Drinking Deeply

Drinking deeply

Genesis 26.12-33

John Ellis, Moderator of the United Reformed Church General Assembly (2013-16), gave the following address to Assembly on Thursday 3 July

Prelude

Anyone who stands here as Moderator must be aware of their debt to others. If I were to give a roll call just of ministers who have profoundly shaped who I am, it would at least include the names of Phillip Rogers, David Avis, Michael Till, Norman Smith, Michael Turnbull and David Deeks.

While those have been crucial in periods of my life, a constant has been the family circle. Predecessors have said it is impossible to find words to thank the family and fortunately I don’t need to try as I can spotlight them in another way: it is the birthday of my brother the Rev Paul Ellis, minister of Terling Chapel and Witham URC. As a reminder of the value of the bonds between the Ellises my Chaplain will lead the Assembly in a suitable anthem......

Starting Points

(a)  Brian the Taxi Driver

A perk of being Moderator is having to visit Cambridge. On a recent visit I jumped into a cab at the station and asked for Westminster College. The taxi driver nodded and we set off in the customary silence. Fifty yards down Station Road he suddenly said “When you get there, will you pray for me?”

The rest of the journey was not in silence. I learnt that Geordie Brian had suffered many blows from life. He also knew more about the URC than most taxi drivers: we talked about Westminster’s place amongst the theological colleges in Cambridge and his happy memories of helping at a children’s club in a local URC. By the time we arrived at Westminster, I knew three principles were totally clear to Brian without needing an Assembly debate:

(i)  A relationship with God, especially through prayer, can nourish us in ways nothing else can;

(ii)  If Christians believe what say, they should be seen to be working together;

(iii)  It is important and possible to tell the story of Jesus in a way that captivates today’s generation.

Even if you now doze off, you know the three themes of this Address.

(b)  Drinking Deeply

Long before I met Brian, the Moderators and Chaplains for this Assembly felt drawn to the theme of “Drinking Deeply”. Aware of our teetotal strand, we clarified with a sub-title: “A Celebration of God”.

On visits around the URC, Moderators find there is much to celebrate: Michael Jagessar will speak about that in his address. But when surveying the challenges before the URC, we felt nothing was more important than to encourage ourselves and others to drink more deeply of what God offers.

St Anselm of Canterbury a thousand years ago captured what we had in mind:

Thirsty for you, O Christ, let us drink of the Living Water. Hungry for you, let us taste the Bread of Life. Longing for you, let us hear the Shepherd’s voice.

The well image is often in the Bible: our reading is one of 17 examples.

Isaac and his God-fearing household are wandering in alien lands, suspecting the Philistines around are hostile; feeling surrounded by a culture that does not seem understand what is important to Isaac. He reacts by not being willing to tell them all his story.

Our reading began when Isaac seems to have found a place to settle but tensions led to him moving on. He comes to the place his father Abraham stayed and hoped to use his wells. They are filled in. Isaac learns – like some of our churches have done – that God’s people cannot be nourished solely by the work of a previous generation. Life or death come through our own choices.

The Nature of General Assembly

After our own journeys, we are gathered here from many settings, with their own wells. Whether this Assembly gives life will depend on the choices we make. Not just the Resolutions we pass, but what we think this Assembly is.

Is this Assembly simply a large Church Meeting? Is it a debating society with a prayer tacked on the front? Is it a legislature which will have failed if it doesn’t pass lots of rules for everyone to obey?

For example, consider the topic of Expansive Language. When we come to discuss it, we shall discover that for some of us describing the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is helpful, deeply nourishing, a valued link with our founding documents and the wider Church; we see no reason to move away from it. For some of us any male reference for first person of the Trinity jars, causes almost physical pain. For some of us using “Creator” instead of “Father” is a creative way of avoiding problem. For some of us the notion of “fatherhood” is so much richer and infused with love that to drop it in favour of “Creator” is not drinking more deeply at all but drinking superficially.

The Assembly will say what it wants on the topic later. My point now is that what we think Assembly is, affects our whole approach to such a discussion. If we are a debating society the only question is whether we can win more votes for our views than the other lot get; if we are a legislature we will not be happy unless we agree something everyone has to work from.

I hope we think Assembly is different from both: an opportunity to hear from people whose “normal” is different from our normal. Many sub-cultures within the URC are here today. Especially if we choose our Sunday place of worship on the basis of where we feel comfortable, Assembly is a rare opportunity to hear why other people have reached a different normal. At its best, Assembly is an opportunity go one step further and ask what might God be saying to me through the people who don’t end up where I end up. Somebody else here might be the means by which I drink more deeply than before of God’s well. My view on the issue may not change; it could be more important to discover something deeper about the God we all serve.

When the General Synod of the Church of England was in danger of tearing itself apart over women bishops, Justin Welby suggested their real enemy was the fear that they were playing a zero sum game: someone could “win” only if someone else “lost”. The Archbishop encouraged them to believe our God was more generous than that; to looks for ways everyone could be enriched.

Might that be what we are each looking for when we come to our debates?

And if that is relevant to discussing Expansive Language, it is even more so for Same Sex Marriage.

Drinking Infinitely Deeply

At this point I feel a need to indulge in some Mathematics.

Basic mathematics with numbers 1,2,3,4,5 etc is a very powerful tool for understanding our world. These numbers can capture information and answer questions about how things are changing. But in maths you soon find there are some intriguing questions that these numbers cannot answer.

At that point you need to meet what we call imaginary and complex numbers, which are little help with measuring everyday 3-D time and space but very exciting: they open up whole new mathematical universes. They allow you to drink deeply God’s gift of Maths. They are the mathematician’s equivalent of walking through the wardrobe into Narnia: at first you assume this is an unreal world; then find it is more real than the world you were used to, which soon feels no more than a prelude to reality.

The key point is that with imaginary and complex numbers you find you can transform maths problems that were totally insoluble with ordinary numbers soluble; not just soluble but soluble in elegant and beautiful ways.

When I ponder those Church matters that seem insoluble to our limited, finite human minds, I remember the world of imaginary numbers. That world suggests there is an arrogance in assuming God with an infinite mind will always give our finite minds tidy answers to every question. Perhaps our confidence comes from drinking deeply of God, not from having neat answers on our terms. I wonder whether when we dip into that rich world of imaginary numbers, where the insoluble becomes both soluble and satisfying, where the impossible becomes both possible and beautiful, is that in some small way a peep into what the infinite mind of God is like? Are we then stretching towards that moment when my grandmother’s favourite composer, Mr Handel, wrote across his most famous composition “I think I did see all heaven before me, and the great God himself”?

[Hallelujah Chorus Bars 4-7]

Being Ecumenical

Isaac’s men had to dig new wells. They had to keep on digging new ones because different herdsmen couldn’t agree on how share the existing ones. If you had been digging under the desert sun, wouldn’t you have thought it was really disappointing - indeed frankly ridiculous - that the herdsmen could not find ways of at least co-operating in their work?

Brian believed it is blindingly obvious Christians ought to work together and so do we. The URC DNA has a prominent ecumenical strand in it. We believe that is a large part of what we are for. If we were asked how we justify spending £10mpa to sustain our structure as an independent denomination for fewer than 60,000 members; if we were asked whether more lives could be transformed if that £10mpa were given to Christian Aid; for many of us, a large part of our answer would be that we still believe the URC has a role as an ecumenical catalyst.

Of course that is only remotely plausible if we can handle our own internal differences positively.

My opening list of ministers who have shaped me were not all URC. I cannot imagine a fully enriched Christian life if enclosed entirely within any one denomination. The URC DNA is in me. Nonetheless I suggest we now face a major challenge.

Over the last year, I was pleased to find relationships between British Church leaders seem very good at a personal level and I have seen good local projects, not least the new covenant for Cornwall. But at the denominational level we have a problem.

At the ecumenical ball, no longer is there anyone who thinks the URC is a very attractive partner. If our potential partners want to come to the ball at all, they have an eye for Churches that look younger than us, look more like Fresh Expressions and have a track record of growth.

We still continue our success stories, eg the Joint Public Issues Team and the Church Investors Group, but the idea anyone is looking for a chance do more joint work with URC as a denomination does not seem to fit the evidence.

And we have an additional challenge from within the URC family: most of our committed members under 50 don’t see the value of delicate denominational dancing; they’re as keen that the Church should work as one as any of us but they get on with it via foodbanks and Street Pastors; they really can’t get excited about traditional expressions of ecumenism.

What does a body like Assembly do if it does not want look like a beached whale as the waters of ecumenism flow elsewhere?

Tomorrow we shall receive the reports from our new Faith and Order Committee. Under the godly and dynamic leadership of Elizabeth Welch, it has done stimulating work, including some thinking on how we express our ecumenism now. I would like to add some personal thoughts not so much for this weekend as for the next five years.

Personally I hope we keep faith with our DNA. Not by complaining about what we can’t change; rather by redoubling our efforts to make sure our policies fit our rhetoric, to ensure the things we do control reflect what we say is our ecumenical priority.

The two main levers available to Assembly and Synods are how we share out Ministers of Word and Sacraments and how we organise the Ministry and Mission (M&M) Fund. What would those look like if we were to use them more energetically to encourage all sorts of ecumenical partnerships?

I may be wrong, but it appears that the way deployment works often seems to discourage a congregation from working with others. If they stay on their own, they are almost guaranteed some scoping of a URC Minister. But if they were to do the hard work to find ways of working as one congregation with other Chrisitans in their community, then they lose their scoping and are told that for most of the time other denominations will be left to provide ministry. How is that an incentive to make working with others a priority?

If we really believe a principal purpose of the URC is to promote the whole Church working as one, why not focus our trained leadership resources on places that are giving that practical expression? Of course that would leave fewer Ministers for congregations that wish to pursue their own single denomination agenda, but it might be an incentive for them to think again about their purpose within the URC.

The other tool we have is the M&M Fund, but again it sometimes seems to be a disincentive to working with others. If you work across denominational boundaries, the formulae start to become burdensomely complex rather than encouraging the liberation of the ecumenical adventure. Some united churches suspect they end up paying over the odds to the wider Church.

If the URC’s purposes are most fully honoured where URC Christians have found ways of working with others, why not support those places by excusing them from any M&M request? They could still give something if they wished, but the wider URC would honour their practical commitment to what the URC is about with a financial reward. That would not be to make them rich, but to allow more resources to be ploughed back into whatever form of combined work they helped create in their own places.

It probably would reduce the M&M Fund income. If the Fund was smaller, we could do less with it. We would have to choose what are our top priorities – but isn’t that what healthy, dynamic organisations do all the time? If M&M is smaller because we have successfully encouraged the whole Body of Christ to work more effectively in local settings, isn’t that exactly in line with what the URC was founded to promote?