Lama's log

I'm back at church and wondering if this institutionalised/denominational religion stuff was really such a good idea.

We had community council on Tuesday. Alcohol usage was up for debate. Now I'll give you that the reason for it being there was initially to do with my desire to be able to have, and to offer, folks a glass of wine with their Christmas dinner come the 25th. It was no biggie. A community council and a few conversations later I saw it as much more of an opportunity. It seemed to be more about how we show hospitality, deal with scripture and take seriously the use of alcohol in a society which is struggling with it. It seems to me the issue is wrapped up with community, mission and Christ.

Thus we set aside a good chunk of time to talk this one through. I put up some stuff on the church website and one of the doctors here did a fact sheet on alcohol.

The result? Depression. The biggest factor seemed to come down to the fact that many feel church is in some way a 'special' , 'sacred' space. We must look after people, not put temptation in their way and protect them from alcohol and the possible misuse in our building. I am fine with this. I am fine with this as long as we carry it through to the rest of our lives. Every place we walk and meet must become a sacred space where we look after the least and protect the vulnerable. If we go for abstinence rather than modelling moderation then we must carry this everywhere, shouldn't we? Instead I heard that alcohol in church is bad, but the Sunday night and Monday night pub groups are 'A' OK. Fundraising events with wine, that we give open invites to all, are fine. It's all fine as long as the church building is safe.

As more and more people stood up and declared the building different and their own lives their own business, I slipped deeper and deeper into my long felt distance to church, to religion to all the things that keep cutting me off from community rather than helping me grow in it.

The outcome for me is that when we finally make a decision on this (because we didn't manage it that night) I will carry it on elsewhere. If we decide that wine in church is a no go then wine outside cannot be. I'm looking at a future tea total possibility and the future is certainly not bright. I don't know how to speak to a congregation who have spirituality locked into a day of the week and a place on the map. I felt weak beyond belief. If I want to model at all what we do in church I will need to live it, otherwise I can't advocate it. The trick of this one it seems to me, is not convincing anyone of a different position, but getting people to own it when they leave the building.

There were other voices. I particularly liked the passionate contributions that were given, the ones where passion showed more than propriety. There is some hope and perhaps Tuesday was a stage along the way. All in all though it made me go aaaarrrrggggghhhh!!!!

The last session of the slavery debate has taken place. By the time I fell into bed last night I knew that people had shifted. It was self evident that many had come to Council reluctant and uncomfortable with the prospect of apology, but through the process of listening to black people and voices and also through a process of recognising our social connectedness and denominational story we are in a place to apologise with a sense of meaning and repentance.

Communion was cleverly and powerfully done, to highlight our belonging to each other and Christ’s ‘apology’ (?) on our behalf. This morning’s debate then seemed more of an affirmation of the need for an apology rather than a debate. There are still those with reservations, it seems overwhelming though that the feel of the meeting is that this apology should be constructed and that it needs to be done now.

After yesterdays small groups, 38 pages of flip chart paper were gathered together and collated. Viv O’Brien summarized the meetings feelings in these areas:

• People spoke of reaching new levels of listening, of changing minds and of feeling the hand of God on the meeting.
• People felt this was the time for God to move in Council.
• A strong language of repentance was needed, that this must be the beginning of a journey.
• We need to do this for reconciliation to take place.
• This process and apology must be honest to God and take into account our ongoing faults.

The single biggest factor in this debate seems to me to have been people overcoming a sense of individual autonomy and being able to see themselves as a apart of the denominational community, in its past present and future forms. In the way that we feel comfortable apologising for our children, because we belong to them as they belong to us, people have started to feel that they can own their history and community as Baptists.

The other huge factor in this has been that black people have been heard from directly. It is difficult to rationalise and intellectualise in the face of painful experience both past and present. It becomes undeniable and there is a level of human compassion and empathy which starts to respond. The black members of council have shown great grace these last days and I can’t begin to understand the thoughts they arrived with and journeyed with over the debates. I do know that there must have been great risk in it.

We are waiting now then for a form of words to appear. People are drafting while we sit and wait.

There is a sense of great joy here that the process has worked so well and that there has been a true listening from all people. A listening to each other and to God. There has been many comments that this is a different kind of council and that something significant has taken place. I am wondering if this really will be the kairos moment everyone is labelling it to be. Afteral this apology should already have been issued in Ghana. I don't want to take anything away from this though. It is incredible that there is so much consensus and grace in the room and this opens the door for healing and movement.

The words are now here .... the problem is now that I've managed to sit myself next to person in charge of the BU communications and they've just struck a deal with the Baptist Times giving them an exclusive. It seems I'm therefore unable to post the wording of the apology. I can't quite believe I have just been censored!!! Make of that what you will. Get the Baptist Times and read for yourself what we came up with. It's good stuff and the start of a good road.

The title of this post was a line in the small group I was in, I hope you’re handling it well. It took all my self will to sit quietly and let others gently educate. I digress. We have been discussing the possibility of an apology for the Baptist part in the slave trade. I thought about leaving posting until tomorrow just to see the process through but in the end thought I might begin today and give a snap shot now and then the outcome later.

A lot of time has been given in council for this. Most of yesterday afternoon was taken up with it. First impressions were that it was done very, very well. We heard from different voices. An account of events from Denise Lawrence, historical information as to the context reason and consequences of the slave trade were given as well as theological slants on the issues.

One of the most moving moments for me was when there was a role of the dead. Those people who had been murdered through an act of racism along with their photo if available and some details. It brought home that the legacy of slavery was alive and kicking the life out of people. After that we had an interview style presentation of some of the theological concerns which I’m hoping to get a copy of soon.

Today we broke off into groups to discuss this issue, which was great and challenging.

What I want to do now is list some of the main questions that seem to have come out of this process so far. I don’t know what, if anything the council will be able to say by the end of this process. I do know though that I am, dare I say it, proud to belong to a body of people who have handled this process very well thus far.

So, arising questions:

• There is a real struggle with people getting to grips with the idea of apologizing for something they are not personally responsible for. There has therefore been a lot of talk about how society encourages us to see ourselves individually and that perhaps, in Christian terms, we have to take account of the wider body. Basically we need to own our collective stories and histories. There has also been talk of our need to grasp accountability for corporate/ collective sin which we are not socially conditioned into doing.
• How do we apologise with integrity? How do we say sorry and it really mean something? It is dangerous for us to engage in an apology but not do anything in terms of repentance or reparation. So for example, how do we apologise for our part in the slave trade but at the same time have a Union with few black people either present at council or in positions of leadership. We must change as an organization to be credible with this stuff and prioritise issues of modern day slavery and racism.
• How do we communicate the journey we have gone on at council to the wider churches? It is one thing us getting to grips with these questions after we have sat through presentation and discussion, but our churches won’t have done this. There is a risk that council states a position that the denomination doesn’t own.
• How do we deal with the issue of reparation? Are we too scared of this word and it links to finance and is there a possibility that we could look at it more holistically?
• This area has brought up many wider hurts of injustice. So, for example, one woman spoke in a group I was in at length about the fact that less than 1% of our churches are made up of those from the working class and of the injustices we have perpetrated on the poor. So will this debate open a can of worms (I personally hope that it might)?
• Is the apology being squeezed out of us? In other words, is this apology arising out of Black people calling for this and we reluctantly giving in, or is it because of a journey of repentance that we are on?
• How do we weave the essence of this apology into our denominational fabric so we don’t end up making token gestures?

These questions came out of either the main sessions or the group that I attended. There were moments in my group when people sensed that in order to truly say sorry, it would mean radical denominational, church and personal movement. You can’t stand in solidarity with someone when they suffer and you don’t. Trade laws and 2/3rd world debt has to become something we personally respond to and collectively live against. There were glimmers when people started to grasp Gospel demands and the enormity of them and they filled me with hope.

The Union so far has handled this question excellently; I hope the outcome has grace and gospel.

I'm currently sat at the back of the conference room for the BU Council. I love wi fi. I think I'm really enjoying council too. It's been a long day and there was an hour just after lunch when I lost the will to live as we discussed when new council posts would start and would we need to ..... do you know what? Even typing it is putting me to sleep.

Apart from that though it's been pretty riveting stuff. In fact I would go as far to say that this last hour has been almost disturbing. We have been looking at a paper about what the BU can say and speak on, with regard to the union as a whole. OK if you're not a Baptist, basically autonomy rests with the local church. The church governs itself completely and thus you can't have the wider body of the BU speaking on its behalf. This is fine except for the fact that when people want a Baptist response to events there can't be one because you can't speak for anyone and then it looks like the church doesn’t have a voice and is not speaking out when it should.

I am very pro the church being outspoken. The question is, ‘who is the church’? Does the BU speaking out mean that we have a relevant voice and will it even be a representative voice? Are we choosing to speak because wider society expects us to, rather than we want to start speaking because we have stuff to say? Shouldn’t it be local expressions of church/es standing actively against injustice, or for Gospel values and the BU assisting in that, rather than the other way around?

The local church often has little, if anything to say, which is a part of the saddening truth. When it does start to speak out, my guess is that it will be in areas too hot to handle association wise.

There was a lot of talk in the meeting about trust and how happy we all are that we trust our union to speak and they trust us not to rip them to shreds over it. That’s what made me really uncomfortable. I felt very twitchy about the whole thing.

I don’t think I do trust my Union to speak on my behalf with regard to sensitive issues. What I think will happen is that the BU will tow safe lines. You know poverty bad, war bad, Jesus good. I don’t think the BU are going to stand boldly amongst the least and represent the church as a radical people. So for instance, I won’t expect the BU anytime soon to be advocating Christian support of Gay rights. Not because everyone thinks being gay is Godly but just because we are called to stand along side the marginalized and oppressed so lets do it even when its not easy.

I won’t expect them to start denouncing government or politicizing policy because all that would be too divisive and dangerous. I don’t trust them enough to expect that they will go out on a limb for Jesus, thus I’d rather they didn’t speak at all for me.

Oh pooh. I do want to think that all that love in the room tonight was a good thing. I kept my mouth shut and didn’t vote on any of it because there is the niggling thought in my mind that if I was the only one out of 150 people there tonight that had reservations perhaps I just wasn’t picking up on the ‘mind of Christ’ vibes. Maybe I’m wrong and the BU will really start stepping out and saying stuff that matter even if it hurts. At least then faith might matter to someone. I’m so cynical about this stuff it’s unhelpful.

Council took steps tonight to allow Jonathan Edwards to speak on behalf of the denomination. We are also discussing slavery; he now has a mandate to speak. This is a good thing. I will pray for him and for others. The power to speak comes with an awesome responsibility to use it and not shy away from it. Lets hope he doesn’t buckle under the pressure and he’s got backbone aplenty and wisdom in abundance.

One of the items on the agenda for the BU council is whether we should apologise as a denomination for our part in the events of the slave trade. I have not paid much attention to this topic really, mostly because it seemed a no brainer to me. Why wouldn’t we apologize? There’s a lot to apologise for.

I was fairly stunned when I sat in a meeting then and learned that the topic is far from a ‘no brainer’. People don’t want to apologise for ‘the sins of the fathers’’. To apologise you need to feel sorry and it’s hard to feel sorry for something you haven’t done. If you don't feel sorry but go ahead and say it anyway then it may well do a whole heap of damage.

Mmmmm. This was just one point brought up. Many things were said and listened to and I was humbled in as much as I learned that I had assumed too much and engaged too little. The above point seems the one most frequently voiced. I get it. I don’t like apologising at the best of times; I’m none too fond of doing it then on behalf of someone else and an empty apology will lead to deepening hurts. However, I’m pretty thankful God isn’t like that, that God did deal with sin which he didn't initiate. I also feel that I often hear about the pride we can feel as Baptists, a people that have good history and origins and I am often in spaces where that is called upon and Baptists are invited to feel collective pride in a history we’ve not earned. We don’t seem to have a problem with that side of things.

There’s far too many things around this debate to go into it in much depth here. The Council have put a great deal of its time aside to discuss it which is great and I am hoping that people do come with an openness which allows for a seeking, me included. Given the pain involved it would be good if churches could get to grips with it at a root level. I do think that grappling with this will have a direct effect on tackling modern day slavery and inspire one or two of us into action.

Well another post, another moan. I must try and rise out of my current state of 'Victor Meldrew' and join the theologically high mindedness which I aspire to. I must, but just not today.
What sparked my current rant? Well this time it was the BU. The time for Council is approaching and I have the pleasure and privilege of going this year as a delegate from the YBA. That's all fab. With some joy then I opened the mailing and came across the sheet listing new members of council. My name is there, shining out for all to see, 'Miss Kezia Lama'.

To give a little context; you don't get given a name like Kezia at birth and then get hacked off when people don't pronounce it right. You can't, it happens all the time. I'm also just not that bothered about stuff like that. I surprised myself a little then at the level of annoyance that my name caused me. You see, I am currently in the middle of a divorce. The title of ‘Miss Kezia Lama’ then does the following:

• It assigns me my husband’s name while knocking off two months from the divorce process. I remain Lama but become single in one stroke.
• It robs me of any recognition of my vocation by missing the Revd. and assigns me a role next to a man. I am no longer Kezia minister at WBC, I am Kezia, used to be married currently unmarried.

It feels petty to note this stuff. I read Glen Marshall’s stuff over on his Blog ‘Nah then’, on whether we should keep the title Rev. I was interested in it. For me, I love the title Revd. as it has always stopped my primary title being about my relationship to a man and instead announces my vocation. My name has always been a strange thing for me. Kezia is an odd name and so people react to me thus. Since birth I have had 3 surnames. The first belonging to my Grandfather, then my Father then my husband. Because my name has always denoted another person it’s never been that important to me what it should be. It turns out though that my title is important to me. Perhaps because it is something that given what I do and am it can become about me and not another. Perhaps though I’m just going to turn into one of those annoying pedants who like to affirm their own self importance and need special titles. Oh dear.