Today one of my lay preachers was taking our service; the fact that I was there, and had always intended to be there, caused some confusion, people having assumed it was one for my free Sundays, rather than, as is the case, my desire for these folk to serve us now and then rather than only preaching in places where they get paid.  Also, I feel that I have a repsonsibility to them, and to other congregations, to be sure that they aren't too far off the rails in what they are saying.

The preacher who led today is very experienced and is a competent speaker.  That she was married to minister shows in some of her language, that she has not had any training shows through in other ways.  Nonetheless, I am more than happy that she leads worship, even if she did inflict on us a set of fairly grim hymns from the red book.  Some people loved them - old tunes with proper harmonies remembered by those who once sang in the church choir did make it a pleasant sound, even if most of these hymns were last sung in nineteen hundred and frozen to death and I struggled to connect them to the theme of 'ordinary people'.

I have no problem with old hymns, some are truly inspiring and timeless, others would be better consigned to the waste bin.  I guess I can say I learned a cople of new songs today - just that new meant 19th century! So the red hymn book struck back - until next week when Palm Sunday will mean a real blend of old and new all on screen or large and giant print sheets.

Today was our spring Association Day, reverting to its 'traditional' form after a couple of more experimental ones, and meeting in a rather run down primary schoool , the long-term-temporary-home of a small church in Derby.  As their minister welcomed us, he acknowledged the general culture shock of the surroundings after recent meetings in nice salubrious churches, but wanted to share with us how much it meant to the school that someone would want to book their premises for a Saturday conference - quite a humbling moment.

Part of the more routine stuff is the welcome of ministers new to the Association, and the invitation to pray for them, usually by those near by placing a hand on their shoulders/heads as they do so.  Due to a slip, the invitation was given to "those in praying distance" which caused much mirth before it was corrected.

It was a good day, and Richard Hardy of Care for the Family is a charismatic speaker.  He had come as out keynote speaker and then expecting to speak in special interest groups on 'single people and the church.' He had been advertised as speaking on 'church and community' so offered each group to whom he spoke the choice between the two sessions.  Although I'd gone in response to the advertised talk, I'd have preferred the one on singleness and was saddened when (a) I was the only person in the group who 'voted' for that talk (there was apparently one in the other group too) and (b) that the whole concept of single people having needs seemed to be seen by most as funny, with some patronising comments and derision from those around me.  To be fair, Richard did come to speak to me afterwards, and I think shared my concern that >15 years after the EA work on Singleness and about 5 years after Kristin Aune's work, churches were still not taking this seriously despite the fact that a third of the UK population is single (i.e. not in a relationship).  I suspect he had not expected me to be that knowledgeable though!  What he said about engaging with communities was good stuff, but nothing we aren't already trying to do here .

One of his comments in his key note address was on the distinction between 'Law' and 'Grace and Truth' and what you ought to do if you felt torn between 'grace' and 'truth' - which way should you jump?  While he believes that grace and truth cannot be separated, what should one do if it feels as if they contradict?  He felt that we should err to the side of 'grace' - and I agree, but here's the rub, what do I do when my view of 'truth' tells me something is wrong - or at best it is something with which I struggle - and I long to let grace take priority?  I think that this idea is helpful in some of the areas where I struggle but I need to spend some time working out what it means in practical terms.  Care for the Family is a pretty conservative organisation and I was left wondering if there were relationships types where this stress on grace might find itself challenged, and/or where the 'abundance of grace' arguments maybe would be wheeled out.  Sometimes following Jesus is a tight-rope between 'legalism' and 'truth' on the one hand and between 'grace' and 'laissez faire' on the other.  It'll take me a life time to work it out, that's for sure, but at least help is 'in praying distance'

A good friend of mine who serves a Baptist church near the erstwhile Rover plant has a game called Baptist Assembly Bingo that he plays each year with the hymns/songs that appear in the main worship events.  This year I thought I might have a go at creating my own version (how naughty I am) which could also include words and phrases and/or other games - like how many times do we use the phrase "total mission"  or the worship leader will pray "yeah 'n' God we really just" or even who it is who will offer which opinions in the various debates.

I enjoy Assembly, it is good to be part of something big, to meet up with friends from around the country, to share in the commissioning of ministers and missionaries, to listen to 'big name' speakers, to get a flavour of where other people think they 'are at' and where 'we' are 'at' as a Union.  But if we take it too seriously then, alas, I fear we have lost the plot.

Now then... 'light of the world you stepped down into darkness'.... 'let everything that hath breath praise the Lord'... 'santo, santo, santo.....' and, undoubtedly this year, 'and can it be' and 'amazing grace.'   Others...?

Just got home from a totally unproductive day trip to Manchester!  The good news - apart from 20 mins to get through Alderly it was a good run run each way.

Who hides all the books in libraries, that's what I want to know - they put on all these fancy electronic tags and install fancy databases but the list of a dozen or so books you've come to look at, which are all listed as 'available' are invisible.  And you are are not alone, a twenty-something undergrad (obviously of the keen variety, it's not term time) was speaking to the library assistant about her list of invisible books too.

"Blue 4 is a silent study zone" it said on the door - i.e. death to students who talk!  So I entered to find the two library staff chatting loudly as they shared holiday photos, and as I 'womanfully' laboured to persuade the keyword search to find anything I could use (it is not very good at 'fuzzy matching' let alone wild cards), a whole group of chatting folk sauntered through.  Obviously in post-modernity silent does not mean silent anymore, silly me.

Decided to pop into Blackwell's university book shop.  Great collection of Mr Men/Little Miss books, but nothing on theology or historiography, let alone congregational studies.  Is it too late to switch my field of research...? ;-)

Drove past my old flat which had scaffolding outside - finally the roof is being repaired!  It is now used as offices, and the whole area has changed dramatically from 8 years ago when I moved there.

So, back home, back to Amazon and Google - at least in the quiet of my little office in my little damp house I have only myself to get ratty with.

Since reading Becker's Congregation's in Conflict, my subconscious has been playing around with the metaphors/images/models she uses and wondering what their implications might be.  In particular, the 'family' and 'community' ideas, which seem probably the most relevant for where I am and what I'm trying to do.

The family metaphor is a very popular one, and I suspect how many of my folk see themselves.  Becker notes some of the strengths and weaknesses of this model, often flip-sides of the same facet: cohesion, tradition, defined roles, introversion etc.  I found myself mulling over the consequences - and limitations - in an almost biological-reproductive sense!  Becker notes that outreach/mission is not a big issue in such congregations, they will support home and overseas mission financially, but are not engaged in local mission in any way, shape or form.  This is actually not unlike human families, where the centre of the universe is the old 'we four and no more' (except a few grandparents, aunts and uncles).  Families can be healthy and strong but they only survive as long as there are heirs.  When the last heir dies childless the family dies with him/her.  So it is with family churches.  My little lot speak fondly of their good Sunday School of 30-ish children about 15-20 years ago.  What they forget is that all 30-ish were the children of church members and that now only two remain in any church - neither in ours.  The last heirs have, in effect, died (yes, these folk may rediscover their faith, but not here) and if the church is a family, it will die when numbers are too small to keep meeting.  This should not surprise anyone: research shows that only something like 5% of chidlren who attend Sunday School ever make the transition into church; if I tracked back one more generation on my church, we have exactly 2 people from the 1950's/60's who are still in church.  Family is a nice cosy metaphor, but it is inevitably self-limiting, maybe the more so in an area like this where I am one of the few people not related to half the church by blood!

The community metaphor - used in the Five Core Values material - is growing in popularity, not least as congregations wake up to their plight and the need for mission.  It is a much more fluid and open model, the boundaries are possibly less clearly defined (though in reality rivers and roads can be pretty distinctive limits) and there is a clearer sense of being more than a group whose only common interest is faith.  Geographical communities are very fluid and the changes over time can be dramatic, which is why congregations can find themselves as a kind of holy ghetto in a foreign land.  People move in and people move out, shops and businesses come and go - communities are a bit like the old tale of the wedding present broom "it's had three new heads and four new handles but it's still the same broom."  There is not the same expectation that people will be here for ever (except perhaps in small rural villages, which can die with the last family) but the congregation will go on because new people are expected to come in as 'old' ones move out.  That doesn't mean that there is no stability, rather it means that this type of church has the potential to survive the demise or departure of individuals or families because it is less dependent upon them.  Mission and adaptation are important - and bring with them a greater openness to change and the challenges that come with it, including disagreement and conflict.

I find myself much more of the 'community' view than 'family' but how much is that about my own experience and my 'wandering Aramean' tendencies?  Becker notes how difficult it can be for family congregations to embrace new ministers, especially if they happen to have a different view of the purpose of church (which apparently most do!) and that, effectivley, you have to live here for three generations to be one of us.  Yet, what is a minister to do when the family who calls her has no heirs?  She can either be a palliative care nurse cum undertaker - a valid, if perhaps frustrating role - or she can try to encourage the family to open its doors and welcome in strangers who will uphold the family honour and keep alive the best traditions in a new way so that we do not keep a musty stately home as a curiosity but allow the shell to house something meaningful for a new generation or new people - also tricky.

One of my ongoing questions is 'how long do I go on trying to facilitate change?'  It looks as if our holdiay club will not run this year as there is no commitment from anyone else to make it happen.  Pentecost will happen because I am driving it along, but no one is willing to take a lead in any aspect of it.  At the start of this year I made a conscious decision to step back and start to allow things to sink or swim as local people do or do not take ownership of them; the pub intiative will be the last new thing I start.  It can be painful to see things die for lack of interest - but maybe it has to be.  This has wandered well away from where I began, in best Catriona tradition, but I guess what I am saying is that I think the community model of a congregation may offer more long term sustainablility than a family view (but that's yet another PhD I'm not going to do!).  This year is crunch time in me discerning what God is saying to me about my role in this fellowship, some clear signs are starting to emerge, but that doesn't make it any easier to accept what God might well be saying.