Some Church of England clergy and their families are living in crumbling and decrepit vicarages that are unsafe and environmentally unfriendly, according to trade union officials.
Unite, the country’s largest union that represents about 2,500 faith workers, is calling on the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu, to “practise what they preach” in terms of the carbon footprint left by hundreds of parsonages.
Unite want the Archbishops to revamp more than 6,000 vicarages and rectories that the union claims fail to meet modern environmental and safety standards.
It is interesting to note how this endless pursuit of politically correct righteousness leads to this climate of “biting and devouring one another.” Their eyes every fixed upon the alleged misdeeds of others — particularly those they are predisposed to dislike anyway — snip, snip, bite, bite, 100 percent Pharisee all the time. Well, it’s what passes for religious devotion when you don’t have one.
Albany+ writes: “…this climate of “biting and devouring one another.†Their eyes every fixed upon the alleged misdeeds of others—particularly those they are predisposed to dislike anyway—snip, snip, bite, bite, 100 percent Pharisee all the time.”
Some can make a mountain out of a mole hill.
It’s a tad obvious that the reasserters do as much or more snip-snipping and bite-biting” as those whom they smugly presume to be less religiously devoted. Just witness Albany’s comment.
In all sincerity, Albany’s comment fairly well describes the approach of a great many of the conservatives who align themselves with GAFCON … and yet they claim to have a true religion to which they devote themselves. So from that point of view … having a “genuine” religious devotion changes not the snip-snipping, bite-biting.
Comments per that of Albany+ are a bit like the pot of cast iron calling the kettle black.
I just read the original article, and I think both of the above comments make little to no sense in relation to the item reported. For example,[blockquote]One cleric, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Times that he believed his diocese was trying to force him out by leaving him, his wife and four children in a crumbling Edwardian rectory with scaffolding outside, and asbestos, newts and frogs inside the house.[/blockquote]This sounds like a straight maintenance problem, multiplied nationwide. Perhaps they thought the line about carbon emissions might be a way to get the church authorities to actually pay attention.
Katherine, of course, is quite right. As for smug, perhaps “First Family Virginian” might focus on their posting name.
[b]Wikapedia:
First Families of Virginia (FFV) originated with colonists from England who primarily settled at Jamestown and along the James River and other navigable waters in the Colony of Virginia during the 17th century. As there was a propensity to marry within their narrow social scope for many generations, many descendants bear surnames which became common in the growing colony.
The terminology “FFV” is also used to refer to the “Order of the First Families of Virginia”, a hereditary society composed of individuals who have proved their descent from one of the original Virginia colonists. [ [/b]
Thanks for explaining that one, Albany+. I had wondered. Of course, in spite of blog sniping, #2 may be charming in person. I assume he is. The label, however, reminds me of the inbred society I met in a small city in Georgia. In spite of being, myself, descended from a family which arrived in New England ten years after the Mayflower and whose name is on the map in the region, I carry a Central European married surname. Many “Old Georgia” families didn’t want anything to do with anybody whose grandmother theirs didn’t know. FFV presumably has chosen the moniker for convenience, however, so let’s not judge by the name.
Not to pick on the South: I also met an inbred insular society in a small Midwestern city. It has to do with being from one place and not leaving. This has great benefits for one’s sense of belonging, but it can restrict one’s vision.
You are right, again, Katherine, and indeed I ought not to judge at all — quite a lot of which I’ve done on this thread. My apology to FFV. Let’s move on.