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!

... can pay off.  After nearly two hours waiting to log on to the website I finally managed to purchase some tickets for Glasgow 2014.

Three of the early round of the netball (and hoping that the final gets moved to the larger venue AND that tickets are offered first to those who missed out so that I might still get there) and one round of lawn bowls as it takes place more or less on my doorstep at church.

I am not convinced this method of ticket sales is helpful - I was only able to sit and wait because today is my 'day off'.  I don't mind the wating per se, I don't even mind tickets being sold out, I just think that there is something not quite working when we end up with this situation (and there will probably still be events for which they'll end up giving away tickets because no-one wants them).

For now I am happy - and will look forward to the amazing atmosphere that accompanies the games.

Well, fairly.  It was taken in September in a food court in Glasgow where I was supping a skinny (hopefully fairtrade) latte.  How long it will last until I change it again, who knows, but it is definitely the most apposite I've used thus far!

Roughly three and a half years ago I was invited to be a keynote speaker at a conference for newly accredited ministers, and told I could speak on anything I liked, so long as it was relevant to pastoral ministry.  At the time I was mulling over various thoughts about 'authenticity' and how that is played out within the role and responsibilties of pastoral ministry.

Circumstances meant that I had to withdraw from that confernece even before I had begun to prepare for it, and the invitation has never been repeated (which is perfectly fine, in case any of the organisers are reading this!)

Over the summer I made some progress on some empirical research exploring how ministers have managed the interface of 'public faith and private pain' which led in turn to the title of the paper I have to write for the international conference I will be attending next February - 'Public Faith and Private Pain: A Quest for Authenticity'.

Last evening I was involved in an innovative project where people bring photographs they consider to be significant in some way and use them as a jumping off point for a conversation.  More to follow on this in a few weeks time, but perhaps inevitably with the photos I chose, the question of authenticity emerged.

And so, three and half years on, or thereabouts, I have come full circle, kind of, and am considering the same topic with very different insights and resources.

Somewhere along the line, I derived a mental image for faith development and/or theological reflection that is a spiral staircase where the vertical axis is chronological time (tautologous but you get my drift).  As life passes you ascend (or descend I suppose, but in my head I go upwards; you can only go one way) the staircase, which may or may not be uniform in pitch or diameter (bet you wish you'd done A level tech drawing now!!) passing and repassing the same point but at a different level.  There is no sense that later is 'better'  or 'more mature' but it does have the potential to be 'richer' with more to mull over and new insights to take forwards.

Maybe it's a daft image, but it works for me, and helps me make sense of the cyclic and linear nature of life in all its fullness.

Having succombed to social media, I belong to a number of 'groups' relating to different areas of interest.

In one of them, someone asked for recommendations for books on 'Spiritual Warfare', which is a whole topic on its own.  But it was one of the replies that really got my goat.  Referring to a 'ministry' the respondent said:

"The basic premise is if there is something wrong the enemy has been allowed in due to sin and if we deal with the sin then the enemy cannot continue damaging people. They link certain illness or groups of illnesses to specific sins so it is easier to discover the sin and deal with it"

Really?  What a load of old codswallop, have they not read their Bibles recently?

Sure, the sinful nature of the whole human race has given rise to conditions whereby sickness arises, but the idea that my sin caused my cancer... or someone else's caused their depression, diabetes, chronic fatigue, etc, etc?  NO!  NO!  NO!

I am resisting the urge to explode in a reply to that post... at least here, in my online space I am free to say very clearly that the premise is utter rubbish!