Waterway Chaplains

[carlt]

 

 

Just for background, the Church of England is the only church (denomination) that is set up to minister to all of the people in a given area, rather than its members.

 

The god stuff then.

 

Many charities, groups and individuals provide all the other stuff as well regardless of the person in need's origins and it seems a bit churlish to claim exclusivity for anything other than offering CofE ministry.

[Peter Reed]

Quite right Carl, may the universe bless you.

[mrsmelly]

 

The god stuff then.

 

Many charities, groups and individuals provide all the other stuff as well regardless of the person in need's origins and it seems a bit churlish to claim exclusivity for anything other than offering CofE ministry.

 

 

My dear old mother often says " That was a Good Christian thing to do " I have great respect for mum but have to on occasion remind her that religion has nowt to do with it. If someone does good religion need play no part, good is after all good.

 

Tim

[carlt]

I would add that, from what I've seen and heard, they do a great job (like many church led charities and groups) it's just the "exclusivity" bit that irks.

[mrsmelly]

I would add that, from what I've seen and heard, they do a great job (like many church led charities and groups) it's just the "exclusivity" bit that irks.

 

And Gospel music is bloomin fab.

 

Tim

[Mike Todd]

I would add that, from what I've seen and heard, they do a great job (like many church led charities and groups) it's just the "exclusivity" bit that irks.

The whole point of the bit that I quoted was to state exactly the opposite - whatever Dawkins might say.

 

 

The god stuff then.

 

Many charities, groups and individuals provide all the other stuff as well regardless of the person in need's origins and it seems a bit churlish to claim exclusivity for anything other than offering CofE ministry.

Minister is not principally about 'God-stuff'. I'd go further than stating publicly available facts but I think that religious (or even anti-religious! - but you'd have to infer that from the rules . . .) comment is not supposed to happen here!

 

I also accept that what an organisations says it doe,s or is for, may well not always be evident from some of its members' behaviour. You do not have to look very far from this post . . .

[carlt]

I also accept that what an organisations says it doe,s or is for, may well not always be evident from some of its members' behaviour....

 

Religious organisations being pretty much the best examples going.

 

I don't want to be drawn into a religious debate but I stand by what I said.

 

Apart from the god stuff there is nothing that the Waterways chaplaincy does that is exclusive and it is churlish to suggest otherwise.

 

I am not the one putting down that or any other organisation, by the way, you are...as I said they appear to do good things but they are not the only ones doing it.

Edited November 8, 2016 by carlt

[Sir Nibble]

I would applaud anyone who helps others regardless of their motivation. If Christianity manifests itself in a manner that is true to it's founding principles for a change then all to the good.

[carlt]

I would applaud anyone who helps others regardless of their motivation. If Christianity manifests itself in a manner that is true to it's founding principles for a change then all to the good.

I agree.

[Murflynn]

 

The god stuff then.

 

Many charities, groups and individuals provide all the other stuff as well regardless of the person in need's origins and it seems a bit churlish to claim exclusivity for anything other than offering CofE ministry.

....................... you certainly know how to arouse the self-righteous

[carlt]

....................... you certainly know how to arouse the self-righteous

 

and yet in my own clumsy way I was applauding the work of the Chaplaincy, just criticising those who would claim exclusivity.

[Mike Todd]

 

and yet in my own clumsy way I was applauding the work of the Chaplaincy, just criticising those who would claim exclusivity.

I don't think anyone was 'claiming exclusivity' - which would imply a right to deny others the opportunity to participate. What I certainly did say is that as far as I am aware, this is the only organisation dedicated to the welfare of boaters, especially those in difficulty. Of course they are not the only sources of help. I am sure that the lead Chaplain would be grateful of any additional input and would be highly delighted if society were so arranged that there were no people living on or near the canals in desperate straits, either financially, emotionally, health or spiritually. But I guess that is not something on today's agenda . . .

[carlt]

I don't think anyone was 'claiming exclusivity' - .....as far as I am aware, this is the only organisation...

 

You just did...again.

[Bod]

 

You just did...again.

Bit selective,

 

Bod

[Mike Todd]

 

You just did...again.

It may be a small point but you still misunderstand: I am not saying that the Waterways Chaplains are the only organisation allowed (or claiming) to provide support (exclusivity) but I am saying, unless and until someone gives a case to contradict (which has not yet happened), that they are the only (ie exclusively - not exclusivity) organisation whose founding purpose is to provide care for canal users, boaters included, especially those living at the margins of society. I would be highly delighted if you can cite a counter example.

 

However, a lot of the difficult cases that from time to time are discussed here and elsewhere show just how little support there is for those canal users who find themselves in need.

 

I could bang on about it . . . . my current concern(and recent events including today) show how self-focussed our society and its decision making has become. It seems that the only criterion used to judge specific policies is 'what is in it for me'. If it does not yield 'me' a net gain then 'I' am agin it. Sadly, most canal users who are in need are not members of other societies who are in a position to lobby for policies in their benefit. Hence, if anyone suggests spending public money in this area, then too few people see it as being in their interests and so oppose it (a marked change from opposing only those things that are especially against my interests) The reaction to CaRT's decision to appoint a single Welfare Officer for the whole network was hardly overwhemingly supportive.

[Murflynn]

time to accept defeat and agree that the sky fairy is the only person able and willing to help unfortunate boaters.

 

 

 

nobody else counts when faced with his almighty powers.

[carlt]

It may be a small point but you still misunderstand: I am not saying that the Waterways Chaplains are the only organisation allowed (or claiming) to provide support (exclusivity) but I am saying, unless and until someone gives a case to contradict (which has not yet happened), that they are the only (ie exclusively - not exclusivity) organisation whose founding purpose is to provide care for canal users, boaters included, especially those living at the margins of society. I would be highly delighted if you can cite a counter example.

 

Keep embellishing and clarifying what you mean and we may eventually agree over this non-argument.

 

I'm sure the NBTA would give a good case though perhaps it could be argued that this organisation was set up for the benefit of boaters only but I am convinced that they would not turn anyone away.

 

As I said I am not critical of the organisation and I imagine that the chaplains would be far too modest to make any trumped up claims as to their uniqueness.

 

 

Bit selective,

 

Bod

It's the only bit I'm critical of...Why would I be any less selective?

[Mike Todd]

 

Keep embellishing and clarifying what you mean and we may eventually agree over this non-argument.

 

I'm sure the NBTA would give a good case though perhaps it could be argued that this organisation was set up for the benefit of boaters only but I am convinced that they would not turn anyone away.

 

As I said I am not critical of the organisation and I imagine that the chaplains would be far too modest to make any trumped up claims as to their uniqueness.

 

 

 

From the NBTA web site:

 

The NBTA seeks to represent the interests of all live aboard boat dwellers – “Bargee Travellers” – in respect of

• pursuing the lifestyle
• upholding minority demographic rights
• lobbying at both central government and local government levels
• defending the legal rights of members
• assisting (as far as possible) with marine emergencies and
• engagement with the local community

As far as I can see that does not include a principal aim of dealing with pastoral matters for anyone using the canal. I am unclear whether, in practice, it aims to act on behalf of its members. But I don't want to overstate my case.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Met the one that covers Birmingham last year. Was a very pleasant man. Never tried pushing religion at all, just a general chat about boating.

 

 

The one on the Stratford is a great guy and if it wasnt for his ID badge you wouldn't know who he was and whats more he carries a windlass.

I think they are one and the same person - Rev Richard Alford - a United Reform Church minister and Waterways Chaplain who covers a large area of the Midlands.

 

Carrying a windlass and helping with a lock is his way of starting a conversation. Nice bloke with a interesting life history.

 

 

 

 

[carlt]

As far as I can see that does not include a principal aim of dealing with pastoral matters for anyone using the canal. I am unclear whether, in practice, it aims to act on behalf of its members. But I don't want to overstate my case.

As "pastoral matters" are, by definition, only dealt with by priests (and teachers) I am forced to concede that point.

 

So...you acknowledge that, apart from the god stuff, including "pastoral matters"( that aren't offered by philanthropic teachers), there is nothing exclusive about Waterways Chaplains?

 

...or are you going to claim nobody else wears the same uniform?

Edited November 10, 2016 by carlt

[Mike Todd]

As "pastoral matters" are, by definition, only dealt with by priests (and teachers) I am forced to concede that point.

 

So...you acknowledge that, apart from the god stuff, including "pastoral matters"( that aren't offered by philanthropic teachers), there is nothing exclusive about Waterways Chaplains?

 

...or are you going to claim nobody else wears the same uniform?

The term 'pastoral' is not specific to religious activities. Most (all?) schools now have pastoral care systems in place, and use that term.

 

In general the term is about giving advice and help concerning personal matters (very wide in scope!)

[carlt]

The term 'pastoral' is not specific to religious activities. Most (all?) schools now have pastoral care systems in place, and use that term.

 

In general the term is about giving advice and help concerning personal matters (very wide in scope!)

 

The term "pastoral" is specific to priests (and teachers)...as I have said.

 

Advice and help concerning personal matters is not the exclusive preserve of priests (or teachers) and it is churlish to suggest otherwise...as I have said.

 

Your post basically repeats what I have said about priests (and teachers) so I assume you agree with me.

[Murflynn]

 

The term "pastoral" is specific to priests (and teachers)...as I have said.

 

 

oh, I don't know though ..................... maybe there are shepherds and border collies who wouldn't agree.

 

I suppose the use in the 'advice and care' context actually derived from shepherding.

[Sir Nibble]

Is this worth arguing over? I cannot accept the notion that this organisation is the only one entirely concerned with care for boaters because it is not such an organisation. It's a sub division of an organisation with far wider aims. I am sure the chaplains themselves would agree that their main job is their ministry and waterways are just their current posting.

This is as good a time as any to mention that I am in favour of discussion of politics but not religion, purely because one side of that debate is by its nature irrational.

[carlt]

Is this worth arguing over?

I've already said it was a non-argument.

 

As someone who lived and boated in Northamptonshire though (specifically the "Towcester Bible Belt") I would add that I and my friends have been offered care of a religious, pastoral and practical nature by The Jesus Army on many occasions but never a Waterways Chaplain.

This is as good a time as any to mention that I am in favour of discussion of politics but not religion, purely because one side of that debate is by its nature irrational.

 

In light of yesterday's election result perhaps you should now add "politics" to your taboo list...

Edited November 10, 2016 by carlt