Friday, January 18, 2013

Channel 4 News - as written by your daughter

Today, Channel 4 News covers the plot to oust Dr Philip Giddings as Chairman of the House of Laity of the General Synod of the Church of England, on the charge of allegedly undermining Bishop Justin Welby over the vote on women bishops. They write:
The House of Laity, part of the General Synod, is meeting in London for an extraordinary meeting to vote on a motion of no confidence in chair Dr Philip Giddings, who spoke against women bishops - directly after the Archbishop elect, Rev Justin Welby spoke in favour.

Canon Stephen Barney, who will propose the motion after setting up a petition, says Dr Giddings' action "undermined" the speech of the archbishop-elect and were not representative of the house.

The petition followed the failure of the General Synod to agree to allow women to become bishops after a long running debate and received signatures from 20 per cent of the house, double needed for the meeting to go ahead.

It was the House of Laity, made up of "ordinary" members of the Church of England, which scuppered November's vote after it failed to reach a two-thirds majority in favour.

The other two houses, the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy, both voted in favour of women bishops.

Not personal

Speaking to Channel 4 News ahead of the meeting, Mr Barney, who has insisted the motion is not a personal attack, said the purpose of the meeting was not to debate women bishops in this particular incident, but whether Dr Giddings was representing the house which he chaired.

He said: "I hope that we will have a proper debate. It's a question of whether this was appropriate given that he was not representing the view of the vast majority of the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and indeed all but 74 of the House of Laity."

In describing his motion, he said: "I have always been one of the first to say that individuals must vote according to their consciences. However, leaders have other responsibilities and accountabilities.

"I feel that if I am to support the leader of a group of which I am a member, then that leader must show wise and good judgement - and I do not believe that this has happened."

If more than half of the laity say they have no confidence in Dr Giddings, then the motion will be passed and Mr Barney says it will send a very clear signal to the Synod's working group on women bishops, which meets next month to draw up a new legislative package to be presented to members in July.

Dr Giddings has not yet commented on the issue and said that "the time for debate is when we have the debate."
His Grace read this article with a degree of disquiet, for he knows that all this 'not personal' stuff is a blatant falsehood, and he wondered why such a respected news outlet as C4 had not considered any of the contrary argument, including the reputation and standing of Dr Giddings, and why his ejection as Chairman of the House of Laity would be a grave injustice. But at the bottom of the article, we get this:

So, the article is written by the daughter of the instigator of the motion to remove Dr Giddings from his position.

That must be why there's no mention of this ‘no confidence’ motion being an act of retribution for ‘thwarting’ the combined wills of the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy, as though those members of the laity who rejected the motion were incapable of discerning for themselves and, like children, were somehow led astray by Dr Giddings' charismatic (but evil) 'ideology'.

That must be why there's no mention of the outrageous waste of money (£38,000) this meeting is costing.

That must be why there's not a hint of the obnoxious and deeply personal campaign being waged against Dr Giddings by Gavin Oldham, who has written to all members of the House of Laity equating support for a male episcopacy with Nazism (along with advocates of slavery, apartheid and ethnic cleansing).

That must be why there's no consideration of the fact that it is not Philip Giddings who has damaged the credibility of the Church of England, but aggressive reformists who seek to subject the Laity to the Episcopacy even in democratic votes at Synod.

That must be why there's no mention of the precedent that would be set if Dr Giddings is ousted – that if any believer should dare even sympathise with those who seek to uphold the historic orthodox catholic teachings of the Church, they are showing themselves ineligible, unsuitable or, in the final analysis, too extremist to hold office within the Church of England. The via media thereby ends, and schism swiftly follows.

And that must be why there is no objective consideration of the following questions (proposed by the Law & Religion UK blog):
What will be achieved by holding this debate?

Is this a responsible use of Church resources?

Has the issue been discussed in the parishes/deaneries/dioceses other than between members of the House of Laity? If not, on what basis are the views of these groups to be represented?

What message is the meeting likely send to those outside the Church (and to those within who were not consulted)?

How does this fit into the bigger picture of: a] the ordination of women into episcopate; and b] synodical governance?
This debate will attract an awful lot of media attention: it touches on theology, equality, morality, the governance of the Church of England, and the right separation of powers. One might expect Channel 4 News to have done rather better than get the daughter of the motion's propser to write a superficial and thoroughly biased article on the matter.


Blogger Johnnyrvf said...

I was bought up in the Russian Orthodox Church under the direction of the late Metropolitan Anthony Bloom, I remember discussions of what was going on in the Anglican Church and the general feeling was one of great disquiet; all this bickering about modern interperatation of Scripture and Theology is wounding the Church of Christ, Christians in many even supposedly civilised countries are treated almost as lepers and the destructive socialist policies that are at the heart of many western govts. are deliberately designed to erode the tolerance of non religious citizens to further the cause of, who exactly? not God of that I am certain, Christ said something along the lines of 'Those who are not with us are against us', surely this can be applied in minutiae to what is happening re the debate about Dr. Giddings and in a far wider sense to the destructive internal debates afflicting the Anglican Church, what burns in somebodies heart, however good the intention does not mean it is the will of God, to know God as I am sure most people who read this blog will concur, requires great humility, is this perequisite for compassion and tolerance being shown by what is happening presently in the CofE?

18 January 2013 at 09:32  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Good article Your Grace, and well said John. As a committed traditional Anglican I believe that schism within the Church of England is, sadly, becoming more and more likely. This may take the form of the Anglo-Catholic and orthodox Evangelical traditions departing to form some sort of loose federation, and getting along together just fine, as well as both growing, as is happening in the US and Canada; whilst the ever increasingly liberal middle remaining with the bulk of the physical and financial resources but having emptier and emptier pews and long term financial ruin.

18 January 2013 at 10:36  
Blogger Nick Prideaux said...

A good article. The vindictiveness of some of the proponents of women bishops in itself proves the case for proper, strong and statutory protection for those who, in all good conscience, cannot agree with women bishops.

18 January 2013 at 10:46  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Very succinct and accurate point, Nick. Spot on !

18 January 2013 at 10:53  
Blogger Chantry Priest said...

This presbyter is reminded of one Violet Elizabeth Bott who would "Thcream and thcream until she was sick" unless she got her own way.
Modern [ill]liberalism today adopts the tactics of the nursery-or, if you prefer, the Borg and the Dalek.

"Resistance is futile" "Tou will obey or be exterminated."

18 January 2013 at 11:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

Why do the 'liberals hate us'?

They hate Nazis, apartheid, race segregation etc. as unjust (as we do) - but in their minds we are seen as supporting these ideologies. And as these ideologies must be opposed and removed - so must we be as we are classified as unjust - and injustice must be removed.

It seems to me we have two choices walk out or take back our church as the US's Southern Baptists did.

18 January 2013 at 11:32  
Blogger Flossie said...

Congratulations to His Grace for this discovery.

Sadly this kind of gerrymandering is all too common. One would have hoped that the Church would be above it, but alas not, as evidenced by the recent House of Bishops' near-unanimous vote for no protection for opponents of women bishops.

It is a particularly low tactic for members of General Synod to use secular ignorance of theological matters to bolster their own position. One would have thought that the daughter of a Church of England prelate would be a little better informed, but apparently not.

My vote of No Confidence goes to the Bishops of the Church of England.

18 January 2013 at 11:58  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace -
One might expect Channel 4 News to have done rather better than get the daughter of the motion's propser to write a superficial and thoroughly biased article on the matter

Sigh. That's exactly what you get in a world ruled by females. Then, in every crisis they create, they'll try to insist that girls hold hands with them, and men hold hands with each other.

Oh -- and if anyone brings a priestess near my deathbed or funeral, I promise to come back and haunt the lot of them.

18 January 2013 at 12:49  
Blogger Galant said...

As regards the C of E, for me it's quite clear that the church, if it wishes to remain that, must disestablish itself. If not in will continue to run deeper into that which plagued much of the RC church and brought much abuse and error. Whilst Christians may enter into and influence politics and other governmental and societal roles, the Church should never become one with national government. 'In but not of'. For 'what has light to do with darkness?' It's nice to think that some governments have, in the past and to varying degrees of sincerity, desired the input of the Church and elevated its status in various ways to promote its influence. However, the day that offices of the church gained political power is the day it opened itself to political corruption and the presence of men who neither know nor love Christ. Also on that same day, political ambition becomes a great temptation, instead of lifting up Christ's 'ambition'. Lastly, it opens itself to the command and rule and teachings of a worldly government, rather than sole allegiance to Christ. In the end the C of E, and all other churches, need to remember that in this world the Church is nothing, Christ is everything. If we have any power, any light, any healing, any judgement, any message at all, they are not of ourselves but of Christ, and we are humble servants, delivering the ministry of reconciliation. Nothing more. If the world wants salvation we can simply present to them Christ. Let that be our task, our focus, our whole hearts. Let us remember always that, "Sirs, we would see Jesus."

18 January 2013 at 13:08  
Blogger Albert said...

When are people in the CofE going to realise that, since a bishop must be a universal figure of unity, you cannot have women bishops without expelling opponents. And you cannot expel opponents without breaking promises made, not least at the command of Parliament, in the 1990s. Promises made, it should be noted, because if they hadn't been made, it wouldn't have been possible to have women priests.

The reason that the vote was lost, was not because of poor Dr Giggings, it is because there are sufficient number of people in the House Laity who understand the real situation.

Those who still haven't got this point should read the CofE's own report on the question.

18 January 2013 at 14:13  
Blogger Albert said...

BTW can anyone explain why Dr Giddings is being blamed anyway?

18 January 2013 at 14:14  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

The saddest part of this sorry story is that it was left to Dr Giddings to make a speech that should have been made by any member who had a hint of honour remaining in them. Abp Rowan had promised the resolution of 'unfinished business' but along with the rest of the bishops (with a few exceptions) he capitulated in the face of the onslaught by WATCH. This is the cause of great sadness to those of us who had faith that acceptable provision would be made for traditionalists. Dr Giddings saw what was happening and restored some honour to the proceedings with a reasoned Synod speech available here:

Can anyone now seriously doubt that the Church of England is on the same slippery slope that is bringing the Episcopal Church of the United States to its knees?

18 January 2013 at 14:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Are we really surprised?

'Sola Scriptura' rests on the sovereignty of personal, private judgement. And when individuals interpret scripture differently, what then?

'Democracy' and human politicking is no way to discern the Truth!

"You shall not follow the crowd in doing evil. Neither shall you go astray in judgment, by agreeing with the majority opinion, apart from the truth."
(Exodus 23:2}

18 January 2013 at 14:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 January 2013 at 14:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This vote is:

One part Public Relations. As in "This is our bona fides that we will fix this and put the troglodytes in their place."

Two parts Warning. As in "Leadership is no longer open to those who would oppose WO in any way, shape, or form."

Seven parts Vengeance. As in "We are going to make you bastards pay for what you have done."

The mere fact that this vote is happening is a dark foreshadow of what is to come.


18 January 2013 at 14:54  
Blogger Faceless Bureaucrat said...

It seems the descendants of the Borgia family have taken-up residence in the General Synod. The final day of the Anglican Church are upon us...

18 January 2013 at 15:20  
Blogger Flossie said...

Well, thank God, the motion has been overwhelmingly lost.

I hope proponents of women bishops realise that this is a mere foretaste of what is to come.

18 January 2013 at 15:51  
Blogger David B said...

Hey, isn't one of the justifications for having an established church to give some sort of moral authority to government.

If there is anything in His Grace's post today which suggests that the CoE has any vestige of moral authority I would be grateful if they would point it out to me.

I see none! None positive, anyway - negative moral authority perhaps.

I suppose the church could explain away all its faults as human failings, and point the way back to the Scriptures, but no-one seems to be able to tell outsiders what is to be taken literally, what metaphorically, or what.

What is a fellow to make of it all?

I see in yesterday's comments -

" the best description of Heaven and Hell I've ever read.
In Hell, every wish, every desire is instantly and fully granted to the point of satiation-and beyond.
In Heaven, one is given a problem and, when it is solved, the reward is a to be receive a more challenging one."

The best in what sense? Literal truth? Some other sort of truth, if there be such, and if so what?

Theological truth perhaps?

Or nice sounding creative writing that fit someone's conceptions of how they would like things to be in the real world? Or, to put it another way, pulling shit out of one's arse?

Disestablish, let members of the CoE run their sect as they see fit, and let the rest of us get on with our lives without your unelected all male bishops pontificating their platitudes and influencing policy.

On, for one thing, a subject of some personal interest to me at the moment.

I don't want old men in frocks keeping me officiously alive and in pain should my cancer return. I want my own hand on the switch, and that they can deny me that I find abhorrent - and scary.

David B

18 January 2013 at 16:00  
Blogger Flossie said...

I have just learned that 'Canon' Stephen Barney is in fact a lay canon.

A little live blogging on the proceedings here on T19:

18 January 2013 at 16:03  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

Quite so Flossie. I wonder if he will now consider his position!

18 January 2013 at 16:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

How can one be a lay canon?

The main motion was defeated with 47 votes in favour, 80 votes against and 13 abstentions.

Mr Barney is on record as having said the outcome of the motion will send a very clear signal to the Synod's working group on women bishops, meeting next month.

Let's see ...

Will he now resign his position for being a:

" ... significant contributor to the reputational damage the Church of England is already suffering at the hands of the press, which is also manifest in the comments of the Prime Minister, the emerging reports of withdrawal of financial support, the angry reaction of church members and the disbelief and ridicule expressed by many of our secular friends, all of which I believe will damage the mission of our church."

18 January 2013 at 16:27  
Blogger John Magee said...

The C of E has made the claim for almost 500 years it is both "Catholic and Reformed". How can an organization say is made up of two Christian concepts which are totally opposite in their theology?

This was a recipe for centuries of weakness and we see the results today in the C of E collapsing like a house of holy cards before our eyes.

What the C of E will not admit today is that at the time of Henry VIII, and even into the reign of Elizabeth, I as many as 60% or moe of the English people were against being forced to join a national church. There are many examples of the English people's not wanting a national church forced upon them. Here is one example:

The "Pilgrimage of Grace" was a popular rising in York, England during 1536, in protest against Henry VIII's break with the Roman Catholic Church and the Dissolution of the Monasteries, as well as other specific political, social and economic grievances. It was done in action against Thomas Cromwell.It began at St. James Church, Louth, after evensong on 1 October 1536, shortly after the closure of Louth Abbey. The uprising was only against the attempt to suppress the religious houses, these being Catholic, and was not against the king himself. It quickly gained support in Horncastle, Market Rasen, Caistor and other nearby towns. Angry with the actions of commissioners, the protesters/rioters demanded the end of the collection of a subsidy, the end of the Ten Articles, an end to the dissolution, an end to taxes in peacetime, a purge of heretics in government, and the repeal of the Statute of Uses. With support from local gentry, a force of demonstrators, estimated at up to 40,000, marched on Lincoln and, by 14 October, occupied Lincoln Cathedral. They demanded the freedom to continue worshipping as Catholics, and protection for the treasures of Lincolnshire churches. It was led by a monk and a shoemaker, and involved 22,000 people.

The C of E's "Via media" should today be called he "Via Triway". The 3 lane highway to oblivion. This national church today is "Catholic, reformed, AND politically correct". We all know what happens to any fool who stands in the middle of a highway. They get ironed out on the asphalt like road kill.

18 January 2013 at 17:10  
Blogger Luther said...

Paul reminded the Romans that they will stand alone before God when their moment of judgement comes - Dr Giddens will have Christ, God's Word, and consistent faith alongside him. All those who seek to destroy him in retribution will have is "I did what was right in my own mind..."

As for Channel Four's disgusting behaviour in preparing this article, is anyone really surprised...?

18 January 2013 at 17:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

I say, just been reading some of the comments made at this debate. You 'proddies' enjoy a good fight and a public airing of your differences!

18 January 2013 at 17:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

What the…

Channel 4 have commissioned a report from whom ??? That’s not news, that’s propaganda !!!

18 January 2013 at 17:28  
Blogger Anglican said...

Jonathan Haidt, an American psychologist wrote ‘The Righteous Mind’. As a liberal he found, to his surprise, that conservatives understood the liberal point of view (while disagreeing with them) much better than liberals understood the conservative point of view. Liberals tended to think that anyone who did not share their viewpoint was either bigoted or stupid, probably both. This would explain much that happens in society, politics and the church.

Regarding a schism in the Church of England, this is all too likely. Evangelicals may have their own bishops (consecrated by African bishops). Anglo-Catholics who do not join Rome may eventually, perhaps, be able to have their own Catholic Church, in communion with Rome. There are in fact a considerable number of these (I have found 19 on the internet), mostly small or very small, which have their own hierarchies and liturgies – and most have married priests. They are in full communion with Rome. They are the Oriental churches of the Middle East and the Uniate or Greek Catholic Churches of Eastern Europe. (The Ordinariate is unlikely to last for more than a generation, and its ‘Anglican patrimony’ does not seem to mean very much).

18 January 2013 at 18:16  
Blogger Shaun Clarkson said...

I did find it highly appropriate that this morning's epistle was 1 Corinthians 4 :
"... I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself."

18 January 2013 at 19:35  
Blogger Bobby Mick said...

Maybe multi-millionaire Gavin Oldham might like to personally fund this House of Laity jaunt, as he's been so interested in promoting and pursuing it.

18 January 2013 at 19:40  
Blogger John Magee said...


You are correct. Excellent post. Pope John Paul II approved of a new Anglican Rite in union with the RC Church which allows the 1927 Book of Common Prayer as part of it's Mass. This Anglican Rite Church exists in the USA. Mostly in the conservative Old South where the Episcopal Church used to be strong.

The Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (my former home church) has broken from the Protestant Episcopal Church USA as has others here and is now called the Anglican Church USA. It is presently under the jurisdiction (the last I heard) of the Anglican Church of Latin America.

There are even reports the Church of Ireland is making overtures to be reunited with Rome.

Somehow I think the Anglican Church and almost all other Reformation Protestant Churches realize their time has come. The show is over because that era in hsitory is over. They are almost all commiting "churchicide" by adopting every liberal cause and change they can grasp at.

Of course the so called "fundamentalist" Protestant churches and some traditional Calvinist Presbyterian churches here, and I am certain in the UK too, are thriving and I wish them well because they love the Lord and serve Him and are good people.

As the national Reformation Churches fade away and traditional so called "fundamentalist" Protestant churches, like the conservative Presbyterians and Baptists, thrive I hope RC's and these conservative Protestants can foget our denominational bickering in the future and concentrate on what we have in common. Abortion and Gay "marriage" are a few issues we share and our common coming struggle against the total destruction of our morals and values by the secularists and Marxists which is the most important force we have to immediately confront and will be for a long time to come.

18 January 2013 at 19:43  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, on 4th January 2013 in an post suggesting changes to the CofE Synod you commented, 'His Grace is aware that the removal of the House of Laity won’t go down too well with everyone, but he is of the view that the ‘bottom-up’ work should be done in strengthened diocesan synods and the top-down work a vice-gerential synod. The fact that bishops and clergy have been elected by the laity ought to increase the confidence of the laity in both bishops and clergy.'

Is this still your view?

Or should we regard the House of Laity as the final redoubt in a regard action against the secularisation of the CofE?

18 January 2013 at 21:07  
Blogger Martin Sewell said...

I listened to the debate and I gathered the issue split between " everyone has a right to an opinion" and " if you believe in the doctrine of headship you can't lead the factions to anyplace they will collectively agree to go".

18 January 2013 at 21:08  
Blogger bluedog said...

Second 'regard' @ 21.07 should be 'rearguard'. Can't delete post

18 January 2013 at 21:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

bluedog - for future reference, to delete just right click on the dustbin and open link in new window. That way you can access delete icon.

18 January 2013 at 21:45  
Blogger Matt A said...

Come on Inspector, I was hoping for a few more paragraphs on this post. Have a glass of Isle of Jura and get typing man!

18 January 2013 at 21:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well Matt A. Here is something the Inspector prepared earlier, but discarded. On your head be it...

Meanwhile, for your delectation and education, from Wiki“1993: Victoria Matthews was elected as the first female bishop of the Anglican Church of Canada; however she resigned in 2007, stating that “God is now calling me in a different direction”.[244] In 2008, she was ordained as Bishop of Christchurch, becoming the first woman to hold that position.[245] “One especially enjoys the reason for resigning – ever so girly, what ! The Inspector does not suggest for one minute that her resignation was spurred by failing to get the top banana job in Canada that year, and leaving the continent out of spite. Oh no no !
One fears there will be plenty more of this, er lets call it ladies business, in the future if the CoE goes ahead with girl bishops…

18 January 2013 at 22:27  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 January 2013 at 00:48  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Shaun Clarkson:

There has been a run of apposite readings from Scripture throughout this whole sordid affair (hat-tip to Chantry Priest for drawing my attention to them).

Whilst, for the benefit of the doubt, I'd not claim these mini outbreaks of Providence as specifically prophetic, it nevertheless sets up a nice metaphor where the quiet and persistent Voice continues on amidst the loud braying of the world.

19 January 2013 at 02:13  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

If I might make one brief further point, though:

The impending schism can only partially be put down to the "liberals" in the CofE hierarchy (though a kind of infernal engine seems a better image than ordered rank).

In many ways, they have simply used longer-term divisions to their advantage. The Anglo-Catholic wing has been itching to return to Rome (with notable exceptions), and though the drift across the Tiber has been accelerated by various proposals, it was already in place. Likewise, the Evangelical wing were agitating for complete separation back in the 80s, where the principle division was not so much legislative as liturgical. Many of them had to be reined in by the likes of John Stott and reminded that the Body of Christ draws us into union with God and not disunity.

Instead of seriously addressing the question of how we relate to our brothers and sisters in Christ, we have been given representative democracy. The average churchgoer can hardly be expected to be enthused by what is increasingly little more than Westminster lite. Nor was voting on key doctrinal issues ever going to satisfy anyone: for the liberals, their position is so "self-evident" that it shouldn't need a vote, and for the conservatives, their position is not one that can be settled by majority opinion.

Giddens is absolutely on the money: if we can't resolve a key issue of doctrine in a manner that doesn't outlaw our fellow believers, we have lost our way. We are not the Body of Christ, but merely the unravelling corpse of Christendom.

19 January 2013 at 02:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


if we can't resolve a key issue of doctrine in a manner that doesn't outlaw our fellow believers, we have lost our way.

The problem has been a steadfast refusal to provide a strict definition of 'fellow believer.' It's intentionally left vague in order to avoid doctrinal conflict. That reduces the definition of a fellow believer to 1) organizational membership 2) interpersonal relationship 3) shared sacrament or 4) a minimalist understandings of the creeds. It makes for a broad church that doesn't believe much but includes everyone. Fuzzy boundaries make for organizational unity.

The fact is that there are many people in the CoE who are false brothers. They aren't Christian and they should be outlawed.


19 January 2013 at 06:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Carl said ...
"The problem has been a steadfast refusal to provide a strict definition of 'fellow believer.' It's intentionally left vague in order to avoid doctrinal conflict ... Fuzzy boundaries make for organizational unity.

The fact is that there are many people in the CoE who are false brothers. They aren't Christian and they should be outlawed."

But its the 'via media'!

The problem is 'Scripture alone' and, in the absence of a body with divine authority to interpret it, its companion 'personal, private judgement'.

On what basis can you say anyone is a 'false brother'? Because they refuse to agree with your interpretation of Scripture? And who on earth can provide a '"strict definition" of what one should believe?

You would make a Pope of Calvin!

19 January 2013 at 15:41  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


On what basis can you say anyone is a 'false brother'?

The same basis you evidently used to decide the RCC is the One True Church.

You would make a Pope of Calvin!

Naaah. He would never wear that pointy hat.


19 January 2013 at 16:57  
Blogger Bobby Mick said...

Martin Sewell, you'll actually find the contributions split along rather different lines: between those who desire the church to avoid making a bad mistake and further damaging it's ability to preach the Good News of Jesus Christ; and those from the self-identifying liberals whose illiberality was laid bare for all to see.

19 January 2013 at 21:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

carl Jacobs said...
On what basis can you say anyone is a 'false brother'?

The same basis you evidently used to decide the RCC is the One True Church."


I started from the position of reading Scripture to examine what it revealed about the basis of the Catholic's Church's Divine authority. I could find no error in this. It was all perfectly clear.

The Reformers started from a different position. Because they disagreed with specific Church teachings and human abuses of these, they had to make up the unbiblical doctrine of 'Scripture alone' and then had no choice but to compliment it with personal, private judgement.

I am not a 'cultural Catholic'!
Bottom line: The Holy Spirit offered me the gift of Faith; I responded and stayed true to the Church.

Catholic's have a reference point for declaring a person a 'false brother'. If you genuinely subscribe to personal, private judgement in interpreting Scripture, then you don't. How can you?

All you can say is: "We don't agree. Leave and find a church that agrees with you. Or, set up your own church." And isn't that the history of post-Reformation Protestantism?

20 January 2013 at 00:12  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older