I had a rather bewildering conversation today.  Someone observed that they felt we should not use green as a colour for the drapes that denote the 'focus' for worship, or the table cloth for non-communion weeks, even though it is the 'right' liturgical colour for 'ordinary time'.  I think I would have been less puzzled had there been a general objection to liturgical colours being used in a protestant non-conformist church, but no, this objection was only about the use of green; purple, red and gold, which we use in appropriate season, were, it seems fine.

There are oodles of (well, several anyway) schemes of liturgical colours, but I have not found anything that can tell me how they were originally selected.  The only clue I've found is that green is sometimes associated with 'growth'.

So do any of my readers have any light to shed on the matter?  It would be helpful in explaining to this person why green might have been chosen in the first place.

Today has been busy, in a very good way, but that means I have not given any thought to anything I might write here, and I still have a meeting to take place for which I have not yet prepared any devotions.

So far so good with the new work pattern, even if this week it does mean two very long days either side of my rest day (yesterday, which was mainly spent blitzing my spare room, actaully half-blitizing it as it was far worse than I thought!).

For the first time in ages, I've a half decent draught of my sermon done with enough time to review it over the next couple of days.  This feels amazingly positive.  Hopefully it also means the sermon will end up a bit better than the last few!!

Yesterday a request landed in my inbox for input to an upcoming, local prayer event.  I try to support these as I think they are important, though along with a lot of people groan at the potential for one-up-church(hu)man-ship that arises with the 'two items for praise and thanks'.

This time as well as the usual, laudable if flawed, request for two items of praise/thanks and two for prayer came two others.  The first of these was 'one item of unanswered prayer.'  I'm afraid I saw red at this point, as it reflects a theology that, at its berst, reduces God to a benevolent genie who will grant boons to the faithful; and at worst to a capricious puppeteer who merely dallies with her creatures (see I can have a bad feminine deity, I'm not biased ;0) ).  Way back in Sunday school I was told there were three answers to prayer, 'yes,' 'no,' and 'wait.'  It is maybe simplistic, but I have a sneaky suspicion it's better theology than the alternative.  Anyway, why reply was that I didn't believe in unanswered prayer, just prayers that failed to accord with God's will, and we didn't have any.  Or words to that effect but a tad more gracious.  This morning I saw this picture on a social network site, and it seemed to connect:

The other thing we are asked to do was to identify one thing God is teaching our church just now.  I wrote something about the patience and challenge needed to exercise a prophetic witness.  I think that was an OK answer.  What I wish I had written was something like "I love you with an everlasting love" or "Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus" or "The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases, God's mercy never ends, eveery day they are fully renewed, such if God's faithfulness".  AH well.

I know all the questions are well meant, and I am not meaning to disrepsect the person or church who drew up the list.  Just wish we actually were a bit more clued up about what prayer is not!

So today I began my new improved work pattern, and what a difference already!  I have done loads of stuff and am feeling really energised and upbeat.  I'm not saying this is the cure for all the world's woes, or that I'll always feel this cheery about it, but it has definitely been a good day.

I have:

• Done some admin stuff
• Begun some more serious planning for my sabbatical
• Done some reading of commentaries on Ezra-Nehemiah and got some ideas mulling nicely for my sermon
• Done some reading on Matthew's Mission Paradigm
• Done some pastoral work

Now I have an hour to do more odds and ends and then the pleasure of this evening's prayers, led by someone else, and then I have a day off tomorrow.

How good is that?  Pretty darned good in my book!

Last week there was a minor flurry of interest going on in Christian circles following an article published by Steve Chalke.  Among the responses that I read were those of Steve Holmes and David Kerrigan each of which was gracious, thoughtful and thought provoking.  There have also been a couple of interesting /pertinent Baptist Times articles here and here.  What I am especially encouraged by, thus far, is that these contributors (all Baptists) are engaged in a proper, grown-up conversation, even a proper, grown-up, Baptist conversation.

You may agree with Steve Chalke or you may not, but I, for one, am glad that his article seems to have precipitated open, thoughtful and public conversation on this topic which is not going to go away just because we ignore it.  I am pleased and privileged to count among my friends gay people in relationships (legally recognised or not) and gay people who are committed to celibacy; Baptist ministers who support, cautiously or whole-heartedly, committed same sex relationships (some using the term marriage, some not) and Baptist ministers who cannot in good conscience affirm anything other than celibacy or heterosexual monogamy.

When Baptists get it right, we can live graciously with difference and disagreement without resorting to mud-slinging or cheap attacks.  I really hope that now we can begin to talk about this topic and move forward together as a reconciled diversity.

[Since this is a controversial topic, can I remind readers that opinions expressed here are mine, and will not necessarily accord with those of my church, the BUS or the BUGB]