So, I've updated my sidebar photo yet again, as my hair gets longer and more bushy and I still can't quite bring myself to get it cut!  That it is crazy and increasingly untidy there is not doubt, but I'm still not sure how short I want to live with.  Anyway, I also took this photo of the back, which showed a mass of crazy curls - not even I could claim these were waves anymore!

When it is wet, it will comb out quite straight and the top will lie fairly flat; the back is another story altogether, as fast as I comb it it recoils into its favoured formation.  The thing is, I don't yet know if the curls will 'grow out' leaving me with fine straight hair or if they are here for good - and unless/until they cut off that remains a mystery...

When I was a minister in England, the structure of the Union was (and still is) such that churches for the most part belong to an Association, which employs one or more so-called Regional Ministers (RM).  The Associations then belong to the Union (as do the churches) with all its resources.  Ministers technically relate directly to the Union, but in practice, most of the time, relate to their Associations.  In one sense this can lead to a hierarchical view - that the Union is the top, the Association the next level down and the church at the bottom.  But I think what it endeavours to do is to provide rings of responsibility, a non-hierarchical relational support network.  It gets tricky - lots of churches emphasise their autonomy and vocally assert that 'they [the Union/Association] can't tell us what to do.'  And that's true.  But for ministers it's not, their covenant relationship with the Union requires them to accept the disicplines of the Union, even where they may be at odds with the local church.  So, for example, whilst a local church can refuse to allow women into its pulpit, an accredited minister accepts the ordination of women whether he likes it or not (I assume women ministers do also, but in this case gendered language seems appropriate!).

One of the advantages of this model is that it provides mechanisms for ministers to seek advice and guidance at a local level, without having to go running to the Union every time something tricky crops up.  So, for example, when I was in Dibley and most of our deacons wanted to retire, I rang my RM to get advice on the minimum legal and practical requirements for us to still exist (if you don't have a secretary and a treasurer, techncially you don't exist).  Similarly, when we failed to fill one essential post, I sought advice on how long we could legitimately continue in that situation.  Once or twice I sought guidance on pastoral matters.

Moving to Scotland, a much smaller Union, there is no interim level - no Association, no RM to whom I can turn for advice.  If I have a query or concern, there is only one port of call - the Union.  The upshot of this is that everything then becomes more significant, more 'official'.  I can ask an RM something 'off the record' or 'hypothetically';  I can't with the Union.  I can use an RM as a sounding board, or as a safe person to discuss something with; I can't with the Union.  I fully understand why the BUS is structured as it is, and I'm sure that it works well most of the time - just sometimes I miss having an RM I can ring up and say 'what do you think...'

Well, yesterday's service seemd to go pretty well, despite my incredibly high angst levels (which can be heard in my voice on the recording!), and I had lots of positive feedback from people who'd found it helpful and/or thought provoking.

So, what did I do?

I began by challenging oft heard saying that 'marriage is God's ideal' noting that Paul advocated celibacy and Jesus' singleness.  I noted that Biblical records include accounts of polygamy and concubinage, and not one instance of a rite or ceremony for marriage (I didn't mention this, but the wedding at Canna is a story about a party not a description of a service/ceremony).

I noted both that the early church saw celibacy as the ideal, and that there were no Christian marriage rites, rather local secular customs were adopted since marriage was not seen as a religious enterprise.

We moved swiftly through some church and European history, noting that there is almost no evidence of any explicit church/faith aspect to marriage before the 12th century, that most Christian traditions have no specific, mandatory rite for marriage, and that, legally a wedding in a Baptist church is a civil ceremony.  We noted that the 'love match' is a very recent invention, and that for most of history marriage had an explicitly political function.

So, against this background that says, essentially, there's no such thing as a Christian marriage per se, what might be the qualities of marriage that is Christian in character?  I used pairs of words to shape our thoughts...

• covenant not contract
• sacrifice not self-interest
• love not lust
• partnership not, necessarily or primarily, procreation

Not going to expand here on any of those, just offering them for anyone who wishes to ponder.

Still pretty whacked this morning - my day of rest and it's pouring with rain, so blogging to evade hoovering!

It never ceases to amaze me how God works in the most mysterious ways.

This week has been a bit tricky, and at times a bit demoralising, but 'bing bong' there in my email inbox arrived messages from people with exactly the right words to encourage me, people who don't know the real life me, only a persona through a blog or an internet forum or through the wonders of google to track down recordings of me preaching!

This morning's service seems to have been well received, but left me wrung out like a dish rag.  The intercessions, led by one of my peeps were stunningly beautiful and also echoed odd words and phrases I had used along the way.  Yes, the person knew the theme, even the readings and hymns, but even so...

Apparently, so I now discover, today is world blog action day, and the theme is food, which is slightly weird given what I posted this morning!

And then the bestest news, an email to say that someone we had supported during her exploration of call to ordained Baptist ministry has just received a unanimous call as an Associate Minister.  Whoop, whoop.

Part of me thinks, 'how does God do that?' but most of me thinks, 'I don't want to know, I'm just glad God does'.

[sorry, comments acting up again on this blog platform (and others), don't quite know why... that's another mystery beyond my ken!]

Listening to the radio this morning, the Sikh (at least notionally) presenter interviewing a Muslim observed, "Islam is a wide church" (he did then say, if you'll pardon the expression).

I guess it's no different to us as Christians referring to that we perceive as 'sound' or 'authentic' as 'kosher'

What other mixed-faith metaphors are out there?

Changing tack slightly...

A friend of mine was recently at a high level interfaith meeting that was exploring issues around food labelling and food that can be eaten by people of any or at least most faiths.  This has arisen partly because, for example, ceremonially unclean parts of of kosher or halal slaughtered animals enter the generic food chain, and this is, at least theoretically, offensive to some Christians (I'd argue those who don't quite understand what St Paul said, but even so). 

Then of course comes the question of what you can, or can't serve as a meal at a theoretical or literal interfaith gathering that absolutely anyone could eat - not easy since dietary laws are as complex as people!  I vaguely recall hearing something about the meetings in Israel/Palestine involving people of the three Abramic faith where they opted for vegetarian food because everyone could eat it without fear.  And I recall my own discomfort attending an ecumenical event in Manchester to which interfaith guests had been invited at which wine was served... fine for me, as a by choice TT Christian, just to say 'no thanks', but flippin' insulting to the Muslim guests I thought.

Anyway, among the universally acceptable options would probably be....

water, fruit juice, (tea and coffee would not be acceptable to those who exclude caffeine)

rice, oats, maize, potatoes, flat bread

fruit, vegetables, nuts (not mushrooms since some faiths don't permit them)

Ironically you end up with pretty much what the Bible tells us Daniel and his mates ate... and they seemed to thrive on it!

And now for the other extreme - two odd fusion dishes I've come accross recently in Glasgow...

- the haggis pakora

- the black pudding pizza

Each of which sound decidedly dodgy!

Edit - comments acting up again.  This from Julie...

Sadly not even that simple - some fruits and veg are forbidden by some faiths:root vegetables,  figs, and honey amongst the forbidden foods, foods with  e-numbers (the list is pages long!)

Eggs are forbidden as well and some forbid dairy produce.

Utensils and work surfaces need to be separate for some.

The advice to NHS hospitals runs to 60 pages!

Also some object on ethical grounds and Sikhs (and therefore I guess the Christians you mention) aren't sure about whether kosher meat (which is not prayed over at the time of death only at the time of eating) is ritually slaughtered meat or not!

Some also object to being only offered vegetarian food on the grounds that others' beliefs should not be forced upon them!