|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: So how liberal can you be and still call yourself an evangelical?
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
In the light of the Jeffrey John episode, how liberal can you be and still call yourself an evangelical?
I go to 2 evangelical churches. One of them was pretty prominent in the Oxford churches protest. The other one seems to have been caused great distress by the apparent, imminent arrival of a homosexual-in-orientation-but-celibate bishop.
I am reluctant to see myself as "evangelical" becuase I don't have a problem with a lot of things that evangelicals proper seem to be appalled or outraged by.
I like simple worship and I believe in the Bible. I just think that it is complicated and can bear diferent interpretations. And my view of it is informed by my understanding of and interest in science and literature and psychology and popular culture.
All things considered, I think I am happiest in low-church Anglicanism.
But how liberal could I be and consider myself an evangelical?
[ 03. September 2003, 21:43: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
As low as you want/need/think you need to go. Evangelicalism is pretty flexible - no matter what the press and certain idiotic, hateful people say. I don't think Evangelical Christianity = Evil Bigotry, as some other people do...
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
strathclydezero
# 180
|
Posted
Errr ... Rob ...
Low does not equate to Liberal.
--------------------
All religions will pass, but this will remain:
simply sitting in a chair and looking in the distance.
V V Rozanov
Posts: 3276 | From: The Near East | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
An Evangelical:
1. Believes in the primacy of Scripture.
2. Believes in the saving work of the cross, as evinced through substitutionary atonement.
3. Believes in a personal, individual relationship with God.
4. Believes in the importance of a personal commitment to faith.
This covers a wide range. Personally, I can say with my hand on my heart that although I believe that Scripture is, for example, not in condemnation of homosexual relationships*, I can still call myself an evangelical.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Porter-Miller
Tiocfaidh Separabit
# 1459
|
Posted
I have had this discussion with my fiancee and her friend (both being from the States) and I wonder whether or not we in the UK/Europe see Liberal / Evangelical dicide as being something else.
I for instance would describe Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis as being Evangelical authors/speakers yet in the US they would describe them as Liberal. Hmmm....?
--------------------
It's a beautiful day - don't let it get away - Bono and the boys
Let's all "Release Some Tension"
Posts: 1231 | From: Washington, D.C. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RevAndy
Apprentice
# 4017
|
Posted
I thjink labels are both helpful and unhelpful.
In America, where there is a much wider pool to draw from people like Wallis and Campolo would be seen as liberal evanglicals! They are not liberal in terms of Sea of Faith or Unitarians but they have a softer line on many moral issues than do many other evangelicals.
I think that much of this discussion is covered in David Tomlinson's Post Evangelical. He said that he didn't want to live in the evangelical gheto, still believed in Scripture but now recognised a plurality of ways of interpreting the scriptures. Put he, and people like him, werent attracted to Catholic style worship and had no time for liberal theology.
I suspect that my church, Metropolitan Community Church is post evangelical. We are gay based and affirming but come out, as it were, of, mainly, evangelical church backgrounds.
Andy
Posts: 13 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
But "liberal" and "evangelical" aren't opposite ends of a spectrum, they are, so to speak, on different axes of a graph.
Also, a lot of the discussion here tends to be influenced by the Church of England, if only because the Ship started in England and a large proportion of the regular posters here are, or have been, Anglicans. Within the CofE we tend to think of "evangelical" as opposed to "anglo-catholic" first & liberal second.
You could imagine it as a sort of triangle with "liberal", "evangelical", and "Anglo-catholic" at the three points of the shape.
I think I rambled on at great length about that a few months ago so it probably isn't a good idea to repeat myself - there was some discussion on it. Maybe its in Limbo. I'll look.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
An Evangelical:
1. Believes in the primacy of Scripture.
2. Believes in the saving work of the cross, as evinced through substitutionary atonement.
3. Believes in a personal, individual relationship with God.
4. Believes in the importance of a personal commitment to faith.
Do you have to be committed to a belief in substitutiary atonement to be an evangelical? This isn't a criticism, it's a genuine query ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif) Maybe I'm not one then!
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
I_am_not_Job
Shipmate
# 3634
|
Posted
I think I would agree with questioning this definition. It's more:
accepts that substitutionary atonement is a useful way of understanding and contemplating the cross. (i.e. but may think other explanations and images are also useful/true/revelatory)
Posts: 988 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
I_am_not_Job
Shipmate
# 3634
|
Posted
Sorry, double post.
I think that post evangelical was useful for a lot of people when it first came out, but now more peole are realising they aren't the only ones and so 'open evangelical' is more common, and post evangelical is much more someone who's influenced by post-modernism etc, whereas OEs are simply evos in background but listen to and recognise the value in the other churchmanships.
--------------------
Hope for everything; expect nothing
Posts: 988 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
Do you have to be committed to a belief in substitutiary atonement to be an evangelical?
No. Though many evangelicals are. I'm not committed to substitutionary atonement either, though it is a helpful model in some circumstances (and there are other models of what the Cross means/does that sometimes are more helpful). The "saving work of the Cross" bit is far more important than the exact model used to describe that work. IMO.
In answer to the original question ... there are 2 meanings of liberal that can be applied here
1) theological liberalism - the extreme being the Sea of Faith type theologies. I think there is a definite limit to how far down that road an evangelical can go and still honestly claim to be evangelical. Rejecting the divinity of Christ, the historicity of the Crucifixion and the like would be to go outside evangelicalism.
2) moral liberalism, on the otherhand, can be perfectly compatible with evangelical belief. So, for instance, I'm an evangelical who thinks that the Biblical texts relating to homo-sexuality are ambiguous at the best whereas Biblical passages relating to how we deal with people are undeniable - to love and welcome them.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
2) moral liberalism, on the otherhand, can be perfectly compatible with evangelical belief. So, for instance, I'm an evangelical who thinks that the Biblical texts relating to homo-sexuality are ambiguous at the best whereas Biblical passages relating to how we deal with people are undeniable - to love and welcome them.
I'm an evangelical who believes that the Biblical texts are not ambiguous. I just haven't met anyone who chose homosexuality, so I haven't met anyone condemned by the Bible texts. I certainly think that those who protested about the enthronement of ++Rowan or the apointent of Dr. John as Bishop were wrong.
Yet again Dr. Cresswell comes up with a well balanced reply. ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porgy
Apprentice
# 4695
|
Posted
Re: substitutionary atonement, though many conservative evangelicals would demand it as an essential tenet of evangelical belief, there are many in the evangelical spectrum that reject it. Michael Green is one, I believe. Many Arminians, following Finney et al. also reject it as part of their "moral government" theory (a school of theology most associated with, eg. YWAM).
--------------------
It ain't necessarily so.
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
On the UK/US difference
I read a Barna report about christians in the USA which seemed to treat evangelicals as a sub-set of those who were born again whereas in the UK I would think that christains who are born again would be considered a subset of evangelicals.
Back to the topic, although I hold to a form of evangelical theology similar to Wood's, I have great difficulty identifying with the evangelical sub-culture, and after the Bishop John debarcle I am feeling more reluctant to to descibe myself as an evangelical.
I found the idea of post-evangelical as in Dave T's book helpful but before I had heard of post-evangelical I was describing myself as a liberal evangelical, but that was at a time when I was a member of an evangelical church, with a Spurgeon's college trained evangelical minister, that was looked down on by the conservative evangelical churches in the area.
Hey I have even heard of John Stott being called a liberal and not an evangelical, so I suppose it all depends on where you are standing.
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
as a liberal evangelical - and therefore towards the centre of the "Catholic/liberal/evangelical triangle" that someone described earlier, could you call yourself a " mainstream evangelical"?
As someone whose theology would fit in pretty well with the evangelical model?
But whose social attitudes and tolerance of other people's opinions concorded well with the other branches of the Anglican church and society as a whole?
Just a thought...
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Hmmm....the question may also be how liberal can you be and still stay O.K., as it were, with other more conservative evangelicals you fellowship(there's a Christianese word if I ever heard one) with?
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Miffy
Ship's elephant
# 1438
|
Posted
...Is a Liberal allowed to have a personal, individual relationship with God?
--------------------
"I don't feel like smiling." "You're English dear; fake it!" (Colin Firth "Easy Virtue")
Growing Greenpatches
Posts: 4739 | From: The Kitchen | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Miffy:
...Is a Liberal allowed to have a personal, individual relationship with God?
Yes of course, though I suspect it would be one in which a lot of questions get asked...(I just hope that God is happier with lots of talking about feelings than my previous boyfriends have been...)
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
after the Bishop John debarcle I am feeling more reluctant to to descibe myself as an evangelical.
Its the media description of evangelicals that I can't get along with. When ++Rowan was enthroned in Canterbury the media reported "evangelicals" protesting outside. The Evangelicals were represented by Joel Edwards, head of the Evangelical Alliance taking part in the service inside the cathedral.
There is a similar media misunderstanding over Dr. John, there are many Evangelicals who can see no reason why he shouldn't be a bishop.
In fact Dr. John seems to have come out of this a lot better than +Liverpool +Chester and the rest.
[TANGENT] If an evangelical becomes too liberal you get an evan-jelly-fish.[/TANGENT]
[ 09. July 2003, 15:24: Message edited by: Balaam ]
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Miffy
Ship's elephant
# 1438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
I think I would agree with questioning this definition. It's more:
accepts that substitutionary atonement is a useful way of understanding and contemplating the cross. (i.e. but may think other explanations and images are also useful/true/revelatory)
Aha! Just the person. Feel like writing my next assignment for me? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I'm wondering more as to how evangelical you can be and still remain a liberal!
--------------------
"I don't feel like smiling." "You're English dear; fake it!" (Colin Firth "Easy Virtue")
Growing Greenpatches
Posts: 4739 | From: The Kitchen | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clay_Pigeon
Mathematics
# 2516
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Hmmm....the question may also be how liberal can you be and still stay O.K., as it were, with other more conservative evangelicals you fellowship(there's a Christianese word if I ever heard one) with?
I think it depends on trust. Most of my Christian friends are of the conservative/evangelical variety, yet we get along because they believe that I love and seek God just like they do. In other words, they trust my relationship with God. Our disagreements do not imply that I have abandoned God. When I first learned Reiki, most of my evangelical friends pushed and challenged me on it, but ultimately they accepted my explanation because they trusted that I was still seeking/serving God.
I think a habit amongst stereotypical evangelicals is to distrust the faith of people who aren't evangelical. They are far more likely to classify episcopalians, Catholics, etc as being mislead, backsliden or lukewarm. It is with some shame that I confess that I carried this notion around for quite some time.
-Troy
Who finds himself in general agreement with Welsh Dragon
--------------------
THAT'S IT! NOW I'M PISSED!. You're so off my prayer list.
-Was Once Troy
Posts: 599 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
I read a Barna report about christians in the USA which seemed to treat evangelicals as a sub-set of those who were born again whereas in the UK I would think that christains who are born again would be considered a subset of evangelicals.
Eh?
These Barna blokes can't be proper evangelicals then!
If they were they would know that:
"Christian" = "Born Again" = "Saved"
They are synonyms. Even my old Anglican church taught me that!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
Interesting question which gets obscured by definitions.
The term evangelical seems to be getting split up into two camps: Charismatic and Conservative Evangelical.
Problem is that the term Conservative usually means the opposite of "Liberal" although in this case it is used just as a label- one is conservative as opposed to charismatic.
One can more liberal that you think as an evangelical. If you define evangelicalism in terms of churchmanship- you can (by defintion) believe almost anything because the definition is not belief based!
That trivial point aside, if you take the Evangelical alliance statement of faith, then you can have considerable leeway. It doesn't commit you to being arminian or calvinist; it doesn't say much about salvation of other faiths (i.e. it doesn't automatically cast them into hell); it doesn't say anying about charismatic gifts; in fact, it is pretty much the Nicene Creed, plus some stuff on biblical supremacy, and some stuff on substitutionary atonement if I remember correctly.
Most importantly of all- evangelicalism defines itself in terms of doctrine rather than ethics. Or at least it does in theory.
You could happily sign up to that statement and believe that same sex relationships were OK (indeed someone like Roy Clements would probably fit this category), that drugs should be legalised, that the CoE should be disestablished, that section 28 should be repealed, and all manner of things.
Clearly there is an issue that the statement of faith can't say everything. You probably wouldn't argue that you could murder someone and it would be consistent with the statment just because it doesn't mention murder explicitly, but on issues which are essentially the interpretation of scripture within the evangelical paradigm you can hold quite a wide variety of views.
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
Interesting question which gets obscured by definitions.
The term evangelical seems to be getting split up into two camps: Charismatic and Conservative Evangelical.
Not in this country and, from what I've seen, not down in the U.S. Are you thinking just within Anglicanism in the U.K.?
Cause liberal evangelical definately does not equal charismatic. That's not the defining point it seems to me. Leftie seems to be dependent upon political POV, and/or interpretation of scripture on certain topics.
If you look at the leftie eva's on this thread alone, you'll see at least Wood and myself who are not of the charismatic variety.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
One can more liberal that you think as an evangelical.
And two syntaxes can usefully without compromise the ineffably Orthodox.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Leftie seems to be dependent upon political POV, and/or interpretation of scripture on certain topics.
If you look at the leftie eva's on this thread alone, you'll see at least Wood and myself who are not of the charismatic variety.
He meant doctrinally liberal, not politically. The two don't always go together.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Leftie seems to be dependent upon political POV, and/or interpretation of scripture on certain topics.
If you look at the leftie eva's on this thread alone, you'll see at least Wood and myself who are not of the charismatic variety.
He meant doctrinally liberal, not politically. The two don't always go together.
Ummmm...ken...I meant doctrinally too, unless you think interpretation of scripture means something else then I think it does. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porgy
Apprentice
# 4695
|
Posted
I suppose perhaps we have to think about the distinction between theology and method here.
Is it feasible that someone might reach an evangelical theology through liberal methodology, eg. critical interpretation, free inquiry etc? Is it equally feasible that someone might reach very liberal conclusions by using a very evangelical method, ie. an unswerving commitment to the infallibility of the Scriptures?
I think both probably do happen often. Where do such people belong, though? Hmm.
--------------------
It ain't necessarily so.
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396
|
Posted
Another notion of liberal vs. conservative is in terms of politics. In the US, the stereotype is that evangelicals are politically conservative. They defined themselves as first against communism, then against abortion, homosexuality, etc., and as a result, got mixed into other conservative agenda items: lower taxes, less government regulation, pro-gun ownership, etc.
This is the only way in which Tony Campolo is considered "liberal" in the US. He, unlike many evangelicals in the US, sees "helping the poor" as part of God's ministry through the church, and has no problems with acting as their advocates. Though there are many exceptions in practice, stereotypically it has been the theological conservatives that have been more politically conservative, and the theologically liberal churches that have come out as politically liberal in the US.
But in my experience, evangelicals will continue to respect you as an evangelical even if you disagree on politics, and indeed, Campolo is considered evangelical in the US.
Kevin
--------------------
Presbyterian /prez.bi.ti'.ri.en/ n. One who believes the governing authorities of the church should be called "presbyters".
Posts: 521 | From: Pepperdine University | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
FatMac
Ship's Macintosh
# 2914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porgy:
Is it equally feasible that someone might reach very liberal conclusions by using a very evangelical method, ie. an unswerving commitment to the infallibility of the Scriptures?
This was certainly my own experience (though I would probably be more comfortable speaking of the primary authority of the Bible than its infallibility). So I used to say, "I'm evangelical - I take the Bible deadly seriously, it's just that when I do so I come up with conclusions which are upsetting to other evangelicals."
I think I could still mount a case for calling myself an evangelical - but I no longer bother. ISTM that the assumptions people make about the evangelical label are too widespread and too definite to take the time to argue with them. It's easier (and more fun?) to tell people I'm a liberal and then explain what that means to me.
--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.
Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
But how liberal could I be and consider myself an evangelical?
Partly the problem is that the term "Evangelical", unlike "Catholic", "Methodist", or "Anglican", does not refer to a codified set of rules determining who is and is not an Evangelical, but rather refers to a pattern of belief and practice. Evangelicals do not even often refer to themselves as Evangelicals, but primarily as Christians (speaking from US experience here). As an Evangelical, I will refer to myself as one only to those who I think have some grasp of the range of Christian belief and practice, and otherwise will identify myself as a Christian. It might be only a slight exaggeration to say that the term "Evangelical" is useful only to the sociologist studying comparative religion. They, in seeing the scope of Christianity, can see some basic clusters of belief and practice, and "Evangelical" labels one such cluster.
Therefore, it is more a pattern than a strict criterion. So although I list some points below, one need not hold to all to be evangelical. Where the line is drawn is completely arbitrary, since the purpose is to characterize a pattern to sociologists, not determine who's "in the club".
Here's what I think is in the pattern of "who is an Evangelical":
1. Scripture is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and is completely dependable as the message from God to us
2. The need for all people (as individuals) to experience a single-point-in-time conversion experience in order to be saved. This generally entails accepting God's free gift of salvation through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus, and His resurrection (or slight variations thereof).
3. This provides forgiveness for sins and enables the person to have a personal relationship with God through Jesus and a spiritual life. It also guarantees and in necessary for entrance into heaven after death, as opposed to hell (whatever those terms might mean).
4. Therefore, a person's life is separated between the "pre-conversion" experience and "post-conversion experience". Generally, the term "Christian" is reserved for those who are in the latter category. This state is also called being "saved", "born again", etc.
5. The life of a Christian should involve a personal relationship with God, characterized by prayer, personal Bible study, Christian fellowship, and general "spiritual growth" (whatever that entails). This personal relationship is typically viewed as mediated only by Jesus and in particular not mediated by a priest or celebrant. It also tends to take priority over sacrament in that the importance of the sacraments, if any, are couched in terms of the personal relationship with God.
6. "The Church" is viewed as the collection of all Christians (as defined in the previous point). Membership in a local congregation is not relevant for this, though it is highly encouraged among most Evangelicals for spiritual growth. Therefore denominational boundaries are largely irrelevant to most Evangelicals.
7. On most doctrinal issues, Evangelicals fall squarely within Protestantism, tending toward Luther and Calvin but not necessarily agreeing with them on predestination. There are also strong influences from Zwingli. Historically, Evangelicalism in the US has been defined in contrast to Catholicism, so Catholic practices not found in the Bible are sometimes viewed suspiciously.
8. Overall, Evangelicals tend to take fairly conservative positions on modern controversies like sex, gender roles, the role of the church in determining morality, etc., partly because their insistence on the supremacy of the Bible sometimes puts them in close company with Fundamentalists whose inistence on literal interpretation of the Bible seems closer to the Evangelical insistence on the authority of the Bible than modernist and post-modernists who are perceived as writing off large parts of the Bible as irrelevant or in error. But if someone takes a "liberal" position and shows that their position is derived from a reasoned and reasonable reading of the Bible, they would still fall within the realm of Evangelical.
9. Generally have some concern for eschatology and have a reformed view toward bringing Christ into the world, especially through evangelism.
Kevin
--------------------
Presbyterian /prez.bi.ti'.ri.en/ n. One who believes the governing authorities of the church should be called "presbyters".
Posts: 521 | From: Pepperdine University | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
I think you could be quite undogmatic on many issues but still be true to the best of evangelicalism. You could honour the bible but recognise that you need to use some common sense and lingustic and literary ability to know what to make of it. You could believe in a "personal relationship with Jesus" and at the same time accept that "now we see through a glass, dimly ... but then face to face". You could find the concepts of createdness, fallenness, divine incarnation, redemption and eventual glory to be a useful account of all that is, and a framework for analysis. You could be radically committed to loving God and neighbour. You could seek to help people encounter the transforming love of God in their lives. You could honour the great evangelical social reformers of history (e.g. the Clapham Sect). You could believe that God has a moral code to which the bible alludes, and yet not suppose that all the details it mentions are applicable today. In that sense I would be glad to think of myself as an evangelical. However I would prefer not to be labelled as labels tend to be divisive.
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What Kevin said makes a lot of sense. Just two niggles:
"2. The need for all people (as individuals) to experience a single-point-in-time conversion experience in order to be saved."
I'd replace "experience" with something like "undergo". The saved are not always able to point to or remember a moment of conversion.
And
"8. Overall, Evangelicals tend to take fairly conservative positions on modern controversies like sex, gender roles, the role of the church in determining morality, etc."
is generally true as long as we are talking about matters of personal morality - on political and economic issues evangelicals can be & often are quite left wing (more so here than in the USA)
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Good summary , Kevin.
For those of you who read the nine points, felt that you largely disagreed, but still think of yourself as evangelical - why?
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JHG
Shipmate
# 3464
|
Posted
I think Kevin did a good job of summing up the evangelical position. I consider myself a "classical Christian in the Wesleyan/Anglican mold." So I am fairly comfortable with the positions outlined by Kevin. But here is the deal: Evangelicals do not know how to worship. I have found in my experience that there are two reasons for this. 1. Many evangelicals come from Roman Catholic backgrounds. As a result they want nothing to do with their Catholic backgrounds. This means all things "catholic" are left behind in favour of anything that seems a million miles away from Catholic Mass, i.e. happy clappy worship.
2. Most evangelicals have NEVER experienced well done Prayer Book or liturgical worship. Because of this, they just do not know how to celebrate the sacraments (often times referred to as ordinances instead) when they are celebrated it is extemore and sloppy. I think many evangelicals would fall in love with liturgical worship (because of its rich scriptual basis) if they ever experienced it being well done. This of course is written from the American perspective.
Posts: 222 | From: USA | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JHG
Shipmate
# 3464
|
Posted
Sorry hit the reply button too soon. Here is my question:
Can an evangelical still be an evangelical and believe in baptismal regeneration, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and weekly liturgical Eucharistic worship? John Wesley would say yes, many of his followers would say no. So what's the deal?
Posts: 222 | From: USA | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
JHG - John Wesley predated evangelicalism.
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
For those of you who read the nine points, felt that you largely disagreed, but still think of yourself as evangelical - why?
Well ... I might avoid the label, but I don't think I have lost anything essential as I have I have moved from the sort of position Kevin describes. I moved for the following reasons:
1. The bible isn't clear and unambiguous; different people come to different conclusions from it. So we must take the interpretative tasks seriously, and even more the task of applying it to our own lives in a very different society.
My experience of evangleical churches is that they have tended to be very selective with the bible, and want to influence and load the way I understand it by feeling the need to explain in sermons and bible studies how to use it. They don't seem keen to let the bible speak for itself.
2. In my childhood I had several "conversion experieces" and in some sense was growing into christianity before any of them. The notion of a single experience led me to huge confusion. Many others have similar histories.
3. Yes, it's great to feel that one's sins are forgiven and to aspire - through divine assistance - not to repeat them. Increasingly I find the language of "a personal relationship with God" is inadequate as it brings to mind pictures of teenage romance, and can also lead people to feelings of guilt if they go through periods of spiritual dryness. I find it more honest to say that I have an awareness of God at times, and of the love of God, and of where I stand in relation to God.
Also the notions of "sins" as opposed to "sin" seems to trivialise evil. "Sin" is a more serious problem than "sins" and more intractable.
Heaven and Hell are notoriously difficult to define, and the bible language and allusions to them are ambiguous and reflect a changing understandinng of the concepts. The notion of God punishing some people everlastingly makes God seem very unloving and unlovable.
4. Subverted by 2. Conversion is for many a gradual experience. John Finney's study showed that.
5. Sacramental theology feeds more heavily on the biblical themes of createdness and divine incarnation more heavily than evangelicalism does. But the themes are there in the bible.
6. The church univewrsal, transcending national, denominational and historical boundaries, is a very important concept for me. Incidentally that is why some find a greater interest in the saints of old than typically found in evangelicalism.
7. This is the point made above; sacramentalism feeds more heavily on the perfectly biblical doctrines of creation and incarnation. Roman Catholics are for me clearly part of the church universal.
8. Unlike the charicature sometimes put about that liberals are woolly minded on all moral issues, I take very firm moral views in some areas. However they are probably different areas from some evangleicals. I think a God who is more bothered by changing patterns of relatively harmless sexual behaviour than by growing greed or cruelty or environmental destruction would be a petty God.
Some of the details of morality in the bible belong to their own age (e.g. not wearing clothes made of mixed fibres, women wearing headscarves and remaining silent in worship and being "unclean" during and after menstruation).
But some of the bible's underlying moral principles (justice, peace, prosperity, diligence, generosity, love) are important to my flavour of christianity.
9. Much of eschatology is a mystery and again an area of great biblical ambiguity and controversy. As to evangelism, I wish I was better at it!
-------------------------
So ... are my evangelical credentials intact?
And incidentally, why no mention of trinitarian belief in the list?
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
I'd quibble with the 'single point in time' bit. It's an old cliche but some meet Jesus on the road to Damascus, some on the road to Emmaus.
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I missed that cliche. It is a good one ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Ptarmigan.
In my view, no. I think you have become a liberal!
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
I think Kevin's nine criteria are way too specific.
While point 4 (emphasis on difference of life before and after conversion) is indeed emphasised by many evangelicals I know, points 8 (social conservatism) and 9 (obsession with eschatology), while certainly strong tendencies within evangelicalism are not really borne out by the evidence, at least in my own experience here in the UK. I think the problem is that Kevin is conflating the culture (with the social aspects, the sci-fi eschatology and the sentimentalisation of conversion) with the theology.
Of course, it occurs to me that I might be guilty of saying that "evangelicalism" is something that it isn't in order that I still fall under the umbrella (ie. "I want to be an evangelical, therefore evangelicalism agrees with what I believe"). ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I still think that the four points I posted at the beginning of the thread for the umpteenth time (and which I got from Pete Ward, in The Post-Evangelical Debate, SPCK/Triangle 1997, p20) are the most useful definition.
Although I went and had another look at my original source, and found that after constant repetition of the four points, a "broken telephone" effect had kicked in and I had recalled them inaccurately. These are Ward's actual words:
quote:
- A focus, both devotional and theological, on the person of Jesus Christ , especially his death on the Cross;
- The identification of Scripture as the ultimate authority in matters of spirituality, doctrine and ethics;
- An emphasis upon conversion or a "new birth" as a life-changing experience;
- A concern for sharing the faith, especially through evangelism.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
So ... are my evangelical credentials intact?
Yes, I think that they are.
quote:
Incidentally, why no mention of trinitarian belief in the list?
Because trinitarian belief is common to every Christian group that still remains "Christian". It's so central to the Christian faith that it's superfluous to mention it.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I have this question: how can "liberal" evangelicals claim "primacy of the scripture" and "salvation via conversion and atonement" as central tenets and then waffle on "final judgement and punishment?" Where is the mystery and ambiguity of this to one who "makes scripture primary?" I read the Bible and the message is clear, especially in Mathew, and especially in Paul: the heart of Man is naturally evil and fallen, the means to conversion from this fallen state is freely made available by a personal God, and this personal God requires the conversion prior to death in order to qualify the eternal soul for life in his presence. Those who do not accept this gracious offer will be cast into outer darkness, a lake of fire, or something really bad as a judgement and punishment.
I respect the fact that there may be a growing "liberal wing" within evangelicalism that do not see things in terms quite so harsh and wish to reform other evangelicals as well as communicate to the non-evangelical world that such a harsh view is not shared throughout the evangelical community. But surely Wood's complete omission of judgement, damnation, and the word "Hell" and Kevin's "concern for eschatology" are much too weak to accurately describe the majority opinion of evangelicals. Why attempt to preserve the word "evangelical" when another more apt word is readily available to those who find eschatology in the scriptures deeply ambiguous: "liberal." What odious baggage is acquired to prevent the transition rather than remaining a vocal minority in a group with whom you are at odds?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GeordieDownSouth
Shipmate
# 4100
|
Posted
Can I test the waters here please?
Would the view that God saves people not just for there own sakes but for the sake of the world be considered evangelical or not?
Or to put it another way, God chose Israel to bless all the nations on the earth. When someone becomes a Christian that calling still applies, and not just through more "conversions." They start to live in a more Godly way which benefits those around them.
--------------------
----------------------
No longer down south.
Posts: 689 | From: Birmingham | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Oh, Jim, you big old bundle of issues you. Gotta love ya. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
But surely Wood's complete omission of judgement, damnation, and the word "Hell" and Kevin's "concern for eschatology" are much too weak to accurately describe the majority opinion of evangelicals.
Um, because it's not the majority opinion among evangelicals any more? (vide John Stott)
quote:
Why attempt to preserve the word "evangelical" when another more apt word is readily available to those who find eschatology in the scriptures deeply ambiguous: "liberal."
Frankly, the "l" word is one which I really don't want to adopt; "evangelical" may have baggage, but so does "liberal", and I'm fairly sure which set of baggage I'm willing to take on right now.
[ 10. July 2003, 15:24: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
I like Wood's list better and agree the other one is way too specific.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Wood, I am of course a bundle of issues having come from the early Triassic era of "evangelical fundamentalism." But you clearly have issues with "liberalism" that I find equally curious. If I may press, what is your short list of "liberal tenets" that keep you away from that label?
I did read the John Stott link with interest. It is clear that the central message is that Christ has made it possible for us to enter the kingdom now and begin living a new life. I can find only one emphasis upon which a liberal would not insist.
Stott says over and over that the death of Christ, not the resurrection of Christ, is what makes the new life possible. A liberal is more likely to say, "the resurrected Christ, eternally alive, now makes his home in me via the grace of God and the presence of the Holy Spirit." For some reason, Stott finds this very wrong. It is the death of Christ, his dying for our sins in a substitutionary way, that makes the new life possible. Not that God is bloodthirsty; not that we are born repulsive and vile, deserving of eternal punishment for which "Jesus paid the price"; no, it is simply that...uh...suffering and death...uh...well they are redemptive in a salvific way that...how do I say this...redeem and save us. My issues-laden brain sees him as feeling a need to preserve the phrase "Christ died for our sins" more than "Christ can live within us" even though the net effect is to me the same: a new Christ-like life is available to anyone who wishes to seek it.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Wood, I am of course a bundle of issues having come from the early Triassic era of "evangelical fundamentalism." But you clearly have issues with "liberalism" that I find equally curious. If I may press, what is your short list of "liberal tenets" that keep you away from that label?
No "tenets" as such, any more than the things that make you loathe evangelicalism are "tenets".
You may find this hilarious coming from me, but it's the smugness and the intellectual arrogance I get that turns me off more than anything. The "if you really thought about this, you'd be in agreement with me" attitude that is shared in a different mode with the worst right-wing thinkers.
Many self-labelled "liberals" I know are just double fundie swirl fundamentalists-in-denial, who'll believe the daftest non-Christian fallacies even when happily debunking Christian ones (see "the Ichthus and Vagina" thread in Limbo) and who will even critique scripture with the same lack of intellectual rigour that the fundamentalists do (*cough* Jesus Seminar*cough*). The kind of people who think you're a benighted fool for putting your faith in a literal resurection.
So, it's not a tenet of liberalism at all. But so many of the liberals I have met are frankly intellectual fascists that one can't help thinking that there's something in the mindset that encourages it, in the same way that there's so many who see That Certain Something which turns people into bigots intrinsic in Evangelicalism.
Politically, I'm extremely left-wing and socially liberal. This an evangelical and baptist tradition in my part of the country, and one I am quite happy with. And yet I don't have to be liberal theologically to do this. I often take a theologically liberal mode of argument on these boards; but while I may be a social liberal, I am not a theological liberal; in fact, I believe that my views are supported by an holistic view of Scripture. I believe it is the central text of my faith, and that it is an accurate document of the human condition in every possible sense.
I'll deal with your point about suffering and Stott when I have more time, but please don't think I'm ignoring it.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Ptarmigan.
In my view, no. I think you have become a liberal!
In that case, why wouldn't all thinking evangelicals become liberals after a bit of life experience?
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
