This coming Sunday I am preaching with the title "A Christian Marriage?" and over the last week have been reading some theology - including church history - to try to get my head round something of how we got to where we are at the start of C21 in the UK, specifically Scotland.  It is fascinating stuff, not least because for the first four hundred years or so the Church had a very ambivalent view on marriage, favouring celibacy as the Biblical ideal and seeing marriage as a necessary means, put bluntly, of ensuring another generation of Christians.  The 'marriage is about procreation' understanding actually underlies an awful lot of what is taught in churches, even today. 

I really enjoyed the reading and learned a lot which I will be sharing on Sunday, but one of the things that struck me is the frequent allusion back to Genesis 2:24 "therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings (cleaves) to his wife, and they become one flesh'.  I just wonder what might have happened if instead the church had opted to major on 1 Corinthians 7, especially this bit:

Actually I would prefer that all of you were as I am; but each one has a special gift from God, one person this gift, another one that gift.
Now, to the unmarried and to the widows I say that it would be better for you to continue to live alone as I do.
But if you cannot restrain your desires, go ahead and marry - it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

1 Cor 7:7 - 9 GNB

If this was our 'proof text of choice' then marriage would emerge as God's 'second best', which would rather put the cat among the theological and ecclesiological pigeons!

I've had a lovely few days away catching up with friends and enjoying a change of scene.  And after that it is lovely to be back home, picking up the reigns and getting on with life.

For those who "do praying" please keep Annie in your prayers just now... her latest blog post says, I suspect,  everything needed through saying very little.  Also, another friend J who is stage 4 and having contradictory reuslts every couple of weeks.  Thank you.

Today I made a decision to stop posting on the bcc forum - I had become increasingly conscious that if I didn't 'make a break' I would keep on finding more and more new threads to contribute to, more and more new people to support and that, whilst laudible, it wouldn't ultimately be healthy or helpful for me.  I have gained a lot from sharing with others, and do hope to continue to see the local lasses in the real world from time to time as well as keeping in email contact with about half a dozen others.  But the reality is that my calling is to serve my church, and I need to ensure that stays at the forefront of what I'm doing and thinking.

So, back to normal tomorrow!  Whatever that means.

Just as the sun has made a reappearance in Glasgow, I'm off and away 'down south' for the weekend... 'up north' for many readers of this stuff.

All quiet on the blogging front

Back next week!

Due at WBQ mid-afternoon...

(Annie if you see this and are up for a meet can you let Chez know and she'll contact me!!!)

This morning someone sent me some links to blog posts on tweeting (creating Twitter posts) during funerals.  My first thought was "well I hope no-one did that on Tuesday" (if they did then no-one much seems to have read their tweets as they don't show up on Google!).  Then I thought, instinctively, "that's just plain wrong" a funeral is not something to be live-reported in little bites... 'now we're singing this hymn'  'the preacher just said that' or whatever.

Tweeting, texting, snapping random photos... my gut says that each and all of these if not appropriate in an act of worship.  The main reason being that I don't see how you can be 'properly' participating if you are busy looking out for the next thing to pass on to someone (I have issues with 'live blogging' for the same reason)

But.... I was quite happy for the funeral service to be recorded and to be made available on line, which meant that someone was sat in a corner operating recording equipment all through it (as indeed they are every Sunday when ordinary services get recorded) and of course once it's online anyone can choose which bits they may choose to listen to or not.

Somehow, although there is a tension, the latter seems different from the former.  The latter is undertaken to enable people who are unable to be present to listen to the service in its entirety, to engage in some measure in the act of worship, not to offer a commentary upon it. 

I think it is motivation that makes the difference.  To enable people to share in something they would otherwise be unable to seems a good motive; to say to the world, "this is where I am and that is what's happening" seems less so.  It is  tricky (twicky) one, and one I guess that arises every time a religious broadcast takes place, but I still think that texting or tweeting or blogging during worship is inappropriate.

Me:

One extremely busy week - loads of what I, on Monday evening, referred to as 'pastoral malarkey' and a fair bit of minister-as-engineer as well as all the usual.  Meeting one of my PAMs later, after Coffee Club.  Enjoyable, fulfilling, exhausting, probably in equal measure.

Glad I have this weekend off - will be heading south to Warrington, catching up with some friends and generally chillin'.

Not much posting happening, but life is pretty good