Subject: 
             Moore college graduates…
Robin L. Harwood wrote:
> The minister whose name I cannot recollect was a former prominent
> lecturer at Moore College yet he had changed his views after
> being in this parish 
It’s very naughty of me to lift this observation out of a
larger/interesting post, but I can’t resist it…
I’ve now been the speaker at about 10 or so Anglican diocesan clergy
conferences: the last at Bendigo last week.
Recent graduates of Moore College are usually very suspicious of new
ideas. At the Armidale clergy conference they huddled in the back of the
group whispering and thumbing through their Bibles all the time, to the
annoyance or amusement of the others…
My observation is, however, that a few years down the track they’re out
of ministry or they’ve mellowed…
— 
      Subject: 
             Re: Any Aussie churches actually worth attending?????
Gordon Coleman wrote:
<>
> Chris, I grant you that many of your criticisms are valid.  And you’re
> right to hate mediocrity and compromise.  
Just a thought: my mediocrity may be your excellence (or, more likely,
vice versa!). Sometimes the critique of anothers’ ‘mediocrity’ is a
cover for proudful elitism… However, pursuing excellence (s’long as
our excellences differ, ‘cos our gifts/talents differ) is excellent!
Put me down as pursuing compromise often – even on certain doctrines (as
well as, say, in conflictual situations)…
Now I’ll climb down off my soapbox 🙂
— 
Shalom!  Rowland Croucher                     ()
      Subject: 
             Re: Why I / Do Not /Support Fred Nile!
 (You can read Michael’s excellent post alongside this)…
I was once spokesperson for the FoL in Victoria, and resigned.
Occasion: an ABC TV discussion re legalization of brothels. In the
middle of the thing the Prostitutes’ Collective rep turned to me and
said ‘You Christians hate us, don’t you? Not just our lifestyle – but
us! We don’t feel loved by you!’
When we attack a lifestyle and the persons engaging in that lifestyle do
not feel loved, we are acting more like the pharisees than Jesus. Simple
as that.
Oh, but ‘we hate the sin but love the sinner’. Really? Then show it, as
James says, by your works. As I wrote in my article ‘Homosexuality: an
Interview with Jesus’ (it’s on our website) if Fred Nile were to sponsor
a ministry, say, to AIDs victims, I would support his stand on all
this…
There’ll be more 🙂
— 
Shalom!  Rowland Croucher                     ()
Subject: 
             Re: Why I Support Fred Nile!
Danny Yee wrote:
> Is every crossed piece of wood a Cross?  If two twigs fall across each
> other in a forest with no one to see, do they constitute a Cross?
Maybe for someone who is preoccupied with the (Christian) Cross as a
symbol of the most important historical/redemptive event for them –
_yes_.
> Or is the Cross an abstraction and a symbol?  I don’t think attacks
> on abstract symbols, on what are essentially ideas, can be compared to
> physical violence.
Depends on your understanding of the power of associations. I’ve met
people for whom an attack, say, on their national flag, or a key symbol
of their religious faith, was _worse_ for them than a physical attack.
> 
> (To see that the objections to Piss Christ were purely symbolic, consider
> that the identical same work could have been shown with a different
> title and aroused no concern at all.)
> 
> Danny.
— 
Shalom!  Rowland Croucher                     ()
      Subject: 
             Re: Closing churches
Jason Stokes wrote:
> 
> In article <>, David Bell
> <> wrote:
> 
> >It is well-known that the Anglicans and the Uniting church are closing “unviable”
churches.
> >Soon most will be closed on that basis.
> >This is so short sighted.
> 
> It seems to be very ‘here-and-now’ sighted, to me.  There are of course
> churches built for huge congregations which now rarely attract a
> handful of people.  Meanwhile backyard Evangelical churches attract
> crowded congregations. Religion is by no means fading, but the
> market-share of traditional Christianity most certainly is.  Closing
> churches is a recognition of the simple fact that a church can’t be
> viable without enough support from the community.  If the community
> goes someplace else, the church must close.  Simple as that.
Not quite as simple as that. I met a pastor in the U.S. whose church had
a membership of 1500 in a rural town population 900, in which there were
half a dozen other ‘viable’ churches…
You have to factor into this two other variables:
1. The inability of mainline Protestant liberalism to produce spiritual
commitment in most people… and
2. The quality of the pastoral leadership. 
— 
Shalom!  Rowland Croucher                     ()
      Subject: 
             Re: Closing churches
 wrote:
> 
> In article <>,
>   David Bell <> wrote:
> >
> > It is well-known that the Anglicans and the Uniting church are closing
> >”unviable” churches.
> > Soon most will be closed on that basis.
> 
> G’day David,
<>
> Having said that, we ought to be careful (prayerful) before we ever close
> down a Church of Christ’s, Presbytery ought to be *convinced* it is Christ
> who has removed the lampstand and not man.
BTW, there’s a court case going on in Canada where a minister is taking
the United Church of Canada to Court over a Presbytery’s interpretation
of their rules. This presbytery believes it has the power to remove a
minister without notice, and without published reasons, over the wishes
of the local parish, and also has the power to close down parishes
overriding the wishes of the parishioners…
FWIW, I believe the presbytery system in the UCC and UCA has real flaws
at this point…
— 
Shalom!  Rowland Croucher                     ()
Subject: 
             Re: Anglicans in decline…
Nigel B. Mitchell wrote:
> >From my experience though, once someone has left the Anglican church, and joined
> >another, they don’t come back again later.
> 
> I am very surprised that you can make such a statement. I can tell
> you, from ‘within’ the Anglican church, that many people leave to look
> at other Churches and later come back again. I can think of many
> examples amongst my own friends and congregation, and even a couple in
> my own extended family.
Two generalizations: most people who leave then return to the Anglican
church (after a sojourn to other churches rather than to no-church) are
_mostly_ Anglicans-from-childhood. 
Most who sojourn to charismatic/pentecostal churches after a dynamic
spiritual experience of some sort, will return to a mainline church if
they have had a tertiary education.
Like to play around with those?
— 
Shalom!  Rowland Croucher                     ()