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are careless and post information that is confidential or sensitive - pastoral news or prayer requests really ought not to be published or, if it is, should be confined to a password protected area.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.

I don't know why. but for some reason yesterday I found myself recalling a rather daft game we used to play at work about 10 yeasr ago, and wondering if it could be applied to churches...

It was the Native American Name Game - probably totally non-PC but it kept us amused in the more boring moments of daily life.  I suspect it emerged fromthe title of the film Dances with Wolves becuase it involved identfying a verb and an object associated with individuls.

For example, one of my colleagues was a bit of an exercise junkie and went to the gym every lunchtime.  He also brought a carrot in his packed lunch every day.  So he became Exercises with a Carrot.

Another colleague was a heavy smoker and had an inflatable Mr Blobby as a kind of mascot, so he was Smokes with Mr Blobby.

They never told me what they named me, but perhaps these days it'd be Blogs with a Mug of Tea (since despite the title of this blog I'm more of a tea drinker and there's usually a half drunk mug sitting in my office).

For another, unexplained, reason I found myself thinking about churches mission statements and one I came across several years backthat said 'we seek to be purpose driven in a balance fashion.'  Sounds impressive but I'm not sure what it means!

Sohow about combining the name game with the church's statements?  What one verb and one object sum up a congregation?

"Recalls glory days with a green hymnbook?"

"Talks about mission with Powerpoint?"

"Prays with a cup of tea?"

"Seeks trade justice with kitkats?"

I'm not letting on which churches these might relate to but they are not totally imaginary.  As for dear old Dibley... "Keeps on keeping on with a mad woman minister" I suspect.

Check this out... where else could you have a degree in the things you surely ought to have learned at home?  And is there a parallel programme for men?  A degree in being a vicar's wife - now there's an idea (not)!

PS You may need to follow the threads on the Sheri Klouda situation to make full sense of this.