One Question

It's an imaginary scenario. You have invited 4 people (from history, your past, even fiction) to dinner. Also Jesus will be there (yes, I know he's always there, but I mean literally there, bodily there, like he was at the table with so many people in the bible). The group of people may not have met each other before and know nothing of one another. The members of the group may not even be Christians. So, what's the one question you'd ask Jesus in that situation? If you could ask him anything, what would it be?

Me? Well, I'd ask if he'd ever played conkers. Yes, you did read that right. And let me tell you why. At the table would be Spot (well, why would I invite people to dinner and not feed him too?), Hugh Miller, my Gran and a lady from my home church. Although I don't know if Hugh Miller did play conkers, I know the other members of the group either did or would have memories of it being played. The lady from my home church is a retired school teacher who, at conker season, would take he class walking to collect conkers and have a game the following day. So, it's an inclusive question, an icebreaker, a way of getting the whole group to talk to one another.

I think that's what Jesus would prefer. Just to be part of people's lives - either ordinary lives. To get to know the fun and laughter, as well as the deep stuff. After all, if you were inviting a group of friends to dinner for whom you were the common link, you would try to begin conversations which all in the group could participate in, not just you and one other person - or would you? I have to ask, though, if you did talk to one person about things only they and you would know, what was the point of inviting the others to dinner?

When I have told others the question I would use, the reaction is usually one of horror at being so immature or a look that seems to say 'Mrs G, what really is your burning question, that can't be it'. But, when I explain the rational behind the question, it is seen as very clever. So, next time I seem to comer across a bit immature is silly, there's usually method in my madness. I like to include everyone if I can and if that involves me looking a bit of a fool, so be it. It might just help those who may never speak about God, faith or Jesus see him in a different way and see being his follower as being liberating, rather than restrictive. So, I'm maybe not as daft as I seem...but only sometimes.

Church for all or some?

I was talking to a friend the other day about inclusiveness. Apparently there are churches where their focus is on the LGBT community (maybe I live in the wrong place, but is it?!) and we started talking about if you focus on one group, that stops being inclusive.

For me, inclusiveness is that. For all. No one singled out, whether for age, gender, sexual orientation, race, background (need I go on?) etc. It is about building up a community of people who are brought together to worship God and serve him. A group of people who are united in Christ. Everything else fades away.

Now, that is not easy. I appreciate that. I'm not even sure exactly how I'd achieve this, though I think trying to talk to a broad range of people as part of my ministry (in and out of placement and uni) helps. They get to see God values them through me being with them and listening to their hurts, laughter, joy and pain (well, I hope they do).

Yet, I look at many churches and what do I see? A group of people from the same backgrounds, with similar incomes, opinions, educational levels etc. I look at them and think if I was a seeker, someone looking for God (in the shed, definitely in the shed) and that was the church closest to me, but I did not fit into that social world, would I go? Probably not. But I have my own transport and can pick and choose where I worship. That is not an option for many. Then the church fails in its duty to welcome all and be the body of Christ.

Somehow, given this has been something which has bugged me as long as I can remember, I think this is something which will form part of my ministry. I pray for the gifts to make it a true reality.

Unitary constitutions

There seems to be a lot of churches moving towards having unitary constitutions. While I understand the reasons for this (less meetings; reduction in duplication of work; church trustees dealing with decisions etc), I have been concerned about how the change will impact on non-elder Congregational Board members.

The unitary effectively does away with the board and any business which was their remit (such as finance, property, fellowship) becomes the responsibility of the Kirk Session (I am going for a really basic overview here, so bear with me). There will be members of the board who, for what ever reason, are not members and, as such, not on the Kirk Session. Thus, they could attend Session meetings - they are public after all - they do not have a voice and cannot vote. While on the board, they would have these privileges.

So, how does a church, especially the session and minister, ensure the board members feel valued once their role goes when a church moves to a unitary constitution? I know there is the option of asking them to become elders, but not everyone can or wants to do that.

Is the movement to less meetings really a benefit (and I am playing devil's advocate here) if those who contributed well and effectively in one way are no longer included in decisions they were before (and may have been for years).

I'd imagine there's the possibility of asking former board members to be on a session committee and there they can be a part of the decision making process. When the matters from that committee are to be brought to the session, they attend to support the motion (or whatever) and be there to answer questions if required, much like the people who helped draw up stuff for General Assembly being there when it's presented, yet not having a vote. If done in the right way, this could benefit the whole church; handled badly and...well, that's not a very good sign of a church.

I hope, when I eventually get to the stage of these meetings, I can ensure all can contribute with what they can give and feel that contribution is valued, no matter what type of constitution the church uses. Mmmh, I think I'm reiterating another post...

For the long aisle

I have been thinking about weddings recently. I have sat in on a wedding rehearsal at Eagleside and a couple of meetings with couples who wanted to get married there.


I don't know why I keep coming back to this, but I have been thinking who I would marry (now there's an opener for you!). I understand, in the Presbyterian tradition, marriage is a blessing, not a sacrament, but does that make it less before God? The couple would be making vows before God and I would be praying on their behalves that God would bless their marriage. With that in mind, surely one of the couple should have some belief?

Now, I'm not bothered about them being a fully paid-up Christian, who comes to church every Sunday without fail. I think if I were to have that sort of attitude, it wouldn't be very Christian. It would also make me a bit of a hypocrite. I wouldn't mind if one half of the couple had a belief and the other was an atheist, but was respecting their intended's wishes and belief (and I would respect them so much more for being honest and up front about that). But I think I would expect some sort of belief, if only in a "higher power" and the need to get married in church because it wouldn't feel right anywhere else, rather than for the long aisle. It just has to be vague, but come from the heart.

And don't pretend you want the church for anything other than the nice garden for the photos and the long aisle (again, for the photos?!). I'd respect your honesty for telling me that, though I may not agree to marry you. I do know a humanist who does a very good wedding, though ;-)

Thing is, I'd want to be welcoming to all who I may minister to, so is attaching conditions doing that? I don't even think I'd expect them to come to church before the big day (or even before confirming the booking), though it would be nice. Definitely something for me to ponder over and figure out. And that's without thinking through re-marriage of divorcees...

Church - for those who can't come

Following on from my visiting last week, I started thinking how do churches include members of the congregation who can't attend? Okay, there's the obvious CD or similar of the week's service. That's a start, but is it enough?

The lady I was visiting commented she not only misses worship, but the community & fellowship aspect of church too. So, how do we , as a church, involve those housebound members so they feel part of our community?

I know I don't have the answers. I'm more thinking out loud & pondering. What do you think? What does your church do? What should churches do?