Up early today (one of the few benefits of afternoon services is that, like normal people, I usually get a lie in on a Sunday) as I have to get to two services this morning and whatever I do or don't do will be wrong.

At 9:30 is the last service at St S&B before their priest leaves and services are suspended.  This is semantics to keep the powers that be happy - the final service has to be deconsecration and cannot take place without the bishop's say so (or some such) but ask anyone who goes to that church and today is the last time they'll be there.  A few of us are going along to support folk there - we have some empathy with their plight.  I asked my deacons for opinions on whether I could attend - most did not reply, so I told them I was taking that as lack of objection, but I know that my sense that I need to say that is pertinent - I am anticipating retrospective objection.

Immediately that service ends, I will dash to D+1 for our joint service with them, arriving at least 15 minutes late and no doubt attracting a few scowls.  I have told the preacher (the moderator) and some of their deacons, so it is not unknown but how it will be interpretted...  I feel I'm doing my best to please all parties but can already anticipate the comments and looks I'll get...

Last night I was sad enough to watch the Eurovision Dance Contest and watched the usual charade of voting where certain geogrpahical areas seemed to vote for each other and the UK came second last, with poor old Switzerland getting the wooden spoon prize of nurl points.  Whilst I don't think UK were best (I liked Ukraine, Greece and Lithuania) they weren't that bad either.  No one takes Eurovision things too seriously, which is perhaps as well, but I did find myself thinking that actually we are not a very popular nation and wondering what, specifically, causes that.  Most of the dancers were happy to use English language music to dance to and the whole idea emerged from a UK TV format so are there some odd double standards going on here? [Actually at times I wondered if it was the European stripping contest, as there seemed to be rather a lot of it going on!!]

Not entirely sure how the two strands are connected, just something about power games and politics that seems to permeate every aspect of life, and not for the better, I'd argue.

As part of a task I am currently involved with, I spent a little time today trawling around church websites.  I was left hoping that people don't judge God or Jesus by what they find, because if I was looking, I'd give up on most pretty quickly.

In principle, I think that church websites are a good idea - they are an excellent way of making available exactly the type of information people might want to know - where you are, what you do, when you do it.  Sadly, too many try to be too clever and, frankly, fail miserably - sometimes on a page last updated three years ago it says 'coming soon' - in eschatological terms maybe, but not much use here and now...  Others are careless and post information that is confidential or sensitive - pastoral news or prayer requests really ought not to be published or, if it is, should be confined to a password protected area.  A few are even quite scary - one sent me to a "fun" 'how good are you' quiz which basically told me I deserved eternal punishment because I wasn't good enough: well intentioned, I'm sure, but not exactly encouraging people to consider a relationship with God through Jesus.

Periodically I have wondered about setting up a website for our church, but always conclude against.  The truth is there is no one else who would (or probably, could) take this on - if the church cannot suggest or fulfil this then it is better not to start it.  More pertinently, I wonder how carefully churches think about the purpose of their websites - who is it for? what is it trying to achieve?  how easy is it to use?  how much work is needed to keep it up to date?  In my view, a single page with location (and maybe a link to a map site), service times, main midweek activities and contact details is what people want to find.  Photos are nice - the outside of where you meet can be helpful if someone is looking for it, the face of the contact person is a bonus. A little bit of extra information can be helpful - so long as it is honest.  What is not good is to read about the upcoming exciting mission event that happened last autumn, the sermon series from January or the letter from the minister who retired six months back.  And just occasionally the lack of proof reading is so evident that it makes my, usually unchecked, blog entries look good.

Blogs that never get updated but are left to clutter cyberspace are a nusiance; dare I suggest that bad church websites are an insult.

We say we want more women involved in Baptist life beyond the local church.  We say we want more people under 40 involved. And I say, 'yes and amen.'  And then reality hits (again!).

Yesterday I was chatting to an under 40's woman who is very active in local Baptist life.  As part of this she has to attend a couple of three day residential events a year.  To my knowledge, she does not have paid emplyoment - which would make this role difficult if not impossible for her to fulfil - her husband is an HMF minister and they have young children.  When she attends residential (or other weekday) events she has to arrange childcare in order that her husband can work.  Whether this is paid for or whether there is a good network of local people willing to help out, I don't know, but it is obviously another factor to be considered, and if it is paid for how do they manage to out of an HMF stipend?

I admire the work that has been done to try to engage more younger people in Baptist life.  I just wonder if there isn't a whole lot more we need to do - as churches, as Associations, even as a Union, to support those who are willing to serve us in this way?

Does God test people?  Does God allow people to be tested?  Should we test people?  If so, how, and what do we mean by it?

These are questions that have being rolling around my brain a bit recently, in response to various things that are happening or are being said by various people I meet.

The key is, I suspect, what we mean by 'testing.'  Many, maybe most, people equate 'test' with 'exam' and with pass/fail.  There is a mind of headmaster view of God who sets hard tests to see if our faith is kosher or not.  If we pass the test - endure hardship with a cheesy grin, pray faithfully, whatever it is, we are 'in'; if we don't then presumably we are 'out.'  Not the most helpful view of God who is Love.

A friend's daughter who is 21 and has just qaulifed as a nurse offers a much more helpful image, I'd like to suggest.  She has observed how patients are assessed (tested) before they leave hospital to see if they are adequately ready to go home - not perfect but good enough.  The intent is not pass/fail but to prevent futher injury or illness because a person is not yet equipped for discharge.  Thus, for example, the physio will check they can walk up stairs, the OT will ensure they can prepare a meal,  a social worker may check for support mechanisms.  If a person is not yet ready, then plans can be put in place to give the support needed to develop the strength or skills needed.  Maybe it is semantics, but this to me seems a more positive understanding of testing.

So does God test people?  If we mean set pass/fail tasks I'm not convinced.  Does God allow testing situations to arise - well, yes, experience shows me this is so.  In Evan Almighty God said something that seemed to fit with this view.

Should we test people?  People who feel they have a call from God?  Poeple who offer to serve in some way?  If by that we mean setting them up a pass/fail task, I'd suggest not.  But if we can see it as working with them to explore whether they are at this point ready enough for a role or responsibility then I think that, yes, we should.

As I type this, I am reminded of the 'Sheepdog trials' sermon quoted in Susan Howatch's novel The High Flyer which attempts something similar in thinking about God's judgement.