The new book
Advertisement Feature
2011 Calendar
Church Times blog
The last book
The first book
See the:
See my blog posts about:
Do a search
Archives
5 popular cartoons
5 good blog posts
5 rubbish ones
Links
Sites I like
This is an experimental section of links using del.icio.us: (removed as the script keeps on stopping the page)
What am I doing here?
The Cartoon Blog
The not- quite- daily internet column of Dave Walker. Dave is a freelance cartoonist who also writes and draws for the Church Times. (more)
(What is this orange thing?)
Follow me on:
Recent Comments Grouped by Post
The Last 10 Comments
Especially like the "thistles"!...
...Things you can do
Recent Posts
Subscribe
Other sundries
You can add this cartoon to your blog, subject to one or two very basic conditions. To do so, either save the cartoon and upload it to your own webspace, or simply copy and past the code below:
<img src="http://www.weblogcartoons.com/cb/breakup.gif" alt="cartoon from www.weblogcartoons.com" />
<p>Cartoon by <a href="http://www.cartoonchurch.com/blog/">Dave Walker</a>. Find more cartoons you can freely re-use on your blog at <a href="http://www.weblogcartoons.com/">We Blog Cartoons</a>.</p>
This is a single Cartoon Blog entry, posted by Dave
on Monday, July 10th, 2006 at 10:17 am.
If you enjoyed this post you might also enjoy these (possibly)
related articles:
Know someone else who might enjoy this post? Click here to send this to a friend.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
The technologically advanced may like to trackback from another site, follow responses to this post via the RSS 2.0 feed, or bookmark this post on del.icio.us or digg.
But Dave, it’s not to benefit anyone – it’s to ensure that the pure remain pure.
Paul
Oh dear, I don’t think you’ve ever made me want to cry before Dave. Horribly, horribly true 
That’s a rather good way of explaining it, actually. Thanks Dave!
It is funny how Scripture (Romans 1 or 1 Cor 6)are looked at in the same category as “ropes for the bells”, “microphone for the pulpit”, “cushions for the stalls” or “numbers for the hymn boards”.
I think that it could be for the best. Its not really a united body at the best of times. Religious bodies dissolving intoits constituent parts can help it to stay fresh and grow. One thing I do know is that the bickering won’t stop.
I think that this cartoon crosses over from “art” to “Art”, because it expresses the sadness and silliness of current goings-on far better than any amount of sermons or column inches. Thank you.
It is a good cartoon, Dave, and it makes me both laugh & cry; but surely there are some disagreements that are so important that continued unity is impossible? There is a prayer in the Anglican liturgy which speaks of being “united in your (God’s) truth”. Where one side feels, after much searching of Scriptures, prayer and discussion that this is not the case “break up” may have to happen even if it looks as if nobody will benefit.
What silliness isthere with regard to Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6? I don’t consider what those passages say as being silly.
Dave, I’m afraid you are trivializing something that is too serious for that kind of treatment. What the church is facing is a division over heresy – the revisionists having pushed too far and the Biblically faithful unable to concede to their dictates without abandoning the Faith, the Truth, God’s Truth.
Rather than abandon God’s Truth, some of us are forced to accept the reality that there is can be no unity of light with darkness and the only possible outcome is separation.
There is absolutely nothing silly about Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6. That is God’s Word, and if it is revised according to man’s cultural and political whims, then those accepting the revision have already left our Shepherd’s fold.
Does this ‘trivializing’ mean that Dave is part of the ‘darkness’ too? Is there a dimmer switch? Is it only a case of light or dark? I take it you, Judah, consider yourself to be part of the ‘light’. Are you all the way in the ‘light’, or is it just most of you? How much of a person needs to be in the ‘darkness’ before it is wrong for those in the ‘light’ to have unity with them? Is there a device for measuring their ‘light/dark’ ratio. Who sets the cut-off point? Are you on this committee? Does me asking these questions mean that I’m in the ‘dark’? Can you enlighten me?
Lots of very, very serious subjects can benefit from dissection by a skilled satirist, it helps us to look at them from a slightly different angle. Dave is quite skilled at this and I think has been successful in helping us look at the prospect of ’schism’ in a slightly different way, with gentle humour and obvious respect to all ’sides’ equally. I do not see the cartoon in any way commenting on the reasons behind any threatened schism and so cannot be said to be trivializing them. But then, it seems I’m shrouded in darkness bumping into walls and coffee tables and things, so what do I know?
augustus meriwether, I am one who believes in the conservative/traditional exegesis of Scripture and that sexual intimacy is intended to take place within a monogamous marriage, not outside of t.
I also believe that we are all sinners and only by the grace of God can we be imputed with the righteousness of Christ through our faith in Him. Christ called us to repent of sin and to follow Him. Our love for our lord and saviour is demonstrated in our obedience to Him.
Although none of us are perfect, those who would accept Holy Orders are required to be above reproach (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1:6).
Those who believe a traditional exegesis of Scripture is the only valid interpretation are actually being pushed out of the Church which insists on placing liberal theological ideas over and above the written Word of God. As the first person to comment here said, it is about ensuring that what is pure remains pure. There is a point where conservative Christians can no longer accept the revisionist views being passed off as what God meant when they themselves read in Scripture something else.
The fact is that a forthcoming split is horribly real, and indeed, as can be seen from latest events in ECUSA is already underway. It is not about “ropes for the bells”, “microphone for the pulpit”, “cushions for the stalls” or “numbers for the hymn boards”, but about something heartbreakingly more serious. It is about the authority of Scripture, about the nature of sin, and about valid apostolic succession as well.
You can look at this from all kinds of angles but it still comes back to a binary choice where no middle ground exists. I understand that even ++Rowan made this clear in an address recently. For an interesting comment on the disappearance of this middle ground, see Dr Albert Mohler’s article here.
I am very appreciative of all Dave’s qualities that you mention above – or I would not be visiting his site so often and linking to it from my own. I do not enjoy the fact the Church is breaking up. My faith has me cast my lot with the conservatives who cannot accept revisionist liberal theology as God’s Truth. That is where I stand. I have commented further to Dave’s next cartoon.
Dave, even on the odd occasion when I don’t agree with the idea expressed by one of your cartoons, I would not want you to do anything differently anyway. I still appreciate the points you are making regardless, and value the manner in which you make them.
Luckily for us the Church of England cannot split… because it is established. You can’t have 2 conflicting laws, you can’t have 2 established churches in the same geographical space.
The Church cannot split it people can only leave….
I’m staying! Anyone want to join me????
But you were talking about ‘light’ and ‘dark’. I want to know your answers to my questions about your ‘light’ and other’s ‘dark.
I’m still in the dark about the ‘darkness’ you speak of. Is it all ‘liberals’, or just lots of liberals? I need to know exactly who is in the dark, because what if I am kneeling next to someone taking communion and they are in the dark and I shouldn’t be in ‘unity’ with them? How do I tell? Can I catch darkness? Can it endanger my soul if I share communion with a ‘darky’?
You use ‘light’ and ‘dark’ to make your point that you should be seperated from those in ‘darkness’. I think it is important when criticizing someone elses efforts, especially publically, that you should make your own terms very clear, and be able to account very precisely for your terms. It seems ‘light’ and ‘dark’ were central to your points, yet you seem reluctant to tell me what exactly you mean by ‘light’ and ‘dark’ and how you apply them to other real people who profess faith in Christ.
Judah, sometimes something is so serious that a cartoon or even a joke is needed to put it into perspective.
People think they have good reasons for calling for a split, but like any divorce it ends up with the kids getting hurt and the resources being shared so each has less.
Dave’s cartoon made that point very well.
So much better if we can learn to live together and not call those we disagree with ‘heretics’.
It isn’t myself calling people heretics but God’s Word in light of the above mentioned. Also, the Apostle Paul wasn’t afraid to call people “heretics” or “false prophets” when referencing those “who preach another Gospel than the one preached to you beforehand.” It is beyond disagreement when sin is condoned as not being sin in light of AGAIN Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6.
I have always said that if Jesus andthe adulterer were around today people would accuse Jesus of being “intolerant” or “exclusive” because He told her “go and sin no more”.
To accuse such as being “intolerant” or “exclusive” inlight of the Scripture on this seems no different.
My conservative/tradition position is shared by a large proportion of the Anglican Communion who believe that the written Word of God is not to be revised according to current postmodern secular and political ideas. The great sadness is that the cost is too great for compromise between conservative/traditional and liberal/progressive positions. There is no “middle ground” left. These issues are already debated back and forth on forums elsewhere. There seems no point in arguing here as well. I doubt that I will convince you, nor you will convince me – which is simply representative of the impasse that exists within the Church.
It is for each of us to prayerfully examine our own beliefs, testing them against Scripture and the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and following whatever convictions arise from doing so. That way your questions will best be answered.
It is not I who judges others, but the Word of God – as dh has commented before me.
John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
John 14: 15 [Jesus said] “If you love me, you will obey what I command… 21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.”… 23 Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
And a warning for all:
Jude 1: 17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” 19 These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.
Having said that, we are all sinners and all of us “see through a glass darkly” at present. There is an impasse, but it is important to continue to love one another according to Christ’s commandment. I must state the truth as I see it, just as you must do also, each of us appealing to the wisdom and teaching of the Holy Spirit to lead us according to His Will and strengthening us in obedience to our Lord and Saviour.
This is already more of a comment than I had intended to make in the first place.
I’m still with augustus here. I’m very confused about those in the ‘light’ and those in the ‘dark’. Surely we’re all in the ‘dark’, since we aren’t all perfect. Surely God is the only one in the light, as he is perfect. However, on the other hand, we are all surely in the light as Jesus is with us all and he loves us all. So since Jesus is the light of the world that keeps everyone in the light.
Isn’t classing people as in the ‘dark’ and having people in the ‘light’ avoiding those in the ‘dark’, maybe just in case it’s contagious, just as bad as segregation and apartheid? Avoiding people because they’re ‘different’ because we think we’re better than them? Doesn’t the bible teach us that we are all equal? Not one of us is ‘more equal’ than another, so how can we judge each other as if we are? Can’t we just accept each other? The church is against racism, so why should it be for separation between ‘light’ and ‘dark’?
(apologies if I offended anyone/ got the complete wrong end of the stick. This post was written with completely good intentions!)
In the 5th century St Augustine was faced with Christians in Africa who wanted to cut themselves off from others who didn’t come up their doctrinal standards. He argued that schism is worse than heresy because schism is about abandoning the commandment to love one another as Christ has loved us.
It does not neeed more than a superfical reading of the Gospels to see that it was the enemies of Christ, the Pharisees, who put the letter of scripture ahead of the love and compassion that Jesus demonstrated.
I think that the Anglican church is most like Jesus when it is open and inclusive and allows the Spirit to guide individuals and communities towards the truth.
People may think that what Dave has drawn trivialises the current situation, but fundamentally, this is exactly what will happen, and what is already happening in parts of the US. The reality of the split will come down to property, pensions, and really stupid things like Dave has drawn if it is congregations splitting up, essentially it will be just like any other divorce.
Why do you think that there is an argument in some of the US diocese over who is the ‘real’ Episcopal Church? Because whoever is the real Episcopal Church gets to keep the big things like the buildings, as they are the property of the diocese and the others leave and have to start again from scratch. Also take note how everybody who is pushing is pushing to throw somebody else out, very few talk about leaving themselves.
I know what Judah means, and I know that those who don’t are unlikely to come around. I think focussing on the light and dark theme is nit-picking. The point is that some believe and rely on the gospel of Christ, and the Word of God, and others don’t. Those who don’t can be said to be in darkness (even if it is only temporarily), because they have not accepted Christ. This is not a judgement on anyone in particular, because only God sees the heart – and only He will judge (when all is said and done). This is not a schism over doctrine – as in the case of Agustus’ Africans. I passionately dislike dogmatism, and I agree that is better to be bound together in the spirit of unity, whilst being as diverse in our opinions as the rainbow is in colours. But this issue goes beyond doctrine: it is a case of accepting or rejecting the gospel of Christ – or at least the argument underlying it is.
Having said that, I think Richard’s point is a very good one with regard to the real and important message of the cartoons. Furthermore I think that those of the conservative/traditional/evangelical wing would do well to leave the anglican communion or push for disestablishment, even though they make up the majority of practicing anglicans. To be honest, I don’t think there’s much of a future for the anglican church, and there’s not an eternity either. There will be no anglican church in heaven – just saints. Let others keep the very-hard-to-maintain buildings if they want them: they will hinder, not help, the spread of the gospel. Leave behind the hymn books, the number boards, the roods, the organs, the bells, the ropes, the pulpits, the liturgy and the crumbling rooves of the lovely monuments some people call churches. Most of these things are irrelevant to our times and all of them are irrelevant to the eternal kingdom/family to which those who believe in Christ belong.
I’m not a christian, but I am interested in religion (as it still is a big part of the world, especially with fundamentalism on the increase all over the place). Some Christians (say they) believe everything in the bible. Others believe parts of the bible.
Those who believe parts: How do you decide which parts to believe? Is it just the parts about Jesus? Or do you not believe in some of the miracles either?
Those who believe all the bible, surely they have to be against homosexual vicars? As it does appear to say that in the bible…
(The most confusing part for me is how can this text be considered to be completely right?)
I often spend time grappling with ethical issues, so it seems alien to have a book tell me what is right/wrong. I rely on the morality built inside me (from upbringing and evolving as a social animal). What are the ‘liberal’ Christians among you basing your decisions on; if you’re saying that homosexuality isn’t wrong? Surely if you’re still basing them on the Bible, that implies a contradiction in the Bible?
Please explain!
– from a confused agnostic. (PS I believe that gay and straight should be treated equally in society, but as I’m not part of the church I can’t really say what you should do, with your very different belief system).
