Dear Tony,

In my early experience of Anglicanism through ssunday school, the church attached to cubs and scouts and the headmaster, I was never told that God loved me, I was never told that God wanted to help me. I was never told to that I needed to ask Jesus into my life. Instead I was told that I must do my dury to God and the Queen and God was always on the side of the school and by implication hated boys. When I became a real christian those in my parents circle including a churchwarden had no idea what I meant. If you are made a christian by the sprinking of water and keep in God's good graces by attending the summer fair. If the main reason for going to church is to show off you new clothes then i want nothing of it and neither did Jesus. But if christianity is a real experience of God;s grace I want it all. But the Church hid this message from me and is hiding it from those who think they are OK with God. The gospel message has nothing to do with insiders and ousiders in the sense I think you mean. We were all born outsiders. We only become insiders by God's grace. This does not mean we are in any sense better than anyone else. We have no cuase to boast.   

Hi Karen,

Are you objecting to:

a: The view that Chtistian faith imvolves a body doctrine which gives a world view?

b: The CE interpretation of this?

c: Particular CE teaching involving headship and the docrines of grace?

d: The teaching of these matters to young christians?

or e: The way these are taught and the "psycology" of conservative groups?

David

Dear Tony.

Are you refering to Dr Martyn Lloyd Jone's booklet. I am not denying the reality of anyone's faith and nither did he. He does say that there are those within the Church of Rome who are saved. It is a systems of theology which do not fully express the fulness of God's grace that he attacks. It should be remembered that Evangelical unity was close to his heart and on this issue he was let down by the Anglicans, not least John Stott.

Dear Michael

The moral lapses of the episcopacy is precisely the problem. This is the greatest arguement against a Catholic understanding of the collegeality of bishops as the Churches defense against herasy. The reformers were well aware of the depths to thisch the Church of Rome had sunk from the sale of indulgences to the political machinations of the Borgias. compared to this the CofE does look in good shape.

Dear Karen,

did you intend your post for this thread as predestination is currently being discussed on another thread. I think th position re Article 21 is that ith is still in force in the CofE but was not included in the Articles of the American Church because  

[The Twenty-first of the former Articles is omitted; because it is partly of a local and civil nature, and is provided for, as to the remaining parts of it, in other Articles.]

The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article, omitted in the version of 1801, reads as follows: "General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."  see

anglicansonline thirty-nine_articles

 

Dear Ken,

 

It was good to talk to you the other day. As far as Wakefield diocese is concerned I should make clear that my feelings of unease were the result of changes in the leadership of the diocese which came on top of the appointment of ++Williams. The fact is that the diocese lost all three bishops and two archdeacons in a period of about a year so that all resignations were announced before any new names, if I remember correctly. I suppose I should blame this rough treatment on the Crown Appointments Committee. The fact remains that the diocean administration did not help itself by failing to introduce the new team to us in a more open way.

I think the satisfaction theory of atonement was first set out in detail by an early archbishop of Canterbury, ++Anslem which was set out by analogy with the rights of a medieval monarch. The phrase penal substitutionary atonement is normally applied to the restatement of this by John Calvin.

I think the first distinction to make is between objective and subjective atonement. My objective atonement I mean an act which changes the status of the believer. By subjective atonement I mean a demonstration of love which changes only the heart of the believer.

The presentation of atonement which Steve Chalke is being accused of once preaching must be reject as driving a wedge between the Father and the Son in a way which denies the unity of the Trinity.

What point exactly is Steve Chalke trying to make about perfection? Is this verse any more than a summary of the preceding teaching meaning God requires you to have a pure heart? The concept of human perfection is difficult to understand if it means more than without blemish. The concept of believers perfection and how to achieve it has caused much debate in the church since John Weley popularised it.

Daer 569,

You mention the slipery slope. I wonder if this is on a wede with a thin end, Perhaps we will be discussing dominoes soon!

My point is that in an understaffed chuch readers, retired clergy and local ordinands are increasingly being asked to do the same job. If I have this right someone ordained to deacon under a local ordination scheme has no rights or privilages beyond those of a lay reader, except they are allowed to dress up? Your destinction is based on an unscriptural Anglican view of the status of clergy which runs contra to NT teaching on the priesthood of all believers.

The NT roles of overseer and pastor are based on function rather than status. In James 3:1 states that a higher standard is required of teachers. So the standard may very well apply to sunday school leaders and youth leaders.

On the Church of England website it sates that "The statement reaffirms the Churchs teaching on both marriage and sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively, the statement says. Marriage, it states, is a creation ordinance, a gift of God in creation and a means of his grace. Marriage, defined as a faithful, committed, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman, is central to the stability and health of human society.... In addition, the House of Bishops affirms that clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership....'Issues in Human Sexuality made it clear that, while the same standards apply to all, the Church did not want to exclude from its fellowship those lay people of gay or lesbian orientation who, in conscience, were unable to accept that a life of sexual abstinence was required of them and instead chose to enter into a faithful, committed relationship. The House considers that lay people who have registered civil partnerships ought not to be asked to give assurances about the nature of their relationship before being admitted to baptism, confirmation and communion.

The teaching of the church is then clear that homosexual relationships fall short of God's. The only difference between lay readers on the one hand and home group leaders, sunday school leaders and youth leaders on the other is that the former are approved by the bishop and the latter by the PCC.

It is foolish to appoint into positions of leadership those whose views are clearly in opposition to the moral or theological teaching of the Church. Before you call me homophobic, I would apply the same standard to those who contradict the symbol of chalcedon. it was for this reason that the leadership of a well known large London Anglican church expressed the opinion a few years ago thet they would not allow ++Williams to lead a homegroup or bible study

Hi John

Well, the 39 Articles are likely to pose a problem to some, the RC church is used to swaer my, very calvanistic and does any look at the Elizabethan homalies except to find out what it is going on about. The homalllies are historicaly interesting. Thomas Cramner evidentaly did not trust te local clergy to prepare their own sermons so he wrote some for them to read out.

I do think however it is reasonable to expect the clergy who lead us in the creeds to belive them themselves.

I do not want to reintroduce the inquisition but when clegy publish or make statements to the media which contradict the creeds, I think this is a matter of conern

David

Hi karen

Your experience of CEs seems to be so different from mine. I was converted at a boys camp run primarily by people from an FIEC camp. My early teaching came from the Scripture Union through Sunday school materials, the school christian union (ISCF), park missions (CSSM) and Daily Bread notes and the CYFA group (CPAS). Later at university I went to St Ebbes and was involved with the OICCU (UCCF). At the same time I had the great privilede of attening college chapel, organised by Revd Michael Chantry. The variety of sources and constant guest speakers prevented any one line being pushed to the exclusion of others. The problem was rather that different teachings were presented as christian and they all sounded good but it the differences between them were not immediately apparent. The chapel brought me into contact with other Anglicans who could only be described as anti-CU, anti-St Aldates and most of all anti-OICCU. When talking to them any spouting of the party line was immediately ridiculed and proof texts were treated with scepticism . The main descipling group was the St Aldates beginners group and I never heard the type of criticism you refer to made against it although my chapel friends probably did call it brain washing.

I have subsequently been very hurt when attending a Charismatic Anglican church whose vicar I trusted and who then put his friendship with David Jenkins above his loyalty to the gospel. In this church I found home groups oftern very frustrating as they seemed to be a sharing of ignorance rather than knowledge. An over enthusiastic home group leader caused me to doubt the reality of my faith because I did not speak in toungues. Problems caused by my employer who was also a home group leader made it impossible for me to find  the support I so despirately needed in the Church and I lost may faith in God's love and good purposes towards me. I had to cross diocisan lines to begin to have my faith restored when I went to St Mary's in Cheadle and became involved in the Navigators. The rector of St Mary's at the time was Revd James Aire, a Keswick speaker. This was the nearest thing to returning to St Ebbe's.

I have found only in the conservative evangelical church the Gospel that God saves us. It was while we were still far off, spiritually dead, that God chose to come close to us convicted us of our sins and made Jesus real to us. In all other branches God has left clues of his presence for us to find but it is upto us to go on our quest for God and if we are lucky we might be saved. Thus it is taught that God provides the means of savation but in the end we save ourselves.

The truth is that young Christians need to find out what is in the Bible for themselves. It is only through a good knowledge of the Bible that we can discern truth from a lie and realise when we are being led up the garden path by some extremist. The real danger in the church today is self appointed apostles and prophets who claim to have heard from God and so put themselves beyond criticism. You cannot hold a reasonable conversation with people who are being brainwashed in the New Churches. At St Ebbes and St Mary's we were always encouraged to have our Bibles open and check what the preacher said against scripture. I cannot recall spoting any major gaffs. The preaching was mainly book by book empasising God's rich provision on Christ and wisdom for christian living. I was aware of a range of doctrinal views held by members of the congregation. In this cool rational atmosphere the meaning of scripture could be discussed and klnolege shared. I would contrast this with the New Churches where an hour of enthusiastic worship stirs the emotions and the sermon has a text but the Bible is rarely referred to but is based on anecdote and peronal revalation. 

My trust in the CofE was severly shaken by the appointment of David Jenkins despite the massive opposition at the time. This was futher shaken by the support given to David Jenkins by my local vicar at the time. David Jenkins opened a church extension but I cannot remember if this was before or after his appointment. This vicar was a Wycliffe man and upto then I had believed him to be an evangelical. The appointment of Lord Carey pursuaded me that the church was in safe hands and I eventualy decided to stay in it but did not return to the Manchester church as his successor indicated to me that the vicar in question was still held in high esteem by that church.

More recently I have worshiped at the church in the Wakefield diocese which was my home church before I went to University. As long as Lord Carey and +Nigel McCulloch were the direct authority over the chuch I felt at least my part of Anglicanism was safe despite my reservations about other sections of the communion. Thus the appointment of ++Rowan Williams and the reports of his pro-homosexual views and unbiblical theology brought back memories of my previous experience. Shortly after this +Stephen Platten was appointed. The only thing I could find out from a web search was that he was involved in ecumenical works with the RCs and had some association with Walshingham. I expressed my migivings to my vicar who seemed to resent my impertinance and so I then reviewed the options for fellowship outside the Anglican communion. I eventually decided to stay on the fringes of this Anglican church for family reasons although the vicar seems to find my questioning threatening. My fears have been somewhat reduced by reading +Stephens CV on the diocean website and his performance to date.

David Bantings commments in the Reform press release of 13 June are as follows:

Richard Coekin has been responsible for a wonderful growth in church planting in London, he said. He provides dynamic and faithful church leadership and we should be celebrating the way God is using him, rather than putting obstacles in his path. If we are to explore 'fresh expressions' of church, then Richard provides one model for a way forward.

Unfortunately, the church's 'quota' system for allocating curates, coupled with its present financial constraints, means that growing churches will always be held back by those who are more concerned with central allocation of posts than with the needs of growing churches. Ministers like Richard, who are keen to see the gospel spread, will always find such constraints deeply frustrating, especially when their parishes are willing to fund any additional posts. The situation is exacerbated when parishes find themselves in impaired communion with their bishops on doctrinal grounds.

This whole business has been an exercise in frustration. It is now clear that revocation of a clergyman's licence cannot be regarded as a proportionate penalty in a case such as Richard's. If the church is to avoid these difficulties arising, an urgent review must be undertaken of the ways in which the present system of funding, training and then allocating assistant clergy posts could be freed up. We must move to a system that is much more driven by parishes and where funding is made the responsibility of individuals and parishes, rather than dioceses.

I do not understand the objection to discipling in the quote Jody refers to. At its simplist it is no more than an acknowlegement that the great commission is to make disciples rather than converts. I do not know how co-mission organise this but I understand the normal practice is bible based discussions in small groups based on a gospel or thematic study. I you are suggesting something more than this a more appropriate word sould be shepherding and this led to no end of problems in the early days of the charismatic movement in some house churches.

does anyone know if any of the local clery still support co-misssion or would it now be more than their job is worth to say so?