Bradford Cathedral Bankrupt?
Trevor Jenkins
Cathedral was "bankrupt", well would be considered so if it were a
business. Mounting a recent exhibition has left them some £4 million
adrift as it did not attract the visitor numbers hoped for. The organisers
are said to be owed over £100,000; they might receive £15,000 instead.
Those interested in the news item can find it on the programmes web site
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/sunday/index.shtml) where
presumably the audio feed will remain for the next 7 days. The local BBC
radio station has some additional information at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/3254569.stm
It raises a variety of quesitons for me.
Should a cathedral be subject to the same rules as businesses? (Apparently
they are not.) Should a cathedral be hosting this sort of tourist
entertainment? What implications are there in this situation for the
Bradford Diocese and its ministry? What should other dioceses learn
regarding funding the superstructure of the Church of England?
Regards, Trevor
<>< Re: deemed!
Michael Gaskell
news:slrnbqsva1.hmc...@suneidesis.com...
Theologically speaking hasn't the CofE been bankrupt for years?
--
Michael
Tony Gillam
> BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme reported this morning that Bradford
> Cathedral was "bankrupt", well would be considered so if it were a
> business. Mounting a recent exhibition has left them some £4 million
>
What did they do, buy some old masters? It seems a very large shortfall
from one exhibition or is it a cumulative debt from running costs over a
prolonged period? The reasons could have a bearing on the answer to the
rest of your post.
> Should a cathedral be subject to the same rules as businesses?
> (Apparently they are not.) Should a cathedral be hosting this sort of
> tourist entertainment? What implications are there in this situation
> for the Bradford Diocese and its ministry? What should other dioceses
> learn regarding funding the superstructure of the Church of England?
>
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
George Russell
> Trevor Jenkins wrote:
>
>>BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme reported this morning that Bradford
>>Cathedral was "bankrupt", well would be considered so if it were a
>>business. Mounting a recent exhibition has left them some £4 million
>>adrift as it did not attract the visitor numbers hoped for. <snip>
>>
> What did they do, buy some old masters? It seems a very large shortfall
> from one exhibition or is it a cumulative debt from running costs over a
> prolonged period? The reasons could have a bearing on the answer to the
> rest of your post.
The exhibition had the doom-laden word "Millennium" in its title.
Tim Rowe
<walk_about...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>Theologically speaking hasn't the CofE been bankrupt for years?
As much as any other denomination. See what happens when the Church
allows sinners in...
Trevor Jenkins
> "Trevor Jenkins" <Trevor....@suneidesis.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnbqsva1.hmc...@suneidesis.com...
> > BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme reported this morning that Bradford
> > Cathedral was "bankrupt",
>
> Theologically speaking hasn't the CofE been bankrupt for years?
No, like the curate's egg it's good in parts; I attend one of the good
parts. ;-)
Regards, Trevor
<>< Re: deemed!
Michael J Davis
<g...@tzi.de> writes
>
>The exhibition had the doom-laden word "Millennium" in its title.
LOL!
(I shouldn't, I know!)
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Simon Tebbutt
Jenkins <Trevor....@suneidesis.com> writes
A similar position when the Mission to the Diocese of Birmingham led by
Archbishop Desmond Tutu failed to get the reception that was forecast.
Bishop Colin Buchanan resigned and the Diocese picked up the tab. In
this case it is the Dean and Chapter who are technically at fault - but
should the Diocese look the other way? Whatever the rights and wrongs
it is certainly a matter which brings the whole Anglican Church into
disrepute. I think the Diocese ought to look at its budget and offer a
significant contribution to the creditors some of whom may not be able
to sustain a heavy loss.
>
><>< Re: deemed!
--
Simon Tebbutt
Vexen
news:10suqvofjrsv5r58t...@4ax.com...
God yeah, since when did Churches need members of followers? Stuff 'em
all, everyone can save themselves! I'm sure Jesus & Co. can create yet
more angels if they ever get lonely in heaven!
--
Vexen Crabtree
Acolyte of Satan
http://www.dpjs.co.uk/
Gareth McCaughan
> A similar position when the Mission to the Diocese of Birmingham led by
> Archbishop Desmond Tutu failed to get the reception that was forecast.
> Bishop Colin Buchanan resigned and the Diocese picked up the tab. In
> this case it is the Dean and Chapter who are technically at fault - but
> should the Diocese look the other way?
[etc]
Presumably, in fact, the former Dean; the current one
was appointed after the disastrous exhibition took place.
But perhaps there's a principle of accountability similar
to the one that used to apply in politics.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Kevin Donnelly
<si...@tebbutt.demon.co.uk> writes
Abie says he's bankrupt. Nat nods, then says, but you have money in your
wife's name? Or folding stuff in a box in the roof? Or an offshore
account maybe?
No, Abie says mournfully, no, nothing like that. I tell, you, I'm
bankrupt.
Nat looks worried. Abie, you're not bankrupt, you're broke!
Interested as I am in Christians and money, I just checked out
some pages in Who Owns Britain, by Kevin Cahill. Pages 171 to 174
outlines the Church Commissioners' record. Sure, some individual
parishes and dioceses may be relatively poor, or even near-bankrupt, but
the parent company, the Church of England remains the largest landowner
in the country, according to Kevin Cahill.
That would endorse Adam Nicolson's story of the 1611 Bible
translators. Most were ordained clergy, many were both scholarly and
ambitious or even venal, and with only rare exception, all had an eye
not only on the next benefice, but the one after that.
I recall a story I read long ago, of one of the mediaeval popes,
who reflecting on the story of the man at the gate Beautiful in Acts 3,
said that the Church could no longer say, Silver and gold have I none.
To which St Peter replied, Neither can she any longer say, In the Name
of Jesus of Nazareth, Arise, get up, and walk.
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly
Wythenshawe Prompt Organiser
Website www.kevdon.demon.co.uk
Doug Chaplin
news:VEzwcIAmA7r$Ew...@tebbutt.demon.co.uk...
>
> A similar position when the Mission to the Diocese of Birmingham led by
> Archbishop Desmond Tutu failed to get the reception that was forecast.
> Bishop Colin Buchanan resigned and the Diocese picked up the tab.
My understanding was that in this case, private donors made good on the
deficit.
There was also some (fairly strong) suggestion that in this particular case,
the mission was opposed by those who objected to Tutu's anti-apartheid
stance (and possibly his skin colour), along with idea of the mother country
needing African missionaries. Although I never saw the evidence (not being
in a position to) those who said that were people whose judgement I would
normally trust.
So I'm not sure if it's in any way comparable. Besides, losing money doing
what the church is meant to do (mission) may be a little different.
--
Doug
Nicholas Young
news:3faf3102$0$9225$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Theologically speaking hasn't the CofE been bankrupt for years?
On the admittedly small sample of this one post, I'd rather attend almost any
C of E church than one with a theology that helped produce comments like the
above.
I seem to recall that you claim not to sin (though I may be out of date since
I don't follow all posts on this group by any means). That remark of yours
casts serious doubt on the claim. Possibly it was intended to be humorous,
but if so you need to target your humour rather better.
I have met some of the clergy (or possibly, by now, ex-clergy; it was a couple
of years ago I was last there) and have a high respect for them. It seems to
me unlikely that whatever has gone wrong was anything other than a mistake,
even if a culpable mistake. Either some compassion for their current
situation (regardless of how it arose) or some attempt to understand what's
going on would be a more Christlike reaction.
Nicholas (currently attending an Anglican church but not a paid-up Anglican).
--
"Macbeth" is a play written by a man who, at least on this occasion,
if he had had the talent, ought to have written a fairy-tale. - JRRT.
To email me, use nicholasAinchbare-yDfsnetDcoDuk,
replacing A by the at-symbol and D by the dot-symbol.
David Ould
> Interested as I am in Christians and money, I just checked out
> some pages in Who Owns Britain, by Kevin Cahill. Pages 171 to 174
> outlines the Church Commissioners' record. Sure, some individual
> parishes and dioceses may be relatively poor, or even near-bankrupt,
> but the parent company, the Church of England remains the largest
> landowner in the country, according to Kevin Cahill.
The problem is that the value of the assets is only half the story.
The CofE has 2 large liabilities that one must take into account before
deciding how "rich" they are.
i Pension costs, these are only going to increase and the need to continue
to fund a final-salary scheme is going to be almost crippling for the Church
ii Ongoing maintenance of the buildings. The buildings need constant
maintenance. Anyone who's been involved in a "Fund our Church Roof" campaign
can vouch to that. Again, this takes money.
Simply put, if I own a 500m mansion but have a growing mortgage to match
then I'm poorer than my neighbour who owns his council house.
Of course, some would argue that ministers should be self-financing and some
should stop viewing it as a job-for-life. It has certainly been my
experience that good gospel work has always been funded, the Lord moving in
mysterious ways and whatnot.
Also, we might want to reconsider the role of the Dioceses. Who is serving
who? How much of the Dioceses' work is put towards supporting the local
parishes in their mission?
These are serious questions that the CofE is going to have to face in the
future. Perhaps Pete has some more comments?
--
David Ould
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~oulds/
Michael Gaskell
news:10suqvofjrsv5r58t...@4ax.com...
Let sinners in I say, but don't put them in charge until they have repented
of their sins. You'll know when they've repented of their sin, they will no
longer commit them.
--
Michael
Tony Gillam
>
> Presumably, in fact, the former Dean; the current one
> was appointed after the disastrous exhibition took place.
> But perhaps there's a principle of accountability similar
> to the one that used to apply in politics.
Promoted to the level of their incompetence, you mean?
Pete Broadbent
>
> Of course, some would argue that ministers should be self-financing
> and some should stop viewing it as a job-for-life. It has certainly
> been my experience that good gospel work has always been funded, the
> Lord moving in mysterious ways and whatnot.
>
> Also, we might want to reconsider the role of the Dioceses. Who is
> serving who? How much of the Dioceses' work is put towards supporting
> the local parishes in their mission?
>
> These are serious questions that the CofE is going to have to face in
> the future. Perhaps Pete has some more comments?
I'm not particularly in favour of ministers being self-financing. The virtue
of the CofE system is that we can maintain a nationwide ministry. We
withdraw from nowhere. Of course, we need a mechanism to deal with those
clergy who are indolent, incompetent or unbelieving, so that we have a
ministry in which we can be confident. This will entail the abolition of the
freehold (for all, including bishops) and a proper contractual framework.
In theory, nothing "the diocese" does entails anything other than support
for the mission of the church - we together *are* the diocese. In practice,
there is a need in some places to reduce bureaucracy and to ensure that
everything being done centrally is actually serving mission. We in London
have just done a major service review, sampling the views of the parishes as
well as evaluating what is delivered. There ain't much that we can cut
without hurting the parishes. But we need to cut £1m from the budget or get
£1m extra per year into the system, so we're looking at cutting bishops,
clergy and diocesan organisation.
I could give you, in great detail, a rundown of what "the diocese" does. But
that would be boring. What would be your specific concerns about how "the
diocese" isn't serving the parishes?
--
Pete Broadbent
David Ould
Thanks for the above Pete.
I think my primary concern is when a diocese is pursuing ends that are in
contradiction to the mission. I guess the prominent example at the moment is
Oxford with a diocesan pursuing a political issue at the detriment of his
gospel working clergy.
I know that you'll not be able to comment on that particular issue but it's
not really just Oxford, is it?
Jet Wood
2002r...@yahoo.com.au says...
> You'll know when they've repented of their sin, they will no
> longer commit them.
Hmmm... Grace not mentioned... Just an act of will on the part of the
sinner who thereby becomes a non-sinner.
How quickly 1586 years of Christian history evaporate...
Dave Shield
> Whatever the rights and wrongs
> it is certainly a matter which brings the whole Anglican Church into
> disrepute.
Could you perhaps expand on that a bit, please?
What in particular do you think is bringing the Anglican Church into
disrepute? The fact that they sometimes try things that don't always
work? Or the fact that it's taking so long to get things sorted out
afterwards?
Dave
Vexen
Wow... don't Christians believe that due to Human nature we CANT stop
sinning? Or is Michael Gaskell a member of some obscure Christian, or
pseudo-Christian sect that I haven't come across yet?
Bedouin
Gareth McCaughan
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> >
> > Presumably, in fact, the former Dean; the current one
> > was appointed after the disastrous exhibition took place.
> > But perhaps there's a principle of accountability similar
> > to the one that used to apply in politics.
>
> Promoted to the level of their incompetence, you mean?
No :-). It used to be -- so I've heard, anyway -- that
accountability in politics was attached (notionally,
at least) to the *office* as well as to the *person*
in the office, so that someone might resign on account
of some disaster that really arose from their predecessor's
incompetence or corruption.
I'm relying on hearsay, though. There hasn't been any such
principle in politics at any point since I started taking
any interest in it...
Gareth McCaughan
> Interested as I am in Christians and money, I just checked out
> some pages in Who Owns Britain, by Kevin Cahill. Pages 171 to 174
> outlines the Church Commissioners' record. Sure, some individual
> parishes and dioceses may be relatively poor, or even near-bankrupt, but
> the parent company, the Church of England remains the largest landowner
> in the country, according to Kevin Cahill.
> That would endorse Adam Nicolson's story of the 1611 Bible
> translators. Most were ordained clergy, many were both scholarly and
> ambitious or even venal, and with only rare exception, all had an eye
> not only on the next benefice, but the one after that.
How would it endorse that story?
> I recall a story I read long ago, of one of the mediaeval popes,
> who reflecting on the story of the man at the gate Beautiful in Acts 3,
> said that the Church could no longer say, Silver and gold have I none.
> To which St Peter replied, Neither can she any longer say, In the Name
> of Jesus of Nazareth, Arise, get up, and walk.
I think you mean St Francis.
Pete Broadbent
> I think my primary concern is when a diocese is pursuing ends that
> are in contradiction to the mission. I guess the prominent example at
> the moment is Oxford with a diocesan pursuing a political issue at
> the detriment of his gospel working clergy.
>
> I know that you'll not be able to comment on that particular issue
> but it's not really just Oxford, is it?
Well, actually, the bishop isn't the diocese - though I guess he can have a
huge influence on it. Richard Harries is occasionally very single-minded,
and on this last occasion seems to have been out of touch with the way in
which a large number of his clergy were thinking. It is vital for us to stay
in contact with, and to be able to hold together, the clergy and laity, and
the structures.
No, I don't actually agree with you that most diocesan bishops and diocesan
cultures are out of kilter with the gospel and the Kingdom of God. I think
that more could be done to seek radical ways of bringing the Church into
line with the Kingdom...
--
Pete Broadbent
David Ould
and I don't think, either, that it's most dioceses. But only this weekend
another one made a (church) political point - raising the issue again and
getting in the way of faithful gospel outreach.
Kevin Donnelly
<gareth.m...@pobox.com> writes
>Kevin Donnelly wrote:
>
>> Interested as I am in Christians and money, I just checked out
>> some pages in Who Owns Britain, by Kevin Cahill. Pages 171 to 174
>> outlines the Church Commissioners' record. Sure, some individual
>> parishes and dioceses may be relatively poor, or even near-bankrupt, but
>> the parent company, the Church of England remains the largest landowner
>> in the country, according to Kevin Cahill.
>> That would endorse Adam Nicolson's story of the 1611 Bible
>> translators. Most were ordained clergy, many were both scholarly and
>> ambitious or even venal, and with only rare exception, all had an eye
>> not only on the next benefice, but the one after that.
>
>How would it endorse that story?
land holdings of the Church of England did nothing to assist its mission
and probably impeded that mission enormously." It's worth reading the
other pages to put these remarks in context.
It's also worth noting the historic connection between the CoE
and Oxbridge colleges and their land holdings from which they still
derive considerable revenue. It was the essayist Hugh Kingsmill who
satirised the colleges with a metaphor, which as I recall, you found
somewhat offensive. Nevertheless the colleges were exceedingly rich
both in terms of income and opportunities, so the 1611 Bible translators
not only had ecclesiastical posts within their purview but academic ones
as well. This gave them access to lucrative appointments, acquired by
patronage, which could be held simultaneously, using the well-known
surrogacy principle. Add to that the fact that no one could teach at
Oxbridge unless they were ordained signatories to the 39 articles, a
system which lasted until 1871 - no trade union was ever that
successful. Cahill is useful on this issue. See Adam Nicolson's The
Power and the Glory, for more about the 1611 men of affairs.
>
>> I recall a story I read long ago, of one of the mediaeval popes,
>> who reflecting on the story of the man at the gate Beautiful in Acts 3,
>> said that the Church could no longer say, Silver and gold have I none.
>> To which St Peter replied, Neither can she any longer say, In the Name
>> of Jesus of Nazareth, Arise, get up, and walk.
>
>I think you mean St Francis.
>
reference I know said it was a pope. Do you have a verifiable source?
Michael Gaskell
message news:Ybbsb.850$u_1.5...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Is this in accordance with the charter?
--
Michael
Vexen
> "Bedouin" <bedouin@yonderblue>; <co...@news-text.cableinet.co.uk>
wrote in
> message news:Ybbsb.850$u_1.5...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > "Vexen" <Ve...@vexen.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:boqt0s$3ee$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> > > Wow... don't Christians believe that due to Human nature we CANT
stop
> > > sinning? Or is Michael Gaskell a member of some obscure
Christian, or
> > > pseudo-Christian sect that I haven't come across yet?
> >
> > The latter
>
> Is this in accordance with the charter?
If Bedouin was saying that as a slur then it might fall foul of the
charter, but, as far as I can tell it may be true (I genuinely do not
know if you're a mainstream Christian or not), but we'd need Bedouin
to say why he thinks it is true. (Maybe he considers whatever branch
of Christianity you adhere to to be obscure?).
The biggest way to clear it up would probably, instead of fighting, to
merely state if you consider yourself a Christian, or if you are a
member of an obscure sect with beliefs that I'm unaware of, or if I or
Bedouin have misinterpreted your original statement that the Church
shouldn't allow sinners in (which strikes me, for reasons I've given
above, to be something a Christian couldn't believe).
Please note that I am not a Christian, and I do wonder in amazement at
the varied and contradictory types of Christianity that exist, and me
asking if you're a type of Christian I haven't yet come across is
genuine curiosity, coupled with my on-going search for a religion that
makes sense. So far I do not find that mainstream Christianity makes
'sense', nor does any type of Christianity I've come across as of yet.
Although gnostic Christianity has most going for it in terms of
validity of beliefs and philosophical coherency, it still seems
deluded to me.
So please enlighten me with some expansion on your comment or answers
to some questions, and all will be well...
--
How can you look after others if you can't look after yourself?
Vexen Crabtree
http://www.vexen.co.uk
David Chapman
evangelical" CoE churches that has contributed to the present state of
the Church. If I may I will quote from the Rector's recent writtings.
The first followed the attempted appointment of Canon John by Oxford.
The second is the "Leader" in the most recent church magazine.
1.The straight fact is that churches faithful to Scripture teaching
tend to grow, while those that neglect the Gospel almost inevitable
shrink. Naturally this is reflected in the giving within these
churches.
2. There's no panic about money. Not ever!........However, what I do
know for sure is that since the early summer, despite maintained
congregations, the giving has atually dropped by an average of £2,000
per Sunday.
The questions and assertions that might be made are multitude.
However I leave it to the group to respond.
David
moderator for uk.religion.christian
<walk_about...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>Is this in accordance with the charter?
It's a close call, and I find it rather distasteful - Bedouin and
Vexen please note - but technically, he commented on your church
affiliation, not you, and he hasn't said you're not a Christian.
But I'm watching, because if it gets any closer, I shall conclude that
it is abusive and take the appropriate steps.
--
Moderator for uk.religion.christian
Debbie Herring, Sheffield
articles go to : uk-religio...@usenet.org.uk
moderator is at: uk-religion-ch...@usenet.org.uk
charter : http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.religion.christian.html
meta-FAQ : http://www.anweald.co.uk/uk.religion.christian.metaFAQ.html
Views expressed in this email are my own and are not
necessarily those of the University of Sheffield.
Tim Rowe
Chapman) wrote:
>1.The straight fact is that churches faithful to Scripture teaching
>tend to grow, while those that neglect the Gospel almost inevitable
>shrink. Naturally this is reflected in the giving within these
>churches.
I am old enough to remember when the evangelical churches frequently
complained that "liberal" churches were growing because they had
watered down the gospel to make it more popular, whilst they were
shrinking because they refused to compromise. The straight fact is
that these things tend to go in cycles. Of course, since both tend to
consider that they are being faithful to scripture, that's not
entirely relevant...
Bedouin
wrote in message news:rqf5rv4lv35vd7bue...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:28:32 +1000, "Michael Gaskell"
> <walk_about...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> >Is this in accordance with the charter?
>
> It's a close call, and I find it rather distasteful - Bedouin and
> Vexen please note - but technically, he commented on your church
> affiliation, not you, and he hasn't said you're not a Christian.
>
> But I'm watching, because if it gets any closer, I shall conclude that
> it is abusive and take the appropriate steps.
WHAT
Would you mind explaining in what interpretation of the charter describing
someone as a "member of an obscure Christian sect" can be taken as personal
abuse?
Neither "Obscure" nor "Sect" can be construed as abusive per se - what is
more they were applied to Michael's church, not Michael himself.
Or perhaps it is the implication that Michael is a Christian that you regard
as distasteful? In which case I must point out that it was just an
implication and I didn't go as far as to say he was.
If a were to say "John Smith is a Roman Catholic" would that be taken as
abuse, while saying "John Smith regularly attends a Roman Catholic Church"
would be okay.
Yes I have read the Charter, and the FAQ and I am totally at a loss to
understand how what I said comes anywhere close to personal abuse as defined
therein, or indeed any reasonable definition thereof.
Michael Gaskell
I believe you used the word obscure to pour scorn on my beliefs. But if you
checked the Bible and applied what Jesus said, then you would see that my
beliefs are indeed as rare as hens teeth but not obscure.
--
Michael
Michael Gaskell
If you're seeking religion, just make your own up if you're not happy with
those on offer. But if you want salvation, you need God's forgiveness.
--
Michael
Debbie at work
co...@news-text.cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>Or perhaps it is the implication that Michael is a Christian that you regard
>as distasteful? In which case I must point out that it was just an
>implication and I didn't go as far as to say he was.
It was the implication that Michael might not be a Christian (I
presume the above is a typo?) which I took issue with. Yes, it was
an implication: you stopped short of saying that he isn't Christian.
But it was much closer than was either necessary or pleasant.
>If a were to say "John Smith is a Roman Catholic" would that be taken as
>abuse, while saying "John Smith regularly attends a Roman Catholic Church"
>would be okay.
Well, no, because accusing someone of being a RC isn't something I
would generally interpret as being abusive. But yes, you've noted
the distinction correctly between action and person.
>Yes I have read the Charter, and the FAQ and I am totally at a loss to
>understand how what I said comes anywhere close to personal abuse as defined
>therein, or indeed any reasonable definition thereof.
Try reading the metaFAQ where I explain in some detail how the charter
is applied wrt personal abuse, and why.
--
Moderating from work
(left the sig at home)
Michael J Davis
<Ve...@vexen.co.uk> writes
>
>Please note that I am not a Christian, and I do wonder in amazement at
>the varied and contradictory types of Christianity that exist, and me
>asking if you're a type of Christian I haven't yet come across is
>genuine curiosity, coupled with my on-going search for a religion that
>makes sense. So far I do not find that mainstream Christianity makes
>'sense', nor does any type of Christianity I've come across as of yet.
>Although gnostic Christianity has most going for it in terms of
>validity of beliefs and philosophical coherency, it still seems
>deluded to me.
Vexen, of all the atheists I have had the pleasure and privilege of
discussing with on this group (or on Interfaith), you are one of the
most stimulating and best read. You seem open-minded (although I do
wonder if this is just a 'front').
If you are serious about finding a religion 'making sense', then let me
briefly (I really haven't enough time just now) start with two points:-
1. Christianity is about following Christ - and it is different from the
inside than from without (See 1 Cor 1:18-31) like Tardis. What seems a
narrow-minded rule-bound set of rituals of different forms, is quite
different when you see it as a family party, celebrating the return
(say) of the missing brother or sister. Just as 'dropping in' on such a
party would reveal all sorts of family rituals ("why do you put a
champagne cork on your nose?" - "Because great uncle Joe did that when
he fell in the Cam on the night of May 3rd 1935.") which would be
unintelligible and meaningless to non members, so it is with us. Our
problem *here* is that you see the differences between different
branches of the family, rather than the overweening picture.
2. One reason it is different from the inside is the power of the Holy
Spirit in our lives, firstly to change us and develop us spiritually
(which means keep us in touch with the right spiritual ways - for there
are wrong ones, as you provocatively know), and secondly He changes our
perceptions and understanding of the world as it is. (I know you have
read my story before, but it took me 35 years of being brought up a
Christian for that 'penny' to be kicked into place!)
The essence of Christianity is one's personal relationship with the
living Christ - if it cannot make sense to you that a man who was God,
died and rose again 2000 years ago and is alive today - then that is
your problem. It makes no *sense* to me either, but I know it to be
true.
So if all you want to do is to walk around the outside being cynical -
be our guest. But if you are serious about knowing about Christ and then
knowing Him, then you need to find yourself somewhere and someone whom
you can trust and listen. That will probably mean getting away from the
pettiness and froth that is sometimes evident here.
Blessings
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
I might take atheism seriously when atheists become
committed enough to have denominations
<><
Mark Goodge
typed:
>"moderator for uk.religion.christian" <deb...@removethiscybertheology.net>
>wrote in message news:rqf5rv4lv35vd7bue...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:28:32 +1000, "Michael Gaskell"
>> <walk_about...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Is this in accordance with the charter?
>>
>> It's a close call, and I find it rather distasteful - Bedouin and
>> Vexen please note - but technically, he commented on your church
>> affiliation, not you, and he hasn't said you're not a Christian.
>>
>> But I'm watching, because if it gets any closer, I shall conclude that
>> it is abusive and take the appropriate steps.
>
>WHAT
>
>Would you mind explaining in what interpretation of the charter describing
>someone as a "member of an obscure Christian sect" can be taken as personal
>abuse?
It was the reference to a "pseudo-Christian" group that is potentially
abusive. Particularly when the previous message had given the option
of "obscure Christian sect" and "pseudo-Christian" group, anf your
follow-up stated "the latter". This, to my reading, implied that you
were suggesting that Michael is a pseudo-Christian.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"A singing bird in an open cage who will only fly, only fly for
freedom"
Tim Rowe
<walk_about...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>I believe you used the word obscure to pour scorn on my beliefs.
I don't see it as doing any such thing. What you are teaching I have
never heard any church teach in over 30 years as a Christian and
significant involvement in the ecumenical movement, and I have never
encountered another Christian who has drawn the same conclusions from
the Bible. Whether your beliefs are right or wrong, I believe that any
group teaching them can quite properly and non-abusively be described
as "obscure".
Tim Rowe
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>It was the reference to a "pseudo-Christian" group that is potentially
>abusive. Particularly when the previous message had given the option
>of "obscure Christian sect" and "pseudo-Christian" group, anf your
>follow-up stated "the latter". This, to my reading, implied that you
>were suggesting that Michael is a pseudo-Christian.
There were two sentences, and I took "the latter" to refer to the
latter /sentence/, which included an "or", one possibility of which I
would read as non-abusive!
Bedouin
news:3fb35ba3...@news.freeserve.net...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:02:09 GMT, "Bedouin" <bedouin@yonderblue>,
> co...@news-text.cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
>
> >Or perhaps it is the implication that Michael is a Christian that you
regard
> >as distasteful? In which case I must point out that it was just an
> >implication and I didn't go as far as to say he was.
>
> It was the implication that Michael might not be a Christian (I
> presume the above is a typo?) which I took issue with. Yes, it was
> an implication: you stopped short of saying that he isn't Christian.
> But it was much closer than was either necessary or pleasant.
No the above is not a typo - there is nothing I wrote, or have ever written
that can honestly be taken to imply that Michael is not a Christian - I
think you need to explain in more detail how you interpret what I have
written in that way - I seem to be particularly dense.
Michael is objecting to being described as a member of "an obscure Christian
Sect" - which word in that is abuse - or anywhere near it?
> >If a were to say "John Smith is a Roman Catholic" would that be taken as
> >abuse, while saying "John Smith regularly attends a Roman Catholic
Church"
> >would be okay.
>
> Well, no, because accusing someone of being a RC isn't something I
> would generally interpret as being abusive. But yes, you've noted
> the distinction correctly between action and person.
> Try reading the metaFAQ where I explain in some detail how the charter
> is applied wrt personal abuse, and why.
Yes - I've read it. Now I would like you to explain how anything I have
written comes anywhere close to breaking the rules.
Bedouin
Tim is quite right - that is what I meant, and the only reasonable way to
interpret what I had written.
Bedouin
>
> I believe you used the word obscure to pour scorn on my beliefs. But if
you
> checked the Bible and applied what Jesus said, then you would see that my
> beliefs are indeed as rare as hens teeth but not obscure.
I don't think that obscure is usually regarded as a term of abuse; and it
was not my term but Vexen's.
What is more the term was applied by Vexen to your church, not to your
beliefs.
moderator for uk.religion.christian
co...@news-text.cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>Michael is objecting to being described as a member of "an obscure Christian
>Sect" - which word in that is abuse - or anywhere near it?
I'm more concerned with the "pseudo-Christian sect" phrase, which
implies that Michael might not be Christian at all. Had you said he
*was* a member of a p-cs, it would have been a very clear case of
personal abuse when applied to someone who self-identifies as
Christian, and such has always been interpreted on this group as
personal abuse.
>Yes - I've read it. Now I would like you to explain how anything I have
>written comes anywhere close to breaking the rules.
See above.
Vexen
<snip questions and text, answered wholely inadequately with two
irrelevant sentances:>
> If you're seeking religion, just make your own up if you're not
happy with
> those on offer. But if you want salvation, you need God's
forgiveness.
So, then, you don't answer questions, you don't give information, you
don't engage in conversation other than to make patronizing comments
and assertions?
And you wonder why you're posts don't always go down well?
Think about it.
Bye.
Peter R
> Tim is quite right - that is what I meant, and the only reasonable way to
> interpret what I had written.
After scrolling back and re-reading your original response I now see what
you were getting at, (I initially read it as Mark and, I suspect, Mike and
Debbie did).
However... though it's not unreasonable to say that that is *one*
interpretation of your post I take issue with your insistance that it is the
"only reasonable way to interpret" what you wrote. Taken it at face value
there were *three* options presented the last of which was that Mike was a
member of a psuedo-christian sect. For people to interpret you as meaning
the last of the options when you said "the latter" is hardly "unreasonable",
and as witnesssed here was certainly what the majority of (very reasonable)
people concluded. You would be better off apologising for your lack of
clarity instead of trying to make us feel stupid for not recognising your
oversights.
Peter R
Bedouin
wrote in message news:7a08rv80gq30oeijj...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:38:11 GMT, "Bedouin" <bedouin@yonderblue>,
> co...@news-text.cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
>
> >Michael is objecting to being described as a member of "an obscure
Christian
> >Sect" - which word in that is abuse - or anywhere near it?
>
> I'm more concerned with the "pseudo-Christian sect" phrase, which
> implies that Michael might not be Christian at all. Had you said he
> *was* a member of a p-cs, it would have been a very clear case of
> personal abuse when applied to someone who self-identifies as
> Christian, and such has always been interpreted on this group as
> personal abuse.
Yes - there are lots of things I could have said that would have been
abuse - but I didn't say any of them. Are we now to be moderated for things
we haven't said?
Vexen used the phrase "obscure Christian or pseudo-Christian Sect" to which
I concurred, it is not the way I would have phrased it but it is not an
outrageous description; I have certainly never heard of Michael's church,
and I doubt if many people on this group have heard of other churches that
hold to that doctrine. Michael self-identifies with a doctrine which is "as
rare as hen's teeth".
Now for you and/or Michael to presume to know from my posting whether I
consider Michael's church to be Christian or pseudo Christian is to claim a
level of omiscience that I am sorry to say is misplaced.
Just for the record - I do not feel obliged to pass judgement on the
spiritual state of anyone on this group. Michael says he is a Christian and
I have no reason to suppose he is not - why should I?
Vexen
news:6hyjV9DqA2s$Ew...@trustsof.demon.co...
<snip>
> Vexen, of all the atheists I have had the pleasure and privilege of
> discussing with on this group (or on Interfaith), you are one of the
> most stimulating and best read. You seem open-minded (although I do
> wonder if this is just a 'front').
Thanks, you made me smile :-)
> If you are serious about finding a religion 'making sense', then let
me
> briefly (I really haven't enough time just now) start with two
points:-
>
> 1. Christianity is about following Christ - and it is different from
the
> inside than from without (See 1 Cor 1:18-31) like Tardis.
I find this difference has decreased over time, so that modern
fundamentalist Christianity is consciously striving for a very literal
reading of what Christian beliefs are, and actively trying to be
consistent (although I believe they fall as foul of cultural and
traditional bias as does everyone else), and that modern Christianity
(as fundamentalism increases) is very much becoming much less like
original Christianity - especially the large gnostic Christian
churches, They very literally had "outer" and "inner" teachings, and
I'd be surprised if this element could ever be suppressed (as the
Roman Christians tried!) from the background of Christianity.
Also, all other religions do tend to have a popular front, and a
scholarly inside. So, for example, what Satanists talk about,
philosphize about and discuss in their internal communications is 100%
the opposite of what you'd expect if you looked at Satanism in the
popular media. Some have noted this huge difference and come to the
conclusion that Satanism, too, is an inherently gnostic religion!
I don't know if it's correct to call Satanism a mystery religion, but
wrote an essay on the subject concluding that it "operates" as one,
http://www.dpjs.co.uk/mystery.html
Christianity is the same, you get the popular culture Christianity (in
the UK at least) where being a Christian means "being a good person"
and to get to Heaven you merely have to do good things, and, although
this isn't foreign to Christianity, the pop-culture version of it is
very much different to the insiders' view. (The American pop-culture
view may well be that Christianity is all about fundamentalism,
anti-gay rantings, intolerance and obnoxiousness!).
Neither branches of pop-Christianity can be seen to be about
"following Christ", but about the actions of Christians. Such is how a
religion is seen from the outside!
> What seems a
> narrow-minded rule-bound set of rituals of different forms, is quite
> different when you see it as a family party, celebrating the return
> (say) of the missing brother or sister. Just as 'dropping in' on
such a
> party would reveal all sorts of family rituals ("why do you put a
> champagne cork on your nose?" - "Because great uncle Joe did that
when
> he fell in the Cam on the night of May 3rd 1935.") which would be
> unintelligible and meaningless to non members, so it is with us. Our
> problem *here* is that you see the differences between different
> branches of the family, rather than the overweening picture.
Well even I (a man without a family) know that the point of a family
is unconditional love, nurturing of each other into fully grown, care,
protection, etc.
The "family" metaphor for Christianity, and many other religions
(especially oppressed ones like Bahai in Iran), is a very strong one
that works well, emotionally.
But as I am, knowing multiple families, and seeing that these
"branches" of families are frequently different species, I don't know
which particular one I'd consider most capable of love, nurture,
care... etc, and in addition, the metaphor breaks down because the
"family" is held together by beliefs which themselves are alien and,
for me, unworkable. (I.e., I have big problems with working out why a
God would exist, or why a God would send prophets (see I'm covering
all the Abrahamic religions here! And Bahai!), etc, and problems like
that mean that even if I were to join such families, I'd only be an
intruder! The emotional family elements I already find amongst my
friends and support network, so I've nothing to gain from faking it!
Plus I have a paranoia of love-bombing, social programming, and other
elements of psychological control that subconsciously appear in any
group! (I fear, in particular, such methods of control in groups with
beliefs different from mine).
Sorry for the monstrous paragraph of doom. And sorry for engaging too
much when I know you weren't necessarily wanting to be drawn into an
actual debate!...
> 2. One reason it is different from the inside is the power of the
Holy
> Spirit in our lives, firstly to change us and develop us spiritually
> (which means keep us in touch with the right spiritual ways - for
there
> are wrong ones, as you provocatively know), and secondly He changes
our
> perceptions and understanding of the world as it is. (I know you
have
> read my story before, but it took me 35 years of being brought up a
> Christian for that 'penny' to be kicked into place!)
The same "insider" differences occur in all religions, in extremer
forms in various religions and Christian groups you get
speaking-in-tongues, modern equivalents of Native American
tent-shaking rituals, ecstacy, etc, and I know that in Christian
theology this is ascribed to the Holy Spirit when it occurs amongst
Christians (maybe others). But frequently such things are also
ascribed to the Devil when it occurs in alien cultures or
non-Christians!
I know from a Christians' own point of view that the Christian
explanation sounds most true, but every religion has the same
mechanisms to explain "deep belief" and experiences... I have
psychology and sociology, and don't find that the Christian "Holy
Spirit" is any more plausible than love-bombing explanations (that
Christians call "cultish" except when it occurs in Churches!) and
other explanations, not least the counter-claim by Muslims and the
Bahai' that Christians are only experiencing a primitive part of God,
not the whole that they know!
> The essence of Christianity is one's personal relationship with the
> living Christ - if it cannot make sense to you that a man who was
God,
> died and rose again 2000 years ago and is alive today - then that is
> your problem. It makes no *sense* to me either, but I know it to be
> true.
Well if it is true, I hope God doesn't judge us by our knowledge,
because then it *would* be my problem! (Or maybe I can blame it on the
fact that no-one has actually explained it to me properly and I've
never really been evangelized properly, and therefore merely rejected
unintentional strawmen!).
If there is a God and he judges people and puts them in Heaven
according to whatever metric it chooses to use, then all I can do is
hope that by admitting I don't ultimately know the truth (and can only
ever guess as long as I remain a living fallible human!), that I might
humble my way in!
Of course, I have unhumble days, but hey, I'm only human :-)
> So if all you want to do is to walk around the outside being
cynical -
> be our guest. But if you are serious about knowing about Christ and
then
> knowing Him, then you need to find yourself somewhere and someone
whom
> you can trust and listen. That will probably mean getting away from
the
> pettiness and froth that is sometimes evident here.
Oh God don't worry I don't hold Usenet in any respect, it's the next
one down from IRC when it comes to worthwhile communication.
Usenet has, however, one huge advantage:
It is massively conducive to very logical, rational, step-by-step
debates. It doesn't suffer as an exchange of essays do (of writing
into the blue and trying to second-guess where people might want to
hit your assumptions!), and is actually better than real-life for
doing consistent large-scale debates in depth. (But, however, such
amazing discussions are rare, and Usenet is largely occupied by people
who aren't yet used to Internet debate, and who largely aren't
actually interested in such debate anyway!)
The best discussion I've had was a two-year (read that again: Two
years!!) discussion with a Christian Episcopal priest. The volume of
text we generated was truly great, volumes and volumes of emails and
texts, thousands of pages of responses of replies. Sometimes we got
heated, but we always made up. We attacked, defended, probed and
enquired about every single nook and cranny of the belief system of
the other! (I'm not a neophyte Satanist, I've been at this since Hong
Kong was passed back to the Chinese! [Incidentally, I speak some
Cantonese], she had as many questions to ask me, as I did her!)
Did I say "she"? Yeah... after our epic debate, we moved in with each
other and fell immediately and deeply in love... I like to say that we
dated for two years, but that's an exaggeration. She is the most
intelligent, passionate, tolerant and amazing woman ever, most
definately a Christian and the most intelligent and well-read
Christian I've ever met. Our lives went in different directions... and
after that, I came here.
So, don't worry I'm not STARTING getting acquanted with the ways of
Christians here, nor am I here to judge the emotional stability
(apparent in-stability) of Usenet's contributors, I am here simply for
the hard facts, hard debate and formal discussion... which is why
sometimes I write ten paragraphs in response to the simplest of
questions! (I wish I would stop doing that sometimes - I want someone
who can match strike for strike!). I don't mind making friends and try
to like people and let them like me, but, you know, it *is* usenet :-)
ukrc is, believe it or not, the most scholarly christian newsgroup
that there is! It's not full of flame wars, hatred and spam (I mean,
take one look at alt.religion.christianity - I'm sure some people here
have bad memories from even attempting to find sangha there!)
For the love of God I've got to learn to articulate myself more
briefly!!
> Blessings
<snip>
> <><
> I might take atheism seriously when atheists become
> committed enough to have denominations
> <><
Whoa!!! (funny.. but...)
Atheism *has* denominations (although if you ever call them that,
you'll attract flame throwing etymologists and better have some
aspestos underpants!!)
For example: Humanism, Atheism, nihilists and some other 'isms of
atheistic philosophies, which are definately not accepted in normal
atheist "denominations"!
And well, atheist religions too, but I don't think you mean other
religions, but specifically unreligious atheists...
--
Vexen Crabtree
http://vexen.livejournal.com
Vexen
And in addition, I actually was wondering aloud, "Maybe he is a member
of an obscure Christian sect whose beliefs I am not familiar with" (or
something like that), and wasn't even applied to Michael or his
"Church" (I don't know if he has one, *that's* the question!).
I know there *are* obscure Christian groups, and instead of all this
debating over whether it is insulting to be a member of one, I suggest
that Michael Gaskell simply inform me (as he ignored my questions last
time) if this is the case, or, what particular type or style of
Christianity he calls himself?
And for the record... as "Christian" is different to my religion, and
I regard my religion as true, it's probably a tiny compliment if I
tell someone they're not Christian! as it means they're, by
implication at least, not an adherent of beliefs I find untrue!
No offence is meant, yet, if I want to offend someone I am perfectly
capable of emailing them!
Or even better, announce that I agree with them! :p (which normally
insults those who don't expect it and as a matter of principal don't
ever want to say anything a Satanist agrees with!)
--
"Be yourself"
Vexen Crabtree
http://www.vexen.co.uk
Vexen
> "Debbie at work" <deb...@utusheffield.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3fb35ba3...@news.freeserve.net...
> Michael is objecting to being described as a member of "an obscure
Christian
> Sect" - which word in that is abuse - or anywhere near it?
I think this is a very gray area... because, ultimately, it depends on
how you meant it, your motive. Michael Gaskel has been tetchy and
sensitive about it. I think the best course of action is to apologize
(although you might have, I haven't read all the posts yet), not
because you were innacurate or "wrong", but because you've caused him
to call the moderator and you (probably!) don't want to upset him.
I'd apologize too, if only he'd actually respond to anything I
write...
By calling for the moderator, hasn't Michael Gaskell implied that
anyone who IS a member of obscure Christian groups are bad? Hasn't he
insulted them? You'd only take that as an insult if you considered
such obscure groups to be insultworthy!
But, it now depends on what he thinks your, and my, motive is... which
brings us to complex psychology of insecurity, which is not an area
where the charter can ever really successfully navigate!
To make it more confusing, despite Gaskel's brief response, I still
don't know what his beliefs are, if they're named, if he's a member of
any church, his own selective responses have contributed to the
confusion! So, Michael Gaskel, as I said before the best way forward
is probably simply to supply information and engage in the
conversation, I don't think it's useful to take "obscure" as an
insult.
Your response (to M. Gaskel) of saying your beliefs are "rare, but not
obscure" is almost an oxymoron when talking of social groups (and
that's what we are talking of).
But I fear the actual informational conversation is now completely
broken by worries over the more sensitive amongst of either perceiving
insults where there weren't any, and of people trying to avoid giving
insults when some people (ME!) are not capable of being insulted.
<snip>
> Yes - I've read it. Now I would like you to explain how anything I
have
> written comes anywhere close to breaking the rules.
It's too legalistic, such charters, I think, are hopeless when it
comes to a situation where it is genuinely unknown if an insult was
implied - or if the person complaining is merely being oversensitive
and insecure!
So to summarize (I'm in Very Verbose mode today, I think I need to
start summarising my posts so people can just read the end, and skip
the middle bits):
* Bedouin should apologize to Michael Gaskel whether or not he's
actually insulted him (it makes you seem nice and people will like
you)
* Michael Gaskel should just get on with the conversation, and spread
information, not fight. (If people want to insult you, just step on
their toes by being nice and replying with useful information about
your beliefs! That'll show their insults up as hollow, and show you as
nice)
--
Vexen
Machievelli would have the same advise and more! (But the following
almost definately falls foul of fair play and the first falls foul of
the charter!):
Michiavella (sp???) would expand on the first one above and say: maybe
we should insult someone, make it look like an accident, and then
apologize! That way, we get to be aggressive *and* nice, and respect
abounds! (Unless you do it too much...)
On the second bit of advise, he might say we should invite insults by
intentionally making people misinformed (by (apparently innocently)
withholding information or being ambiguous), and then inform people
(nicely) of their mistake, so appearing to be useful and mature!
(Unless you do it too much)...
--
Machievelli
Vexen
No, when Christian groups are shrinking or very unpopular, there are
set of standard versus that are incited "hate your brother...", "you
will be hated for spreading the word of god", "you are hated because
of me", etc, and find they're only obscure because the truth is hard!
But when they expand, they find quotes with the Holy Spirit, etc, and
that therefore they must be more Christian because God is supporting
them!
I think the same happens in all religions... as usual I'll have to use
my own as an example...
Satanic groups that are successful and relatively large, like the
Church of Satan (LaVey Satanism), have adherents who start claiming a
superior philosophy and more powerful magic (entwined: therefore,
numerical success!)
But small groups say that their elitism reduces numbers, and that the
truth is simply hard for most to understand! Satanism is frequently a
battlefield of intellectualism - popular religions only have numerical
superiority because their watered-down truth is easy to understand!
(Therefore: Our small group is truer!)
Max Weber (as he wrote of every subject under the sun!) documents that
this doesn't just occur in Christianity and Satanism, but seems to
imply that it is universal behavior. I don't think such problems
between growing- and shrinking- religious groups both claiming
credibility as a result of their motion are going to go away!
--
Vexen Crabtree; Minister of the LondonSatanists list
http://www.dpjs.co.uk
Peter R
> > I'm more concerned with the "pseudo-Christian sect" phrase, which
> > implies that Michael might not be Christian at all. Had you said he
> > *was* a member of a p-cs, it would have been a very clear case of
> > personal abuse when applied to someone who self-identifies as
> > Christian, and such has always been interpreted on this group as
> > personal abuse.
Bedouin
> Yes - there are lots of things I could have said that would have been
> abuse - but I didn't say any of them. Are we now to be moderated for
things
> we haven't said?
Clearly *not* as you are still posting freely!
Just thank your lucky stars that I'm not the moderator, I would have shelved
you and turned a deaf ear to your pathetic protests.
>
> Vexen used the phrase "obscure Christian or pseudo-Christian Sect" to
which
> I concurred, it is not the way I would have phrased it but it is not an
> outrageous description; I have certainly never heard of Michael's church,
> and I doubt if many people on this group have heard of other churches that
> hold to that doctrine. Michael self-identifies with a doctrine which is
"as
> rare as hen's teeth".
>
> Now for you and/or Michael to presume to know from my posting whether I
> consider Michael's church to be Christian or pseudo Christian is to claim
a
> level of omiscience that I am sorry to say is misplaced.
Then you shoul be more carefull to express yourself without ambiguity.
> Just for the record - I do not feel obliged to pass judgement on the
> spiritual state of anyone on this group. Michael says he is a Christian
and
> I have no reason to suppose he is not - why should I?
Indeed.
Peter R
Richard Emblem
writes:
>"Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:6hyjV9DqA2s$Ew...@trustsof.demon.co...
><snip>
>> Vexen, of all the atheists I have had the pleasure and privilege of
>> discussing with on this group (or on Interfaith), you are one of the
>> most stimulating and best read. You seem open-minded (although I do
>> wonder if this is just a 'front').
>
>Thanks, you made me smile :-)
<snip>
Thanks for two very interesting posts Mike and Vexen.
--
Richard Emblem
How good and pleasant it is
when God's people live in unity.
(Psalm 133:1)
_______________________
Debbie at work
co...@news-text.cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>"moderator for uk.religion.christian" <deb...@removethiscybertheology.net>
>wrote in message news:7a08rv80gq30oeijj...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:38:11 GMT, "Bedouin" <bedouin@yonderblue>,
>> co...@news-text.cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Michael is objecting to being described as a member of "an obscure
>Christian
>> >Sect" - which word in that is abuse - or anywhere near it?
>>
>> I'm more concerned with the "pseudo-Christian sect" phrase, which
>> implies that Michael might not be Christian at all. Had you said he
>> *was* a member of a p-cs, it would have been a very clear case of
>> personal abuse when applied to someone who self-identifies as
>> Christian, and such has always been interpreted on this group as
>> personal abuse.
>
>Yes - there are lots of things I could have said that would have been
>abuse - but I didn't say any of them. Are we now to be moderated for things
>we haven't said?
You weren't moderated. Someone asked if the exchange between you and
Vexen about Michael constituted personal abuse under the charter. I
said it did not. I also said it was close to personal abuse - which
it is, at least in part - that I was watching this discussion, and
that I find this kind of slur on another poster distasteful.
If you want me to *like* what you write, write nicer things!
Michael Gaskell
> "Michael Gaskell" <walk_about...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
> message news:3fb32aa0$0$13591$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> <snip questions and text, answered wholely inadequately with two
> irrelevant sentances:>
>
> > If you're seeking religion, just make your own up if you're not
> happy with
> > those on offer. But if you want salvation, you need God's
> forgiveness.
>
> So, then, you don't answer questions, you don't give information, you
> don't engage in conversation other than to make patronizing comments
> and assertions?
What questions do you want answered?
> And you wonder why you're posts don't always go down well?
I don't wonder!
> Think about it.
About what?
> Bye.
>
> --
> Vexen Crabtree
> Acolyte of Satan
> http://www.dpjs.co.uk/
Why worship the created?
--
Michael
Michael Gaskell
I do not define myself, we are all defined by our actions.
--
Michael
Vexen
> "Vexen" <Ve...@vexen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bp106h$783$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > "Michael Gaskell" <walk_about...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
> > message news:3fb32aa0$0$13591$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > <snip questions and text, answered wholely inadequately with two
> > irrelevant sentances:>
> > So, then, you don't answer questions, you don't give information,
you
> > don't engage in conversation other than to make patronizing
comments
> > and assertions?
>
> What questions do you want answered?
If you don't understand how to follow threads, answer posts or even
*gasp* look back for yourself. It is the post that you replied to
before this reply, you know, the one where you snipped my questions
and text? THOSE questions and THAT text.
Generally, the questions I have in mind are the sentances ending with
question marks. It would also be nice and polite if you also, perhaps,
addressed the actual text of the message?
<snip>
> > Think about it.
>
> About what?
Your communications methods and politeness in conversation, perhaps?
How can you NOT know what I'm asking you to think about, when sentance
"Think about it" followed directly after this paragraph:
"
So, then, you don't answer questions, you don't give information, you
don't engage in conversation other than to make patronizing comments
and assertions?
And you wonder why you're posts don't always go down well?
"
Out of interest (take this as an insult if you want, it's not), how
old are you? I might lighten up a bit if I find out you're a kid!
> > Bye.
> >
> > --
> > Vexen Crabtree
> > Acolyte of Satan
> > http://www.dpjs.co.uk/
>
> Why worship the created?
I don't have the same religious beliefs as you, I'm not a Christian,
and I don't "worship the created". My beliefs are irrelevant, unless
you actually want to (instead of assuming) ask me what my beliefs
*are* before firing off thoughtless questions.
Vexen
> > I know there *are* obscure Christian groups, and instead of all
this
> > debating over whether it is insulting to be a member of one, I
suggest
> > that Michael Gaskell simply inform me (as he ignored my questions
last
> > time) if this is the case, or, what particular type or style of
> > Christianity he calls himself?
>
> I do not define myself, we are all defined by our actions.
>
> --
> Michael
So how do you think that your actions; obfuscation and evasions, not
to mention lack of engagement of most the text directed at you,
defines you?
Michael Gaskell
If you keep your questions simple and honest, then I will endeavour to enage
you.
--
Michael
Michael Gaskell
I'm as old as my tongue and a bit older than my teeth.
> I might lighten up a bit if I find out you're a kid!
How nice of you, you are extremly generous and gracious. How old do you have
to be to stop being a kid? If you want to know my age visit my web pages.
--
Michael
Gareth McCaughan
>>> Interested as I am in Christians and money, I just checked out
>>> some pages in Who Owns Britain, by Kevin Cahill. Pages 171 to 174
>>> outlines the Church Commissioners' record. Sure, some individual
>>> parishes and dioceses may be relatively poor, or even near-bankrupt, but
>>> the parent company, the Church of England remains the largest landowner
>>> in the country, according to Kevin Cahill.
>>> That would endorse Adam Nicolson's story of the 1611 Bible
>>> translators. Most were ordained clergy, many were both scholarly and
>>> ambitious or even venal, and with only rare exception, all had an eye
>>> not only on the next benefice, but the one after that.
>>
>> How would it endorse that story?
>
> Kevin Cahill wrote (p. 175) "The implication is that the vast
> land holdings of the Church of England did nothing to assist its mission
> and probably impeded that mission enormously." It's worth reading the
> other pages to put these remarks in context.
I don't understand how the fact (assuming it is a fact)
that the CoE is *now* the largest landowner in the UK
can possibly endorse the story that in *1611* many of
the people who made the "King James" translation were
greedy. I also don't understand how the sentence you
quote clarifies the connection at all.
I expect it's true that the CoE is the largest landowner
in the UK, or at least one of the few largest. And I expect
it's true that many of the KJV translators were wealthy
and greedy. I just don't see the connection between those
two things that you do.
> It's also worth noting the historic connection between the CoE
> and Oxbridge colleges and their land holdings from which they still
> derive considerable revenue. It was the essayist Hugh Kingsmill who
> satirised the colleges with a metaphor, which as I recall, you found
> somewhat offensive.
I had forgotten. <google tappety tap> But, yes, I did think
"excrement living on increment" was offensive as well as witty.
> Nevertheless the colleges were exceedingly rich
> both in terms of income and opportunities,
"Nevertheless"? I don't recall objecting in any way to the
claim that some Oxbridge colleges were, and are, very rich.
>>> I recall a story I read long ago, of one of the mediaeval popes,
>>> who reflecting on the story of the man at the gate Beautiful in Acts 3,
>>> said that the Church could no longer say, Silver and gold have I none.
>>> To which St Peter replied, Neither can she any longer say, In the Name
>>> of Jesus of Nazareth, Arise, get up, and walk.
>>
>> I think you mean St Francis.
>
> I'm glad of the correction, though if memory serves me, the only
> reference I know said it was a pope. Do you have a verifiable source?
I think you've misunderstood my correction: it's not the
pope in the story that I'm querying, but St Peter. I find
it unlikely that a mediaeval pope was holding conversations
with St Peter, the RC practice of asking the saints for
intercession notwithstanding.
However, I have never encountered any *verifiable* version
of this story. I've seen the key role in it attributed to
St Francis, Thomas Aquinas, and an unnamed subordinate.
Presumably it never actually happened at all :-). It's still
a nice story.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Vexen
<snip conversation: Notably, Michael Gaskell still hasn't answeed
questions or addressed the text>
I'm giving up on our conversation, it seems you're genuinely not
interested, but I'll continue with the little response you give.
> I'm as old as my tongue and a bit older than my teeth.
What your teeth are made of is only 7 years old (our body changes
every molecule and layer in our teeth, on average, over that amount of
time), but I know what you mean!
> > I might lighten up a bit if I find out you're a kid!
>
> How nice of you, you are extremly generous and gracious. How old do
you have
> to be to stop being a kid? If you want to know my age visit my web
pages.
1959 was it? Not at all what I expected! How long have you been on the
net? I've been terrorizing the net for only a short while, since 1998
or so.
And it would have saved me some bother if you just told me, ya know.
What's with the obstacles?
> --
> Michael
Alec Brady
<walk_about...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>If you keep your questions simple and honest, then I will endeavour to enage
>you.
Was that "engage" or "enrage"?
--
Alec Brady
Michael Gaskell
> "Michael Gaskell" <walk_about...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
> message news:3fb53566$0$20488$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> <snip conversation: Notably, Michael Gaskell still hasn't answeed
> questions or addressed the text>
>
> I'm giving up on our conversation, it seems you're genuinely not
> interested, but I'll continue with the little response you give.
>
> > I'm as old as my tongue and a bit older than my teeth.
>
> What your teeth are made of is only 7 years old (our body changes
> every molecule and layer in our teeth, on average, over that amount of
> time), but I know what you mean!
>
> > > I might lighten up a bit if I find out you're a kid!
> >
> > How nice of you, you are extremly generous and gracious. How old do
> you have
> > to be to stop being a kid? If you want to know my age visit my web
> pages.
>
> 1959 was it? Not at all what I expected! How long have you been on the
> net? I've been terrorizing the net for only a short while, since 1998
> or so.
About the same time, but my motives for participation have changed in that
time.
> And it would have saved me some bother if you just told me, ya know.
> What's with the obstacles?
But then you wouldn't of read my testimony, would you?
--
Michael
Ken Down
Trevor....@suneidesis.com (Trevor Jenkins) wrote:
> BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme reported this morning that Bradford
> Cathedral was "bankrupt", well would be considered so if it were a
> business. Mounting a recent exhibition has left them some £4 million
> adrift as it did not attract the visitor numbers hoped for. The organisers
> are said to be owed over £100,000; they might receive £15,000 instead.
One contractor is owed that amount. There are others.
> Should a cathedral be subject to the same rules as businesses? (Apparently
> they are not.) Should a cathedral be hosting this sort of tourist
> entertainment? What implications are there in this situation for the
> Bradford Diocese and its ministry? What should other dioceses learn
> regarding funding the superstructure of the Church of England?
It was part of the Millennium celebrations, but where other churches were
putting up "The Millennium is Christ's birthday" notices, Bradford cathedral
decided to be interfaith and "celebrate" all the Hindus and Muslims in town.
The implication, it seems to me, is that Christians should stick to
fulfilling Christ's commission and promote Christianity. Leave Hinduism to
the Hindus.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.diggingsonline.com
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Ken Down
<tim@remove_if_not_spam.digitig.co.uk> wrote:
> I am old enough to remember when the evangelical churches frequently
> complained that "liberal" churches were growing because they had
> watered down the gospel to make it more popular, whilst they were
> shrinking because they refused to compromise. The straight fact is
> that these things tend to go in cycles. Of course, since both tend to
> consider that they are being faithful to scripture, that's not
> entirely relevant...
I think it is a bit more than a simple cycle.
You had highly fundamentalist and legalistic churches.
Liberal churches attracted more members.
Liberal churches then went too far and became wishy washy.
The fundamentalist ones became less legalistic.
The fundamentalist churches attract more members.
Ken Down
<D.T.S...@csc.liv.ac.uk> wrote:
> What in particular do you think is bringing the Anglican Church into
> disrepute? The fact that they sometimes try things that don't always
> work? Or the fact that it's taking so long to get things sorted out
> afterwards?
I should think the fact that they are offering 15,000 to someone to whom
they owe 100,000 is what is bringing the church into disrepute. Proverbs has
some pithy things to say about getting into debt.
Vexen
<snip>
> > 1959 was it? Not at all what I expected! How long have you been on
the
> > net? I've been terrorizing the net for only a short while, since
1998
> > or so.
>
> About the same time, but my motives for participation have changed
in that
> time.
My initial motive was pure intrigue!! What on Earth, I was wondering,
IS the "net"? So I bought a computer, bought a guide on "How to
connect to the internet" and dived in... after finding out that there
was nothing mysterious about web pages and it was merely marked-up
text retrieved across phone lines, I bought "HTML 4 for dummies", and
by the end of 1998 had produced my first twenty or so webpages and
learned JavaScript, etc, ...
By 1999-Dec I had 120 pages, now I'm at over 600! ... I fell in love
with the 'net!
http://geocities.com/vexenuk.geo/new.html#1998 is a history... my
first religion-specific site was 1999... some of that text still
exists and is, like, immature and terrible!
I got on Usenet quite early, but, gave it a break for three years and
returned a year or so ago.
uk.religion.christian is the best usenet forum for actual religious
discussion (as opposed to violent, angry, pointless discussion!),
don't you think?
> > And it would have saved me some bother if you just told me, ya
know.
> > What's with the obstacles?
>
> But then you wouldn't of read my testimony, would you?
I read parts of it, sounds like you've had an entire life infused with
Christianity, it reminded me that there are even still portions of the
UK like that, where Christianity doesn't have to be specifically
taught in class, because it's part of family. Assertion (1): I'd hate
to have been brought up like that, it seems to me that it takes away
genuine impartial decision-making!
You could agree with (1), but say that in your case it's a genuine
decision, which is fine, but do you personally support
inbuilt-cultural religion or do you think people should not be brought
up with specific religious views?
Or, you could disagree with (1), in which case you'd be saying that
(for example) Muslims and Hindus in respective countries all "choose"
their religion - which I don't think is true!
> --
> Michael
>
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gaskells
Vexen
news:na.31aa504c51....@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <ppj5rvk89takqjf02...@4ax.com>, Tim Rowe
> <tim@remove_if_not_spam.digitig.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I am old enough to remember when the evangelical churches
frequently
> > complained that "liberal" churches were growing because they had
> > watered down the gospel to make it more popular, whilst they were
> > shrinking because they refused to compromise. The straight fact is
> > that these things tend to go in cycles. Of course, since both tend
to
> > consider that they are being faithful to scripture, that's not
> > entirely relevant...
>
> I think it is a bit more than a simple cycle.
>
> You had highly fundamentalist and legalistic churches.
> Liberal churches attracted more members.
> Liberal churches then went too far and became wishy washy.
> The fundamentalist ones became less legalistic.
> The fundamentalist churches attract more members.
>
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down
I was at first inclined to immediately disagree... but... I actually
think that that model has a lot of merit. Have you came across this as
a conclusion by any sociologists of religion, etc, or is it "new"? I
might want to quote you on it!
The 60s model was:
All modern religions will become increasingly liberal, and then die
out.
But this proved to be wrong. The main model I stick to is:
* Multicultaralism leads to increasingly fundamentalism
* Fundamentalist institutions become more liberal over time
* Extensive liberalisation leads (eventually) to apathetic,
individualist members leaving organized religion altogether, leading
to disappearance of liberal organisations
We disagree, it appears, in the "source" of fundamentalist, legalistic
churches, where do you think they "come" from, or do you think they're
"original" religion?
--
How can you look after others if you can't look after yourself?
Vexen Crabtree
http://www.vexen.co.uk
Michael Gaskell
> uk.religion.christian is the best usenet forum for actual religious
> discussion (as opposed to violent, angry, pointless discussion!),
At times
> don't you think?
You sound like my wife, I do think now and again. But mostly not truly
independent thoughts, they are usually based upon past experiences.
> > > And it would have saved me some bother if you just told me, ya
> know.
> > > What's with the obstacles?
> >
> > But then you wouldn't of read my testimony, would you?
>
> I read parts of it, sounds like you've had an entire life infused with
> Christianity,
Not really, I wasn't unware of religious christianity. But I certainly had
no real interest or desire to become more familiar with it or any other
religion.
>it reminded me that there are even still portions of the
> UK like that, where Christianity doesn't have to be specifically
> taught in class, because it's part of family.
I was raised in the UK or uck!
> Assertion (1): I'd hate
> to have been brought up like that, it seems to me that it takes away
> genuine impartial decision-making!
That IMO that is an idealistic statement, we are all fashioned by our
environment. If we are encouraged to seek God for ourselves, then that is
also preventing genuine impariallity. As to assert the need to seek God it
is imposing on an individual, the belief that there is a God to find. (Which
of course there is)
> You could agree with (1), but say that in your case it's a genuine
> decision, which is fine, but do you personally support
> inbuilt-cultural religion or do you think people should not be brought
> up with specific religious views?
I don't support any religion as in the context that you seem to use the
word. I practice and endorse submission to God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.
> Or, you could disagree with (1), in which case you'd be saying that
> (for example) Muslims and Hindus in respective countries all "choose"
> their religion - which I don't think is true!
I think very few people make a choice to join a religion or live in
submission to God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. To say they are because of the family
they were born into, is to say that because I was born in England, I chose
to be English, which is ridiculous. As I have chosen to be a Kiwi that is
living in Australia.
People are not born saved, they need to make the choice themselves by being
"Born Again".
--
Michael
Ken Down
wrote:
> I was at first inclined to immediately disagree... but... I actually
> think that that model has a lot of merit. Have you came across this as
> a conclusion by any sociologists of religion, etc, or is it "new"? I
> might want to quote you on it!
All me own work, guv.
> * Multicultaralism leads to increasingly fundamentalism
> * Fundamentalist institutions become more liberal over time
> * Extensive liberalisation leads (eventually) to apathetic,
> individualist members leaving organized religion altogether, leading
> to disappearance of liberal organisations
I disagree with you over the first but do agree on the other two.
> We disagree, it appears, in the "source" of fundamentalist, legalistic
> churches, where do you think they "come" from, or do you think they're
> "original" religion?
No, I don't think they are original: the original teachers such as Buddha
and Jesus and Mohammed were actually quite reasonable people (sometimes, as
with Mohammed, forced into extremism by persecution). There is a type of
personality that needs to see things in black and white - or, perhaps, is
incapable of seeing things other than in black and white. Such people,
because of the force of their convictions, rise to leadership and attract
people who are less certain but who desire certainty.
You have to admit that it is much easier to say "Abortion is evil" than to
say "Weeell, under certain circumstances abortion may be the lesser of two
evils, taking the rights of the child into consideration alongside those of
the mother's health and sanity, which has to be measured in conjunction with
. . ."
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
David Ould
> I have for the past 10yrs attended one of those flagship "conservative
> evangelical" CoE churches that has contributed to the present state of
> the Church. If I may I will quote from the Rector's recent writtings.
> The first followed the attempted appointment of Canon John by Oxford.
> The second is the "Leader" in the most recent church magazine.
>
> 1.The straight fact is that churches faithful to Scripture teaching
> tend to grow, while those that neglect the Gospel almost inevitable
> shrink. Naturally this is reflected in the giving within these
> churches.
>
> know for sure is that since the early summer, despite maintained
> congregations, the giving has atually dropped by an average of £2,000
> per Sunday.
>
> The questions and assertions that might be made are multitude.
> However I leave it to the group to respond.
>
I'd like to know what you mean by "contributed to the present state of the
Church".
It would also be helpful for us to have some online references to this
stuff. If it's the church that I think it is then that should't be too
difficult.
And if you don't like the place why have you been there for 10 years?
--
David Ould
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~oulds/
Alasdair Baxter
Jenkins) wrote:
>BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme reported this morning that Bradford
>Cathedral was "bankrupt", well would be considered so if it were a
>business. Mounting a recent exhibition has left them some £4 million
>adrift as it did not attract the visitor numbers hoped for. The organisers
>are said to be owed over £100,000; they might receive £15,000 instead.
This raises a most interesting legal question. What is the legal
status of a Cathedral? Who is ultimately liable for its debts.
Is it a body corporate and, if so, under what statutory or other legal
authority is it incorporated? I imagine many of the ancient
cathedrals would have been established and incorporated by Papal Bull.
Section 9(1) of the Cathedrals Measure 1999 provides that
"The constitution of each cathedral shall-
(a) provide that the members for the time being of the Council, the
Chapter and the College of Canons shall be a body corporate with
perpetual succession and a common seal (to be known as the common seal
of the cathedral)"
However, the measure is silent on what happens if the body corporate
is unable to pay its debts.
Anyone got any ideas of the legal position?
--
Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263
"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"
David Chapman
> David Chapman wrote:
> > I have for the past 10yrs attended one of those flagship "conservative
> > evangelical" CoE churches that has contributed to the present state of
> > the Church. If I may I will quote from the Rector's recent writtings.
> > The first followed the attempted appointment of Canon John by Oxford.
> > The second is the "Leader" in the most recent church magazine.
> >
> > 1.The straight fact is that churches faithful to Scripture teaching
> > tend to grow, while those that neglect the Gospel almost inevitable
> > shrink. Naturally this is reflected in the giving within these
> > churches.
> >
> > 2. There's no panic about money. Not ever!........However, what I do
> > know for sure is that since the early summer, despite maintained
> > congregations, the giving has atually dropped by an average of £2,000
> > per Sunday.
> >
> > The questions and assertions that might be made are multitude.
> > However I leave it to the group to respond.
> >
>
> I'd like to know what you mean by "contributed to the present state of the
> Church".
It was not my intention to be judgemental consequently the statement
was deliberately ambiguous
> It would also be helpful for us to have some online references to this
> stuff. If it's the church that I think it is then that should't be too
> difficult.
It was not my intention in any way to call attention to any particular
church or to cause it embarresment, needless to say you could have
posted reference *our* church magazine if you wished to.
> And if you don't like the place why have you been there for 10 years?
Who said I was unhappy? If I raise questions and desire the opinion
of uk.rc it is for enlightenment not for an exit visa.
David C
David Ould
> "David Ould" <ou...@NOSPAMsingnet.com.sg> wrote in message
> news:<bp9fkh$orl$2...@reader01.singnet.com.sg>...
>> David Chapman wrote:
>>> I have for the past 10yrs attended one of those flagship
>>> "conservative evangelical" CoE churches that has contributed to the
>>> present state of the Church. If I may I will quote from the
>>> Rector's recent writtings. The first followed the attempted
>>> appointment of Canon John by Oxford. The second is the "Leader" in
>>> the most recent church magazine.
>>>
>>> 1.The straight fact is that churches faithful to Scripture teaching
>>> tend to grow, while those that neglect the Gospel almost inevitable
>>> shrink. Naturally this is reflected in the giving within these
>>> churches.
>>>
>>> 2. There's no panic about money. Not ever!........However, what I
>>> do know for sure is that since the early summer, despite maintained
>>> congregations, the giving has atually dropped by an average of
>>> £2,000 per Sunday.
>>>
>>> The questions and assertions that might be made are multitude.
>>> However I leave it to the group to respond.
>>>
>>
>> I'd like to know what you mean by "contributed to the present state
>> of the Church".
>
> It was not my intention to be judgemental consequently the statement
> was deliberately ambiguous
>
but you must have a view on both what the current state is and what the
contribution of the specific church is. Else why write what you wrote?
>> It would also be helpful for us to have some online references to
>> this stuff. If it's the church that I think it is then that should't
>> be too difficult.
>
> It was not my intention in any way to call attention to any particular
> church or to cause it embarresment, needless to say you could have
> posted reference *our* church magazine if you wished to.
>
So then I don't believe that it was actually said. Of course, you could
provide references.
>> And if you don't like the place why have you been there for 10 years?
>
> Who said I was unhappy? If I raise questions and desire the opinion
> of uk.rc it is for enlightenment not for an exit visa.
>
It sounds as if you're making a veiled slur on conservatives. In the present
climate dressing it up as "not wanting to cause embarassment" doesn't really
help, does it?
David Chapman
Whilst in a sense you are right. If you had closely read my
submission you will have noted I refered to "recent writtings".
Your incorrect assuption that I "did not like the place" is somewhat
compounded by what I take to be your assuption that my writtings were
more creative than reportage.
The quotes are both from The Rev (Prebendary) Richard Bewes, of All
Souls Church Langham Place. I am not able to give direct online
references. However I am sure that contact via WWW.allsouls.org will
be productive.
The first document is entitled "From Richard Bewes, on the latest
developments re anglican homosexual appointments, 8.7.03".
Its 3rd paragraph states
"However, for those of us who care to express our views, a number of
salient points need to be made:"
The 4th point has as its opening paragraph
"Much is made in the press at present about "wealthy" parishes in
Oxford having "threatened" to withdaw their financial contributions
from the diocese. This was dwelt upon by Colin Slee of Southwark
Cathedral, (unopposed and unchallenged) on the 7.7.03 BBC Breakfast
programme. The straight fact is that churches faithful to Scripture
teaching tend to grow, while those that neglect the Gospel almost
inevitably shrink. [this sentence underlined in the original]
Naturally this is reflected in the giving within these churches."
My other quote comes from the All Souls Third Millenium magazine dated
October 2003 and is to be found in "The Leader" column, written by Rev
Richard Bewes.
In addition to my original quote this "Leader" also contains, as its
3rd paragraph:
"The good news is that when it comes to the funding of this mission,
the money is there; it's been provided. The challenging bit is when
the money is sitting in the pockets, the handbags, the bank accounts
of God's servants in the church. But it's there all right"
David, whilst I hope this is of some help to you, I would like to
return to my primary aim. Namely to ask uk.rc to respond to my
posting and reflect upon a church that within 3 months of making the
first statement needs to make the 2nd, because its congregation is not
giving.
David C
Gareth McCaughan
> David, whilst I hope this is of some help to you, I would like to
> return to my primary aim. Namely to ask uk.rc to respond to my
> posting and reflect upon a church that within 3 months of making the
> first statement needs to make the 2nd, because its congregation is not
> giving.
(The first statement was: "Churches faithful to the gospel
will tend to prosper"; the second was "Our congregation is
giving less". Those are both paraphrastic summaries.)
I think that the most you could possibly conclude is
that the first statement was a mistake. But even that
conclusion would be on shaky ground; we are, after all,
in something of a recession, and perhaps other churches
are seeing even worse decreases in giving. And there's
some room for manoeuvre offered by the words "tend to";
presumably there's some more or less random fluctuation.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the first
statement *is* a mistake. Some appalling cults are
financially very successful. Some excellent churches
disappear for lack of money.
David Ould
>>>> It would also be helpful for us to have some online references to
>>>> this stuff. If it's the church that I think it is then that
>>>> should't be too difficult.
>>>
>>> It was not my intention in any way to call attention to any
>>> particular church or to cause it embarresment, needless to say you
>>> could have posted reference *our* church magazine if you wished to.
>>>
>>
>> So then I don't believe that it was actually said. Of course, you
>> could provide references.
>>
> OUCH!!
> Whilst in a sense you are right. If you had closely read my
> submission you will have noted I refered to "recent writtings".
>
> Your incorrect assuption that I "did not like the place" is somewhat
> compounded by what I take to be your assuption that my writtings were
> more creative than reportage.
>
> The quotes are both from The Rev (Prebendary) Richard Bewes, of All
> Souls Church Langham Place. I am not able to give direct online
> references. However I am sure that contact via WWW.allsouls.org will
> be productive.
i thought as much. You will, of course, be aware that that was my home
church for 8 years.
>
> The first document is entitled "From Richard Bewes, on the latest
> developments re anglican homosexual appointments, 8.7.03".
>
> Its 3rd paragraph states
>
> "However, for those of us who care to express our views, a number of
> salient points need to be made:"
>
> The 4th point has as its opening paragraph
>
> "Much is made in the press at present about "wealthy" parishes in
> Oxford having "threatened" to withdaw their financial contributions
> from the diocese. This was dwelt upon by Colin Slee of Southwark
> Cathedral, (unopposed and unchallenged) on the 7.7.03 BBC Breakfast
> programme. The straight fact is that churches faithful to Scripture
> teaching tend to grow, while those that neglect the Gospel almost
> inevitably shrink. [this sentence underlined in the original]
> Naturally this is reflected in the giving within these churches."
>
> My other quote comes from the All Souls Third Millenium magazine dated
> October 2003 and is to be found in "The Leader" column, written by Rev
> Richard Bewes.
>
this is available online but the October 2003 Leader is the following
http://www.allsouls.org/cgi-local/allsouls-ify.pl?source=/news/Oct2003/leader.html
all about prayer and the prayer gathering.
> In addition to my original quote this "Leader" also contains, as its
> 3rd paragraph:
>
> "The good news is that when it comes to the funding of this mission,
> the money is there; it's been provided. The challenging bit is when
> the money is sitting in the pockets, the handbags, the bank accounts
> of God's servants in the church. But it's there all right"
>
>
> David, whilst I hope this is of some help to you, I would like to
> return to my primary aim. Namely to ask uk.rc to respond to my
> posting and reflect upon a church that within 3 months of making the
> first statement needs to make the 2nd, because its congregation is not
> giving.
>
Do you know that they're not giving? I sat on the church council for over 2
years and I can tell you that giving was never a problem. Could it be that
RIchard was asking for money for a specific project?
Besides, the two are not in conflict. One can confidently state that
evangelicals give more (fact) and also ask those same evangelicals for
money.
In my recent trip to India I managed to raise over S$4,000 to go towards
costs and as a gift for the work there. I simply asked some of thepeople
that I had ministered to and they gave generously. I remain confident that
God moves people to give when they're truly moved by the gospel of grace and
that one also has to ask them. Those two things don't contradict.
David Chapman
> David Chapman wrote:
>
>
> >>>> It would also be helpful for us to have some online references to
> >>>> this stuff. If it's the church that I think it is then that
> >>>> should't be too difficult.
> >>>
> >>> It was not my intention in any way to call attention to any
> >>> particular church or to cause it embarresment, needless to say you
> >>> could have posted reference *our* church magazine if you wished to.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So then I don't believe that it was actually said. Of course, you
> >> could provide references.
> >>
> > OUCH!!
> > Whilst in a sense you are right. If you had closely read my
> > submission you will have noted I refered to "recent writtings".
> >
> > Your incorrect assuption that I "did not like the place" is somewhat
> > compounded by what I take to be your assuption that my writtings were
> > more creative than reportage.
> >
> > The quotes are both from The Rev (Prebendary) Richard Bewes, of All
> > Souls Church Langham Place. I am not able to give direct online
> > references. However I am sure that contact via WWW.allsouls.org will
> > be productive.
>
> i thought as much. You will, of course, be aware that that was my home
> church for 8 years.
>
Yes, which is why I made the comment about *our* church magazine.
No. The Leader was written because the weekly giving has slumped.
The question remains, Why? and What does it signify.
David Ould
>>>
>>
>> Do you know that they're not giving? I sat on the church council for
>> over 2 years and I can tell you that giving was never a problem.
>> Could it be that RIchard was asking for money for a specific project?
>
> No. The Leader was written because the weekly giving has slumped.
> The question remains, Why? and What does it signify.
>
then perhaps, since it's not available online, you'll give us the whole
text. I've not received mine in the mail.
Peter Bowman
news:741168b4.0311...@posting.google.com...
> No. The Leader was written because the weekly giving has slumped.
> The question remains, Why? and What does it signify.
£2000 a week is hardly a "slump" at a church of that size. Given that
the annual "turnover" is over £1 million (i.e. around £20,000 per week),
that figure represents a 10% decrease.
At Richard also pointed out (and you failed to mention for some reason),
many people move from London over the summer and are replaced by people
who are new to London. In fact, the turnover of people at the church you
mention is around 50% per year. It's quite expected that some of those
who have just joined the church (e.g. students graduating and starting
work in London) have not quite sorted out their giving. The Rector
mentioned that he'd reviewed his own giving - I presume you and I did
too. We all need a prod every so often. As members of the church, such a
financial issue is not *their* problem, it is *our* problem. You say
"its congregation is not giving". Well, that's you! Be a member, not an
"attendee".
Immediately after the deficit was mentioned, giving went up and is now
higher than before. There is now no "slump" to speak of. Our God is
gracious.
"You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every
occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to
God." 2 Cor 9:11
In Christ,
Pete.