Thread: Spectrum of conevo to radical Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020459
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
The following was drafted before I found the 'Deconstruction' thread. I think it raises similar but distinct issues.
An email exchange went like this:
Me: “I no longer believe…”
Friend: “ I sensed many years ago that you were headed in that direction…”.
My friend, when last I interacted with him many, many years ago, was a conservative evangelical. I presume he still is.
I have only been a non-theist for about 15 years and I never doubted the existence of GOD until that point.
So I suspect that what my friend ‘sensed’ was my pilgrimage from conservative evangelicalism to liberalism and on towards a more radical faith and that he interpreted this as something other than a development in my thinking.
This set me thinking and I would like to put this question to shipmates: is it inevitable that a person who sets out as a conservative evangelical and moves gradually to a radical faith will eventually give up altogether on the concept of God?
I suppose the answer must be ‘No’ but I would be interested to hear the views of those who have trodden the path from conservative evangelicalism to liberal / radical faith and have or have not given up belief in GOD.
Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on
:
My situation is that I could no longer accept conevo theoloy, specifically a hell involving eternal conscious suffering, because this does not fit with the concepts of justice or love as I understand them, which then makes conevo theology which claims God to be just and loving logically inconsistent.
But the idea of God has never gone away. I have never had any period in my life during which I have been an atheist and cannot imagine ever being so in future. At my furthest removed from Christian practice, I have been highly agnostic and ignoring matters of faith and religion because they make my head hurt. But then the sense of God being somehow around returns and, given that Christianity is the faith in which I've been raised to relate to God, and I've never been presented with a persuasive reason to think any other faith or religion would serve me better in this regard, a non-evangelical form of Christianity is where I end up at.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Mark Wuntoo, I'm sure the answer is 'No'. It's an easy assumption to make that everyone else's journey will be the same as one's own. There's no philosophical or empirical justification for it.
A few extra questions I'd ask:-
First, you say your friend starts off as a 'conservative evangelical', and that you've moved from faith to no-faith. You're critically implying that he has fallen short by not making the same journey. But did you start off as a conservative evangelical, or only him?
Second, what is it that you're describing as 'conservative evangelical', because this means different things in different countries and denominations?
Thirds, you describe your journey as "my pilgrimage from conservative evangelicalism to liberalism and on towards a more radical faith". However, what you're describing as 'a radical faith', sounds more like 15 years of non-theism and having given up the concept of God. Is there a reason why you don't think it would be clearer thinking to describe that not as 'radical faith' but as 'no-faith'?
Fourth, are you sure it's about 'a concept of God'? What some of us who have made different journeys would say, is that the God we've journeyed with and found is different from whom we might have expected, isn't a concept.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
Zoey, thanks.
Enoch: sorry if I was not clear. My friend and I both started as conservative evangelical (I actually don't think it matters too much how we define the various terms, the picture remains the same).
I moved from one end of the spectrum to the other before I became a non-theist. Becoming a non-theist did not seem to me to be a 'progression', it was something different, triggered by different circumstances (I think); although my adoption of non-theism may have been helped by the previous movement along the spectrum it was a separate thing.
I do not wish to be critical of my friend's probably conevo position, only in that I sense this position may assume certain things about my pilgrimage - i.e. that one thing inevitably leads to another leads to non-belief. I could be wrong but this seems to me to be the position of some of my old conevo friends.
Yes, the 15 years have been of non-faith; the radical bit was whilst I still was a Christian (this is the position of many of my newer friends).
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I think the mistake here is viewing atheism and conservative evangelicalism as opposite ends of a spectrum and liberal Christianity as some sort of point in between; that going conservative->liberal->radical->atheist is just progression in the same direction. It's not. You can be a faithful believer with as great a commitment as a con evo while still thinking that PSA is awful theology and that the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the mistake here is viewing atheism and conservative evangelicalism as opposite ends of a spectrum and liberal Christianity as some sort of point in between; that going conservative->liberal->radical->atheist is just progression in the same direction. It's not. You can be a faithful believer with as great a commitment as a con evo while still thinking that PSA is awful theology and that the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old.
Couldn't agree more. But I suspect others strongly disagree!
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I thought it was a cliché that Prof Dawkins and fundamentalist Christians are mirror-images of each other ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I do not wish to be critical of my friend's probably conevo position, only in that I sense this position may assume certain things about my pilgrimage - i.e. that one thing inevitably leads to another leads to non-belief.
My impression is that the path from conevo to atheist or non-theist is fairly well-trodden by now, so it doesn't surprise me that some conevos recognise the signs in some vague sense. Of course everyone is different, so I suppose the tendency to generalise can be irritating.
With regards to liberal Christianity, the idea that it leads to atheism isn't confined to conevos. A number of historians have made the connection as well, although usually in connection with institutions rather than individuals. The issues aren't solely theological, but sociological.
But you could argue that Christianity in general is quite fragile under certain conditions.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
A number of historians have made the connection as well, although usually in connection with institutions rather than individuals. The issues aren't solely theological, but sociological.
But you could argue that Christianity in general is quite fragile under certain conditions.
Yes, I subscribe to the theory of secularization, and of the development from sect to congregation to church theory (though I never really understood why the trend could not be bucked!). I hadn't applied it to individuals but I find that a very helpful idea to think about - thanks.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Zoey said:
quote:
My situation is that I could no longer accept conevo theology, specifically a hell involving eternal conscious suffering, because this does not fit with the concepts of justice or love as I understand them, which then makes conevo theology which claims God to be just and loving logically inconsistent.
But the idea of God has never gone away [....] and I've never been presented with a persuasive reason to think any other faith or religion would serve me better in this regard, [so] a non-evangelical form of Christianity is where I end up at.
Pretty much my own experience, FWIW.
IJ
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second, what is it that you're describing as 'conservative evangelical', because this means different things in different countries and denominations?
FWIW, I’d never heard the terms “conevo” or “conservative evangelical” before the Ship. We talk about “conservatives” and about “evangelicals,” of course, but rarely if ever about “conservative evangelicals.” At least in a Protestant context over here, that would likely be seen as redundant, as “evangelical” suggests “conservative” (much to the dismay of some Evangelicals).
To be honest, I’ve never been quite sure what exactly Shipmates mean when they talk about “conevos” as opposed to simply “conservative” or “evangelical.”
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I think the issue is that evangelicals include say, Steve Chalke and soon-to-be-Bishop Anne Dyer, neither of whom are particularly conservative. Likewise conservatives includes the likes of Bishop Philip North and Pope Emeritus Benedict, neither of whom can reasonably be called evangelicals. Consequently when one wishes to refer to the intersection of the two categories, which might contain, say, Bishop Rod Thomas, one needs to clarify that you mean both conservative AND evangelical. You can, of course, also have conservative Calvinists who wouldn't necessarily be evangelicals.
[ 04. February 2018, 19:50: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
There was a term doing the rounds at the time that I was moving away from a conservative evangelical position - 'radical evangelical'. It was a term I liked because it allowed me to keep a foot in the evangelical camp whilst seriously exploring societal and justice issues and rejecting stuff like creationism and a literal interpretation of The Bible.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
FWIW, I’d never heard the terms “conevo” or “conservative evangelical” before the Ship. We talk about “conservatives” and about “evangelicals,” of course, but rarely if ever about “conservative evangelicals.” At least in a Protestant context over here, that would likely be seen as redundant, as “evangelical” suggests “conservative” (much to the dismay of some Evangelicals).
To be honest, I’ve never been quite sure what exactly Shipmates mean when they talk about “conevos” as opposed to simply “conservative” or “evangelical.”
This will help - the differences between conservative, open and charismatic evangelicals.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the issue is that evangelicals include say, Steve Chalke and soon-to-be-Bishop Anne Dyer, neither of whom are particularly conservative. Likewise conservatives includes the likes of Bishop Philip North and Pope Emeritus Benedict, neither of whom can reasonably be called evangelicals.
And see, on this side of the pond, Steve Chalke likely wouldn’t be called "evangelical," at least not by most Evangelicals or by the average non-Evangelical. He'd be called "liberal," which to most people excludes the possibility of being called "evangelical." As for Pope Emeritus Benedict, that's why I specified a Protestant context. Over here, one could likely say that not all conservative Christians are evangelical, but all Evangelicals are (assumed to be) conservative—again to the dismay of those Evangelicals who may not be so conservative.
One thing I constantly appreciate about the Ship is the chance to have the assumptions of my own context challenged and broadened by the realities of other contexts. Speaking of which, thank you Doc Tor!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
One difference is that in the USA, liberal Christianity seems have a much stronger identity than in Britain. In spite (or because) of evangelical dominance, American liberal clergy and congregations seem quite committed to emphasising their distinctiveness.
By contrast, liberal Christian confidence has waned since the mid-20th c., and relatively few British mainstream congregations or ordinary churchgoers proclaim or advertise a deliberately 'liberal' identity (although some do).
Ironically, evangelicalism isn't even dominant in British Christianity (yet), but because it's a stronger 'brand' than the Protestant alternatives one can see why there'd be a reluctance for many liberal/emerging/post- etc., evangelicals to give the term up. It's not clear what they'd be getting in exchange.
AFAIUI, the conservative evangelical fraternity here isn't powerful enough to claim ownership of the term anyway, but I'm sure others will say that they try very hard.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Doc Tor
That's an August 2003 link (unless there has been some editing update). It predates the Steve Chalke controversies.
I think Steve Chalke self-identifies as an Accepting evangelical (so do I). Regardless of what others may say about him.
Actually, Steve is a fascinating example of how folks from an evangelical background do not necessarily remain stuck with a particular outlook, but move on as they learn. His views on the atonement, gay marriage, and the inspiration of scripture have indeed made many folks in the evangelical community wonder if he is still "one of us". But they are well written, decently argued and thought provoking. I think by instinct he is a reformer, not a trouble maker.
And that's probably the most important thing to say. Where people are at any particular point on the conservative evangelical to radical spectrum is not necessarily fixed. I hope we can all live and learn.
Posted by Bax (# 16572) on
:
Stopping believing in GOD is a good thing. It is, arguably, essential in become a Christian, because all human beings start out with a concept of GOD that is false. That is to say, we all being life as idolaters, worshipping a false GOD.
Holy Scripture is the story of moving from Idolatry (worshipping something that is not god at all) to worshipping the one true God. The one true God we see revealed in the gospels is very different to most people’s idea of God: that would include most conservative Evangelicals (and a lot of believers from other traditions).
To take a biblical example, Abraham no longer believed in the GOD that ordered him to sacrifice Isaac when he came down from the mountain. He went up the mountain as a worshipper of an idol (a false god, demanding sacrifice) and came down the mountain as a believer in the true God. The entire Jewish nation was then born from the boy Isaac who would have been killed had this conversion not taken place. (Gen 22:1-19)
So, the fact that you no longer believe in the god you have heard about is not necessarily a bad thing. It is part of a journey.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
Bax: 'journey' yes. But I think your argument falls down for those of us who believe there is (for us) no GOD.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Thanks for the link and additional info, Barnabas.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Doc Tor
That's an August 2003 link (unless there has been some editing update). It predates the Steve Chalke controversies.
I think Steve Chalke self-identifies as an Accepting evangelical (so do I). Regardless of what others may say about him.
Yes, it's an old link, but it does provide a primer to what the differences are between ConEvos and OtherEvos.
My own journey has been probably very similar to others: home parish church, then ConEvo student church, then realising that actually, the contradictions between conservative evangelical theology and being a decent human being are both real and an increasing strain on my credulity. Followed by rising levels of discontent and finally a decisive break.
At that point, I suppose it could have gone in one of several directions, but we pitched up at a soft-charismatic evangelical church (still a parish church) and have been there ever since.
Admittedly, my level of engagement at church is significantly less - I no longer put all my emotional/spiritual eggs in that one basket - through fear of getting burned again. But my engagement with, and understanding of, God through other mediums and activism, is greater.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You can be a faithful believer with as great a commitment as a con evo while still thinking that PSA is awful theology and that the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old.
and istm that at least in some conevo circles, the instance that you can only be a believer if you believe those last two things is equally recent - and owes much to the influence of American evangelicalism.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You can be a faithful believer with as great a commitment as a con evo while still thinking that PSA is awful theology and that the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old.
and istm that at least in some conevo circles, the instance that you can only be a believer if you believe those last two things is equally recent - and owes much to the influence of American evangelicalism.
chris stiles: How recent is recent? It was commonly around in my circles in the 1950's (and we thought it was 'orthodox' ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
).
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
Stopping believing in GOD is a good thing. It is, arguably, essential in become a Christian, because all human beings start out with a concept of GOD that is false. That is to say, we all being life as idolaters, worshipping a false GOD.
Well, I have to agree that stopping believing in god was definitely a good thing for me! No pilgrimage involved; just a logical conclusion arrived at after a long time during which I met many people with different experiences and some of whom were atheists. My belief finally just was not there any more.
Any ‘concept’ of God is a human idea, so must be false. There is of course no objective God with which to compare one’s concept.
We do not begin life as idolators or worshippers, we begin life with not even a concept of the idea of any god or worship of it. All such concepts and beliefs are introduced by other people able to articulate their ideas. quote:
Holy Scripture is the story of moving from Idolatry (worshipping something that is not god at all) to worshipping the one true God. The one true God we see revealed in the gospels is very different to most people’s idea of God: that would include most conservative Evangelicals (and a lot of believers from other traditions).
How would you define the ‘one true God’? An impossible question, I know, but I just mention it anyway!
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
At least the Catholics have a catechism. I suspect, certainly in the UK, that self identifying evangelical churches have varying smorgasbords!
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Don't tell anyone, but our church hasn't had a confession of faith of its own for the past 14 years of its latest incarnation.
[ 05. February 2018, 12:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Any ‘concept’ of God is a human idea, so must be false. There is of course no objective God with which to compare one’s concept.
Despite this, the concept of god/s is ubiquitous throughout history and across the world. It's survived literally everything, and remains (possibly) the single greatest motivation to action.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Don't tell anyone, but our church hasn't had a confession of faith of its own for the past 14 years of its latest incarnation.
But then how do you know which people to look down on and exclude? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
chris stiles: How recent is recent? It was commonly around in my circles in the 1950's (and we thought it was 'orthodox' ).
It seemed more acceptable as recently as 15-20 years ago, depending on the circles of course.
At about that time, I saw things becoming increasingly more militant at the fringes of such groups which were ostensibly open about such things - with the circulation of certain DVDs pushing such viewpoints and so on.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Don't tell anyone, but our church hasn't had a confession of faith of its own for the past 14 years of its latest incarnation.
But then how do you know which people to look down on and exclude?
Dammit, my very reason for not having one has been rumbled (this is the exact truth).
[ETA to clarify: in all honesty I decided, following an insight from someone else, that exclusion is the only functional purpose of church confessions of faith]
[ 05. February 2018, 13:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Any ‘concept’ of God is a human idea, so must be false. There is of course no objective God with which to compare one’s concept.
Despite this, the concept of god/s is ubiquitous throughout history and across the world. It's survived literally everything, and remains (possibly) the single greatest motivation to action.
Bit of a nuisandce, but I have to agree - there! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
However, perhaps this is because the concept is entirely flexible?!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Any ‘concept’ of God is a human idea, so must be false. There is of course no objective God with which to compare one’s concept.
Despite this, the concept of god/s is ubiquitous throughout history and across the world. It's survived literally everything, and remains (possibly) the single greatest motivation to action.
Susan's idea is therefore false! I don't think you can simply assert that all human ideas are false; but perhaps that they are reifications. Thus, I have various ideas about football (soccer), but they are false in a way, since they are not football. Same with God. See the Cloud of Unknowing for more on this. This line of enquiry can take you up a garden path, and drive you mad, since nothing is anything else, especially words and ideas.
Bringing objectivity into it messes with my mind. Surely (some) people have a personal experience of the numinous or 'that which is in everything'. Of course, you don't have to call it God.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
@ Eutychus
Oh yes!
One of the truly excellent values of the Northumbria Community is that pilgrimage together is much more important that agreement. It avoids having policies re issues on which Christians disagree.
[ 05. February 2018, 13:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Eutychus
Oh yes!
One of the truly excellent values of the Northumbria Community is that pilgrimage together is much more important that agreement. It avoids having policies re issues on which Christians disagree.
The problem with that is it leaves the victims of those disagreements unsure of being welcome.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The problem with that is it leaves the victims of those disagreements unsure of being welcome.
There's an Asterix cartoon somewhere with Obelix complaining about a pub along the lines of "I knew a place called The Warm Welcome where..."
I don't think affirmations of welcome necessarily work either. What counts is a faith community being actually committed to being for all-comers, rather than that being what it says on the tin.
We very definitely have people with us because they would never make it past the door of anywhere else - but because of who we are, not because of any affirmations.
(As it happens, largely through an accident of history, our church has an unmistakeably inclusive name, and I frequently exhort our folk to embody it, but I don't think the name in and of itself has ever attracted anyone to my knowledge. Most people take one look at our frontage and conclude we are an Afro-Caribbean church...)
[ 05. February 2018, 13:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think Steve Chalke self-identifies as an Accepting evangelical (so do I).
Actually, Steve is a fascinating example of how folks from an evangelical background do not necessarily remain stuck with a particular outlook, but move on as they learn. His views on the atonement, gay marriage, and the inspiration of scripture have indeed made many folks in the evangelical community wonder if he is still "one of us". But they are well written, decently argued and thought provoking. I think by instinct he is a reformer, not a trouble maker.
And that's probably the most important thing to say. Where people are at any particular point on the conservative evangelical to radical spectrum is not necessarily fixed. I hope we can all live and learn.
Steve Chalke is a radical and a reformer. I'm not entirely convinced that he is wholly innocent of stirring the pot, simply as a wind up.
He can call himself what he likes but surely true identification comes from the affirmation and acceptance of (broadly) fellow travellers. Most evangelicals (in the traditional definition) would not own the "accepting" label - indeed, it would be considered an oxymoron especially when "accepting" has been designed to refer to matters of human sexuality.
With his 95 You Tubes Chalke would probably be welcomed as a fellow traveller by 19C liberalism.
For most evangelicals these days, it is not a question of the specific issue, more the understanding of how we approach it biblically. That's why, for Baptists in particular, the situation is pretty concerning: given the statement of principle in reference to the scriptures, the question is not what holds us together but on what grounds do we stop associating? Many of the larger Baptist churches have dipped out of formal BUGB involvement for that reason.
IMHO Steve Chalke has now pushed it beyond that rubicon.
[ 05. February 2018, 14:26: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Any ‘concept’ of God is a human idea, so must be false. There is of course no objective God with which to compare one’s concept.
Despite this, the concept of god/s is ubiquitous throughout history and across the world. It's survived literally everything, and remains (possibly) the single greatest motivation to action.
Motivation to war, motivation to slaughter the innocent, motivation to rape the heathens. Those motivations? If religion is the motive for the good actions, it is the motive for the bad as well. It this what you are saying?
Susan's logic is flawed as it is an assumption framed as an argument. Yours is flawed for the same reason.
ETA: The flawed logic is the assumption that because religion has endured means that it is true.
The motivation thing is a separate flaw.
[ 05. February 2018, 15:23: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Any ‘concept’ of God is a human idea, so must be false. There is of course no objective God with which to compare one’s concept.
Despite this, the concept of god/s is ubiquitous throughout history and across the world. It's survived literally everything, and remains (possibly) the single greatest motivation to action.
Motivation to war, motivation to slaughter the innocent, motivation to rape the heathens. Those motivations? If religion is the motive for the good actions, it is the motive for the bad as well. It this what you are saying?
Susan's logic is flawed as it is an assumption framed as an argument. Yours is flawed for the same reason.
ETA: The flawed logic is the assumption that because religion has endured means that it is true.
The motivation thing is a separate flaw.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Also, my logic is not at all flawed. My statement makes no assumption as to whether or not God exists. Merely that the concept of God has existed throughout time and space, and still endures. Which is, I think, indisputable.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Any ‘concept’ of God is a human idea, so must be false. There is of course no objective God with which to compare one’s concept.
Despite this, the concept of god/s is ubiquitous throughout history and across the world. It's survived literally everything, and remains (possibly) the single greatest motivation to action.
Motivation to war, motivation to slaughter the innocent, motivation to rape the heathens. Those motivations? If religion is the motive for the good actions, it is the motive for the bad as well. It this what you are saying?
Susan's logic is flawed as it is an assumption framed as an argument. Yours is flawed for the same reason.
ETA: The flawed logic is the assumption that because religion has endured means that it is true.
The motivation thing is a separate flaw.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Fair enough.
quote:
Also, my logic is not at all flawed. My statement makes no assumption as to whether or not God exists. Merely that the concept of God has existed throughout time and space, and still endures. Which is, I think, indisputable.
Actually, it is disputable. The concept of God, as far as we know, has existed through a portion of human existence. Beyond that is speculation.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Actually, it is disputable. The concept of God, as far as we know, has existed through a portion of human existence. Beyond that is speculation.
Well, if we're going by intentional grave goods, that portion goes back 300,000 years. Otherwise, more certain evidence dates back to 50,000 BCE. Either of which means you're really clutching at straws on this point.
There is no evidence for Stone Age man being a conservative evangelical.
.
.
.
.
.
The converse may be true, however.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Either of which means you're really clutching at straws on this point.
Not sure what straws I'm clutching. I'm just saying we have no evidence that the concept of god exists outside of humans. How much actual time of human existence that entails is irrelevant, just saying that it likely isn't all of it.
quote:
There is no evidence for Stone Age man being a conservative evangelical.
.
.
.
.
.
The converse may be true, however.
heh
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Mark Wuntoo
I started from a very conservative theological background and, as I have said elsewhere have moved to a more liberal, if not radical, faith.
As I look at what you initially wrote I wonder if you approached faith from the wrong way. Evangelicals, for instance, insist on the six-day creation. You and I both know that is not factual scientifically. But for me, it still contains the truth that God was involved in the whole of creation, and God saw everything as tov--which means very good.
The problem with evangelicals is the insistence on the literal interpretation of the Bible. I sort of grew up with that as well. The problem is there is very little of the Bible that can be proven. When I have struggled with my faith is when I insist what the Bible says happened the way it happened.
But, frankly, I think even atheists also insist that the Bible be taken literally that way they can work to disprove it.
What I finally realized was I was approaching the Bible the wrong way. When I insist that the six-day creation is factual the Bible becomes like a line of dominoes. When one domino falls, all the other dominoes fall.
I came to realize the best way to approach the Bible is through the prism of the resurrection--not that I can prove it either. By looking at Scripture through the prism of the resurrection, I have come to realize while the Biblical stories may not be literally factual they still contain truths that are timeless.
Yes, I can say I have a radical faith but I do not think it leads to unbelief. Yes, I struggle with doubts, by the enemy of faith is not doubt but certitude. To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see. (Hebrews 11:1)
At the point where I am, I love dancing on the edge. I can argue that David and Jonathan of the OT had a same-sex relationship. I can question most of the stories of the Gospels but in every story, the author is trying to make a point. I actually, think the man called Legion in Mark is also the man that told the women Jesus was no longer in the tomb--in fact, I think it might be the author of Mark himself. I will even argue the writer of what we know as the Gospel of John is the woman Mary of Magdala,
[ 06. February 2018, 01:11: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think there are a couple of things here.
First, many Conservative Evangelicals have a difficult time dealing with doubts. Second, often ConEv theology is very much about ticking the "correct" theological boxes (defined in various ways).
So I don't think anything is inevitable, however it does seem to be a regular pattern that ConEvs start questioning the top-layer of the house-of-cards of their faith and continue until the whole structure has gone.
Other forms of Christianity seem to be able to deal with doubters better, and the difference between those who are "in" verses "out" seems less pronounced - so maybe those who might be otherwise on a non-theist path are more accommodated and lack the ex-evangelical fire to work out their faith, and perhaps are less bothered about what they believe.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
Gramps: I think our pilgrimages may be similar (up to the point, for me, of unbelief).
It seems to me that my difficulty in having a GOD is one of intellect v faith. Creationism went out of the window because of intellect. Frequently I was faced with Bible issues / statements that did not make sense to me. To have faith that these things were true seemed a rather ridiculous response.
I also like dancing on the edge!
I may come back later. But I’d like to state (not wishing to offend anyone) that at the point that I eventually abandoned any belief that there is a GOD, I was ‘surprised by joy’. This, of course, says a lot about the engineering of guilt in my evangelical days. But I will stick with joy, thanks a lot. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
<snip> Evangelicals, for instance, insist on the six-day creation. <snip> The problem with evangelicals is the insistence on the literal interpretation of the Bible. <snip>
I just wanted to pick up in this. 30 years ago, I studied at an institution which was a beacon of non-denominational conservative evangelical scholarship in the UK. Certainly there were some students who were six-Day creationists, though I think they were a minority. The same was true for literal inerrantists. The Bible had a central place in its studies, but there was a strong emphasis that honouring the Bible in study meant taking seriously the nature of the text, and reading it for what it actually was, and not as if it were a different kind of text altogether. We were encouraged to try to use the Bible as a touchstone for our faith and practice, and not simply to reject something “because evangelicals don’t do that” or because “that’s what Catholics do”.
It was quite a culture shock to come from that into the conservative evangelical sub-culture within the Church of England, where there was a strong sense that there were things which were done or not done, not because of any evaluation of the practices themselves, but because they were party markers of being true members of that sub-group.
One of the most dispiriting things to me about the change I observe over the last three decades is the increasing sense of the dominant voice saying you can only be a true evangelical if you are against women leading churches, believe in literal biblical inerrancy (and therefore a six-day creation) etc. etc. And worse still that any attempt to discuss or critique these issues is a sign of creeping liberalism and falling away. Unfortunately, in my experience, the very flat and shallow reading of the biblical texts which underlie this approach are also present in those of a much more liberal persuasion. But instead of saying that the texts must be accepted as a matter of faith, the mantra tends to be that they must be rejected as a matter of common sense or humanity.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
BroJames: I also studied at "an institution which was a beacon of non-denominational conservative evangelical scholarship in the UK" although 30 years before you. We lived in a Victorian building and, looking back, the theology seems Victorian, too! I don't recall that we were encouraged to think outside the box.
mrcheesy: I agree. The 'pack of cards' is a good illustration of my pilgrimage - again, it's faith v intellect.
Today (and I suspect tomorrow) I would say it's 'too late' for me; GOD is gone, I recognise that there is value in people gathering together, I try not to be critical (that's why I am a non-theist and not an atheist), I am happier, Christianity can cope without my involvement and the real world continues with my involvement. And The Ship is a good place in which to travel!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
One of the most dispiriting things to me about the change I observe over the last three decades is the increasing sense of the dominant voice saying you can only be a true evangelical if you are against women leading churches, believe in literal biblical inerrancy (and therefore a six-day creation) etc. etc. And worse still that any attempt to discuss or critique these issues is a sign of creeping liberalism and falling away. Unfortunately, in my experience, the very flat and shallow reading of the biblical texts which underlie this approach are also present in those of a much more liberal persuasion. But instead of saying that the texts must be accepted as a matter of faith, the mantra tends to be that they must be rejected as a matter of common sense or humanity.
Mm. Well these "markers" of (self-defined) "true" Evangelicalism have been around for a lot longer than 30 years, albeit possibly not as a major force in the CofE.
That said, I still don't really believe that this kind of Evangelical is a particularly strong or influential voice in the CofE. To me it looks to be a smaller constituency than the New Wine and HTB tendency - and I don't think either is particularly against women leadership (for example).
But the Anglican mess is a particularly messy mess, not helped by being the frontline of the battle between different kinds of Evangelical and between Evangelicals and others.
As far as I can see, the battlelines are even starker outside of the CofE. That said, those who are against women leaders and for 6-day creationism are in a small but loud minority IMO.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
It was quite a culture shock to come from that into the conservative evangelical sub-culture within the Church of England, where there was a strong sense that there were things which were done or not done, not because of any evaluation of the practices themselves, but because they were party markers of being true members of that sub-group.
One of the most dispiriting things to me about the change I observe over the last three decades is the increasing sense of the dominant voice saying you can only be a true evangelical if you are against women leading churches, believe in literal biblical inerrancy (and therefore a six-day creation) etc. etc.
Just wanted to echo this as this was much my experience too - albeit it was somewhat more recent and I was moving from baptist/conservative Pentecostalism to conevo CofEism (which at the time was much more accepting on variance on the questions of creationism et al than the scene I was coming from).
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Evangelicals, for instance, insist on the six-day creation.
Some do and some don't.
It is a meaningless generalisation.
It is one of the countless issues over which evangelicals differ.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Evangelicals, for instance, insist on the six-day creation.
Some do and some don't.
It is a meaningless generalisation.
It is one of the countless issues over which evangelicals differ.
Yeah, well. You're not a true evangelical if you don't believe in 6-day creationism, ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
you are a liberal ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
and if you once believed it but now don't you are a backslider.
Aren't these terms wonderful. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Fascinating thread.
I started out as a child as a Methodist; a church that can be described as a mainstream - potentially liberal - church in the US. Over the years my experience within the Methodist church has shown me members who range from very liberal to very creationist, literal construction (they think), and exclusionist. (Thanks for the new term.)
But then, variations within denominations seem to be fairly common. A ECUSA friend of mine once told me a joke which feels true:
What separates the conservatives from the liberals? The altar rail.
My experience went from this is what to believe (without having any clear idea what "what" was) to wildly liberal, to doubter, to tortured with guilt every time I went into a church. Interesting ride. Not a fun ride.
The thing is I realized that my expectations about what and how God should be created my unbelief. YMMV. When my prayers for specific things went unanswered I thought that to be evidence there was not a God.
I forgot to ask the question "Why should God give me exactly what I want?" I know what my answer would have been: "I am a good person praying for good things and so of course God will answer my prayer and give me the right thing (what I want.)"
Great expectation as long as I am omnipotent, all knowing, all understanding, and the center of the Universe, among other things. Silly expectation (YMMV) as long as I am not any of those things.
Then I was told to pray to God to see myself - even a little - as God saw me. I did not think it would work and decided to try anyway as my self direction had not landed me on top of the heap. Eventually, the prayer was answered.
That was a life changing event. Since that time a lot of work has gone into me and a great deal of that work centers around spirituality. Now, I believe in God without trying to define God in any way. I do not feel the need to "get it right" or have anyone else get it right.
So, I wish you all the very best in your journeys and I pray that you find peace. Beyond that it is none of my business.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
And to PROVE my point ...
I was surprised to find on my bookshelf one of the standard reference books from Bible College, Louis Berkoff's Systematic Theology (written, I think, in 1939, so not that old).
He affirms, as his first objection to the theory of evolution,
'... the greatest objection to this theory is, of course, that it is contrary to the explicit teachings of the Word of God. The Bible could hardly teach more clearly than it does that man is the product of a direct and special creative act of God, rather than of a process of development out of the simian stock of animals.'
I think Shipmates will guess his second objection .... it is only a theory, 'an unproved working hypothesis'.
There's lots more but you all know all that, I think.
I only mention this as a way of showing the pressure that GLE's were under in the 1950's and 60's if not later. Our pastors taught it and our Bible Colleges taught it. We didn't stand a chance - until, in my case, I found myself in an alien situation where I had to think for myself as I rubbed shoulders with Christians who had very different views to mine.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Ah I have Berkoff in storage somewhere. Banner of Truth publishing, right?
I quite like it. I don't agree with his conclusions, but I like how he sets fairly clearly the options eg theories of the atonement.
That said, I've not looked at it for years.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ah I have Berkoff in storage somewhere. Banner of Truth publishing, right?
Was it one of their 'edited' versions?
But again - that kind of jibes with my feeling that there was a heavy American influence in pushing things down this route. ISTM there were conevos from the same era who took a somewhat different view - they just tended to be elsewhere. Lyman Stewart has a lot to answer for.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Was it one of their 'edited' versions?
No idea, I don't remember seeing or hearing anyone talking about it outside of the circles where I was given it.
It doesn't read like an edited version as far as I remember, although the copy I have is a single volume (so calling it Systematic Theology is a bit of an exaggeration.
quote:
But again - that kind of jibes with my feeling that there was a heavy American influence in pushing things down this route. ISTM there were conevos from the same era who took a somewhat different view - they just tended to be elsewhere. Lyman Stewart has a lot to answer for.
I can't even tell how much influence Berkoff has in this subculture - however it appears to be part of the standard library of theological textbooks for a particular kind of conservative Evangelical.
My perception is that British Evangelicals who have gone deep into the weeds on this stuff are few and far between.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ah I have Berkoff in storage somewhere. Banner of Truth publishing, right?
I quite like it. I don't agree with his conclusions, but I like how he sets fairly clearly the options eg theories of the atonement.
That said, I've not looked at it for years.
Banner of Truth, yep. (They published some really awful stuff IMO but we did use them).
Another key reference for us was A H Strong's Systematic Theology (1907) which I also see on my shelf. I recall that either Berkoff or Strong was a little suspect but I can't recall which one.
Those were the days - and generally happy ones, I think.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
According to Wikipedia it is Berkof not Berkoff.
And apparently he was deeply into the Reformed/Calvinist end of Evangelicalism, which reflects what I remember of his theological conclusions and where I was given the book.
[ 06. February 2018, 14:56: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It doesn't read like an edited version as far as I remember, although the copy I have is a single volume (so calling it Systematic Theology is a bit of an exaggeration.
I just ask as they have past form on this - aka edited JC Ryle to remove his Amyraldianism
quote:
My perception is that British Evangelicals who have gone deep into the weeds on this stuff are few and far between.
In what sense? From where I'm sitting there are plenty of YEC folk in convevo circles, and even if other views are accepted within a church, you'll probably be given a harder time by subgroups within that church.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
it's faith v intellect.
I think this is a false dichotomy and holding to it hurts faith more than it protects it.
If it cannot be questioned, it isn't truly faith anyway.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I just ask as they have past form on this - aka edited JC Ryle to remove his Amyraldianism
Ah, I was just trying to remember JC Ryle, he is also a figure I remember from the library of books in this subculture.
I didn't get on too well with Ryle but I can't remember why not now.
quote:
In what sense? From where I'm sitting there are plenty of YEC folk in convevo circles,
I'll have to bow to your knowledge on YEC as it is a very long time since I had any connection to it.
But I don't think the group we are talking about here is only defined by YEC theology - it seems to be part of it, but you also have to be into very Reformed and Calvinist theology and read these specific authorities. I don't know how many people that really includes.
quote:
and even if other views are accepted within a church, you'll probably be given a harder time by subgroups within that church.
I think the Calvinism is more important than the creationism. But again, I could be wrong.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
it's faith v intellect.
I think this is a false dichotomy and holding to it hurts faith more than it protects it.
If it cannot be questioned, it isn't truly faith anyway.
Just to say, I did say that this is my experience. It was when I was forced by circumstances to ask questions (intellect) that I started the road away from faith. I have no wish to defend 'faith' these days but no wish to hurt it in others.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But I don't think the group we are talking about here is only defined by YEC theology - it seems to be part of it, but you also have to be into very Reformed and Calvinist theology and read these specific authorities. I don't know how many people that really includes.
Yeah, I suspect we are talking about disjoint sets of people - as I don't really move in such circles either and haven't for some time. From observing friends who are still in such circles it would appear that things have gone slightly more YEC - though that might be a selection effect that is connected with those I know.
On the conevo thing, my other impression is that such folk have over time also got a lot more economically conservative (which again I would attribute to US influence).
Going back to Berkhof; I suspect Grudem especially has an outsize knock-on influence these days.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Even Banner of Truth draws the line somewhere.
When they published Arthur Pink's The Sovereignty of God they omitted his assertion that God bears no love whatsoever to the reprobate, and his theory that kosmos in John 3:16 refers to the sum total of the elect.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Yeah, well. You're not a true evangelical if you don't believe in 6-day creationism, you are a liberal and if you once believed it but now don't you are a backslider.
Aren't these terms wonderful.
Yes, yes, all good healthy fun which is no doubt of therapeutic value to those trying to exorcise embarrassing memories of a fundamentalist phase in their experience.
The fact remains, however, that while there no doubt exist some evangelical churches at the fundamentalist end of the spectrum which insist on an exclusively YEC position, there are innumerable evangelicals who don't.
There are also, no doubt, plenty of non-evangelical (ie RC and Orthodox believers) who happily take the opening chapters of Genesis literally.
In all the evangelical churches to which I have belonged, there has been peaceful co-existence between the literalists and non-literalists.
Even back at the time of the publication of Darwin's Origin there were conservative, orthodox Protestants (and RCs) who were quite unfazed, and happy to incorporate the new discoveries into their theology.
The Fundamentals (1910-15) contained critical references to evolution, but the final distillation of the so-called fundamentals on which the militant orthodox took their stand did not include a stance on YEC or evolution (they were the authority of scripture, and the virgin birth, miracles, atoning death and resurrection of Jesus).
In other words, YEC has never been a sine qua non of evangelicalism.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Kaplan--first of all when I speak of Evangelicals being creationists, I am really talking about American Evangelicals--yes I know of some who were able to talk about an old earth. My uncle was one. He was the chair of Geology at the University of Arizona, but they seem to be the exception to the rule in the United States.
You mention that you think there is a sizable group of Roman Catholics or Orthodox that are creationists. Not saying that there aren't, but I can say it is no longer official doctrine in the Roman Church, and from what I can find on Orthodox web pages it is not official doctrine among them as well.
Mark Wuntoo, I wanted to get back to your reply to me also. One of the major differences between my path and your path, as I see it, is your experience of guilt. I can understand if you came from a Calvinist background how that can be a heavy burden. My mother grew up in such a background and she also suffered from guilt too. She just knew she was not among the saved because of her life as a young woman (to hear her tell it makes my ears burn sometimes). Then she met my dad who was Lutheran and she began to hear salvation by faith through Jesus Christ, and it is not of our own doing.
I never felt guilt growing up. My mother would not let me experience that. She always taught me I was free through Christ.
I am thinking if I were placed on a guilt trip like you alluded too, it just might have pushed me over the edge too. (As I said, I love dancing on the edge).
You mentioned that you have two Christian systematic books on your self, one from 1907 and the other from 1939. You thought the 1939 one was not that old. Huh? It is nearly 80 years old! It probably should have been tossed back in the 50's.
I am more of an exegetical theologian than a systematician but I can tell you there has been an explosion of new thoughts since the 50's. One theologian I have read quite a bit of is Hans Kung. He is one of the more prolific contemporary theologians I can think of. Look him up, You will likely find a number of his books that address some of the doubts you went through. I am not trying to convert you, but just trying to show theology did not stop in the 30's. I just picked up The Entangled Trinity: Quantum Physics and Theology. The cover of the book says Ernest Simmons asks what the current scientific understanding of the natural world might contribute to our reflection upon the relationship of God and the world in a Triune fashion. Sounds like an interesting book
My point is that theology did not stop 500 years ago (The Reformation) It did not stop 80 years ago. It did not even stop 10 years ago. There are new theologians bringing forth new ideas and new answers to old and current problems.
Mark, I do thank you for being forthcoming about where you are at. I hope you will hang around for a while. It is always good to get new people with new thoughts and challenges
Gramps
[ 07. February 2018, 03:16: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
(snip)
Mark Wuntoo, ..... You mentioned that you have two Christian systematic books on your self, one from 1907 and the other from 1939. You thought the 1939 one was not that old. Huh? It is nearly 80 years old! It probably should have been tossed back in the 50's.
Comparatively recent, I suggest.
quote:
My point is that theology did not stop 500 years ago (The Reformation) It did not stop 80 years ago. It did not even stop 10 years ago. There are new theologians bringing forth new ideas and new answers to old and current problems.
Mark, I do thank you for being forthcoming about where you are at. I hope you will hang around for a while. It is always good to get new people with new thoughts and challenges
Gramps
I hope that I was able to keep up with some of the explosion of thought in recent years. It was the re-thinking (deconstruction?) of my beliefs that kept me moving along the spectrum. And I am thankful about that and sad that my old GLE friends have not travelled.
As an aside, it is only a matter of months ago that I was chatting to a young(ish) Muslim neighbour and was surprised to learn that he does not believe in evolution - and he is an intelligent and articulate leading member of the local mosque.
And, Gramps, I don't intend leaving. I don't post very often but I've been around for a few years. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Kaplan--first of all when I speak of Evangelicals being creationists, I am really talking about American Evangelicals--yes I know of some who were able to talk about an old earth. My uncle was one. He was the chair of Geology at the University of Arizona, but they seem to be the exception to the rule in the United States.
The best estimate I can find online, from 2014, is that about 15% of Americans believe in YEC.
About 25% of Americans are evangelicals, so even if all the YECers are evangelicals, that is still only 60% of American evangelicals who are YEC.
Judging from my experience, the proportion of YEC evangelicals would be far smaller in other parts of the world such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
quote:
You mention that you think there is a sizable group of Roman Catholics or Orthodox that are creationists. Not saying that there aren't, but I can say it is no longer official doctrine in the Roman Church, and from what I can find on Orthodox web pages it is not official doctrine among them as well.
I don't know whether there is an "official" position on this issue in either of these traditions.
I was just surmising that a fair proportion of grassroots believers from each tradition in different parts of the world might be inclined to take the opening chapters of Genesis literally.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
That is probable, but a higher percentage will be in denoms that travel a more literal path. As far as the polls, people lie. Especially if they might feel some sort of pressure, even if it isn’t real.
And it isn’t YEC or reality. There are plenty who accept the reality of a billions of years time-frame, but hold other bits of the Bible as literal. And, IME, evangelicals will have a higher percentage representation in this category than many others.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Judging from my experience, the proportion of YEC evangelicals would be far smaller in other parts of the world such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
The only figures I can find for the UK are here:
http://www.eauk.org/culture/statistics/statistics-on-views-on-science-and-evolution.cfm
[Second set of results]. Though agreeing that these things are 'incompatible' is different from subscribing to the belief in YEC (or ID) - though by definition they already hold to Christianity.
The EA survey was of EA members - and BME evangelical churches/denoms tend to be unrepresented and they tend to be much more conservative as a whole.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Kaplan--first of all when I speak of Evangelicals being creationists, I am really talking about American Evangelicals--yes I know of some who were able to talk about an old earth. My uncle was one. He was the chair of Geology at the University of Arizona, but they seem to be the exception to the rule in the United States.
The best estimate I can find online, from 2014, is that about 15% of Americans believe in YEC.
That's surprisingly low - where's it from?
Last year Gallup got 38% who said that "God created humans in present form within last 10,000 years", vs 38% for "Humans evolved, God guided process" and 19% for "Humans evolved, God had no part in process". (Respondents were asked which of these three statements came closest to their views.)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Kaplan--first of all when I speak of Evangelicals being creationists, I am really talking about American Evangelicals--yes I know of some who were able to talk about an old earth. My uncle was one. He was the chair of Geology at the University of Arizona, but they seem to be the exception to the rule in the United States.
The best estimate I can find online, from 2014, is that about 15% of Americans believe in YEC.
That's surprisingly low - where's it from?
Last year Gallup got 38% who said that "God created humans in present form within last 10,000 years", vs 38% for "Humans evolved, God guided process" and 19% for "Humans evolved, God had no part in process". (Respondents were asked which of these three statements came closest to their views.)
There are various Slate articles about it. It depends what degree of confidence you want to call someone a YEC. It also depends how you interpret the question - "God created humans in present form within the last 10,000 years" doesn't logically have to imply YEC. You could be an OEC or even a TE who nevertheless thought humans were a special creation of God within that time frame.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
That's true, but I also found a reference to a 2008 Harris survey on "Americans' Beliefs and Knowledge about Creationism, the Role of God, 'Intelligent Design', and Human Evolution" in which 39% of respondents agreed that "God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, and the first two people within the past 10 000 years" which sounds like YEC to me.
(N.B. In the same survey only 19% said that the statement "The earth is less than 10 000 years old." is true, so I'm not really sure what it means to say people "think" or "believe" something based on answers to questions like these.)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I think it confirms that YEC people are as stupid as you would have expected. Maybe 10,000 years is not young though, you have to accept Abp Ussher's calculation of 4004 BC to fall into that category......
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think Kaplan's observations about evangelicalism broadly hold, and whilst it would be difficult to prove, I'd suggest that the percentage of YEC-cies overall would lie somewhere between the lowest figure cited and the higher ones postulated.
I'd also suggest that hard-line YEC-ers, like very hard-line Calvinists, make a great deal more noise in relation to their numbers than some other forms of evangelical, and consequently appear more numerous than they actually are.
I also agree that literalists and non-literalists on these issues can co-exist within the same congregations and I suspect that holds true for all but the real hard-line groups.
As for RCs and Orthodox who would take a literal view of Genesis, they do exist but it is a lot less common among them than it would be, I suspect, in evangelical circles.
It can be difficult to tell with the Orthodox. I've heard them retell hagiographical stories of Saints as if they take the stories literally, only to find that this isn't necessarily the case.
So I'd imagine the same might apply to the way they handle Genesis. Also, particularly in the US, there are converts from conservative forms of evangelicalism who seem to have brought a lot of their former baggage and assumptions with them - to the alarm of some of the cradle Orthodox or longer standing converts.
Once or twice I have come across some uber-conservative RCs and that can be quite unsettling. Why? Because they seem to have combined the worst of both worlds.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I suppose what would be interesting to know would be about the "drop-off" rate of enthusiastic conservatives (say ultra Calvinists, YEC-ers and other overlapping definitions) versus other types of Evangelical.
I'd postulate that a kind of cliff-edge loss of belief is more associated with the kinds of faith which require excessive outward forms of very enthusiastic belief rather than those where the faith is more cerebral and associated with less-individual liturgical actions.
I appreciate that these definitions are poor, and that those who fall off the liturgical end might just slowly give up rather than decide in a given moment that they don't believe.
But I'm not sure how this maps onto Evangelicals. I suspect that enthusiastic charismatics (who are not necessarily Calvinist or YEC) have quite a high level of drop off, and that it is probably more than those for whom creationism is not a big part of teaching and belief.
But whether some from that latter group are on a journey of non-belief - and which points it travels through before reaching non-theist - I couldn't say.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Look these are moderate* Ultra Calvinists my mathematics from Wikipedia suggests that they are doing no better and no worse than the average small denomination in Scotland although there are some claims of growth in recent years (from about 2010).
Jengie
*yes there is a whole host of smaller Presbyterian denominations who have complaints about the leniency of this denominations behaviour.
[ 08. February 2018, 08:16: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd postulate that a kind of cliff-edge loss of belief is more associated with the kinds of faith which require excessive outward forms of very enthusiastic belief rather than those where the faith is more cerebral and associated with less-individual liturgical actions. (snip) I suspect that enthusiastic charismatics (who are not necessarily Calvinist or YEC) have quite a high level of drop off, and that it is probably more than those for whom creationism is not a big part of teaching and belief.
But whether some from that latter group are on a journey of non-belief - and which points it travels through before reaching non-theist - I couldn't say.
My general feeling is that the more enthusiastic / charismatic Christians probably move (if they dare more at all ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) along the spectrum but don't drop off into non-theism necessarily. Just a gut feeling.
In my own case, once I had rejected fundamentalism, I was of the 'more cerebral' kind although rather less 'liturgical'. For most of my Christian life (the last 40 years of it) I saw myself on a journey of constant learning and change - which I liked. But it still came as a surprise when I rejected GOD.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Dave W wrote
Last year Gallup got 38% who said that "God created humans in present form within last 10,000 years", vs 38% for "Humans evolved, God guided process" and 19% for "Humans evolved, God had no part in process". (Respondents were asked which of these three statements came closest to their views.)
And 38% of Americans self-identify as Evangelicals
Interesting.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
38% of Americans self-identify as Evangelicals
Where does that figure come from?
The most common figure (eg Pew) is 25%.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Wasn't the 25(-ish)% figure from a while ago, Kaplan? The most recent survey I can trace suggests it has nosedived over the last decade. The 2017 PRRi survey (here) shows it down to 17%.
I think the 38% figure must relate to something else.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I subscribe to the theory of secularization, and of the development from sect to congregation to church theory (though I never really understood why the trend could not be bucked!). I hadn't applied it to individuals but I find that a very helpful idea to think about - thanks.
The trend can seemingly be arrested in some contexts; some movements have retained sect-like qualities. The Amish groups have grown since the turn of the 20th c., and haven't lost their distinctive qualities as a result. The JWs and the Mormons are still quite different from the Protestant mainstream.
Going back to my earlier post, it's not quite right for me to say that church-sect theory focuses on religious groups rather than individuals. Some commentators do go into the influence of changing church dynamics on individual churchgoers, or on types of churchgoers.
Certainly, the phenomenon of increasing education and social status on the part of the clergy and/or laity often leads to tensions within movements which were born to service the faith of less privileged groups. Generational differences may become apparent. And even though modern evangelicals can be quite middle class from the start, there may well be personality differences that indicate how some individuals are likely to move in a different direction.
Commentators note that the growth potential of some evangelical churches actually stimulates these problems. People of all kinds are drawn to popular, lively, close-knit communities, even if they're not entirely convinced about the theology or the lifestyle. Some newcomers may completely absorb what they're taught, but others won't. Too many of the latter will reduce the strictness the church as a whole (to the disgust of some strict members, who sometimes leave), but in a large or growing churches it's almost inevitable that a less strict minority of individuals will probably end up losing interest.
Some strict groups prefer it if dissatisfied people leave rather than staying to undermine the cohesion of the group. But where the transition is already taking place, or where decline has set in, there's probably more anxiety.
[ 09. February 2018, 17:01: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the mistake here is viewing atheism and conservative evangelicalism as opposite ends of a spectrum and liberal Christianity as some sort of point in between; that going conservative->liberal->radical->atheist is just progression in the same direction. It's not. You can be a faithful believer with as great a commitment as a con evo while still thinking that PSA is awful theology and that the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old.
Not really. Going conservative -> liberal IS a progression towards atheism. Liberal theology exists basically because young students loose their faith during seminary, but have to pretend they are still believers to keep their jobs in the clergy. Then they come up with resignifications of traditional christian beliefs, like "God is the ultimate concern of a human life" or "the ressurrection means that Jesus´ project continued in the disciples´ community after his death; his ideals are still alive", etc. You can tell this is a fact, both from a rational and an empirical point of view.
Rational: if you left traditional believes like Jesus´ miracles, ressurrection, atonement, etc, purely on the basis that it cannot be proven rationally, then odds are you´re going to leave belief in a personal God sooner or later, cause that cannot be proven rationally or scientifically either.
Empirical: mainline churches are loosing most of their membership to nonbelief, and that is not happening as a radical change, like it would happen if a former evangelical became atheist. In fact people who leave mainline churches usually notice no difference in their lives, except that they do not have to pay church anymore, since their previous religion was almost indistinguished from the beliefs of the secular society.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Not really. Going conservative -> liberal IS a progression towards atheism. Liberal theology exists basically because young students loose their faith during seminary, but have to pretend they are still believers to keep their jobs in the clergy.
What unmitigated bullshit.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Thank you Mousethief: clear, concise and accurate.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Liberal theology exists basically because young students loose their faith during seminary, but have to pretend they are still believers to keep their jobs in the clergy.
Simplistic and reductionist generalisation, but in some cases the stark and uncomfortable truth.
Liberals have every bit as much capacity for hypocrisy as conservatives.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Liberal theology exists basically because young students loose their faith during seminary, but have to pretend they are still believers to keep their jobs in the clergy.
Simplistic and reductionist generalisation, but in some cases the stark and uncomfortable truth.
Wish fulfillment of the conservative who doesn't hear what the liberal is saying.
quote:
Liberals have every bit as much capacity for hypocrisy as conservatives.
True but wholly unrelated to the above statement.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Not really. Going conservative -> liberal IS a progression towards atheism. Liberal theology exists basically because young students loose their faith during seminary, but have to pretend they are still believers to keep their jobs in the clergy.
What unmitigated bullshit.
mousethief: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I would call the things gorpo described radical rather than liberal. To me, liberal means accepting (for example) that the accounts in Genesis and Exodus are at best later embellishments of oral traditions and don't accord with historical evidence. Conservative means you assert that those events really happened as described. Liberal doesn't mean denying the reality of God, or of the miraculous, or of the resurrection, but it does mean taking seriously the truths revealed in and by God's creation as well as those contained within the Bible.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Not really. Going conservative - liberal IS a progression towards atheism.
From my OP: An email exchange went like this:
Me: “I no longer believe…”
Friend: “ I sensed many years ago that you were headed in that direction…”.
See? Get it? Your comment is EXACTLY what I suspect my evangelical friends think.
At no time duration my pilgrimage from fundamentalist to radical did I ever give up believing in GOD. I preached the Gospel (Bible-based!), I taught social justice, I prayed with people and so on - all the things that a GOD-believing pastor would do. I do not believe that I was hypocritical. Non-belief came after I retired from ministry and was little to do with previous 'theology', more to do with the institutional church (don't get me started).
This is Purgatory isn't it? ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Mark Wuntoo
I think you're protesting a bit too much. You moved from a conevo to a liberal Christian position. And then much later you became an atheist.
Your colleague was therefore correct about the broad outline of your trajectory, even if he was incorrect about all the influencing factors, the precise nature of your journey, the books you'd read, the people you'd spoken to, etc., etc. After all, your colleague was unlikely to know the details unless he was a very close friend.
As for gorpo's comment that liberal Christianity leads to atheism, this isn't primarily a conevo slur. AFAICS, the challenges to faith of various kinds of liberal Christianity have been depicted by historians and sociologists for some time. The issues are part and parcel of the ongoing experience of mainstream Protestant denominations, even if they seem new and 'radical' to those who come from a conevo background.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Sorry - I meant to say 'non-theist'.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Mark Wuntoo
I think you're protesting a bit too much. .....
Your colleague was therefore correct about the broad outline of your trajectory,
The thing I objected to is the apparent assumption that someone moving from a fundamentalist position through liberal to radical is necessarily 'headed in that direction' (as my friend stated) of non-belief; they are not, is my contention. I asked if shipmates think it is inevitable that such a pilgrimage will end up in some form of atheism. I agree with the general sense of this thread that it is not inevitable.
The reason I am a non-theist, as opposed to an atheist, is my attempt to respect the position of those who hold to faith of whatever sort.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
It clearly isn't inevitable, since liberal Christians continue to exist, and relatively liberal denominations also exist.
Nevertheless, as you know from church-sect theory, the liberalising process tends to lead to weaknessess in denominations where it becomes influential. Decline sets in and becomes difficult to reverse, since liberalism doesn't exist to tackle the issues that are causing the decline.
I've belonged to the liberalising mainstream (British Methodism) all my life, and have seen the problems with my own eyes. The best situation, ISTM, is to belong to a liberalising niche within a denomination that's still fairly strict and committed to its distinguishing theological features. The Orthodox church perhaps provides such an environment; maybe Seventh Day Adventism, or other strict forms of evangelicalism. But to belong to a highly liberalised denomination is almost certainly to belong to a group that's facing a form of slow death.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Liberal theology exists basically because young students loose their faith during seminary, but have to pretend they are still believers to keep their jobs in the clergy.
Simplistic and reductionist generalisation, but in some cases the stark and uncomfortable truth.
It is the exact opposite. A liberal theology has give. It can take challenge and remain intact. A conservative theology is rigid and more likely to fall apart if there is the slightest fracture in the structure.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Not really there are two dimensions. One is Liberal to Conservative where Conservative means adopting beliefs that are seen as traditional while Liberal means adopting beliefs that are seen as innovative.
There is also a dimension that deals with the rigidity with which the ideas are held which goes from tight to loosely. While I admit I have met few ultra conservatives who are not pretty tight on the belief, I also find that a surprising number of ultra liberals are equally tightly wedded to their belief system. It seems to me that it is the people in the middle who are most open to the perspective of the other side and thus to challenge.
Jengie
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It clearly isn't inevitable, since liberal Christians continue to exist, and relatively liberal denominations also exist.
Nevertheless, as you know from church-sect theory, the liberalising process tends to lead to weaknessess in denominations where it becomes influential. Decline sets in and becomes difficult to reverse, since liberalism doesn't exist to tackle the issues that are causing the decline.
Yes.
And there are those, a minority I suspect, who get fed-up with the liberal trends and leave to form their own (new)(back to basics) group.
So the cycle continues.
Meant to say up-thread: the Salvation Army is an interesting case (not sure where it fits in all this). In East London, their birthplace and early stronghold, they have all but disappeared as worshipping corps.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
There is also a dimension that deals with the rigidity with which the ideas are held which goes from tight to loosely. While I admit I have met few ultra conservatives who are not pretty tight on the belief, I also find that a surprising number of ultra liberals are equally tightly wedded to their belief system.
Yes, I'd agree with this. WIth the caveat that liberal, ultra or not, tolerates more POV so more difficult to challenge in a general sense. On specific issues, yes. But as an overall philosophy, it is not one failure point ad then collapse.
quote:
It seems to me that it is the people in the middle who are most open to the perspective of the other side and thus to challenge.
I don't disagree, but I would phrase it differently. People do not like their POV challenged, no matter what position on the scale it is. That is simply how our brains work. Those in the middle are closer to each side, so neither is as large a challenge to their beliefs.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A conservative theology is rigid and more likely to fall apart if there is the slightest fracture in the structure.
Complete rubbish - an ideological assertion based on bigotry and presuppositions instead of inconvenient reality.
I have known countless theological conservatives over the decades, and a handful of them remained as conservative from the day I met them until the day they died, while a handful abandoned the faith entirely.
The overwhelming majority, however (not just me, and my contemporaries, but representatives from older generations) have modified or softened their stance in various particulars without the slightest indication of their faith's looking as if it was going to therefore "fall apart".
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Okay, the percentage of Evangelicals in the US is 26.3% according to the Pew Research group.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A conservative theology is rigid and more likely to fall apart if there is the slightest fracture in the structure.
Complete rubbish - an ideological assertion based on bigotry and presuppositions instead of inconvenient reality.
Perhaps it would help if I said it was a simplistic and reductionist generalisation, but in some cases the stark and uncomfortable truth.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think it is possible to be conservative and flexible rather than brittle but I suspect that fundamentalism of all kinds is something of a dead-end.
Where the line between conservatism and full-on fundamentalism is to be drawn is, of course, a moot point.
However we cut it, though, it seems to me that both liberal and conservative Christians can end up tumbling off the edge into unbelief.
From what I can gather, Trevor Huddleston the noted anti-apartheid cleric ended up denouncing all religion as baloney.
I would imagine the same applies to hard-line Marxists, hardline anything-ists and whatever else-ists as much as it does to theists of one form or other.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Well, I started to add my two penn'orth days ago. The stream has tumbled on. To answer Mark's question, the answer is mainly yes. The more educated the less religious as a rule for a start. My journey, chronicled tediously here for years and years and bloody years, exponentially accelerated to the point a year last November when deconstruction and physicalism met at a time of existential threat. An interesting time. By the Spirit I still believe, I bow the creedal knee. Hot eyed there. I don't believe in ANYTHING else. Any claim. I cannot see how transcendence is imaginable let alone possible, yet I believe in the mystical sublimity of the best case God. I always have but He's been decluttered 99.9..%
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think it is possible to be conservative and flexible rather than brittle
This depends on how one defines conservative and where one draws the line between it and moderate.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The more educated the less religious as a rule for a start.
Honestly, I think much of this is because religion, in general, has poorly adapted to the aspects of life that are non-religious.
Religion has, for most of its existence, been presented as the answer. For everything. Education shows that it isn't necessary for very much and that applying religious interpretation to many things illustrates a jarring inconsistency.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think it is possible to be conservative and flexible rather than brittle
This depends on how one defines conservative and where one draws the line between it and moderate.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The more educated the less religious as a rule for a start.
Honestly, I think much of this is because religion, in general, has poorly adapted to the aspects of life that are non-religious.
Religion has, for most of its existence, been presented as the answer. For everything. Education shows that it isn't necessary for very much and that applying religious interpretation to many things illustrates a jarring inconsistency.
I suppose religion has pulled its horns in in many ways. For example, the notion of divine providence is used less commonly now - to use it about 9/11 is quite eccentric, whereas in the 18th century, I think it was widely used, both for earthquakes and personal tragedies, such as the death of a child.
I'm not really sure how this connects with the trajectory of conservative to radical, but I suppose that religious people have had to adapt considerably to a scientific age, and also a secular one.
These things seem to dissolve faith in some cultures, but not all. But also other things probably, e.g. urban life.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Are the more educated less religious? My experience has been that the pews are occupied by middle class graduates, not working class school leavers. A brief perusal of wikipedia suggests no clear pattern across different countries.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Are the more educated less religious? My experience has been that the pews are occupied by middle class graduates, not working class school leavers. A brief perusal of wikipedia suggests no clear pattern across different countries.
That is pretty much the position here, not just at St Sanity (where from the local demographic you'd expect a congregation of graduates) but the whole country.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
We must have different Wikipedias.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
There are those, a minority I suspect, who get fed-up with the liberal trends and leave to form their own (new)(back to basics) group.
So the cycle continues.
Interestingly, my sense is that the English are less keen on setting up new churches than they used to be. Secularisation (and perhaps the cost of living) has made the venture much riskier than in the past.
AFAICS, it's now a better bet for evangelicals to colonise existing churches. The CofE offers the most choice, and it also happens to be the most secure and most visible denomination that already has a viable evangelical tradition. Combined with a creeping congregationalism it offers the best of both worlds for congregations that are developing a strong evangelical agenda.
The embourgeoisement of English Christianity has probably also helped to reduce the appeal of the small independent or Nonconformist church, for both lay worship and clergy employment. By contrast, church plants and Fresh Expressions benefit from being denominationally financed, resourced and approved, no matter how defiant or extreme their staff may be.
Church-sect theory is further complicated by David Voas' claim that although some individuals will have a commitment to particular doctrines, what most people want from a church is a supportive community, not a particular theology.
This renders strictness and denominationalism fairly unimportant in themselves, yet it tends to be the churches with a strong sense of identity and vision, and a high level of group cohesion and morale that can offer this kind of community. But such churches then become attractive to people who have little interest in the doctrinal specifics, which means that in the long run, the churches lose what made them distinctive. Ironically, popularity makes evangelical churches quite vulnerable.
One sees it here on the Ship; people complain about 'conevo' churches, but they won't necessarily go and support their local struggling moderate church instead, because what these churches offer in terms of tolerance and social justice engagement they may lack in other aspects. It's easier to criticise a lively but mistaken church than to help revitalise a struggling but right-minded one.
Indeed, it must feel dangerously thrilling to be 'radical' in a conevo church. To be 'radical' in a church that's been promoting its radical message since the 1950s wouldn't offer anything like the same buzz.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quetzalcoatl wrote: quote:
I suppose religion has pulled its horns in in many ways. For example, the notion of divine providence is used less commonly now - to use it about 9/11 is quite eccentric, whereas in the 18th century, I think it was widely used, both for earthquakes and personal tragedies, such as the death of a child.
Sort of - I don't think divine providence has gone away, but a lot of the older interpretations of it owed more to a deist "worldview" rather than a theist one.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
95% spot on as ever SvitlanaV2. There are NO moderate churches in Leicester, struggling or otherwise, doing anything incarnational. There's the odd Methodist-Baptist hybrid which has a radical group. Moderate is always doomed as it is moderate in all things. There certainly aren't any radical, incarnational Oases either. Char-evo Anglican is the ONLY show in town actually doing anything that stands out by an order of magnitude. And there is NOTHING dangerously thrilling about thinking most usually mutely radical thoughts in it. Expressing them creates a useless frisson. One has to put up with the insane damnationist magic and even find a way to subversively use the language for the sake of being allowed to lift the distal phalange of ones fifth digit in the direction of the poorest.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
But the question is, why wouldn't it be reasonable join a Methodist-Baptist hybrid and turn it into something that's radical and incarnational?
Don't you think there's something really topsy-turvy about churches with terrible theology doing the good things, and churches with the excellent theology doing... not very much? How do you explain that paradox?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quetzalcoatl wrote: quote:
I suppose religion has pulled its horns in in many ways. For example, the notion of divine providence is used less commonly now - to use it about 9/11 is quite eccentric, whereas in the 18th century, I think it was widely used, both for earthquakes and personal tragedies, such as the death of a child.
Sort of - I don't think divine providence has gone away, but a lot of the older interpretations of it owed more to a deist "worldview" rather than a theist one.
The deist Voltaire did not treat the Lisbon Earthquake as an example of divine providence.
Au contraire.
Even more orthodox Christians at the time were cautious - in my Malone edition of Boswell's Life of Johnson there is a footnote which runs: "To deny the exercise of a particular providence in the Deity's government of the world is certainly impious, yet nothing serves the cause of the scorner more than an incautious forward zeal in determinng the particular instances of it".
[ 13. February 2018, 23:27: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But the question is, why wouldn't it be reasonable join a Methodist-Baptist hybrid and turn it into something that's radical and incarnational?
Don't you think there's something really topsy-turvy about churches with terrible theology doing the good things, and churches with the excellent theology doing... not very much? How do you explain that paradox?
It is droll isn't it? I note you don't refute it. That it is your experience too. My joining a MOTR congo with prophetic zeal would damage at least one of us.
Nothing motivates zeal like damnationism, as demonstrated by all textist theist peoples of the Book. Jews aren't damnationist and therefore aren't proselytizing, aren't desperate to 'save'.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Martin60 and SvitlanaV2, what do you mean by 'incarnational' in this context? It's a word, or more accurately a concept, which by and large, I think most of us have got wrong.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But the question is, why wouldn't it be reasonable join a Methodist-Baptist hybrid and turn it into something that's radical and incarnational?
Don't you think there's something really topsy-turvy about churches with terrible theology doing the good things, and churches with the excellent theology doing... not very much? How do you explain that paradox?
It is droll isn't it? I note you don't refute it. That it is your experience too. My joining a MOTR congo with prophetic zeal would damage at least one of us.
Nothing motivates zeal like damnationism, as demonstrated by all textist theist peoples of the Book. Jews aren't damnationist and therefore aren't proselytizing, aren't desperate to 'save'.
To answer my own question, I think the basic problem is that while people often approve of the moderate churches for being tolerant, these churches lack the dynamism and appeal that I mentioned above, and hence end up with a reduced level of manpower and resources to do the work they'd like to do. I certainly have experience of that.
This is where the 'moderate' approach fails. Strict churches end up stronger, for various reasons. And even though the Jews don't have a damnationist or conversionist theology, their ultra-orthodox constituency is likely to continue growing, becoming dominant in Britain and elsewhere.
That being so, my reference to 'terrible' and 'excellent' theology isn't exactly reflective of what I feel. Shippies complain a lot about conservative religion, but my experience suggests that what happens at the moderate ('radical'?) end doesn't offer a viable alternative, and indeed that it deserves a far deeper critique of its attitudes and methods than it ever seems to get.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Moderate ain't radical. This is a three cornered fight. Radical offers one end of a viable alternative. One end of a front. A conservative-moderate-radical(CMR) front. Divided we fall. Or just carry on. The cons and the rads will always recruit from society, maintain their tiny minorities. Like in the Russian revolution, the second class carriage is the one at risk.
Show me an open, honest, naked CMR Anglican congo and the future's bright.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Martin60 and SvitlanaV2, what do you mean by 'incarnational' in this context? It's a word, or more accurately a concept, which by and large, I think most of us have got wrong.
I think Martin60 is talking about congregations getting alongside disadvantaged or marginalised groups in a very physical, personal, self-denying way. He's talked about this in relation to damnationist churches that have an ongoing ministry with the homeless, for example.
By contrast, although the moderate churches may talk up social justice, raise funds and even get involved in seasonal initiatives, they don't throw their whole being into serving the disadvantaged; certainly not to the extent of spending large amounts of time with them.
The 'tolerance' of these churches makes them reluctant to seek converts among this (or any) group, but this reluctance also conveniently keeps their churches very 'safe'; mental health and other social issues won't become a commonplace, tangible and significant part of church life, for example.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Moderate ain't radical.
Mark Wuntoo used the term 'radical' in his title, but I don't think he meant what you do by the term. You probably mean something similar to incarnational, but as we've sort of agreed, conevo spirituality can be incarnational, and one doesn't necessarily have to leave conservative evangelicalism to serve the poor or the sick. What conevo spirituality can't be, by definition, is 'moderate'.
I think Mark was using 'radical' to refer to a somewhat abstract liberal theological approach rather than in your more liberationist/ incarnational sense.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think Mark was using 'radical' to refer to a somewhat abstract liberal theological approach rather than in your more liberationist/ incarnational sense.
Yes. I see the spectrum as fundamentalist / conservative evangelical / liberal / radical and lots of in-betweens. It's, for me, a theological / belief system although, of course, lifestyles change too but not, I think, as smoothly through the spectrum (as has been pointed out).
Now I think about it, I seem to remember the phrase 'radical evangelicals' being tossed around in my young days: I think that referred to fundamentalists who had erred into conevo! But it might have referred to evangelicals who had got involved in community action.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
BTW, which British churches, in your opinion, are the best destinations for people going from 'conevo to radical'? I don't just mean in terms of their theological position, but also their culture, welcome, community life, rituals, etc?
I get the impression from the Ship that in England almost all roads lead to the CofE, despite the tensions involved in being part of a broad church. I find this a fascinating indication of how the English 'religious market' has largely failed to provide sufficient numbers of attractive, diverse, well-resourced, 'radical' congregations in other denominations.
The Quakers are the most radical alternative, but perhaps they're off-putting to some Christians whose style, if not their theology, remains a bit more traditional. Then there are the Unitarians, but they don't seem to have much visibility.
It would be interesting to come across any research that talks about 'conevo to radical' church switching in the UK (as opposed to the rest of the world). Googling doesn't suggest that anyone has really focused on this issue, although there are some interesting bits of information here and there.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I get the impression from the Ship that in England almost all roads lead to the CofE, despite the tensions involved in being part of a broad church. I find this a fascinating indication of how the English 'religious market' has largely failed to provide sufficient numbers of attractive, diverse, well-resourced, 'radical' congregations in other denominations.
I don't really think its a failure specific to the UK as such. Creating "attractive, diverse, well-resourced, 'radical'" congregations (and actually by extension denominations) requires a lot of resources and man power. The density of Christianity in the UK makes this fairly hard (and it's marginal in other places) and as the CofE is relatively accepting of difference, the people inclined towards such movements find it easier to find a home in the CofE.
[ 23. February 2018, 22:31: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
There's only Oasis in Waterloo. Otherwise join a char evo Anglican congo and subvert it. Or, better, stay where you are. And subvert it. That's a calling.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I get the impression from the Ship that in England almost all roads lead to the CofE, despite the tensions involved in being part of a broad church. I find this a fascinating indication of how the English 'religious market' has largely failed to provide sufficient numbers of attractive, diverse, well-resourced, 'radical' congregations in other denominations.
I don't really think its a failure specific to the UK as such.
Well, FWIW, the USA seems to have a much stronger radical/liberal presence. I understand that some Episcopalians as well as the Churches of Christ and the Unitarian Universalists fit into this category, and perhaps some others. The openness and strength of the American religious market and the need for some historical churches to distinguish themselves from popular evangelicalism has probably contributed to this.
And the Scandinavian Lutheran churches are very liberal. This has been put down to the close involvement of the secular state in church life (at least until quite recently) plus the fact that these churches are paid for by the state. They don't need evangelical money.
In England I do agree that it's easier to find a home in the CofE, but let's not forget that for a time, Nonconformity was growing in numbers and power. It sought to offer alternatives to the CofE. What's interesting to me (but perhaps not to others) is how and why this changed. The Nonconformists generally suffered secularisation more deeply than the CofE.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There's only Oasis in Waterloo. Otherwise join a char evo Anglican congo and subvert it. Or, better, stay where you are. And subvert it. That's a calling.
It may well be a calling. The problem is that the journey towards radicalism tends to pass through moderate liberalism. Experience and research show that this process often weakens churches.
AFAICS there needs to be a strong awareness of the the many internal and external challenges a church will have to deal with if it's considering going down this route. Subversion alone risks creating conflict, division and misunderstanding otherwise. You obviously need the church leadership to be on board.
As I said above, though, the CofE is probably a good starting point. Its charevo element appears to have more money and a more youthful, dynamic demographic than others. Although the MOTR Nonconformists in many places already see themselves as committed to social justice, I think they'll be hard pressed to do much more than they are doing. They've been losing members and money for a long time, and sooner or later that undermines a church's mission, radical or otherwise.
[ 24. February 2018, 00:23: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, FWIW, the USA seems to have a much stronger radical/liberal presence. I understand that some Episcopalians as well as the Churches of Christ and the Unitarian Universalists fit into this category, and perhaps some others.
You mean the United Church of Christ—the descendant of the Congregationalists (including the Puritans) and the Evangelical and Reformed (aka German Reformed) Church—not the Churches of Christ. There’s a big difference.
And many would include at least some Presbyterian (PCUSA), Lutheran (ELCA), United Methodist and even American Baptist congregations, depending on how radical/liberal you’re thinking.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I don't really think its a failure specific to the UK as such.
Well, FWIW, the USA seems to have a much stronger radical/liberal presence. I understand that some Episcopalians as well as the Churches of Christ and the Unitarian Universalists fit into this category, and perhaps some others.
So the (at least originally) quasi-ethno-national regional churches which assume some of the role of the CofE (and run a similarly broad church) provide the vehicle for the "attractive, diverse, well-resourced, 'radical'" in the way that the CofE and CoS does. Most states weren't Rhode Island.
At the very least these movements find a home within such denominations - though viewed a little uncharitably, one could posit that they require rather more resources to run that could be easily provided by the movement itself (most of whom aren't big enough to fund seminaries, a press or two and so on).
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
This may have been said already on this thread. I haven't been following it. But it's quite a bad misuse of language to use 'liberal' and 'radical' to mean less and more extreme points on the same Christian spectrum. The Little Brothers of Jesus (followers of the inspiration of Charles de Foucauld) are Christian 'radicals' by almost any meaning of that word, but they aren't exactly 'liberal' in any of the various meanings people might give it, however imprecise.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Yes, we mentioned above that for some people 'radical' means liberationist or incarnational, while 'liberal' refers to a more abstract theological approach to the Bible. But the distinction isn't always made.
My experience is that in some historical churches the liberationist/radical approach frequently does go hand in hand with a certain biblical liberalism. AFAIUI the South American RC liberation theologians promoted their own blend of both. They weren't the most 'traditional' of RCs.
Moreover, the kind of liberationist radicalism that Martin60 espouses is very affirming with regards to SS relationships. That won't always be the case when more traditional church groups are doing the work. Having said that, I think there has to be a degree of pragmatism in all social ministries these days, especially if the secular authorities are involved with funding, referrals or training, etc. Presumably, only the wealthiest conevo church can run a huge social ministry that bypasses the state completely and hence avoids contact with equality regulations, etc.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, FWIW, the USA seems to have a much stronger radical/liberal presence. I understand that some Episcopalians as well as the Churches of Christ and the Unitarian Universalists fit into this category, and perhaps some others.
You mean the United Church of Christ—the descendant of the Congregationalists (including the Puritans) and the Evangelical and Reformed (aka German Reformed) Church—not the Churches of Christ. There’s a big difference.
Yes, you're right. I knew my terminology was inaccurate there. I should have checked it.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0