Today I have a double dose of harvest festivals - or 'harvest vegetables' as they are known in my family because of what a five year-old Catriona allegedly said when she came home from school (can't recall it myself...).

This morning is GB 'parade' at D+2 where we are taking tins to give to the local 'food bank'.  In my role as 'Miss' I visited a supermarket to buy up large quantities of cheapy-creepy tins for the girls to give.  Many of our girls are from fairly poor families, if they come to church they won't have any tins to offer because their families need to put food on their own tables.  Part of me feels mean buying the budget brand stuff (though I lived on it for four years whilst I was in Manchester) because it seems to say to the recipients 'this is all you're worth'; on the other hand it does mean that each girl who turns up can offer at least one tin to the collection, giving her a bit of self worth.  It's a tricky one!

This afternoon at Dibley, I am giving every member of the church a plate of food and a leaflet with the 'stone soup' story to take away to make a simple meal for themselves and then inviting them to give to the BMS appeal what they might otherwise have spent.  Recent posts will make it clear that I, not the church, paid for these items - to give away church money, heaven forbid!  When I arrived here, we had the meagre harvest displays that so many churches muster by raiding their cupboards for short dated tins and bringing a few apples from the supermarket; after the service these were juggled round into gifts to our own 'over 60's' (so most people).  I was not sad when, after our building closed, this tradition died.  This afternoon we will sit 'cafe style' with no display apart from some Indonesian artefacts and be invited to consider our giving to help those whose lives are blighted by natural disasters.

I do find myself wondering about harvest these days.  When I read the OT accounts I wonder how we ended up with the tokenism that blights our worship these days.  Wouldn't it be great to bring a whole month's groceries and hand them over to the food bank, take up a large offering for BMS and then cook ourselves a good meal, share fellowship and laughter in God's presence and be aware of the inter-relatedness of all people -in Dibley or Indonesia?

"To give, and give, and give again, what God has given thee" - a line from an old hymn I learned as a child.  If we really did give like that this harvest, if I really did give like that, what a difference it would make.

Somewhere during my training as minister, I stopped using expressions such as 'the poor' or 'the blind' because it was made pretty clear to me that these people groups don't like to be so described.  Whilst even JC used such expressions ('the poor will always be with you'), I think there is a valid point to be made.  But it is amazing how often I hear or read references to 'definite article, adjective' and find myself wanting to say 'The deaf what?  Rabbit?' or 'The disabled what? Light switch?' (I've never liked the phrase 'disabled toilet' because I'd rather find one that was functional, but there you go).  I wouldn't like to be defined as part of 'the lefthanded' or 'the myopic' (both of which are true) - so why would anyone else?  I know I'm being pedantic, and I know some folk wouldn't know what an adjective was, let alone a definite article, but it doesn't take much effort to speak about 'people with disabilties' or 'deaf people' and it does remind us, importantly, of the fact that they, like we, are PEOPLE not objects.

Another rant over!!!!

A week tomorrow I preach for the OWW service - on Colossians 1:15 - 20, which seems to me to be Paul 'flirting with universalism' as a former URC college principal I know used to say.  You can't get away from what the letter says, that Christ's death was to reconcile the world (kosmon) not just the humans living on it.  Sharing this with my peeps will be fun!

But it got my grey matter working, which was a good thing, and drew me back to John 3:16, which Rob Lacey renders so exquisitely 'God's so passionate about the planet...." - the whole thing, not just the humans - and to Genesis 1 and 2 creation stories.

I have known for yonks that Genesis 1 and 2 are not identical, learned a decade back that they reflect two different traditions of writing, but had never really stopped to realise how much of a composite, mechanistic story we tell in Sunday School and the like.

The order of the two accounts is utterly different, as is the 'method' of creation.  Genesis 1 - the version we probably all think we know - six days of God issuing commands - is actually anything but mechanistic, rather God empowers the earth (and the seas) to 'bring forth' life.  How different from my Sunday School view of God making things and putting them in place, a bit like a supersized toy farm layout.  The idea of things 'coming forth' from the earth and seas probably formed the basis of the pre-evolution notion of new species emerging from swamps, but actually, dare I suggest offers support for a theistic evolution model?  It seems somehow a more gentle image of God than the one I have somewhere along the line acquired.  I have long loved the 'God saw that it was good...' statements imagining lots of 'wow' moments along the way.

Genesis 2 is much more mechanistic, but retains the interconnectedness with the earth.  The first human is placed in an empty world - reminding me a bit of the yellow pages advert of the person in a room with a phone - and then plants are provided and after that animals.  The helpmeet is the last stage, created not from the earth itself but from the human.  It is an intriguing notion to consider the world appearing around a person, yet still they remain lonely depsite all the blessings of creation.  The message of the importance of human relationships is pretty clear!

Having done my reading and thinking I had one of those 'duh, I'm so thick' moments when I coudn't believe I'd read these accounts so often and not seen what they actually said.

So now I face the challenge of how I communicate any of this to my peeps, some of whom are sure God spent 144 hours on creation and then sat down to watch what happened next, that the planet is a thing to be used and that Christ died only for people, and maybe not even for all of them.

What I want to do, I think, is to remind people that creation is 'good' and 'blessed' and that we are its 'stewards' who have a moral obligation to do our best to care for it.  If I can point forward to the end of Revelation which has earth made new, not just etheral souls floating around in heaven, and if I can get folk to think a little more about lifestyle choices, then I think I'll be happy. 

Whether I might then be subject to a heresy trial, who knows?!

Last night at our deacons' meeting we were discussing the future options regarding our building, and I asked if they thought the members in general had actually grasped the financial aspects of any of this.  The consensus was that, no, they hadn't, and a couple of examples were cited...

One woman apparently asserted that if we'd all put 20p a week in a jar since the building closed (around 3 years ago) we'd by now have enough to buy a new one.  Hmm, 40 people x 150 weeks x 20p....  I'll take three of those churches please!

Another person apparently mumbles that we spend £6 a month on sandwiches to give away at our 'thing in a pub' on the same basis.  So, since may when we began that's a whole £36 - clearly enough for a decent sized vestry, I guess. 

I realise most of these people paid no more than a couple of thousand for their houses, but they have children and grandchildren in the housing market, and surely they see the news once in a blue moon.  I am a bit taken back at the total lack of a clue about costs, but if anyone can find me a nice church building in good working order for a couple of grand, please let me know!

As we sold our stored ancient Steinway piano for £1k this week, we are clearly well on the way to a nice new church...

In the meantime, one of the deacons is going to try to find out some indicative costs to inject a note of realism next time such things are said!

A couple of days ago I was talking to someone who asked me what I used to do before I was a minister.  He asked because his wife is a chemical engineer employed in water treatment and he knew I'd done something vaguely similar.  Observing that he thought his wife was anti-nuclear, he asked me if I would make the same choice of field given my time again.  It's a good question, and I think it cuts through the good/bad dichotomy towards something about being timebound.

I still remain convinced that, at this point in time, there is a place for a civil nuclear programme.  I may be in a minority, I may even be proved wrong, but that is my honestly held opinion.  However, if I was now 18 or 25 I doubt very much that I would choose that path, since the more future oriented paths are towards renewables.  It is a fact, that in terms of greenhouse emissions, nuclear energy is clean; it is also a fact that in terms of waste it has its own problems (though no one seems to get so bothered by car tyres, thermoset plastics or chemical wastes which present equally significant problems - my bias showing through here!).  It is also a fact that renewable sources of electricity are under-researched and under-developed; their environmental impact is not as yet properly worked out and we don't have anywhere near enough of them to meet our needs, let alone our wants.  Somehow or other we have to address this mismatch - and that could mean the radical decision to accept a very different lifestyle with less electrical/electronic equipment.  Less internet, less blogging - well maybe that'd be a good thing?!

The point is, though, not whether or not I'm right in my view; it's to what extent my views are 'timebound.'  My reading on historical methods last year raised this topic, something that emerged from the history of science.  Ptolomey's model of the universe was wrong  but that didn't mean he was a bad (poor or evil) scientist, it meant he was timebound.  Just because the likes of Copernicus, Newton and Einstein have come along since doesn't impact on the quality of his thinking or his integrity, it has just been superceded.

Is the same. at least to an extent, true for all of us?  The career choices I made at 18 and 25 were honestly made, based on a carefully thought out worldview (or as careful as any 18 or 25 year old worldview can be!) and I suspect that with the same choices and the same information I'd make them again.  They may have been 'poor' they may even have been 'evil' in someone's view, but they were mine.  If I hadn't been persuaded by God to follow the path I now do, I'm pretty sure I'd still be involved in some way in the safety side of the civil nuclear industry - possibly by now working for the regulatory body, and I would have done so with integrity.  But if I was 25 now, my future and knowledge would be different, and I think I would be more likely to opt for anorher industry.  That's not 'better' or intrinscially more 'good', it's just different.  Just because my decisions were timebound does not make them automatically 'bad' or 'good' just 'timebound.'

All this waffle - what is she on about?  I think I am wondering just how much of what we see as 'good' or 'evil' is 'timebound' - both in terms of chronology and our own 'life stage.'  Middle years are, allegedy, when we reflect and wonder - supposedly where narrow waist and broad mind swap places.  At 18 things seem clear and absolute, by 45 (or almost) questioning is becoming normative.  I am sure there are things which are 'wrong for all time' and 'right for all time' but the older I get, the more things seem to be in the murky middle ground.  Perhaps being the best equipped we can to make our choices is the key to balancing our timeboundedness with our integrity?