Musician's church bans music

[SweetPea]

I've never attended an Alpha course. Can anyone tell me if they teach Futurism, Preterism or Historicism.

[Robbie]

My understandng is that the course is adapted to the church in which it takes place (tho' whilst researching courses within easy reach of me I did see one advertised that was held in a coffee shop!). I'd imagine Catholic Alpha would have a futurist & preterist emphasis, could be wrong.
It's fairly basic/ fundamentals of Christianity teaching.

PS -see Dave M & Anchor have said on previous page it is adapted to suit host church.

(I am tempted to join one next month but need to be sure I have the right motives.)

[Robbie]

I have no dog in this fight, but it all seems a bit weird to me.

Firstly, why would you do this? Here is an opportunity to get people into your church so you can spread your message. Not only that, but they'll pay you for the privilege.

Not only that but bringing people in from another parish seems really odd, like a corporate takeover. What's wrong with the existing congregation?

I'd think a few nearby churches get together and produce one Alpha course between them.

I thought the course was free. No doubt a contribution is requested towards the dinner, a little box on the table for example so people can give discreetly (or not give), but no-one who can't pay will be turned away surely? Maybe those who can afford it support the course financially so that the less well off can still attend.

Later - Alpha course is free to all.
A contribution is requested towards the food. I suppose there are books on sale and there's a weekend away at the end which costs but not everyone goes.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd think a few nearby churches get together and produce one Alpha course between them.

I thought the course was free. No doubt a contribution is requested towards the dinner, a little box on the table for example so people can give discreetly (or not give), but no-one who can't pay will be turned away surely? Maybe those who can afford it support the course financially so that the less well off can still attend.

Later - Alpha course is free to all.
A contribution is requested towards the food. I suppose there are books on sale and there's a weekend away at the end which costs but not everyone goes.

Jeremyp was talking about the topic of the banning of the music concerts.

[Robbie]

 :-[That's what comes of having a cursory look back to see if I've missed anything! 
Still at least now no-one will wonder if an Alpha course will cost them much.

(Susan, if you are still logged in I would love to read your blog on Alpha, couldn't find it.)

[Rhiannon]

I have no dog in this fight, but it all seems a bit weird to me.

Firstly, why would you do this? Here is an opportunity to get people into your church so you can spread your message. Not only that, but they'll pay you for the privilege.

Not only that but bringing people in from another parish seems really odd, like a corporate takeover. What's wrong with the existing congregation?

Corporate takeover is about it. There's the belief in their rightness of course, but also HTB/Alpha are incredibly powerful.

[DaveM]

Corporate takeover is about it. There's the belief in their rightness of course, but also HTB/Alpha are incredibly powerful.

I must be missing something here, perhaps because I am following things from too much of a distance.  But my understanding is that the initial involvement of HTB was a consequence of a strategy of 'church planting' initiated by the Diocese of London and that the decision to involve HTB as the Church of choice to implement this policy was that of the then Bishop of London.  As such I do not understand how HTB could be accused of a corporate takeover.  Surely the Bishop would have known only too well that strategy adopted by HTB in their invited new outreach would be a mirror image of the successful (at least in their view) approach of their home church? 

So rather than a corporate takeover by HTB this looks much more like them merely implementing only too successfully the mandate given them by the Bishop (C of E).  So why did the Bishop select a church, already mired, in the view of many in so many controversial practices, as his choice for the task?   

[Rhiannon]

I must be missing something here, perhaps because I am following things from too much of a distance.  But my understanding is that the initial involvement of HTB was a consequence of a strategy of 'church planting' initiated by the Diocese of London and that the decision to involve HTB as the Church of choice to implement this policy was that of the then Bishop of London.  As such I do not understand how HTB could be accused of a corporate takeover.  Surely the Bishop would have known only too well that strategy adopted by HTB in their invited new outreach would be a mirror image of the successful (at least in their view) approach of their home church? 

So rather than a corporate takeover by HTB this looks much more like them merely implementing only too successfully the mandate given them by the Bishop (C of E).  So why did the Bishop select a church, already mired, in the view of many in so many controversial practices, as his choice for the task?   

Money, power and influence. Chartres felt that it was worth pissing off existing congregations because HTB is good at growing congregations. The fact that it also appeals to the vulnerable doesn't matter because it relieves part of the financial headache the Church faces. And HTB has the ear of Welby and others. Evangelicals are the largest wing of the church and they want to see Anglo-Catholicism die.

Chartres is a hypocrite btw.

[DaveM]

Money, power and influence. Chartres felt that it was worth pissing off existing congregations because HTB is good at growing congregations. The fact that it also appeals to the vulnerable doesn't matter because it relieves part of the financial headache the Church faces. And HTB has the ear of Welby and others. Evangelicals are the largest wing of the church and they want to see Anglo-Catholicism die.

Chartres is a hypocrite btw.

OK. So a corporate takeover initiated by the Bishop of London with the support of the Ab of C using HTB as the battering ram and, if necessary the cannon fodder if things get too hot. All aimed at returning the Church to it Biblical foundations.

For what it is worth my perspective on the C of E from this distance is that in its present state it is neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. If developments like this assist in accelerating the process of the eventual split of the church into its component parts (and  hopefully disestablishment) it will have served a useful purpose.

[Rhiannon]

Where I agree with you is that schism is long overdue, not just in the CofE but the Anglican Communion as a whole. Won't happen though, or not until the Communion is on its knees. If it splits it loses power and influence. Canterbury likes its power.

[ProfessorDavey]

Money, power and influence. Chartres felt that it was worth pissing off existing congregations because HTB is good at growing congregations. The fact that it also appeals to the vulnerable doesn't matter because it relieves part of the financial headache the Church faces. And HTB has the ear of Welby and others. Evangelicals are the largest wing of the church and they want to see Anglo-Catholicism die.

Chartres is a hypocrite btw.

Back on topic - some of the communication I've been receiving about the ban on music has implied that the current vacancy as Bishop of London, since Chartres retired earlier this year, has played a part. Effectively that a power vacuum at the top has enabled the evangelicals to make a move that otherwise would have been much more difficult.

No idea whether this is the case, but many involved in the campaign are also intimately involved in CofE high politics so may be well placed to know.

[Rhiannon]

And rumour has it Gunbel himself is a candidate. Gordon Brown did something to make this appalljngly possible.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/the-slow-strange-race-to-be-the-next-bishop-of-london/

[Anchorman]

And rumour has it Gunbel himself is a candidate. Gordon Brown did something to make this appalljngly possible.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/the-slow-strange-race-to-be-the-next-bishop-of-london/

What does Brown, a rather liberal CofS member, have to do with the selection of an evangelical member of the CofE?
As far as I'm aware, he is not even a representative elder in his local presbytery!

[Rhiannon]

What does Brown, a rather liberal CofS member, have to do with the selection of an evangelical member of the CofE?
As far as I'm aware, he is not even a representative elder in his local presbytery!

He changed the selection process for bishops when he was PM so that the PM no longer has a say, even though it was a process that had worked well. I think he thought it would make it more democratic. It didn't. Just the opposite.

[Anchorman]

He changed the selection process for bishops when he was PM so that the PM no longer has a say, even though it was a process that had worked well. I think he thought it would make it more democratic. It didn't. Just the opposite.

I'm no fan of Gordie "where's the vow?" Broon, but I see his logic.
Why should a member of another denomination have any right to choose a leader of the CofE?
After all, the Kirk, in a landmark case, admitted that no-one who is a member of another denomination can be a full member of the CofS.
This excludes the monarch from influencing or interfering in the Kirk, and limits her role to purely ceremonial, when she or her representatives attend the General Assembly and speak, allowing the commissioners to have a ten minute kip.
No-one, of course, is excluded from worship, or partaking of communion (as long as the Kirk Session know of any issue regarding membership of another denomination)

[SteveH]

And rumour has it Gumbel himself is a candidate. Gordon Brown did something to make this appalljngly possible.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/the-slow-strange-race-to-be-the-next-bishop-of-london/

Heaven preserve us from Gumboil.

[SusanDoris]

And rumour has it Gunbel himself is a candidate. Gordon Brown did something to make this appalljngly possible.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/the-slow-strange-race-to-be-the-next-bishop-of-london/

What a ghastly thought - Gumbel in a more influential position than whatever he has at present.  I'd like to have a large group of atheists with the task of asking rational questions on every Alpha course.

I have not been following this thread at all, but just dropped in on this page in an idle moment.

[SusanDoris]

Heaven preserve us from Gumboil.

No heaven to do the preserving, so we'll have to rely on the BHA and NSS!!-

[Shaker]

What a ghastly thought - Gumbel in a more influential position than whatever he has at present.  I'd like to have a large group of atheists with the task of asking rational questions on every Alpha course.

I've posted this before - it's hugely lengthy and a lot to read, but quite brilliant. Enjoy: http://tinyurl.com/ybox9vx4

[DaveM]

He changed the selection process for bishops when he was PM so that the PM no longer has a say, even though it was a process that had worked well. I think he thought it would make it more democratic. It didn't. Just the opposite.

Here is an interesting scenario should the selection process revert.  Sadiq Kahn returns to national politics, is elected next Labour leader and wins the next general election.  (And he might well make a better PM than some of the present potential hopefuls). We now have an adherent to Islam, who makes no pretense at even being a nominal Christian, having an important influence over who become the spiritual leaders of the largest (??) Christian denomination in the UK.  All very democratic and logical. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What a ghastly thought - Gumbel in a more influential position than whatever he has at present.  I'd like to have a large group of atheists with the task of asking rational questions on every Alpha course.

I'm sure Stalin would have applauded your desire to commissar the church.

[ProfessorDavey]

Here is an interesting scenario should the selection process revert.  Sadiq Kahn returns to national politics, is elected next Labour leader and wins the next general election.  (And he might well make a better PM than some of the present potential hopefuls). We now have an adherent to Islam, who makes no pretense at even being a nominal Christian, having an important influence over who become the spiritual leaders of the largest (??) Christian denomination in the UK.  All very democratic and logical. 

Yes this is, of course, non-sense.

But the problem goes further than that. While the CofE is the established church and 26 Bishops have an automatic seat in the Lords then the appointment of a Bishop is, in many cases, also the appointment of a new peer. It doesn't seem unreasonable therefore that there is some official process involving the Prime Minister, which is the case for the appointment of all other peers.

Of course the most sensible way to resolve this is to remove the automatic right of Bishops to also be members of the Lords - that would decouple the appointment of a Bishop (which would be an internal matter for the CofE) and the potential appointment  of a Bishop to the Lords, which would follow the normal procedure for Peers.

[Gordon]

Here is an interesting scenario should the selection process revert.  Sadiq Kahn returns to national politics, is elected next Labour leader and wins the next general election.  (And he might well make a better PM than some of the present potential hopefuls). We now have an adherent to Islam, who makes no pretense at even being a nominal Christian, having an important influence over who become the spiritual leaders of the largest (??) Christian denomination in the UK.  All very democratic and logical. 

Which highlights the anachronistic nonsense of the CofE having the privilege of having some reserved seats in the UK political governance process and having elected politicians exerting influence over the CofE via their political office (as opposed to being a CofE member on a personal basis). The only solution is to remove this special status so that the CofE functions politically on the same basis as any other religious organisation, by lobbying or seeking election.

While we're at it we should revise political governance so as to remove the unelected from political office by removing the HoL (whether they are are replaced, and if so in what form, is another matter), and we should dispose of the monarchy at the same time.   

[Anchorman]

Wot Gordon said...
And I'd add that the insane Act of Settlrment which ensures that the monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic is symptomatic of a moribund, chocolate box of a farce which is no democracy by any logical, civilised standards.

[Robbie]

I can't see Mr Gumboil becoming Bishop of London even if,theoretically, he can be appointed. Isn't it usual for someone to be a bishop already before taking on such a senior office? He's hardly stepped out of HTB.

Imagine his grinning face......