In case you didn't know how to pray, there's a guide for you. :)

Do you believe that one can read one of Jesus' parables, ambiguous sayings, or even some fulfillments of prophecies in more than one way that point to the same end? If so, do you believe that this was done purposely by God and Jesus' words, or just a way we humans understand things?

For example, the verse in Matthew about the kingdom of Heaven being taken by force. I can read it as Jesus saying directly that He is being planned against and attacked by the Pharisees' treachery and his passion. Alternatively, something I have heard in a seminar podcast is that perhaps it could refer to how the Gentiles kind of 'take over' and grow in the New Covenant. Or, it could mean a Godly life assaulted by temptations of the Flesh. Or, it could mean all of these. I'm sure there are other meanings.

Or, also in Matthew, when the temple veil gets torn asunder at the crucifixion. I always thought it was demonstrating that now we directly enter into communion with God, instead of only High Priests. But another podcast from this seminary said that the temple veil had stars and moons (or something, heavenly objects) and when it was ripped in two fulfills something in Isaiah (I believe maybe 34:4, but there might be something more explicit). Or possibly, turning the first example around, maybe it means that not we can come to God, but now God leaves the Temple and comes to the people ("Emmanuel": God with us). Or maybe it indicates all of these.

I'm sure there are other examples. Now, I believe we can agree that real study of the Bible and historical references of the parables are important, so as to not be led completely astray, but ~2,000 years later there are so many understandings that maybe Jesus purposely used a manner of hidden speaking (which we do know if you understand Jesus as the Kingdom of Heaven and such things as 'repent, the Kingdom of Heaven is near') so there are many ways to point to him and show his reign over all things in creation.

I have a soft spot for Anglicanism, even though I am not an Anglican. The recent news which has come out of Lambeth, the US Episcopal Church and Jerusalem is far from good, and cause for concern. 
Orthodox provinces are setting up parallel jurisdictions, de facto separating themselves from US and Canadian Anglicans and - according to the Mail on Sunday - 1,300 members of the clergy of the CofE will be heading for the exit as soon as Synod makes provisions for women Bishops.
Of course the English debate makes very little sense. Once you have come to the conclusion - as a church - that you can validly ordain women to the priesthood it is quite inconsistent to bar them from becoming Bishops; the ordination of priests and consecration of bishops being no more than gradations of the same sacrament. However, this debate, as most debates in the CofE, has very little to do with consistency and very much with accomodation. Conservatives in the CofE, not having accepted the ordination of women, who are now accomodated by 'flying bishops' and for some reason this practice is set to end with the advent of women bishops. 
Of course it is possible to create a parallel structure with non-geographical 'traditional' dioceses and leave the geographical dioceses to the womenfolk. Personally this would seem to me as the most agreeable solution; by opting for parallel structures, traditionalists implicitly concede the point that women will be consecrated as bishops in the near future. By opting for a parallel structure they also commit themselves to remaining in the CofE. By opting for a parallel structure the CofE would continue to recognize the presence of traditionalists in the CofE and - in so far as traditionalist opposition to women bishops is a matter of conscience - not force their consciences in one way or the other. Opposition to parallel structures (the 'swiss-cheese' model of episcopal supervision) comes mostly from those who find it 'inconsistent' . But as consistency has never been a CofE forte it would now seem the most disastrous time possible to insist on it. 
Of course, should the CofE go whoring after the strange god 'Consistency' and the 1,300 clergy make good on their threat to move elsewhere, what would happen? It has been speculated that, as in `'94, the Church of Rome would receive quite a few of them - but many evangelical dissidents would not be interested in crossing the Tiber. Also, the Catholic Church in England and Wales being generally considered generally wishy-washy and a liturgical wasteland to boot I seriously wonder how happy those priests will be if they go from sonorous Book of Common Prayer to the dumbed-down ICEL Missal; from Stanford in A to 'a little bit of clay am I, Jesus raises us so high'.  
Although I would, strictly speaking, approve of Anglicans coming back to the One Fold of Christ, I cannot but feel the circumstances in which this reunion would take place do little to improve anyone's spirits. All we can do is wait and see.  

What do you make of these testimonies?


http://tentmaker.org/articles/hells_fruit.html

I am curious to know what people think of this. It's Barack Obama's faith-based initiative.

Personally, I tend toward being against faith-based initiatives because taking money from the government makes an organization beholden to the government and the government does all sorts of unsavory things that I would rather my church not be a part of.


cross-posted