|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Conservative Evangelical Anglican student church plant in Manchester
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
The example of the infamous Nine O'Clock Service has been raised with reference to the concerns regarding accountability. However, wasn't the Nine O'Clock Service pretty much part of a local church and hence closely tied in with CofE structures?
..
Regarding accountability to God versus those of church structures; here's my penny's worth:
Of course any Christian's primary allegeance should be to God. I don't see this to be in any sort of conflict to allegeance to church structures, in fact the very reverse is true - allegeance to God entails that we are accountable to the community of Christians around us, that our actions affect those around us positively or negatively and that we should only opt out of existing church structures when we've a very good reason - not simply because it suits us best.
Alan's comments show that John Wesley saw this.
It is a mistake to believe the healthiest form of Christian organisation to be a mass of atomistic individuals each in their individual atomistic churches although this appears to be more and more of a view forced upon churches by wider society. I'm not suggesting this is what the Plant believes, but these are the concerns that arise in my mind when I hear of new churches being set up outside the parish system because that system is seen as somehow outmoded or deficient, or indeed in a manner that appears autonomous to any denominational organisation be it Anglican or otherwise.
Anyway, I will continue to follow this thread with interest and await the 'official verdict'. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
[In case it's misleading, I'm not aware of any Sydney plants in this Diocese; the modus operandi is importation of Moore College ministers or persons holding Moore College theology into previously broad or Anglican evangelical churches.]
Also I do resent the waspish polarisation of 'evangelical' and 'liberal' that Leprechaun and Minister's posts suggest ie. if one is not evangelical; one is a liberal. Both flavours of theology are johnny-come-latelys compared to the almost 2 millenia old Orthodox and Catholic Churches. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Minister
Apprentice
# 5404
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
If the Plant wished to have the blessing of the bishop in the first place, why wasn't the bishop involved from the first in discussions of its feasability?
In my experience, Bishop's are keen to hear of ideas, but only want to hear of firm plans such as was presented by The Plant. Bishop's are busy people and don't want to be drawn into every preliminary discussion of possible ventures in their diocese! So I think The Plant behaved completely appropriately - they had an idea, set up a group to plan, and then after their first plans were drawn up, took it to the bishops, and also the local churches through the diocesan structures. They did this long before anything went puublic. That's absolutely as it should have been.
quote:
Minister, leprechaun and others, this is why people have expressed concern: it is not intended as a dig at conservative evangelicals, it is rather a questioning of the methodology, and a raising of genuine concerns about the proceedure, from people who have had experience in church work and with church plants.
Can I stress again that my problem is definately not with debate, nor with criticism, and I'm sure the Plant people welcome the oppinions of those with experiences - my problem has been the way the debate has been conducted here. I know there's now another debate about exactly it means to "speak in love" - but I challenege anyone to read this whole thread and conclude that The Plant has been treated in a loving, Christian way. And so Leprechaun's point is that the common accusation of intollerance, arrogance, and rudeness which is made at conservative Christians seems to be an appropriate description of what has happened here. And that strikes us as ironic.
I hope, again, that what I'm saying is done so in a loving way!
[fixed UBB for quote]
[ 14. January 2004, 08:33: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 12 | From: North | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
quote:
I challenege anyone to read this whole thread and conclude that The Plant has been treated in a loving, Christian way.
I don't think that the Plant has been treated in an unChristian, unloving way.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Minister, leprechaun and others, this is why people have expressed concern: it is not intended as a dig at conservative evangelicals, it is rather a questioning of the methodology, and a raising of genuine concerns about the proceedure, from people who have had experience in church work and with church plants.
Sorry Nunc, but this is not true:
This is just a selection of the comments made and actions taken regarding the plant without direct communication with its leaders:
"What an utterly loathsome group of exclusivists. I hope, but sadly do not expect, that the Bishop of Manchester will tell them to get stuffed. Just what we need; another group of conservative evangelicals with all the Anglican fibre of the Snake-Handling Churches of Alabama coming under the legal protection and public 'imprimatur' of the Church of England. And how much contact will they have with their fellow Anglican churches ie the ones from which they hope to poach the 'professionals, academics, families and others who live around the campus area'? I think we can guess the answer."
"In twenty years, it'll either be a comfy little cult or we'll have forgotten it ever existed."
"But I think you put your finger on what I suspect is the real problem - they don't think the Gospel is being preached. Unbelievable arrogance."
"I wrote to the Bishop of Manchester expressing concern over this. He did not know about this venture till someone showed him the website last Sunday, so the claim that they are in discussion with him is nonsense.
This may mean their claims about setting up this plant with Platt's blessing is also inaccurate."
"It looks like a breakaway group who object to the way the CofE is run and it's theology. They are setting up there own church in a place where they can get members to a new church. They are not going to the parts of the manchester conurbation which is really difficult like UPA estates."
"I guess they're just asking for that bit of extra information that will convince them that the Plant and NW Partnership are different from other similar sounding groups."
From the utterly insulting to the deliberately undermining to the mildly patronising "similar sounding groups" these constitute my point is this:
Liberal theology and open evangelicalism make have on this board and in life generally been taking the moral high ground on being more accepting and open than conservative evangelicals - yet this is the last thing we have seen in this discussion. Why should the plant have to prove they are different from "similar sounding groups" if all views are valid? Why should they feel pressured to work in a UPA if we appreciate diversity in giftings?
It seems that it is wrong to condemn people, unless you happen to be of a minority opinion, and then people here will do all they can to condemn and destroy your work because you happen to be in a minority.
Its' just mob rule by another name, and I'm afraid I for one won't stand aside to let Gospel hearted people who hold to the teaching of the Bible and the 39 articles of the C of E be condemndee for holding a that position, when it is not conservative evangelicals who are gossipping, slandering and deliberately undermining evagelistic initiatives run by other Christians. It makes the accusation of "unbelievable arrogance" more than slightly ironic.
You "tolerance crusaders" are foisted on your own pitard.
[Edited for quote UBB.]
[ 14. January 2004, 10:39: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Minister
Apprentice
# 5404
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by psyduck:
quote:
I challenege anyone to read this whole thread and conclude that The Plant has been treated in a loving, Christian way.
I don't think that the Plant has been treated in an unChristian, unloving way.
I think Leprechaun makes a powerful case that they have been treated in an unloving and unChristian way.
Posts: 12 | From: North | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think Leprechaun makes a case that his view of what is "Christian and loving" differs from that of many others here. Perhaps there is also room for a "What is Christian and loving?" thread too.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
I still have one or two reservations, but in light of comments, paricularly from Big Dan and Minister, I wish them the best in this venture.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Minister quote:
I think Leprechaun makes a powerful case that they have been treated in an unloving and unChristian way.
I think Leprechaun assembles an interesting body of reaction that ought to give pause for thought as to why at first glance this is what the Plant looks like to many other Christians. At the very least, is there not an image problem here? And maybe a substance-problem too? And - while accepting that the Plant may have elicited an unfair knee-jerk, first-glance reaction, is there not something very significant about it? If I were anything to do with the Plant, I think I'd be asking why it is that the project looks like this to so many Christians.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir George Grey:
The example of the infamous Nine O'Clock Service has been raised with reference to the concerns regarding accountability. However, wasn't the Nine O'Clock Service pretty much part of a local church and hence closely tied in with CofE structures?
As I understand it Chris Brain had a vision of moving the 9 O'clock service from St Thomas Crooks to the centre of Sheffield. He then pushed the church hierarchy into accepting his vision of a new radical church in the city centre. The church hierarchy failed to put any accountability structures in, leaving Chris Brain and the leaders to run things as they wanted.
Therefore, the parallel between this proposal and the NOS is quite valid.
I wish on the website it said something like this
'The plant is a new church concept which we have a vision for but before we go ahead with this exciting project we need to negotiate with local churches, Manchester Diocese and other bodies working with Students. Hopefully from these discussions we shall clarify what God is calling us to do and sort out our legal position within the Church of England.'
or this
'Now that manchester diocese have approved our vision of a new church we can publicly reveal it'
I am not against the plant in principal I feel they have gone about things in the wrong way. Theologically I suspect I differ from them yet theologically I differ from a lot of people.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Minister
Apprentice
# 5404
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
It seems to me the place for answering the criticisms is here! I suspect that they are intelligent, articulate people. Why shy away from the debate?
The Plant people did make a statement early on to clear up the many misunderstandings and false assumptions being banded about. Why did they not join in the discussion? Because, if they feel like I do, then the see this has been a slanging match, and is no place for reasoned Christian reflection. Why on earth would anyone subject themselves to this lion's den after the arrogant and judgemental comments posted and quoted by Leprachaun above?! Who can blame them for rising above the argument, and getting on with the business of evangelism?
[clarified source of quote]
[ 14. January 2004, 10:01: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 12 | From: North | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Minister: quote:
Who can blame them for rising above the argument, and getting on with the business of evangelism?
Well, in all love and charity, I think I would. Such an attitude suggests a large constituency of concerned Christian opinion which is just written off as of no account - which is surely one of the basic complaints.
I know I'm not an Anglican - but many large denominations are experiencing just this kind of "writing-off" - which can look awfully like a desire to create a 'pure Christian ghetto'. If that's the impression being created, then zero response just intensifies it.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Leprechaun/Minister/Big Dan -
I've not posted much here, largely because my reactions to The Plant are gut, rather than reasoned.
But perhaps it might help you to hear my gut reactions - it might be an insight, if nothing else.
My gut reaction - in all honesty - was "Oh no, not another load of bloody fundies who think the other churches are too wishy-washy and liberal to be any good coming in and putting forward an aggressive fundamentalist Christianity that will initially appeal and ultimately repel"
Why? Because I used to be in a conservative evangelical setting, and as I recall the feeling that everyone else wasn't as Christian as us was pretty strong. Liberals weren't "real Christians". Non-charismatics weren't "real Christians" - not as real as we were.
Of course, this all stinks to me now. Perhaps I totally misunderstand what The Plant is about, but nothing I've seen on their website shakes my initial perception.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
But perhaps it might help you to hear my gut reactions - it might be an insight, if nothing else.
My gut reaction - in all honesty - was "Oh no, not another load of bloody fundies who think the other churches are too wishy-washy and liberal to be any good coming in and putting forward an aggressive fundamentalist Christianity that will initially appeal and ultimately repel"
Why? Because I used to be in a conservative evangelical setting, and as I recall the feeling that everyone else wasn't as Christian as us was pretty strong. Liberals weren't "real Christians". Non-charismatics weren't "real Christians" - not as real as we were.
Of course, this all stinks to me now. Perhaps I totally misunderstand what The Plant is about, but nothing I've seen on their website shakes my initial perception.
Why do you think it's 'aggressive' Christianity? Because it tries to be 'on-fire' to put its message across/win converts/change lives? It probably wouldn't suit me the way it does things, but 'aggressive'?
Yes that sort of Christianity would ('did') repel you but there is no intrinsic reason why it would 'ultinately repel' anyone else. People have left our church, which you would find to evangelical/charismatic, partly because it wasn't quite charismatic enough for them. People I am still friends with, who are intelligent and educated and ceased to be students some time ago.
I am, I suppose, still a 'charismatic' myself. A toned-down one, maybe. It's not about thinking that those who are not aren't 'real Christians', but about believing they may be missing out on somethings from God that are potentially very good. Being a charismatic does not equate with being judgemental about who is 'real' and who isn't. (Though I admit some charismatics can display that sort of attitude.
I find it very sad that you can say 'this all stinks to me now'. It is very dismissive of the sort of churches I have always attended since I strated regular churchgoing. Note that I am not saying that this 'church plant' in Manchester would suit me. It probably wouldn't be my ideal church, as it is so student-focused. But there is probably a niche for it.
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Well, I was being very honest. But let me be clear - it was the particular attitudes that stink now, not that entire segment of Christianity.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Minister:
my problem has been the way the debate has been conducted here.
The SOF has an existing culture, we do things a certain way here. It's not that it never changes - the culture has changed a lot over the time I have been posting here, partly in response to comments about how things are done. But there is a process for change and in the end you are quite free to stay if you like it or leave if you don't.
If you take a proposal anywhere for backing -whether financial, spiritual, whatever - yes you are expected to have some firm ideas to discuss but no-one is going to 'rubber stamp' a first proposal. You can expect to be given constructive comments and you will be expected to amend you original proposal in the light of these. The only way set up a C of E church is through the C of E structures. It doesn't matter how many people in the Diocese you speak to informally, this does not constitute any part of a formal process of having you proposal adopted. The leaders who are ordained C of E ministers of several years' standing know perfectly well how the C of E works so it is puzzling why they have announced first and consulted afterwards.
I have a friend who was a Methodist minster, he and his wife got a vision for a church plant in another large Northern city. He resigned from his ministry, they moved there and got jobs, and they got to know local Christians as ordinary church members. Over this time they spoke to the Bishop and other local church leaders about their vision and asked for discernment, including where it should be. Two years later they have just sent out a booklet saying how they are going to START their church plant. They not only have the backing of all the surrounding churches but from the church structures. This seems to me to be in line with the concept of being 'one body'.
A great many people got very badly hurt by the Nine O CLock Service yet it was started with the best of intentions by deeply committed Christians who had a vision for reaching out to a sector of the population who were not being reached by conventional churches. Because structures of accountability were not in place, something that had a great potential for good was instead the source of a huge scandal and worse still caused great damage to Christians, many of whom gave up on the church as a result.
Some people who have apparently only joined SOF to post on this one thread consider it 'unloving' to express the opinion, based on experience, that the way this is being done wil mean it cannot bear the fruit the organisers hope for. Is it unloving to say this, in an informed way, at a point before it is too late to change? No, I think it is prophetic.
Identifying people who disagree with you with a label - in this case 'liberal' or 'unchristian' -which means their views don't count because they don't count is an old tactic but it one that I would hope never to see in a Christian organisation. Jesus taught us to value and respect the person. A couple of people are labelling others as 'unloving' because they disagree with them? Motes and beams spring to mind.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Well, I was being very honest. But let me be clear - it was the particular attitudes that stink now, not that entire segment of Christianity.
You see, this is exactly what I was talking about.
Your thoughts on the plant - writing them off, caricaturing them, we don't need types like that in our church thank you very much - portrays the exact type of attitudes you say you hate in Christians like them!
Perhaps the problem is that you don't believe that it is possible to disagree with someone without thinking that you are better than them. I think (and I think that the plant's leaders would agree, but obviously I don't know) that you can do that, if you take the Bible's teaching about God's grace seriously. (or try to, in the best fallen way that we can)
The idea that if you disagree you must be saying you are better is a societal norm from our mega tolerant culture that it seems to me that the liberal wing of the church has bought into. Buying into this has also allowed them (conveniently) to manipulate the mass media very effectively to caricature conservatives as superior and holier than thou in recent controversies, when, it seems to me conservatives have a stronger doctrine of grace than anyone.
The irony of it all is, that when all of these "more liberal and accepting" people get together in the name of being "more open" but actually just to conservative bash, as on this board, you take on the very characteristics you claim to find so repulsive in others.
Anyway, I have said the same thing in a number of posts now. I will try and think of something new to say soon.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
I_am_not_Job
Shipmate
# 3634
|
Posted
)I have just typed a very long post to vent my spleen which was very cathartic but that I have now deleted because I'm tired of the name calling and because this arguement is becoming circular. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) I will update the thread, if it's still here, when the General Synod debate on this sort of thing has happened. Anyone wanting to see this type of debate live ( ![[Biased]](wink.gif) should go to Church House in Westminster on Tuesday 10th February in the afternoon.
Posts: 988 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think (and I think that the plant's leaders would agree, but obviously I don't know)
Look, either you are posting on behalf of the church plant leadership or you're not. It has been stated by Phil Keymer in a message that was relayed by another poster that he doesn't want to post here. To respect that I think you should leave out speculation about what the leaders may or may not think (which is in any case a waste of bandwidth since it adds nothing to the discussion) and stick to your own point of view.
I am sure you are not aware of this, but it is starting to sound as if a couple of people posting here are being told what to post by the leadership of The Plant. Even though I m sure this can't be true, because they have said they DON'T want to post here, the unfortunate impression is coming across of puppets and puppetmasters. I don't think this is the impression you want to create, is it?
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calvin
Shipmate
# 271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty
The leaders who are ordained C of E ministers of several years' standing know perfectly well how the C of E works so it is puzzling why they have announced first and consulted afterwards.
I have just had a look at the email from Phil Keymer and he make it clear that they have been working within the CofE system and consulting local churchs for many months. They only went public 2 weeks ago. This is hardly announce first and consult afterwards.
--------------------
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
To a simple stone.
Posts: 305 | From: Here and Now | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Leprechaun -
I thought I was very clear. The reasons I made the assumptions about how The Plant thinks about the rest of us is because I spent many years inside that evangelical sub-culture and know very well what some of the underlying assumptions were.
I am fully able to comprehend that I can disagree with someone without being superior to them. However, it was my consistent experience within Evangelicalism that a good number of evangelicals can not.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think (and I think that the plant's leaders would agree, but obviously I don't know)
Look, either you are posting on behalf of the church plant leadership or you're not. It has been stated by Phil Keymer in a message that was relayed by another poster that he doesn't want to post here. To respect that I think you should leave out speculation about what the leaders may or may not think (which is in any case a waste of bandwidth since it adds nothing to the discussion) and stick to your own point of view.
I am sure you are not aware of this, but it is starting to sound as if a couple of people posting here are being told what to post by the leadership of The Plant. Even though I m sure this can't be true, because they have said they DON'T want to post here, the unfortunate impression is coming across of puppets and puppetmasters. I don't think this is the impression you want to create, is it?
No posting on behalf of the plant leaders - see your own comments above.
Certainly not just relaying information from them, but I do agree with what they are doing and come from a similar theoligical position. References to this are only fair as they have chosen not to engage in this board themselves, surely. Your accusation of puppeteering is both unfounded and a pretty offensive to be honest.
Its obvious that despite the rhetoric of welcome and openness there is an "inner circle" on these boards, and actually people are not welcome to come and join in as they wish, especially if they don't leap on the nearest bandwagon.
Fair enough, but that should possibly be a bit clearer from the outset.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
I've been following this thread with interest as it reflects my own experiences as a student. It strikes me that neither the Plant's website nor this thread have considered what students think about being evangelised.
In Cambridge there is a large active, evangelical and fairly conservative CU. Every so often they go on a major evangelism drive, lots of banners, talks, copies of gospels pushed under your door etc.
This always provokes much comment from the students, nearly all of it negative.
Such aggressive evangelism seems to me to assume that students (or anyone else) can't think for themselves and were somehow totally unaware of Christianity. Many people see this evangelising attitude as insulting to non-Christians, and to Christians from the "wrong" denominations. The conservative attitudes normally expressed in the talks are often offputting to generally liberal students.
On the whole then it seems that the activities of The Plant and places like it may put people off Christianity altogether and so fail in their mission, they will attract a few people but most will be repelled. Worse, the conservative evangelical approach makes many students see this as the only form of Christianity as the more liberal wing of the CofE is less visible to students as it evangelises less (perhaps it should), and so cements the view of Christians as illiberal bigots.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511
|
Posted
Posted by Leprechaun: quote:
Its obvious that despite the rhetoric of welcome and openness there is an "inner circle" on these boards, and actually people are not welcome to come and join in as they wish, especially if they don't leap on the nearest bandwagon.
Fair enough, but that should possibly be a bit clearer from the outset.
There may be people on these Boards who post a lot more than others, and who have a similar outlook: 'liberal', not over-fond of conservative evangelicalism, but I wouldn't go so far as saying that they form an 'inner circle'.
I am a fairly well-known and long-standing 'poster' on here, and don't jump on any (perceived) bandwagons: I am an evangelical, even (as I have said) 'charismatic', but one that doesn't take Scripture as all to be taken 'literally'. I feel quite welcome here, and haven't (as far as I know!!) made many enemies. Please don't be put off being on here: there are quite a few evangelicals, liberal evangelicals and so on around if you feel lonely amidst the hordes of liberals with a capital L!!
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ophelia's Opera Therapist
Shipmate
# 4081
|
Posted
Time after time people seem to be criticising the Ship based on one thread of hundreds. People who take time to express honest feelings or gut reactions (like myself and Karl) are being told that their feelings are wrong and unchristian, and examples of some complex liberal failing which contrasts with some conservative bashing, which everyone on the Ship is obviously doing all the time.
This is getting very frustrating.
Please can people recognise that we are individuals, flawed certainly, but that the expression of difficult or unpleasant feelings and gut responses does not mean we are unchristian.
Also that the Ship, being made up of individuals does not have a conservative-bashing agenda. It also seldom (never in my experience) makes apologies on behalf of other members. 'The management' exist to promote meaningful interaction and debate. They challenge offensive individuals to apologise for offensive behaviour, in worst cases suspending and banning people. None of that has happened on this thread, though Cosmo was warned that he was getting close to violating commandment 3.
In the spirit of welcoming new shipmates and keeping the debate civilised, I (and I guess some others) have been very careful about what I say here. The other option I have been considering is venturing into hell and ranting about how I really feel when being told I'm not a good enough christian, or when a community I enjoy is bad-mouthed by new posters.
But, get this, even if I did that, it wouldn't necessarily be unchristian.
OOT
--------------------
Though the bleak sky is burdened I'll pray anyway,
And though irony's drained me I'll now try sincere,
And whoever it was that brought me here
Will have to take me home. Martyn Joseph
Posts: 979 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
elsi
Live from Elsewhere
# 2098
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by psyduck:
At the very least, is there not an image problem here? And maybe a substance-problem too? And - while accepting that the Plant may have elicited an unfair knee-jerk, first-glance reaction, is there not something very significant about it? If I were anything to do with the Plant, I think I'd be asking why it is that the project looks like this to so many Christians.
I quite agree. I help organise certain public events that illicit plenty of discussion and speculation on various websites and the like. When I first started coming across these, I would get frustrated by the fact people had got completely the wrong end of the stick about something, or because they read all manner of fantastic motivations and conspiracy theories into actually very dull decisions and situations.
To take the 'high-ground' and say "I'll dismiss all these views because they are ill-informed, or negatively prejudiced etc" is tempting, but misses a major opportunity.
Nowadays I adopt the "so what does this tell me?" approach. The answer may well be that we need to improve our communication in certain areas, that levels of trust need to be improved (and how might we do that?), that our methods and decisions are having unforeseen side-effects, or that people's priorities are different than we imagined. Sometimes I even realise (shock horror!) that we've got things wrong.
To wrestle with the issue of "why are we getting this reaction" and be prepared for that to challenge some of your own assumptions is very powerful, but not easy.
I hope The Plant team maybe draw something positive from this thread if they're reading, and that they find that in the long run the reaction by this strange, but concerned bunch of people to their website helps them as they get this project up and running.
I guess I should also try and reflect on why many of the reactions posted here to The Plant project also, in turn, got a pretty energetic reaction.
--------------------
the cap fits - I'm wearing it
Posts: 272 | From: Manchester | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
feel lonely amidst the hordes of liberals with a capital L!!
Alaric,
As far as I can see, about TWO of the board's liberals with a capital 'L' have posted here - me and Karl. I may have missed one or two others but there are not many of us.
The rest of the people on this thread represent a spectrum across Anglocatholic, middle of the Road C of E, and evangelicals.
They all seem to be being caricatured as nasty 'intolerant' liberals because on a variety of grounds ecclesiology, experience of student ministry and evangelism, experience of the area in question, experience of similar intitiatives elsewhere, they have raised questions on a debate board - where ideas are criticised, discussed and tested - about one, single conservative evangelical project.
We have had in 6 pages of thread one cranky expression of anti-evangelicalism from Cosmo, who is well-known for it - and who is not one of the board liberals by any stretch of the imagination and one person said that the initiative might possibly end up as a 'cult', which in the wake of people's experiences of things like the Nine o Clock service is the sort of fear some people have of these sort of undertakings.
For the rest, we have had the varied concerns, criticisms and questions of others dismissed out of hand as liberal 'intolerance'. It's quite an eye-opener to see sincere evangelical members of the boards attacked like this because they dared to raise questions about one conservative undertaking. We've also got people being attacked simply for sharing their bad experiences from this background and now wild accusations of everyone belonging to an in-crowd because they have responded critically to this initiative - on a board where critical examination of things is the norm.
The result has been to raise the temperature of the thread greatly and raise suspicions in people's minds where there were none before. It's a shame for someone like Big Dan, who was putting forward a reasoned case as to why this might be a good thing, that his well-reasoned posts are being swamped by misdirected 'anti-liberal' rants which end up insulting 90 odd per cent of the denizens of the boards.
I, for one, am willing to hear what Big Dan has to say about it and to follow the saga. I've expressed my own concerns earlier - it's not something that would be my cup of tea, but there you go. However a handy tip for people who want to take the moral high ground about 'intolerance' is not to make indiscrimate attacks which caricature and write off whole swathes of people whilst you're doing it.
The only remark along the lines of 'All conservative evangelicals are a bad thing and should be stopped' is Cosmo's - and I don't agree with it. Otherwise what we have are specific concerns, criticisms and questions of a single project. What we are getting in return are blunderbuss denunciations of 'liberalism' aimed in such an indiscriminate way that many of the Ship evangelicals and catholics are being assaulted under that heading.
Once again I'd like to thank Big Dan for his patience and for the reasoned way he has made his points. I look forward to hearing how things progress.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
The comments made by some above on the nature of the discussion here are off the mark, as Louise eloquently says. For what it's worth, I direct ordinands to this site precisely because the quality of debate is good. As with face to face discussion, I would expect people to argue their case with some conviction and not be afraid to press their point if it wasn't being answered.
When someone wanted to discuss Cranmer Hall (where I teach), some Cranmer students posted here but have not posted much if at all since; likewise a discussion of St. Michael's Llandaff brought in involvement from their acting principal for that thread only. It is not unreasonable to think the Plant's leaders might therefore join in here since we are discussing their venture. It all reminds me of a student I had who launched into a blistering (and unreasonable) attack on how a quiet day had been run and when I challenged him to justify his comments he simply said "I don't want to discuss it". You can't hide behind 'no comment' when you are doing something controversial - and the Plant is controversial even if it all turns out OK in the end.
My email to the bishop o Manchester was sent so he knew about this initiative. I think it is not now clear who had said what to whom and what had been heard etc. prior to this thread starting - but I stand by my communication with + Nigel - he needs to know if it's in his diocese! This was not an attempt to undermine the Plant.
BTW - NOS did have a management committee and accountability within the diocese of Sheffield, but I gather Chris Brain failed to attend management meetings and so was effectively unaccountable - structures can be in place but not actually work.
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
[TANGENT]
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
BTW - NOS did have a management committee and accountability within the diocese of Sheffield, but I gather Chris Brain failed to attend management meetings and so was effectively unaccountable - structures can be in place but not actually work.
According to on Roland Howard's book, I believe that when it became an Extra Parochial Place (= church) in its own right, rather than a congregation within St Thomas Crookes, it did not have a PCC or church wardens till shortly before the bad publicity. These are the accountability structures I am talking about. PCC and church wardens are appointed by elections of church members and have responsibilities for how the church is run, not just to the incumbent but to the Bishop and to the congregation, whereas the internal structure of NOS was devised by Chris Brain and he decided who did what.
[/TANGENT]
[ 14. January 2004, 14:13: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
You "tolerance crusaders" are foisted on your own pitard.
"Foisted on your own pitard"? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Not very nice of me to laugh at your mangling of the language. But hey, I'm a liberal, it's what you're expecting anyway.
quote:
Its obvious that despite the rhetoric of welcome and openness there is an "inner circle" on these boards, and actually people are not welcome to come and join in as they wish, especially if they don't leap on the nearest bandwagon.
So we've had "I thought this was a Christian website" and "there's a mean in-crowd here." Anyone want to go for the hat trick by adding a proof text?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.
But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.
Isaiah 32:5,8
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by a whole bunch of newbies:
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
If you wish to discuss the nature of the Ship, head yourselves to either the Styx or to Hell. That discussion is inappropriate on this thread.
Erin
Community Editor
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Public service announcement:
The oft-abused expression is "Hoist on/with his own petard". As used by Shakespeare: Hamlet, act III, scene 4, : "For 'tis sport to have the engineer/ Hoist with his own petar..../But I will delve one yard below their mines/ And blow them at the moon."
Hamlet is planning to turn the murderous plans of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern upon themselves, by substituting their names for his in the death warrant they got Claudius to sign.
A petard was a small explosive device used to blow open barricaded doors and gates, apparently a big fave in Elizabethan England. They'll be launched sky-ward by their own mine, is what he means.
More info: Alt-English-Usage; Straight Dope.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Public service announcement:
(...)
A petard was a small explosive device
(...)
Absolutely. Here, un pétard is still such a device. A firecracker to you. And it is also slang for a firearm.
Erin, that was a masterpiece of brevity.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Listen all,
Apologies unreservedly for my bad use of Shakespeare (well it was a typo and a mis spelling of petard - which I thought was a sword, but there you go, something new every day and all that)
Sorry also for inadvertently using the wrong board, starting a name-calling thing I didn't mean to, and probably needlessly continuing this thread.
I'm obviously not made for this online discussion thing, as there seem to be unwritten rules which I keep breaking.
So I'm backing out now, not because I don't want to keep going, but because I seem to have done a lot of things wrong.
I thought this was a space to engage with in discussion with people that I would never meet normally, and be able to frankly say what I think in an atmosphere of honesty but respect. I was wrong. As Laura put it, it has indeed been an eye opener.
Ciao.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
Welcome to the Ship, corpusdelicti and to Purgatory in particular. Do have a look about the boards and get the feel of the place. If you haven't already done so, please have a look at the 10 Commandments, the general posting rules of the Ship, which appear in the blue sidebar to the left of your screen. Purgatory's guidelines appear on the main Purgatory page.
Pleasant voyage!
Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
Leprechaun, I hope you will reconsider and stay.
It is useful to have a strongly-put argument from your side to take on the barrage of criticism from the other. Big Dan is doing a good job of balancing the serious questioners, but it would be useful to have you here to balance the unreservedly critical.
Just my two p
pax,
ar
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
to balance the unreservedly critical.
I agree it would be good to have leprechaun stay if s/he wanted to engage in the debate, but if there is any unreserved criticism on this thread, it seems to be of a) 'liberals' and b) the SOF.
Just my 2p worth...................
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
to balance the unreservedly critical.
I agree it would be good to have leprechaun stay if s/he wanted to engage in the debate, but if there is any unreserved criticism on this thread, it seems to be of a) 'liberals' and b) the SOF.
Just my 2p worth...................
Begging your pardon, Ma'am, but I respectfully disagree.
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Apologies unreservedly for my bad use of Shakespeare (well it was a typo and a mis spelling of petard - which I thought was a sword, but there you go, something new every day and all that)
No apology necessary - and it was one of the better laughs I got today, so thanks.
quote:
Sorry also for inadvertently using the wrong board, starting a name-calling thing I didn't mean to, and probably needlessly continuing this thread.
Thanks again.
quote:
I'm obviously not made for this online discussion thing, as there seem to be unwritten rules which I keep breaking.
So I'm backing out now, not because I don't want to keep going, but because I seem to have done a lot of things wrong.
Why don't you stick around and read discussions for a while before you make this decision? And read the various board guidelines while you're at it - you'll find that the rules are actually written.
quote:
I thought this was a space to engage with in discussion with people that I would never meet normally, and be able to frankly say what I think in an atmosphere of honesty but respect. I was wrong.
You get respect if you earn it. If you make good arguments, you get respect. If you're open to hearing other people's points of view, you get respect. If you call people names, you don't get respect.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I have noticed the odd comment referring to how churches of the type that The Plant appears likely to be put heaps more people off Christianity than they actually introduce to the church; therefore they defeat their own purpose.
Perhaps true; not true in my experience though. I had a think last night about where my evo/charismatic friends (from student days) are now to be found. As a rough guess I'd say:
-perhaps 25 percent no longer go to church (most would profess some sort of faith tho)
-perhaps 25 percent are still to be found in similar churches although perhaps at the 'morning' rather than the 'evening' service.
-50 percent would now be found in more traditional mainstream or liberal churches. One is now a high Anglican priest. Another has crossed the Bosphorus and become Orthodox.
(Shipmates should not conclude from these proportions that I only have four friends )
I can only think of one bloke who has now turned his back on the Church as a wicked, dangerous institution. And there was some abnormally bad stuff going on in his church, in particular the minister shagging his way round his flock which came out in an almighty scandal.
So while The Plant doesn't sound like my cup of tea I remember that places like that helped give me my start in Christianity although I'm now to be found in a very different sort of church with quite different beliefs.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
I can only think of one bloke who has now turned his back on the Church as a wicked, dangerous institution. And there was some abnormally bad stuff going on in his church, in particular the minister shagging his way round his flock which came out in an almighty scandal.
Wonderful
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
(...) I'm backing out now, not because I don't want to keep going, but because I seem to have done a lot of things wrong.
I thought this was a space to engage with in discussion with people that I would never meet normally, and be able to frankly say what I think in an atmosphere of honesty but respect. I was wrong. As Laura put it, it has indeed been an eye opener.
Ciao.
Leprechaun, you are one of several people who seem to have jumped into the Ship with both feet to defend the cause of The Plant. I think there has been a fair bit of praise on this thread for those people willing to make such a stand regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation.
What is saddening to me is the speed at which several of you seem to be concluding, before giving yourselves time to familiarise yourselves properly with this place, and failing overall sympathy with The Plant in every respect, that nothing good can come out of SoF.
This gives me the impression you feel you have nothing to learn from this community, even if it is only how your mindset comes across to outsiders - and that in turn gives an unfortunate impression of arrogance.
By and large people here treat one another with respect. But as has been said, respect needs to be earned as well as given - and I think that goes for evangelism too.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I have started a new thread about Anglican ecclesiology and parishes here.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
The Bishop of Bolton has phoned me to say that yes indeed the Plant leadership have been talking to the (suffragen) bishops in Manchester, but that the launch of the website caught them unawares.
I must firstly therefore apologise for disputing this - and do so unreservedly.
However, I did think the senior staff were unaware of the Plant as when I emailed the Bishop of Manchester, the Area Dean and Tony Porter to ask if they knew about it, the reply from +Nigel was as follows (I would not normally reproduce it here but for in the cause of honesty and clarity think I must do so):
quote:
Many thanks for this. Strangely, only last night my attention was directed
to this particular web-site. In one way or another, all the bishops in this
diocese have a reason for concern over this: +Michael because he is
responsible for all, including Hgher, Education appointments; +David because
one of the clergy is a former curate from his area; +Stephen because of
implications for neighbouring parishes in his area. It so happens I have a
meeting of all the bishops here on Monday morning - and I will draw their
attention to your email and the suggestion about contacting John Pritchard.
If there is anythibng which you think might be helpful for has to have in
time for the meeting at 10am on MOnday I would be grateful to have it.
Many thanks
+Nigel
I hope Shipmates can see how I got confused. Neither the Area Dean nor Tony Porter replied to my email - but there could of course be loads of reasons why they did not (or felt it was unnecessary etc.).
For me there still remain some serious questions about this project, but I think I've (at least for now) forfeited the right to comment - others may still want to.
And this is therefore not like the Durham plant in that Jesmond never asked anyone's opinion in the diocese before planting.
So again apologies for the confusion I've (albeit unintentionally) caused.
CWR
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Viola
Administrator
# 20
|
Posted
Charles,
Thank you for your gracious and comprehensive apology.
K.
--------------------
"If ye love me, keep my commandments" John 14:15
"Commandment number one: shut the hell up." Erin Etheredge 1971-2010
Posts: 4345 | From: West of England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I guess it still begs the question will the Plant go ahead without Bishops authority or not and will they call themselves Anglican or simply be another independent church. In the later case, it might be reasonable to ask them how serious they were about being under Diocesan authority in the first place. It might also be reasonable to question how interested the diocese is in being creative.
The answer to these questions will only be found in time.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Big Dan
Shipmate
# 5399
|
Posted
Thank you very much for your post, Charles. (I've also taken the liberty of e-mailing the Plant leaders so that they know it's there; hope that's OK.)
I can quite understand how Bishop Nigel's e-mail led you to your view!
By the way, I don't think you've at all forfeited your right to comment and I'm sure the Plant leaders would be happy to read any constructive criticism that you e-mailed them.
I've not seen anything futher on the Plant's Web site to say whether or not the Bishop has agreed to license the ministers for his diocese. I presume that the Bishop didn't tell you on the `phone either. So I presume that the meeting was inconclusive and that a decision has yet to be made.
In any case, I have no further hard facts to add, and am happy to regard the topic as closed.
Big Dan
--------------------
OK, yes, I know it's a picture of Big Ben. Can you find one of Big Dan? (OK, yes, I know Big Ben is actually the bell . . . .)
Posts: 74 | From: North West | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
Any news on what the Bishop said and what's happening?
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
