Login

u/linmanfu

r/superleague r/methodism r/falklandislands r/Anglicanism r/Church_of_England r/Reformed r/learnpython r/rugbyleague r/BirminghamUK
▲ 6 r/methodism

Do Free Methodists have an itinerant ministry/stationing process?

Hi, I am an Anglican but this weekend I've been trying to read up a bit on the Free Methodists. In my country (England) they have been restricted to a couple of counties for a long time, but they have now planted into my county and this week I was invited to a prayer meeting that will be hosted in one of their buildings.

One thing I can't work out is whether they have an itinerant ministry or stationing process in the way that the liberal Methodists (Methodist Church in Britain/UMC) do, i.e. are their ministers likely to be in my county for the long term or not. Unfortunately they have recently nuked their website for a brand new one, so although it's very pretty, my Google searches all lead to dead links. Does anyone here know, please?

reddit.com
u/linmanfu — 10 days ago
▲ 35 r/falklandislands

Falklands get record 7 wins in Commonwealth bowls

Apologies for the Facebook link, but I couldn't find any other summary report.

The Falklands lawn bowling team had their most successful Games with 7 wins. They were very unlucky in that their best hope was in the men's singles, but their first match was against Izzat Dzulkeple, the former world no 1 from Malaysia, who eventually got the silver medal. So that was a tough start.

facebook.com
u/linmanfu — 11 days ago
▲ 3 r/Reformed

Pentecostals Are Wesleyan | Dr. Dale Coulter | It's Elementary Podcast Ep. 34

This is a wide-ranging podcast (also on Spotify, MP3 download, and Apple) about the history of Pentecostalism and its place in wider Protestant theology.

It assumes a bit of background knowledge; if you don't recognize the terms "Azusa Street" or "natural law", then this might not be for you.

But if you're a Reformed person with an interest in church history or systematic theology and time to concentrate, then I think this is worth a listen for three reasons.

Firstly, Pentecostals are the biggest and fastest-growing movement in Protestant Christianity. We need to understand it.

Secondly, my biggest worry about Pentecostal/charismatic Christianity is that it tolerates the false 'prosperity gospel', which deceives people into desiring wealth, not God. Dr Coulter is a Pentecostal, but wants to distance himself from prosperity preachers, who he views as a separate movement. That's a distinction that many Reformed people miss, and one I'd want my Pentecostal family members to see.

Thirdly, he argues that the MAGA preachers who laud the current US administration are the grandchildren of Reformed theology (in particular Westminster Seminary). That's going to be controversial around here, but I think it's helpful to listen to someone from outside our tradition critique us.

We're eavesdropping on a Pentecostal talking to two Methodists, so they have some Wesleyan assumptions that we're not going to agree with (e.g. Christian perfectionism). But Dr Coulter went to RTS and did postgrad work alongside Reformed Anglicans, so he's constantly cross-referencing to Reformed views and you'll hear a lot of familiar names.

youtu.be
u/linmanfu — 15 days ago
▲ 27 r/falklandislands

Changes to the rules (31/7/2026)

There is an update to rule 1, a new rule 6, and a change to the enforcement of rule 7.

Sovereignty discussion only in flaired threads

This community is mainly for discussion of the Falklands and their culture. It is very important to us that islanders feel safe here. That means that don't we want every thread to be overwhelmed by the same old discussions about British sovereignty, which in practice is settled and secure. So normally, that is off-topic here. This was previously stated only in the banner, which many members never see, but that is now explicit in the sidebar rules.

However, the sad reality is that the Falklands usually hit the headlines because Argentine nationalists are restating their claim or even making life difficult for islanders. There might also be Redditors with genuine questions about why the islands are British. So, as an experiment, rule 6 allows discussions of sovereignty in threads with the right flair. The usual rules requiring the use of English, kindness, and respect still apply and will be enforced.

We will see how this goes. Rule 6 may be withdrawn at any time and threads will be locked if they get too heated.

User flairs

Rule 7 requires all users to select a user flair. We have not been enforcing this in recent months as one of the active mods had not got a flair, so it would have been hypocritical. However, that mod is no longer active, so from now on we will be enforcing rule 7. Posts and comments from users without a user flair are very likely to be deleted.

reddit.com
u/linmanfu — 19 days ago
▲ 2 r/learnpython

How normal or dangerous is it for Pixi to apparently download a very large number of dependencies?

Context (to avoid the XY problem)

I'm thinking about running this tool written in Python, which merges mods for a computer game. It just does two things: copying lots of files from several local directories into one (merging them as necessary) and then creating a configuration text file, based on data in existing configuration files. I'm trying to decide if it's safe to run on my Kubuntu (Linux) system. The Python script looks fine, but I'm worried about the package manager.

Actual Python question

The instructions say to use the Pixi package manager, which seems to download Python dependencies from a repository called (Ana?)conda. But it seems to want to download a very large number of packages, including security-sensitive packages like OpenSSL and Certificate Authorities. That looks worrying for a tool that just merges directories and configures a text file. Is that normal in the Python world? Is Pixi going to interfere with the default Python setup that's used by many Linux utilities?

Previous research

I tried reading the Pixi documentation, but it (understandably) assumes you're a developer already familiar with Python, not a user. The top third-party tutorial on Google explains Pixi by comparisons to earlier Python and Javascript tools, which is no help to me. I don't want to learn half a dozen Python tools, but I would like to check that this Python software is not obvious malware.

reddit.com
u/linmanfu — 26 days ago
▲ 21 r/Church_of_England+1 crossposts

How Parliament saved the Church of England from itself: the abandonment of the governance reforms

The General Synod is currently meeting and on Saturday morning there was a debate on something very unusual: Parliament vetoed a proposed church law approved by the Synod. And it wasn't a minor law; it would have radically reformed the C of E's central structures. Synod thought this was important enough to hold a post-mortem debate, but it's hardly been mentioned on Reddit. It's a complex story, and I'll sacrifice some details for brevity, but I think it reveals some truths about the situation the C of E is in.

The Archbishops' Council and what's wrong with it

At the moment, the key body in the C of E's national bureaucracy is the Archbishops' Council (AC):

  • The 2 Archbishops
  • 1 member appointed by the government
  • 10 elected by the Synod
  • 6 appointed by the Archbishops with Synod approval.

The AC is a charity that employs some of the national staff, but not all of them. There are more departments outside the AC than under it. Decisions involving the historic assets (e.g. each budget line funded from the historic investments, or merging parishes) must often be signed off twice, by both the AC and the Church Commissioners (a separate body representing the wider public).

In 2019, Synod asked a Governance Review Group to review this set-up, which produced the Baines Report. It compared the arrangements to Charity Commission guidance and Harvard Business Review recommendations. It found two big problems. One was the complexity, which made it too easy to avoid taking difficult decisions by passing the buck. The other was that the AC was not diverse enough. It wasn't clear what this meant, though it noted that Synod was not "socially, racially or demographically diverse".

The reform plan

The core proposal was to merge the AC and three of the other institutions into a new charity, Church of England National Services (CENS). It would work much more like a 'normal' charity, with a single set of trustees controlling everything from social media to safeguarding. They would be:

  • The 2 Archbishops
  • an independent Chair
  • 6 elected by Synod
  • 6 other independent trustees.

The 'independent' trustees would be appointed by a Nominations Committee, which would be able to choose a more diverse body. The Church Commissioners would keep the historic investments and pay bishops' salaries, but otherwise they'd write a single cheque to CENS. The trustees would have the power to decide how to spend the money and what to do with the other assets (e.g. selling a cathedral).

In 2023-25 the Synod debated turning these proposals into a new law, the National Church Governance Measure (NCGM). The debates noted another problem that Baines omitted: that the AC often struggles to take difficult decisions because the Council members disagree (vigorously!) on the best option. And while there was a lot of debate about social diversity, it also became clear that diversity also meant finding trustees with more diverse skill sets (perhaps fewer clergy and more executives?). There were changes along the way: Synod gave itself a committee to scrutinize CENS, but gave up the power to approve CENS' budget. The final Synod vote was almost unanimously in favour.

Parliament acts

But important C of E laws also need to be approved by Parliament's Ecclesiastical Committee, so last November, they invited a delegation from the C of E to answer their questions. The hearing was a car crash. The C of E witnesses seemed to think that this would be a routine formality (as it normally is). The Committee had only just seen the NCGM, but thought there was no way they'd approve it. They didn't understand why CENS would have so much power, especially to give itself new tasks, and to initiate changes to its own constitution ("a killer", according to the Committee chair). And they didn't understand why CENS had responsibility for safeguarding when the long-term plan is to create an independent safeguarding authority for the C of E. The C of E explained that would be sorted out later, which went down very badly. After further discussions in January, the Committee told the Synod it would veto the NCGM if they persisted.

So today, the Synod was told that while some of the problems were misunderstandings or could be addressed by revisions, sorting out safeguarding is going to take years. Pushing on with the NCGM until that was done would be picking a fight with Parliament, which was not a good idea (hint: they have a veto, you will lose). The NCGM is dead.

What went wrong?

Lots of people worked hard to get the reform right, so how did it end up going so wrong? In Saturday's debate, many of the Church hierarchy seemed to think that basically the Ecclesiastical Committee just didn't understand the proposals. Watching the November hearing confirms there was a lot of confusion, perhaps exacerbated by last-minute lobbying behind the scenes. But I think that lack of understanding arose because Church House and the Houses of Parliament had fundamentally different assumptions about two aspects of the proposals.

Independent safeguarding didn't help us here

Firstly, politicians and the general public have totally lost trust in the C of E's ability to handle safeguarding. We need to fix our safeguarding, but we also need to get it right. Actually, the fact that the NCGM was ready for Parliament before the safeguarding reforms isn't entirely the Church's fault. The Church was waiting for a review of the lessons from the awful Smyth case, but the independent reviewer took 5 years to write it. We set up an Independent Safeguarding Board, but it never functioned because its trustees couldn't agree on a strategy. So safeguarding reform was stalled for years, because the independent bodies underperformed and the only lever to pull was shutting them down. Regardless of the specifics of those situations (and they were asked to do very difficult jobs), it shows the risks of handing over safeguarding to 'independent' bodies that have money and power, but aren't accountable to anyone else for it.

The church isn't just a charity, it's a society

Secondly, the Baines proposals were based on the idea that CENS should be as close as possible to a 'normal' charity or business, with all-powerful trustees. But the politicians looked at it like they would look at a government body in a democratic society, and I think that is an equally important analysis that should have been applied earlier. If the AC is having heated debates about difficult decisions, that's because the C of E in general does not agree on the way forward. It's not a sign of failure; it's how democracy works! And it's proof that the AC is theologically diverse, which is the one kind of diversity that the Synod excels at. We should improve other aspects of diversity without giving that up.

And I worry that the NCGM nearly did. I was very surprised that the Synod debates did not focus more on the fact that they were giving up control of the C of E bureaucracy forever. If Synod doesn't like what the AC does, they can change it, because they elect most of its members. But most of the first batch of 'independent' CENS trustees were to be chosen only by the present Archbishops. After that, most of the trustees would have been chosen by the Nominations Committee, which would have been chosen by... the trustees. So it was likely that CENS would have borne the stamp of Archbishops Sarah and Stephen forever. That might be right for a normal charity: if you donate to the Leonard Cheshire Homes, you'd expect it to stick to Leonard Cheshire's vision. If you don't like it, don't donate. But the Church of England is the Church by law established, and it hopes that one day the whole nation will be members. Its budget and buildings shouldn't be controlled by a perpetual oligarchy, like the unelected councils of the 18th century. Synod needs to be able to sack (or at least, not re-elect) the leadership, not just scrutinize them.

That's why, in my opinion, Parliament has once again saved the Church of England from itself. It can be difficult to justify Parliamentary involvement in theory, but in practice they seem to keep getting the big calls right!

u/linmanfu — 1 month ago
▲ 15 r/superleague

Australia and New Zealand demoted to Tier 2 in Wheelchair Rugby League

Press release:

>The International Rugby League Board has agreed to reclassify Australia and New Zealand from Tier 1 to Tier 2 nations ahead of IRL Wheelchair Rugby League World Cup 2026.

>The move recognises that the wheelchair game in Australia and New Zealand is at different stages of development compared to England and France, and is aimed at improving the strength of other nations.

>England and France have won every Wheelchair World Cup - 2008 (England), 2013 (France), 2017 (France), 2021 (England). Only the 2008 final was contested by Australia; the rest have all featured England and France.

>The two nations have also dominated the IRL World Rankings in either first or second place since inception, with all other nations moving up and down.

>The change also recognises the geographical isolation of Australia and New Zealand, compared to other wheelchair nations, who are based in Europe – with the exception of the United States.

>Previously, players who had played for Australia, England, France or New Zealand were unable to play for any of the other Tier 1 nations. However, they could play for a Tier 2 or Tier 3 nation provided they were eligible.

>The changes make it easier for players to represent a nation for which they qualify through birth or if a parent or grandparent was born in that country. Players continue to be prohibited from representing more than one country in a calendar year and may only make one change between Tier 2/Tier 3 nations in a four-year period.

>Example: A player has played for England but has relocated to Australia and would like to represent their new country of residence after being resident for five years. Previously they could not play for Australia after having already played for England.

Comment:

The only player I can think of who'd be covered by this rule change is Halifax player, England vice-captain, and inaugural Golden Boot winner Jack Brown. He lived and played in Queensland for five years. He was joint top scorer at the last RLWC, so it's a huge coup if Australia have got him to defect at this stage.

But he's currently resident in England so I'm not certain even he could use it. And it's an odd time to announce it; someone who moved now wouldn't even be eligible for the next but one World Cup if they stick to the four-year cycle (which isn't guaranteed now that they're splitting the events).

P.S. I bothered to write this just so I could title it "Australia relegated to Tier 2 for World Cup in response to Jack Brown move", but the sub rules don't allow it 😭.

internationalrugbyleague.com
u/linmanfu — 3 months ago
▲ 5 r/BirminghamUK

Hi! I'm visiting Birmingham tomorrow and I'm planning to have lunch in Chinatown after doing the Back to Backs tour. I'd then like to sit down and digest/snooze/people-watch somewhere in a park, canalside or similar after a morning on my feet. Any suggestions closer than Sunset Park, please? Just somewhere with a park bench or two.

reddit.com
u/linmanfu — 4 months ago