Thread: Hell: The Evangelical-Bashing Room: a safe refuge for all of you who want to whinge Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001096

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
I thought it was time that someone set up a safe, nurturing space.

Ever been upset by Evangelicals?

Feel damaged by them? Had a hard time at their hands? Did a nasty evangelical kid steal your sweets? Is your lawsuit still pending?

Been contaminated by reading John Stott? Or NT Wright?

Want to make offensive comparisons between those terrible, common Evangelicals to mad fundamentalists because it'll make you Feel Better? Or maybe you Just Don't Like Them?

Well, whinge to your heart's content here, so we don't have to hear it everywhere else all the f***ing time, already.

[ 10. March 2003, 01:33: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
And don't forget to throw in all the inferences of how bad evangelical theology is based on the teaching of people who aren't even evangelical
 

---

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :
 
But Wood...I've just posted on the Churchless Faith thread agreeing with you, and being complimentary about Evangelicals. And you go and start this thread.

It's like telling an alcoholic to look after a bar and saying "help yourself to a drink won't you?"


 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Well this is no fun.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
No fun?

Whyever not?

Does the idea that PEOPLE MIGHT BE REALLY BLOODY ANNOYED ABOUT BEING PIGEONHOLED, CRASSLY DISMISSED, PATRONISED AND WHINED ABOUT make it somehow less fun?

Or is the whole exercise paling somewhat?
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Can I still bash liberals?
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Can I still bash liberals?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:
Have I caught onto the idea of this thread yet?

---

If you have please explain it to me.

Actually Wood has his knickers in a twist and wants to whinge. I don't know if I helped fuel this or not (I did say something about Sola Scriptura, but if Wood thinks that's an exclusively Evangelical doctrine, he is forgetting his history).

Some of my best friends are Evangelicals. I learned a lot and grew a lot in the period when I was an Evangelical. (Grew out of it, but that's neither here nor there.)

I have no desire to bash Evangelicals.

Now Calvinists, on the other hand,....

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
Point us in the direction of the latest offender Mr Wood, (thread link please). So that we may offer our voiced or silent opprobrium.

Of course, if someone is being an arse, one should distinguish their arse-ness from their theological standpoint. People who are arses and evangelicals are likely to remain arses even after the most stunning, high camp Anglocatholic conversion experience.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Well, I think this thread SUX. I am not checking in here again....
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Alex, you do yourself too much credit. One swipe at a doctrine which is as you said not exclusively evangelical is not going to get me starting a thread, is it?


Oh, just read the signature, guys.
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
I want to bash liberals, can I? Pleeease?
 

---

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
duchess, that's the most disgusting signature I've seen.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Alex, you do yourself too much credit. One swipe at a doctrine which is as you said not exclusively evangelical is not going to get me starting a thread, is it?

---

Wood, me owd sod, I don't even pretend to begin to fathom what makes you start threads.

You'd probably be happier if you werne't so doggoned Evangelical, though.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Astro (# 84) on :
 
You can only bash hard liberals if you try it with soft liberals it doesn't work
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
That's right, Astro, darn it. Liberals are no fun.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Liberals are WAY funner than evangelicals, any day of the week. Evangelicals aren't allowed to do anything! It's a wonder you guys get converts.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I have to disagree, Ruth. All Liberals want to talk about is sex, sex, sex. Evangelicals will at least know the ball scores.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
Well, Hell's really thrusting on all thrusters tonight.

I don't have anything further to add.
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
No, Ruth, it's LEGALISTS that aren't allowed to do anything.

Can we bash them?
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
No, Ruth, it's LEGALISTS that aren't allowed to do anything.

Can we bash them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
All Liberals want to talk about is sex, sex, sex.

---

Wrong again, that's all conservative evangelicals seem to want to talk about -- getting their ideas about proper/improper sexual behavio(u)r codified as soon as possible so that we can all live evangelical, too. Oh, and not to forget that (at least in the U.S.) the evangelicals of the fundamentalist variety need to pack the schoolboards so that a few states can be the laughing-stock of the free world for not providing education regarding the "theory" of evolution.

And furthermore, just leave me the hell alone, okay? Don't knock on my door, don't give me your literature, I've already got as "personal" a savio(u)r as I need to have, thanks. Oh, being an Episcopalian isn't good enough, is it? I have to be a glossolalian, too?

Good enough, Wood, or do you want more? There's more where that came from.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Though I'll note, I know I wasn't the one Wood's talking about -- I don't think I've ever had a serious Whinge about evangelicals, as such. It's more some of the subsets of that group that cause me heartburn.
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

Does the idea that PEOPLE MIGHT BE REALLY BLOODY ANNOYED ABOUT BEING PIGEONHOLED, CRASSLY DISMISSED, PATRONISED AND WHINED ABOUT make it somehow less fun?

---

Which is why we are getting our own back on the Evangelicals right now.

I am a member of a small but powerful Cabal whose only purpose is the Eradication of Evangelicalism within the next 20 years. Read all about us in a certain church newspaper.

Sadly however I have no beef with Evangelicals at all, just that mad sprawling beast known as Evangelicalism and Evangelical theology. So difficult to pinpoint yet so vociferous in its output.
 

---

Posted by Tim V (# 830) on :
 
Mwahahaha. You might want to be nice to the evangelicals once in a while. After all, they're pretty much holding the C of E up all on their own. Piss them off too much and they might leave, allowing the remainder of the institution to do a rather nice impression of a stellar implosion.

After all, where we go: God goes. It's not arrogance, it's just self-confidence .
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim V:
Mwahahaha. You might want to be nice to the evangelicals once in a while. After all, they're pretty much holding the C of E up all on their own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And don't forget to throw in all the inferences of how bad evangelical theology is based on the teaching of people who aren't even evangelical

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
But lets get serious here. Evangelicalism is completely unprepared to deal with the Post-Modern meta shift.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
[QUOTE]Laura, I'm not an Evangelical OR a Pentecostal/Charismatic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Laura, I'm not an Evangelical OR a Pentecostal/Charismatic

---

I never said you were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
In reality Evangelicalism is by association, and I think young Ken and my friends in the Faith camp count, as does Pinnock.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
I agree with Pinnock on 90% of everything.

So why am I not Evangelical?

---

Maybe you are?

reader alexis
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Some of the best sender-uppers of Evangelicals are Evangelicals themselves (Starbelly, you know who you are!)

BTW, over on the wibsite, Neil's worship song fridge magnets are a scream

Me, I only ever send up Great Torrington
 

---

Posted by likeness (# 2773) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
[QB]BTW, over on the wibsite, Neil's worship song fridge magnets are a scream [QB]

---

Wherabouts on the wibsite?


 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
I agree with Pinnock on 90% of everything.

So why am I not Evangelical?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by likeness:
[QB

---

Wherabouts on the wibsite?

[/QUOTE]

In 'features'

/wibblethorpe/features.htm
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
web pagehere
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
Well I thinks its clear that I have been victimising Evangelicals.

This is clearly unfair.

I now declare open season on all Christians and the entire Church.

Screw it. I'm now a Taoist.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
You can't be a taoist and a Christian? I'm in trouble!

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim V:
Mwahahaha. You might want to be nice to the evangelicals once in a while. After all, they're pretty much holding the C of E up all on their own. Piss them off too much and they might leave, allowing the remainder of the institution to do a rather nice impression of a stellar implosion.

After all, where we go: God goes. It's not arrogance, it's just self-confidence .

---

BOLLOCKS and UTTER RUBBISH! As far as I am concerned, the Evangelicals are what is ruining the tradition of the Anglican Church... But then I have already consigned it to burn in Hell so - there you are. Let the evangelicals burn with the church they are trying to prop up with SUCH PRIDE.

(Didn't you know that Pride comes before a fall?)
 

---

Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
#Hm-hm hmm hm-hmmmm, hm-hm-hm hm-hm....Start spreadin' the n-#

Ah-hah! Here's the graffiti. "Tomb is a-" Oh, God, that's disgusting. A bit of rub down will get rid of that. Now then, who's thought it a jolly good laugh to shove all the toilet paper down the bowl? Probably Simon or fiddleback again. heigh-ho.

I've often wondered about the appropriation of lables in order to make a Point, the Point being that you are not one of Us.

Consider: the two major labels (used with approval by that authority on everything, The Boy, no less) Evangelical Christian and Catholic Christian. Now, it appears to me that both these statements are ultimately meaningless.

"Evangelical" denotes "relating to the Good Proclamation". Now, because "Evangel" is shorthand for the proclamation about Jesus, then by definition any proclamation about Jesus is "Evangelical", therefore to claim to be "Evangelical" (and thus declare that someone else is not) is somewhat missing the point.

Likewise, "Catholic". The Ekklesia is Catholic (in that it is present in all the ekklesiai) - but I don't think a person or a group of people can be "catholic" in this sense, can they? (They can of course be "catholic" in the sense of broad, like in an aesthetic, but that is not the claim being made by this label). Unless someone is claiming to be in two places at once (perhaps some people are making this claim, in which case I suggest they seek help), then a person can't be "catholic" in the ecclesiastical sense at all. So again, a rather pointless description of one's position. (Especially so when linked to the word "Anglo"; as if it's possible to be "Catholic" whilst particularising that to a particular Protestant sect or race at the same time! )

"Protestant"'s a good one too. Of course, everyone knows it derives from the "protest" of German princes against the Pope, which suggests that it's about assertion of state power than any actual theology - and we know who the greatest Protestant of all was on that score, don't we?question what kind of d

There is only one thing worse than using these redundant labels to describe oneself - using them to pejoratively refer to another with the lable you dislike.

What a sad bunch of wankers we christians are.
 

---

Posted by Boot (# 2611) on :
 
Personally I can see what Wood means.

And I don't think (most!) evangelicals are any less equiped to move with the times than any other branch of the church is. Lets face it, it's hard work for us all- great opportunities but also challenges.

And Nunc, after your rant in the 'Church is dying' thread, I thought you had had enough with anglican tradition? Or did I get the wrong end of the stick?

Now. NFI bashing, I'd gladly join in with that....



b

But yes, Tim V's comment was rubbish! God 'goes' (as he puts it) where he damn well likes. It's up to us to follow him, not assume it happens the other way round.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
I'm posting once more on this thread. England lost just now, so maybe I'm not in a good enough mood to do this.

Edward. I am going to say this only once.

I am going to use short words so that you understand what I am saying.

I am doing this because I like and respect you, and because I prefer doing this civilly to hunting you down and ripping your head off your shoulders.

Now bloody well pay attention.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
Sadly however I have no beef with Evangelicals at all, just that mad sprawling beast known as Evangelicalism and Evangelical theology. So difficult to pinpoint yet so vociferous in its output.

---

"I have no problem with Americans, It's America I can't stand."

Hmmm, remember the reaction to that one? Me too.

Point One.
Edward, you've said nice things about me and Alan Cresswell, and then condemned the basis of what makes us who we are. This is a double standard. Can you really not see how offensive it is, and why this makes me so apocalyptically angry?

Point Two
Please change the record. I'm sure you have other opinions.

I recall one of your very first posts on the old incarnation of Small Fire being more or less about how Evangelicalism is harmful, unable to relate to Post-Modernism and moribund. I called you on it then, and I've lost count of how many times you've been called on it.

We know what you think about Evangelicals. We understand it. Many of us don't agree. So why are you telling us all about it again and again and again?

You were wrong a year and a half ago, and you continue to be so. I just don't want the chore of having to call you on this every other week for the rest of my life.

Point Three
Your experience is, by your own evidence, and your own admission, extremely limited. Experiences outside of your own have been stated which have in the past conclusively proved you wrong (re, for example, Chalky in the 'churchless faith' thread).

This is the kind of thing Young Earth Creationists do.

Point Four
Your continual assertion that Evangelicalism Is Wrong smacks of the very modernist absolutism that you so claim to despise.

(Frankly, sometimes I suspect that you wouldn't know postmodernism if it did a little dance in front of you wearing a beret and waving a copy of S/Z at you.)

Seriously, all you're actually doing is (literally) condemning us to Hell. You're just using different words (Nunc is, too, right now, but since she's only trying to get a rise out of us this time, I'm not biting).

Point Five
You have this annoying habit of stating an opinion as if it were some kind of fact.

Ok.

Anglo-Catholicism is essentially harmful because it promotes an inability to commit either to Protestantism or Catholicism proper and mistakes depth for shallow, juvenile and tasteless displays of finery and class-bound sneering at other groups' practices as if they're actually important.

Hmmm. Like that?

All right then, how about this:

Alt. Worship is no more than a bunch of people who think that reinventing the wheel in the most pretentious fashion they can think of is going to get them over their inability to actually engage with the Christian faith.

Or even:

Post-Evangelicalism is appallingly harmful from its very basis because of its self-definition in opposition to an established branch of the Church and its self-denial about the culture of whinging it has created.

Are these things facts?

No, they're opinions, and they should be expressed as such.

Do I really think these things?

You'll never know.

Are they offensive?

They're bloody offensive, frankly. If anyone said them, I wouldn't need to call them, because half the board would jump on top of them and beat them into a semi-recognisable pulp.

So where do you get off making pronouncements like 'Evangelicalism is harmful from its very foundations'?

There is a major double standard that has to be addressed here. And frankly, if nobody else is going to address it, I consider myself up to the job.

Point Six
You're not really saying that your frankly narrow experience of Evangelicalism proves that Evangelicalism is Wrong.

You're saying "It didn't work for me." Well, great. Just demonstrate a bit of honesty, will you?

OK. That's it.

You want to take this further, Edward, PM me, but publicly, that's my final word on the matter.
 

---

Posted by Miffy (# 1438) on :
 
Of course it may just be the Sudafed kicking in, but I seem to have completely lost the plot here.

Would someone kindly explain what this thread is meant to be about?
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Well, because I'm feeling lousy today, even having taken my medication, I will join in this goups hug with knives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
But lets get serious here. Evangelicalism is completely unprepared to deal with the Post-Modern meta shift.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
I'm not saying the rest of the church is prepared, but lets see what happens in 20 years or so.

---

You seem to think this gets you out of it, don't you? "Nobody is ready, but the Evangelicals aren't either". Sorry. Evangelicalism is AT LEAST as able to adapt to a post-modern society as any other brand of theology. 20 years or so? I guess we will still be having the same debates about the imminent demise of evangelicalism.

Ed - I have learnt a lot from you on these boards. Between you and Adrian, I have had some wonderful debates in Small Fire. I appreciate it. I had thought that you were more open than some other ac's on the ship. Please don't prove me wrong.
 

---

Posted by W (# 14) on :
 
So... just out of interest, are ex-evangelicals (of whom there are a lot on the ship) ever allowed to talk about their experience and air opinions about where they've come from? Or does that fall outside the definition of 'Christian Unrest'?

dave
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by W:
So... just out of interest, are ex-evangelicals (of whom there are a lot on the ship) ever allowed to talk about their experience and air opinions about where they've come from? Or does that fall outside the definition of 'Christian Unrest'?

dave

---

Oh, for fuck's sake, Dave.

Yes, of course they are.

But this does not give anyone a carte blanche to say in a sweeping statement 'evangelicalism is worng'.

Please tell me you see the distinction.
 

---

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
I know you didn't say there was Mr Wood, but I'd just like to affirm:
There is nothing wrong with Modernist Absolutism.

Thankyou.

Coot,
Modernist.
(In case I have not made it clear over the last 12 mths, I (see I take responsibility) believe Post-Modernism is a scourge on humanity)
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
And piling on the post-modern "meta shift" comment, Evangelicals ARE addressing post-modernism at length. Some are embracing it. (I don't, although I think we have to take cultural shifts such as post-modernism into account in our ministries.)

Check out theooze.com for a sampler.

(I still wanna bash somebody.)
 

---

Posted by Stoo (# 254) on :
 
go bash a bishop.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I have to protest the title of this thread. This was supposed to be a SAFE REFUGE for evangelical-bashers, and yet several evangelical-bashers have been severely jumped upon by evangelicals and taken to task. You call that safe? You call that refuge?

I wash my hands of you $*#&$#&* Protestants. Give me Barabbas.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I have to protest the title of this thread. This was supposed to be a SAFE REFUGE for evangelical-bashers, and yet several evangelical-bashers have been severely jumped upon by evangelicals and taken to task. You call that safe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
They ought to be jumped upon. Evangelical-bashing is unChristian, as is Anglican-bashing, Orthodox-bashing, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boot:
And Nunc, after your rant in the 'Church is dying' thread, I thought you had had enough with anglican tradition? Or did I get the wrong end of the stick?

---

No, you're right. I've had enough of the CHURCH and everyone in it (me included)!

Those who are in the church are only condemned to the extent they are in it. Like people trying to save a moribund building, and waiting until the first blows of the demolition team strike the building before making a run for their lives.

As Wood and I have thrashed the issue of Evangelicalism out already , I refuse to make more generally sweeping comments about Evangelicals here, than that they are part of the moribund institution described above, and as such, are no more or less *stupid* than any other Christians for participating in it and trying to prop up its walls/pews/OHPs .

Having said that, do understand that I have the deepest and most sincere love of the Anglican Church (and of the Church as a whole). I do not really want to see it, or the church as a whole, go down the gurgler.

I do think that having our petty jealousies, our petty "I'm in, you're out" attitude to life and faith doesn't do very much to build it up. Thankyou Wood and Edward for exhibiting so clearly exactly the kind of conflict I was moaning about on my other thread...

Mind you, I have not forgotten that not so long ago, I was (sometimes inadvertantly) dissing Evangelicals. It's just... the soul wearies of it. And that means that what it is weary of can't be a good thing.

And I'll just shut up now because I am rambling...
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boot:
And Nunc, after your rant in the 'Church is dying' thread, I thought you had had enough with anglican tradition? Or did I get the wrong end of the stick?

---

No, you're right. I've had enough of the CHURCH and everyone in it (me included)!

Those who are in the church are only condemned to the extent they are in it. Like people trying to save a moribund building, and waiting until the first blows of the demolition team strike the building before making a run for their lives.

As Wood and I have thrashed the issue of Evangelicalism out already , I refuse to make more generally sweeping comments about Evangelicals here, than that they are part of the moribund institution described above, and as such, are no more or less *stupid* than any other Christians for participating in it and trying to prop up its walls/pews/OHPs .

Having said that, do understand that I have the deepest and most sincere love of the Anglican Church (and of the Church as a whole). I do not really want to see it, or the church as a whole, go down the gurgler.

I do think that having our petty jealousies, our petty "I'm in, you're out" attitude to life and faith doesn't do very much to build it up. Thankyou Wood and Edward for exhibiting so clearly exactly the kind of conflict I was moaning about on my other thread...

Mind you, I have not forgotten that not so long ago, I was (sometimes inadvertantly) dissing Evangelicals. It's just... the soul wearies of it. And that means that what it is weary of can't be a good thing.

And I'll just shut up now because I am rambling...
 

---

Posted by Astro (# 84) on :
 
There are more evangelicals in Brazil than in England which just goes to show what a country with more evangelicals can do ...
Then on the otherhand there are more Catholics in Brazil than in England ...

Shall we settle this with penalty shootouts?
 

---

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :
 
This, presumably, is why South Korea beat Italy.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Rambling deja-vu.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
They ought to be jumped upon. Evangelical-bashing is unChristian, as is Anglican-bashing, Orthodox-bashing, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward Green:
Through their regular and comitted paying of the Parish Share?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
As non-payment of Parish Share is a principle of Evangelicalism and no non-Evangelicals have ever failed to pay their Parish Share, it is entirely reasonable, is it not, to tar Evangelicalism with the 'not paying the Parish Share' brush?

---

If someone would be kind enough to translate this, I would be most obliged.

Alex
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
I would gladly translate except this is a "safe-refuge" room for evangelical bashing.

Man, I was about to do some bashing, too. *whimper*
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Mousethief--the subject referred to is the ancient Anglican tradition of Evangelical parishes refusing to pay their diocesan quota, usually either on the grounds that they should not have to support a bunch of dying parishes full of skinny old women on bicycles, or on the grounds that the Bishop is Soft on Queers.

Am thinking of starting a chapter of Via Media Militant.
 

---

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Wood,

Quote: "Want to make offensive comparisons between those terrible, common Evangelicals to mad fundamentalists.."

Who would ever be so silly as to compare an Evangelical to a crazed tightrope walker?

Greta
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Thank you, Amos.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
Sorry, Mousethief, I was occupied elsewhere in cyberspace, doing a bit of Ship-related research.

As others have now kindly explained 'Parish Share' , I shall simply add that (as you will no doubt have gathered), that was a bit of unsubtle British irony - as opposed to American irony which is so subtle that the British don't even think that Americans have a sense of irony.

[And - for the hard of irony-spotting - that bit wasn't irony ].
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
I do NOT walk tightropes.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Of course the problem, Chapelhead, was not the irony but the history, of which I was blissfully ignorant (and NO THANKS for ruining this bliss, by the bye). That's the real impasse between Brits and Americans -- not irony. Y'all just forget that the rest of the world doesn't memorize every little happening on your insignificant little island.

Reader ALexis
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
...your insignificant little island.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Oh, for fuck's sake, Dave.

Yes, of course they are.

But this does not give anyone a carte blanche to say in a sweeping statement 'evangelicalism is worng'.

Please tell me you see the distinction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arietty:
Evangelicalism is WORNG.

There. I said it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arietty:
Evangelicalism is WORNG.

There. I said it.

---

Can somebody please translate this for me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
As Wood has not yet replied and I have an idle moment, I hope you will not take it amiss if I answer your friend's question... Should his parish withhold all or part of its Diocesan Quota, it will indeed be both Evangelical and WORNG,

---

Um, Parish Share?

Not all evangelicals are Anglican, you know.

Seriously, though. I cannot believe that all Evangelical Anglicans (even the WORNG ones) withhold their Parish Share. That accusation is dfinitely the kind of thing that drives me nuts.
 

---

Posted by AndT (# 1901) on :
 
oh i feel really comfortable posting on this board ...one foot out of place and certain hosts tell yo to f-off and be angry just like them...

you know what

i think you can take your own advice if you like...id rather be like Jesus...as best i can
forgets and pigeon holes, on both sides and be a frickeing christian...

and christs sake cheer up!


 

---

Posted by AndT (# 1901) on :
 
that is what exactly are you going to moan about? an instance to discuss on this non thread of nonthreads

please
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Should his parish withhold all or part of its Diocesan Quota, it will indeed be both Evangelical and WORNG, and the deserved mock and scorn of surrounding parishes who have scrimped and saved to pay theirs in full. However it will have the extra money to reorder the church interior and put in fitted carpets and new, padded chairs, and so it won't care what anybody says about it. Sour grapes.

---

As our (sorry, my friend's) church is a product of the Oxford Movement, is highly decorated internally (only gets Grade 2 listed, though), could not (no matter how much it wanted to, which it doesn't) have any significant degree of re-ordering, has as its patron the Society for the Maintenance of the Faith (a fine Anglo-Catholic organisation, I believe) and would be supported in delaying payment of the Parish Share by its nearest neighbour church (despite the fact that they think we are a bit too high-church), wrong on all counts I think.

Wood has got the point. Not all Evangelical CofE churches withhold their Parish Share, not all churches that withhold their Parish Share are Evangelical.

Slagging off Evangelcalism because (some) Evangelical churches don't pay their parish share is as logical as slagging off the Roman Catholic Church because of the misbehaviour of (some) Roman Catholic Priests.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
No, no, and no! (as Fr. Cosmo would say). It doesn't matter if your church is dedicated to the Blessed Virgin of Bourne Street. If your church withholds its parish share it becomes, by definition, Evangelical. Or rather, it becomes NonConformist and Congregational--we Catholic Anglican types are occasionally a little laissez-faire in our terminology. Especially when we can do it with a lordly wave of the hand. The Grade Two Listed decorations are sucked into a great vortex and your friend is on the broad and sunlit path leading downhill to Lay Presidency.
 

---

Posted by AndT (# 1901) on :
 
and also a[a bit braver and less irritated]...has anyone (with all due respectaaa) on this board ever heard of non-anglican evangelicals??

...the very big free churches , associated movements and soon...usually bordering on very effective and good but often following americania fundies up their end-time, 6,000 year old bottoms.

leave your brains and reason at the door please...roll on the chick publications and new revivla etc. et bloody cetra.



now if anyone is to be 'admonished' (ho hum) and in a christlike manner for the good of the church it is these over spiritualising, all-sussed-out and all guns blazing 'evangelicals'.


there.

bashed.



I suppose Wood these are the types you have gotten irritated with in the past? just a guess?...dont u think it's just a shame that that mutant hybrid string of churches should attract so many genuinley irritating and icky souls (gawd bless em ).

but come on-i am evangelical and fundamental in degrees.. i would wager that those who are as liberal as they like to make out are less than we think and less brave to be positivley liberal too! (that is rather than negative/define themselves as opposed to evangelicals/ orthodox/catholics etc...(are they not evangelicals? sorry i dunno).

i think there's good and bad in all things...we tend to exacerbate both in whatever groupwe align with even here. Whst dto do though? split or commit?
 

---

Posted by AndT (# 1901) on :
 
sorry ...a bit of smileria there.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
AndT, if you would take the effort that went into all of those smilies and put it into grammar and punctuation, there is a possibility that I might have some idea what you are talking about.

scot
 

---

Posted by AndT (# 1901) on :
 
How in God's name does your little finger work when it's not attatched to the rest of your hand?



Translation:
(just for poor little no-jointed scott)

sdasdasaj sjd./.'ssa./..//s,,sd
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I'm not quite sure what point you are making either, AndT. Could you redraft it in words of one syllable (preferably clean!) for us dimwits?

And Wood, a suggestion, why not be more positive by starting a thread about what is good in Evangelical churches - where people are not allowed to post negative views, only positive ones (any negative views have to be portrayed by a deep silence). It might challenge those of us who see some bad things in Evangelicalism (or in some Evangelical churches) to admit that they do have some plus points as well, eg. large numbers.
 

---

Posted by Stoo (# 254) on :
 
Andt...

can i have some of whatever you've been drinking/smoking this evening please?
 

---

Posted by Stoo (# 254) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
And Wood, a suggestion, why not be more positive by starting a thread about what is good in Evangelical churches - where people are not allowed to post negative views, only positive ones...

---

Yeah, cos that'd work...
 

---

Posted by AndT (# 1901) on :
 
Sure, sorry. I cant understand myself half the time...

1)I emphathisew with Wood about ev=angelicals i have met who reall annoyed me and chruches which were unreasonable.

2) In my experience this has not been anglican churches which to my mind have the equally problematic problem of seeiming often irrelevant-though of course by no means all of them come under this reproach) -(roll the rrr on rrreproach)-

3) Big (large numbers) free churches of the evangelical alliance in Britian often modelled on American lines and springing from house churches in the 70/80's have many strengths but do tend, in my experience, to derive meaning from experience and fundementalIST attitudes and not reason/theology. And so they can attract unthinking and generally irritating people (who like to bash me and you with unthought proof texts.)

4)Now, there are irriating people and bad people in all churches but they are often irritating for different reasons...fuddy duddy perhaps, too libereal(for me), obsessed with structures etc... but equally the non-anglican evangelicals have some pretty bash-worthy traits...even worse when they dress up ignorance as faith and call ignoring theology being 'spiritual'. BUT

5) i/we still believe...in a somewhat (i think) more considered way) a lot of what my fellows believe and cannot escape being believeing fundamentals and being evangelical to a large extent about the bible and theology.

I proposed that there might be a lot of people in this position who are put off by people and attitudes/approaches but are not liberal.

6) We all have many good and bad points ...many flaws...these are excaberated when we group together with people likeminded which is only natural of course). If that is what puts us off the evangelical churches, we ought not to replicate that behaviour on this ship or in other church settings.

7) Split or commit? I say commit. stick with it and be salt which is in contact with the meat(heads)and veg. I empathise with wood and agree with you we ought to appreciate what weve got and bring others to where we are...the patient process will casue and require us to be more like Jesus and it'll make them more like him too.

no smilies
seven point sermon
but i think it is good sense and a christian approach.
 

---

Posted by AndT (# 1901) on :
 
All mistakes and huge grammatical errors dedicated, this fine evening, to- Scott!

Thankyou and Goodnight.
 

---

Posted by Stoo (# 254) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndT:
I emphathise with Wood about evangelicals i have met who really annoyed me...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
I thought it was time that someone set up a safe, nurturing space.

Ever been upset by Evangelicals?

Feel damaged by them? Had a hard time at their hands? Did a nasty evangelical kid steal your sweets? Is your lawsuit still pending?

Been contaminated by reading John Stott? Or NT Wright?

Want to make offensive comparisons between those terrible, common Evangelicals to mad fundamentalists because it'll make you Feel Better? Or maybe you Just Don't Like Them?

Well, whinge to your heart's content here, so we don't have to hear it everywhere else all the f***ing time, already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
If your church withholds its parish share it becomes, by definition, Evangelical

---

Ah, I see. I must have been working from an out of date definition of Evangelical.

So how do you define Evangelical in the context of non CofE churches? If it's wrong then its Evangelical, perhaps?
 

---

Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on :
 
WITHOLDING
OUTBOUND
REMITTANCE
NOTWITHSTANDING
GLOSSALIA
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndT:
How in God's name does your little finger work when it's not attatched to the rest of your hand?

---

Telekenesis. The middle one's still attached since it has a mind of its own.

[removed the apostrophe from the contraction, it's to make it the genitive singular neuter "its".

Because I care]

[ 23 June 2002, 02:48: Message edited by: tomb ]
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
<tangent>

Scot, will you marry me?

</tangent>
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
It is handy for those hard to reach spots...
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
AndT, mate.

You may find this of some use.
 

---

Posted by AndT (# 1901) on :
 
Great -now you can tell me what that's supposed to mean to me.


 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
It was a *very* gentle hint that you may have missed the point.
 

---

Posted by Olorin (# 2010) on :
 
Gentle, Wood? Are you not feeling well?
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I think the "gentle" was meant as sarcasm, mate.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Tim V (# 830) on :
 
This could prove useful as well.
 

---

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Mark The Punk.

Quote: "I do NOT walk tightropes"

Then you are not a funambulist.

Greta
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
CM if this is true ;

quote:

---

But is bishop-bashing?

David
orthodox guy who misses the Masturbation thread in T & T

---

aim more carefully

P
 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
Wood:

You make a number of important points.

Point one refers to my inconsistent approach to Evangelicals and Evangelicalism. You have reminded me that to claim to love someone then deny their spirituality is deeply offensive. I apologise.

Point two refers to my rather repetitious spouting, and how I often back off. The only reason that I can see that I back off is either that 'A' I am wrong, or 'B' that I don't mean what I say. Whichever it is I will "engage brain" before posting on the subject again. The reason I keep coming back to the subject is more complex.

Point three refers to my experience. I have never been eager to share my experience, but it is extremely hard to talk in abstract terms about issues in the church we feel strongly about. I am convinced there are tendencies in all traditions which can be damaging, and I have had more experience of Evangelicalism than any other tradition. Furthermore I spend a lot of time in a sphere dominated by Evangelicalism - it's like making a slipknot fan listen to jazz all day - I get a little pissed some times. In the future I will endeavour to discuss issues without labels.

Point four suggests that I am being modernist about my post-modernism. What you say is true ... if truth exists.

Point five consists of five statements that were obviously aimed at my jugular. I didn't find them that offensive, because I found them funny. If anything this demonstrates that on this subject I have degenerated into a self parody.

Point six is incorrect. Evangelicalism did work for me, it doesn't now in quite the same way, but I do appreciate what it gave me.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
I've PM'd Edward to say thanks for his very gracious apology and to pick up on a couple of points in his post.

Since Edward was my primary target in this thread, it may be time to close it, if the hosts agree.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olorin:
Gentle, Wood? Are you not feeling well?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0