... of this minister.

1. Deal with a few important phone calls
   
2. Meet team of archaeologists surveying chapel site and digging big holes to look for ancient relics 
3. Conduct funeral at crematorium 20 miles away
4. Arrange for SOCO to visit church to collect crisp bag evidence
5. Meet another family to plan another funeral
6. Let endangered species officer into chapel at dusk to check for bats
7. Read a couple of chapters of a book on theology and history and think (a) ha, I'm right (b) rats someone got here first (c) how do I develop all this!
   

"... have another woman minister"

Just heard that Dibley Parish Church has appointed a woman priest, which turns Dibley and District into one of the highest densities of female clergy in the country!  Mildly amusing given the ongoing level of anti-women minister sentiments in the broader locality.

I am trying to make head or tail of the readings I chose for this Sunday (from lectionary sources) and which seemed a good idea at the time, and now I'm not so sure.

Philippians 1: 21 - 30.

For me, says Paul, to live is Christ and to die is gain.  I have long struggled with this attitude to life and recall a house group discussion many years ago, where most of us agreed we actually quite liked being alive and really weren't in such a hurry to die as the apostle seems to have been.  And then he says he's torn between the two and doesn't know which to choose - but surely it isn't his choice anyway?  He'd rather 'depart' (whatever that means) and be with Christ, but 'it is necessary' that he remains in the body for the sake of others.  I do find all this puzzling to read and try to make any sense of (apologies for bad grammar).  Somehow I find myself as a reader feeling guilty that Paul is held up on my account.

Then he tells the people that they are to stand firm as a sign, to those who oppose them, that they (the opposition) will be destroyed whilst you (the Philippians) will be saved.  Oh, and by the way suffering is somehow a blessing (or that's what it seems to imply).  I can't honestly say I want to be a sign to anyone that they're going to be destroyed, zapped, judged, condemned or whatever: I'd much rather be a sign towards salvation, hope, forgiveness, reconciliation etc.  As for the privileges of suffering, well, hmm, there are times to say such things and times to stay very silent.  I have never quite forgotten (even if I have forgiven) the person who told me that I must be very special that God was allowing me to experience such a pig of a time during initial ministerial settlement.  Well, if that's so, I'd rather not have been special!

So, I'm not quite sure what I'll do with this passage yet but right at the moment it feels that somehow it is its very irritatingness (if there's such a word!) that makes it worth wrestling with.  I guess sometimes we'd all like the realities of life to be replaced by some idealised version of eternity with Christ but we all have to get on with staying faithful in the messyness that is life.  If we can be a sign of hope rather than despair, if we can show that our faith sustains us through struggles, questions and even doubts, then maybe it is somehow redeemed - but not in some kind of simplistic "gosh, God must really love you to kick you so hard" kind of way.

If anyone actually understands this letter (like people who wrote DPhils on it for example) perhaps they can explain it to me.

In the meantime, I am going to start playing with Matthew 20:1 - 16 which I might take from the angle not of rewards but opportunities for service (i.e. even late comers can find work to do in the Kingdom).

This morning I took some people into the chapel building to conduct a historical recording survey only to discover that the thieves and vandals had returned on a smashing spree.  Loads of smashed windows, kicked in doors and general mayhem (plus they'd left behind their crisps bags and biscuit wrappers!) and wanton destruction of anything they could wantonly destroy.

I have only one thought running through my mind - why?  Why just destroy things?

I am working hard not to 'bless' them with my little sister's favourite Jewish curse (may you inherit a house with a thousand rooms and be found dead in every one of them) and instead to forgive them and pray for them to find a better, brighter future.

Yesterday I was doing a little bit of research using the BUGB directory (!) to find out a bit more about the predecessor of mine who died last Thursday.  It transpired that he was a 'Bristol Man' and that Dibley was his first pastorate.  I checked out the other, still living ministrers of DBC and it emerged that it was either their first or last pastorate, and that in recent time the church has oscillated between ministers approaching retirement (safe hands) and ministers fresh out of college (as I was once told, "we can't afford anything better").  Of those still living at the the time the directory was published, two of the 'fresh' ministers had trained at Bristol and the 'pre-retirement' one was an ex-Methodist who trained at Didsbury (which of course by then was not in Didsbury but Bristol).

All of this inevitably impacts the church's character - fresh faced twenty-something men from Bristol could be (s)mothered, whilst 60+ experienced ministers weren't likely to rock the boat.  Small wonder a forty-year-old woman from Northern caused such ripples!!

There are other patterns too - some incredibly long pastorates in the early years (heading towards forty years) and some very short ones - a year or less - but mostly in the 4-7 year range (something I was already aware of having previously looked at the durations and wondered what, if anything, that meant).  This also gives a 'feel' to the character of the place.

I wonder how much churches ever notice their own characteristics (actually I don't really wonder, I have some views!) never mind reflect on how it shapes their lives.

So, what are the implications of being a 'firsts and lasts' church? I have some views, but what might others think?  And what are the patterns in other churches...?