This morning I am preparing material for GB Young Leaders training on Saturday - and this year I've landed faith issues as the Chaplain is on maternity 'leave'.  In the middle of one of the suggested activities - quite a good one - came the throw away line "explain the Gospel to the girls."  I guess the writer has in mind the ABC or Turn-Take-Trust-Thank models.  But it made me smile - if the gospel really could be explained in 2 minutes surely we'd all have done it by now...

Is there a theological distinction between 'separation' and 'divorce' such that the former does not (sic) 'dishonour Christ's church' but the latter does?  I don't think there is, I think this is western, secular, legal definitions being snapped up by sincere but struggling individuals to give themselves a get out clause when their theology and experience don't match up.

In the case of either of the above (because there is a practical/legal distinction even if not a theological one) how should the church respond - as discipline or pastoral concern?  My leaning is pastoral in aim but practically similar in outworking - viz that the person should be given 'time out' from any roles or responsibilities to work through what is occurring in their life, to re-evalaute and then, once the dust has settled to pick things up if that is judged the right way forward.

What does anyone else think?  I am treading a tightrope with my folk as this one affects our  congregation - just one more little storm for us to weather!

A person goes to see their minister to tell them they believe God is calling them to a church 2 miles away.  It is the church in the community where they live, and the minister is of the view that people should. where possible, worship and serve within their own community.  Trouble is, this person has a key role in the church's outreach work, reaching around 70 people a month, many of whom have no other church connection.  Not withstanding that God just may be calling someone else to fill this gap, the project now looks incredibly vulnerable and the already overstretched minister simply cannot plug this gap.  The upshot is that it is likely that this project may fold - and even though the minister is willing to be proved wrong, the implications have to be considered.

What does it say about God if this project, successful and well respected, having a positive impact on so many people's lives, has to close?  What is the impact on the commerical enterprises who now have this project written into their business plans?  What questions will be raised about the kind of God who would, seemingly, abandon this project in favour of something else, as yet unknown?

I am trying - and failing - to think of any Bible stories that speak of those who are left behind to pick up the pieces, trying to work out what might be an appropriate damage-limitation theology.  I am wondering how I will explain to people who do not understand the idea of Christian calling, never mind calling away from good, Kingdom work, why this person has moved on.  I am trying to work out what is the way forward for this initiative - and how the whole thing fits in the fragile, cliff-edge situation of my little congregation.

So, can anyone out there help me?  I need something to help me reflect on this in a theolgocial way - and apart from a few good ranting pslams, I'm a bit stuck.

Unless an ear of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed.

But if it dies it produces many seeds.

(John 12:24 NIVi)

At this morning's prayer meeting this verse kept coming into my mind.  Whether it was me or God or a bit of both who can objectively verify?  But it wouldn't go away, so I shared it and no one accused me of heresy!

Unless an ear of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains a single seed.  But if it dies it produces many seeds.

Is this what is being said to our little church?  I do not know, but I do wonder.

If I have an image in my mind, it is that we are on the edge of a cliff that has been steadily eroded over time.  As a result, what was once fairly safe, with a nice view of the sea, has become increasingly dangerous and is now precarious.  At the same time the sea has been getting more stormy, we have moved from a few little squalls to full force 9 gales, and the waves have been getting steadily bigger and more menacing.  Now it almost feels that I can hear the rumble of an impending tsunami.  Will we choose to sing "we have an anchor" even more loudly, will we step back from the edge or we will be swept away?  I honestly do not know.

This much I do believe:

• that God called me to this place at this time for this reason
• that God is faithful
• that death is part of life, and resurrection without death impossible
• that if this grain of wheat must die, and if it falls to the ground, despite the fallout and blame, the seeds can be spread far and wide, to extend the harvest of the gospel.

I am convinced that it is valid for a local church to die, if that is what is needful, in order for the seeds to be released for another planting.  I am fairly confident that, if this is the time for it to happen, I can, with God's help, walk the path to allow this to happen, and still see that as a vaild conclusion.

At the same time, I wrestle with the fear that I'm crying wolf (is this really the edge or not?) and the human fear of being scapegoated if I am proved right.  I am not entirely sure about putting this on the old www where anyone at all can see it.  But If I don't am I then colluding with the ostrich mentality that has brought us to this place?

Unless an ear of wheat falls to the ground and dies - may God grant that I, and we, have ears to hear what the Spirit says to the church.

Spelled to match local pronunciation.

Church Constitutions are good - they mean you know what's what, but they can be a right pain when things go pear-shaped.

Last night our deacons agreed to grovel to the church because we have failed to get the deacons nomination forms out in the required time to give the constitutional notice period for elections...  Why this is in the constitution I don't know, it is process not precedent.  But I can guess.  At the time said document was drawn up (about 30 years ago) it vested power in the author to control the elections as he dictated.  Now, when it is done late by oversight we end up acting unconstitutionally - though I'd argue we could simply vote for deacons at the meeting after the AGM because the constitution doesn't say we can't....

We also found ourselves trapped in regard of the Treasurer who must first be a deacon, not, as in most churches, a person who is ex officio a deacon.  Even if we could find folk to fulfil the role as part of a finance team (we can't) none of the remaining deacons is willing to take on the title.  Hence (among other things) yesterday's allusion to sage and onion.

Our constituion doesn't say what the requirements are for it to be changed, but it is hardly a five minute job, needing at least a couple of church meetings, and probably to be done via AGMs.

Some churches seem to manage to live in blissful ignorance of their rules or constitutions.  Despite my love of orderly conduct, right now I almost envy them!