Oh yes.
I was reading the Church Times and I was thinking, gosh.
Here is the quote the writer started with:
“HENCE, I conclude that we ought not to judge homosexuality according to a few passages of scripture, but in accordance with the principle of equity.”
Hmm. Sounds suspiciously liberal to me... heh heh heh.
Would you like to guess who said that? (No peeking)
Okay, it'll make it easier if I tell you our writer was cheating a little.
The person who originally wrote it was not talking about homosexuality. They were talking about something that is mentioned twice as often in Scripture and in much more condemnatory terms.
Give up?
Ok.
It was John Calvin.
And usury.
Stop the presses! I agree with Calvin!
Well, on the principle of equity anyway. I dunno what Calvin thought of gay people. I could make a guess, but whatever.
There are very clear Biblical statements condemning lending money at interest (usury).
(In case you're interested: Exodus 22:25-27, Leviticus 25:35-37, Deuteronomy 23:19,20, Nehemiah 5:10,11, Psalm 15:5, Proverbs 28:8, Isaiah 24:1-3, Jeremiah 15:10, Ezekiel 18:7-9, 13, 17, 22:12, and two parables which use it but don't to me make any specific comment on its morality: Matthew 25:14-29 and Luke 19:11-26.)
But I have a bank account, an ISA, and plans to some day buy a house, probably by taking out a (gasp!) mortgage.
And no church I have ever come across has a problem with this. In fact, they also have bank accounts earning interest, and so on.
I wonder, if in 200 years, the big debate we're having will be seen as a sign of something new having its time, breaking through. The labour pains for a better understanding of the Golden Rule and how we relate to one another.
But right now it hurts, and right now we weep. But we have no choice here. We must love anyway.
And we will. It is the strength and the love of Christ that moves us. We cannot stand otherwise.
Tuesday, 30 September 2008
Late night edition of 'Ooh, shoes!'
Ahem.I don't usually do shoe lust. I mean, shoes are for feet, and who looks down there very often? But...well, I saw these in M&S today, and they were so pretty I just had to have them.
Of course, I don't have any money, so I couldn't buy them. And stealing them was out too. So, I'll content myself with a picture.
Look! Red! Pretty! Soft!
Gah, sensitive skin!
Oh yes, it's happened again.
Stressed? Me? No...well, a bit...well, a lot...
Anyway, I woke up this morning with the whole left side of my face red, sore and with the most wonderfully lumpy texture.
I think I may be allergic to our washing powder. Or at least my face is.
Ow. Bad face. And I have to work tonight. Great. If you're in a supermarket and you happen to see a girl who looks like a Batman villain, that'll be me.
Grumble.
Stressed? Me? No...well, a bit...well, a lot...
Anyway, I woke up this morning with the whole left side of my face red, sore and with the most wonderfully lumpy texture.
I think I may be allergic to our washing powder. Or at least my face is.
Ow. Bad face. And I have to work tonight. Great. If you're in a supermarket and you happen to see a girl who looks like a Batman villain, that'll be me.
Grumble.
Thursday, 25 September 2008
Ahh, the folly of youth. Ministry.
So, I normally only post about stuff on here after it has actually occurred.
But...well, see, I just applied for this job. This job in Coventry. This really cool job in Coventry, which I want to do. This really cool youth worker job in Coventry.
So if you could find it in your busy schedule to send a prayer Heavenwards on my mean and measly behalf, I'd be ever so grateful. Ever. So.
And if you know me, and live in Coventry, then I might even give you a cookie.
Mmm. Cookies.
Bribery to pray...what will they think of next?
But...well, see, I just applied for this job. This job in Coventry. This really cool job in Coventry, which I want to do. This really cool youth worker job in Coventry.
So if you could find it in your busy schedule to send a prayer Heavenwards on my mean and measly behalf, I'd be ever so grateful. Ever. So.
And if you know me, and live in Coventry, then I might even give you a cookie.
Mmm. Cookies.
Bribery to pray...what will they think of next?
Thursday, 18 September 2008
Fish or cut bait.
The vocations process for the C of E is, I am convinced, not intentionally designed to be the most frustrating, slow-moving, foot-dragging process in the known universe.
However, sometimes you wouldn't know it.
While having suffered only very mildly from it myself, the stories I have heard of obstreperous, rude and downright ungracious behaviour from those involved have been breathtaking in their variety and quantity.
Regardless, here we are again. Trying to move towards some form of resolution. Not that this is necessarily ordination. It may be the C of E saying "Here's your hat, you're time enough" (an expression of my granny meaning 'Clear off') but either way, a girl likes to know.
There come times when you wish to scream, or rant, or rage, or just cry. There come times when you wish you didn't have to do this, and wonder at the call.
But then you remember that Jesus never promised His life would be lacking in trial and struggle. But He did promise that His yoke is easy and His burden is light. And He gives the weary rest. And you also remember that you cannot grieve the Spirit of God within you, and you cannot ignore your call, on pain of a suffering in your conscience that you'd have to be braver than me to willingly undertake.
I do not know if I hear God right. But I know that I hear, and I try to obey. To do otherwise is inconceivable. When deciding whether to fish or cut bait, there is no decision.
Let me put it another way. I run towards my God. If I stumble, She will pick me up. If I am hurt, She will comfort me. If I run in the wrong direction, She will point me in the right one. And if I give up and lie down, She will prod me until I get back up again. I see, I hear, I act. I cannot do otherwise.
However, sometimes you wouldn't know it.
While having suffered only very mildly from it myself, the stories I have heard of obstreperous, rude and downright ungracious behaviour from those involved have been breathtaking in their variety and quantity.
Regardless, here we are again. Trying to move towards some form of resolution. Not that this is necessarily ordination. It may be the C of E saying "Here's your hat, you're time enough" (an expression of my granny meaning 'Clear off') but either way, a girl likes to know.
There come times when you wish to scream, or rant, or rage, or just cry. There come times when you wish you didn't have to do this, and wonder at the call.
But then you remember that Jesus never promised His life would be lacking in trial and struggle. But He did promise that His yoke is easy and His burden is light. And He gives the weary rest. And you also remember that you cannot grieve the Spirit of God within you, and you cannot ignore your call, on pain of a suffering in your conscience that you'd have to be braver than me to willingly undertake.
I do not know if I hear God right. But I know that I hear, and I try to obey. To do otherwise is inconceivable. When deciding whether to fish or cut bait, there is no decision.
Let me put it another way. I run towards my God. If I stumble, She will pick me up. If I am hurt, She will comfort me. If I run in the wrong direction, She will point me in the right one. And if I give up and lie down, She will prod me until I get back up again. I see, I hear, I act. I cannot do otherwise.
Wednesday, 17 September 2008
Grace Land update
I have no idea if I've been more gracious this month or not.
I hope so.
I have, however, attended a wedding, bought presents, prayed, gone to the gym, gone to work, and talked to BetterHalf on Skype.
I wrote a longer blog post, but my computer eated it. Insert lolcat here.
BetterHalf's Auntie S thinks we're secretly engaged. I am wondering if I'm actually starring in a Jane Austen novel and haven't noticed. I do love Lost in Austen, it's made me watch TV and everything.
Love, The Exegesis Fairy. Who is very sleepy.
I hope so.
I have, however, attended a wedding, bought presents, prayed, gone to the gym, gone to work, and talked to BetterHalf on Skype.
I wrote a longer blog post, but my computer eated it. Insert lolcat here.
BetterHalf's Auntie S thinks we're secretly engaged. I am wondering if I'm actually starring in a Jane Austen novel and haven't noticed. I do love Lost in Austen, it's made me watch TV and everything.
Love, The Exegesis Fairy. Who is very sleepy.
Friday, 12 September 2008
Folk singing
Oh...waily waily waily, as the Nac Mac Feegle would say.
Two hours last night were spent...singing folk songs.
Yes, I know, it's awful.
On the plus side, I now actually know the tune of Danny Boy, but sadly even learning that it's not as bad as all that did not compensate for two hours of folk songs.
Gah! The Fields of Athenry! The Irish Rover! The Mountains of Mourne! (Ok, that one is pretty funny). At least we managed to convince Auntie F that A Bunch of Thyme was entirely inappropriate, being as it had metaphorical meanings and that. I was strongly reminded of Monstrous Regiment:
"It starts with 'twas, it begins on a Monday, and it takes place in the month of May, QED, it's all about sex."
Ahh, Discworld. It's almost never wrong.
Also, in light of watching Lost in Austen I am reading Persuasion (I'm saving Pride and Prejudice for the plane to Manchester this evening: I'm going to Manchester! WOO!)
I like the novel. Poor Anne, though. You do feel rather sorry for the girl. Awwww.
Two hours last night were spent...singing folk songs.
Yes, I know, it's awful.
On the plus side, I now actually know the tune of Danny Boy, but sadly even learning that it's not as bad as all that did not compensate for two hours of folk songs.
Gah! The Fields of Athenry! The Irish Rover! The Mountains of Mourne! (Ok, that one is pretty funny). At least we managed to convince Auntie F that A Bunch of Thyme was entirely inappropriate, being as it had metaphorical meanings and that. I was strongly reminded of Monstrous Regiment:
"It starts with 'twas, it begins on a Monday, and it takes place in the month of May, QED, it's all about sex."
Ahh, Discworld. It's almost never wrong.
Also, in light of watching Lost in Austen I am reading Persuasion (I'm saving Pride and Prejudice for the plane to Manchester this evening: I'm going to Manchester! WOO!)
I like the novel. Poor Anne, though. You do feel rather sorry for the girl. Awwww.
Thursday, 4 September 2008
The Exegesis Fairy vs. the Jerusalem Declaration and Anglican Schism
So I was thinking about the Anglican Communion, as I do, and I happened to come across this. Wales could be getting Dr. Jeffrey John as a bishop in as little as a month. (He is in a celibate relationship with his partner Grant Holmes, by the way.)
Yes, yes, I know, I blogged about GAFCON a little already. But...well, I was looking back at Lambeth, at the stuff they did there, at the Indaba they held, and I was wondering:
What would it have been like if everyone had attended?
How much progress could have been made if all the bishops went? Gene Robinson and Peter Akinola, listening to each other? Would it have worked? I don't know. Would it have made a difference? Maybe. With God all things are possible.
What effect is Jeffrey John being put forward for this position going to have? Well...the GAFCONites (sorry, but I laugh every time I see or hear FOCAs) will be excessively unhappy.
On that note, let's have a look at some of the Jerusalem declaration.
My first point would be that their "first fact" is a...my BetterHalf tells me it is a false syllogism. (If a then b, when this is not the case)
That would be the one that the apostolic gospel has been diluted by people who
a) say Jesus is not the Way, the Truth and the Life, and instead that all religions lead to God, and
b) claim God's blessing for all sexual orientations, not just marriage/celibacy.
Now I'll bet you can find a fair handful of people in the Communion who agree with a) and b). However, a) puts you in a bit of conflict with the Nicene creed, where we believe in one God, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, who came down for us, and for our salvation. Also the Affirmations of Faith, including the one from Philippians 2:6-11
"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
and the baptismal vow to repent, turn to Christ, submit to Christ, and come to Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life.
So...yes, being in favour of proposition a) which is a sort of 'all paths lead to God, so why bother' kind of thing (as distinct from Christian universalism, which Wikipedia explains much better than I could) would definitely put you in a fairly direct conflict with
1. The sayings of Jesus and also
2. The creeds to which the Anglican Church holds.
And I would say a significant number of the people who hold to a) hold to b) also.
But by conflating the two we run into problems. Believing that the Bible has been misinterpreted and mistranslated and misappropriated (and other words with 'mis' in) on the subject of homosexuality puts you in conflict with the traditional Church teaching on the subject, true. But nowhere does belief b) feature in our statements of faith. Except in the Jerusalem declaration.
Granted, the traditional position is more widely held in the church, but we just don't throw people out because they tell us we're wrong, now do we? Because, well, sometimes we find that they're right after all, and that while the Bible teaches us all things necessary for salvation, that doesn't mean that all things featured in it are good (like slavery and prostitution) or applicable (like the Holiness Codes).
In any case, you're going to find a significant number of people will hold to b) without holding to a). And that lumping them all in together is pointless.
"The third fact is the manifest failure of the Communion Instruments to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy."
Excuse me while I snigger in the corner. Heterodoxy? HETERODOXY? I'm sorry? When has the Anglican Communion ever been anything BUT a heterodoxy?
That's the beauty of it! That we can believe these common things: that Jesus is Lord, that He is our Saviour, that He is the Son of God...and yet disagree on every other thing under the sun! We break bread and share wine together with those who are for and against women vicars/bishops, Calvinists, annihilationists, charismatics, evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics...but we are still part of the Body of Christ, and part of each other.
And so on to the declaration itself.
I'll take you through my edited highlights.
Point 2 is daft. Plain and canonical teaching? People have been arguing over the precise meaning of stuff for centuries. What makes you think you can just SAY that and everything will be peachily orthodox? (Small 'o' because there are Orthodox already, and they disagree, often with each other.)
Point 4, it starts to get a little silly. "We uphold the 39 articles."
I mean, wanting to be priested in the Anglican Church, you might think I would worry about such things. Oh well, here they are in all their glory. A little way down the page.
Hey! I agree with, like, 31 out of 39! I could say more about the history and purpose of them, but I won't bother. Look it up yourselves. I'm not doing everything for you. Besides, this post is long enough!
Lookit, wow! See my amazing deficiency of heresy!
Anyway, back to Jerusalem. Point 6 is "we love the BCP" which is great and all, but hasn't had a language update in England since 1662. Can't we just use the 1979 one? Please? It's got lots of references to the Holy Spirit and everything!
Point 7 is about the authoritative nature of the deacon-priest-bishop thing. Meh. I mean, I don't think it's bad or anything, but they could have used a reference to the priesthood of all believers to balance it out. Or just used deacon-presbyter-bishop, to avoid confusion with the Old Testament priests. Ah, the English language.
Point 8 is that it's marriage or abstinence.
"We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married."
Interesting... see, by this standard Dr. John himself is fine, because he's celibate. The fact that he teaches that non-celibate gay relationships are ok would go down badly though.
Points 11 and 13 say, respectively,
"We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration."
and
"We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord."
Riiiiiight. The problem with this (and, in my opinion, with the Declaration itself) is that it focuses on secondary stuff over which people can legitimately differ and makes that a point for breaking fellowship. Ordination of women/same-sex blessings/the mechanisms by which the world was created: secondary issues. Not, obviously, if you're a woman who wants to be a priest, or a gay couple wanting a blessing, or a science teacher, but y'know. It's not like we're debating the divinity of Christ or the Resurrection or whether Jesus actually existed or something.
They're not just saying, "You must believe in the creeds" for example. They're saying that to join their club you must not only agree with the Creeds (which versions?) but also:
- the 39 articles, (what will the Anglo-Catholics say? Or, for that matter, couldn't-articulate-their-position-accurately folks like me?)
- penal substitutionary atonement specifically
- celibacy outside of marriage
- the 1662 BCP as the way to do liturgy
- and so on
In What's So Amazing About Grace? Philip Yancey explains, "There is nothing you can do to make God love you more. And there is nothing you can do to make God love you less."
Does this mean, as Paul would put it, that sin should increase so grace can increase? NO. But it occurs to me that God speaks to and works through people on all sides of these debates.
Maybe He is, in fact, more concerned whether or not they love Him and love others, and display the fruit of the Spirit, and persevere in faith, hope and love, than if they've got every point of theology right! God works just as effectively, in my experience, through those opposed to womens' ordination as through those who promote it, and just as often in those who support same-sex blessings as those who oppose them. Just as often through creationists as believers in guided evolution or macroevolution or...whatever.
So maybe we need to let the theological debates sort themselves out, stop focusing on godless babble and mindless theological talk, let people sort things out on an individual level as far as possible, and get on with feeding the hungry, healing the sick, standing up for the poor, taking in the strangers and preaching the Gospel, in season and out of season?
What is the Gospel? That, as one poster put it, "God pitched His tent among us", died for our sins, and rose again from the dead. That Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. And through Him we have life, and life to the full.
The chief aim of humanity is to glorify God.
Let us focus on the future, which is in God's hands. Let us preach the Gospel. Let us love one another. Let us be one.
I think Jesus might like that.
Ok, so this was a heavy post. I promise the next one will have kittens or something.
Yes, yes, I know, I blogged about GAFCON a little already. But...well, I was looking back at Lambeth, at the stuff they did there, at the Indaba they held, and I was wondering:
What would it have been like if everyone had attended?
How much progress could have been made if all the bishops went? Gene Robinson and Peter Akinola, listening to each other? Would it have worked? I don't know. Would it have made a difference? Maybe. With God all things are possible.
What effect is Jeffrey John being put forward for this position going to have? Well...the GAFCONites (sorry, but I laugh every time I see or hear FOCAs) will be excessively unhappy.
On that note, let's have a look at some of the Jerusalem declaration.
My first point would be that their "first fact" is a...my BetterHalf tells me it is a false syllogism. (If a then b, when this is not the case)
That would be the one that the apostolic gospel has been diluted by people who
a) say Jesus is not the Way, the Truth and the Life, and instead that all religions lead to God, and
b) claim God's blessing for all sexual orientations, not just marriage/celibacy.
Now I'll bet you can find a fair handful of people in the Communion who agree with a) and b). However, a) puts you in a bit of conflict with the Nicene creed, where we believe in one God, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, who came down for us, and for our salvation. Also the Affirmations of Faith, including the one from Philippians 2:6-11
"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
and the baptismal vow to repent, turn to Christ, submit to Christ, and come to Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life.
So...yes, being in favour of proposition a) which is a sort of 'all paths lead to God, so why bother' kind of thing (as distinct from Christian universalism, which Wikipedia explains much better than I could) would definitely put you in a fairly direct conflict with
1. The sayings of Jesus and also
2. The creeds to which the Anglican Church holds.
And I would say a significant number of the people who hold to a) hold to b) also.
But by conflating the two we run into problems. Believing that the Bible has been misinterpreted and mistranslated and misappropriated (and other words with 'mis' in) on the subject of homosexuality puts you in conflict with the traditional Church teaching on the subject, true. But nowhere does belief b) feature in our statements of faith. Except in the Jerusalem declaration.
Granted, the traditional position is more widely held in the church, but we just don't throw people out because they tell us we're wrong, now do we? Because, well, sometimes we find that they're right after all, and that while the Bible teaches us all things necessary for salvation, that doesn't mean that all things featured in it are good (like slavery and prostitution) or applicable (like the Holiness Codes).
In any case, you're going to find a significant number of people will hold to b) without holding to a). And that lumping them all in together is pointless.
"The third fact is the manifest failure of the Communion Instruments to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy."
Excuse me while I snigger in the corner. Heterodoxy? HETERODOXY? I'm sorry? When has the Anglican Communion ever been anything BUT a heterodoxy?
That's the beauty of it! That we can believe these common things: that Jesus is Lord, that He is our Saviour, that He is the Son of God...and yet disagree on every other thing under the sun! We break bread and share wine together with those who are for and against women vicars/bishops, Calvinists, annihilationists, charismatics, evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics...but we are still part of the Body of Christ, and part of each other.
And so on to the declaration itself.
I'll take you through my edited highlights.
Point 2 is daft. Plain and canonical teaching? People have been arguing over the precise meaning of stuff for centuries. What makes you think you can just SAY that and everything will be peachily orthodox? (Small 'o' because there are Orthodox already, and they disagree, often with each other.)
Point 4, it starts to get a little silly. "We uphold the 39 articles."
I mean, wanting to be priested in the Anglican Church, you might think I would worry about such things. Oh well, here they are in all their glory. A little way down the page.
Hey! I agree with, like, 31 out of 39! I could say more about the history and purpose of them, but I won't bother. Look it up yourselves. I'm not doing everything for you. Besides, this post is long enough!
Lookit, wow! See my amazing deficiency of heresy!
Anyway, back to Jerusalem. Point 6 is "we love the BCP" which is great and all, but hasn't had a language update in England since 1662. Can't we just use the 1979 one? Please? It's got lots of references to the Holy Spirit and everything!
Point 7 is about the authoritative nature of the deacon-priest-bishop thing. Meh. I mean, I don't think it's bad or anything, but they could have used a reference to the priesthood of all believers to balance it out. Or just used deacon-presbyter-bishop, to avoid confusion with the Old Testament priests. Ah, the English language.
Point 8 is that it's marriage or abstinence.
"We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married."
Interesting... see, by this standard Dr. John himself is fine, because he's celibate. The fact that he teaches that non-celibate gay relationships are ok would go down badly though.
Points 11 and 13 say, respectively,
"We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration."
and
"We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord."
Riiiiiight. The problem with this (and, in my opinion, with the Declaration itself) is that it focuses on secondary stuff over which people can legitimately differ and makes that a point for breaking fellowship. Ordination of women/same-sex blessings/the mechanisms by which the world was created: secondary issues. Not, obviously, if you're a woman who wants to be a priest, or a gay couple wanting a blessing, or a science teacher, but y'know. It's not like we're debating the divinity of Christ or the Resurrection or whether Jesus actually existed or something.
They're not just saying, "You must believe in the creeds" for example. They're saying that to join their club you must not only agree with the Creeds (which versions?) but also:
- the 39 articles, (what will the Anglo-Catholics say? Or, for that matter, couldn't-articulate-their-position-accurately folks like me?)
- penal substitutionary atonement specifically
- celibacy outside of marriage
- the 1662 BCP as the way to do liturgy
- and so on
In What's So Amazing About Grace? Philip Yancey explains, "There is nothing you can do to make God love you more. And there is nothing you can do to make God love you less."
Does this mean, as Paul would put it, that sin should increase so grace can increase? NO. But it occurs to me that God speaks to and works through people on all sides of these debates.
Maybe He is, in fact, more concerned whether or not they love Him and love others, and display the fruit of the Spirit, and persevere in faith, hope and love, than if they've got every point of theology right! God works just as effectively, in my experience, through those opposed to womens' ordination as through those who promote it, and just as often in those who support same-sex blessings as those who oppose them. Just as often through creationists as believers in guided evolution or macroevolution or...whatever.
So maybe we need to let the theological debates sort themselves out, stop focusing on godless babble and mindless theological talk, let people sort things out on an individual level as far as possible, and get on with feeding the hungry, healing the sick, standing up for the poor, taking in the strangers and preaching the Gospel, in season and out of season?
What is the Gospel? That, as one poster put it, "God pitched His tent among us", died for our sins, and rose again from the dead. That Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. And through Him we have life, and life to the full.
The chief aim of humanity is to glorify God.
Let us focus on the future, which is in God's hands. Let us preach the Gospel. Let us love one another. Let us be one.
I think Jesus might like that.
Ok, so this was a heavy post. I promise the next one will have kittens or something.
Wednesday, 3 September 2008
Grace and peace
I'm trying to be more gracious, which I blogged about a couple of days ago. This includes, but is not limited to:
- helping my mother with the clearing of the loft without rolling my eyes and wishing I was elsewhere
- smiling at people at work. I mean, I did before, but it seems to work that if you look people in the eye and smile, they smile back
- listening without grimacing to arguments put forward for...anything, really
- praying more.
Peace...I'm feeling fairly peaceful. I got pretty roused by my insurance company, but was very polite throughout. And I'm getting money from them. Not as much as I'd like, but dang it, it's better than nothing.
Not that it has arrived yet. But it will, my pretties. Or I will descend on the call centre operator like...something large and heavy. And politely insist.
I'm good at politely insisting. Really. I am.
- helping my mother with the clearing of the loft without rolling my eyes and wishing I was elsewhere
- smiling at people at work. I mean, I did before, but it seems to work that if you look people in the eye and smile, they smile back
- listening without grimacing to arguments put forward for...anything, really
- praying more.
Peace...I'm feeling fairly peaceful. I got pretty roused by my insurance company, but was very polite throughout. And I'm getting money from them. Not as much as I'd like, but dang it, it's better than nothing.
Not that it has arrived yet. But it will, my pretties. Or I will descend on the call centre operator like...something large and heavy. And politely insist.
I'm good at politely insisting. Really. I am.
Monday, 1 September 2008
Adventures in Grace-Land
Today is the first of September.
Yesterday I got a copy of What's so Amazing about Grace? and today I finished reading it. It was a free gift, incidentally. The book, that is.
So I was thinking: how can I bring grace into my life? How can I become more gracious?
And I decided that I would try and do something gracious every day for a month. A month seemed a good place to start. Maybe then it'll be a habit.
What to do today? Funny you should ask. I was reading ChristianityToday and came across this. It's called Adopt a Terrorist For Prayer. And it does exactly what it says on the tin.
What a good idea, I thought.
And so I'm passing it on to anyone else who might be reading. After all, prayer knows no boundaries, and God knows no limits. Pray at all times, we're told, for everyone.
I'll keep you posted on my Adventures in Grace-land.
Yesterday I got a copy of What's so Amazing about Grace? and today I finished reading it. It was a free gift, incidentally. The book, that is.
So I was thinking: how can I bring grace into my life? How can I become more gracious?
And I decided that I would try and do something gracious every day for a month. A month seemed a good place to start. Maybe then it'll be a habit.
What to do today? Funny you should ask. I was reading ChristianityToday and came across this. It's called Adopt a Terrorist For Prayer. And it does exactly what it says on the tin.
What a good idea, I thought.
And so I'm passing it on to anyone else who might be reading. After all, prayer knows no boundaries, and God knows no limits. Pray at all times, we're told, for everyone.
I'll keep you posted on my Adventures in Grace-land.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
