Wednesday, 17 June 2015

Ministry à la Carte

" Clergy do not have the option of treating the teachings of the church as an à la carte menu and only modelling those with which they personally agree."

Please tick all of the 39 Articles that you feel apply. 

1. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.
2.Of Christ the Son of God.
3.Of his going down into Hell.
4. Of his Resurrection.
5.Of the Holy Ghost.
6.Of the Sufficiency of the Scriptures.
7.Of the Old Testament.
8.Of the Three Creeds.
9.Of Original or Birth-sin.
10.Of Free-Will.
11.Of Justification.
12.Of Good Works.
13.Of Works before Justification.
14.Of Works of Supererogation.
15.Of Christ alone without Sin.
16.Of Sin after Baptism.
17.Of Predestination and Election.
18.Of obtaining Salvation by Christ.
19.Of the Church.
20.Of the Authority of the Church.
21.Of the Authority of General Councils.
22.Of Purgatory.
23.Of Ministering in the Congregation.
24.Of speaking in the Congregation.
25.Of the Sacraments.
26.Of the Unworthiness of Ministers.
27.Of Baptism.
28.Of the Lord's Supper.
29.Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ.
30.Of both kinds.
31.Of Christ's one Oblation.
32.Of the Marriage of Priests.
33.Of Excommunicate Persons.
34.Of the Traditions of the Church.
35.Of the Homilies.
36.Of Consecrating of Ministers.
37.Of Civil Magistrates.
38.Of Christian men's Goods.
39.Of a Christian man's Oath. The Ratification.


  1. I'm a bit confused by Bishop Inwood's choice of words. I thought that the beauty of the CofE was it's 'pick and mix' approach to faith. That's what has kept the church going for 450 years or more, without folding or kow towing to Rome.

    And given that Clergy come from the great unwashed of the people, why should they be treated any differently from a member of the people, who is able to contract a same sex marriage without any bother or worry about bishop interfering in what they do at home in their bedrooms.

    And given that it's in the Anglican tradition to ignore the rules while authority turns a blind eye to such transgressions, how come Jeremy (and others) are being scape goated now? It goes so much against Anglican tradition of live and let live that it's almost 'Orthodox' in taste and touch.

    Obviously, Nottingham is a hot bed of reactionary, retired bishops, who've forgotten what they're there for. To do nothing gracefully.

    1. I'd go and check what the bishop said. Although he was pushed into a very silly thing to say, it's not the things he was said to have said.

      This post was actually planned in response to the Guardian's news article on Tuesday, and the C of E's rather odd statement. The Church of England, it seems to me, has always been A La Carte in order to keep Puritans and Laudians together. Now it is being A La Carte with which pieces are A La Carte.

  2. I'll have the set meal for three please.

  3. I notice from today's Guardian that a gentleman who is in a three-way relationship with two other gentlemen is making an appeal for "polyamorous" arrangements to be accorded the same legal protections and benefits as marriages.

    1. Don't believe this would ever be allowed.

      Morality can be discussed. But the tax ramifications of 3+ people in a marriage could be disastrous.

  4. Judging by the correspondence columns of the \Daily Telegraph and its ilk, the world is full of people who still can't believe that civil partnerships were allowed, let alone SSM.

    After all, where do you draw the line, now? It's going to be like one of those parlour games, you know: I went to the shop and I bought apples. Second person: I went to the shop and I bought apples and bananas. Third person: I went to the shop and I bought apples, bananas and cherries. And so on though the alphabet. Similarly, "marriage is between one man and one woman." "No,marriage is between one man and one woman and between one man and one man." "No, marriage is between one man and one woman, one man and one man, and one woman and one woman." "No, marriage is....?"


Drop a thoughtful pebble in the comments bowl