I have just updated the membership list for our seniors' lunch club, and added the 80th name.  From zero in September 2005, with a dream of reaching 40, that's pretty good!

Our current membership is 65 - a few have died, a few others have left or found better offers - and our present venue can cope with up to 90, so there is a little bit of potential to grow.  Perhaps as well as we are in negotiations to pick up folk from two other clubs that are closing.

It is perhaps a shame that dear old BUGB don't let us count adults the way we count children - we'd look like a big church then!!!  But then I sometimes wonder if a more honest child count would give us a better wake up call than the current 'any child who comes to anything you do at all' method.

Anyway, I thought the whole world should know we reached 80 not out!

Yesterday's government vote on Trident replacement raises the perennial questions of answers to prayer.  Loads of people of all theological convictions and many faiths were praying about it yesterday.  I assume most were praying for a 'no' vote (me included, depsite my past connections with defence and not being a pacifist) but there will have been some, I guess, who were praying for a 'yes' because their conscience dictated otherwise (let's face it, when it comes to the civil equivalent, I probably would be, if I wasn't open to the suggestion that for all my convictions may be worng, so will ask for wisdom instead).

So, was the 'yes' actually God's will or was it a failure to hear or respond to God's will?  I remember the intense conviction I had that God had called me to a certain congregation in 2003, only for them to vote 'no.'  Countless people told me that it must have been God's will, but I felt at the time that it was a failure to hear/obey it.  Who was right?  Who decides?  How?  That church called a minister at almost the same time that I was called to Dibley; I believe God's 'plan B' is every bit as good as God's 'plan A', but it isn't the same, and there are consequences to be faced.  Too easily we assign things to being of God, when they are remote and, in some circles at least, to the devil when they directly affect us.  More rarely do we acknowledge our own finitude or sin.

I am truly saddened that our government wasn't brave enough to make a decision that would have shown us to take seriously such things as non-proliferation, but I am encouraged that a substantial number of MPs were willing to stand up and be counted.  This, surely, is an answer to our prayers.  Maybe this is the start of something new, something good, something Godly.

As Baptists we live with the tension of believing that we discern Christ's mind through the church meeting and recognising the potential for our own foolish, partial and sometimes downright sinful free will to prevent this.  Maybe we, or at least I, need to show some generosity to our political leaders who are no worse than the rest of us, and follow the lead of the apostle Paul in praying for, not about, them.

I caught the BBC news at lunchtime (1 p.m.) and was left somewhat bemused by the priorities...

Top headline - a messed up phone in competition on Blue Peter last November that had a faked winner, followed by a long interview with someone from children's broadcasting.

Second item - the trident vote.

I'm not excusing what happened with the Blue Peter thing (or any of the other dodgey premuim rate phone things) but frankly, which is more important in the grand scheme of things - little Johnny/Janey didn't get a toy he/she didn't need or Mr Blair does? 

No, not British Telecom!  Baptist Times.

Page 12, this week 'Buildings and the Statements they Make' - dare I photocopy this for my people?  Dare I send in my version of our experiences?  At least someone is thinking about this topic.  Have a gander at it, and remember those of us who camp out in schools, sports halls and community centres.

A while back I read somewhere - I think in Theologcial Reflection: Methods  by Elaine Graham et al, that there has been a long term shift in how mnisters are trained and how they understand themselves.  In the first half of the twentieth century was the 'Minister as Expert', then came 'Minister as Therapist' and now we have something like 'Minister as Participant.'  At the time I found this recognition interesting and puzzling - what happens when you change minister and get different models, etc. etc.

This week I am reading Congregations in Conflict by Penny Edgell Becker which identified four basic types of congregations, each of which experiences and handles conflict differently.  She come sup with four types of congregation - explanation my interpretation of her words...

1. House of Worship - congregations (who may or may not have a permanent building) whose primary role is Sunday worship and Christian religious education
2. Family - congregations who see themselves as a family, and whose life consists of Sunday worship, Christian religious education and lots of practical pastoral support for their folk.  Real issues don't get discussed 'we don't talk about that' and it can be hard to 'break in' from outside.  Apparently these are the type most likely to be emotionally attached to buildings!
3. Community - congregations that centre on Sunday worship, religious education and 'living the life.'  Easier to get into than 'family' and much more prone to open conflict because issues do get raised and addressed.  Tend to be 'small c' congregational in governance.  Often it is more important that things are dealt with than the outcome.  People who don't like it will often leave.
4. Leader - congregations that centre on Sunday worship, religious education and 'being leaders' in relation to issues.  Often have more hierarchical leadership structures, and strong engagement beyond the congregation in social issues, local and global.  Tend to be more in keeping with denominational traditions than community congregations.

None of these types is 'better' or 'worse' and each has strengths and weaknesses; diversity is not wrong, just challenging! 

I think Baptist churches can be any and all of these, though intuitively I feel that our 'tradition that we don't do' should make us more like Community (presumably why good old BUGB expressed Five Core Values as they did).  I think dear old Dibley is more of the Family model, and it is hardly unique.

So now my little conundrum gets more complicated - how does a 'participant minister who believes in a community model' best serve a 'family congregation who seem to want a therapeutic minister'?  Understanding better who we each are and what we want/need is only a first step, but at least it is a step.

Oh, and if you are wondering how any of this relates to historical stuff and congregational studies, this book gets footnoted extensively in the other stuff I've been reading.