Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Rants and Replies > Trials for Heresy to Resume?


Posted by: Reach Feb 17 2005, 06:07 AM
Quoted from the following article: "Those who are weak in doctrine are most vulnerable to temptation." -Brigadier Ian Dobbie, of the Rochester diocese


February 17, 2005
Clergy who deny doctrine may face trial for heresy
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent


Clergy who deny the existence of God and other key doctrines could soon face heresy trials in the Church of England.

Proposals to set up tribunals to try doctrinal cases were rejected by the Synod last year but the House of Laity overwhelmingly voted yesterday to reintroduce them.

Members of the House, who were meeting before the full Synod began, criticised liberal clergy for diluting traditional teaching, though one said that they did not propose burning heretics at the stake.

The House of Bishops has independently agreed to reintroduce the proposals, which were defeated by a narrow margin last July after clergy expressed fears that they would be victims of a witchhunt.

Margaret Brown, a lay member from the Chichester diocese, said yesterday that the original proposals had been thrown out partly because they had tried to deal with broad issues such as clergy wearing the incorrect vestments.

"It is far, far worse if we have a clergyman or clergywoman in the pulpit and they are preaching heresy and do not believe in the tenets of the faith, the Virgin Birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ and all the other tenets of the faith," she said.

"What is faith if we do not preach Christ crucified, Christ risen, Christ glorified? We will not get very far in winning souls for Christ, which is what we should be doing all the time.

"Let us make sure the liberals really do preach the word of God."

Peter LeRoy, of the diocese of Bath and Wells, reminded the laity of the usual definition of an Anglican as someone "who can believe anything they want as long as it is not too strongly".

He said heresy trials were essential to persuade clergy to endorse "sound teaching".

Quoting from a survey carried out in 2002 of what the Church of England believed in, he said just 76 per cent of clergy believed Jesus Christ died to take away the sins of the world, 68 per cent believed Jesus rose physically from the dead and 53 per cent believed faith in Jesus was the only way they could be saved. Among women clergy, the figures came in at about 10 per cent lower in each category.

"These figures are nothing less than astonishing and underlie the need for this measure," said Mr LeRoy.

He blamed Britain's "post-Enlightenment, pluralist, relativist Western culture to which we have succumbed".

Prudence Dailey, of the Oxford diocese, said: "You do not have to be a fundamentalist to admit that it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit supports guiding the Church into denying His existence."

She said that she was not suggesting that modern heretics should be "burned at the stake". But she added that such people should not be allowed to draw a stipend or receive official sanction to lead their flock astray.

Brigadier Ian Dobbie, of the Rochester diocese, said: "We need to raise the profile of doctrine in the Church. Sadly, our image is one of doctrinal indifferentism.

"We need to be reminded that belief is reflected in behaviour. Those who are weak in doctrine are most vulnerable to temptation. These proposals are not a thinly-disguised means for a disgruntled layman to be vindictive."

Tom Sutcliffe, of the diocese of Southwark, one of the few liberals to speak, said: "We need to take account of the fact that even liberals are performing a missionary function.

"When people say we have to draw the line somewhere it makes me very worried because we are going to draw a line where many people could be outside."

The proposals are set to be voted on at next year's Synod. If members approve the measure, it will then go before Parliament, where it will require primary legislation. Assuming it passes at Westminster, heresy trials could begin within five years.

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/15/nclerg15.xml




This article, in itself fascinating, caused me to think on the following question. Is it our weakness in doctrine that caused us to stray from the faith (or never to embrace the Christian faith in the first place) or is it the weakness of the doctrines themselves that helped to bring us to where we are today?

And now, back to the witchhunts and burnings at the stake? PageofCupsNono.gif

Posted by: Rameus Feb 17 2005, 06:37 AM
QUOTE (from article)
"What is faith if we do not preach Christ crucified, Christ risen, Christ glorified? We will not get very far in winning souls for Christ, which is what we should be doing all the time.


That pretty much sums Christianity up right there.

Rameus

Posted by: Libertus Feb 17 2005, 06:39 AM
I look forward to hearing what some of our English friends have to input on this.

QUOTE
"Let us make sure the liberals really do preach the word of God."


I thought this particular quote was quite telling. They really don't care what these guys and gals believe as long as they SAY the right things. Faith is such a funny thing, isn't it?

Libertus

Posted by: Rameus Feb 17 2005, 06:49 AM
QUOTE (from article)
"We need to be reminded that belief is reflected in behaviour. Those who are weak in doctrine are most vulnerable to temptation. These proposals are not a thinly-disguised means for a disgruntled layman to be vindictive."


I find this statement particularly entertaining. On numerous occasions I have stated and restated this basic anthropological principle that beliefs/ideas translate into actions. Or as this person put it "belief is reflected in behavior." Amazing that they are able to agree with anthropologists when it suits their purpose, and yet when we apply this precept to the violent history of Christianity in an attempt to understand and describe the motivations behind the various atrocities, we are told that those were just bad people. “Religion doesn’t cause violence, people do” as they are fond of telling us.

Obviously belief does not translate into actions... *Waits for the next bus to explode in the holy land.*

Rameus

Posted by: The Acid Washed Messiah Feb 17 2005, 07:10 AM
QUOTE (Complete Fucktard Church Guy)
though one said that they did not propose burning heretics at the stake.


OH! Well... that's all right then.

And I was worried. phew.gif

Posted by: Lokmer Feb 17 2005, 07:36 AM
QUOTE (Reach @ Feb 17 2005, 06:07 AM)
This article, in itself fascinating, caused me to think on the following question. Is it our weakness in doctrine that caused us to stray from the faith (or never to embrace the Christian faith in the first place) or is it the weakness of the doctrines themselves that helped to bring us to where we are today?

For me, the weakness of the doctrines themselves, though I must admit that seeing that there were more liberal people willing to question/reformulate/reinterpret as it was necessary - people who still believed sincerely, and sought God sincerely - seeing people like that encouraged me along the path towards deconversion a bit quicker than I otherwise would have gone. But the weakness and circularness and inadequacy of the doctrines themselves, are what pushed me out from the Cathedral and into the Bazaar LeslieLook.gif

-Lokmer

Posted by: Reach Feb 17 2005, 07:39 AM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Feb 17 2005, 07:36 AM)
But the weakness and circularness and inadequacy of the doctrines themselves, are what pushed me out from the Cathedral and into the Bazaar  LeslieLook.gif

-Lokmer

lmao_99.gif Yeah, I noticed that.

The doctrines simply implode on themselves.

Reach

Posted by: nivek Feb 17 2005, 08:54 AM
Reach,

Reading article, what hit me in face is the layers upon layer of "administranium" and jingoistic bullshit..

"I'm the Boss, don't you forget it!" seems to be the tone from the "Top" there.

Goes a long way to remind daFatman why he doesn't allow robed_whores_of_daGoode_Lard to have any *rule* over him...

n, Freeman by choice

Posted by: EternalDarkness Feb 17 2005, 08:57 AM
And here I was, thinking that another Inquisition wouldn't be possible in this "enlightened" new millenium...

Posted by: Anomalie Feb 17 2005, 09:32 AM
Good point Rameus. It is quite hilarious how ideas are selectively applied when it suits their belief, but then simultaneously rejected when it becomes inconvenient.

I think that they have every right to impose what ever regulation they want inside of the church. If you dont believe what you need to to be part of it then you should not be a member of it. It is a faith/religion not a country club and the requirements for acceptance are that you believe a set of 'facts'.

Posted by: anony~mouse Feb 17 2005, 10:19 AM
QUOTE (Anomalie @ Feb 17 2005, 12:32 PM)
I think that they have every right to impose what ever regulation they want inside of the church. If you dont believe what you need to to be part of it then you should not be a member of it. It is a faith/religion not a country club and the requirements for acceptance are that you believe a set of 'facts'.

I agree. I'm kind of confused as to why people who don't believe in God continue being priests.

Posted by: Madame M Feb 17 2005, 11:15 AM
QUOTE (Anomalie @ Feb 17 2005, 12:32 PM)
I think that they have every right to impose what ever regulation they want inside of the church. If you dont believe what you need to to be part of it then you should not be a member of it. It is a faith/religion not a country club and the requirements for acceptance are that you believe a set of 'facts'.

Precisely!

It is intersesting that so many do not believe in the basic tenents of the faith and yet stay in the faith as their chosen profession. My guess is that the reasons they remain are financial and social. If they spent x amount of years in college preparing for a profession in the faith, then they likely do not know what they would do with themselves after leaving. Socially, if they left, they would leave their social group as well as leaving a position of status within that group. Some people enjoy the feeling of being "in charge" more than they enjoy intellectual integrity.

Posted by: SilentLoner Feb 17 2005, 12:13 PM
QUOTE (EternalDarkness @ Feb 17 2005, 11:57 AM)
And here I was, thinking that another Inquisition wouldn't be possible in this "enlightened" new millenium...

its like they say, history always repeats itself.

Posted by: fortunehooks Feb 17 2005, 01:36 PM
i think some people need to find their way out of the church of england. first, it's just a meeting to confront the opposers of some doctrinal teaching, and then it's the murdering of these opposers, hey, we have recorded history past and present.


Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)