NEOC CelebrationAfter 33 years the North East Ecumenical Course came to an end with a celebration of its work held in Newcastle on September 19th 2009.
The following is the text of the sermon preached by former NEOC staff member David Peel, now minister of St Andrew's, Monkseaton and St Cuthbert's, Heaton
Deut 6:4-15
1 Tim 6:13-16
Luke 8:4-15
There is only one proper starting point; ‘it’ also turns out to be the destination; and in between it is the only ‘thing’ which provides life with meaning and purpose. But, of course, what I am referring to is neither an ‘it’ or a ‘thing’; rather I am talking about a power, a presence and a promise of acceptance and forgiveness, life over death. Paul’s description of the God of Abraham and Isaac, Sarah and Miriam…and Jesus is quite awesome: “…the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords. It is he alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light” (1 Tim 6:15-16). What really should concern us, to borrow the language of Paul Tillich, is the God of love we have glimpsed in Jesus and fleetingly encounter in the Spirit. The Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer is endlessly the subject of vociferous rumour (Peter Berger), but never can be pinned down. So, picking up a strong theme in the Hebrew scriptures, Paul simply states that “no one has ever seen or can see” God (1 Tim 6:16). As Moses has learned earlier, we can only see where God has been, not where God is now (see Ex 33:17-23).
Notwithstanding the essential unknowability and unpredictability of God: it is God who remains the beginning and end of all things as far as we are concerned, whether it is ‘we’ as individuals, or as religious groups, or as communities, or as nations, or even as a theological training course. The invitation to Israel comes to us as well: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut 6:4-5). That is the ultimate recognition of ‘what’s what’! It is a call to praise and marvel at the boundless generosity of God, who sows seeds of life, love and hope so freely, if, to our eyes, so recklessly. Why would God want to risk putting his mission in the hands of someone like that: he’s a sinner (Isaiah of Jerusalem); he’s too young (Jeremiah); he’s only working class (Amos); she’s only a woman (Ruth). Much of God’s working counters human logic and cultural norms; we tend to forget that, after the divine tilling of the soil, the sown seeds may well end up in more fertile land than in which they initially are found. My, my, some good can even come out of Nazareth! There is no end to the generosity of God’s creativity; nor is there any limit to God’s redemptive activity. God does not welch on covenants: rainbows still grace our skies; prodigals are still welcomed home; and the faults and failings of wayward people are refined in God’s love. It all boils down to what Isaac Watts knew it to be: “love so amazing, so divine,/ demands my soul, my life, my all.”
Now, I have started with an account of ‘the sovereignty of God’ not because I knew that you would expect that from a Reformed preacher, but rather because this is the only proper theological starting point when we, as today, celebrate a life we believe has been valuable and important. Thanksgiving is neither smug self-satisfaction, nor communal back-slapping; is must be an offering to God for what, out of gratitude for God’s ways with us, we have done in response. Before God, of course, we know who we are, so we ought not to be claiming too much; before God, also of course, our absolutes become relatives, things are put in proper perspective and, conversely, we may even find our dross turned into gold. I think it follows that whatever value NEOC has been will partly be judged by how well the dispersed NEOC community has responded to God’s gracious gifting as we have sought to respond to God’s invitation to ministry within God’s ongoing mission. That is what NEOC was equipping us for, so in a very real sense each one of us represents NEOC’s success, as well as no doubt its failing! And I will return to the subject of ‘ministry within God’s mission’ at the end. Now I want to turn to some of the offerings NEOC can today place before the Sovereign God. Each of these concern theological education, in general, and the preparation of women and men for Christian ministry, in particular. [When I use the word ‘ministry’, some of you may understandably also wish to think in terms of ‘priesthood’. An inclusive understanding of the being and function of the ordained person in the church’s life might even suggest a need to embrace the emphases of both terms, but we’d better not go down that route and get too diverted!]
Again, I must stress, we must avoid claiming too much—not least because a great deal of what NEOC achieved in the region by way of pioneering more helpful and hence hopeful patterns of theological education was part and parcel of the development of the diocesan courses from the late 1970s onwards. I think that NEOC was one of the better examples of these course. They were originally set up to prepare people locally for non-stipendiary ministry, a ministry largely additional to that practised by stipendiary clergy, and often it was a ministry to be located in the workplace rather than confined to the parish. But I would think that NEOC was a good example of such a course, wouldn’t I? After all, NEOC, in the shape of Michael Kitchener, gave me my first taste of theological teaching, thus initiating a career which took me to the Principal’s office at Northern College, Manchester en route to coming back to the North East as a NEOC member of staff. For all its faults and failings I value NEOC highly. And I think I have good reason for doing so, even though the nature of my valuing of NEOC comes through the spectacles of English Dissent and Nonconformity rather than those of a member of the Established Church.
Firstly, NEOC and the other Diocesan courses have been a direct challenge to, and in some respect an antidote to, what I bluntly will call, at the risk of giving grave offence, ecclesial sectarianism. I was once asked by an Anglican bishop what I thought of the Church of England. Rather young at the time, and still living in an era when one looked up to the great and good—there you have it, a mere Dissenter ranking bishops among the great and good!—and, in a bid for thinking time, I blurted out: Which Church of England have you in mind? My answer stunned the learned man who thoughtfully then gave me a theological rationalization of the undoubted fact that the Church of England is ‘a broad church’. But, as all the ongoing feuds in all our churches manifest, there is a world of difference between being the kind of ‘inclusive’ church the theology of Paul in the New Testament, say, aspires to and a ‘broad’ church which prepares people for ministry within like-minded theological frameworks and similar liturgical practices. NEOC, I think, aspired to become an ‘inclusive’ community which could then model an ‘inclusive’ church. Spikey Anglo-Catholics thus found themselves learning, worshipping and, even for short periods, living with earnest charismatics. And that made some of those short periods of residence seem very long indeed! But good education and sound therapy take time! One of the greatest compliments courses like NEOC have ever been given came from another bishop who said to me somewhat critically that, whereas he knew what his Diocese was getting from the likes of St Stephen’s House or St John’s Nottingham, he could never know what NEOC was sending. It goes with my Nonconformist background that I can find Godly virtue in Episcopal put-downs! NEOC (nor any of the courses) has not ended ecclesial sectarianism. It is alive and well in all our denominations, even being given a contemporary vote of confidence by a consumerist, post-modern ethos which seemingly positively welcomes the proliferation of each and every ‘fresh expression’ of the church. It is rather easy for the rich multi-dimensional nature of an inclusive church to slip into becoming the ‘me in my small corner and you in yours’ church of sectarianism. Many a student found NEOC hard work because they were taken out of the comfort zone of their inherited theology and liturgical preferences. And that was of as much benefit to them as it was to the wider church—often painful though it was!
Secondly, and related to what I have just been saying, NEOC increasingly came to embody a commendably ecumenical ethos, with Methodist and Reformed contributing to the Course governance, core staffing and the student body. As long as Anglicans remain in the majority, as is quite inevitable given the nature of the English church landscape, ecumenical learning and experience always will be in danger of being rather one-sided, as at times we found it at NEOC. But many here today are better Christians and ministers because of NEOC’s ecumenical ideals.
Thirdly, and equally importantly, we should note the way in which NEOC and other courses helped to change the face of theological education in Britain during the latter quarter of the twentieth century. Taking theological education outside the semi-monastic setting of the traditional theological college led to much needed emphases being placed on skills and formation as well as the intellect. The context of learning was no longer just the academy; it also increasingly involved local church life and engagement with the everyday world. ‘Context’ and ‘integration’ became buzz-words. NEOC’s setting of academic learning in local study groups made good use of the region’s rich theological resources, embedding theological learning in local communities as well as enhancing the knowledge and skills of many a tutor. It wasn’t perfect, but it was never a complete disaster and bore much fruit. And now this alternative, dispersed educational model risks being sidelined by the pressures of centralization that affect all the mainstream churches as they seek to address and overcome decline.
Which, of course, gets us back to where I warned you we would end: ‘ministry within God’s mission’. Above all else, I have found NEOC at its best standing for an understanding of the church that challenges a great deal that is on display in the contemporary ecclesiastical shop window. The contemporary church is gripped by decline and driven by the ensuing guilt, we are being taken ever inwards to the point where, for all intents and purposes, we are idolatrously putting our ultimate concern in the future of the church rather than in the existence of the living God: the means by which we stand before God in worship and serve God out of gratitude is in danger of becoming of greater importance than God himself. Given God is God, what eternal use is the church? Answer: none at all! Given God is God, what temporal use is the church? Answer: to be what the late Lesslie Newbigin called ‘a sign, expression and foretaste of the reign of God’.
To be sure, we have inherited a mindset about the church which has developed over many years. We find it very difficult therefore to see the church in anything other than the traditional, institutional terms. This mentality makes it very difficult for us to appreciate the New Testament sense of the church as a people’s movement engaged in God’s mission. While we endlessly seem to worry whether the institution can survive, the New Testament church was concerned to be that sign and sacrament of God’s love it was brought into being to be; while we turn to market research, management consultants and secular therapists to direct us forward, the New Testament church relied upon the Holy Spirit for energy and direction. The End in view, our particular reason for being here, is God, whose reign among us has been inaugurated by Jesus. Our concern then is to pray and preach, serve and celebrate, so as to draw that End closer in view for those around us. We exist to serve God’s mission, a purpose that is ahead of us, that puts a proper (because Godly) perspective on the confusions and contradictions of the age in which we live, and which challenges the church to bring within God’s circle of love, forgiveness and hope those languishing in spiritual poverty or afflicted by the downward gravity of injustice and oppression. The point of the church really is that it has no lasting point at all—save engagement with God’s mission.
Now, it follows from all this that the abiding success of NEOC is today found in men and women who themselves have embraced the missionary shape of the church. NEOC has sought to provide the church with ministry that helps the community called church engage in God’s mission; but it has been having to do so at a time when many church leaders in all our denominations desperately have simply looked for fresh hands to keep the ecclesiastical show on the road. We are as a result now in ongoing danger of searching for a mission that is already going on without us. The lasting legacy of NEOC will be men and women who have a wider vision for the church, one which transcends all our institutional tendencies, and joyfully embraces participation in the people’s movement that follows Jesus in the power of the Spirit. NEOC is dead, thanks be to God! The question we are left with then is simply this: will what NEOC stood for remain alive in us? I hope so, and I know some of you well enough to have confidence that it will!
Amen.