God is not a being at all...

...according to Rev Klaas Hendrikse of Exodus Church in Gorinchem, central Holland. He's a minister in the Dutch reformed church, but doesn't believe Jesus necessarily existed. The BBC article is interesting. He sounds like a open minded, intelligent man, but without believing Jesus was the son of God, who died and rose from death to free humanity from sin.

I cannot understand how this is an expression of Christianity when the critical element of the Christian faith is seen as a myth story. Maybe the Netherlands would make an interesting placement, if this is the way the mainstream church there is going. It would definitely be challenging, that's for sure.

Thinking where to go

Shortly, I'll be attending meetings to start the ball rolling in my training. As part of my training towards the ministry of word and sacrament, I will undertake four placements.

• Two term-time placement from around the beginning October to end May. If I've got this right, they are a commitment of Sundays (so if the church does 2 service, I do two; if only 1, you get the picture) and two 3.5 hour sessions a week (why they can't say 7 hours is beyond me).
• One full-time 10 week placement. This is usually in the summer between first and second year (for those doing a 3 year degree), but can be between second and third year.
• Then, once study is finished with (is it ever?) there's a full-time 15 months probation period.

I do have a choice where I go for these placements, though there are practicalities over where they can be. Where I live, a term-time placement in the Glasgow area is not realistic. Or, a church I may have thought of may not be in a position to take trainees.


I know I  benefit from being gently stretched and taken out of my comfort zones. It helps me grow, stops me becoming stale and makes me think about things in a way I may not have. So, where to go?

For my first placement, I believe it's pretty much taken I do a "normal" parish placement (is there such a thing?). There's a church near where Spot will be doing his extended enquiry which takes trainees. From a practical point of view, this would be ideal, but is it a good choice for my learning? I don't know, as I don't really know the church anymore (I used to go to their youth club many, many moons ago).

As for summer placement. Well, if one person has mentioned going abroad to me, three or four have. Perhaps this is someone trying to say something. I must admit, to begin with wondering what all the fuss was about, but I'm coming round to the idea. The Church of Scotland outwith Scotland. That's an interesting conundrum.

As for language. Well, I know the Kirks in the presbytery of Europe conduct services in English. That's about all I have. I did French at school, but haven't used it for years. I have also studied Latin (which I have also forgotten) and New Testament Greek, but they aren't that helpful. There's also where to live and being away from Spot for 10 weeks.

I'm sure if these are experiences God wants me to have (and it's increasingly sounding like it) these things will all work out/be provided for. During my training I'm in the perfect situation to try things and go places I may never get to. How will that prepare me for ministry? I don't fully know, but I'm sure it'll all be useful.

What's in a name?

Firstly, I'd like to apologise, I'm about to talk about the "other" royal wedding.

So, it has been widely reported Zara Phillips will not be taking her husband's surname, for professional reasons. This article has an interesting take on it. As it states, it was not the norm in Scotland until the 20th century. Why? Because women were not regarded as property in the same way as down south, say. Hence women never having had to "love, honour and obey" in the wedding vows up here.

I have to wonder how far we've come in women's rights when, where a women chooses not to take her husband's surname on marriage, has to justify herself. Zara Phillips has had to say it's for professional reasons. I have a friend who didn't take her husband's name for the same reasons. Can't we just not take our husband's names and not really have a reason? Not have to justify ourselves? Now, that would be progress.

Sometimes, men even take their wives names on marriage. Tam Dalyell's Dad took his wife's name. That's unusual, I know. Our names are personal. In many ways they define us. If someone chooses to change or not change their name in marriage, that should be okay. They shouldn't need to justify it as the women in the public eye who had kept their own names have done.

Encouragement in unusual places

I was paying a cheque (yes, I know) into the bank the other day. The teller was lovely and hinted at a "customer review". I mentioned I was going to uni, so would prefer to hold fire until the student accounts came out. Which lead to an amusing but uplifting conversation.


"Oh, what are you going to be studying?"
"Divinity"
"That's interesting. What is that for?"
"It's what ministers study"
"Wow. How long is the course?"
"I need to do 3 years at uni and then there's 15 months probation"
"Oh, I thought it was 5 years. Where do you think you'll minister?"
"Don't know; but early to say"
"I suppose you need to see where you're lead? Well, good luck and all the best."

I never thought I'd get such a supportive and encouraging conversation about my call in the bank. You never can tell.

The God Experiment by Russell Stannard - review

The blurb for this book talks about an experiment which, at the time of writing, was underway. 1200 people undergoing heart surgery knew they were part of this experiment and may or not be prayed for. The experiment was to see whether there would be a difference in recovery between the tow groups. As this experiment was still ongoing at the time of writing, the book does not cover the results of the experiment. I did find this a bit misleading, but there was plenty of other evidence which the author discussed.

The object of this book was to use science, especially quantum and particle physics to prove the existence of God. The author himself is a nuclear physicist who used to work at Cern, so there is a strong understanding of the way the quantum world works.

Included within the book are descriptions of  the origins of time, space and humans (in different chapters). Using these, with the current scientific knowledge available, the author attempts to show this is not possible without an overseer and creator. Put another way, the world, time, space and the whole universe is only here because of God.

It's an interesting read and, as far as possible, the author has attempted to make this accessible to all. He has managed it to a certain degree, but some of what he was discussing is in the realms of theoretical physics that it's really difficult to get your head round. I must admit reading those bits thinking I should have had some aspirin first!

Generally, the arguments are good. I know the more I find out about the theories of how the universe was created and how much a "Goldilocks" planet Earth is, it adds more and more weight to what I already know - this is God's creation. However, I think anyone from the other side of the argument could just as easily take these pieces of evidence to show there is no God. At the end of the day, we know God through faith. Science may add weight to this knowledge, but without faith, where is God? He still is there, watching and being concerned for us, but is unknown to us. No amount of theorising can achieve a relationship with God, which is what he really wants with all his children and I am glad to have.

As an aside, it took me ages to figure out what the front cover of the book was. It's an X-ray of praying hands.