• Advert – Canon Missioner

    There’s a post advertised in the Church Times this week that it seems appropriate to highlight here too. We’re advertising for a new Canon Missioner for the diocese. This person will have a liturgical base in St Mary’s so as well as going out and about in the diocese, will be taking part in things here too. The primary task is to support the bishop in his role as leader of mission in the diocese. One of the things that the person will be working on is connecting the cathedral and the rest of the diocese together.

    It is quite an exciting job opportunity. Details will be in the Church Times for three weeks and the closing date is the end of the month.

    Here’s the advert:

    Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway

    Canon Missioner

    A full time, three year, clergy appointment is required for the Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway in the Scottish Episcopal Church, line managed by the Diocesan Bishop, reporting to Diocesan Council and the Bishop’s Staff Group.

    The principal duties will be to support the Diocesan Bishop’s role as leader of mission and be responsible for organising education, training and development for those in licensed and authorised ministry in the Diocese. You will give oversight for Continuing Ministry Development and Ministry Development Review. In the tasks necessary for numerical growth you will motivate clergy and others to identify and encourage mission and growth opportunities with the congregations of the Diocese as they develop their Mission Action Planning. You will have regular liturgical involvement with St. Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow.

    An application pack giving full details is available from: The Office Manager, Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway, 5 St. Vincent Place Glasgow
    Tel: 0141 221 5720 or by Email: to office@glasgow.anglican.org

    Completed application forms including a CV, are invited by 31st January 2015

7 responses to “Revised Commenting Policy”

  1. Darren Moore Avatar
    Darren Moore

    I try to stick to the policy, whilst commenting on it.

    Most of it pretty understandable/standard. But,
    1.using Scripture as a weapon/quoting isolated verses. To a point I agree, but surely as well as the whole has to be understood as part of the whole, the whole is made us by parts. People misuse the Bible by taking a verse out of context, but they can easily be shown up. Otherwise we can’t use the Bible at all, other than saying – read all of it – there’s something that relates to what I’m saying.

    2. How does the disclaimer square with not being able to comment on PSA? Is that a given (i.e. that it’s nonsense)? Are other opinions banned? Like Roman Catholic views. Even if (highly unlikely) it’s a minority view, are other historically minority views banned (charismatics, baptists) and non-Christians and all liberals – as there views are pretty minority.

    3. Likening gay people to murderers. Unpleasant I agree. Although if (if I may quote a verse – but not to prove a point), this a reference to the 2nd 1/2 of Romans 1, the list includes people who disobey parents and the greedy. Presumably they’re still fair game?

    Just not sure this quite stacks. It’s why people ask, “What are you afraid of?” when it comes to PSA?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Darren – thank you for your interest. However. the question is not whether you think this commenting policy quite stacks but whether I do.

  2. John Sandeman Avatar
    John Sandeman

    Kelvin,
    When reading about theories of the atonement, there is a real risk of continually reading things that have been said many times over – as you point out. But can I credit you with something reasonably original? “We’ve already established that like most Christian people I don’t believe in it.” I have never worked out how to determine the proportions of Christians who believe the various atonement theories. Is there some research out there?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Thanks John – I’m not aware of any research though I’d be interested in any there was. When I wrote that, I was thinking not simply of who believes what now but also of Christians through time. The history of these various ways of understanding the (or an) atonement is fairly well attested and it is clear that some have risen and fallen through time.

      My presumption is that most of the people in the great blocks of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches (both now and through history) don’t believe in penal substitution – or at least, don’t believe it in the same way that a classical evangelical might believe in it as doctrine which must be personally accepted in order to lead to individual salvation. However, as you rightly point out, who believes what may not be so simple.

  3. Darren Moore Avatar
    Darren Moore

    There are a few bits of research on this, but mostly from the context of PSA
    E.g. Chapter 5 of “Pierced for our Transgressions”, by Jeffery, Ovey & Sach (IVP), which is a quite survey of theologians, east & west, a dozen of which are pre-reformation, starting with Justin Martyr.

    Henri Blocher, “Biblical Metaphors of the atonement”, in the journal of the evangelical theological society, 47 (2004), pp629-645
    “The divine substitution: The atonement in the Bible and history” by Shaw & Edwards (Day One).

    I get the your blog, your rules. Just doesn’t sound like decent is welcome.

    1. Darren Moore Avatar
      Darren Moore

      Bit of a PS,
      Robert Letham’s, “Through Western eyes”
      Looks at the differences & common ground with E-orthodoxy on lots of things, including salvation. Letham (Reformed), thinks there’s lots to get from the East re:-Trinity in worship, incarnational stuff, divination (rightly understood), but still holds that his “Reformed”

    2. Kelvin Avatar

      Well, Darren, I’ve found that there are quite a number of people who do want to meet and chat without the Atonement Thought Police stepping in to correct them all the time. In fact, though I expect you’ll be surprised to hear it, to those who don’t believe that particular doctrine, comments rather like your own can appear to be quite aggressive and verging on bullying.

      So, you may not feel welcome to behave exactly as you like here. You are not. And there’s a comminity of folk who like it that way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Sermon preached on 4 July 2010

    I’d like to talk this morning about rivers. In the first reading today, which we listened to in two parts, we heard the story of Naaman the mighty warrior being brought down to earth by being made to wallow in the river Jordan, even though he knew that his local rivers were much better than…

  • What am I reading?

    Oh, thank you for asking. I’m not reading any fiction right now, but as is my wont during such seasons, I’m reading plays instead. This time its Angels in America. This was probably prompted by having watched the mini-series again recently in all its splendidness. I’ve a little theology on the go too. I’m taking…

  • Back from Solas

    I’m back from spending the afternoon at the Solas Festival, which seemed to be going very well. Akma and I travelled down together and ended up there in glorious sunshine which could not have been kinder to the festival goers. I was down to do a question and answer session after a film. (Usual topic).…