Yesterday the UK Government/Westminster Government passed the proposal that will begin the process to redefine the legal registration of marriages in England and Wales.  It has been interesting to see the informal responses of various friends on social media, mostly it has to be said from those who feel this is a step forward.

One of the questions, to which I am not sure we have a proper answer, is whether or not 'marriage' is the correct word.  I nipped into the coffee shop across the road from church as usual, and asked the proprietors what they made of the legislation (they are a gay couple in a CP).  They were quite clear: for them, marriage was not what they wanted, was not how they defined their relationship, but if it was what other people wanted, so be it.  I know a lesbian couple in a CP who do choose to use the word 'marriage' and refer to one another as 'wife'.  I know a lesbian woman 'down south' who was once in a heterosexual marriage and is now in a CP who is adamant that 'marriage' is not a term she wants to use, ever, because it is such a flawed institution.  I also know of, and in the past have known, pairs of people who are neither romantically attached nor sexually involved who were, and who still are, prevented from entering a legal covenanted relationship which would secure certain rights (e.g. tenancy or pension after death of one of them).

A few people up here are openly scathing about the Westminster legislation, pointing out how much better the proposed Scottish legislation is, and that may indeed be true, though I think it is always easy to criticise when you go second (especially if you don't have Henry VIII's church of convenience on statute)... ;-)  There is undoubtedly lots that could/should have been better thought through, but, for example, untangling several centuries of legislation around the C of E in order to make a 'better' law now would not exactly be a vote winner, nor would it be the best use of parliamentary time!

I pretty much know what I think (at this point in time anyway!) about what the word 'marriage' means, but I hope that I am gracious enough to give space and place to those who view it differently.  Given a clean sheet of paper, which will never happen, I would want to find a new name for legally endorsed, coventantally committed human relationships that lacks both the clinical coldness of 'civil partnership' and the historical baggage and presuppositions of 'marriage'.  At the same time I'd like to see a legal requirement for all such partnerships to be registered via a civil ceremony (as in most of Europe) which would then release faith groups to bless or not, as conscience allowed, without undermining important principles of justice in what is, after all, a secular society.

As I mull over how to take forward a Bible study on James 3, and 'taming the tongue' it is perhaps pertinent to pause, fleetingly, to be reminded of just how much 'baggage' and 'expectation' any word carries.

Two years ago, I used a couple of jigsaws to help me regain my powers of concentration after my surgery - really good if not totally successful.  Indeed, it is only in the last couple of months I've really felt my brain has been back to something nearing it's proper functionality.  I also discovered that I enjoyed jigsaws, and since then have done the odd done now and then.

Today I began one of this picture called 'cats in need' by Polyanna Pickering:

I think I've done around 100 pieces of the 1000 this afternoon.  It is quite challenging, but a subject that appeals, so well worth the effort.  It will keep me occupied for a nice long time, forcing me to relax and unwind after busy days.

So far, Holly cat has resisted the tmeptation to help...!

OK, so this is a spoof, it's not Anne Hathaway, but I still think it's pretty good... and was evidently done in a single take just as the orginal was...

If you haven't yet seen the film, I'd definitely recommend it.

No, this is not confession time nor self flagellation time, but something that struck me as I have been re-reading commentaries ahead of leading a Bible Study next week on James 3:1 - 12.  The last time I looked at them, last autumn, I confess I skipped over all the detailed analytical stuff, partly cos my brain was still not up for reading Greek, and partly because I was wanting broader brush strokes.  Today, I noticed something in one commentary, then spotted it in another, and yet neither of the writers seemed to spot the irony of what they were (or were not) saying.

The opening of James 3 is roughly thus: 'not many of us should apsire to be teachers, because more is expected of them, and we all make mistakes.' and then moves into a plethora of examples of very small things that have potential for huge impact - whether it is a spark, a ship's rudder or a bit in the mouth of a horse.  All good, self-explantory stuff: little thing, big impact which could be destructive.

The two commentators spent lots of words noting that the start of verse three, in Greek, could be (based on extant manuscripts I assume):

• ei de
• ide
• eide
• idou

The difference seems small when it is written down, but the sentence is changed by whichever is chosen. For example:

if we put bits in horses' mouths....

behold, we put bits in horses' mouths...

As the commentators note, in this case it doesn't matter much which word we choose, because the message isn't substantively altered.  But, whilst they note the need for interperative choice, and one even asks 'how do you decide which is the correct choice', neither makes the connection that seemed to me really obvious - that here, in this text, is a teeny weeny example of just how tricky it is to get this right.  We all make mistakes, a word missed or mistyped here, a punctuation slip there, and the meaning changes, sometimes with catastrophic results.  It is entirely feasible that trascription errors or even poor handwriting exaplin the differences... the pen has like potnetial to the tongue.

All of which has given me an idea to research a little exercise for the participants to share as a 'warm up' if only I can find sufficient suitable words and phrases...

Growing up where I did, the Wars of the Roses and the associated battle for the English throne were not just history, they were local interest.  The third and final primary school I went too had four 'houses' named Gloucester, Warwick, Lancaster and York after some of the key players in that process, and of course the Northamptonshire emblem is a Tudor Rose, the combination of those of Lancaster and York.  So for me, this is interesting at more than a merely intellectual level. 

The Battle of Northampton took place in what is now Delapre Abbey, a place I visited frequently as a child, and where in 1990 two oak trees planted as part of the town's charter 800 year celebrations (technically 1989) are memorials to my Dad - I recall tracking them down one cold autumn day and gathering fallen leaves as a memento. 

I've also spent many happy hours wandering the Bosworth battle field, and eaten a few Christmas meals in the cafe-restaurant there with the lunch club that Dibley BC ran for five years.

History - his story - and my story, overlapping and interconnecting in some small way.  Well it interests me!!