Philosophical discussion on Power & authority

BONUS BLOG … Who Rules?

Which is the winning hand ?

Well, that depends! In the “Wild West” or even now in some of the less desirable places on earth to live, “a Smith & Wesson beats four aces”. In the times and places most of us would prefer to inhabit, four aces wins because those are the rules of the game!

Now please don't go all mushy on me and say something silly like “Oh yes! Violence never achieves anything. It is not true; it is not Biblical!

The “Peacemaker” that transformed the lawless wild west into a place where decent folk could live in safety was of course the newly invented rapid fire “Colt Peacemaker” in the hands of brave lawmen. Even now no country has peace unless criminals at home know the Police can out-violence them and potential enemies abroad decide that invading them would be a painful mistake.

Not surprisingly the Bible, being true, says the same. “rulers do not bear the sword for nothing, they are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:4) and of course finally heaven is ushered in by God's violence prevailing over the forces of evil (Christ has of course on the cross won the moral victory! When God acts in judgement and also when he welcomes pardoned sinners into heaven both acts will be totally righteous!) “There before me was a white horse, whose rider was called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. … the armies of heaven are following him … He treads the wine-press of the wrath of God Almighty … I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war on the rider on the horse and his army. But the Beast was captured, and with it the false prophet … the two of them were thrown alive into the lake of burning fire … the rest were killed ...” (Revelation 19)

Having very briefly, but I hope sufficiently busted that modern myth, let me go on to the main myth of interest here – which strangely comes out of the same ideological base. This is that Power (the Smith and Wesson) is the same as Authority (four aces win).

Now I am in a slight quandary as to how to put my argument succinctly. A lot has gone into making me think this way. When I was at Lang Lang and found that I could bring people of all sorts to Christ but I could not bring them into church, I studied up on sociology – because it seemed that the problem was “social” rather than “spiritual”. One of the acknowledged “fathers of modern sociology” I studied was Max Weber. His great contribution was in the field of what at the good end we could call “human leadership patterns” and at the bad end “human domination and subjugation”.

Just before I went to Vermont I was given and studied a fascinating book “The loss of the Good Authority” I could not begin to distil these down to a short blog post. But let me try to float a couple of ideas:

My wife's grandfather believed every word he read in the newspaper. “They wouldn't let them print it if it wasn't true!” he would say. I hope not many would be so gullible today! One-time authority figures have fallen off their pedestals all around us. And in most cases our growing distrust of people and institutions we once trusted implicitly is, sad to say, well grounded. That is one side of the story.

The other side is this: Repugnance of bad authorities has led us to reject the very idea of authority or authorities. This has made us throw out the baby with the bath water: we have dismissed the notion of there being a “good authority” at the same time! Big mistake! A mistake that has left a vacuum which has been filled-in by the ideology that “Power” is as good as (or better than) “Authority”

One big thing that makes authority safer than power is that it is controlled. Sure the authority of the rules sometimes lets you claim “I won!” but at other times it makes you admit: “You won.” The Smith & Wesson always lets you say “I win!”

Look at a Biblical example:

Take the story of the Centurion who particularly impressed Jesus with his faith (Matthew 8). When Jesus quizzed him did he say something like “I'm a Centurion, I got power! So I understand you having power!” NO! Nothing of the sort! He said: “I am a man under authority with soldiers under me. I say to this one 'go' and he goes...”

“A man under authority” This Centurion knew the difference between power and authority: Power you can use how you like (like a Smith & Wesson); authority comes from above, so you are first of all under the authority of whoever or whatever can give authority, so you can only exert the authority delegated to you as this higher authority dictates. Within those bounds certainly you have power to command, but only within those bounds!

The Centurion was under the discipline of the Roman Imperial Army. When he said to a soldier 'go' the soldier went!

Now the Roman army punished going to sleep in duty by death. So let us ask the question: Could a Roman Centurion order his guards: “Its a quiet night men, you just get a bit of shut-eye!” Could he if he discovered a guard asleep on watch say: “I'm the senior officer here, I'll let you off this time with 50 push-ups!” NEVER! And NEVER! As illustrated by the story of the Centurion who found his own son asleep on duty. The centurion drew his sword and beheaded his son on the spot. True authority is not the same as power!

On a different genre of authority, take the scientist. People were prepared to accept that the grey haired scientist knew things which he or she could never explain to the person in the street. So they were accepted as an authority, and their pronouncements accepted as authoritative on that subject. But his was predicated on the knowledge that all scientists submitted to the rules and ideals of scientific integrity and procedure. At that time, a scientist who faked his results or who hid the one result that showed his famous theory was wrong was forever banished as a pariah. Sadly scientists who sold their names to propaganda that products like asbestos were safe without due regard for the evidence led to doubts that they were truly under the authority of science. This led to doubts that they could be trusted as authorities.

The modern ideology espoused by more and more people is: “We want what we want, and if the “rules” are standing in our way, then lets get rid of the rules!” It sounds attractive. Just as it sounded attractive to the scientists at Chernobyl who wanted to run an experiment. The safety devices would get in the way of running their little experiment, so what did they do? They simply disconnected those troublesome safety devices. We know how that ended!

So, by all means be angry at “authorities” when they act badly – they are indeed causing harm far beyond the instance in question. But never, never throw out the baby with the bath water! There is a good authority which is in turn under the authority of some higher authority be it an acknowledged form of good practice, a set of rules, or a constitution. We need that kind of authority

My Adventures with God: 53: Public Humiliation

Chapter 53 ... Public Humiliation.

Later in 2003 Nick and Shirley's followers called a congregational meeting of St. Luke's parish. This was not legal under church law, but we were beginning to find out that they thought they were above the law. We were about to find out that diocesan officials also considered themselves above the law. If they wanted a thing, that was enough to make it right, and anything or any one who stood in the way of what they wanted could rightly be brushed aside.

I did not realise at that time that I was now entering a much wider ideological battle. In today's terms it is the battle between traditional conservative morals and progressive socialist morals. But if those terms were in use then I certainly did not know them. I was merely upholding a system of ethics I believed in against what I saw simply as individuals and groups behaving badly. I did not know that it was symptomatic of a widespread moral cancer.

I naively thought I was just up against Nick, Shirley and their followers. I was soon to find that this moral cancer infected people who held opposite views of doctrine and “churchmanship” and made them resonate with each other. I was soon to be fighting the whole diocesan hierarchy!

I hope to expand on this issue of conflict of ethical systems next post because it is the key to understanding not only some of the things about Nick and Shirley, but the looming conflict with the archbishop.

Back to the illegal congregational meeting: I found out about the meeting, and decided that trying to stop it would be as futile as King Canute trying to stop the tide, so I attended it and just asserted my right to be chairman. The meeting was stormy to say the least. The “superspirituals wanted firstly to put the boot into me as much as possible and secondly to get a motion of “no confidence” in me as vicar. I would not let them put the motion as that is just not how the Anglican Church works.

At one stage Jane xxx jumped up and demanded a vote to replace me as chairman. That is within the rules so I put her motion and it was resoundingly defeated. The message was clear: the “superspirituals” did not have the support of most of the congregation - even at a meeting they had called themselves and stacked with their supporters.

The next week I was summoned to see the Archbishop and chastised for not doing exactly what the “superspirituals” wanted. The fact that what they had done in calling the meeting and what they wanted to do with a motion of “no confidence” were unlawful were irrelevant to him. I was rapidly realising that the Archbishop had firmly taken sides!

There is one more interesting thing to relate about the congregational meeting.

Brian was one of the new leaders who had stepped up once Nick and Shirley's people walked oput of all their leadership roles. He had been a friend and golf partner of Nick. But he came to believe that Nick was wrong and supported me. To see him develop from a quiet but very devout person-in-the-pew to a spiritual force to be reckoned with was awsome. I'll tell you more about him later.

At the meeting he made two requests. First was to let the motion of no confidence to go ahead – in the confidence that it would be soundly defeated as indeed the motion to remove me as chairman had been. I refused this because even though it would work in my favour to have this vote – as it would have been - go my way, it was a bad precedent because it was not how the Anglican Church worked.

Brian's second was a strange request in some ways but quite logical - if politically suicidal - from the point of view of a devout Christian and one who was a trained “Prayer Counsellor”. He went to the microphone and said: “David, are you prepared, right now, in front of us all, to ask the forgiveness of everyone you have hurt?”

I was a little taken aback. Did he know what he was asking? It flashed through my mind first the political inexpediency of doing what he asked - I am no politician but even the proverbial babe-in-the-woods could see that pitfall! But I knew Brian was thinking as a Christian and a counsellor. then I also recalled how Jesus had taken a towel at the last supper and washed his disciples’ feet.” The example of Jesus won for me. I said: “Yes, I will.”

A number of Nick and Shirley’s supporters came up and I knelt in front of each one in turn, before the whole congregation and asked their forgiveness for anything I had done which had hurt them.

Shirley refused to take part. Nick came but drowned out my words shouting that it was all a facade and that I had not really repented.

He later put in writing what I think he was then shouting over my words. It was to the effect that he was like a girl who had been sexually abused by her father. The father might ask for her forgiveness, but she could not forgive him until he had repented.

I feel shocked even writing this now, that Nick could think for one instant that him being dismissed from a one-quarter-time post was in any way like a girl being raped by her father! But he did. This mind-boggling self-importance perhaps gives a true insight into his soul.

Yes this was indeed public humiliation, particularly when some merely used it as an occasion to mock me, but I rather think Jesus would have done it had he been in my shoes.

Now I come to a series of public humiliations brought about by the church hierarchy. These actually chronologically straddle the meeting described above, but it seemed efficient to lump them together.

I said that there had been a bishops agent doing what he called “taking the temperature” of the parish. I thought he said at one particular meeting that he was finishing up and sending a report to the bishop. I wrote asking the bishop for a copy of this report. He never answered my letter. I was later asked by the “superspirituals” in vestry what was in the report and I answered truthfully that I did not know because I had not been shown this report. They wrote to the archdeacon. Next I find a letter from the archdeacon being read out condemning me for not being honest and telling vestry what was in the report! Interestingly enough some years later, when we were at suit in the Supreme Court, the Archbishop declared under oath that the diocese had no such report. Yet they had said publicly back then that I was less than honest for not divulging what was in this non existent report!

I also said that I had asked the bishop to tell me if he thought I should not sack Nick, and the only answer I got was through his investigator who said “You’re the vicar, its up to you.” However now the bishop conveniently forgot that minor piece of truth and said how wrong it was for me to have sacked Nick. The Bishop now wrote to me and suggested I resign from the ministry. I wrote back and said “Under the laws and customs of the Anglican Church no bishop can lawfully ask a vicar to resign unless the vicar has been tried and found guilty of misdoing, therefore I decline to resign, and ask for your support as my bishop”.

The bishop in my view should have acted in accordance with the laws and customs of the Church and given me public support. He did the very opposite. He wrote to vestry and had read out in church letters in which he said he had asked me to resign and that I had refused. The letters were clearly couched to insinuate that he had the right to do this and I was “disobeying” a lawful order, which was not true. As you may imagine this gave a great deal of ammunition to the “superspirituals” who were then running an incredibly energetic and thorough campaign to destabilise the parish and foster disaffection.

When it came time for the AGM in November 2003 the Archbishop sent the archdeacon “as an observer” on the pretext that, as he said “I have had complaints about your conduct of Vestry meetings and concern has been expressed to me about what may happen at the annual general meeting…”

The archdeacon came not as an observer but as an agitator. He seized every opportunity to interrupt the flow of the meeting to rabble-rouse. Strong words - but that is what he did!.

At the start of the meeting he gave a speech. In it he said “David Greentree has been asked by the Archbishop to resign. He has refused. He says the archbishop cannot under church law tell him to resign.” Then he raised his voice and hands to the crowd and said “We are not under law but under grace!” Cheers, whistles and applause from the supporters of Nick and Shirley who were out in force. The archdeacon turned to me smiling at his own success.

Can I just stop for a moment? I would like to assume that all my readers would recognise that his “we are not under law but under grace” mis-quote from the bible is so bad that it would make the worst sort of American travelling snake-oil preacher-man blush! But since many of the hierarchy didn’t see it that way, please bear with me while I explain the obvious.

At the place in the letter to the Romans where Paul put these words, he had already pointed out that under the Law (of Moses) “Whoever fails to keep all of this law in under God’s curse. He had also pointed out very forcefully that every human being (save Jesus) had failed to keep this Law and so were rightly under God’s curse. But wonder of wonders, God had acted in the person of his Son to take our place so that we were now brought into the sphere of God’s grace - his unearned benevolence and good favour, and not only forgiven but adopted as God’s sons and daughters with the promise of an eternity with him in heaven. Then what he actually wrote was: “Do not let sin rule over you because we are not under law but under grace”

Would this archdeacon or any of those who cheered him say to the police officer who pulled them over for running a red light; “Its all right officer, I’m and Anglican, I’m not under law but under grace!” I’d like to see them try!

A Christian is not free from obeying the laws of the land. An Anglican minister is not free from obeying the laws of the church, which firstly they have sworn before God to obey, and secondly have been made by Anglicans over the years for the good government of the church.

The archdeacon’s attempts to de-rail the annual meeting - and it ran for a very turbulent three hours - had the intended effect.

In the elections - and I point out here that Nick and Shirley had all their supporters enrolled to vote, and had them at the meeting primed how to vote (I know that because several “swinging voters” told me they had been rung up by Shirley & Nick supporters and told who to vote for) and with the archdeacon blatantly advocating for them - Nick and Shirley’s supporters ended up with two thirds of the places on vestry. Needless to say they used their majority in Vestry during 1994 to try to make my life hell and to disrupt as much as possible the normal functioning of the parish.

.

My Adventures with God 52: "Who Can Stand Against Such Reckless Hate"

52: “Who Can Stand Against Such Reckless Hate”

As fellow fans of J.R.R.Tolkein may recall, when Theoden is in Helms Deep being besieged by orcs who are attacking as though (to quote from farther on in The Lord of the Rings) “the whips of Sauron were behind them”, he looked at the waves of frenzied attackers and said “who can stand against such reckless hate”. Looking back now this seems an apt description of the situation I faced then. The “superspirituals” and through them some of their acolytes were attacking with just such a “reckless hate” seemingly indefatigable and heedless of the hurt it was causing the congregation or even the toll it was taking on themselves.

I have quoted Nick’s words when he said that I had to be got out of the ministry even if the parish had to be destroyed to accomplish this. I have quoted from the then vestry secretary about the “hate-speak” that was hurled at me during vestry meetings, and the promise by a spokesman for Shirley’s supporters that they would drive me out of the parish or drive me to a nervous breakdown within six months.

But then from June 1993 when I disbanded the music group, excluding Shirley from the new one and dismissed Nick Elith their rage knew no bounds.

At the church service the Sunday after I had disbanded and re-formed the music group I announced simply that I had dismissed Nick. Immediately a man who was one of Shirley’s home group leapt to the microphone (he must have come prepared) read out the Gospel passage where Jesus warns against “false prophets” and says we will know them by their fruit. He then shouted “David Greentree is a false prophet - you can see it by his fruit: he has dismissed Nick and Shirley!”

Interestingly a few years later this same man - who had by that time not been attending our church for I suppose eighteen months told an investigating committee that he felt “completely buggered”. I would say the cause of this feeling was that he had been eaten up by this own reckless hate.

The day I announced that I had dismissed Nick and most weeks thereafter Nick staged sit-in demonstrations in church. Yes, in church during the service! Typically he would pick a prominent position in the church and ostentatiously kneel in prayer throughout the service - taking no part in the liturgy or singing - and at least the first week when people were taken by surprise, his actions forced people to climb over him to be able to go up to communion. He of course did not take Communion but knelt there with a pained expression on his face so that people could see just how hurt he was.

The Nick and Shirley supporters also tried to disrupt church services week after week. They would sit as a body and very conspicuously not take part in the service - sitting there resolutely not saying the liturgy or singing. At the passing of the peace they refused to pass the peach with any outside their number, spurning any other members of the congregation who tried to pass the peace with them. One very heavily built man - the same one as it happens that abused me when I first came as locum because I was living in “Jack’s house” - actually threatened to punch me in the nose when I tried to pass the peace with him! This group would noisily chat amongst themselves or ostentatiously read books during the sermon.

This made worship difficult for many people and some stopped coming to church because of the bad atmosphere these people were working very hard to create.

I also found on more than one occasion that when new people came to the church, members of this group would seek them out after the service and tell them not to come back saying things like “there is evil in this church” and “the minister is evil”.

This went on without relief for month after month. Even after this group as a body had left and were worshipping elsewhere they kept sending a group - it looked as though on a rotating roster - to try to disrupt our services.

The supporters of Nick and Shirley said they were “Holy Spirit people”, and considered themselves a sort of spiritual elite, more holy than the other members of the congregation. and indeed they were very eager for the “gifts” of the Holy Spirit particularly the more showy ones. But I noticed early that they were not at all interested in that work of the Holy Spirit in a believer’s life that “puts to death the old sinful nature” and trains us to become more like Jesus in all we think and do and say. This held no interest for them.

The Bible tells us that the “fruit of the Holy Spirit” in a believer’s life is: Charity, Joy , Peace, Patience Goodness, Fidelity and Self-control. If you accidentally flicked the pride of one of these people they reacted swiftly with a very animated display of all the opposites of these! The bible exhorts believers “Do not be quick to take offence” They failed that one 110%!

You may be thinking that I am exaggerating, or that over the years my memory has played tricks – which indeed is a common problem in law courts where even the memories of honest witnesses become notoriously unreliable after a time. You may also (I hope) be gasping in disbelief and saying “Surely not! Surely no one would stage sit-in demonstrations during church services!” So let me quote from the statutory declaration of a member of the congregation made in 1996 when events were still fresh in their mind:

“After Nick xxx was discharged from his position of part –time youth minister of St. Luke’s in mid 1993 he continued to attend church for some months after.

During the services he did not participate in the liturgy, but knelt to pray rather ostentatiously throughout the service or parts of it, sometimes praying out loud while David was preaching. He usually knelt in the back pew next to the isle where everyone went past him to go up to communion.

There were a number of others of that group that came to St. Luke’s after Nick and Shirley were discharged from their former involvement in the church. These included Shirley and Peter xxx, (another 13 people are named). Not all of them came at any one time.

When they did come they chatted among themselves during the services, particularly when David was preaching and they did not participate in the service. They did not sing the hymns.

For a while, at Communion there was usually one other person besides David administering the bread, and these people went to that end of the communion rail and thus avoided taking communion from David. When David discontinued that practice and he alone administered the bread, then they did not go up to take Communion.

At the passing of the peace, the members of this group (however many there were at a time) would turn their backs on any of the members of the congregation, and especially on David, who tried to pass the peace with them, they would shake hands with each other.”

All this time they were very busy lobbying the regional bishop, the archbishop and anyone else they thought might do what they wanted. They went about this with a frenetic fervour and indefatigable energy. I feel Tolkien would have thought of them that “the very whips of Sauron” were driving them on,

As they still held a majority on the church council, you can imagine what fun those monthly meetings were. I only survived by a great deal of prayer and the protection of the Holy Spirit. I would pray earnestly before each meeting for God's protection, indeed for Him to be my shield and strength. I then went to those meetings with what in my minds eye was a bodyguard of angels. (I know that is only imagery – Jesus only needs to say the word and it is done! But that was the image I had and it was very kind of God to let me have that symbolic reassurance.) So at the meetings it was in a spiritual sense like being behind bullet proof glass. I could see what they were doing but I was not killed by it. Something still got through and Sue and I had to pray afterwards for God to remove those spiritual or psychic barbs which had penetrated.

It was not pleasant, I would not wish it on anyone else, but because of God's protection, I survived.

It is (almost) laughable that God's protective shield must have been evident to them. One complaint the archbishop passed on to me was that they said that at vestry meetings I was like a diver in one of those heavy deep sea diving suits – I needed to take it off and allow myself to be vulnerable!

My Adventures with God 51: Time to Act

51: Time to Act

Correction: my initial diagnosis that these folk held a false “Gospel of Self” may not be the complete story. I said earlier that once “the tumult and the shouting died” I had walked away from this time of great trial put it all behind me and left it there. And that it was quite painful having to re-read the documents I had kept stored away - which I had to do in order to check that I was re-telling the story accurately after all this time. I also said that during the events I am recounting, God was leading me a step at a time and I never really felt I got the whole picture. Which is a roundabout way of saying that I have now seen another factor which may explain the behaviour of the people who were opposing me.

No, I won't say what it is just yet. See if you can guess! Meanwhile I want to check it out further before I commit myself too much.

Back to the story!

I had been very careful not to take any hasty or precipitate action. But things were getting decidedly rotten in the state of Denmark, and unless I wanted to be like Hamlet, the time to act was approaching.

On the Nick side, I had tried to talk to him in vain. He then refused to take part in any service where I preached. He told me that: “You and what you preach are so evil that God has told me me not to be associated with a service where you preach”. Bear in mind my preaching was basically expounding the scripture readings set for the day, and if I laboured any theme at all it was “Christ crucified for our salvation” (For anyone interested there are some ordinary Sunday sermons I preached a year or so ago available in MP3 on this blog site – check for yourself if what I preach is “so evil”). Eventually he told me: “You must be removed from the ministry, even if it means destroying the parish.” Several times he challenged me to dismiss him, but I did not do so.

As my employed youth worker he got to attend meetings of the church council even though he was not a member of it. He was actively using this as a platform to say nasty things about me. “Hate speak” would be a fitting description.

I had also come to the conclusion that although he was very good at telling everyone how marvellous he was, he was not in fact a good youth worker. Partly it was the statistics. I found that other people had built up the youth groups to such a size that Nick was then hired to run them, replacing the people who had been running them. Under him they had over some years run down and one had failed completely the year before I arrived. Very early in my time I asked him to try to re-start the high school youth group. He just refused point blank.

Because it is also a clue to added diagnosis of the group I will put in here what he said one day about our respective roles (a hint for those trying to guess this diagnosis): Nick said: “You were only made the vicar of this parish by the human church, I was appointed its leader by God!”

My revised opinion of Nick's abilities was also partly due to things I heard as I did my pastoral visiting. I met families whose sons had been very active in St Luke's but were now active in other churches. In each case as they grew older Nick, like the alpha stag getting rid of the competition, had pushed them out of the church. People unkindly referred to the 20's and 30's youth Nick retained as “Nick's heifers”.

However Nick held considerable power. He was the focal point of a shadowy group known as “The Community” who were very very closely knit, and thought Nick was indeed the greatest!

Shirley was causing me concern on two fronts. Her adherents and Nick's held a majority on the church council. As well as turning every meeting into a hate session, they had petitioned the Bishop to appoint an investigator into their claims that I was a bad minister.

One of their delegates had come to see me and Sue. Their offer was simple: If I would admit I was wrong and reinstate Shirley to leading services, and administering the Communion Chalice and hand over planning of the worship services to her and from now on do exactly what Nick and Shirley told me to do, all these troubles would go away and I could have a happy ministry at St. Luke's. As with the previous offer (“If I just sacked Rodger from being a Church Warden”), I refused.

Their delegate then told me what they had in store for me: “We will make sure that you either leave this parish or have a nervous breakdown within six months!”

One tactic designed to bring on the threatened breakdown was to turn every church council meeting into an unending tirade of verbal abuse. One legal deposition made later said this: “I became vestry secretary in November 1992. … David's behaviour throughout the year was a fine Christian example to us all, particularly in humbleness … Only by God's grace and the indwelling the Holy Spirit could he have been able to withstand in the way he did the venomous verbal arrows directed at him at each meeting.”

The Shirley's other activity causing me concern was the music ministry. Shirley seemed to be the cause of strife there which was spilling over into the worship services.

Watching from the sidelines I could see that there were problems. One time I saw a music team member burst into tears just before a service after being spoken to harshly by the music leader and the way it was handled disturbed me. Another time in an evening service I was distressed to notice that the worship leader and the music leader were competing with one another for “control” of the worship time.

Division, dysfunction, and lack of a “servant” attitude were what I diagnosed in the music ministry at that time. Years later my observation was confirmed by depositions made by members of the music group from even before I came to the parish. For instance:

One said: “I have seen Shirley xxx just a few minutes before the commencement of the service, while the rest of us were at prayers with the leaders, come and change one or two of the planned pieces of music or songs for that service, that would throw us into confusion. The music ministry in those years of Rev'd Jack xxx was stressful and dominated by Shirley xxx.”

Another said: “From as early as 1989 [PS I arrived in 1990] there was disunity and evident lack of commitment among some members of the team. The leader and others of an 'inner group' were constantly critical of the 'performance' of those of us who were not part of their group.” … “Before music rehearsals a Bible study was held by one of the leaders. It was my experience that If I did not agree with the Bible teachings of the leaders, I was made to feel inferior and told that I was wrong.” …

“other members of the group said to me that they had the same perceptions. There was a 'gap' between those who were in the 'inner circle' and those of us who were outside that circle.-” … “During this time the atmosphere of rehearsals and performances in the services at St Luke's was one of great stress.”

My own observation was that Shirley, Jane and some others were far more interested in being up-front to do “their ministry” than in considering and serving the needs of the congregation. I did not know this at the time, but as a later deposition revealed, they had been warned prophetically about this and had ignored the warning. …

Later yet another member of the music team said:“During 1992 Jane xxx who was leading the group came to me twice in as many months and said words to the effect “Have you had a word from the Lord?” I had had a word from the Lord which referred me to certain passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah, namely those dealing with servant-hood. The first time Jane xxx asked me I was reluctant to say yes. The second time I said yes and Jane replied “Will you share it with the music group?” I agreed and did so at a meeting shortly after. There was no response from the members of the music group.

In February 1993 Jane xxx said to me: “You have something to share with the music group haven't you.” I said: “Yes.” Again the Lord had referred me to some biblical passages dealing with “The humble servant”. Jane arranged a meeting in March 1993 for me to tell the music group what I believed the Lord was saying to us. … When the meeting was being arranged I said to Jane: “Can I start at 8 o'clock and finish by 9.30, my son is going to --- and I need to collect him.” Jane agreed.

.When I arrived at the meeting prepared to speak at 8 o'clock I found that Shirley had prepared a worship segment … Shirley was still running it at 9.45 when my son arrived at the hall having got a lift there … The most disturbing thing about the worship segment was that the people were not reacting with praise and fervour. Shirley xxx soon started getting cross at that lack of enthusiasm, and she kept haranguing the group saying such things as “you're supposed to be praising the Lord” and 'You're supposed to be joyful I the Lord”.

About 10 o'clock I said to Jane xxx: “I'm tired – if you want me to speak to the group I will have to do it now.” Jane said: “I suppose you'd better share with us.” I read through the list of readings that dealt with the concept of servant hood that I had prepared. There was a silence at the end. After a while (a lady from Nick’s community) said “I don’t understand anything of this” and several people in the group said much the same. Shirley said nothing. There was no discussion. After a while Jane said “Thank you for that”. I went home.”

In May 1993 I did not know about this. But I had made my own observations. I came to two conclusions. First that Shirley had to be out of the music group. Second that the whole music group had to be 're-birthed' as one with a servant attitude. I wanted, even then, to spare Shirley the humiliation of being put out of the group, so I came up with a plan.

My plan was to disband the entire music group. Then to invite them to join a new group with a new “servant” manifesto. I would write privately to Shirley explaining why she was not to be part of this new music ministry.

I had also been considering what to do about Nick. Under the rules of the Church, he served at my pleasure, and I did not need to give any reason for dismissing him. None the less I asked the Bishop for advice in a letter. He never even replied. But he evidently gave the letter to the investigator he had appointed who simply said to me: “You're the Vicar. Its up to you.”

So by letter dated 2^nd June 1993 I dismissed Nick from ministry at St Luke's.

The same week I called a meeting of the music group. I hoped to explain my plan for a new beginning under a new “servant” manifesto, and that they would join in the new ministry.

Jane had other plans. I had told her what I intended, invited her to be the leader of the new group, and asked her to tell the music team what the meeting was about. He wouldn't and she hadn't respectively and she set about stirring the group into a frenzy, in part by reading my private letter to Shirley out to the group, accusing me of treating Shirley badly, and saying this was an attack on all of them. Most of them then refused to join the new group.

But God touched the hearts of some who came and formed the nucleus of the new ministry, with a new and very different attitude. It was small at first but it grew. In time it became vastly superior to the old one in every way. But that is a story for later.

My Adventures with God 50: Prayer and Preaching

50: Prayer and Preaching

Things were changing at St. Luke's Church. Mostly invisible things. Nick and Shirley's admirers were still in many of the “up-front” roles in church – leading services, prayers, preaching, music team and so on. In these they were very much doing their own thing without any restraint from me. I think I even kept my mouth shut the time the extempore prayers of intercession went for longer than the sermon had! But change was happening and being noticed.

The first reason for things changing was that I was doing a great deal of praying. I said earlier that one problem with the group of people who had infiltrated and then dominated leadership roles was that they wanted the power of spiritual gifts without the “sanctification” aspect of being changed into the image of Jesus. God's Holy Spirit is first of all holy. Faith in the real Christ – not some false concept of a “Buddy Jesus” who is content for you to remain an ego worshipper – is a pre-requisite for the Holy Spirit to work openly in one's life!

There had been a sort of fake-Charismatic air to many of the church services.

Now, I generally only pray in tongues in crisis moments, but at that time I frequently found myself praying under my breath in tongues throughout some of these services.

In my private prayer times I was of course continually praying (with my mind) both for all the congregation individually and also for wisdom myself in handling things. So why the “tongues”? Actually I take my being moved by the Spirit to pray in tongues as part of that kindness of God which I find so beautiful and so overwhelming. If I was praying concerning particular people – perhaps the one leading the service or the singing at that time – any problem they had was strictly between them and the Heavenly Father – theirs as well as mine. It was not my business to know what it was. Indeed we should all be relieved that God does not tell people everything he knows about us! Obediently praying where I did not know the content of the prayers let me be part of the solution without having to know the problem!

However, while I was not doing anything physically to change what these people did, God was - spiritually. Service leaders were complaining that they felt stifled. When they blamed that on the liturgy, then for the more casual evening service I told them they could start with a blank page and write their own service format. They still felt stifled.

They started to say that I must have grieved the Spirit, or that the Spirit no longer flowed in the services, or that the Holy Spirit had left St. Luke's. Nick with Shirley's both wrote letters to the church council to try to get them to set up a “worship advisory committee” Nick said in his letter: “to hear the mind of God through the feedback of those in our midst who have a heart and sensibility and commitment to the work of God at St' Luke's”. Shirley urged the council (which was dominated by her supporters) to: “consider, to pray, and ask the Lord for a vision regarding our services. We need a team to make decisions about what we desire to accomplish during our services” As Anglican services are strictly under the authority of the minister (within some pretty strict regulations, naturally), I did not allow this.

What was really happening was that the real Holy Spirit was being more pro-active and putting a damper on their fake performances.

Preaching which faithfully expounds the Bible is divisive. One does not have to read far through the book of Acts to see this in operation. Paul manages to cause riots in nearly every town he preached in. Some might say part of this was his style or his personality, and since he was fallible human like the rest of us maybe it was. Maybe Stephen should have kept his mouth shut instead of giving that sermon which got him martyred. We can go on like that through all the prophets who were killed for delivering God's message to their generation, but the excuse of human error starts to wear a bit thin!

When we come to Jesus, there is no getting round it. He was perfect. Perfect Love, perfect image of God, faithfully and truthfully expounding the things of God. Yet look at the reaction to his preaching. It was divisive. The middle chapters of John's Gospel to me bring this out most clearly. As he goes on some become more devoted followers, some walk away, and the opposition of the religious elite becomes more and more strident.

If you still want to think that one can preach (outside the confines of your clique) and not cause division this is what Jesus himself said: “Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil because of the Son of Man. Rejoice …. for that is how their ancestors treated the prophets. … But woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.” (Luke 6)

So my preaching was causing a division. There were a large number – even at that stage the majority of the congregation - who held to sound Christian doctrine – they loved it and were growing stronger in their faith. Then there were the ones who held to the gospel of Self. They were being challenged. Some came good – possibly not even realising what had changed in them. Others were, like the religious elite in Jesus day becoming more and more bitter in their opposition.

Jane, the music leader and Nick's wife (the one who before I was even inducted as Vicar had asked the Bishop how to get rid of me!) told me she felt “violated” whenever I preached. Really? “Violated” She did also tell me that she didn't need to hear sermons on sin because she “had no sin”. No, I did not quote the Bible's “But if anyone says they have no sin they deceive themselves and the truth is not in them” - that would have only pushed her further away. And I was to the very end trying to win all of these people back for Christ.

Nick took things even further. In November 1992 there was a baptism in church. I baptised three children of regular church attenders. Nick was the one rostered on to lead the service that morning, although as the priest I read the actual baptism liturgy.

At next Tuesday's staff meeting attacked me with abuse. He did not believe in infant Baptism. However St Luke's was an Anglican Church, and Infant baptism is held to be “most agreeable with the institution of Christ” Nick said he refused to take part in any service where there was infant baptism, and to round things off he refused to take part in any service where I preached.

Since Nick was only employed one-quarter-time (he had a regular job as well) and since a third of his time was meant to be taking part in services this was a refusal to do his job. He challenged me to sack him. I didn't.

However crunch time was approaching.