One metaphor that some people find helpful in talking about faith is that of a mountain.  The peak of the mountain represents the core essentials, the things that are absolutely vital if someone wishes to term themself a Christian (or a whatever).  Moving down the mountain come things that are less clear cut and over which there may be diverse opinion and even some variety.  The lower you go, the wider the acceptable perspectives and the greater the diversity.

So, f'rinstance, central to Chirstianity would be something about the triune God, the person and work of Christ, about atonement and redemption, about the Holy Spirit.  Whilst there is no one precise way of understanding any of these complex doctrines, they are central to what Christianity is and are non-negotiable.  Exactly which doctrines will form the central core, the high peak of the mountain, and how they are understood and expressed is something where people will vary in their views, but there is broad agreement.

And also f'rinstance, right at the bottom of the mountain, or even beyond its foothills, would be the things that no-one bothers about very much (from an acceptability/authenticity perpective anyway), such as vestments, building architecture, seating arrangments or hymn books.  I may prefer a suit, a flexible space, curves and a range of hymns whilst you love cassocks, cathedrals, lines and HA&M but neither of us is going to fall out over it or accuse the other of heresy!

And then the things part way up the mountain, often the tricky and sticky ethical debates, the things that didn't exist in Bible times, the things where scientific discovery challenges traditional views, the things where pastoral responses are not black and white.  These are scattered along the moutainside and may move up or down its slopes over time.  These are, I suggest, the elephants.  Among those in recent years (i.e. the last century or so) are ordination of women, marriage of people previously divorced, blood transfusions and organ tranpslantation, assisted conception, just war and human seuxuality.  Some of these elephants have proved bigger and more stubborn than others.  Some that were enormous a generation ago (I still have books published in the 1980s that denounce fertility treatment) have vanished (hiow many churches are actively praying for couples undergoing IVF as if this were the most natural thing in the world?).  Others seem to grow and grow and to climb higher and higher up the mountain until, well, they turn in to mountains, or even shibboleths, in their own right. 

It is a fact that every now and then I will be blanked (ignored, walked past) by other Baptist ministers just because I happen to have the 'wrong' chromosomal configuration.  For some people this elephant is alive and well and is fed regularly.  Now I don't mind people having a different view - it took me many years to come round to the idea - but I do mind that the elephant becomes bigger than the mountain, that this one thing is the definition of 'soundness' irrespective of what they or I might believe about Christ.

Over recent months the elephant of human sexuality has once again been fed a lot and is growing bigger.  As churches and individuals become polarised in their thinking, unable to listen to or hear from one another, it moves higher and higher up the mountain.  The trouble is that most of us - myself included - most of the time try to walk round it or to wish it away, and that simply isn't going to happen.  Sooner of later we all, individually and collectively, need to face the elephant and lead it to its rightful place on the mountain - which surely cannot be at the peak, can it?

This issue is about to become very live in BUS circles - some statements will be made at the upcoming Assembly.  Please, if it's your thing, pray for those who wrestle with the challenges of devising a form of words that will hold to the core without being destructive or devisive.  Please pray for those in all churches (and there will be people in ALL churches) who are directly impacted by pronouncements on the accpetability of their sexuality.  Please pray for those in pastoral ministry who do their flawed best to serve Christ as sheepdogs or shepherds on the side of a rugged and sometimes precipitous mountain.

The image of the minister as a shepherd has strong roots in biblical writings, and its appropriation by a culture very different from its origins is not unproblematic.  At the moment, though, I am struggling with it as a metaphor at all, and wondering if rather than a shepherd I am a sheepdog?

The ancient shepherds of biblical times, so we are told, walked ahead of the sheep, leading them where they should go.  The contemporary shepherds of western Europe, so I am told, go behind their sheep, driving them where they should go.  Irrespective of the image, the shepherd dictates the direction and the sheep dutifully go there.

I wish!

So, I am wondering if a sheepdog is more useful image, at least for me, as I try to work with my wonderfully diverse and endlessly complicated 'flock'?

In this image, I see the flock as a whole moving broadly in the direction that God is leading, and my job is to somehow try to hold them together without them getting so straggled out that the flock disintegrates totally.

So, when some are lagging behind, refusing to budge, is my job to get behind them and urge them forward?  When some wander off in interesting but distracting directions (as defined by who? Me probably!) is it to try to bring them back into line.  And if some are racing on ahead, is my job is to try to get them to wait for the others to catch up a bit.

And if it is, how then do I do that in a constructive, creative way?  I don't want to be a sheepdog that 'nips' the sheep and I don't want to lose any of them.  But what happens if keeping some means letting others go?  How do I determine which end of the straggly flock to work at impacting?  When does the straggled flock become untenable?  And how on earth do I be sure that it is God's whistles I am responding to and not those of my own will or of 'my' sheep?!

Hmmm.

This coming Sunday I am preaching with the title "A Christian Marriage?" and over the last week have been reading some theology - including church history - to try to get my head round something of how we got to where we are at the start of C21 in the UK, specifically Scotland.  It is fascinating stuff, not least because for the first four hundred years or so the Church had a very ambivalent view on marriage, favouring celibacy as the Biblical ideal and seeing marriage as a necessary means, put bluntly, of ensuring another generation of Christians.  The 'marriage is about procreation' understanding actually underlies an awful lot of what is taught in churches, even today. 

I really enjoyed the reading and learned a lot which I will be sharing on Sunday, but one of the things that struck me is the frequent allusion back to Genesis 2:24 "therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings (cleaves) to his wife, and they become one flesh'.  I just wonder what might have happened if instead the church had opted to major on 1 Corinthians 7, especially this bit:

Actually I would prefer that all of you were as I am; but each one has a special gift from God, one person this gift, another one that gift.
Now, to the unmarried and to the widows I say that it would be better for you to continue to live alone as I do.
But if you cannot restrain your desires, go ahead and marry - it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

1 Cor 7:7 - 9 GNB

If this was our 'proof text of choice' then marriage would emerge as God's 'second best', which would rather put the cat among the theological and ecclesiological pigeons!

I've had a lovely few days away catching up with friends and enjoying a change of scene.  And after that it is lovely to be back home, picking up the reigns and getting on with life.

For those who "do praying" please keep Annie in your prayers just now... her latest blog post says, I suspect,  everything needed through saying very little.  Also, another friend J who is stage 4 and having contradictory reuslts every couple of weeks.  Thank you.

Today I made a decision to stop posting on the bcc forum - I had become increasingly conscious that if I didn't 'make a break' I would keep on finding more and more new threads to contribute to, more and more new people to support and that, whilst laudible, it wouldn't ultimately be healthy or helpful for me.  I have gained a lot from sharing with others, and do hope to continue to see the local lasses in the real world from time to time as well as keeping in email contact with about half a dozen others.  But the reality is that my calling is to serve my church, and I need to ensure that stays at the forefront of what I'm doing and thinking.

So, back to normal tomorrow!  Whatever that means.

Just as the sun has made a reappearance in Glasgow, I'm off and away 'down south' for the weekend... 'up north' for many readers of this stuff.

All quiet on the blogging front

Back next week!

Due at WBQ mid-afternoon...

(Annie if you see this and are up for a meet can you let Chez know and she'll contact me!!!)