For all of you are one in Christ Jesus!

The title of this reflection is the latter part of Galatians 3:28. This line summarises the essence of the Christian faith and relates to the prayer of Jesus recorded in John 17:21.  It says, ‘that they may all be one.  As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.’   St. Paul, through this simple yet profound line, impresses upon the community that their unity and identity is because of their membership in the body of Christ.  This reality had overcome any obvious differences of age, gender, ethnicity and/or status in the society.  St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 further develops on this concept of unity by using the example of the human body.  As every part of the body is unique, distinct and interdependent on one another with a primary role to ensure that the body functions and lives in the best possible manner.  Thus, the members of the body of Christ are unique and are commissioned to offer their best to the glory of God through their interdependence on one another.

Unfortunately, unity of the body of Christ has been understood and practiced in a hierarchal and oppressive manner over the years.  Hierarchal, as power and authority has been vested in the dominant culture.  Oppressive because of the dominance and suppression of different viewpoints and cultural practices by the dominant culture.  Dominant culture can vary from ethnic background to theology or the liturgical practice and preference.  Labels such as evangelical, conservative, liberal, high or low church are examples of various dominant cultures within the church in general and the Anglican Church of Canada in particular.  Furthermore, Caucasian Canadians continue to hold religious, doctrinal, spiritual and liturgical authority at all levels of the church.  Thankfully, in most of the cases, the body of Christ learned to live with their differences and to unite the body of Christ.

Missionary movements brought the gospel and the message of salvation through Jesus Christ to all parts of the world.  In the sub-continent, missionaries developed education and health care systems along with the conversion of the masses and establishment of churches.  Missionaries primarily evangelised to the downtrodden, poor and untouchables in the sub-continent.  Although, conversion to Christianity assured the love of God through Jesus’ own sacrifice and resurrection among the converts - it did not change their status in the society.  They were and continue to be untouchable.  Missionaries and their institutions were the only persons and places which offered love, acceptance and hope to them.  This acceptance and restoration of dignity and integrity perpetuated enormous respect for the Europeans in general and the missionaries in particular.  Missionaries not only made them the members of the body of Christ and heirs of the kingdom of God but also accepted them with open arms, was the reality and gift to pretty much everyone of them.  As a young child (five years old or so), I remember going with Miss Audrey and Miss Sharon to the slums of Karachi, Pakistan.  The highlight of the trip was having either some candy or ice cream towards the end of our journey.  Incidentally, I do not remember any activities in different locales.  Being in a car, having a place of honour during those meetings and a treat made me the happiest child in the world.  Miss Audrey and Miss Sharon and by extension every European missionary represented goodness and love of God to me. 

The majority of New Anglican Christian Canadians from the global south, regardless of their country of origin, have been struggling to find a spiritual home in the Anglican churches.  For Canadians of Pakistani and Punjabi heritage, Anglican Churches have been disappointing at many levels.  Obvious conclusion and reason can be discrimination, racism, interpretation of the holy scriptures, equal marriage, music, liturgy or attitude towards their customs and traditions.  All of the above have exacerbated the angst, disappointment and isolation, and consequently a departure from neighbourhood churches.  However, I believe these reasons are symptoms of a much deeper and underlying issue of expectations from and the image of the Anglican church community.  One of the main reasons for Pakistani Christians to emigrate to Canada is to have their dignity and integrity affirmed and restored at various levels of the society and culture.  Pursuit of material and physical goods, best education for their children and affinity to fellow Christian are the ways to earn acceptance and respect in their new homeland.  Canada in many ways resembles the missionary institutions and missionaries of their ancestors’ time; an oasis in the desert where there is shelter, food and comfort because of the will of and blessings from God.  They can appreciate and rationalise discrimination outside of the church walls but find it difficult and crushing to face the same in their churches.  This results in isolation, spiritual and religious crises and rejection.  Moreover, it mimics the society and circumstances of their homeland. Furthermore, this profound disappointment changes the image of Caucasian person(s) – Caucasian Anglicans are supposed to restore dignity and integrity regardless of differences of opinions and practice of faith.  Instead they have changed from the ways of their ancestors and have become an instrument of societal prejudice and discrimination.  Evangelical and free-standing churches and denominations, because of the baptism of the believer, provide spiritual shelter and immediate acceptance and sense of belonging.  On a side bar, new Canadians from Pentecostal and Roman Catholic churches, according to research, join their denomination and stay because of the universal primacy (Roman Catholic) and the baptism of the believer.

Personally, I have and continue to struggle, at times, with my place in the Anglican Church of Canada because of discriminatory and racial incidents.  All of those incidents chip away the image of Caucasians.  However, because of a chaplain at the seminary and two professors, I dealt with the disfigured image and arrived at a conclusion that I may not belong to them but they belong to me.  This was a gift and learning from the seminary.  As a priest, I have tried to engender the spirit of belonging through my words and actions among all congregants.  It is done through my utmost respect for diverse theological opinions and their personal theology, open dialogue and appealing to the passages from first Corinthians, Galatians and the prayer of Jesus.

It is time for Anglican Church of Canada to appreciate, respect and accept New Canadians with a resolve to nurture and challenge their faith while preserving their integrity, dignity and cultures.

Let the King Enter: Hope in the midst of uncertainty

“Remember you are dust and dust to you shall return”, are the words spoken at the imposition of ashes during the Ash Wednesday liturgy.  Ashes are a clear and obvious sign of our mortality and God’s saving grace in our lives.  We are dust and to dust we shall return while singing the glorious song of resurrection and with hope of eternal life with God.  Thankfully, God’s grace and mercy is present and at work in our lives every day in various ways.

Ash Wednesday also ushers in the Lent.  Lent is a time of reflection, prayer, repentance and preparation-preparation to observe the holy week and to celebrate Easter with thankful hearts, minds and souls that God fulfilled his promise and reconciled humanity to himself through the death and resurrection of his only son, Jesus the Christ.

Little did most of know on 26^th February (Ash Wednesday) that the coronavirus will bring our life, as we know it, to a screeching halt.  Social distancing and closures of public buildings, schools, offices, non-essential businesses and houses of worship will be the new normal for the foreseeable future.  Hospitals and other medical facilities and social services struggling to address the needs and to provide medical assistance to those in need, was not even in our most irresponsible dreams and thoughts. 

Depression, spiritual isolation and questions and doubts about the love of God are common reaction(s) in stressful and dangerous times.  While questions are common, the way to deal with it is not common at all.  Prophets of doom and gloom and God’s vindication are interpreting this time as a fulfillment of God’s vindication to punish sinful human beings and to bring the rest of humanity to God through Jesus the Christ.  Others are suggesting that it is nature’s way to take control of the mother earth and to rejuvenate herself.  Conspiracy theorists are blaming other countries for deliberately releasing the virus for their own nefarious gains and reasons.  All of these irrational theories and pronouncements are intensifying the angst and stress of analready stressed populace and are creating spiritual, racial, and religious divisions.

Fundamental difficulty and objection to God of vindication, earth inflicting pain and suffering on us and conspiracy is that it:

·         Portrays God as a monster who delights in the suffering and killing of wayward persons.  If that is the case then why did Jesus die on the cross and resurrect on the third day.  Moreover, Jesus did say that he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them.  Fulfillment must be understood and accepted that because of Jesus we are not burdened by the Law of Moses (way to reconcile with God) and the prophets. 

·         Submits that nature, God’s creation, will turn on us and will reset itself.  Rejuvenation of the earth since COVID 19 is the example of how much healing and restoration earth and nature desperately need from us, the stewards of creation.

·         Blaming the other further separates one from the other and nurtures division, racism, xenophobia and fear in a fractured and broken world.

Lent, as mentioned above, is a time of reflection, prayer and devotion.  Because of this pandemic, we must pray, focus and reflect on our fragility, life styles and relationship with God and our neighbours.  Palm Sunday celebrates Jesus’ entry into the holy city.  Inhabitants of the holy city along with the visitors regardless of their race and religion came together to welcome the Son of God in their hearts and in their midst.  They received Jesus regardless of foreign occupation and hostility of the institution of the day.  They were there because they knew and believed that welcoming Jesus is to allow the light and faithfulness of God in their own lives and because of that they can face any calamity and oppression because the King has returned to his rightful place.

Likewise, I hope and fervently pray that we will be strengthened by the faith and zeal of these children and adults in the Palm Sunday event.  That our reflection, prayer, fasting and discipline during lent and these uncertain days have prepared us to set aside anything and everything which can deny the nature of God, splendour of the created order and oneness of humanity and has brought us to a place where we proclaim loudly Hosanna to the Highest and allow the King to come to his rightful place.

What option do we have? Silence or arrogance

In 1993, a female friend shared the experience she had earlier that day in her third-year university class.  The discussion was between a couple of middle-aged male and female students.  The conversation evolved from generalities to particularities and got very personal and heated.  They were discussing the tension between the law and the human rights and should the law be interpreted and evaluated regularly to ensure that it recognises and thus remains impartial to every member of the society.  Interestingly, the males argued that interpretation and evaluation of the law will make it ineffective and irrelevant while females held their ground and spoke with great passion and clarity about the importance for the law to reflect societal and cultural evolution. 

During lunch in the common room, a male student, from another year, chastised the female students as they had argued with the men.  He talked about their voice and demeanour while completely absolving the men from their discriminatory statements and attitude towards women, children and visible minorities.  The advocate wanted the women to apologise to the men for their arrogance and attitude towards men.  The disgusting aspect, according to my friend, was women were expected to apologise and to take the responsibility for invoking the racist, misogynist and discriminatory attitude of these men.  In other words, she continued, her existence, attitude, intelligence or mere presence, as a woman, invokes misogyny and her silence and unconditional agreement are the only acceptable and respectful behaviours.     

Unfortunately, women, indigenous people of Canada, people living with disabilities, person of colour (visible minority), and members of LGBTQ community can relate to this incident because of their own experience of subjugation and discrimination. 

I am certain that if asked male students will vehemently argue that they are not racist, sexist or misogynist and they believe in equal rights for every person in the world. Sadly, they are, in my opinion, absolutely right because of the societal and cultural expectations and norms.  Our society has concentrated not only the power in white men but has also defined and normalised our attitudes towards everyone who is not a white man.  This attitude is so ingrained in us that we do not even realise it.  How many times have you crossed the road when you saw an indigenous or a man of colour walking towards you at night or have been surprised and commented on your safety when you saw that it is a female pilot flying the aircraft or a female surgeon operating on you or your loved one?  Finally, Archbishop Linda Nicholls shattered the glass ceiling when she became the first female bishop to be elected Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada. 

I face prejudice and racism on a regular basis because of my heritage. I have been asked if I am loyal to Canada.   I have been questioned about my attitude towards Christians and if it is ok to be wished Merry Christmas (as it was assumed, I might be Muslim).   I have been asked if I am a wife beater and have consistently been subjected to extra scrutiny at the airport.  In the church world, a cleric told me in 2012, after my impassioned speech to the synod of the diocese to accept the motion  to offer blessing to married same sex couple, that she was nervous when I walked to the microphone as I am a logical and persuasive speaker and debater and I would convince the synod to defeat the motion.  But to her surprise, I spoke for the motion.  The most frequent comment I hear, from white middle-aged men, is that I am arrogant as I speak with passion and forthrightly and it makes them uncomfortable and that they feel slighted and insulted by me.  In every incident, the speaker has assured me that they are not racist and they are not suppressing my voice.  In fact, they have argued, that they are doing this for my benefit.  When asked, if they have spoken to other equally arrogant (white men) the answer is, ‘you know it’s them, they do not intend any harm and you should accept them’.  So, I am arrogant for speaking passionately and unless I quieten down, cool down or be silent I can expect to be shunned or shuffled to the side-line where I will hopefully remain silent.  When I am asked to the table, I now question the motive.  Is my input really wanted or does it make the table look more diverse?

Is arrogance an asset or liability?  Apparently, it is both depending on the ethnic origin and the gender of the speaker.  And it will remain this way until we challenge the psyche of our culture and start seeing and accepting people for who they are instead of their gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity.  Until that day, what option do I have?  I am torn between the choice to be silent or to be deemed arrogant, forthright and passionate.

                                                                                                                   

Uniformity or Unity in Diversity?

‘Cultivating and nurturing a culture of inclusion’, has been the vision and mission, of the parish where I am serving, for the past three years.  We arrived at this statement during the interim period and through deliberate and focussed discussions, dialogues and assessment of the congregation, neighbourhood and the city.  I am delighted and humbled to note that we have taken concrete steps to realise this vision in our own time and through our own efforts.

While we have made significant progress through the re-configuration of the sanctuary and  to being open to learn about human sexuality and mental health issues, we must not stop or believe that we have arrived, rather we should remember and live out the words of a traveler on a snowy evening, ‘I have miles to go before I sleep, I have miles to go before I rest’.  This simple yet profound line by Robert Frost reminds us that our journey with God and his people is without end and whenever we think we have arrived – God shows us yet another way to reach out to the world and (in our case) continue to cultivate a culture of inclusion.

As you know, our business meetings, at the parish, diocesan level and beyond, make decisions by following a rule of simple majority voting on a resolution.  In some cases, like financial reports etc., that is the only way to move forward and to give legitimacy to the reports.  However, when it comes to the doctrinal or missional issues and plans, I believe simple majority does move us forward but either leave or suppress the voices, conviction and faith of those who voted against it.  As a result, dissenting voices (both who won and who lost a resolution) can suppress, ridicule and trounce upon the theology and the faith of the other in order to either malign or convert to their way of thinking.  This was and continues to be the case in an ongoing debate and saga with regards to the equal marriage.

This desire to convert and to malign the other and to walk away from dialogue and conversation, in my opinion, is a symptom of a much larger problem with our understanding of ‘unity’ of the body of Christ.  Unfortunately, ‘uniformity’ has been equated with and presented as the fundamental principle and foundation of ‘unity’.  Uniformity at all cost has hurt the church more than we would like to know and acknowledge.

The church has never spoken with a uniformed voice.  The Acts of the Apostles highlights the way early church resolved the issues and disagreements among the apostles and the disciples.  They resolved it by speaking out and in some cases poaching members from the other groups but never losing sight of their purpose and mission in the world.  And their purpose and mission in the world was to preach the Gospel and to live out the commandment of Jesus to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked and to visit the sick and the prisoners.  In other words, diverse voices and opinions found common ground and vision to be the church in a hurting and unsettled world.

‘Inclusion’ means that we will include everyone regardless of our differences and agreements with them and will equip them to serve God and his people to the best of their abilities.  It also implies that our unity is in our diversity.  It also demands listening ears and discerning hearts so we can learn and sojourn with one another regardless of our theological positions

Servant Leader and Leadership

Servant leader and leadership has become a catch phrase to define leadership of a priest and a bishop.  I learned this phrase and model in the first year of my theological education and since then have come across this model or vision many a times in different context and places.

Since 1991, I have been reflecting on this image.  During that time, I have questioned the absurdity of this phrase; servant and leader in a same sentence is contradictory to say the least in a society and culture which craves power and authority through nefarious and legal ways.  However, to a religious and spiritual mind, it presents itself as a way to live and to exercise our authority and leadership.

Prophet Nehemiah through his life, witness and ministry provides us with enormous insight into servant leadership.  Nehemiah was a devout and righteous man who wept bitterly at the state of the holy city of Jerusalem.  Instead of letting emotions and sadness cripple him, Nehemiah used his influence in the court of King Artaxerxes to facilitate return of the exiles and the building of the walls of Jerusalem.  He was able to achieve this because he was a cupbearer to the king (Nehemiah 1:11b).  Being a cupbearer to the king was indeed a position of influence and depicted trust of the king in Nehemiah.  Cupbearers not only served wine but were also privy to the most intimate conversations and thoughts of the king.  Moreover, king trusted them to serve the best wine and to make sure nothing untoward will happen to the king and his family.  Certainly, Nehemiah was a trusted confidante and servant of a king.

Naaman was a commander of the Syrian army (2 Kings 5).  He had fought and won many battles for the king.  In spite of all battlefield success and prestige, Naaman, because of leprosy, was staring at a lonely, painful and miserable end to his life.  His story, however, has a fairy tale ending as he was cured of leprosy and was made whole by Prophet Elisha.  Now, his curing and healing happened because of his wife’s Jewish servant girl.  This unnamed servant girl looked at the affliction of Naaman and effect leprosy had on his family.  Instead of rejoicing at the misery of her mistress; she had compassion on her and told her about Prophet Elisha.  Servant Girl lived out the expectation and trust of this family and offered them the best gift she could give to them in spite of her own condition and without any expectation.

Jesus saw servant and servanthood as the basis of leadership, authority and greatness (Matthew 23:11).  Jesus after washing his disciples’ feet at the last supper, instructed them to do the same for one another (John 13:14-17).  By doing so Jesus presented humility as one of the foundational principle for servanthood and greatness. 

‘Authority lies in the Jurisdiction’ and ‘Church is synodically governed and episcopally led’ are two of the guiding principles (modus operandi) of Anglicanism.  Both principles (in my opinion) are inter-dependent on one another as they relate to the leadership and authority of diocesan bishop and synod.  ‘Authority lies in the Jurisdiction’ simply defined means that diocesan boundary is a jurisdiction and authority to define ministry and mission, for the diocese, lies within it.  This authority is exercised by the synod under the leadership of the diocesan bishop as synod presents its decisions to the bishop for his/her consent.  By doing so, bishop is acknowledged as the leader of the diocese.  The precepts of episcopal leadership and pastoral responsibility are succinctly defined and highlighted in the Examination of the bishop-elect (BAS Pg 636-637).

The life and witness of Nehemiah and the servant girl along with the teachings of Jesus present a way for a bishop to exercise his/her authority and leadership in the diocese.  It should be noted that leaders are called to lead through humility and servanthood and should be willing to serve through their leadership, directives, guidance and witness.

J.R.R. Tolkien’s fictional character Aragorn (Lord of the Rings) embodied and personified servant leader and leadership.  Aragorn, although an heir to the throne of king, made it his mission to earn the trust of the hobbits, elves, wizards and human beings of the middle earth.  Aragorn earned the trust and the respect by exhibiting through words and actions; his genuine care for his friends and subjects.  Many a times, Aragorn put his own life and well-being in danger to protect and serve others.  By bowing down to lowly four hobbits at the time of his coronation, Aragorn openly admitted and acknowledged the absolute courage and contribution of the hobbits to overcome evil and to defeat Saruman and Sauron and thus shared the victory, honour and adulations with the hobbits.

Episcopal office affords great responsibility and opportunity for to create servant leadership by:  First, engendering and earning trust of clerics and laity (both churched and unchurched).  Second, showing genuine care, concern and earnest desire to support others, regardless of their relationship or lack thereof with the diocese and the bishop.  Third, placing the welfare of others, before his/her own welfare, and nurturing ministry and leadership of others. Fourth acknowledging talents and gifts of others and affording them an opportunity to exercise those gifts and talents.

It should be noted and upheld that cultivation and nurturing of Servant leadership is a responsibility of everyone in ministry.  Bishop at the time of induction/celebration of new ministry of a rector or incumbent, entrusts his/her charge (parish) to the care and leadership of the appointed rector/incumbent.  By doing so, bishop calls and invites a priest to care for the parish and to be a servant-leader in the parish to the best of his/her abilities.

Master said, ‘whosoever wants to be the greatest must be the servant of all’.  Servanthood is not a choice; it is an expectation and commandment of the Master.

** Note:  This essay was written at the request of the present Diocesan Bishop

There is always hope. . .

In 1997, in the diocese of Quebec, I was part of a conversation regarding the name of our church.  Certain individuals wanted to send a memorial to the General Synod (governing body) of the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) to change the name of the church from ACC to Episcopal Church of Canada.  Their rationale was very simple yet important that ACC translated in French means Church of the Anglophones; thus, equating an ethnic group with the church which can be a hindrance and barrier to other ethnic groups in general and French Canadians in particular.  There was absolute resistance to the name change from other members of the group as they believed and upheld that ACC is indeed a church of anglophones since its inception and will always be a church of anglophones regardless of context and the membership.  I was newly ordained (two years) at the time and was lost for words or reaction at the reasoning.  Moreover, as a visible minority, for the very first time, I felt to be an outsider in my own church.  

 By 2040, there will not be identifiable givers and attendees in the ACC is the finding of a study commissioned by the ACC. The author examined the subscription to the Anglican monthly newspaper (Anglican Journal), members on the parish rolls as well as Sunday attendance and reported that ACC membership has declined from 1.3 million in 1961 to 357,123 in 2017.  Incidentally, Canada’s population was 18.27 million people as compare to 36.54 million in 2017.  While ACC lost 942,877 members since 1961, the Canadian population almost doubled in the same period.  Juxtaposing the church’s number with Canadian population makes a bad situation worse, particularly when we realize that since 1991 two thirds of Canadian population has increased because of emigration while one third has increased because of natural birth.  Situation indeed is dire to say the least.  An important question which should be asked, in the midst of this report and uncertain future, is what went wrong and subsequently what can be done?

What went wrong, particularly from the visible minority perspective, is the attitude and the arrogance of the church as it relates to the governance and leadership of the church.  I realise that it is a harsh indictment.  This indictment is justified when we look at the membership of the councils and committees right from the General synod to local parishes.  Leadership is entrusted to very few Caucasian members of the church, who in some cases are members of five to six committees and are recycled from one committee to another based on criteria obviously unknown to many.  The implicit message in these appointments and elections is that it is a culture of entitlement based on an exclusive private club and the outsider regardless of his/her ethnicity is expected to follow and support.  Limited and specific numbers of individuals can be the leaders of ACC at various levels is the epitome of entitlement and arrogance because it denounces or fails to recognise the gifts and talents of individuals outside of the circle.  

Lord of the Rings, trilogy by J. R. R. Tolkien, is a story of humanity’s resolve to fight against evil and to protect and preserve goodness in the middle earth.  In one of the scenes, just before the battle, Aragorn tells a little boy that there is always hope.  Like Aragorn, I believe that there is hope for ACC beyond 2040.  This hope, unfortunately, is inter-dependent on the desire of the leadership to make substantive changes to the structures of the church.  I used ‘unfortunately’ because sharing power and authority with ‘the other’ is challenging and threatening at the same time.  Following are some of the ways, revival of ACC can happen:

First, to critically examine the governance structures which is membership and their mandate to determine if it mirrors Canadian population and culture.  This is extremely important and integral as it will bring ‘the other’ to not only share their experience but also lead the church in devising policies and mission strategies to address the struggles of the other.  So far, ACC has spoken for ‘the other’.  It is time that the ACC listen to ‘the other’.

Second, to believe that our unity is in diversity.  Since 1991 (year I emigrated to Canada), it seems to me that the church is trying to convert one another on every issue.  It is as silly as to stand or kneel for the prayers to as serious as equal marriage and everything in between.  Accepting, embracing and encouraging diverse voices and opinions will fulfill Jesus’ prayer that we may be one as Jesus is one with God.

Third, to make a place for the New Canadians in the liturgy, mission and ministry of the church. New Canadians are coming from Anglican Communion churches and provinces.  Why are they not coming to the ACC churches is an important question and discernment?  An open conversation and dialogue will engender ways for them to be members of our churches.

Fourth, to engage with and to learn from the millennials.  They are the prophets of our time as they have emerged as the stewards of God’s creation through Climate action, visionaries of just and equitable world as portrayed by their support of the developing world and are the destroyers of barriers of race, religion, creed, sexuality, gender and social status.

2040 is not too far away; there is always hope if the ACC can discover the ways to learn from ‘the other’, with a desire to change and grow.

Another form of Baptismal Ministry

Many years ago, a friend was ordained Deacon.  His ministry was to assist the priest of his parish.  My friend, before his ordination, had many and varied roles in his parish church.  He served on the vestry, was a leader and preached occasionally, shepherded ministry to New Canadians particularly for the parish and the diocese and visited and took the sacrament to assisted living homes and the hospitals.  In one of our conversations, after his ordination, I asked him if his role and ministry had changed.  His answer was ‘No’.  Then why were you ordained, was my next question.  He responded by telling me that being a deacon gave his ministry more legitimacy and access to other congregations.

Since that conversation, I have specifically followed, with sadness and angst, ordinations of incredibly gifted and involved lay persons as deacons.  All of them to whom I spoke were asked to see ordination as a reward for lay ministry, a tool of recognition and legitimacy and a way forward in their ministry. Neither one has told me what different things will do as a deacon or could not have offered as a lay person.  The diaconate has been relegated to a reward for faithful service to the church.  Some might argue, that it is not a reward but rather a commissioning of a person to extend the kingdom of God through words, ministry and actions. My sadness and angst is because of my conviction that these actions and as a result we fail to recognise the legitimacy and importance to every form and level of ministry as another aspect of the baptismal call to make a difference in the community.

Baptism unites the baptised with Christ and with the community and is a sign and seal of our common discipleship.  Furthermore, it unites the baptised to the church universal which is of every time and place and anoints the person to exercise his or her ministry as a reflection of and in response to the Holy Spirit and in gratitude for the forgiveness of sin.  If baptism and the holy spirit are the unifying agents then all the baptised regardless of their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, social status, ordained or not belong to a wide circle and are equal and beloved in the eyes of God and the church – and everyone in the circle is called to exercise their baptismal ministry in many and varied ways.  By doing so, not only do they complement one another but they extend the kingdom of God.

Thus, ministry of lay and ordained (deacon, priest, and bishop) are different forms of baptismal ministry with the sole purpose to serve God and God’s people.  All should be embraced and neither should be elevated as a gift or reward for faithful ministry.  Historically deacons have a distinct and unique role in the church.  Diminishing it down to a reward for faithful lay ministry is neither beneficial to laity or the ordained as it creates a hierarchy in the community gathered around the word and the sacrament.