I mentioned in a post last week that I had been involved in an innovative project using photos as a starting point for conversations.  Well now that the outcome of that is 'live' I'll say a little more about it.

I was invited to be the '1000 Words' guest for the October SmallVOICE podcast of GRF Christian radio (link in the sidebar under "things that make you go hmmm..."  It was an interesting and enjoyable, if slightly stressful evening (rather a lot of soul baring by my standards) but the interviewer and editor have done a great job in making something of what I shared.  It is slightly weird to hear myself say 'um' so many times as my worship leading is largley 'um' free; also whoever taught me to ennunciate consonants should be mighty pleased with themself!

The SmallVOICE podcast has a link to here which has a link to there, so we can go round in circles as long as we wish!

A very interesting 15 min section on truth and trustworthyness in relation to the news media makes a useful conversation partner with my piece, which is partly about authenticity and openness.  Finding the right balance is challenging, and it was good to reflect further upon this.  Serendipity or whatever, I found myself makig connections as I listened.

You can listen to the podcast here; my bit is at about 24 mins 30 seconds in and lasts roughly 8 minutes. 

As here, so there, I use my first name only - it's not rocket science to track me down if you want to, but there are people and churches to protect, at least a little bit, and this is how I choose to do it (you can decide if that's honest or truthful!)

Yesterday I read in a newspaper that people trust scientists more than they trust clergy-people.

So where does that leave me as a scientist turned clergy-person?!

Sometimes I have nothing to write about, and other times a whole raft of ideas floods my mind.

I have just finished reading a fascinating book called "The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer" which is a really accessible and interesting account of the way that cancer treatment, and understanding of this class of diseases, has changed over the last century or so, as well as tracking it back to ancient history.  Using various literary illustrations and quotes along the way, the writer makes frequent note of the 'serendipitous' nature of discoveries or coalition of ideas.  I enjoyed the book greatly, it taught me a lot about the disease and how treatment has evolved (I am mighty glad to have been diagnosed in 2010, not 1980 or even 1990, but people then would probably say the same compared with 1950 or 1900...).  I also found myself spotting little things that made me go 'hmmm'... maybe these were serendipitous too?

Asceptic surgery was first carried out by Joseph Lister a surgeon at what is now called Glasgow Royal Infirmary.  One of his first procedures was a mastectomy performed on his sister.  My surgery took place in that hospital, albeit in a shiny modern building...

George Beatson was a breast surgeon in Glasgow... the hospital where I had chemotherapy was named in his honour...

Tamoxifen was patented three months before I was born...

And so on.  Someone else would read the book and not notice any of these things.  They might notice hospitals they knew (mainly US but the Uk and Europe have been vital in the story) or dates that resonated.  They might not spot any connections whatsoever.  So was it serendiptious or just a bit random?

Several years ago, I was at a Baptist ministers' conference at a well known Christian conference centre.  Other groups were also there.  On the last day, I was carrying a large box of equipment out of the building.  As I reached the door, someone from the other group arrived and opened it for me.  "That was providential" she said.  "Lucky" I thought, knowing that all my Baptist minister friends would use the same term.  So was it luck or providence, or merely coincidence?

Words, so I am told, are how we create meaning.  But the meaning of words, I am also told, is determined in community.  All language is insider language, and word games and word plays are part and parcel of life.  Word plays can include or exclude.  Word games can help or hinder comprehension.  Semantics (in any of its meanings) can be fun or annoying.

Serendipity, chance, luck, providence... these words all seem to be inter-related (I have not looked in a thesaurus but expect they occur as alleged synonyms).  I wonder, too, if they are constructs we make ourselves, correlations we deduce or design, to make some kind of sense of otherwise random and bewildering coincidences?

Or, are they somehow manifestations of an altogether more wonderful and bewildering concept - that of grace?  I offer this suggestion tentatively, because there is a risk of bad theology here, that says somehow me and mine, and our good, are the reason for the coincidence.

I'm not sure, and I don't have the brain power to work it out, but for me there is something intriguing about the coincidences and connections, something that makes me go 'hmmm', something that suggests that 'in all things God works for good.'

I enjoyed the honesty of the book, and though parts were repetitive, it was a good read.  The author seemed to struggle to end it - partly I think because the case study he had followed throughout did not end as he expected.  The reality is we still don't really understand cancer, we still have no cure, we can achieve longer remission (even decades) for some forms whislt others are still fatal within weeks of diagnosis.  But somehow within this grace is active... researchers stumble across new insights, new treatments, new connections... people endure new procedures or new drugs not just for themselves but from a desire that one day a cure will be found. 

If nothing else, the book made me think again about the complexity of language and about the mystery of grace - and that has to be a good thing.

Some of the parables in the gospel of Luke are pretty scary.  This morning, PAYG used this one from Luke 12:

...the Lord said, ‘Who then is the faithful and prudent manager whom his master will put in charge of his slaves, to give them their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. Truly I tell you, he will put that one in charge of all his possessions. But if that slave says to himself, “My master is delayed in coming”, and if he begins to beat the other slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and put him with the unfaithful. That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. But one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating. From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.

It is scary stuff, rarely reflected upon let alone preached upon, partly, I suspect because it is primarily to ministers and preachers that it speaks.

Way back, I can recall chatting with someone about my call to ordained ministry, and observing that my biggest fear was that I would say or do, or not say or do, something that damaged someone else's faith or hanpered its development.  That concern is always at the back of my mind, and is probably why I pull up short of logical conlcusions sometimes - a kind of pastoral (misguided maybe?) concern.

This parable scares me.  It scared me when I heard it read today.  Not in a bad way, in a good way... it shakes me out of my complacency and comfort; it challenges me to consider if I am stuffing my metaphorical face and leaving others metaphorically hungry.  It reminds me of the much that has been entrusted to me, and the consequent expectations.

It disturbs me but it does not undermine me.  A few years back when 'Fresh Expressions' was all the rage, I bought a DVD of stories (I lent it to someone in Juxta Dibley and never saw it again!).  One story was from a Methodist minister who said that when he had to give account of his life to God he would simply say 'I tried my best'.  That's all we can do.  That's all God requires of us.  Not perfect understanding, not fully honed theolgoy, not unshakeable faith... just that we do our best with what we have been given.

Sometimes, God, I fear I am that servant

The one who has forgotten who and what they are

Who is careless or selfish

Not caring as she should for those entrusted to her care

Not sharing the new insights you give

Not doing as I should

Sometimes, God, I fear I have failed

Or am failing

Or will fail

To be

To do

What you require

And yet I keep trying

For that is all I can do...

Forgive me my faults

Strengthen my resolve

And let me keep on trying...

Perhaps I should preface this by saying that I count among my friend lots of wonderful Anglicans, and other paedobaptists, whose faith and practice is inspiring, and that I really don't want to 'dis' them or cause offence.

This afternoon, in a private ceremony, Prince George is to be baptised.  Not christened, there is no such rite and it really annoys me that the Church of England colludes with the media in using the wrong term.  I hope (in a theologically proper, Christian kind of a way) that in due course he will come to faith, and that that faith will inspire his living.  And I do hope (in a more general human kind of a way) that he lives a healthy and fulfilled life. 

I have all sorts of issues with private ceremonies (baptism is by definition public*) and I'll avoid commenting on the relationship of church and state.  What really got my goat, though, was the sense that this would inspire other people to have their babies baptised (interesting subtle change of language methinks) which makes it sound like some sort of fashion statement, a thing to 'do' to keep up with the Joneses or the Patels or whoever.  I don't think that is what the Arch Bish will have intended, I am sure he means that he hopes more families will embark on a journey of faith that can begin with the presentation of their child(ren) for baptism.

So, will young Prince George be in creche next Sunday or Sunday School in a few years time?  Will the demanding promises made by the godparents chosen by his parents, or indeed those of anyone who is inspired to do 'likewise', be fulfilled?  And will the churches to which these children are brought play their part in supporting the parents as they endeavour to bring up their children?

Without getting into a paedo vs credo baptism debate, I do think our practice of infant blessing and dedication of parents has a lot to commend it.  It allows parents to have a ceremony in which they can celebrate new life, by birth or adoption.  It allows faith-appropriate promises to be made.  It requires the church to make promises about its on-going commitment to children and young people.  It centres on hope, properly understood, that the child (and parent(s) if appropriate) will one day come to name that faith for themselves.  Such features are not unique, and I am sure some of my infant baptising friends will assure me they do much the same.  It is also fair to say that our rite does not necessarily draw any more people in to church - it just feels less dishonest to me.

Will events today inspire a new generation to seek faith?  That would be brilliant!  Or will it result in a blip in the stats for middle class parishes in middle England... only time will tell.

Whatever my views, I pray that God will bless the royals today, in the same way that God blesses all people in such moments.

* Baptisms of still births and neonates by hopsital chaplains would obviously be a valid exception to my general rule on the public nature of the rite!