Right after I finished the last entry I called Ann Taylor to see if I still had to work. It was looking like I did; they were waiting to hear back from one person who never works a closing shift. I said, "Okay," and hung up, thinking, well, better gird up my loins then.
(Oh dear God, my writing is full of horrible vernacular cliches tonight. My deepest apologies.)
I felt a nudging in my brain, that God-nudge with a verse written in shadowy letters in the background ask and you will receive/in all things by prayer and petition with thanksgiving present your requests to God, and I looked up like I was meant to and said, "God, I'm feeling really sick...if there's any way You can work something out, that would be great."
Two minutes later manager-and-friend Ashleigh called to say, "Cherie said she'll come in, so you go to bed and get up and go to work in the morning."
All I had to do was ask.
I'm not even going to pack tonight. I'm just going to lie around and go to bed early.
Hallelu Yah.
7 comments:
Ugh, I'm glad you got off work. It sucks to have to do anything when you feel like that. Back in middle school I had one of the lead roles in the school musical, and one day I came to rehearsal with this horrible stomach bug. We kept rehearsing the same scene over and over. I had only one line in the scene, but it was the cue line to one of the songs and I had to jump up to say it. Every time the idiots screwed up their song, we'd start over and I'd have to jump up and say my stupid line. I was up and down like a jack-in-the-box for two hours. I wanted to vomit in their faces.
Feel better!
Congrats! Of course, those particular biblical passages have nothing to do with individuals petitioning God through prayer. In context, it has to do with the Church being guided corporately by God through prayer. So maybe I would be more willing to attribute your good fortune to coincidence that divine purpose. In either case, I am glad that you had the night off. Cheers!
Blah blah blah, Mr. Caler. You of all people should be the first to say there's no such thing as coincidence. Or have you dropped the tulip?
I might agree with you about the second reference (with reservations), but not the first; true, Christ was addressing a crowd, but I would say there's personal (individual) application involved in a corporate hearing of a sermon, wouldn't you?
But thanks for the congrats; I had a great night not working. :)
::sigh:: J. Morgan Caler strikes again.
Feel better!
Sarah, I'm tagging you for the 'stupid meme' thing and also I would like you to participate in this 'Meet The Bloggers' thing that I have gotten involved in. Please contact me via e-mail notadesperatehousewife@hotmail.com
To SBP:
1) The tulip is still alive and well, just refined to avoid myopic exclusivity. The result, among others, has been the realization that providence and chance are not mutually exclusive, but rather paradigmatic preferences that have more or less purchase at any given time depending on the circumstance.
2) No, I wouldn't agree with you. Even if one were to hold some sort of individualist application, it would still have to be historically contextualized (i.e. there is nothing to indicate that it was a timeless, decontextualized proclamation, but only an appeal to a specific group at a specific time). The only possible meaning it could have for us would be as ‘inheritors’ of that original promise because we are ‘descendants’ of that original group. And, by the very nature of such things, this can only take place at a communal level (i.e. the Church). Understanding the transmission of things across time and space requires great sensitivity to the nature of time and space and a great cautiousness about what sort of claims can be made about any historical happening.
3) All of that aside, I am glad we can agree that having the evening off is a glorious happening, historically contextualized or not. Cheers!
To LVS:
There was no strike here. This was a corrective to what I saw as best intentions gone astray. In my view, saying things doesn’t make it so. I also happen to think that we need to be rigorous and accurate in as much as we are able in our claim-making. Finally, I intensely dislike the dictatorship of acceptance, whereby we are expected to be deferential to someone’s view (and, implicitly, not a challenge to it) if that view is held deeply or if that view is generally accepted. In clarifying, I hope that I have cleared up our recent streak of misunderstandings that have stemmed largely from personality differences or, perhaps, my own inarticulacy about my aims. Cheers!
Right-o, Josh, I still disagree with you. (Your claims to community are a result of a postmodern upbringing in interpreting Scripture, which isn't bad at all, but do realize that your interpretation, as well as mine, are also contextualized in time and space.)
But then disagreeing with you is nothing new. It is, in fact, the contextualized history of our interaction.
Which nonetheless does not prevent me from liking you tremendously.
Argue with Lindsay on her blog.
Post a Comment