Celinda's point is very strong.... there have been double standards in the church. Even on this blog, there are still people who want to argue against certain sins being called sins - regardless of what the bible says....   We need integrity in the church if we really want unity. ..... we have disunity today because of decades of blind eyes being turned and the undermining of scripture being tolerated.  What has been sowed by previous generations, we are now reaping.  

I hope people don't think that a canon about clothing (not massively supported by scripture as I know of no reference that the Lord or his apostles wore any fine or unusual garments) is of the same importance of canons which are supported by scripture and relate to doctrine. It is a very weak argument indeed to suggest that the vicar in jeans cannot object to a vicar in a dog collar who is teaching it is just fine to enjoy behaviour incompatible with scripture (whether that is theft or any other sin)

Laurence -  I agree with you re the value of action resulting from faith...... evangelicals and liberals and muslims and buddhists and atheists in England are out helping the homeless and others........ but whatever good deeds any of us may do, Christians never have license to sin or tell others that it is fine to sin.... that would be misleading re the teaching of the Lord who showed grace and said "go and sin no more" and his apostles:

1 John 1: 5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 

We have all sinned... but justifying our sins is not part of the Christian gospel....repentance is.

Toby,

Quite so. Indeed, one could also argue what "normally" means in regard to wearing alb/surplice, or that every service has some exceptional reason for a non-approved form of service - and why not. Much like Newman interpreting the 39 Articles ("the Romish doctrine of purgatory is a fond thing vainly invented... so any other doctrine of purgatory is fine") one can always get around these - but in truth I suspect pretty much all of us would reasonably have to accept that we/our churches don't abide by the rules of the church (thankfully, in many cases).

That's no problem - but it does mean that we're in no place to try and use the rulebook to enforce discipline on others - throwing of the first stone, motes in eyes, etc..

Stuart

'A man (sic) may say he believe in the resurrection, but he is free to define resurrection any way he sees fit. '

Just like the writers who ended up in the NT then.  Whatever next !

Personal religion perhaps...

The canons of the C of E are not 'a solid rule book' they follow the curent practice of the Church. They reflect it. That's all.  Pretty irrelevant, like so much else of churchy clutter.

Nothing to get too worked up about.

Nothing can stop you doing some kingdom stuff yourself (Doing good by stealth or however the spirit leads you) or you and some others setting up some kind of kingdom project in your neck of the woods.(A night shelter for people without a home perhaps)....

Now this would be worth getting a bit worked up about though far from sexy in fulcrum terms.

The spirit bloweth where it listeth spells death to 'solid rule books' of all kinds - anyone for a game of mornington crescent ?*

*Apols to Humph (Littlton)

Hi Stuart

Yes, the canons and disciplines of the church are applied selectively and have been (by all wings) for a long time.

But a question on the ones you cite: what does it mean to wear clothes that are 'a sign and mark' of the ordained minister's 'holy calling'? I don't think this need refer to clerical clothing. Someone I know had an effective ministry as a nightclub chaplain. Wasn't a mark of his calling that he dress like other clubbers dressed?

Toby

Thank you David, a very helpful post.

To Nersen's point, the Canons are certainly applied selectively.

"Every minister shall use only the forms of service authorized by this Canon" - I've been to many 'home made' services which have not complied with this instruction. "The apparel of a bishop, priest, or deacon shall be suitable to his office; and, save for purposes of recreation and other justifiable reasons, shall be such as to be a sign and mark of his holy calling" - I know many clergy who wear non-clerical clothing other than for the purposes of recreation. "At Morning and Evening Prayer on Sundays the minister shall normally wear a surplice or alb with scarf or stole" - again, there's no shortage of churches where the minister does not normally wear a surplice or alb.

I suspect a problem may be that so many of the Canons are largely ignored that it becomes hard to use the rest as a solid rule book.

The doctrinal boundaries are so loosely drawn that it has become virtually impossible to fall outside of them.  The Creeds have become mere words to which any meaning may be attached.  They no longer have defined content to which men must give assent.  A man may say he believe in the resurrection, but he is free to define resurrection any way he sees fit.  A man may say he believes in God, but he is free to substitute any Theology proper he may invent.  If a functional atheist like Spong is secure, who can possibly be at risk?  But how can it be otherwise when a cardinal principle of liberal religion is that binding transcendent norms do not exist - at least none that may be known with sufficiency.

carl