[quote author="Joshua Bovis"]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.

You might think that.  I couldn’t possibly comment.

Of course not my friend. Of course not!

WWJD= What would Jesus do? or What would Jensen do?

[tries to think of witty reply. Can’t.]

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]Is there any precedent in Scripture for concealing the workings of the institutional church from the public eye? Where?

Possibly 2 Samuel 1:20 - David’s lament after the death of Saul and Jonathan

“Tell it not in Gath, proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon, lest the daughters of the Philistines be glad, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice.”

Is this wanting there not to be publicity about a defeat for Israel?

I think the church should be keen to be seen to do the right thing (see 2 Corinthians 8:21 for example). But where there are failings in the church, we don’t necessarily want them broadcast too much.

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]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.

Forgive me. When you said ‘I hope this gets lots of publicity’, I assumed you were referring to the type of publicity that - you know - actually exists.

This type of discussion could only occur, in reality, within a controlled media environment with an interest in truth over story - in other words, a moderated Christian media (I’m don’t think that is the reality of the Christian media either, though). But that would mean we’re back to open discussion within the covenant people, which is what I suggested in the first place when you contradicted me by promoting being ‘public’.

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]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?

I did answer your question when I said that wasn’t the issue. More bluntly, don’t put words into my mouth. I said I didn’t desire publicity for internal church quarrels, not that I wanted to promote secrecy and concealment. Only someone painting lines of argument with a street-sweeper brush could confuse the two.

However, general concern that the name of God is not blasphemed among unbelievers would drive me to want to seek rapid reconciliation within the church so there is no story, at least as far as the broad media is concerned (since they generally only report conflict).

To that end, I don’t know if ‘rack off and start your own religion’ is the most constructive approach. It may be better to illustrate how easily such legislation could backfire, on another day with the theological wind blowing another way…

[quote author="Matthew Williams"]
This type of discussion could only occur, in reality, within a controlled media environment with an interest in truth over story

Call me idealistic, but I believe that is exactly what both Christian and secular media ought to be doing, and some good reporters still strive for.

I said I didn’t desire publicity for internal church quarrels, not that I wanted to promote secrecy and concealment.

OK. But the sin of Israel is broadcast on most every page of the Old Testament, and highlighted, with grief and anger, in the ministry of Jesus. It’s part of the impetus of the New Testament message. Those who rejected the Messiah are themselves rejected. Their sin is seen for what it is, and because the sin is identified and judged, the Gentiles benefit.

However, general concern that the name of God is not blasphemed among unbelievers would drive me to want to seek rapid reconciliation within the church so there is no story, at least as far as the broad media is concerned (since they generally only report conflict).

Of course. Just as Paul longed to see his fellow Jews reconciled to God, even though on account of them and their behaviour, God’s name was blasphemed. But nor does he hesitate to denounce their hardness of heart in the strongest possible terms, on the frequent occasions where it becomes clear that repentance is the last thing on their minds and hearts.

And unless there is a particular reason to do otherwise, I would feel inclined to ‘imitate Paul as he imitates Christ’. If this proposed legislation represents an attack on the gospel—and we need to wait to see more, I think—then it should be named and shamed as such. Why is this legislation being proposed? Who are the intended targets? Enquiring minds want to know.

To that end, I don’t know if ‘rack off and start your own religion’ is the most constructive approach.

Well, I didn’t say that, so I will let others defend this idea if they want to.

My concern with your responses so far, Matt, is that they are entirely consistent with the political spin associated with dissension within party ranks, and you fail to deal with the question theologically in anything but the broadest terms. It won’t do to say that the proposed alternative to your view is ridiculous. Especially if you pride yourself (as I think you do) on taking a more nuanced hermeneutical stance to the issue of church government than fundamentalists like me.

My view has the advantage of attempting to interact with Scripture, thus allowing people to decide for themselves whether Scripture is being used well or poorly. I don’t think it’s easy to make that call in your case, as your appeal seems to be to an authority other than the direct words of the Bible. You need to explain a bit more, I think.

‘rack off and start your own religion’

I said this and I stand by it.

This softly softly gentle gentle approach with liberals does not work. Evangelicals and liberals represent two different belief systems. The former is true, the latter is false.

Liberals in the Anglican communion are like gate-crashers at a party who are telling the owners of the house that they should share the house with them, or that they are not the only ones who have a right to ownership. Now it seems that they are want to kick the owners out or at least tell them what to do in their own house.

What nonsense! Too often I have seen Evangelicals turn into evangelifish the moment liberals accuse them of being either ungracious, arrogant, unloving, and devisive. The writers of the NT did not mince words when it came to these wolves. A far cry from today...it seems.

As for my comment not being constructive-I am not suprised at this comment, but it must be acknowledged that Evangelical Christianity and liberalism (which is unbelief) are eternally opposed to each other. They both cannot exist under the one auspice - this is why the Liberals should rack off and start their own religion or denomination.

The issue is about the authority of Scripture and the question of ‘What is a Christian’? Both are linked. How sad that Liberals slime their way out of this issue again and again.

[quote author="Joshua Bovis"]

‘rack off and start your own religion’

I said this and I stand by it.

This softly softly gentle gentle approach with liberals does not work. Evangelicals and liberals represent two different belief systems. The former is true, the latter is false.

Liberals in the Anglican communion are like gate-crashers at a party who are telling the owners of the house that they should share the house with them, or that they are not the only ones who have a right to ownership. Now it seems that they are want to kick the owners out or at least tell them what to do in their own house.

Quite right, Bov/Boof. Cuckoos in the nest - kick ‘em out before they start kicking out the chicks.

Or, as Jesus put it,

[quote author="Matthew 23:37"] “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you (i.e. the leadership of Jerusalem) were not willing.

Whitewashed tombs and hypocrites. Jesus had no time for them, I’m suprised that we do.

[quote author="Joshua Bovis"]

‘rack off and start your own religion’

I said this and I stand by it.

This softly softly gentle gentle approach with liberals does not work. Evangelicals and liberals represent two different belief systems. The former is true, the latter is false.

That opinion may be appropriate if the issue is clearly a theological one. Here we’ve been told about an extraordinarily loosey-goosey bill that is on a Diocese’s Synod agenda. There has been no evidence so far (on this thread) that it is a proposal from “liberals”. Nor that it represents an attack on the gospel. I can easily imagine well-meaning but incredibly misguided evangelicals proposing a bill not dissimilar to this if they wanted to limit contact between their diocese and other Anglican churches who had departed from the truth.

Let me be clear: I think it’s a terrible bill that ought to be defeated. It’s badly written because it gives sweeping powers without clarifying how they can be used, and it could be read as opposing any form of association whatsoever for any person (lay or ordained) in any capacity with churches outside the diocese. If you read it particularly broadly I can see the General Synod reps from Perth needing written authorisations as they get on the plane! Bills like this, even in a diocese where everyone trusts the current leadership, are a bad idea since you never know what’s going to happen in 20 or 40 year’s time and bills generally remain on the books longer than any particular set of leaders.

But I can’t see how your comments, Joshua, address the topic of the thread. People of any theological stripe get anxious and fearful, and defensive, and sometimes propose silly things like this. Unless we know for sure what’s behind it I think you’re jumping the gun.

BUT I don’t think we even need to know what’s behind it in order to discuss its shortcomings as a piece of legislation.

What a glorious display of chest-beating this has been.

Gordon, I’m not sure it is worth the time engaging you. You never stay arguing the same point, you continually shift both the actual content of your argument and then paint out your opponent to be arguing the opposite of your new case. It gives the feeling you are more interested in having an argument than what the argument is about. The point I’ve made is rather simple: “Hope for resolution rather than lots of publicity.” Only a quarelsome person could make that controversial.

The argument you are having has shifted from saying you do; to claiming that you assumed a complete overhaul in the nature of media and publicity in this country into a godly enterprise in the pursuit of truth. Silly me, why didn’t I pick that up? In your fictitious world, I might not have opposed your desire for publicity so readily. But I still live in this one.

The hermeneutic I called ridiculous is simply this: that when something occurs that is loosely paralleled in the bible we want publicity for it outside the church, and that somehow the public availability of the bible demands such a hermeneutic. It is ridiculous simply because the bible is primarily written for the church, and some of the events it describes, if paralleled, would damage the name of Christ in the community. It’s not complex hermeneutical stance on church government I’m proposing, it’s a basic measure of common sense.

Joshua, I do sometimes feel the anger and frustration you express. But just because the gentle and godly approach doesn’t always ‘work’ politically, it doesn’t mean the shout-names-across-the-room approach is going to be more effective - either politically or for our own sancitification. Evangelicalism and liberalism are not two simple categories, there are many people in between the extremes at various stages who will be repelled by aggression. Be shrewd as snakes, and innocent as doves.

[quote author="michael jensen"]What a glorious display of chest-beating…

come on, Michael. How on earth do you think that’s productive?

[quote author="Matthew Williams"]
Joshua, I do sometimes feel the anger and frustration you express. But just because the gentle and godly approach doesn’t always ‘work’ politically, it doesn’t mean the shout-names-across-the-room approach is going to be more effective - either politically or for our own sancitification. Evangelicalism and liberalism are not two simple categories, there are many people in between the extremes at various stages who will be repelled by aggression. Be shrewd as snakes, and innocent as doves.

I don’t think that Joshua is proposing a “shout names across the room” approach, nor outright aggression. Rather, he’s calling for clarity and robustness in our response.

As am I.

!!!

well that is precisely my point… I don’t think some of the posts here are very edifying in their tone or particularly helpful, and using the NT as an excuse for intemperate language is quite extraordinary.

It is neither clarity or robustness: it is just testosterone.