A wise priest once said that interpreting the Scripture is like eating a trout. Some bites are fleshy and fall right off the bone, easy to eat and tasty. Others are spiny and hard to swallow, the small bones sticking in your throat. This fellows says, “as with the Bible, go for the easy parts first, and when you’ve learned how good they are, and how good fish is, then go after the hard bites.”
When we are nearby to our usual place of meditation, we should return to that place at the appointed times, for we are sustained by such continuity. We are physical creatures, and concrete reinforcement of habits of meditation, prayer, and gratefulness will assist us in the work.
Yesterday was the first really uncomfortable day in the Indaba groups for the bishops as their conversations turned to matters of human sexuality and the
By Jim Naughton Mouneer Anis, presiding bishop of Jerusalem the Middle East, has just given the most extraordinary interview here at the Lambeth Conference. If
The appendix of the St. Andrew’s Draft, which many Episcopal Church leaders find overly legalistic and potentially punitive, is “a first draft,” Cameron said, merely “an attempt,” to determine how disputes should be settled within the Anglican Communion. Canon lawyers were asked to contribute to the draft, Cameron said, “so we shouldn’t be surprised it came out legalistic.”
First draft of the Lambeth reflection on the bishop and human sexuality: THE CONTEXT OF OUR TALKS We met in a spirit of generosity and
Jim Mathes, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego, had a meeting over breakfast with Bishop Gregory Venables, Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone. After an apology was offered on the part of Bishop Venables, both bishops have committed themselves to trying to find a way to resolve the tensions over “incursions” in the Diocese of San Diego.
Has this Covenant for Communion in Mission received virtually no attention because it was too creative, too prophetic, too real, and too “different” from that envisaged by the Windsor Report?
What I’m pretty certain about is that explaining patiently and in great detail why the other side is wrong isn’t going to get us anywhere. It hasn’t as yet, and I’m pretty confident that we can project the present success rate well into the future. So what should we do?