Ship of Fools: I might go back to church if they'd all stop arguing

Thread: I might go back to church if they'd all stop arguing 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=024153

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

It's very frequently said of the Anglican Church that they spend all their time arguing about issues that don't largely matter to most people, even other Anglicans, to the point that people are driven away. There was a post on the Justin Welby thread to this effect too.

It certainly appears that every time the church is in the news, it's concerning disagreement, and almost never comes off looking good. It also seems to be true that the media take a gleeful joy in reporting every example of un-Christian behaviour in a supposedly Christian organisation.

However, these matters (like women bishops, gays et al) are desperately important to those who are certain we aren't following God's will, and that's why it can't just be swept away while we get on with the real work of preaching the gospel - the work that would theoretically bring back everyone who's grown disillusioned with the church. It's the nature of such a large organisation that debates will take a very long time, and appear to be going on forever, making the church look obsessed with them.

So what can be done? Stop talking about important things altogether? Only have secret meetings until it's all hammered out (sure, that's worked recently)? Or just leave it to General Synod to sort out while the rest of us get on with it?

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

I think the last of your suggestions is probably the best -- with the proviso that once General Synod (CofE), General Convention (TEC), or whatever one's national governing body decides, you go along with it without excessive grumbling (or find yourself a different ecclesial communion if you feel unable to go happily along with the decision of the governance structure).

[ 13. November 2012, 14:23: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

All that "we should just stop arguing about enter divisive issue issues and get on with insert cliche" stuff is just a bunch of self-righteous bullshit. My response is always the same. Since the divisive issues are so unimportant, let's just do it my way so we can get back to the important work of whatever. Turns out those divisive issues are important after all.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I for one would be most suspicious of a Church that wasn't arguing amongst itself. It would look far too much like centrally enforced uniformity, or possibly a brain-washed cult.

[ 13. November 2012, 14:30: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
All that "we should just stop arguing about enter divisive issue issues and get on with insert cliche" stuff is just a bunch of self-righteous bullshit. My response is always the same. Since the divisive issues are so unimportant, let's just do it my way so we can get back to the important work of whatever. Turns out those divisive issues are important after all.

I have to say, I agree with this. I've yet to meet anyone for whom "let's stop arguing about this" means anything other than "let's just do it my way".

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

I hear you Panda. On the plus side this sort of thing got me started on the road to atheism so it's not all bad.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I'm rather surprised at the OP, as when I go to the Eucharist, I am blissfully unaware of various arguments going on in the church, or between churches. I am just plugged into that sequence of images, stories, music, and so on, which I find very moving. All the arguments then seem far away.

Posted by Tractor Girl (# 8863) on :

Not sure how the heck it's done but it's about learning to talk rather than argue I reckon. Part of it seems to be the way that people get caught up talking about issues without remembering they involve people.
All a long way of saying no ideas sorry.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I for one would be most suspicious of a Church that wasn't arguing amongst itself.

But we almost never do argue about these things in church.

Not in the church of England anyway. The anti-woman minority have hied themselves off to their own woman-free-altar ghettos and no longer actually argue with the rest of us at all. Or hardly even talk to us. We read about them in the papers and on websites like this, but hardly ever actually meet them in church, and on the rare occasions we do we usually just get on with the worship and no-one raises the subject.

There isn't the same sort of organisational split over same-sex marriage and so on. But in spite of that - maybe because of that - we still don't really talk about it much. As I've often said here the CofE seems to operate an informal don't-ask don't-tell policy.

There is the occasional evangelical preacher who loves sounding off about the evil gays. But most churchgoers don't come across them from one blue Christmas to the next. Again, we're more likely to hear their views on the radiuo than we are from the pulpt.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I can't remember the last time when these issues were talked about from my church's pulpit - so people wouldn't know if they were argued about or not if they stay away. Sounds like another of those 'I'd go to church if only.....' excuses - there are rather a lot of them about, and when things are done to accommodate their wishes, they still don't turn up!

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
All that "we should just stop arguing about enter divisive issue issues and get on with insert cliche" stuff is just a bunch of self-righteous bullshit. My response is always the same. Since the divisive issues are so unimportant, let's just do it my way so we can get back to the important work of whatever. Turns out those divisive issues are important after all.

Seconded. The motion comes to a vote...

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I don't think the objection is to differences of opinion or even to discussion of issues, but to nasty, bitter, acrimonious discussion. (Or am I thinking of the Ship?)

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Normally, when people say that, they mean that those people who disagree with me should be nice and respectful. After all, they are wrong. Those who agree with me are merely speaking the plain biblical truth/truth in love/truth to power or being prophetic. It may seem harsh but after all, we are on the side of the angels.

Truth be told each side holds views the other finds morally objectionable. Finding a way of saying so that doesn't offend somebody holding the other view is next to impossible. If the disagreements didn't mean anything to anybody, we could just agree to disagree.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

I don't think it's the arguing about important and divisive matters that puts people off so much as the arguing about petty things.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Or, to put it condensedly, people are a problem. You want to go where people don't bicker over unimportant things? Good luck with that.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I think a church which held a passionate debate on issues of current importance (preferably with people flouncing off in disgust with each other) would be an amazing spectator sport. I'd go to that.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't think it's the arguing about important and divisive matters that puts people off so much as the arguing about petty things.

While I agree, for some people, they are not petty. That may be an issue with them, but it is hard to say "this is petty:this is not".

However, I think the real problem is not that the churches like arguing amongst themselves, it is the nature of that argument. So often, the "debate" is at a very low level. If debates and discussions were done at a very open, accepting, and intellectually high quality, I think it would be of less interest to the gutter press, and more interest or value to the church as a whole.

The same, of course, applies to other political debates and discussions. We need a better level of debate in our world.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I for one would be most suspicious of a Church that wasn't arguing amongst itself.
But we almost never do argue about these things in church.

Not in the church of England anyway. The anti-woman minority have hied themselves off to their own woman-free-altar ghettos and no longer actually argue with the rest of us at all. Or hardly even talk to us. We read about them in the papers and on websites like this, but hardly ever actually meet them in church, and on the rare occasions we do we usually just get on with the worship and no-one raises the subject.

There isn't the same sort of organisational split over same-sex marriage and so on. But in spite of that - maybe because of that - we still don't really talk about it much. As I've often said here the CofE seems to operate an informal don't-ask don't-tell policy.

There is the occasional evangelical preacher who loves sounding off about the evil gays. But most churchgoers don't come across them from one blue Christmas to the next. Again, we're more likely to hear their views on the radiuo than we are from the pulpt.

Yeah, I wasn't thinking about in church, but in the Church, ifyouseewhatImean.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I can't remember the last time when these issues were talked about from my church's pulpit - so people wouldn't know if they were argued about or not if they stay away. Sounds like another of those 'I'd go to church if only.....' excuses - there are rather a lot of them about, and when things are done to accommodate their wishes, they still don't turn up!

I can. This summer we had a priest who announced he had a petition we might want to sign about marriage. The following week our curate announced she also had a petition with a different view on marriage that we might like to sign if we didn't agree with last week's.

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

I'm with HCH on this one, it's not the fact that the discussion takes place it's the venom and sheer unchristian nature of the discussion. Together with the fact that there is no real arbiter in local matters means that these arguments can get more entrenched and acrimonious as time goes on. Still, like George it was such a dicussion that led me away from my local church and eventually to atheism so keep on fighting folks.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Very interesting discussion.

It seems that once deeply held beliefs and practices are seriously challenged a church is in a no-win situation.

The conflict itself drives people away regardless of the outcome.

Like most others, I experience these conflicts, with these same results, in my church. The conflict is not carried out on Sundays but in meetings, on social media, in print, and in informal discussions.

The clash is virtually always about the tension between commonly held societal views and church teaching or tradition. It is driven by cultural change.

The only solution is for the challenges to either succeed or be successfully fended off. Easier said than done.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I think it a good idea to hold informal discussion meetings in which issues concerning the church and its doctrine may be aired freely and respectfully.

It's right that we should think about them for ourselves imv, and when we do so we'll inevitably disagree between us. At the same time, we'll be able to comprehend the other points of view.

This gives us some understanding of what's happening at the higher level, and some insight as to the reasons why a steamroller approach at the top is avoided if possible.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

You just have to choose a denomination that doesn't do a lot of arguing. I haven't heard the URC getting into lots of ugly public spats....

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Never mind gays and women priests, the longest arguments at the PCC are always about stuff like what date the Christmas fair should be or what colour chairs to buy for the church hall. We once had a PCC meeting where the most animated discussion was over the question of whether to have a real Christmas tree or a fake one. The two NSMs argued passionately, one for real trees, one for fake, with the result that each convinced the other to change his/her mind and we were still at an impasse. I think in the end the vicar made an executive decision.

The vicar we had at the time of the first women priests controversy tried to make an executive decision about that, but the congregation closed ranks and wouldn't let him. I don't think there was ever much discussion about Women Priests - not in church anyway. He appeared to be unaware of the level of opposition to his view until the day of our ex-deacon's ordination. The entire parish went to support her and our church was empty except for him and a couple of diehards.

People may discuss issues that are important to them on the Internet, but in real life they tend to suffer in silence or vote with their feet.

[ 14. November 2012, 21:10: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Or, to put it condensedly, people are a problem. You want to go where people don't bicker over unimportant things? Good luck with that.

Whenever I lament to my Orthodox friends what prats we Episcopalians publicly make of ourselves by our seemingly endless obsessing over women and gays, they promptly chide me by saying, At least you lot are talking about these things; We would like to be able to talk about them, too.

That tends to put a bit of starch in my humility.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You just have to choose a denomination that doesn't do a lot of arguing. I haven't heard the URC getting into lots of ugly public spats....

Nope - they did that in the years leading up to 1972(?), the year of their formation. The URC isn't exactly the most rapidly growing group - and I doubt whether most people are even aware of them. They tend not to argue because there's a different church to suit everyone's views in many areas with a wide range of theology in individual churches from a neo unitarianism to wet all over baptist.

With their particular brand of ecclesiology, the baptist union should be more likely than most to be able to sensibly discuss a range of issues. Should doesn't always equate to will!

Again, like the URC, unless you go hunting for them, most baptist churches are off people's rader or they think of them as being a bit "pentecostal like" Even so, among the historic denominations, something seems to be working - numbers in BUGB churches are stable as opposed to free fall elsewhere.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

In the life of any church there will always come times when decisions have to made and feelings about the "rightness" of that decision are divided. If that's not the case - if there aren't differences of opinion - then there's no decision to be made: it's a shoe in.

Some will feel so strongly about the result, that they believe they cannot remain within the group in the circumstances. From one POV that's helpful - they won't remain inside undermining everything as can happen. From another POV it's sad that they cannot recognise the considered wisdom of a group of believers. [Always assuming that they have been listened to in the first place and it isn't an autocracy or just window dressing for a done deal].

Sometimes a lot of assumptions are amde by leaders that aren't borne out as true in reality. A lot of CofE priests opposed the Oow expecting their parishes to follow: they did but only until the priest in qustion left, died, retired: then, in some cases a woman priest was installed with no problems at all. In these cases, a lot of assumption, no discussion (or at lewast not much listening).

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
While I agree, for some people, they are not petty. That may be an issue with them, but it is hard to say "this is petty:this is not".

However, I think the real problem is not that the churches like arguing amongst themselves, it is the nature of that argument. So often, the "debate" is at a very low level. If debates and discussions were done at a very open, accepting, and intellectually high quality, I think it would be of less interest to the gutter press, and more interest or value to the church as a whole.

The vast majority of churchgoers aren't intellectuals, so taking this view would end up with a "think tank" - an elite group of intellectuals who presume themselves to be entrusted with the "mind" of the church, to the exclusion of everyone else - ie Ekklesia.

Posted by Lucrezia Spagliatoni Dayglo (# 16907) on :

My father was a member of the General synod about 40 years ago. He never discussed the meetings and was deeply saddened about the constant bickering [Frown]

He felt they were creating more problems rather than solving them. He left.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:

It certainly appears that every time the church is in the news, it's concerning disagreement, and almost never comes off looking good. It also seems to be true that the media take a gleeful joy in reporting every example of un-Christian behaviour in a supposedly Christian organisation.

Though I'll probably never be a member of any church I used to admire the CoE for it's ability to take a more nuanced view of complex issues and refusal to be pushed into quick and easy solutions. My knowledge is mostly limited to general news and magazine articles but over the last thirty years I've increasingly come to see 'nuanced' as meaning 'equivocating and prevaricating', perhaps I've been brainwashed by the media.

All news tends to focus on bad news. Much of what any organisation does is unnoticed because its just doing what it always does - which by definition isn't news.

I've been thinking about what good religious news I can remember over the last 50 or so years - i.e. just the stuff that still sticks in the mind. My list would include: publication of "Honest to God", "The Sea of Faith" TV series, "Faith in the City", Bishop David Jenkins supporting the miners, Desmond Tutu and ordination of women priests. Which tells you what sort of atheist I am!

I wonder how many of shipmates would say that my list was largely 'bad news' (Justin Welby is not a fan of my first choice I believe). What sort of news would you like to see hitting national headlines?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Actually, the most damaging church situation I've ever been in was somewhere that 'Conflict Denial' existed. Much better to have an all-out thrashing out of ideas than to sweep it all under the carpet and pretend there are no disagreements and nothing is wrong.

Expecting a church (or The Church) not to have differences of opinion is based on a misguided assumption as to what the Church is. It's a body of very human sinners, not a body of perfect souls.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Actually, que sais-je, I think my list would parallel yours..

Somehow, though, I've ended up working in a small backstreet UPA parish which happens to be a member of F-in-F (though only a few members are hard-core anti-OOW/anti-SSM etc.). Who says God doesn't have a sense of humour....?

Ian J.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Expecting a church (or The Church) not to have differences of opinion is based on a misguided assumption as to what the Church is. It's a body of very human sinners, not a body of perfect souls.

This is what we tend to hear when outsiders criticize the church for not living up to standards it advocates for others. On the other hand when clerics pronounce that we shouldn't do X or should do Y they rarely add the rider that they are very human sinners and are probably no better judges than anyone else.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Who says God doesn't have a sense of humour....?

As long as you keep yours! Good Luck.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:
On the other hand when clerics pronounce that we shouldn't do X or should do Y they rarely add the rider that they are very human sinners and are probably no better judges than anyone else.

So true. This is what happens when one believes that there is a single truth about too many questions, and that one has found that truth for all time.

Current irreconcilable disagreements, especially the matter of homosexuality, bring out the worst in some people. Religious spokespersons seek out publicity and then are dismayed when they get it, though not in the way they hoped. What distresses me is the knee-jerk dogmatism, and the willingness to indulge in what pop psychologists used to call "awfulizing" [Eek!]

-- in this case, isolating one part of our complex human nature and attributing to it all sorts of dangerous powers that most people in western society today doubt that it has.

[ 15. November 2012, 13:07: Message edited by: roybart ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
On the other hand when clerics pronounce that we shouldn't do X or should do Y they rarely add the rider that they are very human sinners and are probably no better judges than anyone else.

I don't know where you go to church but in my experience they very often say exactly that.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
On the other hand when clerics pronounce that we shouldn't do X or should do Y they rarely add the rider that they are very human sinners and are probably no better judges than anyone else.
I don't know where you go to church but in my experience they very often say exactly that.

I agree with Ken. Clerics say this all the time in my experience.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Expecting a church (or The Church) not to have differences of opinion is based on a misguided assumption as to what the Church is. It's a body of very human sinners, not a body of perfect souls.

Theology leads some people inexorably to this position, though, I think. What I mean is the idea that the Holy Spirit has guided and continues to guide the church***, leading to the conclusion (no?) that the church must be correct, at least when it makes some kind of formal doctrinal pronouncement.

***People putting forward this view often seem to capitalise the word 'Church'. In any case, I wonder what exactly they mean by 'Church' or 'church', as disagreements between different groups of Christians can be clearly seen in all periods of history ever since there were Christians! Which party was the Holy Spirit guiding, in each case?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
From another POV it's sad that they cannot recognise the considered wisdom of a group of believers. [Always assuming that they have been listened to in the first place and it isn't an autocracy or just window dressing for a done deal].

Your parentheses would appear to eliminate the Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican churches from inclusion, for a start! The laity never get a say in the direction of those institutions, in fact I can't remember once being asked for my opinion on an issue by anyone who will actually sit on the committee that will decide what the Church does about it...

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
From another POV it's sad that they cannot recognise the considered wisdom of a group of believers. [Always assuming that they have been listened to in the first place and it isn't an autocracy or just window dressing for a done deal].
Your parentheses would appear to eliminate the Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican churches from inclusion, for a start! The laity never get a say in the direction of those institutions, in fact I can't remember once being asked for my opinion on an issue by anyone who will actually sit on the committee that will decide what the Church does about it...

What are your feelings about that then? How do you view decisions being made without consultation and the benefit of insight and wisdom that you (and others) might bring to it all?

[ 15. November 2012, 16:16: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

***People putting forward this view often seem to capitalise the word 'Church'. In any case, I wonder what exactly they mean by 'Church' or 'church', as disagreements between different groups of Christians can be clearly seen in all periods of history ever since there were Christians! Which party was the Holy Spirit guiding, in each case?

When I first discovered Ship of Fools several months ago, I was struck by the number of posters here who do exactly this. In effect they say: "The church [usually meaning "my church"] teaches X [which might be about sin or personal and social relationships or whatever]. We have done so for centuries. Here are the Biblical citations and/or historical precedents that justify us."

Something like this assertion is often presented on Ship of Fools as though the discussion were now over. No wonder that some people become frustrated and even cranky when others are not persuaded.

There are different routes to a broad and tolerant church that can keep the focus on its message of salvation. Perhaps, as some posters have suggested, the only way to resolve this, for Anglicans and Episcopalians anyway, is to self-segregate into different sub-groups. That is in effect what the Episcopal Church did over the issue of slavery at the time of the American Civil War. Despite profound disagreements over the most serious of moral and social policies, the Episcopal Church de facto split in two. (Some slave states went further of course.) No one today can imagine how seriously some religious people in the past in my took what they imagined to be God's permission, or even commandment, to enslave some among our fellow human beings. Reading the literature produced in this period is a revelation.

The Holy Spirit knows how to work slowly, and sometimes has long-term goals that are not yet clearly seen. I sometimes think that this is what is going on in "the church" today. I have less and less sympathy with our sometimes frantic preoccupation about finding the One True Party Line on things like blessings of same-sex relationships, gay marriage, the role of women, what is and is not meant by "right to life," et al.

This is not to deny the justice issues or the depth of sincere feeling on all sides. Clergy and lay leaders have, I think a big responsibility here. A good starting point would be for them to make an effort not to preach anad write too rigidly, too judgmentally, too arrogantly, about convictions that may turn out in God's good time to be transitory, or just plain wrong.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Whoops! In the post above I printed the opposite of what I meant to say.

quote:
Despite profound disagreements over the most serious of moral and social policies, the Episcopal Church de facto split in two. (Some slave states went further of course.)

I should have said, of course, "the NATIONAL Episcopal Church DID NOT split in two."

[ 15. November 2012, 16:50: Message edited by: roybart ]

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Scrap that last post. I wrote what I meant to write the first time. (I am still trying to develop the knack of typing on my phone.) [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[qb]I don't know where you go to church but in my experience they very often say exactly that.

Ken, Freddy - I was thinking of media pronouncements and similar. There was a sort of theme, starting from the OP, about disputes driving people away from the Church. My answer to Chorister was a bit sweeping so apologies to her also.

Some years ago I attended a wedding where the Rector quite naturally talked of the supreme value of marriage. At the reception he was slightly disturbed, explaining that as he left the church he'd been buttonholed by someone who had, with some passion, put a different point of view. "I'll have to think about what she said", he mused, "She made some good points." That impressed me. I'd love to hear something similar in a debate about women bishops, say.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
I was thinking of media pronouncements and similar. .

Stripped for soundbites. If Rowan Williams gave an hour-long lecture about some point of theology or doctrine or church history and then mentioned Islam or child abuse or gay marriage in a five-second answer to an off-topic question afterwards the news would quote three of thiose five seconds and nothng else.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...the Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican churches....The laity never get a say in the direction of those institutions

Marvin the Martian, you might want to consider moving from the sea of surreality to the United States.

In the Episcopal Church the legislature is bicameral, the House of Bishops consisting of, well, all the bishops, and the House of Deputies consisting of a mixture of non-bishop clerics and laics.

At both a national level and at a diocesan level (at least here in the Diocese of Bendy Poles) laics have considerable influence where the Church will go.

And, no, no one has ever asked my opinion on things—outside of a preposterous survey or two.

For that matter, I have to go out of my way to let my national political representatives know what's on my mind.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

Whilst not an Anglican, I commend the Anglican church for open debate about how the church needs to respond to changing trends in society. What's the alternative - discussion behind closed doors or just ignore social trends and pretend the world hasn't changed? We also have the issue that the media likes to find a good row and make a meal of it. As other posters have noted, at a local level, most parishes have worked out for themselves how to respond to these issues.

There is a massive amount of social, as well as spiritual good delivered by the C of E. Shame the media doesn't make more of that.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

Most of the 'unimportant issues' currently being kicked around in the Anglican communion and other Christian bodies really come down to the very important issue of how we discern God's will? How do we balance out scripture, tradition, experience and reason and come up with an answer? (I'll admit here that I'm fairly cynical about the application of the latter two factors in these debates...both are sometimes just whatever happens to be intellectually or culturally fashionable amongst university-educated 21st century westerners this particular week). Given that Christians are divided on the core issue of discerning God's will, we have two solutions. The first is to stick together in one church and learn to work through the issues in a Christlike manner, accepting each other as Christians sincerely seeking God's will. The second is to split off into little purist churches of the like-minded. These churches don't tend to have many internal arguments, but they're not exactly fun to be in either.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
What sort of news would you like to see hitting national headlines?

The problem is that the good news just isn't 'national' news. I would love to see more awareness of the sheer amount of social capital churches and Christians generate in their local communities. Thinking of the town or city-centre churches I know of, there are toddler groups, coffeeshops used by community groups, office space made available to charities at cost and numerous practical ministries to people isolated or maginalised in some way. There is also a lot of informal care of vulnerable people within congregations. And IME individual Christians are more likely than average to volunteer for charities or work in the caring professions. I think the wider community will only cotton on to this when the next wave of church closures hit (i.e. when the current generation of fity to sixty year olds become seventy to eighty year olds) and suddenly the local drop in centre for the homeless is gone or half the parent and child groups start closing down.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
In the Episcopal Church the legislature is bicameral, the House of Bishops consisting of, well, all the bishops, and the House of Deputies consisting of a mixture of non-bishop clerics and laics.

My mistake. Allow me to correct "The laity never get a say in the direction of those institutions" to read "a few laity, no doubt hand-picked to ensure they agree with the clergy and in numbers too small to be able to override the clergy even if they didn't, get a say in the direction of the institution, but the rest of us don't".

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0