tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post8610298616397800153..comments2024-03-28T08:30:20.260+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: Reasons to be cheerful, maybe!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-87025843837834204602008-07-10T18:17:00.000+02:002008-07-10T18:17:00.000+02:00Assuming Ruth Gledhill quoted her correctly on Tue...Assuming Ruth Gledhill quoted her correctly on Tuesday evening, Christina Rees sees the outcome of Tuesday's fiasco as "the lesser of two evils". If she perceives a code of practice to be an evil, then she and her mates will be striving to eradicate it, won't they? Anyone who entertains hopes that a code of practice will work better than the current one is in cloud cuckoo land. Don't trust these people!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07891752322867010633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-40917578565465094472008-07-09T23:42:00.000+02:002008-07-09T23:42:00.000+02:00I thank God for your witness,good Father and I wil...I thank God for your witness,good Father and I will pray for your continuing firm stand. It will indeed all be worth it when you hear HIM say "Well done.... WE over here in America haven't given up though the days are interesting!!!!!!!!!Elizabeth Cantrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03859379095729039643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-84287906732510748102008-07-09T23:08:00.000+02:002008-07-09T23:08:00.000+02:00Dear PeterI think you're post represents an entire...Dear Peter<BR/><BR/>I think you're post represents an entirely topsy-turvy view of the situation, beginning with, "The Church is bending over backwards to take special measures in support of your minority position ..."<BR/><BR/>Er, no it isn't! The General Synod voted down option after option which would have been better than what was finally agreed. It bent hardly at all, except in agreeing the Code of Practice should be there and should be statutory.<BR/><BR/>Apart from that the Synod (not the same as the Church of England, which is all of us), decided it would operate on the very 'biblical' principle of 'even what they have shall be taken away'.<BR/><BR/>As to the idea that a Liberal who doesn't believe in the physical resurrection is better bishop material than a Conservative who does because she would ordain people "regardless of ... doctrine", that is really saying she is not a bishop at all!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-71178524519419633972008-07-09T22:57:00.000+02:002008-07-09T22:57:00.000+02:00John, the Church of England is STILL "an organizat...John, the Church of England is STILL "an organization which embrace[s] both sides in the women’s ordination debate". The Church is bending over backwards to take special measures in support of your minority position, in offering a binding code of practice which is still to be written. The problem is that you want the whole cake for your minority and leave nothing for anyone else. You have insisted on a position which is theologically nonsensical and practically untenable, and when you don't get exactly what you wanted you don't accept the decision and threaten to leave. It seems to me that the Church is trying hard to embrace you and you are pushing it away.<BR/><BR/>Some might want the Code of Practice to be unacceptable to you. I doubt if most do. The Code of Practice is still to be written. To continue your analogy, you still have a chance to order your vegetarian meal. If you make friends rather than enemies in the next few months surely you have a real chance of getting agreement on a Code of Practice which meets all your concerns, except that it won't be enacted by Parliament (the issue on which I am so strongly opposed to you). Please don't think most people want to push you out. Some people might, I agree. But a lot of it is just a collective persecution complex which goes back centuries.<BR/><BR/>I entirely agree with you on the issue of doctrinal discipline. But the reason people like Lain-Priestly are acceptable as bishops and people with views like yours are not is that they are prepared to do the job of a bishop, including to ordain candidates properly selected for the church's ministry regardless of churchmanship, doctrine and, most significantly, gender. A liberal who announced in advance that he or she would refuse to ordain evangelicals would not get the job. Nor should anyone who refuses to ordain women.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-84545402578254567492008-07-09T19:05:00.000+02:002008-07-09T19:05:00.000+02:00"We thus have inflexibility where perhaps we might..."We thus have inflexibility where perhaps we might at least have flexibility (and so avoid more trouble in the Church), whereas there is continuing flexibility where there ought to be inflexibility."<BR/><BR/>This reminds me of what Paul said in Romans 7:14-20:<BR/>14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.<BR/><BR/>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=7&version=31Larswifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081395959307842991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-34132519987052581132008-07-09T16:28:00.000+02:002008-07-09T16:28:00.000+02:00PS I think Tom Wright would have a fit at what she...PS I think Tom Wright would have a fit at what she is saying, and would hold that she cannot really preach the gospel effectively on this basis. See his <I>Surprised by Hope</I>. But he wasn't the bishop.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-26657869557522170682008-07-09T16:24:00.000+02:002008-07-09T16:24:00.000+02:00You should be able to listen to it here as a real ...You should be able to listen to it <A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/sunday/s20080316z.ram" REL="nofollow">here</A> as a real audio file. Go in 5' 06" for the beginning of her contribution.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-54775587388073976802008-07-09T16:02:00.000+02:002008-07-09T16:02:00.000+02:00Do you have a link for the Rosemary Lain-Priestly ...Do you have a link for the Rosemary Lain-Priestly on the Resurrection bit?Perpetuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16632860530530786486noreply@blogger.com