Thread: Purgatory: So how liberal can you be and still call yourself an evangelical? 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=001117
Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD (# 3256) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 
Errr ... Rob ...

Low does not equate to Liberal.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Robert Miller (# 1459) on :
 
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....?
 
Posted by RevAndy (# 4017) on :
 
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
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fibonacci's Number (# 2183) on :
 
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] Maybe I'm not one then!
 
Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :
 
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)
 
Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
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!]
 
Posted by Porgy (# 4695) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Astro (# 84) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Miffy (# 1438) on :
 
...Is a Liberal allowed to have a personal, individual relationship with God?
 
Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
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...)
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Miffy (# 1438) on :
 
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]

I'm wondering more as to how evangelical you can be and still remain a liberal!
 
Posted by Troy (# 2516) on :
 
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
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Porgy (# 4695) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Kevin Iga (# 4396) on :
 
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
 
Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Kevin Iga (# 4396) on :
 
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
 
Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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)
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by JHG (# 3464) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by JHG (# 3464) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 
JHG - John Wesley predated evangelicalism.
 
Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I missed that cliche. It is a good one [Smile]
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Ptarmigan.

In my view, no. I think you have become a liberal!
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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!]

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:


 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by GeordieDownSouth (# 4100) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Oh, Jim, you big old bundle of issues you. Gotta love ya. [Big Grin]

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 ]
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
I like Wood's list better and agree the other one is way too specific.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
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.
This is exactly how I feel about liberalism. I no longer claim the mantle (though I'm certainly a liberal/libertarian), because of the knee-jerkiness of almost all the liberals I know, and the intellectual superiority and elitism that underlie so much that is the liberal "doctrine". So many liberal Christians then turn into apologists in the craven sense -- they are tolerated by other secular liberal allies in certain approved causes as "pet" Christians; okay because they toe the liberal line. It is my feeling that just as Christians have an obligation to be as politically involved as their conscience and understanding lead them to be, they also must not let their faith subserve their politics.

I'm not an evangelical, either, though, because I go less for the primacy of scripture than for the three-legged stool of scripture, tradition and reason. And I'm not an evangelist in the sense of telling it forth or giving testimony. I hope (though I know I fall short) that my life will speak my faith to anyone open to it.
 
Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 
Hey, this seems to be turning into a "bash the liberals" thread, and according to Merseymike I'm now a liberal, and my last (slightly tongue in cheek) post will probably be characterised as typical liberal intellectual arrogance. So apologies if the post upset anyone.

But I'm still intrigued to know where (in the eyes of an evangelical) I went wrong in my journey from a somewhat fundamentalist version of evangelicalism to my current position, however it's labelled.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
I sincerely wish to thank Wood and I understand the points about intellectual fascism dwelling amoung self-professed liberals of every stripe: political and religious. Like all label-wearers, liberals who proudly and fiercely wear their labels are likely intellectual fascists. There are times when I am almost ashamed of the label, but in religious terms I really have no other choice. It simply means that if I say so to a proudly conservative Christian, I have to be ready for "so anything goes it's all about feeling good and self-esteem why don't we just let all the criminals out and have sex with children if nothing matters and everyone's going to Heaven anyway?" It's a lot easier to ask the other person what they are and say, "deep down inside it sounds like we are pretty much the same."

The differing emphases among Christian camps reminds me of the Miller Lite (beer) commercials in the 1970's. They all drink Miller and wouldn't dream of drinking any other brand. But half of them drink it because it tastes great, the other half because it's less filling. They are so impassioned that they go nose to nose and scream in each other's faces "Tastes Great!" "Less Filling."

So all you liberals on this half of the board scream "Lives Within" while you evangelicals scream "Died for Sin." Here we go...
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Who says your wrong?



[ 10. July 2003, 18:15: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
 
Posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD (# 3256) on :
 
Well there was a lot of posts to read, I didn't read hardly any but can I be described as "a post-conservative (post)-evangelical with neo-orthodox tendencies (a la Barth), a penchant for political socialism and a belief in church structure and a communitarian ethic which has no bones about the word liberal but feels it is inappropriate most of the time in theological intercourse". So basically, an Anglican (which is an evangelical church, last time I checked...)

I think I'm mostly with Wood. But that's just from previous threads.
 
Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :
 
It's all semantics in the end isn't it. If we're going to get all technical-y and define-y, then I would want to say that I'm an evangelical in the true sense of the word, which must mean one who holds to the 'evangel', the good news. And in order to keep my liberal credentials intact as an intellectual fascist, let me say that ISTM that many conservatives wouldn't know good news if they fell over it. ("The good news is that God's creation has been irretrievably marred to the very core and we are all worms and sinners. The good news is that God thinks that the appropriate educative response to your spiritual blindness is to make sure you spend eternity being tortured. The good news is that for a favoured few, you will be able to sit comfortably in heaven somehow unaware or uncaring of the fact that the vast majority of all those who have ever lived will be down below enjoying said eternal torture.")

In fact seriously, I want to say that one of the things that attracts me to liberalism is that its name implies an openess to alternative positions and different approaches, so the intellectual fascist liberal is being as disloyal to his/her label as the hell-loving evangelical is to theirs...

One final comment. As someone who now takes many theological positions which would be considered liberal, I nevertheless have never had a problem with the idea that I ought (as a Christian) to be committed to the 'primary' or even 'supreme' authority of scripture. It just seems patently obvious to me that scripture means nothing at all unless it is understood, interpreted and applied with the use of the tools of reason, tradition, the community etc.

To put it another way, I would contend that each and every one of the theological beliefs in my (liberal) belief structure has as its source the Christian scriptures. I do not sit reading the Koran and the Vedas and Buddhist writings alongside the Scriptures and then try to distill some essential likeness as my religion. Instead, my searching to understand the Bible adequately in the context of the 21st century, informed by my knowledge of the world, science, anthropology etc leads me to the positions I take. And in my own experience, most (not all) theological liberals I know have a similar stance.
 
Posted by gomez (# 1173) on :
 
Could someone please explain the phrase substitutionary atonement used at the beginning of this thread so I can understand the discussion a little better.

Thanks!
 
Posted by Porgy (# 4695) on :
 
Gomez,

"Substitutionary atonement" refers to the belief that Jesus' death was a payment or penalty that we deserved to have to pay, but which he paid instead--thus, he was our substitute. In its conservative evangelical form, God the Father is the one who demands a penalty, for his holiness is offended by our sin, and someone must pay the price. The price is death (for us, hell), a punishment that must be borne in the interests of justice. So God sends his Son to bear the punishment so that we don't have to. He endures God's anger in our place.

There are variations within that, of course.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I have always been rather fond of the badge 'liberal,' but also consider myself to be reasonably evangelical; not an evangelical, but evangelical, that is, committed to the Gospel and its proclamation. In other words I am similar to linzc (good to see you back, by the way).

I don't think I agree with any of Kevin Iga's nine points, but I do agree, more or less, with Pete Ward's four points quoted by Wood near the foot of page 1.

And I am really very liberal. I went to all the early Sea of Faith conferences, and have read almost all of Don Cupitt. (Mainly for the jokes, I must admit.)

[ 10. July 2003, 22:58: Message edited by: hatless ]
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
I am enjoying the comments and the return of lincz as well (I even looked for a "welcome back" in All Saints). Looking back, I realize that Wood did not actually post a link for John Stott, I found it in google. John Stott, Topic by Topic will give you two or three paragraphs on what he considers essentials. It appears that most if not all of the positions are excerpts from writings other than his own, but reflect his opinion.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Oops check that. I guess it is a collection of clips that he wrote for other collected works.
 
Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
Well, some of this is theology but it's more the package of attitudes you are supposed to have that interest me.

Somewhere in the sea of stuff about Jeffrey John on the ship is the comment that Christina Rees had defended Jeffrey John and been told she wasn't really an evangelical anyway. This isn't really a theological statement is it?

I can affirm the tenets set out by Wood. But there is a raft of stuff, assumptions that other people seem to make and their and your own beliwefs in evangelical churches.

Lokking, not really from the outside, but around the churches I go to, the ideas seem to be
Now, I am very happy going to these churches, in many ways. I would be happier if I felt that we accorded rather better on some of these points, but I can see, after several months searching for a church last year, that compromise is necessary.

I don't want a lot of ritual. I would prefer, if anything, not to have vestments. I like having modern instruments. I don't want Anglo catholic tat. I especially don't want a Pope. And I feel passionate about my faith and I don't want Anglical liberal politeness.

I personally believe
This isn't probably that different from what a number of evangelicals on the Ship believe. But I don't come from an evangelical background. I'm not a "post evangelical". I'm a rather confused outsider trying to work out if there is enough congruity betwen my beliefs and those of the people in the churches where I worship for me to align myself to their denominational label...
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
lincz:
quote:
To put it another way, I would contend that each and every one of the theological beliefs in my (liberal) belief structure has as its source the Christian scriptures. I do not sit reading the Koran and the Vedas and Buddhist writings alongside the Scriptures and then try to distill some essential likeness as my religion. Instead, my searching to understand the Bible adequately in the context of the 21st century, informed by my knowledge of the world, science, anthropology etc leads me to the positions I take. And in my own experience, most (not all) theological liberals I know have a similar stance.
OTOH, there is a long tradition within evangelicals of studying other scriptures and religions
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porgy:
Gomez,

"Substitutionary atonement" refers to the belief that Jesus' death was a payment or penalty that we deserved to have to pay, but which he paid instead--thus, he was our substitute. In its conservative evangelical form, God the Father is the one who demands a penalty, for his holiness is offended by our sin, and someone must pay the price. The price is death (for us, hell), a punishment that must be borne in the interests of justice. So God sends his Son to bear the punishment so that we don't have to. He endures God's anger in our place.

There are variations within that, of course.
The most common variation would be that God, all together, takes responsibility for the sin of humanity and together suffers their punishment by being ripped apart on the cross, carrying the punishment, meteing out the punishment, identifying with humans and buying them back from Satan, conning the latter to rub his hands with glee and think he's got the lot whereas in fact he's been beaten, as proven in the resurrection.

Is this more open or liberal or just a different way of explaining it? I think it's just an example of how evangelicals can vary within themselves and how some might stick to a very rigid line, like some liberals, and some would be more flexible.

Welsh dragon,
I think that the way evangelicals worship and work out their community behaviour derives from their beliefs: but they may be doing things a certain way by tradition without realising it. There's a slogan about "God having no grandchildren" which means that eveyone has to come to their own relationship with God, and churches often forget that in the way they do things.

Also, I'd expect there to be types of worship that appeal to different types of people, quite apart from the theological basis. I'm sure you could do the psychological evaluation...


quote:
I believe that the message of the Bible is about love and that it is right to communcate that by talking about Jesus, but the best way to communicate it is by loving people - and this is compulsory and the most important part of the exercise...
I think you could emphasise that effectively in evangelical circles, and some would say, "Ah, but we have to tell people how they must behave, how much they are caught in sin, how they must repent, because that is loving." They might be the non-liberal evangelicals.
 
Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
Well, some of this is theology but it's more the package of attitudes you are supposed to have that interest me.

Somewhere in the sea of stuff about Jeffrey John on the ship is the comment that Christina Rees had defended Jeffrey John and been told she wasn't really an evangelical anyway. This isn't really a theological statement is it?

I can affirm the tenets set out by Wood. But there is a raft of stuff, assumptions that other people seem to make and their and your own beliwefs in evangelical churches.

Lokking, not really from the outside, but around the churches I go to, the ideas seem to be


Now, I am very happy going to these churches, in many ways. I would be happier if I felt that we accorded rather better on some of these points, but I can see, after several months searching for a church last year, that compromise is necessary.

I don't want a lot of ritual. I would prefer, if anything, not to have vestments. I like having modern instruments. I don't want Anglo catholic tat. I especially don't want a Pope. And I feel passionate about my faith and I don't want Anglical liberal politeness.

I personally believe

This isn't probably that different from what a number of evangelicals on the Ship believe. But I don't come from an evangelical background. I'm not a "post evangelical". I'm a rather confused outsider trying to work out if there is enough congruity betwen my beliefs and those of the people in the churches where I worship for me to align myself to their denominational label...
I can also affirm the tenets set out by Wood. And I agree with more of your list of beliefs than the beliefs you say are standard in the churches you've attended. I don't think any of the ideas you've expressed would be out of place with most of my evangelical friends - similar views have been expressed at the small group I lead.

Is your first list based on things you've heard from the pulpit - or are these just part of the culture of the churches? If the churches you are referring to are predominantly student churches (are these St.Ebbe's and St.Aldate's by any chance?) then they might just be reflecting the OICCU culture - which from memory (>10 years ago) was very conservative.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
It is interesting to me that having read Welsh Dragon’s picture of evangelicalism and having read the evangelicalism of John Stott I find myself capable of leveling a criticism that is often thrown at “liberals.” That is, evangelicalism is a meaningless term with no comprehensive set of tenets to which one can refer. It means whatever one wants it to mean and the unifying factor is that its adherents are opposed to “liberalism” partly because it is too diffuse and doesn’t stand for anything in particular!

In the interest of polite debate on “liberal” vs. “evangelical” let me bring out a liberal list to counterpoint Wood’s list. If people would like some perspective, Reinhold Niebuhr was my introduction to liberal theology. It is true that after the “religio-political correctness” pendulum swung away from the word “liberal,” Niebuhr was recast as a “Neo-Orthodox,” but I knew him as a “liberal” so in my world he is a liberal. You won’t find the following points exactly in his work; they are my own.

1. Revelation is primary. It is also personal and thus variable but always rooted in Truth and Love.
2. Religion should have no roots in fear. It is fact that we are imperfect and fallible but it is fallacy that we are detestible to God in our native state and that he is reluctant but willing to punish us eternally for any sin.
3. Christ is the human face of God. This face can be seen to varying degrees in everyone, even the most hardened “sinner” or “heathen” but it is discernable nonetheless and can be brought out of anyone.
4. If religion is to have any impact at all, it should be applied on a societal as well as an individual level. In other words, it is not purely a matter of private belief and individual practice.

Tenet #1 is what makes liberals wince at “scripture is primary.” Tenet #2 is what makes liberals wince when evangelicals remind new and potential converts that there is a real possibility of Hell after death. Tenet #3 is what makes liberals wince when evangelicals concentrate on death and atonement rather than resurrection and life. Tenet #4 is not much of a point of contention, since everyone gives at least lip service to the phrase “practice what you preach.” However, some strains of evangelicalism sound as if the ultimate religious experience is to be found in private ecstasies like tongues, long hours in one’s own private “prayer closet” or hours of public worship with much raising of hands and emotional prayer.

I suspect that John Stott would not have a problem with this list and that Reinhold Niebuhr would have no problem with Wood’s. But for some reason, liberals and evangelicals have problems with each other, given personal experience and perspectives.
 
Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
Well, I am surprised in some ways at how much Oxford evangelical culture seems to have moved on since I first came up as a student...it doesn't seem nearly so staid and ghastly as I seem to rememeber...

but I am going to a much more more conventional village church as well as one of the biggies.

The conventional village church (church B) gives out an evo line about repenting, being forgiven and saved from the pulpit. There is also a corollary about it not being whether you are good or bad that tells whether you go to heaven or hell, but whether you are *forgiven*. But heaven and hell and being saved definitely feature.

The strong implication is that you have to do the evo thing or you will spend eternity being very warm...

Aa I was explaining to kingsfold and John Holding in the pub last night, it definitely dumbs down and evos up (scary) when there is a "family service". Then there is *lots* of stuff about being saved and *lots* more stuff about go tell the good news.

The assumption that you have to be pretty Prot. To Be Saved varies through the village church; people have different opinions. (1 or 2 of them are still technically Catholic or orthodox.) The Prots 'R' Us emphasis really doesn't come from the pulpit; though the Churches Together effort tends to involve 2 other very Protestant churches.

Oh, and church B tends to be pretty quiet about demons.

On a good day in church A however you can probably get the whole caboodle I listed from the pulpit.

Church A helpfully has a contingent of Ship of Fools stow-aways however, which means that I don't feel I have betrayed my sense of self when I walk in the door.

And Church B has a congregation of extremely intelligent, mainly retired people who have had sufficiently interesting lives and sufficient life experience to temper their beliefs with a lot of wisdom.

I think the spread of views in the congregation is at least as important as what comes out of the pulpit (and I also think that's quite a Protestant view to hold, isn't it?)

it is still not just the Woodian tenets I have to deal with, in reflecting on whether I want the evo label, it's the culture as well. When you talk about someone being an evangelical, aren't the cultural implications what would first come to mind?

The Ship is a bit different, because anyone who has their sea legs on the Ship is going to be a bit more sophisticated than your average evangelical churchgoer...
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
1. Revelation is primary. It is also personal and thus variable but always rooted in Truth and Love.
2. Religion should have no roots in fear. It is fact that we are imperfect and fallible but it is fallacy that we are detestible to God in our native state and that he is reluctant but willing to punish us eternally for any sin.
3. Christ is the human face of God. This face can be seen to varying degrees in everyone, even the most hardened “sinner” or “heathen” but it is discernable nonetheless and can be brought out of anyone.
4. If religion is to have any impact at all, it should be applied on a societal as well as an individual level. In other words, it is not purely a matter of private belief and individual practice.
The only one of those I would apply in general to every liberal I've met is point 4. Thing is, I agree with both these and the four points of Pete Ward. So what does that make me?
 
Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 
Welsh Dragon - well said; well put; hear hear.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
The only one of those I would apply in general to every liberal I've met is point 4. Thing is, I agree with both these and the four points of Pete Ward. So what does that make me?
Wood my friend we may have to consider the frightening possibility that when you throw in politics, I am actually an evangelical and you are actually a liberal but we can't stand to apply the correct labels to ourselves. [Big Grin] Not really. But from my (ancient, distorted and no longer relevant) perspective you are more liberal than evangelical.

I do have to make one Purgatorial challenge: you can't really have two items that are both "primary." The top of my list says revelation is primary and the top of the Wood list says that scripture is primary. My customers always had ten top priorities and perhaps theology should allow this logical inconsistency but it is of concern to me. To say "scripture is primary" invites the problems associated with literalism. To be sure "individual revelation is primary" invites the problem of "anything goes" but I just like that problem better.

Perhaps I am putting thoughts into people's minds instead of words into their mouths, but when I read Jack Spong (notorious and some would say nefarious liberal) I hear these four points made consistently. It genuinely surprises me to hear Wood say that he has not heard the first three points coming from liberals. I suppose I can imagine it if the conversation starts with an assertion that scripture is primary and substitutionary atonement is essential. A liberal like me is likely to lauch into a fuming fit about literalism, anti-evolution, blood, and Hell before the dazed evangelical has a chance to properly explain themselves.
 
Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
OTOH, there is a long tradition within evangelicals of studying other scriptures and religions
Firstly, thanks to hatless and JimT for the welcome back. It's good to be back and I hope there will not be any such long absences again.

Daisymay I understand what you are saying, and as a matter of fact I do read widely from other religious traditions - probably primarily motivated by your point 3. My point was simply that that is not how I develop my theology - as a Christian I have an overriding commitment to building my faith on the Bible. As a liberal and a post-modernist I have an understanding that that choice is simply my choice and not necessarily a better choice or the only correct choice.

And clearly my entire worldview is influenced by and affected by the truth I find in other traditions (as well as scientific and other sources of truth). Clearly also, I am interested in the points of contact between Christianity and other traditions which make possible mutual learning and growth through dialogue.

Finally, a comment on the discussion between Wood and JimT. ISTM that the tension JimT posits between 'revelation as primary' and 'scripture as primary' is predicated on a modernist framework. As a post-modernist I would be happy to affirm both that revelation is primary, and that my own chosen route to such revelation is a commitment to the primacy of scripture.
 
Posted by DaveC (# 155) on :
 
Welsh Dragon, I just saw your list of the defining characteristics of evangelicalism as found in your churches, and they reminded me of the evangelicalism I was experiencing 10-20 years ago - I really hoped that evangelicals had moved on since then. But I don't think that you're describing all evangelicals - certainly the church I left 6 years ago wouldn't fit your description, though it still wasn't liberal enough for me [Wink] And if you look hard enough, and speak to enough people in the churches you attend, I'm sure you will find people who share your ideas of how the church should be.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
I do have to make one Purgatorial challenge: you can't really have two items that are both "primary." The top of my list says revelation is primary and the top of the Wood list says that scripture is primary.
The evangelical stock answer to that (which I happen to believe [Smile] ) is that Scripture is our record of the self-revelation of God Incarnate. And as we trust God not to lie to us, any personal revelation anyone might have, any new revelation, is going to be at least compatible with Scripture. If it isn't, then it isn't from God.

Scripture is a privileged witness because it is our witness to the Incarnation - it derives its special status from Jesus Christ who we meet in its pages.
 
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jim T:
To say "scripture is primary" invites the problems associated with literalism. To be sure "individual revelation is primary" invites the problem of "anything goes" but I just like that problem better.
Though to complicate things, it seems to me that in some churches who would say that scripture is primary, "anything goes" still seems to be acceptable. I remember hearing a sermon at a church I visited which consisted almost entirely of "God said this to me...and then he said this to me...". On the rare occasions where the Bible was quoted, it was used out of context to back up this "revelation". I agree with Ken, any personal revelation in my view should be weighed up against Scripture. But the question should be "is this revelation in accordance with scripture?" rather than "what verse can I find which backs up this revelation?"

There is of course also the thorny issue of interpretation of Scripture to complicate things further. Which I suppose might be one way of guarding against literalism.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
you can't really have two items that are both "primary." The top of my list says revelation is primary and the top of the Wood list says that scripture is primary.
It does leave open the question of what you mean by "revelation" - for evangelicals the primary route for revelation is from Scripture through personal and group study, expository preaching, a host of books and songs, and sometimes even (shock horror!) traditional formulations of Christian faith such as creeds and liturgy. Such revelation will, of necessity, include reason and experience and will be guided by tradition (though not all evangelicals are happy with the word). Do liberals really see revelation as something completely different? or just a different emphasis somewhere?

And, yes, I also agree with both sets of 4 points.
 
Posted by fatprophet (# 3636) on :
 
I know very many people who attend evangelical churches that are not fully evangelical in theology/morality.

(But then many people have liturgical preferences at odds with the theological baggage that is normally attached to such liturgy, including I note many "liberal" anglo-catholics)

I would define evo theology as including Welsh Dragon's list of charistics and particularly emphasise biblical literalism and the priority given to scripture above church radition/reason/experience)

I think you can enjoy the contemporary feel of evangelical worship/setting, their initial extrovert welcoming of visitors and having lots of evo friends as long as one does not discuss one's own theology too much. I am currently awaiting the day of execution when my local baptist church demands that I lay my theological cards on the table. It has not demanded it yet but has been making overtures that I should sign up for membership. However I will strive to hide my theological dishonesty for a bit longer for social reasons.

The evanjellyfish community is riddled with theological double agents like me (and maybe,like you Welsh Dragon?- apologies if I am mislabelling you). I was surprised to find many people who go to evangelical churches that have typically liberal theology or stances on issues like homosexuality that I accept are probably not compatible with a strictly literalist reading of scripture. Indeed I think the opponents of evangelicalism (inc the current media) would find that it was a far from solid constituency if it came to the popular vote of the laity.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Do liberals really see revelation as something completely different? or just a different emphasis somewhere?
I sort of pulled the word "revelation" out of the dim mist of memory. Liberals of several decades ago needed a positive word that describes how you can get real spiritual truth without a literal and inerrantist view of the scripture and many chose that word. I would say that it means what "liberal evangelicals" of today say: that is, you must bring scholarship, science, and human experience to bear in interpreting the scripture. An open and honest seeking of the truth will lead to a revelation of truth. Something like that.

May I ask for an evangelical volunteer to explain how "substitutionary atonement" avoids the picture of a bloodthirsty God whose fallen creatures were redeemed from deserving eternal punishment? I couldn't really get that from John Stott as I alluded to in an earlier post.

Also, without starting internecine wars on both sides of the pond I have heard it said here in the past that evangelical environments described by Welsh Dragon are more popular in Wales. Is this a misperception or stereotype? We have the same sort of thing with the Southern "Bible Belt" in the US.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I would see new revelation as helping to make sense of Scripture in the light of new knowledge and insight, Alan, and that without it, there is much of Scripture that is seriously problematic.
Hence , I would see liberals as giving a far higher plasce to reason and experience in theit interpretation of Scripture.

Liberal anglo-catholics ( I regard myself as one) give strong emphasis to Tradition too, particularlly with regard to worship and practice, which in a strange sort of way makes them the most liberal of all, in the sense of least reliant on Scripture alone.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Liberal anglo-catholics ( I regard myself as one) give strong emphasis to Tradition too, particularlly with regard to worship and practice, which in a strange sort of way makes them the most liberal of all, in the sense of least reliant on Scripture alone.
...or the least liberal in the sense of most rooted in the past as well as most supportive of ritual. Seriously Mike, with no disrespect you strike me as a gay conservative. You say many times that people would be surprised if they really knew how conservative you are (sacramental, monogamous, traditional). It seems that what you regard as your extremely liberal position on scripture is rooted in one thing: there are scriptures that clearly say homosexuality is wrong. Since you don't believe it is wrong, you take a strong position against scriptural literalism and define that as "extremely liberal." I could be wrong, but my perception of you is that subtracting out the gay issue, you are a very conservative anglo-catholic rather than an "extremely liberal" anglo-catholic. What are your other "liberal" positions?
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
That's really made me think!

Can I get back to you on it. I'm being serious, because I'm aware that some evangelicals view me as a wacky liberal, but thats not actually how I see myself, no.

Take away the gay issue ... I still don't think I'm a conservative in the evangelical sense, but I do worship in what would certainly be seen as a traditional church. Yes, I'm a conservative with regard to worship and ritual - definitely. It comes down to definition again. If we define 'evangelical' as 'biblically conservative' - I don't think I'm either one of those things. I take an inclusivist view of salvation , for example, and I'm with you on substitutionary atonement. I think I am socially liberal on most issues, although I'm not a stereotype ( as should be clear, I am right-of-centre on issues relating to the Third World)

Maybe you could fire a few issues at me on which you think I am not liberal, or where you don't know my views.

Good post - got me thinking!

[ 12. July 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
 
Posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD (# 3256) on :
 
quote:
I do have to make one Purgatorial challenge: you can't really have two items that are both "primary." The top of my list says revelation is primary and the top of the Wood list says that scripture is primary.
Why not? Perhaps they are in constant conjunction - like faith and works, or free will and predestination, or bacon and eggs (well maybe not the last one, bacon can be very nice with cheese I find...)

Revelations and their imprint on disciples and followers of Christ ("and" obviously Yahweh) make up the Bible. The Bible helps us to have "revelations" by God's Spirit speaking to us through his Word (I mean "speak" in the vague, wishy-washy "oh, I see this is true" not the Southern Baptist "PRAISE THE LORD THAT THESE WORDS ARE TRUE!" kinda way). These "revelations" are not out of hand because, after all, they are words written down on a page. God may speak to us through other means - people, images, places, music etc. but this doesn't rule out either Scripture's primacy nor revelation's primacy.

Now AUTHORITY... that's a WHOLE different kettle of de fish... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Kevin Iga (# 4396) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
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.
...
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.
...
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.
The points I listed were not strict criteria, as I mentioned above the list. They outlined a pattern. I, myself, as an evangelical, do not see conversion as a one-time event necessarily, though that's how it was with me. I am also politically liberal, especially on issues related to homelessness, education, immigration, human rights, etc. That just means I'm not at the epicenter of the evangelical phenomenon. But I am, at core, evangelical.

On the other hand, Wood's list (from Ward's list) applies to many people I would be hesitant to call "evangelical". Many traditional Protestant churches (or at least their conservative branches) are full of non-evangelicals who fit in Wood's list. For that matter, it's easy to find people in the reformation period who agree with those points.

About eschatology: I didn't say what eschatology. There's a wide range of different beliefs on the specifics of the end times among evangelicals. But I felt safe identifying the relevance of eschatology as characteristic of Evangelicals. Not the relevance of the details of eschatology, but the relevance of the fact that Christ will come again.

I didn't mention trinitarian belief, partly because that goes along with being Christian, but partly because although evangelicals tend to be trinitarian, this is not typically emphasized in evangelical circles. Grab a random evangelical off the street, and he can quote Bible verses about the need for salvation, but he'll be flustered if asked to define the doctrine of the trinity.

Incidentally, since people are sharing, I'll say why I consider myself evangelical at the core. I find that more and more as I read these forums. When, in an argument, someone uses a Bible verse to back up their point, I look it up, and see if I agree that the Bible (as a whole, not just the verse) supports that view. When, in another argument, someone argues based on the "tradition of the church", or what the governing church authority has authorized, or what seems reasonable in our general experience, I often think, "yes, but what does scripture have to say about it?"

I agree that salvation is multi-faceted, and there's probably no way I can truly wrap my mind around the whole thing as God sees it: it's hard enough wrapping my mind around any two given ways people see it. But I find my grounding in the Evangelical perspective of substitutionary atonement. And I do think there's something real about "being saved".

Like most evangelicals, I don't pay much attention to denominational boundaries when looking for a church; similarly, membership in a church, even with all the sacraments, is not what makes someone "saved". In particular, I don't resonate with a notion of "salvation applied to a community" beyond the tautological definition of the Church as the community of saved.


OK. I hope you're convinced now that I didn't just pick my points from the things I happen to believe, but rather to delineate a territory where Evangelicals can mostly be found in or near--like an ecologist who sketches out what s/he believes is the habitat for a certain species. To whatever extent I may have been conflating culture with theology, it may be because I think "evangelicalism" is at least somewhat descriptive of a culture, and not wholly descriptive of a theology.

So in response to the OP, you don't need to agree with ALL points to call yourself an evangelical (for that matter, call yourself an evangelical for all you want; as I mentioned in my previous post, the term "evangelical" is just a descriptive term helpful to people who interested in the study of religion). The term "evangelical" might be most descriptive of you, though, if the things you feel strongest about tend to put you in alignment with the list, or if the things that are not in alignment are derived from other concerns that make you fit in to that characterization.

For instance, I'm politically liberal, but I see that as derived from how I see God as revealed in scripture, and how I think we are commanded to act in the Bible. In this, I am to the left of my local church, its governing board, and the clergy. But they don't command my will; only my commitment. So my politically liberal position, in this case, because of its character, shows even more clearly that I am an evangelical.

Kevin
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD:
quote:
I do have to make one Purgatorial challenge: you can't really have two items that are both "primary." <snip>
Why not? Perhaps they are in constant conjunction - like faith and works, or free will and predestination, <snip>
Since this has generated a few posts, I'll expand just a little bit. Rob, you are essentially saying the same thing as ken: revelation comes through the scripture and the scripture reveals truth. Therefore, one is not "primary" over the other; both are essential.

But here is my point: when Wood says "scripture is primary," I hear that the scripture can overrule science, reason, and "gut feelings." The scripture is primary. Therefore, it can overrule what is secondary and tertiary. If you don't like it, you have to lump it.

If "primary" does not mean "overrule" I don't know why one would use the word. I truly believe that "revelation" overrules the literal words of the scripture. If science teaches me the utter implausibility of the ark story, it is instantly myth. The literal words of the scripture are "overruled" by the primacy of revelation in my world.

So my question back to evangelicals is, if "primary" does not mean "overrule" then what does it mean? A starting point, but not an ending point perhaps?

quote:
Originally posted by MerseyMike:
quote:
Maybe you could fire a few issues at me on which you think I am not liberal, or where you don't know my views.
MerseyMike, it is not so much specific issues that I see you aligning with conservatives on. It is the way you describe yourself. This is the description I hear: I am a traditionalist, a sacramentalist, and a liturgist. I follow the practices of the church, I follow the teachings of the church, I am honest, and I am compassionate. I am in fact a model anglo-catholic and have always been. In one and only one regard am I different from the supposed model: I am gay. Many gay people are exactly like heterosexuals. Exactly. Except for one thing: the sex of their partner. Were I closeted, I would be considered a model. In fact, the church has tacitly allowed closet homosexuality in its clerical ranks. But that is hypocrisy. I am conservative enough that I cannot tolerate hypocrisy and dishonesty. I am therefore determined to reform the church I love. At times, I want to throw in the towel but I love the church too much.

That to me is not a liberal line of thinking. It does not stretch in a new direction. It makes one, tiny change to the existing order and justifies it in terms of the existing order. Therefore, it is conservative reform rather than liberal reinterpretation, and there is nothing wrong with it in my opinion.
 
Posted by Kevin Iga (# 4396) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
May I ask for an evangelical volunteer to explain how "substitutionary atonement" avoids the picture of a bloodthirsty God whose fallen creatures were redeemed from deserving eternal punishment? I couldn't really get that from John Stott as I alluded to in an earlier post.
I'll bite. Here are three possible options (all, I believe, with long traditional roots, but I forget from where. They can be extracted from Romans though):

1. Justice stands as judge. God has been wronged. God can choose to forget, but this would violate God's justice. Instead, God comes down and becomes a man. As a man, he pays the price that Justice demands: His life. A variation on this theme: Satan accuses mankind in God's heavenly court. It would be injustice if God were to just let man off the hook. But God demands justice, then steps off His throne and pays the price Himself.
2. Sin has captured mankind and holds him in slavery. God comes and pays the asking price with His own life.
3. Not only that our death (that is, penalty for sin) becomes God's death, but that God's death and resurrection becomes our death and resurrection, through baptism. We then are free from the claims of death and sin on our life, since we have already died and live again.

Kevin
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Iga:
Here are three possible options (all, I believe, with long traditional roots, but I forget from where. They can be extracted from Romans though):

1. <snip> [God] pays the price that Justice demands: His life.
2. Sin has captured mankind and holds him in slavery. God comes and pays the asking price with His own life.
3. Not only that our death (that is, penalty for sin) becomes God's death, but that God's death and resurrection becomes our death and resurrection, through baptism.
Kevin, I thank you for taking a crack at this, but I have to say it doesn't do it for me. Item one is rooted in the penalty for sin (any sin) being death. That is not rational to me. You've ducked the implied bloodthirstiness by saying it is "justice" that demands death and not God. Where is the justice in killing someone for being too selfish, especially if they grew up poor? As to item two, if one is being held as a slave, how is the death penalty appropriate for freeing the slave? I don't understand this at all.

Item three again echoes back to the assumption that the death penalty is appropriate for every sin. In addition, it inserts substitionary atonement into baptism in a way that appears unnecessary to me. You can die and be reborn regardless of whether God or anyone else dies.
 
Posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD (# 3256) on :
 
quote:
That is not rational to me.
Because everything HAS to be rational in OUR eyes. Has anyone ever explained the Trinity properly? Do we know what the death and resurrection mean? Yes - we do, but only broadly and through interpretation by men (could it have been any other way? Yes, they were inspired by the Spirit of God, but that doesn't make anyone super-human and unable to make mistakes in their writing, ethics or reaction to cultural norms). What I think you're asking for, Jim, is for all mystery to be taken away from God and placed in our hands, because we obviously handle the truth BRILLIANTLY, don't we? Not that we can't, we just usually don't...
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Another try:

But I do have problems with the idea of a bloodthirsty God - the Morrigan, goddess of life and death, healing and wisdom; she gobbles you up and then gives birth to you. [Eek!]

What if substitutionary atonement works like this - Adam and Eve choose to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and so are banned from the tree of life, therefore go into death.

God is upset and wants them to live. God decides to take on the responsibility for them, after all God created them, gave them free choice and so it is God's responsibility. God becomes one of them. God dies in their place and resurrects in their place and carries them with God so that they go through death and resurrection together.

It's not just for "sins" but for "sin" also.

Given that God tried to make sure the Israelites did not sacrifice their children by giving them laws to "redeem" them at birth, I don't think God enjoys human sacrifice.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD:
quote:
That is not rational to me.
Because everything HAS to be rational in OUR eyes. <snip> What I think you're asking for, Jim, is for all mystery to be taken away from God and placed in our hands, because we obviously handle the truth BRILLIANTLY, don't we? Not that we can't, we just usually don't...
You're damn straight everything has to be rational. It has to make some kind of sense. We are rational creatures and we DO handle it BRILLIANTLY. We were not born for irrationality. It's been a few months since I've asked CONSERVATIVES to COOL IT with the captial letters. Unless of course they REALLY WANT to piss me off. I had conservative rhetoric shouted at me enough for several lifetimes.

I am not saying that Love has to be explained to me with a mathematical and chemical equation. The ultimate source and reason for it are unknown. But "substitutionary atonement" has to be described to me in terms I can understand. And I don't believe in the Trinity (I am a Unitarian) exactly because no one can explain it to my satisfaction. It makes no sense to me.

Rob, for every religious conservative who scoffs at rationalists who need solid reasons for everything there is a rationalist who can scoff at people who believe things that they don't understand. I've seen those people crumble when a real test comes along. At 48 years old, I've heard plenty of empty speeches about "just accepting mysteries." There are plenty of mysteries in my life and I enjoy the wonder of them. "Substitutionary atonement" isn't one of them.
 
Posted by fatprophet (# 3636) on :
 
I amazingly began to understand (though not necessarily adopt!) substitutionary atonement theory when I looked closely at the cultic religious practices of other ancient (including pagan) religions:

For every tribe everywhere paleo-anthropologists suggest, sacrifice universally garners the divine favour,and at its crudest it is giving the gods some gift, usually by burning in a sacred fire, to demonstrate the sacrificer's dedication, honour and submission to the gods.
If the gods are angry with me then it is becuase he has been dishonoured by my actions. Said god cannot let us get away with that and as a blot on the cosmos we need to be expiated i.e terminated (e.g. by thunderbolt)
However the gods can be propitiated by an appropriate sacrifice where the sacrifice is of such value that the gods' moral government and divine status is starkly reaffirmed by the sacrificers. Lots of ancient cultures(notably in the ancient greek world) had tales of people being sacrificed to propitiate gods (as well as sea monsters) usually on behalf of whole cities or communities.
Christianity includes a modified version of this idea so deeply imbedded in ancient paganism that gods need propitiating so that divine favour and blessing may be restored.
Don't understand the bible? Can't be an evangelical? You really need to get into the mindset of a bronze age nomad.
 
Posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD (# 3256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT We are rational creatures and we DO handle it BRILLIANTLY.
I don't have any idea where you got this idea from, but it is patently false. Have you SEEN the world?!

I don't consider myself to be particularly theologically conservative by the way. But call me what you want.
 
Posted by GeordieDownSouth (# 4100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT We are rational creatures and we DO handle it BRILLIANTLY.
I don't have any idea where you got this idea from, but it is patently false. Have you SEEN the world?!

<snip>
Yep. There's a lot of hope in it.

How would the question "How liberal Can you Be and still be called an evangelical by other evangelicals" be answered?
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fatprophet:
Don't understand the bible? Can't be an evangelical? You really need to get into the mindset of a bronze age nomad.
See, this post makes perfect sense to me. It is exactly the way I interpret substitutionary atonement. Fatprophet's exegesis is exactly the kind that I can follow. It is very much like Spong's explanation for the development of the resurrection story. It is very much "liberal" reinterpretation of a fundamental of Christianity. I can easily take the next step of saying, "Christ, his contemporary followers, and his subsequent followers all realized that this primitive notion of forgiveness needed to be dispensed with and that confession and forgiveness needed to proceed at the speed of thought. The reason is that sin is rooted in thought and not action, therefore it arises at the speed of thought and must be dealt with on the same basis. Therefore the Apostle Paul says, 'if we confess our sins to God he is faithful to forgive them.'"

What a huge and positive shift in paradigm! I then have to say however, that the "substitutionary atonement" doctrine arose as a way of explaining to first century Jews why animal sacrifice is no longer required. I would not present it to 21st century people as a primary tenet of faith. Rather, I would say it is essential to follow your heart and examine it if something tells you that you've done wrong. If so, you must get to the very root of it, by yourself or with the assistance of a priest, friend, or psychologist so that you fully "confess" or understand it. It will then be natural to make amends and then remake yourself into a person who no longer needs or desires to do that thing. Having been through full and complete confession, contrition, and penance there is no more need for guilt or shame but rather gratitude for having been prompted into the process and guided through it to a liberating conclusion.

I could say that Christ provided the basis for substitutionary atonement to early Christians from a Jewish background. But my liberal description to people today is that Christian theology transcended "atonement" and presaged modern psychoanalytic theory, where thought is to be mastered more than actions and responsibility replaces shame as a means to spiritual growth. In dispensing with the old language and old paradigm after having understood its roots, I take the path of the "liberal." Insisting on the old language and then despairing of people's lack of interest and difficulty in understanding how it applies to them is the path of the "conservative" and the "evangelical." And responding to their protests with "you're not supposed to understand it; it is a mystery of faith; let go of the god of reason" is the path of a sickin' sackin' frickin' ackin' consarn gull-dern @#$@!
 
Posted by Spong (# 1518) on :
 
I want to shift back a bit from SA theory to the definition of liberal, because I'm not sure Jim's points sum it up for me - I don't really disagree with any of them, but I don't think they are the sine qua non of liberalism.

To come up with four, I think I'd say:

1. Liberals believe that the Bible contains the Word of God, but not that it IS the Word of God - God speaks to us through the Bible, but not everything in the Bible is God-breathed. So they apply historical and critical approaches to the Bible when considering it as a historical document, but may use other approaches (e.g. narrative ones) when considering it as a faith document.

2. Liberals raise personal experience and judgment to a higher level than evangelicals, and may allow it to overrule specific areas of scripture if it seems out of line with the overall story of God: eg Jim's rejection of SA because the view it gives of a bloodthirsty God is not the one that he (or I, or most people here) experience. As another example, I simply believe that Paul is wrong when he says that a man praying with something on his head is disgraceful and a woman praying without something on her head is disgraceful (1 Cor 11:4,5), because a petty-minded and legalistic approach is not the God I see in the teachings of Jesus.

3. There is a tendency to downplay the personal, and emphasise the pantheistic or panentheistic in a definition of who or what God is. That in turn tends to lead to a hermeneutic of suspicion when looking at the miraculous.

4. Other people may have equally valid but different faiths, either different versions of Christian belief or different versions of faith altogether, many (though not necessarily all) of which are equally valid as ways to know God.

I've tried before, and will probably fail again, to say that for me there is a realm to the OTHER side of liberal from evangelical, which is 'radical'. Those, ISTM, are the ones which Wood is talking about - the ones who more or less discount 4 above, see little relevance in 1 other than a set of stories to be used as allegories, and are really full-blown pantheists with a lite-Christian frosting... That's where I'd put the Sea of Faith approach.
 
Posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD (# 3256) on :
 
I think the Sea of Faith lot are a cross between liberal and radical myself. And on your continuum, that would make them evangelical Spong!

Hmmm... [Confused]
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Spong ; yes, I could and do go along with all of those, and thats why I think of myself as liberal.
But I don't find that any of them clash with being anglo-catholic.

3 particularly appealed - I so often find that one's language about God is very different, and its the 'personal relationship' language I find most dificult to handle, since it just isn't how I experience or understand God
 
Posted by Spong (# 1518) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD:
I think the Sea of Faith lot are a cross between liberal and radical myself. And on your continuum, that would make them evangelical Spong!
Er, no.. I think I made that mistake last time, but I can't see that I did this time! I said radical is on the OTHER side of liberal from evangelical. So it goes evangelical - liberal - radical.
 
Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
...
3. There is a tendency to downplay the personal, and emphasise the pantheistic or panentheistic in a definition of who or what God is.
...
I think there is a world of difference between pantheism which is totally at odds with the religious beliefs of almost every bible writer, and panentheism (God indwelling all) which is surely compulsory for a bible believing Christian, though sometimes downplayed by evangelicals.
 
Posted by gbuchanan (# 415) on :
 
Well, if I were to describe myself using the general labels of churchmanship, I'd have to describe myself as both liberal and evangelical.

However, I have problems with using either.

Firstly, with 'Liberal', most Evangelicals use it as a 'Black Spot' of disbelief, and some who frankly are secular liberals who borrow from Christianity call themselves "Liberal Christians", which is false on at least the latter term. I see a number of (self-appointed) liberal "Figureheads" (e.g. Cupitt and, to some extent, Spong) who are pretty much outside the Church theologically yet for their own, apparently self-serving, purposes remain within it socially. Personally, I'd see the Iona Community and individuals such as (say) Habgood and Harries as more properly liberal and Christian, and they are generally use "liberal" theology as a tool than as a war-cry of any form.

As a political Liberal (i.e. I'm a member of the Liberal Democrats in the UK), the headline grabbing theological liberals are closer to the agenda of anarchistic libertarians of politics than to anything genuinely Liberal - it takes egocentricity to beyond any coherent or viable position.

Contrarily, Evangelicals have their own hardliners, who often are literalistic, conformist and doctrinaire. Sadly, many of my Christian friends (the majority of those friends being Evangelical) are tainted by the colour of that extremism, as the tribalism of Evangelical church culture is much stronger - are you "on side"? do you tow the line? are you sure that you are not "slipping"? Are you the right sort of evangelical? It reminds me, rather sadly, of the sectarian mind-games of N.Ireland. Condemning any single attitude of a key Evangelical figure is like criticising Ian Paisley - are you really going over to "the other side"? Will you sign the DB?

As someone raised in a very low-church, personal-convicition Protestant Evangelicalism, such extreme demands for conformity are more in keeping with the negative stereotypes of Roman Catholicism than anything genuinely Protestant. Anyhow, it seems to me that this attitude could more readily, in the political sphere, be equated with Stalinism, where being seen to step off the line is tantamount to treason.

Personally, I don't see anything in either picture which is really compatible with Christianity as I understand it - each places its own idol before God, and between Him and His people and neither really well reflects the person of Jesus.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I would be seriously worried if Cupitt and Spong are viewed as typical of liberal Christianity. Though I liked Spong's demolition of fundamentalism and the bible, I would have thought both were mavericks and not representative of liberals.

[ 15. July 2003, 00:17: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
 
Posted by gbuchanan (# 415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I would be seriously worried if Cupitt and Spong are viewed as typical of liberal Christianity. Though I liked Spong's demolition of fundamentalism and the bible, I would have thought both were mavericks and not representative of liberals.
...I'd agree - however, the basic truth is that those who criticise Liberalism tend to use such folks as a definition of what Liberals are.

Similarly, the views of the former Bishop of Durham (David Jenkins) are usually posted in their most simplified and posterised form to suit such purposes. "Liberal" as a theological label seems grossly detached from the reality I'd use it in, and actually more like the product of a need for some bogeymen for conservatives to use as Aunt Sallies than anything to do with reality.

However, I doubt I can change that tide of misconception... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Whereas David Jenkins is much more reflective of liberal Anglicanism, in my view.
 
Posted by gbuchanan (# 415) on :
 
Sure.

Your new avatar is - erm - interesting! Is that a Liberal tomato?

Even DJ's view has been polarised & simplified in its representation in the media and by his critics. To be honest, though, he is himself somewhat of an "extremist" in terms of CoE Liberalism - compared to (say) Harries, he is a veritable firebrand.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GeordieDownSouth:
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.
I think that might be both liberal and evangelical, but coming from differing angles.

Liberals might look on "being a christian" as very much living at the moment, in this world, now. So obviously affecting the world. And if they were universalists, they would expect everyone to be saved, not just christians, so they would expect God to affect the world positively through various faith groups and those who didn't believe anything in particular, but had morals and ethics that worked for the good of humanity.

Evangelicals might major on "the New Israel" as coming specifically from biblical teaching. They might say that God called Israel into being to spread good news and morality and knowledge of God, and to produce the Saviour of the world. And then also the above, but those who were regenerate would be totally aligned with God's will and so more effective.

These are my ideas, as I haven't heard much discussion about this.
 
Posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD (# 3256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
quote:
Originally posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD:
I think the Sea of Faith lot are a cross between liberal and radical myself. And on your continuum, that would make them evangelical Spong!
Er, no.. I think I made that mistake last time, but I can't see that I did this time! I said radical is on the OTHER side of liberal from evangelical. So it goes evangelical - liberal - radical.
I think it goes: liberal (sometimes radical)- evangelical (usually not, but sometimes radical).

Why is radical a separate group?

Can't we scrap the groups altogether? Wouldn't THAT be radical?! [Wink]
 
Posted by Kevin Iga (# 4396) on :
 
I think it's more like a landscape, myself, with different kinds of terrain in different areas. There is an area of "evangelical" terrain, with perhaps a vaguely-defined epicenter, a "liberal" terrain (I actually think there are several unrelated kinds of "liberals", ranging from scientific modernists to myth-loving postmodernists to gay rights activists and more), a terrain of people who think of their Christianity in terms of nationality, a terrain of "traditionalists" (by which I mean explicitly see their historic tradition, including in form of worship, to be crucial) and so on.

I'm not sure what people mean by "radical". I take it you don't mean the radical reformation, leading to the Anabaptists, do you? They, of course, belong on the map, though overlapping considerably with the evangelicals.

These all overlap each other in various ways, actually.

Kevin
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
I'm in much better humor about this thread now.

First, Kevin, can you not see that Spong is using "radical" to mean "extremist?" But he has restricted it to liberal extremists, which allows him to be a centrist. Look again:

evangelical -- liberal -- radical

[Killing me]

Excellent way to define yourself into the middle, Spong!

And Rob, you have finally arrived! One label for all, reflecting our shared human values, all trying the very best we can to be the best we can under the difficult condition of being human. Let's see...what kind of "ist" or "ism" would link us together as humans? It's on the tip of my tongue...this is going to bug me. Let me get back to you, OK?

[Angel]
 
Posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD (# 3256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
And Rob, you have finally arrived! One label for all, reflecting our shared human values, all trying the very best we can to be the best we can under the difficult condition of being human. Let's see...what kind of "ist" or "ism" would link us together as humans? It's on the tip of my tongue...this is going to bug me. Let me get back to you, OK?
Ok. I don't think it's humanism. I think that's intrinsically an ugly term because it deflects attention from God onto humans.

This is what keeps me from being a liberal and keeps me being an evangelical. In fact, it's probably the only thing - an attempt to respect God more than individual human readings of God (including my own). I think evangelicalism has the potential to be far more inclusive than liberalism. Only it has sadly never lived up to that potential.
 
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 
You can define a set of points two ways
One can define a set by overlaying a shape over the range of 'dots' and then seeing which points fall within the square. You define the set by the boundaries.
Another way is to examine the 'vectors' of the points, where are they heading? You define this set by the centre.

Although the intial question of this thread was stated in terms of boundaries, I wonder if it might be more helpful to consider the issue from the perspective of direction?

From this perspective I would say that an evangelical is defined by a focus on... scripture [tempted to say 'Jesus', just to raise a few hackles and fulfil a few sterotypes [Wink] ] as the source of understanding God and what it means to be a follower of Jesus.
A liberal christian's trajectory of belief is heavily influenced by what is 'reasonable' to the culture (as with F. Schleiermarcher - the Father of liberalism). The scriptures
 
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 
Good Lord!
There has been some sort of flood and my entire post has been washed away as I submitted it [Mad] . Too late to retype it in now, will have to wait till tomorrow.
And it was so well worded, rebuted the opposition flawlessly, compellingly stated an arguement... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 
Ah [Embarrassed] yes well [Embarrassed] . It appears that my post is here after all. [Embarrassed]
Hmm, yes definitely time for bed!
sorry for messing up this thread with so many posts! A triple post!! [Embarrassed]

you do understand that I was joking in my last post don't you?

[Embarrassed] [Embarrassed] [Embarrassed] [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD (# 3256) on :
 
Do you think if I use THIS [Embarrassed] smilie one more time it will break, Anselm? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 
Yes.
I tried one more time and was told that the limit was 8. [Smile]
 
Posted by perceval (# 4742) on :
 
It's been intriguing to read this discussion, because I had no real idea that there was such a range of opinions in Evangelicalism. Do you feel that media reporting gives both Evangelicals and Liberals a bad name? Because in the British press, evangelicals are portrayed as the nutters (Guardian) or vigilantes (Daily Telegraph) that prevented the ordination of Jeffrey John, but there's no space for the shades of grey I've seen on this thread.

percival
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I would be seriously worried if Cupitt and Spong are viewed as typical of liberal Christianity. Though I liked Spong's demolition of fundamentalism and the bible, I would have thought both were mavericks and not representative of liberals.
They are, I assure you, the first two names that spring to mind when evangelical Anglicans try to think of well-known liberal Anglicans.

Maybe we'll promise not to mention them again if you promise not to mention Reform again - who, AFAIK represent even fewer Anglican clergy than See of Faith do.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by perceval:
Do you feel that media reporting gives both Evangelicals and Liberals a bad name? Because in the British press, evangelicals are portrayed as the nutters (Guardian) or vigilantes (Daily Telegraph) that prevented the ordination of Jeffrey John, but there's no space for the shades of grey I've seen on this thread.
It's not just the media. We sometimes do it to ourselves. And I don't just mean the tendancy of evangelicals to equate liberal with Spong and Sea of Faith, or liberals to equate evangelical with Falwell and Reform. Its the tendancy of the vast majority of evangelicals to keep quiet and not speak out when the more extreme end of the evangelical spectrum go and make idiots of themselves (and us in the process). No doubt there's a similar tendancy among liberals to not publically counteract the effect of their own extremists.
 
Posted by Spong (# 1518) on :
 
JimT is right, I have, of course, positioned myself neatly in the middle of the spectrum I set out - don't we all... [Wink] ?

I'm happy with my namesake Spong as a liberal, if you look behind the headlines of what he says he's actually a bit more orthodox than he appears. Certainly more nuanced. I DO see people like Cupitt, Hick, the whole Death of God school, as a different type of 'terrain' - I like Kevin's analogy, very useful. Those were the ones I was trying to label as radical, though yes of course there are all sorts of radical movements at different times.

The distinction I was trying to get at is that liberals seem to me to still 'stand on the shoulders of giants' that have gone before, whereas radicals say 'sod that for a game of soldiers' and cut them off at the knees.....
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0