Hi Clare

> Nersen appears to believe in a God-shaped Christ while I believe in a        > Christ-shaped God

If 'anyone who has seen [Jesus] has seen the Father' (Jn 14.9) and if 'the Son is the image of the invisible God' (Col 1.15), then aren't these two things the same? Christ is Father-shaped and the Father Christ-shaped.

Hi Graham

In our church a few weeks ago we thanked God that Obama had won the US election.

I'm completely not a fan of George Bush or John McCain (or David Cameron for that matter). I celebrate the overcoming of prejudice and discrimination.

But I'm uncomfortable with the feeling that, for much of the church (in this country at least), 'their' man won in November.

It excludes those who wouldn't have voted for Obama (but would have done for another candidate). It excludes those who couldn't care less about American politics (probably the majority in the UK, outside the chattering classes). It excludes those who see all politicians as self-serving graspers.

Remember the excitement of 1997? Perhaps we should wait and see what he does in office before we tie ourselves too much to his coat-tails.

Love from Toby

Hi Simon

I think the present case isn't about Mrs P evangelising her patients (although the earlier case was). It's about whether she should offer to pray with or for them, which is different and - it seems to me - unexceptionable.

Also, isn't the example of schools, which you raise, a red herring? Whatever the rights and wrongs of evangelisation and/or offering prayer, doesn't it make rather a difference whether it's done with adults or children?

Mind you, having said that, members of the CU at my school tried to get me to come to events occasionally - was that wrong of them? Not that I ever went.

Toby

Hi Simon

We agree that there's no problem if both patient and carer are of the same faith and the patient requests prayer. But I suspect that NHS rules prohibit the wearing of jewellery on health grounds (so no crosses or anything like that): how would the patient know to ask? Is this an argument for allowing lapel badges, a la British Airways post-Eweida? (I'd support this).

Also, you talk about an 'imbalance of power' between patient and nurse which resembles (?) the one between teacher and pupils. Could you flesh this out a little?

Sadly we didn't do rugby at my school. It was football or nothing, more's the pity.

Toby

Hi Simon

I agree that school staff are in a position of authority and trust. But the key difference is precisely that they work with children. Mrs Petrie works with adults. I think it is this vital distinction that your response doesn't address.

Of course there is still a 'power imbalance' in the nurse - (adult) patient relationship, since the nurse has knowledge and feels well while the patient usually has less knowledge and often feels unwell.

But aren't there 'power imbalances' (of various sorts) in most human relationships? It's just that we don't usually notice them because they're part of life.

The point is not to legislate against them but to recognise them and be aware of them. Otherwise where do we stop? (To push it to the point of caricature, vulnerable people come into our churches sometimes - should we be prohibited from praying with them too?)

I think one of the problems of systems like the NHS is their tendency to obscure the humanity of staff and 'clients' alike. So instead of a living and breathing human being in a nurse's uniform, the system tries to provide a standard-issue nursing unit. This tendency happens in schools too, of course, and even (I regret to say) in the Church of England. It's something to oppose, not endorse.

I haven't seen the Nursing and Midwifery Council guidelines you refer to, though Mrs Petrie's case doesn't seem to fall within the General Code of Practice (available at http://www.nmc-uk.org/aArticle.aspxArticleID=3056). But if they rule out any expression of an individual nurse's spirituality, I hope there will be more people prepared to challenge them.

I stress again that I'm talking here of the offer to pray with or for a patient. I think evangelisation is a different issue and one which is rightly subject (in the above mentioned code at least) to very close scrutiny.

Regards from Toby

I couldn't find anything 'racist' or 'anti-Jewish' in the clip, just dodgy 1980s music and dodgier beards which, in themselves, aren't evidence of lack of scientific method or credibility.

But I too am extremely concerned about the source that's disseminating it. How can you cite this material in a post and even give a link to it without at least mentioning where on the political spectrum it's coming from? Might that not be considered ever so slightly relevant?

The shame is, I think there are fair (and scientific) questions to be asked about the uncritical acceptance of evolutionism - but I'd rather not have bedfellows like this, thank you very much, in asking them.

It was implicit in Pluralist's post and I ask the same thing: who are you, Dayspring, and what are you here for?

Toby

Hi Pluralist 

It's misleading to talk about Calvin 'burning people alive', since his only role in the Servetus trial was as a witness. He had no other influence over the verdict. As for the sentence, in fact he lobbied (unsuccessfully) for Servetus to be beheaded, not burned. I don't know of any other case in which he played a part in the execution of a heretic, although (of course) I'm open to correction.

As for the claim that he 'checked that they were experiencing the pleasure', I don't believe that this can be unsubstantiated. In other words, it's simply untrue and is therefore unfair to Calvin and unhelpful in any contemporary discussion.

Toby

Hi Pluralist

Thanks for your prompt, and thought-provoking, reply.

I'm reluctant to get into disputes about a book written (by a non-historian) over 60 years ago. For anyone who wants to assess the quality of Zweig's argument (particularly chapter 5) for themselves, it's available at http://www.gospeltruth.net/heresy/heresy_toc.htm

To me it looks confused. The Calvin Zweig describes was a 'Protestant dictator' who could only have Servetus removed by underhand means (some dictatorship).

He was a 'tyrant' who had to dispatch 'missive after missive' in a bid to influence the various bodies of Swiss Protestantism (some tyranny).

He sat on 'the judge's seat' but wasn't, I think, one of the judges.

Servetus was condemned, in part, for 'speaking foreigner's French' - but was this different to the 'foreigner's French' that Calvin spoke himself?

And 'what unprejudiced person will believe that Calvin... should have been unable to ensure a more merciful method of execution' had he really - as he claimed and as all the (albeit limited and partial) evidence suggests - sought beheading instead of burning? Well, if he were the 'Protestant dictator', maybe. But isn't this begging the question? Mightn't the 'prejudiced person' here be Zweig himself?

You and I agree that the execution of heretics, which on this occasion Calvin supported, doesn't fit our modern mores or sensitivities. But if we must go down the path of condemning the long-dead (who might just as fairly condemn us by their standards), let's only condemn them where it's justified. Condemn Calvin for supporting the death penalty but not for sadism.

The word 'unsubstantiated' in my last post should have read 'substantiated', by the way.

Regards from Toby

Hi Pluralist

I'm not sure how far your post was a reply to me and how far it was making a general point. If it was a reply to me, I didn't quite follow your thinking.

Was I suggesting relativism? I didn't think so.

I don't think Calvin's treatment of Servetus, however regrettable it looks from our perspective, 'stands alongside' (?) Luther's anti-Semitism.

What, exactly, is the 'history that needs to be countered'?

'Centralism and direction' are often bad, I agree, but always? Isn't Jesus Christ 'central' for Christians? Doesn't the Bible give 'direction'?

How do 'centralism and direction' relate to anti-Semitism?

But maybe these matters might be better explored on another thread...

Toby

Hi all

I don't really want to defend TEC, an organisation which has had more 'last chances' than even Pete Doherty managed.

But I think it's important that we don't allow our prejudices to make muddy water even muddier.

The fact is that the two other priests the AM report mentions (the Muslim and the druid) WERE inhibited.

The fact is that Kevin Thew Forrester's appointment hasn't (yet) been confirmed by other bishops.

The fact is that I don't actually know what 'Buddhist lay ordination' means.

Perhaps the time will come for us to slip into 'outraged of Tunbridge Wells' mode. Or rather, this being TEC, the time WILL come for us to slip into 'outraged of Tunbridge Wells' mode. But, on this issue at least, it hasn't come yet.

Toby

Ok Graham, I read George Conger's piece. Now I *am* outraged.

Toby

Hi Liddon

Is 'leadership' a more Puritan model than 'ministry'? Which Puritan authors would be a good place to go to for more on this?

Thanks from Toby