163 forum messages posted by
Simon Cawdell

Well yes George. I will jump up and down about it too. As a Rural Dean I am involved in three vacancies at the moment, one of which is a Team Vicar for my own patch (Anyone interested in coming to join me in the delightful market town of Bridgnorth please contact me!) I would also add though that past practice has often been to appoint with just the parish in mind. In our deanery we are looking quite deliberately at the skills needed for the whole Deanery and making appointments to resource the wider church as well. It is our intention that all future posts will have a deanery brief attached in order that the clergy involved can lead an aspect of mission strategy across the whole area. So for example we are looking to appoint one person to a single rural parish and be Deanery Officer for Young People and Families, and a second to be Deanery Officer for Lay Training as well as incumbant for two village parishes. it gives the person the sense of being part of a team, and a wider canvass for their skills, and yes, both would suit fulcrum people (Shameless aren't I?!)

Graham has asked me to add this as a useful link to answer the question: http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/12/synod-anglicans-women-bishops-vote

David, As stated in the article Fulcrum thinks actions have consequences, and that the 2011 Primates meeting should go ahead without ++Jefferts Schori.

Dave W, you are missing my point.

The opposite of truth is falsehood. This is a lie when it is deliberately intended to mislead. Nuance here is important when we are discussing matters amongst ourselves. Jesus himself condemned name calling (see Matt 5:22) and so it behoves us all to be very careful how we address one another. Respect is paramount, and whether you would be prepared to be called a liar for prosing a wrong view inadvertently is beside the point. Others would find it deeply hurtful.

Dave, witty maybe, but Churchill would have used the phrase 'terminological inexactitude.'

Just speak to each other as you would having a face to face conversation. Remember behind each blog are people with feelings!

I can't help feeling that the use here of the word 'lie' whilst used in the sense of 'something that is not true' as also rather emotive. The trouble is that it implies, I am sure not intentionally, that the person who makes such a statement is a 'liar,' and that is not the point being expressed as I understand it.

For someone to be a liar implies a deliberate attempt to mislead and nobody here is attempting that. There is certainly a sharp exchange of views here, but that is what open discussion is about, so from here on I shall be applying 'parliamentary' rules to the words 'lie' and 'liar' in the sense that they should not be used of someone else unless a deliberate attempt is being made to imply intent, and that would require a lot of proof before moderators would allow it (he says checking his insurance!)

Even when two opposing points of view are being expressed, such that one must be wrong the wod 'lie' would not normally be used of the erroneous point or wrong viewpoint which might be a rather better, and more gentle way of expressing the point.