quote:

---

Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:

I was particularly intruiged by a lot of people saying that the book was dated and that evangelicalism has "moved on"- how has it moved on? I haven't noticed much in the way of change myself!

---

I am talking in a local context here, Evangelicals in this area have moved towrds liberal end, and are more likely to be accepting of other Christian traditions, and be less frightened of "The World".

Neil
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I concur with the main thrusts of the commendations and the criticisms in the OP and the further comments from other contributors. You have to remember that it was very much 'work in process' for DT having moved on from the kind of evangelicalism he describes - very similar indeed, to my background. I was becoming involved with 'R1' restorationism just as he was moving onto 'R2' ... the slow, slippery slope to dropping out of evangelicalism altogether ...

I think evangelicalism has indeed moved on in some places. I go to an evangelical church still (Baptist) and it is much more reflective than evo church I've been involved with hitherto ... Brethren, charismatic Anglican and house-church mostly ...).

That said, many of the congregation and leading lights within it, are still pretty fundie to some extent, but by no means whackily so.

It would be good to see a follow-up.

On one level I can see some quarters 'coming of age' and much of the material coming out of the Evangelical Alliance these days is pretty scholarly and well-reasoned by previous evo standards. That said, at the risk of opening up a discussion of evangelicalism per se, I'm also very concerned about a populist dumbing-down in an attempt to mirror the perceived success of US mega-churches (no offence to our US shipmates intended).

At the moment, it seems to me, you've got some pretty wide extremes within UK evangelicalism with much to about, much to about and much to about as well as much to celebrate ... but I daresay the same holds true for the wider Church.

Gamaliel
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Black Labrador:

quote:

---

I certainly do not agree that biblical inerrancy is "the most crucial plank of evangelicalism" - many evangelicals don't agree with it (including me!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward::Green:
Maybe:

"Losing My Religion: Exploring the Process of Moving on from Evangelical Faith" by Gordon Lynch

Would be some thing similer more up to date.

---

Yeah this is a better book because he doesn't take himself so seriously and doesn't stereotype evangelicals. Ok, he does...but in a jokey way.

Biblical inerrancy is not technically the plank of evangelicalism, although, unfortunately I feel it is going that way...

The paradox is that what Tomlinson critised regarding evangelical churches' social makeup is so much of the reason why people keep going to them. He's identified the juggernaut, but it's impossible to stop.
 

---

Posted by jane of fools (# 5328) on :
 
I'm reading PE and wanted to point out that while this book has apparently been out for some time (ten years?) in the UK, it has just been published in the US, with an updated chapter on North American Evangelicalism.

My US copy has a gen-x design to attempt to look sort of cool. There are also many quotes beside the text of the book that provide some "dialogue" with other people. I find that the dialogue boxes somewhat slow things down, but do provide some way to digest the authors ideas. In general though, I found the marketing to be trying too hard to look cool and edgy - made me suspicious.

Did the original print have this swanky feel, or is it the US incarnation?

Did anyone read the chapter on NE Evangelicalism? I thought it to be very brief, to the point of caricature.

I appreciate the other books on the subject that have been mentioned. I'd like to check them out if I can get them here.

j
 

---

Posted by ebor (# 5122) on :
 
DT only intended the book as a discussion starter rather than the final answer. It might be a bit light theologically, but he would not claim to be a theologian.

I am intrigued by comments regarding the maturing of evangelical attitudes towards theology. The EA does produce scholarly material, but still within a fundie type of way. One only has to think of the reactions to Jeffrey John to realise that evangelicals have not really changed that much.

DT does paint evangelicals a little too harshly, in a way that Gordon Lynch does not do. DT is interviewed at length in Gordon's book.

I hope there is further debate. Perhaps it will conclude that there is life after ALPHA. That would be a boon to us all.

ebor
 

---

Posted by ebor (# 5122) on :
 
can never work out how to edit posts...

consider the last sentence about ALPHA deleted. It was far too catty for New Year's Eve

ebor

[That's OK, ebor. Next time click the "notepad with pen" icon, within 2 minutes of posting, in order to edit.]

[ 31. December 2003, 22:40: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Well, this probably will sound a bit catty, but I found it a very frustrating book. It seemed, to me, to say a lot of very obvious things - some so obvious that I could hardly believe anyone didn't already know them - as if they were amazing discoveries that cried out to be shared with the world.

And it seemed to assume that educated modern people couldn't possibly actually believe all that old-fashioned Christianity stuff without a serious excercise in double-think.

It was like being grabbed hold of by someone and being told lots of things you already know, over and over again.

And that confused me because lots of my friends really rated the book.
In the end I could only read it by recognising that I am probably not the target audience. Maybe it was aimed at cradle-Christians who always assumed the "evangelical" lifestyles as background.

Not coming from there it didn;t really get to me.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
I think you're a younger generation, ken, and have lived and grown in the P-E times. For some of us, dave tom was expressing - and publishing- what we were thinking. It gave it more power.

Evangelicals nowadays form a much more diverse grouping than they used to. They are not a tiny, totally dissed section of the church any more, as they were when "Modernism" ruled.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, the UK edition of PE wasn't marketed in an aggressively 'cool' way. I hate to say this, but, O American friends, many UK titles do appear to be dumbed down or sensationalised for the US market. My Orthodox friends tell me it also happens to Orthodox books cf. Fr Michael Harper's 'The True Light' which was given a sensationalised dust-jacket and triumphalist note when published in the US.

Why this should be deemed necessary, I know not, as experience on these boards has finally convinced me that our colonial cousins aren't all snake-handling crazies in coon-skin hats ...

I think Ken's bewilderment at the impact of PE suggests that he comes from a more benign evangelical background than that found in the old R1 and R2. Have you been anywhere near what used to be R1 recently, Jeff? I think you'll find that the movement has, sadly, abandoned what brain it ever had with the result that most people who think for themselves have ended up somewhere else. A caricature? Perhaps. There were some theologically acute and reflective people in both R1 and R2 and probably still are in some sectors of it but these days the whole house-church thing has largely lost its way and become a menace rather than a blessing.

NFI is probably ok, though, still in a somewhat fundie kind of way ...

That's my take on it, anyway. DT was always one of the more thoughtful and challenging guys within the movement - which is probably why he left!

Gamaliel
 

---

Posted by Jeff Featherstone (# 4811) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think Ken's bewilderment at the impact of PE suggests that he comes from a more benign evangelical background than that found in the old R1 and R2. Have you been anywhere near what used to be R1 recently, Jeff? I think you'll find that the movement has, sadly, abandoned what brain it ever had with the result that most people who think for themselves have ended up somewhere else. A caricature? Perhaps. There were some theologically acute and reflective people in both R1 and R2 and probably still are in some sectors of it but these days the whole house-church thing has largely lost its way and become a menace rather than a blessing.

NFI is probably ok, though, still in a somewhat fundie kind of way ...
Gamaliel

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caty:
Slow person asks:
Could someone please define R1 and R2?

Guessing R stands for restorationism, but what's the difference?
Thanks,
caty

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
I recognise that I'm writing from a particular perspective as someone from 'inside' the new churches but I think I've known enough leaders in various churches to say that the overwhelming majority of them are ordinary people with a genuine heart to serve God and serve those in their church. They are not out to dominate. Yes there has been the occasional case of leaders going off the rails and acting inappropriately but there also has been in most groups of churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DaveC:
nowadays evangelicals seem more ready to accept other traditions and to deal with mystery and doubt - in fact, as I have suggested before on these boards, there has been a blurring of the boundaries of evangelicalism. Perhaps this too has been a result of Dave's book?

---

Though it's true what you say about evangelicals, it was also my experience of evangelicals as I came to faith in the early to mid 80s (a mixed bunch of Anglicans, Baptists and a few house churches). I think it's always been there, maybe Dave Tomlinson let people in Evangelical traditions without this depth see it, and embrace it. The book has certainly resulted in a lot of talking ... which is, I guess, pretty much what Tomlinson wanted.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
There were threads about R1, R2 and some of the personalities involved in the house-church/restorationist movement before Jeff came aboard ... perhaps someone with more techie knowledge than I've got could assist.

I don't doubt Jeff's account or judgement.
I was involved with one of Bryn Jones's churches for 18 years. But like Daisy May I'm glad to be out of the restorationist scene now. Having been out of it for about three years now and broadened considerably in my sympathies (to the extent that some of my friends regard me as a postie) that I couldn't even entertain going back - even to it's more acceptable face, New Frontiers.

NFI is fine for some people but it wouldn't do for me anymore.

I'll be interested to see what Dave Tom' writes next. I don't believe he was catalytic so much as capturing a 'zeitgeist' - daring to utter things that most people at the evo end of the Baptists and Anglicans and other older Protestant groupings had been confronting and dealing with for years.

I wouldn't so much say that full relationships have been restored, Jeff, and that R1 and R2 are firing on all cylinders just fine and dandy. In fact what was R2 no longer exists and R1 is only really represented by NFI and the remnants of Bryn's orbit. I'm not saying that the restorationist scene has completely shot its bolt either ... NFI will run for a good few years yet, I'm sure but I anticipate problems among some of the other branches of the movement.

If anything, it's mostly all been absorbed back into wider independent evangelicalism, a form of Christianity which has its plus and minus points just like any other.

Our greatest strength is our greatest weakness.
Hence Orthodoxy's great strength is its tradition and longevity, but this can militate against it shedding the petty nationalisms that so often bedevil it.

Equally the 'new churches' were/are strong on action but weak on theological reflection. Most abuses that occurred weren't the result of wicked and evil leaders cynically conspiring to rip people off or oppress them ... no, it was more the frog in the pan of water syndrome. By the time the water had reached boiling point it'd got used to the heat and didn't notice.

Believe me, I was there.

Some of the stuff I'm hearing from what remains of some of the original R1 ambit makes my blood boil and my eyebrows raise ... there really is some seriously skewed teaching out there and one wonders where it'll end.

Like I say, glad it's got nothing to do with me anymore and I'm glad that increasing numbers of my friends and relatives are voting with their feet and getting out of there before it's too late ...

Gamaliel
 

---

Posted by watchergirl (# 5071) on :
 
I found the book very helpful. It echoed and developed much of what I was thinking at the time that I read it, and helped me to consider new ideas and approaches. I agree with those who say that it is dated now, but when I read it several years ago it was just what I needed to hear. The very fact that it does seem a little bit dated suggests that there have been some changes in the church as a result of the debate that he initiated - but the fact that a friend of mine just read it and had similar reactions to mine suggests that the church has not changed nearly as much as it could have done. I also agree with Edward::Green that Gordon Lynch's book is an interesting modern alternative that's worth reading if you found Tomlinson useful.

I have never experienced ANY Biblical doctrine other than inerrancy in the evangelical church, until this year. I disagree that it is less clearly defined in the evangelical C of E, since that was where I met most of the Biblical inerrancy doctrine I was taught. So it's an issue that needed someone to raise it, but to go into more depth on it would have required a whole book on that subject alone.

As to whether you can buy into Tomlinsons argument and remain an evangelical... Well, I'm not one - I haven't been for many years, and don't want to be. Tomlinson's point seemed to be that we need to move on from evangelicalism. Personally, I have no problem with that.

Ken: Well, some of us didn't think it was obvious that others felt like this - even only five years ago. For people who have only really experienced fundamentalism, the discovery of other ways of thinking is revolutionary. We all need someone to point out that there are other ways of thinking.
 

---

Posted by .Lurker. (# 1384) on :
 
So what is the difference between a post-evangelical and someone like me, who considers himself evangelical, just doesn't like the fundie bits?

Do you need to quit going to church, or instead go to an alt. worship group? Do you need to be angry at evangelicalism?

I'm not particularly angry at anything, and have no intention either of quitting church or spending my sunday service making things with plasticine while listening to Moby.

But as far as the theology is concerned, maybe I am a post-evangelical. But theologians like Pinnock, still within the Evo camp, seem to do a better job of articulating what I believe than Tomlinson.
 

---

Posted by .Lurker. (# 1384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


I wouldn't so much say that full relationships have been restored, Jeff, and that R1 and R2 are firing on all cylinders just fine and dandy. In fact what was R2 no longer exists and R1 is only really represented by NFI and the remnants of Bryn's orbit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Lurker.:
So what is the difference between a post-evangelical and someone like me, who considers himself evangelical, just doesn't like the fundie bits?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
What does evangelicalism without the fundie bits look like?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
What does evangelicalism without the fundie bits look like?

---

I suppose it depends on what is meant by "the fundie bits".

But, for me, it would be hold a view of the primacy of Scripture as supreme authority, rather than the more "fundie" tendancy towards exclusivity of Scripture as supreme authority. This would mean that Reason and Tradition are taken as important sources of authority (still subject to Scripture for evangelicals). It would mean a rejection of Inerrancy applied to history, science etc recorded in Scripture, a much greater emphasis on scholarly studies of Scripture and so on.

There would also be a greater openess to alteratives to (penal) Substitutionary Atonement, eternal damnation, dogmatic views on the second coming ... that kind of thing. As well as a greater variety in worship, and a greater appreciation that there is value in other worship styles even if they themselves prefer a more stereotypical "happy clappy" evangelical worship style.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It may be similar to post-evangelical, but it's the evangelicalism I was brought to Christ through and always cherished. I've known other versions, similar to some of what Tomlinson described in his book, but that's always been me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Lurker.:
So what is the difference between a post-evangelical and someone like me, who considers himself evangelical, just doesn't like the fundie bits?

---

Very intrigued by the comment. What does evangelicalism without the fundie bits look like?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Lurker.:
So what is the difference between a post-evangelical and someone like me, who considers himself evangelical, just doesn't like the fundie bits?

Do you need to quit going to church, or instead go to an alt. worship group? Do you need to be angry at evangelicalism?

I'm not particularly angry at anything, and have no intention either of quitting church or spending my sunday service making things with plasticine while listening to Moby.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheGreenT:
isnt that v.similar to post-evangelical alan?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lurker:
Which is why I'm saying, and I think Alan may be saying, that the term "post-evangelical" is unnecessary, as it describes positions within the Evangelical spectrum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'Lurker':
Which is why I'm saying, and I think Alan may be saying, that the term "post-evangelical" is unnecessary, as it describes positions within the Evangelical spectrum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Black Labrador:

quote:

---

I certainly do not agree that biblical inerrancy is "the most crucial plank of evangelicalism" - many evangelicals don't agree with it (including me!)

---

I was surprised by this. I was pretty much under the impression that biblical inerrancy - in matters of faith and morals, if not in history and biology - was pretty much the raison d'etre of evangelicalism. I write as an ex-evangelical (from the charismatic house church tradition), and biblical inerrancy in faith and morals was pretty much the party line in my day. In fact my inabillity to believe this was one of the reasons I left.

If you say it's not definitive, then naturally I accept it - your experience of evangelicalism is rather more recent than mine. I would be interested to know what you think the crucial plank of evangelicalism is (avoid obvious joke here). I hesitate to evoke the spectre of an obviously dead horse, but the sound of rattles being flung out of prams in the Reading area earlier this year was related, was it not, to the issue of the authority of scripture? I'm sure that none of us wishes to reprise those particular arguments, but the evangelical position seemed to be that homosexuality genuinely couldn't be countenanced because scripture had definitively spoken on the issue.

I'm genuinely seeking enlightenment here, not having a go. What have I misunderstood?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
"Post-Evangelical" is useful because it allows for the fact that many people come through the stage of Scott Peck's second stage of spirituality- the lack of almost any spirituality at all is the first stage- which is the "rules and regulations" and "this way is the only right way" type of spirituality.

The third stage is the questioning, and looking, and taking into account other points of view.

The fourth stage is coming into either deeper beliefs or discarding them entirely.

So P-Es would be third or fourth stage, according to their progression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
I've noticed that Spawn and some other evangelicals are very clever at arguing, but I've noticed a lot of similarity in the arguments. I come across very similar ones from people I know who are of the HTB/St. Andrew's Chorleywood/Toronto Airport stable - I would like to know where they get the lawyer-like ability to argue like this, is it that they have all read the same books where the arguments have already been set out, or is there a training course that one can go on? Or is it just that this sort of Christianity attracts well-educated people such as lawyers who have learned how to argue like this as part of their training? It is very difficult to put a different point of view against these arguments and most of us are untrained in this area.
It reminds me of 'Doublethink' (was that 1984?) where you can be persuaded that black is white by cleverly crafted words.
To my mind it comes across as rather an aggressive way of putting forward ones views on Christianity and very different from the gentle, laid back ways I grew up with, and which I suspect characterises the post-modern approach.

---

Chorister, it doesn't look like Dave C and Daisy May have any problem in dealing with my arguments.

In contrast, your 'gentle and laid-back' ways of communicating your views amount to little more than an ad hominem. You accuse me and a whole group of people of arguing in a lawyer-like way - dismissing us as having undergone the same training or being attracted to this form of Christianity because we're trained in a certain way. In fact we can be dismissed because of our clever words' as being guilty of 'double think' (and yes it was 1984 -- but Orwell didn't use it in this way. Mind you,I don't suppose that matters to the postmodern way of arguing).
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Spawn you responded in just the way I expected. You see - I have you covered

Seriously, though, I wondered whether there are any books on 'how to argue the evangelical point of view' because I have heard so many people now who sound so alike!
In other words, I am trying to tease out whether you have worked out your own theology through blood, sweat and tears, or whether you are putting forward a party line, rather like Fr. Gregory puts forward 'the Orthodox position' (not that this is wrong, just that it would be interesting to know).

p.s. what does 'ad hominem' mean?

[ 06. January 2004, 10:55: Message edited by: Chorister ]
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
I don't know if I'm breaking nettiquette by throwing out some disparate ideas here. Hopefully the hosts can steer me correctly as a new shipmate.

1) An article on evangelicalism in the last issue of The Church Times before Christmas suggested that people who leave evangelical churches because they feel constrained in their thinking often abandon church altogether. I was disappointed in this as I guess I had hoped for the idea that people would move to other forms of church (post evangelical, etc. etc.). I can't remember if this was a proper statistical study.

2) Alan Jamieson's book "A Churchless Faith" presents anecdotal stories of a wide range of people who left evangelical churches - both established and house churches - but who continue to try to maintain their faith-life in various different ways. As a book of personal stories, the experiences and resultant "new position" of each group are quite divergent. Some people maintained their theology/beliefs but left because of disagreements with leadership.

3) As someone who grew up in conservative Christianity, I have "always" been told by "liberals" and "conservatives" alike that biblical inerrantism (with some leeway for exactly what one means by "inerrantism") is the dividing line between being evangelical or being liberal. Someone just told me this the other day. On the other hand, I continue to meet - in real life and on the internet - people who call themselves evangelical and who claim to not be inerrantists but who simply have a "high" view of the bible. I would like to think of myself as being in that category, but I don't know where the dividing line is between "liberal evangelical" and "evangelical liberal" which is why I'd rather just "fluff" the whole definition thing.
 

---

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Spawn you responded in just the way I expected. You see - I have you covered

Seriously, though, I wondered whether there are any books on 'how to argue the evangelical point of view' because I have heard so many people now who sound so alike!
In other words, I am trying to tease out whether you have worked out your own theology through blood, sweat and tears, or whether you are putting forward a party line, rather like Fr. Gregory puts forward 'the Orthodox position' (not that this is wrong, just that it would be interesting to know).

p.s. what does 'ad hominem' mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Thanks Karl - you have put it well. Spawn is an example of this illusion, I am not targeting him specifically and I'm certainly not being insulting.
Perhaps what Spawn is trying to say is that just as we see similarities in the evangelical position, he sees similarities in the post modern position. If so, then I can agree with that. If not, then I shall agree to differ.

---

I try to see people as individuals and deal with their arguments rather than my perceptions of where they are coming from. If I fail in this I am sorry. Finally, I don't see similarities in the postmodern position -- in fact I don't know whether it is a term that describes one position or any number of positions. Before this exchange I had no idea that you considered yourself an exponent of postmodern arguments.

It is clear to me that you are not willing to engage with what I am saying so much as your perception of me.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
You're right - it is not so much what you are saying, it is the way it is put across: ' you are attacking me....; you are dismissing us....; you are being insulting....'
Like it or not, that kind of over-reaction tends to blind the recipient to what you are actually trying to say. And it is this that I react to as I recognise it as the aggressive, antagonistic approach of previous experience I referred to earlier (and wondered why it was so similar). Perhaps it is not your real character - it is sometimes hard to tell online. Maybe you're really a fluffy bunny like me?

I enjoy looking for patterns, and I can see a pattern in the postmodern approach, maybe because I only partly stand within it (mostly preferring to be a staid old-fashioned Anglican, except when my mischevious rebellious side takes over ). But I agree, it is very diverse as well, and people certainly bring their individual personalities into it.

Anyway, perhaps this semi-tangent should now draw to a close or Dave Tomlinson will be getting upset that we are ignoring him ............
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Seeker, I'm sorry that your very interesting post got tangled up in my mischevious, rebellious side. So I've brought it to the fore again so it can be discussed properly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't know if I'm breaking nettiquette by throwing out some disparate ideas here. Hopefully the hosts can steer me correctly as a new shipmate.

1) An article on evangelicalism in the last issue of The Church Times before Christmas suggested that people who leave evangelical churches because they feel constrained in their thinking often abandon church altogether. I was disappointed in this as I guess I had hoped for the idea that people would move to other forms of church (post evangelical, etc. etc.). I can't remember if this was a proper statistical study.

2) Alan Jamieson's book "A Churchless Faith" presents anecdotal stories of a wide range of people who left evangelical churches - both established and house churches - but who continue to try to maintain their faith-life in various different ways. As a book of personal stories, the experiences and resultant "new position" of each group are quite divergent. Some people maintained their theology/beliefs but left because of disagreements with leadership.

3) As someone who grew up in conservative Christianity, I have "always" been told by "liberals" and "conservatives" alike that biblical inerrantism (with some leeway for exactly what one means by "inerrantism") is the dividing line between being evangelical or being liberal. Someone just told me this the other day. On the other hand, I continue to meet - in real life and on the internet - people who call themselves evangelical and who claim to not be inerrantists but who simply have a "high" view of the bible. I would like to think of myself as being in that category, but I don't know where the dividing line is between "liberal evangelical" and "evangelical liberal" which is why I'd rather just "fluff" the whole definition thing.

---

quote:

---

Spawn is an example of this illusion, I am not targeting him specifically and I'm certainly not being insulting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
You're right - it is not so much what you are saying, it is the way it is put across: ' you are attacking me....; you are dismissing us....; you are being insulting....'
Like it or not, that kind of over-reaction tends to blind the recipient to what you are actually trying to say. And it is this that I react to as I recognise it as the aggressive, antagonistic approach of previous experience I referred to earlier (and wondered why it was so similar). Perhaps it is not your real character - it is sometimes hard to tell online. Maybe you're really a fluffy bunny like me?

---

quote:

---

I believe that you are damned to hell

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Host

Spawn, your words

quote:

---

I believe that you are damned to hell

---

were, I assume, meant to be humorous. They cross the line just as Chorister crossed the line.

Chorister and Spawn, if you desire to further your conversation with one another, you may take it to Hell. Please refrain from further personal references in Purgatory.

/Host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
...but I don't know where the dividing line is between "liberal evangelical" and "evangelical liberal" which is why I'd rather just "fluff" the whole definition thing.

---

OK Seeker, now you're scaring me! This is precisely what I was thinking about in bed last night.

I know, I know, I need to get out more.

(Jack, FWIW feeling more comfortable with "liberal evangelical" than "post-evangelical", helpful though the book undoubtedly was).
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Post-evangelicals (stage three) could move on in stage four to be liberal evangelicals, liberals, atheists, New Agers, Orthodox, etc...

So you're Ok, Jack - reading it and realising the relief was part of stage three, and you're at stage four!
 

---

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
Post-evangelicals (stage three) could move on in stage four to be liberal evangelicals, liberals, atheists, New Agers, Orthodox, etc...

---

What about moving on to be evangelicals? Wouldn't that be possible, daisymay?


Humblebum
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 

quote:

---

OK Seeker, now you're scaring me! This is precisely what I was thinking about in bed last night.

I know, I know, I need to get out more.

---

Hmm, yeah, well, if you're thinking about this stuff in bed, you should be scared, don't you think!

I'd be interested in your take on it, though.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
If they were evangelicals moving onto to postevangelicalism then back to being evangelical again then they'd hardly be postevangelical at all would they, Humblebum?

They'd have been evangelical all the time.

Except when they were post ...

Post it and past it.

Gamaliel
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 

quote:

---

Post-evangelicals (stage three) could move on in stage four to be liberal evangelicals, liberals, atheists, New Agers, Orthodox, etc...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
It is important with Fowler's stages of faith that they are descriptive but not linear (as in Stage 4 being better than Stage 2, for example) and it is possible to move from stage 3 to stage 4 and back to 3, and so on, all through your life.

---

Huh?

Surely the whole point of using the numbers 1-4 is to imply a linear order, Chorister?

So that Stage one is normally followed by stage 2, which naturally leads to stage 3, even if there are exceptions to the pattern. Otherwise, you would call the stages "N","R","Q" and "D", or something like that.

No?

Humblebum
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
This is a flaw in them being numbered, Humblebum. It would probably have been better if they had been lettered instead. I think you'll find that Tomlinson and Peck explain what I'm trying to say better than I can say it, if you wish to explore this further.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
(Drat, out of time - my broadband is playing up today.....)

What concerns me about the numbering is the awful potential spectacle of one Christian saying to another - 'I'm a stage 3 Christian and you're only at stage 2', and feeling horribly superior.
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister
The thing I found unsatisfactory about the book, which I find in all books which identify problems with churches, is the conclusions about solutions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
This is a flaw in them being numbered, Humblebum. It would probably have been better if they had been lettered instead. I think you'll find that Tomlinson and Peck explain what I'm trying to say better than I can say it, if you wish to explore this further.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
What concerns me about the numbering is the awful potential spectacle of one Christian saying to another - 'I'm a stage 3 Christian and you're only at stage 2', and feeling horribly superior.

---

quote:

---

1) An article on evangelicalism in the last issue of The Church Times before Christmas suggested that people who leave evangelical churches because they feel constrained in their thinking often abandon church altogether. I was disappointed in this as I guess I had hoped for the idea that people would move to other forms of church (post evangelical, etc. etc.). I can't remember if this was a proper statistical study.

---

I´m sure this happens but then I see statistics showing that - at least in the UK - non-evangelical churches have declined more than evangelical ones. So there must be many more people who leave non-evangelical churches who presumably abandon church altogether?

I´d suggest that all this shows is that evangelicals are better at getting people into the church (look at the church growth statistics) and better at getting people out of churches (they join non-evangelical churches rather than abandon church altogether).

(Chorister, this argument does not come from a HTB course called "How to argue with liberals". Honest. )

I am wondering what the differences between postevangelicals and liberals are. What aspects, if any, of evangelicalism do post-evangelicals continue to identify with?

[Fixed mystery UBB]

[ 07. January 2004, 09:38: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Humblebum,
BTW, I prefer Peck to Fowler as it's more experiential IMO.

Someone who was a post-evangelical could "progress" or "proceed" or "move" to evangelical. Say they grew up in a family who were P-E, who had come out of an evangelical background, and the family were moving towards liberal rather than liberal-evangelical, the questioning (stage 3) process of an individual might end up in their decision to go with evangelicalism (stage 4). It wouldn't be legalistic or critical, but something that was within them personally.

It could also be a teenage rebellion and then they might well go for the legalism (2) bit. That would assume that the P-E stuff they grew up with had never been their own spirituality but something they had dumped on them, or had just assumed.

I do think that rather then a line of progression, Peck's stages might be better envisioned as a spiral, where we may revisit stages at a different level.
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
Black Labrador: I just want to be clear that I was not trying to be derogatory toward evangelicals. I was quoting a statement made in the context of an article about evangelicals. I guess I'd also say that given that there was a point in history not too long ago when liberal churches were growing more quickly that: a) I'm not sure "fast growth" is an indicator of anything and that b) I wonder how much the choice of a "type" of church might be a function of the "Zeitgeist". My disappointment, really, was that people were being lost to Christian congregations, full stop.

There are things about both "liberal" and "evangelical" churches that I like and dislike and if anyone is going to have a picture of my views - insofar as I can control it - I'd like to be either a liberal evangelical or an evangelical liberal. I suspect if one is a traditional evangelical, I'm an evangelical liberal and if one is a traditional liberal I'm a liberal evangelical. I.e., I usually feel like I don't quite belong exactly correctly to either camp.

Daiseymay, it's been a long time since I've read the Peck book, but my understanding is that Peck just took Fowler's seven stages and turned them into three and I thought he pretty much said so in the book. But, as I say, I've not read it recently.

I agree with the poster who said (sorry I forgot who) that the stages should be used fluidly. I do often feel that some people see them as linear and see those who do not have as liberal a theology as they do as being somehow less advanced in faith. But that appears to be a "stage" to me as well.
 

---

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
It could also be a teenage rebellion and then they might well go for the legalism (2) bit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
Hmm, to be honest I'm still rather suspicious about this (even without having read Fowler or Peck). Everyone I know who talks about these stages of faith talks about "progressing" from stage to stage (you defended the concept of a progression yourself earlier this thread), so the general linear pattern is too obvious to say that it's irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The taxonomy is rigged. Once you adopt their descriptions, you can't argue against their conclusions. There is no space within the language to state opposition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
I´m sure this happens but then I see statistics showing that - at least in the UK - non-evangelical churches have declined more than evangelical ones. So there must be many more people who leave non-evangelical churches who presumably abandon church altogether?

I´d suggest that all this shows is that evangelicals are better at getting people into the church (look at the church growth statistics) and better at getting people out of churches (they join non-evangelical churches rather than abandon church altogether).

(Chorister, this argument does not come from a HTB course called "How to argue with liberals". Honest. )

I am wondering what the differences between postevangelicals and liberals are. What aspects, if any, of evangelicalism do post-evangelicals continue to identify with?

---

I love your humour! (although I am sure HTB will be most disappointed that you have been rebellious and not read the recommended literature )

Some people might argue that a certain number of people left established churches because they were persuaded away by extreme religious groups - both Christian and other cults - where they were exposed to teaching which put them off any sort of church for ever. But how many this affected in total, I don't know.

Presumably to be a true post-evangelical, one first needs to have been evangelical, whereas for liberals this is not necessary?
 

---

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

OK Seeker, now you're scaring me! This is precisely what I was thinking about in bed last night.

I know, I know, I need to get out more.

---

Hmm, yeah, well, if you're thinking about this stuff in bed, you should be scared, don't you think!

---

Well, yes, quite. Let's not go there
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Chorister:

quote:

---

Presumably to be a true post-evangelical, one first needs to have been evangelical, whereas for liberals this is not necessary?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack the Lass:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

OK Seeker, now you're scaring me! This is precisely what I was thinking about in bed last night.

I know, I know, I need to get out more.

---

Hmm, yeah, well, if you're thinking about this stuff in bed, you should be scared, don't you think!

---

Well, yes, quite. Let's not go there

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
Some of my family reckon that only if you are a Thatcher's child do you merit the title "post-evangelical".

---

quote:

---

finding reasons for spiritual superiority has been a major activity of all sorts of christians ever since the church began, and there's no reason to suppose it will stop now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I see Fowler's "stages of faith" as useful if used in the same fluid way. However, I'll still protest that I see them as stages of theology (thinking about God) as opposed to faith (what we've internalised about our faith such that it affects our life).

---

quote:

---

Some of my family reckon that only if you are a Thatcher's child do you merit the title "post-evangelical".

---

As I shall be 51 next week, Daisymay, I only wish that this were true!!
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm not sure they're actually stages of anything pretty much at all; but certainly not necessarily changes of theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
Spot on Dave C. There is no reason to demand that we move "on" from one stage to another, nor that we should regard ourselves as "better" than someone who is at a different 'stage' from us. Some people need to be at a particular place in their life and spirituality, and may need to stay there all their lives. And some of them may be effectively ministering to others who are in a similar place.

---

This is the best explanation I have seen in a long while as to why we need different types of churches or ministry.

(Given that my wiblog avatar is Elmo, I hope that is not a picture of me being flamed, Daisymay)

 

---

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
OK Seeker, now you're scaring me! This is precisely what I was thinking about in bed last night.

I know, I know, I need to get out more.

---

Hmm, yeah, well, if you're thinking about this stuff in bed, you should be scared, don't you think!

I'd be interested in your take on it, though.

---

Sorry Seeker, I was a bit flippant before and didn't answer your final question. What I was pondering was the ease of use of "liberal" as an adjective to describe evangelicals (as I for example consider myself a 'liberal evangelical'), whereas "evangelical" as an adjective to describe a liberal doesn't work in quite the same way. I don't think.

But there was a thread a while ago on all these labels, so I don't think there's much point rehashing it.
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
Um, not sure if I'm supposed to answer or not.

I think that "evangelical" to describe "liberal" can have a meaning. Insofar as evangelicalism has a particular sort of history which is mostly not associated with simple inerrantism (of whatever flavour). But, yep, whatever.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Chorister,
I would never harm a teddy bear .

And St Elmo's fire doesn't burn hot. It flickers along the handrails and around the rigging.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0