Lama's log

Well, I finally buckled and took in a couple of guys who are currently residing on my sofa bed. So far so good and lets hope it lasts. I was pretty nervous about it because any other time I've taken people in I haven't had kids to think about and contend with all the add on risks.

The interesting thing is people's reaction to it. With a couple of notable exceptions people have not been very positive about this at all. Some of it I get easily. There is a concern for me and mine and a worry that this could end in tears. There is also something more than this. A kind of hesitant shock and a recoiling from me taking them in.

I keep going over this thinking about why this is and a constant wondering of if this is a bit crazy. I can't get away from it being essentially right and I keep thinking about Dan who took in a homeless bloke when I first arrived in Wakefield. It ended 6 weeks later by the homeless guy leaving and taking all his electrical goods. What was great about this was Dan's reaction. There was no disillusionment or disappointment. A few weeks later he was hosting an ex con and a while after that he was informally fostering a really demanding teenager. Doing good stuff is not good because of the rewards but just because it's the right thing. You make yourself vulnerable hope for the best, but pain may come.

I am bracing myself for the worst and hoping either that someone can explain the reaction and therefore why I'm off kilter or hoping I can deal with the hard stuff in a Dan sort of way.

There was a brilliant moment over breakfast this morning when my kids couldn't get their heads round why we had blokes in our front room. Sam finally clicked that the only other option was for them to sleep outside and then said, 'In that case they better stay with us then'

I think I'm at the end of my blogging time so these posts over the next days are likely to be my last.

Tonight I popped out to see the rough sleepers who have been staying at the church over the last 10 nights. It's difficult for me to sit at home at the moment and not think about the fact that they are outside and cold. So, I grabbed a Mark and went down to the river to find where they were at and see how they are.

They weren't all that good. They have got a couple of tents now but their stuff has still got damp and wet. The night is much warmer but it's still pretty cold. Food is back to being irregular. The good thing was that they're in a group and that does make them far less vulnerable but that's about all I can say with any positivity about it.

9 of them were in church on Sunday which is pretty beautiful. I don't feel easy at all about being in my house tonight, which, is how it should be. I keep toying with offering some house room but so far have chickened out to my shame. The place they're staying is right by a new housing development. Most of the plush flats stand empty because of the recent crash so literally, a fence a way, dozens of unoccupied houses stand while 6 guys and a pregnant woman look on from a sheltered ditch. It's pretty crazy.

Everybody has been talking about what the council should or should not be doing. The homeless talk about it, the neighbours, the church folk. Seriously though I think it’s our responsibility. As in mine and yours. It doesn't matter what the council do or don't do. I'm pretty sure I should be my neighbour’s keeper and they mine. If there is any sense of Jesus being in relationship with me and with them there must then be some implication for us together. There's just no getting away from it.

So, we talked about community and people got excited and said what a great idea. We talked about ministry and the nature of stipend and people said 'my my we didn't see it like that before'. Then we met the homeless and they came and worshipped with us and people said, 'this is transforming'.

Then, just as I was starting to relax and think this church thing might be very awesome, we talked about our services and how some people are not getting their buzz in order to set themselves up for the week and time stood without motion for me as the treacle I needed to wade through came gushing back once again.

With some excitement we're trying to gear up for hosting rough sleepers on very cold nights. I'm quite excited about it. Something happened around it though that has caused me to wonder somewhat.

There has been that absolute mistrust of people that have anything to do with the council. Initially then, suggestions that we should not take this on because it was a council initiative and that they must be trying to dump this or have bad motives. Later talk about making the council pay for and staff anything and everything we can think of with lines like 'make them pay', 'they should do it', again all the while assuming that their motivation must be bad. This has taken me aback a little.

It made me think of David Cameron's first speech as Tory party leader in Prime Ministers question time. He won the day and did it by agreeing with Tony Blair. Blair was floored by the approach. He expected a fight, instead what he got was someone who didn't disagree with him for the sake of it.

There's something in that for me. Jody spoke to me of playing snap in our communities. Looking at what people are doing and being and then saying 'snap', that's what Jesus did/said. I see no reason not to do this with authorities too. The trick will of course be staying on our agenda rather than theirs, but where the agendas overlap then let's cheer and go forward.

There's something too about remembering that 'the council' is made up of people that we wish to encounter. This is boldly displayed in the fact that we have a member of our community who works for the council. He's a social worker and a lover of Jesus (not in that order). He sits at the front line and does the best he can for those he sees. He often feels vilified for his role as a social worker and a 'service provider'. I wonder if instead of saying 'the council/government are not doing enough', we should say, 'oh I have a spare room' and if we can't then perhaps just stay humbly quiet.

Been tagged by Glen Marshal

The Rules:

Link to the person who tagged you.
Post the rules on your blog.
Write six random things about yourself.
Tag six people at the end of your post and link to them.
Let each person know they've been tagged and leave a comment on their blog.
Let the tagger know when your entry is up.

1) I once had a ride on a giant tortoise whilst eating my packed lunch.
2) I faint if I give blood (they've told me not to go back).
3) If I had my time over I would drop out much much more.
4) I like people a lot (this isn't always immediately obvious).
5) The family pet taught me how to walk ( does that make me sound feral?)
6) My favourite all time film is On Golden Pond



My six tagees ... Stuart, Mark,Pete Rolins, sadly everyone else seems to have already been tagged.

I spent 3 days there and would have blogged direct from there except I didn't take my charger so had to be content with playing with my new phone. One day I'll remember things....

Sometimes, as I'm sat in those series of meetings, it seems to me that council is really important but that those there are the only ones who know it and boy do they know it.

The agenda was lousy but this for me then served to point out the worth of the agenda committee (a group which previously just baffled me). We are willing to do business but it needs putting before us in the first place.

The issue of civil partnerships came up. I was incensed by a document which declared that any minister who enters into such a partnership will be asked to resign as an accredited minister. It is outrageous on any level that I can understand but there it was. I was very grateful for a question which came before mine and which opened the issue for some discussion well and with sensitivity. My feel after the meeting was that there was far more support in the room than I suspected.

It still astounds me that the ministry exec decided to exclude someone one the basis of their sexuality without any wider or formal conversation with it's members. I am astounded of how we stroll breezily into the category of being homophobic without any expressed difficulty or voiced worry.

The area that really stirred up energy and feeling was that of roles and tasks. A real highlight for me was the point at which a woman stood up and made a detrimental reference to the colour of paper the report was written on. I'm still not sure what I can make of all that. The roles and tasks group set out to define roles and tasks. They were asked to do this by the council body and then they were mightily stood on for doing so. It was a low point.

Still, next March may be better.

One of the things that I'm not very good at is seeing something that has not already been seen before. What I mean is, I am very good at replica, I'm also very good at critique and repair of existing models, I am lousy though at imagining the totally new.

Unfortunately for me I am now starting to be in the position that I need to start doing just that. I understand increasingly a sort of Gospel imperative. I've talked about it before, it involves radical discipleship and seeking and befriending the least. My problem has been and , well is, how do you lead a whole church of people down that road? If we discount for a moment a few books of the Bible (I know, it's a big if) there is no precedent that I can seem to find. Where is the handy copy of 'The Gospel Driven Church', '40 days of Cross Carrying'? The examples I come across seem to be about communities outside the mainstream that are striving for it. What about examples of mainstream Baptist places walking down this rout?

I seem to be walking in interesting times around Wakey. There are murmurings of Gospel living and passion and heartfelt following and frankly it’s scaring me witless whilst making me quite beside myself with excitement. I just wish I had a safety net of precedent. So an appeal; if you are of, or know of other quite normal church communities who have decided to walk a most definite Gospel rout could you point me in their direction? I need to ask some questions, search for some answers and try to reassure myself that I'm not going bonkers.

I have had a real mixed month. October has come and gone in a blur of challenge and sadness. Right at the end of it though I attended my first BU Council exec meeting for women's justice.

I need to confess as I think I have done previously that I have been a reluctant advocate for the cause. This is for many reasons. In the end though, women, especially women in the church, get stood on and it's wrong, so off I went.

In as much as the group were trying to put women's voices and concerns on the agenda across the spectrum of the BU it was good. On a personal level and at the risk of already compounding a wobbly debut, it was markedly evident that I am not even on the same planet as the others in the room, let alone on the same agenda.

I don't understand a main aim of a justice committee as one which is to preserve the interests of the BU and the BU itself. That seems to me to be crazy. So, if speaking up for women's rights, gay rights, or any other form of rights clashes with the timescale of thought for the union then that's a shame but that's all it is. There was a lot of talk at the meeting of waiting for kairos moments, of comparison to the slave trade apology. But before we go down that root let's be honest, when the apology for the slave trade came up it wasn't because the union thought it a kairos time and was committed to this agenda, it was because we had missed the boat big style and many of the black churches were far from happy about it. We are also left where many of the ministers and members in our churches have no commitment to the apology and real work needs to be done for the apology to be lived and felt.

It was patiently pointed out to me that I was speaking to a man who wanted unity and inclusion and that that being his desire you had to wait until you had reached a majority view before you went forward and spoke your agenda, otherwise you simply wouldn't have a union. Well, I don't buy it. I understand, grace, openness and a desire for unity, but I don't understand it as an objective over and above that of seeking Jesus and living Gospel. I understand putting in work, patience and dialogue, I don't understand perpetuating oppression in order to keep the Temple, sorry, the Union functioning.

I was not on any other wavelength other than my own. It was nice to get back to Wakefield and discuss the possibility of refusing a wage in order to re-look at the theology and commitment to community and stipend with Andy. It was nice to get back and feel the commitment of a people together under a shadow of death. I could see Jesus in that. I'm not too sure how I go about supporting a union though who wants to self perpetuate more that it wants the agenda of the least to be voiced.

I’ve just started reading ‘Exiles – living missionally in a post-Christian culture’. It’s too early to tell how we’re going to get on together but Frost starts off with points about how we (read the church) are a minority now and how this minority status will force us into radical steps.

I don’t think I agree with this. I’ve been a part of one church or another for the last 20 years and for all of that time the church has been a minority. For all of that time I have heard about and read about the dangerous and steep decline. I remember the feeling of being one of the few youth in my then church and being prized because of my rarity.

I have not felt though that this gave rise to my community/ies every really and radically stepping out of the box. Sure we got rid of pews, we got some more upbeat music and we press ganged everyone into mission. It always felt a bit like we were doing these things though so that we could self sustain. The aim was to get bigger churches more people in. Then we would be successful. The church would live on.

But what’s that all about?

Frost says that the more towards the margins we are pushed to, the more we will start to remember dangerous stories and then become risk takers. Maybe. Even hopefully. I’m not sure though. I’m not sure we really own many of ‘our stories’ how much do we own Babel, the exodus, the denial, the crucifixion. We do own, as Frost points out, stories of when buildings were packed and when church had power. They’re the wrong stories though.

As for being pushed through minority into a place where we can start to engage in a much more dangerous and meaning full way…. well… I can't be the only minister who either heads up or has visited a tiny church that is failing, only to find that the main function seems to be maintaining the status quo ?

You know the type, you go, between 5-20 people are there. They have rotas for who will pray with the minister in the vestry, they sing badly and without feeling, there is a set pattern for everything and frankly it's odd and very ridiculous. But you know what my reaction has been to this situation on arrival? 10/10 I've colluded with it. I've delivered to expectation I've justified the insanity instead of holding up the mirror and declaring the whole thing bonkers. These communities are not reflecting on their Biblical heritage and treading a dangerous path. They're opting instead for the freakish and ridiculous. I will journey with Frost some more but I think I'm not really going to feel that hopeful after it.

I've just come back from Greenbelt and frankly, it was brilliant. I thought I'd mention some good bits. I really enjoyed hearing for the first time a guy called Frank Schaefer, a son of a founder of the religious right in America. He was great although was obviously still struggling with some of the stuff he grew up with. A couple of things that he talked about which resonated were around Christians doing things well and for their own sake rather than with the hidden agenda of propaganda.

That hit home and if we follow through on this would impact mission well. So, write a song but primarily set out to write a good one not necessarily one which must advertise Jesus. Feed people, but not in order to get them into church etc etc. It sounds like common sense but how much of our church work really is about propaganda and how much is about excellence through the love of Christ?

He also talked about returning to the language of belief rather than knowing and this theme was picked up in a session with Ikon and with Brian Mclaren. The speakers wanting people to move away from Christianity as a rational and towards Christianity as a lifestyle and 'being'. Ikon described an activity they had done to try and enable people to hold their most precious beliefs 'lightly' and there give room for God to move and for transformation.

Brian Mclaren talked about the knowledge you gain through apprenticeship which you would be unable to gain through a book. My own example for this was my Grandmother who was from Italy. She would often make gnocchi and as a child I would help her. When I would ask how to know when the dough was ready she would frustratingly tell me, ' it will feel right'. I eventually learned but it wasn't through rational. If we read the Bible we can know about salvation, Mclaren made the point that if we live it we can be saved. We 'get it' in a way beyond our constructs, structures and denominations.

Frank Schaefer too talked about a moment of realisation for him when he was questioning someone about the validity and appropriateness of giving a child communion. He asked how this could be OK when a child cannot understand what they are doing. He was asked if he understood what he was doing when he took communion. Our self imposed rules then become absurd.

So, I was thinking...... is all this discipleship angst really necessary? Perhaps a bit of undercover following would be just fine. Gaining a bit of power and influence so you can pull it out of the bag now and again to do the odd good thing, even brave thing. For the rest of the time though, you could be .... well...... incognito so to speak.

Joseph of Arimathea would be a precedent. Member of the Sanhedrin involved in the decision to crucify but at the point of death, uses his clout to get the body and do (quite literally) the world a favour. (For this interpretation you have to ignore Mark's account, as he makes it out to be a rush job before the Sabbath so the Jewish authorities can bury the bad news).

I have had the conversations which tell me you need influence and money in order to make a difference. I understand that declaring yourself Christian can be counter productive in an environment that thinks it outdated, unintellectual and inhibitive.

So, take seriously a call to follow provocatively and counterculturally, or go the way of Joseph and try make it through with some walking in the shadows?

asbojesus.com

This may be an unwise post but while on holiday I thought a lot about Christian reactions to homosexuality. My conclusion? I think it's one of the issues which makes me ashamed of my context. I don't mind that people disagree with me. I don't mind that people think homosexuality sinful or against God etc etc. I mind that people are abused and sidelined because of their relationships. I mind that homosexuality is talked about in the same conversation that paedophilia is mentioned. I mind that church communities, whatever they think, do not campaign vigorously for gay rights, because no one should be discriminated against. I mind that a newly accredited minister is not supposed to get involved in civil partnerships because it may jeopardise their accreditation (this last one makes me madder than I am able to communicate). I mind that church communities often side with harsh reactions rather than graceful. I mind, I mind, I mind.

I have read the biblical verses. I know the arguments. But then I've read lots of Biblical arguments for lots of things and I engage in enough Biblical interpretation to have a mass of humility before declaring that I know the mind of God, and God must think like me. The study of doctrine taught me that we can try and define God all we want but God is beyond our boxes and our perspectives and we would do well to hesitate before we declare a body of people innately sinful and more importantly, we declare them worthy of our scorn and wrath.

I want to see our churches a little bit fuller of gay people, why aren't I breaking bread with more homosexuals? I don't think I want you to tell me the answer, I'm too aware of the reality.

Mmmm. Thanks Tim. With regard to your comments on passive resistance the key thing for me is when you say, 'Passive resistance was pretty successful in India, but it wasn't sufficient in South Africa.' That would be exactly my point, that we stop looking at what would be the desired outcome but trust that Kingdom living even if it leads to a 'sense' of failure, is what is sought after. That passive resistance is sought because it is felt to be right before God but not because it is necessarily effective. That is not at all how I or most people seem to act. It is though what I see in Christ. Obedience and walking with the Father whatever the outcome. The cross wasn’t sensible or effective or productive but it was Holy. That’s what is redeemed. Resistance to Rome the Jesus way was not effective in any sense except for that God honoured it and in some unknowable way it is salvific. If Christ had thought about the difficult moral choices then maybe he would have aligned himself fully instead of only partially with the Zealots. Christ the agitator would have not also been Christ the peacemaker.

In the end then I think that for all my love of Bonhoeffer his ultimate choice to seek to kill Hitler was wrong. Understandable, applaudable, but a desire to take fate into his own hands rather than stand with Christ I think was mistaken. It also comes from a place which sees death and suffering as the worst possible things. Hitler is causing so much pain and suffering he must go. If we have an eternal viewpoint is this still the case though? And if we follow a passive political agitator who demands a taking up of our cross then where does that leave us?

There is also a slippery subtlety to this. I agree that what this could descend into is some sort of blind rule following and an abdication of responsibility. We construct what following is, do it and ignore real human issues and needs. That’s not where I want to end up. I understand a Kingdom life to be one with a high degree of both individual and communal responsibility, this coupled with an altering of a mind set which says that success or failure looks unlike the picture we’re given in British culture. That we surrender outcomes because we care deeply about wider community not because we abdicate responsibility.

In the end I have limited if not little credibility because of my privilege and the fact that I choose to hang on to it on a daily basis. Bonhoeffer has bags of credibility not only because he was a good theologian but because of his life and circumstance.

As for evangelism, yes Glen ‘bearing faithful witness.’ But really what the hell does that mean in contexts and circumstances of vast privilege? What does that mean when people are often not living out salvation but thinking themselves saved ‘ I believe x,y and z’ so I am part of the in crowd now lets go home to the semi in our big car’. Faithful witness to be and tell will mean not really expecting people to follow because it really does make no earthly sense. So mission then without agenda of outcome would again probably look very different to agendered giving, ‘special events’ and a constant measuring of numbers. Bearing faithful witness scares the life out of me whilst simultaneously allowing a soft option. Andy Jones’ example does chime with me – and so it goes on.

We've been looking at the beatitudes in Stone Soup and using Dallas Willard's The Great Omission to lean on through it. Along with this I'm re-reading Power & Passion by Samuel Wells. All these strands seemed to have converged this week onto the topic of agendas. When is OK to push your agenda and where do you get this authority to know what the right agenda is? Why is my perspective better than someone else's?

In terms of passive resistance then, why is calling someone to die for a cause better than telling someone to kill for a cause? I know that harm to the other person is involved here but isn't that the same as inciting someone to give up their lives? How am I not involved in killing when I ask someone to matry in passive resistance? Isn't that just pushing and promoting a different cause?

What Willard and Wells both hint at is surrender of power and plan. In other words if, through seeking Christ what you do is try to live in a Christlike way, you try to be disciple to the extent which you then stop trying to manipulate outcomes. You are faithful to a way of being so much so that you are prepared to be the loser ( I am taking what they say and running with it a bit here).

This does make Jesus being abandoned on the cross really important. If Jesus really felt alone, abandoned and without help then everything he did could have been pointless, meaningless and all for nothing. In the face of this though, he still hung there. He had surrendered his agenda, in fact any agenda really. He was a fairly spectacular loser. And those he had asked to follow and live like him? Those he invited to live kingdom lives, us now who chose to either stick with him or not bother? There can be little doubt that if we want this kind of God then it involves us being perpetual losers to. Our agendas will rarely make it into the daylight. We will lack credibility.

On the plus side though, it also means absolute freedom. To live in Christ means I can't be owned by state or media, materialism or ambition. If I really have no agenda other than being faithful to God then I have no vested interest in the outcome of situations only in the process of conduct. I think this is more exciting than it sounds. I know I'm not going to actually get to the state that I'm so in with JC that holiness emanates from me and I have no selfish desires or agendas. I'm not totally deluded.

I can start to think though that I don't understand God's agenda therefore it's not my job to push it. It's just my job to be faithful.

The glaring question that then comes up for me is, where does this leave evangelism?

I preached yesterday afternoon to a congregation of no more than ten. A normal service was inappropriate but we ploughed on regardless because that's what was wanted and required. The guy on the piano was sweet but at 92 and hard of hearing was struggling which meant that we in turn struggled. All of that, as surreal and off the wall as it was, was OK though. In fact I found quite a lot of it very amusing. The notices were the place where my ass got bit. The usual was given until we heard that next week there will be a strawberry tea. Quite lovely. Tickets £3.50 please buy one 'you don't need to come just buy the ticket'. Right there was a significant reason there were just 10 of us. It didn't so much matter about relationships or Christ. Just pay your subs and go.

This was a line passed on to me. It referred to a friendly lament about the type of families coming into a particular church community. I know what they mean. Often I am in wonderment at the lives of people around me. Sometimes in their complexity or brokenness. Here's the thing though.... I would have joined in the friendly lament except for the fact that I too am now one of the abnormal families. I am now one of the complicated ones with a slightly if not, predominantly broken edge to them.

Problem is, I'm a bit touchy about it. I hate being divorced. Really hate it, its hard and painful and the car crash of it goes on and on and on. I also hate the connotations it carries, you know, took the easy way out, not committed enough, not quite the right Christian model. The reason I know some of these connotations (and a few more besides) are around is that lots of people aren't able to mention the 'd' word to me, eyes are averted and subjects changed. On other occasions I myself struggle to utter the words 'ex-husband' without feeling shame and inadequacy. There is an immediate desire for me to start explaining myself to people coupled with the overriding factor that it's none of their sodding business.

So... where are all the normal families? I have no idea. I know I'd like to still be classed as one. It gives you a bit more clout and credibility. Stops you feeling like you have to apologize for how your life's turned out.

Then again maybe there is something about my own view being a bit skewed. I can only feel this suggested shame if I buy into the criteria set. I don't need to adopt people's bench marks as my own. It's hard though. Its much more comfortable to show benevolence and understanding than it is to rely on someone else's. Damn my pride.

In the mean time I hope to see many more abnormal families in church this week if for no other reason than to keep me company.

This week I'm preaching on Obadiah. A couple of weeks ago I dabbled in Hosea. Am I enjoying it? Not really but looking at why it's because it's making me work HARD. Basic message of lots of the minors. God's going to smite you unless you repent and in Hosea's case, God's going to smite you whether you repent or not. It's not cheery stuff.

Given my predisposition though to doom and gloom I am starting to think they're on my wave length. God does love us which is fab but it is a love of great expectation. This weeks jaunt into Obadiah looks at a people still tied up with familial fight between Jacob and Esau and a desire to win at all costs. Esau's descendants will watch as their brother's people suffer because it feeds their hunger to win an argument and be vindicated. I can relate on a personal level I love winning arguments, but really this story is about corporate feeling. This is about how a people are acting. All my time in church doesn't prepare me for this story because church, as we all know, was only invented for our own personal salvation. Church is to develop our individual relationship/walk with a loved up messiah. All this talk then in Obadiah of a nation being out of kilter with God we put in the back of the mental filing cabinet and label it out of date.

Corporate sin though is still mega bucks. Lots of the minors are drawing our attention to this. It matters how we act as a body of people. It matters what our corporate identity looks like and what the values and beliefs are that make up that identity. This value base is what's going to shape how we act.

Who are my people then? Will I describe myself as English? Will Baptists be a people I own? It's important. Humans need a sense of who we are to be healthy. We also need to own it and take responsibility before God for it. God will call us to account for who we collectively seek to be. I'm not going to get away with blaming Gordon Brown when it comes down to it, I can't write off the slavery debate as irrelevant just because I don't feel personally responsible for what happened and what continues to happen. It involves my people so I'm culpable and responsible.

Lets leave it with Obadiah:

You should not march through the gates of my people
in the day of their disaster,
nor look down on them in their calamity
in the day of their disaster,
nor sieze their wealth
in the day of their disaster.
You should not wait at the crossroads
to cut down their fugitives,
nor hand over their survivors
in the day of their trouble.

The day of the Lord is near
for all nations.

Church meeting. We've just had one. It was the alcohol debate. Many things now come to mind as a result.

Firstly was my appreciation of a meeting well run. Mazza kicked things off and the atmosphere was one of reflection and worship. This really did put into perspective how we go about speaking to each other and what it looks like to be a Christian community. I think the way she started the meeting had a massive effect on how things were said.

That was the next thing then - people spoke from directly opposing views with tolerance and without personal insult. It's harder to do that than it should be. I came away from the meeting feeling I had input from other people that has has altered my view point. That would have been unlikely had there been a lot of shouting.

After that, our voting requirements suck. We need a 2/3rds majority to pass something, be it a leadership vote or a new proposal. It's inadequate. For my money we should be working very hard at seeking a 'mind' at trying to find the spirit and following God. 66% doesn't hack it for me. Also this discussion highlighted a real problem. In the end the vote was split, fairly evenly. This meant that the proposal didn't fly and 50% of folk were not happy. Because the proposal didn't go through though this issue will be dropped.

I reckon this was not so much a decision made but that a 'mind' wasn't reached. We highlighted that we still had more to do. If we implemented a change here we would have needed at least 80-90% of the meeting to go with it for it to fly with no ill will. Similarly though if we want to keep a dry church then we would need a 80-90% in this direction for that to show we are in agreement. It's hard to put figures down about it but surely we should be working very hard at seeking a way forward and finding some sense of clarity and God? Until then couldn't we allow ourselves time to journey? It can't be done on this issue now because people would perceive an agenda. But it has brought the need for us to look at this in all aspects for me both with leaders and decision making.

As for the issue itself. Well we did manage to touch upon the bigger issues. That of how we use alcohol not just in the church but also in how we socialise and live outside the building. We touched upon it but didn't run with it. That needs to take off. Suggestions for getting behind a campaign for plastic cups rather than glasses to reduce injury and an alcohol fast by certain groups have been suggested and now we need to put some energy into them.

If I'm honest I was also staggered by the majority of those who wanted church to be an alcohol free 'oasis' were also the ones running the fund raisers and social events involving alcohol, the 'wine pudding and plonk', the caleigh with a bar, the nights out where people staggered home from the club. I've staggered home too on various occasions. I'm not so proud of them but it happens and these events and times highlight a need for all of us to understand Kingdom as the place we find ourselves. That we are a people of God right where we stand and s/he celebrates and weeps with us wherever we are.

The high points for me in the meeting were listening to those who had managed to take a consistent approach throughout their lives with drink. Those who drank in moderation and those who were deciding or had made the decision to stop. I was both challenged and inspired and that was the meeting doing it's job and looking different from debate or politics. That was us operating in the spirit.

It's been a long while since I blogged and quite simply it's because I've had really nothing of note to say. There are a few things that have been buzzing around in my head of late which I may well comment on now, but I think I am still only writing out of a sense of duty to a space I seem to have been neglecting.

So; where to start. Easter day, which seems to have been a very long time ago was marked with me being a little, well, depressive. By that I mean that by the time I reached Sunday morning this year I had undergone such a journey through Holy Week that I felt very responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. That's not such a bad thing in as much as I really did walk the walk this year. However, it did mean that come Easter Morning a congregation who were expecting a rather chipper preach on the risen Christ instead got hit with, 'Christ is risen, feel the fear'.

It was an interesting take for me as well. Lets face it though if you actually were part of the crucifixion, you know, one of the ones baying for blood, or even a disciple fleeing the scene, then you have to wonder at just how pleased you would be to see the risen Lord. The feelings of guilt and mastodonic error, the fact that not only had you fled the scene but then have been caught doing it by God himself. Peter must have squirmed in Jesus' presence (which was then preached on rather brilliantly by Andy the following week from John). Yep, on Easter morning it wasn't simple joy floating around me, there was a tangible sense of the fear of God

Other than that, I read A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini which prompted me to enter the world of women's oppression again. It's a good read, well written and I advise you not to let the fact that it's been in Richard and Judy's book club recommendations put you off. I am often awed by the fate of most other women in the world. Gender issues brush me but lightly and there have only been 2 occasions in my life where my gender has put me in a position of real powerlessness. Realisation that other people live in such a way day to day provoked both an emotional and practical reaction in me. It also prompted a recurring thought that in the normal sphere of things, fiction may well be a much more powerful medium than academia.

In and amongst things there's also been a lot of 'stuff' at church which has meant huge numbers of conversations which have been both draining and enlightening. All in all I look at 'church' and think it's bloody marvellous. People are glorious with tendencies towards mass lunacy. I stand in the midst and alongside the madness for the most part, and so it goes on......

I know it was ages ago but I've had a a quick trip to Germany to squeez in.

Day three saw feed back from the racial justice issues raised and some space given over to discuss the stipend issue a little further.

The racial justice stuff was a bit disappointing. I realise the apology last November was an exceptional meeting but still...

It became obvious that in many of the associations little had been done or articulated with regard to the apology. One of the reasons for this is quite simply, how do you communicate the apology? It was exceptional. We are also now post apology so it's not a question of getting people to the point of wanting to issue anything, they are now in a place where they need to own it. I also suspect that for many it is not even a relevant issue to be discussed and this in itself is a problem. So what to do? Well Jonathan said a seminar had been given over at assembly! Yep a seminar. Thankfully council suggested that more testimony was given in large spaces so many people rather than a few would hear. I think this will be considered and done.

The small group was the same as last time. We discussed questions given to us and I was yet again in the uncomfortable position of watching while one woman failed to be able to articulate the word 'black'. Instead she looked uncomfortable for a while, stuttered while trying to make her point and then looked at the only black guy in the room and said, 'you know, people like you'. Oh please. No wonder we have issues taking this back into churches.

Yep, overall council was like the longest church meeting you've ever been to. At points I felt that there were a lot of people striving to do their very best for God. At other times there were lots of people who just loved committees making the most of their inbuilt pedant and the love of their own voice.

As for the stipend question, I think there will be a review in the light of the angst of the room. It was good to see space given for people to vent a little even though not really in line with procedure.

Overall, it was knackering but I remain having a sense that it is a place where people work out what it means to be interconnected in denomination and to follow Christ.