- Scotsman.com News

enhanced by

Sunday, 29th November 2009

The article has been unable to display.

Bookmark:

Del.icio.us Post this story to Del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

StumbleUpon Post this story to stumbleupon

alfonsa pedrosa,

embra 14/11/2009 12:03:45

Stupidity at its church best,the Rev is happy where he is so why should he have to live in a manse,he still makes his work on time.

Report Unsuitable

bill inch,

EDINBURGH 14/11/2009 12:37:21

Top Story
Druids wife rejects sects cave.

Report Unsuitable

Fifi la Bonbon,

14/11/2009 12:57:34

What a stupid situation. the Church of Scotland is closing care homes and yet the Holy Willies and Jacks-in-office are wasting time and money because he and his wife choose to stay in a nicer house than the big place they've been told to live in. Is there any group of people more pompous and irrelevant than those set in authority to run religious organisations? There is an opportunity to sell off what is probably a property worth the better part of a million pounds, but the clodhoppers in charge would rather persecute a man and his wife and force them to live somewhere they'd rather not. A two hour trial with sixty nine people turning out on a Friday night to debate this ridiculous proposition! I know they're other worldly but that's not the same as living in another world from the rest of us.

I'm not a churchy kind of person but even I can see a mob of hypocrites and pharisees when they're lumbering down the road. Was Obadiah Slope anywhere to be seen last night?

Report Unsuitable

LUVMACITY,

IN THE LOBBY 14/11/2009 13:18:17

God bless the Rev.

Report Unsuitable

Fifi la Bonbon,

14/11/2009 13:31:36

I've been thinking more about this thing last night - the two hour trial with sixty nine people turning out on a Friday night to debate forcing a man and his wife to quit their family home and move into a place they moved out of because they couldn't live there happily as a family.

Sixty four Edinburgh worthies voted to do this.

Imagine what it must have felt like to have "won" such a vote.

Visualise the smile of satisfaction on their faces as they savoured their victory.

It is a crime against art and science that there weren't photographers to record and preserve the expressions on those sixty four faces.

Report Unsuitable

Pen Fold,

Here 14/11/2009 13:55:23

yet another example of showing compassion & understanding.

thankfully we have a church in the modern day that practice what they preach.

to hell with you all!

Report Unsuitable

Fifi la Bonbon,

14/11/2009 14:06:32

Well, as a result of the votes of those sixty four Christian worthies we face the prospect of a reverend gentleman being dismissed from office at Christmas for the crime of sticking up for his family and home.

No point is asking how they can live with themselves. They obviously can. They will have clapped each other on the back in savouring their victory, cast up a quick prayer to God and the baby Jesus, looked scornfully at the five back-sliders who dared to defy our Holy Father's laws and vote for the reverend gentlemen to keep his job and home, and headed off back to their sixty four homes.

One or two may have made a phone call to Obadiah, waiting patiently for word as to whether his prospects have been advanced. But that's another story.

Report Unsuitable

JT,

14/11/2009 14:57:31

What is so wrong with a family living in a their own home? I have been in a couple of manse's and they tend to be drafty and damp. Time for the church to get a reality check and be more concerned about getting bums on pews rather than where the minister lives. Its not as if he is living outside the area! Get a grip CoS!

Report Unsuitable

tumshie heid,

14/11/2009 15:52:24

Church bampots strike again. The rev will be better off out of the churches evil twisted grasp.
He will no doubt be an educated man who can earn much more in the real world .

Report Unsuitable

Bucket Heid,

Edinburgh 14/11/2009 17:51:24

Jesus told us to spread the gospel, feed His sheep, heal the sick and a few other easily understood things. How could a church sink so low as to waste resources on such stupidity? What do you think you look like?

I apologise as a Christian for examples like this of men's idiocity.

I am also sorry for being judgemental.

Report Unsuitable

The Penicuik Doctor,

penicuik 14/11/2009 19:34:36

As support for the Rev.regarding the occupying of a manse and I have faced up to the '121' mandarins. The rules of engagement are clear - the ministers voted some 100 years ago that a manse should be the residence of a parish minister and have 7 rooms - for the visiting minister. When asked to quantify these 'visiting ministers' the silence was deafening. CoS, come on, let ministers buy their own residence, pay the tax to Customs and Excise (or at least allow congregations to choose) and sell the manses - and do something with the capital - feed the hungry and clothe the poor. Where would Jesus stand in this debate?? Go to the world and preach and heal the sick - do NOT spent time fighting over MAN made rules.

Report Unsuitable

keit011,

14/11/2009 21:10:53

this must keep the bishops awake at night there's no way he will be able to sleep with this on his mind.other poor homeless people battered women and children who could use this as a refuge remember when you hand over money for collections exactly where they are going 8 bedroom houses in the braids not bad

Report Unsuitable

watever,

somewhere 15/11/2009 16:17:46

here here to the above, you took the words out of my mouth, Anyway why do 2 people need and 8 bedroom house,
even if they do have vistors,you go Rev and good luck

Report Unsuitable

Alex MacDonald,

Inverness 18/11/2009 17:58:02

I'll take a divergent view. Ministers allegedly have a vocation. They're on duty 24/7 in a specified location. He's minister of a specific defined area and living in the specified accommodation is part of his contract. If he doesn't like the contract, he shouldn't have accepted the contract. It's not as if the terms were new -- they've been there for centuries.

A minister is not an employee in the normal sense of the term -- he's an office-holder.

It's open to him to campaign to change the terms under which he holds his "office" -- but it's not legitimate for him to disregard those terms while they're in force.

Surely we should expect a minister, of all people, to honour the terms of the contract that he undertook when he was inducted to his charge?

Report Unsuitable