Thread: Purgatory: "Secret" evangelical leaders meeting 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=001163
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
According to "chatter" on FB and Twitter, today and tomorrow 100 senior evangelical leaders (from across the spectrum) are having a cosy-up at the Norton Park Hotel near Winchester.

They are apparently discussing evangelical unity and the nature of the gospel.

It's all happening in strict secrecy - the participants are not allowed to say who is there or what is said.

* have the names of just five participants:

So...

Does anyone know who else is there?

Do we have any James Bonds or Ethan Hunts on the ship who could infiltrate the meeting? !!!

[ 20. September 2014, 10:42: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
An Evangelical Bilderberg!

Well I never...

[Paranoid]
 
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
Because chatter on FB and Twitter is so reliable!!!
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
Are they all men?

If so, do you think they might have a lady missionary with a long dress, hair in a bun, and no cosmetics, jump out of a cake during the last-night party?
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
At least one woman.
She's a good friend of mine and an all round top theologian.
She tweeted this yesterday:
Ruth Valerio @ruthvalerio · 20h
About 2 b locked away for 2 days w bunch of church-leadery ppl 2 discuss (argue?) n pray. What hv I let myself in 4?! http://tiny.cc/nogjhx
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Will a mystery worshipper attend? [Smile]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
They've clearly gone for the 'Perfect Pampering Experience' offered by the hotel.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
I wonder if there some who regard themselves as 'Senior Evangelical Leaders' whose noses are out of joint because they have not been invited. Finding out who is not there might be as interesting as who is there.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Is the Salvation Army leader there, I wonder?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
I wonder if there some who regard themselves as 'Senior Evangelical Leaders' whose noses are out of joint because they have not been invited. Finding out who is not there might be as interesting as who is there.
Their noses will be out of joint only if they discover that they haven't been invited! Which then makes one ask: who did the inviting? Is this an EA event?
 
Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :
 
100 people in a meeting?

Sounds more like somebody/thing significant (to the 100) has something to say and they have been called to listen and discuss amongst themselves during coffee breaks.

From what I have seen the reason Evangelicals and in fact most other Christians are not unified is ego.

This looks like more of that to me, I wonder who's it is this time.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Apparently, the Chatham House Rule applies. I guess we'll have to wait to see what emerges in the public domain, despite that.

If it's a genuine exploration (rather than an exercise in favour of a UK evo faction) that would be a good thing. Greater openness on a whole load of hot button issues is a cat out of the back in most evo congos, regardless of local leadership lines. Enforced unity just doesn't work.

And there's nothing wrong with confidential debates. If people have taken public positions but have private reservations, maybe a confidential discussion is a good way of "thinking again"?

I'm waiting and seeing, myself. Not much else to be done here at present.

(Hostly reminder. BTW, remember Commandment 7 when talking about named people here. B62 Purg Host)

[ 17. June 2014, 08:59: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I'd say it is probably to do with Evangelical unity and how they move forward in the church. Evangelicals have always been able to muster the troops in a way that other groups and factions in the church haven't, precisely because they have a tighter sense of unity in purpose and can easily work together to out their shoulder to the same purpose. What has arrived on the scene in the last few years is Evangelical diversity - which to be honest has always been there to a degree, just not in a very significant way - which could begin to be seen as the big boogeyman. I'm hoping it won't be as I would see it as a sign of health and makes for an interesting church. Of course, it might all be total conjecture and nothing more and they are really meeting to decide on which brand of fair trade tea to buy for the next EA conference.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
who did the inviting? Is this an EA event?
I think that's a very pertinent question. At least the Bilderberg Group has an identifiable Steering Committee...
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Evangelicals have always been able to muster the troops in a way that other groups and factions in the church haven't, precisely because they have a tighter sense of unity in purpose and can easily work together to out their shoulder to the same purpose.
I don't think is true any more. There's certainly no one person (man, inevitably) who is identifiably 'the' evangelical leader in a way that say, Stott was. Tom Wright might have been, but he seems to have declined the position.

I, who am still mostly evangelical and go to an evangelical CofE church have virtually nothing in common with a Reform type CofE evangelical. Anything that's likely to appeal to them is almost by definition not going to appeal to me.

I have to assume that they're going to be talking about two particular Dead Horse issues. They will find no commonality amongst themselves about them, since both sides of the argument see their positions as scriptural, about which there can be no argument because the other side is wrong.

At least, though, they're getting away for a couple of days. Hopefully, they'll all drink some beer in the sunshine and come back better people.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
who did the inviting? Is this an EA event?
I think that's a very pertinent question. At least the Bilderberg Group has an identifiable Steering Committee...
I find it easier to get excised by the latter than the former, if only because the former are ultimately a lot more accountable - accidentally so maybe, but there it is.
 
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
What has arrived on the scene in the last few years is Evangelical diversity - which to be honest has always been there to a degree, just not in a very significant way - which could begin to be seen as the big boogeyman.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I think there has always been a lot of evangelical diversity that people like to gloss over as it doesn't suit their claims of exclusivity.

Back at the reformation, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli couldn't agree and founded separate churches. Later on, Wesley and Whitfield parted company. Baptists and presbyterians have long-standing differences (as well as internal diversity). The Salvation Army has its own unique approach. Stott and MLJ had their famous public spat 50 years ago and two big parts of british evangelicalism went their own separate ways.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I find it easier to get excised by the latter than the former, if only because the former are ultimately a lot more accountable - accidentally so maybe, but there it is.
I can't parse this. I can't work out whether you prefer to be excised by the EA (or the mysterious conveners of this meeting) or the Bildeberg Group, and which you believe to be ultimately more accountable. [Confused]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I agree with sidefall on evangelical diversity. Evangelicalism (at least in the UK) has always had a considerable breadth and diversity. We have, however, managed to stay (approximately) unified behind a common purpose (to preach the gospel in word and deed, and the make disciples of all people) and understanding. Bebbington frequently gets mentioned in regard to what that evangelical understanding is: Centrality of the Cross, Supremacy of Scripture, Conversion and Active Faith.

Evangelicals take Scripture very seriously. But most of us are very well aware that we are fallible creatures and our interpretations of Scripture may be at fault. That allows (or, perhaps, allowed) us to hold a variety of views on what the Bible teaches without declaring alternative interpretations to necessarily be be "non-Biblical".

[ 17. June 2014, 11:19: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
Does it say more about the venue's plumbing or Evangelicalism that two female attendees have tweeted about not needing to queue for the loos? [Two face]
 
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
Thanks, Alan.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Evangelicals have always been able to muster the troops in a way that other groups and factions in the church haven't, precisely because they have a tighter sense of unity in purpose and can easily work together to out their shoulder to the same purpose.
I don't think is true any more. There's certainly no one person (man, inevitably) who is identifiably 'the' evangelical leader in a way that say, Stott was. Tom Wright might have been, but he seems to have declined the position.

I, who am still mostly evangelical and go to an evangelical CofE church have virtually nothing in common with a Reform type CofE evangelical. Anything that's likely to appeal to them is almost by definition not going to appeal to me.

I have to assume that they're going to be talking about two particular Dead Horse issues. They will find no commonality amongst themselves about them, since both sides of the argument see their positions as scriptural, about which there can be no argument because the other side is wrong.
Doc's first point is valid - the differences now are greater than ever.

But Stott was never the evangelical "pope" - as I said before, the free churches rallied round MLJ. Also Stott's belief in social action and his willingness to consider annihilationism also made him anathema to some.

And NT Wright could never succeed Stott. Wright is very much in the open evangelical tradition - his views on atonement, the new perspective on Paul, and women, are unacceptable to conservatives. Whilst I don't agree with everything Wright says, I regard him as the greatest new testament scholar of recent years. I think his rejection by some is a sad sign of the anti-intellectualism that exists in parts of the church.

I think three things have changed in the last 50 years:

1. Evangelicalism in the UK has grown in size. Previously it was so small that there was greater need to work together and paper over the differences.

2. Cultural changes have made large-scale missions irrelevant so there's no need to join in big campaigns. Billy Graham could unite the vast majority of evangelicals in the 1950s, 60s, and even 80s, but even if another mission england was appropriate today, there's no figurehead who could lead it.

3. The grounds for division have increased. We now have the charismatic movement, women in leadership, and now homosexuality, as points of disagreement where the differences may be forever irreconcilable.

I completely agree with Alan that we are all fallible, and we should recognise this and accept that we may be wrong and others may be right. But a big cause of the problems, as Doc said, is when someone is convinced that they have the truth and everyone else is wrong.

That's why I often emphasise the historical diversity of evangelicalism - it helps put things in perspective. For example, Calvinists like to speak ill of Arminians, but if you remind them that Wesley was in the latter camp, they tend to moderate their language.
 
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
Does it say more about the venue's plumbing or Evangelicalism that two female attendees have tweeted about not needing to queue for the loos? [Two face]
Paul, who are these? Ruth Valerio doesn't appear to be one of them, so you must know the names of two more participants...
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Sidefall: to your previous post but one; that's why I'm curious to find out whether this gathering is part of an attempt to corner the evangelical market in the UK.

[ 17. June 2014, 11:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on :
 
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Is the Salvation Army leader there, I wonder?
I think his best chance of being at the Norton Park Hotel during this meeting, is to apply for one of the vacancies they've advertised. Has he any experience as a sous-chef....or as a cleaner?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I can't parse this. I can't work out whether you prefer to be excised by the EA (or the mysterious conveners of this meeting) or the Bildeberg Group, and which you believe to be ultimately more accountable. [Confused]
The EA (or some random group of evangelicals) is ultimately much more accountable, at least in all the ways that matter.

Yes, they can make some decisions that affect the members of their immediate groups - but crucially they have no power to keep themselves as the only game in town.

Would it be interesting to hear what was being discussed? Sure. But there are good as well as bad reasons for keeping some discussions private - when speculating about annhiliationism is our version of 'defending the indefensible'.

Plus you can guarantee that if something controversial is discussed at this meeting, some of the participants will then bring it up later anyway.
 
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
Andrew Wilson has tweeted the following:

Figuring out what is primary & secondary in evangelicalism with a Bishop, the head of UCCF, Simon Gathercole's pastor, & five others. Yikes

See https://twitter.com/AJWTheology/status/478854733541941248

The "head of UCCF" must be Richard Cunningham, who they call their director, so that's another punter outed!

Simon Gathercole is a Cambridge theologian, no idea who his pastor is.

And the bishop? Thought it might be Pete Broadbent (did he used to be on the ship?) but his FB page and twitter are silent so no indication either way. What other evangelical bishops are there?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sidefall:
I think three things have changed in the last 50 years:

1. Evangelicalism in the UK has grown in size. Previously it was so small that there was greater need to work together and paper over the differences.
I don't have access to data (and, I'm certainly not able to remember 50 years ago), but has it grown in size significantly? I don't doubt that evangelicalism has grown as a proportion of number of people regularly attending church - but that's because the data suggest that evangelical churches have been more successful at avoiding numerical decline than other churches. But, as a total number of people, I'm not convinced there's a big difference since 50 years ago.

quote:
2. Cultural changes have made large-scale missions irrelevant so there's no need to join in big campaigns. Billy Graham could unite the vast majority of evangelicals in the 1950s, 60s, and even 80s, but even if another mission england was appropriate today, there's no figurehead who could lead it.
I'd tend to agree with that. The big stadium rallies are a thing of the past. I also think the "celebrity evangelist" is also largely a thing of the past - there have been too many scandals, and let's face it the glare of publicity does have a tendancy to show the faults we all have in stark relief. We do still have some rallies, but they're more often examples of healing ministry, and that's something evangelicals have never been able to unite behind.

quote:
3. The grounds for division have increased. We now have the charismatic movement, women in leadership, and now homosexuality, as points of disagreement where the differences may be forever irreconcilable.
Again, the grounds for division have changed. But, I'm not sure they've increased. Things go in cycles. 20 odd years ago Charismatic gifts was probably the big issue in evangelicalism, at present it seems to be something we can agree to disagree on. The role and ministry of women has also gone through cycles and we're at a point where there are evangelicals and churches which will not appoint women to positions of leadership and some which will, but it's not a difficulty in those churches working together (just so long as the woman leading one church isn't invited to preach at another). The big divisions are currently sexuality (which is a relatively new issue) and atonement theories (which is another one that goes in cycles - basically the whole Luther/Calvin division is a variation on it). At least that's my perspective, but I'm an evangelical sitting slightly outside the fold.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Yes, they can make some decisions that affect the members of their immediate groups - but crucially they have no power to keep themselves as the only game in town.

Would it be interesting to hear what was being discussed? Sure. But there are good as well as bad reasons for keeping some discussions private - when speculating about annhiliationism is our version of 'defending the indefensible'.
I fully agree that there's room for off-the-record discussions.

What irks me is the veil of secrecy over the proceedings as a whole. To me at least, tweets like Andrew Wilson's exude unnecessary self-importance which is exacerbated by this air of secrecy, piqued with a few semi-indiscretions.

It's all too easy in such a heady atmosphere to get a completely inflated idea of one's own significance - and hugely underestimate the significance of those who aren't there. Big fish in small ponds.

Either the organisers should have publicised the event and handled PR appropriately (they could still have kept the contents off the record), or they should have enjoined a lot more confidentiality on the participants.

If Pete Broadbent is the bishop in question, kudos to him for knowing how to be discreet.

[ 17. June 2014, 12:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

What irks me is the veil of secrecy over the proceedings as a whole. To me at least, tweets like Andrew Wilson's exude unnecessary self-importance which is exacerbated by this air of secrecy, piqued with a few semi-indiscretions.
I think one of the problems with meetings of this sort are those newly invited to the table trying to say-without-saying that they have arrived.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I must admit to a wry smile when I saw how excited someone from NFI was to be discussing with a bishop...
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sidefall:
Simon Gathercole is a Cambridge theologian, no idea who his pastor is.
He seems to be an Elder at Eden Baptist Church, the senior minister there is Julian Hardyman - not that I know him at all (it's an FIEC church rather than BUGB).

The power of the Interweb!
 
Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :
 
Reading about these kinds of events makes me want to send everyone involved a copy of The Inner Ring by C.S.Lewis.
 
Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
Given that this meeting is in the Winchester Diocese then maybe the local bishop is there. He is from the evangelical stream.
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sidefall:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
Does it say more about the venue's plumbing or Evangelicalism that two female attendees have tweeted about not needing to queue for the loos? [Two face]
Paul, who are these? Ruth Valerio doesn't appear to be one of them, so you must know the names of two more participants...
I just followed a few tweets from Valerio's twitter stream.

Here and here.
 
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
Thanks guys.

I also got Ruth Mawhinney from Ruth Valerio's twitter (Mawhinney's twitter pic, if it is of her, is a bit unexpected - she's smoking a cigarette and wearing a very low-cut top).

Julian Hardyman is the only person at Eden BC described as a pastor so I'll assume it is him.

Can't find a blog or twitter feed for Tim Dakin, bishop of winchester, so can't confirm that.

Here's an updated list of delegates:

A Bishop (diocese unknown)
Richard Cunningham (director UCCF)
Lee Gatiss (director Church Society)
Julian Hardyman (senior pastor, Eden Baptist)
David Hilborn (principle St John's College Nottingham, former EA head of theology)
Rachel Jordan (National Mission and Evangelism Advisor, CofE)
Ruth Mawhinnney (web editor Christian Today)
Chine Mbubaegbu (head of media & communications, EA)
John Stevens (national director FIEC)
Ruth Valerio (churches and theology director, A Rocha UK)
Peter Williams (warden Tyndale House)
Andrew Wilson (NFI)

11 names so far... do you think it is the younger generation who are more willing to reveal their attendance?
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sidefall:
I also got Ruth Mawhinney from Ruth Valerio's twitter (Mawhinney's twitter pic, if it is of her, is a bit unexpected - she's smoking a cigarette and wearing a very low-cut top).
That's Rene Zellweger as Bridget Jones!
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
What is meant here by "the nature of the gospel"?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Can anyone explain to me why it would need to be a 'secret' meeting? In church as I know it, no one is particularly fascinated by ecumenical meetings so the idea of having a secret one would be somewhat ridiculous!

Perhaps we should all have 'secret' meetings if that's the way to stir up more interest!
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Can anyone explain to me why it would need to be a 'secret' meeting?
How do you know it's a secret meeting? AFAICT it's a private meeting, which is somewhat different.

[ 17. June 2014, 14:30: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
It's no longer secret though is it? I mean everyone here knows about it.....
But perhaps we do need 007 on the case. The whole of Western Civilisation could be at threat! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
My thoughts - this is all speculation.

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Their noses will be out of joint only if they discover that they haven't been invited! Which then makes one ask: who did the inviting? Is this an EA event?
Given the range of participants, I strongly suspect it is organised by the EA. I can't of anyone else who could or would bring that many diverse people together.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Sidefall: to your previous post but one; that's why I'm curious to find out whether this gathering is part of an attempt to corner the evangelical market in the UK.
Given recent events, it could be an attempt to batten the hatches against the likes of Steve Chalke and Accepting Evangelicals. The timing of it (six weeks or so after the EA booted out Oasis) makes me wonder if they decided a family conference is needed. And some aspects of what's been revealed (unity, nature of the gospel, strict secrecy) are consistent with that as well.

But it could just be a general talking shop that's been planned for a while. I have a vague feeling things like it have happened before, but news hasn't leaked out. The internet age does make it harder to keep things out of the public eye.

There is no way, given those present (from anglican to new frontiers, conservative to charismatic), that this event could attempt to define evangelicalism in the way that The Gospel Coalition tries to do in America, other than possibly coming to a consensus on homosexuality. But arguably that already exists and those who differ are outside the camp.

quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
I wonder if there some who regard themselves as 'Senior Evangelical Leaders' whose noses are out of joint because they have not been invited. Finding out who is not there might be as interesting as who is there.
I have been wondering whether Steve Chalke or Vicky Beeching are there. Even though Oasis is out of the EA, Chalke is very much a senior evangelical leader, and possibly still an EA personal member, so it would be quite a slur not to invite him. Unless, of course, they've concluded he's no longer an evangelical.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Is the Salvation Army leader there, I wonder?
I think his best chance of being at the Norton Park Hotel during this meeting, is to apply for one of the vacancies they've advertised. Has he any experience as a sous-chef....or as a cleaner?
Is it 'cos he is black?
 
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
quote:
Originally posted by sidefall:
I also got Ruth Mawhinney from Ruth Valerio's twitter (Mawhinney's twitter pic, if it is of her, is a bit unexpected - she's smoking a cigarette and wearing a very low-cut top).
That's Rene Zellweger as Bridget Jones!
Oops. I've had a very sheltered life - never seen the film!
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Can anyone explain to me why it would need to be a 'secret' meeting?
How do you know it's a secret meeting? AFAICT it's a private meeting, which is somewhat different.
I don't know anything about it - I'm just taking my cue from the title of the thread! But you're making my point for me; many church meetings are 'private' in some way or other. Local ecumenical ministerial meetings aren't for laypeople but only for ministers - and only for the particular ministers who've been invited to participate. I've never heard these meetings described as any kind of problem, whereas the implication in this thread is that the high-level ecumenical meeting mentioned here isn't sufficiently open.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Whoever is organising it is free to invite whoever they like and on whatever terms they choose.

However, indiscretions by some of those participating have enabled us to learn, during the course of the event, the identities of about one tenth of the attendees and the fact that Chatham Rules apply.

Evidence of the EA being behind it is strong but not overwhelming. What is clear is that an attempt has been made to gather a sizeable chunk of UK evo leaders/key influencers to talk off the record.

What appears staggeringly dumb on the part of the organisers is to assume a) that all those on the guest list could manage to keep their mouths shut b) that it would be better to try and keep the existence of the event hush-hush than communicate properly about it, even to the extent of communicating that it is an off-the-record agenda c) that acting like this will be viewed as constructive.

[ 17. June 2014, 15:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

What appears staggeringly dumb on the part of the organisers is to assume a) that all those on the guest list could manage to keep their mouths shut b) that it would be better to try and keep the existence of the event hush-hush than communicate properly about it, even to the extent of communicating that it is an off-the-record agenda c) that acting like this will be viewed as constructive.
How do you know they have tried to keep it hush-hush? That seems to me to be a kind of questionable leap into the unknown.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The fact that none of the extant tweets and Facebook posts reveal who the organisers are.
 
Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on :
 
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Is the Salvation Army leader there, I wonder?

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist :
quote:
I think his best chance of being at the Norton Park Hotel during this meeting, is to apply for one of the vacancies they've advertised. Has he any experience as a sous-chef....or as a cleaner?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Is it 'cos he is black?

No - it's because he is the leader of the Salvation Army.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Perhaps it's a movement of the Spirit that they all just happened to be in the same hotel at the same time.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
Does it say more about the venue's plumbing or Evangelicalism that two female attendees have tweeted about not needing to queue for the loos? [Two face]
Nope it says a lot about the tweeters

[ 17. June 2014, 15:39: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The fact that none of the extant tweets and Facebook posts reveal who the organisers are.
Well, it may well not be a single group or organisation and therefore not particularly lend itself to being described pithily. Especially true if the attendees themselves have more name recognition than the organisation(s) concerned.

I've attended a fairly large number of meetings that fell into that category. It doesn't necessarily have to be sinister. I mean, these people have to find some way of filling their time.

Besides, by the very nature of evangelicalism this meeting will either lead to fairly public actions, or it won't. In either case I can't see the problem. It's not like a government meeting a secret lobby group where supporting laws can be buried fairly deeply inside some entirely different piece of legislation.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sidefall:
Even though Oasis is out of the EA, Chalke is very much a senior evangelical leader, and possibly still an EA personal member, so it would be quite a slur not to invite him. Unless, of course, they've concluded he's no longer an evangelical.
A lot of people wouldn't see Steve Chalke as an evangelical however much he uses the word of himself and his beliefs.

IF it is the EA running it then I wouldn't be surprised if Chalke isn't there.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Gavin Calver is there, according to his tweet.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sidefall:
Whilst I don't agree with everything Wright says, I regard him as the greatest new testament scholar of recent years. I think his rejection by some is a sad sign of the anti-intellectualism that exists in parts of the church.
Wright greater than F F Bruce? They're not even on the same playing field - Bruce is way ahead.

Mind you - he won't be there. First of all, he's Brethren; then rather more problematic, he died a few years ago.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
On evangelical diversity, I think the evangelical wing has always had diversity - there have been those who would consider themselves evangelical from the open end and the more fundamentalist end. Over the years, this diversity has tended to be celebrated, as an indication of the willingness of evangelicals to be open-minded, to learn from others and to accept differing positions.

Incidentally, the diversity is also present in other streams of Christianity - the traditionalists and the liberals, however, they tend not to celebrate it as much.

What I have noticed in the last decade or so is a change. Instead of diversity, there is division. The issue of homosexuality is a touchstone for this, but the division is actually far greater. It is between the open, tolerant, accepting evangelicals, and the more strident, literalist, fundamentals, and as these groups have stretched further apart, they have lost their tolerance of each other.

And, I should point out that I believe this is also the case in other streams.

It may be that there has been someone, or some group, with a real desire to stop this division, who wants to seek for a degree of unity, and so has called for as many of those they consider to be leaders and influencers to find a solution.

Or it may be that one side of this division or other wants to make a declaration on what evangelicalism is. To exclude those who cannot accept it.

But I do think that there has been a change in the theological model (and I have a started blog on this, in the works, because I think it is far more significant that some people believe).
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sidefall:
Whilst I don't agree with everything Wright says, I regard him as the greatest new testament scholar of recent years. I think his rejection by some is a sad sign of the anti-intellectualism that exists in parts of the church.
Wright greater than F F Bruce? They're not even on the same playing field - Bruce is way ahead.

Mind you - he won't be there. First of all, he's Brethren; then rather more problematic, he died a few years ago.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Is the Salvation Army leader there, I wonder?

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist :
quote:
I think his best chance of being at the Norton Park Hotel during this meeting, is to apply for one of the vacancies they've advertised. Has he any experience as a sous-chef....or as a cleaner?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Is it 'cos he is black?

No - it's because he is the leader of the Salvation Army.
Oh, I just wondered why, in your mind, the leader of an evangelical church in the UK would be there merely as a chef or a cleaner and not as a church leader...

[ 17. June 2014, 16:04: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think the key phrase there was 'recent years, ExclamationMark. FF Bruce wasn't so 'recent'.

He died in 1990 but was publishing during the 1980s. Hardly recent. Wright's published ouevre begins about 1991 I think.

So perhaps he's 'channelling' Bruce ... [Biased]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Oh, I just wondered why, in your mind, the leader of an evangelical church in the UK would be there merely as a chef or a cleaner and not as a church leader...
Maybe because they don't consider that what they mean by 'evangelical' is what he means by 'evangelical' ?
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
I'm not there.

Pyx_e
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
D'you know, this thread has made me realise how post-evangelical I've become because a lot of the names don't mean anything to me and also because I find myself not giving a monkey's what, if anything, they come out of their conclave having decided ...

If indeed they do decide anything ...
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
You are just grumpy because they did not invite you, at least I turned them down.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
D'you know, this thread has made me realise how post-evangelical I've become because a lot of the names don't mean anything to me and also because I find myself not giving a monkey's what, if anything, they come out of their conclave having decided ...

If indeed they do decide anything ...
Ditto.

With the exception that I do care about whether they will decide on a strategy that they intend to try and enforce on others.

But on the whole, it just seems like en exercise in mutual puffing up of egos: "we're at a secret meeting, with Chatham House Rules and stuff. We're soooo important." Bleagh!
 
Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on :
 
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Is it 'cos he is black?



Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
quote:
No - it's because he is the leader of the Salvation Army.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:

Oh, I just wondered why, in your mind, the leader of an evangelical church in the UK would be there merely as a chef or a cleaner and not as a church leader...
You are entitled to wonder....though I don't much care for the insinuation that my comment was racially motivated. In point of fact, I wasn't even aware of your leader's ethnicity (strangely, SA leadership is not quite as significant to me, as it is to you). Furthermore, I am at a loss to know why a person's skin-tone should ever be significant, or why you felt the need to bring that up.

I am quite interested that you proclaim him 'leader of an evangelical church', as I wasn't aware that the SA had formally adopted this title, or that it had been generally accepted. I seem to remember a recent thread on that subject (where you appeared to be trying to muster support for that concept) but I didn't realise it was a 'done deal'.

Going back to the attendance (or otherwise) of your leader - I stand by what I said. If it transpires that he is indeed a guest at this meeting, I shall admit that I was wrong. It will then be obvious that his best chance of being in that hotel during the meeting was not to get a job there. Do let me know if a retraction is appropriate.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
merely as a chef or a cleaner and not as a church leader...
Met him at an ecumenical event a couple of months back. Really good chap

[code]

[ 17. June 2014, 17:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think the key phrase there was 'recent years, ExclamationMark. FF Bruce wasn't so 'recent'.

He died in 1990 but was publishing during the 1980s. Hardly recent. Wright's published ouevre begins about 1991 I think.

So perhaps he's 'channelling' Bruce ... [Biased]
1990 is recent to some of us, old bean
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

With the exception that I do care about whether they will decide on a strategy that they intend to try and enforce on others.
Well, the ones who are likely to do so would have done this anyway, the ones who wouldn't won't, and in any case any dissenters can set up their own splinter of evangelicalism.

As for the rest, see above, I don't consider this a threat in terms of some kind of secret agenda. Actually reflecting on it a little, it seems more like a further Americanisation of evangelicalism (these kinds of meetings are quite common across the pond).

In any case, in the given context it seems like an evangelical version of this (language warning): http://www.oblomovka.com/wp/2003/10/13/the-register/

[ 17. June 2014, 16:52: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
1990 is recent to me too, ExclamationMark. 1991 is just that wee bit more recent ... and that's when Wright appears to have started publishing things.

Wright's still publishing things now. Which is even more recent again.

[Biased] [Razz]
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Wright's still publishing things now. Which is even more recent again.

[Biased] [Razz]
That's a bit of an understatment. I think he's published 2 books since I started reading Paul and the Faithfulness of God (just 35 pages to go though). [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
D'you know, this thread has made me realise how post-evangelical I've become because a lot of the names don't mean anything to me and also because I find myself not giving a monkey's what, if anything, they come out of their conclave having decided ...

If indeed they do decide anything ...
I've only heard of a few of them as well.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Gavin Calver is there, according to his tweet.
Thanks Doc, I think that's the 12th name. Only 88 to go [Smile]

Fellow shipmates, can I ask you to press the flesh, work your sources, check the blogs, tweets, and facebook updates, and let's see if we can sniff out a few more names.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Is this the equivalent of an Evangelical ecumenical council? If they decide something will it be binding, or merely of historical footnote interest? (Or...?) Will they declare new doctrine? Chastise some American Evangelicals for worshiping Ayn Rand? Declare the Reformation over and ask for re-integration into the Catholic Church?

The world awaits their deliberations with attenuated aspiration.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is this the equivalent of an Evangelical ecumenical council? If they decide something will it be binding, or merely of historical footnote interest? (Or...?) Will they declare new doctrine? Chastise some American Evangelicals for worshiping Ayn Rand? Declare the Reformation over and ask for re-integration into the Catholic Church?

The world awaits their deliberations with attenuated aspiration.
More likely declare the Reformation unfinished. I don't like this. When Evangelical leaders meet, there's usually someone they want to beat up. And it's usually folks like me.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is this the equivalent of an Evangelical ecumenical council? If they decide something will it be binding, or merely of historical footnote interest? (Or...?) Will they declare new doctrine? Chastise some American Evangelicals for worshiping Ayn Rand? Declare the Reformation over and ask for re-integration into the Catholic Church?

The world awaits their deliberations with attenuated aspiration.
More likely declare the Reformation unfinished. I don't like this. When Evangelical leaders meet, there's usually someone they want to beat up. And it's usually folks like me.
I hear you but I think they know they are in the poo. I read this as a "what can we agree on and still self describe as evangelical?" meeting. Or "Why can't we all just get along because all this in fighting is killing us" meeting.

Of course they may just end up getting more reactionary, thereby proving the need for the meeting and their know inability to compromise. At which point I would go on holiday for a bit if I were you.

Love Pyx_e
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
When Evangelical leaders meet, there's usually someone they want to beat up. And it's usually folks like me.
You forget that is generally those who are closest to us whom we loathe the most. The people the con-evos really don't like are the open evos and especially the charismatic evos, who seem to have so much fun. Catholics and especially the Orthodox are viewed with bemused bafflement.
 
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
More likely declare the Reformation unfinished. I don't like this.
ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est

[ 17. June 2014, 19:11: Message edited by: sidefall ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I don't like this. When Evangelical leaders meet, there's usually someone they want to beat up. And it's usually folks like me.
But these people don't have magical powers! They've lost more battles than they've won in our culture. All you have to do is avoid them and their churches if you feel you have little in common with them. Other options are (usually) available.
 
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
You forget that is generally those who are closest to us whom we loathe the most. The people the con-evos really don't like are the open evos and especially the charismatic evos, who seem to have so much fun. Catholics and especially the Orthodox are viewed with bemused bafflement.
A truer thing was never said.

Seriously, I have been to the London Music Ministry conferences a few times, organised by ConEvos. It's fascinating, because these churches (such as St Helen's Bishopsgate) now have music groups ("worship bands" to some, but I don't like that phrase) and sing modern songs. I'd guess this is a 21st century development - 20 years ago it would probably have been unthinkable. A clear example of charismatic influence - if you can't beat them, join them!
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by sidefall;

quote:
Fellow shipmates, can I ask you to press the flesh, work your sources, check the blogs, tweets, and facebook updates, and let's see if we can sniff out a few more names.
I just checked the 'recent visitors' bit and there are an unusually large number of 'lurkers' - a number in the sort of bracket that I'm wondering; if you could trace the lurkers would that answer your call here....
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I don't like this. When Evangelical leaders meet, there's usually someone they want to beat up. And it's usually folks like me.
But these people don't have magical powers! They've lost more battles than they've won in our culture. All you have to do is avoid them and their churches if you feel you have little in common with them. Other options are (usually) available.
I would agree if they weren't busy rewriting our laws to criminalize building Mosques and making spontaneous miscarriage a felony and creating for-profit prisons.

Oh btw, they may look upon the Catholics with bemused indifference (or whatever the term was), but they're also busy adopting Catholic attitudes toward contraception, albeit without the philosophical underpinnings to back it up.

[ 17. June 2014, 20:02: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
mousethief

But these are British evangelicals we're talking about here. They don't have as much power as all that. Contraception isn't an issue - the British middle classes can't afford big families anyway. Muslims are just a fact of life in the cities, and have been for decades. Evangelicals and others who don't like that just go and live in less diverse parts of the country (unless they have to stay in London, in which case there really is no point in complaining).

I imagine that these church leaders are discussing the same kinds of things that all British church leaders are concerned about these days because British evangelicalism faces the same challenges as the other forms of Christianity. And just like in MOTR congregations, there's no guarantee that what happens in some meeting far away is going to set the grassroots on fire. OTOH, maybe the meeting in the OP will provide material for someone's book - it's hard to imagine that evangelicals won't want to comment on the event if it turns out to be really thought-provoking.

(BTW, I was assuming that Adeodatus was in the UK; I apologise if this isn't the case.)
 
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...if it turns out to be really thought-provoking.
That would be a first [Big Grin]

[ 17. June 2014, 21:46: Message edited by: sidefall ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
(BTW, I was assuming that Adeodatus was in the UK; I apologise if this isn't the case.)
I am, but when I said "folks like me" I didn't mean Catholic, Anglo- or otherwise; I meant the gays.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Of course they may just end up getting more reactionary, thereby proving the need for the meeting and their know inability to compromise. At which point I would go on holiday for a bit if I were you.
Already booked.
 
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
OK, Rachel Jordan tweeted this afternoon

Great to catch up with @philpotter1 and talk @freshexpression : )

https://twitter.com/DrRachelJ/status/479015519287513088

Phil Potter is Fresh Expressions team leader. His twitter feed also references Rachel Jordan last week in connection with a Missioners Conference but given the timing of Rachel's tweet I reckon he's also in Winchester. I'm virtually certain he's charismatic evangelical - I think he might have originally been at St Michael le Belfry in David Watson's time (that would be over 30 years ago for the young ones).

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I just checked the 'recent visitors' bit and there are an unusually large number of 'lurkers' - a number in the sort of bracket that I'm wondering; if you could trace the lurkers would that answer your call here....
Fascinating! 96 lurkers just now.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sidefall:
OK, Rachel Jordan tweeted this afternoon

Great to catch up with @philpotter1 and talk @freshexpression : )
You see, the problem I have with all this is that I ask myself the question "what is the point of this drivel?" Who cares who she is talking to? It's a meaningless waste of time. But than I have that problem with 99.9% of Twatter (sic).

(BTW - unless he has changed significantly over the years, Phil Potter would certainly count as charismatic evangelical.)
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
(BTW, I was assuming that Adeodatus was in the UK; I apologise if this isn't the case.)
I am, but when I said "folks like me" I didn't mean Catholic, Anglo- or otherwise; I meant the gays.
I know that. It was mousethief who mentioned Catholics, so I responded to that.

The British churches that lobbied against SSM (and wasn't that more of a CofE and a RC struggle than a specifically evangelical one?) lost the fight, and I don't know why they'd waste any more time on the legalities. The issue now is surely theological and pastoral. I.e., it's an internal matter.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
Lurkers include any shipmate who does not want his/her name in Recent Visitors. I know several.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
All this song and dance about the meeting is rather an unintended compliment to evangelicalism.

There are a handful of controlling, secretive and cultish groups within evangelicalism, but in the main it boasts a relatively open, participatory and democratic ecclesiology, so that meetings such as thi one are quite the exception.

It is difficult to imagine the same orgy of speculation and paranoia over a conclave of Roman Catholic, Orthodox or liberal Protestant leaders.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I suspect that, on average, the latter would be less likely to have among their number persons inclined to tell the world via their Facebook and Twitter accounts.

The inability of many evangelicals to exercise appropriate discretion is one of my ongoing frustrations with my brethren.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But these are British evangelicals we're talking about here.
You're right; I keep forgetting your evangelicals are a very different breed from ours.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
All this song and dance about the meeting is rather an unintended compliment to evangelicalism.

There are a handful of controlling, secretive and cultish groups within evangelicalism, but in the main it boasts a relatively open, participatory and democratic ecclesiology, so that meetings such as thi one are quite the exception.

It is difficult to imagine the same orgy of speculation and paranoia over a conclave of Roman Catholic, Orthodox or liberal Protestant leaders.
Ha ha, some truth but I think a secret conclave of Roman Catholic leaders would arouse an enormous amount of interest and conspiracy theories.

Speaking of controlling and cultish groups, maybe the meeting has been secretly organised by the Sydney Anglicans who are coming to set the Church of England back on the one true path. Mwahahaha
[Paranoid] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sidefall:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...if it turns out to be really thought-provoking.
That would be a first [Big Grin]
On occasion, evangelical discourse and calls to action have changed things - Wilberforce springs to mind.

Why dismiss a possibility out of hand? If any good comes out of something we're assuming is an important meeting (even if it exists - and the big players I know well and personally, don't have a clue), then surely we should be prepared to listen. Once you start rejecting something out of hand just because it comes from a different stable than that you're in then there's real problems.

The voice of God might - just - be being heard. Even though part of that stable, I don't go with much of what these "leaders" say and do - but I do listen to filter the rubbish and find the gold.
 
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :
 
I work at the Norton Park, front of house. There are a lot of guys here this week, one has a big hat on and his pals call him Justin. He asked me the other night about whether we took book I GS for wedding receptions and I told him about the lovely do we had at the weekend for Tom and Dave. He didn't want to hear any more. Shame, as I would have told him of the nice guy who talked about Christ and conducted the wedding....Chalks was his name. He's not at the meeting this week, but I did hear a few of the delegates saying he wasn't a "proper" Christian. Bit confusing that, because he talked a lot about Christ at the wedding. Better go and get on with serving breakfast to Justin and his pals. They do eat a lot for people who claim to be co cerned about world hunger.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Well, I hope the lurkers enjoyed that bit of fun. ++Justin was at the National Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast yesterday, so you can cross him off any speculative list. Here's a quote from the A of C website.

quote:
Speaking at the National Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast today, the Archbishop of Canterbury said the global 21st century church loves the poor and the victim and stands for human dignity.
A good friend of mine was there, think I'll ask him what they had for breakfast at that event.

[ 18. June 2014, 08:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

The inability of many evangelicals to exercise appropriate discretion is one of my ongoing frustrations with my brethren.
But then, perhaps those particular tweets weren't necessarily meant for the public sphere.

I mean reading a lot of feeds, it's fairly obvious that a lot of people switch from public/private in their own tweets. You can accuse them of naivety in this respect, but not much more.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

The inability of many evangelicals to exercise appropriate discretion is one of my ongoing frustrations with my brethren.
But then, perhaps those particular tweets weren't necessarily meant for the public sphere.
"I am going to a Super Sekrit Evangelical Leaders' Meeting. I must not tell anyone but my 6,800* followers on twitter."

Naivety does not equal stupidity which is, I think, the word you were looking for.


*Andrew Wilson's twitter account.
 
Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :
 
Apparently the AA (cars not alcohol) have taken up most of the hotel over the past couple of days and also Blake Lapthorn solicitors but no Christian related bookings.
 
Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :
 
Blake Lapthorn have a number of solicitors who specialise in charity law.
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
I really don't think it's worth getting exercised over the "secrecy" of the meeting. First I don't think it's supposed to be secret so much as private. That seems to be the point of the Chatham House rule. When the CEO of the company I work for meets with the Board it's not an open meeting and I don't get to hear who said what but that doesn't mean that it's a "secret" meeting in some suspicious sense. It just means that if they briefly discuss the idea of firing the whole of Marketing and replacing them with trained monkeys, but ultimately decide against it then none of the fine upstanding members of that department need to get their noses out of joint.

Equally if said CEO happened to mention that he was having a meeting with the Board that wouldn't make him "indiscreet".

Finally whatever they're discussing will come out in the course of time if it has any real relevance. Speculating about who's there and why is fun but I'll wait until someone makes an actual statement about an actual issue before taking it any more seriously than an idle distraction.
 
Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :
 
Simon Stokes who is a Partner at Blake Lapthorn is also non-stipendiary minister in the Church of England
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Late Paul: your CEO having a private board meeting is not quite the same as gathering 100 evangelical leaders from across the board. Even if the specifics of the content is private, I think more thought could have gone into the PR. Having such a broad gathering apparently anonymously is bound to fuel speculation and suspicion.
 
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

Speaking of controlling and cultish groups, maybe the meeting has been secretly organised by the Sydney Anglicans who are coming to set the Church of England back on the one true path. Mwahahaha [Paranoid] [Big Grin]
I know that was a joke, but would the Jensen family dynasty (ie Sydney diocese) want anything to do with charismatic and egalitarian anglicans, plus NFI and FIEC people, and maybe even some baptists? [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by PDA:
Apparently the AA (cars not alcohol) have taken up most of the hotel over the past couple of days and also Blake Lapthorn solicitors but no Christian related bookings.
Curious, I have a screen grab of an FB post from Lee Gatiss saying he was at the Norton Park Hotel, and I'm sure someone else's twitter feed also gave the same venue.

Perhaps this was all a cunning plot - spreading disinformation to distract us from the real secret!

Seriously now, I don't have a problem with evangelical bigwigs getting together for a confidential discussion - in fact I think it has great value given the fractious nature of the movement. Talking face to face off the record is far better than attacking each other in the media, provided that the organisers take a broad approach with who they invite. Hopefully this sort of thing will help people realise that what they agree on is greater than what the disagree on (and I've just seen a pig flying past my window). I agree with Eutychus that it would be best if it had been fully open (ie all participants names released) or fully secret (with no leaks).
 
Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :
 
Its quite possible that Blake Lapthorn or one of their Partners have booked and even called this meeting to communicate a legal issue that has come to light that effects how the Evangelical organizations currently operate.

My money is on that.
 
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PDA:
Blake Lapthorn have a number of solicitors who specialise in charity law.
It is possible the meeting included a legal briefing. It's fair to say that a lot of evangelicals are concerned by the implications of equalities leglisation, gay marriage, etc.

Also, it's common for hotels to be booked under cover names to hide who's really there.

[Both these are pure speculation]
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
Still can't get very excited about it.

I can see two broad possibilities:

a) some key decision will be made that will shape the form of British Evangelicalism for the next few decades.

b) basically just a talking shop that turned out not to generate anything really new.

My money's on b) and if so then what's the fuss?

If it's a) then any fuss will be about the decision not the fact that the discussions took place privately and delayed the publicity by a few days. And the arguable PR mis-step of tweeting about it, will be a minor footnote.

[XP, that was a reply to Eutychus]

[ 18. June 2014, 10:27: Message edited by: Late Paul ]
 
Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :
 
I do not think there is a fuss.

This is a forum where people discuss things because its fun.

That is what is happening.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Naivety does not equal stupidity which is, I think, the word you were looking for.


*Andrew Wilson's twitter account.
We are getting slightly off topic here, but actually look at how people use twitter for a moment. There are plenty of people with hundreds/thousands of followers who will use twitter to broadcast their particular thoughts to their audience but also use it as a point to point mechanism between people they know.

You even get this at the mega-celebrity twitter-mostly-managed-by-marketing end of the scale.

Plus, it wasn't a secret meeting. One could argue that the tweet was somewhat boastful[*], but that's not really worthy of a threadnaught is it.

[*] On which note, I love how those evangelicals who have bought into the idea of 'functional idolatry' being a sin then go on to describe themselves via their functions ("pastor. theologian. father").
 
Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :
 
Unless you are referring to the fuss you are making about the fuss we are not making.
 
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
PDA - I doubt there's a pressing legal matter behind this meeting. That idea doesn't fit the delegate profile or what's been revealed about the discussions (I don't think they'd lie about what's happening). It would have to be something serious (and new and unknown) to warrant a two-day conference - and in Winchester?

Late Paul - evangelicalism is so fragmented that I can't see how any far reaching decision could be possible. I agree that it's just a talking shop, although I'm sure recent controversies will be discussed and there might be an attempt to arrive at a consensus.

[ 18. June 2014, 10:45: Message edited by: sidefall ]
 
Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :
 
Could be Gay related legal issues?

The team at Blake Lapthorn had something to do with the government legislation on Gay marriage.
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PDA:
Unless you are referring to the fuss you are making about the fuss we are not making.
I'm all about the meta.
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sidefall:
Late Paul - evangelicalism is so fragmented that I can't see how any far reaching decision could be possible.
Nor I really. a) and b) were more like ends of a spectrum than strict alternatives. Or something, I was too focussed on the meta-fuss (or "muss" as I call it) to express myself clearly.

Mea culpa.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I haven't ever heard of any of these people - except Tom Wright.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
TBH, leo, neither have I, and I'm an evangelical! I suspect Gavin Claver might be Clive's son, but apart from that, bells remain steadfastly un-rung!
 
Posted by sidefall (# 16394) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
TBH, leo, neither have I, and I'm an evangelical! I suspect Gavin Claver might be Clive's son, but apart from that, bells remain steadfastly un-rung!
Yes, Gavin is Clive's son. I only knew because I have a book of his.

Most of the names weren't on my radar, either.
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
They might be briefing the Holy Spirit as to the next suffragan Bishop of Basingstoke - only just up the road. [Eek!] There are some influential 'headship' voices in the Diocese.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
They might be briefing the Holy Spirit as to the next suffragan Bishop of Basingstoke - only just up the road. [Eek!] There are some influential 'headship' voices in the Diocese.
Erk! That would be my bishop! I'm not sure what goes on at the distant NW end of the area, but my impression was that the Basingstoke area was fairly determinedly MOTR, even in the expression of the more evangelical and catholic parishes. But that's irrelevant I guess.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
They might be briefing the Holy Spirit as to the next suffragan Bishop of Basingstoke - only just up the road. [Eek!] There are some influential 'headship' voices in the Diocese.
Erk! That would be my bishop! I'm not sure what goes on at the distant NW end of the area, but my impression was that the Basingstoke area was fairly determinedly MOTR, even in the expression of the more evangelical and catholic parishes. But that's irrelevant I guess.
Well, a CE Bishop of Basingstoke would certainly be a radical difference from Geoffrey Rowell (Bishop of Basingstoke from 1994 to 2001)!

There ARE some CE (or CE sympathetic) parishes in that area. In particular, I can think of St Mary's Eastrop, in Basingstoke itself. They would LOVE to have a CE bishop.

But the fact that the C of E feels the need to specifically create a CE bishop seems to sum up all that is wrong at the moment.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Firstly, I'm disappointed I wasn't invited (I wonder if our +Pete snuck in)

Secondly the late F.F. Bruce was doctrinaire and dull compared to Tom Wright ... in for example his commentary on Hebrews his paternalistic attitude of "our High Priest trumps their High Priest" is a supercessionist sneer simply not kosher in post-Auschwitz exegesis. Though I do consider NTW a useful corrective to some of the "Jesus was a lesbian dolphin" eisegesis that goes on in some quarters (albeit clearly not the Norton Park Hotel). In fact I'd rather even FFB or Leon Morris to that. But I digress.

Thirdly L.T. Johnson trumps either of them but I doubt he was invited. But I digress again.

Fourthly I'm disappointed I wasn't invited. Or did I mention that?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
some of the "Jesus was a lesbian dolphin" eisegesis that goes on in some quarters (albeit clearly not the Norton Park Hotel).
It's a private/secret meeting. How do we know some of the "Jesus was a lesbian dolphin" eisegesis hasn't gone on at Norton Park?
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
(I wonder if our +Pete snuck in)
If he wasn't busy reorganising the West/North Yorkshire diocese I'd have thought Nick Baines. His blog is unusually quiet.

(Aside. I wonder what would happen if someone invited Nick Baines from Leeds expecting a bishop and got the guy from the Kaiser Cheifs?)
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I can't help wondering whether this thread has had the inadvertent consequence of encouraging everyone to keep mum about it and chastening the indiscreet.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Nothing to do with me, since people keep asking. But there has been a (fairly irregular) consultation of evangelicals that has met on an invitation basis over the years, certainly since the 1980s. I forget who first kicked it off - Gerald Coates springs to mind.

Since 20 evangelicals in a room = 21 opinions and evangelicals have a summa cum laude in disagreement and fissiparousness, it's quite useful for them to try to stay in communication with each other (for example, there is the Evangelical Alliance and there is Affinity, who won't join with the EA because it plays with "mixed" denominations).

These gatherings are also pretty important for the various independents in the non-denominational tribes, because they don't tend to meet up as much as those in mainstream denominations. (Church of England evangelicals don't tend to be major players in these events anyway - too much else to do!)

So, I doubt that they're plotting. And the lack of capacity to work together or organise a booze-up in a brewery probably means they're just networking. (Indeed, some would only want the booze-up to be in a soft drinks factory...)
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Nothing to do with me, since people keep asking. But there has been a (fairly irregular) consultation of evangelicals that has met on an invitation basis over the years, certainly since the 1980s. I forget who first kicked it off - Gerald Coates springs to mind.

Since 20 evangelicals in a room = 21 opinions and evangelicals have a summa cum laude in disagreement and fissiparousness, it's quite useful for them to try to stay in communication with each other (for example, there is the Evangelical Alliance and there is Affinity, who won't join with the EA because it plays with "mixed" denominations).

These gatherings are also pretty important for the various independents in the non-denominational tribes, because they don't tend to meet up as much as those in mainstream denominations. (Church of England evangelicals don't tend to be major players in these events anyway - too much else to do!)

So, I doubt that they're plotting. And the lack of capacity to work together or organise a booze-up in a brewery probably means they're just networking. (Indeed, some would only want the booze-up to be in a soft drinks factory...)
To sum up, then...

"Nothing to see here, folks. Move along."

Yet if there WAS some secret plotting going on, this is EXACTLY the response I would have expected from Pete. [Paranoid]

(Don't worry, Pete. I'm just messing with you!)
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Don't know if this is related to the OP or not, but I heard a rumour that on Thursday (19th) somewhere in the Oxford Diocese there was a meeting of evangelical clergy. They were supposed to be discussing what the CoE might do to make them want to leave it, and what action they might take if that happened. Is this the same thing or not?
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Nothing to do with this gathering.

There are meetings and consultations of various groupings of evangelicals within the Church of England to consider their response (a) if the ordination of women to the episcopate legislation goes through and they end up with a woman bishop [my view is that there is adequate "provision" for them under the new Measure] or (b) if the CofE were to give official liturgical sanction to same sex marriage [or some other related approval to SSM]. My hope is that they can get a grip and live with the CofE as it is, and not make plans to leave.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Is the Salvation Army leader there, I wonder?
No, it's just evangelicals. [Biased]
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Actually unfair. He would so self-identify (perhaps without the label). Brought a crowd (platoon?) to Spring Harvest this year and spoke on the vision for the Army. Very encouraging.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Blake Lapthorn had nothing to do with the evangelicals pow-wow: the religious bit was using conference facilities at the hotel but most of the participants were staying elsewhere.

Source : friendly BL Partner.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Is the Salvation Army leader there, I wonder?
No, it's just evangelicals. [Biased]
A brief tangent, but why isn't the Salvation Army considered to be properly evangelical by certain other evangelicals?

It's nothing to do with age, because other evangelical denominations are either older or younger than the SA. It can't be about women in leadership, since the Baptists and some of the Pentecostals (etc.) are okay about that. Is it do with the music they play or the uniforms? Perhaps their imagine isn't dynamic enough in the UK? Do they avoid the theological limelight so as not to bring controversy around their charity work?

I thought it might be because the SA has declined steeply, whereas the other British evangelicals see themselves as a growing force. But the stats I've seen show that some of the other types of evangelicals have declined too; at any rate, the growth of evangelicalism isn't making up for the losses elsewhere. It just means that evangelicals make up a bigger proportion of a declining cake.

Very mysterious.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Daronmedway was teasing, of course.

Most evangelicals would consider the SA to be evangelical.

I suspect Daronmedway was using the term in its more reformed (or Reformed) sense.

Some of the more Reformed evangelicals would capitalise the E in Evangelical and claim that the only ones who can truly consider themselves to be Evangelical in the true sense are the Reformed Evangelicals.

Wesleyans and other forms of evangelical aren't properly Evangelical.

It's a bit like the distinction between Big O Orthodoxy and small o orthodoxy.

So Daronmedway, who is quite Calvinist and Reformed - albeit with charismatic leanings and practice - is teasingly suggesting that the SA aren't proper Evangelicals because they are not Calvinists but Arminians.

It's an in-joke, SvitlanaV2.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Very mysterious.
Not really. They are seen as somewhat sectarian and some of their beliefs are seen as odd (not celebrating communion).
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
digression

I suspect a meeting of evangelical clergy in my new diocese would have no difficulty coming up with a unanimous outcome. As long as someone gave him coffee.

/ digression
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
digression

I suspect a meeting of evangelical clergy in my new diocese would have no difficulty coming up with a unanimous outcome. As long as someone gave him coffee.

/ digression
Can I lace it with rohypnol?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
digression

I suspect a meeting of evangelical clergy in my new diocese would have no difficulty coming up with a unanimous outcome. As long as someone gave him coffee.

/ digression
Though unanimity would require that he doesn't solve the "I've got no one to disagree with" dilemma by disagreeing with himself.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
digression

I suspect a meeting of evangelical clergy in my new diocese would have no difficulty coming up with a unanimous outcome. As long as someone gave him coffee.

/ digression
You don't realise that the number of different opinions in a gathering of clergy is n+1, even assuming they are all of the same persuasion?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Daronmedway was teasing, of course.

Most evangelicals would consider the SA to be evangelical.

I suspect Daronmedway was using the term in its more reformed (or Reformed) sense.
[...]

It's an in-joke, SvitlanaV2.
Okay, but it's not the first time I've read on the Ship that the SAs weren't considered to be theologically acceptable to certain evangelicals, so I thought there might be something else going on....

Anyway, my impression is that most of the world's evangelicals are not now Reformed/Calvinist in flavour (or not entirely), so if only impeccably Reformed evangelicals were attending this 'secret meeting' then there wouldn't be all that much to get excited about!


quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Very mysterious.
Not really. They are seen as somewhat sectarian and some of their beliefs are seen as odd (not celebrating communion).
Do evangelicals as a whole get terribly offended by sectarianism? That might be a particularly CofE concern, but why would it bother any of the 1000s of evangelical Pentecostal groups?
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
They might be briefing the Holy Spirit as to the next suffragan Bishop of Basingstoke - only just up the road. [Eek!] There are some influential 'headship' voices in the Diocese.
Erk! That would be my bishop! I'm not sure what goes on at the distant NW end of the area, but my impression was that the Basingstoke area was fairly determinedly MOTR, even in the expression of the more evangelical and catholic parishes. But that's irrelevant I guess.
Well, a CE Bishop of Basingstoke would certainly be a radical difference from Geoffrey Rowell (Bishop of Basingstoke from 1994 to 2001)!

There ARE some CE (or CE sympathetic) parishes in that area. In particular, I can think of St Mary's Eastrop, in Basingstoke itself. They would LOVE to have a CE bishop..
... and they have invited one this very weekend.

Ron, irrelevant to this thread, but note that Basingstoke Deanery Synod voted against the WB legislation the first time around.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Qoheleth wrote:
quote:
Ron, irrelevant to this thread, but note that Basingstoke Deanery Synod voted against the WB legislation the first time around.
There is - or used to be - a whole cluster of FiF parishes in the countryside to the NW of Basingstoke, if I recall. It's very much a rural area (the bishop of Basingstoke's area that is). That may explain your observation on the original voting pattern as I presume those ones would all be in the Basingstoke deanery area.

I didn't originally mean to suggest there were no Con Evo parishes in the area at all. I seem to recall another one to the north of Basingstoke somewhere, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear of at least one somewhere near Andover, though I don't know of any personally. etcetera.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@SvitlanaV2 - sure, yes you are right on the Reformed thing but that's part of the tease, I suspect, Daronmedway is pretending to me a more inflexible form of Reformed type than he actually is ...

At least, that's how I understand it ...

On evangelicalism and sectarianism. Yes, you are right, evangelicals have largely learned to live with - and indeed to celebrate - the plethora of multiplying variations on a theme.

Yet they still talk a lot about unity and I can remember feeling rather cynical and nonplussed at various evangelical charismatic inter-church gatherings (inter-church insofar as they drew from various evangelical/charismatic tribes) where there was much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth about disunity and so on.

There'd be public shows of mutual forgiveness and reconciliation and so on - some of which could be genuinely moving, others of which I found a bit arch and 'staged'.

I used to wonder why, for all the hot-air, they didn't simply join forces if they had so much in common ...

Of course, not all that goes on in such gatherings is bluster and huffing and puffing, but there is a fair bit of that to cut through before you get to the marrow of it.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Also, I'm not sure that sectarianism is any more offensive to evangelical Anglicans than it is to other forms of evangelical.

A lot of evangelical Anglicans would consider themselves evangelicals first and Anglicans second. So if they moved town they'd look for a conducive evangelical church whether it were Anglican or otherwise. If a Baptist church suited them, they'd go there.

Certainly I know evangelical Anglicans - even evangelical Anglican vicars - who would prefer to worship with non-conformist evangelicals than Anglo-Catholics or liberals.

If they were on holiday, say, and wanted to attend a service they'd be more likely to go to a Baptist or Pentecostal one, say, than an Anglican one of a different tradition to their own.

I'm sorry, SvitlanaV2, I don't wish to offend, but we've had this out before, the more you post about the CofE the less I think you actually understand it or have the measure of it. That's not always the case, I find some of your observations about the CofE inciteful ...

[Hot and Hormonal] I'm a bit embarrassed to post that but it is an impression I get at times.

Generally speaking, evangelical Anglicans aren't that different from evangelicals in other churches - they simply operate within the framework of the CofE, ignoring or dispensing with those aspects that don't sit comfortably with them.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Whoops - I meant 'insightful' rather than 'inciteful' ... [Hot and Hormonal] [Frown]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I'm sorry, SvitlanaV2, I don't wish to offend, but we've had this out before, the more you post about the CofE the less I think you actually understand it or have the measure of it.
I don't claim to know a great deal about the CofE; I'm here to learn. And I am learning, because the more YOU post about it, the more I realise I'd never truly belong in that denomination, even though I attend its services far more often than I used to do. So my contributions on this subject aren't useless to me, though others might find them mostly unhelpful.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Generally speaking, evangelical Anglicans aren't that different from evangelicals in other churches - they simply operate within the framework of the CofE, ignoring or dispensing with those aspects that don't sit comfortably with them.
Does that not also apply to most varieties of Anglican? [Biased]
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Qoheleth wrote:
quote:
Ron, irrelevant to this thread, but note that Basingstoke Deanery Synod voted against the WB legislation the first time around.
There is - or used to be - a whole cluster of FiF parishes in the countryside to the NW of Basingstoke, if I recall. It's very much a rural area (the bishop of Basingstoke's area that is). That may explain your observation on the original voting pattern as I presume those ones would all be in the Basingstoke deanery area.

I didn't originally mean to suggest there were no Con Evo parishes in the area at all. I seem to recall another one to the north of Basingstoke somewhere, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear of at least one somewhere near Andover, though I don't know of any personally. etcetera.
With regards to the Basingstoke Deanery vote - I am guessing that St Mary, Eastrop had a large hand in that. They have large numbers and so have a high number of Deanery Synod reps. And, like most large CE churches, they are pretty organised in getting people out to something like this.

Apart from that, I don't know of any definite CE parishes north of Basingstoke, though there are a number of evangelical parishes of varying persuasions in the area.

As has been said, a lot of the area to the north of Basingstoke is rural, with relatively "traditional" parishes, although when I lived in the area, I wouldn't have said that there was a lot of anti-woman priest feeling.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Can I lace it with rohypnol?
You are a very naughty boy
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Generally speaking, evangelical Anglicans aren't that different from evangelicals in other churches - they simply operate within the framework of the CofE, ignoring or dispensing with those aspects that don't sit comfortably with them.
I would beg to differ on that point. The notion of the "conservative evangelical" was, for many years, a quite alien concept to me. Across a variety of evangelical churches I'd visited, the epithet was ill-deserved. It wasn't until I went to one of these churches that sits in the intersection of the Venn diagram containing the sets {evangelical} and {anglican} that I realised what people were on about.

Those anglicans whose understanding of evangelical churches is based solely on their experience of the anglican ones tend to have quite a skewed perspective.

For example, looking in the 5 mile radius around where I live, I can find just shy of 300 evangelical churches, of which just over 20 are anglican.

In short: while most anglicans aren't evangelical, it's also true that most evangelicals aren't anglican.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
There are two (at least) distinct species of Anglican Evangelical church - the Charismatic type, who as Gam says wouldn't be much different from any other Charevo church, and the Reform type, who are just plain scary.
 
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
Graham Kings finds at least three types, but they overlap. It is approximately true that there are evangelical Anglican churches that are not really charismatic but are not REFORM. The one I attend is like that. We are fully in support of ordaining women (we have a home grown female curate being ordained in July), are informal in our worship style (but use Common Worship) but we do not have tongue-speaking (apart from when the computer and data projector break down in a service)or the very public prayer ministry I'd associate with charismatic churches.

PS my new upgraded computer wants to spell correct 'curate' to 'cruet' or 'cravat' - must be an ordination sermon in there somewhere...
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think you misunderstood my point, The Alethiophile. I probably didn't explain myself very well. I said 'generally speaking'.

I am well aware that most evangelicals aren't Anglican and that there are Anglican evangelicals who are distinctively 'Anglican' as well as evangelical.

I'm not disputing that.

I'm simply suggesting that to all intents and purposes - and I'd say that this is increasingly the case - there are swathes of evangelical Anglicanism that aren't particularly 'Anglican' in feel ...

I can think of several evangelical Anglican parishes I know that would be less overtly 'Anglican' now than they would have been 15 or 20 years ago.

I'm sure there are others where the reverse is the case.

@SvitlanaV2 - I'm not suggesting that you should feel at home in the CofE - it's not as if I do in some ways for that matter - simply making what may have been a very rude comment.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Graham Kings finds at least three types, but they overlap. It is approximately true that there are evangelical Anglican churches that are not really charismatic but are not REFORM. The one I attend is like that. We are fully in support of ordaining women (we have a home grown female curate being ordained in July), are informal in our worship style (but use Common Worship) but we do not have tongue-speaking (apart from when the computer and data projector break down in a service)or the very public prayer ministry I'd associate with charismatic churches.

PS my new upgraded computer wants to spell correct 'curate' to 'cruet' or 'cravat' - must be an ordination sermon in there somewhere...
Yes, the silent majority, as it were; the Open Evos. Often charo-lite, services with vested clergy and a cut-down but definate liturgy, maybe praying for healing at the communion rail, and a mixed diet of traditional and contemporary music. So MOTR with evangelical theology, evangelical with a ten-minute sermon. They tend to warily follow the hierarchical line on dead-horse issues, but when SSM gets sanctioned by the church, will be enthusiastic proponents of celebrating it. Really, their presence is a sign of the proselytising success of more conservative groups, who have exhausted their natural (if somewhat narrow) constituency of like minded people, such that their theology has "bled" out into the community of those who are attracted to basal evangelical beliefs, but temperamentally unsuited to a "Reform" type environment, but also worry about the implications of using the light fittings as a trapeze.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm simply suggesting that to all intents and purposes - and I'd say that this is increasingly the case - there are swathes of evangelical Anglicanism that aren't particularly 'Anglican' in feel ...
I think that this is indisputable.

In some cases, it is unconscious. But in some, there is a seemingly deliberate attempt to distance themselves from "Anglicanism".

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can think of several evangelical Anglican parishes I know that would be less overtly 'Anglican' now than they would have been 15 or 20 years ago.
I wonder if part of this is due to Common Worship! This gave so much freedom to parishes to "do their own thing" that it is very hard to do something that DOESN'T fit into CW in some way or other. Having said that, I still know of parishes where at least some of their services don't actually comply with the minimal requirements of CW.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

@SvitlanaV2 - I'm not suggesting that you should feel at home in the CofE - it's not as if I do in some ways for that matter - simply making what may have been a very rude comment.
Firstly, I don't know who would feel at home in an environment they're told they simply don't understand! In this instance I don't think my earlier post really warranted your comment about my ignorance.

If you go back you'll see it wasn't myself but chris stiles - an Anglican - who introduced the notion that sectarianism was something to be discouraged among evangelicals. I was simply responding to what he said. It may be that his comments are completely separate from his background in the CofE. He can clarify that if he wishes to do so.

I take what you say about evangelical Anglican vicars not being worried about sectarianism. But many Christians visit churches of other denominations occasionally, congratulating themselves on being ecumenical as they do so. I don't think it necessarily follows that they're indifferent about sectarianism. These are two different (though perhaps connected) issues, I think.

Having defended myself along this tangential path, I think I should try to bring things back: IMO, one relevant question is whether an ecumenical evangelical meeting for VIPs is a good thing (because ecumenicalism is supposedly good) or a bad thing (because it means the evangelicals are jointly plotting to set the Christian agenda for the nation, etc.). The discussion so far has mostly leant towards the latter sentiment. Someone might want to argue for the former.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

If you go back you'll see it wasn't myself but chris stiles - an Anglican - who introduced the notion that sectarianism was something to be discouraged among evangelicals. I was simply responding to what he said.
No, that's what I said at all.

[Besides in the context that I *was* referring to there are acceptable and unacceptable levels of sectarianism]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
chris stiles

So, putting the unfortunate Salvationists to one side, what particular concerns do CofE evangelicals have about sectarianism? And what types of 'external' evangelical do they get on with best?

Living on the cusp of inner city and suburb as I do, most of the evangelicals I come across or worship with are in majority black or in multicultural congregations. It would be interesting to know how well CofE evangelicalism connects with the black Pentecostal variety, which is extremely diverse - or sectarian.

IME inner city evangelicalism seems not to overlap geographically with the CofE variety. This spares CofE evangelicals from the potentially awkward job of having to pass judgment on the kinds of evangelicals from whom they differ the most, socially and culturally as well as theologically. However, other towns and cities might have a completely different experience.

[ 25. June 2014, 23:43: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sidefall:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
You forget that is generally those who are closest to us whom we loathe the most. The people the con-evos really don't like are the open evos and especially the charismatic evos, who seem to have so much fun. Catholics and especially the Orthodox are viewed with bemused bafflement.
A truer thing was never said.

Seriously, I have been to the London Music Ministry conferences a few times, organised by ConEvos. It's fascinating, because these churches (such as St Helen's Bishopsgate) now have music groups ("worship bands" to some, but I don't like that phrase) and sing modern songs. I'd guess this is a 21st century development - 20 years ago it would probably have been unthinkable. A clear example of charismatic influence - if you can't beat them, join them!
I was at St Helen's 20 years ago, from 1994 to 1999, and we had worship bands then. I doubt it has changed much since, the ministers did not robe then they wore jeans, the services did not follow traditional worship, we had communion once a term which was passed down the rows by stewards and baptism was by full immersion except for the period when St Helen's was under repair from the 2 IRA bombs which hit it. It is not a 21st century change.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

So, putting the unfortunate Salvationists to one side, what particular concerns do CofE evangelicals have about sectarianism? And what types of 'external' evangelical do they get on with best?
Lets deal with the salvationist issue first - as that's what I was talking about. Generally in evangelical circles, the past (and to some extent present) exclusivity of the SA have tended to mean that they are seen as sectarian and are therefore don't automatically spring to mind as people to invite when one is organising some kind of shindig. The fact that they differ from most evangelicals on something very *visible* also leads to unspoken and unarticulated concerns that they are not completely orthodox.

quote:

Living on the cusp of inner city and suburb as I do, most of the evangelicals I come across or worship with are in majority black or in multicultural congregations. It would be interesting to know how well CofE evangelicalism connects with the black Pentecostal variety, which is extremely diverse - or sectarian.
I've lived in two different inner city areas in the UK, in both areas most of the local evangelical churches (many majority multicultural - some with BME elders/leaders) were in loose association with each other and organised various events together. In both cases overtures were made to the various black Pentecostal groups that were in the area to get involved - most of whom were rather uninterested in getting involved with any churches that were not of their particular theological stripe. The churches that did tend to get involved were ones that were independent and had been started recently - most of the others were affiliated with an overseas denomination (either in Africa or America) and associated exclusively within that denomination (and yes, in many cases there were cultural reasons why they would do this).
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The answer to which 'external' evangelicals CofE evangelicals get on with the most would be:

- Those particular types of evangelical who are most similar to themselves.

The same would hold in reverse. The Anglican evangelicals that 'external' evangelicals would most clearly identify with would be those who are most like themselves.

In other words, it would depend which evangelical 'tribe' they belong to - and these tribes tend to transcend denominational boundaries.

So, if you are a New Wine type Anglican charismatic evangelical you are more likely to get on with Vineyard or NFI and certain Baptist evangelicals than you are with the Reform evangelicals within the CofE or with 'cessationist' evangelicals in the Free Churches or the independent churches.

I would agree with you as to the essentially middle-class nature of most Anglican evangelicals and charismatics - and that might inhibit the kind of interaction you are talking about with BME and black-led churches in inner-city areas.

But that needn't necessarily apply. There are areas of London where CofE churches of all theological stripes and churchmanships are largely made up of BME groups and minority communities of one form or other.

I'm not sure there are any hard and fast rules or trends we can indicate here - other than to make the observation that, for the most part, evangelical Anglicanism is a fairly middle class phenomenon.

It used to be less of a case with some of the Anglo-Catholics, who were - and still are - active in inner-city areas but things may have changed there too ... I don't know enough about that end of the Anglican spectrum.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

But that needn't necessarily apply. There are areas of London where CofE churches of all theological stripes and churchmanships are largely made up of BME groups and minority communities of one form or other.
I'd like to emphasise this - there are Anglican traditions in other countries, and a lot of immigrants end up finding that a 'middle class' Anglican church is closest to their expectation. For instance - there are evangelical churches in the Thames Valley which have large numbers of Indian IT workers attending (as those churches are the closest to the CSI churches they attend back in their countries of origin). Similarly, there are parts of London where there are lots of Nigerians in conevo churches of all stripes.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Back when I was in a con-evo church, I honestly assumed the SA were much more liberal than they are and viewed them (to my shame now) as hippy do-gooders unlike my church who were more occupied with the more important task of saving people's souls. Caring for the poor and vulnerable without constant overt evangelism was seen as a form of the social gospel. Put it this way - very few in my church supported Christian Aid and preferred the more evangelistic Tearfund. It surprised me recently at a joint SCM-Christian Aid thing that there were so many evangelicals involved in Christian Aid stuff - honestly I assumed they avoided it like people at my past church did.

Clarification - my church was a con-evo Anglican church in con-evo Anglican central East Sussex.

[ 26. June 2014, 15:21: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

But that needn't necessarily apply. There are areas of London where CofE churches of all theological stripes and churchmanships are largely made up of BME groups and minority communities of one form or other.
I'd like to emphasise this - there are Anglican traditions in other countries, and a lot of immigrants end up finding that a 'middle class' Anglican church is closest to their expectation. For instance - there are evangelical churches in the Thames Valley which have large numbers of Indian IT workers attending (as those churches are the closest to the CSI churches they attend back in their countries of origin). Similarly, there are parts of London where there are lots of Nigerians in conevo churches of all stripes.
I imagine that London and the South East are fairly exceptional, in this as in so many things.

It would be interesting to know whether most of the attendees at this evangelical event are based in the South.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I imagine that London and the South East are fairly exceptional, in this as in so many things.
The same dynamic occurs in other areas with significant ethnic minorities - that is in those areas the con-evo churches aren't a monoculture either. So the answer to your question remains the same.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
chris stiles

From my own church life and wider interest I'm aware that churches in once white areas naturally become more multicultural as the surrounding areas become multicultural. This is true whether we're talking about evangelicals or not. IME (not yours, I accept), this process mostly involves non-evangelical CofE churches, simply because the non-evangelical ones are present and the evangelical ones are further away.

I'm also aware of the phenomenon of non-white evangelical Christians deliberately choosing to attend majority white evangelical churches rather than the accessible 'ethnic' alternatives. I agree that this is most likely a middle class phenomenon. But the South East probably has a higher percentage of black and brown middle class Christians than elsewhere.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'd say it's definitely more pronounced in London and the South East but that the situation is far from uniform elsewhere. On the whole, though, I suspect that SvitlanaV2's experience would probably hold good for most large UK cities - Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc.

I lived in Leeds for many years and there are a small number of genuinely multicultural evangelical and non-evangelical churches there - but they are outnumbered by largely monocultural ones.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0