Thread: Daron represents everything that is wronge with the CofE today. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022739
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
Daron, who is apparently an ordained priest in the Established Church, has made it clear that his 'ministry' consists firstly of preaching heresy (in so much as he denies what the Church Catholic has always taught about sacraments) and secondly in a complete lack of pastoral concern for any person who might darken his door. Particularly salient is his advice for pastoral care for a young woman bringing her child to be baptized which seems to consist of saying 'fuck off, slut, you are not worthy of my attention or that of Christ'. Very Christian, I'm sure you'll agree.

Is there nothing to which the more lunatic fringe of vangiedom will not stoop in their attempt to destroy the sacramental and pastoral witness of the Church of England?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
GAWD these "I'm calling you to hell for disagreeing with me" hell calls have gotta stop!
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Seconded. Lame lame lame. Might as well call Polly here for saying pretty much the same thing. Daron's citing fairly bog-standard evo soteriology. If that merits a Hell call, count me in. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
GAWD these "I'm calling you to hell for disagreeing with me" hell calls have gotta stop!
C'mon Zach, give us the line. For old times sake.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
GAWD these "I'm calling you to hell for disagreeing with me" hell calls have gotta stop!
C'mon Zach, give us the line. For old times sake.
Get your moosethief coolers here! Ice-cold moosethief coolers!
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Daron, who is apparently an ordained priest in the Established Church, has made it clear that his 'ministry' consists firstly of preaching heresy (in so much as he denies what the Church Catholic has always taught about sacraments) and secondly in a complete lack of pastoral concern for any person who might darken his door. Particularly salient is his advice for pastoral care for a young woman bringing her child to be baptized which seems to consist of saying 'fuck off, slut, you are not worthy of my attention or that of Christ'. Very Christian, I'm sure you'll agree.

Is there nothing to which the more lunatic fringe of vangiedom will not stoop in their attempt to destroy the sacramental and pastoral witness of the Church of England?
It's come up before as I'm getting tired of baptising the infants of non-church members resident in the parish. I think it's a Reform position.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
Close but no cigar
This is the worst Hell call ever [Big Grin]

[crosspost]

[ 09. July 2012, 12:12: Message edited by: Patdys ]
 
Posted by Stoo (# 254) on :
 
But *I* wanted to be everything that was wronge with the CofE today.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Is there nothing to which the more lunatic fringe of vangiedom will not stoop in their attempt to destroy the sacramental and pastoral witness of the Church of England?
Indeed, and whatever they leave standing the "if it ain't got balls, it ain't a priest" brigade will finish off. [ETA so maybe Daron only represents half the problem.]

[ 09. July 2012, 12:15: Message edited by: BroJames ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
GAWD these "I'm calling you to hell for disagreeing with me" hell calls have gotta stop!
What the fuck else are they supposed to be for in your opinion?

And while I'm asking questions, who the fuck asked for your opinion anyway?
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
Marvin got in before me. I'll second that.

And Zach : Your line, for old times sake, is [Snore]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I Thought This Was A non-heretical Christian Website.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Daron is an arrogant, judgemental, narrow-minded fundamentalist who (or at least whose screen persona) is totally unsuited to pastoral ministry. Fortunately I don't think he and his ilk are any more than a minor irritant to the body that is the C of E. I just pity the poor sods who find that he has turned their parish into a no-go area for ordinary, doubting, insecure, searching human beings.

(S)pike couchant: kudos for your courage in opening a post in Hell while still an apprentice! I don't believe that Daron's sort of fundamentalism is representative, but it's more of a threat to the ethos of the C of E than soft and cuddly liberalism could ever be.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
I don't really give a toss what bollocks Daron believes about baptism. But his description of loving ministry as "obsequious sycophancy" is a act of true cuntitude.

The father of the prodigal son - there's another obsequious sycophant. After all, the parable makes it abundantly clear that the son only went home because he was hungry and that his empty words of contrition were carefully rehearsed simply to get him in the door. Why didn't his father tell him to piss off and come back when he was really sorry?
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
Yeah, and what a bigot the Apostle Peter was for sending Simon Magus packing. He should've just taken the cash and flogged him the Holy Spirit. Yes, the guy's motives were confused but Peter didn't recognise the baby Jesus in him. Stupid fundamentalist.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
I was going to reply on the Purgatory thread. But thought this might have crossed the boundary into hell and thought better safe than sorry.

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Has it really come to this? Honestly! Is it really not possible for a minister of the gospel to give a gracious, gentle, compassionate and well qualified 'No' to a pagan's request? For goodness sake!
No. What it has come to is that a minister of the gospel should not turn an infant away from God's grace for the sins of the mother.

[Mad] [Mad]

What it has also come to is that someone enjoined to spread the 'Good News' (whether it is or not is for another thread) and who literally has someone knocking on their door and in a more receptive mindset than they will ever be at any other point in their life is turning them away.

As an atheist I thorougly support your stated behaviours and actions. Your encouraging people to consider the Church to be an exclusive club that is not for them on the occasions they are open enough to reach out to the Church. You are getting a genuine and good opportunity to evangelise handed to you on a platter and calling actually spreading the good news 'obsequious sycophancy'.

So from my atheist side: [Killing me]
But from my human side: [Ultra confused] [Tear]
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
I don't think she needs her baby baptised. I think she needs something else. I didn't say I wouldn't extend grace or that I would withhold the gospel.

When a sick person visits the doctor they often ask for a specific type of medicine because they've googled their symptoms. But dispensing on request would not be helpful or wise. It would be much more appropriate to the GP to do his own diagnosis before making a prescription. It's the same with the cure of souls.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
I don't think she needs her baby baptised. I think she needs something else.
What about what the baby needs, dickwad?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
.... it's more of a threat to the ethos of the C of E than soft and cuddly liberalism could ever be.
What's your evidence for this? Scratch or disagree with a "cuddly liberal" and IME you find another rabid fundamentalist.
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
I don't think she needs her baby baptised. I think she needs something else.
What about what the baby needs, dickwad?
I don't believe in magic, Marvin. Or lucky charms. Or rubbing my bingo card on the family bible or a freshly baptised baby.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I don't think he's very interested in what the baby needs, Marvin. I think he just wants to do whatever will keep his squeaky clean soul nice and unsullied from contact with all those horrid unbelievers. Must say, though, if that's what he wants to do, WTF is he doing in the CofE parochial ministry?

[ 09. July 2012, 14:00: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
I don't think she needs her baby baptised. I think she needs something else.
What about what the baby needs, dickwad?
You know what? What that baby needs is a mum who loves Jesus, not a mother who wants a waking, talking lucky charm.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron
What that baby needs is a mum who loves Jesus...
Which 'Jesus' are we talking about here?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Where are you going with this question?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Daron's Jesus(TM), of course.
We may have ahd this conversation before, but do we think Daron's for real? There's something there- maybe an inconsistency of tone (OK, and a maybe self-deluding concern for the good name of the CofE parochial clergy, but that's by the by)- that makes me feel a bit three-billygoats-gruff, IYSWIM.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Daron, you're a minister in a church which offers baptism as a sacrament. Isn't there some kind of requirement of obedience there?

Hey, if it's a matter of conscience, fine. I can understand that. But that might mean that for consistency's sake you might be better off joining a denomination which practises believers' baptism. (Like mine for example)

But, on the other hand, if it's a matter of being used, time to pull up those Big Boy panties, I should think.

All churches offering any form of pastoral or sacramental support get used, even abused. That's not so bad. It's one of the costs of seeking to be generous. That doesn't make the offer of support unworthy in itself. Given a choice, which is better? To let folks take advantage of your generosity, or to judge them for being advantage-takers?

I'm remembering, vaguely, a song by Kevin Prosch which talked about "taking the pointing finger and the vanities we speak and casting them away" So that "our light would break forth like the morning sun."

I liked Justinian's post. Brings out (again) the Robert Burns in me.

"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An' foolish notion
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us
An' ev'n Devotion"
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black
Where are you going with this question?
Presumably into the murky world which this fine book attempted to navigate.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What about what the baby needs, dickwad?
I don't believe in magic, Marvin. Or lucky charms. Or rubbing my bingo card on the family bible or a freshly baptised baby.
Do you believe in God's grace? Do you believe that babies need it every bit as much as adults? Or is it something that's only relevant to human beings once they're past a certain age?
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
I don't think she needs her baby baptised. I think she needs something else. I didn't say I wouldn't extend grace or that I would withhold the gospel.

When a sick person visits the doctor they often ask for a specific type of medicine because they've googled their symptoms. But dispensing on request would not be helpful or wise. It would be much more appropriate to the GP to do his own diagnosis before making a prescription. It's the same with the cure of souls.
I think you've got your analogy wrong. I think she most certainly *does* need what she's asking for, she just doesn't understand why. You are a doctor who won't dispense antibiotics to a patient with an infection that would be successfully treated by those ABs because she mistakenly believes her symptoms are caused by black bile. You could dispense the ABs to the patient and explain to her how they work, but instead you're just rolling your eyes at her primitive understanding of modern medicine. Meanwhile, the infection will kill her.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Daron's Jesus(TM), of course.
We may have ahd this conversation before, but do we think Daron's for real? There's something there- maybe an inconsistency of tone (OK, and a maybe self-deluding concern for the good name of the CofE parochial clergy, but that's by the by)- that makes me feel a bit three-billygoats-gruff, IYSWIM.
We have seen him before.
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What about what the baby needs, dickwad?
I don't believe in magic, Marvin. Or lucky charms. Or rubbing my bingo card on the family bible or a freshly baptised baby.
Do you believe in God's grace?
Oh, yes.
quote:
Do you believe that babies need it every bit as much as adults?
Oh, yes. Yes, I do, Marvin. Yes.
quote:
Or is it something that's only relevant to human beings once they're past a certain age?
No, no. Grace is relevant to all people, including children.

But the Apostle Paul says that children receive sanctifying grace via the faith of one or both parents, not via baptismal mumbo-jumbo and priestly hocus-pocus.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Daron, you're a minister in a church which offers baptism as a sacrament. Isn't there some kind of requirement of obedience there?

Hey, if it's a matter of conscience, fine. I can understand that. But that might mean that for consistency's sake you might be better off joining a denomination which practises believers' baptism. (Like mine for example)

I think that I and others had this conversation with him on an earlier thread he started in Purg. on baptism.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
I don't think she needs her baby baptised. I think she needs something else.
What about what the baby needs, dickwad?
You know what? What that baby needs is a mum who loves Jesus, not a mother who wants a waking, talking lucky charm.
You’re not wrong. But how is she going to meet that Jesus when some of his followers seem so determined to keep him to themselves and only offer him to the right sort of people.

Since when did Jesus model of relationship building with sinners – Zacheus, the woman at the well etc – so they knew he was someone who loved them and accepted them before telling stuff that they may not like, but needed to hear in order to get right with God get turned into give them a theological lecture and if they don’t respond properly, showing them the door?!

At a previous Baptist church I attended, the Minister decided that he wouldn’t marry a believer to a non-believer. This is fine in Baptist terms as there is more wiggle room in what you can and can’t do. Pastorally, it was a bit of a disaster. Even non-believing other halves that were attending church but hadn’t actually prayed the prayer yet were in included within this refusal.

None of them heard his well reasoned theological arguments, they just heard a “No, fuck off … You’re not good enough”. Some of the couples went to other churches that were willing to marry them and the non-believer found faith there. Others just left.

Sometimes you have to meet people where they are to get people where you want them to go.

[TBH, and I said this on the last thread and I’ll say it now … You seriously sound like someone who is in totally the wrong job for you!]

Tubbs
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Quite right, Matt. I had a 'senior moment'. Mind you, it may bear repeating.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I was thinking in those terms rather than in terms of you having a 'senior moment'; I think it's a conversation that is continuing and needs to continue.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
No, no. Grace is relevant to all people, including children.
Well then, if baptism is in any way a means by which that Grace can become manifest in someone's life, then it would be a good idea to provide it to all who ask for it. Wouldn't it?

quote:
But the Apostle Paul says that children receive sanctifying grace via the faith of one or both parents, not via baptismal mumbo-jumbo and priestly hocus-pocus.
So you think baptism is just "mumbo-jumbo"? And you're a priest?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
You're kind, Matt, but it was a genuinely authentic senior moment. [Dodders off for afternoon nap]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
No, no. Grace is relevant to all people, including children.
Well then, if baptism is in any way a means by which that Grace can become manifest in someone's life, then it would be a good idea to provide it to all who ask for it. Wouldn't it?

By that same token, we should surely baptise everyone
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Daron,

PM me and I will send you my details to pass on to the Mother, I will do it for you/find someone as I have to for several other parishes round here.

Honest to God, you should see their faces when I say "Yes of course I will baptise your baby."

I get the box of chocolates, you get the "that mean man" look, a broken realtionship with God's church and talked about by all their friends and family for the next 20 years. Big THANK YOU from Jesus here. You any idea how hard I have to work to overcome you being such a meany?

AtB, Pyx_e
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron
But the Apostle Paul says that children receive sanctifying grace via the faith of one or both parents...
And what about the children of "unbelieving" parents? Are they deprived of the grace of God?

(Of course, such children have absolutely no choice in the small matter of the "thought crime" status of their parents.)
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Daron,

PM me and I will send you my details to pass on to the Mother, I will do it for you/find someone as I have to for several other parishes round here.

Honest to God, you should see their faces when I say "Yes of course I will baptise your baby."

I get the box of chocolates, you get the "that mean man" look, a broken realtionship with God's church and talked about by all their friends and family for the next 20 years. Big THANK YOU from Jesus here. You any idea how hard I have to work to overcome you being such a meany?

AtB, Pyx_e
Enjoy the chocolates and the praise of man, my friend. Indeed, you have your reward already. [Biased]
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron
But the Apostle Paul says that children receive sanctifying grace via the faith of one or both parents...
And what about the children of "unbelieving" parents? Are they deprived of the grace of God?
Yes the children of unbelivers are denied certain graces, and the responsibility for that lies entirely with the parents. However, all people enjoy God's common grace regardless of their attitude towards him and unbelieving parents can't prevent that enjoyment no matter how hostile to God they might be.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
By that same token, we should surely baptise everyone
Everyone who asks to be baptised, yes.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
LOL.

Damn right.

AtB, Pyx_e
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
By that same token, we should surely baptise everyone
Everyone who asks to be baptised, yes.
And what if they don't ask? Surely if baptism does what you say it does, it would be churlish to deny it to anyone, asking or not.
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
No, no. Grace is relevant to all people, including children.
Well then, if baptism is in any way a means by which that Grace can become manifest in someone's life, then it would be a good idea to provide it to all who ask for it. Wouldn't it?

quote:
But the Apostle Paul says that children receive sanctifying grace via the faith of one or both parents, not via baptismal mumbo-jumbo and priestly hocus-pocus.
So you think baptism is just "mumbo-jumbo"? And you're a priest?
I think that certain types of "priest" get off on the idea of having the power to dispense salvation by means of some mumbo-jumbo and splashing some water about. It's bullshit.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And what if they don't ask? Surely if baptism does what you say it does, it would be churlish to deny it to anyone, asking or not.
We can (and do) offer it to everybody. But it wouldn't be right to force them to accept it if they genuinely don't want to.
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
Certain types of "priest" also get off on the idea of having the power to say who is or is not saved on the basis of belief in a whole host of different things. Would you agree that that was also bullshit?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
No, no. Grace is relevant to all people, including children.
Well then, if baptism is in any way a means by which that Grace can become manifest in someone's life, then it would be a good idea to provide it to all who ask for it. Wouldn't it?

quote:
But the Apostle Paul says that children receive sanctifying grace via the faith of one or both parents, not via baptismal mumbo-jumbo and priestly hocus-pocus.
So you think baptism is just "mumbo-jumbo"? And you're a priest?
I think that certain types of "priest" get off on the idea of having the power to dispense salvation by means of some mumbo-jumbo and splashing some water about. It's bullshit.
How is your attitude of looking down at people who haven't jumped through your particular set of hoops any better? It's bullshit too. Just different bullshit.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
What if they're not competent to ask? Eg: the mentally ill, those with Alzheimers and, of course, infants and very small children?

[reply to Marvin; darn these fast-moving threads!]

[ 09. July 2012, 15:56: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
I think that certain types of "priest" get off on the idea of having the power to dispense salvation by means of some mumbo-jumbo and splashing some water about. It's bullshit.
While others get off on the idea of having the power to decide who can and can't be part of the Church, the Body of Christ. That's bullshit as well.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What if they're not competent to ask? Eg: the mentally ill, those with Alzheimers and, of course, infants and very small children?
If someone who has the legal authority to act on their behalf asks for it, then yes. Whyever not?
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:


(S)pike couchant: kudos for your courage in opening a post in Hell while still an apprentice!
I was reluctant to do so. It seemed presumptuous, even rude, but it was clear that there is a category of 'reasoned discussion' and a category of 'discussion involving Daron' and never the twain shall meet. He's admitted that he knowingly teaches and practices something that is at odds with the unambiguous teaching of the Anglican confession in a fundamental aspect of the Christian faith. I would argue that his only honest option is to resign his living and seek to function as a minister in a non-conformist chapel (if they'll have him) or else set up a freelance operation. It seems I'm not alone in this opinion, either.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Don't actually baptise babies - sorry wrong tradition - but I do dedicate any child brought to me. Report me to the BUGB anyone?
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
I think the last time Daron came up with his problems about Anglican custom, it seemed pretty likely he'd got himself into a bit of a pickle. Applying for ordination in a Church tradition which seems to be fairly diametrically opposed to his own preferred sacramental theology seems a strange - though admittedly not unheard of - thing to do.

I worked for a DDO for a while who told me he occasionally got queries from people who were willing to 'be Anglican' for the sake of getting a collar round their neck and the authority over a congregation of their own; but who were basically inimical to the character and customs of Anglicanism. They meant well - really wanted to work for Jesus - but just hadn't really grasped the significance of the authority their ordination was placing them under (under God, of course); and really ought to have been signed up with some other denomination, were playtime with the pastoral needs of one's congregants is a bit more loose and free!

I guess it's bound to happen from time to time.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Enjoy the chocolates and the praise of man, my friend. Indeed, you have your reward already. [Biased] [/QB][/QUOTE]
[Projectile]

That is most definitely Darren from Rev speaking. You can't fool us by changing the spelling.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I apologize for calling into question Daron's hell call. What a twat. So far his engagement has been nothing more than insisting he is right and ignoring any evidence to the contrary. He's just proposed that he is above substantiating his own claims to people who would be so debased as to disagree with him. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Daron's Jesus(TM), of course.
We may have ahd this conversation before, but do we think Daron's for real?
No I don't think he's a real priest in the CofE. He's playing a wind up game. I thought so from when he started posting.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
He's for real I'm afraid. Sockpuppets always give themselves away in the end and I thought I recognised the same style of posting and fucked up theology of another Anglican "minister" who we've not seen around for a while, and after a little investigation, my suspicions were confirmed.

Daron: You have been around on the ship in both your current and previous personas long enough to know that we don't allow multiple logins on Ship of Fools. Both your accounts have been shut down.

Spike
SoF Admin

[ 09. July 2012, 17:30: Message edited by: Spike ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Sadly he could be a priest in the CofE - having worked for a parish that ended up picking up the pieces for a few local delights of this ilk. Locally it comes from having an Area Suffragan who was trying to fill all the churches in his area with ministers who hold his evo views.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
He's admitted that he knowingly teaches and practices something that is at odds with the unambiguous teaching of the Anglican confession in a fundamental aspect of the Christian faith.
No he hasn't, not quite.

Or if you think he has, what?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
More like he simply refuses to be bound by the canons of the Church of England.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Which one was he, Spike? Gordon Cheng?
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Given he's no longer here, we're done.

Think²
Hellhost
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0