It is conceivable that I am speaking too soon, but it appears that yesterday we saw the possibility of compromise being considered by party leaders.

Whatever we may each think about the best approach for Brexit, I have a suspicion that politicians choosing a hard Brexit, or no Brexit will leave the country divided for a long time.  Given that that is the case, and that any compromise agreed will probably not be what either side in the referendum voted for, will it be the best way forwards?

Indeed, is Brexit one of those situations where a compromise does actually satisfy nobody?  As I understand it (and that means it may be wrong) in a much simplified fashion (and without going near the Good Friday Agreement) Brexiters want to regain the full sovereignty of Parliament and to make trade deals for the UK.  Remainers think that we would struggle to make advantageous trade deals, and would be better sharing sovereignty with a larger group of people.

As I understand it, all of the compromises remove the sovereignty of Parliament and the ability to make trade deals, but instead of sharing sovereignty give it away.

Which according to my analysis means that we have the choice between a compromise that gives no one what they want, or two options which are in danger of splitting the country further.

In the Church of England, major changes of policy require a 2/3 majority, hence the time it takes to vote through controversial (to some people) measures, like female bishops.  However, what this does mean is that when it happens, there has been much discussion about what the issues are, and compromises are found that mean that the 2/3 majority can be found.

Frustrated as I have been at times with the speed of progress in the Church of England, I do wonder whether taking the time to go through the process of trying to build a consensus wouldn’t be the best approach here, although it would obviously require a long extension.

The alternative appears to be politicians of all shades stating what the voters meant when they voted 52/48 without any evidence to support their position.

Aaaargh!

I wrote yesterday on this topic having read part of a book in preparation for a discussion group.  At the group the discussion took an unexpected direction (good) and I thought it worth continuing the discussion.

Having asked what to do about old hymns we digressed onto statues of people who have fallen into disrepute (at least in some circles), sparked by the debates in Oxford about Rhodes.  Just as Brian McLaren suggested including comment about the, now unacceptable, hymn verses we thought that that approach would work well for statues – add an additional plaque explaining the circumstances.

We also discussed whether all the Bristol buildings funded by the slave trade should be pulled down, and thought this overkill.  What we didn’t mention, but I recalled afterwards, was that in Bristol there is the Slave Trail.  Whether this was created with this approach in mind I don’t know, but keeping the history visible, whilst explaining the context and problems with it seems a better approach to me than removing it and leaving future generations in ignorance of our less than perfect past.

Today I chose the following reading (sometimes the lectionary allows a choice):

And the child’s father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him. Then Simeon blessed them and said to his mother Mary, ‘This child is destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be opposed so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed—and a sword will pierce your own soul too.’

Luke 2.33-35

It is a reading that I have tended to shy away from in the past because it felt to me as though it was a little disturbing (given that the alternative is the crucifixion what was I thinking?).

One of the OT options was Exodus 2:1-10, which tells the story of Moses very early life.

This year what struck me about both was the roller coaster nature of motherhood.  In one “the child’s father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him” one moment, and then being told “and a sword will pierce your own soul”.  In the case of Moses the roller coaster was even more extreme.  At his birth the joy of giving birth to a son mingles with the fear that he will be killed by the Egyptians.  At 3 months old the sorrow of abandoning him to the river mingled with the hope that this way he might survive.  Then the unexpected joy of becoming wet nurse to your own child.  And at 18 losing him again.

Two thoughts struck me about all this:

The first is that if we love we are doomed to suffer (not my original thought!) – I suspect that most parents know this – and therefore that Mothering Sunday, a day which has come to represent the love of a Mother, must also represent the acceptance of suffering.

The second that there is a roller coaster, and (barring death) we do not know where we are on the roller coaster (which reminds me of this story: https://www.the-benefits-of-positive-thinking.com/positive-taoist-story.html).

This year, for the first time in ages I did not give up chocolate for Lent.  This was partly because my consumption had significantly reduced, and partly because I preached on how giving up “little” things can distract us from more important changes in our life.

The interesting thing is that I have started eating more chocolate – at least until now!  It was perhaps a combination of tiredness and a special offer at the supermarket, but it also set me thinking that if it weren’t Lent I might have stuck to my pre-Lent guns.  What is going on?

I have to say that I am not sure, but feel the need to go back to my pre-Lenten ways.  Has anyone else found this odd effect of Lent?

Guildford Diocese are currently undertaking a review of what Church House should do.  This post isn’t a comment on that, but was sparked by another thing that I saw Gloucester Diocese had done.

As I understand it Gloucester Diocese was the involved at the beginning of Open the Book, the Parish Giving Scheme, and I have recently found Treasurer resources they make available and Vacancy advice (other dioceses do this too).

The National Church have also just made available free online resources for Occasional Offices.

In an age of online systems, and greater and greater administrative demands on parishes I think that development of such systems to help manage that increased administrative burden is one thing that the centre can do, which would help parishes.

As you can see, this isn’t a plea for Dioceses to create something, as there is no point each diocese creating their own, but if they would “encourage” the national church to do this it would help significantly!