not today

In January, I found a handy new to-do list.  It’s long and narrow.  It has lots of white space and different visual regions that suit the way I think.  It has a handy space for notes on the facing page, and an ego-boosting, stress relieving column where you get to tick things off as you complete them.  (actually it has two tick lists — one for ‘phone’ / begun, and one for ‘complete’)

It is very satisfying.  And it has helped me to see that quite a lot gets done, even on the days when the to-do list seems to show a Triffid-like resistance.

But not today.

After 12 hours of steady work, I have managed to ‘tick’ only two entries on the Thursday/ Friday to-do list.  And on one I was cheating (booklet prepared, but not printed — which takes just as long on my computer)  That leaves 22 things for tomorrow, plus a morning with plumbers, a trip to Rothesay, a vestry meeting, and all the prep for Sunday to be done before Saturday’s wedding show.

I doubt you will hear much from me over the next few days.  It’s a shame, because there’s blog-post just pestering to be written on latest stage of ‘the Listening Process’, and our collective failure to understand.

Go read Kelvin’s blog instead.  And Beauty from Chaos of course.  (oh dear.  Make that 23 things to do tomorrow…)

the ones we care for

My mother used to say ‘never trust people who don’t like animals. It usually means they don’t like people either.’

Now, I was always a bit dubious of that advice, because the opposite doesn’t necessarily follow. I can think of plenty of people who love animals, but are quite indifferent to human beings. Still, mother’s words stuck. And I find that what I meet someone who doesn’t like animals, I am inevitably wary.

Animals are one of God’s greatest gifts. There is something extraordinary when a creature so different, so utterly other, gives you their love and their trust. Which is perhaps how God feels about us (or how we should feel about God — I can never make up my mind which way round it is).

Lots of us know this, and are glad for the animals we share our lives with. But everyone once in a while, you come across someone whose relationship with animals is extraordinary. Where the bond between person and animal transcends expectations, without any denial of the animal’s inherent dignity or otherness.

One such person is preparing to say goodbye to one of her cats tomorrow: a cat who by all rights should have died years ago, who was neglected and ill, and then rescued by my friend. This cat is one of the happiest most loving animals I have ever seen.

It will be a hard night. But I hope this friend knows that she has done a wonderful thing — sharing a bit of God’s love for creation, being fully present to a creature who is not like her, but whose life she has fulfilled.

Rest well, Mindy.

too clever by half

The Archbishop of Canterbury has had a hard time today. Now, there have been plenty of days when I’d have liked to give him a hard time, but this was not one of them.

There are three reasons I do not want to pester him over what he said about Sharia law:

  1. I know very little about Sharia law
  2. I have not yet read all that said
  3. I have not yet had time to come to terms with why he said it.

Which I suspect puts me in a similar position to most of the country — in my knowledge base, if not in my reaction to the archbishop.

From what I have read, +Williams was making his usual fine distinctions: recognizing that aspects of Sharia law are already at work in Britain, suggesting that that is a reality we may need to live with, questioning whether therefore we should do so deliberately in terms of British law. More specifically, he was suggesting that there might be aspects of Sharia law which could be held within British law in the same way the law makes space for aspects of Jewish law, and even Church law.

That does not seem to me deeply offensive. Even if he is wrong, it does not seem offensive. He is simply asking for clear thought and debate.

The problem is, +Rowan Williams doesn’t talk in sound bites. His sentences are carefully weighed and balanced, with lots of clauses and qualifications along the way. Which means he is an easy target for the media.

And doesn’t the BBC love a battle? On their web-site they have excellent links explaining sharia law which put +Rowan William’s comments in perspective. But on the radio, they have given lots of time to people who seemed determined to misunderstand him, even quoting a listener who suggested that we should do what Williams suggested so that said listener could form his own religion and his own laws based on his own made up God (which shows just how little our culture understands about faith communities and the nature of truth claims).

We live in a very silly media culture and have a very clever (but not always savvy) Archbishop of Canterbury. Sometimes the two clash horribly.

See what Rowan Williams actually said here.

visual stimulous

The making of ash was greatly expedited this year by a bit of olive oil (one gets braver, you know).  And as I stood there watching the flames fly, I began to realize why preachers of yore were tempted to preach hellfire and damnation this season.

Note to self for next year:  fetch camera before lighting blaze.