When did 'worship service' become 'congregational meeting'?  I ask simply because I've seen a lot of references to 'congregational meetings' recently that sound remarkably like 'worship services'. 

Isn't a congregational meeting that thing where you hear the finance report, debate the colour of the new crockery or, if you are really fortunate, talk about mission and vision and stuff?  Whilst I would, and do, assert that the 'congregational meeting' is in and of itself part of the worship life of the church, it is not the same as the thing we do for an hour (or however long) every week.

It is a glorious morning in Glasgow - lovely blue sky and sunshine making the buildings glow; it is a day when it feels good to be alive.  But what is 'beautiful'?  Here are three photos from my living room window (focus a little sus in some of them, the lens drive on my camera got damaged when it toppled onto a hard surface recently):

Across the roof-tops to distant hills (the Campsie fells), always 'magical' as depending on weather conditions the hills can completely vanish one day or you can see every fold quite clearly another.

Towards the road junction where different areas of Glasgow allegedly meet.  The end of my development of 'yuppy' flats, the garage where my car was serviced, a residential care home and some high rise flats.  The diversity and cheek-by-jowl nature is, for me beautiful in its own distinctive way.

The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre - a place where I have spent many hours and have many more to spend.  Not a pretty building but it has an inner beauty maybe?

Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder.  But if we have eyes to see it, I suspect there is always some beauty to be seen.

G.A. = Guardian Angel.  Not entirely sure if I think I have one, though there is some kind of Biblical justification for the notion that children have them, and we are all children of God.

Anyway, before you panic, I am assuming it is the job of the G.A. to keep a tally of the hairs on my head, a task which since last September had been far more onerous than usual.  Whilst the score never reached zero, it did get pretty low (unless you're a pedant and assume s/he ocunts follicles in which case there has been no work at all; but the ancients didn't know about follicles so I reckon it's visible hairs that count...). 

Since today is exactly 8 weeks since the last dose of chemo, and since my hair has been regrowing roughly 10 weeks (I first noticed evidence of growth on my birthday - a fantastic unexpected present!) I am guessing the angel is working hard now at adding rather than subtracting.

Just for your amusement is one of today's close range self-photos where there quite clearly is hair...

Today's BT has two short articles connected with the move to allow the celebration of same sex unions in religious contexts.  Each is cautiously, and respectfully, in favour of the legislative change employing what I would term a 'truly Baptist' perspective.  Thus, the desire, pretty much en bloc, of Quakers, Unitarians and liberal Jews to be allowed to hold such ceremonies is affirmed as consistent with religious freedom.  At the same time, the freedom of a local church or a denomination (however governance works) to say 'no' is also affirmed on the same grounds.

One of the articles, by a minister in a Baptist/URC LEP, is cautiously wanting Baptist churches to have this freedom but recognising that under BUGB rules a minister would not be allowed to conduct such a ceremony even if his/her church wished them to.  BUGB at least has clear (if somewhat inconsistent) rules in this regard - I'm not so sure it's even on the radar further north.

Whatever anyone may think - and it is a topic that provokes extremely strong views - it is great that the BT has at least published a response, and one that acknowledges the complexities of cries of 'freedom' and 'rights' in a plural society as well the pastoral struggles that the legislation as it now is, and as it may become, cause.

I am sure some will be disappointed that the BT does not give stronger views for or against, depending on their own perspectives, but I feel they've got a good balance as a starting point.  Alas I can already sense the "letters to the editor" being penned expressing very strong views.  Let's just hope and pray that some of the tact and humility demonstrated in the articles spills over into the responses.

Today I was given an advance copy of the latest church magazine.  As usual it is brim full of excellent stuff (and my bits too!) but what struck me was the diary page at the back.  There is one group that has been running for many years and was, let's say, a last bastion of patriarchy in the pulpit.  This month there is not one but two women speaking at it, both with links to the Baptist College and each with a clear and profound calling to ministry.

Of course I'm delighted to see this development, that goes without saying.  But more significantly I am struck by the openness of those in the group to God's gentle (or not so gentle!) prodding in this direction.  If I live to ninety, and if I am still wielding any influence on a local church, I pray that I might be as open to the mysterious, and taboo shattering, workings of the Holy Spirit.