The world divided into two

When it comes to sex, the bible only has two categories : married and un-married.

All sexual behaviour, including thought-life, belong to the 'married' category. 

Marriage is defined by Genesis 2 "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." 

The entirety of what sexual behaviour includes is both explicitly and implicitly laid out both in words and in silences. As always, context is key, but the general 'how God feels about it' is pretty clear.

And I think we need to pay special attention to the description of Jesus and the woman at the well. How Jesus treated her, what He thought of her, what He asked of her (and I mean initially, the water he needed as He was thirsty), what He was happy to talk about with her and what He offered her completely freely.  Context is very much anthropological, geographical, political, etc.  ie this is yet another incident that Jesus loves and accepts and *includes* sexual sinners.

Jesus was also in the unmarried category. Despite what church communities tell us by word and deed, being unmarried is totally ok.                

And this is yet another topic where there is a lot of energy that should possibly be focused differently. I would like to see way more focus on how we 'love one another' because this will help un-marrieds as well as marrieds. That the people that Jesus talks of in Matthew 19 may be cared for and be part of the church. Also, we have a *lot* of single women in the church. 

Why should I care?

 If anyone ever asks me about am I complementarian or egalitarian I get a very strong feeling of annoyance.

Why should I care? I am not married and I have zero calling to be in any form or leadership or preaching. So therefore how does it impact me?

It's BS straight from the devil to distract us from things that are way more important.

As a single female I have the best freedoms in this debate - I can listen to whatever preachers I like, I can read whatever books I like, I can pick and choose based solely on what I understand what God teaches us in the bible and spend not an iota of energy thinking about gender.

Now any man of the complementarian bent, I will raise an eyebrow at if they *ever* read a book by a female. I mean, seriously, hypocrites. They can say 'oh it's not teaching' ..'or leading'. Um really? You've let those women's words into your mind and you think you can always let women's words have no impact on you?

Which goes to show how non-sensical and disruptive it all is - because if you *don't* let women's words into your minds to impact you, you totally cripple the church.

And central to the church is Moses and the codified understanding of 'Love the Lord your God'.  Exodus is to me where it first made sense to me that God loves us and loves me because of what God is like. God is tearing his hair out trying to love his people and time and time again no matter the love showed to them, they turn their backs on Him.

But who taught Moses?  It was his sister and his mother. Moses taught clearly enough that his zeal for his people was enough to kill a man and then was called to stand before our holy God who could have destroyed him with His very holiness.

His mother and his sister. They were the ones who taught Moses in the Princess's household. They taught him well enough that despite his feeble speaking he led. He led the people of Israel for over forty years. That is a long, long time.

Where God wills people will lead. But he prepares them and moulds them. Be careful of context. In all of this debate be careful of context. Just as David was prepared in all sorts of experiences and learning before his battle with Goliath and his kingship, so was Moses prepared. Moses was prepared for dealing with government growing up in the palace. And he was prepared for his theological leadership by a woman.

There were two other figures with Jesus transfigured on the mountain that day. And at least one had been taught by a woman.

In all of this incredibly stupid debate where people claw in hatred of one another and the devil laughs and laughs at how we hate one another, God does what He wills. Deborah will judge, Phoebe will deliver a letter and preach it's contents and Jael will use that tent peg.

It annoys me further that I could write a lot more on this.

The death of a statesman

 Definition 'Statesman' : a skilled, experienced, and respected political leader or figure

The only person who I can think of who meets this today is the Queen. Forgetting the gendered nature of the term - or actually in spite of it and sometimes because of it - she has persuaded and made apropos political points with grace, intelligence and humour.

She in her twilight and soon will be going home. It's funny to think I might get the chance to meet her in heaven. 

Anyway... the reason I brought up the idea of statesmen... and our lack of them... is the way the world is going in the way people are arguing with one another, scoring cheap points and not listening to one another. Trying to think what could be done about that. And it's going to be done with statesmen (and women).

So... how does one become or do the statesman thing?  Well first of all they need the position of authority. And here I want to draw a really sharp line between the difference between 'authority' and 'leadership'. Authority is granted by position and/or skill. This is where knowledge is power comes into its own. Leadership... there are 60 million definitions and that is kind of not my point today so I'll just stick with 'one who leads'. You ain't got no followers, you ain't leading. To see how they are different, you will meet people who are not high up in an organisation who have that certain something such that people follow their suggestions, come to them for solutions, and look to them when things are uncertain.

So yes, often the authority will be a leader. But a leader doesn't always have to have authority. Sure, their influence possibly directly in that organisation on that financial or decision structure from a legal buck-stops-here might be not in black and white. But everyone knows. And that's a leader.

And they don't have to be loud. Or extroverted. There will be something about them. Often they will have a certain skill in a certain area. But as not everyone can be everything they know how to lead others.

Anyway... how does this relate to statesmen? The difference between a leader and a statesman is that a statesman has a level of dispassion and longevity and is clearly known to see both sides fairly. They're respected even if not agreed with. They have a patience and a depth to them. A super high EQ. And they influence in quiet and polite ways.

I have seen this done only once that I can think of in people I've met. It was in an online game, one of those games where you spend a lot of time with people and you get to know the various communities and who is who and what everyone is like. Everyone liked Nick. And he was a skilful player. And as one of *the* most skilful players he was quickly collected into the guild of all the other most skilful players. The elite of the elite. He decided not to be the guild leader. But such as he was everyone treated him that way. And this mob of elite players - competitive, intelligent guys, who were cruel or kind as it pleased them, childish and selfish and carelessly hurting - Nick stood above in the way he treated others. He had a saying that something was 'classy'. And about being 'classy'. Or that something else was or wasn't classy. And he modelled that. Players who had been sniggered at and laughed behind their backs he courteously talked to to improve their game play. I watched him do this and it was a model of humble teaching that was just brilliant. Nick being an excellent player knew his stuff.

So he impacted everyone around him - by his character.

It was more than just leadership because he just didn't lead people through projects, completions, game winning victories and guild successes. His character impacted the people around him to change their characters. 

Those elite players who had been treated with caution because you didn't want them to make fun of you, became what Nick embodied: 'classy'. They became polite, inclusive - because they could see that they could do that and not only could they still be elite and competitive and brilliant and successful, they would become *more*. The idea of 'classy' was a character thing. Nick impacted them. And all who met him really. We saw the value of this. We saw that this character thing was something to aspire to.

Rudyard Kipling's poem 'If' encapsulates part of that. Again people trip over the gender thing but I wish they wouldn't. We've spent years reading 'men' as 'people' so surely we can focus on the meaning and brush over that.  It's a turn of the nineteenth century 'classy' description. 

So here when I look at Jesus, I see the greatest statesman there ever was. And I want to be like that. The calm, the kind, the steadfast, the faith, the trust, the intent seeing of others with intelligence and grace. The impact. Not for myself but for .. I guess it's love ultimately.

I pray that there may be other statesmen. Long live the Queen for however much more time we have her for. 

Classy

Online community

 I needed somewhere to stick this so here will do.

Due to COVID there has been a lot more rubbishing of online communication technology by theological folks yearning for coming back together for face to face church. 

I get that. I really do. For those folks face to face is what they know of how to connect. And to learn other ways, while under stress (that does not make for easier learning curves), and en masse, (which is always hard at the best of times), is just not something they want to do, or feel able to do, or even know that it is something that is possible to do.

But *real* community *is* possible online. The question then becomes is *real* church possible online? And then it is the responsible thing would be to thoughtfully think through what is lost and what is gained when community is done this way; for a time, simultaneously or instead of.

So a few posts over the next bit I can be bothered (like, anyone is going to read this or care lol. I'm doing this to clarify my own thoughts mostly. I guess instead of just snarking at people I could link them here. Which most likely they still won't read but it will be more thoughtful than a snark and at least I've said something to at least try to point people to where I hope people are greater loved?)

1. The different types of online community. And ways in which the different formats affect the way they are going to feel - not all communities are in 'social media'. Social media often makes for poor online community. If you want to make good online communities you need to think about this. There can be much better tools for online community.

2. My personal expectations of what community should feel like. My story of what 'family' in church has meant is of course tainted by my own personal history. So over my life I've spent a lot of time thinking about and observing and experiencing communities.

3.  Online community is real. Personal examples of how online and offline are still both very human.

4.  What is church. Ok. So this one is just going to be personal rant mostly. Mostly begging for compassion for the people on the edges. But guess what, Jesus one on one totally connected to people on the edges. Online communities contain a lot of edge people.

5. Liturgy. Can we do really do church online? What can we embody online? What do we miss and what do we gain? Thoughts and questions. I revel (as it seems does God) that we're all so different and that a lot of people are going to come to different conclusions with this. Mostly I want to emphasise that if you do *community* poorly, you will do *church* poorly - both online or face to face.

20 sermons on the woman at the well

 I made a flippant comment that you could get 20 sermons out of the woman at the well. Flip because horrified. Because the OP (opening post) was 'what other points do I need to round out my sermon'.

And I'm like,... for real?

Ok, so I'm not a pastor. I'm not at all theologically trained. I've not even read a lot of theology. I did one 4 week training course on sermon writing because I was curious. (Yeah. I know. It's just one of those odd things you do. Well I do. When I'm curious.)

But. I've thought about it a little. I got questions. I've listened a bit. I've also been president of two different speech making clubs (of that brand that you know which I don't want to write cos trademark and all that). 

Sermons are not speeches. I wish more speakers from the pulpit would reflect more deeply on that. But that's not really the issue here.

FAR OUT MAN THAT IS LIKE THE MOST TENDER AND BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF WITNESS OF WHAT JESUS IS LIKE. AND YOU ARE DELIVERING A 'sermon' TO GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE.

So this post... is mostly a reminder to myself... to *DO IT*. Write 20 sermons on the woman at the well :D  Given I have no people so it will not technically be a sermon this is for pretend. I figure it will be a good exercise for me to a) write and communicate, b) get the communication but out of me c) learn the passage better (like, properly prep it), and d) just... straight out reflect on what Jesus is like :)

Also I haven't used this blog much. And it maybe better than trawling twitter.

Why do you want to go to heaven?

There are some simple questions that can really get to the heart of what someone actually thinks about what God is like very quickly.

And probably the easiest is 'why do you want to go to heaven?'

Because if the answer is not 'I get to see God and just be in his presence' then you have someone who does not actually *love* God.

You can see it in their faces. You can hear it in the words that use or don't use.

And yet here is the greatest commandment 'Love the Lord your God'.

Can you *make* yourself love someone? Maybe?  I don't know. I'm thinking about this.

And in my head is the image of a child sitting at the feet of someone reading them a story, totally engrossed in what they are hearing, waiting for the next words that conjure up images in their head of what can be, and what carries them along, their hearts and minds and whole souls caught up in the words, the sounds and the moment.