Ship of Fools: Best of two worlds

Thread: Best of two worlds 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=023970

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

From the current thread on evangelicalism

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 ...

I agree, that would be great. I for one am not put off by the mere fiendish difficulty of something. So, what about have a wee chat and seeing if we can find something that might work. No idea how we might give it a try though ...

It seems to me that the obvious place to start is try and list what's the best of evangelicalism, and what's the best of the more sacramental traditions.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

To kick things off. Number one on my list of the best of evangelicalism:

Biblical Scholarship

We hold the Bible very highly, and seek to understand the written text to the best of our ability. So, we study the Bible and what we can of the culture surrounding the writing of the Biblical texts. We seek the best possible context for any given passage. We seek to identify as well as possible the meaning for the original audience, as well as what we should learn today. We seek the best possible version of the original texts, and the most faithful translation into contemporary languages.

Biblical scholarship is not just something reserved for academics and ministers. It is something that everyone should partake in. Therefore, we make the study of Scripture an emphasis in church services, small groups and personal time. We write about the Bible, in a vast number of books aimed at the ordinary Christian to inform them in ways that are (hopefully) accessible about the findings of academic scholarship.

Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :

In terms of places where these two worlds collide, there's a book by Douglas Wilson called A Primer on Worship and Reformation: Recovering the High Church Puritan. He's a conservative Reformed pastor, and the book tries to combine the best of evangelicalism with a more liturgical, sacramental approach.

Wilson's a bit of an odd, controversial character, but I don't think his more way-out views come up in this book. The entire text is available to preview in Google Books.

[ 17. October 2012, 13:15: Message edited by: The Revolutionist ]

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Interesting thread topic. I totally agree that Evangelical bible scholarship (at its best) has been a gift to the body of Christ.

What I think the sacramental churches, and to a lesser extent the Pentecostals bring is an acknowledgement that people are more than "an intellect", we are embodied and emotional and spiritual and our worship and "being" needs to be formed in ways that go beyond the reductionist conveying of information/propositional approach.

Evangelical scholar, James KA SMith a Professor at Calvin College sums this up really well for those of us who come from evangelical backgrounds, i recommend his book Desiring the Kingdom

quote:

James KA Smith

My argument in Desiring the Kingdom is that, in fact, the vast majority of our action and behavior is “driven” by all sorts of unconscious, pre-cognitive “drivers,” so to speak. Those pre-conscious desires are formed in all sorts of ways that are not “intellectual.” And so while I might be fueling my mind with a steady diet of Scripture, what I don’t realize that is that all sorts of other cultural practices are actually forming my desire in affective, unconscious ways. Because of the sorts of creatures we are, those pre-conscious desires often win out. This is why it’s crucial that Christian spiritual formation – and Christian worship – is attentive to a holistic formation of our imagination.

Think about it: when I fail to act in ways that are consistent with Jesus’ call to holiness, is it because I don’t know what to do? Really? Isn’t it often the case that, in fact, I have the knowledge but lack the desire? Or that some other desire has trumped what I know? .........

First, I think this “formation failure” stems from the fact that so much evangelical worship is just the secular liturgy of the mall with a different “commodity” for sale. The argument of my book is that form matters! It’s not just a matter of taking the “content” and dropping it into any worship form you like – as if turning the church into a Jesu-fied Starbucks will somehow produce a peculiar people who desire God’s strange kingdom.

Blog interview with James KA Smith

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Alan Cresswell

quote:
From the current thread on evangelicalism
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 ...
I agree, that would be great. I for one am not put off by the mere fiendish difficulty of something. So, what about have a wee chat and seeing if we can find something that might work. No idea how we might give it a try though ...

It seems to me that the obvious place to start is try and list what's the best of evangelicalism, and what's the best of the more sacramental traditions.

I find the dichotomy presented by Gamaliel and Alan Cresswell quite unhelpful. There are, after all, members of “sacramental traditions” who would describe themselves as evangelical, and members of “non-sacramental traditions” who would by no means regard themselves as evangelical. Furthermore, the notion that evangelical “biblical scholarship” is an enrichment to the church in general is highly contestable. Evangelicals may see it as such, but many others don’t. For some of us evangelical approaches to scripture, with a strong tendency towards creationism, a reluctance to dissociate itself from a genocidal and racist God in parts of the Old Testament, and a hostility towards reason and non-biblical knowledge, is not only mistaken but inimical to Christian apologetics and engagement with the modern world, i.e. evangelism. We just have to accept that there are different paradigms of Christian understanding, so that the notion of bringing together “the best of whatever” in the various traditions is impossible because what for some is “the best” for others is “the worst”.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
try and list what's the best of evangelicalism, and what's the best of the more sacramental traditions.

Monasticism? Monks and nuns have certainly been evangelical in terms of converting a lot of people, and sustaining the faith of many more.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:

I find the dichotomy presented by Gamaliel and Alan Cresswell quite unhelpful. There are, after all, members of “sacramental traditions” who would describe themselves as evangelical, and members of “non-sacramental traditions” who would by no means regard themselves as evangelical.

You're absolutely right in one sense, there are evangelicals who are members of sacramental traditions, and of course there are other traditions around too. Initially I was going to call this thread "Best of both worlds", but was very conscious that there are more than two 'worlds' and hence my choice of title.

Though there are evangelicals in sacramental churches (and other traditions) - I'm one of them given that my church is not evangelical. To me that doesn't quite address the interesting challenge set by Gamaliel - what would a church be like that embraced the best of both evangelical and more sacramental traditions be like? Would it still be identifiable as both evangelical and sacramental?

quote:
Furthermore, the notion that evangelical “biblical scholarship” is an enrichment to the church in general is highly contestable.

It was given as my opinion f what I think is the biggest strength of evangelicalism. Sure, others can disagree. However ...

quote:
For some of us evangelical approaches to scripture, with a strong tendency towards creationism, a reluctance to dissociate itself from a genocidal and racist God in parts of the Old Testament, and a hostility towards reason and non-biblical knowledge, is not only mistaken but inimical to Christian apologetics and engagement with the modern world

Please address what actually are evangelical approaches to Scripture, rather than some straw man drawn from the example of a few extremists at the fundamentalist end of the spectrum of evangelicalism.

Evangelical scholarship, especially in relation to the Bible, is not hostile towards reason and other knowledge. If anything, it can probably be accused of being overly rational. The aim is to obtain the best possible understanding of the meaning of Scripture, to the original audience and to us today, to put it in context that is as well understood as possible (and, that would include all relevant information from archaeology, studies of other ancient documents etc). Yes, I don't know of a single evangelical that would contest the statement "God created the heavens and the earth" if that counts as a tendancy towards creationism. And, yes the emphasis on the authority of Scripture and the overly rational approach of evangelicalism coupled to the modern fallacy prevalent in our culture that there is only 'fact' and 'fable' does create a pressure on us that can result in misinterpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis. This is far too common among evangelicals, but is not representative of the vast majority of evangelical scholars.

As for "a reluctance to dissociate itself from a genocidal and racist God in parts of the Old Testament" I've no idea at all what you're talking about. Evangelicals took up the struggle against slavery, against segregation in the US, apartheid in South Africa, and against racism in contemporary societies.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Evangelical scholarship, especially in relation to the Bible, is not hostile towards reason and other knowledge. If anything, it can probably be accused of being overly rational. The aim is to obtain the best possible understanding of the meaning of Scripture, to the original audience and to us today, to put it in context that is as well understood as possible (and, that would include all relevant information from archaeology, studies of other ancient documents etc).

That sounds exactly like liberal biblical scholarship to me.

It is certainly the biblical tradition I have been trained in and I am not an evangelical.

I don't believe excellence in biblical scholarship can be narrowed down to flavors of churchmanship.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Alan Cresswell

quote:
As for "a reluctance to dissociate itself from a genocidal and racist God in parts of the Old Testament" I've no idea at all what you're talking about. Evangelicals took up the struggle against slavery, against segregation in the US, apartheid in South Africa, and against racism in contemporary societies.

Alan, I apologise for not having made myself sufficiently clear for you not to misread my post. I did not charge evangelicals with being racist and genocidal by definition. As a frequent contributor to various threads on Ship of Fools, however, you cannot have failed to notice that evangelical contributors in their inerrant approach to scripture have been reluctant to recognise that the God of the Old Testament has urged courses of action that are contrary to the God revealed in Christ Jesus and, as you rightly insist, their own responses to many social issues. I still feel, however, that you understate the anti-intellectualism that characterises much of the evangelical mind-set. You, yourself, betray that in your remark “Biblical scholarship is not just something reserved for academics and ministers”, which requires a great deal of unpacking. What are you getting at there?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
You, yourself, betray that in your remark “Biblical scholarship is not just something reserved for academics and ministers”, which requires a great deal of unpacking. What are you getting at there?

There may be an impression that scholarship is something that happens in universities and colleges, and is taught to ministers in training. Ministers then might refer to scholarship within their own contemplation, and it may inform sermons, but it is not expected that regular members of the congregation would be interested.

However, within evangelicalism there is a very strong emphasis on the Bible as being something for everyone. Add to that the emphasis on seeking to understand Scripture as well as possible and Biblical scholarship becomes of interest to everyone. So, we have a plethora of books aimed at ordinary members of churches. We have personal study notes, and material for group discussion. An expectation that people meet and talk about the Bible with any scholastic information available part of that discussion.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I'd argue that there is actually very little biblical scholarship going on in Evangelicalism. The bible is widely read - albeit in a certain way - but there is a bias against critical thought and debate.

I wouldn't put the emphasis 'on the bible' (which is really meaning a very odd reading of the bible) as something worthwhile to keep from Evangelicalism.

I think the most valuable thing from many strands of Evangelicalism is commitment. I think it is unquestionably true that Evangelicals put themselves (as congregations and individuals) out for others. We might not like the reasons or the ways they do that, but it is unquestionably true that they're committed for the long-haul. Many other denominations seem to have lost that along the way.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I'd quibble about the Bible reading too. From a MOTR church point of view - where a range of people attend the church from different traditions - the liberal / sacramental Bible groups tend to look wider and consider more aspects than the more evangelical groups. I am used to groups where we turn up with as many Bible translations as possible to help read passages. I stopped going to one group entirely when the reaction to not carrying the NIV was "what on earth is that Bible*" and total dismissiveness to bringing other viewpoints and considerations to the discussion. We were there to be told the "right way" to read these passages, not discuss them, and to be led to the right paths.

*it was the NJB and was throwing out very different readings to the selected passages (I could say proof texts, but I'll restrain myself)

[ 18. October 2012, 11:46: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I can't speak for the RCs or Orthodox, but RC priests and some Orthodox have told me that the thing they admire most about Protestantism as a whole - and not just evangelicalism but they've included it as a subset within that - is the biblical scholarship that has come out of the Reformed stable and its stablets (as it were).

So I would quibble with Alan's assertion that a seriousness about Bible study and so on is a particularly evangelical concern. It can be found in the liberal Protestant traditions too - as Evensong and CK have noted.

I think I'd side with the long ranger on the 'commitment' issue - evangelicals are good at getting things done and to showing a practical commitment to their faith.

I do think there is a somewhat populist and rather anti-intellectual strand within evangelicalism - although I wouldn't lump Alan into that, nor Barnabas62 or Ken or some of the other regular evangelical posters here - Cliffdweller, Daronmedway, Mudfrog or Leprechaun, for instance - and there will be others.

That said, the populist thing is very strong - all the guff about ordinary ploughboys knowing more about the word of God than some Cardinal or other - it's all a tad rhetorical and romanticised if you ask me.

Having said that, there is an energy and commitment about evangelicalism that is very positive in my view.

I would also agree that the sacramental, and to an extent the Pentecostal elements, do bring in a complementary sense that it isn't all down to the understanding of a set of propositions - which is what some forms of Protestantism seem to reduce down to if taken to their logical conclusion.

As to how a sacramental/evangelical church might look ... well some of the Orthodox in the UK badge themselves as being 'catholic but not Roman Catholic, evangelical but not Protestant.'

I believe that these groups have the potential to model 'the best of both worlds' but I'm not sure they've succeeded yet.

I also believe that some kind of Anglo-Catholic or liberal catholic fusion with evangelicalism would be quite interesting ... but I'm not aware of anywhere that quite fits that bill as I have it in my mind's eye.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
In terms of places where these two worlds collide, there's a book by Douglas Wilson called A Primer on Worship and Reformation: Recovering the High Church Puritan. He's a conservative Reformed pastor, and the book tries to combine the best of evangelicalism with a more liturgical, sacramental approach.

Wilson's a bit of an odd, controversial character, but I don't think his more way-out views come up in this book. The entire text is available to preview in Google Books.

[tangent]

I don't know much about Wilson but I just happened to be listening to him in an interview he gave recently.

http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/10/apologist-interview-douglas-wilson.html

[/tangent]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Three things occur to me:

Rev. Jeremiah Wright's hugely successful church in Chicago, Trinity United Church of Christ, has engaged with liberation and liberal theology while also appealing to the cultural mindset of black evangelicalism. There are also white members at the church. It belongs to the American equivalent of the URC, so it's certainly pulled off quite a remarkable achievement.

For me, sacramentalism isn't the attractive element in mainstream (British) churches, but rather their compassion and their ability to incorporate, very quietly, a certain diversity of thought and of spiritual experience. I feel that evangelical churches expect more certainty and clarity from members, which surely isn't always possible, and the pressure to pretend must be strong in some churches. On the positive side, it probably helps to create the coherence and strength that outsiders admire.

Finally, there are commentators who say that liberal theology combined with traditional forms of worship almost inevitably lead to stagnation or decline. If this is true, then you might have to prioritise liberal theology but ditch the traditionalism if you want to have any chance of serious growth. (You could do it the other way round, but I suspect this would be less attractive to people here.) Trying to have the two things together while hoping to create a dynamic, committed church seems not to be very likely. But the subject deserves much more research.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

John Saxbee (Former Bishop of Lincoln) wasn't happy about boundaries of churchmanship either, which is why he wrote 'Liberal Evangelism', urging groups in the church to work together.

It was my understanding, when studying for my certificate in Theology, that Evangelicals have become increasingly more interested in Theological Scholarship in recent years. Perhaps it is therefore time to meet them on a level playing field, rather than to merely dismiss them as 'touchy-feelies'.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So I would quibble with Alan's assertion that a seriousness about Bible study and so on is a particularly evangelical concern. It can be found in the liberal Protestant traditions too - as Evensong and CK have noted.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with that. Good Biblical scholarship is good Biblical scholarship.

What I think I was trying to get at was how far into the church that scholarship gets. One question that might illuminate would be what books get into the church library/bookstall. At evangelical churches it is by no means unusual to find some fairly serious theology books, as well as various commentaries (esp. relating to whatever book the sermon series and/or housegroup meetings are working through), Bible encyclopedia and dictionaries, various "what the Bible says about ..." type books, personal Bible study notes. In addition to assorted biographies, devotional books etc.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

I think what's difficult is that most people have only been part of one 'world', or the other, and if they were in one and moved to the other, then it's often that it was because they had some kind of problem with the stream that they were leaving, giving a strong possibility of bias.

So that's where dialogue is important, so I really appreciate a thread like this. My background is evangelical, I've only ever regularly attended evangelical churches. However, my theology has gradually moved away / widened from evangelicalism. Some of the characterisations of evangelicals (and charismatics) I see on these here boards from both people of other traditions (and also ex-evangelicals) don't match my experience at all. Some do. In the same way, in evangelical churches I've heard stereotypes of Catholics, Orthodox, liberals - whatever, that are totally removed from my experience of people from those backgrounds here.

I think we all have a lot to learn from each other. It's easy to lump people together and judge them.

I can only speak of small experience from the sacramental/liturgical traditions, but the main benefit for me is the sense of awe and beauty that those traditions invoke. Art is part of the worship. I think that's great. It's about all the senses.

I agree with Alan that Evangelicalism is great in its intellectual/scholarly emphasis. I think that Charismatic Evangelicalism is a good thing. Otherwise, everything is too intellectual - the Charismatic tradition (when not abused) adds emotion and experience to that too.

What I don't like is that often the emphasis of meetings is Worship and the Word - singing and teaching. I like that the experience in the more traditional churches I've been to seem to value prayer, confession, meditation, communion alongside those. All are important. I grew up in an evangelical CofE, and the thing I miss the most from that is confession. Most non-CofE evangelical churches I've been to simply don't do it.

Maybe it's helpful to look at Christians who have managed to appeal across the traditional divides too. We've had our CS Lewis threads recently - I think he's a great example. I'd also put forward Brennan Manning, a Catholic Priest who somehow managed to learn the language of evangelicals, win their respect, and preach a consistent message of Love to people, whatever their background. I'm not sure how Philip Yancey is seen in other traditions, but he seems to me to be an evangelical who is able to tread beyond evangelical boundaries.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'd second what Goperryrevs said.

Posted by Charles Had a Splurge on (# 14140) on :

Me too.

I tried to get a time of general confession put into a church service my evangelical Baptist Church held recently only to be told that it wasn’t appropriate because we didn’t want to be “too negative”.
[Disappointed]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What I think I was trying to get at was how far into the church that scholarship gets. One question that might illuminate would be what books get into the church library/bookstall. At evangelical churches it is by no means unusual to find some fairly serious theology books, as well as various commentaries (esp. relating to whatever book the sermon series and/or housegroup meetings are working through), Bible encyclopedia and dictionaries, various "what the Bible says about ..." type books, personal Bible study notes. In addition to assorted biographies, devotional books etc.

We have a number of books of Protestant scholarship and theology in our church's library. I wonder how much Orthodox theology is in your average Protestant church's library?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We have a number of books of Protestant scholarship and theology in our church's library. I wonder how much Orthodox theology is in your average Protestant church's library?

Precisely none, I'd think. Most protestant churches I've ever been in have shelves of random old paperbacks that nobody reads. Calling this a 'library' is probably overstating what it is.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We have a number of books of Protestant scholarship and theology in our church's library. I wonder how much Orthodox theology is in your average Protestant church's library?
Precisely none, I'd think. Most protestant churches I've ever been in have shelves of random old paperbacks that nobody reads. Calling this a 'library' is probably overstating what it is.

I don't know. Most Presbyterian churches I've been familiar with have good to very good libraries. How well they are used may be another matter.

That said, I think they're more likely to have Catholic books than Orthodox, though I have seen some of the latter.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Seems to me that the evangelical tradition is strong on action by the whole body of the faithful. Emphasis on sacraments can mean that everything is left to those ordained - the priest is expected to do everything and the laity are passive consumers.

Conversely, sacramental churches can be better at abiding with the mystery, living with the lack of easy answers.

Just a thought,

Russ

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Most protestant churches I've ever been in have shelves of random old paperbacks that nobody reads. Calling this a 'library' is probably overstating what it is.

Amen. This includes a certain huge and impressive Lutheran church in a prosperous Philadelphia suburb. I was there one evening to attend a recital on their rge new organ, given by a world-famous French virtuoso. The church proper was almost of cathedral proportions, and the surrounding plant took up an entire city block.

Being a librarian, I was curious to see what a parish library would look like in a such a prestigious and first-rate establishment. Eventually I found it-- a room about 20' square, windowless as I recall, with bookshelves about 3' high around the walls, containing a helter-skelter, totally unorganized collection mainly of children's books. Very disappointing. Probably any neighborhood synagogue would put it to shame.

When I was a kid, the downtown RC parish had a library that was an entire building, large enough to have been a restaurant. It lasted until the early 1970s, and was then disbanded (about the same time the boychoir suffered the same fate).

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The same CofE Oxford Movement building church I was thinking of earlier has a good parish library. It helps that the books were augmented by books from the library of a minister who died in post. It's Dewey decimal numbered and ordered.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0