Archbishop of Canterbury's Christmas sermon at Canterbury Cathedral

The Archbishop of Canterbury - Archbishop of Canterbury's Christmas sermon at Canterbury Cathedral

And in the case of children, we shall do our level best to turn you into active little consumers and performers as soon as we can. We shall test you relentlessly in schools, we shall bombard you with advertising, often highly sexualised advertising, we shall worry you about your prospects and skills from the word go; we shall do all we can to make childhood a brief and rather regrettable stage on the way to the real thing - which is 'independence', turning you into a useful cog in the social machine that won't need too much maintenance.

The whole sermon is worth a read, not too long, but I especially liked this bit about how society treats children. The whole sermon is about an appropriate dependancy, on god and each other.

advent

For our last two meetings we looked at the readings for the first and third Sundays in Advent, oh and we had a little party :)

the creation of Adam

At our meeting on the 11th November we looked a three paintings of the Creation of Adam.

Before looking at the pictures we read the two passages that describe the creation of Adam.

 Genesis 1.26-27. Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind^* in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth,^* and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’
So God created humankind^* in his image,
   in the image of God he created them;^*
   male and female he created them. ²⁷

Genesis 2.7. Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground,^* and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

The first was by Michelangelo and was part of the painting on the Sistine Chapel.

The second was by William Blake and was used to illustrate a poem. Elohim Creating Adam.

The third was by Benedict Cambell which was painted in 2003 and was a digital painting which was a reinterpretation of Michelangelo's painting.

We thought about why the artists had chossen to show Adam and God in the ways they had. We looked in particular at the differences in the pictures and what this might say about the artists' ideas about God.

this and that

At our last meeting (28th October) we didn't have anything planned as such so had a general chat about the world etc.

We had a vigorous discussion about anthropogenic climate change and also the talked about the financial crises and it's impact on the developing world and international trade in general. In particular free trade that truly opens up all markets, not just the markets in the developing world (eg. USA and EC).

'Death tourism' leads Swiss to consider ban on assisted suicide | Society | The Guardian

'Death tourism' leads Swiss to consider ban on assisted suicide | Society | The Guardian

Interesting in light of our recent discussions.

heaven in ordinarie

For our meeting on 14th October we thought about how the "ordinary" is often overlooked. We expect to feel close to God on mountain tops and (hopefully) in church. However most of our lives we are not in these places, we are on the bus, at work, doing the washing up etc.

We started with one of the Quakers' Advices and queries. These are short suggestions/questions that Quakers are encouraged to read (both corporately and individually) and reflect on. The one we read was:

7. Be aware of the spirit of God at work in the ordinary activities and experiences of your daily life. Spiritual learning continues throughout life, and often in unexpected ways. There is inspiration to be found all around us, in the natural world, in the sciences and arts, in our work and friendships, in our sorrows as well as in our joys. Are we open to new light, from whatever source it may come? Do you approach new ideas with discernment?

We then looked at a poem by George Herbert (1593-1633) called 'Prayer'.

PRAYER the Churches banquet, Angels age, 
       
Gods breath in man returning to his birth, 
     
The soul in paraphrase, heart in pilgrimage,
The Christian plummet sounding heav’n and earth ;

Engine against th’ Almightie, sinner's towre, 
     
Reversed thunder, Christ-side-piercing spear, 
     
The six daies world-transposing in an houre, 

A kinde of tune, which all things heare and fear ;

Softnesse, and peace, and joy, and love, and blisse, 
     
Exalted Manna, gladnesse of the best, 
     
Heaven in ordinarie, man well drest, 

The milkie way, the bird of Paradise,

Church-bels beyond the stars heard, the souls bloud, 
    
The land of spices, something understood.

In this poem there are many images for prayer, some quite hard to grasp!

I partly got the idea for this topic from a Greenbelt speaker, John Davis who thinks that christians have a habit of devaluing the 'ordinary'. To counteract this he has written prayers about the everyday. See below for his prayer giving thanks for mobile phone masts.

We give thanks for mobile phone masts
Standing tall above our streets

Silent gatherers of our digital conversations; connecting us to satellites in outer space and friends in neighbouring houses; witnesses of our desire to communicate with others; beamers of text messages around the world.

We celebrate the holy mystery of radio waves - thousands of them criss-crossing through the air unseen, permitting us to catch and ride their frequencies as surfers ride incoming waves;
We celebrate the skills of those who have turned such mysteries to our practical use;
We stand beneath these tall grey masts, and we celebrate the wonder of new technology.

A blessing on those who call to ask us how we are;
A blessing on those who call to tell us where they are;
A blessing on those who call to invite us, kindly, to join them.

We give thanks for mobile phone masts
Standing tall above our streets.

Give us patience with those who play with their phones more than they talk to us;
Help us cope with those who use their phones so publicly they include us in their conversations;
Keep us calm if the person driving close behind us is dangerously on the phone.
Give us grace to know when to turn our phones on - to talk; and off - to rest;
Save us from radiation, repetitive strain injury, earache and excessive phone bills;
Keep us connected to the earth beneath our feet as much as the world between our ears.

We give thanks for mobile phone masts
Standing tall above our streets

Our initial reaction was that this was not a 'proper prayer'. But why is that? Because we have expectations about what 'proper prayers' are about and mobile phones don't fit that expectation?

We then talked about the influence of the media in advertising and various life style and celebrity magazines. They are selling a picture of the 'good life' that is anything but 'ordinary'. Our ordinary lives are drap and boring if we don't look like and smell like celebrities, we are encouraged to define our selves by what we consume and own and by the extremeness of our experiences.

But this is not something we can live up to and so we are at risk of devaluing our 'ordinary' lives. We need to reclaim the sacredness of everyday life. We finished with a Celtic prayer, the Celtic Christians had a habit of praying about the everyday things they did, making the beds, lighting the fire and so on.

Bless to me, O God,
Each thing mine eye sees;
Bless to me, O God,
Each sound mine ear hears;
Bless to me, O God,
Each odour that goes to my nostrils;
Bless to me, O God,
Each taste that goes to my lips;
Each note that goes to my song;
Each ray that guides my way;
Each thing that I pursue;
Each lure that tempts my will;
The zeal that seeks my living soul,
The three that seek my heart,
The zeal that seeks my living soul,
The three that seek my heart.

assisted suicide

On the meeting on 30th Sep. we talked about the new guidelines on assisted suicide. Jim lead us through a selection of biblical passages that mentioned suicide. These included Saul, who interestingly enough asked his armour bearing to kill him, but the armour bearer refused and Saul falls on his own sword. We also looked at the passage where Judas kills himself (and briefly at the other passage where he does not!).

None of these passages really fit well with the current debate which is generally about people with terminal medical conditions being helped to commit suicide and whether the people who helped them would be prosecuted. In England and Wales suicide is no longer against the law (it was until the 1960's) but there is a law against assisting someone to commit suicide which has a penalty of up to 14 years in prison if convicted. The guidance was given as a woman with MS wanted to know that if her husband helped her commit suicide he would not be prosecuted.

We looked at the guidance and generally we felt it was a balanced way of addressing the issue, it did not make assisted suicide legal but did give guidance that could reassure relatives who acted with good motives to help someone commit suicide. We all felt that it should remain a crime with the possibility of prosecution, not least because this shows the seriousness of the act and might help reduce the risk of people encouraging or coercing people to commit suicide.

Some links, the first is particularly good, wish I had found it for the meeting.

assisted-suicide-guidelines-mental-health

assisted-suicide

terry-pratchett-assisted-suicide-guidelines

assisted-suicide-law-defences-recognised

long time no update...

Not updated during the summer as nothing happened in the summer - well as regards house group anyway :)

We had our first meeting back on 16th Sep. and spent it catching up on all the things that did happen during the summer, everyone seems to have had a more exotic and less wet holiday than Helen and I did...

Tony Campolo

For our meeting on 10th June a couple of us went to hear Tony Campolo speak at Westminster Central Hall. This was part of Premier Radio's birthday celebrations.

He spoke about power and authority and what characterises these two ways of being/leading. He felt that power was always cooercive, if someone has power you do what they say becasue they have the ability to punish you or force you. In contract someone with authority is followed because people regognise that they are right. He felt that Jesus was someone who had power and authority, but chose to give up his power and seek to persude people thorough his exercise of authority, which comes from his love and sacrifical vunerablity.

He felt that at times the church tried to get political influence (ie. power) when it should be trying to gain authority through the exercise of loving service.

(Doug if you have anything to add please do...)

Tony Campolo

Jesus the Jew

At the house group on 27th May we watched an episode of a Channel 4 series - 'The History of Christianity'. This episode was fronted by Howard Jacobson, an atheist Jew. He looked at the Jewish of Jesus and the disciples. The programme also explored the history of Jews and Christians and how for a long time Christians blamed Jews for the death of Jesus and how this has lead to persecution of and discrimination against Jews.

It was interesting to get an 'outsiders' view of Jesus. Jacobson was ultimately impressed with the Jesus he saw in the Gospels, with the message that he was preaching. He was less taken with the Church!

post resurrection appearances

At the house group on 13th May. We looked at some of the post resurrection appearances of Jesus. We noted that there are differences but that this was to be expected given that different people are recalling the events.

I thought it was interesting that Paul's list of appearances included his own on the Damascus Road without making any distinction between his 'vision' and the other appearances that we see in the gospels and Acts. Worth noting that Paul's letter is probably the earliest recorded account we have of the post resurrection appearances.

Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire

by Brian J. Walsh & Sylvia C. Keesmaat

Good fun, if occasionally quite hard work! You'd want to be a little versed in post-modernity to get the best out if it. I like the conclusions they come to but I'm not completely convinced they they can come to them from Colossians, still feels at time that we want to make the bible (or in this case Paul) agree with us rather than accept that maybe he got it wrong :-)

random quotes

... the danger of wanting a god, without being willing to allow this god to speak in a voice that is radically other to our voice, is that the god we end up with is like any other consumer product we take of the shelf (p34).

... a worldview is only as good as the praxis or way of life that it engenders (p113).

There can be no indubitable foundation of knowledge, no uninterpreted experience, no completely transparent reading of the world. (Miroslav Volf) (p122)

We can probably tell as much about the real spirituality and the real worldview of a people by looking at the cars they drive, the food they consume, the gadgets that fill their homes and the garbage they throw out as we can by listening to the songs they sing and the prayers they pray (199)

Dealing with our differences

This final session looked in particular at the Bible and how we understand it and use it. In thinking about this we considered the following passage:

2 Timothy 3.16-17 "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work"

We looked at this passage in other translations and some used the term 'God breathed' which we liked. This is related to the word 'inspired'. This seemed to be rather poetic language.

The passage says that scripture is 'useful', some of us felt that this was not a particularly strong word. It does not seem to preclude finding other things 'useful' in addition. Some of us felt that some Christians had put too much weight on this short passage and that a doctrine of infallibility was not really deducible from this passage. We noted that Paul in writing this is clearly not talking about what we undertaking as the New Testament which creates a kind of circular argument - ie. scripture is 'inspired' because it says so in scripture. We do not all agree with the statement that "The Bible is factually true and completely consistent."

Although we didn't think every single verse in the Bible contained useful instructions etc. we did feel that sometimes we are surprised by how some passages are understood by different people. For example some groups have found the genealogies very significant as in their culture it signifies authority.

We thought about how we can approach scripture in different ways which don't necessarily invalidate each other. For example the story of Abraham and Isaac can be seen as being about how Abraham was obedient to God and showed great faith, it could be seen as a foreshadowing of Jesus' sacrifice and it could also be seen as a condemnation of child/human sacrifice (not an exhaustive list!).

Other examples of conflict in the Bible. Paul and Barnabas had a strong disagreement - perhaps this is an example of how not to do it? Philemon and his slave Onesimus; is perhaps saying something about how relationships in Christ transcend all other relationships, ie. slave and master. Jesus suggested that anger was at the route disagreement. Matt 5.22

Ultimately we all saw the Bible as important and 'useful' but were all too aware that it could be misused and that people would always 'read' it differently.

lent

At our last meeting before Easter would took a break from the dealing with conflict series of studies and had an evening where anyone could bring alone something that they wanted to share. This included poetry, art, reflections and scripture.

Dealing with conflicts in the Anglican Communion - part 3

We now talked about the best way forward... GAFCON is creating a Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (presumably a deliberate reference to the Confessing Church in German under Hitler?). Lambeth wants a moratorium on ordaining bishops who are homosexual and also same sex blessings and to review the structures of the Anglican Communion to see how unity can be maintained, this being an issue of authority. Some of us felt that GAFCON's approach was too exclusive. That it might be possible to have some form of compromise, that we should at least try and find some kind of way forward that keep everyone together. Some of us also felt that it might be possible for different people, different communities and cultures to move at different speeds and it wasn't necessary or even desirable for all parts of the Anglican Communion to operate in the same way. But we also recognised that this can be difficult. Some of us felt that neither 'solution' was best, that to, in effect split, was damaging and to try and impose a practice/doctrine on the whole Communion was not helpful either.

Implications for St John's. We should recognise that there will be a wide range of views about these issues and that it will not be possible or right to try and get a "St John's" view of this issues. To recognise that people hold views sincerely and at times passionately and that we should respect each other as fellow Christians even as we disagree with each other on this and other issues.

Dealing with conflicts in the Anglican Communion - part 2

Carrying on from last weeks' study, looking now mostly at approaches to scripture.

Some of us thought that GAFCON's idea that scripture should be 'translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church's historic and consensual reading' might make finding something new in scripture difficult, it might tend to fix the meaning or rather interpretation of scripture.
The statement from Lambeth was much longer (as it always seems to be!) and seemed a bit of a fudge to some of us. The statement talks of using a range of different approaches to scripture 'under the guidance of the Holy Spirit' so perhaps both groups are making an appeal for having authority for their views?

We looked at two passages. Romans 1.18-33 A traditional way of reading this passage would be to see it as condemning homosexual acts. It has also been seen as being primarily about idol worship, also that what Paul writes about here cannot be compared to faithful, stable homosexual relationships that are part of 21st century Britain. How we see scripture obviously effects how we respond to this passage. If we take the GAFCON view their seems little scope but to see this passage as condemning homosexual relationships, however some Christians will not think that this passage condemns homosexual behaviour as we understand it now in our culture, they will want to take into account the change in context from when the letter was written to when it is being read now. Also they will want to bring to the passage knowledge about human sexuality that was not know by Paul. Both of these approaches take scripture seriously and see scripture as authoritative. Another approach is to accept that Paul really is condemning homosexual behaviour and to see that this presents us with a choice - we can follow Paul, ie. follow scripture or we can choose not to.
It was noted that this passage lists a number of sins that people fall into:

evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, ³⁰slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, ³¹foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

and yet mostly the church only focuses on the sexual sins and other very common ones like gossiping and being rude to our parents are ignored! We wondered why the church over the ages has been so hung up about sex and sexual sin, some of us felt there was a fear of female sexuality at the heart of this. If we look back at our discussions about original sin we see that Augustine thought this was passed on during sex, which suggests that the church has had at least an ambivalent view of sex for a long time.

The other passage we looked at was Luke 14.15-24. It was suggested in the notes that some might want to identify the excluded with those who are excluded by the church now - eg. homosexual people. We talked about how this passage has been traditionally interpreted and also how it might have been understood by its first hearers. We felt that perhaps the first hearers of this passage might have been the poor and the outcasts of Israel, they might have seen it as a message of God's acceptance of them and rejection of their rich rulers. Traditionally we thought this was usually interpreted as being about Israel rejecting Jesus and the Gentiles becoming the new 'chosen people' (is this a 'plain' understanding of scripture?). Now another way is being proposed, that we widen the interpretation to make it about any group that is excluded. Asylum seekers in the UK came to to mind. Most of us felt that is was reasonable to 'use' this passage in different ways at different times and situations, and in general that the 'meaning' of scripture cannot be 'nailed down' for all time. If we think there is only one - received - understanding of scripture do we risk missing out on those moments of enlightenment that sometimes come when we look at a passage we might know very well but in which we somehow find something new revealed?

We wondered if GAFCON's position was tenable, do they always take the 'plain meaning'? - for example what does Jesus mean when he says that we must hate our Mothers and Fathers?. Perhaps they fudge things too? Perhaps Lambeth is more honest about problems of interpretation? Can we/should we use the bible tentatively? Some of us felt it was ok to live with doubt and uncertainty.

In general how should the church deal with disagreement? Should we always try and stick together or is it sometimes right to split?
Sometimes the local experience of church is more important than the institutional - we may not agree with the ideas of the institution but be happy in the local church. It will, inevitably, depend on the issue, however many of us were keen to hold onto the strength of the Anglican 'big tent' in which people can be together who don't agree on everything.
(still didn't quite finish, part 3 next week!).

Dealing with conflicts in the Anglican Communion - part 1

This session looks at the different approaches that GAFCON and the Lambeth Conference have to the issues of homosexuality, scripture and the structures of the Anglican Communion.

GAFCON take the view that changing the traditional understanding of homosexuality is a "different gospel". The Lambeth statement talks of the variety of views in society and the church and how views have changed over time.

In terms of dealing with conflict GAFCON seemed to be taking an uncompromising line, their statement was unambiguous. Lambeth on the other hand clearly saw that there were a number of views sincerely held. No preference was given for any particular view. In discussion a number of points were made:

• it seems that more people are know to be homosexual in affluent societies. Why might this be so? Possibly this is about affluent societies tending to be more tolerant of difference and therefore homosexual people are more comfortable to be identified?
• societies have changed a lot over the years. Our society now is much more accepting of homosexuality that it was a few generations ago.
• this issue might be so divisive that unity on it is impossible.

Looking at more statements form GAFCON and Lambeth specifically about homosexuality. GAFCON see the acceptance of same-sex unions as a "false gospel". Lambeth again recognizes the variety of views without preferring one over another, and talks of some people coming to a new understanding of scripture and pastoral theology which is more accepting of same sex relationships.
How did the group respond to this? Not surprisingly a range of opinion.

• some agreed with GAFCON that this 'new understanding' was wrong, others felt that a new understanding of scripture was possible and desirable.
  
• we can always see new things in the bible.
  

We also had a general discussion on this issue:

• we talked about what might cause someone to have a homosexually orientation. There are many theories, eg. genetic, exposure to hormones in womb, sociological/upbringing. But there seems to be no clear answer. It seems that most people accept that it is not possible to make someone change their sexual orientation and so we have to have the discussion in light of this.
• people seem much more concerned about male sexuality than female, eg. much more difficult for boys or men to behave in stereotypically female ways than the other way round. We wondered why this might be. Some of us felt that men were more insecure in their sexuality than women.

We considered how we might be able to deal with the tensions that this debate/disagreement creates. Again we had different ideas on this.

• can't agree to differ - a split within the Anglican Communion is almost inevitable.
• the idea of a 'Big Tent' in which there is a place for different beliefs. Seen as fundamental to the nature of the Anglican church.
• is it possible for different parts of the communion to move at different speeds? see foe example ordination of woman to the priesthood and as bishops.
  
• while the Church of England holds a tentative position people from both sides might be happy to stay - if a definitive position was adopted people might feel compelled to leave.
• we need to listen to each other.
  

(out of time again! will continue next week).

dealing with peak oil - part 2

Thinking about the story of Joseph and Pharaoh's dream. Anything for us to learn here? In some ways the situations are different, there was not a finite supply of food unlike oil. That said it gives an example of how planning and restraint can help people prepare for a difficult future.

We use oil for relatively unimportant things, eg. petrol in cars. We have better alternatives, eg. hydrogen. But there is little motivation for car manufacturers to switch, the amount of necessary investment is very high. The short termism of governments also hinders the development of alternative energy sources.

What ideas from the film could be adopted in Redbridge?

• An allotment market, like current farmers market.
• Give and take days - encouraging re-use.
• High impact symbolic actions. For example Milan banned cars completely from the city centre for a weekend.
• Reward people for recycling etc. rather than punish for not, eg. get vouchers for something [maybe LBR facilities like the swimming pool].
• Free cycle system / encourage cycling and make safer.
• Give clearer information on what exactly can be recycled.
• Less street lighting.
• Are the video displays on High Road really necessary? how much energy do they use?
  

What actions could we take in the next six months: as individuals; as a Church; and with other groups in the borough?

• Create a lending/borrowing list at the church centre. People could list large items that they are happy to lend out, also people could use the same space to list wants/needs.
• Regular sale of allotment produce.
  
• Lists of items to give away and possibly things for sale?
• Carry on doing small individual actions, refusing bags, avoiding packaging, walking and using public transport etc. refuse, reuse, recycle.
  

Using your ideas from Session 1, if we don’t agree on peak oil (for instance, don’t think it’s happening, don’t think it’s important, don’t think we can do anything about it, don’t agree on what we should do about it etc.) how should we deal with our differences at St John’s?

• We ran out of time again so no answer to this question...:-)
  

Faith and Daytime TV

Faith and Daytime TV

"Our theology has descended to the level of daytime television"

She is talking about how issues get polarized, there is no third way, seemed relevant. I though this quote summed things up nicely.

dealing with peak oil - part 1

We watched the DVD "How Cuba survived peak oil - the power of community, our thoughts/response (no particular order).

• there was a change in culture
• the government relaxed some regulations, but enforced others.
• local organisation was preferred over national and seemed to work better - fitting in with need to reduce transport costs.
• big emphasis on keeping things local, so food production, housing, education and work all brought together. eg. lots of small Universities rather than a few big ones.
  
• old ideas came back (small farms, oxen etc.) but also new technology was used.
• quality of life was, arguably, better? people had less consumer goods but had more exercise and better diet, also were more involved with their neighbourhood. People shared more.
• could what Cuba did scale to UK or London? we had our doubts.

Thinking about UK and alternatives to oil dependency etc.

• thermal heating
• hydrogen cars
• nuclear power using latest generation of small efficient power stations, also makes power more local which is more efficient.
• wind
• tide
  

How should we respond internationally?

• we need to share benefits of technology
• we need to question our consumption
• and we need to question our values - ie. that we find happiness through having / consuming things.

Journey to Jerusalem - Christian Aid

Journey to Jerusalem - Christian Aid

from Christian Aid

During Lent we want to challenge you to go beyond hearing about the people in the Holy Land, hear from them instead.

Every day through Lent our virtual pilgrimage will take you on an interactive journey.

Using short videos, podcasts, photo galleries, prayers and stories it will bring the Holy Land alive.

We will follow a route that takes in many of the locations mentioned as part of Jesus' journey towards Jerusalem. And along the way you will be able to find out more about issues, connect with other users, share your views and take part in actions that will help change lives.

Bus slogan generator

What would you put on the side of a bus?

Bus slogan generator

Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, Darwin anniversary survey finds | Science | guardian.co.uk

Apparently people still not convinced by evolution :-)

Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, Darwin anniversary survey finds | Science | guardian.co.uk

dealing with early church disagreements

The firsts of 4 studies to come out of the PCC awayday.

The group felt that how we reacted to disagreement depended a lot on the context, who we had the disagreement with and what it was about, eg. how important it was to us.

We looked at Romans 14 which is about disagreements about food and holy days. In general Paul seemed to agree that it didn't mater what you ate or what days (if any) you kept as holy, but for they sake of the "weaker" believer he recommended that people give way so as to not offend.

As a principle we felt we should avoid judging others, that we should have a sense of perspective, eg. just how important is this issue?

Then we looked at Acts 15.1-21 which is about tension in the early church around how much (if any) of the Jewish traditions should be adopted by the gentile converts, specifically about circumcision. Paul had a much stronger view about this issue - he was completely against requiring gentile converts to be circumcised. After an argument with the people proposing this he goes to Jerusalem to have a meeting of Church leaders to discuss this. This issue was seen as more important, more fundamental to the faith. It was tackled by having a meeting to hear all sides and then an agreement was reached, although it is interesting to note that only the speeches against the adoption of circumcision are reproduced here. It can also be seen that there was a slight compromise eg. gentile converts were to avoid certain foods and sexual immorality.

As a principle we could see that listening to the other was extremely important. Also to respective the other person and their motives even though we disagree with their position. In the speeches we have in this passage reference is made to what is happening in the world, to what God is doing in the world, ie. that the gentiles have the spirit. Reference is also made to scripture. So another principle would be to look to the bible and also to what is happening in the world for guidance on how to settle disagreements. We also felt we should be open to other opinions.

We have two quite different pictures of how the early church tried to deal with conflict, to apply them today would mean trying to distinguish between what are relatively unimportant issues (even if the people involved see it differently) about which it is ok for people to believe and do different things and those issues that are more important or about which is not possible to have to views/practices happening at the same time. For example I think that the issue of woman becoming Bishops in the Church of England is such an issue. Woman either can be/are Bishops are they cannot be Bishops.

Hope the above is a fair reflection of our discussions. Please add your own comments, especially if you disagree or think I have left anything out :-)

Sister Wendy on prayer

The essential act of prayer is to stand unprotected before God.

happiness

from John Naish's book 'Enough - Breaking free from the world of more'. Writing about the problem of the pressure to be happy...

Part of the problem is that what we call happiness is in fact a 'flow state' of unconsciousness, the sort of thing that happens when you're so engrossed in a hobby... that you just don't notice time passing. You lose yourself as your ego and your preoccupations fall away. You can't force this, but willing it to happen can cause a kind of self-help psychosis - the psychological equivalent of the watched kettle syndrome... [as] John Stuart Mill famously wrote 'Ask yourself if you are happy, and you cease to be so.'