House Groups

Last night was a first for me. I attended a house group. There are a few of these at (from, founded in?) Caledonia Kirk and I was keen to see what happened at them. I will reserve judgement to a certain extent until I have been to others and, perhaps, re-visited the one I attended.

There was a definite sharing and support at the group. I know some things were explained a bit more because I was there, giving me a bit more of a picture of what goes on at Caledonia. It also gave those in the group a chance to get to know me and I them a little better (some I don't think I've actually met, but so many faces, so little time!).

I was a bit surprised we didn't delve into the bible - there is a book the house groups are following at the moment and I had gone along prepared to listen and engage with what was there. Now, you might think that's because I was there and needed the explanation - I did too. But we'd be wrong. Towards the end of the meeting, the subject matter cam up and I was told that because this group regard themselves as mature Christians, they don't have any questions!!!

Okay, so how did I deal with that? I told them the story of a bible study group I was involved with, where a recent convert from Hinduism came along for a while (he was working in the area). He asked questions which made us all have to really think. We were also happy to say we didn't know, if we didn't (and there were people who have been Christians much longer than those at last night's house group there). I explained how this person asked the sort of questions those who have been Christian for a long time sometimes feel they can't ask, as it's sometimes expected they should know. I don't know how it went down, but one person then had the confidence to ask a question he hadn't asked, so perhaps there is a culture of those who have been Christians for a long time should know it all. That slightly scares me. I often have more questions than answers and know people who are much, much more mature in their faith than I am who have lots of questions. This is something for me to ponder of the coming months and it'll be interesting to see how things are at other house groups.

The down side of house groups, as I see it, is two fold. Firstly, how does leadership take place that allows discussion and questioning, without the group just being a group of friends meeting for tea and cake? Also, it would be all too easy for it just to be a group of friends, with similar opinions, backgrounds and outlooks. I suppose that's why I think churches (as in the buildings) are useful because the gathered community will include people I wouldn't necessarily be friends with, but whom I am in relationship with in the community of church and through Christ.

Helping the poor

I was in our local shop today. While I was waiting to pay for my items, I could see a person in front was having issues paying. They were trying to use a shopping card (bit like a store gift card, but it can be used in a range of shops), but it wouldn't work, even though the store accepted that card.

It became evident this person had used a Christmas saving scheme to put aside a wee bit every month. That was on this card. The staff were great. They were going to put her stuff aside, so she could get in touch with the issuer of the card to find out what the sketch was. But the person was trying to pay in cash. That cash was probably destined for something else and as for the money on the card? Who knows. I hope it all gets sorted and the person took the advice of the shop staff.

So, 6 years on from the Farepak collapse and nothing has really changed. Those in the lowest incomes are still saving in similar schemes to the one Farepak ran. If the company collapses, these people are left high and dry. If they do get money back, it's mush less than the amount they invested and can take years. The Farepak customers were awarded 50p in the £1 this year, almost 6 years after the collapse.

The people this affects find accessing banks harder, due to financial and social pressures. On low incomes, banks (especially in less salubrious areas) aren't interested and don't want to give debit cards. People on low incomes may be reluctant to get debit cards, in case they over spend. Also, they may have friends, neighbours or relatives who are agents for the Christmas savings companies, so feel they are supporting their loved one, partly a social pressure to do this. It's also saving with someone they trust, so perhaps see the transaction as more trustworthy than in a bank?

If Farepak had affected the Eton educated, wealthy upper classes, the legislation governing these savings schemes would have been changed, pulling them under the authority of the FSA. That hasn't happened. Why? Because those on low incomes are less likely to vote and, if they do, are not seen by those in power as worth looking after (grrr).

So, what has the church done? Not necessarily as a collective body. I know the Church of Scotland has written various reports on tackling poverty and access to financial services for the poor, but what practical things can the church do? After all, we are called to look after the poor and be a servant of many.

I think one thing is to help set up credit unions. The church could provide the driving force and premises (at least initially). Then (and I know I am maybe being really naive about this) those like the person I encountered yesterday could save in a more secure way than Savings clubs, but there still be the trust factor as the credit union is run for and by the people who are members (and they'd get a wee bit of interest on the savings too). That, I think, could be a first step in helping pull people out of poverty, which I believe the church is called to do.

Being part of communion

Yesterday, I help led communion with my supervisor. Not being an elder, I have never been involved in communion, only received it (discussion about the difference may follow!). This was at the evening service, which is more informal, but intimate. Fortunately, from leading worship at Lane End, I do not find small congregations intimidating.

I used a liturgy from an old Iona community worship book. It seemed to work well, with my supervisor and I sharing the 'voices' in the liturgy. It's really designed for the whole community being part of the service, but as many at Caledonia Kirk are not used to responses I didn't want to do anything too different for them, what with this being my first time leading any part of communion.

Prior to communion, my supervisor and I discussed what I saw as the part which should be done my a minister. I think it's the epiclesis, though am aware the congregation would be more inclined to see it as the fraction because they actually see the minister do something. So, those parts were done by my supervisor.

I expected to be really nervous or uptight about doing this. I was surprisingly relaxed. Perhaps it was the different dynamic of the smaller, more informal, group. Perhaps it's because I knew I wasn't doing communion, just helping lead the act of worship, so I wasn't responsible for it. Perhaps it's my fairly low theology of communion. Or perhaps it's a combination of all of the above.

It would be useful for me to develop my own liturgy for communion. I am aware it's a long time before I can do it myself, but now's the time to think about how I would like the liturgy for communion to work. I also need to work through what I would do for different settings (home, informal and formal communion etc). I know I can't (and wouldn't want to) have a 'one size fits all' communion.

Having seen my summer placement lead communion in a couple of settings, what surprised me was him doing it all be memory. I liked that, to a certain extent, as it felt more intimate as I knew it was his words. That will take a bit of experience and confidence on my part, both of which are a long way off when it comes to communion. For that, though, I'd need to work out exactly what is the minimum required for communion to be communion. No one seems to have an answer, so I suppose that's something I have to work out for myself.

I think the service did work, though. It came together as a cohesive unit and the communion was an inclusive liturgy, which is in line with my theology. Feedback indicated those gathered appreciated it. They knew it was new for me (both the liturgy and being involved in communion), as I told them before the call to worship. A couple of people mentioned they found it very moving, which was lovely to hear. There is a few people with Anglican and Episcopal backgrounds who commented they both enjoyed it and appreciated the more Anglican feel. That wasn't intentional, but I got the impression they got something from feeling the service was 'theirs', if that makes sense. As I was a style of liturgy I am familiar with, I now am wondering what a Presbyterian liturgy is. I assume no responses, no Angus Dei and no 'Holy, Holy, Holy', all of which I am used to from my home church.

There almost certainly will be future posts on this subject, as I work through last night and how that will inform my administering the sacrament of communion in the future. It will take a bit of time to digest properly.

Wine and bread-free communion

At New College there is a weekly communion service. I really appreciate taking communion with my peers, tutors and lecturers. Around the table, we are all equal.

As I am choked with the cold, while I stayed for the service yesterday, I did not go up to take communion. It's a common cup and I felt it would be very impolite spreading my germs (though silver has antimicrobial properties). I still felt part of communion, but that's because, for me communion is about the community gathered together. I wonder if there were people gathered who thought it weird I would stay, but not take the elements? Or maybe no one noticed or, if they did, realised why I hadn't gone up.

So, though I like the common cup for this gathering, I so could have done with the CofS thimble yesterday!!!

Chocolate train

Some would say this is a waste. I say it's a work of art. What do you say?