I've kind of ignored Twitter on the basis that it's just another thing that will

a) encourage prevarication
b) annoy my wife

As reasons go for not Tweeting (I believe that is the appropriate verb), neither is particularly good. Actually I imagine that having no-one follow my ramblings is not something that a good ENFP will be able to cope with very easily, and is a much more easily justifiable reason for ignoring it. At lest with my blog I can fool myself that someone somewhere finds it interesting - on the rare occasions that I update it.

So to Tweet or not to Tweet???

There seems to be an undercurrent of relief that the body found in the Ouse isn't that of the 35 year old chef Claudia Lawrence, but is instead Pauline Armitage - Pauline was a 68 year old widow who had gone missing some 10 days earlier. I may have misread the flavour of some of the press reports, but the focus appears to be all about how it isn't Claudia, rather than the fact that it is Pauline. Pauline was still someones daughter, someones wife - whether or not her relatives and friends were still alive.

I've been told stories by other clergy about funerals where they and the undertakers have been the only people there. I find that incredibly sad. Life is always fragile - whoever they are and however old they are, and somehow I feel that Pauline - who after all was only 68 - deserves more than the news media has given her.

Rev Peter Ould is the curate at Christ Church Ware, he is also a blogger of some distinction (see his blog here). He writes with passion and deep in depth knowledge on lots of issues, particularly on human sexuality, on which he has also lectured. I do disagree with him in various places, but then life would be tremendously dull if we ll agreed on everything.

Suffice to say that some of the stuff he writes about, I wish I had the guts to write about as well. He explores subjects that I would love to spend some time making sense of, but the nature of the job that we both do means that we both have to consider very carefully what we articulate in the public arena. Quite frankly, I'm just not as brave as he is.

I expect him to continue to be a very big noise among Evangelical Anglican theologians - and I'll just get on with being the class clown.

I wonder what it is that keeps some people away from church.

We (the church corporate, not just our little congregation in North Kent) spend many hours asking ourselves this question. Is it the way we dress? Is it our choice of music? Is it our overuse/underuse of scripture? Is it the quality, or for that matter the quantity, of our preaching? I don't pretend to have any answers after all it's God who deals with people coming to know him isn't it?

Except I'm not sure that that's the whole story. The Bible is not a book about God. Well, it's not only a book about God. It's more about God and his relationship with people - his creation. There is chapter after chapter with stories and tales relating how God interacts with his people. Every last one of these men and women are flawed human beings, and the Bible recounts their highs and lows, sometime in uncomfortable detail. Nevertheless, despite humankinds many failings, he continues to work through us. Sure, he did the bit that was impossible for us, he dealt with sin and death on the cross. But Jesus final instruction to his followers was a task that has been passed down through the generations, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

This is our job, this is our task, Jesus has instructed us to do it - so there is no excuse. If we are making disciples of all nations, then the bride of Christ, the church, will grow.

So we're preaching the Gospel, we're telling peple about the Kingdom of God, and still we see no growth, no evidence of people coming into our church buildings. Why?

Maybe this quote could help unlock at least part of the issue.

"The Sunday morning attendance shows how popular the church is.
The Sunday evening attendance shows how popular the preacher is.
The prayer meeting attendance shows how popular God is."

In my (admittedly limited) experience, many CofE churches don't have prayer meetings.

So that answers that question then.

I see that the McKinsey report is out.

It's not, as I imagined, a detailed investigation into the sex lives of the Scottish nation, but a report into Web 2.0.

I've got to admit to being somewhat disappointed.

Facebook is an interesting phenomenon. It is redefining the nature of friendship, it asks questions about the wisdom of disclosure and the benefits of self-editing, and it has made some young men in the US very very rich.

The friendship thing has been taken one step further than texting on mobile phones was able. Texting someone is great. It enables shortened conversation without the niceties - it is (on the whole) colourless and without tone. Of course, that can also be equally problematic, but I err on the positive side.

Facebook has taken that one stage further. It enables small comments - conversationettes if you will - to take place without any expectation that it will become a full blown interaction. It has enabled people to catch up with friends from many years previously. It has also meant that some individuals that you might at best have described as acquaintances, now believe that you were the very best of friends.

Of course you don't have to agree to become someones friend on Facebook, you can ignore their request, and they don't find out that it has been turned down. It just kind of disappears into the electronic ether.

Wearing my Dog-collar and looking very much the clergyman, I feel a bit unpleasant and mean not agreeing to be someones friend. Preaching on 2 Corinthians 6 tomorrow, I'm very much aware of that 'stumbling block' issue.

Maybe I should just put back up the photo of myself with the ginger mullet and the red braces. That'll make 'em think twice about wanting to be my friend.

I quite enjoy looking at the 'statement of faith' pages on the websites of various Christian groupings societies or suchlike. They do their best to nail down absolutely what it is they believe, but often seem to try and nail down God (again) in the process.

Alpha & Omega ministries begin their statement of faith like this

We believe the Bible to be the written revelation of God, complete and sufficient in all respects. We believe the Scriptures to be "God-breathed" and therefore fully authoritative in and of themselves; they rely for their authority upon no church, council, or creed, but are authoritative simply because they are the Word of God.

Well that's all well and good, but it seems to give the impression that the Bible was delivered by God as the complete finished article, and that's the end of the matter. I wonder how they'd explain the various councils that argued over what should go into the canon of scripture, and what should be left out.

I don't for a minute believe that the Bible is not authoritative, or that God is not present in the putting together of these books. But he did it through his creation, his creation that scribed scripture, which is why the Bible is one voice, but lots of different accents.

The last paragraph on the statement of faith page contains the following

The Church is to be busy doing the work of evangelism and discipleship, proclaiming the pure, uncompromised Gospel of Christ by teaching the Word of God.

Reminds me very much of the film that stars Rowan Atkinson as Johnny English. In this movie, the Archbishop of Canterbury has a tattoo on his behind which says 'Look Busy, Jesus is Coming'. I'm sure there's more to the Christian life than being 'busy'. At least I hope so, or this blog is going to have caused me more trouble than I bargained for.