Thread: How To Be A Bad Christian Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023279
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
There is a new book coming out by Dave Tomlison called How To Be A Bad Christian......And A Better Human Being.

Reviewed on St Paul's Cathedral website like this:

quote:
Lots of people think that being a Christian is being a ‘good person’ – going to church a lot, or believing in a list of strange things, or following certain rules.

Dave Tomlinson thinks being a Christian isn’t about any of that, and that following Jesus is a lot easier, and more fun, than most people think.

How to Be a Bad Christian (Hodder 2012) is his guide to, among other things, how to talk to God without worrying about prayer, how to read the Bible without turning off your brain, how to think with your soul rather than trying to follow rules, and ultimately about being the person you’ve always wanted to be, following a God you’ve always hoped is on your side
I'm intrigued by the idea.

I certainly think following Jesus is more fun than most people make it out to be.

Is this bloke worth a read? Or does he chuck out the church with his theology?
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
It's certainly an interesting premise and I would imagine it could be helpful starting point for certain outreach ministries, but I'm wary of such an individualistic approach to what it means to be part of God's family. For me family is a key word - it's not about goodness in particular, it's about living in relationship with God and with others through God's power, and naturally the outcome is behaving in a way most people would describe as good.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I'm hooked.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
It's the bloke who used to be a house-church leader, coined the term "Post-Evangelical" in his book of that name, and finally ended up as a CofE vicar in London. He's pretty theologically orthodox (Catholic lite with evangelical roots) and socially liberal (read "inclusive"), AFAIR, so alright by me, as they say.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Is this bloke worth a read? Or does he chuck out the church with his theology?
I think the latter. There are clues in the review which suggest all is not well, for example:
  1. "how to talk to God without worrying about prayer" - what's that supposed to mean?
  2. "how to read the Bible without turning off your brain" - does that mean an orthodox interpretation is the equivalent of having one's brain switched off?
  3. "...and ultimately about being the person you’ve always wanted to be, following a God you’ve always hoped is on your side" - something fundamentally wrong here - does he mean being a christian is about doing what you want and hoping God is pleased?

I may of course be wrong, but if so he needs to change his advertising agent.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Is this bloke worth a read? Or does he chuck out the church with his theology?
I think the latter. There are clues in the review which suggest all is not well, for example:
  1. "how to talk to God without worrying about prayer" - what's that supposed to mean?
  2. "how to read the Bible without turning off your brain" - does that mean an orthodox interpretation is the equivalent of having one's brain switched off?
  3. "...and ultimately about being the person you’ve always wanted to be, following a God you’ve always hoped is on your side" - something fundamentally wrong here - does he mean being a christian is about doing what you want and hoping God is pleased?

I may of course be wrong, but if so he needs to change his advertising agent.
It makes good sense to me. Prayer is associated with guilt inducing ideas in many people's minds. Talking to God cuts neatly round the dutiful and worthy preconceptions we may have and says clearly what it's all about.

It's predominantly Evangelicals who are most guilty of reading the bible with their brains turned off. I think it's a common fault.

And becoming the person you always wanted to be? I can see why that might alarm some fearful souls, but think of 'my yoke is easy' or 'for freedom Christ has set us free!' or 'Love God and do what you will,' or coming down 'where we ought to be.'
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Is this bloke worth a read? Or does he chuck out the church with his theology?
I think the latter. There are clues in the review which suggest all is not well, for example:
  1. "how to talk to God without worrying about prayer" - what's that supposed to mean?
  2. "how to read the Bible without turning off your brain" - does that mean an orthodox interpretation is the equivalent of having one's brain switched off?
  3. "...and ultimately about being the person you’ve always wanted to be, following a God you’ve always hoped is on your side" - something fundamentally wrong here - does he mean being a christian is about doing what you want and hoping God is pleased?

I may of course be wrong, but if so he needs to change his advertising agent.
It makes good sense to me. Prayer is associated with guilt inducing ideas in many people's minds. Talking to God cuts neatly round the dutiful and worthy preconceptions we may have and says clearly what it's all about.

It's predominantly Evangelicals who are most guilty of reading the bible with their brains turned off. I think it's a common fault.

And becoming the person you always wanted to be? I can see why that might alarm some fearful souls, but think of 'my yoke is easy' or 'for freedom Christ has set us free!' or 'Love God and do what you will,' or coming down 'where we ought to be.'
Jesus' yoke is easy because it involves death to self and sin, though. 'Being the person you always wanted to be' seems at odds with Jeremiah 17:9 and Romans 6:11. Jesus' death and resurrection being necessary in the first place means that serving God and serving ourselves* are mutually exclusive.

*serving ourselves = serving ourselves only, since of course we get good things from serving God
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Is this bloke worth a read? Or does he chuck out the church with his theology?
I think the latter.
He describes himself as 'post-Evangelical'. That gives a clue about the experiences he has come through.
quote:

There are clues in the review which suggest all is not well, for example:
  1. "how to talk to God without worrying about prayer" - what's that supposed to mean?
I know way too many people who pray with a conscious effort to do so for longer and louder than everyone else. 'Look how mighty a wo/man of prayer I am'. No, I'm not convinced, Dave Tomlinson neither. I can't speak for God, but He hears everyone's prayers.
quote:
  • "how to read the Bible without turning off your brain" - does that mean an orthodox interpretation is the equivalent of having one's brain switched off?
    • It means studying the Bible for yourself, rather than taking the party line.
    quote:
  • "...and ultimately about being the person you’ve always wanted to be, following a God you’ve always hoped is on your side" - something fundamentally wrong here - does he mean being a christian is about doing what you want and hoping God is pleased?
    • Being the person you want to be and doing anything that floats your boat are very different: there's the 'being' and 'doing' dichotomy for a start. The hope of salvation ought to convince you that God is 'on your side' and wants you to be you, not some cartoon cut-out conformist, pew-filler.
    quote:

    I may of course be wrong, but if so he needs to change his advertising agent.
    Give him some mileage, though your's varies from it considerably.
     
    Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
     
    I've been a bad Christian for as many years as I care to remember. It's so good to see that Dave Tomlinson has caught up. [Biased]
     
    Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
     
    quote:
    Is this bloke worth a read?
    Judging by his last book ("Re-imagining Chistianity"?...something like that), no. I wanted to like it, having heard that his post-evangelicalism book was decent, but it was literally the most flimsy, vacuous thing I've ever had the misfortune to read (and I used to mark undergraduate essays for a living [Razz] ). Mercifully I've blanked most of the details from my mind, but I vaguely remember a poorly argued and spectacularly uncritical Liberal Theology 101 rehash, written by someone who seemed to think that ideas which had been floating around for half a century were New, Shiney and The Future [here ends my Rant in E Minor].

    So no, I won't be rushing out and buying this one...

    [ 28. June 2012, 17:05: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
     
    Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
     
    Opposite view from me - having read his previous book and heard him speaking I'd say it's worth a read! (Personal preference etc etc)
     
    Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Evensong:
    There is a new book coming out by Dave Tomlison called How To Be A Bad Christian......And A Better Human Being.

    Reviewed on St Paul's Cathedral website like this:

    quote:
    Lots of people think that being a Christian is being a ‘good person’ – going to church a lot, or believing in a list of strange things, or following certain rules.

    Dave Tomlinson thinks being a Christian isn’t about any of that, and that following Jesus is a lot easier, and more fun, than most people think.

    How to Be a Bad Christian (Hodder 2012) is his guide to, among other things, how to talk to God without worrying about prayer, how to read the Bible without turning off your brain, how to think with your soul rather than trying to follow rules, and ultimately about being the person you’ve always wanted to be, following a God you’ve always hoped is on your side
    I'm intrigued by the idea.

    I certainly think following Jesus is more fun than most people make it out to be.

    Is this bloke worth a read? Or does he chuck out the church with his theology?
    The whole "personal relationship with Jesus Christ good/religion bad" thing is one of the more ridiculous tropes of the evangelicals. Most of the New Testament talks about living together as a community of believers.
     
    Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Mockingale:
    The whole "personal relationship with Jesus Christ good/religion bad" thing is one of the more ridiculous tropes of the evangelicals. Most of the New Testament talks about living together as a community of believers.
    And except for an hour a week, few Christians go very far towards that admirable end.

    If Christ is to be your Saviour, isn't it worth trying to get to know Him better?
     
    Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
     
    I saw a couple of talks last year by Dave Tomlinson when he was writing this book, one was based on this and called "How to be a Bad Christian". If I remember correctly, he was reflecting on his experiences as a North London vicar and how so many people said they were bad Christians because they weren't in church and weren't doing the expected Christian things. He thought that many of them were being good Christians in many ways and that beliefs in God have been so caught up church directions that we've lost touch with what being a Christian means. He was suggesting ways to be better Christians and change the ways we do church to enable this.

    That talk was incredibly inspiring, so was his parish away day on Re-enchanting Christianity.
     
    Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Mockingale:
    The whole "personal relationship with Jesus Christ good/religion bad" thing is one of the more ridiculous tropes of the evangelicals. Most of the New Testament talks about living together as a community of believers.
    And except for an hour a week, few Christians go very far towards that admirable end.

    If Christ is to be your Saviour, isn't it worth trying to get to know Him better?
    There's a difference between promoting personal devotion as complementary to communal worship, and claiming that communal worship is an obstacle to knowing Christ. And maybe that's more the fault of some editorial license with the title than the contents of the book itself.
     
    Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
     
    How to be Bad Christian was Dave Tomlinson's own title - it's what he was calling it over a year ago, when he came to talk to us about the ideas. I am not sure quite how it came about, because I suspect it came out of the planning of the talk with the Rector here.
     
    Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
     
    Don't forget that "Bad" is one of those words where, for a while, it was cool to use it to mean the exact opposite. It was a while ago tho...
     
    Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :
     
    Sounds a bit like that "Hate religion but love Jesus" guy on YouTube. Just playing around with words to sound new and exciting and "relevant". There is nothing new under the sun.
     
    Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
     
    His previous books have been so-so.

    Someone, who shall remain anonymous, did say that he eats babies and that the money he stumped up to publish this book came from his people trafficking syndicate.
     
    Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Mark Betts:
    Don't forget that "Bad" is one of those words where, for a while, it was cool to use it to mean the exact opposite. It was a while ago tho...
    Wicked!
     
    Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Johnny S:
    His previous books have been so-so.

    Someone, who shall remain anonymous, did say that he eats babies and that the money he stumped up to publish this book came from his people trafficking syndicate.
    [Two face]

    Interesting....but given he's not on Youtube providing recipes for baby stew or selling books that give sordid accounts of his life as a people trafficker, or seeing visions of how happy people are to be trafficked, I'll have to discount your anonymous source until such time as there is some more "smoke" to evidence a fire.
     
    Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Evangeline:
    Interesting....but given he's not on Youtube providing recipes for baby stew or selling books that give sordid accounts of his life as a people trafficker, or seeing visions of how happy people are to be trafficked, I'll have to discount your anonymous source until such time as there is some more "smoke" to evidence a fire.
    Fair enough.

    I hope you realise that I shared those views simply out of the public interest.

    Think of the children.
     
    Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Johnny S:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Evangeline:
    Interesting....but given he's not on Youtube providing recipes for baby stew or selling books that give sordid accounts of his life as a people trafficker, or seeing visions of how happy people are to be trafficked, I'll have to discount your anonymous source until such time as there is some more "smoke" to evidence a fire.
    Fair enough.

    I hope you realise that I shared those views simply out of the public interest.

    Think of the children.
    Of course, after all some church leaders in our city might show a surprising lack of discernment and invite Mr Tomlison to Sydney to tell us how to run our lives. We wouldn't want false prophets here, now would we?

    [ 29. June 2012, 06:43: Message edited by: Evangeline ]
     
    Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Evangeline:
    Of course, after all some church leaders in our city might show a surprising lack of discernment and invite Mr Tomlison to Sydney to tell us how to run our lives.
    Yes, that is how to be a bad Christian.
     
    Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
     
    quote:
    Opposite view from me - having read his previous book and heard him speaking I'd say it's worth a read! (Personal preference etc etc)

    Yes, mileage varying and all that. I read it as part of a group some of whom loved it (I felt like the bad fairy picking holes in it every week [Razz] ). I just found that even on issues where I sympathised with him (universalism for example), his arguments were piss poor. I came away with the impression that he had brought many of the traditional weaknesses of charismatic evangelicalism with him, particularly the over-excited, uncritical love of New! Shiney! Except in his case New! Shiney! are ideas which have been commonplace in liberalish circles for donkey's years. It perhaps says something about the insularity of his particular charismatic evangelical subculture that he thinks he is being original.
     
    Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
     
    quote:
    he thinks he is being original
    My impression of Dave Tomlinson is that he is trying to be a bit of a British Brian Mclaren. I do find Mclaren more original than him, but then again they are in completely different contexts.

    Mclaren's liberal church that he founded is entirely independent and contrasts so strongly with ultraconservative US churches, whereas Tomlinson is within the established, and generally much more liberal, CofE. That may have nothing to do with it, of course, and it may just be a difference in personalities!
     
    Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
     
    I didn't get the impression that Dave Tomlinson thought he was being particularly original, certainly not from talking to him (and I really must send him the photos), but that he was trying to put a voice to a number of ideas that were floating around. He really wasn't surprised that a lot of what he was suggesting could be found with us.

    Maybe he's trying to give the liberal churches the agenda that everyone is saying they lack? [Razz]

    We read Re-enchanting Christianity very differently, which may be why I have a less jaundiced view of it. We all took it away to read and then were asked to bring ideas back to a meeting, where it was acknowledged that we wouldn't agree with everything in the book. We had more of a discussion about it and how to take ideas forward with Dave Tomlinson on an away day (so 10am-3pm with breaks). It was more a stimulus for how to take the church and parish forward.

    <tangent>The sermon on How to be a Bad Christian was the annual Lenten guest sermon last year. This sermon was established back in the 1600s with a bequest (the preacher to be paid £1) and was revived a few years back. The preachers vary year to year.</tangent>
     
    Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
    quote:
    he thinks he is being original
    My impression of Dave Tomlinson is that he is trying to be a bit of a British Brian Mclaren.
    He'd need a time machine for that as he founded his first church-not-that-he'd-call-it-that over a decade before McLaren's first book was published. He'd probably never heard of him.


    quote:


    Mclaren's liberal church that he founded is entirely independent and contrasts so strongly with ultraconservative US churches, whereas Tomlinson is within the established, and generally much more liberal, CofE.
    The history is almost exactly the other way round. McLaren was an academic for a while, and then became the pastor of a church. Tomlinson was brought up in a strict conservative-evangelical Brethren church, then was involved in the charismatic-evangelical movement, then started "Holy Joes", then studied theology, then got ordained as an Anglican - he was well into middle age and had already pastored more than one independent church before he joined the CofE.
     
    Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
     
    quote:
    I didn't get the impression that Dave Tomlinson thought he was being particularly original, certainly not from talking to him (and I really must send him the photos), but that he was trying to put a voice to a number of ideas that were floating around.
    I did get the impression from the book that he wasn't sufficiently aware of how much the ideas he was putting forward were already very Establishment in the mainstream denominations. Universalism for example is hardly edgy once one moves beyond the confines of evangelicalism. I guess I was looking for a clear argument as to how his particular ideas would re-enchant/re-whatever Christianity and was left none the wiser at the end of the book. I know two many people of opposing views who could shred him in about six seconds in any kind of debate.
     
    Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
     
    quote:
    He'd probably never heard of him.
    That's probably true!

    quote:
    The history is almost exactly the other way round.
    I really meant the situation now (rather than their respective histories) at least as far as Dave Tomlinson's situation was concerned when he wrote Re-enchanting Christianity ('08). I think perhaps the point I was trying to make (badly) was that when Tomlinson wrote this book he was writing it from the position of a CofE vicar. Whilst some people might feel what he was saying was not particularly original per se it probably was quite new for the CofE.
     
    Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by ken:
    The history is almost exactly the other way round. McLaren was an academic for a while, and then became the pastor of a church. Tomlinson was brought up in a strict conservative-evangelical Brethren church, then was involved in the charismatic-evangelical movement, then started "Holy Joes", then studied theology, then got ordained as an Anglican - he was well into middle age and had already pastored more than one independent church before he joined the CofE.
    Do you have any idea what his ecclesiology is? Is he working from within the institution of the church or is he advocating stepping out of it....?
     
    Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Yerevan:
    quote:
    I didn't get the impression that Dave Tomlinson thought he was being particularly original, certainly not from talking to him (and I really must send him the photos), but that he was trying to put a voice to a number of ideas that were floating around.
    I did get the impression from the book that he wasn't sufficiently aware of how much the ideas he was putting forward were already very Establishment in the mainstream denominations. Universalism for example is hardly edgy once one moves beyond the confines of evangelicalism. I guess I was looking for a clear argument as to how his particular ideas would re-enchant/re-whatever Christianity and was left none the wiser at the end of the book. I know two many people of opposing views who could shred him in about six seconds in any kind of debate.
    Mmmmnnnn...... I don't know much at all about "Post Evangelicals" but I suppose all things post evangelical would be exciting and new to someone that has finally discovered "the truth" outside Evangelicalism. [Biased]

    Still not sure what to make of this bloke.

    But Giles Fraser has called him one of his gods. And as Giles Fraser is one of my gods I should probably give it a go.

    I'm intrigued by the title because I'm a bit with hatless on this one.

    Abundant life and all that.

    Alot of Christians seem to take their religion as a chore, a burden and it can become something that makes them bitter and hard.

    Alot of other Christians take their religion joyfully and live that life joyfully.

    Perhaps (like other areas of life) it's just a personality thing.......who knows.....
     
    Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
     
    Dave Tomlinson is working within the Church of England. He's reaching out to his community - more from the Church website
     
    Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
     
    Yes. Thanks Curiosity.

    I realised he is a minister. But that doesn't necessarily tell you much about ecclesiology. [Big Grin]

    (For an extreme example we could go Bishop Spong [Biased] )

    Which is kinda weird actually. Spong was a lifesaver for me when I first started in the church. Made things understandable for this heathen.

    Since I've been in the meta-narrative longer now, my language has changed.
     
    Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
     
    That website gives the recent talks, the services held by that church and descriptions of what the church does - how is that not going to help you find out something about his ecclesiology?
     
    Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Evensong:
    quote:
    Originally posted by ken:
    The history is almost exactly the other way round. McLaren was an academic for a while, and then became the pastor of a church. Tomlinson was brought up in a strict conservative-evangelical Brethren church, then was involved in the charismatic-evangelical movement, then started "Holy Joes", then studied theology, then got ordained as an Anglican - he was well into middle age and had already pastored more than one independent church before he joined the CofE.
    Do you have any idea what his ecclesiology is? Is he working from within the institution of the church or is he advocating stepping out of it....?
    Since he chose to join the CofE from an independant church, my guess is he's pretty committed to working within it.

    It's interesting (to me, anyway) that his theological journey to a very open and generous evangelicalism happened at almost the same time as my similar journey did, though, at the time, I had never heard of him. Something in the water?
     
    Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
     
    quote:
    Mmmmnnnn...... I don't know much at all about "Post Evangelicals" but I suppose all things post evangelical would be exciting and new to someone that has finally discovered "the truth" outside Evangelicalism.

    Its funny. I think there is a certain type of post charismatic evangelical (I've met them in real life too) who bring a lot of their charismatic evo baggage with them when they leave. Part of that is the ignorance of anything pre-1960. They don't always get that they are...gasp...not the first people ever to question evangelicalism, and they are in fact treading an extremely well worn path. Tomlinson's contention that we need to abandon the hidebound irrelevance of institutional religion and have a nice experiential relationship with Jesus looks very charismatic evo to me. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree [Razz]
     
    Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Evensong:
    Do you have any idea what his ecclesiology is?
    Seeing as he went from Brethre, th House Church, to a connexion od independent Charismatic churches, to "church in a pub", to being an Anglican vicar, I think its a fair bet that his ecclesiology has been fluid :-)

    Anyway, he's hardly unknown to some of the regular posters here, as more than one of them has been a member of his congregation, and one couple had their wedding at his church. I don't know him personally, though I've met him more than once and I've heard him speak, and I've been to his church - once or twice to the pub meetings they did years ago. I'm not a big fan of his "post-evangelical" thing, but then I suppose I wouldn't be.
     
    Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
     
    Dave Tomlinson has been a lifeline to many.

    i wouldn't say he's 'liberal' - it's just that some evangelicals are so guarded and narrow that they throw around the label 'liberal'.

    I relate very strongly to his 'post evangelicalism' because I regard myself as a 'recovering anglo-catholic.'
     
    Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
     
    When I heard Dave speak back in 1997 when he was on a speaking tour for Post-Evangelical he came across as incredibly angry and bitter (he was rude and dismissive of one old man who tried to understand things better during the Q & A for example).

    However, talking with a friend who attends his church now I understand that he is much different now, 14 years later.
     
    Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Yerevan:
    quote:
    Mmmmnnnn...... I don't know much at all about "Post Evangelicals" but I suppose all things post evangelical would be exciting and new to someone that has finally discovered "the truth" outside Evangelicalism.

    Its funny. I think there is a certain type of post charismatic evangelical (I've met them in real life too) who bring a lot of their charismatic evo baggage with them when they leave. Part of that is the ignorance of anything pre-1960. They don't always get that they are...gasp...not the first people ever to question evangelicalism, and they are in fact treading an extremely well worn path. Tomlinson's contention that we need to abandon the hidebound irrelevance of institutional religion and have a nice experiential relationship with Jesus looks very charismatic evo to me. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree [Razz]
    I don't know anything about Tomlinson other than what I've read on this thread but the above makes me think that he might be doing Christianity a great service by publishing books and telling people about this well worn path which seems to remain invisible to many. So many Christians and the "unchurched" believe that Christianity IS conservative evangelicalism and who could blame them, most of the books and publicity does go to that branch of the church (they don't mind retelling a well worn story) . More people need to know that there are other ways of being Christian and the more narratives out there that tell the story, the better IMO. Although that doesn't excuse his arguments being poorly put together, which might undermine the cause.
     
    Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
     
    I believe I will have to buy the book.

    If only to be able to quote it in a sermon. [Two face]
     
    Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
     
    quote:
    So many Christians and the "unchurched" believe that Christianity IS conservative evangelicalism and who could blame them
    ...which mystifies me. None of the major Protestant denominations in the UK are uniformly evangelical, let alone conservative evangelical. Most aren't even majority evangelical. The Christian in the UK who gets most airtime is Rowan Williams. The woolly agnostic vaguely lefty C of E vicar seems to be a deeply ingrained cultural stereotype. I have a slightly harsher theory, that Christianity happens to be out of fashion, and that the evangelical stick is a useful one to beat it with. If Joe Blogs thinks that all Muslims are crazy fundies then we say that Joe Blogs is prejudiced. If Joe Blogs thinks that all Christians are crazy fundies we think that Joe Blogs really has a bit of a point and we Christians are to blame. How come?
     
    Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
     
    <tangent in answer to Yerevan>Partly Richard Dawkins and his on-going attack on Christianity, which attacks the sort of Christianity that believes in Young Earth Creationism, says evolution is a myth and all that jazz. Plus if you say the Sinner's Prayer you can become a Christian.

    And having worked in a number of places where the Christian voice - as in the people who speak out - is all about this, there aren't many ways of countering it. You either quietly say, "well, not all of us believe that" and get into a major row about not being a proper Christian if you don't see Genesis Chapter 1 as actual historical gospel truth, or you keep quiet and that myth is perpetuated.</tangent>
     
    Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
    That website gives the recent talks, the services held by that church and descriptions of what the church does - how is that not going to help you find out something about his ecclesiology?
    Have meandered around quite a bit. Still haven't quite found what I'm looking for.

    Might do in his sermons.

    But it's not Sunday and listening to one would be a sin.
     
    Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
     
    I personally cringe at the "bad Christian" bit, because it goes hand-in-hand with that other pet-peeve of mine, the attitude that the institutional church is all about controlling the people.

    But it's important to know what audience this book is intended for, and I don't think it's intended for me or for most people commenting on this thread so far. I think it's for people who have a distorted image of what it means to be a Christian, and think it's about following rules, or about being a nice person, going along with societal expectations, etc. Hopefully he winds up revealing that being a bad that kind of Christian is actually being a good Christian.
     
    Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
     
    Certainly worth getting and reading...if only to be able to discuss it with some understanding.


    fwiw, i think lots of us need stirring up every now and then...if only to realise how silly we are sounding.
     
    Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
     
    But you're a bit of a post evangelical too aren't you Ethne? [Paranoid]

    (Or perhaps I'm confusing you with someone else.....Hairy Biker of the same avatar....)
     
    Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
    Certainly worth getting and reading...if only to be able to discuss it with some understanding.


    fwiw, i think lots of us need stirring up every now and then...if only to realise how silly we are sounding.
    We get quite a few refugees from the big evangelical church up the road. they are usually seeking a more sacramental but not too rigid doctrinal fellowship.

    Tomlinson's book has been the basis of several good discussions.
     
    Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
     
    I've not read this book so can't comment on that, but my experience of Tomlinson's work is that, although it's not startlingly original or new, if it catches you at the right time it really hits the spot. I read 'Post-Evangelical' several years after it was published, when I was struggling with living within the evangelical, charismatic church scene that I was part of, and it was an absolute revelation, that I wasn't the only one (which is certainly what it felt like at the time). As I say I was several years behind the times of even the book, never mind the thoughts behind it, but it was a godsend at the time. I think it helped that Tomlinson had come from a charismatic evangelical background that I was totally familiar with (although it was a different church to mine, but he certainly hung around in his time with the people who led mine) so I was able to relate to much of what he said. I wonder if I didn't have that background whether the book would have made anything like the same impression, probably not. But I was, and remain, grateful for the ministry of that particular book at that particular time, and so have kept something of a soft spot for Tomlinson ever since.

    [ 01. July 2012, 19:05: Message edited by: Jack the Lass ]
     
    Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
    I wonder if I didn't have that background whether the book would have made anything like the same impression, probably not.
    Yes. I remember that you, and some other people whose opinions I respected very much, read the book and were very impressed by it. But when I read it I didn't feel like that at all. To me nine-tenths of it looked too obvious to be worth saying and the rest was the same-old liberal theology I'd been arguing against for years. OK, that's an exageration, its better than that, but I did find the book underwhelming.

    And at the time it seemed to me that that was because the book was about him slowly leaving the particular sort of Christian culture that he'd been brought up in, with charismatic evangelicalism as a step on the way. But I wasn't brought up in that kind of Christian culture, or any kind of christian culture at all.

    And I'd never been part of a charismatic-evangelical church, and, despite being an evangelical doctrinally I'd spent most of the 1980s either going to the local CofE parish church - which tended to be Anglo-Catholic, or else not a member of any church at all. And I've never really socialised much with people at church. Much more likely to be found in a pub or a club.

    So I was never part of whatever it was that Dave Tomlinson was rejecting, so his rejection of it had no emotional resonance for me. But his apparent rejection of some orthodox Christian doctrines did, because to me he seemed to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    Its as if someone had told him that "Good Christians" don't drink or dance or do science and he believed them. So when he found he could do those things without the sky falling in he started to doubt the other things that he'd been taught by those people as well, even if there was (from an outsiders point of view) no obvious connection between them.
     
    Posted by Ian M (# 79) on :
     
    Full disclosure: Publisher speaking (though not actually my book or author)

    The idea for this book came from Simon Barnes's 'How to be a Bad Birdwatcher' where he basically says, 'So you think you don't know anything about birds? Well, would you recognise a robin, blackbird, blue tit, etc... so that's 10. Now what about a woodpecker, owl, magpie... See, you know more than you think!'

    In the same way, Dave's experience in parish ministry is of people at funerals, christenings etc. saying 'I'm not good enough to be a Christian', and him just longing to take them from where they are, rather than beating them around the head with their failings.

    Obviously the hope is not to make bad Christians out of 'good' ones, but rather to help people get past the idea that you have to be perfect before God will even want to start a conversation. Along the way, there are plenty of opportunities for committed Christian types to be refreshed in thinking about the practice of their faith.

    I'd better not get involved with the discussion - generally the kiss of death for such things - but wanted to set out a little more about what the book itself is trying to do. Hope it helps.
     
    Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
     
    Cool. Thanks for the input Ian M. Very helpful.
     
    Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
     
    I read 'The Post-Evangelical' a few years after it was published and wondered what all the fuss was about ...

    I was distinctly underwhelmed by it, too.

    I suspect, though, that Dave Tomlinson is more impressive in the flesh than on paper. I was at the Bible Week where the split between 'his' fellowships and the Bryn Jones/Harvestime axis became apparent ... but I'm not sure he spoke on that occasion - but he was 'on the platform' as it were ...

    I think it's hard for anyone who hasn't 'been there' to grasp how hard a journey it must have been for him ... so I'm inclined to cut him a fair amount of slack for that reason.

    Ken is probably right that whilst he (Ken) is quite conservatively evangelical in theology he hasn't been exposed to the particular subculture as much as people who've been involved with groups like the Brethren and the restorationist 'new churches' have - or even people involved in some elements of evangelical Anglicanism ...

    Consequently, it's very easy for people who've not been involved with the sort of churches Tomlinson was involved with early on to scratch their hands and think, 'So what's the big deal?'

    Yerevan has identified this.

    I'm not sure that Tomlinson has abandoned aspects of 'orthodox Christianity' though, as ken asserts - he may have abandoned some evangelical shibboleths but that's the same thing ... the two things are not coterminous or synonymous. You can be 'orthodox' (small o) without being an evangelical.

    That said, I wouldn't be surprised if you pushes the boundary a bit in places - in reaction to his background - but I can't remember anything in 'The Post-Evangelical' that suggested that he was abandoning creedal Christianity, denying the divinity of Christ or of the Holy Spirit etc. He did repudiate a very literal approach to the scriptures, if I remember rightly, but I don't remember anything shocking or outrageously left-field in the book at all ... if anything it was a fairly mild critique of aspects of a particular form of evangelical sub-culture.

    I don't see Tomlinson as some kind of latter day John Hick or anything like that.

    I think those of us here who are more accustomed to the 'mainstream' sometimes forget how radical someone like Tomlinson would appear to certain conservatives. My brother attended the ordination as an Anglican deacon of a friend of his in South Wales who came from a restorationist background. Some of the people from her 'house-church' days abstained for participating in the eucharist at the cathedral for conscientious reasons and others expressed surprise that there were 'quotes from the Bible' in the prayers and liturgy ...

    Anyone would have thought she'd gone off to Tibet and become a Buddhist nun.

    I can understand why Tomlinson could be bitter and aggressive at first, but I'm glad to hear he's mellowed.
     
    Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
     
    Sorry, I meant 'they are NOT the same thing ...'

    Evangelicalism is a form of conservative orthodox Christianity, but it is not the ONLY form ...

    Oranges are not the only fruit.
     
    Posted by Ian M (# 79) on :
     
    Yep. Killed it. Sorry everyone
     
    Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
     
    Not sure you did kill it. Evensong wanted an answer and yours was better than mine, obviously. And in the absence of anyone having read the book, there wasn't a lot to discuss.

    I can't compare The Post-Evangelical to Re-enchanting Christianity because I've only read the latter, and I think others have only read the former, so all we'd do is talk past each other.

    And criticisms levelled at Dave Tomlinson saying he's not being rigorous enough, when in his foreword he says the origins of the book are a series of talks at St Luke's Church and that his
    quote:
    interest lies in finding expressions of Christianity that are both rooted in the originating sources of the Christian faith and which also make sense to people to day
    He doesn't say he's providing a new theology, more that he's "looking both backwards and forwards" to find "dialectic between the two" [the past and contemporary culture] and refers interested people on to other books find out more about that dialectic. I don't think, certainly in the book I've read, that he's trying to say "this is the way it is", more "this is the way it could be, does this chime with you?"

    I suspect having heard him talk a few times last year that I would recognise a couple of chapters in the new book.
     
    Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Ian M:
    Yep. Killed it. Sorry everyone
    Yep, daider than a doornail. The tangents were highly entertaining. Pity they subsided.

    [Devil]

    Just kidding! It's nice to have closure!
    [Big Grin]
     


    © Ship of Fools 2016

    Powered by Infopop Corporation
    UBB.classicTM 6.5.0