You are currently browsing the monthly archive for November 2012.
My post this morning “Why Is Civil Discourse So Difficult?” generated a brilliant comment from Lindsay.
It is a single word quoted out of context pasted together with another phrase. So, it may mean nothing. But the claim in Wednesday’s HuffPost is that evangelical pastor Rick Warren believes that Barack Obama is “‘absolutely’ unfriendly to religion” and that the Obama administration has “‘intentionally infringed upon religious liberties.'”
As religion stories go, this one seems to have legs. The Church of England’s inability to accept the ordination of women as Bishops has found space in the mainstream media since at least November 20. That is a pretty long shelf life for any news story, let alone one dealing exclusively with matters of church governance.
It is good to listen to your critics, and if you work in a religious institution you have lots of opportunity. Criticism of religion is an almost universally enjoyed pastime.
In the last installment of the “Animate” series, Bruce Reyes-Chow asks the question, “Why would anyone bother with church?”
I am lying in bed. My body is feeling its way slowly towards sleep. But my mind is still turning in tight little circles around the same endless litany of unanswerable questions that haunt many of my waking hours.
Nella Last, author of Nella’s War, was not a religious woman.
I have been thinking further about the criteria for assessing the interpretation of any passage of Scripture. What are the parameters that might help guide a faithful reading of the biblical text?
I have been curious, since Tuesday, about the arguments that swayed the Church of England to avoid the hazard of embracing the possibility of women serving as bishops in the church by six lay votes in its recent Synod action.
All reading is interpretation. This is particularly true when reading the Bible.