At the picnic site

I came across this cross a couple of weeks back. It's not broken, nor has it fallen. It is exactly where it is supposed to be. And it's not in a church or religious setting, but in a park near a bridge. A place where people stop for picnics or as a place to park, while they explore the area.

It's made from local stone; created by a local stone masons. It may go unnoticed, due to being on the ground, or may form part of a children's game.

But it's there, where people are. No in lofty churches or cathedrals, but in the midst of the people. A symbol of what God has done for the world, though many may not understand it.

As I prepare for Sunday, this cross came to mind. One of the readings I have selected is Luke 10:1-10, the sending of the 72. They went without possessions, to heal the sick and declare the kingdom of God is near. They went where the people were - to their homes and villages, not to their synagogues.

Church buildings are useful for a whole range of activities, but if the expectation is that people go to church, who will they hear God's message? Church attendance is low, so the church needs - in fact, I believe, is called - to go beyond its walls and meet with the people where they are, not where we would like them to be.

To be like this cross - in the areas wherepeople picnic, stop to take in the wonder of God's world and get on with the realities of life.

A church for God

What is church for? For worship? For fellowship? For building up a community? For serving the parish? Personally, I think it should be all three.

If a church only comes together for worship, how does the congregation build up fellowship with each other? Through that fellowship, they can support and sustain one another. They can share their stories of faith and live - and how the two are intermingled.

If there is no fellowship, how can a community be built? A community knows the individuals within it - their relationships with others within the community. They can love each other love, as Christ loved his disciples. Their worship can inform their community and their community can inform their worship and service.

If a church does not serve the parish. If those in the parish need to ask 'which church is that?' and don't really know anything about the church, is a church doing its 'job' right? Jesus calls us to serve the least among us. I do not believe that is merely within the church community, but the wider parish community itself. How that occurs varies from church to church, town to town, region to region, based on the skills and theology of the congregation, the neighbouring churches (and the churches relationship to one another), the facilities the church building has, etc. But I do believe that, one way or another, the church should be known and respected and seen to serve and love its community.

For in our service, in our fellowship and our worship we should be praising God and showing God's love to the world.

Too late, way too late!

I was reading this article yesterday. A leading Roman Catholic theologian wants the church to be reformed, due to a corrupt hierarchy.

It is wrong of me to point out he's about 500 years too late, or should I go looking for a virtual door for him to post his theses on?!

Blame the parents

Following on from the riots last week, some of the right wing press has turned on the parents. Particularly single parents. Looking at the articles, the writers don't substantiate their statements with facts and figures. Well, show us exactly how many of the rioters came from single parent homes, as a percentage of the number of convicted rioters.

It's very easy to blame the marginalised and overlooked. They do not have a voice. They aren't listened to, by some, because of their situation.

As a daughter of a single parent, this hurts me. This hurts my family. It's difficult for me to disassociate myself from my experienced of growing up with the judging my Mum and I had because of this.

She taught me right from wrong and gave me a very good moral head. She worked to provide for me and give me the best she could. Yet for the first years of my life there was always someone who'd not see the intelligent, funny, generous child I was, just I was illegitimate.

When I wanted to go to church, Mum took me. Being a single parent, along with her experiences of church growing up, she thought she would be judged. Luckily for both of us, she went to the best church she could have. As the minister wisely told Mum "We all make mistakes, it's how we deal with them which makes the difference".

Once, at communion, Mum went into the balcony as she didn't think she could take it. The session clerk went looking for her. She knew she was there as he'd heard my voice. He brought her into the body of the kirk and reassured her Christ died for her too.

At church I learnt I was loved for who I was. I am a child of God. I am created in his image (though, not perfect by any means!). Mum did too. There I was Mrs Gerbil (well, I suppose Miss Hamster). Mum was a member of the board and a guider.We were loved for who we were. They really did live out the "love the sinner, not the sin" churches talk of.

Single parents are not to blame for the riots. Bad parenting may be a factor, though I think even that is too simplistic. It's easy to blame single parents. They often do not have a voice. The church should give them one, as it should with all the marginalised in society. After all, that's the types of people Jesus sought out.

Part of the world, but not of it.

Jesus knew his disciples lived in a real world, with danger and temptation and illness. He also knew, and prayed, his disciples would be separate from the world (John 17:14-15, for example). That the pleasures and pain of the world would not get the better of them and they, though their lives and love, would show a better way for being in the world.

That prayer of Jesus is just as relevant to us, as Christians - his current disciples - as it was 2000 years ago. Which has got me thinking, what makes my actions different from others who aren't Christians? I do try to talk to those others won't; I do try to defend the prisoner and NED; I have a deep sense of fairness and justice; I turn the other cheek. Are those purely things which can be done as a Christian? Can someone of no faith do so?

I've also been thinking about the standards the kirk should have for those "in authority". The minister, the deacon, the reader and the elder. Surely, there should be a moral and ethical standard which those set apart by the kirk to represent the kirk should be aiming for? I'm not saying it should be different from any other Christian, but perhaps allied more. I know it's a tough one, but I feel without some kind of standard the kirk becomes so ties up with being in the world it forgets it's supposed to be showing the world (and Scotland in particular) a better way.

Take for example, an elder. They've started living with their boyfriend and in case it doesn't work out they are renting. They have no intention of getting married. Is that right? Is this the standard the kirk should be aspiring to?

Personally, I have no problem with people living together out of wedlock, so long as there's a commitment there. Hedging your bets by renting, then walking away if it goes wrong is not commitment. So don't bother living together to begin with.

I think those society attitudes sums up much of what is wrong with society. Suck it and see. If I don't like it, I junk it. Relationships are, for some, becoming as disposable as last nights take-away boxes.

Surely, though, the kirk should be encouraging their members to be different from society in this regard. So those in authority live out their lives as different from society. Leading the way. Showing a better way to live in the world. A way that's more difficult - you can't just walk away if it doesn't work - yet more in keeping with a way of love and more rewarding too. Otherwise, are we really followers of Christ?

Who are parishioners?

I work in a large office. In all there are about 900-1000 staff in the building. The office is within 10 minute walking distance of 3 (at least) Church of Scotland churches. Yet, in nearly 10 years of working there, I have not seen a minister.

Is that office not part of a parish? Should the minister of that parish not be as concerned about the people in the office as anyone else in their parish? I, like most of my colleagues, spend about 50% of my waking hours in that parish. Potentially longer than those who live there.

There are so many demands on a minister's time, but why not the office block and other workplaces on their patch? Jesus' disciples He called at their workplaces. Jesus did much of His teaching away from the synagogues. Should that not be a model for ministry? Meeting people where they are - letting them know that they are loved and wanted by God. Or, is that a little too much?

I don't know. Maybe this thought has been placed in my heart as it's something God wants me to do. That's a bit scary. But I know I shouldn't be afraid or discouraged as He will personally go ahead and prepare the way for me (paraphrase of Deuteronomy 31:8). Knowing my luck, it might even be, in 5 or 6 years, the very office I currently work in!