[quote author="Matthew Williams"]

The Diocesan Council may refuse any such application for approval or grant approval on such terms and conditions as the Diocesan Council may in its absolute discretion determine.”

If we set aside emotional hyperbole, of course it’s unlikely the wording covers sydneyanglicans.net and theological studies.

I believe it was that Dungey irony thingy at work again.

However, I hope this piece of proposed legislation gets a great deal of publicity, as it is useful in bringing underlying motivations to the fore as questions are asked.

I may have to quit

Just the heading I was looking for!  Goodbye for now, folks.

On first reading (and, for that matter, second reading) this proposal is astonishingly unbiblical. How is it possible for the unity of believers all over the world to be upheld within the constraints of a rule like this? Admittedly the ambiguity of the wording might be making it sound worse than it is. But even then, stepping back totally, the need for rules like this to even be considered smacks very strongly of “Pharisee”. A quick reading of Matthew 23, especially verse 23, might be in order.

Sorry, I know no-one here supports this bill, but I couldn’t help but express my shock at such a proposal being put forward. Meanwhile, can someone explain the Sydney Diocese’s ‘affiliated churches ordinance’??

And I have another question ... why do we need ‘church laws’ at all?

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]However, I hope this piece of proposed legislation gets a great deal of publicity, as it is useful in bringing underlying motivations to the fore as questions are asked.

And I hope it doesn’t. It’ll only bring (the Anglican part of) God’s church into disrepute and certainly won’t be winning people to Jesus.

Err.. bye David!

Some “power” people seem to believe in Churchianity rather than in Christianity.

WWJD ?

Come back soon, David :-)

WWJD= What would Jesus do? or What would Jensen do? ;-)

Jesus, when faced with the institutional church rules of his day, went out of his way to break the rules publicly, and comment publicly on the hypocrisy of those who framed those rules.

We’re not compelled to do the same, but the precedent seems stronger for imitating Jesus than remaining silent, as opportunity allows.

[quote author="Gordon"]Jesus, when faced with the institutional church rules of his day, went out of his way to break the rules publicly, and comment publicly on the hypocrisy of those who framed those rules.

Publicly within the context of the people who were supposed to be in the covenant, yes… Surely this is more encouragement to speak within the church rather than hope for extra-church media… I think I’m with Angus.

Oh, I don’t know about that… the Bible is a publicly available document, after all.

So what?

Jesus knew his actions and words were going to be recorded, and that heaven and earth would pass away, but his words would never pass away. His intention was that those words would not be kept sealed up in a small collection of jars by the Dead Sea, but rather taken to the ends of the earth and preached by those who’d heard him and witnessed his actions.

Therefore, the hypocrisy of the institutional church was to be broadcast into all the world, down to the present time and until the Lord’s return—presumably to show God’s glory and to warn us from imitating hypocrites.

Now I can’t know the motives of the framers of the proposed Perth legislation, and I am making no guesses. So I don’t necessarily suggest that they are evil hypocrites who have departed from the gospel. I hope they’re not—in which case the purity of their motives will be shown by the attention that the legislation gets, and God will be glorified.

But if there is a small possibility that the motives revealed are less than pure, I imagine that God would use the exposure of this hypocrisy for his glory too, just as he did when he exposed the lies of the Pharisees.

So either option is good.

Is there any precedent in Scripture for concealing the workings of the institutional church from the public eye? Where?

Gordon,

The issue is not active concealing, it is hoping for broader publicity for quarrels in the church.

Are you actually serious about this hermeneutic, or are you just trying to create a quarrel for the sport of it? It looks self-evidently ridiculous to me, and I’m honestly hoping you can see that. Try applying it consistently to everything recorded in the bible, I think it will run aground pretty quickly.

Would you like every falling out you have had with another Christian to be plastered across the Sydney Morning Herald?

M

I think we’re talking at cross-purposes, Matt. Whether this sort of debate gets into the SMH is a bit of a non-issue for me, and not something that the likes of you or I (or diocesan standing committees for that matter) have much control over.

The sort of publicity I’m talking about is a public scrutiny of what is going on, based on truth rather than on media spin. What’s going on with this proposed legislation? I’d like to know. Others who are concerned with the progress of the gospel in Perth should be interested too. If it’s something that’s inimical to the interests of friends in the gospel, then I really want to know. Partly we ought to be praying about it. Partly we need to consider if there are other practical ways of helping friends who might be in trouble.

So no, it’s not self-evidently ridiculous. And you didn’t answer my question. Where in the Bible are we encouraged to secrecy and concealment in the workings of the institutional church? The closest I can think of is Mt 18:15, and then it only stays secret if the brother repents. There’s 1 Cor 6:1-8, but there it’s talking about court cases being judged within the church, and I am certainly not talking about going to law.

I just read the proposed bill - and I had an Ecclesiastes moment! There is a lot of this going round. Believe you me!

I was told in my last position in Scotland that I was not allowed to right to any publication (including The Briefing using my job title without expression permission blah blah blah!

There is nothing new under the sun.

These liberals who masquerade as believers are a disgrace and are an affront to God and The Gospel. To put it bluntly I am disgusted!

These liberals need to either repent and belief the gospel or rack off and start their own religion!

Hey Alan D -

This bill is crap! Ignore it and keep on being strong and courageous. Honour God. What is the worst thing they can do to you??

Hey Ould Man
This bill reminds me of a certain type of sugar.