God works even in the Church of England
David Anderson
the news today...
About two years ago, I was of the opinion that there were two possible
ways in which the next candidate for the Archbishop of Canterbury could
be chosen. The Church could choose the charismatic, intelligent, and
most importantly Godly candidate, or it could choose a safe candidate.
Given that this is the Church of England, I thought that the only way
that the former could be chosen was if God directly intervened with a
minor miracle.
Having just seen the news...
Yes!!! God is good. All praise and honour through the Spirit to our
Lord Jesus Christ. Amen!!!
David Anderson
Richard North
<ea...@central.susx.ac.uk> wrote:
> The Church could choose the charismatic, intelligent, and
>most importantly Godly candidate, or it could choose a safe candidate.
Godliness has never been the 'safe' option... but I must agree with
you that they have made the most forward-looking choice.
Much better that than having a 'sheep leading the flock'
There may be 'interesting' times ahead :-)
Peace,
Richard
Graham J Weeks
Such enthusiasm will not be universal. Will the new man manage to hold
the world wide Anglican communion together in the light of his reported
views ?
There is much criticsm of the way that bishops are appointed. This
becomes more acute in the case of a new Archbishop of Canterbury. Is there
any present participation of Anglicans outside of England in the process?
If not, it seems most incongruous that the man becomes the head of a
world-wide communion.
--
Graham J Weeks M.R.Pharm.S.
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/ My homepage of quotations
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html Our church
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/speeches_for_sale.htm My speech writing
service
---------------------------------------------------------------
The best things in life aren't things. -Art Buchwald.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie
<wee...@REMOVEdircon.co.uk.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>Such enthusiasm will not be universal. Will the new man manage to hold
>the world wide Anglican communion together in the light of his reported
>views ?
>
>There is much criticsm of the way that bishops are appointed. This
>becomes more acute in the case of a new Archbishop of Canterbury. Is there
>any present participation of Anglicans outside of England in the process?
>If not, it seems most incongruous that the man becomes the head of a
>world-wide communion.
I'm a little uncomfortable with aspects of this. I think +Rowan will
fulfil the role with faith and charisma, and I personality warm to
him, so this most definitely isn't about him - but I am uneasy with
the process.
The ABC is selected as the head of the Church *of England*. As
everyone knows, +Rowan was Archbishop of the church *in Wales* - which
is a separate church in the Anglican Communion. Not that I have any
gripe with that BUT I do wonder if there was any consideration at all
given to other bishops in the wider Anglican communion as candidates
for the post. I wouldn't mind betting that they never even
considered appointing a US or African or Asian Anglican to the post.
And in that case, I find myself wondering whether there isn't
something that smacks just a little of discrimination in all this.
--
Debbie
Urban Theology Unit, Sheffield
Views expressed in this email are my own and are not
necessarily those of the University of Sheffield or UTU.
kevin heath
news:3D3D7CE2...@removethis.central.susx.ac.uk...
But is someone who supports marriage of divorced copules in church and
admits to ordinating homosexuals as priests Godly? He obviously doesn't
support the Scriptures. I think that this is another movement away from
Biblical teachings by the Church of England.
Best wishes
Kevin Heath
http://www.wildlifenews.co.uk
http://www.uk-christians.org.uk
Simon Kershaw
> But is someone who supports marriage of divorced copules in church and
> admits to ordinating homosexuals as priests Godly? He obviously doesn't
> support the Scriptures. I think that this is another movement away from
> Biblical teachings by the Church of England.
I think you will find that Abp Williams is a man who knows and loves and
reads the Bible very well, and meidtates a lot upon it. To suggest that
he is in some way 'unbiblical' because he does not necessarily agree
with what some other folk think the bible says -- is not perhaps very
helpful in achieving the kingdom of God.
simon
--
Simon Kershaw
si...@kershaw.org.ukzzz
Cambridge, England
Simon Kershaw
> Such enthusiasm will not be universal. Will the new man manage to hold
> the world wide Anglican communion together in the light of his reported
> views ?
His appointment was welcomed by the Abp of Nigeria, for example.
>
> There is much criticsm of the way that bishops are appointed. This
> becomes more acute in the case of a new Archbishop of Canterbury. Is there
> any present participation of Anglicans outside of England in the process?
Diocesan Bishops are chosen by the PM from a shortlist of 2 drawn up by
the Crown Appointments Commission which consists of the Archbishop,
representative bishops clergy and laity elected from the General Synod
and representatives of the relevant Diocese. The PM's appointments
secretary, and the Abps' appointments secretary also attend. For the
appointment of an Archbishop, the chair is appointed by the PM. For the
appointment of the Abp of Canterbury they are joined by (IIRC) the
Secretary General of the Anglican Communion Office. The Chair appointed
for this particular process was Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss (sp?), High
Court Judge and also chair of the Council of St Paul's Cathedral.
So, no, no Anglicans outside England particiipated, since the Secretary
General is based in London. He is however an American (I think) andd his
role is clearly to represent the wider communion in the process.
> If not, it seems most incongruous that the man becomes the head of a
> world-wide communion.
Primarily the man is bishop of a part of Kent. It is only by being
bishop in Canterbury that he has any role at all. Without it he is
nothing. Abp Williams acknowledged this in his press statement today.
Alan Zanker
Agreed - nicely put!
Alan
David Ould
news:1ffsu4i.1hezlkz10bhv38N%si...@kershaw.org.ukzzz...
come on, let's do away with the "what some other folk think the bible
says".
The bible speaks plainly on homosexual activity.
WHy can't some of us just have the honesty to say that they simply don't
agree with the bible?
Far less deceptive and far more honest.
David
Neil Davey
<ea...@central.susx.ac.uk> jumped up and down excitedly and wrote the
following:
>Returning briefly to the newsgroup as a result of events announced in
>the news today...
<waves> Hi David, nice to see you back.
Cheers
Neil
--
Deadspam e-mail address is a spamblock.
Please use ndavey _at_ postmaster dot co dot uk if you wish to contact me.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>
>The ABC is selected as the head of the Church *of England*. As
>everyone knows, +Rowan was Archbishop of the church *in Wales* - which
>is a separate church in the Anglican Communion. Not that I have any
>gripe with that BUT I do wonder if there was any consideration at all
>given to other bishops in the wider Anglican communion as candidates
>for the post. I wouldn't mind betting that they never even
>considered appointing a US or African or Asian Anglican to the post.
Isn't this a problem, though, caused by the multiple roles of the ABC?
He is, effectively, serving at three different levels: he is the
diocesan bishop of Canterbury, he is the senior Archbishop of the CofE
and he is the "primus inter pares" Archbishop of the global Anglican
communion. The latter of these three roles could (and, arguably
should) be filled by someone from outside the UK, but it would be
difficult for someone who doesn't have experience of ministry in the
UK to fill either of the first two.
I don't think there's any easy way round this, unless the Anglican
church is prepared to consider splitting these three roles and giving
them to different people. But that would probably be a step too far
for even the most radical of reformers within the church.
Mark
--
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
"When you lose control, you'll reap the harvest you have sown"
Alan Zanker
>come on, let's do away with the "what some other folk think the bible
>says".
>The bible speaks plainly on homosexual activity.
>
>WHy can't some of us just have the honesty to say that they simply don't
>agree with the bible?
I assume 'us' includes the new Primate, who is reported as follows:
'His thinking on homosexuality is similarly complex, which is why he is
disturbed that it appears to have become such a defining issue in the
modern church. As a professor of theology at Oxford in the 1980s, he set
up the Institute for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality and after a
decade of study concluded: "If we are looking for a sexual ethic that
can be seriously informed by our Bible, there is a good deal to steer us
away from assuming that reproductive sex is a norm, however important
and theologically significant it may be." If physical sex is about human
bonding, as much as about procreation, he concluded, there is a good
case for thinking that same-sex relationships may also be legitimate in
God's eyes – always providing that they are stable and faithful.'
Alan
Richard Dudley
> But is someone who supports marriage of divorced copules in church and
> admits to ordinating homosexuals as priests Godly?
Is your definition of 'Godly' based on someone's intellectual assent to
a set of doctrines, or on how much they love their brothers and sisters
in Christ ?
Richard
Dave Shield
> The ABC is selected as the head of the Church *of England*. As
> everyone knows, +Rowan was Archbishop of the church *in Wales* - which
> is a separate church in the Anglican Communion.....
> ... I wouldn't mind betting that they never even
> considered appointing a US or African or Asian Anglican to the post.
You may well be correct in such an assumption, but I don't think the
situations are directly equivalent.
Although England and Wales are distinct countries, they are likely
to share rather more in common than England and most other countries.
Despite recent devolution moves, there are still a lot of issues that
affect Britian rather than England, so RW will have had direct experience
of these in his current/previous position.
And even with the purely-English stuff, the media coverage in Wales
is likely to be very similar to the coverage over this side of the dyke.
So he's likely to be more familiar with this stuff than someone in
Washington, Nairobi or Calcutta - it'll be the first half dozen pages
of the morning newspaper, rather than being tucked away in the inside.
However globally minded somebody is, they are inevitably going to be
better informed and more in touch with things closer to home, than
half way round the world.
Similarly, a Dutch, or French candidate would probably tend to start
from somewhere in between - they'd probably have a better understanding
of the issues concerning England and Europe (from a different perspective)
than an American or African or Asian would. But they'd be less in
touch with the purely national stuff than RW is.
> And in that case, I find myself wondering whether there isn't
> something that smacks just a little of discrimination in all this.
It's possible, of course - but I think you might be being a little
over-suspicious.
The ABC is both a national and a global post (not to mention the
little matter of a local diocese as well!), so any appointment is
bound to be something of a compromise. Any "foreign" candidate is
going to be at an automatic disadvantage as regards the national
aspects of this.
That's not to rule them out automatically, of course. But it does
mean that they would need to be significantly outstanding on the
global aspects, to outweigh this. And that's a matter of considering
what they could do (globally) *as ABC* that they couldn't do in their
current position (since any realistic candidate is likely to be fairly
prominent already).
Dave
kevin heath
news:1ffsu4i.1hezlkz10bhv38N%si...@kershaw.org.ukzzz...
> kevin heath <k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> reads the Bible very well, and meidtates a lot upon it. To suggest that
> he is in some way 'unbiblical' because he does not necessarily agree
> with what some other folk think the bible says -- is not perhaps very
> helpful in achieving the kingdom of God.
>
> simon
>
> --
> Simon Kershaw
> si...@kershaw.org.ukzzz
> Cambridge, England
Sorry but the Bible does seem to be pretty certain on the issue of
homosexuality, you really do need to twist the words and meanings of the
Bible a lot to even attempt to cloud the clearness of the Lord's commands.
Note Lev 18:29. No indication of allowing homosexuals to become priests
there.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is]
abomination.
Leviticus 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself
therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto:
it [is] confusion.
Leviticus 18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all
these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
Leviticus 18:25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity
thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
Leviticus 18:26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and
shall not commit [any] of these abominations; [neither] any of your own
nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
Leviticus 18:27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done,
which [were] before you, and the land is defiled;)
Leviticus 18:28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as
it spued out the nations that [were] before you.
Leviticus 18:29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even
the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people.
With regard allowing the divorced to remarry then again there is little
support for re-marriage
Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and
whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth
adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband
committeth adultery.
The above was one of the teachings of Jesus himself, Paul also highlighted
this,
1 Corinthians 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good
for them if they abide even as I.
1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is
better to marry than to burn.
1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the
Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband:
1 Corinthians 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be
reconciled to [her] husband: and let not the husband put away [his] wife.
Personnaly I would love it if the new Archbishop was the right person for
the job. I would love to see a grwoing biblically based national church in
Britian. If the right decision has been made then God will bless his
ministry and the CoE will see a revival in numbers. By his fruits a person
shall be known I believe is the right Scripture. If the CoE does have
another revival then I will be the first to say I was wrong. However I don't
think that saying a few words about commercialism in the modern world is
going to cut any ice. The simple fact is you either accept the Bible as the
living word of god or you don't. You cann't pick and choose the bits that
you like or agree with and disregard the rest because it's outdated or not
politically correct.
Jesus didn't come just to be sacrificed but also to bring Gods people back
to the meanings of the Scriptures and laws that God had made. May be this is
why the smaller scripturally based churches are growing at the expense of
the established church.
kevin heath
news:c22ecf9b.02072...@posting.google.com...
I will respond to this later - I must head back to work now though.
David Ould
news:qftsjuophuqjqlg0p...@4ax.com...
>
yes Alan, it's a great example of a liberal searching for general
principles but flatly ignoring where scripture speaks *specifically* on
the issue.
David
David Ould
news:ahmh9q$t8r$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
blimey, you won't be popular here.....
(you've been warned)
> Jesus didn't come just to be sacrificed but also to bring Gods people
back
> to the meanings of the Scriptures and laws that God had made. May be
this is
> why the smaller scripturally based churches are growing at the expense
of
> the established church.
>
exactly. And interesting that the churches that wrote to the Prime
Minister and counselled against the appointment of RW were from the
fastest growing wing of the church and also, themselves, some of the
largest churches in the country.
David
Richard North
wrote:
>Is your definition of 'Godly' based on someone's intellectual assent to
>a set of doctrines, or on how much they love their brothers and sisters
>in Christ ?
Well, for what it's worth, my idea is nearer the latter than the
former.... if you'll allow 'God' rather than 'Christ'....
Richard
Mitch B
>Sorry but the Bible does seem to be pretty certain on the issue of
>homosexuality, you really do need to twist the words and meanings of the
>Bible a lot to even attempt to cloud the clearness of the Lord's commands.
>Note Lev 18:29. No indication of allowing homosexuals to become priests
>there.
Gordon Bennett !!
Here we go again ... :-(
--
Mitch
Prai Jei
Which category do you reckon Rowan Williams falls into?
"David Anderson" <ea...@central.susx.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3D3D7CE2...@removethis.central.susx.ac.uk...
Gareth McCaughan
Rowan Williams's position is on homosexuality and
remarriage of divorcees. Out of curiosity, here's
a little experiment. How many people here know what
he thinks about the following topics?
- Third-world debt.
- The "War on Terror".
- What happens in the eucharist.
- Theories of the atonement.
- The "filioque" clause.
- Union with the Methodists.
- Universalism.
For my part, I'll admit to not knowing his opinion
on *any* of them. If I'm right in guessing that hardly
anyone else here does either (looking it up using Google
is cheating, by the way), then I wonder whether perhaps
something's got a little unbalanced.
[1] Or think they do.
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc
Simon Kershaw
> The simple fact is you either accept the Bible as the
> living word of god or you don't. You cann't pick and choose the bits that
> you like or agree with and disregard the rest because it's outdated or not
> politically correct.
I'm sure this topic has been discussed ad nauseam on this ng. Suffice it
to say that there are quite a lot of things in the Bible that I suspect
almost all of us carefully, or carelessly, ignore. Contraception, for
example, cannot be considered 'biblical' if you are going to hold to
every jot and title of the old law. Ritual cleansing, on the other hand,
is definitely in.
So, when we've agreed that actually we all choose to ignore some bits of
the bible and agree with others -- when we've agreed that, then perhaps
we can try and discuss what it is that we are trying to grasp at in
making the decision.
kevin heath
news:c22ecf9b.02072...@posting.google.com...
My definition of Godly is based on how much someone puts God first and
follows his teachings. Then comes the loving of brothers and sisters in
Christ.
M't:22:37: Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
M't:22:38: This is the first and great commandment.
M't:22:39: And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself.
The best things once you start to do that then God starts to bless you and
reward you. As I said in a previous post, we shall know if the new
Archbishop is Godly if the CoE starts to rebuild and becomes attractive to
christians again.
Best Wishes
kevin heath
news:867kjk7...@g.local...
> It's interesting that everyone seems to know[1] what
> Rowan Williams's position is on homosexuality and
> remarriage of divorcees. Out of curiosity, here's
Perhaps the reason why these views have been picked up by the media and
published is because these are the issues which are of interest (or should
be) of many christians.
We need to know if the leaders of the church are following the teachings of
God or not.
Best wishes
kevin heath
> kevin heath <k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> So, when we've agreed that actually we all choose to ignore some bits of
> the bible and agree with others -- when we've agreed that, then perhaps
> we can try and discuss what it is that we are trying to grasp at in
> making the decision.
>
> simon
>
> --
> Simon Kershaw
> si...@kershaw.org.ukzzz
> Cambridge, England
I think we should expect leaders of organisations to set the example for
others to follow.
All across this country both in the towns and rural areas children are
regularly getting drunk and taking drugs but little attention is drawn to it
even though it's against the law. When the PM's children or royality is
involved it gets national media attention - rightly so. We expect these
people to set the example for others to follow, that is why they have been
placed as leaders.
If the leader of a church is unwilling to follow MAJOR teachings of the
Bible then you must expect questions to be raised over their ability to lead
that church.
Best Wishes
Steven Carr
> Rowan Williams's position is on homosexuality and
> remarriage of divorcees. Out of curiosity, here's
> a little experiment. How many people here know what
> he thinks about the following topics?
> - Third-world debt.
> - The "War on Terror".
> - What happens in the eucharist.
> - Theories of the atonement.
> - The "filioque" clause.
> - Union with the Methodists.
> - Universalism.
> For my part, I'll admit to not knowing his opinion
> on *any* of them. If I'm right in guessing that hardly
> anyone else here does either (looking it up using Google
> is cheating, by the way), then I wonder whether perhaps
> something's got a little unbalanced.
Wasn't his views on a lot of things published in the Times this week?
Certainly the Disney Corp. are aware of some of his opinions.
Dave Shield
> Perhaps the reason why these views have been picked up by the media and
> published is because these are the issues which are of interest (or should
> be) of many christians.
Are you saying that the issues Gareth listed are *not* of interest
to many Christians? Because I'd be inclined to disagree.
(Different people will probably have different emphases between them,
but as a whole, they seem a reasonable selection of both "internal
Church" issues, and wider "world ethical" issues).
Of that list, the question of the "War on Terror" is probably the only
one to have received a noticeably amount of coverage in the papers
recently. I'd certainly got the impression that (putting things very
*very* crudely) he was "against" it rather than "for" it.
But as to the others - I haven't a clue. I could guess - but that
would probably be what I think his opinions ought to be, rather that
what they necessarily actually are.
> We need to know if the leaders of the church are following the teachings
> of God or not.
Just out of interest - how many issues would he be allowed to get "wrong"
before being disqualified for the position?
Dave
Dave Shield
> Wasn't his views on a lot of things published in the Times this week?
> Certainly the Disney Corp. are aware of some of his opinions.
Are they aware of his opinions - or just the media portrayals of his
opinions?
The Guardian this morning had a selection of excerts from some of
his writings, including the following (under "On consumerism"):
A relatively innocuous example [of the child as consumer] is
the .. tie-in .. of comics, sweets, toys and so on with a
major new film or television serial; the Disney empire has
developed this to an unprecedented pitch of professionalism.
So yes - there is a slightly critical tone to this. But factually,
I'd say it's perfectly accurate. Disney *are* extremely good at
this, and quite possibly better than anyone else.
But the impression given in the papers earlier was that it was
a much more scathing attack. From the very brief extract I saw
this morning, RW's main criticism seemed to be aimed at computer
games and children's "style wars". The Disney stuff was much
milder than I'd expected.
Dave
Richard Dudley
( I asked, of Kevin )
> >Is your definition of 'Godly' based on someone's intellectual assent to
> >a set of doctrines, or on how much they love their brothers and sisters
> >in Christ ?
>
> Well, for what it's worth, my idea is nearer the latter than the
> former.... if you'll allow 'God' rather than 'Christ'....
Of course Richard - it doesn't change the sense of what I'm saying at all ;-)
Richard
Nick
<k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>The best things once you start to do that then God starts to bless you and
>reward you. As I said in a previous post, we shall know if the new
>Archbishop is Godly if the CoE starts to rebuild and becomes attractive to
>christians again.
Its attractive to many of the Christians that I know
nick
Nick
<k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>"Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>news:867kjk7...@g.local...
>> It's interesting that everyone seems to know[1] what
>> Rowan Williams's position is on homosexuality and
>> remarriage of divorcees. Out of curiosity, here's
>> --
>> Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
>> .sig under construc
>
>Perhaps the reason why these views have been picked up by the media and
>published is because these are the issues which are of interest (or should
>be) of many christians.
They are marginal issues. The reason the press picks them up are
because they are the issues of current debate in the church, and
because they are more understandable to the non-Christian than issues
like transsubstantiation, Biblical inerrancy, or the filoque (sp)
clause.
A couple of hundred years ago, the main press interest would be about
his stance on slavery. 100 years ago it would have been about the
rights of children, and the demon drink. 10 years ago it would have
been about the ordination of women.
Nick
Eve
>On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 07:29:58 +0100, "kevin heath"
><k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>>news:867kjk7...@g.local...
>>> It's interesting that everyone seems to know[1] what
>>> Rowan Williams's position is on homosexuality and
>>> remarriage of divorcees. Out of curiosity, here's
>>> --
>>> Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
>>> .sig under construc
>>
>>Perhaps the reason why these views have been picked up by the media and
>>published is because these are the issues which are of interest (or should
>>be) of many christians.
>
>They are marginal issues.
Not when they have, or potentially could, affect the whole of
someone's adult life!
>The reason the press picks them up are
>because they are the issues of current debate in the church, and
>because they are more understandable to the non-Christian than issues
>like transsubstantiation, Biblical inerrancy, or the filoque (sp)
>clause.
>
>A couple of hundred years ago, the main press interest would be about
>his stance on slavery. 100 years ago it would have been about the
>rights of children, and the demon drink. 10 years ago it would have
>been about the ordination of women.
>
However I agree with the reason you give! I think that the ABC
should be allowed some time in the post to see what he does or doesn't
achieve before people start trying to draw conclusions about what will
or will not happen!
Richard North
wrote:
>Of course Richard - it doesn't change the sense of what I'm saying at all ;-)
Thank-you.
Richard
Richard North
<k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> As I said in a previous post, we shall know if the new
>Archbishop is Godly if the CoE starts to rebuild and becomes attractive to
>christians again.
I'd add to that, attractive to not-yet christians too... there is
little to be gained preaching /only/ to the converted....
Richard
Nick
wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:33:36 GMT, Nick wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 07:29:58 +0100, "kevin heath"
>><k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>"Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>>>news:867kjk7...@g.local...
>>>> It's interesting that everyone seems to know[1] what
>>>> Rowan Williams's position is on homosexuality and
>>>> remarriage of divorcees. Out of curiosity, here's
>>>> --
>>>> Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
>>>> .sig under construc
>>>
>>>Perhaps the reason why these views have been picked up by the media and
>>>published is because these are the issues which are of interest (or should
>>>be) of many christians.
>>
>>They are marginal issues.
>
>Not when they have, or potentially could, affect the whole of
>someone's adult life!
Oh I agree, for some of us they are pretty crucial, but on the whole
they are not core to the Christian faith
Nick
Richard Dudley
> My definition of Godly is based on how much someone puts God first and
> follows his teachings. Then comes the loving of brothers and sisters in
> Christ.
Sounds like your definition of Godly has nothing whatever to do with
assenting to the correct doctrines then. You've expressed it totally in
terms of thought and action. The only thing then left to debate is
whether ordaining homosexuals and remarrying divorcees is somehow
not putting God first or not loving of God's children.
> M't:22:37: Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
> thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
> M't:22:38: This is the first and great commandment.
> M't:22:39: And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
> thyself.
>
> The best things once you start to do that then God starts to bless you and
> reward you. As I said in a previous post, we shall know if the new
> Archbishop is Godly if the CoE starts to rebuild and becomes attractive to
> christians again.
Hmm. Surely the CofE needs to become attractive to those who *don't* call
themselves Christians in order to rebuild itself ? One memorable quote I
recall from my CofE days was that 'The Church is the only institution which
exists for the benefit of its non-members'.
If it does away with some of its traditional doctrines then it stands a
good chance of becoming more attractive to non-members. Not re-marrying
divorcees would be one such doctrine which has outlived its usefulness,
so would its discriminatory stance towards practicing homosexuals. On
that basis, the new AoC stands a good chance of rebuilding the church,
even if it does mean a few die-hards decide to leave.
Richard
kevin heath
> The best things once you start to do that then God starts to bless you and
> reward you. As I said in a previous post, we shall know if the new
> Archbishop is Godly if the CoE starts to rebuild and becomes attractive to
> christians again.
>
sorry but that should of read non-christians.
thanks for everyone pionting that out!
kevin heath
news:c22ecf9b.02072...@posting.google.com...
> kevin heath wrote
>
> assenting to the correct doctrines then. You've expressed it totally in
> terms of thought and action. The only thing then left to debate is
> whether ordaining homosexuals and remarrying divorcees is somehow
> not putting God first or not loving of God's children.
>
Surely if you love God with all your heart, soul and mind then you will
follow his teachings and submit to them and him.
Superimposing your own teachings and interpretions onto the words of God is
definately not putting him first. What you are doing by changing God's
teachings is putting him below you and trying to get his followers to submit
to your own views, which of course will never succeed.
kevin heath
news:ahonrq$kj6$1...@kinder.server.csc.liv.ac.uk...
> kevin heath wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the reason why these views have been picked up by the media and
> > published is because these are the issues which are of interest (or
should
> > be) of many christians.
>
> Are you saying that the issues Gareth listed are *not* of interest
> to many Christians? Because I'd be inclined to disagree.
> (Different people will probably have different emphases between them,
> but as a whole, they seem a reasonable selection of both "internal
> Church" issues, and wider "world ethical" issues).
No I certainly did not say that. But i think people both christians and non
christians do want to know where the future leaders of the CoE or any church
stands on the fundamental and core beliefs of christianity.
> > We need to know if the leaders of the church are following the teachings
> > of God or not.
>
> Just out of interest - how many issues would he be allowed to get "wrong"
> before being disqualified for the position?
>
>
> Dave
I don't think changing the core beliefs of christianity is getting an issue
wrong. Allowing divorcees to marry in church or homosexuals to be priests is
not necessarily wrong, it just doesn't belong in the christian religion. Now
if the CoE is going to move away from fundamental christianity it may have a
place in the new religion. But then it wouldn't and couldn't be a christian
faith. May be it could take a leaf out of New Labour's books and call
themselves New Christians?
kevin heath
> >>>published is because these are the issues which are of interest (or
should
> >>>be) of many christians.
> >>
> >>They are marginal issues.
> >
> >Not when they have, or potentially could, affect the whole of
> >someone's adult life!
>
> Oh I agree, for some of us they are pretty crucial, but on the whole
> they are not core to the Christian faith
>
> Nick
I think you'll find adultery is pretty core to the christian faith. Jesus
had words to say about the issue as I quoted in a previous post.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>I think you'll find adultery is pretty core to the christian faith.
Oh! So that's where I've been going wrong all these years, then....
Mark
--
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
"Life is bigger, it's bigger than you"
Eve
>On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:45:09 +0100, kevin heath put finger to keyboard
>and typed:
>
>>I think you'll find adultery is pretty core to the christian faith.
>
>Oh! So that's where I've been going wrong all these years, then....
>
And I've been missing out! {;-)
Gareth McCaughan
[I wrote:]
>> It's interesting that everyone seems to know[1] what
>> Rowan Williams's position is on homosexuality and
>> remarriage of divorcees. Out of curiosity, here's
[this is where Kevin truncated what I wrote, and continued:]
> Perhaps the reason why these views have been picked up by the media and
> published is because these are the issues which are of interest (or should
> be) of many christians.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it looks as if you're
saying that Christians should be interested in homosexuality
and divorce but not in third-world debt and the atonement.
That seems odd.
> We need to know if the leaders of the church are following the teachings of
> God or not.
In which case, we need to look at a wider range of issues
than just a couple of ones about sex.
Simon Kershaw
> Isn't this a problem, though, caused by the multiple roles of the ABC?
> He is, effectively, serving at three different levels: he is the
> diocesan bishop of Canterbury, he is the senior Archbishop of the CofE
> and he is the "primus inter pares" Archbishop of the global Anglican
> communion. The latter of these three roles could (and, arguably
> should) be filled by someone from outside the UK, but it would be
> difficult for someone who doesn't have experience of ministry in the
> UK to fill either of the first two.
Currently the Abp must be someone who can take the oath of allegiance to
the Queen. That effectively rules out (at the very least) those who are
citizens of non-Commonwealth countries. It might also make it hard for
some of those in Commonwealth republics. This of course reinforces the
need for it to be someone who can work within the CofE with some
knowledge of that. Clealry there are not many bishops outside England
who can do that.
As for another bishop being the symbolic 'head of the communion' this is
a strange concept. Historically, communion has been with a particular
See, in this case Canterbury. There is no doubt about who is Abp of
Canterbury at any given time and therefore it is relatively simple to
determine whether one is in communion. If the primates started electing
a papal figure then we would be playing a very different game, and it
would be a bit dissimilar from the Anglicanism we know.
Richard Dudley
> Surely if you love God with all your heart, soul and mind then you will
> follow his teachings and submit to them and him.
Yes, I agree.
> Superimposing your own teachings and interpretions onto the words of God is
> definately not putting him first.
That's true also. However what are you assuming are the words of God ? Tbe
bible contains some words which aren't those of God. How can we know this ?
Because the bible contains contradictions. God does not contradict herself,
hence not all the bible's words can be of God.
> What you are doing by changing God's
> teachings is putting him below you and trying to get his followers to submit
> to your own views, which of course will never succeed.
That is a mistake. I'm not changing God's teachings, I'm following them,
to the best of my ability. It is those who follow man's teachings that
end up in a muddle !
Richard
Tim Rowe
<k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>But is someone who supports marriage of divorced copules in church
The usual plurals of "copula" are "copulas" and "copulae", but I agree
that they should be kept apart!
Tim Rowe
<NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>exactly. And interesting that the churches that wrote to the Prime
>Minister and counselled against the appointment of RW were from the
>fastest growing wing of the church and also, themselves, some of the
>largest churches in the country.
I am old enough to remember when the liberal churches were
significantly outgrowing the conservative ones, and I recall the
conservative Christians at that time proudly declaring that the
liberal churches were only growing because they watered down the
gospel, and that the sign of remaining faithful to the Truth would be
a winnowing down to a small remnant, as the majority would always find
the Truth unpalatable. I take it that this ecclesiology has been
revised.
I for one have never considered fatness to be particularly correlated
with holiness.
Tim Rowe
<k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>If the leader of a church is unwilling to follow MAJOR teachings of the
>Bible then you must expect questions to be raised over their ability to lead
>that church.
Even if one accepts that the Bible is all that counts, not all of us
would agree with your view of what comprises "major". I am enough of a
traditionalist to consider that the /major/ teaching of the Bible is
encapsulated in John 3:16, and all the rest is supporting detail. I
don't consider any teaching on sexual practice, important though it
may be, to be on a par with the overall message of love and salvation,
though some of them make darn fine shibboleths.
Tim Rowe
<k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>No I certainly did not say that. But i think people both christians and non
>christians do want to know where the future leaders of the CoE or any church
>stands on the fundamental and core beliefs of christianity.
For what proportion of the history of the Christian church, do you
think, has opposition to homosexual acts been a "fundamental and core
belief of Christianity"? What proportion of Christians /now/ would
consider it a "fundamental and core belief"? Do you not think that
turning to God (and the implied fact that this is now possible) might
be just a /teeny/ but more important than the detail of what might be
expected to change in a person's life once they have done so?
Dave Shield
> "Dave Shield" <D.T.S...@csc.liv.ac.uk> wrote
>> Are you saying that the issues Gareth listed are *not* of interest
>> to many Christians?
>
> No I certainly did not say that. But i think people both christians and
> non christians do want to know where the future leaders of the CoE or any
> church stands on the fundamental and core beliefs of christianity.
<nods>
I agree.
And I'd suggest that at least two of the issues that Gareth listed
probably touch closer on the fundamental and core beliefs of Christianity,
and how these affect the way we live our lives.
Namely "third world debt" and "the War on Terror". The Gospel has
rather more to say about care for the poor, and the taking of life,
than it does about sex and sexuality.
OK - the modern western world in general is probably more interested
in sex, but I don't think that we should automatically follow their
lead in this - do you?
>> > We need to know if the leaders of the church are following the
>> > teachings of God or not.
>>
>> Just out of interest - how many issues would he be allowed to get "wrong"
>> before being disqualified for the position?
>
> I don't think changing the core beliefs of christianity is getting an
> issue wrong.
But I don't think divorce or homosexuality are among the core beliefs
of Christianity. I'd see those beliefs as to do with loving, worshipping
and honouring God, and loving and caring for each other.
Issues regarding how we live our lives (money, sex, honesty, etc) may
follow as consequences of these core beliefs, and are certainly important.
But I don't see how you can possibly put what we do with our dangly bits,
on a level with belief in the Triune God, or accepting Jesus as Saviour.
Dave
me2s
> Its attractive to many of the Christians that I know
>
> nick
me2 -
Patrick Herring.
--
The me2-ed article was written by Nick,
had the Message-Id <3d3ffde0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
and was posted on Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:33:36 GMT;
the full text should be at
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=%3C3d3ffde0%2E24795614%40news%2Edemon%2Eco%2Euk%3E.
For how the me2 system works please see the meta-FAQ at
http://www.anweald.co.uk/uk.religion.christian.metaFAQ.html#me2s.
David Ould
news:3d412abb...@usenet.plus.net...
no, I don't think it is an absolute measure.
You might want to ask how long those numbers are sustained. I can think
of a large liberal church near us that's practically empty. It's my
understanding that we both grew at the same time.
David
Patrick Herring
>
> "Tim Rowe" <tim@remove_if_not_spam.digitig.cix.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3d412abb...@usenet.plus.net...
> > I for one have never considered fatness to be particularly
> > correlated with holiness.
<g>
> no, I don't think it is an absolute measure.
> You might want to ask how long those numbers are sustained. I can
> think of a large liberal church near us that's practically empty. It's
> my understanding that we both grew at the same time.
All Souls? I can think of a large High Anglo-Catholic church near you,
and a large liberal English-Catholic church not very far from you, both
of which are fine (AFAIK). However, it is an interesting question of
where the general flow is going.
I would predict, for the medium-term future, a considerable increase in
churches offering a very liberal monastic-style, Taize-flavoured, lots
of candles, chapel of silent prayer, -type spirituality where the
commitment (in your sense) isn't explicitly in the liturgy (and they
might not have regular services anyway) but is in the way the place is
open almost all the time for dropping in & the way there's always
someone there to listen, etc etc.
--
Patrick Herring
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/cgi-bin/makeperson?P.Herring
Richard North
<anw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>I would predict, for the medium-term future, a considerable increase in
>churches offering a very liberal monastic-style, Taize-flavoured, lots
>of candles, chapel of silent prayer, -type spirituality where the
>commitment (in your sense) isn't explicitly in the liturgy (and they
>might not have regular services anyway) but is in the way the place is
>open almost all the time for dropping in & the way there's always
>someone there to listen, etc etc.
Which I for one would find a lot more inviting that the type more
common now.
Richard
-Si vis amavi, ama!
Tony Gillam
But do we want all those domed roofs?
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.christians-r-us.org.uk
A site for sore I's
Nick
<k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>>Perhaps the reason why these views have been picked up by the media and
>> >>>published is because these are the issues which are of interest (or
>should
>> >>>be) of many christians.
>> >>
>> >>They are marginal issues.
>> >
>> >Not when they have, or potentially could, affect the whole of
>> >someone's adult life!
>>
>> Oh I agree, for some of us they are pretty crucial, but on the whole
>> they are not core to the Christian faith
>>
>> Nick
>
>I think you'll find adultery is pretty core to the christian faith. Jesus
>had words to say about the issue as I quoted in a previous post.
adultery yes (arguably), remarriage of divorcees no
Nick
Graham J Weeks
>
> I am old enough to remember when the liberal churches were
> significantly outgrowing the conservative ones
When?
>
>
> I for one have never considered fatness to be particularly correlated
> with holiness.
Leaness of body and soul may go together. - John Owen
--
Graham J Weeks M.R.Pharm.S.
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/ My homepage of quotations
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html Our church
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/speeches_for_sale.htm My speech writing
service
---------------------------------------------------------------
The best things in life aren't things. -Art Buchwald.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graham J Weeks
>
> Currently the Abp must be someone who can take the oath of allegiance to
> the Queen. That effectively rules out (at the very least) those who are
> citizens of non-Commonwealth countries. It might also make it hard for
> some of those in Commonwealth republics. This of course reinforces the
> need for it to be someone who can work within the CofE with some
> knowledge of that. Clealry there are not many bishops outside England
> who can do that.
That all depends on what the oath involves. If I can swear allegiance to HM
and not be an Anglican I am sure an Anglican who is not British can swear
allegiance too.
David Ould
news:3d40f294...@news.demon.co.uk...
i think he did...
Mark 10:11-12
11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman
commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits
adultery."
(NIV)
that's not the full story but divorce remarriage and adultery are all
tied up together.
David
Nick
<NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>"Nick" <nick_...@ktransform.com> wrote in message
>news:3d40f294...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:45:09 +0100, "kevin heath"
>> <k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>Perhaps the reason why these views have been picked up by the
>media and
>> >> >>>published is because these are the issues which are of interest
>(or
>> >should
>> >> >>>be) of many christians.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>They are marginal issues.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not when they have, or potentially could, affect the whole of
>> >> >someone's adult life!
>> >>
>> >> Oh I agree, for some of us they are pretty crucial, but on the
>whole
>> >> they are not core to the Christian faith
>> >>
>> >> Nick
>> >
>> >I think you'll find adultery is pretty core to the christian faith.
>Jesus
>> >had words to say about the issue as I quoted in a previous post.
>>
>> adultery yes (arguably), remarriage of divorcees no
>
>i think he did...
He had words, yes. Core to the faith, no. Not mentioned in any of the
creeds, for example.
Nick
(Remarriage of divorcees IS in cluded in the Westminster confession,
incidentally, for those who are interested in the foundations of
Bristish Protestanitsm. (this is not implyting that the Westminster
confession = core to the faith)
"Because the corruption of man is apt unduly to put asunder those whom
God hath joined together in marriage, and because the Church is
concerned with the establishment of marriage in the Lord as Scripture
sets it forth, and with the present penitence as well as with the past
innocence or guilt of those whose marriage has been broken; therefore
as a breach of that holy relation may occasion divorce, so remarriage
after a divorce granted on grounds explicitly stated in Scripture or
implicit in the gospel of Christ may be sanctioned in keeping with his
redemptive gospel, when sufficient penitence for sin and failure is
evident, and a firm purpose of and endeavor after Christian marriage
is manifest".)
David Ould
> >>
> >> >> >>>Perhaps the reason why these views have been picked up by the
> >media and
> >> >> >>>published is because these are the issues which are of
interest
> >(or
> >> >should
> >> >> >>>be) of many christians.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>They are marginal issues.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Not when they have, or potentially could, affect the whole of
> >> >> >someone's adult life!
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh I agree, for some of us they are pretty crucial, but on the
> >whole
> >> >> they are not core to the Christian faith
> >> >>
> >> >> Nick
> >> >
> >> >I think you'll find adultery is pretty core to the christian
faith.
> >Jesus
> >> >had words to say about the issue as I quoted in a previous post.
> >>
> >> adultery yes (arguably), remarriage of divorcees no
> >
> >i think he did...
>
> He had words, yes. Core to the faith, no. Not mentioned in any of the
> creeds, for example.
>
i was talking about Jesus' words, not the creeds. I think the use of the
personal pronoun "He" should have told you that.
d
kevin heath
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 11:01:45 GMT, "David Ould"
> <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >"Nick" <nick_...@ktransform.com> wrote in message
> >news:3d40f294...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:45:09 +0100, "kevin heath"
> >> <k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Oh I agree, for some of us they are pretty crucial, but on the
> >whole
> >> >> they are not core to the Christian faith
> >> >>
> >> >> Nick
> >> >
> >> >I think you'll find adultery is pretty core to the christian faith.
> >Jesus
> >> >had words to say about the issue as I quoted in a previous post.
> >>
> >> adultery yes (arguably), remarriage of divorcees no
> >
> >i think he did...
>
> He had words, yes. Core to the faith, no. Not mentioned in any of the
> creeds, for example.
>
> Nick
errr.....
I would put one of the Ten Commandments as core to the Christian faith.
kevin heath
> (Remarriage of divorcees IS in cluded in the Westminster confession,
> incidentally, for those who are interested in the foundations of
> Bristish Protestanitsm. (this is not implyting that the Westminster
> confession = core to the faith)
>
> "Because the corruption of man is apt unduly to put asunder those whom
> God hath joined together in marriage, and because the Church is
> concerned with the establishment of marriage in the Lord as Scripture
> sets it forth, and with the present penitence as well as with the past
> innocence or guilt of those whose marriage has been broken; therefore
> as a breach of that holy relation may occasion divorce, so remarriage
> after a divorce granted on grounds explicitly stated in Scripture or
> implicit in the gospel of Christ may be sanctioned in keeping with his
> redemptive gospel, when sufficient penitence for sin and failure is
> evident, and a firm purpose of and endeavor after Christian marriage
> is manifest".)
But surely the Westminster confession does not supercede the teachings of
Christ himself?
The relevent scripture has already been quoted.
Richard Emblem
<k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
>But surely the Westminster confession does not supercede the teachings of
>Christ himself?
Call yourself a Protestant ? :-)
--
Richard Emblem
How good and pleasant it is
when God's people live in unity.
(Psalm 133:1)
_______________________
Nick
(sigh)
You said "I think you'll find adultery is pretty core to the christian
faith".
I said
"Core to the faith, no"
Unless you think everything Jesus said is "core to the faith"
Nick
Nick
<k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>"Nick" <nick_...@ktransform.com> wrote in message
>news:3d42c9a9...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 11:01:45 GMT, "David Ould"
>> <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Nick" <nick_...@ktransform.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3d40f294...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> >> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:45:09 +0100, "kevin heath"
>> >> <k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Oh I agree, for some of us they are pretty crucial, but on the
>> >whole
>> >> >> they are not core to the Christian faith
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nick
>> >> >
>> >> >I think you'll find adultery is pretty core to the christian faith.
>> >Jesus
>> >> >had words to say about the issue as I quoted in a previous post.
>> >>
>> >> adultery yes (arguably), remarriage of divorcees no
>> >
>> >i think he did...
>>
>> He had words, yes. Core to the faith, no. Not mentioned in any of the
>> creeds, for example.
>>
>> Nick
>
>errr.....
>
>I would put one of the Ten Commandments as core to the Christian faith.
And which of the ten commandments explicitly states "divorcees shall
not remarry"?
Nick
David Ould
no I didn't. That was Kevin Heath. And then he said "***JESUS*** had
words......"
to which you answered "adultery yes (arguably), remarriage of divorcees
no
to which I said "i think ***HE*** did"
and then you went on about the creeds.
We were talking about JESUS' words.
>
> I said
>
> "Core to the faith, no"
>
no, you said "HE had words, yes....."
> Unless you think everything Jesus said is "core to the faith"
>
FWIW, I think everything the Jesus said is core. I don't think anything
that's recorded is peripheral.
d
kevin heath
news:c22ecf9b.02072...@posting.google.com...
> kevin heath wrote
> > Surely if you love God with all your heart, soul and mind then you will
> > follow his teachings and submit to them and him.
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
> > Superimposing your own teachings and interpretions onto the words of God
is
> > definately not putting him first.
>
> That's true also. However what are you assuming are the words of God ? Tbe
> bible contains some words which aren't those of God. How can we know this
?
> Because the bible contains contradictions. God does not contradict
herself,
> hence not all the bible's words can be of God.
I am assuming that the words and teachings of Jesus are the Words of God
when it comes to divorce and adultery. Which I think is a fairly safe
assumption.
As Moses was a great prophet of God and one of the main early leaders then
I feel certain that the rules that God passed down to him as quoted in
Leviticus can also be taken as Words of God. If we don't accept the validity
of the teachings of Moses then can we accept the validity of the Ten
Commandments that was passed down through him? If we disregard Moses then we
disregard a great proportion of Christian tradition and teachings.
>
> > What you are doing by changing God's
> > teachings is putting him below you and trying to get his followers to
submit
> > to your own views, which of course will never succeed.
>
> That is a mistake. I'm not changing God's teachings, I'm following them,
> to the best of my ability. It is those who follow man's teachings that
> end up in a muddle !
>
> Richard
You ARE changing the teachings of Jesus (AKA God ). The relevant scriptures
covering the teaching on divorce by Jesus has been quoted previously.
Re-marrying of divorcees is not a doctrine - it is one of the Ten
Commandments (adultery) and has much more importance.
If you accept that Moses was a Holy man and in communication with God then
you are changing the teachings that God gave us through Moses if you believe
that practising homosexuality is acceptable.
The only way that you are not changing the teachings of God is if you don't
accept the authority of Moses and Jesus.
kevin heath
I would say that the opposition to homosexual acts have been a fundamental
teaching of God since before the destruction of Sodom. And also since the
teachings of Paul in Romans and Corinthians and not forgetting the Book of
Timothy.
And what we must remember is that accepting Jesus as our Saviour is only the
start of the path to God. It is not the only thing that will get us to
heaven.
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into
the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven.
Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what
good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is]
none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep
the commandments.
Matthew 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder,
Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear
false witness,
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,
nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
It's no good just accepting the blood of Jesus then continuing in life and
failing to follow the teachings and commandments of God if you want eternal
life.
kevin heath
news:ahrf4r$nlq$1...@kinder.server.csc.liv.ac.uk...
> in sex, but I don't think that we should automatically follow their
> lead in this - do you?
>
>
>
> of Christianity. I'd see those beliefs as to do with loving, worshipping
> and honouring God, and loving and caring for each other.
>
> Issues regarding how we live our lives (money, sex, honesty, etc) may
> follow as consequences of these core beliefs, and are certainly important.
> But I don't see how you can possibly put what we do with our dangly bits,
> on a level with belief in the Triune God, or accepting Jesus as Saviour.
>
> Dave
If what we do with our dangly bits means we break one of the Commandments
then it does put it one the same level. You will not get to heaven by
accepting Jesus and then breaking the commandments that god has laid down.
See one of my previous posts for the relevent scripture.
kevin heath
news:867kjji...@g.local...
> Kevin Heath wrote:
>
> [I wrote:]
> >> It's interesting that everyone seems to know[1] what
> >> Rowan Williams's position is on homosexuality and
> >> remarriage of divorcees. Out of curiosity, here's
> [this is where Kevin truncated what I wrote, and continued:]
>
> > Perhaps the reason why these views have been picked up by the media and
> > published is because these are the issues which are of interest (or
should
> > be) of many christians.
>
> saying that Christians should be interested in homosexuality
> and divorce but not in third-world debt and the atonement.
> That seems odd.
>
> > We need to know if the leaders of the church are following the teachings
of
> > God or not.
>
> than just a couple of ones about sex.
>
> --
> Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
> .sig under construc
Yes you are misunderstanding me.
As Christians we should be interested in a whole range of issues. But that
doesn't mean we should ignore issues which are of interest to a wide
audience (ie sex) just because some in the church are unable to accept the
teachings of God on those issues. This is why the media is so interested in
those issues. They are able to introduce controversy into and area where the
teaching is clear and there should be no confusion.
kevin heath
news:20020727163446...@mb-bg.aol.com...
No. AoG.
But I still put the teachings of Christ before any individual church
policies or doctrines.
kevin heath
Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
kevin heath
Not everthing - Just His teachings.
That's why He came after all. To be the eternal lamb and to show us the way
to the Kingdom of God.
If wew cann't accept the teachings of Christ as core to the faith then we
cann't call ourselves christians can we.
Debbie
<k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>"Nick" <nick_...@ktransform.com> wrote in message
>news:3d42c9a9...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 11:01:45 GMT, "David Ould"
>> <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Nick" <nick_...@ktransform.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3d40f294...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> >> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:45:09 +0100, "kevin heath"
>> >> <k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Oh I agree, for some of us they are pretty crucial, but on the
>> >whole
>> >> >> they are not core to the Christian faith
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nick
>> >> >
>> >> >I think you'll find adultery is pretty core to the christian faith.
>> >Jesus
>> >> >had words to say about the issue as I quoted in a previous post.
>> >>
>> >> adultery yes (arguably), remarriage of divorcees no
>> >
>> >i think he did...
>>
>> He had words, yes. Core to the faith, no. Not mentioned in any of the
>> creeds, for example.
>>
>> Nick
>
>errr.....
>
>I would put one of the Ten Commandments as core to the Christian faith.
I've left the above unsnipped just for clarification.
I think you may find that *not committing adultery* may be considered
core to the Christian faith, but not *adultery*. If the latter, we'd
all better go out and start adulterating quickly!
--
Debbie
Urban Theology Unit, Sheffield
Views expressed in this email are my own and are not
necessarily those of the University of Sheffield or UTU.
Debbie
<k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
<Nick (I think - so many >>>s) said>
>> Unless you think everything Jesus said is "core to the faith"
>>
>> Nick
>
>Not everthing - Just His teachings.
How do you distinguish between what he said and "His Teachings"?
Debbie
<k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> They are able to introduce controversy into and area where the
>teaching is clear and there should be no confusion.
If it were clear, there wouldn't be confusion...
Gareth McCaughan
[I wrote:]
>>>> It's interesting that everyone seems to know[1] what
>>>> Rowan Williams's position is on homosexuality and
>>>> remarriage of divorcees. Out of curiosity, here's
>> [this is where Kevin truncated what I wrote, and continued:]
>>
>>> Perhaps the reason why these views have been picked up by the media and
>>> published is because these are the issues which are of interest (or
>>> should be) of many christians.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it looks as if you're
>> saying that Christians should be interested in homosexuality
>> and divorce but not in third-world debt and the atonement.
>> That seems odd.
...
>> In which case, we need to look at a wider range of issues
>> than just a couple of ones about sex.
>
> Yes you are misunderstanding me.
>
> As Christians we should be interested in a whole range of issues. But that
> doesn't mean we should ignore issues which are of interest to a wide
> audience (ie sex) just because some in the church are unable to accept the
> teachings of God on those issues. This is why the media is so interested in
> those issues. They are able to introduce controversy into and area where the
> teaching is clear and there should be no confusion.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that we should ignore issues
which are of interest to a wide audience. I certainly didn't.
I just said that we should be looking at other things too, and
I didn't say (but implied) that some of those other things are
of more importance than sex even if they are not interesting
to so wide an audience.
Now, if Rowan Williams said "God says not to do such-and-such,
but I think we should do it anyway" then you'd be right to say
that that's not a way for any Christian, still less a Christian
leader, to behave. But he doesn't say that; he says that having
thought it through he doesn't think God does forbid such-and-such
after all. He may, of course, be wrong. But when the question is
"Is his theology correct on every issue?" rather than "Does he
think we should ignore what God says?", I think it makes no sense
at all to concentrate on one small area of Christian ethics and
forget about everything else.
Phil
mmmm
So a Christian woman is deserted by her unbelieving husband and then she
remarries.
The scripture says
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife
who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not
divorce her.
13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing
to live with her, she must not divorce him.
14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife,
and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing
husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they
are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or
woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in
peace.
Now either they are bound or they are free. Since they are free and not
bound to their ex having been divorced from them why may they not
remarry?
Phil
Phil
1) What is there that Jesus said that is not teaching?
2) Jesus taught the Jews about the Law, which parts of the Law should we
keep and why?
3) Why do you think Jesus came to sow us the way when He said that He is
the Way?
4) Jesus came for several reasons why are some more important than
other?
5) Why do you think that our opinion of which doctrines are most
important decides whether we are Christians or not?
regards
Phil
Nick
<k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
There is a MASSIVE leap between "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and
"divorcees shall not remarry"
Nick
Nick
<NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>"Nick" <nick_...@ktransform.com> wrote in message
>news:3d430bb...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> You said "I think you'll find adultery is pretty core to the christian
>> faith".
>
>no I didn't. That was Kevin Heath. And then he said "***JESUS*** had
>words......"
>
>to which you answered "adultery yes (arguably), remarriage of divorcees
>no
>
>to which I said "i think ***HE*** did"
>
>and then you went on about the creeds.
>We were talking about JESUS' words.
In that case, my apologies for the confusion
>> Unless you think everything Jesus said is "core to the faith"
>>
>
>FWIW, I think everything the Jesus said is core. I don't think anything
>that's recorded is peripheral.
Fair enough, so long as you realise that is your viewpoint
Nick
Pam Seeker
> If what we do with our dangly bits means we break one of the
> Commandments then it does put it one the same level. You will not get
> to heaven by accepting Jesus and then breaking the commandments that
> god has laid down. See one of my previous posts for the relevent
> scripture.
Kevin:
So do you think that Christians don't sin, then?
Because I probably sin something like 50 times a day.
Do I need to be re-converted every day?
I suspect that those who think that God demands that Christians don't sin
probably have a VERY different definition of sin.
Blessings,
Pam
Phil
Indeed a leap akin to Thou shalt not steal = thou shalt not own anything
imo.
Phil
Richard North
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Indeed a leap akin to Thou shalt not steal = thou shalt not own anything
The idea has much merit....
Richard
-Si vis amavi, ama!
Richard Emblem
<k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
>"Richard Emblem" <rem...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020727163446...@mb-bg.aol.com...
>> In article <ahutf8$6oo$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "kevin heath"
>> <k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> >But surely the Westminster confession does not supercede the teachings of
>> >Christ himself?
>>
>> Call yourself a Protestant ? :-)
>
>No. AoG.
Isn't that protestant? (genuine question)
>
>But I still put the teachings of Christ before any individual church
>policies or doctrines.
I hope that we all do, it's just that interpretations of His teachings
genuinely differ.
Richard Emblem
<seek...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>Because I probably sin something like 50 times a day.
>
>Do I need to be re-converted every day?
Yes and so do I and so do we all.
But I see conversion as an ongoing process not just an event :-)
Pam Seeker
> Do I need to be re-converted every day?
...the answer, of course, is "yes"!
sheesh......
...well, it's hot....
Pam Seeker
>> Because I probably sin something like 50 times a day.
>>
>> Do I need to be re-converted every day?
>
> Yes and so do I and so do we all.
> But I see conversion as an ongoing process not just an event :-)
Richard:
Yeah, I walked right into that one didn't I? ;-)
Blessings,
Pam
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Simon Kershaw wrote:
>
>>
>> Currently the Abp must be someone who can take the oath of allegiance to
>> the Queen. That effectively rules out (at the very least) those who are
>> citizens of non-Commonwealth countries. It might also make it hard for
>> some of those in Commonwealth republics. This of course reinforces the
>> need for it to be someone who can work within the CofE with some
>> knowledge of that. Clealry there are not many bishops outside England
>> who can do that.
>
>That all depends on what the oath involves. If I can swear allegiance to HM
>and not be an Anglican I am sure an Anglican who is not British can swear
>allegiance too.
Their own nationality might prevent them from doing so, though.
Americans, for example, are barred from swearing allegiance to a
foreign head of state.
There's an amusing little story along these lines that took place then
the US invaded Grenada in 1983. The US was determined, for the sake of
appearances, to do everything by the book - for example, the pretext
for the invasion was to restore to power the rightful government that
had been overthrown in a coup, rather than merely an attempt to
enforce American suzerainty in the area. So, having invaded, they
chose not to impose martial law on the island, as they didn't want to
appear to be in control - the local (original) government remained in
titular power throughout. This led to an upsurge in crime, as local
villains took advantage of the lack of policing (as the island relied
heavily on military police, most of whom were part of the army
involved in the coup, and hence removed from action by the invasion).
To get around this problem, it was suggested that US military police
were seconded to the local force as official special constables, with
the usual powers of arrest and detention. This was agreed to, and the
Americans were duly inducted, complete with the usual induction
ceremony, into the Grenadian specials under the authority of the
civilian police.
The only problem with this is that Grenada is a member of the
commonwealth, and the Queen is head of state. So the process of
induction into the Grenadian police included an oath of loyalty to the
Queen (as does induction into the British police force). Which the US
MPs duly swore, without stopping to think about it (as, probably, do
most British policemen). Unfortunately, under US law (at the time; I
think it's been subsequently changed) this meant that, technically,
they were deemed to have given up US citizenship.
The whole thing got sorted out by means of an official fudge - the MPs
were allowed to "unoath" themselves and it was all hushed up. But I
doubt if an American Archbishop could get away with it that easily.
Mark
--
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
"I believe in the kingdom come, then all the colours will bleed
into one"
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>
>I would put one of the Ten Commandments as core to the Christian faith.
Which one?
Mark
--
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
"A sky isn't always blue, a sun doesn't always shine. It's
alright to fall apart sometimes"
Simon Kershaw
> > The usual plurals of "copula" are "copulas" and "copulae", but I agree
> > that they should be kept apart!
>
> But do we want all those domed roofs?
Er, that's cupola, not copula.
simon
--
Simon Kershaw
si...@kershaw.org.ukzzz
Cambridge, England
Tony Gillam
news:1fg1u1z.f376sqduw3zgN%si...@kershaw.org.ukzzz
> Tony Gillam <tgi...@cyberyacht.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> The usual plurals of "copula" are "copulas" and "copulae", but I
>>> agree that they should be kept apart!
>>
>> But do we want all those domed roofs?
>
> Er, that's cupola, not copula.
>
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.christians-r-us.org.uk
A site for sore I's
kevin heath
news:np96kugufujsi5nu2...@4ax.com...
I ould say that Jesus telling Mary that his time had not yet come at the
marriage party and Jesus telling his disciples to get the donkey and prepare
the meal are not teachings. The sermon on the mount and the parables etc are
teachings. The differences between what he said and his teachings are pretty
obvious.
I didn't want to fall into the trap of replies asking if calling up the dead
(as in Lazarus) is a teaching for us to follow :)
kevin heath
news:v_G09.3753$g81.1...@news8-gui.server.ntli.net...
> 1) What is there that Jesus said that is not teaching?
Go and get a donkey etc. May be instructions but mot teachings. The
differneces between things he said and things he taught is fairly obvious.
>
> 2) Jesus taught the Jews about the Law, which parts of the Law should we
> keep and why?
We should keep the parts of the Law that was re-inforced by Jesus at least
and the rest of the commandments laid down by God in the OT. Following
Christ is what makes us Christians. Too many people think that purely
accepting Christ is enough. We still have to follow the Laws laid down if we
want salvation.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I
am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the
kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall
be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
>
> 3) Why do you think Jesus came to sow us the way when He said that He is
> the Way?
He came to show us the way through his teachings. Had he not shown himself
to us or taught us we would not have known he was the Way.
>
> 4) Jesus came for several reasons why are some more important than
> other?
They are equal. I never claimed that one was more superior than the other.
>
> 5) Why do you think that our opinion of which doctrines are most
> important decides whether we are Christians or not?
If the church doctrines goes against the teachings of Christ then they
cann't be Christian. You may appease your own church membership but
appeasement does go well with God.
Revelation 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I
would thou wert cold or hot.
Revelation 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,
I will spue thee out of my mouth.
>
> regards
>
> Phil
kevin heath
news:ai08vf$mac$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> So do you think that Christians don't sin, then?
>
> Because I probably sin something like 50 times a day.
>
> Do I need to be re-converted every day?
>
> I suspect that those who think that God demands that Christians don't sin
> probably have a VERY different definition of sin.
>
> Blessings,
> Pam
Christians do sin. I know I do many times a day and often pray for
forgiveness throughout the day when I realise I've done something wrong.
What I don't do is change the teachings of the Bible so that the things I do
wrong are no longer sins. Doing that may relieve your own guilt but will not
help on the day of judgement.
kevin heath
> In article <ahv470$6hv$5...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, "kevin heath"
> <k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
>
> >"Richard Emblem" <rem...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20020727163446...@mb-bg.aol.com...
> >> In article <ahutf8$6oo$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "kevin heath"
> >> <k.h...@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> >>
> >> >But surely the Westminster confession does not supercede the teachings
of
> >> >Christ himself?
> >>
> >> Call yourself a Protestant ? :-)
> >
> >No. AoG.
> Isn't that protestant? (genuine question)
Interesting question to which I don't know the answer. It is that the local
AoG church is the most biblically based church in the area. And I enjoy the
contempary worship.
As a christian I'm not too interested in the different denominations, my
only concern is the accurate teaching of the scriptures without too many
alterations.
> >
> >But I still put the teachings of Christ before any individual church
> >policies or doctrines.
> I hope that we all do, it's just that interpretations of His teachings
> genuinely differ.
> --
> Richard Emblem
> How good and pleasant it is
> when God's people live in unity.
> (Psalm 133:1)
> _______________________
Best wishes
kevin heath
No there isn't
Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except
[it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and
whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
kevin heath
I think Jesus has the answer to that,
Matthew 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing
of divorcement, and to put her away?
Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your
hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was
not so.
Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except
[it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and
whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
So Jesus states that although it is wrong to divorce (except for
fornication) if you do decide to divorce you must not remarry as in God's
eyes it will be classed as adultery.