Some time ago I blogged about making a cross for my study - well, here is the finished article. With the exception of a small screw in the base and the string, it's created only with the bits I picked up on the beach in North Wales last summer.
Monday, 30 March 2009
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
Social Too-Much Networking?
Some time ago now Sally Coleman over at Eternal Echoes talked a little about something she was looking at in terms of whether it is possible to offer Pastoral Care via Blogs and Facebook. I remember at the time thinking that it could be good up to a point, but that face to face is still the best way. However, when it comes to Facebook in particular, I'm beginning to wonder how much is possible.
I wasn't an early adopter of Facebook, but I have become someone that goes on there at least once a day now, and as more and more people join the site (and some of them find me) my friend list went up. I still don't have that many compared to some, but the disparate crew on there includes family, friends from college, people from my University days, one or two people from messageboards I frequent, various people who have roles within the Methodist Church, friends of my wife's.... a wide variety in other words, of people who I have some sort of connection with.
The end result of this is that I'm discovering that I'm being a lot more cautious about what I put on there. There are things I shared last year through my Status that I simply wouldn't post this year: it used to be I knew everyone personally, and in many cases well (or at least well enough to trust with my inner thoughts and feelings), but now there are people I haven't seen in over 15 years, some who I have never actually met in person, and others who while friends are not what I would call close friends. Suddenly sharing some of those things becomes far too risky - do I really want people who are not close to know these things?
Some things are of course still possible, with Messenger conversations and private messages hidden from view - but in some ways I no longer feel that I can be as open because Facebook is throwing up too many friends, too many people who while it is nice to be back in touch with, don't have the same sort of connection to me.
Is this inevitable with Social Networking? One of my favourite Podcasts, Buzz Out Loud, reported recently on a story that a Juror who used Twitter to talk about a verdict before it was announced in court may cause a mistrial.
It's beginning to look that the more people join these services, the more we have to think about how we use them. Facebook does allow you to only share certain things with certain people - are we all going to have to learn how to use it?
I wasn't an early adopter of Facebook, but I have become someone that goes on there at least once a day now, and as more and more people join the site (and some of them find me) my friend list went up. I still don't have that many compared to some, but the disparate crew on there includes family, friends from college, people from my University days, one or two people from messageboards I frequent, various people who have roles within the Methodist Church, friends of my wife's.... a wide variety in other words, of people who I have some sort of connection with.
The end result of this is that I'm discovering that I'm being a lot more cautious about what I put on there. There are things I shared last year through my Status that I simply wouldn't post this year: it used to be I knew everyone personally, and in many cases well (or at least well enough to trust with my inner thoughts and feelings), but now there are people I haven't seen in over 15 years, some who I have never actually met in person, and others who while friends are not what I would call close friends. Suddenly sharing some of those things becomes far too risky - do I really want people who are not close to know these things?
Some things are of course still possible, with Messenger conversations and private messages hidden from view - but in some ways I no longer feel that I can be as open because Facebook is throwing up too many friends, too many people who while it is nice to be back in touch with, don't have the same sort of connection to me.
Is this inevitable with Social Networking? One of my favourite Podcasts, Buzz Out Loud, reported recently on a story that a Juror who used Twitter to talk about a verdict before it was announced in court may cause a mistrial.
It's beginning to look that the more people join these services, the more we have to think about how we use them. Facebook does allow you to only share certain things with certain people - are we all going to have to learn how to use it?
Monday, 16 March 2009
Staff Retreat
Last month saw the Circuit Staff Retreat, which took place over three days at Whalley Abbey - picture above, and more on my Flickr Stream.
It was a great chance to stop, take stock, and take in instead of give out - there was plenty of opportunity to be creative and to enjoy the surroundings; many of the pictures were taken on a walk that some of us did literally from the doorstep.
I did a little bit of writing while there, and I thought I'd share them here....
I found somewhere to sit and rest
I found a place – just me
An opportunity to be refreshed
A chance to simply be.
A thousand things that must be done
How many want things of me!
But God demands a single one:
“Spend time alone with Me!”
The time I spent alone with God
Enabled me to see
It mattered not the speed I trod
Much more, it was with thee.
As I sought silence
Time to spend with God
Sounds reached my straining ears
Birds singing
A distant car
Footsteps
A door opening
My own breathing
Where was the quiet?
How could I seek God?
But in these moments
Those gentle noises
Helped me to know that God sought me.....
“Seek and ye shall find” came the words
And so I went out to seek.
I searched the skies
I searched the Earth
I turned over the rocks
I delved into the deeps of the ocean
I looked in every place I could find
But I did not find what I was seeking.
In despair, I stood still;
In silence, I thought of all I had seen
Then I began to laugh – for I realised that what I had been seeking was there all along,
Just needing me to name and recognise the God that is everywhere that we seek
And that is also within ourselves.
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Baptism - a lasting mark?
It's been a while since I've posted on here, partly because it's been quite busy recently - so there are a few things that I will be trying to catch up on and post here in the next week or so!
I did another baptism - or rather two, as it was two sisters - in the middle of February, which seemed to go fairly well again. A couple of days later I went back to the church to fill in the Baptismal Register and write out the Baptismal Certificates; as I did so, I couldn't help but reflect on the fact that my name and signature is now on some documents that have some lasting significance - there is a lasting mark that I have made on their lives. Should those I have baptised want to go to a Church School, or later on get married in a church, it is my name certifying that they have been baptised; and if the future equivalent of "Who do you think you are" ever features their descendants, if they go and look at registers or certificates it will tell them that I was the one who did the baptism, as well as who the parents were etc.
I say a lasting mark, but some would of course disagree; and just this week I came across an article that included the story of someone who wished to renounce their baptism and have their name removed from a Baptismal Roll (scroll down to the end of the article for it.) He was told it wasn't possible, but what is interesting is in a way that it raises questions about what Baptism is, and what we believe about it. At about the same time, I read a letter in Ichthus - the magazine of LWPT - from someone questioning whether it is still reasonable to hold the view that baptism is once, for all time, and cannot be repeated.
Now, this is where it gets interesting, because the view you take on this depends a lot on where you are coming from. The Secular Society would of course argue that Baptism is essentially meaningless - although it is a little amusing to me that they do provide a "De-Baptism" certificate for download for those who wish to display their lack of belief in God, despite the fact that by their own view the original ceremony has no effect or meaning.... They are of course free to choose this and argue their case - but then, as a believer in God, so am I.
Baptists and others that accept only Believers (ie Adult) Baptism would argue that the baptism is in any case invalid, and reserve the right to re-baptise adults; many other churches (including my own) adopt the position that whenever the baptism is administered, it remains in force.
If you accept that Infant Baptism is valid, there is no need to rebaptise - and in fact many denominations would be very unhappy about this being asked for. My own feeling is that one of the important aspects of Baptism is about God reaching out to us - some of the words are "All this for you, before you could know anything of it." (To use theological language, this is called Prevenient Grace.) It's a sign of God's love which is there for us before we love God, whether we wish to accept it or not - and so, given this, how can a baptism be revoked? I believe that God continues to reach out to us, and even if (like the person in the article) you wish to reject this by regarding it as meaningless ritual or whatever, those of us with faith are also allowed to maintain that this is what we believe is happening with Baptism.
I did another baptism - or rather two, as it was two sisters - in the middle of February, which seemed to go fairly well again. A couple of days later I went back to the church to fill in the Baptismal Register and write out the Baptismal Certificates; as I did so, I couldn't help but reflect on the fact that my name and signature is now on some documents that have some lasting significance - there is a lasting mark that I have made on their lives. Should those I have baptised want to go to a Church School, or later on get married in a church, it is my name certifying that they have been baptised; and if the future equivalent of "Who do you think you are" ever features their descendants, if they go and look at registers or certificates it will tell them that I was the one who did the baptism, as well as who the parents were etc.
I say a lasting mark, but some would of course disagree; and just this week I came across an article that included the story of someone who wished to renounce their baptism and have their name removed from a Baptismal Roll (scroll down to the end of the article for it.) He was told it wasn't possible, but what is interesting is in a way that it raises questions about what Baptism is, and what we believe about it. At about the same time, I read a letter in Ichthus - the magazine of LWPT - from someone questioning whether it is still reasonable to hold the view that baptism is once, for all time, and cannot be repeated.
Now, this is where it gets interesting, because the view you take on this depends a lot on where you are coming from. The Secular Society would of course argue that Baptism is essentially meaningless - although it is a little amusing to me that they do provide a "De-Baptism" certificate for download for those who wish to display their lack of belief in God, despite the fact that by their own view the original ceremony has no effect or meaning.... They are of course free to choose this and argue their case - but then, as a believer in God, so am I.
Baptists and others that accept only Believers (ie Adult) Baptism would argue that the baptism is in any case invalid, and reserve the right to re-baptise adults; many other churches (including my own) adopt the position that whenever the baptism is administered, it remains in force.
If you accept that Infant Baptism is valid, there is no need to rebaptise - and in fact many denominations would be very unhappy about this being asked for. My own feeling is that one of the important aspects of Baptism is about God reaching out to us - some of the words are "All this for you, before you could know anything of it." (To use theological language, this is called Prevenient Grace.) It's a sign of God's love which is there for us before we love God, whether we wish to accept it or not - and so, given this, how can a baptism be revoked? I believe that God continues to reach out to us, and even if (like the person in the article) you wish to reject this by regarding it as meaningless ritual or whatever, those of us with faith are also allowed to maintain that this is what we believe is happening with Baptism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)