Tonight is my cell group, my church's version of home or small groups where about 6-12 people worship and pray and look at the Bible together. (Not 'cell' as in 'terrorist cell' or 'prison cell'! Cell as in the biological sense, small bits that make up a larger body, the church.) I love being part of a cell, but it can be hard work. Especially at the moment. So many of the people in my cell are struggling with different issues, from health in the broadest sense, to job searching, to considering what God wants them to do in the future. And in many cases, since most of my cell are a generation or so older than I am, they're concerned for the same issues in their children and grandchildren, or care for their parents.
But it's cell tonight, and I'm feeling apprehensive. Because I so often seem to come away having taken on so much, but not been able to tell them about what's concerning me. There are people with so much sadness in their lives, I empathise with them and share their troubles. And there are people there who have problems that are far worse than I've ever had to experience, and hope I never shall.
So it can be quite tough, listening to everybody's troubles and committing to praying for them. Not that I resent it in the slightest, that's the point of cell, to be a community where we can all support one another. Those who are going through better times comfort those going through harder times.
But I feel that often they don't realise that I have things which trouble me as much as theirs do them. What to me seems highly important they often see as relatively trivial. For example, much of their concern is for their family. But I don't have children and grandchildren like they do. What I do have is friends who to me can be as important as family members. If I tell them about a trouble a friend is having, they may not rank it as something that's important as if it were a family member, but to me it matters as much, because my friends are the people around me as their family are around them. So it can feel as if my worries and fears are being trivialised.
One cell member even said to me a few weeks ago, when I'd tried to explain that I was struggling with loneliness: "in a few years you'll meet someone and things will be different." Well, perhaps (although it doesn't seem particularly likely just now) but that's hardly helpful now. Because you think something will be different in the future doesn't mean it's not important to me now, that it doesn't still make me feel terrible. In fact, what you've just said has made me feel worse, because what if that doesn't happen? And why should I have to wait? What I want is someone to listen when I'm upset, and not to trivialise what I'm feeling and tell me (in essence) that it'll be better when I grow up properly!
Because of this, I find it hard to share my sadnesses and worries, so don't always say when something's troubling me. I think that the others will think it is a trivial matter, and won't bother to remember (often if we're rushed for time, people only remember to pray for the things they thought were important. And yes, other people's needs are often more important than mine).
So I feel I'm just taking on other people's troubles and no one is taking from me. Which isn't how it's supposed to work. But I don't know how to say that without sounding attention-seeking, as if I'm trying to make a big deal of something that isn't. And I don't like drawing attention to myself. So I put up with it, and often come away feeling alone (most of the others are married couples) and oppressed with other people's and my own sadness. And not sure how to deal with it. If you're a praying person, please pray for me.
Wednesday 29 April 2009
Friday 24 April 2009
My 50th post
I believe this will be the 50th post on this blog. So, congratulations me! (ha ha)
To celebrate, here's some thought on a meeting I attended last night. My church's APCM (Annual parocial church meeting, or "Amazing party for church members" as a curate tried to rename it!)
Since this was my fourth AGM or EGM of this year (ie, since January) I'm beginning to feel quite a connisseur of these type of meetings. This one was particularly interesting because it was the first of this type that I had attended.
I found out some interesting things in the course of the meeting. Of the 700+ people who attend the church, there are 462 on the electoral roll (ie, people who are eligible to vote at the APCM). I suppose that's not too bad a proportion when you consider the nature of our church. What did amuse me is that apparently of those 462, only three live within the parish. I suppose with a city centre parish with few residential properties that's inevitable, but it does make me think. What difference would it make if all those people went to their local parish churches? What difference to the parish churches? What difference to local communities? Of course, I understand why people don't. I'm one of them.
Of those 462, around 80-90 appeared to be present at the meeting. Some of the same questions arise as they do in national politics, when a decision is taken at a meeting by a majority of 50-odd which will affect how the church is run.
The main decision to be made was to reduce the size of the church council to a more workable number. I can easily imagine how difficult it is to make decisions with a group of nearly 4o- I've been on committees of 12 that have struggled to do that! I also understand some of the objections being raised that ordinary members might struggle to make their voices heard under the new scheme. Although whether it's any different now is another matter.
However, the problem seemed to be epitomised for me by one section of the evening. 7 people needed to be elected to the council for the next year, until the new arrangement comes into place, to replace members who were retiring. Only one person stood for election. If so few people, even within those who are interested in the way the church is run (and people who weren't didn't need to come to the meeting) are willing to stand for election and do something about it, surely there's a problem. How can people complain about getting their voice heard if they're not willing to do something themselves?
I think one of the problems is that people like me, who haven't been in the church for thirty years (and didn't even grow up in the Anglican tradition) don't necessarily understand what the role of the PCC is, or what it does, or what being on it means committing oneself to. Also, the younger people may often think that it's a job for older people, although I think a balance of some younger people, of the type who haven't been here for a couple of decades, would be good. Sometimes it seems to me that there are a group of people who do these jobs, and other people don't even think about doing them, because there's a perception (created I don't know how) that you have to be asked to join that group.
People may also see other areas as more exciting and more important to be involved in. Administrate or financial procedures and oversight may not sound the most exciting, but being right at the centre of church decision making should be exciting and interesting. These are our leaders, there to support the clergy and help them understand God's will for the church. We should value and pray for them. Or so I see it.
To celebrate, here's some thought on a meeting I attended last night. My church's APCM (Annual parocial church meeting, or "Amazing party for church members" as a curate tried to rename it!)
Since this was my fourth AGM or EGM of this year (ie, since January) I'm beginning to feel quite a connisseur of these type of meetings. This one was particularly interesting because it was the first of this type that I had attended.
I found out some interesting things in the course of the meeting. Of the 700+ people who attend the church, there are 462 on the electoral roll (ie, people who are eligible to vote at the APCM). I suppose that's not too bad a proportion when you consider the nature of our church. What did amuse me is that apparently of those 462, only three live within the parish. I suppose with a city centre parish with few residential properties that's inevitable, but it does make me think. What difference would it make if all those people went to their local parish churches? What difference to the parish churches? What difference to local communities? Of course, I understand why people don't. I'm one of them.
Of those 462, around 80-90 appeared to be present at the meeting. Some of the same questions arise as they do in national politics, when a decision is taken at a meeting by a majority of 50-odd which will affect how the church is run.
The main decision to be made was to reduce the size of the church council to a more workable number. I can easily imagine how difficult it is to make decisions with a group of nearly 4o- I've been on committees of 12 that have struggled to do that! I also understand some of the objections being raised that ordinary members might struggle to make their voices heard under the new scheme. Although whether it's any different now is another matter.
However, the problem seemed to be epitomised for me by one section of the evening. 7 people needed to be elected to the council for the next year, until the new arrangement comes into place, to replace members who were retiring. Only one person stood for election. If so few people, even within those who are interested in the way the church is run (and people who weren't didn't need to come to the meeting) are willing to stand for election and do something about it, surely there's a problem. How can people complain about getting their voice heard if they're not willing to do something themselves?
I think one of the problems is that people like me, who haven't been in the church for thirty years (and didn't even grow up in the Anglican tradition) don't necessarily understand what the role of the PCC is, or what it does, or what being on it means committing oneself to. Also, the younger people may often think that it's a job for older people, although I think a balance of some younger people, of the type who haven't been here for a couple of decades, would be good. Sometimes it seems to me that there are a group of people who do these jobs, and other people don't even think about doing them, because there's a perception (created I don't know how) that you have to be asked to join that group.
People may also see other areas as more exciting and more important to be involved in. Administrate or financial procedures and oversight may not sound the most exciting, but being right at the centre of church decision making should be exciting and interesting. These are our leaders, there to support the clergy and help them understand God's will for the church. We should value and pray for them. Or so I see it.
Thursday 23 April 2009
A few financial thoughts
I hesitate to write this post, knowing that I have absolutely no qualifications to do so. I've never studied economics or even politics, and my maths is legendarily bad. So financial matters are hardly a subject I can speak about with authority! On the other hand, while reading and listening to analysis of yesterday's budget, I found myself getting annoyed with some of the comments people were posting. So here's a few thoughts. If you disagree, remember that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and that "my opinion doesn't matter matter matter..."
The people who say that government is too 'big' and should be 'slimmed down' seem to be forgetting something, or perhaps they don't realise quite what that means. It means job losses. Not just the well-off Whitehall bureaucrats they see as villains, (I somehow think that they'll be the last to go) but the average people who work for the council, doing everyday vital jobs like administering housing benefit or social work. And while unemployment is increasing rapidly, do we really want to add to this by laying off more people? Enough problems and delays are caused by poor investment and undermanning as it is; do we really want this to increase? Perhaps there is scope for cutting wasted money, but perhaps keeping people in work should be more of a priority at present.
On the topic of unemployment, I was pleased to see that someone has noticed the problem young people have finding jobs. I imagine their plan to give everyone under 25 who's been unemployed for more than a year a job or training is aimed more at school leavers than graduates, but the problem is much the same: when there's so much competition for so few jobs, employers are less willing to take a risk so go for the more experienced candidates. I have to confess to being dubious at how much difference this new plan will make, but at least to have acknowledged the problem is a step forward.
Other parts of the budget don't really affect me. There's no way I'll be buying a house any time soon, I'm not eligible for any benefits, I don't smoke, I certainly don't earn enough to pay the extra income tax! In fact, the increased personal allowance could make a fair bit of difference to what I earn. Tax increases on alcohol won't affect me much, and although that on fuel probably will at some point in the next few months, I have some sympathy with the environmental arguments behind it.
So I suspect the changes outlined yesterday won't make a vast difference to my life, one way or the other. I find that the more people complain, the more sympathetic I become to what they're complaining about. I often wonder, when people are complaining about having to pay more in tax (or in this case for the government to borrow more) what they would rather happened? Would they prefer to have privatised (for example) health or schools, which would probably mean those that could afford it payed more than they currently do, while those who couldn't afford it suffered?
The one tax issue I do get annoyed about is one that's not been mentioned much lately: Council Tax. Because there are two of us in our household who are employed (even though I'm only part time and we're both on low incomes), the household gets no reduction from the full amount due on a fairly large (well with 4 adults living there it would be) house, even though one of the other two occupants is unemployed and the other is a student. It's...daft. Surely there's a better way? But that might mean some people paying more so that others can pay less...
The people who say that government is too 'big' and should be 'slimmed down' seem to be forgetting something, or perhaps they don't realise quite what that means. It means job losses. Not just the well-off Whitehall bureaucrats they see as villains, (I somehow think that they'll be the last to go) but the average people who work for the council, doing everyday vital jobs like administering housing benefit or social work. And while unemployment is increasing rapidly, do we really want to add to this by laying off more people? Enough problems and delays are caused by poor investment and undermanning as it is; do we really want this to increase? Perhaps there is scope for cutting wasted money, but perhaps keeping people in work should be more of a priority at present.
On the topic of unemployment, I was pleased to see that someone has noticed the problem young people have finding jobs. I imagine their plan to give everyone under 25 who's been unemployed for more than a year a job or training is aimed more at school leavers than graduates, but the problem is much the same: when there's so much competition for so few jobs, employers are less willing to take a risk so go for the more experienced candidates. I have to confess to being dubious at how much difference this new plan will make, but at least to have acknowledged the problem is a step forward.
Other parts of the budget don't really affect me. There's no way I'll be buying a house any time soon, I'm not eligible for any benefits, I don't smoke, I certainly don't earn enough to pay the extra income tax! In fact, the increased personal allowance could make a fair bit of difference to what I earn. Tax increases on alcohol won't affect me much, and although that on fuel probably will at some point in the next few months, I have some sympathy with the environmental arguments behind it.
So I suspect the changes outlined yesterday won't make a vast difference to my life, one way or the other. I find that the more people complain, the more sympathetic I become to what they're complaining about. I often wonder, when people are complaining about having to pay more in tax (or in this case for the government to borrow more) what they would rather happened? Would they prefer to have privatised (for example) health or schools, which would probably mean those that could afford it payed more than they currently do, while those who couldn't afford it suffered?
The one tax issue I do get annoyed about is one that's not been mentioned much lately: Council Tax. Because there are two of us in our household who are employed (even though I'm only part time and we're both on low incomes), the household gets no reduction from the full amount due on a fairly large (well with 4 adults living there it would be) house, even though one of the other two occupants is unemployed and the other is a student. It's...daft. Surely there's a better way? But that might mean some people paying more so that others can pay less...
Tuesday 14 April 2009
New-creation people
Have a look at Tom Wright's Easter article in the Times Online.
I really like Tom Wright's way of putting things. His book "Simply Christian" is a great explanation of what the Christian message is actually about (and if anyone would like to borrow it ask me). It's not about going to church, it's not about being good or even about making sure we go to heaven. It's about this new, Easter hope that he talks about in this article:
Interesting to look at the comments on the article and see that the person who evidently didn't agree with the article or its message says that this message (new life, new creation, justice, beauty, love) has no content. It's sad to see his opinion is so far from mine. It's sad too to see evidence of how the church has, as Tom Wright hints, lost the plot and not presented Easter in its full glory, and the effect this has had on people's views of it.
But there's no time to blame each other for this- we've got to get on with the real task that we are called to- being "new-creation people."
On another celebratory note, I've just noticed that my blog is a year old. Happy Birthday to it!
I really like Tom Wright's way of putting things. His book "Simply Christian" is a great explanation of what the Christian message is actually about (and if anyone would like to borrow it ask me). It's not about going to church, it's not about being good or even about making sure we go to heaven. It's about this new, Easter hope that he talks about in this article:
"Easter gives Christians a double vocation. They are themselves to be part of that new creation, plunged into Jesus’ death and finding new life in his resurrection. But, second, they are to be agents of that justice and beauty, planting signposts in the Easter soil which point forwards to the renewal of all things. Conversion, symbolized in baptism (which the Church associates with Easter), isn’t just about "me being saved". It’s about all of us being given our various instructions as new-creation people. "
Interesting to look at the comments on the article and see that the person who evidently didn't agree with the article or its message says that this message (new life, new creation, justice, beauty, love) has no content. It's sad to see his opinion is so far from mine. It's sad too to see evidence of how the church has, as Tom Wright hints, lost the plot and not presented Easter in its full glory, and the effect this has had on people's views of it.
But there's no time to blame each other for this- we've got to get on with the real task that we are called to- being "new-creation people."
On another celebratory note, I've just noticed that my blog is a year old. Happy Birthday to it!
Monday 13 April 2009
What do you do?
I don't like it when people ask me what I "do." What they mean, of course, is what job do I do. But I don't like the idea that I am defined by my job, by the title "receptionist." Of course, if I'm honest this probably has something to do with the fact that I don't particularly like my job (I complain about it far too much, it's not all that bad...it provides me with plenty of opportunity for creative thinking!) and that for somebody with a 2.1 in History being classified as a Receptionist doesn't seem right. I'm sorry, I know that's terribly snobbish and everything. I never said it was right!
But I just feel there's so much more to who I am than the job I do. It seems to me that the things I do when I'm not at work (or at least, the things I'm not paid to do) are rather more worthwhile than what I am paid for. They're often also much more fulfilling. Organising events at church, even making tea and coffee. And then the singing and performing I do with my two G&S groups (and occasionally elsewhere), not mention the organising behind the scenes. I'd much rather people judged or remembered me by than my job title.
I do wonder if the way we often judge people by their job has something to do with a utilitarian view of people. We can often seem to judge people by what the can do for us rather than valuing them for themselves, and for talents or qualities that aren't necessarily 'useful' for a job.
This kind of mindset makes it hard for anyone who doesn't have a paid job, whether that's because they have chosen not to (eg for childcare reasons) or because they are unable to find one. I know far too many graduates who are unable to find work, and with the current economic situation that's only going to get worse. But in a society which (even if it doesn't realise it) equates work and a job with value, to be unemployed can all to easily give you the impression that you have no worth, no value to society. This leads to low confidence levels, which makes it harder again to get a job.
But that's simply wrong, in my opinion. Being unable to get a job (or having one which is below your skill level) has nothing to do with your ability to contribute to society, or your personal worth, or even your ability to do a job. And some people choose to put a career on hold for personal reasons- to take a gap year, to care for children or others who need help. Those people are certainly still contributing to society. But do we always recognise that? Other people may use their time out of work to do voluntary work- helping in charity shops, running youth clubs- such things can give them a sense of worth and boost skills.
But trying to get potential employers to recognise that administering and organising a church or performing society event- often with a budget of several hundred pounds- means that you're more than capable of doing the job they're recruiting for. Sadly there seems to be the impression that if you're not paid to do it, a task has less value.
So what would I like people to ask when they're trying to get to know me? Well, "what do you do?" isn't in itself a bad question. I think people need to realise, though, that this should encompass more than "what is your job?" I try to give people some idea of what else I do- I mention my job, then go on to more interesting things, the things that, in my experience, make me me. Perhaps if our society began to realise that we can gain value through other things besides our jobs and what we own, we would have a society that was less attached to just gaining as much money as possible, and perhaps it would be a happier one.
But I just feel there's so much more to who I am than the job I do. It seems to me that the things I do when I'm not at work (or at least, the things I'm not paid to do) are rather more worthwhile than what I am paid for. They're often also much more fulfilling. Organising events at church, even making tea and coffee. And then the singing and performing I do with my two G&S groups (and occasionally elsewhere), not mention the organising behind the scenes. I'd much rather people judged or remembered me by than my job title.
I do wonder if the way we often judge people by their job has something to do with a utilitarian view of people. We can often seem to judge people by what the can do for us rather than valuing them for themselves, and for talents or qualities that aren't necessarily 'useful' for a job.
This kind of mindset makes it hard for anyone who doesn't have a paid job, whether that's because they have chosen not to (eg for childcare reasons) or because they are unable to find one. I know far too many graduates who are unable to find work, and with the current economic situation that's only going to get worse. But in a society which (even if it doesn't realise it) equates work and a job with value, to be unemployed can all to easily give you the impression that you have no worth, no value to society. This leads to low confidence levels, which makes it harder again to get a job.
But that's simply wrong, in my opinion. Being unable to get a job (or having one which is below your skill level) has nothing to do with your ability to contribute to society, or your personal worth, or even your ability to do a job. And some people choose to put a career on hold for personal reasons- to take a gap year, to care for children or others who need help. Those people are certainly still contributing to society. But do we always recognise that? Other people may use their time out of work to do voluntary work- helping in charity shops, running youth clubs- such things can give them a sense of worth and boost skills.
But trying to get potential employers to recognise that administering and organising a church or performing society event- often with a budget of several hundred pounds- means that you're more than capable of doing the job they're recruiting for. Sadly there seems to be the impression that if you're not paid to do it, a task has less value.
So what would I like people to ask when they're trying to get to know me? Well, "what do you do?" isn't in itself a bad question. I think people need to realise, though, that this should encompass more than "what is your job?" I try to give people some idea of what else I do- I mention my job, then go on to more interesting things, the things that, in my experience, make me me. Perhaps if our society began to realise that we can gain value through other things besides our jobs and what we own, we would have a society that was less attached to just gaining as much money as possible, and perhaps it would be a happier one.
Wednesday 8 April 2009
An Easter hero
I've been so busy lately running around that it's only really hit me today that Easter is nearly here. It's the opposite of Christmas, when there's so much build up that the holiday (in the sense of holy day, where I presume the word comes from) is almost disappointing after all the anticipation. With Easter, there's so much less preparation but the time itself has, for me, the potential to be much more special.
Public knowledge about Easter is almost laughably woeful as this article (admittedly a year or two out of date now) shows. It's not surprising in some ways- the Christmas story is one you can easily make 'nice' for children- the long journey, the tired travellers, the kind and unkind innkeepers, the nasty king, the nice shepherds and wise men- a story in which the strangers and the poor are made into the heroes, while the authorities come out as the villains. Very nice. Heartwarming. Very modern, actually.
But Good Friday and Easter are harder to sanitize. The crucifixion is not a nice story. Again, you've got your lower class hero versus the evil authorities, (even better, oppressive religious authorities too, that's really popular) but the hero refuses to fulfil all the qualifications- not only does he not start a rebellion against the occupying forces, he submits himself to them. He allows them to kill him (note 'allows them'. Jesus knew what he was going into and he voluntarily allowed it to happen- see Matthew 26 vs 53-54.)
And then he dies. The hero of the story dies! That's not supposed to happen, is it? What's going on?
The disciples must have wondered that too. All they had seen- was all that over? Was it all for nothing? So much that he'd said they didn't understand. They were confused and scared.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE END OF THE STORY!
Jesus was resurrected. Not 'reborn' as the Sommerfield press release said. Not resuscitation, where someone is brought back to life, the same life as before, only to die again later. This is different. Because Christians believe- I believe- Jesus conquered death and sin, and now death- the penalty for sin that we all have to pay for the times we put our own selfish desires before God- has been defeated, has, as the old hymn says, lost its' sting. We, like Jesus, can have new life.
That's what Easter time is about. We thank God that Jesus came to die, we remember his sufferings and repent of the things we do that caused him to suffer. But then we praise God that Jesus is alive, and so alive- that death has been defeated, that we don't have to be afraid of it. We look forward to the time when we will be like Jesus- raised with a new body to praise God and celebrate his glorious victory.
Christmas and Easter are part of the same story- the story of Jesus' mission to save us, to save the world. But even that is part of a bigger story- of God's love for and faithfulness to humanity. I hope that sounds exciting to you. I hope it makes you want to praise God along with me this Easter.
Public knowledge about Easter is almost laughably woeful as this article (admittedly a year or two out of date now) shows. It's not surprising in some ways- the Christmas story is one you can easily make 'nice' for children- the long journey, the tired travellers, the kind and unkind innkeepers, the nasty king, the nice shepherds and wise men- a story in which the strangers and the poor are made into the heroes, while the authorities come out as the villains. Very nice. Heartwarming. Very modern, actually.
But Good Friday and Easter are harder to sanitize. The crucifixion is not a nice story. Again, you've got your lower class hero versus the evil authorities, (even better, oppressive religious authorities too, that's really popular) but the hero refuses to fulfil all the qualifications- not only does he not start a rebellion against the occupying forces, he submits himself to them. He allows them to kill him (note 'allows them'. Jesus knew what he was going into and he voluntarily allowed it to happen- see Matthew 26 vs 53-54.)
And then he dies. The hero of the story dies! That's not supposed to happen, is it? What's going on?
The disciples must have wondered that too. All they had seen- was all that over? Was it all for nothing? So much that he'd said they didn't understand. They were confused and scared.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE END OF THE STORY!
Jesus was resurrected. Not 'reborn' as the Sommerfield press release said. Not resuscitation, where someone is brought back to life, the same life as before, only to die again later. This is different. Because Christians believe- I believe- Jesus conquered death and sin, and now death- the penalty for sin that we all have to pay for the times we put our own selfish desires before God- has been defeated, has, as the old hymn says, lost its' sting. We, like Jesus, can have new life.
That's what Easter time is about. We thank God that Jesus came to die, we remember his sufferings and repent of the things we do that caused him to suffer. But then we praise God that Jesus is alive, and so alive- that death has been defeated, that we don't have to be afraid of it. We look forward to the time when we will be like Jesus- raised with a new body to praise God and celebrate his glorious victory.
Christmas and Easter are part of the same story- the story of Jesus' mission to save us, to save the world. But even that is part of a bigger story- of God's love for and faithfulness to humanity. I hope that sounds exciting to you. I hope it makes you want to praise God along with me this Easter.
Monday 6 April 2009
Hello again
Sorry there's been a bit of a delay and irregular posting recently. I've been having a bit of a creative fit and started a new blog (afraid the story won't make much sense to anyone who doesn't know the University of York Gilbert & Sullivan society- and even then making sense isn't guaranteed!)
To add to that, the last two weekends I've been on conferences, the first with the Council of Scripture Union, an organisation I've been involved with for quite a few years now (I'm finally no longer the youngest on the council; however despite being second youngest I've also been going to meetings for a lot longer than many of the others! It's a bit strange...). SU, as you may know, do lots of stuff to resource churches and youth leaders, producing kids and youth club materials, publishing Christian books and Bible reading notes, running holidays for children and young people, doing work in schools and lots of other stuff you can find out more about here. One of the most exciting things we (ie, SU) have done over the last few years is the development of WordLive (sorry, I do seem to go on about this a lot, but it is great), a free website designed to encourage Christians (and any other visitors) to look at what the Bible can say to them. We're now looking at how we might be able to use electronic communication to reach even more people, young and old, with this message.
Then this last weekend was my church's weekend at home (like a weekend away, only it was held in York to allow more people to come and reduce the cost). The speaker this year was Elaine Storkey (those Today listeners among you may recognise her from Thought for the Day. Being told that John Humphries was "such a sweetie" was an amusing start to the weekend! And discovering she did a Phd in Philosophy at York). She is a fantastic speaker, in my opinion- not many people could hold over a hundred adults attention for over an hour on a Saturday morning, talking about sociological trends in our culture and how this affects the church. All her talks were highly interesting and she was able to make the theory relevant to us and what we were doing.
The challenge of thinking about and discussing these topics at both weekends has made a pleasant change from my normal routine (although the trip down to Coventry was less pleasant). It's interesting to see the links between the two- the church (or large parts of it, at least) waking up to how far out of public favour it has fallen and considering what it can do to win itself a fair hearing in modern culture. This was reflected in discussions on social networking sites and on the anniversary of Darwin.
The challenge for the church seems to be to work out how can it persuade people to listen to and consider the message it has, a message that can transform an individual life as well as the world. I won't say we came up with definitive answers at either weekend, but there were lots of ideas and stuff to think about and make part of our daily lives.
Now back to normal- but hopefully with some much-needed encouragement to keep going, to keep loving even when it seems nothing much is happening spiritually in those I care about. God know what he's doing. Even though I'm tired and looking forward to a weekend off (mid July I think is the next one I've got totally free. Maybe I should do something about that, considering what Elaine said yesterday about rest and refreshment!) I'm glad I went.
To add to that, the last two weekends I've been on conferences, the first with the Council of Scripture Union, an organisation I've been involved with for quite a few years now (I'm finally no longer the youngest on the council; however despite being second youngest I've also been going to meetings for a lot longer than many of the others! It's a bit strange...). SU, as you may know, do lots of stuff to resource churches and youth leaders, producing kids and youth club materials, publishing Christian books and Bible reading notes, running holidays for children and young people, doing work in schools and lots of other stuff you can find out more about here. One of the most exciting things we (ie, SU) have done over the last few years is the development of WordLive (sorry, I do seem to go on about this a lot, but it is great), a free website designed to encourage Christians (and any other visitors) to look at what the Bible can say to them. We're now looking at how we might be able to use electronic communication to reach even more people, young and old, with this message.
Then this last weekend was my church's weekend at home (like a weekend away, only it was held in York to allow more people to come and reduce the cost). The speaker this year was Elaine Storkey (those Today listeners among you may recognise her from Thought for the Day. Being told that John Humphries was "such a sweetie" was an amusing start to the weekend! And discovering she did a Phd in Philosophy at York). She is a fantastic speaker, in my opinion- not many people could hold over a hundred adults attention for over an hour on a Saturday morning, talking about sociological trends in our culture and how this affects the church. All her talks were highly interesting and she was able to make the theory relevant to us and what we were doing.
The challenge of thinking about and discussing these topics at both weekends has made a pleasant change from my normal routine (although the trip down to Coventry was less pleasant). It's interesting to see the links between the two- the church (or large parts of it, at least) waking up to how far out of public favour it has fallen and considering what it can do to win itself a fair hearing in modern culture. This was reflected in discussions on social networking sites and on the anniversary of Darwin.
The challenge for the church seems to be to work out how can it persuade people to listen to and consider the message it has, a message that can transform an individual life as well as the world. I won't say we came up with definitive answers at either weekend, but there were lots of ideas and stuff to think about and make part of our daily lives.
Now back to normal- but hopefully with some much-needed encouragement to keep going, to keep loving even when it seems nothing much is happening spiritually in those I care about. God know what he's doing. Even though I'm tired and looking forward to a weekend off (mid July I think is the next one I've got totally free. Maybe I should do something about that, considering what Elaine said yesterday about rest and refreshment!) I'm glad I went.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)