The Fading of Forgiveness

[Mike Davis]

I've just glanced at an article by an eminent American theologian/pastor
with the above title.

https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/the-fading-of-forgiveness/

My first impression is to blow my mind!

The 'cancel culture' emphasises my own 'self-worth' at the expense of
others and does away with forgiveness. (And thus with fundamental
Christian values.)

I'll be back within 24 hours to discuss...

Mike
--
Mike Davis

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Jason]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 13:49:11 +0100, Mike Davis wrote:

> I've just glanced at an article by an eminent American theologian/pastor
> with the above title.
>
> https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/the-fading-of-forgiveness/
>
> My first impression is to blow my mind!
>
> The 'cancel culture' emphasises my own 'self-worth' at the expense of
> others and does away with forgiveness. (And thus with fundamental
> Christian values.)
>
> I'll be back within 24 hours to discuss...

It's an interesting article with much to think about but I completely
agree with the general gist of it.

I think some of the comments from people referenced in the article
indicate a completely wrong idea of forgiveness, for example "insisting
that someone forgives". I don't believe you can "insist" that someone
else forgives, it has to come instead from the individual. The rest of
their quote that stems from this misunderstanding is therefore wrong and
misleading. All you can do I think is emphasise the value of
forgiveness, especially towards the one that is doing the forgiving.

I intensely dislike the "cancel culture"; trial-by-twitter; the way
"innocent until proven guilty" gives way to "there's no smoke without
fire". And the total lack of the possibility of forgiveness and
redemption that goes along with it. For me, this way of thinking is far
more damaging to our shared Christian values and ethos than any of the
"single issue hot topics" that dominate Christianity as represented in
the news headlines.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/08/2021 17:36, Jason wrote:

> I think some of the comments from people referenced in the article
> indicate a completely wrong idea of forgiveness, for example "insisting
> that someone forgives".

Quite so.

Mind you, as a Christian, I would always urge people to forgive - for
their own mental and spiritual health. Allied with that, however, is
that forgiveness does not exclude seeking for justice.

For example, a woman who has been raped should forgive her rapist - but
she should also go straight to the police and give them every assistance
in identifying and punishing the rapist. Otherwise she would be guilty
when he goes on to rape some other woman.

> I intensely dislike the "cancel culture"; trial-by-twitter; the way
> "innocent until proven guilty" gives way to "there's no smoke without
> fire". And the total lack of the possibility of forgiveness and
> redemption that goes along with it. For me, this way of thinking is far
> more damaging to our shared Christian values and ethos than any of the
> "single issue hot topics" that dominate Christianity as represented in
> the news headlines.

I agree.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Mike Davis]

On 21/08/2021 13:49, Mike Davis wrote:
>
> I've just glanced at an article by an eminent American theologian/pastor
> with the above title.
>
> https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/the-fading-of-forgiveness/
>
> My first impression is to blow my mind!
>
> The 'cancel culture' emphasises my own 'self-worth' at the expense of
> others and does away with forgiveness. (And thus with fundamental
> Christian values.)
>
> I'll be back within 24 hours to discuss...

Sorry that it took longer than 24 hours!

If you've read Tim Keller's article (and I recommend that you do),
you'll have seen the points I'll (try to) summarise below.

His point is that in our culture 'we' are offended by forgiveness, it's
seen to be siding with the aggressor against the victim, regardless of
whether the aggressor (wrongdoer) repents or not. We are (seen as)
'letting them off'.

One nice story from 2006 is of a gunman who took hostages at an Amish
school in Pennsylvania, and shot 10 children - of whom 5 died, and then
committed suicide. The Amish community visited the killer's family and
parents expressing sympathy for their loss. Because of their Christian
faith the Amish saw in Jesus and emulated His forgiveness as their
greatest gift and virtue.

Forgiveness is a form of "self-renunciation" where we give up our
'right' for revenge.

The second point 'Religion without Grace'; is the rise of a 'shame &
honour culture' that has been called a new secular religion.
In this culture, companies & institutions are tasked with a 'moral
obligation' to defend victims, especially those who have been oppressed
by the powerful.

So now the best way for any body exercising power can distract people
from their own abuse of wealth or power by finding 'victims' to support
to divert attention. Forgiveness is seen as radically unjust as it
short-circuits the ability of victims to 'gain their rights'!

Western culture has moved from God-based (ie Christian) moral norms to
ground our values, but now treat the values themselves as 'sacred'. This
leads to 3 (bad) outcomes:-

1. Values are arbitrary: "It's wrong to speak like this!" "Who says it's
wrong?"! 'Because WE say so!'

2. Inconsistent approach. "My values are beyond debate - yours are
socially constructed!"

3. No provision for mercy & forgiveness. When we have 'secular
religion', deviation from norms are simply unforgivable!


He goes on to argue that there is "No Future without Forgiveness"
Quoting Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Martin Luther King, and Hannah Arendt
(Jewish philosopher wring after the Holocaust). Tim Keller's overview
summarised the teaching/resources from these as:

a) Forgiveness in Christianity is a set of practises
including Prayer, & Community and NOT primarily an emotion.
It's granted *before* it is experienced.

b) Forgiveness is always a form of voluntary suffering that brings about
a greater good. (eg Rom 12:17-21) so it is always costly to the forgiver
but the results outweigh the costs.

c) Forgiveness practices have an upward inward and outward aspect - each
is crucial.
i) Upward - experiencing Divine forgiveness. (God will square our
accounts!) eg Lord's prayer.

ii) Inward: granting inward forgiveness
To forgive is to grant the perpetuator a gift they do not deserve! It's
not fair - it's better than fair - it's mercy!

iii) Outward: Forging a reconciled relationship.
It's no good saying "If she repents, I go and see her!" - that's
transactional; we *have* to forgive to get shot of the offence. Whether
the other person accepts your forgiveness is irrelevent: we must
internally forgive then go on to externally forgive.

In all this we are (have to be?) aware of our own sinfulness and need of
God's mercy. In turn that beings us peace.

***

Tim Keller doesn't say so in as many words - but Forgiveness is putting
God's love for us into practice!

Next Sunday's Lectionary readings are
Deut 4:1-2, 6-9
James 1:17-27
Mark 7:1-8 14-15, 21-23

Somehow I think I'll be working 'forgiveness' into my sermon!

[steve hague]

Yes. Forgiveness is an essential part of Christianity, not a bolt- on
extra. It's a central part of Jesus' teaching. Preach it, Mike!
Steve Hague

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/08/2021 18:32, Mike Davis wrote:

> Forgiveness is a form of "self-renunciation" where we give up our
> 'right' for revenge.

That may well be so, but a) I am not convinced that God will let the
evil off the hook just because a righteous person has forgiven them. b)
Although we will not seek revenge, we must seek justice.

The example I give is of a woman who has been raped. I hope that she
will forgive her attacker. I expect and urge that she will cooperate
with the police in bringing the attacker to justice; if she does not,
the attacker will undoubtedly go on to attack other women and she - the
original woman - will be partly responsible for those other attacks,
which could have been prevented if she had helped catch the offender.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/08/2021 21:23, steve hague wrote:

> Yes. Forgiveness is an essential part of Christianity, not a bolt- on
> extra. It's a central part of Jesus' teaching. Preach it, Mike!

I very much like G.B.S.'s take on turning the other cheek in Androcles
and the Lion.

Simpering dandy: These Christians always turn the other cheek if you hit
them. Watch. (Smacks hulking gladiator across the chops. Gladiator duly
turns the other cheek and takes a second smack.)

Gladiator: Now let me show you the supremacy of the Christian way. I am
going to hit you and you can turn the other cheek.

Terrified dandy: I repent! I repent! I want to be baptised!

[Mike Davis]

On 25/08/2021 16:14, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 23/08/2021 18:32, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Forgiveness is a form of "self-renunciation" where we give up our
>> 'right' for revenge.
>
> That may well be so, but a) I am not convinced that God will let the
> evil off the hook just because a righteous person has forgiven them. b)
> Although we will not seek revenge, we must seek justice.

Certainly. The whole point is that 'justice' is NOT 'revenge'; and
mustn't be seen as such.

> The example I give is of a woman who has been raped. I hope that she
> will forgive her attacker. I expect and urge that she will cooperate
> with the police in bringing the attacker to justice; if she does not,
> the attacker will undoubtedly go on to attack other women and she - the
> original woman - will be partly responsible for those other attacks,
> which could have been prevented if she had helped catch the offender.

Absolutely!

'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' was all very well - and
people often fail to remember that it was introduced (by God) as a
correction to 'seven-fold' revenge. But now in Jesus, as I said, while
we abandon our personal "right" to revenge, we forgive, but Justice is
still to be meted out by God.

[Jason]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 16:14:16 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 23/08/2021 18:32, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Forgiveness is a form of "self-renunciation" where we give up our
>> 'right' for revenge.
>
> That may well be so, but a) I am not convinced that God will let the
> evil off the hook just because a righteous person has forgiven them. b)
> Although we will not seek revenge, we must seek justice.

Do you think that God will let "evil off the hook" when *he* forgives
them? Or do you think there are strings attached....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/08/2021 12:22, Mike Davis wrote:

> Certainly. The whole point is that 'justice' is NOT 'revenge'; and
> mustn't be seen as such.

I agree.

> 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' was all very well - and
> people often fail to remember that it was introduced (by God) as a
> correction to 'seven-fold' revenge.  But now in Jesus, as I said, while
> we abandon our personal "right" to revenge, we forgive, but Justice is
> still to be meted out by God.

Two points:

1. The "eye for an eye" principle was established by God for two
reasons: a) equality before the law. No matter your social standing, if
you damage another's eye, your own eye is at risk. b) as a basis for
negotiation. The statement that there could be no financial compensation
for murder implies that there could be financial compensation for lesser
crimes. Knowing that unless a sensible offer was made, the offender
could lose his own eye guaranteed that adequate compensation was offered.

2. Actually, God offers more than just justice. "Vengeance is mine,
saith the Lord, I will repay". The finally obdurate wicked will suffer
more than strict justice might require; there will be an element of
vengeance.

Plutocrat N might do down widow A in some way, for which strict justice
might require penalty X. However he escapes justice and for many years
enjoys widow A's patrimony while she suffers poverty and want. In the
Day of Judgement N not only gets penalty X for the original crime but
also X^2 for the years of want his actions imposed on A. That is vengeance.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/08/2021 14:11, Jason wrote:

> Do you think that God will let "evil off the hook" when *he* forgives
> them? Or do you think there are strings attached....

God will only forgive the evil if they repent and turn away from their
evil ways. Those are the strings ...

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <sg8q0q$erb$2...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 20:28:26 +0100:

> On 26/08/2021 14:11, Jason wrote:
>
>> Do you think that God will let "evil off the hook" when *he* forgives
>> them? Or do you think there are strings attached....
>
> God will only forgive the evil if they repent and turn away from their
> evil ways. Those are the strings ...

I don't think there is any forgiveness for Evil. God will separate the
Evil and contain it in the lake of fire.

Outside the lake of fire is the goal of creation. So deliverance would
involve having the evil separated out from oneself at that time.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/08/2021 03:42, Madhu wrote:

>> God will only forgive the evil if they repent and turn away from their
>> evil ways. Those are the strings ...

> I don't think there is any forgiveness for Evil. God will separate the
> Evil and contain it in the lake of fire.

There is a slight but significant difference between your statement and
mine. Mine concerns "evil" (or, to be precise, "the evil ones"); yours
concerns "Evil" (or, again to be precise, "Evilness"). Once that
difference is recognised, both our statements are correct.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/08/2021 13:49, Mike Davis wrote:

> The 'cancel culture' emphasises my own 'self-worth' at the expense of
> others and does away with forgiveness. (And thus with fundamental
> Christian values.)

This short video contains an interesting observation regarding
forgiveness. Worth wathcing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy2kR1zFwjQ

[Jason]

Aside from the unforgivable sin, surely the Christian message is that God
will forgive any and all sin. When you say "Evil" (evil ones, evilness
etc) are you separating this from sin?

>>> God will only forgive the evil if they repent and turn away from their
>>> evil ways. Those are the strings ...

This is a very interesting comment, and thinking about it now there is
far more to it than meets the eye. Certainly there is a Biblical link
between repentance and forgiveness.

However, do you think that should someone "sin against us" in some we, we
should also demand repentance before offering forgiveness? Forgiveness
is often framed as something we should practice unconditionally. Do you
think this is right? If so, does it not imply that we need to be more
forgiving than God? That can't be right.....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/08/2021 12:19, Jason wrote:

> Aside from the unforgivable sin, surely the Christian message is that God
> will forgive any and all sin. When you say "Evil" (evil ones, evilness
> etc) are you separating this from sin?

If you carefully read Madhu's comment and mine, I hope you will
understand why both are true, despite the apparent contradiction between
them.

> However, do you think that should someone "sin against us" in some way, we

> should also demand repentance before offering forgiveness? Forgiveness
> is often framed as something we should practice unconditionally. Do you
> think this is right? If so, does it not imply that we need to be more
> forgiving than God? That can't be right.....

There is a difference between our forgiveness and God's. We forgive so
that we can be forgiven by God, for a start; God needs no forgiveness
from anyone. Our forgiveness does not guarantee entry into heaven, God's
does.

Primarily, however, we forgive for our own psychological and spiritual
health - the alternative is to hold a grudge and breed bitterness. God,
however, as judge of all the earth, can take a more dispassionate view
and forgive (or not) according to whether the sinner deserves it (ie.
has repented).

[Mike Davis]

Thanks - yes, most moving & honest. Interesting that it's "non-religious".

Following on this theme I've been looking to see where 'forgiveness'
plays a significant part in the OT, as it's not in the C10.

Gen 50:7 (Joseph forgiving his brothers)
30 The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great
sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for
your sin.”

Ex 32: 31 So Moses went back to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great sin
these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. 32
But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the
book you have written.”

This is the most significant, I think, because before this moment, Moses
"spoke with God face to face", after this he didn't. (Ex 33:20)
ie. Moses took the sins of the people upon himself for their sake.

Do any other passages relating to forgiveness jump out at you?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/08/2021 18:52, Mike Davis wrote:

> This is the most significant, I think, because before this moment, Moses
> "spoke with God face to face", after this he didn't. (Ex 33:20)
> ie. Moses took the sins of the people upon himself for their sake.

An interesting comment, though I am not sure it is totally correct.
Chapter 34 seems to indicate that Moses continued to speak with God (and
to have to veil his face) on a continuing basis after this. Numbers 12
also seems to imply face-to-face communication.

> Do any other passages relating to forgiveness jump out at you?

Most of the Old Testament concerns the doings of kings - and kings are
concerned with justice, not forgiveness (a point that our present rulers
need to remember). However there are plenty of statements by God about
His willingness to forgive the Jews if only they will repent and turn
back to Him.

Of course the forgiveness story par excellance is in the first three
chapters of Hosea.

[Mike Davis]

On 28/08/2021 20:40, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 28/08/2021 18:52, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> This is the most significant, I think, because before this moment,
>> Moses "spoke with God face to face", after this he didn't. (Ex 33:20)
>> ie. Moses took the sins of the people upon himself for their sake.
>
> An interesting comment, though I am not sure it is totally correct.
> Chapter 34 seems to indicate that Moses continued to speak with God (and
> to have to veil his face) on a continuing basis after this. Numbers 12
> also seems to imply face-to-face communication.
>
>> Do any other passages relating to forgiveness jump out at you?
>
> Most of the Old Testament concerns the doings of kings - and kings are
> concerned with justice, not forgiveness (a point that our present rulers
> need to remember). However there are plenty of statements by God about
> His willingness to forgive the Jews if only they will repent and turn
> back to Him.

Agreed!

>
> Of course the forgiveness story par excellance is in the first three
> chapters of Hosea.

Yes, I'd forgotten that!

[Madhu]

* Mike Davis <iovbeo...@mid.individual.net> :
Wrote on Sat, 28 Aug 2021 18:52:23 +0100:

> Following on this theme I've been looking to see where 'forgiveness'
> plays a significant part in the OT, as it's not in the C10.

[C10? I skipped the youtub]

>
> Gen 50:7 (Joseph forgiving his brothers)

50:16 And they sent a messenger unto Joseph, saying, Thy father did command before he died, saying,
50:17 So shall ye say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray thee now, the trespass of thy brethren, and their sin; for they did unto thee evil: and now, we pray thee, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of thy father. And Joseph wept when they spake unto him.
50:18 And his brethren also went and fell down before his face; and they said, Behold, we be thy servants.
50:19 And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God?
50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
50:21 Now therefore fear ye not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spake kindly unto them.

Yes, I think this is quite the model of forgiveness among brothers,
showing the relation between themselves, their father, and God.

But in most cases the forgiveness is insisted on without repentance of
the offending party and with no improvement in the circumstances and
only punishment to the offended party. Forgiveness in this case would
justify the sin of the offending party, and reflect badly on God.

> 30 The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great
> sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement
> for your sin.”
>
> Ex 32: 31 So Moses went back to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great
> sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of
> gold. 32 But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me
> out of the book you have written.”
>
> This is the most significant, I think, because before this moment,
> Moses "spoke with God face to face", after this he didn't. (Ex 33:20)
> ie. Moses took the sins of the people upon himself for their sake.

I don't think this is correct in that God continued to interact with
Moses "face to face" (Ex. 33:11, etc.) - the golden calf was early on.
Earlier Moses had hidden his face from God at the burning bush (Ex. 3:6)
[there is an explanation I've seen for Ex.33:20, where Moses was only
shown the hind-parts but I've forgotten it at the moment ]


The text is very nuanced, and I don't think this is to be glossed over
with the Documentary Hypothesis. Up at Sinai-top God already tells
Moses of the golden calf before Moses goes down to see it for himself.
(Ex. 32:7-10) - Moses already does the pleading for Israel at this point
and God decides he won't destroy the people (Ex. 32:14).

After this Moses comes down and actually deals with the people. But the
offendors are don't go unpunished.

The special status of the levites was a reward for slaughtering their
offending brothers. (Ex. 32:27)

God ultimately does not accept the substitionary atonement of Moses (he
knows they are unrepentant) but will reserve his punishment until the
day of visitation:

(Ex. 32:33-34) And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned
against me, him will I blot out of my book. Therefore now go, lead the
people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine
Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will
visit their sin upon them.


Joseph was shown as doing goodness to his brothers, by settling them in
Goshen, but that settlement turned out to be bondage, and the greatest
redeeming act of God is the deliverance of the Isralites from the
bondage in Egypt. Perhaps The bondage could be seen to be the result of
the sin against Joseph.

> Do any other passages relating to forgiveness jump out at you?

Zacchaeus of Jericho (Luke 19:2-9) was a sinner (Amos 8:4-6) - but when
he was forgiven repentance came naturally and he made restitution.

I see this as the other side of the
repentence before forgiveness == horse and carriage
equation

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/08/2021 03:45, Madhu wrote:

> [C10? I skipped the youtub]

I think Mike was referring to the Ten Commandments.

> Yes, I think this is quite the model of forgiveness among brothers,
> showing the relation between themselves, their father, and God.
> But in most cases the forgiveness is insisted on without repentance of
> the offending party and with no improvement in the circumstances and
> only punishment to the offended party.

Joseph did put his brothers to the test to a considerable extent, just
to see whether they had learned any lessons from what they had done to him.

> God ultimately does not accept the substitionary atonement of Moses (he
> knows they are unrepentant) but will reserve his punishment until the
> day of visitation:

Yes, I don't think that Mike is correct that Moses bore the sins of the
people. He may have been willing to do so, but as God said through
Ezekiel, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die". Unlike in football,
there are no substitutes (apart from Jesus Himself).

> Joseph was shown as doing goodness to his brothers, by settling them in
> Goshen, but that settlement turned out to be bondage, and the greatest
> redeeming act of God is the deliverance of the Isralites from the
> bondage in Egypt. Perhaps The bondage could be seen to be the result of
> the sin against Joseph.

If I am correct in placing the Exodus in the 13th Dynasty, that would
put Joseph in the 12th Dynasty - the change of dynasty would be "the
pharaoh who knew not Joseph". By the 13th Dynasty the power of Egypt was
waning and it is not impossible that the Hykosos were already perceived
as a threat, hence the worry lest the Jews side with any invaders,
advanced as justification for enslaving them.

The plagues, which weakened Egypt's economy, and the loss of an army in
the Red Sea, left Egypt wide open to attack and, as Manetho complains,
the Hyksos entered "without even a battle".

I'm not at all sure that the bondage was punishment for Joseph's
treatment. I think it had two purposes: the first was to make the Jews
willing, if not eager, to leave Egypt (contrast that with the
unwillingness of Jews to leave Babylon). The second was to give them a
hearty detestation for Egyptian culture and religion, for although we
repeatedly read of them following Baal, we never read of them following
Ra or Amon. (The golden calf may or may not have been related to the
Egyptian Hathor, but in any case it was definitely a one-off.)

[Jason]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 19:18:54 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 27/08/2021 12:19, Jason wrote:
>
>> Aside from the unforgivable sin, surely the Christian message is that
>> God will forgive any and all sin. When you say "Evil" (evil ones,
>> evilness etc) are you separating this from sin?
>
> If you carefully read Madhu's comment and mine, I hope you will
> understand why both are true, despite the apparent contradiction between
> them.

You like to split hairs?? :-)

>> However, do you think that should someone "sin against us" in some way,
>> we should also demand repentance before offering forgiveness?
>> Forgiveness is often framed as something we should practice
>> unconditionally. Do you think this is right? If so, does it not imply
>> that we need to be more forgiving than God? That can't be right.....
>
> There is a difference between our forgiveness and God's. We forgive so
> that we can be forgiven by God, for a start; God needs no forgiveness
> from anyone. Our forgiveness does not guarantee entry into heaven, God's
> does.
>
> Primarily, however, we forgive for our own psychological and spiritual
> health - the alternative is to hold a grudge and breed bitterness. God,
> however, as judge of all the earth, can take a more dispassionate view
> and forgive (or not) according to whether the sinner deserves it (ie.
> has repented).

So basically, (are you suggesting?) we as humans are called to forgive
unconditionally, whereas God forgives with strings attached. We need to
be "more" forgiving than God, who requires the other party to make the
first move. Something simply doesn't sit right with me there.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/08/2021 15:34, Jason wrote:

> So basically, (are you suggesting?) we as humans are called to forgive
> unconditionally, whereas God forgives with strings attached. We need to
> be "more" forgiving than God, who requires the other party to make the
> first move. Something simply doesn't sit right with me there.

As you clearly missed it the first time, I repeat what I said before:

"Primarily, however, we forgive for our own psychological and spiritual
health - the alternative is to hold a grudge and breed bitterness. God,
however, as judge of all the earth, can take a more dispassionate view
and forgive (or not) according to whether the sinner deserves it (ie.
has repented)."

[Mike Davis]

On 29/08/2021 03:45, Madhu wrote:

> * Mike Davis <iovbeo...@mid.individual.net> :
> Wrote on Sat, 28 Aug 2021 18:52:23 +0100:
>> Following on this theme I've been looking to see where 'forgiveness'
>> plays a significant part in the OT, as it's not in the C10.
>
> [C10? I skipped the youtub]

Sorry! - Ten Commandments!!

Thanks for your comprehensive response.

I'll snip Joseph - as we're agreed!

>
> But in most cases the forgiveness is insisted on without repentance of
> the offending party and with no improvement in the circumstances and
> only punishment to the offended party. Forgiveness in this case would
> justify the sin of the offending party, and reflect badly on God.
>
>
>> 30 The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great
>> sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement
>> for your sin.”
>>
>> Ex 32: 31 So Moses went back to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great
>> sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of
>> gold. 32 But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me
>> out of the book you have written.”
>>
>> This is the most significant, I think, because before this moment,
>> Moses "spoke with God face to face", after this he didn't. (Ex 33:20)
>> ie. Moses took the sins of the people upon himself for their sake.
>
> I don't think this is correct in that God continued to interact with
> Moses "face to face" (Ex. 33:11, etc.) - the golden calf was early on.
> Earlier Moses had hidden his face from God at the burning bush (Ex. 3:6)
> [there is an explanation I've seen for Ex.33:20, where Moses was only
> shown the hind-parts but I've forgotten it at the moment ]

Well, I'm using NIV here, but all translations seem to me to be consistent.

I'll emphasise key points:

Ex 33:11 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a
friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua
son of Nun did not leave the tent.


Ex 33:12 Moses said to the Lord, “You have been telling me, ‘Lead these
people,’ but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. You
have said, ‘I know you by name and you have found favour with me.’ 13 If
you are pleased with me, teach me your ways so I may know you and
continue to find favour with you. Remember that this nation is your people.”
14 The Lord replied, “My Presence will go with you, and I will give you
rest.”

** It's not Moses alone, but his people (ie. God's people) that Moses is
pleading for:-

15 Then Moses said to him, “If your Presence does not go with us, do not
send us up from here. 16 How will anyone know that you are pleased with
me and with your people unless you go with us? What else will
distinguish me and your people from all the other people on the face of
the earth?”

Moses is so identifying with his people (as God's people) that he argues
their case.

17 And the Lord said to Moses, “I will do the very thing you have asked,
because I am pleased with you and I know you by name.”

18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of
you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will
have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom
I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for
no one may see me and live.”

I cannot read it any other way; Moses, who saw God face to face, cannot
now see God face to face, because he has taken on the cause of His people:

21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on
a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the
rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will
remove my hand and you will see my back; ** but my face must not be seen**.”

> The text is very nuanced, and I don't think this is to be glossed over
> with the Documentary Hypothesis. Up at Sinai-top God already tells
> Moses of the golden calf before Moses goes down to see it for himself.
> (Ex. 32:7-10) - Moses already does the pleading for Israel at this point
> and God decides he won't destroy the people (Ex. 32:14).
>
> After this Moses comes down and actually deals with the people. But the
> offendors are don't go unpunished.
>
> The special status of the levites was a reward for slaughtering their
> offending brothers. (Ex. 32:27)
>
> God ultimately does not accept the substitionary atonement of Moses (he
> knows they are unrepentant) but will reserve his punishment until the
> day of visitation:
>
> (Ex. 32:33-34) And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned
> against me, him will I blot out of my book. Therefore now go, lead the
> people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine
> Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will
> visit their sin upon them.

Yes, but I'm arguing the shift in Exodus 33 (not 32) that when the
change happens.

> Joseph was shown as doing goodness to his brothers, by settling them in
> Goshen, but that settlement turned out to be bondage, and the greatest
> redeeming act of God is the deliverance of the Isralites from the
> bondage in Egypt. Perhaps The bondage could be seen to be the result of
> the sin against Joseph.
>
>
>> Do any other passages relating to forgiveness jump out at you?
>
> Zacchaeus of Jericho (Luke 19:2-9) was a sinner (Amos 8:4-6) - but when
> he was forgiven repentance came naturally and he made restitution.

Yes, although I was referring to the OT.

>
> I see this as the other side of the
> repentence before forgiveness == horse and carriage
> equation

Indeed!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/08/2021 18:21, Mike Davis wrote:

> I cannot read it any other way; Moses, who saw God face to face, cannot
> now see God face to face, because he has taken on the cause of His people:

Hmmmm. If Moses was in the habit of seeing God "face to face", why would
he ask to see God's glory? Either "face to face" doesn't actually mean
that Moses could see God, merely that he could hear God and communicate
with Him as if through a veil, or "show me Thy glory" means that he did
see God but in appearance as another man[1] or an angel or something and
now he wants to see the reality of God.

Thus when God says "No man shall see Me and live" He is referring to
seeing God's full glory, not the more ordinary appearance that Moses was
used to.

As the passage in Numbers to which I referred previously indicates, the
face to face conversations continued well after this incident, but
always in the veiled form.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

Note 1: Remember the story of Abraham pleading with the Lord for Sodom?
It would appear that God presented Himself in the form of an ordinary
man and so Abraham was able to speak with God "face to face" without
being consumed. I see no reason why Moses' conversations with God might
not have been of the same sort.

[Jason]

I didn't miss it the first time, which is why I asked for clarity that I
was understanding your response correctly. So it hasn't helped one jot
to simply copy and paste it again.

I'm not sure I agree that forgiveness is "primarily" for the one doing
the forgiving, though clearly there is a benefit. Certainly God's
forgiveness is 100% about the recipient: feeling and knowing that some
wrong they have done has been forgiven. I would imagine that it's at
least equally as important to the recipient as the one doing the
forgiving. Otherwise why bother telling them at all that they are
forgiven, you may as well keep it between you and God.

Again (my turn to repeat myself) there seems something odd about the
suggestion that that we are to be *more* freely forgiving that God,
though I admit I can't quite put my finger on it....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 31/08/2021 12:06, Jason wrote:

> I'm not sure I agree that forgiveness is "primarily" for the one doing
> the forgiving, though clearly there is a benefit.

No, so long as the offender is repentant, I would agree that forgiveness
benefits him as much as it does the one harmed. However where the
offender is not repentant, the one harmed should still forgive, for even
though the offender will not benefit, in this life or the next, from the
forgiveness, the one harmed will benefit.

> Again (my turn to repeat myself) there seems something odd about the
> suggestion that that we are to be *more* freely forgiving that God,
> though I admit I can't quite put my finger on it....

There is nothing odd at all, given God's role as judge. A judge's duty
is to uphold the law and punish evil-doers; it is not his role to forgive.

There was a case recently where some thug raped a young woman. He
appeared in court before some bleeding heart apology for a judge and
advanced the fact that his sister had been raped umpteen years
previously and he was so traumatised by the experience that he had gone
out and raped this entirely innocent girl.

The bleeding heart sympathised with him and let him off with a derisory
sentence, suspended!

That may have been forgiving on the part of the judge but it was not
justice, it did not protect the victim nor other women, it did not deter
others from raping in their turn.

[steve hague]

>
> I'm not sure I agree that forgiveness is "primarily" for the one doing
> the forgiving, though clearly there is a benefit. Certainly God's
> forgiveness is 100% about the recipient: feeling and knowing that some
> wrong they have done has been forgiven. I would imagine that it's at
> least equally as important to the recipient as the one doing the
> forgiving. Otherwise why bother telling them at all that they are
> forgiven, you may as well keep it between you and God.
>
> Again (my turn to repeat myself) there seems something odd about the
> suggestion that that we are to be *more* freely forgiving that God,
> though I admit I can't quite put my finger on it....
>
>

I believe that forgiveness is for the benefit of the forgiver. The
person being forgiven may be unaware that they're being forgiven, indeed
they may not know they've done or said something that needs forgiveness.
They might be dead. The fact remains that the wronged person needs to
forgive or risk becoming bitter.
Steve Hague

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/09/2021 07:01, steve hague wrote:

> I believe that forgiveness is for the benefit of the forgiver. The
> person being forgiven may be unaware that they're being forgiven, indeed
> they may not know they've done or said something that needs forgiveness.
> They might be dead. The fact remains that the wronged person needs to
> forgive or risk becoming bitter.

Exactly. Of course, if the offender is still alive and is repentant,
then he also benefits from the forgiveness, but as you say, there may be
circumstances which make it impossible for the offender to benefit - he
may be dead (as you say) or have moved away and be impossible to
contact, he may even not desire forgiveness and is proud of what he did!

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <sgjau4$igr$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 30 Aug 2021 20:18:28 +0100:

> Hmmmm. If Moses was in the habit of seeing God "face to face", why
> would he ask to see God's glory? Either "face to face" doesn't
> actually mean that Moses could see God, merely that he could hear God
> and communicate with Him as if through a veil, or "show me Thy glory"
> means that he did see God but in appearance as another man[1] or an
> angel or something and now he wants to see the reality of God.
>
> Thus when God says "No man shall see Me and live" He is referring to
> seeing God's full glory, not the more ordinary appearance that Moses
> was used to.
>
> As the passage in Numbers to which I referred previously indicates,
> the face to face conversations continued well after this incident, but
> always in the veiled form.

I remember a post from Joe Applegate[1] in 2015 which said suggested
this was proof of the trinity. That Moses spoke face to face with Jesus
(or the preincarnate Jesus) but he could not look at the glory of God.
A similar explanation for Abraham below.

I now understand Mike's point - when he pointed out that the shift
happens not in Exodus 32 (when God rejects Moses' offer to blot his name
out) but in Exodus 33. I mean to follow up on your post but I'm still
trying to recollect something I wanted to say, and it's getting delayed.

> Note 1: Remember the story of Abraham pleading with the Lord for
> Sodom? It would appear that God presented Himself in the form of an
> ordinary man and so Abraham was able to speak with God "face to face"
> without being consumed. I see no reason why Moses' conversations with
> God might not have been of the same sort.

[apparently a contentious but prolific messianic poster in the 90s. of
cours I missed the posts at the time, meaning I haven't seen them. his
material seems to be no longer accessible recently]

[Jason]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Yes, the forgiver definitely gains a
benefit, I think we are agreed on that much. But much of the emphasis of
the New Testament (and indeed the entirety of the Gospel message) surely
is that "we are forgiven". Think of all the joy and blessings that stem
from that, because we *know* that we are forgiven. The benefit is
clearly not to God, as the Forgiver. So if it seen as supremely
beneficial for us to know that we are forgiven, why do you think this
doesn't extend for the recipients of *our* forgiveness?

[Jason]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 20:31:50 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> However where the
> offender is not repentant, the one harmed should still forgive, for even

> though the offender will not benefit, [in this life or the next], from

the
> forgiveness, the one harmed will benefit.

This I do agree with; it's undoubtedly good for us to forgive whether or
not offender cares less. I put the part about "this life or the next" in
brackets, as I'm not sure about that, I'd have to give it more thought.
It may be that forgiving them does benefit them in some way in the life
to come, but I haven't thought this through. For example, in a "law of
the land" setting, it may be that the views of the victim feed into the
sentencing of an offender, and then Biblically speaking there's all the
binding-and-loosing business, which might have some relevance.... Needs
more thought....

>> Again (my turn to repeat myself) there seems something odd about the
>> suggestion that that we are to be *more* freely forgiving that God,
>> though I admit I can't quite put my finger on it....
>
> There is nothing odd at all, given God's role as judge. A judge's duty
> is to uphold the law and punish evil-doers; it is not his role to
> forgive.

That might be true of an earthly judge, but God is hardly the same
thing. Forgiveness is a very strong feature where God is concerned. If
I committed some earthly crime, I don't suppose the judge could sacrifice
his own son to atone for me even if he wanted to.

> There was a case recently where some thug raped a young woman. He
> appeared in court before some bleeding heart apology for a judge and
> advanced the fact that his sister had been raped umpteen years
> previously and he was so traumatised by the experience that he had gone
> out and raped this entirely innocent girl.
>
> The bleeding heart sympathised with him and let him off with a derisory
> sentence, suspended!
>
> That may have been forgiving on the part of the judge but it was not
> justice, it did not protect the victim nor other women, it did not deter
> others from raping in their turn.

Well, since you seem to know the intricacies of the case without
prejudice ('thug', 'bleeding heart', 'derisory sentence') etc etc I guess
you are far better acquainted with it than the average Daily Mail
reader. I can't comment whether in that particular case the judgement
was just or not.

I was listening to a podcast the other day, and he related a story from
some years ago where a Christian was arrested (in Uganda I think) and put
before a firing squad. He was asked if he had any last words, and he
used them to forgive everyone involved in his death. Needless to say,
they shot him dead, but the prisoner's forgiveness rang out in one of the
soldier's heads until it led him to Christ and so could relate this
tale. A prime example of where the forgiver didn't wait for any "act of
repentance", but forgave anyway. It was the forgivee that was
nevertheless the key beneficiary, even as it brought peace to the
forgiver.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/09/2021 13:12, Jason wrote:

> This I do agree with; it's undoubtedly good for us to forgive whether or
> not offender cares less. I put the part about "this life or the next" in
> brackets, as I'm not sure about that, I'd have to give it more thought.
> It may be that forgiving them does benefit them in some way in the life
> to come, but I haven't thought this through. For example, in a "law of
> the land" setting, it may be that the views of the victim feed into the
> sentencing of an offender, and then Biblically speaking there's all the
> binding-and-loosing business, which might have some relevance.... Needs
> more thought....

Having had experience of church committees that were definitely in the
wrong, I am highly dubious about "binding and loosing".

>> There is nothing odd at all, given God's role as judge. A judge's duty
>> is to uphold the law and punish evil-doers; it is not his role to
>> forgive.

> That might be true of an earthly judge, but God is hardly the same
> thing. Forgiveness is a very strong feature where God is concerned. If
> I committed some earthly crime, I don't suppose the judge could sacrifice
> his own son to atone for me even if he wanted to.

God wears different hats - creator, father, saviour, but also judge. As
father and saviour He does indeed forgive; those who choose to have Him
as judge rather than redeemer are in a different situation.

> I was listening to a podcast the other day, and he related a story from
> some years ago where a Christian was arrested (in Uganda I think) and put
> before a firing squad. He was asked if he had any last words, and he
> used them to forgive everyone involved in his death. Needless to say,
> they shot him dead, but the prisoner's forgiveness rang out in one of the
> soldier's heads until it led him to Christ and so could relate this
> tale. A prime example of where the forgiver didn't wait for any "act of
> repentance", but forgave anyway. It was the forgivee that was
> nevertheless the key beneficiary, even as it brought peace to the
> forgiver.

Lovely story. And, of course, he was following the example of both Jesus
and St Stephen (and no doubt others). I suspect that even the one man
who was converted as a result has a parallel in the story of St Paul.
Nonetheless, those who did not repent of killing Jesus/Stephen/your
story will not benefit from the forgiveness prayed for.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/09/2021 12:31, Jason wrote:

> I'm not sure I agree with this. Yes, the forgiver definitely gains a
> benefit, I think we are agreed on that much. But much of the emphasis of
> the New Testament (and indeed the entirety of the Gospel message) surely
> is that "we are forgiven". Think of all the joy and blessings that stem
> from that, because we *know* that we are forgiven. The benefit is
> clearly not to God, as the Forgiver. So if it seen as supremely
> beneficial for us to know that we are forgiven, why do you think this
> doesn't extend for the recipients of *our* forgiveness?

Because we, who are so happy for being forgiven, are repentant for our
sins and actively confess and seek forgiveness for them. If someone we
forgive is repentant I am sure that he will be grateful for our
forgiveness, but the case is far otherwise with someone who is not
repentant.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/09/2021 18:28, Madhu wrote:

> I remember a post from Joe Applegate[1] in 2015 which said suggested
> this was proof of the trinity. That Moses spoke face to face with Jesus
> (or the preincarnate Jesus) but he could not look at the glory of God.
> A similar explanation for Abraham below.

I certainly believe that Jesus is YHWH, but as Moses had no conception
of the Trinity (so far as we know) I think it unlikely that he was
asking to see the Father when he asked to see God's glory.

[steve hague]

The forgivee (Is that a word?) may not be aware of having done or said
anything that needs forgiveness, and may vehemently deny it. Others may
have recognised what they have done and repented, and perhaps have
apologised for the offense. Still others, a minority I hope would feel
entirely justified in the harm they did and may even be proud of it (I
showed him/ her a thing or too, and I'd do it again if I could). The
forgiver always benefits. As Ken said, the repentant one may well
benefit, but I think there's a difference between repentance before God
and apologising to a person you've wronged.
Steve Hague

[John]

Jason wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 20:31:50 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

>> There was a case recently where some thug raped a young woman. He
>> appeared in court before some bleeding heart apology for a judge and
>> advanced the fact that his sister had been raped umpteen years
>> previously and he was so traumatised by the experience that he had gone
>> out and raped this entirely innocent girl.
>>
>> The bleeding heart sympathised with him and let him off with a derisory
>> sentence, suspended!
>>
>> That may have been forgiving on the part of the judge but it was not
>> justice, it did not protect the victim nor other women, it did not deter
>> others from raping in their turn.
>
> Well, since you seem to know the intricacies of the case without
> prejudice ('thug', 'bleeding heart', 'derisory sentence') etc etc I guess
> you are far better acquainted with it than the average Daily Mail
> reader. I can't comment whether in that particular case the judgement
> was just or not.

This is just Ken being sensationalist again. I would also ask whether
calling an identifiable individual a thug, when that wasn't the case,
constitutes personal abuse.

The defendant in the case was a very disturbed young man, who was
traumatised by the rape *and killing* of his sister 5 years previously.

The guy concerned was a "psychological mess", and this was taken into
account when passing sentence. Also, he didn't just "go out and rape"
someone, which suggests a predatory attack on a stranger. The young girl
was known to him and had spurned his advances, so he raped her That is
no excuse however, and I don't for one moment condone his actions.

Ken is right when he says it was a derisory sentence, but what he fails
to mention was that this was overturned some months later and the young
man was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.

Whether this was a "bleeding heart" judge or one who had taken into
account the extenuating factors of the case I don't know. He was however
too lenient in passing sentence and this was rightly overturned. It is
worth pointing out however, that the starting point for the rape was 4.5
years, which was reduced *because* of the extenuating factors.

[Jason]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 21:16:28 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 01/09/2021 13:12, Jason wrote:
>
>> This I do agree with; it's undoubtedly good for us to forgive whether
>> or not offender cares less. I put the part about "this life or the
>> next" in brackets, as I'm not sure about that, I'd have to give it more
>> thought. It may be that forgiving them does benefit them in some way in
>> the life to come, but I haven't thought this through. For example, in
>> a "law of the land" setting, it may be that the views of the victim
>> feed into the sentencing of an offender, and then Biblically speaking
>> there's all the binding-and-loosing business, which might have some
>> relevance.... Needs more thought....
>
> Having had experience of church committees that were definitely in the
> wrong, I am highly dubious about "binding and loosing".

:-) To be honest, I'm not sure what it means exactly either, but clearly
it means something! I wouldn't be surprised however, if at the time of
God's judgement, that God may well hear the prayers of forgiveness of the
person's 'victims' and take these into account.

God didn't wait for mankind's repentance before sacrificing his son. God
can of course act in whatever way pleases him, so whether Jesus will
forgive those who were prayed for but did not during their earthly life
repent, I know not. I have always thought it better to aim to act in the
way that Jesus (and the wider Bible) teaches is right, and not concern
myself over much with those who's life ends up taking a different path.
I guess I take a wide view of the Bible and God's mercy without
continually coming back to "narrow is the way".

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/09/2021 12:52, Jason wrote:

> :-) To be honest, I'm not sure what it means exactly either, but clearly
> it means something! I wouldn't be surprised however, if at the time of
> God's judgement, that God may well hear the prayers of forgiveness of the
> person's 'victims' and take these into account.

He may - I wouldn't bank on it, though. I think each person stands on
his own two feet, so to speak, and is judged on his actions and motives
alone.

*If* your church leaders are truly godly and *if* they agree in an open
and fair process that you are in the wrong, I would suggest that you
take that opinion seriously. However I would *still* maintain that you
should follow your conscience and not be too upset if your church
doesn't agree with you.

> God didn't wait for mankind's repentance before sacrificing his son.

He didn't need to; He could foresee that there would be those who would
respond to the sacrifice.

> I guess I take a wide view of the Bible and God's mercy without
> continually coming back to "narrow is the way".

And yet Jesus said "narrow is the way and few there be that find it".
That doesn't give us licence to be judgemental towards others, but it
should encourage us to examine our own lives closely.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/09/2021 12:40, John wrote:

> This is just Ken being sensationalist again. I would also ask whether
> calling an identifiable individual a thug, when that wasn't the case,
> constitutes personal abuse.

I am quite comfortable with calling a rapist a "thug"; what would you
call him? Gentleman?

> The defendant in the case was a very disturbed young man, who was
> traumatised by the rape *and killing* of his sister 5 years previously.

Which makes his own rape even worse; he knew, from personal experience,
the effect rape has on women and on their families, yet he went ahead
and did it anyway. Those circumstances should, in my opinion, have
resulted in a heavier sentence, not a more lenient one.

> Ken is right when he says it was a derisory sentence, but what he fails
> to mention was that this was overturned some months later and the young
> man was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.

Probably because I didn't know that fact. Mind you, even three years is
still pretty derisory.

> Whether this was a "bleeding heart" judge or one who had taken into
> account the extenuating factors of the case I don't know. He was however
> too lenient in passing sentence and this was rightly overturned. It is
> worth pointing out however, that the starting point for the rape was 4.5
> years, which was reduced *because* of the extenuating factors.

Personally I support the Biblical guidelines which mandate death for rape.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/09/2021 10:14, steve hague wrote:

> The forgivee (Is that a word?) may not be aware of having done or said
> anything that needs forgiveness, and may vehemently deny it. Others may
> have recognised what they have done and repented, and perhaps have
> apologised for the offense. Still others, a minority I hope would feel
> entirely justified in the harm they did and may even be proud of it (I
> showed him/ her a thing or too, and I'd do it again if I could). The
> forgiver always benefits. As Ken said, the repentant one may well
> benefit, but I think there's a difference between repentance before God
> and apologising to a person you've wronged.

Well put.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 31/08/2021 12:06, Jason wrote:

> Again (my turn to repeat myself) there seems something odd about the
> suggestion that that we are to be *more* freely forgiving that God,
> though I admit I can't quite put my finger on it....

Two points, deriving from a report on child abuse in churches and
religious organisations (including CofE, Catholic, JW, Jewish and
Islamic). Apparently a total of 400 abusers have been identified and
prosecuted between the 1940s and 2018. Without wanting to play down the
problem, I am surprised (and pleased) and such a low number.

Anyway, the first point is this:

"In some religious settings, the concept of forgiveness can be misused
both to put pressure on victims not to report their abuse and to justify
failures by religious leaders or organisations to take appropriate
action in relation to allegations that have been made. This not only
fails the victims but can put other children at risk."

That is a point that is relevant to our discussion: forgiveness is good
for the one who has been offended against, but it must never supplant
justice.

The second point is somewhat worrying:

"In the light of today's report, the arguments for mandatory reporting
and independent oversight of religious bodies are overwhelming, and it
is imperative that IICSA recommends these changes when it delivers its
final report next year."

I wonder just what might be involved in this "oversight of religious
bodies"? Can we expect to find the secret police turning up at our
services, ostensibly to check on compliance with child protection
policies? Will we have to report the names and addresses of all who
attend our services?

[Jason]

On Thu, 02 Sep 2021 21:09:33 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 02/09/2021 12:52, Jason wrote:
>
>> :-) To be honest, I'm not sure what it means exactly either, but
>> clearly it means something! I wouldn't be surprised however, if at the
>> time of God's judgement, that God may well hear the prayers of
>> forgiveness of the person's 'victims' and take these into account.
>
> He may - I wouldn't bank on it, though. I think each person stands on
> his own two feet, so to speak, and is judged on his actions and motives
> alone.

Indeed, I wouldn't bank on it either. However, there is the "binding and
loosing" thing, and indeed Biblical examples of where God has 'changed
his mind' as a result of persuasion and prayer. So clearly, actions
(e.g. prayer) on Earth do have an impact in the Heavenly realms. Whether
God throws a switch when someone dies and takes the view "Right, any
prayers for that person now get filed in the dustbin" I admit I don't
know.

> *If* your church leaders are truly godly and *if* they agree in an open
> and fair process that you are in the wrong, I would suggest that you
> take that opinion seriously. However I would *still* maintain that you
> should follow your conscience and not be too upset if your church
> doesn't agree with you.

I'm not sure how this paragraph fits in?? But as a general point of
principle I would agree that if church leaders (and I would broaden this
out to church leaders in general, even ones outside of one's own
denomination) take a stand on something, we should take it seriously.
For example, if the Roman Catholic church takes a considered position on
the role of women in the priesthood, I believe it's worth me (an
Anglican) to see what they have to say, even if my own denomination's
leaders (and indeed myself) take a different view.

> *If* your church leaders are truly godly

Are we not called (Biblically) to assume that our leaders are there
according to God's will??

>> God didn't wait for mankind's repentance before sacrificing his son.
>
> He didn't need to; He could foresee that there would be those who would
> respond to the sacrifice.

Well yes; this surely is just coming back to "God is outside of time" and
all the weirdness that flows from that. I'm sure when God created the
heavens and the earth and saw that it was very good he knew the outcome.
Likewise any and every event, both God-ordained and otherwise. If you
can see the beginning and the end, you could always make a statement like
yours above. However, that doesn't detract from that fact that from our
perspective, it was God who made the first move.

>> I guess I take a wide view of the Bible and God's mercy without
>> continually coming back to "narrow is the way".
>
> And yet Jesus said "narrow is the way and few there be that find it".
> That doesn't give us licence to be judgemental towards others, but it
> should encourage us to examine our own lives closely.

I agree, we should examine our lives closely. However, as I've said
before, there seems to be two schools of thought: One where you start
from "narrow is the way" and move cautiously wider from there, and others
who start from "many sheep not of this sheepfold" and narrow down from
that. I tend towards the latter position.

[Jason]

On Fri, 03 Sep 2021 03:31:11 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 31/08/2021 12:06, Jason wrote:
>
>> Again (my turn to repeat myself) there seems something odd about the
>> suggestion that that we are to be *more* freely forgiving that God,
>> though I admit I can't quite put my finger on it....
>
> Two points, deriving from a report on child abuse in churches and
> religious organisations (including CofE, Catholic, JW, Jewish and
> Islamic). Apparently a total of 400 abusers have been identified and
> prosecuted between the 1940s and 2018. Without wanting to play down the
> problem, I am surprised (and pleased) and such a low number.

I don't consider that to be a low number, though you would need
comparison data from other 'professions' to make any comparison. I would
imagine that, as is often said for rape cases, that the number identified/
prosecuted is but the tip of the iceberg. You have only to see that many
of these cases only start coming to light decades later when the ball is
already rolling to know that there is serious under-reporting at the time.

> "In some religious settings, the concept of forgiveness can be misused
> both to put pressure on victims not to report their abuse and to justify
> failures by religious leaders or organisations to take appropriate
> action in relation to allegations that have been made. This not only
> fails the victims but can put other children at risk."
>
> That is a point that is relevant to our discussion: forgiveness is good
> for the one who has been offended against, but it must never supplant
> justice.

I 100% agree with this, though I would differentiate between those who
freely and of the own volition forgive the perpetrator of whatever
offence from those who are 'told' to forgive and sweep under the carpet
from the powers that be because "that's what good Christians do".

> The second point is somewhat worrying:
>
> "In the light of today's report, the arguments for mandatory reporting
> and independent oversight of religious bodies are overwhelming, and it
> is imperative that IICSA recommends these changes when it delivers its
> final report next year."
>
> I wonder just what might be involved in this "oversight of religious
> bodies"? Can we expect to find the secret police turning up at our
> services, ostensibly to check on compliance with child protection
> policies? Will we have to report the names and addresses of all who
> attend our services?

I don't really find this worrying. It would seem clear that leaving
institutions to police their own affairs has not worked, and that it is
very difficult to avoid a conflict of interest between the victims and
the institution.

Almost every other facet of life (finance, business, parliament, utility
companies etc etc) *all* have external, independent oversight, so why
should religious institutions be any different? Why should they be
trusted to oversee their own affairs when no-one else is?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/09/2021 12:02, Jason wrote:

> Indeed, I wouldn't bank on it either. However, there is the "binding and
> loosing" thing

I think you will find that "binding and loosing" refers to a decision by
the whole church, not just by one individual.

> and indeed Biblical examples of where God has 'changed
> his mind' as a result of persuasion and prayer. So clearly, actions
> (e.g. prayer) on Earth do have an impact in the Heavenly realms.

Certainly that is true.

> Whether
> God throws a switch when someone dies and takes the view "Right, any
> prayers for that person now get filed in the dustbin" I admit I don't
> know.

I find it hard to believe that God does not respect our freedom of
choice. If X has, throughout a long life, rejected God and turned with
loathing from all forms of religion, it seems a bit hard that he should
be hoicked into heaven just because Y prayed for him twenty years after
X's death.

> I'm not sure how this paragraph fits in?? But as a general point of
> principle I would agree that if church leaders (and I would broaden this
> out to church leaders in general, even ones outside of one's own
> denomination) take a stand on something, we should take it seriously.
> For example, if the Roman Catholic church takes a considered position on
> the role of women in the priesthood, I believe it's worth me (an
> Anglican) to see what they have to say, even if my own denomination's
> leaders (and indeed myself) take a different view.

I would agree both with the principle and with the example, except that
I would not feel bound by what some other church has decided.

> Are we not called (Biblically) to assume that our leaders are there
> according to God's will??

Certainly - just as Nero was appointed by God to rule the Roman empire.

> I agree, we should examine our lives closely. However, as I've said
> before, there seems to be two schools of thought: One where you start
> from "narrow is the way" and move cautiously wider from there, and others
> who start from "many sheep not of this sheepfold" and narrow down from
> that. I tend towards the latter position.

I think the two dicta are referring to entirely different things. The
"many sheep" refers to those who seek to love and serve God but are
outside our particular denomination or even outside Christianity
completely. The "narrow way" refers to how many out of the world's
population will be saved, given that there are so many temptations and
distractions along the way which lead us away from God.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/09/2021 12:15, Jason wrote:

> I don't consider that to be a low number, though you would need
> comparison data from other 'professions' to make any comparison.

Obviously 400 is 399 too many, but 400 spread over 80 years is five per
year, taken from all denominations and all religions.

> I would > imagine that, as is often said for rape cases, that the number
identified/
> prosecuted is but the tip of the iceberg. You have only to see that many
> of these cases only start coming to light decades later when the ball is
> already rolling to know that there is serious under-reporting at the time.

You are no doubt correct.

> I 100% agree with this, though I would differentiate between those who
> freely and of the own volition forgive the perpetrator of whatever
> offence from those who are 'told' to forgive and sweep under the carpet
> from the powers that be because "that's what good Christians do".

A valid distinction.

> Almost every other facet of life (finance, business, parliament, utility
> companies etc etc) *all* have external, independent oversight, so why
> should religious institutions be any different? Why should they be
> trusted to oversee their own affairs when no-one else is?

The problem is this: would you trust Extinction Rebellion to have
oversight of the banks or other capitalist entities? I think you would
expect that the regulatory body would incorporate accountants,
businessmen, perhaps lawyers. The same would apply to an oversight body
for the arts - no cloth-capped miners need apply, but fellow artists and
those sympathetic to the arts.

Yet I can just about guarantee that if the government did set up an
oversight body, it would be made up of atheists and communists and
humanists (and maybe a few Muslims) but absolutely no Christians at all.

[Jason]

On Fri, 03 Sep 2021 20:30:54 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

>> Almost every other facet of life (finance, business, parliament,
>> utility companies etc etc) *all* have external, independent oversight,
>> so why should religious institutions be any different? Why should they
>> be trusted to oversee their own affairs when no-one else is?
>
> The problem is this: would you trust Extinction Rebellion to have
> oversight of the banks or other capitalist entities? I think you would
> expect that the regulatory body would incorporate accountants,
> businessmen, perhaps lawyers. The same would apply to an oversight body
> for the arts - no cloth-capped miners need apply, but fellow artists and
> those sympathetic to the arts.
>
> Yet I can just about guarantee that if the government did set up an
> oversight body, it would be made up of atheists and communists and
> humanists (and maybe a few Muslims) but absolutely no Christians at all.

I would hope that (in the case of banking for example) the 'overseers'
would come from a more varied background than those you describe. I
don't really consider people in the financial sector overseeing people in
the financial sector to be "independent oversight". In an ideal case,
they will not be from the financial sector at all, but people from other
sectors with a proven ability to ask probing questions. One of the best
managers I ever worked for knew almost nothing about the field we were
working in, but could always put his finger right on the button when it
came to asking questions.

Likewise with the arts, it's hard to see how the oversight could really
be independent if it was formed entirely from those "sympathetic to the
arts". As with the jury system, people expect juries to be drawn from
the whole cross-section of society, including the "cloth-capped miners"
that you speak so disparagingly about. No one group has a monopoly on
getting to the truth, and often as we have seen on TV interviews, it's
very people in the categories that you dismiss which ask the hardest
questions and make the politicians most uncomfortable.....

[Jason]

On Fri, 03 Sep 2021 19:36:16 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 03/09/2021 12:02, Jason wrote:
>
>> Indeed, I wouldn't bank on it either. However, there is the "binding
>> and loosing" thing
>
> I think you will find that "binding and loosing" refers to a decision by
> the whole church, not just by one individual.

I can't really comment as I've never had much of a clue as to what it
means. Maybe that's a topic for another thread.

>> Whether God throws a switch when someone dies and takes the view
>> "Right, any prayers for that person now get filed in the dustbin" I
>> admit I don't know.
>
> I find it hard to believe that God does not respect our freedom of
> choice. If X has, throughout a long life, rejected God and turned with
> loathing from all forms of religion, it seems a bit hard that he should
> be hoicked into heaven just because Y prayed for him twenty years after
> X's death.

No one is talking of "hoiking" or anything else, merely that it's worth
praying the prayer trusting God to sort it out. And I think you've
picked a deliberately extreme position, one which I suggest covers a tiny
fraction of the populace. In my whole life I certainly haven't met very
many; most of the non-Christians (which are most of the people I know)
simply don't give Christianity (or other religions) a second thought.

>> I'm not sure how this paragraph fits in?? But as a general point of
>> principle I would agree that if church leaders (and I would broaden
>> this out to church leaders in general, even ones outside of one's own
>> denomination) take a stand on something, we should take it seriously.
>> For example, if the Roman Catholic church takes a considered position
>> on the role of women in the priesthood, I believe it's worth me (an
>> Anglican) to see what they have to say, even if my own denomination's
>> leaders (and indeed myself) take a different view.
>
> I would agree both with the principle and with the example, except that
> I would not feel bound by what some other church has decided.

I don't "feel bound" by things my own church leadership has decided,
merely that I listen and take it seriously. I almost certainly don't
agree with any church denomination wholeheartedly and without reservation
on all issues, my own included.

>> I agree, we should examine our lives closely. However, as I've said
>> before, there seems to be two schools of thought: One where you start
>> from "narrow is the way" and move cautiously wider from there, and
>> others who start from "many sheep not of this sheepfold" and narrow
>> down from that. I tend towards the latter position.
>
> I think the two dicta are referring to entirely different things. The
> "many sheep" refers to those who seek to love and serve God but are
> outside our particular denomination or even outside Christianity
> completely. The "narrow way" refers to how many out of the world's
> population will be saved, given that there are so many temptations and
> distractions along the way which lead us away from God.

OK, may be I picked poor examples, since you have got hung up on the
specific examples rather than the point which I'm fairly sure you know
I'm trying to make.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/09/2021 12:42, Jason wrote:

> No one is talking of "hoiking" or anything else, merely that it's worth
> praying the prayer trusting God to sort it out. And I think you've
> picked a deliberately extreme position, one which I suggest covers a tiny
> fraction of the populace.

Of course - I was making a point, not attempting to be descriptive.

> I don't "feel bound" by things my own church leadership has decided,
> merely that I listen and take it seriously. I almost certainly don't
> agree with any church denomination wholeheartedly and without reservation
> on all issues, my own included.

A commendable attitude, in my opinion.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/09/2021 12:31, Jason wrote:

> I would hope that (in the case of banking for example) the 'overseers'
> would come from a more varied background than those you describe. I
> don't really consider people in the financial sector overseeing people in
> the financial sector to be "independent oversight". In an ideal case,
> they will not be from the financial sector at all, but people from other
> sectors with a proven ability to ask probing questions.

But how will they know what questions to ask unless they know about the
financial sector. For example, if you were asked to examine a futures
market for signs of fraud, would you know where to start? Do you even
know what a "future" is? I certainly don't!

> Likewise with the arts, it's hard to see how the oversight could really
> be independent if it was formed entirely from those "sympathetic to the
> arts".

Ah, but if you put me on such an oversight board, I would regard
anything by Damien Hurst as a fraud on the public, Banksy would be
hunted down for vandalism, Shostakovic and Bartok banned from public
performance, rap artists imprisoned and any poet subsequent to Betjeman
banned from publication.

> As with the jury system, people expect juries to be drawn from
> the whole cross-section of society, including the "cloth-capped miners"
> that you speak so disparagingly about.

I am sure they are estimable people, but I would not rate their opinions
on any art form other than brass bands very highly.

> No one group has a monopoly on
> getting to the truth, and often as we have seen on TV interviews, it's
> very people in the categories that you dismiss which ask the hardest
> questions and make the politicians most uncomfortable.....

I haven't watched TV interviews, but I shouldn't think that much
specialist knowledge was required to make politicians uncomfortable!

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 02/09/2021 12:40, John wrote:
>
>> This is just Ken being sensationalist again. I would also ask whether
>> calling an identifiable individual a thug, when that wasn't the case,
>> constitutes personal abuse.
>
> I am quite comfortable with calling a rapist a "thug"; what would you
> call him? Gentleman?

I got that wrong, I have read further details of the case and violence
was used. I usually associate the word thug to a yobbo. I concede that
you were correct in your terminology.

>> The defendant in the case was a very disturbed young man, who was
>> traumatised by the rape *and killing* of his sister 5 years previously.
>
> Which makes his own rape even worse; he knew, from personal experience,
> the effect rape has on women and on their families, yet he went ahead
> and did it anyway. Those circumstances should, in my opinion, have
> resulted in a heavier sentence, not a more lenient one.

Both the judge presiding over the case, and the 3 appeal judges said
there were extreme mitigating circumstances which allowed them to reduce
the sentence accordingly. The lad was mentally ill and was a
"psychological mess". He was 12 years old when his sister was raped and
killed, and it had a devastating affect on his life.

That doesn't make it right, of course it doesn't, but there has to be
some allowance made for that, in my honest opinion.

[Jason]

On Sun, 05 Sep 2021 21:07:58 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 05/09/2021 12:31, Jason wrote:
>
>> I would hope that (in the case of banking for example) the 'overseers'
>> would come from a more varied background than those you describe. I
>> don't really consider people in the financial sector overseeing people
>> in the financial sector to be "independent oversight". In an ideal
>> case, they will not be from the financial sector at all, but people
>> from other sectors with a proven ability to ask probing questions.
>
> But how will they know what questions to ask unless they know about the
> financial sector. For example, if you were asked to examine a futures
> market for signs of fraud, would you know where to start? Do you even
> know what a "future" is? I certainly don't!

Fair point, when things get technical there is no other alternative to
experts in that field. It's similar to the situation we mentioned in a
different thread about scientific peer review: it's not ideal that people
who all work in the field and know each other all "mark each other's
homework" but it's the best that can be done. However, it's also
possible to be "too close to a problem", where someone taking a more
general look at the accounts may well spot unusual activity that someone
too focused on the concept of "futures" may miss.

>> Likewise with the arts, it's hard to see how the oversight could really
>> be independent if it was formed entirely from those "sympathetic to the
>> arts".
>
> Ah, but if you put me on such an oversight board, I would regard
> anything by Damien Hurst as a fraud on the public, Banksy would be
> hunted down for vandalism, Shostakovic and Bartok banned from public
> performance, rap artists imprisoned and any poet subsequent to Betjeman
> banned from publication.

:-)

>> As with the jury system, people expect juries to be drawn from the
>> whole cross-section of society, including the "cloth-capped miners"
>> that you speak so disparagingly about.
>
> I am sure they are estimable people, but I would not rate their opinions
> on any art form other than brass bands very highly.

I can see you are very at home amongst your preconceived notions and lazy
stereotypes. Perhaps if they can take a break long enough from whippet
racing and pigeon fancying to engage you in a conversation about the
relative merits of Elgar, Purcell and Vaughan Williams you might take a
more balanced view.

>> No one group has a monopoly on getting to the truth, and often as we
>> have seen on TV interviews, it's very people in the categories that you
>> dismiss which ask the hardest questions and make the politicians most
>> uncomfortable.....
>
> I haven't watched TV interviews, but I shouldn't think that much
> specialist knowledge was required to make politicians uncomfortable!

It's always the "Grandmothers on the high street" that ask the best
questions, not the "professional politicians". The point is that you
don't need to be an expert in a field to ask pertinent questions.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/09/2021 09:54, John wrote:

> That doesn't make it right, of course it doesn't, but there has to be
> some allowance made for that, in my honest opinion.

Well, perhaps, but the allowance should be to lock him up for even
longer. Clearly if he is as messed up as the judges claim, he is going
to be a menace to woman until he is in a wheelchair with dementia.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/09/2021 12:37, Jason wrote:

> Fair point, when things get technical there is no other alternative to
> experts in that field. It's similar to the situation we mentioned in a
> different thread about scientific peer review: it's not ideal that people
> who all work in the field and know each other all "mark each other's
> homework" but it's the best that can be done. However, it's also
> possible to be "too close to a problem", where someone taking a more
> general look at the accounts may well spot unusual activity that someone
> too focused on the concept of "futures" may miss.

I certainly agree with the problems you identify. As someone or other
rather neatly put it, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Nevertheless the
main point you concede with regard to banking and it applies just as
strongly to churches.

> I can see you are very at home amongst your preconceived notions and lazy
> stereotypes. Perhaps if they can take a break long enough from whippet
> racing and pigeon fancying to engage you in a conversation about the
> relative merits of Elgar, Purcell and Vaughan Williams you might take a
> more balanced view.

Well, I might indeed. So far I haven't encountered any of these Elgar
fancying coal miners.

Just as an aside, I have on my phone a copy of Shirley's brain scan
showing a slice of her brain viewed from beneath, in which the large
tumour is horribly evident. *I* knew what it was the instant I saw it
and most of those who are close friends likewise have no difficulty in
understanding it. However there have been a surprising number of people
who have kindly asked after Shirley and to whom I have showed the
picture. They stare at it blankly and ask what it is. Clearly the brain
is entirely outside their experience, yet they are quite intelligent
people. Odd.

> It's always the "Grandmothers on the high street" that ask the best
> questions, not the "professional politicians". The point is that you
> don't need to be an expert in a field to ask pertinent questions.

You don't - but it helps.

[Jason]

On Tue, 07 Sep 2021 20:41:33 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 07/09/2021 12:37, Jason wrote:
>
>> Fair point, when things get technical there is no other alternative to
>> experts in that field. It's similar to the situation we mentioned in a
>> different thread about scientific peer review: it's not ideal that
>> people who all work in the field and know each other all "mark each
>> other's homework" but it's the best that can be done. However, it's
>> also possible to be "too close to a problem", where someone taking a
>> more general look at the accounts may well spot unusual activity that
>> someone too focused on the concept of "futures" may miss.
>
> I certainly agree with the problems you identify. As someone or other
> rather neatly put it, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Nevertheless the
> main point you concede with regard to banking and it applies just as
> strongly to churches.

Well, it's true and it's not. I would suggest that church governance is
not quite so complicated as the arcane financial instruments you're
talking about. I don't need to be an expert on chasubles to know that a
particular safeguarding policy would be useless.

>> I can see you are very at home amongst your preconceived notions and
>> lazy stereotypes. Perhaps if they can take a break long enough from
>> whippet racing and pigeon fancying to engage you in a conversation
>> about the relative merits of Elgar, Purcell and Vaughan Williams you
>> might take a more balanced view.
>
> Well, I might indeed. So far I haven't encountered any of these Elgar
> fancying coal miners.

:-)

> Just as an aside, I have on my phone a copy of Shirley's brain scan
> showing a slice of her brain viewed from beneath, in which the large
> tumour is horribly evident. *I* knew what it was the instant I saw it
> and most of those who are close friends likewise have no difficulty in
> understanding it. However there have been a surprising number of people
> who have kindly asked after Shirley and to whom I have showed the
> picture. They stare at it blankly and ask what it is. Clearly the brain
> is entirely outside their experience, yet they are quite intelligent
> people. Odd.

This can certainly be true. I think even when someone is vaguely
familiar with something, if it is in an unfamiliar context, or one
perceived to be difficult, people give up straight away. If you'd
mentioned that a similar-looking scan was a broken arm, people might look
more closely and see the fractured bone. But mention it's a brain, or
heart, or something more complex and I think people don't even really
bother to look; they just assume it will be too hard. I've been shown a
few pregnancy ultrasound scans over the years, and I can't tell which end
is the head never mind the gender... I pray your wife's doing OK.

>> It's always the "Grandmothers on the high street" that ask the best
>> questions, not the "professional politicians". The point is that you
>> don't need to be an expert in a field to ask pertinent questions.
>
> You don't - but it helps.

The question is: does it?? In a room full of Sir Humphreys, you
sometimes need an outsider, not someone who's "one of us" to get to the
real heart of the problem. I guess that's why most company boards have
members who are not from that company.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/09/2021 09:47, Jason wrote:

> Well, it's true and it's not. I would suggest that church governance is
> not quite so complicated as the arcane financial instruments you're
> talking about. I don't need to be an expert on chasubles to know that a
> particular safeguarding policy would be useless.

Nevertheless, a non-Christian would be unsympathetic to all sorts of
things; secret confession - a danger to children and women; encouraging
children to memorise Bible verses (and, even worse, go through the
trauma of standing in front of the church and repeating them) - child
abuse; communion from a shared cup - irresponsible in view of the
possibility of a pandemic. And so on.

> This can certainly be true. I think even when someone is vaguely
> familiar with something, if it is in an unfamiliar context, or one
> perceived to be difficult, people give up straight away. If you'd
> mentioned that a similar-looking scan was a broken arm, people might look
> more closely and see the fractured bone. But mention it's a brain, or
> heart, or something more complex and I think people don't even really
> bother to look; they just assume it will be too hard. I've been shown a
> few pregnancy ultrasound scans over the years, and I can't tell which end
> is the head never mind the gender... I pray your wife's doing OK.

Thanks. But a brain is a brain - instantly recognisable, as far as I am
concerned.

> The question is: does it?? In a room full of Sir Humphreys, you
> sometimes need an outsider, not someone who's "one of us" to get to the
> real heart of the problem. I guess that's why most company boards have
> members who are not from that company.

Not from that company, but familiar with how companies work.

God bless,
Kendall K.Down

[Jason]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2021 20:52:14 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 08/09/2021 09:47, Jason wrote:
>
>> Well, it's true and it's not. I would suggest that church governance
>> is not quite so complicated as the arcane financial instruments you're
>> talking about. I don't need to be an expert on chasubles to know that
>> a particular safeguarding policy would be useless.
>
> Nevertheless, a non-Christian would be unsympathetic to all sorts of
> things; secret confession - a danger to children and women; encouraging
> children to memorise Bible verses (and, even worse, go through the
> trauma of standing in front of the church and repeating them) - child
> abuse; communion from a shared cup - irresponsible in view of the
> possibility of a pandemic. And so on.

I disagree with your fundamental premise that you actually *want* someone
from the get-go who's "sympathetic" to these things: you want someone who
is dispassionate and can view the topics with fresh eyes. And many (if
not most) churches have indeed taken a different approach to the shared
cup, whereas others (presumably) take the view that 'God protects the cup
and we don't need virologists to tell us otherwise'.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/09/2021 10:15, Jason wrote:

> I disagree with your fundamental premise that you actually *want* someone
> from the get-go who's "sympathetic" to these things: you want someone who
> is dispassionate and can view the topics with fresh eyes. And many (if
> not most) churches have indeed taken a different approach to the shared
> cup, whereas others (presumably) take the view that 'God protects the cup
> and we don't need virologists to tell us otherwise'.

My tradition - and, I think, most free churches - is separate cups.
However there are theological reasons why other churches prefer (or even
insist on) a single cup. Someone from outside might simply say "ban
single, bring in multiple" whereas someone who understood the theology
might say, "how can we make this practice safe?"

[Jason]

As with many traditions, some will be for well thought out reasons
(theological reasons you'd hope where the church is concerned). Others
will be simply be "because we've always done it that way". It's right
for independent overseers to question all of this. If a church has a
strong opinion, there should not be a fear of someone questioning it; it
should be willing to defend it's practice. Of course if an 'overseer' is
not prepared to listen then it's not fit for purpose. However, starting
off with a committee of people who are "like us" should never be the
starting position.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/09/2021 17:30, Jason wrote:

> As with many traditions, some will be for well thought out reasons
> (theological reasons you'd hope where the church is concerned). Others
> will be simply be "because we've always done it that way". It's right
> for independent overseers to question all of this.

a) It's only right if the practice impacts on safety or welfare.
Otherwise it is none of the overseer's business.

b) But even so there is a difference between a sympathetic overseer and
one who has no sympathy at all for religion.

I certainly agree that it would be undesirable for an overseer to
compromise on safety and welfare just because he belongs to that church.
Equally it would be wrong for him to adopt a hostile approach just
because he disagrees with the entire premise of church - any church.

[Jason]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 21:10:28 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 11/09/2021 17:30, Jason wrote:
>
>> As with many traditions, some will be for well thought out reasons
>> (theological reasons you'd hope where the church is concerned). Others
>> will be simply be "because we've always done it that way". It's right
>> for independent overseers to question all of this.
>
> a) It's only right if the practice impacts on safety or welfare.
> Otherwise it is none of the overseer's business.

Well, I don't think anyone would disagree: I don't think anyone would
think that an overseer should be getting involved with the day-to-day
minutiae of choosing which hymn book to use or the correct colour of the
alter cloths. But why would you have an overseer for such things?

> b) But even so there is a difference between a sympathetic overseer and
> one who has no sympathy at all for religion.

For most of the things you'd have an "overseer" for (welfare, safety,
finance etc) religion doesn't come into it and churches should be seen
just like any other organisation.

> I certainly agree that it would be undesirable for an overseer to
> compromise on safety and welfare just because he belongs to that church.
> Equally it would be wrong for him to adopt a hostile approach just
> because he disagrees with the entire premise of church - any church.

I would no more advocate a "hostile" overseer than I would a "one-of-the-
boys" one.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 19/09/2021 18:23, Jason wrote:

> For most of the things you'd have an "overseer" for (welfare, safety,
> finance etc) religion doesn't come into it and churches should be seen
> just like any other organisation.

I disagree. Obviously whether money is honestly handled is independant
of the type of organisation, but there is a large gray area. For
example, suppose someone leaves a sum of money "for the beautification"
of the church. A non-religious overseer might - for example - insist
that the term means a new paint job whereas a religious overseer would
see the value in gilding the chausable (or something similar).

Or a sum of money left for "the Lord's work"; an unsympathetic overseer
might insist that the term only applies to the clergyman's salary; a
sympathetic one could see the value in distributing copies of St John's
gospel to every house in the parish.

> I would no more advocate a "hostile" overseer than I would a "one-of-the-
> boys" one.

On that we are agreed.

[Jason]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 20:12:44 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 19/09/2021 18:23, Jason wrote:
>
>> For most of the things you'd have an "overseer" for (welfare, safety,
>> finance etc) religion doesn't come into it and churches should be seen
>> just like any other organisation.
>
> I disagree. Obviously whether money is honestly handled is independant
> of the type of organisation, but there is a large gray area. For
> example, suppose someone leaves a sum of money "for the beautification"
> of the church. A non-religious overseer might - for example - insist
> that the term means a new paint job whereas a religious overseer would
> see the value in gilding the chausable (or something similar).
>
> Or a sum of money left for "the Lord's work"; an unsympathetic overseer
> might insist that the term only applies to the clergyman's salary; a
> sympathetic one could see the value in distributing copies of St John's
> gospel to every house in the parish.

Again, I don't think that the religious nature of the church comes into
it, the same would be true of any organisation (say a village hall or
bowling club) which may be given donations. I know I'm typically a person
that inhabits the "grey areas" and completely agree that many things are
not black and white. However, I suggest that most areas where a watchdog
or overseer would get involved are not generally so grey. For instance,
I think such a body would be right to question if a donation made to a
church for the "Lord's Work" was spent by the vicar on taking all his
friends on a six week cruise around the Bahamas.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 20/09/2021 10:03, Jason wrote:

> Again, I don't think that the religious nature of the church comes into
> it, the same would be true of any organisation (say a village hall or
> bowling club) which may be given donations. I know I'm typically a person
> that inhabits the "grey areas" and completely agree that many things are
> not black and white. However, I suggest that most areas where a watchdog
> or overseer would get involved are not generally so grey. For instance,
> I think such a body would be right to question if a donation made to a
> church for the "Lord's Work" was spent by the vicar on taking all his
> friends on a six week cruise around the Bahamas.

Quite so - that would be fraud pure and simple. On the other hand,
various churches run programmes that involve church members going out to
the Third World to build churches or clinics (or run clinics) and
frequently these groups spend one or two weeks working - and usually
working hard - on the project and then relaxing for a week in some
nearby resort.

Such projects are usually funded by the participants themselves, though
they frequently engage in fund-raising activities such as cake sales,
sponsored walks/runs/rides, etc.

[Jason]

That's fine, and I don't think any watchdog, whatever their religious (or
not) "sympathies" may be would have a distinction. And to have someone
with a completely different background, may well highlight spending
which, while OK, may not be the best or most efficient use of funds.

I would only have a problem if such overseers were to forbid (say)
spending church funds to buy communion wine on the grounds that "why
should we fund alcoholic beverages". You seem to be suggesting that
"unless you have Christian sympathies, you can't possibly understand what
is valid church spend and what is not" so therefore we need to use
someone "sympathetic". I don't agree with this, but I do agree that an
overseer who cannot grasp the needs of an organisation is not fit to
oversee it.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/09/2021 10:11, Jason wrote:

> That's fine, and I don't think any watchdog, whatever their religious (or
> not) "sympathies" may be would have a distinction. And to have someone
> with a completely different background, may well highlight spending
> which, while OK, may not be the best or most efficient use of funds.

Which, I think, is my point. To take a real example, over the years I
have known of several chapels which have closed down (usually for lack
of members). Some other Christian denomination has offered to take over
the building and carry on Christian work and the chapel board itself
would have been only too happy for that to happen - but then the Charity
Commissioners step in and say that according to charity law the assets
must be sold for the greatest possible return and so the building gets
turned into a mosque or pulled down and flats built on the site.

> I would only have a problem if such overseers were to forbid (say)
> spending church funds to buy communion wine on the grounds that "why
> should we fund alcoholic beverages".

Or "why not buy chateau plonk from Sainsburys at half the price?" I must
admit that I don't know what is special about "communion wine" that
justifies the premium price, but apparently church authorities feel that
it is important.

> You seem to be suggesting that
> "unless you have Christian sympathies, you can't possibly understand what
> is valid church spend and what is not" so therefore we need to use
> someone "sympathetic". I don't agree with this, but I do agree that an
> overseer who cannot grasp the needs of an organisation is not fit to
> oversee it.

Somehow the discussion has veered off into the issue of money, but that
is just one of many possible areas of disagreement. Is it really
necessary that Sister XXX, who has taught the children's Sunday School
for the last 150 years, go on a "safeguarding course" and be police
vetted? Is it really a good use of church money to keep that little
chapel on the sink estate over the other side of town open? Is it worth
spending £xxx,xxx to rebuild the pipe organ when you can get a Yamaha
for small change or two guitars and a drum kit for free?

[steve hague]

>
>> You seem to be suggesting that
>> "unless you have Christian sympathies, you can't possibly understand what
>> is valid church spend and what is not" so therefore we need to use
>> someone "sympathetic".  I don't agree with this, but I do agree that an
>> overseer who cannot grasp the needs of an organisation is not fit to
>> oversee it.
>
> Somehow the discussion has veered off into the issue of money, but that
> is just one of many possible areas of disagreement. Is it really
> necessary that Sister XXX, who has taught the children's Sunday School
> for the last 150 years, go on a "safeguarding course" and be police
> vetted? Is it really a good use of church money to keep that little
> chapel on the sink estate over the other side of town open? Is it worth
> spending £xxx,xxx to rebuild the pipe organ when you can get a Yamaha
> for small change or two guitars and a drum kit for free?
>
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down
>
>

Sometimes we leave ourselves open to financial exploitation. A couple of
years ago my church bought a baptistry, which can be dismantled and
stored when not needed. In the past we've borrowed a similar baptistry
from a nearby church, which came with a water heater (Yes, I know). Ours
didn't. I looked into the cost of a water heater, and it was £400- £700,
depending on the size of the baptistry. A brief search revealed that if
you're looking for a water heater for an outdoor hot tub with a similar
volume of water, £25 will do it. Guess how much I spent on a water
heater. I suppose it's the same principle that applies to the NHS paying
vastly more for paracetamol, ibufrofen and aspirin than you can buy them
for from a supermarket of your choice. Exploiters don't have a problem
finding someone to exploit.
Steve Hague

[Jason]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 21:23:33 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 21/09/2021 10:11, Jason wrote:
>
>> That's fine, and I don't think any watchdog, whatever their religious
>> (or not) "sympathies" may be would have a distinction. And to have
>> someone with a completely different background, may well highlight
>> spending which, while OK, may not be the best or most efficient use of
>> funds.
>
> Which, I think, is my point. To take a real example, over the years I
> have known of several chapels which have closed down (usually for lack
> of members). Some other Christian denomination has offered to take over
> the building and carry on Christian work and the chapel board itself
> would have been only too happy for that to happen - but then the Charity
> Commissioners step in and say that according to charity law the assets
> must be sold for the greatest possible return and so the building gets
> turned into a mosque or pulled down and flats built on the site.

I'm still not convinced that "religious enterprises" are a special case:
surely the same rules apply to all organisations wishing to hand over the
properties to someone else? I don't know enough about how charity
commissioners work to know what's going on there: I would have naively
thought that if "group X" owns a building, they should be able to sell /
give / dispose of it however they like(???) I could understand if they
have gone bust and leave a trail of creditors that assets need to be sold
for the maximum return to pay them.

>> I would only have a problem if such overseers were to forbid (say)
>> spending church funds to buy communion wine on the grounds that "why
>> should we fund alcoholic beverages".
>
> Or "why not buy chateau plonk from Sainsburys at half the price?" I must
> admit that I don't know what is special about "communion wine" that
> justifies the premium price, but apparently church authorities feel that
> it is important.

I don't think the provenance of the wine you use should be of the
slightest relevance at all, Jesus didn't seem to care where it came from.
Some churches use alcohol-free wine, I've no idea if different
denonimations insist on particular sources, but again, if they do have
theological reasons for it, an 'overseer' would need to take that on
board.

>> You seem to be suggesting that "unless you have Christian sympathies,
>> you can't possibly understand what is valid church spend and what is
>> not" so therefore we need to use someone "sympathetic". I don't agree
>> with this, but I do agree that an overseer who cannot grasp the needs
>> of an organisation is not fit to oversee it.
>
> Somehow the discussion has veered off into the issue of money, but that
> is just one of many possible areas of disagreement. Is it really
> necessary that Sister XXX, who has taught the children's Sunday School
> for the last 150 years, go on a "safeguarding course" and be police
> vetted? Is it really a good use of church money to keep that little
> chapel on the sink estate over the other side of town open? Is it worth
> spending £xxx,xxx to rebuild the pipe organ when you can get a Yamaha
> for small change or two guitars and a drum kit for free?

Money is but one element we've focussed on as this is often the area that
warrants oversight. As you point out, safeguarding is another. Again,
this is not religion-specific but applies the same to any and all
organisations, and many organisations (scouts and the like) all have the
same issue of "person X has done Y for 4 decades, why do we need now to
ABC". Though of course just because someone has done something for a
long time does not ensure that they are not up-to-no-good. The same is
true of kitchen staff needing hygiene training, creche workers (I've
already brought up 10 kids, what training could I possibly need) etc etc.

I'm not sure what you are saying in the second half of your paragraph:
presumably it's a very good question to ask whether a failing and
expensive-to-maintain pipe organ should be replaced by an electronic one,
and indeed many churches (including the one I attend) has gone that route.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/09/2021 07:08, steve hague wrote:

> Sometimes we leave ourselves open to financial exploitation. A couple of
> years ago my church bought a baptistry, which can be dismantled and
> stored when not needed. In the past we've borrowed a similar baptistry
> from a nearby church, which came with a water heater (Yes, I know). Ours
> didn't. I looked into the cost of a water heater, and it was £400- £700,
> depending on the size of the baptistry. A brief search revealed that if
> you're looking for a water heater for an outdoor hot tub with a similar
> volume of water, £25 will do it. Guess how much I spent on a water
> heater.

Were there no advantages to the more expensive heaters? And did you not
have to "bodge" the cheaper heater in some way?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/09/2021 12:40, Jason wrote:

> I'm still not convinced that "religious enterprises" are a special case:
> surely the same rules apply to all organisations wishing to hand over the
> properties to someone else? I don't know enough about how charity
> commissioners work to know what's going on there: I would have naively
> thought that if "group X" owns a building, they should be able to sell /
> give / dispose of it however they like(???)

Quite so, but the Charity Commissioners do not see things that way.

> I don't think the provenance of the wine you use should be of the
> slightest relevance at all, Jesus didn't seem to care where it came from.
> Some churches use alcohol-free wine, I've no idea if different
> denonimations insist on particular sources, but again, if they do have
> theological reasons for it, an 'overseer' would need to take that on
> board.

I don't either, but my suggestion that cartons of grapejuice from
Sainsburys are a good deal cheaper than non-alcoholic communion wine was
received with horror!

> I'm not sure what you are saying in the second half of your paragraph:
> presumably it's a very good question to ask whether a failing and
> expensive-to-maintain pipe organ should be replaced by an electronic one,
> and indeed many churches (including the one I attend) has gone that route.

Phillistine. No soul-less electronic box can possibly replace the glory
of a 64' wood Diapason.

[steve hague]

No advantages I could see, and no, I didn't have to do anything to the
hot tub heater.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/09/2021 05:52, steve hague wrote:

> No advantages I could see, and no, I didn't have to do anything to the
> hot tub heater.

Incidentally, how do the running costs compare? I know that when we use
the long immersion heater the meter whizzes round like a carnival fun
fair ride! The treasurer sort of hovers over the tank suggesting that
"Surely that's warm enough" when the polar bears have only just left.

[Mike Davis]

Reminds me of the discussions we used to have with Jeff!

Discussion between Catholic & Baptist...

C. If I stand in the Baptistery with water up to my knees - is that enough?

B. No.

C. ... up to my waist?

B. No.

C:... to my neck?

B. No.

C. ... ears?

B. No - it must cover your head to be properly baptised.

C. That's all right then, we always make sure the top of the head is
thoroughly wetted!

;-)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[steve hague]

On 23/09/2021 20:43, Kendall K. Down wrote:

It's about the same as a domestic immersion heater. We got it just
before covid 19 struck, so we haven't been baptising people since. We
have our first baptisms since comparative freedom this afternoon, but
they're in the sea.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/09/2021 12:03, Mike Davis wrote:

> C. That's all right then, we always make sure the top of the head is
> thoroughly wetted!

Ha ha - but you have to wet all the other bits as well; no one bit is
sufficient on its own.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/09/2021 07:38, steve hague wrote:

> It's about the same as a domestic immersion heater.

Ah, so not advantage financially.

> We got it just
> before covid 19 struck, so we haven't been baptising people since. We
> have our first baptisms since comparative freedom this afternoon, but
> they're in the sea.

And you didn't warm the sea?

Came across a bit of rabbinical nonsense the other day. You can ritually
cleanse in a bath, but rivers, lakes and the sea are problematic,
because water from a spring is pure but must be flowing; water from the
sky is pure but only if it is still. Rivers are presumed to be springs,
but that presumption doesn't hold if the river dries up in summer. A
lake is not pure because the water is moving. However the sea is classed
as a spring, so that's all right.