Church Water Rates

Changes in water charging structures in a number of regions mean that churches are beginning to be charged on the same scale as businesses, leading to large (for example, 1300%) increases in annual water bills. There is an online government petition that you can use to register your concern - http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ChurchWaterBills - which petitions the Prime Minister to instruct water companies to return to charging churches as charities rather than as business premises. Please think about signing the petition and ask anyone else who you would feel appropriate. Shortcut to: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ChurchWaterBills/

Facebook down

Has anyone else noticed that Facebook has gone?

Facebook.co.uk shows the root directory of an Apache 1.3.39 server...  seems someone is not going to be happy.  Has it been hacked?

Women Bishops - wading in...

I've been asked by some good friends to put my thoughts about women bishops down in my blog. Here goes. I feel this could be a risky business and invite some flak. It could also start an interesting discussion. Let's see.

So, I was asked the question, 'Am I in favour of women bishops?' And I said 'No'.

Quite unapologetically no. I'm not a fan of the idea of women bishops.

Ah ha, another misogynistic chap who is scared of women and won't sit under their authority. Well, no. I'm actually very much a fan of women priests - what a great idea.

And (to cut quickly to the chase), I think Jesus was a big fan of women too. In much the same way he was a fan of men.

A cursory glance through the four gospels finds women quite frankly at the cutting edge of the Kingdom of God, leading the way in raw faith, in evangelism, in giving, in ministering and worship of Jesus. In all honesty, if, 2000 years ago, I had had a clean cultural slate, I'd might have been tempted to pick women to be the leaders of the church (though I wouldn't have wanted the choice). So, why am I bothered with this 'women bishop thing'. Well, let me deconstruct the argument somewhat.

Fundamentally, there are two competing sides here:

One, the progressive wing of the church is seeking to update church thinking and structure and ensure that women can be bishops because, rightly, 21st century culture is not as misogynistic as, well, the prior 2000+ years were. That's great. And, actually, I think it's a great idea to have women at such a level in the church - I'm not against it.

The opposing argument is that on authority - traditionalists who see the Bible as 100% infallible, and who therefore deduce (I suspect from Ephesians 5) that men cannot be under the authority of a woman. Out of that stem some arguments about Episcopalian and Congregationalism, but I won't go there. That's not the intention.

Really, I think we are looking the wrong way down the barrel.

For me, it's not about WHO can be a bishop. It's about WHAT IS a bishop.

Even, what is needed to lead and oversee a church.

Jesus' teaching about the church, in fact his whole approach to God's relationship with human kind, was marked by the concept of Family. We pray 'Our FATHER', not our God, King, or whathaveyou. Our Father. Jesus' picture of the Kingdom is marked by family. And, hence, I strongly believe that a healthy looking church is going to be one that also is marked by family.

I was fortunate to grow up in a family where my parents stayed together. And I think it's done me some good having a father and a mother who both, unquestionably, loved me and played important roles in my life.

Single parenting, from what I gather, is a difficult task. Trying to be a mother and a father to a child, or two, cannot be easy - in fact, I daresay it is downright a nightmare. Can a mother help her teenage son through the whole 'girls' thing - she can guess what it was like to be a teenage boy, but her guess will be based on her experience as a teenage girl. You can't change that. And how do you discipline - are you both a tough dad, a gracious mum (if you think that's a good model) - surely discipline needs a balance of both, but one person can't fulfill both roles.

(I should say, at this point, that when I see a single parent family I try to look deeper - most single parents don't set out to be a single parent; mostly, its bitter circumstances that have bought them to that point, and it can be the part of the church to support this small family, give Mum/Dad a break, help out etc - that's Kingdom stuff).

Where was I: Roles. And that's the key to my point. Roles.

What is the role of a Bishop? Even, what roles does the church need.

For 2000 years of turbulent church history, the church has persued a decidely male leadership model. The church has been bought up by single fathers. Sure, women have been there (we can't forget Teresa of Calcutta), but it was hardly the norm was it? No wonder when we look at the church we see a church so different from those band of (mixed) disciples Jesus hung out with (do you really think those faith-less, unbelieving fishermen would have left their wives completely to follow Jesus - I have a funny feeling that Mrs Simon Peter was right there with her husband. What sort of a bad-man would deny his wife the chance to hang out with God?) Those disciples had roles that complemented each other. Those 12 men and ? women disciples.

Do we need a church today that simply offers women the chance to do a traditionally male role? Or do we need a model of leadership that brings back true biblical discipleship and fanmily where men and women truly complemented each other?

I don' believe 'Women Bishops' really offer the second. This 'equality' we're going for is really just 'yes, let's have women rise to do what men usually did' - as if what men did was, somehow, better. The point is being missed, and has been for 2000 years. The church needs mothers and fathers - we need two parents. Not female fathers.

Uniqueness

Read, every day, something no one else is reading. Think, every day, something no one else is thinking. Do, every day, something no one else would be silly enough to do. It is bad for the mind to be always part of unanimity.

  - Christopher Morley

Monday night in Kampala airport

There are times when the little luxuries are just so much more appreciated. Now is one of them; sitting in the airport departure lounge, with a cold beer, watching BBC World News. These two have ended a very good week in a very comfortable way.

Uganda has been good to me. Very good. I’ve enjoyed warm hospitality from my brothers in the Diocese of Kigeze; I’ve enjoyed the cool mountain air of Kabale in south-west Uganda, the camaraderie of Frank, my colleague in Watsan and friend in Tearfund. Altogether, this has been a tremendous trip, with altogether good memories.

I will return to Uganda – next time married and with my wife. There are things for us to be busy with, and places for us to relax and live. Really live.

Uganda has reminded me what it is to be generous, to relax, to laugh, to dream, plan and do. All things seem possible in Uganda – it is no wonder this country is getting ready to go places.

I wish Rev Reuben, Philip, Canon George, Ruth, Rev Eric, Hannington, Paul and Emmanuel well. They have blessed and inspired me by displaying almost super-human kindness, generosity, commitment and integrity. They have demonstrated what is possible. It gives me hope; hope for their communities, Uganda, Africa, even for myself.

Thursday in Uganda

Somehow the Diocese of Kigeze has found the key to what they do. Somehow, the Diocese of Kigeze is doing something I’ve yet to see in Africa. They are consistently succeeding. They are consistently delivering and transforming lives.

Over the last two days, we have seen communities changed from the roots up; simple, no-nonsense water supply schemes have been installed. But that is not the change.

The change is in self-perception; these communities have hope and pride. Not arrogant “we’ve done it all” pride, but a recognition that they are worth something, and they have something to be glad about. They’ve done well.

I visited Mary yesterday afternoon, and she told me how her children can go to school, because she sells lettuces she has grown in her well-kept plot that are watered throughout the year from her rainwater harvesting tank. This tank wasn’t built by the Diocese, but built by women volunteers in her community who had been trained by the Diocese to construct these tanks.

Is this not true development?

A roadside spring, protected by a well maintained spring box and garden, beneath a stand of thirsty eucalyptus trees, serves as more than just the source of water for a community. It is the bank, the financial market, the community investment hub, the driver of micro-economic growth. Each month the water users meet to contribute their 100 UShs (~3p) towards the well maintenance fund. Yet this fund is very healthy, and so the capital is issued to households as a loan fund, with which income generating projects can be financed from. Households must repay the loan at the end of a set time, plus interest. The profit they keep. Not only is the spring well maintained and working, the community is helping itself out of poverty and into sustainable growth.

Wednesday in Uganda

The power is off. Apparently this is rare, but it’s the second evening we’ve experienced it. And we’ve been here two evenings. Somethings don’t change in Africa; and I don’t mind.

I’ve spotted something about Uganda. It’s the ‘meal’; the Ugandan Meal. After eating the Ugandan Meal, I feel weighed down. It’s heavy stuff. Good stuff, but heavy. Let me whet your appetite:

Potatoes (Irish) like you have never eaten before – so tasty, crisp and mouth-watering. Spinach, cooked to tender perfection. Rice. OK, nothing too special about rice is there? Matoka, an interesting concoction which somehow I never seem to be able to fit into myself – it’s pressure cooked banana, but not sweet at all. Beans, beans, beans. What African countries menu would be complete without beans. G-nut sauce – just like peanut sauce, but pink. Stewed meat – a hit and miss affair; some cooks have got this bit down to an art, preparing tender succulent fillets, other serve stringy meat wrapped with bones.

The other option, I am told, is chicken and chips. Not a new experience for me on this continent.

Oh, did I mention fruit? No? Well, just let your imagination run…

Tuesday in Uganda

I rarely condition my hair, but I had broken with tradition, seeing as the water was so warm and lathered it up. Then the lights went out. As I fumbled on in the dusky twilight creeping through a slot in the wall, I reminded myself ‘I’m back in Africa – real Africa’.

Somehow I love it. Somehow I love the power-cuts, I love the holes in the road lying in wait to trap the careless and careful motorist alike, I love the endless billboards advertising hangover-free beer. I’m slightly annoyed, but very amused, that alternate shops are painted MTN Yellow and Celtel Red, as South African mobile phone companies race to colonise Africa. Six years ago, Africa got into my bones, and like many of the continents diseases, I’ll never be rid of it.

This time, Africa draws me back to visit the Diocese of Kigeze’s Water and Sanitation programs, started by the charismatic and unstoppable Rev Canon George Bagamuhunda, and continued by Rev Reuben, ably supported by the project engineer Phillip. Moments before my shower, we were sipping tea and munching tasty slices of brown bread with the latter two, being amazed by the scale and energy of their work – Health Teachings, Artisan Trainings and cluster workshops happening in the same week.

If they can do it here, why not all over the continent?

International Impotence fuelled by US Testosterone

I'm not a huge follower of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and certainly don't have some of the beliefs about it that other Christians may hold, but it does bother me: in short, I see a big rich bully pushing around a poor, weak victim. OK, sure, it is somewhat more complex than that, but, in short, there is a huge amount of injustice that I am surprised the international community continues to tolerate.

Or does it?

Israel was founded as a place that the Jewish people could live freely and without fear of persecution and terror following the brutal experience of the Holocaust. 11 minutes after it was founded, 11 minutes after the British Mandate in Palestine ran-out, the US officially recognised the State of Israel.

Since then the US has continued, at the highest possible authority to support Israel. Today I stumbled across this list of all the vetoes in the UN Security Council that have been moved to criticise Israel and her actions against her neighbours: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html . 41 times the US has gagged the UN from expressing the majority world view of Israeli injustice and bullying. If it was once or twice, who would question the U.S. representative when he says "that the text does not display an even-handed characterization of the events in Gaza and is politically motivated". But 41 times.

I admire the UN: it is an important and worthwhile institution, yet it needs to be reformed. In the 21st Century - a century in which democracy is supposedly flourishing, there is little reason for the atomic powers of the 1950s to maintain Veto wielding powers. Why not include Israel, India, Pakistan as well? Why have a veto? Why have permanent members? Democracy needs a level playing field to work - the US should know that being the self-confessed experts at spreading democracy (after all, they flattened Iraq).

The US has no right to dominate global politics, and the veto is merely one of the myriad of ways the US asserts its unjust imperial authority. The outcome is that bullys win and victims lose: be it Israel-Palestine, Africa-WTO, the Indian Government vs. the People of India.

In truth, the international community does not tolerate this injustice: the problem is, their arms are tied and mouths are gagged by American might.

The Sox-life of Dutchmen

Today my links to my father's-land are somewhat strained and shameful with news of the current furore in the Netherlands over socks: specifically, white socks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3397043.stm

A lesser know fact about me is that I have different coloured socks for each day of the week (I've got Monday's blue socks on today, tomorrow: Red) and I have religiously worn them for months now. Unfortunately, my Dutch cousins do not share such as sense of style and order, but prefer to wear white socks.

It appears that at the Dutch Finance Ministry, white socks are de riguer for daily wear amongst many employees. This overtly 1980's fashion statement is not confined to the halls of Dutch fiscal prudence, but, according to one British computer expert cited by the BBC, many Dutch academics are firmly attached to their white socks with some scandalously flaunting them beneath half-mast trousers.

While I've often thought of the Dutch as generally much cooler than us on the British Isles, I'm having to drastically rethink my position... not that I have a leg to stand on - especially with Orange socks on a Friday.