I am going to try to get to grips with a subject that tests and vexes a great many people. The horribly difficult issue of Israel. My postbag has attracted some quite judgemental and cruel comments regarding this issue and, sadly, nothing of any substance or reason (biblically or otherwise).
I have to be honest, this is an area I struggle with at a number of levels and for a number of reasons and am more than happy to be 'informed' of errors (nicely please) but don't fancy the prospect of more of the 'you are cursed because you oppose God's people' stuff!
Today
As I see it, the issue of Israel is coloured, and even hampered, by the modern nation state (a secular place) and the overly indulgent attitudes of Zionists. The spiritual people of God, the heirs of the promises and those who bear God's name don't appear to be the same people as the modern secular Jew. Just because it's called Israel doesn't mean that God sees the same label. Some will scream about Israel being merely about 'possessing the land' and tell me it's all about territory.
When I was younger, I used to assume Israel was a land full of God-fearing Jews, but the more I became engaged with it, the more I realised that the conflict between secular and 'religious' Jews was engaged and that it was becoming an increasingly secular nation. An assumption that is perhaps supported by the fact that Israel's Proclamation of Independence doesn't even mention God (although there is a passing nod to the ‘Rock of Israel’).
Israel ‘will be based on the principles of liberty, justice and peace as conceived by the Prophets of Israel; will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of religion, race, or sex; will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, education and culture; will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and will loyally uphold the principles of the United Nations Charter’.
Excellent - but of course the words ring a little hollow when we think of many of the realities (outside of Palestine and Mordecai Vanunu), but that's true of all nation states I reckon. But there are requirements from God that need to be maintained, and of course they ain't. Still, this could just make them a sinful and fallen nation couldn't it?
Modern Israel is about Jewish nationalism, not the Jewish faith and not about the spiritual nation of Israel, heir of the promise. The conflicts between the various Jewish interests, ultra-orthodox, orthodox, middle of the road, reform, liberal and the like all add to the mix, and to the conflict. Then there are groups like the Haredi who feel the nation state is a denial of God's promise to Israel because it's linked with obeying commandments, which secualr Israel not only isn't, but appears to break with impunity.
Influences outside of Israel don't help. The support of America and the whole spectrum of Zionists offering support for as biblical people, condoning the nation's action and raising funds to rebuild the temple all complicate an already complicated political and national picture and supports what, unkindly, some have described as a self-serving, Godless, ghetto mentality.
And then we have the American fundamentalists (like Phelps, Jones and Sapp perhaps) who offer unconditional support as well.
See my difficulty (and we haven't even started yet!)?
Pax
ps. And then there's God's people!
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
Home Interests Versus Foreign Aid
I received this from a friend:
I'm still scratching my head at this one.
British Homeless go without eating.
British Elderly go without needed medicines.
British Mentally ill go without treatment.
British Troops go without proper equipment.
British Veterans go without benefits they were promised.
Yet we donate billions to other countries before helping our own first.
Have the guts to re-post this. 1% will re-post and 99% won't have the guts!!..
Having worked in poorer nations, I see the comments above as being relative, but have enough truth in them to make people respond, and respond negatively, which I assume is the purpose of the post.
I am reminded of the words of Mark 7: 25 - 30:
"Immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” And he said to her, “For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.” And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone."
Here we have a foreigner coming to Jesus asking for healing for her child. There are a few ways to interpret this story. The first being that once the 'children' are fed and full, then the dogs (the name for Gentiles i.e. foreigners) can be fed. Meaning that we look after our own first and then, when all are replete, we will turn our attention to the foreigners. The question here is, "Will we ever have enough for others?"
Another is that the children are being fed and so the dogs can eat what falls to the ground from their plenty. They realise that they aren't allowed at the table, but from the much that the children have, enough falls to provide also for them. The question here is, "Will we ever be good stewards of what we have or will we continue to be wasteful and profligate?"
Is this about us, or about others?
Why are homeless people homeless and what do we, and those who post the comments above, what do they do about the homeless? My experience is that they complain that not enough is being done by the welfare state rather than get involved. It becomes all about them and their actions (or inaction) and expectations of others doing something (after all, that's what we pay taxes for).
Drugs for the old? Aren't they in receipt of free prescriptions? Is this a statement of fact or just manipulative and sensationalising the situation for their own ends?
Mental Health issues? Working in this area (I'm a Vicar, it's what we do!) has shown me that we live in a society which tolerates the mentally ill badly, provides for them scantily and supports them woefully. But this is about more than money (although more would be useful)!
I have to say that the equipment situation is improving and it's more logistics than anything else that appears to be the problem a lot of the time (if what I'm told is true) rather than cash. I'd be more supportive if the reference was about establishment and manning!
I deal with a number of British Veterans and whilst I don't always think we honour the Covenant to the full, and whilst I see a great many errors and frustratingly awful procedural things, these are organisational rather than financially motivated. Lost files, stuffed up medical issues and the like rarely have anything to do with finances.
So I have posted the piece here.
Do you think we should feed our own first? Where do we start feeding others and being responsible for others in the global village that is the world?
Pax
I'm still scratching my head at this one.
British Homeless go without eating.
British Elderly go without needed medicines.
British Mentally ill go without treatment.
British Troops go without proper equipment.
British Veterans go without benefits they were promised.
Yet we donate billions to other countries before helping our own first.
Have the guts to re-post this. 1% will re-post and 99% won't have the guts!!..
Having worked in poorer nations, I see the comments above as being relative, but have enough truth in them to make people respond, and respond negatively, which I assume is the purpose of the post.
I am reminded of the words of Mark 7: 25 - 30:
"Immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” And he said to her, “For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.” And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone."
Here we have a foreigner coming to Jesus asking for healing for her child. There are a few ways to interpret this story. The first being that once the 'children' are fed and full, then the dogs (the name for Gentiles i.e. foreigners) can be fed. Meaning that we look after our own first and then, when all are replete, we will turn our attention to the foreigners. The question here is, "Will we ever have enough for others?"
Another is that the children are being fed and so the dogs can eat what falls to the ground from their plenty. They realise that they aren't allowed at the table, but from the much that the children have, enough falls to provide also for them. The question here is, "Will we ever be good stewards of what we have or will we continue to be wasteful and profligate?"
Is this about us, or about others?
Why are homeless people homeless and what do we, and those who post the comments above, what do they do about the homeless? My experience is that they complain that not enough is being done by the welfare state rather than get involved. It becomes all about them and their actions (or inaction) and expectations of others doing something (after all, that's what we pay taxes for).
Drugs for the old? Aren't they in receipt of free prescriptions? Is this a statement of fact or just manipulative and sensationalising the situation for their own ends?
Mental Health issues? Working in this area (I'm a Vicar, it's what we do!) has shown me that we live in a society which tolerates the mentally ill badly, provides for them scantily and supports them woefully. But this is about more than money (although more would be useful)!
I have to say that the equipment situation is improving and it's more logistics than anything else that appears to be the problem a lot of the time (if what I'm told is true) rather than cash. I'd be more supportive if the reference was about establishment and manning!
I deal with a number of British Veterans and whilst I don't always think we honour the Covenant to the full, and whilst I see a great many errors and frustratingly awful procedural things, these are organisational rather than financially motivated. Lost files, stuffed up medical issues and the like rarely have anything to do with finances.
So I have posted the piece here.
Do you think we should feed our own first? Where do we start feeding others and being responsible for others in the global village that is the world?
Pax
What this blog does
I had an interesting email from a kind person who assures me that what I have to say on my blog is "Interesting, theological and often funny." Kind words indeed, but as might be expected, there's a bit of a sting in the tail to come. "But, I have found your words, taken a step further by others, possess great depth within them. It's a shame others have to finish the journey you so often start."
Actually, I don't think it's a shame at all. In fact it's a joy because I seek to dialogue with the internal voices and the external stimuli and paint for myself, and others, a rough sketch. From this I hope to stimulate some dialogue, some development of the issues and situations around me and some perspective. That which I do in fun can easily be transformed into deep theological thinking and if not careful become the 'last word' on a subject.
I hope to make sense of the difficult and make it accessible to the simple, to take the simple and make it commonplace, this is the task of the theological type (something I had rammed home after moving on to postgrad work where my 'theological' essays were slated for being written in theological speak such that the 'ordinary' people would find it inaccessible. I find this to be true in many of the journals and papers (blogs too) that I read.
A tutor once told me that the 'sociological imperative is indicated by the eschatological imperative'. Sensing my confusion, he repeated his statement. 'We love, because He first loved us'. (1 Jn 4:19)
This, for me was one of those 'I Learned A Lot About Theological Thinking From That' (ILALATTFT) moments. The same is true of Stanley Hauerwas, a bar room brawler of a theologian. A man who is erudite, pithy, challenging and so accessible that he has become another hero to sit alongside Barth, Moltmann, Bauckham and so many others who grace my shelves and share their thoughts.
This, for me, is not the place to do intellectual theology but is a place to do deep theology, the theology that brings people into contact with, and encourages recognition and dialogue with, the one true loving God. I make fun of things (especially me) because God has a sense of humour and thankfully takes us less seriously than we often do ourselves, like a parent enjoying the foolishness of his favourite child. Where we see fine words and deep pronouncements, He sees crayoned scribbles and drawing of 'Daddy', and He rejoices in them.
If my words stimulate others, then Hallelujah.
If my words illuminate situations for what they are, then I am thankful.
If they help bring understanding, awareness, dialogue and healing, then I am fulfilling my call as pastor and theologian, brother and disciple - Praise God!
Pax
Actually, I don't think it's a shame at all. In fact it's a joy because I seek to dialogue with the internal voices and the external stimuli and paint for myself, and others, a rough sketch. From this I hope to stimulate some dialogue, some development of the issues and situations around me and some perspective. That which I do in fun can easily be transformed into deep theological thinking and if not careful become the 'last word' on a subject.
I hope to make sense of the difficult and make it accessible to the simple, to take the simple and make it commonplace, this is the task of the theological type (something I had rammed home after moving on to postgrad work where my 'theological' essays were slated for being written in theological speak such that the 'ordinary' people would find it inaccessible. I find this to be true in many of the journals and papers (blogs too) that I read.
A tutor once told me that the 'sociological imperative is indicated by the eschatological imperative'. Sensing my confusion, he repeated his statement. 'We love, because He first loved us'. (1 Jn 4:19)
This, for me was one of those 'I Learned A Lot About Theological Thinking From That' (ILALATTFT) moments. The same is true of Stanley Hauerwas, a bar room brawler of a theologian. A man who is erudite, pithy, challenging and so accessible that he has become another hero to sit alongside Barth, Moltmann, Bauckham and so many others who grace my shelves and share their thoughts.
This, for me, is not the place to do intellectual theology but is a place to do deep theology, the theology that brings people into contact with, and encourages recognition and dialogue with, the one true loving God. I make fun of things (especially me) because God has a sense of humour and thankfully takes us less seriously than we often do ourselves, like a parent enjoying the foolishness of his favourite child. Where we see fine words and deep pronouncements, He sees crayoned scribbles and drawing of 'Daddy', and He rejoices in them.
If my words stimulate others, then Hallelujah.
If my words illuminate situations for what they are, then I am thankful.
If they help bring understanding, awareness, dialogue and healing, then I am fulfilling my call as pastor and theologian, brother and disciple - Praise God!
Pax
Monday, 11 April 2011
People get ready
It struck me early this morning that we don't teach our people enough about engagement with the world, we appear to teach about keeping away from it (especially if some Christians I meet are typical).
We don't teach people about being servants, but major on them being 'safe', that is kept away from hell and the separation from God that this is (for eternity).
But being a Christian isn't about buying (or even receiving free) a ticket for salvation, it's about looking like Jesus, acting like Jesus and submitting to God's Holy Spirit so that where we go, Jesus is!
We don't do stuff to bring people into our church buildings (bit of a shock for many, that statement).
We don't do stuff to get people to come in and pay the Parish Share (bit of a shock for Treasurers, Archdeacon's and Diocesan Board's of Finance perhaps?).
We do stuff, OUT THERE, because that's what we are commanded to do. Not asked. Not suggested or recommended, but TOLD!
Let's take a moment to examine the words of Matthew 28:
And Jesus came and said to them,
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Now this bit is relatively simple - Jesus is Lord of all, therefore, this is THE Boss speaking. And what is it He is telling them (and therefore us)?
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
Again, this appears to be rather a simple sort of set of instruction in that we are told to:
1. GO. Now isn't this really easy to grasp, it means get out from your pathetic little 'holy huddles'; leave your "Oooh, we want to keep ourselves pure and not mix with the sinners, the liberals (or perhaps those who don't have a clue what IHOP is) or don't do BCP, or those who think differently from us," and meet the real people!
2. MAKE DISCIPLES. Again, not difficult. This means that we have to share the 'good news' (i.e. the Gospel) and tell people about Jesus and get them to want to look like Him (which means becoming disciplined and keeping to the rules like what Jesus wants). It means that we put our desires and and lifestyles second to being like Jesus and honouring God.
3. OF ALL NATIONS. Wow! That means we seek to make the Jews, the Islamics, the Hindus, the Buddhists and all other faiths aware of Jesus (for the right reason- sit down Phelps, Jones and Sap!). This means we take the message of God's love to people who have different coloured skin, speak in different languages and occupy different places geographically, politically and socially.
4. BAPTISING THEM IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT. Yep, that's what it says. Nothing about age or volition mentioned there (perhaps Jesus wasn't into anabaptism - me neither!). That's what makes it valid, not that you did it again in your cosy little holy huddle in your comfortable little church building. It is what you do and it is the way that you do it (sorry).
5. OBSERVE ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU. This sort of stuffs much of the liberal thinking and (Hallelujah) people like Phelps, Jones and Sap too! We have to keep the rules - Jesus doesn't just want us all to be happy after all. He wants us to be obedient and holy! Shocker!! We can't just rewrite the stuff and neither can we manipulate it to suit our own desires and make it give us the God we want to have (there goes the Daily Fascist readership). We van't reinvent God to make our sins acceptable (and the liberals) and we can't dictate that 'our' way is the right way (there goes the rest) - we have to do it HIS WAY!
And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Jesus tells us that He is going, but he will leave us with His Holy Spirit, the paraklete (he who comes alongside), the comforter, the dot-for-dot image of Christ (homoousious) and He will never leave us. HALLELUJAH (or what?)!!!
So, if He is with us, and for us and guiding us, and teaching us - why worry about when He comes - we need all the time we can get because we haven't scratched the surface when it comes to reaching the lost. Better hope Harold is wrong people!
Pax
Jones and Sapp - Don't speak for Pakistani Christians
In Pakistan yesterday, Christians gathered in Lahore to show their support for Muslim believers over the burning of the Koran by Muppets Jones and Sapp (AKA 'the saps'). Denouncing the Koran burning as nothing more than an attempt to flame clashes amongst muslims and Christians, they came out in force to show their unity with the Muslim believers and their contempt of the Saps.
The Christian leader behind the gathering told reporters that the incident shows that, "Neither men believe in any religion." and their the action "Reflects an extremist mind set which has nothing to do with Christian peaceful teachings." (AMEN to that!)
A news report tells of how the two men's act has "stoked fear amongst Christians who are in the minority in Pakistan."
The Pakistan government says it has ensured the safety & rights of the minorities in the country and has also assured its nationals that the culprits will not escape punishment.
Taking a lead that others should follow (are you listening Rowan?), Christians have asked the government to take action over the incident and have urged U.S. to prevent its people from taking such extremist actions under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.
See it for yourself, here:
Pax
The Christian leader behind the gathering told reporters that the incident shows that, "Neither men believe in any religion." and their the action "Reflects an extremist mind set which has nothing to do with Christian peaceful teachings." (AMEN to that!)
A news report tells of how the two men's act has "stoked fear amongst Christians who are in the minority in Pakistan."
The Pakistan government says it has ensured the safety & rights of the minorities in the country and has also assured its nationals that the culprits will not escape punishment.
Taking a lead that others should follow (are you listening Rowan?), Christians have asked the government to take action over the incident and have urged U.S. to prevent its people from taking such extremist actions under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.
See it for yourself, here:
Pax
Sunday, 10 April 2011
Old age 'rational' suicide?
Is it rational for people in old age to commit suicide? Recent stories include a couple who went to Switzerland because they were old and he was going deaf, she'd been diagnosed with cancer, so they merely 'checked out'. Nan Maitland's choice to die at 84 was made because her life had 'more pain than pleasure'. She wasn't terminal, but did have arthritis.
In something reminiscent of Flaubert's Madame Bovary's "Just a little sleep and then, no more!', Nan wrote:
"By the time you read this, with the help of Fate and the good Swiss, I will have gone to sleep, never to wake. For some time, my life has consisted of more pain than pleasure and over the next months and years the pain will be more and the pleasure less. I have a great feeling of relief that I will have no further need to struggle through each day in dread of what further horrors may lie in wait. For many years, I have feared the long period of decline, sometimes called 'prolonged dwindling', that so many people unfortunately experience before they die.
Please be happy for me that I have been able to escape from this, for me, unbearable future. I have had a wonderful life, and the great good fortune to die at a time of my own choosing, and in the good company of two Fate colleagues.
With my death, on March 1, I feel I am fully accepting the concept of 'old age rational suicide' which I have been very pleased to promote, especially in the past 15 months. Being active in the right-to-die movement, both in the UK and globally, has been an enormously important part of my life in the last few years."
Ironically, Mrs maitland's choice does not find itself being approved of by many of the pro-euthanasia groups. One, Dignity, said:
"Dignity in Dying does not support a change in the law to allow non-terminally ill people the legal option to ask for help to end their life - we campaign for a change in the law to allow the choice of assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults only. No one should have to suffer against their wishes in the final days and weeks of their lives, and the law should seek to address this, as well as seeking to protect vulnerable people against abuse."
In an era of increasing medical progress, it is odd, churlish even, that some wish to decide on their sell by day on the grounds of personal convenience and comfort. What makes this a more worrying issue is that those who seek to 'play God' do so because they want to live on their terms, and now it seems, die on their own terms too! The ultimate two-fingered gesture and one that will require a rethink of Psalm 139:
"All the days numbered for me were decided for me, once you decided I should be!"
Life is no longer precious and no longer has either dignity, or worth, for so many people out there. We use financial indicators (i.e. it's cheaper to 'let help them die'), life value indicators (i.e. they have such a poor quality of life AKA 'they contribute nothing to society and cost us money' and happiness indicators (i.e. they'd be happier out of it (and so would we if they were).
We can sustain life, we can remove many of the inconveniences of illness and old age, and yet it seems, we want the final say - seems 'self' and selfishness make the irrational rational (for some at least.
Nah, don't think so - just proves that nothing was learnt while they were here!
In something reminiscent of Flaubert's Madame Bovary's "Just a little sleep and then, no more!', Nan wrote:
"By the time you read this, with the help of Fate and the good Swiss, I will have gone to sleep, never to wake. For some time, my life has consisted of more pain than pleasure and over the next months and years the pain will be more and the pleasure less. I have a great feeling of relief that I will have no further need to struggle through each day in dread of what further horrors may lie in wait. For many years, I have feared the long period of decline, sometimes called 'prolonged dwindling', that so many people unfortunately experience before they die.
Please be happy for me that I have been able to escape from this, for me, unbearable future. I have had a wonderful life, and the great good fortune to die at a time of my own choosing, and in the good company of two Fate colleagues.
With my death, on March 1, I feel I am fully accepting the concept of 'old age rational suicide' which I have been very pleased to promote, especially in the past 15 months. Being active in the right-to-die movement, both in the UK and globally, has been an enormously important part of my life in the last few years."
Ironically, Mrs maitland's choice does not find itself being approved of by many of the pro-euthanasia groups. One, Dignity, said:
"Dignity in Dying does not support a change in the law to allow non-terminally ill people the legal option to ask for help to end their life - we campaign for a change in the law to allow the choice of assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults only. No one should have to suffer against their wishes in the final days and weeks of their lives, and the law should seek to address this, as well as seeking to protect vulnerable people against abuse."
In an era of increasing medical progress, it is odd, churlish even, that some wish to decide on their sell by day on the grounds of personal convenience and comfort. What makes this a more worrying issue is that those who seek to 'play God' do so because they want to live on their terms, and now it seems, die on their own terms too! The ultimate two-fingered gesture and one that will require a rethink of Psalm 139:
"All the days numbered for me were decided for me, once you decided I should be!"
Life is no longer precious and no longer has either dignity, or worth, for so many people out there. We use financial indicators (i.e. it's cheaper to 'let help them die'), life value indicators (i.e. they have such a poor quality of life AKA 'they contribute nothing to society and cost us money' and happiness indicators (i.e. they'd be happier out of it (and so would we if they were).
We can sustain life, we can remove many of the inconveniences of illness and old age, and yet it seems, we want the final say - seems 'self' and selfishness make the irrational rational (for some at least.
Nah, don't think so - just proves that nothing was learnt while they were here!
Road to the cross? Use the pavement instead!
I see that Brent Council, that great bastion of all that brings the odd raised eyebrow and the resigned sigh has once again managed to makes the news. This time, council officials have banned the annual Good Friday 'walk of witness'.
No, they don't want them to do an 'Earth Day' procession (although I would be this would be more favourably treated) like the Episcopalian Church are advocating in places, but are concerned with the 'health and safety' aspects of the event and so have forbidden them to walk on the road, pushing the event onto the pavement (surely that's a health and safety risk?).
Knowing the area and the community I know of various marches and parades, none of which have been pushed onto the pavement, but then again, none of them were Christian (unless you count St Pat's Day)! Diwali is splendid in Brent's area, there are parades and the like and there's never been a question about them happening. This is where we need to be able to point to other groups public acts of witness and celebration and tell Brent where to go. we don't want special treatment, we just want to be treated the same as everyone else.
Thankfully, the MP for Brent Central, Sarah Teather, has taken up the cry to let this event take place:
"It is important that the Good Friday procession is allowed to take place on the roads. Brent is a multicultural area. The turnout at the annual St Patrick’s Day parade shows that many people appreciate the celebrations of cultures other than their own. I have written to Brent Council asking them to reconsider their decision to make the Good Friday procession take place on the pavement. This provision is not only impractical, but also does not allow the people of Brent to fully enjoy the event.”
Then again, perhaps we need to drop Good Friday and engage in Earth Day instead, wouldn't be a problem then, would there?
Happy Sunday
No, they don't want them to do an 'Earth Day' procession (although I would be this would be more favourably treated) like the Episcopalian Church are advocating in places, but are concerned with the 'health and safety' aspects of the event and so have forbidden them to walk on the road, pushing the event onto the pavement (surely that's a health and safety risk?).
Knowing the area and the community I know of various marches and parades, none of which have been pushed onto the pavement, but then again, none of them were Christian (unless you count St Pat's Day)! Diwali is splendid in Brent's area, there are parades and the like and there's never been a question about them happening. This is where we need to be able to point to other groups public acts of witness and celebration and tell Brent where to go. we don't want special treatment, we just want to be treated the same as everyone else.
Thankfully, the MP for Brent Central, Sarah Teather, has taken up the cry to let this event take place:
"It is important that the Good Friday procession is allowed to take place on the roads. Brent is a multicultural area. The turnout at the annual St Patrick’s Day parade shows that many people appreciate the celebrations of cultures other than their own. I have written to Brent Council asking them to reconsider their decision to make the Good Friday procession take place on the pavement. This provision is not only impractical, but also does not allow the people of Brent to fully enjoy the event.”
Then again, perhaps we need to drop Good Friday and engage in Earth Day instead, wouldn't be a problem then, would there?
Happy Sunday
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)