A Conservative Evangelical puts his head above the parapet...

2456719

Comments

  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Extra-parochial church plants seem like a fudge to me. If you want to minister to a specific geographical area, create a new parish. If you want to minister to people in a specific role, because of the challenges of their role, then set up a chaplaincy. (The 'you' refers both to the planters and to the bishop who approves the scheme.) Everything else suggests either 'We want to minister to this kind of person', or 'We don't want the hassle of figuring out why this might be a bad idea under the parish system'.

    Likewise, it does seem a nonsense that a thriving plant can be closed effectively on the bishop's whim, whereas closing a parish church, even if visibly unsustainable, entails a highly bureaucratic process with a right of appeal that goes, in some cases at least, all the way to the Privy Council.

    Nah it's pretty standard to plant, because it may not work out, and it's much easier to work things out when you've got the final structure.
    Our town has 4 surviving churches that are direct plants from the same (I guess Oxford movement) Parish church vicar.
    There's another building (now a church of a different denomination) that apparently was a similar plant, I don't know why it stopped being used, it's about midway to another plant so I suspect it moved as the town expanded, or was squeezed.
    Then there are another two planted (as a rather odd joint project) by the 'reformed' side and 'anglo-cath' about 40 years ago, one is I think effectively dead, the other is doing very well and is very 'charismatic'.
    I'm glad they happened.

    The arguments about the church communion (especially now we know a bit more), sound like they could be applied (with variations) against Greenbelt and numerous other instances.

    There's another set (the financial) where on the basis of past behavior. I bet as soon as it becomes convenient, both groups will completely swap axioms. There will be course be differences in the actual situation that will justify it a bit, but they won't be called up.
    I think I'm a stick together on the whole and I was very pleased at our vicars frustration at his (temporary) inability to pay parish share (for budgetary reasons). [Though how deep that actually goes...]
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    bigjon wrote: »

    In the example I've just cited (while you were posting) the congregation did indeed become independent, but only because the Bishop cast them out of the Church Of England by withdrawing the Bishop's Mission Order


    and

    Hi Ricardus, I'd quibble with the word 'worship' there (Romans 12:1-2)! But that might be a topic for another thread, or further down this one! But my particular community is still participating in the regular structures, and the general practice of communities such as mine is to participate within the regular structures until it becomes impossible, as in the Bishop's Mission Order example I referred to above.
    I realise the thread has moved on, but to come back to these two posts.

    Did the Bishop actually cast them out, or did they clear off because the Bishop would would not let them do as they pleased and on entirely on their own terms.

    And when you say "participate within the regular structures until it becomes impossible", what do you mean by 'impossible'? Do you mean something more than 'until someone insists that we fit in with what everyone else does in a way that is not exactly what we want'?

    You've mentioned Article 20, but was anyone requiring this other congregation under the BMO to do something that was contrary to scripture, or even anyone's possibly contumacious interpretation of it? And in the case of your own parish, is there anything in the offing that anyone might be going to require of you that will be?
  • I think it has been pointed out that the ending of a BMO, for whatever reason, is by no means a 'casting out of the C of E' - rather melodramatic language, one feels!

    The BMO which is operating in part of my own parish is, like all BMOs, subject to frequent review by the quaintly-named 'Visitor' (the Archdeacon, on behalf of the Bishop).

    If any problems should arise between us and the BMO team which cannot be easily resolved, it is the Visitor to whom we must turn. These things are not done arbitrarily, or shouldn't be, at any rate.
  • bigjonbigjon Shipmate
    Well, if a PCC is prepared to withhold parish share simply because it doesn't agree with the views of another vicar in the Deanery, then, for God's sake, GO!

    Not blackmail? A perfect example of that practice, rather.

    As I said earlier, it's all about power, and control. What's your answer to that, @bigjon ?

    Use of money is inevitably about power and control, Bishops Finger, but blackmail would only be a fair characterisation if there was malicious intent.

    Parish share is a voluntary contribution and should not be paid against the wishes of the donors. Diocesan staff try to enforce it as a tax on success, but it is the individual church which it the Church Of England's proper unit of mission, not the deanery or the diocese, so parishes are wise to resist diocesan attempts to wrest power via financing away from the parishes which actually generate the funding (except in the case of this diocese at the time over half the funding was being generated by dead people)
  • If the individual church is the proper unit of mission, why do Con-Evo churches still insist that they are part of the C of E?

    Why not simply 'go it alone'? Another unworthy thought - perhaps because then the Big Shots wouldn't get to wear a pointy hat?

    BTW, the use of money is not inevitably about power and control - it's also about using £££ to carry out the mission of the church to the poor, oppressed, underprivileged etc., in accordance with Our Lord's commands.
  • bigjon wrote: »
    Use of money is inevitably about power and control, Bishops Finger, but blackmail would only be a fair characterisation if there was malicious intent.

    Parish share is a voluntary contribution and should not be paid against the wishes of the donors. Diocesan staff try to enforce it as a tax on success, but it is the individual church which it the Church Of England's proper unit of mission, not the deanery or the diocese, so parishes are wise to resist diocesan attempts to wrest power via financing away from the parishes which actually generate the funding (except in the case of this diocese at the time over half the funding was being generated by dead people)

    This is pretty much the epitome of a self-serving definition, and again, is almost exactly the wording used by my previous shack to justify withholding their parish share. "It's not blackmail, it's a voluntary contribution, it goes against the wishes of the donors, it's a tax on success, we generate the funding." You missed out "good stewardship", but I think you've already mentioned that upthread.
  • Blackmail with pious sounding justification. That makes it all so much better.

    Newsflash: the Church of England is episcopal in structure and governance Therefore the diocese and deanery have a structural role in its life. None of us is thrilled about this all the time, but it's a fact of everyone's life.

    Diocesan funds are always acceptable. Diocesan discernment, less so.

    In a word, tough.
  • Going back to the points raised about 'Resource' churches, it could be argued that they are Good Things, inasmuch as Christian life, and mission, may be rejuvenated by them.

    But...it's the insensitive disregard for other, existing, churches - who may, or may not, be doing reasonably well (by today's standards) - which stinks. @ExclamationMark has made this point forcibly, and he knows whereof he speaks. We've had a taste of it here in this Diocese (not locally, TBTG).

    Yet.
  • bigjonbigjon Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    jay_emm wrote: »
    ...it's pretty standard to plant, because it may not work out, and it's much easier to work things out when you've got the final structure...
    Hi jay-emm -
    In one of the plants which a church where I was involved completed, the minister leading the plant agreed with the bishop a list of seven local parishes to approach with a view to cooperating in a church plant. After 6 parishes had said no and the 7th was looking unpromising, the planting minister said if the last parish says no we will plant extra-parochially. In the event the 7th parish said yes, and several years later all the signs are it has been a happy and successful endeavour.

    @Enoch - I think that gives a fair reflection of what "impossibility" criteria have been applied in practice, after which the view was that God's will for this plant would have been for it to take place outside the structures of the Church Of England.
  • Going back to the points raised about 'Resource' churches, it could be argued that they are Good Things, inasmuch as Christian life, and mission, may be rejuvenated by them.

    But...it's the insensitive disregard for other, existing, churches - who may, or may not, be doing reasonably well (by today's standards) - which stinks.
    And the fact that, if the resources (money + people) possessed by the Resource people could be given to those existing churches, they might be themselves rejuvenated.

  • But would the minister leading the plant have been prepared to leave the C of E, if the 7th parish had also refused to co-operate?

    And I know we probably won't (or shouldn't) be told, but I can't help but wonder just why the other 6 parishes turned down the idea?
  • bigjonbigjon Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    bigjon wrote: »

    In the example I've just cited (while you were posting) the congregation did indeed become independent, but only because the Bishop cast them out of the Church Of England by withdrawing the Bishop's Mission Order
    ...Did the Bishop actually cast them out, or did they clear off because the Bishop would would not let them do as they pleased and on entirely on their own terms...
    Hi Enoch -
    They didn't "clear off" - they continued meeting in the school with the same minister - but the bishop "cast them out" in the sense that he revoked or didn't renew (I can't remember which) the Bishop's Mission Order with the result that they couldn't continue as part of the Church Of England.
  • bigjonbigjon Shipmate
    But would the minister leading the plant have been prepared to leave the C of E, if the 7th parish had also refused to co-operate?
    Yes.
  • bigjon wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    bigjon wrote: »

    In the example I've just cited (while you were posting) the congregation did indeed become independent, but only because the Bishop cast them out of the Church Of England by withdrawing the Bishop's Mission Order
    ...Did the Bishop actually cast them out, or did they clear off because the Bishop would would not let them do as they pleased and on entirely on their own terms...
    Hi Enoch -
    They didn't "clear off" - they continued meeting in the school with the same minister - but the bishop "cast them out" in the sense that he revoked or didn't renew (I can't remember which) the Bishop's Mission Order with the result that they couldn't continue as part of the Church Of England.

    I guess you mean that they couldn't continue meeting as a separate congregation, but within the C of E? IIRC, you said that joining the local parish church was, for various reasons, not an option for most of them.

    Have I got that right?

  • bigjonbigjon Shipmate
    bigjon wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    bigjon wrote: »

    In the example I've just cited (while you were posting) the congregation did indeed become independent, but only because the Bishop cast them out of the Church Of England by withdrawing the Bishop's Mission Order
    ...Did the Bishop actually cast them out, or did they clear off because the Bishop would would not let them do as they pleased and on entirely on their own terms...
    Hi Enoch -
    They didn't "clear off" - they continued meeting in the school with the same minister - but the bishop "cast them out" in the sense that he revoked or didn't renew (I can't remember which) the Bishop's Mission Order with the result that they couldn't continue as part of the Church Of England.

    I guess you mean that they couldn't continue meeting as a separate congregation, but within the C of E? IIRC, you said that joining the local parish church was, for various reasons, not an option for most of them.

    Have I got that right?
    Yes.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Probably (apparently) because the new incumbent, although evangelical, and, no doubt, godly, was female.
  • bigjonbigjon Shipmate
    If the individual church is the proper unit of mission, why do Con-Evo churches still insist that they are part of the C of E?
    Because that's the (historic) teaching of the C of E of which they are part - Article 19 of the 39 Articles, "THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered"
    Why should Con-Evo churches leave the C of E when their doctrine is same as the C of E's own Articles (subordinate to Scripture as are the Articles themselves)?
  • bigjonbigjon Shipmate
    Why not simply 'go it alone'? Another unworthy thought - perhaps because then the Big Shots wouldn't get to wear a pointy hat?
    Er, vestments of all kinds are hardly fashionable in Con-Evo circles. And if it is the office rather than the attire for which they are ambitious, a score of 2 bishops in 30 years relative to Con-Evo numerical strength within the C of E is hardly much of an incentive to remain

  • bigjonbigjon Shipmate
    BTW, the use of money is not inevitably about power and control - it's also about using £££ to carry out the mission of the church to the poor, oppressed, underprivileged etc., in accordance with Our Lord's commands.
    Is that not having power and control over the lot of the poor, oppressed, underprivileged etc?

  • BroJames wrote: »
    Probably (apparently) because the new incumbent, although evangelical, and, no doubt, godly, was female.

    Yes, I'd forgotten that.
    bigjon wrote: »
    Why not simply 'go it alone'? Another unworthy thought - perhaps because then the Big Shots wouldn't get to wear a pointy hat?
    Er, vestments of all kinds are hardly fashionable in Con-Evo circles. And if it is the office rather than the attire for which they are ambitious, a score of 2 bishops in 30 years relative to Con-Evo numerical strength within the C of E is hardly much of an incentive to remain

    Well, yes, but 'wearing a pointy hat' can also refer to the powers, and privileges (if such there be), appertaining to the office of Bishop.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    bigjon wrote: »
    <snip>
    Why should Con-Evo churches leave the C of E when their doctrine is same as the C of E's own Articles (subordinate to Scripture as are the Articles themselves)?

    Because they are unwilling to accept its discipline, and struggle to adhere to the oath to
    pay true and canonical obedience to the Lord Bishop of [their diocese] and his successors in all things lawful and honest

    Their non-obedience to the bishop implies that they consider the bishop’s actions to be unlawful or dishonest. They seem happy in Christian conscience to cast that aspersion by their actions, and to protect themselves from any consequences by the threat to withdraw resources or to kick up a stink.
  • Which, alas, brings us back to the thought of emotional blackmail...
    bigjon wrote: »
    BTW, the use of money is not inevitably about power and control - it's also about using £££ to carry out the mission of the church to the poor, oppressed, underprivileged etc., in accordance with Our Lord's commands.
    Is that not having power and control over the lot of the poor, oppressed, underprivileged etc?

    I think you misunderstand me, but I won't labour the point. I merely meant that £££ can (and should) be used positively.
  • bigjonbigjon Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    bigjon wrote: »
    <snip>
    Why should Con-Evo churches leave the C of E when their doctrine is same as the C of E's own Articles (subordinate to Scripture as are the Articles themselves)?

    Because they are unwilling to accept its discipline, and struggle to adhere to the oath to
    pay true and canonical obedience to the Lord Bishop of [their diocese] and his successors in all things lawful and honest

    Their non-obedience to the bishop implies that they consider the bishop’s actions to be unlawful or dishonest. They seem happy in Christian conscience to cast that aspersion by their actions, and to protect themselves from any consequences by the threat to withdraw resources or to kick up a stink.

    As I've indicated upthread, the ministers I have known well (Doc Tor's experience was different) have taken considerable pains (dismissed as 'jolly japes' by one critic because of the slightly light-hearted way I recounted a conversation / confrontation at which I was not present) not to disobey their bishop.

    However, if they do disobey their bishop, it is likely to be on the grounds that (Article 20 of the 39 Articles) "it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another."

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    bigjon wrote: »
    However, if they do disobey their bishop, it is likely to be on the grounds that (Article 20 of the 39 Articles) "it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another."
    But, I repeat, where, when and how is anyone requiring them to do that?

    Then only example you've hinted at, was a claim that they knew and others didn't what was God's will for 7 particular parishes. Even if they were right, that isn't a matter that can be manifestly in accordance or contrary to scripture. And the claim that it was God's will that they should go into schism IMHO is also more than a bit questionable.
  • bigjonbigjon Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    bigjon wrote: »
    However, if they do disobey their bishop, it is likely to be on the grounds that (Article 20 of the 39 Articles) "it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another."
    But, I repeat, where, when and how is anyone requiring them to do that?

    Then only example you've hinted at, was a claim that they knew and others didn't what was God's will for 7 particular parishes. Even if they were right, that isn't a matter that can be manifestly in accordance or contrary to scripture. And the claim that it was God's will that they should go into schism IMHO is also more than a bit questionable.
    That example wouldn't have been an example of disobedience, because if no place for the planting congregation had been found within the 7 CofE parishes in the area which the Bishop had invited them to approach, they would simply have left the C of E. They weren't claiming to know what was God's will for the 7 parishes, just trying (fallibly) to discern what was God's will for them based on which doors God opened or shut in their path.

    A specific example I can think of where a previous vicar was prepared to disobey the C of E authorities because he believed the action would be contrary to Scripture was he said publicly he would never conduct the wedding of a professing Christian to a professing non-Christian. I don't think his stance was ever put to the test beyond being approached by one such couple to conduct their wedding and saying to them, I'm sorry but I won't do it.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    But I thought a couple has the legal right to marry if one of them lives in the parish.
  • bigjonbigjon Shipmate
    But I thought a couple has the legal right to marry if one of them lives in the parish.
    Exactly, that's why he would have had to disobey the authorities in order to follow his conscience
  • I'm going to say that if you take a job (I know it's more complicated than that) which involves being an official state registrar and know that a person has a legal right to marry in their parish church and determine beforehand that you won't comply with the law in certain circumstances ... you're in the wrong job.
  • bigjon wrote: »
    But I thought a couple has the legal right to marry if one of them lives in the parish.
    Exactly, that's why he would have had to disobey the authorities in order to follow his conscience

    That's a bit like joining the Church of Scotland and then complaining there's no bishops.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I've known a similar thing with trying to avoid baptising infants.
  • bigjonbigjon Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'm going to say that if you take a job (I know it's more complicated than that) which involves being an official state registrar and know that a person has a legal right to marry in their parish church and determine beforehand that you won't comply with the law in certain circumstances ... you're in the wrong job.
    So you believe that it was not in God's dispositional will for him to become vicar of that church?
  • bigjon wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'm going to say that if you take a job (I know it's more complicated than that) which involves being an official state registrar and know that a person has a legal right to marry in their parish church and determine beforehand that you won't comply with the law in certain circumstances ... you're in the wrong job.
    So you believe that it was not in God's dispositional will for him to become vicar of that church?

    That's a different question. I'm certain the duties of a vicar, both sacred and secular, are detailed when an ordinand is in formation. If at that point, someone says "There are certain circumstances in which I will refuse to carry out my duties" then they probably need to take a step back and decide if that specific role is for them. This isn't a case of hypothetical civil disobedience - this is a case of "I will be asked at some point to marry a Christian parishioner to a non-Christian in my parish church, and I am legally obliged to conduct the wedding as vicar of that parish. What will I do in that circumstance?"

    If the answer is "I will refuse to do that", then everyone needs to know, and decisions can be made as to whether that person is a suitable candidate for ordination in the CofE, as opposed to another denomination which doesn't have these quasi-state functions.
  • bigjon wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'm going to say that if you take a job (I know it's more complicated than that) which involves being an official state registrar and know that a person has a legal right to marry in their parish church and determine beforehand that you won't comply with the law in certain circumstances ... you're in the wrong job.
    So you believe that it was not in God's dispositional will for him to become vicar of that church?

    I don't see how the vicar can believe it was, given that on his premises, the Church of England must be about as corrupt as you can get without being Roman Catholic.

    The Church of England is structured in a way that led to the consecration of women bishops, that has no real means of policing heresy, that expects rich parishes to subsidise poor ones without reference to doctrinal soundness, that orderd mission according to episcopal whim rather than the leading of the Holy Spirit, and that connives with the power of the state to require ministers to celebrate marriages contrary to Scripture. And all of that is built into the structures of the church, it's not just senior clergy going rogue.

    It sounds like the form of governance you want is better found elsewhere, in a more congregationalist church.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    bigjon wrote: »
    But I thought a couple has the legal right to marry if one of them lives in the parish.
    Exactly, that's why he would have had to disobey the authorities in order to follow his conscience

    Yes, but it's not just the CofE authorities he'd be disobeying, it's the law of the land AFAIK.

    We're a Nonconformist church, we're not bound to that and we could refuse a marriage if we wanted to (not that we have!)
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    So you believe that it was not in God's dispositional will for him to become vicar of that church?

    I don't see how the vicar can believe it was, given that on his premises, the Church of England must be about as corrupt as you can get without being Roman Catholic. ...

    It sounds like the form of governance you want is better found elsewhere, in a more congregationalist church.
    To me we seem to be getting back to that famous debate between John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones in 1967, Evangelicals both but one an Anglican and the other a Nonconformist. Lloyd-Jones was adamant that Evangelicals cou;ld not in all conscience remain within such a mixed church, while Stott argued in favour of churches and ministers staying in (and potentially trying to treform it). About 10 years later similar things were being said by Arthur Wallis and the Restorationist churches with regard to all the mainline denominations: "They're dead and God has finished with them".

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    jay_emm wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Extra-parochial church plants seem like a fudge to me. If you want to minister to a specific geographical area, create a new parish. If you want to minister to people in a specific role, because of the challenges of their role, then set up a chaplaincy. (The 'you' refers both to the planters and to the bishop who approves the scheme.) Everything else suggests either 'We want to minister to this kind of person', or 'We don't want the hassle of figuring out why this might be a bad idea under the parish system'.

    Likewise, it does seem a nonsense that a thriving plant can be closed effectively on the bishop's whim, whereas closing a parish church, even if visibly unsustainable, entails a highly bureaucratic process with a right of appeal that goes, in some cases at least, all the way to the Privy Council.

    Nah it's pretty standard to plant, because it may not work out, and it's much easier to work things out when you've got the final structure.
    Our town has 4 surviving churches that are direct plants from the same (I guess Oxford movement) Parish church vicar.
    There's another building (now a church of a different denomination) that apparently was a similar plant, I don't know why it stopped being used, it's about midway to another plant so I suspect it moved as the town expanded, or was squeezed.
    Then there are another two planted (as a rather odd joint project) by the 'reformed' side and 'anglo-cath' about 40 years ago, one is I think effectively dead, the other is doing very well and is very 'charismatic'.
    I'm glad they happened.

    The arguments about the church communion (especially now we know a bit more), sound like they could be applied (with variations) against Greenbelt and numerous other instances.

    There's another set (the financial) where on the basis of past behavior. I bet as soon as it becomes convenient, both groups will completely swap axioms. There will be course be differences in the actual situation that will justify it a bit, but they won't be called up.
    I think I'm a stick together on the whole and I was very pleased at our vicars frustration at his (temporary) inability to pay parish share (for budgetary reasons). [Though how deep that actually goes...]

    I know this was several posts up but I really want to answer these two and another.
    As I said we are not a parish church but are within the C Of E. We now have little or no contact with the HTB family, but are very locally focussed. We were originally a plant of a plant from HTB. We are now 26 years old. We have worked closely with the local churches across denominations. Despite nasty attitudes from some vicars at the time of the plant we have become part of the community.
    When we finally got a building of our own the Bishop consecrated the congregation not the building. We do not attract the same people as the Anglo-Catholic churches in the Parish or the traditional types.
    You can be a good church and be none parochial.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    TBTG for sensible, pastorally-minded churches...

  • TBTG for sensible, pastorally-minded churches...

    Which "we", however defined, always are. At least in our own eyes......
  • Ha! I asked for that...but yes, I suppose we at least hope that we can be described thus...
    :wink:

    Certainly, the churches mentioned by @Hugal, and @Baptist Trainfan, fit into that picture, or so ISTM.
  • I admit a lot of this has gone over my head, but is the substance of this about whether someone in authority has or hasn't got a penis?
  • bigjonbigjon Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    Ricardus wrote: »
    The Church of England is structured in a way that led to the consecration of women bishops, that has no real means of policing heresy, that expects rich parishes to subsidise poor ones without reference to doctrinal soundness, that orderd mission according to episcopal whim rather than the leading of the Holy Spirit, and that connives with the power of the state to require ministers to celebrate marriages contrary to Scripture. And all of that is built into the structures of the church, it's not just senior clergy going rogue.

    It sounds like the form of governance you want is better found elsewhere, in a more congregationalist church.
    Or an authentically Anglican denomination where the doctrinal standard of Canon A5 is upheld, and the bishops fulfil their office to "faithfully exercise yourself in the same holy Scriptures, and call upon God by prayer, for the true understanding of the same; so that you may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome Doctrine" and to "banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines".

    You are right to observe that it is uncomfortable for Con-Evos to remain in the C of E, and I'm sure more such congregations will transfer to other Anglican organisations as some have already done.
  • I admit a lot of this has gone over my head, but is the substance of this about whether someone in authority has or hasn't got a penis?

    Only very partly. Some of it is whether you went to the right school, the right summer camp, and were beaten on your naked arse by the right person. Some of it is about what you did with your penis, and whether you consider it important what other people did with their penes. Some of it is being a official in a church you openly rebel against, and being under the authority of people you believe are heretics, all the while thinking that the kudos of being in that church outweighs the negatives. And some of it is actually about what you understand God is calling you to do - unfortunately, disentangling that from all the other things is difficult, if not impossible.
  • bigjonbigjon Shipmate
    I admit a lot of this has gone over my head, but is the substance of this about whether someone in authority has or hasn't got a penis?

    Hi Colin Smith -
    No, that is merely subsidiary to the underlying issue that "it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another." (Article 20 of the Church Of England's 39 Articles)
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I admit a lot of this has gone over my head, but is the substance of this about whether someone in authority has or hasn't got a penis?

    Only very partly. Some of it is whether you went to the right school, the right summer camp, and were beaten on your naked arse by the right person. Some of it is about what you did with your penis, and whether you consider it important what other people did with their penes. Some of it is being a official in a church you openly rebel against, and being under the authority of people you believe are heretics, all the while thinking that the kudos of being in that church outweighs the negatives. And some of it is actually about what you understand God is calling you to do - unfortunately, disentangling that from all the other things is difficult, if not impossible.

    This.
    bigjon wrote: »
    I admit a lot of this has gone over my head, but is the substance of this about whether someone in authority has or hasn't got a penis?

    Hi Colin Smith -
    No, that is merely subsidiary to the underlying issue that "it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another." (Article 20 of the Church Of England's 39 Articles)

    But not this.

  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    Which brings us to the quandary of "How do we interpret Scripture?" And, indeed, how to do so in a way which reconciles every part of it with every other - many of us find genuine difficulties with (say) balancing Old Testament polygamy with NT views on marriage, or OT and NT teaching on how to deal with one's enemies. Whether we like it or not, the Bible does seem to incorporate quite a lot of inherent "repugnance". (I appreciate that this could lead us down a thread of Biblical interpretation which has been discussed many times before; it will get us nowhere).
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I admit a lot of this has gone over my head, but is the substance of this about whether someone in authority has or hasn't got a penis?

    Only very partly. Some of it is whether you went to the right school, the right summer camp, and were beaten on your naked arse by the right person. Some of it is about what you did with your penis, and whether you consider it important what other people did with their penes. Some of it is being a official in a church you openly rebel against, and being under the authority of people you believe are heretics, all the while thinking that the kudos of being in that church outweighs the negatives. And some of it is actually about what you understand God is calling you to do - unfortunately, disentangling that from all the other things is difficult, if not impossible.

    Ah. Thanks for that. So some of it is akin to which end of a boiled egg you crack open and some of it is about whether eggs are better scrambled with butter and pepper.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    Well, yes, it does. And I might also ask @bigjon whether he, and/or his leaders/ministers, also obey every 'jot and tittle' of the OT laws, and commandments?

    Surely, if it's written down in Holy Scripture, it must be obeyed.

    Sorry, @bigjon, but it was you who decided to pop your head above the parapet! Full marks for courage, if not for discretion... :wink:

    (BTW - tangent alert/
    Surely it's high time the 39 Articles were at least revised, if not revoked? They are of their time, and place - which are not ours. But this might be better on a separate thread.)
  • Ah. Thanks for that. So some of it is akin to which end of a boiled egg you crack open and some of it is about whether eggs are better scrambled with butter and pepper.

    Sure, yes, in the sense that there's the narrow end and the wrong end.
  • So some of it is akin to which end of a boiled egg you crack open and some of it is about whether eggs are better scrambled with butter and pepper.
    Some of us would also say that eggs should never be scrambled; or, if they are, that they should be discarded instead of consumed. But that's just by-the-way.

  • WSorry, @bigjon, but it was you who decided to pop your head above the parapet! Full marks for courage, if not for discretion... :wink:
    Yes indeed, There's certainly space on the Ship for sensible Con-Evo contributions.

Sign In or Register to comment.