Thread: Is it open season on evangelicals? 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=023949

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
This may have come up before, so please forgive me if I'm resurrecting a dead horse.

Kaplan Corday has asserted that evangelicals are the pariahs of the Ship and that they get criticised and dismissed in ways that would not be tolerated in the case of other Christian traditions.

I can be as guilty as stereotyping particular forms of evangelical as anyone else, but having come up through that tradition myself, I'd like to think that any remarks here (however cynical) are those of a 'critical friend' rather than someone who is antagonistic towards evangelicals simply because they are evangelicals ...

I'm definitely post-evangelical now (if not pre-catholic ) but evangelicalism remains within my spiritual DNA and I am profoundly grateful for aspects of it. I wouldn't be a practising Christian at all if it hadn't been for evangelicalism.

I'm wondering whether there is any substance in Kaplan's concern. By and large - apart from some inveterately uber-liberal types who seem unable to accept that anything good can come out of evangelicalism - I don't think that the evos come in for undue stick here. If they get any stick at all it's probably because they deserve it to some extent and also because anything that makes particular truth claims or which represents a large and very vocal constituency is going to come in for criticism.

If I ever criticise any aspect of evangelicalism my intention (believe it or not) is always one of trying to correct imbalances or bring about a greater degree of nuance - rather than to stop people being evangelicals in the first place. Heaven forfend that I would even attempt the latter.

Am I alone in thinking that Kaplan has overstated his case?
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It's probably true that some groups within Evangelicalism, for example 'Sydney Anglicans', get both barrels from a sizeable number of people on the Ship. I've never felt such an attiude commonly expressed against broader evangelicalism - at least, no more than other sections of the Church can get it.

To be honest, from where I sit (placing myself firmly within Evangelicalism) a lot of the time we're our own worst enemy. I've previously said that we (that is evangelicals) have made doing and saying things that make others go "please, don't let people think I'm with them" into an art form.
 

---

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I think this is just about visibility and variety. There are many different kinds of evangelical, some of which do not even recognise others who self-define as evangelicals as Christian. Even (sometimes especially) when their beliefs are very close.

This then means that there is conflict - both with the evangelicals and between evangelicals and others. Often this is simply about a lack of commonality in definitions.

I've not been around for a long time on this board, but there have been discussions about charismatics and inerrancy and leadership and so on. All of these can broadly be seen as being 'evangelical', but there is considerable disagreement within evangelicalism about what these terms mean.

I guess I've seen less attacks on Roman Catholicism than I've seen elsewhere, but I wouldn't describe Ship of Fools as having 'open season' on any particular group of evangelicals or any other belief in particular.

Everyone seems to get attacked fairly vigorously! Evangelicalism just seems to appear more because there are (maybe) more nuances we are aware of in Evangelicalism than other kinds of Christianity.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Lord have mercy Gamaliel.

Please, please find a different tune to play on occasion.
 

---

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Lord have mercy Gamaliel.

Please, please find a different tune to play on occasion.

---

Thus spake the wisdom of Evensong
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
For an ignoramus like me, please describe what's included under the label 'evangelical', and what are the grey areas.
 

---

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...I'm definitely post-evangelical now (if not pre-catholic ) but evangelicalism remains within my spiritual DNA and I am profoundly grateful for aspects of it. I wouldn't be a practising Christian at all if it hadn't been for evangelicalism...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:
Would anyone be a practising Christian now if it hadn't been for evangelicalism? Your self-definition as 'post-evangelical' seems to suggest you consider yourself a customer of all the previous evangelists stretching right back to John of that title. Whose mission is it to ensure that there will be practising Christians in the future?

Btw, that's a question from a non-Christian whose own religion has been historically hampered by a pervasive assumption, contrary to the explicit message of its founder, that people are somehow just supposed to 'get it' all by themselves.

---

I think you're missing the distinction between "evangelist" and "evangelical". All Christians are meant to be evangelists, evangelical is rather different, at least in modern usage.
 

---

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
I think anyone is fair game on the ship. Catholics have been ripped to shreds on many threads, as have the many brands of evangelicalism. The evangelicals that catch it the most are those that push the "flashier" side of evangelicalism, i.e. healings, speaking in tongues and other miracles. Some from this branch also tend to be rather judgmental about their fellow Christians to the point of questioning whether they are Christians. I've even been asked "are you sure you're a Christian?" as I don't follow the party line on a few issues (gay marriage, political alignment, etc.). Mainline protestants have also caught the rare lashing being referred to as "dead or dying on the vine". Instead of feeling like everyone is against you, be prepared to explain and defend your beliefs.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
When the Ship is at its best I think the antipathy tends to crystalise around certain doctrines common to evangelicalism. However, when evangelical proponents of those doctrines present them assertively the antipathy can get quite personal quite quickly. This is doubly the case when evangelicals come across in an aggressively doctrinaire manner. I know that I am often guilty of this.

However, there are some Shipmates who do appear to have a particular and aggressive dislike for evangelical shipmates and not just the evangelicalism of those shipmates.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
I, Too, thought Kaplan was overstating his case. The truth is, we evangelicals (for so I self describe) are a fractious bunch, and I have certainly had more board conflicts with other evos than I have ever had from Catholics, Orthodoxen, or even liberals

I also think there is a powerful trend amongst evangelicals that interprets any criticism as "persecution".
 

---

Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :
 
Evangelicals are picked on? Really? As a mostly lurker, ISTM that when criticized, the Evos put upon, the Catholics scream persecution, and American Episcopalians are put out for being made the whipping dogs as the root cause of the troubles in the Anglican Communion. And all have whined about being picked on from time to time. Do Orthodoxen catch flack too? I haven't paid enough attention to notice. I haven't seen much said about the Reformed one way or the other. Does that cover the spectrum? Comments are by turns fair, snarky, cynical, angry, mean, or over the top, YMMV as to which is which of course. Evos get dumped on for being too conservative, Episcopalians get dumped on for being too liberal. I think pretty much everyone is selective about what they decide offends them. The ship seems pretty equal opportunity to me.

[ 12. October 2012, 14:51: Message edited by: Wilfried ]
 

---

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
When I see in the guidelines of Purgatory that all points of view are welcome, I always
think of the Animal Farm line about all animals being equals but some being more equal
than others.

Generally people with points of view which are not that popular here are accepted as long as they are mild and polite, while those with popular views can get away with more ranting or an aggressive style.
I mean accepted by posters generally, rather than by the hosting.

I would say this applies most of all to political conservatives but to some extent it applies to evangelicals and Roman Catholics too. DaronMedway refers to his own style, and while it is a bit aggressive for me, I think it would
pass unremarked by most people if his subject matter were different.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilfried:
Do Orthodoxen catch flack too? I haven't paid enough attention to notice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilfried:
Evangelicals are picked on? Really? As a mostly lurker, ISTM that when criticized, the Evos put upon, the Catholics scream persecution, and American Episcopalians are put out for being made the whipping dogs as the root cause of the troubles in the Anglican Communion. And all have whined about being picked on from time to time. Do Orthodoxen catch flack too? I haven't paid enough attention to notice. I haven't seen much said about the Reformed one way or the other. Does that cover the spectrum? Comments are by turns fair, snarky, cynical, angry, mean, or over the top, YMMV as to which is which of course. Evos get dumped on for being too conservative, Episcopalians get dumped on for being too liberal. I think pretty much everyone is selective about what they decide offends them. The ship seems pretty equal opportunity to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilfried:
Do Orthodoxen catch flack too? I haven't paid enough attention to notice.

---

Not nearly enough. We feel unloved.

---

Precisely. The Orthodox, the Quakers, the Reformed, and everyone else can complain about overlooked, neglected, and ignored. See? Everyone is equally unhappy. As the for the atheists, they're just trying to be provocative.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I hope ken and Pete173 don't feel singled out if I use them as examples. They are both of them unapologetic about their evangelical convictions, but don't appear as if they live in an evangelical bubble unrelated to the world that the rest of us inhabit. Indeed sometimes a comment from one of them will bring me up sharp, just as I have decided that I agree with them on 100% of matters, by a theological dissonance which reminds me that we have quite different perspectives on the Christian faith. But we are still able to relate as fellow-Christians, as IRL we are members of the same Church.

I don't always get that feeling from some evangelicals on the Ship, but there are many more like ken and Pete.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
There are times when some points of evangelical practice are criticised - the recent stuff about the Alpha Course, for example.

We also get roundly jumped on for PSA of course.
And there are other aspects of it that give me the impression that some of the more liturgical churches think we are a bit 'lite' and not very intelligent.

But hey, I'd rather be in a lively Born-Again Filled with the Spirit assembly than a draughty, dusty ol' church with people dressed in the Tudor style singing in a dead language!

I don't really think that way and I do feel loved here on the Ship - even though I'm a non-sacramental member of the Separated Brethren'
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilfried:
Do Orthodoxen catch flack too? I haven't paid enough attention to notice.

---

Not nearly enough. We feel unloved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
persecuting people for beliefs that even they don't understand and can't explain is too much like hard work.

---

Nah. The current level of brainless, facile Muslim-bashing in this country gives lie to this.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Thanks folks - some interesting points from all parts of the spectrum here ...

I think posting style has got a lot to do with it, which is why some evos seem to get more or less stick than others - although I will concede that moonlitdoor, Mudfrog and Daronmedway make valid points about the way that particular evangelical doctrines can be like a red-rag to a bull here.

Personally, Orthophile though I can be, I feel that the Orthodox get less stick than they deserve - probably, as daronmedway suggests, because the rest of us don't always understand them and they don't always understand themselves ...

A certain amount of exotica goes a long way towards getting you a get-out-of-jail-free-card. I've always been struck by how little stick the Swedenborgians get here compared to what they'd get if they were posting elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
I consider myself to be evangelical and on other (more Evangelical) boards I have been called a heretic, apostate, and not a Christian. At least that does not happen here. Those sort of Evangelicals do not post here; or they post in a way more suited to the culture of this board, or they do not last here.

But perhaps I am evangelical and not an Evangelical.
I know I am not an Anglican, or a card carrying member of any denomination, so I am not sure what label others would pin on me.
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
I'd be interested to know whether you're all talking about people who fall under this label:
wiki definition whether or not you call yourselves 'evangelical'.

I'd also like to know why anyone wants to put themselves into a category of Christian. Isn't this divisive in itself?

Just wondering.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
But perhaps I am evangelical and not an Evangelical.

---

Maybe you're Schrödinger's Evangelical and in quantum flux between the two states.
 

---

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I consider myself to be evangelical and on other (more Evangelical) boards I have been called a heretic, apostate, and not a Christian. At least that does not happen here. Those sort of Evangelicals do not post here; or they post in a way more suited to the culture of this board, or they do not last here.

But perhaps I am evangelical and not an Evangelical.
I know I am not an Anglican, or a card carrying member of any denomination, so I am not sure what label others would pin on mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I'd also like to know why anyone wants to put themselves into a category of Christian. Isn't this divisive in itself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye
I'd also like to know why anyone wants to put themselves into a category of Christian. Isn't this divisive in itself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But it seems the word 'Christian' can mean anything and nothing, and anyone who insists that it should have meaning is regarded as a divisive bigot. This kind of criticism is just so patronising and demeaning - not to mention absurd.

As far as I am concerned, anyone who does not believe in God is not a Christian, by definition. If that makes me divisive, then so be it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Personally, Orthophile though I can be, I feel that the Orthodox get less stick than they deserve - probably, as daronmedway suggests, because the rest of us don't always understand them and they don't always understand themselves ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I'd also like to know why anyone wants to put themselves into a category of Christian. Isn't this divisive in itself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
I left because I felt unwelcome here as someone who attended a New Frontiers church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It seems to me that to categorise ourselves as 'evangelical', 'charismatic', 'conservative' etc may be divisive. It doesn't seem to help us to bond together as fellow Christians, does it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilfried:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilfried:
Do Orthodoxen catch flack too? I haven't paid enough attention to notice.

---

Not nearly enough. We feel unloved.

---

Precisely. The Orthodox, the Quakers, the Reformed, and everyone else can complain about overlooked, neglected, and ignored. See? Everyone is equally unhappy. As the for the atheists, they're just trying to be provocative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Heavenly Anarchist.

Recognise that there are some people who get their jollies from criticising others. The internet attracts them. I hope that there are enough of us not like that.

---

True, but I think there may be other factors involved as well. Purgatory is a place where you have to expect that someone will disagree with your views. Those who are used to a more homogeneous religious culture may not be comfortable with that, or may take it as a personal attack (especially when there seems to be a lot of emotion behind it - which sometimes is a clue that it is a sensitive issue to the other person.)

It may be that some evangelical groups are less used to having people question their beliefs. This seems like the cause of a lot of the ITTWACW comments: if all the Christians that you meet regularly hold the same view of something, it can come as shock to find that many others don't.

It isn't always comfortable to have to defend your views all the time: some handle it well, others don't. We have a lot of Shipmates and lurkers who take a great interest in reading the discussions, but rarely feel contributing to them.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
Apologies for taking so long to respond, but to quote Prince Philip, I have been busier than a blue-arsed fly.

The only reason I raised the topic was because I was so amazed at Percy B’s diffidence, in another post, about criticizing evangelicals.

It was the first time I had encountered such an attitude on the Ship.

To say that I or other evangelicals are “persecuted” would be a gross trivialization of that term, given the very real and tragic persecution that millions of Christians suffer globally, and besides, no-one is making us participate on the Ship – a popular saying about heat and kitchens (galleys?) springs to mind.

Having made those qualifications, I would still assert that evangelicals cop more stick here than members of other traditions, and I don’t believe that it is because of our theology, which is just as scriptural, credal, historical, coherent and defensible as any other.

Someone used the term snobbery, and I suspect that this, along with a smidgen of jealousy, goes some way to explaining the phenomenon.

Evangelicalism, particularly in its charo/penty forms, has held its own or expanded in recent decades while other traditions, particularly liberal mainstream Protestantism, are in terminal decline.

Because the common people hear it gladly, it has become just a teensy bit c-o-m-m-o-n in its aesthetics, and very pragmatic, demotic and flexible in how it does church.

The result is a Christian equivalent of secular downmarket mass culture, in which vast numbers of believers can’t tell their pyx from their thurible.

FWIW, I share some of the misgivings – I prefer Gregorian chant to Hillsong, and icons to chintzy banners – but am not convinced that in the end it really matters.
 

---

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :
 
I was musing only yesterday that to many on the Ship "evangelical" is synonymous with "narrow minded bigot" and that is really who cops the most flack here.
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
@Gamaliel:
My story is similar to yours. I once confessed that I sometimes google search news articles on "Church of England" and "Evangelical" looking for malicious content for me to gloat over.

However, like you, I owe my christianity to evangelical anglicanism. My priest says I should be thankful rather than critical, and that I simply "outgrew" it.

I don't think it's just evangelicalism which gets more than it's fair share of criticism. RCs, independants, NFs, all take plenty of flack on the ship. Perhaps this is because of the overbearing intellectual liberal bias on board the ship.

Nowadays, I tend to let the liberals (and atheists) have the last word if topics are just going round and round in circles and getting more and more aggressive. It seems to keep them happy!
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
I've had to rewrite this post several times as I don't want to sound like an overcritical whinger but it is something I would like to get off my chest and now is as good a time as any.
I've just returned to the Ship after a 4 year gap. I left because I felt unwelcome here as someone who attended a New Frontiers church. It seemed to me like I was wearing a great big bullseye whenever I came into Purgatory. Feelings are very subjective things and not a good measurement of reality but I, never the less, felt bullied and it was enough to make me leave. I also felt angry that people appeared to be seeing my church and not me. And that is ironic as my previous church was the famous Anglican parish church of Trumpington - I know very well that no church is perfect.
I don't claim my experience is the experience of all new Frontiers types here, I can merely explain how I felt. It might just mean I happen to be a particularly sensitive person (I am) and that purgatory isn't the place for me. If that is true, it is better I come to terms with it and deal with the issue.
Now I lurk mainly in Heaven instead.

---

Please don't leave again Heavenly Anarchist. As you've seen, a few NF threads come up now and again, where the vast majority of posts are negative and critical - but they are not much fun if we never hear from the other side.

Just because NF-bashers always seem to get the last word (with plenty of other NF-bashers agreeing with them) doesn't mean that posts from yourself and a few other NF-ers won't get read or considered. Get involved!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Heavenly Anarchist - New Frontiers has come in for a lot of stick on these boards. I'm sorry if you've felt intimidated by that or if anything I've ever said here has offended or upset you.

Part of me thinks, though, that an organisation like NFI which, rightly or wrongly, sees itself as having a particular role and importance in the overall scheme of things, should man up and be prepared to take the stick it invites upon itself. Although I can understand how individuals within such an organisation could find that wearing - I know, because I spent 18 years in a similar church setting.

@Kaplan, I think there is something in the liberal smugness that you highlight but it's easy to drift to the other extreme and adopt a position of inverted snobbery. I've seen Pentecostals do this time without number - effectively making a virtue out of their own ignorance as it were.

I might be tempted to go further and suggest that it is also something of an Australian trait ... but that might be pushing things a bit too far ...

On balance, I think there is an element of 'establishment' snobbery towards independent groups such as the Brethren, the Sally Army and the Baptists too, to a certain extent. Baptist ministers I know have encountered it from Anglicans here in the UK.

But that's not the total picture.

It strikes me, forgive me if I'm wrong, that there is a certain defensiveness about your position - 'They don't like us, they must either be snobs or they must be jealous of our numerical success and our ability to connect with the common man ...'

Bollocks.

That certainly doesn't describe my own reactions/views towards evangelicalism - and like you, I'd prefer icons to cheesy banners and Gregorian chants to Hillsongs any day of the work, so does that make the pair of us snobs?

I s'pose ultimately the aspects that I would tend to diss within evangelicalism all have their parallels within the other traditions and I'd diss them there too were I more familiar with them.

I'm just not as familiar with the subcultures and practices of the other traditions to sit in judgement upon them. So to that extent it probably makes evangelicalism an easier target for me than any of the other traditions we could mention.

@Mark Betts - thanks for the confession. I'm not being holier than thou but I've never gone surfing the web seeking out the dirt on any particular tradition that I've moved on from or am familiar with. I sound-off here on the Ship (hence Evensong's jibe further up thread) but in real life I'm just as friendly and eirenic towards evangelicals of all stripes as I am to any other form of Christian.

I also suspect that some of the attitudes towards evangelicalism expressed on these boards come from 'Pond differences' and the way that evangelicals and fundamentalists are conflated in some parts of the world - when the two are not coterminous elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Having made those qualifications, I would still assert that evangelicals cop more stick here than members of other traditions, and I don’t believe that it is because of our theology, which is just as scriptural, credal, historical, coherent and defensible as any other.

Someone used the term snobbery, and I suspect that this, along with a smidgen of jealousy, goes some way to explaining the phenomenon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
I've had to rewrite this post several times as I don't want to sound like an overcritical whinger but it is something I would like to get off my chest and now is as good a time as any.
I've just returned to the Ship after a 4 year gap. I left because I felt unwelcome here as someone who attended a New Frontiers church. It seemed to me like I was wearing a great big bullseye whenever I came into Purgatory. Feelings are very subjective things and not a good measurement of reality but I, never the less, felt bullied and it was enough to make me leave. I also felt angry that people appeared to be seeing my church and not me. And that is ironic as my previous church was the famous Anglican parish church of Trumpington - I know very well that no church is perfect.
I don't claim my experience is the experience of all new Frontiers types here, I can merely explain how I felt. It might just mean I happen to be a particularly sensitive person (I am) and that purgatory isn't the place for me. If that is true, it is better I come to terms with it and deal with the issue.
Now I lurk mainly in Heaven instead.

---

quote:

---

Someone used the term snobbery, and I suspect that this, along with a smidgen of jealousy, goes some way to explaining the phenomenon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It seems to me that to categorise ourselves as 'evangelical', 'charismatic', 'conservative' etc may be divisive. It doesn't seem to help us to bond together as fellow Christians, does it?

---

No but it can help us to understand the broad brush-stroke outlines of someone's theology without having to reinvent the wheel every time we talk about it. Category words (aka nouns) are a necessary part of language.

---

I can accept this, thank you, but it seems to me that it may also foster prejudices and bring on assumptions based on the label. Every single one of us is different, and nobody fits into a box. If someone thinks of me as a liberal, they may take it as read that I hold a raft of views without engaging with me to find out.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Speak for yourself, Ramarius ...



Seriously, I think we are good pals now, but I wonder whether that would have been the case if you weren't already at the more reflective end of the NFI spectrum - and therefore, arguably, already on the way out of it ... ?

Looking back, I think I was on a trajectory that was to lead me beyond 'bog-standard evangelicalism' (if there is such a thing) long before I realised it myself.

But then, the aspects I appreciate about evangelicalism the most are those that it shares in common with traditional creedal Christianity wheresoever it may be found. That isn't to suggest that evangelicalism doesn't have any valuable distinctives in its own right - of course it does.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
but I wonder whether that would have been the case if you weren't already at the more reflective end of the NFI spectrum...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...I'm definitely post-evangelical now (if not pre-catholic ) but evangelicalism remains within my spiritual DNA and I am profoundly grateful for aspects of it. I wouldn't be a practising Christian at all if it hadn't been for evangelicalism...

---

Would anyone be a practising Christian now if it hadn't been for evangelicalism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye
I think that it's a good thing to call ourselves Christian if that's how we see ourselves. Whether it means anything or nothing must surely be subjective. I didn't suggest that anyone who considers it to have meaning is a divisive bigot, nor did I mean to be patronising.

It seems to me that to categorise ourselves as 'evangelical', 'charismatic', 'conservative' etc may be divisive. It doesn't seem to help us to bond together as fellow Christians, does it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I'd be interested to know whether you're all talking about people who fall under this label:
wiki definition whether or not you call yourselves 'evangelical'.
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

I'd also like to know why anyone wants to put themselves into a category of Christian. Isn't this divisive in itself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
other traditions, particularly liberal mainstream Protestantism, are in terminal decline.

---

I wouldn't have a clue where I stand on the theological spectrum, and to be quite honest I very rarely remember identities on the ship ... maybe 20 or so have stuck in my egotistitical and solipsistic mind

One or two of those have been crusaders. There was a gaggle of Sydney Anglicans, defined both geographically and theologically, who crusaded around a few years ago. Two flounced because someone said "fuck" (ITTWACWS) and one was expelled. Deservedly for all sorts of reasons, but in the end because he called an admin a dickhead or some such. Not smart. Death by admin.

There have been one or two atheist crusaders - my former fellow countryman The Atheist is the one I best recall - who crusaded a bit. Usually they have either mellowed, converted, or flounced because we theists are irredeemable fuckwits and they've proved their self-importance to, er, themselves.

IngoB has sometimes been accused of being a crusading Catholic (since he became one) but on the whole I have found his posts - the ones I can understand - erudite and thought provoking. He has copped some flak and a few hell calls though - and taken them on the chin. That's always good.

There are one or two hellion dogpilers (as Foaming Draught of blessed memory - not the evo to whom I was referring, though he too eventually committed death by admin - used to call them) who have never indicated that they have half a brain cell attuned to any world view but enjoy pouring poo, because that is the extent of their skill base. They too are crusaders, though I suspect they crusade only to aggrandize their own egos, which are of course the centre and sum-total of the universe.

The common theme is crusading. I don't visit Purgatory often these days - it's too close to my day job - but if I started crusading for whatever my theological position is, refusing to engage with others, then sooner or later I would have enough ammunition to be assured of a healthy persecution complex. Then I could flounce, happy because you are all hell-bound cretins, or I could stay to maintain my martydrom complex. Either way my ego would be massaged and I would be a legend in my own lunch hour.

But no, I don't think evos are persecuted. Occasionally their views are pilloried or at least challenged, but the ones with integrity just roll with the punches - like the Orthodoxen, Catholics, Atheists, Inner-lightists and God is a big Tomato-in-the-groundists. And they stay, and we enjoy the conversations.

Fucktards, on the other hand, tend to be pounced on. Can't imagine why. Maybe because they're fucktards.

[ 14. October 2012, 11:43: Message edited by: tclune ]
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
ooops - sorry - I got so carried away with my last spiel I forgot to make reference back to the quote I cited in my link ... my only reference to that was that it was a slightly loaded comment, and, though often made, is not always backed up by facts.

Things like that throwawayb statement can after a while signify a problem with a poster's attitudes, and if they become a habit then some poo can begin to fly. They may not even realize why it's flying, because they are so unable to escape their presuppositions.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

I think there would be far more Christians if it wasn't for evangelicals of all stripes.[/qb]

---

quote:

---

The message that "this is true because it says so in the bible" is a guaranteed turn-off for almost everyone who doesn't understand what the bible does say.

---

I was brought to the faith by an Evangelical youth organisation. One of the first things I learnt was "The Bible says ..." is the start of a discussion, not the end. Evangelical regard for Scripture demands that we seek our hardest to understand what Scripture says (which is a heck of a lot more than just remembering the words).

I suggest that in your 30 years in the wilderness you encountered only a vocal minority of evangelicals. To accuse all of us of being the same is a big stretch.
 

---

Posted by CJS (# 3503) on :
 
I'm a evangelical Sydney Anglican and everyone loves us to bits. Especially Evangeline, who thinks we're fab.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:
ooops - sorry - I got so carried away with my last spiel I forgot to make reference back to the quote I cited in my link ... my only reference to that was that it was a slightly loaded comment, and, though often made, is not always backed up by facts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I was brought to the faith by an Evangelical youth organisation. One of the first things I learnt was "The Bible says ..." is the start of a discussion, not the end. Evangelical regard for Scripture demands that we seek our hardest to understand what Scripture says (which is a heck of a lot more than just remembering the words).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I agree that labels can be divisive, but any kind of definition and meaning, being particular, is divisive, because logically it excludes some concepts. If the definition of a word excluded nothing, then it would mean nothing. Take the word 'British', for example. This word has a particular meaning, and therefore it excludes most people. Thus it could be viewed as 'divisive'. But clearly 'divisive' is not the right description of this kind of exclusiveness. It simply describes a person who fulfils certain criteria.

The same applies to 'Christian'. If someone says he is a Christian, but denies the existence of God, or the divinity of - or perhaps even the importance of - Jesus Christ, then what meaning does his Christianity have?

You talk about Christians bonding together, but we can only "bond together" if we have something meaningful and significant in common; in other words, if we have fulfilled certain criteria. For example, how could I, as a Christian, pray with someone who claimed to be a Christian, but who mocked the whole idea of prayer? How would that kind of bonding and fellowship work? Or who mocked the idea of the existence of God (yes, there are so called "Christian atheists")? Or what about trying to do a Bible study with a 'Christian' who poured scorn on the Bible?

If the term 'Christian' only has meaning on a subjective basis, then it follows that I, as a professing Christian, have the right to exclude people on a subjective basis (on the basis that I do not agree with their definition of 'Christian'). You can't have it both ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...and recognised 'the divine' as a spiritual dimension outside of himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That description of what "evangelical" means looks fair enough to me. And not so different from my own summary on this recent thread

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

"Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...and recognised 'the divine' as a spiritual dimension outside of himself."

What exactly does that mean? (considering he was a "Christian Atheist")

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I was brought to the faith by an Evangelical youth organisation. One of the first things I learnt was "The Bible says ..." is the start of a discussion, not the end. Evangelical regard for Scripture demands that we seek our hardest to understand what Scripture says (which is a heck of a lot more than just remembering the words).

---

And yet there is a tendency in (my experiences of) Evangelicalism to use 'The Bible says' as if it were an irrefutable argument. The whole proof-texting thing that says I can settle a discussion by throwing in a short Bible excerpt with no reference to the context or other Bible passages that seem to say something different.

---

quote:

---

So I re-opened the issue, read a lot of books, re-studied the Scriptures, and eventually came to believe that just as the Western church had been wrong on slavery, wrong on colonialism, wrong on environmental plunder, wrong on subordinating women, wrong on segregation and apartheid (all of which it justified biblically) ... we had been wrong on this issue. In this process, I did not reject the Bible. In fact, my love and reverence for the Bible increased when I became more aware of the hermeneutical assumptions on which many now-discredited traditional interpretations were based and defended. I was able to distinguish "what the Bible says" from "what this school of interpretation says the Bible says," and that helped me in many ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I was brought to the faith by an Evangelical youth organisation. One of the first things I learnt was "The Bible says ..." is the start of a discussion, not the end. Evangelical regard for Scripture demands that we seek our hardest to understand what Scripture says (which is a heck of a lot more than just remembering the words).

---

And yet there is a tendency in (my experiences of) Evangelicalism to use 'The Bible says' as if it were an irrefutable argument. The whole proof-texting thing that says I can settle a discussion by throwing in a short Bible excerpt with no reference to the context or other Bible passages that seem to say something different.

---

I think there's often mutual misunderstanding here. Many Evangelicals will say "The Bible says..." to begin a discussion - the assumption is that the discussion will revolve around the interpretation of the Bible, and so other people will respond with other passages, consideration of context, other possible interpretations etc. It's not intended to shut down discussion, but to centre it around the Bible.

This is certainly my approach if I quote the Bible and offer the interpretation in a thread on the Ship - I'm not quoting the Bible as trump card, but offering up an interpretation as an argument to be considered and discussed.

However, many non-evangelicals hear this as a power-grab, a shutting-down of the discussion. Also, for non-evangelicals, interpreting the Bible is less likely to be the central issue in any given discussion. We understand the terms of the discussion differently, and need to be aware of that if we're to avoid talking past each other.
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I don't think it's open season on evangelicals, but I do think there's a strong tendency for very broad brushes to be used, generally negatively. Hairy Biker's post, for example. Such a portrayal denies the existence of balanced, positive, thinking evangelicals (e.g. Alan Cresswell, Barnabas62 and many others, hopefully self included, albeit a long way down the list).

As someone else said, "evangelical" is often (or often feels to be) a Ship synonym for "narrow minded fundamentalist bigot". It can be a bit wearing after a while, especially if one self-identifies as evangelical but (hopefully) isn't a narrow minded bigot. Folk seem to value nuance, but don't seem to apply it to the E-word (E-bomb?, the precursor to the F-bomb?).

Of course, as an evangelical, it's perfectly OK for me to use the term disparagingly about the fundie-nutter-bigot arseholes giving the rest of us a bad name. Because I know and apply the nuance. When anyone else does it, I assume it's an unjustified personal slur and how very dare they! A bit like it being fine for me to slag off my mum for some of her foibles, but I'll take down with extreme prejudice anyone outside the family who does the same. Partly an irrational thing, but partly because from the 'inside' there's a tacit acknowledgement of all the good whilst digging at the bad, from the 'outside' it often seems the bad is unjustly viewed as the whole story.

IME "evangelicals" are as homogenous as "Anglicans" or "Roman Catholics" or even "Christians" - i.e. not very much at all. So the short-hand term of abuse is just a bit lazy and grating (when it lands).

And, finally, one is obviously somewhat more sensitive to brickbats aimed (unfairly or otherwise) at a group one identifies with, than when they're aimed equally at another group who are more like rarely seen relatives.

[Edit to correct Barnabas62's name. Oh the shame]

[ 16. October 2012, 11:46: Message edited by: Snags ]
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Alan Cresswell and Barnabas62 - agreed, and thanks for your responses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Many Evangelicals will say "The Bible says..." to begin a discussion - the assumption is that the discussion will revolve around the interpretation of the Bible, and so other people will respond with other passages, consideration of context, other possible interpretations etc. It's not intended to shut down discussion, but to centre it around the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How much is the fact that a goodly number of the liberals, MoTRs and non-evangelicals generally are also ex-evangelicals? [Puts up hand]

Naturally enough one tends to have the bad things about it - what drove one to no longer be one - in ones mind when it comes up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I've never thought of myself as an evangelical, not even knowing what it meant, but let's see:

Personal conversion: tick, not an instant event but a progressive one.

High regard for Biblical authority: semi-tick (see the separate thread on this).

Emphasis on teaching re: proclamation of the cross and resurrection: tick, after all this is at the centre of our faith and worth dwelling on.

Actively sharing the gospel: tick, but without crusading and not necessarily with words at all.

Am I an evangelical?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Do you want to self-identify as evangelical?

In terms of the quadrilateral. The first one is more "belief that conversion, a definitive decision to follow Christ, is essential for all Christians" than "I was converted", I'm not sure which of those you meant. And, no, there's nothing in evangelicalism that says conversion has to be instantaneous - indeed many of us would stress that the decision to follow Christ is something we do everyday. This is held in contrast to what's probably a straw man of "I'm a Christian because I was born into a Christian family and attend church" - I'm not sure if there's anyone who would say that that's adequate without some commitment to follow Christ.

The activism part of evangelicalism is an odd one in some ways. Evangelicals would be emphatic that you can not earn your salvation, we are saved by grace alone. Yet, we would also be the first in the line to do something. We can't earn our salvation, but we can sure as heck put in our all to work hard to bring in the Kingdom of God. Of course, that includes active evangelism. But, it will also include a heavy emphasis on providing quality teaching to everyone so they can grow in their understanding of the faith, an heavy emphasis on practical action to help those in need, a strong concern for social justice issues. It's not an accident that over the last few centuries evangelicals have been over-represented in working in setting up hospitals and schools in developing nations, in supporting a range of development projects, in campaigning against slavery and other social injustice, Bible translation etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How much is the fact that a goodly number of the liberals, MoTRs and non-evangelicals generally are also ex-evangelicals? [Puts up hand]

Naturally enough one tends to have the bad things about it - what drove one to no longer be one - in ones mind when it comes up.

---

I've never thought of myself as an evangelical, not even knowing what it meant, but let's see:

Personal conversion: tick, not an instant event but a progressive one.

High regard for Biblical authority: semi-tick (see the separate thread on this).

Emphasis on teaching re: proclamation of the cross and resurrection: tick, after all this is at the centre of our faith and worth dwelling on.

Actively sharing the gospel: tick, but without crusading and not necessarily with words at all.

Am I an evangelical?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is there anything exclusive to evangelicalism in your view that is not followed by people who identify under any other Christian label?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is there anything exclusive to evangelicalism in your view that is not followed by people who identify under any other Christian label?

---

No, I think all of the evangelical distinctives are found in other parts of the church, though whether they're all found together in a non-evangelical part of the church I'm not sure.

The ones more likely to be distinctively evangelical are Biblicentrism and Crucicentrism.

The evangelical emphasis on the Bible is often expressed in terms of "infallibility" or even "inerrancy" and "supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct". Those outside the evangelical tradition are a) less likely to describe the Bible in those terms and b) more likely to hold additional authorities (eg: Creeds, the Pope, Church Fathers) in higher regard - although it is one common failing of evangelicals to recognise that we also have a body of tradition that we hold as highly as others hold their traditions.

And, the evangelical emphasis on the Cross can also become unbalanced. You can find some evangelicals who would hold almost the whole ministry of Jesus as nothing more than setting the scene for Good Friday, and that the events of Easter Sunday and afterwards are nothing more than a vindication of the sacrifice on the Cross. The vast majority of us wouldn't go that far, but we would still probably work on an assumption that the Cross shows the love of God more than the Incarnation. If asked the question "what must I do to be saved?" then we would say "put your faith in Jesus who on the Cross enabled your sins to be forgiven" (or similar) - so we struggle with "sell all your possessions and give to the poor" more than other traditions, even though that's the answer Jesus himself gave! Even simply "follow Jesus" would be seen as inadequate as it doesn't mention the cross. That's even without venturing into the whole PSA mess, which for the record I hold as an imperfect model among a collection of imperfect models - and, when we're dealing with God's dealings with people all models are imperfect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How much is the fact that a goodly number of the liberals, MoTRs and non-evangelicals generally are also ex-evangelicals? [Puts up hand]

Naturally enough one tends to have the bad things about it - what drove one to no longer be one - in ones mind when it comes up.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Barnabas62


"I get frustrated with myself sometimes. Why is it that in the presence of liberals I find myself becoming more conservative, whereas in the presence of conservatives I find myself becoming more liberal?"

---

This resonates powerfully with me. Of course, it could just be that I'm a contrary so-and-so
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
I find it very odd that the two biblical quotes offered in this entire thread - or at least the second page of it that I've just read through - were used in ways that are typical of proof texters, and wrong interpretations IMNSHO!

At its worst Evangelicalism is, like any other religion, a self referent self confident system of human thought that discourages thought or engagement with the real world. At its best it is a helpful structure that enables people to grow in their knowledge of God. For me the starting point is:

quote:

---

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
...I suppose, because it is described as the most excellent way, I tend to think that agape is our over-riding guideline. Its earlier translation of "charity" tells us something as well. Generosity of heart and spirit. Unselfish love. Looking to the needs of others...

---

quote:

---

9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

---

quote:

---

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You see, this is just where the non-evangelicals get their 'ammunition' from! Such generalisations, inaccurate reflection and sweeping statements do nothing to show the truth of what evangelicals believe!

These are all half truths and cynical comments!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would love to be able to combine the best of evangelicalism with the best of the more sacramental traditions - in theory it should be possible but in practice it seems fiendishly difficult ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Evangelicals - certainly in the UK - all give a high value to scripture but vary enormously in their views about what constitutes a sound hermeneutic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's nice to be nice. The modern emphasis is on being 'loving' - in contrast to the past where the emphasis was on being just and holy. Given that your emphasis is following the zeitgeist, I think you have to work VERY hard to justify your behaviour; Christians who conform to the standards of the world are... not going in a good direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given that your emphasis is following the zeitgeist, I think you have to work VERY hard to justify your behaviour.

---

• a crucifix on the rood screen with Mary, John and Mary Magdalene,
• 6 portrayals of Jesus: the annunciation, baptism of Christ, last supper, resurrection, Jesus ascended found in a reredos.
• In the east window behind that there are the nativity, ascension and crucifixion.
• There's a window by the font showing the baptism of Christ.
• The window next to that are portrayals of the baptism of the Eunuch, Jesus with the children (suffer the children come unto me) and the presentation of Jesus to the Temple
• there's a relief of Mary and baby Jesus
• the window showing Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and John and the Virgin Mary also has Jesus as a baby and child.
• the window showing Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea in two panels flanking the resurrected Jesus also show Jesus alive as small panels underneath
• 14 stations of the cross on the pillars

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's nice to be nice. The modern emphasis is on being 'loving' - in contrast to the past where the emphasis was on being just and holy. Given that your emphasis is following the zeitgeist, I think you have to work VERY hard to justify your behaviour; Christians who conform to the standards of the world are... not going in a good direction.

---

It seems to me that you want us to return to being under laws. The standards of the world are that it's nice to be nasty rather than the golden rule.
It won't do to use just a few selected verses out of context from the discourse in Matthew Chapters 5-7 which tell us that we have to go much further than just keeping a list of laws to justify ourselves. The golden rule is the way we are to fulfill the law and the prophets. You want us to be enslaved in laws our forefathers could not keep.

---

No - I'm suggesting that if Jesus issues a COMMAND then it's just conceivably possible that He meant us to keep it...

The core problem is that humans are innately inclined to look for a way round what God wants them to do, which is, of course, for their best. This is a classic example where 'the traditions of men' - be those suggestions like your about 'not being under law', or B's generalised 'agape' have the effect of torpedoing the clear words of scripture. AFAICS the parallel with Corban is exact...
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Ender's Shadow

I thought the commands to love God and our neighbour as ourselves (agape in the Greek) were the commands on which all the law and the prophets hang.

Therefore, to seek to see the law and the prophets through those commandments is to seek to see them through the over-arching principles which flow from our understanding of agape. That's not torpedoing scripture. It is the vital principle which protects us from being loveless about its contents. Such as those who would use the letter of the law re Corban to excuse meanness to parents.

The argument that "I can't afford to help you because of the devotion of my resources to the things of God"(e.g. tithing, sacrifice etc) is just an excuse for meanness isn't it? However it may have been justified by reference to other aspects of the law and the prophets, we can all see how unloving, how rationalising, it is.

In sharp contrast to this immortal summary from Ephesians 3.

"And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18 may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God."

Guess which Greek word for love is being used.

Without being rooted and grounded in love, we are likely to have some problems in grasping what scripture has to tell us about love of God and neighbour. That seems to me to be the means by which scripture is illuminated. Not torpedoed.

I'd say that was pretty clear. What's wrong with it?

[ 17. October 2012, 17:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
ES
The "command" is that we are to love one another and be a neighbour to all.
I place "command" in quotes because it is not a law, nor can we obey it unless God dwells in us (through the Holy Spirit if you like."

I assert that it is wrong-headed and completely misses the Gospel if you start listing out commands to obey, even if they were spoken by Jesus. You have not understood at all.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
That's an interesting take, Latchkey Kid. The Christian life is a calling to "be imitators of Christ and to live a life of love" or "walk in love", as it's put in Ephesians 5. (It's agape again).

So following Jesus in obedience does involve, at the deepest level, obedience to the commandment to love God and neighbour. That was Jesus' example. Even unto death. I think you are right that it is qualitatively different to following a set of rules for life. The nature of the command is "Follow me" - as Jesus put it to the disciples at the start of his ministry and re-emphasised with Peter at the end. "Do you love me? Then follow me."

In the process of "walking in love", we learn more about what love actually is, who Christ is, who our neighbour is.

Agape themes permeate the gospels and the letters, with good reason.
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
Let's try and move the focus off the word 'command' which is obviously causing more of an issue than it's worth. The point for me is that Jesus gives clear guidance that the remarriage of divorcees is a no-no. The question is how this relates to 'agape'; for me the need for this arises because the propensity of humanity to allow this, but it's not actually acceptable to God. If this is the case, then we have to ask how God would have indicated it other than how He has done? Is it not the most simple solution to see this guidance as arising out of God's amazingly high view of marriage vow, in contrast to our own willingness to go for relatively easy divorce and remarriage? That's the logic that makes sense to me - to my mind any other understanding to ignore the clear words of scripture.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Mudfrog - I would have said the same thing at one time. At the risk of sounding patronising, I think I've come to a greater understanding of why the RCs and the Anglo-Catholics have crucifixes with depictions of Christ hanging on them rather than an 'empty' cross. It doesn't mean that they're downplaying the resurrection any more than the evangelical emphasis on the cross ('we preach Christ crucified') means that evangelicals are downplaying the resurrection either.

That said, I've certainly come across very conservative evangelicals for whom the resurrection seems almost a bolt-on extra, an afterthought. Not in your particular Wesleyan tradition, it has to be said, but I've heard very conservative Baptists and others give this impression on many occasions.
 

---

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Let's try and move the focus off the word 'command' which is obviously causing more of an issue than it's worth. The point for me is that Jesus gives clear guidance that the remarriage of divorcees is a no-no. The question is how this relates to 'agape'; for me the need for this arises because the propensity of humanity to allow this, but it's not actually acceptable to God. If this is the case, then we have to ask how God would have indicated it other than how He has done? Is it not the most simple solution to see this guidance as arising out of God's amazingly high view of marriage vow, in contrast to our own willingness to go for relatively easy divorce and remarriage? That's the logic that makes sense to me - to my mind any other understanding to ignore the clear words of scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm a bit conscious that the thread has departed from its purpose

---

quote:

---

21 Does the Law disagree with God’s promises? No, it doesn’t! If any law could give life to us, we could become acceptable to God by obeying that law. 22 But the Scriptures say that sin controls everyone, so that God’s promises will be for anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ.

23 The Law controlled us and kept us under its power until the time came when we would have faith. 24 In fact, the Law was our teacher. It was supposed to teach us until we had faith and were acceptable to God. 25 But once a person has learned to have faith, there is no more need to have the Law as a teacher.

---

quote:

---

5 Christ has set us free! This means we are really free. Now hold on to your freedom and don’t ever become slaves of the Law again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Hairy Biker. Interested in your last post. What brought you out of the wilderness?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Evangelicals - certainly in the UK - all give a high value to scripture but vary enormously in their views about what constitutes a sound hermeneutic.

---

The Evangelical NT Wright says that Evangelicals are mostly misguided when they say they have a high view of scripture and actually debase it. Here in How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? Not that Evangelicals are alone in this.

---

quote:

---

But I still find two things to be the case, both of which give me some cause for concern. First, there is an implied, and quite unwarranted, positivism: we imagine that we are ‘reading the text, straight’, and that if somebody disagrees with us it must be because they, unlike we ourselves, are secretly using ‘presuppositions’ of this or that sort. This is simply naïve, and actually astonishingly arrogant and dangerous. It fuels the second point, which is that evangelicals often use the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ when they mean the authority of evangelical, or Protestant, theology, since the assumption is made that we (evangelicals, or Protestants) are the ones who know and believe what the Bible is saying. And, though there is more than a grain of truth in such claims, they are by no means the whole truth, and to imagine that they are is to move from theology to ideology. If we are not careful, the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ can, by such routes, come to mean simply ‘the authority of evangelical tradition, as opposed to Catholic or rationalist ones.’

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An analogy I've used before is to examine interpretations of the "all Scripture is God-breathed" verse. By "all Scripture" do we mean each individual passage, even verse, or the whole of Scripture in it's entirety?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
The translation "all scripture is inspired" can equally well be translated "all inspired scripture".;

Makes a difference.

And. anyway, the canon of Scripture was not decided when these words were written.

So what does "scripture" refer to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
The translation "all scripture is inspired" can equally well be translated "all inspired scripture".;

Makes a difference.

And. anyway, the canon of Scripture was not decided when these words were written.

So what does "scripture" refer to?

---

quote:

---

It's not relevant what other traditions do. It's about what we, as evangelicals do.

Hw many times have you heard a street evangelist proclaim the gospel with a message that can be summarised as "We are sinners, and there is a penalty to pay for our sin. But God loves us, and so sent his Son to die on the Cross to pay the penalty for our sins." A message that, although entirely true (IMO), does not need any mention of the three years of ministry that preceded the crucifiction, nor does it even need a resurrection except perhaps as a sign that the sacrifice was accepted by God. It's a true, but incomplete, message. I would bet that if you asked evangelicals to summarise the gospel message in 50 words or less that in the majority of cases you would have something not that different to the summary above, although most of us would want to add a caveat that "it's not a bad summary, but there's a lot more I would say is also important".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An analogy I've used before is to examine interpretations of the "all Scripture is God-breathed" verse. By "all Scripture" do we mean each individual passage, even verse, or the whole of Scripture in it's entirety?

---

Interestingly (to me) is that it is the interpretations of "God-breathed" which I have thought about. It appears that many equate God-breathed with God-written. I have found it hard to identify the metaphor used elsewhere of text, but I have just had another thought. God gives life by breathing into things. So we have life because God has breathed into us. (Indeed, I have heard a Jewish view that a person's life begins when they take their first breath as that is God breathing into them). So we might say that God breathes life into the scriptures. This is convenient for my viewpoint that truth does not reside in the text, and that the text is dead until the Holy Spirit breathes life into the reading/hearing and makes the text into 'the word from God' (lower case 'w' intended.

OTOH I have found this metaphor which thrills me appears to have little appeal to others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
If it is one thing that makes me cringe as an evangelical is hearing others give the message which amounts to.
"We have some good news for you, but we first have to tell you the bad news, or you wouldn't know you needed the good news.

On another board a person told me that this is what we have to do!

---

quote:

---

Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilean; the world has grown grey from thy breath;
We have drunken of things Lethean, and fed on the fullness of death.
Laurel is green for a season, and love is sweet for a day;
But love grows bitter with treason, and laurel outlives not May.
Sleep, shall we sleep after all ?
for the world is not sweet in the end

---

quote:

---

He was an old, old evangelist. He said, “You see where that building is right outside this building?”
I said, “Yeah.”
He said, “I used to preach there. The Spirit of God would come down and souls would be saved.”
I said, “Sir, please tell me about it.”
He said, “There wasn’t anything like this evangelism today.” He said, “We would preach for two and three weeks and give no invitation to sinful men. We would plow and plow and plow and plow the hearts of men until the Spirit of God began to work and break their hearts.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given that God gave the Jews the Torah which was their rule of life for over a thousand years, .[/URL]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
If it is one thing that makes me cringe as an evangelical is hearing others give the message which amounts to.
"We have some good news for you, but we first have to tell you the bad news, or you wouldn't know you needed the good news.

On another board a person told me that this is what we have to do!

---

Given that God gave the Jews the Torah which was their rule of life for over a thousand years, it would appear that presenting the good news of Jesus to people ignorant of the nature of God wasn't an option. Therefore it is not unreasonable to argue that there is some bad news - about sin and our rebellion against God - which needs to be articulated before presenting the good news. Note that this is Paul's approach on Mars Hill...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
<snip>The point for me is that Jesus gives clear guidance that the remarriage of divorcees is a no-no.<snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
If it is one thing that makes me cringe as an evangelical is hearing others give the message which amounts to.
"We have some good news for you, but we first have to tell you the bad news, or you wouldn't know you needed the good news.

On another board a person told me that this is what we have to do!

---

Given that God gave the Jews the Torah which was their rule of life for over a thousand years, it would appear that presenting the good news of Jesus to people ignorant of the nature of God wasn't an option. Therefore it is not unreasonable to argue that there is some bad news - about sin and our rebellion against God - which needs to be articulated before presenting the good news. Note that this is Paul's approach on Mars Hill...

---

Sure, there is some bad news, but both in Acts 17 (and earlier in Acts 14, when also preaching to Gentiles) Paul is emphatic about the goodness of God manifested in creation, and in his forbearance with human ignorance, before moving on to the call to turn away from things that are worthless to the living God. Interestingly to those audiences Paul is not shown as using the language of wrath or of sin at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
ES. It took me a little time to work out why you referred to Paul's preaching at Mars Hill, until I realised you must have a different interpretation of God judging the world with justice.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0