The vicar and his wife

[curiosity]

I've recently found out that our vicar and his wife got together a long time ago whilst both married to other people.

I have no strong feelings on this subject, but I've been thinking about it since I was told. I am not a regular churchgoer, although DH does attend.

I have no wish to offend anyone with this post, and whilst everyone is entitled to their views, I'm mostly interested in how churchgoers view this.

Thanks for your opinions.

bloss i think what I was saying is that ministers are often put on a pedestal and live their lives very much in a goldfish bowl, everyone knows them - rightly so as they should be pillars of the community, and every day they have to deal with other peoples lives, which may uncover a load of baggage that has been hidden or buried away for years and when that comes to the surface it can be dealt with in a number of ways - depending on the personality. Sometimes the wrong person lends the listening ear and takes advantage and because they are human and suseptable to sin the unthinkable happens.

If the person concerned repents of their sin then how does that equate to no longer being able to be in any leadership role within the church?

I'd much rather have a fallible human being - and on ewho knows that he or she is fallible - as my priest than someone who judges themselves to be superior in their moral make-up to the rest of us.

Message withdrawn

I am going to read those passages tomorrow, i not saying they can do anything and it ok but it is more complex than just a situation, these are people not just situations.

maybe 12 months ago i would have been of same opinion but not now.

bloss, I can't answer for longwaytogo but it seems to be to be extreme to bar someone from ministry on the grounds of a very few Bible passages. Taken against the majority of tecahing in the Bible - particularly that about forgiveness, and not judging - they seem quite insginificant to me, not to mention contradictory. People make mistakes. Surely we can be humble enough to forgive them, given our own failings? If God calls someone to ministry who has gone through this type of thing then maybe it is because that person has special gifts to bring in light of their experience.

thankyou nearlythree that is what i trying to say but as usual other people sy it better

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Bloss, I directly reject the notion of carrot-and-stick Christianity anyway. But it does seem to me that punishment (or consequences, if you like) is a very human invention.

The Bible is a tool, no more. Paul (assuming he wrote the epistles attributed to him) was a faillible human being. The men who decided the canon were fallible, and every transaltor since ha sbeen fallible. My version of Timothy says that bishops should be barred, not priests or deacons. So much damage is done to people by taking the Bible (or the bits of it that suit or beliefs) as literal. Surely that was never God's intention?

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

So in that case then does God not call people ever again that have made mistakes as far as relationships go. God used some mighty people who had made huge mistakes in their lives, and they achieved mighty things for the kingdom.

It happened a long time ago. So we don't know what the consequences of his actions were for him.

And if you don't want to ignore St Paul, then you might want to remember that he underwent a fairly drastic change if heart.

It is not our place to judge someone's repentance. I think Jesus made that abundantly clear.

Paul wasn't in a position of Christian leadership when he was persecuting people.

I'm with Bloss wholeheartedly on this one.

The Bible is either true or it isn't - it is God-breathed or not.

Gosh - I not sure what to say except that God and only God can judge people. Only He knows what is in people's heart and only He truly understands people's motives. He is the only one who could truly pass comment on this situation. Curiosity - you don't know what happened between this Vicar and his wife and their ex-partners do you? I think I would need a lot more facts before I started making any judgement on a situation. God and only God understands the condition of someone's heart at any time.

I personally think that this thread has got a bit heated and perhaps a little hurtful. We have lost the focus of the most important thing: God's Love and accpetance for all. Perfect love cast out fear.

Agree with CaptainDippy.

"God and only God understands the condition of someone's heart at any time."

It is not, and never has been, our place to judge. And there is a lot of judgement on this thread.

St Peter denied Jesus whilst one of his chosen disciples, and yet maintained a position of "Christian leadership ".

First, bloss, I should let you know I am ionesmum in case you missed the thread where I outed myself! So no, I am not hurt or offended in the least. In fact I agree with you in a way. I used to be a liberal anglican and you accused me of believing the bits I liked and not those I didn't, and you were right. I think that the only way you can take the Bible is either to believe it absolutely, from the Creation to Revelation, or to accept that a lot of it simply isn't true and try to acertain which parts are and apply that to the rest, knowing we can't rely on any of it. I realised that the Bible cannot be true from an historical pov and therefore can't be relied on, and I've spent a lot of time studying the work of Jesus scholars to pick apart what is largely believed to be historically true and what isn't. So I reject the Virgin Birth, the nativity, probably the Easter story, and most of St. John's Gospel (although they have a lot to teach us in terms of myth illustrating truth.) This has been hard for me as they are things I want very much to believe are literally true. I accept that many will feel this places me outside of Christian belief and have no problem with that - everyone is entitled to believe what they will. My belief is that Jesus would embrace anyone interested in continuing his ministry, and we absolutely cannot judge. Sin is estrangement from God, not breaking a list of rules, and if this man hasod in his heart then he is as fit to serve as anyone.

Thanks BBS!

Message withdrawn

Bloss, you are probably right, there are times when we should rebuke each other. However in this particular case (of which we don't have all the details), there was a tribunal, and given that the man in question is still a vicar, I presume that he WAS judged and still found worthy of leadership. Yes I would feel uncomfortable being ministered to by someone who broke his marriage vows in such a way, however I would still not presume to know the will of God in this matter.
As for inconsistencies in the bible, I am still in the early stages of studying, yet already I have become aware of differences between gospels. However I will say this. I sat on a jury a couple of years ago. One of the principal antagonists in the case apparently wore 9 different coloured shirts, if we are to accept the testimony of all the witnesses. If we had waited (say) 30 years before asking them for details of what happened, probably the name of the pub would change and all sorts of other things! However it doesn't make what happened any less true.

Faith is a gift of God. I believe that if I were to start questioning aspects of the core of my belief in perhaps an historical or logical argument, then who knows where it would lead. I probably wouldn't be a Christian anymore. I am happy to believe without questioning, for example, the Christian beliefs that are in the Nicene creed. There ARE areas of the bible that are open to doubt, and need to be interpreted. I still struggle here. For example, despite what anyone has said to me I still struggle with the instruction by Paul that women be silent in the churches. Put in an historical and cultural context and it is easier to come to terms with. Put in some other references to what Paul said, and you face an apparent contradiction.

This is getting a bit long - I could say a lot more, but I will add this, if everything in the bible was clear cut and everyone believed the same, it would make for a very dull world (although perhaps an easier journey to eternal life!)

Message withdrawn

Mary, I want to be gentle in what I am about to say as you have been a good friend on here, so please don't take this the wrong way. It sounds from your post that you are aware of the historians whose understanding of the life of Jesus and the evolution of the church is very different from what the church teaches. I too used to be like you, I thought I could go on believing in the face of the evidence. I even had books on my shelf that I was too frightened to look at in case my faith was threatened. The problem was that I eventually realised that to be afraid of confronting the doubts that I and others have essentially devalued my faith - it meant that it wasn't strong enough to stand probing. When I finally faced up to my doubts it was soooooooo hard - I admitted to myself that so many things I'd grown up with and loved were (imo) false, and I really felt I was losing my faith. But now I feel liberated and it is like a re-birth, and I am sure that this is only another step on my journey into deeper meaning. I'm still very much in the infancy of discovering what I believe, but in many ways the uncertainty is preferable to believing I had all the answers. And I was really trying to fit square pegs into round holes when I simply followed the liberal Anglican line. My feeling is that one day you will need to confront these issues for yourself. It doesn't mean you lose your faith - you may well end up coming to the same conclusions as Bloss - but simply to ignore them is very difficult IME, particularly given that you are embarking on both studuy and ministry. Remember, you have the Spirit with you, and that never changes.

Bloss, yes, my beliefs have changed. Why do I still bother with the Bible? Because following the teachings of Jesus Christ is the only way to live (although I reject much of what he is supposed to have said as added by others and so maybe you and I would differ on what his teaching is.) Secondly, I have had God in my life for as long a I can remember, and have had some experiences of the Spirit being with me that I know were real.

I really hate to say this but liberal Anglicanism just makes no sense to me any more. I have left the church - not just for theological reasons but also because I think that the church is ultimately self-serving, despite the presence of people like MaryBS - and am struggling to find a 'home', hence my thread on finding an alternative way to be Christian. I guess my beliefs now are closer to Quakers or Unitarians. I no longer see the Trinity as necessary and am still unsure of where I stand on the divinity of Jesus, although I believe he can still be experienced today. I am still a sacramentalist - one of the hardest things is that I no longer receive Communion - and we will hav eds baptised. So, I definitely call myself a Christian _ i just don't have a convenient label any more. I have heard my type of belief called 'radical Christianity' but to refer to myself as 'radical' would make me sound like a total arse, IMO!

Message withdrawn

nearlythree, don't worry, you were very gentle . I knew what I was writing would demonstrate that my beliefs are different from yours, but then I think you knew what I believed and I was aware of how you felt. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't get along, its what makes all this interesting . You respect how I feel, I respect how you feel! There is a difference between respecting how another feels and disagreeing with them.

I hear what you are saying about the historians who tell a different story. I have never been afraid to read a book because of how it might threaten my faith. I've not actively sought them out either. I'm looking forward to interesting discussions with my tutor - I get the impression that he does not believe areas of faith that some (including myself probably) would take 'as read'. He is extremely knowledgeable, both in terms of the bible, and in terms of history as it relates to the bible. You may feel my faith needs challenging (or not, don't want to put words in your mouth!), he probably does feel my faith needs challenging, I feel that by challenging my faith it makes it stronger because I will believe from a position of strength, not necessarily blind faith. Bloss - this is where I think you're coming from.