quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The plant

Comments anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by *Balaam*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The plant

Comments anyone?

---

I've followed the link, and can't find where you get the assumption that they are Conservative, a opposed to Open or Charismatic Evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired, inerrant and infallible word of God. Christians must therefore, submit to its supreme authority and sufficiency, both individually and corporately, in every matter of belief and conduct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by *Balaam*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The plant

Comments anyone?

---

I've followed the link, and can't find where you get the assumption that they are Conservative, a opposed to Open or Charismatic Evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Is not

quote:

---

The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired, inerrant and infallible word of God. Christians must therefore, submit to its supreme authority and sufficiency, both individually and corporately, in every matter of belief and conduct.

---

a tad conservative?

---

Definitely Evangelical, but Conservatism depends on the definition of 'as originally given'.

Thanks ES that about answers my question.
 

---

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :
 
*Tangent alert*

The sign "Heavy Plant Crossing" assumes new meaning when you know Welsh speakers.

In Welsh, "plant" are "children" (or just the one maybe!)
Can't imah=gine what it'd do to this thread!
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The use of the phrases "inspired, inerrant and infallible" and "supreme authority and sufficiency" to describe the Bible do suggest a significantly more conservative position than most evangelicals. The UCCF Doctrinal Basis, for example, omits "inerrant" and "sufficiency" in the equivalent clause. I certainly wouldn't be able to signify agreement to any doctrinal statement that describes the Bible in such terms.
 

---

Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
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.

Yuk, yuk, yuk.

Cosmo
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by *Balaam*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Is not

quote:

---

The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired, inerrant and infallible word of God. Christians must therefore, submit to its supreme authority and sufficiency, both individually and corporately, in every matter of belief and conduct.

---

a tad conservative?

---

Definitely Evangelical, but Conservatism depends on the definition of 'as originally given'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The plant

Comments anyone?

---

quote:

---

One of the key aspects of the North West Partnership, as expressed in our foundation document, is to encourage Bible believing Christians to contend for the faith within their denominations. This, though seemingly abrasive and negative, is none other than an outworking of authentic New Testament Christianity, a faith which is both rooted and expressed in love.

---

quote:

---

It is about the faith once for all entrusted to the saints which was and is threatened by flouting the standards of sexual ethics to be in line with contemporary society. These concerns are remarkably relevant. Recent events in the dioceses of New Westminster, New Hampshire and Oxford,have brought into sharp focus the need to contend for the faith within our denomination. The world-wide Anglican communion has made it clear that "homosexual practise is incompatible with scripture." (Lambeth Resolution 1998). Any alternative position is to deny scripture and with it the expectation of obedience to the Lord Jesus the very outworking of the gospel itself

---

quote:

---

Local groups such as Diocesan Evangelical
Fellowships and Diocesan Reform groups have met
together to pray and have worked together to voice their concerns. Letters and signatures can go a long way to show the extent of the concern among church members... Expose Don’t be frightened to make a stand when you hear or see something that is not in accordance with the faith once for all entrusted to the saints. Let people know, lovingly and clearly... And then you will need to say something and do something when gospel-threatening error emerges. The experience of the Oxford Diocese shows that much can be done when Christians work together for the good of the gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie:
I think there is something they have not noticed.

Odd that.

(Platt Chapel was Unitarian and was the venue for Manchester Photographic Society when I knew it, right opposite Luther King House )


Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The plant

Comments anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
Am I the only person who noticed on the "Leadership Team" page that they list the males first? And that all the blokes are ordained and none of the women are? Funny that...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Jesse Telford:
Student congregations are a definitely not a good idea.

---

quote:

---

Hmm - not quite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:

quote:

---

Hmm - not quite.

---

You're failing to see that it's a terrible conspiracy rascal. Give it another read.

---

Ahhhh - got it now. Bottom of the page!

Typical freakin' evo anglo waspy fundy scum, eh?
 

---

Posted by Robert Jesse Telford (# 3256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Jesse Telford:
Student congregations are a definitely not a good idea.

---

Ermmm - does this rather brave comment have any Biblical or sociological basis?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Jesse Telford:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Jesse Telford:
Student congregations are a definitely not a good idea.

---

Ermmm - does this rather brave comment have any Biblical or sociological basis?

---

Oh yeah I forgot about that. Well, I don't think there's biblical basis, but the sociological basis is that if there are only students in a church, there is no one who has been in the faith for more than 10 years.

Thus, it might (not saying it would) become a very insular, and not growth-inducing organisation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Hmm - not quite. They have two ordained men, the (male) church manager doesn't seem to be ordained. They also have four women (and only three men) on their "Leadership Team"!

---

Spouses don't count, I'm afraid. I would be willing to bet that the wives are unpaid assistants.

Also, why do they look so damnably neat and clean? That alone would be enough to turn me off.

/tangent alert
I was in the local Christian Bookshop today and saw one of those "teen study bibles". Normally they are gaudily coloured, with phrases like "Jesus is way cool!" scattered through them, and advice on how to avoid giving your boyfriend a blowjob and so on. On the front of this one was a picture of a Calvin Klein-esque gentleman wearing a skimpy singlet and tight jeans, his sultry gaze making love to the camera. Clearly they are going for the closeted teen boy/horny teen girl market. Quite bizarre.
/end tangent
 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 
Are they being given alternative episcopal oversight from ++Pete, the boy wonder from down under?
 

---

Posted by Never Conforming (# 4054) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Mmmmn. The Plant - don't think much of the garden centre which supplied it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Never Conforming:
[Looking at the profiles of the people running it briefly I noticed that they do seem to retiterate the fact that they are married. Is this just to confirm what kind of church it is?


Jo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Just had a wee look at the parent organisation of which it is an off-shoot.

Northwest Partnership News

'Contending for the Faith'

Some edited highlights

quote:

---

One of the key aspects of the North West Partnership, as expressed in our foundation document, is to encourage Bible believing Christians to contend for the faith within their denominations. This, though seemingly abrasive and negative, is none other than an outworking of authentic New Testament Christianity, a faith which is both rooted and expressed in love.

---

How can anyone object to anything however seemingly 'abrasive and negative' if it is done in Christian love!

quote:

---

It is about the faith once for all entrusted to the saints which was and is threatened by flouting the standards of sexual ethics to be in line with contemporary society. These concerns are remarkably relevant. Recent events in the dioceses of New Westminster, New Hampshire and Oxford,have brought into sharp focus the need to contend for the faith within our denomination. The world-wide Anglican communion has made it clear that "homosexual practise is incompatible with scripture." (Lambeth Resolution 1998). Any alternative position is to deny scripture and with it the expectation of obedience to the Lord Jesus the very outworking of the gospel itself

---

Contending for the gospel = opposing homosexual practice? Er... isn't there a little teensy weensy problem of emphasis here?

quote:

---

Local groups such as Diocesan Evangelical
Fellowships and Diocesan Reform groups have met
together to pray and have worked together to voice their concerns. Letters and signatures can go a long way to show the extent of the concern among church members... Expose Don’t be frightened to make a stand when you hear or see something that is not in accordance with the faith once for all entrusted to the saints. Let people know, lovingly and clearly... And then you will need to say something and do something when gospel-threatening error emerges. The experience of the Oxford Diocese shows that much can be done when Christians work together for the good of the gospel. (emphases on gospel mine)

---

Er... right, the possibility of a celibate gay man as a bish is 'gospel-threatening error' and working together to drive the guy out of office is an example to us all of Christians working together for the good of the gospel.

Mmmmn. The Plant - don't think much of the garden centre which supplied it!

L.


PS. And this lot turn out to be at the other end of a cryptic link posted by ES? Fancy that!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Jesse Telford:
Student congregations are a definitely not a good idea.

---

Ermmm - does this rather brave comment have any Biblical or sociological basis?

---

I would agree with Robert JT here, not aon a biblical basis but on a social basis. Congregations work best when there are more than one age group in them. This was kind of proved in the reality tv programmes done by BBC and ITV. BBC's stuck on a Hebredian Island (castaway?) seemed to work better as there were people from all age ranges there. Surivor in my mind didn't work as well as everyone was in their mid 20's.

It is one thing for churches to be actively encouraging students to attend. It is another when they call themselves Student churches and have not got any older and maybe wiser people helping out when needed. I think that churches need to be diverse in order for people to get the most from them.
Tom
 

---

Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
Where is this church going to get it's money from in the long run, I realise that it is funded at the moment by a "partnership", but for how long can they prop up what may get a large and expensive to run congragation?

Our Church (for instance) can support a fair number of students (they need feeding you know, skinny rake like things thay are ) because it has a majority of working people who are happy to give into the Church - But a totally student church is not going to expect much money from students (and if they do they should be ashamed of themselves).

Neil
 

---

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Ack!!!
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
The discussion on the age / demographic of this church is interesting. They say they're in discussion with the Bishop of Manchester over their status - clearly wanting the 'validation' (God knows why) of having the approval of the CofE. (And by the way, if McCulloch says yes, I'll be first in line to deliver a verbal beating-up.) I'd say that their first requirement therefore, in the eyes of the CofE, is that they become like a parish church - open to all, believers and non-believers, orthodox and variously heterodox, dealing with a diverse population in a difficult area of the city. So what if, one Sunday, their (say) thirty or forty students found their congregation augmented by fifty or sixty local people of all kinds and ages? Would they say 'come in' or 'shove off'?

IMO, the difference between that 'come in' and 'shove off' is what makes the difference between a real Christlike church, and a narrow, opportunistic, dangerous cult-waiting-to-happen.

McCulloch beware!
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So what if, one Sunday, their (say) thirty or forty students found their congregation augmented by fifty or sixty local people of all kinds and ages? Would they say 'come in' or 'shove off'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Day:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Jesse Telford:
Student congregations are a definitely not a good idea.

---

Ermmm - does this rather brave comment have any Biblical or sociological basis?

---

It is one thing for churches to be actively encouraging students to attend. It is another when they call themselves Student churches and have not got any older and maybe wiser people helping out when needed. I think that churches need to be diverse in order for people to get the most from them.
Tom

---

quote:

---

It is not our intention to create an exclusively student/new graduate congregation and it is our hope that we also attract other people too: professionals, academics, families and others from in and around the campus area. This mixed demographic will be essential to the healthy life of the new church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
anglicanrascal - if they did want to be an open, inclusive church, why are they there at all? That's what all the other churches in that area of Manchester are (more or less). Why not save a lot of money by just putting up a sign saying 'Students - Go To Your Parish Church!'

---

quote:

---

The North West Partnership is a group of Bible-believing evangelicals in the North West of England. It began meeting after Peter Jensen's visits to the region in January 2003.

---

I would hope after the 9 O Clock Service the last thing a bishop would do would be to create an extra-parochial (non geographically based) C of E church unless it is set up with a C of E structure from the start with a PCC, church wardens and ministers trained and licensed by the C of E which would cut across their current structure somewhat.

Re students and 'proper churches' - my son went to college in London last term, he wanted to find what he termed a 'proper church' i.e. one with a range of ages/backgrounds which he could blend into rather than be labelled as a 'student'. He was asked by another student to an allegedly 'student friendly' church which turned out to be St Helen's which he knew nothing about but just didn't like as there was a lot of pressure to sign up to their beliefs and go on courses etc. He's still looking!

[I must check my spelling before I post. I must check my spelling before I post. ********* typos.]

[ 06. January 2004, 09:00: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

I imagine its because they don't think the gospel is being preached clearly and effectively enough to reach young people on the campuses of Manchester University.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

I imagine its because they don't think the gospel is being preached clearly and effectively enough to reach young people on the campuses of Manchester University.

---

There are seven (?) members of their 'leadership team'. Each offers his/her services to one of the neighbouring parish churches as a Student Worker. Problem solved.

---

Mmmmm - am sure that all the neighbouring churches would want a conservative evangelical youth worker who still believes all that sin and repentance and sexual morality claptrap ... NOT!

quote:

---

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 said "preached clearly and effectively". Unbelievable arrogance that they would dare to judge the ministry of others? Just like we have all been doing on this thread?

Pax,
anglicanrascal
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Despite every scrap of evidence to the contrary “Issue churches” keep springing up. It may thrive for a while, heresy can be SO appealing, but lacking any roots in the gospel or the Christian tradition it will wither and die. Taking with it the faith of many. It is a sign of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expecting differing results. Issue churches never thrive. Issue churches screw people up. Issue churches are ego trips for the obsessed.

As Karl said. Ack.

P
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
It is a sign of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expecting differing results. Issue churches never thrive. Issue churches screw people up. Issue churches are ego trips for the obsessed.

---

Do you mean who you think I mean?
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
By the same token it is crazy to change a winning formula.

P
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
anglicanrascal - if they did want to be an open, inclusive church, why are they there at all? That's what all the other churches in that area of Manchester are (more or less). Why not save a lot of money by just putting up a sign saying 'Students - Go To Your Parish Church!'

---

Probably because many 20-somethings don't usually go to church, certainly not to something that looks like their parents' church. If a church is started that does have some appeal it will often start pulling in other curious folks of other demographics who also might not go to places of worship that we might be more comfortable in. In my city, one of the biggest non-denoms started as a youth ministry. It kept a lot of its first congregants who are now in middle age, there are still lots of kids, and it has several thousand members.

Yes, it too is conservative for my taste. No, I'm not crazy about that. But if I don't like it that much, I could be thinking of ways that would
persuade young people that being love-God-love-neighbor-based, reflective and tolerant is more life-enhancing than having church elders interpret the Bible for us and tell us what version is inerrant truth. On the other hand, I also believe that being Great Commandment oriented, reflective and tolerant sometimes includes disagreeing with many conservative opinions, even getting pissed off at them when it appears they are hurting and excluding others, but it also includes appreciating that conservative Christians are like liberal Christians, in that they are seeking God and living their faith in many positive ways while at the same time dogged by human limitation.
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
DP: Obviously there is a much more machivalian (sp?) thing going on here than my quaint American mind was grasping. Yuck!

Good luck.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
The deal is these plants want to take over the university CU. CU speakers stay over and preach at Claypath on Sunday - Manchester will be the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie:
I should explain my previous post. This plant is next door (literally) to a thriving Anglican Congregation. That is though parkland seperates Platt Chapel from Holy Trinity, Platt, they are next door neighbours. Holy Trinitiy Platt is actually nearest buildings to Platt Chapel along Wilmslow Road.

Holy Trinity Platt is a big evangelical church. For those whose memories goes back to the 1960s or 1970s its the evangelical church in Manchester Cliff Richard attended.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I think Calvin answered that one in his Institutes

---

quote:

---

Why are they setting up a evangelical Anglican Church right on the door step of a sucessful evangelical Anglican Church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:

quote:

---

Why are they setting up a evangelical Anglican Church right on the door step of a sucessful evangelical Anglican Church?

---

Having read this thread purely out of interest I'm tempted to email the leadership team with this exact question. I suspect that it would tactfully make reference to what the new Church stands for without telling us a) what is specifically different and b) why that difference is so vitally important.

Better if a Mancunian made that enquiry though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dorcas:
I've just checked out their website again (see first message in this thread for link) and it has been updated because of this thread on SoF!!

According to their Latest News page, The Plant is being set up a) with the blessing of Holy Trinity Platt and b) because local churches aren't doing enough for students.

Hmm...

---

quote:

---

We are aware that there has been some discussion of The Plant (based on the content of www.theplant.net ) on an internet message board and issues have been raised based on the assumption that we are critical of the ministry of other churches working with students in Manchester, and in particular Holy Trinity, Platt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
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 nonesense.

This may mean their claims about setting up this plany with Platt's blessing is also inaccurate.

they have certainly not circulated news of the plant to local chuch leaders as they claim - my friend who is vicar of two other south manchester churches near the university has heard nothing about it.

Oh but then she's a woman minister....

And the oganisers' idea of 'discussion' appears to be simply presenting people with a fait accompli.

---

quote:

---

My name is Phil Keymer, and I will be one of the ministers of The Plant when it starts meeting later this year. We have been disappointed to read in this thread a great deal of misunderstanding at our purpose in setting up The Plant, and the processes involved in doing so. Because of the seriousness of some of the accusations, we feel we need to set the record straight with the following points:
 
First, there has clearly been a misunderstanding somewhere along the line in Charles Read’s communication with the Bishop of Manchester: Nigel McCulloch was informed of our provisional plans many months ago, and delegated discussion to his suffragan bishops under the auspices of the Diocesan Board of Education. We have therefore had meetings with the Bishops of Bolton, Hulme and Middleton; as well as the university chaplains; Hulme Area Dean; ecumenical representatives; and chair of the Board of Education. The Area Dean consulted the members of the Hulme Deanery Chapter (the local Anglican ministers) on behalf of the diocese and us. Local non-Anglican churches have been sounded out by phone and email. Our project has been discussed on two occasions at the Bishop’s senior staff meeting, at which we presume Bishop Nigel was present. (He may not have been aware that we are calling ourselves “The Plant” – perhaps that explains the confusion?) Because The Plant is not the product of any one church or parachurch organisation, we are seeking a system of accountability, primarily from the Diocese of Manchester.
 
Secondly, there seems to be an assumption that any new church must be set up in opposition to existing churches ministering in the same area. Judging by the (thus far) positive responses we have had from non-Anglican churches, this appears to be an Anglican assumption. As we have explained on www.theplant.net, we are not suggesting that other churches are not proclaiming the gospel to students, but that the sheer numbers of students merit further evangelistic initiatives. We believe that, God willing, more evangelism means more people coming to know and love our Lord Jesus Christ. We assumed that our brothers and sisters in Christ would think this a good thing!
 
Regarding Holy Trinity Platt, I quote from the ‘Latest News’ section of our website (www.theplant.net/3189):

"In the specific case of Holy Trinity Platt, we have great respect for their ministry among students and others. John and Flick Hindley (two of The Plant's leadership team) have been members of the evening congregation at Holy Trinity for the past two and a half years and are personally grateful for the teaching and ministry they have received. We have also worked closely with Tony Porter, the Rector of Holy Trinity, throughout the planning for The Plant, and we are very grateful for his active support and encouragement."

As we say on the website, Platt Chapel is one of a number of possible meeting venues (www.theplant.net/2482). Because The Plant will be seeking to reach certain groups within the community, our geographical location will not be as significant as is usually is for other Anglican churches.
 
We hope that these comments have helped to clarify issues. Just to be clear, we don’t plan to enter into further discussion on this message board. If you would like to keep up to date with the progress of The Plant, please keep an eye on www.theplant.net.
 
Finally, we have been quite distressed by the tone of many of the posts in this discussion. Innuendo, mistrust, cynical reading-between-the-lines, and assumptions of the worst do not strike us as a very Christian manner of debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by merseyaardvark:
I'm certain their agenda is to see people who are currently nowhere near any church come to hear Bible teaching and have Christian fellowship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Jesse Telford:
Student congregations are a definitely not a good idea.

---

Ermmm - does this rather brave comment have any Biblical or sociological basis?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
One is how an Anglican congregation can set itself up within the parish boundaries of another Anglican congregation. Now maybe I'm a bit out of touch, but that doesn't seem to be very ecclesiologically thought out now, does it?

---

quote:

---

In fact the second issue is an ecclesiological one too - are para-church movements theologically acceptable or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:

The Plant is not a para-church movement. It is a church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Indeed but it is seemingly trying to do two things fulfill the traditional role of the CU and be a local church. This is about showing more division in the body of Christ and I do not think this is a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
the Plant's services will be different in that they will be more student-orientated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In my opinion a church can not deliberately serve the needs of one part of a community to the exclusion of others and still be true to the calling of the Church and healthy - whether that be a church aimed towards students or OAPs. Part of the ministry of the Church is directed towards specific groups, but these ministries are called chaplaincies (or CU) not churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
My deductions seem to be correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Well - on DOD's logic, all those churches with no members except pensioners should be shut on the same grounds.

---

quote:

---

Which of course is the heart of this discussion; the perception in the evangelical community that what passes for the Christian chaplaincy at most universities is a self perpetuating clique of the liberal establishment - so an alternative has to be provided!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Also, as parish churches, the geriatric churches you castigate are formally open to all. They were not set up with the explicit purpose of catering to only one part of the community. All very uncatholic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
the Plant's services will be different in that they will be more student-orientated.

---

Which is possibly where the question of ecclesiology comes in. What is a church? And, can a church that is student-orientated be healthy? In my opinion a church can not deliberately serve the needs of one part of a community to the exclusion of others and still be true to the calling of the Church and healthy - whether that be a church aimed towards students or OAPs. Part of the ministry of the Church is directed towards specific groups, but these ministries are called chaplaincies (or CU) not churches. I don't think it's helpful for students to exist in a cocoon, how do you expect students to get used to worshipping in a broader focussed church after graduation if they're in a student-oriented church while at university. IMO, CUs and/or chaplaincies should be providing student-specific activities and local churches integrating students within their normal structures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
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.

Divisions splits setting up new churches is hardly a new concept but what is different is a hoping to get after the fact blessing from the CofE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Until these questions are answered, I must continue in my suspicions that this is an initiative put forward by ultra-conservatives who are displeased with the mainstream Anglican ministry in the university and the surrounding area.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

(i) Properly speaking, the local student community falls within the parish of HTP only incidentally: the "cure of souls" lies with the Anglican University Chaplaincy. What input have they had here?

---

quote:

---

(ii) Are the Plant's ministers going to be licensed or otherwise accredited by the diocese of Manchester? If not, why not (if they want to be allied to the Anglican diocese)?

---

quote:

---

(iii) The question of oversight: to whom are the Plant's leaders responsible for their actions? To whom would a student go, for instance, if she or he wished to file a complaint against one of the leaders?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
(So it's also a bit premature for people to be asking whether they have a Child Protection Officer and whether they comply with disability legislation; these issues will, I'm sure, be addressed at the right time.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
There is already a team from St Mary's, Cheadle, working in the UPAs of Manchester. It is called `the Message' and spawned the band, the (World Wide Message) Tribe, and the Eden Projects in Manchester (recently featured in a TV documentary).

---

quote:

---

Anglican ministers, lay or ordained, cannot operate within the C of E without a licence from the relevant Bishop

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Will the ministers have licenses to officiate, or 'permission to officiate', or what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
(So it's also a bit premature for people to be asking whether they have a Child Protection Officer and whether they comply with disability legislation; these issues will, I'm sure, be addressed at the right time.)

---

The right time is at the planning stage. Lack of planning or 'not got round to it yet' is no defence against negligence in the eyes of the law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie:
Actually Big Dan

You should consider getting Child Protection clearance, if you are working with vulnerable people and in my book (and University of Sheffield's) students are classified as vulnerable people.

---

quote:

---

The leaders of the Plant are ordained C of E ministers, and wish to remain that way, so it's not true that the Plant is being set up because of objections to the way in which the C of E is run or to its theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Big Dan said

quote:

---

The leaders of the Plant are ordained C of E ministers, and wish to remain that way, so it's not true that the Plant is being set up because of objections to the way in which the C of E is run or to its theology.

---

One is not ordained a minister but a priest.

---

quote:

---

Also the Plant seem to have gone about things in a very odd order. Surely it would have been better to work in conjunction with the diocese from the beginning rather than say we're doing this, how about you support us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:


The leaders of the Plant are ordained C of E ministers, and wish to remain that way, so it's not true that the Plant is being set up because of objections to the way in which the C of E is run or to its theology.

<snip>

The Plant is not hoping to get an `after the fact blessing from the C of E'. It is hoping to get a before-the-fact blessing; the Plant is not yet `operational' and has yet to hold a service or meeting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
One is ordained deacon first, then priest. I know that Phil Keymer has been ordained priest, because I go to the same church as him at the moment. I've no idea whether John Hindley is ordained priest rather than just deacon, because he is described just as `Minister' on the Web site.

---

quote:

---

I think this is a bit unfair. It seems to me from the Web site that the leaders consulted the diocese from the moment they caught the vision (my phrase) onwards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
I do teach at a university, though, and so am very interested in what you say. Does everybody at the University of Sheffield need child protection clearance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie:
Minister does not imply head of the congregation, it implies servant.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie:
Minister does not imply head of the congregation, it implies servant.

Jengie

---

No, Minister means servant but implies, in common parlance (particularly with reference to non-conformist churches), the person who is roughly equivalent in role to the Vicar (or Rector) in an Anglican Church.

Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie:
Minister does not imply head of the congregation, it implies servant.

Jengie

---

No, Minister means servant but implies, in common parlance (particularly with reference to non-conformist churches), the person who is roughly equivalent in role to the Vicar (or Rector) in an Anglican Church.

Carys

---

I think this is actually a difference of ecclesiology between denominational groups.

I know in mine, the minister is firmly the servant of the congregation. You're both right - just depends on which branch of the church you're in.

---

Since the Pope carries the title 'Servant of the servants of God', I'm not sure in what tradition the 'minister' is not the 'servant' of the congregation! Though it may be an aspect that get lost in common useage....
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
I think it'd be a bit much to tell them to give up just because it didn't fit into a C of E structure. If Wesley and his followers had had that attitude we'd have never had the 18th-century Evangelical Revival!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
They seem to be objecting to the CofE's style of running by their very actions. The leaders have given up their previous jobs and are simply going to start and that strikes me as after the fact. They have affliated to the northwest partnership before the CofE and this to me shows the priorities of the leaders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
For my part, I cannot understand why this group is adhering to the C of E at all

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, by holding up Wesley as a model you appear, at least to me, not only to be justifying secession should that be deemed expedient (on the basis that it might be just that which will produce revival),

---

quote:

---

but also placing blame for any such secession squarely on the shoulders of the recalcitrants within the very "structure" this group is falling over itself to identify with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Which is another argument against the term Minister.

---

quote:

---

The reason I feel that they haven't done this is that they've launched without having got the position with the diocese clear. Okay so they haven't actually started meeting yet, but they're going public. It seems to be very much coming from them, not working with the diocese.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
The North West Partnership is entirely composed of Anglicans, I believe, and so is not an anti-Anglcian thing at all. The priorities of the leaders are evangelism and Christian discipleship, though they would like to engage in these in a C of E structure.

Big Dan

---

quote:

---

We exist to glorify God by:
... Encouraging Bible-believing evangelicals to contend for Biblical reformed Christianity within our denominations

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
The leaders have not yet given up their previous jobs;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by Arietty:

quote:

---

Anglican ministers, lay or ordained, cannot operate within the C of E without a licence from the relevant Bishop

---

With certain provisos, this is true, and it's really what I was asking in my previous post, question (ii). Will the ministers have licenses to officiate, or 'permission to officiate', or what?

What I'd also point out is that if the ministers who are Anglican clergy are not licensed to officiate, then they are working without their bishop's permission and have placed themselves under threat of discipline.

If they are licensed, then they are bound by their oath before God to a number of commitments - not least, canonical obedience to the Bishop and subjection to Canon Law. Therefore, I would ask the Plant:
if the ministers are licensed, will they
(a) provide a celebration of the Holy Communion on all Sundays and greater holy-days;
(b) in public worship and private prayer, use only those forms of service allowed or authorised by canon?

---

quote:

---

The North West Partnership is entirely composed of Anglicans, I believe, and so is not an anti-Anglcian thing at all.

---

It is possible to be "Anglican" and yet completely at odds with that church's theology, seeking to undermine it at all costs in a determined effort to "Reform the Reformed".

You only need look at the Diocese of Sydney for proof of this.


 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 
Ahh Semper Reformanda ... it really should be in Nunc's sig, don't you think?


 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
Remind me to hit you, angrasc, next time I see you...
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 
Your violent streak could do with a bit of reforming, nunc.
 

---

Posted by Jengie (# 273) on :
 
The use in non-conformity of minister is precisely because it means servant. Those who are most traditional on this point have problems being addressed as Reverend.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Ferijen (# 4719) on :
 
<tangent>

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:

As for disability legislation, again this would seem premature, since, according to the Web site, they don't start meeting for 9 months. Jengie pointed out in an earlier post that Manchester Photographic Society meets in Platt Chapel, so presumably they have sorted all issues of access for disabled people.

Big Dan

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
The NorthWest Partnership was set up after and inspired by Peter Jensen's visit to England. It is therefore safe to assume it is a Reform outfit and unhappy with much of the current C of E, including women mnister / priests and Common Worship liturgy.

---

quote:

---

That people on this thread are more concerned with human structures and rules than with gospel work – wasn’t that Jesus’ issue with the Pharisees?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I would love to think that there might be an extension of a mature, accepting, caring and evangelistic Christian ministry to students in Manchester. There is indeed a great need there.

---

quote:

---

My problems with what we know of the Plant are twofold:
(i) The company they keep(!)
(i) The website of the northwest partnership suggests to me that the teaching will show a God more angry than loving, more condemning than forgiving; and that ecclesiologically it will be 'Jensenite', i.e. its association with the CofE will only be to subvert, or as someone has said, to try and reform what is already reformed.

---

quote:

---

(ii) If there are problems with the Plant in the future, to whom can people go for help, and who will sort out the mess?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minister:

Can’t we now simply get excited that there will be a few more ministers trying to reach out to the pagan mass of students in Manchester? After all, there are more than enough non-Christians to go round all the churches in Manchester who will try and reach them. So lets leave this issue, and go and do something more useful instead!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minister:
It seems, instead, there is a simple mistrust and dislike of conservative Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The Plant is, from the outset, seeking legitimacy from a structure (the C of E) which, if Big Dan's comments are anything to go by, it is prepared to abandon, from the outset, if it cannot be accomodated therein.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minister:
Can’t we now simply get excited that there will be a few more ministers trying to reach out to the pagan mass of students in Manchester?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
The agenda here is that Reform & co give the distinct impression they don't think anyone who's not with them deserves that label. That's why some of us are cross.

---

quote:

---

the way the Plant is being set up leads us to think that there's another agenda running here as well as a genuine desire to see converts.

---

quote:

---

I don't know which parts of the Web site suggest that to you but I'm sure the Plant leaders think that God is infinitely loving and forgiving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
This depends on what the Bishop says. But you could also go to the leaders of the North-West Partnership whatever the Bishop says.

Big Dan

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The doctinal hardness which, ISTM, is clear in their DB, is in stark contrast to the way in which Jesus interacted with those whom he met. Incidentally, it's also probably a world away from how they themselves interact with others. This gives them a real problem. How do they react to, for example, members of the extensive Gay community in Manchester. Do they reach out to welcome them in, as they, in their heart of hearts, probably want to, or are they crippled by a theoretical position that says "Thus says the Lord, end of argument"?

On a personal level, yes, I am sure Phil Keymer and his associates have a wholehearted belief and trust in a Jesus who is infinately loving and forgiving, but they are saddled with a theology in which He is most definately not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
I think their agenda is to try to spread the good news in central Manchester (an area in great need of it!), particularly among students (a group of people in great need of it!).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
you see when it boils down to it their first loyalty is to the North-west partnership not to Manchester diocese.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minister:
The irony is, that the "liberals" posting on this thread are being so il-liberal in trying to find ways to discredit or bad mouth the conservative Christians. Ironic isn’t it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoo:
Why is there a need for it?

There are plenty of churches in the area, any one of which would be glad to receive more students.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I think you will find we are pointing out the contradictions of a church which wants to operate under the banner of the Church of England yet ignores it's structures until it wants them.
How would those who plan to run the plant react if the diocese said good idea but you will be under the authority of the local PCC and actually this person would be a better minister?

---

quote:

---

Their first loyalty is to God, who, they believe, has entrusted them with this task. All other loyalties are secondary. (And that's how it shouldn't be, isn't it?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
I believe that Tony Porter is crying out for help: his church (Holy Trinity, Platt) is so full that they cannot accommodate many more -- hence the need for another church in the area

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
you see when it boils down to it their first loyalty is to the North-west partnership not to Manchester diocese.

---

Their first loyalty is to God, who, they believe, has entrusted them with this task. All other loyalties are secondary. (And that's how it shouldn't be, isn't it?)

Big Dan

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:
Big Dan

quote:

---

Their first loyalty is to God, who, they believe, has entrusted them with this task. All other loyalties are secondary. (And that's how it shouldn't be, isn't it?)

---

That sounds as though they claim direct insight into the mind of God. Would that be their position?

---

quote:

---

they are denying the place of the Church in validating their call to this work

---

quote:

---

Is it possible to be an Anglican, and simply disregard what is understood to constitute authority in the church?

---

quote:

---

do you say that there's a conflict between properly constituted authority in the Church and the will of God? And on what grounds?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
So are you saying that since they are primarily accountable to God, it doesn't matter who else they are accountable to or in which order?

---

quote:

---

I don't understand what you mean by `doctrinal hardness' -- the DB is simply a statement of what they believe. Nobody is saying that one has to sign the DB to worship with the Plant!

---

quote:

---

After all, he has lovingly suffered an infinite punishment for us and forgiven us an infinitely serious sin (rejection of him).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoo:
I honestly don't see a need for it. I'm sorry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The point I was making was that there was a distance between the Theology which the leadership claim to espouse (as detailed in their DB) and their own personal practice of the faith. Now I happen to think that it is a good thing that their personal lives are animated by the love and compassion of Jesus. I'm just saying that it is in spite of, not because of their theology.

---

quote:

---

Part of that theology is the penal substitutionary atonement doctine, to which you allude

quote:

---

After all, he has lovingly suffered an infinite punishment for us and forgiven us an infinitely serious sin (rejection of him).

---

This has been covered at length on another thread, but suffice it to say that many Christians, even those of evangelical persuasion, feel that this doctrine is not particularly biblical, and is particularly difficult to reconcile with the character of the Father of the Lord Jesus, who is indeed infinately loving and forgiving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Dan, I think you are doing a cracking job of standing up for a church that wont stand up for itself. You must weary soon, don’t worry if you can’t keep up the pace.

I think the Plant are reading this and I think they ought to make their position clear. I think they wont because to do so would show their true colours.

Thanks also to all who are taking part in this very interesting thread and not dog-piling on Dan. It must be difficult for him arguing an ecclesiology that he is not directly (though closely) linked to.

P

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Part of that theology is the penal substitutionary atonement doctine, to which you allude

quote:

---

After all, he has lovingly suffered an infinite punishment for us and forgiven us an infinitely serious sin (rejection of him).

---

This has been covered at length on another thread, but suffice it to say that many Christians, even those of evangelical persuasion, feel that this doctrine is not particularly biblical, and is particularly difficult to reconcile with the character of the Father of the Lord Jesus, who is indeed infinately loving and forgiving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
So are you saying that since they are primarily accountable to God, it doesn't matter who else they are accountable to or in which order?

---

No, I'm saying merely that as Christians our primary authority and allegiance are God-wards, not the C of E or any other denomination.

The fact that the Plant is seeking C of E accountability shows that they take accountability seriously.

Big Dan

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Thank you for the clarification.

I am not an Anglican, but it would seem to me that, as Nightlamp pointed out in the post which to which you were responding, under God the primary accountability for this enterprise should rest with the diocese and not with the NWP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

It wasn't intended to castigate the Plant for their beliefs, still less to unload on Big Dan for his stalwart and admirable defence of his friends. I hope, Big Dan, that you did not take it in that way, and if you did, I sincerely and unreservedly apologise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
However, I do think one of the Plant leaders could be bothered to join in this discussion themselves! What message is being sent out by not doing so?

---

I think the message is that they are very busy trying to set up a new church within the C of E framework!

But I'm also very busy, so that'll have to be it for now!

Enjoy your lunch and the _Church Times_!

Big Dan
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
I thought the minister was one of the leaders of the plant but I guess we will never know. I don't know if I ought to be proud of my newly found liberalism or not.
 

---

Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :
 
Interestingly the diocese of Manchester has one of the highest church redundancy rates in the country.

However, since everyone keeps talking about 'will they won't they be licensed' and having to 'fit within the strucutres' I thought I'd clarify the legal (yes, legal, that's Cofe's advantage of being established ) situation.

If a church is not going to be a parish church there are a few other options under current legislation (the Pastoral Measure '83). They can be an Extra Parochial Place (famous examples being Westminster Abbey and St Geore's Chapel Windsor) or a Conventional District. Both hold various rights and obligations but neither are ideal for this kind of structure, though similar 'network' type churches have used CDs in the past. The other option is that they are allowed to exist through the minister(s) being licensed by the bishop of the diocese and their activities continuing at his discretion . It would be normally expected that this would only happen for a couple of years and then they would take one of the EPP or CD route (or even become a parish or join a team ministry after pastoral reorganisation).

The big news on that front is that in February at General Synod a new system for churches like the Plant is going to be set before Synod to be debated (it is part of the ideas behind the new Pastoral Measure which had just been reviewed and after being passed at Synod - with whatever amendments they come up with - will be law probably by 2007). The finalised details aren't public yet (but it was in their consultation paper last year), so watch this space. Potentially the whole issue of Anglican ecclesiology might blow up and make the press. This is an issue facing the CofE all over the show and it's starting to think it can't ignore it.
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 
As one of those directly involved with University Chaplaincy in the Diocese of Manchester, let me lob in my few penn'orth.

I am aware from our Chaplains' meetings of the intention of the two Anglican Clergy to found a campus ministry. They have been in discussion with the appropriate Diocesan Officers for a few months. Frankly I couldn't and don't see the point. There are evangelical churches (CofE and of other denominations) a-plenty in that part of the city. If I were Priest or Pastor of any one of them I'd feel royally insulted!

As I understand it, 'The Plant' will come into existence whether or not the Clergy are licensed.
The granting of a license will mean that they are able to say that they are 'functioning' as Anglican Clergy - a plus point for them, respectibility!

It will also put them under the Bishop's jurisdiction - a plus point for the Diocese (theoretically), discipline.

My reservations about what they propose are recent, i.e. having read their website, particularly their doctrinal basis. It's interesting to note that many of my evangelical shipmates share my concern.

I have got on well with the CU on my campus, but 'The Plant' appear to have a far more conservative basis, one with which I have little sympathy.

I haven't met the people concerned, but if this is what they believe, then I hope they don't propose to cross the Irwell!
 

---

Posted by Big Dan (# 5399) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:
Frankly I couldn't and don't see the point. There are evangelical churches (CofE and of other denominations) a-plenty in that part of the city. If I were Priest or Pastor of any one of them I'd feel royally insulted!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:

If a church is not going to be a parish church there are a few other options under current legislation (the Pastoral Measure '83). They can be an Extra Parochial Place (famous examples being Westminster Abbey and St Geore's Chapel Windsor) or a Conventional District.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
They can be an Extra Parochial Place (famous examples being Westminster Abbey and St Geore's Chapel Windsor)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I thought the minister was one of the leaders of the plant but I guess we will never know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minister:
And I look forward to reading some appologies from those who have been cynical, rude and unloving in their comments and assumptions made about the Plant leadership team on this site.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minister:
And I look forward to reading some appologies from those who have been cynical, rude and unloving in their comments and assumptions made about the Plant leadership team on this site.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minister:
And I look forward to reading some appologies from those who have been cynical, rude and unloving in their comments and assumptions made about the Plant leadership team on this site.

---

I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. If you've spent any time perusing this site, you'd know it isn't actually dedicated to blowing sweetness and light in the name of Christian Love. People here are free to call it like they see it, within the bounds of the SOF 10 Commandments, of course. Especially in Purgatory, our serious debate space. There are lots of bulletin boards out there for blowing sweetness and light. We're trying hard not to be one of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Where have people been rude and unloving? I'll accept that there has been a certain amount of cynicism, but then there are a number of questions that have not really been answered to the satisfaction of most people here.

---

quote:

---

For example, why plant another church rather than supporting existing churches? Holy Trinity Platt may be over stretched (yay! good to see a church growing that much), but why isn't the Plant team supporting other local churches to take some of the strain off Holy Trinity? Or, for that matter, why isn't Holy Trinity planting this new congregation to ease the strain they're experiencing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
evo congregations like this one trying to create unauthorised plants

---

quote:

---

a bunch of pagan students

---

Now, I'm sorry if this comes over as an example on on-board nastiness, but if that's the summation of the evangelical opinion of Manchester's student population, then the Plant deserves to fail, and I hope it does. Every one of those young people is the image of God; every one an icon of the creator of all that is; every one a uniquely priceless human being, brother or sister to us all; every one valued by Christ at the price of his own life. To sum them up as a bunch of pagans ...
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minister:
And I look forward to reading some appologies from those who have been cynical, rude and unloving in their comments and assumptions made about the Plant leadership team on this site.

---

I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. If you've spent any time perusing this site, you'd know it isn't actually dedicated to blowing sweetness and light in the name of Christian Love. People here are free to call it like they see it, within the bounds of the SOF 10 Commandments, of course. Especially in Purgatory, our serious debate space. There are lots of bulletin boards out there for blowing sweetness and light. We're trying hard not to be one of them.

---

Well if that's the state of play from everyone who frequents this site, I think I'd rather spend my time at The Plant!!! They have been so easily and cheaply rubbished, but they have rather sensibly kept their hands clean by not entering into this cynical debate! Good on em I say.

Goodbye!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Where have people been rude and unloving? I'll accept that there has been a certain amount of cynicism, but then there are a number of questions that have not really been answered to the satisfaction of most people here.

---

Perhpas we could start with Cosmo's post (`an utterly loathsome group of exclusivists').

---

quote:

---

Tony Porter at Holy Trinity is too busy to plant a new congregation and doesn't have a spare minister/pastor/cleric to send out.

Maybe other churches don't want the support, but if Tony Porter says he does then surely it's a good thing to answer a request for help from a Christian brother . . . ?

---

quote:

---

I cannot see why people should be cynical of other people's wanting to do evangelism. Maybe it's because we're feeling guilty about not doing enough evangelism ourselves?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Minister refers to:

quote:

---

a bunch of pagan students

---

Now, I'm sorry if this comes over as an example on on-board nastiness, but if that's the summation of the evangelical opinion of Manchester's student population, then the Plant deserves to fail, and I hope it does. Every one of those young people is the image of God; every one an icon of the creator of all that is; every one a uniquely priceless human being, brother or sister to us all; every one valued by Christ at the price of his own life. To sum them up as a bunch of pagans ...

---

I think the minister just mean `non-Christian' by `pagan' (just as we talk of `pagan Greece and Rome'). I'm sure he'd agree with everything else you say about the young people.

Don't forget that the reason the Plant is going out to evangelize these students is out of love for them. If they didn't care about them they wouldn't bother resigning jobs, moving house, enduring abuse on this bulletin board, etc. all to give them the gospel.

Big Dan
 

---

Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :
 
Actually, the royal peculiars, as far as I can remember, are technically EPPs under the Pastoral Measure and they are just a particular sub-group of them. It's to do with their relation to the parish in which they geographically sit and various other things like deanery representations, whether or not they have a PCC and stuff.

Big Dan, it wasn't really a slip. They have set up what they can and are hoping for Anglican affirmation but will carry on regardless if they don't get it. True, those other evo parishes are already C of E and then try to do stuff which they know the bishop is unliekly to allow, which is slightly different. But the attitude seems similar.

Personally good luck to them. I'm willing to bet half their congregation will be reading/needing 'the post-evangelical' within 2 years of attending. (not sure if that needs a or a ) Let's hope they do provide not just a breeding ground for young Christians at university but equip them for life afterwards and a realistic and loving approach to the rest of the Church.
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Minister

quote:

---

They have been so easily and cheaply rubbished, but they have rather sensibly kept their hands clean by not entering into this cynical debate! Good on em I say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, I've got to concede that Cosmo was somewhat "forthright" in expressing his opinion, it was a while back and I'd forgotten it. But, as Laura said it's not as though he (or anyone else) has really done any more than make their opinions very clear ... you've got to admit there's no doubting what he thinks.

---

quote:

---

OK, though there's a big difference between an existing church asking for help in expanding their mission and another group coming in uninvited. The impression I'm getting, and please clear it up if I'm wrong, is that the Plant decided to start this initiative and almost by coincidence it helped out Tony Porter. If Tony Porter hadn't given his support would the Plant have continued any way? The impression I'm getting is that they probably will if the don't get support from the Diocese, so I guess they would have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

I see no criticism on this thread of peoples desire for evangelism. What there has been is lots of questions about the appropriateness of the approach adopted by the Plant.

I'm not sure anyone has the right to judge the guilt or otherwise of other people, or whether or not they do sufficient "evangelism" (a term, I hasten to add, that is very difficult to define).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:
Was that really Minister's last word?
It certainly strikes me that by his going so far out on a limb for the Plant, Big Dan's posts have been a far more telling advocacy of it! And I'd have to say that it strikes me that if Minister's posts are representative of attitudes within the Plant, as he seems to suggest here, then they really don't deserve Big Dan!

Big Dan - respect!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
Shrug. Why doesn't the NWP (or whoever was going to fund the The Plant leadership); give the funds to Holy Trinity Platt and let the Rector there have The Plant people as his associates (in the Associate Priest sense) and assistant curates?

Then they can go on being quietly governed in the CoE and ministering to students without any fuss; while growing Holy Trinity and offering extra services to take the pressure off. He sounds supportive of them, everyone would be happy in this scenario.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
We do not have any solid evidence of just how the Plant approached Tony Porter, nor has Tony or anyone else from Platt said how they feel about it.

---

quote:

---

If this seems like Anglican pickyness, then
a) the pasrochial system does need an overhaul, but
b) the polite convention is to negotiate direct with the minister of the parish concerned, and
c) there are several church plants into other parishes which have been set up after careful discussion with all concernd and sometimes by direct invitation of the receiving parish. HTB used to specialize in this!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
including two members who have joined for the express purpose of joining in the debate and standing up for their 'side' or friends.
OOT

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
Had to buy second-hand books to console myself.

---

So an OK sort of day then?

When I have a bad day I have to buy new books to console myself.

Is this why I have a huge credit card bill?
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
Custard123

Weclome to the board - wonderful post!!!
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
It was rather good...
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
Threeapprentices to welcome! Welcome Minister, Big Dan and Custard123 to the Ship of Fools and to Purgatory in particular. As a couple of posters have pointed out, the Ship is wider than this thread. Do have a look about the Ship and get the feel of the place. Purgatory is the Ship's civilised debate space so not everyone may agree with your views. However, it is the diversity and range of opinion on the Ship that keeps the place interesting.

Pleasant voyage!

Duo Seraphim

Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
OK; this is how I guess the conversation went:

Phil Keymer: Hi Tony.
Tony Porter: Hi Phil.
PK: I have had a great idea for evangelizing Manchester's students. Do you think it's from God? [summarizes The Plant]
TP: Wow! Great idea! Yeah; I think that may well be from God!
PK: Any idea of a good location for the Plant?
TP: I don't mind your coming into my parish if you'd like. I'd value some help with the crowds of students I have.

That's just a guess of how things went

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
The fact that the Plant is seeking C of E accountability shows that they take accountability seriously.

---

Am I the only person wondering what form of accountability starts with the position "if you don't agree with what we're planning to do, we'll just do it anyway"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
I merely wonder why people are so against this evangelistic initiative.

---

I hope the guys involved do similarly Dan, it might not be an easy read, but if they can wade through this thread they could get a valuable insight into the kind of concerns people have. If nothing else it should prove excellent preparation for some of the responses they may get as they launch...
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 
Go for it, Big Dan. You're doing a smashing job.
 

---

Posted by Icarus Coot (# 220) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
OK; this is how I guess the conversation went:

Phil Keymer: Hi Tony.
Tony Porter: Hi Phil.
PK: I have had a great idea for evangelizing Manchester's students. Do you think it's from God? [summarizes The Plant]
TP: Wow! Great idea! Yeah; I think that may well be from God!
PK: Any idea of a good location for the Plant?
TP: I don't mind your coming into my parish if you'd like. I'd value some help with the crowds of students I have.

That's just a guess of how things went

---

Yes, exactly, just a guess. Not at all coloured by your obvious sympathy and support for 'The Plant' and its goals?

Frankly, I'd prefer to know what the persons directly involved have to say about the exchange.

---

Well it sounds quite plausible, but if he thinks it's such a great idea and from God, why doesn't the Revd Porter offer a bit more and incorporate The Plant into his own parish formally, using whatever resources The Plant people were going to use to support themselves if they set up as independent?

It wouldn't have anything to do with getting another 3 voices on Synod would it? (That's how we do things here btw; each parish gets to send the rector and 2 Synodsmen/women)

I think more youth ministry is a good thing, and thankfully, the Holy Spirit isn't constrained by the legalism of Jensenite preaching boxes. The Jensenite outposts in Perth do a lot of good work in the community and by and large they are loving people (except if you mention sexual morality and female headship, then they start frothing at the mouth).

I think if they'd attached themselves to an existing Anglican church few people would raise an eyebrow. Excuse my cynicism*, but their plan to be an independent unit appears entirely political.

(*Speaking as one who has been watching Sydney Diocese's battle plan for taking over Perth in action; and actually, they're doing a good job of it)
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
(*Speaking as one who has been watching Sydney Diocese's battle plan for taking over Perth in action; and actually, they're doing a good job of it)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
That's just a guess of how things went

---

Yes, exactly, just a guess. Not at all coloured by your obvious sympathy and support for 'The Plant' and its goals?

---

quote:

---

Frankly, I'd prefer to know what the persons directly involved have to say about the exchange.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by elsi:
Am I the only person wondering what form of accountability starts with the position "if you don't agree with what we're planning to do, we'll just do it anyway"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
Well it sounds quite plausible, but if he thinks it's such a great idea and from God, why doesn't the Revd Porter offer a bit more and incorporate The Plant into his own parish formally

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
It's a good job that Wesley and his followers didn't think that being Anglican was the only way to be . . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
To separate from a church merely because a few local ministers put their ideas above its corporate discipline ...

---

Ah-hah! Lectures from an Anglican on schism.
 

---

Posted by Big Dan (# 5399) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Actually, Wesley died an Anglican. He never wanted Methodism to be seperate from the Anglican Church, that the two parted company was, more than anything, a result of human pride and politics (on both sides) rather than an actual desire by the Wesleys or their immediate followers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What Alan Cresswell said. Plus (this isn't aimed at Methodists) to separate from a 'mother' church is a dreadful and very serious thing to do. Schism is a wound in the Body of Christ, and those who inflict such a wound must be very sure of their motives. To separate from a church merely because a few local ministers put their ideas above its corporate discipline ... well, this is purgatory, so I won't say what I think of it. But, as Big Dan says, we're waiting to hear if it will come to that....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
I was referring to the un-Anglican habit of preaching out of doors. The Anglicans refused to let Wesley have a puplit, so Wesley didn't just give up his desire to preach the gospel. Rather, he went out and did the un-Anglican thing of preaching outside. That was the point.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, Alan, since you're a host, do you agree with my suggestion that we give it a rest until the Bishop can inject something new into the debate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
I agree with the goal of the Plant as its goal is evangelism -- I'd rather assumed that everybody here would agree with that . . . . (But my sympathy is based on this knowledge, not the other way around!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
If the plant want to be part of a group they should have gone by the rules of the group this does not seem to have been done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though I'm not sure the analogy to an itinerant preacher is quite suitable when talking about establishing a church.

---

quote:

---

However, I do think (unofficially) we have maybe got as far as we can in discussing this specific church, with the information we currently have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:

1) [a fairly good joke]

2) [rather laboured bit that avoids the serious questions of the treatment of women and homosexuals in society and the Church by relying on "the Bible says"]

3) [even more laboured point failing to comprehend the issues inherent in using a predominantly white, male middle class ministry in poor, ethnically mixed areas where the majority of church goers are women]

4) [ditto]

5) [a paragraph implying that the writer does not appreciate (or chooses to remain blind to) the fact that church leaders aren't always antirely innocent of a bit of empire building and that there has, and always will be, an element of sheep-stealing amongst those setting up new churches. If this were not so, numbers would not be an issue]

6) [slightly disingenuous bit based on the old cliche that libruls don't believe the Bible]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:

1) [a fairly good joke]2) [rather laboured bit that avoids the serious questions of the treatment of women and homosexuals in society and the Church by relying on "the Bible says"]

3) [even more laboured point failing to comprehend the issues inherent in using a predominantly white, male middle class ministry in poor, ethnically mixed areas where the

majority of church goers are women]

4) [ditto]

5) [a paragraph implying that the writer does not appreciate (or chooses to remain blind to) the fact that church leaders aren't always antirely innocent of a bit of empire building and that there has, and always will be, an element of sheep-stealing amongst those setting up new churches. If this were not so, numbers would not be an issue]

6) [slightly disingenuous bit based on the old cliche that libruls don't believe the Bible]

---

2/10

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:

1) [a fairly good joke]

[...]

3) [even more laboured point failing to comprehend the issues inherent in using a predominantly white, male middle class ministry in poor, ethnically mixed areas where the majority of church goers are women]

4) [ditto]

[...]

---

2/10

---

quote:

---

So, taking the Bible (and thus God) at his word is unacceptable, but asking "Who would Jesus bomb?" is Ok?!

Interesting!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

(Actually do these sorts of people still wear clean rugby shirts under baggy jumpers? That's probably my dated memories of 1970s Durham University evangelical scene cropping up unwanted).

---

It was still true in the early 80s. And as I have already pointed out here, the "setting up church in the town hall next to the big CoE "student" church was avoided by the big CoE "student" church meeting in the town hall while its own building was renovated
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Custard123 point made me think that churches who are in areas where arabic is the main local language should attempt to have someone who has a basic grasp of the language.
I would have given custard123 4/10 because it made me smile despite knowing that it was a very simplistic response to the issue's that face the church.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minister:
p.s I thought it was hilarious, Custard - and SO true!!!

---

Weren't you leaving?
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
I have never contributed to a board on the ship before, (I only ever looked at mystery worshippers reports until recently) but followed this thread closely because I’m interested in church planting in the North of England. And it’s all very interesting.

Because I have heard people say that liberal Christianity was the just “the world” coming into “the church.” And that “open evangelicalism” is just “liberalism” by another name.

And I thought - there must be more to it than that. Surely that’s just an easy conservative way to explain a significant movement in church history.

And then I saw they way that the self confessed “liberals” and “open evangelicals” on this board have actually been anything but “liberal” or “open” in their response to an initiative they didn’t agree with. I have been staggered by the hypocrisy of people condemning conservatives (of all people) as not loving their fellow Christians and just talking about judgement, while simultaneously (sometimes in the same post) writing incredibly judgemental, vitriolic comments about people they don’t know on a public message board.
And the way public and open methods of communication are used to undermine, criticise and openly despise an evangelistic initiative where the differences perceived are over what liberals themselves would concede are secondary areas of theology (I thought) – sexual ethics and the exact way scripture is inspired, and which exact model of the atonement is correct, and over which, I would have thought, criticise conservatives for causing disunity.

And I thought – gosh this is exactly the way that people in my (secular) office behave when someone comes along that threatens their settled way of looking at the world, or disagrees with them and their group, or will do things a different way than they would have done it. Whereas I thought real Christians are supposed to love and accept their brothers and sisters, and encourage and build up as much as they, in good conscience, can and look at the plank in their own eye (in this case that rather large plank that we are abjectly failing as a Christian community to reach the unchurched masses at university) and cast the first stone if they are sinless….

And I thought – gosh I don’t know a single conservative evangelical that would publicly criticise an evangelistic initiative based on mere gossip and hearsay and supposedly comparable situations elsewhere in the country without first engaging or attempting to engage with the people who run the project, because most conservatives I know want to encourage evangelism even when it is not run in the way they would like exactly, and where they have concerns would want to talk it over with the group themselves, rather than bad mouthing different parties of the church wherever possible.

And I thought – gosh, the accepted wisdom although simplistic is right. These people show by the way they behave what their theology is – the world coming into the church.

And I know people will respond – we don’t feel very loved by conservative evangelicals. Well, Jesus said love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so I would have thought the Christian response to people in the church who you find difficult is to love them and pray for them, and not treat them they way you think they have treated you (as the world does) but rather treat them the way God would treat them with grace and forgiveness, which I daresay is why the leaders of The Plant have not wanted to contribute to this board, because they don’t want to risk entering a slanging match with other Christians. Just stereotyping people, writing complaining letters to the authorities, using public methods of gossip and slander to discredit them, I’m sure that is behaviour that I have seen somewhere else. Oh yes….the world.

Interesting, isn’t it?
 

---

Posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist (# 4081) on :
 
And I thought - gosh, this was supposed to be a Christian website™.

OOT

[ 13. January 2004, 12:12: Message edited by: Ophelia's Opera Therapist ]
 

---

Posted by elsi (# 2098) on :
 
Whilst I agree that it's probably best postponing further speculation re the relationship with the CofE until further information becomes available, there are other elements to this discussion that fall outside of that, so I hope it's OK to continue with them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Custard123 point made me think that churches who are in areas where arabic is the main local language should attempt to have someone who has a basic grasp of the language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
(So in fact the Plant is not designed for just students; it's designed for anybody, but students will be the majority in its catchment area, so it seems reasonable to make special provision for them.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
The Plant is not set up with `the explicit purpose of catering to only one part of the community'. It is set up to cater to the community as a whole. Since the community round there is largely made up of students it makes sense to try especially hard to meet their needs

---

quote:

---

The church has been founded to serve all those who live and work in and around campus, but with a particular focus on students and new graduates.

---

quote:

---

Because of this, whilst we seek to welcome and serve all who come to us, our activities are deliberately designed with 18 - 20somethings in mind. As our congregation is established, we naturally anticipate that this group will account for the largest proportion of our members.

Having said this, it is not our intention to create an exclusively student/new graduate congregation and it is our hope that we also attract other people too: professionals, academics, families and others from in and around the campus area. This mixed demographic will be essential to the healthy life of the new church.

---

Which seems to give a fairly clear picture of what their aims are. I don't think it's unreasonable to take inference from the fact that they specify "professionals" and "academics", but are more vague and catch-all with "families and others".

Which is nice really 'cos the middle-classes of Manchester are so under-represented in the church sphere I find...

Above all, The Plant initiative makes me sad as I fear it will encourage yet more middle-class students (and a sizeable chunk are from that background) to miss an invaluable experience of 'doing-church' with people from different socio-economic backgrounds to their own. A missed opportunity to use those precious college years to expand ones horizons a bit. I don't know... something along the lines of education maybe?

The best decisions I ever made at Manchester Uni (well OK second best to dumping my fresher year boyfriend! ), was to steer clear of the main CU (meetings on Saturday nights seemed to me to reinforce the concept of Christian ghetto - anyhow better music at the Hacienda ) and through avoiding student churches ending up at a community church on one of the roughest estates in Manchester.

This revolutionised my spiritual journey and 10 years after graduating I'm still living in that Manchester neighbourhood, involved in community projects, living out my faith in the grit and the grind of what constitutes real life for me and my neighbours and thanking God for the riches I've discovered along the way.

So I guess my concerns re 'student churches' are influenced by my experience - I'll own that bias.

As for Custard123's post - I'll score it 3/10, (awarded purely for humour).

As for Dyfrig's response to Callan - sheer (smiting) class 10/10
 

---

Posted by Irish & Proud (# 4825) on :
 
Leprechaun,

Welcome to the ship. I suspect from where you are that you are another expat like myself.

One of the common misconceptions that I regularly fall into on this website is to assume that everyone involved in the discussion is a Christian and also to assume that they are also not human.

Most people on this board are in fact flawed individuals with their own preconceived ideas and understandings of what is right and what is wrong. Rightly or wrongly everything in the public domain is open for discussion on these boards and therefore is seen from the point of view these preconceived ideas and notions.

Ref the specific conerns voiced about the 'The Plant', Big Dan has been addressing these magnificently.

God has obviously sparked something in the guys setting this up. If reading this thread helps them to iron out issues and glitches then that is wonderful. At the end of the day much of what is being debated is still hypothetical as they are not due to launch for another 9 months. Much could change before then.

[Edited because I keep forgetting i before e except after c]

[ 13. January 2004, 12:49: Message edited by: Irish & Proud ]
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
And I thought - gosh, this was supposed to be a Christian website™.

OOT

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
Despite the love and respect they hold their liberal brothers and sisters in they have called themselves OEs for very specific reasons and may come from conservative evangelical bakgrounds whose members have hurt them

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minister:
p.s I thought it was hilarious, Custard - and SO true!!!

---

Weren't you leaving?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minister:

But the way the leaders of The Plant has been treated has been, at very least, unloving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minister:

But the way the leaders of The Plant has been treated has been, at very least, unloving.

---

You seem to be confusing crictical with unloving although I admit some posters have been fairly blunt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minister:
The majority of people on this thread claim to be Christian. But the way the leaders of The Plant has been treated has been, at very least, unloving. I know people justify the style of debate as a trait of "The Ship" - but it is also contrary to the way we as Christians should behave, and is a very poor witness to the non-Christians who apprently come here.

---

quote:

---

I beg your pardon, "Callan"? I am being perfectly seriously. Because I take the Bible (and therefore God) at its word, I am raising the important question of who Jesus wants us to destroy for their sins, in the same way he used the Hebrews to destroy the sinful nations of Canaan. It's all very well you liberals going on about God's love, but what about God's wrath? His righteous anger against the nations? Where is the judgment of God in today's preaching?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's nothing loving about letting people go out and do something that you can see potential problems with; there's plenty loving about telling them what you think ... and if that gets people to think a bit more about what they're doing then they'll do it better.

---

quote:

---

And, there's nothing in the purpose of the Ship that implies our purpose is to be a witness to those who visit us

---

It may not be the Ship's purpose - but it is God's!!!

"15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"

1 Peter 3:15

With love!

Minister

[sorted out the UBB for the quote]

[ 13. January 2004, 14:58: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
At least, I did agree with Minister till he started quoting Scripture at us. Not a good idea here, Minister. There are enough of us who are sufficiently scripturally literate to play that game right back at you. We're not a bunch of pew-fodder, you know.

Alan Cresswell: perhaps as Big Dan suggested (and with the permission of the thread starter if necessary) we might put a padlock on this one and start up all over again when we know more?
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
But who decides whether something is 'in love' or not? I have been reading and conversing with the people on this thread for 2 1/2 years now, and they are just doing what they always have done - open up something for discussion by making a critical point, which someone else is at liberty to answer by giving evidence to the contrary. I don't and never have seen that as 'unloving', rather it is a good technique to get to the core of the issue and look at it from all sides.
Big Den seems to have understood this (I think),and is giving reasoned answers.

(posted before I saw the suggestion above about ending the debate for now)

[ 13. January 2004, 14:59: Message edited by: Chorister ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Good grief! Give him a blue scarf and he think's he's Godfrey de Bouillon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minister:
if I have been guilty of un-loving criticism, as is still in my sinful nature!, then I'm really sorry to those I've been unloving towards.

---

quote:

---

I'm not judging. I merely wonder why people are so against this evangelistic initiative. I look at myself and I see that it makes me feel guilty about not doing enough evangelism and I wonder if just maybe others feel the same . . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:

To be honest I found Leprechaun's post to be sarcastic, preaching and patronising. It seemed very judgemental of a number of posters who have made considered responses on a debate thread. Apart from Cosmo's early reply, I can't think that many posters could seriously be described as making "incredibly judgemental, vitriolic comments".

What can I say, I'm not a Good Little Evangelical anymore.

OOT

---

Genuine apologies (no if!)for the tone of my post - it was the venting of a few days of following this thread, and was needlessly sarcastic on reflection. Sorry to you, and to I_am_not_job for the tone.

Your reply, however, is an example of the exact type of thinking I am talking about.
Why is it that more liberal Christians seem to be very ready to push moral obligations (say the obligation to be loving and not divisive) onto conservatives, but when having it pointed out to them that their behaviour does not display those qualities just reply as you have done "I am not a good evangelical" - thus seeming to excuse themselves from displaying the qualities that they long to see in other Christians. (long sentence)

That liberalism is just "the world in the church" is (again IMHO) an oversimplified semi-truism, yet when liberal Christianity becomes an excuse simply to disobey the most basic commands of the Christian life, it is easy to see why it is written off as such.
Similarly, I have heard it said, somewhat tritely, is that the reason people like liberal Christianity is because it allows a "pick and mix" religion, and as such it owes more to postmodernism than to Jesus. Yet this whole discussion displays a willingness to impose a set of values on people you disagree with that you don't want to apply oneself. Strangely pick and mix.

I suppose what I am saying here, is that I, after a solid but pretty pietistic Christian background came to what most people would probably call a conservative position after a long period of intellectual struggle. No one has yet convinced me by their life, as well as their wordsmithing that a liberal position is any better. In fact, all this has done is show me that all the "truisms" of which I have some suspiscion, could actally be true!

On this board, it seems to me (and I hope I may speak frankly)that the "post evangelical alliance" has taken on many of the characteristics that you claim to despise about conservative evangelicals - a happy consensus which is threatened by anyone who is different, a closing ranks and throwing of cheap digs when anyone tries to point out a fault, and it seems an unwillingness to display grace when people you disagree with come along.

And to excuse it all by sayin "I'm not a good little evangelical". It does little to convince me (and I expect non-Christians) that what you believe is true.

Sorry, but here at least, liberal is the new conservative.

[Edited for quote UBB.]

[ 13. January 2004, 23:46: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 

---

Posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist (# 4081) on :
 
Leprechaun,

Seeing your comment on the other thread, I wondered to which posters you wanted to respond. Trying hard not to sound sarcastic here, I am surprised it was me. I have already admitted my culpability for the less than charitable riposte (a regular refrain on the Ship) - being slightly cheeky to those who accuse this of not being a very christian website. My main point where I tried to explain how the Ship works and how reasonable and intelligent people here are was in my previously referenced post on page 4, which Big Dan at least seemed to appreciate. I have no idea why you decided that I am representative of the liberals on the Ship, pushing moral obligations on anyone. My main emphasis has been to try and get across the fact that there are many different opinions on the Ship, and spiritual backgrounds.

I confess again, after trying to provide more of an explanation of what bothered me in your post, I slipped in a minor dig about not being a good little evangelical any more. Partly I was questioning what right you have to judge my behaviour or that of anyone on the Ship. Partly I was acknowledging to myself and other readers that I have a rather mixed up spiritual identity just now. Partly I thought it was a good line.

I have appreciated what Laura and Alan have said about this not being a website that has the express purpose of being a good witness, though often I agree with Alan I think it does achieve this. I haven't looked up the aims and objectives of the site lately, but I see it as a refuge for those who experience some kind of christian unrest - a place to ask questions and voice opinions that might otherwise be called 'unchristian' or 'not a very good witness', within the well thought out guidelines. It is a place where people can be real about their experiences, their frustrations and their disappointments, as well as sharing their ideas, hopes and joys. People learn here and laugh here, persevere here and pray here, rant here and rest here.

I would not have it any other way.

OOT
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
I think this thread has run its course, and we would do well to padlock it - and have a new one when the news of the decision of the bishop emerges.

And noone's called me to Hell.... must be a good thread.....
 

---

Posted by elsi (# 2098) on :
 
Just checking I've got this right... so apologies with ifs are out but howevers are OK?
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

quote:

---

You raise some interesting points, Nightlamp, and I'm sure the Plant's team would love to hear more about them from you, but just to clear up one final point:
the Plant has not broken any of the rules of the C of E. It has applied to be part of the C of E and everybody is waiting for the Bishop's reply.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I think this thread has run its course, and we would do well to padlock it - and have a new one when the news of the decision of the bishop emerges.

And noone's called me to Hell.... must be a good thread.....

---

quote:

---

Do have a look about the Ship and get the feel of the place. Purgatory is the Ship's civilised debate space so not everyone may agree with your views. However, it is the diversity and range of opinion on the Ship that keeps the place interesting.

---

If you haven't already done so, please have a look at the 10 Commandments, the general posting rules of the Ship. They are in the blue sidebar to the left of your screen.

Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by Sir George Grey (# 2643) on :
 
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'.
 

---

Posted by Icarus Coot (# 220) on :
 
[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.
 

---

Posted by Minister (# 5404) on :
 

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

I challenege anyone to read this whole thread and conclude that The Plant has been treated in a loving, Christian way.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

I think Leprechaun makes a powerful case that they have been treated in an unloving and unChristian way.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Dan:
You, Degs, and others, seem keen on hard facts rather than guesses,

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Who can blame them for rising above the argument, and getting on with the business of evangelism?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minister:
my problem has been the way the debate has been conducted here.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :
 
)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. 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 ( should go to Church House in Westminster on Tuesday 10th February in the afternoon.
 

---

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think (and I think that the plant's leaders would agree, but obviously I don't know)

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

feel lonely amidst the hordes of liberals with a capital L!!

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
You "tolerance crusaders" are foisted on your own pitard.

---

"Foisted on your own pitard"?

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a whole bunch of newbies:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Public service announcement:
(...)
A petard was a small explosive device
(...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
to balance the unreservedly critical.

---

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...................

---

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)

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Sir George Grey (# 2643) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

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
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

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.

---

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

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0