|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Evangelical slide into Fundamentalism
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Back in the 1970s, the time I became a Christian, if you asked who was a representative of Evangelical thought, typical answers would have been John Stott or Billy Graham. In those days I was proud to call myself Evangelical.
These days I still call myself Evangelical. But I have to add that this is not the Evangelicalism of those whose names are now synonymous with this corner of Christendom. I do not agree with Stephen Green or Jerry Falwell on a number of issues.
What has happened is that the Fundamentalists such as Green and Falwell, who at one time were not seen as representative of Evangelical thought are now seen as its spokesmen. Where, in the public arena, is the Evangelicalism of (to continue to pull one name from each side of the Atlantic) NT Wright or Jim Wallis? Why aren't these the names that spring to mind when people are asked to name an Evangelical leader.
In the OP of the Dead Horses thread "If a woman wrote some of the NT..." Evangeline said
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Evangelicals argue that women should not have authority over men
This does not seem to mirror my experience. There were many Evos in the CofE arguing in favour of women priests, some are continueing to argue in favour of women bishops.
In a poll conducted recently by the Evangelical Alliance of whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry, over 60% said yes. But this is not the impression that the public perception of Evangelicals would bring into the minds of most people.
Is there anything that can be done to stop the slide, in public awareness at least, of Evangelicalism into fundamentalism?
[ 02. November 2012, 20:35: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Balaam
You seem to be rolling together British and American public perceptions of evangelicalism, but I'm not sure that's a good idea. Most British people haven't heard of Stephen Green, I'd wager. Many British people will have heard of the concept of the loud, judgemental American evangelical televangelist with his army of admirers and his flashy, money-grabbing lifestyle - but I don't think most would relate that to the behaviour of any particular British Christian leader.
As for Billy Graham, he was a celebrity, but his brand of big stadium evangelism has largely been relegated to another era, and few British evangelicals would expect that kind of thing to be replicated today.
So, without tv shows and big stadium events, what would make a British evangelical leader 'famous' among the general, non-churchgoing populace? Christians talking calmly about Christianity doesn't generally get much airing on the media today, simply because a secular society is far less interested in that than used to be the case. To get attention you have to be shocking. Either that, or you have to be an archbishop in the CofE. And the British market for Christian books has been declining for a long time, so it would take more than just being a good writer.
Anyway, a few years ago a Baptist guy called Stephen Chalke used to be invited onto Talk Sport radio show occasionally. (What happened to him?) I know of some black British evangelical church leaders and scholars with a media presence - one called Robert Beckford did some tv shows - but none of them get ongoing national exposure.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Opposition to female clergy and homosexual marriage are not distinctive tenets of historical Fundamentalism.
With the possible exception of one or two Protestant groups who allowed women to preach, they have been common to every tradition of Christendom except liberal Protestantism, and even it has adopted them only during the last few decades.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shire Dweller
Shipmate
# 16631
|
Posted
I remember a (UK) Evangelical Alliance paper that stated young British Evangelical Christians did not use or want to use the term “Evangelical” as it had become associated with Fundamentalist American Evangelicals.
There is something to be said for the distinctly different cultural approaches to Evangelicalism in each country.
In Britain there are occasionally TV programmes that may as well be titled “Look at these Yankee Nutters” such as Louis Theroux's or Channel 4's expos'e's of Christian Racists, Homophobes, Misogynists or assorted Weirdos who are all termed, rightly or wrongly, 'Evangelical'
Perhaps this is a kind of cultural snobbery on the part of UK Evangelicals, but ISTM that especially when trying to communicate to non-church-goers about their brand of faith, there is a feeling that dropping the term 'Evangelical' is essential to avoid association with American Fundamentalists, who they certainly don't agree with.
Unfortunately the more sane American Christians in the Episcopal Church are never ever, ever, ever heard of in the mainstream British media (other than perhaps Gay US Bishop split C of E last week or some other un-truth)
--------------------
Right around the Wrekin
Posts: 77 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
OK Balaam,
can you give us a definition of the terms Evangelical and Fundamentalist? I thought they were the same thing, just the former is used by enthusiasts, and the latter by detractors.
They are both people who believe that the bible is a historical document and contains everything you need to decide on any present day moral issue.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
We're doomed if we ever try to define Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism as they are essentially movements and these thing move.
Falwell, Green, Phelps and co. would be unknown were it not for broadcast media and especially the internet. They are bad news, and bad news is good copy.
[ 15. July 2012, 13:41: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Do creationists count as fundamentalists in this context? If so, I will add more info concerning something I heard on Five Live during the Stephen Nolan show last night.
I
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
OK Balaam,
can you give us a definition of the terms Evangelical and Fundamentalist? I thought they were the same thing, just the former is used by enthusiasts, and the latter by detractors.
They are both people who believe that the bible is a historical document and contains everything you need to decide on any present day moral issue.
Modern usage has obviously blurred the two, but Derek Tidball's book 'Who are the Evangelicals?' gives a historical explanation as to the differences between them. Here's my summary.
The term evangelical has a much longer history. Fundamentalists are evangelicals of a distinct type, but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists. Anger and militancy are said to be characteristic of fundamentalism but not of general evangelicalism.
The word fundamentalist derives from the title of a series of papers published in 1910 onwards, and they tried to nail down the foundations of Christian faith, in the face of growing modernist readings of the Bible. The term was fairly neutral at the time, but hardened in usage, and now generally 'describes a specific cultural expression of the faith predominantly to be found in the southern states of North America.'
John Stott came up with 8 differences:
1. Fs are suspicious of scholarship, and may be anti-intellectual; Es are open to scholarship
2. Fs believe the Bible was dictated, and deny its human and cultural elements; Es recognise these elements
3. Fs only accept the KJV; Es believe there are better translations available
4. Fs interpret the Bible literally; Es recognise the need for interpretation, awareness of cultural context and of metaphor, poetry, etc.
5. Fs disapprove of ecumenicalism; Es are usually more open to other Christians
6. Fs allow their beliefs to be uncritically influenced by the surrounding culture (e.g. attitudes to race and prosperity); Es are more critical
7. Fs are allied to a right wing political stance; Es are politically diverse
8. Fs are firmly premillenial; Es accept different views about the 2nd coming.
Hope this is useful.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Evangelical and fundamentalist are not coterminous, Hairy Biker and the distinction has been the subject of various threads here in the past - or have formed significant sections of other threads ...
I know I tend to 'knock' aspects of evangelicalism on these Boards, being somewhat post-evangelical in ethos and because it's the tradition I come from and know best - but I would to my dying breath defend mainstream UK evanglicalism against charges of fundamentalism on the US model.
I would also agree that the evangelical tradition does tend to be liberalising out to a great extent. There are emerging liberalising tendencies within Open Evangelicalism for instance - although perhaps not at quite the rate that some of us might like.
There is plenty of wiggle-room, I would suggest, between full-on evangelicalism and full-on liberalism and most evangelicals lie somewhere along that spectrum/continuum ...
People slide in both directions. My experience is that some drift into greater degrees of obscurantism whereas others gradually become more liberal.
Sadly, such is the 'all or nothing-ness' and binariness of some evangelical settings that many disaffected evangelicals from the more independent traditions, don't end up anywhere at all. They've been told that the historic or mainstream churches are all spiritually 'dead' or irredeemably liberal and they have an inbuilt suspicion of Catholicism. Consequently, there's nowhere really for them to go and they drop out entirely.
Some Shippies will remember Noel Moules's study programme, Workshop. It was a very good course. Very balanced, very eclectic, although coming from within the radical Anabaptism tradition to a certain extent with its suspicion of 'Christendom'.
Evangelical pastors began to get hot-under-the-collar when their people started attending this course and then dropping out of active church involvement - so they began to withdraw their support.
The problem wasn't the course itself, I would submit, but the fact that these people were being introduced to nuanced biblical criticism for the first time and discovering different viewpoints without having ecclesial structures or a spiritual home that could support that. Workshop was happening in an ecclesiological vacuum.
Their home churches wouldn't 'wear' the sort of things they were studying but neither, because of their evangelical/charismatic backgrounds, did these people feel that they could belong in more 'mainstream' or apparently liberal settings - such as MOR CofE, URC or Methodist (even though there are a range of views within the non-conformist settings).
One of my main beefs is that there is plenty of good stuff taught in evangelical seminaries these days - Patristic Christology, church history, different 'takes' on the atonement etc etc but very little of it - in my experience - is percolating into the pews.
For pragmatic reasons, many preachers and pastors who ought to know better are sticking with the tired old shibboleths and giving their people mulch rather than solid food.
I know I'll get called or challenged on that, but I can only speak as I find. Some Baptist guys are doing a good job but a lot of Anglican evangelical vicars are preaching mush.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
People slide in both directions. My experience is that some drift into greater degrees of obscurantism whereas others gradually become more liberal.
What do you mean by "liberal", and in what way is "obscurantism" the converse of it?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Not an Evangelical myself, but I found this book rather interesting, somewhat along the lines that Svitlana sets out above.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I s'pose that by 'liberal' I mean a more nuanced approach to the scriptures and the awareness/acceptance of some modern critical scholarship - allied to a more tolerant attitude towards homosexuality and other issues.
I am aware that there are shades along the liberal continuum too.
By 'obscurantism' I main the adoption of entrenched views over often fairly peripheral issues, such as particular 'takes' on eschatology or an insistence on the centrality of particular experiences, versions of the Bible or some other faddish concern. This can happen in all traditions, from what I can gather. There are RC and Orthodox equivalents.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Albertus - yes, that book by Mark Noll is very good and ought to be compulsory reading for all evangelical ministers in my view ...
Not that I'm getting all prescriptive and Papal about all this ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Baalam,
I find your post confusing. Most Christians would view Billy Graham as a Fundamentalist.
Definitions are a problem and I can think of at least 3 definitions of fundamentlist:
1. The historical one which refers to the actual group of people who started the Fundamentals movement, which as you probably know included at least one theistic evolutionist, alongside more traditional conservatives such as Robert Anderson, who to me at least is a very perceptive and subtle thinker, though I reject many of his conclusions.
2. People who would be classified as belonging to the Fundamental Baptist Churches, who would be dispensationalist pre-millenarians, creationists, hell-fire believers - the full monty - and usually anti charismatic and cessationist. I got to know someone of this ilk very well in Spain.
3. Anyone who takes the claims of christianity (or Islam) with little/no concession to modern thought and (as they would say) so-called proven scientific fact. So a rankly supernatural view of the world in which inter-alia asses talk (well I think we all know that
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) ) people get turned into pigs etc, and the vast majority of biblical miracle stories are taken at face value. Many charismatics are classed now as fundamentalist. And people talk of fundamentalist Catholics.
Probably the last sense is the most widely used in the media, and people like Jim Packer would be in this class, as would the evangelicals I got to know in Spain, who were very left wing due to Franco and the civil war. Even some communists.
There have always been charlatans, and indeed some who live permanently on the borderline, as wonderfully portrayed in the film The Apostle, written directed by and starring Robert Duvall. Go see it, it's very moving. I think possibly Amie Semple MacPherson lived on the borderline, possibly also Billy Sunday, and plenty have accused Billy Graham of that. He's became a multi-millionaire after all and supported the Viet-Nam war.
What actually are you worried about? Quite probably, in my book, you yourself are a fundamentalist. Most likely, you are against charlatans. Rightly so.
If so you need to get your aim on the right target. Read also Marilynne Robinson's Gilead, for a more nuanced view of fundamentalist christianity. You should read it anyhow since it's one of the very few great books to truly "get" religion. MR self identifies as a Calvinist, albeit a liberal one, socially at least.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
I'd still identify myself as evangelical (and charismatic) but would reject most of what has been recently assumed as evangelical.
It's been mentioned a number of times on other threads (see Daed Horses) but there are x4 aspects that define evangelicalism.
Christ Centred
Cross Centred
Word Centred
Activism centred
(I think this is correct off the top of my head and not looking back on my College notes!!).
I'd agree with Gamaliel that the spirituality of Evangelicals is broader than perhaps it has ever been.
Steve Chalke and Joel Edwards are probably two of the most well known evangelicals outside of Anglicanism. They are very different in their theological thinking.
@Gamaliel - You mentioned that little of the diversity in theological thinking filters through to the pews. Is this possible because many people in the pews would see this as irrelevant to their lives?
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Polly, perhaps, but does this mean that these things shouldn't be preached and taught?
There ought to be a fifth aspect added to Bebbington's famous 'quadrilateral' which you've outlined above - it seems to me - and that - alongside, crucicentricism, conversionism, Biblicism and activism is surely PRAGMATISM ...
It strikes me that there's something very utilitarian about much of evangelicalism. Our vicar, for instance, despite being quite 'artistic' in many ways - he likes painting and is keen on photography - appears only to value the stained glass in the church building that lends itself to being a didactic visual aid. There ain't much room, it seems, for 'art for art's sake'.
Ok, I know the same could be said for Orthodox iconography as they have a liturgical/didactic purpose but at the same time they are somehow deeper and more 'mysterious' than that ...
At least with some of the older strands of evangelicalism there seemed to be an emphasis on 'stretching' people's minds a bit. The Puritans, apparently, forebears/ancestors of what became evangelicalism, would offer put something deliberately challenging or stretching in their sermons to make people think.
Contemporary evangelicalism, to me at least, for all the welcome openness to other traditions and emphases, seems almost incurably paternalistic and patronising. It spoon-feeds people, it insults their intelligence, it dumbs things down into iddy-bitty bite-size chunks and does everything it possible can to make things sound 'fun' or 'relevant'.
I'd also maintain that the things I'd listed - Patristic Christology etc etc is absolutely relevant to people's lives.
It OUGHT to be the job of these evangelical preachers to make this stuff accessible and relevant - but not in a patronising or infantilising way ...
Rant over.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
@Gamaliel - You mentioned that little of the diversity in theological thinking filters through to the pews. Is this possible because many people in the pews would see this as irrelevant to their lives?
Maybe it's also because sermons are a really ineffective teaching method. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
So even if preachers do include some of these diverse theological ideas in their sermons, the ideas quickly get forgotten.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
OK Balaam,
can you give us a definition of the terms Evangelical and Fundamentalist? I thought they were the same thing,
In that they both have a high view of Scripture, and base their theology on their understanding of Scripture then you are right.
But whilst Fundamentalists are Evangelicals, an Evangelical is not necessarily a Fundamentalist.
To me Fundamentalists would believe in Young Earth Creationism, and in a pre-millennial view of eschatology, insisting that you cannot be an Evangelical, or even a Christian, if you don't believe in both of these.
Evangelicalism is a much wider than this, with a variety of views on both these two and other issues.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Read also Marilynne Robinson's Gilead, for a more nuanced view of fundamentalist christianity.
I wouldn't have described Ames as a fundamentalist.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
In the US, anyway, it isn't so much a slide into fundamentalism as it is making the equal and opposite mistake of mainline Protestantism--confusing the Gospel with American Movement Conservatism and the church with the GOP. The results of this have been utterly disastrous for Evangelicalism in this country, for example they can't make a Christian critique of the financial crisis credibly because they're wedded to supporting the very policies that brought it about.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
@Gamaliel - You mentioned that little of the diversity in theological thinking filters through to the pews. Is this possible because many people in the pews would see this as irrelevant to their lives?
Maybe it's also because sermons are a really ineffective teaching method.
So even if preachers do include some of these diverse theological ideas in their sermons, the ideas quickly get forgotten.
Not sure I agree at all and think this is a too simplistic way of looking at things.
There has to be responsibility from both sides. The Preacher and listener just like when in lectures etc. Most people in the pews listen (sort of) and then don't go away and think through the sermon and do further study. There's lazy preachers but also lazy listeners.
It's also an old illustration but I like it. I man writes into a Christian magazine and says that he has heard loads of sermons in the last 30 years and does not know what good they have done.
The following month someone else writes in saying he can;t remember the meals he has eaten in the last 30 years but knows he has been fed and he has benefitted from them.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
@Gamaliel
I'm not excusing mine or any other preachers laziness in what we don't cover but I have 20-25 minutes once a week to expand the scriptures as I feel the Holy Spirit leads.
In the tension of regularly going over the important disciplines and rhythms of the faith, marking and remembering various points in the Christian calendar I also want to maintain a relevancy in todays culture, dealing with the issues of the day.
In the past I have led midweek discussions on Church history and subject s as you have stated but in my church of 25 there isn;t the desire to look at this stuff even though I know it would benefit people.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Most Christians would view Billy Graham as a Fundamentalist.
Do you think so? I'm not sure about that. Is it simply the fact that he devoted his public life to evangelism that makes him a fundamentalist?
I understand that he's upset a few conservative evangelicals (fundamentalists?)with his ecumenicalism (namely his respect for the previous two popes) and with his reflection that God might have a welcome for people of other faiths. If you google Billy Graham you'll see that most of his detractors are not really from the liberal end of the church. Maybe that used to be the case, but things have moved on.
I remember reading somewhere that Anglican churchmen were not too keen on Graham's evangelistic rallies in the UK, but they had to admit that whenever he came over to preach, the result was that more more young men came forward with vocations to the priesthood!
Graham's son Franklin seems to have a less generous spirit than his father.
[ 15. July 2012, 21:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I suspect that some evanglicals are becoming more fundamentalist, and others more liberal.
The word 'evangelical' has an increasingly secular connotation (occasionally heard on the Today programme on Radio 4) meaning 'shrill' or even 'Fundamentalist' - especially when joined with 'American'. In that respect it appears to be a 'boo' word.
In a certain university not so long ago, there was a move to make the Christian Union change its name to the 'Evangelical Christian Union', to try and avoid the word 'Christian' being appropriated only by those of a certain (and in the eyes of the secular Student Union) exclusive theology.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Polly - I'm sure you do a very good job with your preaching and teaching. I'm certainly not out to suggest that either you or your congregation are negligent.
I s'pose what I am saying though, is that I have seen little evidence, as yet, of the broader and more generous spirit that does appear to be fostered in evangelical seminaries these days percolating into attitudes among evangelical congregations themselves - but I might be wrong.
There is some kind of disconnect going on. Only recently I heard from my brother-in-law of some remarkable teaching and emphases that went in at his very conservative evangelical college. I would certainly acclaim and sign up for these things - yet when I was part of the particular outfit that was connected to that college, there was little evidence of these emphases spilling out into the pews as it were - although there was some lip-service and some genuine attempts at times.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JP.
Apprentice
# 17147
|
Posted
My experience is that most evangelicals don't really know where they lie on the spectrum of evangelicalism.
In my youth I was in evangelical churches. I knew I wanted to take the Bible seriously and that some of the other tenets of evangelicalism made sense. But the churches didn't teach me what their process was for moving from the Bible to moral decisions. We knew we were Bible-believing evangelicals, but that can mean so many things: it can lead to the host of different views around (even within evangelicalism) on the ministry of women, homosexuality in the church, and many more issues.
It has taken me 20 years of searching on my own to make some sense of this and reach my current position as a self-described "thinking liberal evangelical". I still wonder if I am better abandoning the evangelical tag altogether, but I haven't found an appropriate alternative. I feel I have more in common with evangelicals than with many liberals. However, my view of the Bible is now of generally reliable historical human book, influenced by God, pointing us to God in diverse ways and used by God. From that position I still hold on to many of the tenets of evangelicalism but also want to tweak many of them.
Conclusions
1. Do we need new terminology for us sensible people in the middle? Or is it better to just be individuals?
2. Churches need to be clearer to their congregations and to outsiders about exactly what their approach to the Bible is and what conclusions that leads them to. When a church's website tells me that it is evangelical or Bible-based, there are so many things that that could mean. This sort of thing should be preached on regularly.
3. Perhaps we should be clearer in discussing these fundamental issues of process and interpretation rather than hiding them in the practical issues of the day, women bishops, gay marriage etc.
4. I'd be happy to hear from anyone who has been on a similar journey to mine.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
There has to be responsibility from both sides. The Preacher and listener just like when in lectures etc. Most people in the pews listen (sort of) and then don't go away and think through the sermon and do further study. There's lazy preachers but also lazy listeners.
Oh, definitely. And I wasn't intending to accuse preachers (in general, or particular ones such as yourself) of being lazy; it's rather that I believe preaching as an activity is not great at bringing about spiritual transformation.
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
It's also an old illustration but I like it. I man writes into a Christian magazine and says that he has heard loads of sermons in the last 30 years and does not know what good they have done.
The following month someone else writes in saying he can;t remember the meals he has eaten in the last 30 years but knows he has been fed and he has benefitted from them.
Yeah, I've heard this analogy before and I'm not convinced, sorry. Call me idealistic but shouldn't we Christians see evidence in one another's lives of gradual transformation into greater holiness? 'Let God transform you' and all that...
If all the hours a typical church-goer puts in to listening to sermons (never mind all the time folks like you spend preparing them!) just keeps us at our current level, like food does in the physical sense, then I think something's wrong. Could all that time spent on sermons be better spent doing other things that would produce more of an impact in terms of Christians being transformed into better, holier people?
I expanded on this in a blog post a while back, which I see prompted the very same comment about sermons being like food! I'd forgotten that...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
The word fundamentalist has come to used in such multifarious forms that it is well-nigh meaningless.
Broadly speaking, it means little more than "anyone who is more theologically conservative than I am".
I am sure that I am not the only one who picked up James Barr's Fundamentalism years ago, hoping for the sort of historical scholarship on the subject exemplified by George Marsden, only to discover a personal crusade against evangelical academics.
[ 16. July 2012, 07:25: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Most Christians would view Billy Graham as a Fundamentalist.
Do you think so? I'm not sure about that. Is it simply the fact that he devoted his public life to evangelism that makes him a fundamentalist?
I understand that he's upset a few conservative evangelicals (fundamentalists?)with his ecumenicalism (namely his respect for the previous two popes) and with his reflection that God might have a welcome for people of other faiths. If you google Billy Graham you'll see that most of his detractors are not really from the liberal end of the church. Maybe that used to be the case, but things have moved on.
He has always been very unpopular with Calvinist evangelicals, also.
When I was in my university's Evangelical Union during the late sixties, just prior to a Graham crusade in Australia, a Calvinist student protested that, "It's wrong for him to go around telling people that God loves them, because it might not be true!"
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Billy Graham a multi-millionaire after all and supported the Viet-Nam war.
Words like millionaire and even multi-millionaire don't mean that much any more.
Here in Australia, where our dollar is worth about the same as the American dollar, there are now many middle-class paper millionaires, if even just house value and superannuation are taken into account, and I'm sure the situation is the same in the US.
Graham has always been scrupulously careful about finances, and I consider this a cheap shot.
After all, even those of us who are not paper millionaires are still so vastly better off than the majority of the global population who live in the developing world that we are in no position to be smug and judgmental about Westerners who are a bit better off than we are.
As for the Vietnam War, there was a lunatic fringe who actually wanted the Vietnamese people to be forced under a communist dictatorship, but the rest of us either believed that it was worth fighting to prevent that happening, or (like me) decided that the war was a greater evil than neo-Stalinist tyranny.
There were honorable people in both camps.
The only time Graham really blotted his copy book were his inexcusable remarks about Jews caught on the Nixon tapes, but they seem to have been directed against the activities of some media and showbiz types who happened to be Jews, rather than against Jews as such.
As a dispensationalist, Graham is actually something of a Zionist, and I suspect has not got an anti-Semitic bone in his body.
It is noteworthy too, that when he was getting under way in the late 1940s, he refused to preach to segregated congregations in the South.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Two books which I've found helpful in defining Evangelicisms:
1. David Coffey on the Tribes of Evangelicalism.
2. Michael Saward's chapter in the Post-Evangelical Debate.
Also a historic note that the original "Fundamentalism" was probably less conservative, and certainly more intellectually nuanced, than much of what goes under that label today IMHO.
I find myself in an odd position: not conservative enough to be acceptable in Con-Evo circles (apart from anything else, I don't hold human sexuality as the hermeneutic touchstone of orthodoxy!) yet not liberal enough for others (I could never sign up to the Progressive Chjristian Network, for instance).
I suspect that there are more folk like me around than care to admit, thinking that they are "unusual" when they're not.
[ 16. July 2012, 08:03: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@JP, I've been (am on?) a similar faith journey and I suspect there are more people like yourself around than may appear at first glance. Baptist Trainfan, for instance, seems to represent something of a middle-ground position.
Kaplan may forgive me (or he may not ...) for observing that whilst he remains more conservative in his evangelicalism than I am these days, he still represents a less woodenly fundamentalist form of the tradition. I agree with him that some of these labels have lost their currency - I'd love for us to be able to come up with new ones but I suspect they'd quickly lose their currency too.
Call me old-fashioned, but I'd suggest there was something essentially arid and stultefying about the full-on or extreme liberal position. It's not something that attracts me - it's too wishy-washy.
I suggest though, that there is plenty of space between that particular Charybdis and the Scylla of woodenly literal fundamentalism.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Kaplan may forgive me (or he may not ...)
Seventy-seven or seventy times seven?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Baalam,
I find your post confusing. Most Christians would view Billy Graham as a Fundamentalist.
Definitions are a problem and I can think of at least 3 definitions of fundamentlist:
1. The historical one which refers to the actual group of people who started the Fundamentals movement, which as you probably know included at least one theistic evolutionist, alongside more traditional conservatives such as Robert Anderson, who to me at least is a very perceptive and subtle thinker, though I reject many of his conclusions.
2. People who would be classified as belonging to the Fundamental Baptist Churches, who would be dispensationalist pre-millenarians, creationists, hell-fire believers - the full monty - and usually anti charismatic and cessationist. I got to know someone of this ilk very well in Spain.
3. Anyone who takes the claims of christianity (or Islam) with little/no concession to modern thought and (as they would say) so-called proven scientific fact. So a rankly supernatural view of the world in which inter-alia asses talk
Another one:
4: Believing that certain tenets in Christianity are fundamental to your faith (Death and Resurrection of Jesus etc.).
And yes I know this definition encompasses the broad majority, if not totality of those who self-identify as Christians. I tried to use the term 'fundamentalist' in a conversation with a friend about the dangers of the fundamentalist approach. He certainly isn't a literalist, creationist, KJVist, or anti-rationalist in any way (he's a physics teacher and loves science), yet he claimed the term for himself based on definition 4. which I found extremely surprising and knocked the legs out from under the discussion entirely. I learned my lesson not to go into a conversation assuming that what I mean by a word is what the person I'm speaking to means by it, not even in the same ball-park.
quote:
Originally posted by JP.:
1. Do we need new terminology for us sensible people in the middle? Or is it better to just be individuals?
Do you mean
Open Evangelical? Don't know much about it but looks interesting.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
The irony is that the authors of the Niagara Declaration of 1895 which birthed Fundamentalism not not be considered Fundamentalists by today's Fundamentalists.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
If all the hours a typical church-goer puts in to listening to sermons (never mind all the time folks like you spend preparing them!) just keeps us at our current level, like food does in the physical sense, then I think something's wrong.
TANGENT
But people will go around singing the hymns and songs they sang in church whilst washing the dishes. Could it be that too much time is put in to writing sermons and not enough into choosing hymns?
/TANGENT
Back onto topic.
If we debase the language by talking about fundamentalist Catholics and fundamentalist Muslims, then that description for the real Fundamentalists, those conservative protestants in agreement with a number of tracts from 100 years ago, no longer has any meaning.
The problem with then going on to describe militant fundamentalists as Evangelical is that, in the UK at least, Fundamentalists are only a small proportion of what makes up Evangelicalism. But that is what is happening, lazy journalism means that the term Evangelical has been debased.
I must be getting old, as I nostalgically look back on the time when the spokesman for Evangelicalism in the media was Clive Calver, rather than Stephen Green.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
plenty have accused Billy Graham of that. He's became a multi-millionaire after all and supported the Viet-Nam war.
Is Billy Graham a multi-millionaire? I had always got the impression that he was unusual among televangelists in not having amassed a vast personal fortune.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Clive Calver was regarded by some as dangerously liberal back in the day, if I remember rightly ...
On the Open Evangelical thing - it's certainly got legs and looks interesting but my own experience is that it isn't as impressive up close as it looks from a distance. But I daresay that would be true of most traditions.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Many have confused Dr Graham's personal wealth with the funds of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. I can remember one report of Dr Graham's fortune which was about an Association reief fund, in the event of a natural disaster, funds were available to help. Billy Graham had no access to the money. Poor reportage has always been with us.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
As an evangelical I would have to say that I would recognise all those, from whatever denomination or who have a high view of the inspiration of the bible, who believe Jesus Christ not only to be the incarnate Son but also the only saviour.
I would expect them to believe that all need to saved and put their conscious, decisive faith in him and his atoning death and resurrection.
evangelicals are marked out by their insistence that personal repentance and conversion are necessary to being a Christian.
These things are not new doctrines and that is why most broad evangelicals would recognise that one can be evangelical in any catholic - (Roman or Anglican) - Reformed or orthodox tradition.
To summarise then, an evangelical is one who preaches and believes in a need for personal faith in Christ as the Saviour, and a desire to make that know to all people, who themselves need that salvation.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JP.
Apprentice
# 17147
|
Posted
quote:
Do you mean Open Evangelical? Don't know much about it but looks interesting.
I only recently came across the term "open evangelical". In the Church of England it seems now to be the standard terminiology for evangelicals who are not conservative evangelicals.
The "open" bit is important. It emphasises that different people have different views and that we can all be Christians without agreeing on everything. This is a move against some conservative evangelicals who believe that only those who sign up for the whole conservative-evangelical package are saved (or at least that they are only in fellowship with such people).
(It is different from the "openness theology" version of free-will theism, although they are not mutually exclusive.)
A typical position for an open evangelical would be accepting the Bible as the inspired word of God, but also accepting that reason and mild Biblical criticism must have their places.
Although the term had not been invented at that time, I think open evangelical is where I came from (see my first post above). My issues with it were:
1. As I outlined above, most church members didn't know where they were on the spectrum of evangelicalism or that other options existed.
2. The church's method of approaching the Bible was not specified, explained, published or preached on.
3. There seemed to be no fixed rules or consistency on how to interpret the Bible. Often it seemed that it was interpreted literally (in a fundamentalist manner?) until it became inconvenient to do so, at which point one starts to introduce cultural context and criticism as reasons to reach another interpretation.
It was these reasons that led me to taking the further step of questioning the actual nature of the Bible and led me to my "liberal evangelical" position (although that term doesn't seem to be used much these days and often refers to early 20th-century approaches now seen to have had their day).
I value the "open" bit of open evangelicalism—acknowledging that others may be right and I may be wrong. However, I seek a more consistent approach to the interpretation of scripture than is typical in open evangelicalism. This still remains hard to pin down in my current position.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To summarise then, an evangelical is one who preaches and believes in a need for personal faith in Christ as the Saviour, and a desire to make that know to all people, who themselves need that salvation.
I think you are confusing being Evangelical with being evangelistic. Not the same thing.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I'm not sure he is - see the emphasis on the need for personal faith in Christ as saviour.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
THE LAUSANNE COVENANT is a very good, nbalanced and well-thought out summary of evangelical belief iof you care to read it.
We are not all rabid fundamentalists a la Stephen green and that Phelps bloke. One of the problems that I certainly recognise in some 'evangelical' fellowships and pastorates, is the lack of accountability to a higher authority. It seems to me that it's the self-styled 'apostles' and 'evangelists' that are the source of problems. Those evangelicals who belong to a denomination with a history, and a headquarters that monitors and moderates their beliefs and practices, are more likely to be moderate.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To summarise then, an evangelical is one who preaches and believes in a need for personal faith in Christ as the Saviour, and a desire to make that know to all people, who themselves need that salvation.
I think you are confusing being Evangelical with being evangelistic. Not the same thing.
Indeed, one can be 'evangelistic' about saving the tiger. To be evangelical, one is evangelistic about the Gospel - that which saves ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Another one:
4: Believing that certain tenets in Christianity are fundamental to your faith (Death and Resurrection of Jesus etc.).
You mean, like the Nicene Creed?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
I believe Billy Graham is regarded with some suspicion by the Fundamentalism grouping in the States because he is a public supporter of the Democrats, rather than on a significantly theological level , although as another poster has said, he may also be seen as 'Dangerously Ecumenical' (cue Father Jack).
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
To me Fundamentalists would believe in Young Earth Creationism, and in a pre-millennial view of eschatology, insisting that you cannot be an Evangelical, or even a Christian, if you don't believe in both of these.
Evangelicalism is a much wider than this, with a variety of views on both these two and other issues.
I would make a qualified agreement with this (dispensationalism isn't a great marker to use).
I don't think evangelicalism has particularly changed in the variety of views it contains. So I'm not sure where your existing post is coming from - unless you are referring to something local to you (Jerry Falwell would be pretty irrelevant in most Evangelical circles these days).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the Open Evangelical thing - it's certainly got legs and looks interesting but my own experience is that it isn't as impressive up close as it looks from a distance. But I daresay that would be true of most traditions.
Seconded.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
