to younger generations, need to be at the heart of the PCC's decision making. Of course, this is likely to be very uncomfortable for many of us who look upon the church as the rock of faith, there to protect us against all the changing scenes of life. Nevertheless, Bishop John insisted that the church's primary task is to share the good news of Jesus, and to do that successfully, means being innovative and risk taking and mobile. Thirdly, we should Re-engage with the earth. Here the emphasis was on the church developing a concern for the earth's resources: both in terms of preserving the ecological order but also in terms of speaking out prophetically in sharing the world's resources with the poor of the earth.
In a moving speech in West Africa, our Archbishop Rowan Williams recently said: "There is the slavery of poverty, the slavery of injustice, the slavery of greed - both sexual and financial, the slavery caused by the HIV/Aids pandemic, and the slavery of violence in which bitterness and revenge can be guaranteed to keep people captive forever, unless delivered by truth and reconciliation. We must go on identifying and overcoming every kind of slavery we encounter in our society.
"In overcoming slaveries we learn to recognise one another as human and, in this way, we learn to see in each other the face of Christ."
The Church therefore needs to find its voice and speak out against all that impedes human flourishing and damages our fragile God-given planet earth.
Finally, Bishop John invited us to let the Wind through the door. That was an invitation to let the power of God's spirit change and transform both ourselves as individuals and the church at large. You know that if you leave a window or a door open in your home in autumn, that chaos may ensue: papers carefully piled on a desk or a table might get blown all over the place. That can be most inconvenient, but nevertheless, at least some fresh air has got into the house! Similarly standing in a field in the Leicestershire countryside and facing the autumnal winds head on can be a wonderfully invigorating and life-giving experience. So it is with the power of the spirit. Church life should be thrilling; exhilarating; life giving through the grace of God. Is that how you find us at St. Peter's, St. Paul's, and the Grange? That is the way we ought to be, and it is my prayer that that is the way we will become. We seek to follow the one who played with the fiery wrath of the priestly caste; who walked on water; told stories about the birds of the air and how God loved them; and one who was powered by the Spirit through life and death to resurrection. So may these catch-phrases become yours as well as mine as we work together to extend God's kingdom here in Oadby.

Michael Rusk

September Letter

Dear Friends

The wonders of computer technology and the internet mean that many of us have information at our fingertips as never before. The 2001 Census is a case in point. The National Statistics Office has made available the most detailed breakdown of facts and figures of the British population that this country has ever known. For the computer literate, all this material can be accessed almost instantaneously. So what can we learn from the Census and what use might it be to the churches?

The 2001 Census tells us a great deal about the size and age profile of the population; their housing; their health; and some indicators about wealth such as home & car ownership. The Census also tells us what religion people are: this was the first time such a question was asked. In accessing the data, it is possible to get a download of the Borough of Oadby & Wigston. That gives a picture of a population of 55,000. But because Oadby differs from Wigston in quite significant ways - particularly in terms of ethnic diversity, what is really useful is to look at the statistics of each of the 5 wards of Oadby. Put together, these statistics give us a very full picture of the whole parish. Each Ward has its own story to tell, as each is different from the other.

The advantage of these figures to the churches is significant. It is good to have some idea of how many people are living in the Parish. The Church of England, after all, makes a commitment to care in Christ's name for all the people within a geographical area. That is our calling, and so, the more we can find out about who they are and what their preferences are, the better. Of particular importance to the church is the age breakdown in each given Ward. This can assist us reflecting on whether we have got our priorities right: are we, as a Parish, putting in resources commensurate with the actual age profile of the population to whom we are ministering? For example, Brocks Hill Ward has a population of nearly 4,000. 25% of that 4,000 are below the age of 19. That means that there are 1,000 young people in the Brocks Hill Ward, living between St. Peter's Church Hall and Beauchamp. What kind of contact do we have as Churches with all these young people? What kind of ministerial resources are we putting into this age group? What kind of facilities and events are we providing? If the answer is not very much, then there is something very clearly wrong with the focus of our mission. Our calling is to share the good news of Christ with everyone. We cannot afford to ignore a quarter of the population. So the Census can be an enormous challenge to us.

St. Peter's Ward has also a population close on 4,000. While Brockshill Ward records only 8.6% of its population aged over 75; St.Peter's Ward, in contrast, has a figure of 13.7%. That means that in St. Peter's Ward alone, there are over 550 people who are aged over 75. What kind of ministry is the Church providing for this age group? Is it in touch with the large number of elderly people who live here? I suspect through the luncheon clubs in the Church Hall and the links with the Royal British Legion, St. Peter's Church will find that it scores quite well in terms of contact, although not in regular church attendance.

The percentage of people who have indicated on the census form that they consider themselves to be Christian is fascinating. Because of the multi-faith make-up of Oadby, the percentages recorded here are below the national average as one would expect. In the Ward that St. Paul's is in - Oadby Uplands - there is a population of 4,404. Of these, 49.2% claim to be Christians - that would be over 2,000 people. 15.2 % are Hindu; 11.9% Sikh, and 6.5% Muslim. The number of people indicating that they are Christians is 12-18% higher on the St. Peter's side of the A6. Still, this means that there are a significant number of people within the vicinity of St. Paul's who consider themselves Christian. That is enormously encouraging and a tremendous challenge, inviting contact, Christian pastoral care and nurture to ensue.

I hope this illustrates that statistics can be helpful in determining the mission of the Church. The 2001 Census has detailed figures, too, about those who are suffering from long-term illness; those who are caring either for children or ailing parents. Interpreted correctly, the statistics can be turned into an important tool whereby the church gets to know its parish well and tailors its mission to the needs of that area. It is my hope that the ministry team and our church congregations can engage with these facts and figures and through the power of God's Spirit turn what may look on paper like boring statistics into the wellspring for effective mission and outreach for the people of Oadby.

Michael Rusk.

August Letter

Dear Friends

If Church services follow a predictable pattern, that pales into insignificance compared to the predictability of the weekly ritual of the supermarket check-out. Apart from the incessant bleeping as each article is placed under the scanner, which must eventually get on the nerves of even the most sanguine operator, the following inquiries are almost certain to be made. First, "Do you have a loyalty card?" (the actual brand of loyalty card will be mentioned, and one is almost made to feel guilty if one doesn't have it). Second, "Would you like any cash back?"
What is going on here, and what conclusions can we as Christians draw from this litany of the commercial world?

First of all, it is important to recognise this exchange for what it actually is. It is a secular liturgy, as predictable as its divine counterpart: "The Lord be with you" and "Lord have mercy." It is just that the secular world, having complained that church worship is boring and predictable have replaced divine worship with a responsorial liturgy of it own. But why should the world choose to do so? The reason is quite simple: the modern world cannot live with the silence it has created. That is why so much musick blares out in our shops, and why the till operators seek to engage us in conversation. There is no reason why anyone should speak to anyone else in the modern supermarket. The goods should all be easy to spot - it is a sign of failure, of poor marketing and display, if one has to ask where anything is. Your own experience of shopping in a foreign country will prove to you that you don't need to say anything to undertake a successful shopping trip. But this is what is ghastly about modern living. When we know the language, and when we know how to communicate, then we know that we don't want a world of total silence: that is why countless millions of us use the mobile phone in public. People were created to communicate. In the old village of Oadby it would have been easy a few decades ago, and it is still just possible to build a relationship with the shopkeeper; exchange greetings; and have a chat. But with the modern supermarket it is much harder. There may be one or two familiar faces among the workforce, but with all the changes in schedule and the sheer numbers involved, more often than not it will be a new or at least an unremembered face at the check-out counter. Someone whom you don't need to talk to. And that is the problem. Without establishing a relationship, there may be no incentive to encourage you to shop there again. So the operators at our supermarket tills make huge and often successful efforts to make conversation and to help us have a positive shopping experience. Hence the artificial questions which are surely meant as icebreakers to get us talking. So the question "Do you have a Loyalty Card?" is a desperate attempt to create a world that is personal rather than impersonal; that encourages a sense of belonging and commitment rather than casual encounter.

"Would you like any cash back?" if we think about it is a most extraordinary phrase. I am not aware of putting cash in the till in the first place, so how can I have it back? Tied up in the phrase is the modern illusory world in which we are encouraged to live. I suppose the word "back" was put in, because if the till operator were to ask, "Would you like any cash?" then all of us would say, "Yes! Of course, we would." So the operator can't say that, in case we interpret it as an invitation for a free transaction. A more accurate question would be, "Do you want to withdraw some cash?" but that is cumbersome thing to say, even though it acknowledges that the supermarket has switched from being a shop to being a financial banking service. "Withdrawal" is a useful word in this context, because it leaves one in no doubt that money is being taken out, and what is withdrawn is no longer there for the spending. But, no, the shorter, punchier phrase, "Do you want any cash back?" has become the standard coinage throughout the country.

The idea of getting cash back, implies as I suggested above, that in some mystical way, some of the money in the cash till actually belongs to you. Somehow or other it is yours and it is there for the taking. All you have to do is decide how much of your money you really want back in your wallet. Of course, transactions of this kind keep the money supply going and mean that banks can continue to shed staff by the thousand. For many it is a convenient way of getting ready cash without recourse to the bank or even the cashpoint. In this sense, this most modern method of banking is wonderfully convenient and a real asset. But I worry about this world of easy credit: with the ease of large overdrafts and loans, the cash back that is offered may just as likely be borrowed money than from an account that is actually in credit. Although there are likely to be some checks, nevertheless, the operator will never know whether you are responsible and in control of your money matters or not. The transaction depends on and feeds the illusion that you can have what you want, when you want.

This is significant insofar as this attitude "having what you want, when you want" is very much the signature tune of modern Western European living. It is all-pervasive, and in a sense can be described as the chief characteristic of our society. It is this attitude which is a major challenge to Christianity - expressing itself in matters of sexual behaviour, embryo research, and the massive consumerism that is eating up the world's natural resources at an alarming rate.

The question which God poses in Jesus is a different one. That question quite simply is: "Do you want your life back?" That is the question behind the encounters Jesus had with the various individuals that he came across in Galilee and Jerusalem. If they were ill, he healed them and gave them their life back. If they were unpopular and trapped with their ill-gotten wealth, then Jesus gave them a fresh start and gave them their life back. If they were the prodigal son, or the traveller who was attacked by bandits and subsequently rescued by the good Samaritan, then they were given their life back in a new and wonderful way. If you were Peter on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, bitterly regretting failure and denial, then you were given your life back in a remarkable transforming way. So perhaps the Church should ask you in the name of Christ each week: "Do you want your life back?" If you answer, "Yes" then God knows what might happen! And always remember, never forget, that ultimately it is God who really wants to communicate with you and get your loyalty and commitment. By the way, the rewards for loyalty are pretty good too! The brochure offers eternity and paradise.

Michael Rusk.

July Letter

Dear Friends,

Introduction
The appointment of Canon Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading has provoked widespread media coverage, and is a defining moment in the future of the Church of England. The reason why this is so controversial is that Canon John would be the first bishop in the Church of England's history to be in an openly gay relationship (now non-sexual) of twenty-seven years. The Bishops of the Church of England are deeply divided over whether the consecration of Canon John as a Bishop is desirable or not: nine diocesan bishops so far have publicly expressed their disapproval; eight including our own diocesan bishop, Tim Stevens, have given their support. It is likely that the appointment will split the Diocese of Oxford. Many other evangelical churches throughout the country may also come to the decision that now is the time to part company with the Church of England.

So what are the issues at stake and how are we responding to them in an appropriate manner?

First, as a parish priest, I am acutely aware that many families at some point encounter the reality that one of their members -husband, wife, child, grandchild -declares that they are gay. It is important that as Christians we respond with sensitivity, love, and inclusiveness. This is an issue that can rip a family apart and it is our calling as Christians to be compassionate and loving. This is a costly calling and one that will involve much pain. Each family will have to work out with wisdom what degree of hospitality is offered to gay partners. In many ways the decisions made will shape the characteristics and quality of love and values which that family espouses. The wider community needs to be supportive and attentive to the experiences of each family in this regard.

But while the Church stands for an all inclusive, non-judgmental loving particularly within family life, what about its traditional values? Isn't what is happening now incompatible with two thousand years of church teaching and practice?

The Church of England is at a crossroads. I can foresee two future ways of being for the church. At present, I cannot see how they Can come together into one coherent unified church. Some of us may choose one church as the viable expression of Christ's love and forgiveness. Others may choose the other as the most authentic community in which a Christian life of holiness and obedience can be best lived out.

The All-Inclusive Church
The first model of the church of the future is this: it is a view of the church where there is deep honesty and total acceptance of all individuals and lifestyles. It would be marked by a spirit that was non-judgmental, where individuals battered by the harsh experience of this world would be received with the same love and understanding as shown by the father to the prodigal son. It would be a church which would see itself modeled on the community of Jesus -one which to the outside world could be construed as scandalously liberal, but a church in which its individual members find new life, affirmation and purpose. The advocates of this church will point out that Jesus was one who kept risky company: "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" (Matthew 11.19) In this model of church, the future Church of England will focus strongly on issues on social justice: women will be bishops; gays will be represented at every level of church life; gay sexual relationships will be celebrated as signs of God's love; there will rites of blessing of gay and lesbian unions. The Church's teaching will strongly advocate tolerance, and self-knowledge. The Church will be called upon to repent of its homophobic past and renounce two thousand years of teaching where heterosexual marriage was promoted at the expense of life-long covenanted same-sex relationships.

The Church of Incarnation & Redemption
The second model of the church of the future takes issue with much of this. It will emphasize that while Jesus accepted people of all ways of life and was often found with people whose lifestyle raised eyebrows, nevertheless the major focus of Jesus' ministry was to call people to live the life of the kingdom. "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel." (Mark 1.14) The ministry of Jesus was fundamentally one of obedience to God; of discerning God's will and following it whatever the cost. In Gethsemane, Jesus prays, "Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." (Mark 14.36) This call of holiness and obedience to God brings freedom and liberation, but it calls the individual to a life of self-denial and sacrifice. "And he called to them the crowd with his disciples and said to them, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it." (Mark 8.34)

The early Christians took this call to a life of holiness with the utmost seriousness. They found in modeling themselves on Christ's self-denying, sacrificial life and death, a new sense of liberation and purpose in living. They called it redemption. They desired to live lives by the grace of God's Spirit that pursued the transforming qualities of holiness and obedience. They talked about casting off the old self and discovering a new identity in Christ: with enthusiasm they encouraged and exhorted one another to live out this transforming life of holiness: "put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness which is idolatry ... you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creation. Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all." (Colossians 3.5-11).

This model of Church will argue that the liberal gay agenda that is now affecting the church cannot be squared with scriptural passages such as Colossians 3. This church, therefore, will take issue with Bishop Richard Harries over the outworking of the doctrine of redemption. In his Radio broadcast, Bishop Harries implies that redemption was found for the late Rev. Bill Skelton. The Bishop quoted from the sermon preached at his funeral:
"There is no doubt whatever that Bill's last 20 years have been blissfully happy primarily because of his partnership. It has been a transforming friendship. A lot of what Bill managed to do in his last years he would have found impossible without that support. In these last years Bill faced, accepted, and rejoiced in his homosexuality What in earlier life he might have seen as his "devils" had been transformed by love

The difficulty with this is that this implies that Christian redemption is to be defined as what gives you personal peace and fulfillment. That is what is to be followed at all costs. It is difficult to discern how this can be squared with more traditional understandings of the redemption of Christ.

Second, this church will have due concern about the appointment of Bishops. The Bishops are to be the representatives of Christ by word, teaching and example. 1 Timothy 3.2 states unequivocally: "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine; one that ruleth well his own house," Moreover, in the Book of Common Prayer Ordinal, the Archbishop asks the Bishop designate two questions:
"Be you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to do the same?
Will you deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world; that you may shew yourselves in all things an example of good works unto others, that the adversary may be ashamed, having nothing to say against you?"

It would be argued by this church that those who are called to the Office of Bishop must uphold the very highest moral standards as traditionally understood, if the Church is to remain faithful to its past and an united worldwide communion in the present.

Third, this church will present not only a gospel of the incarnational inclusive love of Jesus as witnessed in the gospel, but will also lay before the world the challenge of the costly path of discipleship. Christianity is also about redemption brought about by the death of Christ and offering the hope of heaven to those who respond to the call of radical obedience to the kingdom. This call to holiness, self-denial, and godly obedience is likely to be at variance with the liberal agenda of modem western societies. But the example of lives changed and transformed by the power of God will enable people to be attracted to a faith that is liberating and life giving.

As the theologian Jonathan Edwards wrote back in 1722: "Therefore, it behooves us all to be sensible of the necessity of holiness in order to salvation; of the necessity of real, hearty and sincere, inward and spiritual holiness, such as will stand by us forever and will not leave us at death, that sinners may not be so foolish as to entertain hopes of heaven, except they intend forthwith to set about repentance and reformation of heart and life."

Conclusion
These two models of church are ultimately mutually incompatible. The Church of England has to choose, to my mind, between one and the other. It should not be surprised if the Evangelical tradition of the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion rejects the first and adheres to the second. And my own personal stance at present? I personally believe that the church which emphasizes the second model of a redemptive call to radical holiness and self-denial is a more accurate reflection of what the church is truly called to be. I therefore have grave difficulties with the appointment of Canon Jeffrey John as the Bishop of Reading.

Michael Rusk.

June Letter

Dear Friends,

It was over a lunch of bacon and eggs at Sainsburys last week that I took the opportunity to read the newspaper. That is one of the great advantages of the modem day coffee shop: you can read the paper for free. There is not much in this world that you get for nothing and I suppose if I thought about it, I would realise that 1 was paying a fair amount for the eggs and bacon that would easily cover the cost of a newspaper. But, on the whole, I have a feel good factor about being able to read The Times without having to pay for it!

The article that caught my eye was one at the bottom of the front page which claimed that some recent research in America had proved that Buddhists actually do find happiness and peace in life over and above that of the average American. Increased activity in those parts of the brain responsible for feelings of well-being, peace and serenity were clearly noticeable. They were a consistent feature of those who practised prayer and meditation. The article ended by stating that now that this had been scientifically proven, it was hoped that meditation techniques might be taught and made available to address stress related conditions and certain forms of depression.

I found the article interesting and challenging. The question is: can religion actually make a difference? Can Judaism, Christianity, or Buddhism offer us a way of living that is therapeutic and life-giving. More particularly can prayer and meditation have anything to offer? I am delighted at the findings about Buddhist meditation: indeed at a recent funeral, I was most impressed when I met a young man who had given up work in London and had gone to a Buddhist monastery in Scotland for a year long retreat. Now that is taking the spiritual life seriously.


But what of the Christian tradition? Do we have a prayer and meditative life that needs to be taken seriously not just by us but by the wider world as well.

I believe that the very best traditions of the Christian faith have always had space for the spiritual life: the life of prayer; of solitude; of seeking out God; and finding inner peace. The great monastic traditions of both the western and the eastern church have always focussed on encountering the spiritual depths. This is a theme that our new Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has written much about in his work on Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross.

The problem is that in a busy parish it is so easy to neglect the spiritual life. To be just as stressed out as everyone else. Efficiency, good communication, lots of visiting, this is often how we measure the quality of our clergy and lay workers. Yet it would be good for us to reevaluate our priorities. Can Christian meditation really make a difference? And if it can, then why aren't we finding space and time for it? Why aren't we teaching it?

Already, in the Parish andparticularJy at St. Peter's we have the great tradition of Morning and Evening Prayer - a treasured inheritance that Anglicans have continued from the medieval monastic traditions. What if these prayer times were imaginatively developed and were of such quality that our local GPs actively encouraged some of their patients to attend them because it actually was the best cure? Can you imagine that? .It is Bot as daft as it sounds. The regular prayer life of the church can give a focus and a rhythm to life; can enable one 10 be at peace with God and with oneself; and offers a wonderful sense of companionship with those who attend - fellow pilgrims encouraging one another on life's journey.

Only our GPs know how many people in Oadby suffer from stress related disorders and depression. I don't know the figures, but I suspect in a population of 22,000 the figures runs into thousands rather than hundreds. It is a challenge to the Christian Church to find ways of living that really have something to offer others. So encourage your church to develop an emphasis on the meditative life, and if you are feeling down, why not come along to some of the midweek offices of Morning and Evening Prayer. You may find it wonderfully rewarding!.

Michael Rusk

May Letter

Dear Friends,

I was walking back from the Walkers Stadium after the Leicester City match against Brighton and had just reached Victoria Park, when a car slowed down. From the open window of the car, a man shouted to me: "What was the score?" "Leicester won" I replied, "They have made it into the Premiership." "Who scored the goals?" was the next question, and here I fumbled. Matthew, my son, came to the rescue with the accuracy of a statistician in the making. It was determined that the goal scorers were Izzet and Benjamin in that order. Satisfied the driver drove off having extracted from us the information that he wanted.

It was an odd experience. So often the windows of cars are firmly up so that the radio can be heard or even worse, (and at times illegal) the mobile phone activated. But this sudden inquiry and exchange of information was how early Christians shared the good news of the resurrection of Jesus. It came from individuals inquiring from other individuals what happened. My own experience walking back from the Walkers Stadium was not dissimilar to that of those two disciples making their way from Jerusalem to Emmaus. A stranger drew up and inquired what was happening -what were they talking about. Only when they explained all their concerns and puzzlement about Jesus and what had happened to him, the stranger began to participate in the discussion and enlighten them with an explanation of scripture that was able to make sense of all the strange and remarkable events that occurred at the end of Jesus' life.

The early Christians struggled, too, at times to get all the information right: in explaining the good news of the resurrection their overwhelming conviction that God had raised Jesus from the dead outweighed the small detail. Like me, it was vital to get the essential point across: the exact detail needed to be left to others of a more precise disposition who could remember more accurately and sequentially what had happened. It is not surprising, therefore, that the resurrection stories of Jesus are varied: some placed in Jerusalem; some in Galilee; some experienced only by one of two individuals; others by a great number of people. Most important of all was the conviction that the essential truth was that God had indeed acted in a most extraordinary and unique way in raising Jesus from the dead.

Soon the question "Why?" was asked and the early Christians found that scripture provided much reflection on how God is a God of vindication who absorbs and overcomes evil with sacrificial self-giving love. This, in its turn, was such an exciting discovery that the whole notion of what God is like was turned upside down. The holiness of God was to be confined no longer in the rarified sanctity of the temple but rather in the ghastliness and squalor of the cross. This meant that God was to be found where he was least expected -among the poor and suffering of humanity. With considerable energy the early Christians read and reread their Scriptures and experienced for themselves what it was to believe in this life-giving surprising God.

As modem day Christians here in Oadby, we have this opportunity too in this Easter season to discover this life-giving surprising God. Christianity is an exciting, forward-looking faith. As Christians it is reasonable to expect God to do great things in our midst. The articles about the Parish in this month's magazine set out some of the possibilities. They might excite; they might shock but they all indicate that the church in this parish is alive and active and waiting on the power of God to discern the way ahead,

Michael Rusk.

April Letter

Dear Friends,

Holy Week and Easter occur this year with the United Kingdom at war along with the United States against Iraq. Already, each of us will have viewed hundreds of hours of television footage, having unprecedented access to the front lines and to every theatre of operations. Each day, certainly in the opening days of the war, the casualties have been mounting up, and true cost of war has begun to make itself keenly felt, particularly among those families who have lost loved ones through the conflict.

Although many prayers are said at this time, it is often difficult to relate our Christian faith to the confusing and changing world around us. So it is important to ask what insights the death and resurrection of Christ can bring to this horrific situation today? Jesus lived at a time when there was only one superpower in the world. The Roman Empire reigned supreme: there appeared to be no limit to its power, the technological sophistication of its weapon systems, and the efficiency of its armies as ruthlessly successful fighting machines. Of course, the Empire was not an unmitigated evil: there were advantages in opting into such a successful economic market. The mingling of peoples and constant economic migration brought about the creation of vigorous, creative, and innovative cities.

Yet for some states, the occupation of the superpower was a constant irritant. And in their turn, some states at the margins of the Empire provided Rome with considerable bother. True, eventually Rome would crush them and bring them to heel, but often at a frightening cost, and only after the display of overwhelming force. One of these states was Judaea. The Jewish nation was always in turmoil and the province of Judaea was one of the trickier assignments any Roman could be given to govern. The Romans there experienced constant resentment and frequent terrorist attacks. Eventually the patience of Rome snapped and in AD 70 Jerusalem including its magnificent temple was taken and burnt. As the Jewish historian, Josephus grimly records: "There was no one left for the soldiers to kill or plunder, not a soul on which to vent their fury...So Caesar now ordered them to raze the whole city and sanctuary to the ground, leaving the towers that overtopped the others and the stretch of wall enclosing the City on the west the wall to serve as protection for the garrison that was to be left, the towers to show later generations what a proud and mighty city had been humbled by the gallant sons of Rome." (Josephus, The Jewish War, vii. .1).

It is important to recognise that many of the documents that now make up our New Testament were shaped and affected to some degree by these tumultuous events in world history. The decimation of the Jewish temple and the destruction of Jerusalem were earth-shattering events particularly for Jewish and Christian communities. The stories of atrocities, cruelty, the shock and awe tactics of the Roman army, and the subsequent humiliating triumphal victory march in Rome were the backdrop of much New Testament literature. The events are regularly alluded to especially in the gospels. According to the gospel narratives, Jesus prophetically predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, some thirty years before it actually happened: "Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 'As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another... When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near." (Luke 21.5,6,20).

In many ways, the death of Jesus anticipates the time when the temple will no longer be there. The prophetic cleansing of the temple; the reference in St. John's gospel that equates the temple with His body: "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up again in three days." The Jews replied, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?' But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken." (John 2.19-22). At the heart of this refocusing of attention lies the cross. For the Christian, God is to be found through the cross of Christ -this is what provides access to the very presence of God. This is the mercy seat, stained with blood, which brings reconciliation and atonement between God and humanity. Jesus according to Paul is the one "whom God set forth as an expiation (this word refers to the mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies in the Temple), through faith in his blood." (Romans 3.25) Jesus, therefore, in an astonishing way not only appears to have foreseen the destruction of the temple but also prepared his disciples to focus on his own sacrificial death thereby abrogating the need for a temple at all. This teaching of Jesus must have become all the more convincing with the destruction of the temple in AD 70.

Moreover, Jesus in his teaching and healing ministry although often referring to and encountering the occupying army as part and parcel of everyday life, nevertheless concentrates on preaching about a very different sort of kingdom. Instead of being fascinated by the developments of the unstable political world around him, Jesus proclaims a kingdom not of this world -a kingdom of heaven to which the poor, the despised and marginalised are strangely welcomed. And it is the inauguration of this kingdom that Jesus is concerned primarily about. He is convinced that God will bring this new kingdom in through his journey to Jerusalem. By challenging the religious authorities that run the Temple, perhaps even by challenging God Himself, Jesus was convinced that God would do something so extraordinary and remarkable that would change the whole of history. Something would happen, so that God's kingdom would come on earth -just as it was in heaven. There would be somehow a new way of experiencing the joy of living in God's presence and all would be welcome especially the poor and the outcast.

Christians believe that in the death of Jesus and in God subsequently raising him from the dead that God did indeed break into history in a most remarkable and unique way. It is important to note the contrasts of this kingdom of heaven and contrast it with that of the superpower. The power of this kingdom comes ironically from the crucified one -Jesus who has been executed by the Romans as a common criminal, a mere statistic of countless thousands who had to be disposed of in the provinces to maintain the great Pax Romana. The power of the cross is not a conventional power wielded by an empire; it is not a power that intervenes when and where it wants. Rather it is the power of unconditional love absorbing evil and triumphing over it. And more than that: it is the culmination of a perfect life lived totally and uniquely in accordance with the will of God. Jesus brings a new dimension to holiness, locating that holiness and presence of God in the darkest and most awful form of human torture and death. Sin and death itself are conquered by Jesus' self-offering and the path to peace is to be found no longer in the exercise of human might but rather in following the crucified one's example of self-sacrificial love.

All this is of the utmost significance for us as we view the events around us. To follow the crucified and risen Saviour is to choose a path of hope and redemption that rejects violence and taking people out. Instead it looks at overcoming evil with love. This is the gospel we are called upon to proclaim and to live out because we believe it to be true. May God grant to you and yours a blessed and holy Easter.

Michael Rusk.

March Letter

Dear Friends

Lent coincides with the beginning of March this year as Easter is late. Ash Wednesday falls on March 6th, six and half weeks before Easter. Ash Wednesday has its origins back in the seventh century. Prior to that Lent would begin on the first Sunday of Lent which was called Quadragesima - a Latin word which meant that there were forty days to Easter. But as fasting became an important element of the Lenten season, it was felt that it was important to have forty days of fasting. Sundays, however, are days of joy and resurrection and no fasting would take place on the Sabbath. Therefore, it was decided that to achieve the full forty days of fasting that Lent would be pushed back into the week prior to the First Sunday in Lent and hence an extra four days were added with Lent starting mid-week on Ash Wednesday. In the early years, public penitents were admitted in a ceremony or service on Ash Wednesday to begin their penance, but as the centuries passed, this was replaced by the whole congregation acknowledging their sinfulness before God. The imposition of ashes was introduced as a sign of penitence. Attitudes to fasting varied a great deal in terms of practice.
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church describes what Lent was like in the 7th- 8th centuries: "During the early centuries the observance of the fast was very strict. Only one meal a day, taken towards evening was allowed, and flesh-meat and fish, and in most places also eggs and lacticinia (milk products) were absolutely forbidden. From the 9th century onwards in the West the practice began to be considerably relaxed. The hour for breaking the fast was gradually anticipated to three o'clock in the afternoon, and by the 15th century it had become the general custom even for religious to eat at noon."

It would appear that the Christian Church in the West has tried and experimented at various times in its history with the idea of a rigorous period of fasting but compared with the Muslim keeping of Ramadan has not really embraced a strict disciplinarian approach to Lent. School Assemblies will of course, explore the theme of giving something up, and sermons in churches may well focus on this too, but overall it might be fair to suggest that the idea has been explored and by and large discarded as helpful.

So why did the idea of fasting for forty days commend itself in the first place? Forty is an important number in the Bible. According to Exodus 24, Moses was called upon by God to stay on Mount Sinai for 40 days and 40 nights. Exodus 24:15-18: "When Moses went up on the mountain, the cloud covered it, and the glory of the Lord settled on Mount Sinai. For six days the cloud covered the mountain, and on the seventh day the Lord called to Moses from within the cloud. To the Israelites the glory of the Lord looked like a consuming fire on top of the mountain. Then Moses entered the cloud as he went up the mountain. And he stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights." Elijah the prophet in fleeing from Ahab "travelled for forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God." (1 Kings 19.8) With both Moses and Elijah, the forty days and forty nights were followed by God speaking directly to them. Then, most important of all for Christians, Jesus fasted in the wilderness for forty days and forty nights. Both Matthew and Luke signify the time of the temptations as lasting forty days and forty nights (Matthew 4.2; Luke 4.2). For Jesus it was a time of testing and temptation; of spiritual formation prior to his ministry; a time to work out what kind of a Messiah God had called him to be. Christians, therefore, inspired by the example of Jesus thought it might be a good idea to try to emulate this time spent in the wilderness.
That is the biblical origin but what do we make of Lent today? If we are not rigorous in our fasting, what can we do that will make Lent a positive and spiritually enlivening activity? I believe our Bible offers some clues as to a viable approach to Lent:
First, Moses, Elijah, and Jesus were eager to discover God's presence and will in their periods of forty days and forty nights. This desire for God must remain paramount for us. Throughout Lent our waking and sleeping thoughts need to be focussed on a desire and hunger for God.

Second, for Moses, Elijah, and Jesus there was a dislocation from their normal lives - their location, and routine were uprooted and replaced by a wilderness experience. I believe that it is vitally important that we seek to break our routines from time to time either by going away or else by changing the normal daily pattern that we normally engage in. So many of our days and jobs take on a monotony and a routine approach that squeezes out creativity and novelty. However hard we try we become predictable robot-like individuals finding security in our routines, our way of doing things. Lent, I suggest, is a time when we should have the courage to lay routine aside and try to do things differently; to get a different perspective on life. To examine ourselves and ask ourselves how we can look after our bodies, minds and souls better. If we truly engage in that search and change our lifestyles accordingly, then, I believe that Lent will have fulfilled its function. It is a time to find the space and the courage to examine one's life before God and to change it by the power of His Spirit. If we do that properly, we will find Lent hugely challenging but truly liberating. It is often when we are liberated from ourselves and our own self-imposed limited perspectives that we begin truly to hear God speaking to us. I encourage you all therefore to keep a good Lent.

Michael Rusk.

February Letter

Dear Friends,

Towards the end of February, Rowan Williams is to be enthroned as 104th Archbishop of Canterbury. His enthronement comes as a crucial time in the nation's history: none of us at this stage knows what decisions will have made as regards Iraq. Will President Bush declare war without an UN mandate? Will our Prime Minister, Tony Blair, follow the Americans in such a course of action? Will the UN Inspectors be able to clarify the situation one way or other? Can the massive military build-up in Kuwait with more British forces ordered to be in place there than before the Gulf War pull back at the last moment? And will the British public respond to these momentous world events, that ultimately will affect each of us, whoever we are, and wherever we are? It is into the midst of this, that the Anglican Church is given a new Primate who is called to speak to the whole nation and to the wider Anglican Communion of 70 million people of the things of God, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So what can we expect our new Archbishop to have to say on the subject? It is clear that he is regarded by the media as a person of considerable stature: one who virtually on his own is capable of challenging government policy with his incisive and brilliant mind, and also with a set of values which is different and novel from the values that are usually pedalled in the public domain. As one journalist remarked recently in The Times, "The anti-war voice of which Tony Blair is most afraid comes from across the bridge at Lambeth Palace. In a war in which so many people are claiming God is on their side, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has the advantage of actually looking like a holy man. His natural authority makes him a dangerous foe and, though he is not giving interviews, he will as his enthronement approaches next month."

Already, Rowan Williams has made some profound contributions to the post September 11th debate. He, himself, witnessed the terrible events of September 11th from just a few hundred metres and afterwards he wrote down his thoughts in a meditation entitled Writing in the Dust. As he pondered on how America and the West might respond, he wrote this: "And if we stopped talking about war so much, we might be spared the posturing that suggests that any questioning of current methods must be weakness at best, treason at worst. We could ask whether the further destabilising of a massively resentful Muslim world and the intensifying of the problems of homelessness and hunger in an already devastated country were really unavoidable. We could refuse to be victims, striking back without imagination."

I find the phrase "striking back without imagination" a striking, wonderfully evocative poetic summary of what is taking place in our world. It is a challenging, prophetic analysis. Another wonderfully poetic meditation was the one given on Radio 4 at 12.15am on Christmas Day. Rowan Williams based this meditation on Evelyn Waugh's historical novel, Helena, which imagined what it was like for the Empress Helena, mother of the Emperor Constantine, as she journeyed through the Holy Land to discover the sacred Christian sites. Her encounter at the church in Bethlehem with some priests so startled her that she identified them both with the Magi, the wise men who visited Jesus, and the intriguing courtiers of her son's entourage from which she had been so keen to escape. Having set the scene vividly, the Archbishop remarks: " Even on their way to Christ, the wise men create the typical havoc that complicated people create; telling Herod about the Christ child, they provoke the massacre of the children in Bethlehem. It's as if, in Helena's eyes, the wise, the devious and resourceful, can't help making the most immense mistakes of all. The strategists who know all the possible ramifications of politics, miss the huge and obvious things and create yet more havoc and suffering. After all, centuries after Helena, here we still are, tangled in the same net, knowing more and more, stepping deeper and deeper into tragedy. Communications are more effective than ever in human history; analysis of national and international situations becomes ever more subtle; intelligence and surveillance provide more and more material. We have endless theoretical perspectives on human behaviour, individual and collective. And still the innocent are killed."

I can think of no meditation in recent times which has been so political and yet which named no names and left individuals to draw from it what they will. Finally there is the clear denunciation of unilateral war being declared against Iraq without UN sanction: "An attack on Iraq would be both immoral and illegal. It is deplorable that the world's most powerful nations continue to regard war and the threat of war as an acceptable instrument of foreign policy, in violation of the ethos of both the United Nations and Christian moral teaching."

As Christians, interesting and challenging times lie ahead of us. We cannot complain that our new Archbishop hasn't given us guidance on this issue. We cannot say that he has been equivocal and unclear. The question is: have we got the courage to follow his convictions and his lead; to play as active a role locally on this issue as he plays nationally? It is my hope that as Churches Together in Oadby call a large meeting for the whole people of Oadby to enable all those who have reservations about possible military action without UN sanction to express their viewpoint, that you will want to be involved. The meeting is most likely to take place on February 12th at 7.30pm, venue to be decided. One final thing: please pray for our new Archbishop that God will equip and protect him with His Holy Spirit that he might provide for us wise and godly leadership.

Michael Rusk.


January Letter 2003

Dear Friends,

The much loved Christmas carol "O little town of Bethlehem" claims that in Christ "the hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight." As we greet one another with the familiar words "Happy New Year" we do well to ponder what the hopes and fears of 2003 are both for ourselves and the world at large. What needs to happen to enable 2003 to be for us a happy year - a year full of blessing rather than tragedy and disaster?

As we enter into 2003, there are many well-grounded fears on the international front. The huge American and now British military build-up in the Gulf means that war clouds are seldom far away. Many pray that the work of the UN inspectors will enable conflict to be averted through complete Iraqi compliance with the UN Security Council mandate. There is, nevertheless, considerable foreboding that war is inevitable and that the USA under George W. Bush have built up an unstoppable momentum.

Christians have always applied strict criteria in their efforts to establish what constitutes a just war. On those occasions when war has been deemed just and the unavoidably necessary way to proceed, the Church has given wholehearted support to the war effort. World War I and II are clear examples of this, alongside the more recent conflicts in the 1990s against Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait, and Kosovo. If another war against Iraq, however, were to take place without the express approval of the UN, it is difficult to see how Christians could give ethical support to such an enterprise. The Christian Just War Theory has no place for the doctrine of the preemptive strike. If Britain were to back the USA in declaring war without UN sanction, then it is likely that a unprecedented situation could be created with the House of Bishops led by the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, opposing the government and unable to bless the military enterprise. Such a situation has never occurred before and is deeply worrying. For the views of the House of Bishops indicate a deep ambivalence not just by Christians but also of a large section of the British public, all of whom entertain deep misgivings concerning military action to depose Saddam Hussain. One fears for any personnel sent into battle when the national mood is so ambivalent, with so many people reluctant for our troops to be caught up in effectively supporting an unbridled American foreign policy.
It may be important, therefore, in the early months of 2003 for your voice to be heard; for you to play an active part in influencing government policy. For the government to sign us all up to a war whose outcome is unpredictable will have serious repercussions for years to come.

Christians are called to be peacemakers: Jesus said - "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God." (Matthew 5.9). Whatever happens as regards Iraq, at the end of the day, we are called as Christians to relate to and to befriend our enemies. Jesus taught: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." Matthew 5.43. Christians have a particular calling to bring (by the grace of God) an end to hatred and violence. Here in Leicester with its many faiths and cultures, there is a real opportunity of linking East to West, Christianity to Islam in a way that is focused on the path of mutuality, tolerance, and acceptance. This is not easy in a world of increasing polarization; of constant atrocities against minority groups. We cannot forget the suffering church in Nigeria, southern Sudan, and in Indonesia. But it is, in the midst of this pain, all too easy only to point the finger of blame rather than extend the hand of friendship.

As Christians, we have to ask ourselves what kind of response would Jesus make? I, personally, am sure of two things: one, that Jesus upholds the cause of all who are oppressed; all of broken, hurting humanity - from the young family in Gaza whose home has been bulldozed by Israeli tanks to the millions worldwide who carry the deadly HIV virus in their bodies. It is these people that Christ came to save, to bring to them freedom from oppression, disease, and violence. And these people belong to all nations and creeds and Christ cares and loves them and has given Himself for them. We therefore need to engage with them in His name. Second, Christ does not give His unequivocal blessing to Western living: there is too much hidden evil in unrestrained capitalism; too much selfishness and greed; too little sharing; too much pain and poverty in the rest of the world for us to be able to conclude with any confidence that the Kingdom of God has come among us. There are of course many good things in western living; many blessings which are indeed pointers to the kingdom. But the fact that the majority of our world population knows nothing of such blessings remains a terrible indictment on contemporary western culture. As Christians we must sit light to the material prosperity around us and expose its hidden faults and illusions. That will require courage and sacrifice, and neither of these qualities are easy to sustain.

But if the hope of Christ is be shared in 2003, then we as Christian people, need to follow his example and proclaim his kingdom values over and against the worldly values that are persuasively offered instead. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Church can emerge with a confident and distinctive message. It will not be easy but it will be the way of Christ. With some confidence, we can then make the wonderful blessing to the Colossians our own: "May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." (Colossians 1.12-3). May you have a Happy, blessed, and peaceful New Year.

Michael Rusk.

Return to top of page
Return to front page
Go to this year's letters (& from this access to other years)