|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Rev Steve Chalke a post - evangelical?
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
I am posting this to answer the title question. I am not specifically asking for shipmates views on either his ''The Lost Message of Jesus'' book which seemed to point to a departure from orthodox Christian views of the substitutonary atonement of Christ, neither am I referring to the recent article in ''Christianity'' magazine where Chalke affirms stable homosexual relationships.
Rather I am trying to (perhaps wrongly) pigeon hole him some place.
Is he a pseudo liberal emergent church believer? Is he a ''post evangelical''? Is he an out and out heretic that doubts the real meaning of Christ's death and then to add insult to injury, affirms forbidden and sinful sexual relationships? Or is he a brave evangelical who has placed his banner firm in 2013?
I'm just interested.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I guess he's probably just that rare breed of person who has decided to think for himself.
Given that freedom to think for oneself is 'good news', then, on that basis, he is certainly an 'evangelical' (etymologically speaking).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
All my spidey senses are a-tingle about this thread. There's a live Dead Horse thread discussing his views on gay marriage (fine) I know there have been previous discussions on The Lost Message of Jesus (fine), but I don't think there's a serious discussion to be got about what label to apply to a well known Baptist minister. The labels mean different things to different people, so we end up discussing the meaning of terms - or repeating debates over controversial statements etc. Or it could turn into a rant about Rev Chalke - in which case it will go to Hell.
This thread's on a clock here. Prove me wrong, demonstrate that there is a serious discussion (not a rant) to be had apart from the meaning of labels, or the controversial issues. If not, it will be a dead thread or an exported thread.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
A helpful post from Slacktivist about why "evangelical" is such a slippery term.
quote:
Even when the rulebook can’t be trusted, you can eventually figure out what the rules are by trial and error. Even without a rulebook, you’d still have umpires, and gradually, over time, you could deduce what the rules were based on how the umps called the game and what rules they chose to enforce. You’d have an implicit rulebook, slowly pieced together from witnessing various penalties and punishments.
That’s how evangelicalism works.
And that’s why I never pay much attention to the perennial discussion of how to “define” evangelical or evangelicalism. That discussion doesn’t matter. There is no definition. There is no rulebook, only umpires. Lots of umpires. There’s an ever-changing cast of out-of-shape guys in black pants running out onto the field, calling balls and strikes and expelling players, managers, coaches and other umpires. Nobody hired them. Nobody appointed them. And they can’t seem to agree on the rules because there are no rules except how they decide to call the game.
Short version: deciding who is and isn't an evangelical is a lot like Calvinball.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
My purpose was to see how shipmates perceive Chalke.
A proverb:
“If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck”
I suppose in many ways Chalke is a duck, read evangelical, yet his views seem to be taking him away from orthodox Christianity? Or are they re-centering the debate in a right way?
The argument must proceed beyond the two issues we've mentioned (important though they are). Where is Chalke headed? Is he just the average sort of Baptist Minister, albeit a bit more energetic and high profile, than the average?
It's not so much a question of calling Chalke names here; but I suppose I am trying to work out where he is headed? We had a long thread a while back about evangelicals and I suppose it's a bit like nailing the proverbial jelly to the wall.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Rather I am trying to (perhaps wrongly) pigeon hole him some place.
That's your problem - you are wrongly trying to pigeonhole him.
He is a free-thinking evangelically-based Christian. His theological situation is not dissimilar to mine - broadly evangelical, but not towing the conservative evangelical party line.
I am not sure why you feel that you want to pigeonhole him, rather than just accept that he has interesting things to say. One part of his current theological position is, I suspect, a dislike of being labeled. I think he has probably had enough of being labeled.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
"Average Baptist Minister" is an interesting term. Let me tell you quite honestly, I do not think such a creature exists! Remember Baptist Trainfan and Hatless are both Baptist ministers. Neither of them would normally use the badge "evangelical". Baptist ministers, as with their churches and Congregationalism as well, tend to be individuals.
So to Steve Chalke, he perhaps has more of the Dissenting minister to him than your average Evangelical Anglican Vicar or Charismatic House Church leader, but is that surprising given he is a Baptist Minister. This is a tradition where independency of thought is prized.
Post Evangelical does not mean much from an English Non-Conformist perspective. Its not a label that fits well in the range of churchmanship. He is Evangelical Baptist, but it may well be he is Christian first, Baptist second and Evangelical only third.
Jengie
[ 28. February 2013, 20:56: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
A particular view of substitutionary atonement is a more modern Evangelical shibboleth. It certainly would exclude many in the Wesleyan and Holiness traditions from Evangelicalism. It is certainly not essential Christian Orthodoxy either. But this surely is an Ikea Meatball of some form or the other.
If he were an Anglican Steve would be at the Open end of Open Evangelicalism. He is certainly a Christian despite his deficient Sacramental understanding.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Here's the current Wiki article.
The article contains a caution about objectivity. I don't think the facts about his social activism, fundraising acivities, church background are much in dispute.
I've met Steve. I like him. I think his social activism has been very fruitful. He's a nonconformist Christian, a colourful character, and very energetic. Formally, he continues to be a member of the Evangelical Alliance, so he's an evangelical by association. Edward Green's got it right; he's at the Open end of Open Evangelicalism, in so far as these labels have a coherent meaning. He's not everyone's cup of tea, but in my book he's OK.
I enjoyed Croesos' post re the definitional issue.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I would have thought he was just a Christian.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I think you could describe Steve Chalke as a good Baptist in that he is firmly committed to the Baptist churches and their members and relates to them. Even when he is questioning in a challenging way, he chooses to do it in relationship with more traditional Baptists and evangelicals.
He is also like many other Baptists I know, including ministers, whose evangelical inclinations have made them so sensitive to the needs and perceptions of 'unchurched' people whom they wish to serve, that they start to modify or question the received 'traditional' evangelical teachings.
So, whatever label we give him, I think he's working out the implications of an evangelical commitment. I think it's his commitment to mission that has brought him where he is, not philosophical reflections or biblical scholarship.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
I have found the comments interesting. I haven't (unlike Barnabas) met Chalke.
Whilst not a theologian I was wondering if the possibility of a new ''splinter'' grouping in or away from evangelical Christianity? That was what was going through my mind.
Having read Steve Clifford's response to Steve Chalke's assertion about stable gay relationships, Clifford stated that Chalke was making a ''god in his own image'' and although the statement by Clifford was made in good grace, there was a clear statement made by Clifford.
Now this could and perhaps should mean that evangelicals (I am one myself) really look at ''the fundamentals'' and ensure that we're on the ''right track'' and perhaps the positive element of Chalke's statements is that it does force some of us to re-consider what we do/do not believe.
I'm not an expert on the Emergent Church but I did wonder if Chalke was moving into that movement and towards it's more liberal end of the spectrum?
Certainly Chalke is continuing the dissenting tradition and thank you for (was it Jenghi John) pointing that out. Dissent and Baptists do seem regular bedfellows.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Good. There is a serious topic here.
Saul, I think hatless's observations re mission and modification of traditional line were perceptive. Questioning a traditional understanding is not "making God in our image" any more than it is suggesting that the traditional understanding may well have already done that to some extent. There is something else going on.
I suppose the classic NT example is Peter's response to the signs that God was at work in Cornelius and his family, leading in the end to the circumcision controversy and the Acts 15 Council.
Traditionalists argue that "we've always done it this way/thought this way". Dissenters are heterodox, questioning. There is a heretical imperative in outreach. It probably all flows from that central paradoxical insight in the Cornelius story, Here is the comment (Acts 10).
quote:
34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.
The church has wrestled with the inclusive issues and still is because of the tension between the impartiality of God and our 'a priori' understanding of what is right. If our understanding of what is right seems to demonstrate partiality towards minority groups and the different, that stimulates the heretical imperative. We see, and we say, "that doesn't seem fair, that doesn't fit our understanding of the impartiality of God". The best thing about the dissenting tradition is that it produced, and still produces, folks who are not afraid to ask questions, say "that doesn't seem right to me".
These things do come to the fore when we try to mirror Jesus, get incarnational in our outreach, seek to be good representatives of the Word who became flesh and moved into the neighbourhood. Hence hatless's perceptive comment. Incarnational outreach provokes questions. It challenges our stereotypes.
[ 01. March 2013, 07:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Steve Chalke self identifies as "evangelical" whatever that might mean. Certainly on the basis of most understandings of what "evnagelical" meant say 10 years ago, some of his stated beleiefs would suggest that by that definbition, he isn't. A label is a label and it can be self written, applied by others or fall off: it isn't helpful beyond a form of tribal identification.
Steve would be faitly representative of a minority view within Baptists ministers. But, not all Ministers see things the way he does (nor in the same manner as Hatless or Barnabas).
He is an explorer and a free thinker - and to a certain extent soemone who likes to prick the pomposity of the BUGB by pushing the boundaries. (Trouble is, for soem of us, he misses the obvious targets in the denomination).
All of which are possible to be within the Baptst Union particularly if you are (or were) like Steve a bit of a media poster boy. Put bluntly he's more likely to get away with what he's done than most, even if he has "broken" the rules for accredited Baptist Ministers. Not everyone is afforded the same liberty and there's been more than a little whiff of partiality and hypocrisy around the BUGB's response.
It's arguable just how "baptist" he is these days or whether he's really bothered about the waves his decision to go public on gay sex relationships has caused. On a number of fronts, despite being a traditional denomination, the Baptist Union and Baptist Churches are paradoxically more likely than many to consider affirming gay relationships (the ones that want to that is). A combination of ecclesiology, timing (the BUGB is going through a review) and certain legal and statutory issues would allow same sex partnerships to be affirmed in the churches wanting to do it and there's little effective sanction against it from the "hierarchy."
Steve's views are neither in the majority nor are they minimal within the BUGB. There're probably pretty much in line with the views offered by the training colleges these days - there's more reservation about his views on penal substitution than anything. His claim not to believe in original sin on the basis that it isn't in the creed isn't likely to win him many friends either but I guess a lot of people won't have picked that up from his articles.
In short, not every baptist minister is a Steve Chalke supporter - a significant number are very very anti SSM and not just the career ministers either.
Evengelical, post evangelical? I'd say Post Steve Chalke - that is post whatever is his last article was about.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
I certainly (and probably wrongly) tend to see ''evangelicals'' as a block ''movement''. This is probably not correct. I tend however to see Anglicans on a spectrum but I just never thought about evangelicals that way before. Maybe I ought to?
So in that sense if Chalke calls himself an evangelical, he is by definition an evangelical.
There are of course evangelicals who feel Chalke is well beyond the pale now.
Certainly he creates discusion and thought which can't be a bad thing and even Steve Clifford (the Director of EA) praises Chalke for his work although disagrees with him in the nicest way he possibly can about other areas.
Dissent has a long (and some would say honourable) history in non conformity and maybe we could ''label'' Chalke a dissenting Baptist evangelical. I was intrigued as to whether Chalke's views may bring about a ''splinter'' movement of supporters? I really don't know.
The little I knew of Chalke, was generally about the Oasis schools which I believe there are several in the UK. I know that this year people will consider his views and it will be interesting to see how the evangelical movement perceives Chalke and where that may lead this year and into the future.
Saul the Apostle.
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think it's a mistake to conflate evangelical orthodoxy with Christian orthodoxy per se, Saul ... I'm not sure you're doing that but you are posting as if you consider evangelicalism to be THE default position ...
I can understand that. I would have anathemised anyone who questioned penal substitutionary atonement at one time. Now I see PSA as among a range of options/responses.
Like the term 'evangelicalism', the term 'post-evangelical' is also a slippery one. I'd have applied it to myself at one time. Not sure I would now. I'm not sure what label I'd attach to myself now. 'Confused' probably.
I think Jengie has it about right ...
On the sacramentalism thing, well Edward Green would consider all 'memorialists' as somehow deficient in that regard ... he's a born-again sacramentalist.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A helpful post from Slacktivist about why "evangelical" is such a slippery term.
quote:
Even when the rulebook can’t be trusted, you can eventually figure out what the rules are by trial and error. Even without a rulebook, you’d still have umpires, and gradually, over time, you could deduce what the rules were based on how the umps called the game and what rules they chose to enforce. You’d have an implicit rulebook, slowly pieced together from witnessing various penalties and punishments.
That’s how evangelicalism works.
And that’s why I never pay much attention to the perennial discussion of how to “define” evangelical or evangelicalism. That discussion doesn’t matter. There is no definition. There is no rulebook, only umpires. Lots of umpires. There’s an ever-changing cast of out-of-shape guys in black pants running out onto the field, calling balls and strikes and expelling players, managers, coaches and other umpires. Nobody hired them. Nobody appointed them. And they can’t seem to agree on the rules because there are no rules except how they decide to call the game.
Short version: deciding who is and isn't an evangelical is a lot like Calvinball.
What a great analogy. You can replace evangelical with Christian and it still works.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I certainly (and probably wrongly) tend to see ''evangelicals'' as a block ''movement''. This is probably not correct. I tend however to see Anglicans on a spectrum but I just never thought about evangelicals that way before. Maybe I ought to?
The spectrum is as wide as pretty much any other. I call myself an evangelical, but I have huge problems with many others who call themselves by the same name. I also have less problems with some people who do not accept that label than some others do.
Dave Thomlinson, the coiner of the "post-evangelical" term, expounded a position that would encompass open evangelicalism these days. His problems with conservative evangelicalism are still the issues that many of us struggle with. At the same time, there are those who consider themselves evangelical who I find to push the limits further than I am happy with*.
This does not mean it is a meaningless term, just that it is a meaningless label on its own. It is far more nuanced than that. the problem with looking for new labels is that both ends of the spectrum think the other end should be the one to get a new label. Personally, I don't think labels are that important for precisely this reason.
*Note when I say "not happy with", I only mean that i think they may push the limits of evangelicalism a little further, and it may server them well to reject the label completely. It does not mean I have any questions about whether they are Christians.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Dave Thomlinson, the coiner of the "post-evangelical" term, expounded a position that would encompass open evangelicalism these days
I'm not sure about that. Our church would self-identify as "open evangelical" (or at least the clergy would, most of the congregation probably never heard the name) But their church style is very different from the sort of things Tomlinson was talking about in the "post-evangelical" phase. Not so much that they are more orthodox and less theologically liberal (though I think they probably are) but that they are much more traditionally churchy Almost a cultural thing rather than a doctrinal one. And one of the reasons they can be Anglican I suppose.
And - I'm not sure on this and am very open to correction - I think that since becoming an Anglican he's s moved on beyond the likes of us to a much more sacramental sort of practice than you'd see in our parish, but also continued to be theologically more liberal than most of us. If that is the case then in CofE party terms he might be more a "Liberal Catholic" than an "Open Evangelical"
Also, I think Dave Tomlinson himself came from a rather socially conservative independent church background which had a rather isolationist evangelical subculture (I might be wrong here I can't remember the details) and was to some extent reacting against that. Some of our Anglican evangelicals have tendencies that way, but most of them don't. You don't have to tell (most of) them that its OK for Christians to dance or go to pubs because no-one ever told them it wasn't. A very different flavour of evangelicalism. Though they still have more contact with non-Anglican evangelical churches, including Baptists and Pentecostals, than with Anglican non-evangelical parishes.
(Personally I was never part of the evangelical subculture at all. When I was growing up much of our social life was based on the Labour Party and the local pub, with a side dish of horse racing and card-playing (and in late teens and early twenties a little spicing with drugs and rock & roll- the sex part never really got of the ground much) and that's still pretty much where I am,. Which is probably the main reason why I was so underwhelmed when I read the "Post Evangelical" book and found it hard to see what all the fuss was about. It wasn't really aimed at me. Even if Dave Tomlinson was at that time at the same place on the road as I was, he was walking quite fast in one direction, while I was sitting on a park bench having a beer and thinking about possibly going the other way)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I reckon that's about right, Ken. Dave Tomlinson started out in the Brethren and then moved into the UK restorationist thing ... although as 'R2' in Andrew Walker's terms, he was on the more 'open' side of the spectrum. He was 'R1' for a while and I was that the Bible Week where his withdrawal was announced ... and on the surface at least, it seemed far more amicable than subsequent splits and defections from the Harvestime/Covenant Ministries end of things ...
For those not in the know, Walker classified the more hardline Harvestime/Covenant Ministries and the not dissimilar but more Calvinistic network New Frontiers as 'R1' and the more arty Dave Tomlinson and Gerald Coates type crowd as 'R2'.
These days, Tomlinson seems to play well with 'liberal catholics' so I suspect, like Ken, that that's the end of the spectrum that he feels closest to.
As a wise wag once put it at Greenbelt, 'Don't call yourself post-evangelical but pre-catholic.'
I was underwhelmed by 'The Post Evangelical' too, not because my background and experience were identical to Ken's but because by the time I read it, about 4 or 5 years after publication, things had moved on ... both with the groupings I knocked around with and with my own approach to things.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
I think that Steve Chalke could certainly be called an orthodox evangelical, if you accept there are many flavours of orthodox evangelicalism. He would certainly fit within the spectrum of people in my open evo shack, though there would also be people to the "right" of him on SSM and PSA. But he is evangelical because evangelicalism is as much a commitment to a methodology as to a corpus of beliefs. He is a conversionist, has a high view of scripture, and is committed to mission in all its expressions. That makes him an evo in my book, regardless of his views on certain evangelical shibboleths.
In fact, he stands pretty much where I do (and I would still self-define as evangelical) on most issues, except I would be more of a sacramentalist than I guess he would.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Your position is not dissimilar to mine, Jolly Jape - although I have ribbed you a bit from time to time.
But then, I suspect that thee and me would have a looser view of what constitutes 'orthodoxy' in evangelical terms. Some hardline evangelicals would insist that you have to hold very strongly to a PSA position, for instance.
I agree with you that evangelicalism is more of an ethos than anything else - I would also agree with you that it is about 'methodology' but I don't think it's just about that. The conversion aspect is central, but as you know, it isn't always seen in lightning-bolt, Damascus Road terms nor always, mercifully, as simply reciting the 'sinner's prayer' after somebody at an evangelistic meeting ...
I've come across Anglican evangelicals who are a lot more hard line than thee or me would be ... and I'm sure you have too.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...as 'R2' ... He was 'R1' ...
Did I miss the definitions?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
You know, Gamaliel, if we didn't agree about so much, it wouldn't be half as much fun arguing about the things about which we disagree ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
But, sure, there are plenty of evos out there who are far more conservative than thee, me, or Chalkie. That's what I was trying to say by arguing that there are many evangelical "orthodoxies". Steve Chalke and, for example, David Holloway, believe quite different things, and even, I guess, are quite different temperamentally, but both can make a credible claim to be orthodox evangelicals.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I deliberately didn't say that Dave Thomlinson would accept the labels. I have no idea where he stands these days.
All I meant was that his post-evangelical ideas, coming from a rejection of his very conservative evangelical position, are not anything I would consider radical from where I currently stand. At the time, it helped me to rethink where I stood.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Gamaliel said: quote:
I think it's a mistake to conflate evangelical orthodoxy with Christian orthodoxy per se, Saul ... I'm not sure you're doing that but you are posting as if you consider evangelicalism to be THE default position ...
I can understand that. I would have anathemised anyone who questioned penal substitutionary atonement at one time. Now I see PSA as among a range of options/responses.
Yes, I am only just seeing evangelicalism on a spectrum now. I (as stated) saw Anglicanism as the classic ''broad church'' but I sort of instinctively felt evangelicalism was a tribal block vote so to speak. Partly that's because my own tribal background was the (open) Plymouth Brethren. We were the ideological storm troopers of the evangelical movement; or we thought we were ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
The other thing is, does Chalke see himself as charismatic, either in an R1 or R2 sense? Again I am not sure as I don't know his background or thinking in this area.
Speaking personally, these days I am much more relaxed about the peripheral things like smoking, alcohol etc, that my Brethren forbears would have been shocked by. But consider this, the Brethren Assembly I went to (in Liverpool mark you) saw going to a football match as wholly ''worldly'', so that wasn't too many moons ago. I/we have come along way!
I am not sure if the Chalke debate will or will not split some evangelicals. I know when Chalke came out with his views on Christ's atonement, a fair number of evos' were up in arms. That was some years ago now. I suppose with his recent views, this may conflate and harden opposition in some quarters? I just don't know at this stage.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I hinted at the definitions, Garasu.
R1 = Covenant Ministries (formerly Harvestime under Bryn and Keri Jones) and New Frontiers (Terry Virgo. The more 'hardline' end of restorationism.
R2 = A more fluid group which included Tomlinson for a time and groups like Pioneer under Gerald Coates.
The differences were more a question of methodology and ethos than belief. It'd take too long to go into it all now.
@Jolly Jape - David Holloway? Not sure I know him.
Ah - the guy at Jesmond parish church ... right, got you.
@Saul - yes, I can see where you're coming from. But you would surely have been aware of 'tribes' within the 'Israel' of evangelicalism?
Back in the day someone very conveniently identified 12 of them - ranging from very conservative and Reformed types through to the ultra or hyper-charismatic with various shades and nuances in between.
Evangelicalism has always been tribal. Looking back, I'm not sure I ever viewed it as a monolithic bloc, but there would have been far more common ground and shared convictions between the various evangelical 'tribes' than there were between the evangelicals and more liberal Protestants. The attitude towards Catholics tended to vary a fair bit, too, with charismatic evangelicals, by and large, being better disposed towards them than the conservative or more cessationist evangelicals.
It also took me a while to realise that there was difference between evangelical and reformed or Reformed. Jengie Jon can point out the nuances and differences there.
I once met Tom Smail, the veteran renewalist and he told me that he'd grown up with Barth and Tillich and that the evangelicals were more like 'aunt and uncle' rather than 'mam and dad'.
I think evangelicalism per se is more diverse than it was back in the 1980s but even then it was possible to come across Anglican charismatic evangelicals in particular who had more liberal views on certain issues - such as the gay one.
As for how Steve Chalke is regarded within evangelicalism as a whole - well, I think the hardliners gave him up for lost a few years ago. I think he was charismatic at one point, or at least well disposed towards that side of things but plenty of evangelicals and post-evangelicals have been through a charismatic phase.
I've seen some debates about his most recent comments online and some leading figures in the Evangelical Alliance are taking pains to distance themselves from him over this one - whilst praising his work and ministry in other areas.
I don't see him 'splitting' evangelicalism in any way, though. But I anticipate more evangelicals beginning to adopt similar views - not under his direct influence but through their own investigations and consideration.
There's a two-way traffic within evangelicalism all at the same time ... some people become more evangelical and conservative, others become more liberal. There are creative tensions within the movement that add to its vitality but which also make it an uncomfortable place to be.
On these Boards there have often been debates as to whether the term 'evangelical' holds currency any longer. It is sometimes stretched so wide as to become almost meaningless.
I still think the term has currency, though, and the classic Bebbington Quadrilaterals still broadly hold - Biblicism, Crucicentrism, Conversionism and Activism. They may be becoming interpreted or acted upon in a broader sense though.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I still think the term has currency, though, and the classic Bebbington Quadrilaterals still broadly hold - Biblicism, Crucicentrism, Conversionism and Activism. They may be becoming interpreted or acted upon in a broader sense though.
I wouldn't have said that Steve (Chalke) holds to the middle two any more (the two C's). Possibly his Biblicism isn't close to what Bebbington recognises either (his ideas on original sin for example). On that mark (37.5% max), he isn't really an evangelical is he?
We can call ourselves whatever we like and sometimes we can all be severly deluded in our (self) analysis.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I was thinking of evangelicalism more broadly by that point in my post, rather than Chalke in particular.
I suspect that non-evangelicals would regard Chalke as being more evangelical than you would, EE.
Certainly that's how some liberals I know would regard him.
At what point, though, does someone cease to be an evangelical?
Can someone be 75% evangelical and remain an evangelical? 65%? 50%? 45%?
I suspect it's not as clear cut as that.
I can imagine some people being, say ...
Biblicism - 7/10
Crucicentricism - 5/10
Conversionism - 6/10
Activism - 8/10
Or whatever.
At what point does someone stop being an evangelical and become something else?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Orthodox would also, of course, consider themselves orthodox/Orthodox (natch!) whilst having different views on Original Sin to the RCs and most Protestants. They would claim Biblical warrant for that too - alongside Patristics and Tradition and so on too, of course.
So how does Chalke's views on Original Sin (whatever they might be) make him less Biblicist?
Does Biblicist in Bebbington's sense mean that our Biblicism has to accord with Bebbington's own definition of what it means to take a Biblical approach?
You see, it all becomes very subjective then, doesn't it? My interpretation of the Bible trumps yours or vice-versa.
This is where the difficulty lies.
You can say, 'I don't believe that this that or the other body can call themselves an evangelical because they don't believe X, Y or Z.'
Someone else can then say, 'They might not believe X, Y or Z in the same way as you do but they are evangelical on these other points, P, Q and R ...'
It all comes down to how we define evangelical. It's a moveable feast.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I think David Bebbington has a deep and broad understanding of the Bible, but more to the point, I'm sure that by Biblicist he means nothing more than a tendency to keep asking 'What does the Bible say?' and to take biblical evidence very seriously indeed.
The quadrilateral is four tendencies, which can be exhibited whatever the specifics. So people may have different theories of the atonement, but as evangelicals they will nonetheless make much of the cross. Steve Chalke may have questioned PSA, but he's done so because the cross is one of his key beliefs. It's possible to imagine a very different sort of Christian who also wouldn't like PSA, but would just ignore it, because to them the idea of atonement just doesn't feature.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I haven't looked at the processes in detain but it is certainly possible for the Evangelical Alliance to state formally, once current exchanges have been completed, that they consider that Steve has placed himself outside of membership by his statements on specific issues. Essentially they would be saying that he was no longer considered by them to be a sound teacher over the issues in question.
I suppose the Baptist Union would then be able to endorse that position by public statement if they wished. It would then be a voting matter for his local congregation whether they still wanted him to remain as their pastor.
If he got all three thumbs down, he could still call himself an evangelical if he wanted to, but he would be seen officially as flawed and an unsound teacher of the Word. If he "recanted" and adopted the lines that are spelled out as sound, then he'd be welcomed back. All of that, or some of it, could still happen.
I'm pretty sure that one of Steve's "heroes in the faith" Tony Campolo experienced some of that in the US setting over a different issue (the extent to which Jesus could be seen - following the parable of the sheep and the goats - as incarnated in the poor, the sick, the oppressed) and in the end I think he agreed to modify his understanding.
Radical preachers often push the envelope of traditional understanding and in the process may challenge received wisdom. They get into trouble as a result. It's a well known pattern. Sometimes they are judged in the long term to have been wrong, sometimes they are seen by history to have been prophetic, to have pointed to a better understanding. It's not a new phenomenon either within evangelicalism or other expressions of the Christian faith. It reminds me a bit of the questioning and trial of Jesus, some criticisms of the early disciples and the test of Gamaliel. (No, not "our" Gamaliel).
At this point, I'm not at all clear about the outcome of the public debate, but I hope it might move onto wider moral issues, over which I'm pretty sure Steve and the EA/Baptist Union leaders will find agreement. I've thought for years that the "received wisdom" on Christian sexual ethics was in need of a spring clean. We keep getting side-tracked away from central issues such as the inestimable value of faithfulness and the very real moral and social dangers of promiscuity and objectification. Traditional Christian belief has got a lot of good and helpful understandings of those things without becoming in the process some sort of an "attack dog" on those seen to be in irregular relationships and those who are different. That's a criticism which can be addressed to more than just evangelicals. Coping responsibly and well with the strong impulses of our sexuality requires more grown up conversation and engagement than it often gets.
[ 02. March 2013, 08:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Why would the Baptist Union want to declare Steve Chalke not Evangelical? I can not for a moment think of a reason. As said earlier not all Baptists even self identify as Evangelical let alone belong to the Evangelical Alliance(EA). Please realise belonging to EA is voluntary and not all Evangelicals in the UK do. I am pretty sure the Baptist Union does not (just as CofE, URC and Methodist are not). Baptist is not a subdivision of Evangelicalism. Some Baptists self identify as Evangelical, some do not.
It is more accurate to describe the Baptist Union of Great Britain (BUGB) as a rather loose collections of congregation who join together to provide some expensive services more effectively centrally but fiercely defensive of their own independence. They tend to be adult baptising and they also tend to have a Congregational polity but I never thought these things were indicative of being Evangelical.
There are Grace Baptists and Reformed Baptists that belong to BUGB quite happily. The differences in doctrine in BUGB is huge. There are of course Independent Baptists who think the BUGB is an anathema and there are almost certainly other smaller Baptist groupings who are doing there own thing. Some at times will join with BUGB at some stage and some now members will leave. Being in BUGB does not even define congregations as Baptist.
The only vote that would count would be a vote by Steve's own congregation. That would be a vote of non-confidence in him as a minister. That would cause problems for him, but I do not see that happening. Even if it did, it would not stop another congregation calling him to be their minister nor mean he needs to stop identifying as an Evangelical.
There seems to be some idea that there is some Evangelical Vatican that decides who is and who is not an Evangelical according to strict rules. Evangelicalism in the UK is a loose set of alliances of people who share some approaches on how to do Church. It is even looser and woolier than the Baptist Union (at least with the Baptist Union you can find out who is a member at the time). EA claims to speak for them but my actual guess would be that its membership is actually a small minority.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I agree with all of that, Jengie Jon and was surprised at Barnabus's suggestion that the BUGB might actually 'vote' or issue a decree in some way about Steve Chalke's status as an evangelical. The BUGB doesn't work like that.
Perhaps we misunderstood him?
I've met evangelicals who wouldn't want to identify with the EA - either because they think it's too liberal or because they think it's too conservative.
The EA, though, seems to regard itself as the representative body and spokes-vehicle for broadly mainstream evangelicalism - although there are certainly churches and organisations that belong to it that strike me as veering to one or other extreme.
I also know Baptist ministers who feel that the EA has had its day and that its raison-d'etre no longer applies. Back in the day it was established as a conscious reaction to the Oxford Movement on the one hand and incipient theological liberalism on the other and it had a strongly anti-Catholic flavour at one time - something it doesn't have now.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
There are Grace Baptists and Reformed Baptists that belong to BUGB quite happily.
Are you talking about congregations or individuals? For the latter I can see where you are coming from, and individual Christian may identify as a Grace/Reformed Baptist by conviction, but belong to a church that is part of BUGB.
But having spend most of my adult life in Grace Baptist congregations, I would be surprised to hear of examples of these types of churches wanting to be part of BUGB as a church, or that BUGB would want them anyway. For example the statement of faith they subscribe to is likely to be significantly different, to make this a non starter.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The workings of the EA and the Baptist Union are almost, but not completely, unlike the Vatican!
Steve's got a very good track record of "works" but a controversial track record on "message". There's a dynamic relationship between the two (as hatless alluded to earlier) and I think that gets far too easily overlooked.
I should think the EA and Baptist Union would be very reluctant to say that his views of "message" put him beyond the pale. But you never can tell in advance how public debates like this might end up. There's a danger of polarisation and loss of good will.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Steve says that he is an open evangelical.
1 2 3 4 5
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At what point, though, does someone cease to be an evangelical?
I would say when they stop believing that the Bible is the core word of truth.
Of course, that varies from fundamentalism to quite liberal interpretations. As I see it, the alternatives - liberalism and catholicism - take other bases as their core driver. This is not to say that they do not believe or use the bible.
Or, if they decide to reject that label and use another, or none. Being concerned about what someone is puts too much emphasis on the labels, IMO. I think these days the problems with trying to pigeonhole people is showing the limitations of these labels. He is, as someone said up-thread, a Christian. Even more, he is a human being trying to interpret truth. We should listen to what he says, and forget trying to define him.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Catholics and Orthodox would, many of them, say that the Bible is the 'core word of truth' as you put it, but that doesn't make them 'evangelical' in the sense that we are talking about here.
Of course, in the more Catholic traditions the Bible forms part of Holy Tradition or functions, as it were, alongside the traditions of the church.
I would posit that this happens too in evangelical circles (and other Protestant circles per se) as all of us approach and interpret the scriptures in the light of our own particular tradition. Scripture doesn't exist in a vacuum.
'The Bible is tradition ...' is a nice watch-word but I'm not sure it works in practice.
If, as hatless has stated, to be a Biblicist means to keep returning to scripture in order to question, refine, reform and challenge one's modus operandi then that 'label' can be applied more broadly than to evangelicals.
I'm going to be controversial and suggest that the defining feature of evangelicals isn't their Biblicism so much (because in hatless terms, liberals and others can be Biblicists too) as the conversion/'personal relationship with God' aspect.
This is by no means restricted to evangelicalism either - as you'll find people in other traditions talking in those terms - or pretty close to it.
It's a while since I looked but I think you'll find that the Catholic Encyclopaedia offers a pretty 'high' view of scripture - with the caveat, of course, that it should be approached and understood in the context of the tradition of the church.
So you can have a high-view of scripture - in either a catholic and liberal sense - and still not be an evangelical.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Clearing up the voting confusion. The only vote to which Steve might be subject - and that only if the constitution of his local church makes it possible, as lots do - would be at local church level.
None of that stops either the BU or the EA from making authorised pronouncements about their articles of faith, and whether or not particular views are consistent with them.
Given the whole alliance of independent churches things, both the EA and the BUGB don't have much by way of teeth. But they have been known to exercise what teeth they've got. Different circumstances, different people. But here's an extract from the Wiki article re the EA and the Jesus Army.
quote:
Baptist Union and Evangelical Alliance membership
From its inception, the Jesus Army aroused controversy. The original Bugbrooke Jesus Fellowship had long been a part of the Baptist Union. However the sudden expansion in members had made the new church a nationwide movement. This took it out of the ambit of the Baptist Union, which places authority within a specific congregation. The JA was also accused of "isolationism," epitomised by the JA practice of sometimes rebaptising new members who had already been baptised by other Baptist churches, implying that Christian baptism elsewhere may have been invalid. Consequently, in 1986 the Jesus Army was expelled from the Baptist Union, leaving it on the margins of the Baptist denomination.
In 1982, the Jesus Fellowship had joined the Evangelical Alliance, one of whose membership requirements was that the church remain in close fellowship with other local evangelical churches. Earlier in 1986, the Evangelical Alliance had launched an inquiry into the beliefs and practices of the Jesus Fellowship Church and found that it no longer qualified for membership, citing much the same problems as did the Baptist Union later that year.
I'm not equating the circumstances, simply pointing to the possibilities of remedial action if things get bad enough.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
This thread is about Chalke's direction of travel and the points reflect this. Barnabas mentioned Tony Campolo who is, I was surprised to learn, fairly conservative, about his views on homosexuality.
Campolo said: quote:
For my own part, I remain conservative on the issue, but I agree with Steve that the attitudes of many churches are homophobic and cruel. Whether or not we change our positions on accepting same-sex relationships or even gay marriage, we Evangelicals have to face the reality that the time has come for many of us to change our attitudes towards gay people, and show something of the love and grace of God in the name of His Son Jesus.
Here is Campolo's comments in full on his own website:
http://www.redletterchristians.org/steve-chalke-drops-the-bomb-in-support-of-committed-faithful-same-sex-relationships/
It is worth a read.
I do wonder if there will be somewhat a splintering of evangelicals. This may not be ''pro Chalke'' or ''anti Chalke'' in a black/white way, but a splintering around some of the key issues. Mind you given the history of evangelicalism that's not unusual.
Saul the Apostle.
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I don't think Tony and his wife agree!! They've certainly taken different positions in public discussion.
Like many others folks, Steve sees Campolo as a powerful and courageous influence for good on many matters of justice which were being neglected by more conservative Christian opinion. Doesn't mean they agree on everything.
From what I've read, I think I agree with Tony's wife and I'm sure she'll continue to have a good influence. " I am an ardent feminist" he said once. "My wife says I gotta be".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think that Chalke is a 'symptom' if you like of what some might regard as a wider malaise and others as the inevitable march of progress.
I can't remember whether it was here or on FaceBook, but I've seen a thread about various 'softenings' of attitudes towards same-sex marriages among open evangelicals in the CofE and elsewhere. I don't think Chalke is particularly unusual at the more 'open' end of the 'Open Evangelical' spectrum.
I also think that evangelicalism is always in a state of flux, so people moving in and out and up and down and around and about it is par for the course and comes with the territory.
I'm finding that liberal Protestant, liberal catholic, Anglo-Catholic and RC and Orthodox settings all have plenty of former evangelicals. A gay Anglican priest I know tells me that all the former evangelicals she knows are 'high as kites.'
It's not a one-way street though, you'll find plenty of former RCs in evangelical circles. There was a strong core of former RCs in the Baptist church I belonged to for six years.
I've heard several evangelicals in real life talk about Chalke as if he's yesterday's man and not representative of anything. They feel he long since fell out of the fold.
It all depends where you're standing, which part of the spectrum that makes up evangelicalism.
I wouldn't be surprised though, if in 15 to 20 years time the kind of views he's expressed are pretty much standard currency in many evangelical settings.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
When the Jesus Army was dismissed from the Baptist Union (actually, if I remember correctly, it was the New Creation Christian Community, which was the successor of the Bugbrooke Baptist church - the JA was an offshoot or project of the NCCC), it was not about doctrine, but that, on a number of counts, the NCCC were no longer a recognisable Baptist church. I don't think it would have been rebaptism per se, which I'm afraid many Baptists are guilty of, but not recognising even the believers' baptism of other Baptist churches. Not having church meetings is often the sticking point, but I can't remember the details all these years later.
The Baptist Union hasn't made doctrinal pronouncements, and isn't likely to, with one exception, which is, predictably and embarrassingly, about same sex relationships. Baptist ministers may not advocate same sex relationships as acceptable alternatives to Christian marriage (understood as heterosexual relationships). I don't think the BU is likely to come after Steve on the basis of anything he might think or say, but if he officiated at a same sex marriage, and if someone complained, they might.
The way of life that the BU prefers is to be, as jengie said, an affiliation of member churches. It offers various resources to the churches, one of which is the maintenance of a list of accredited ministers. The gay marriage rule is part of that function. There would seem to be no grounds at all for theories of the atonement being any of the BU's business.
Indeed, the way the BU has tried to deal with the issue of same sex relationships is by offering the churches help in engaging with theses issues as individual congregations.
What will be interesting is when a minister and church agree to do a same sex marriage. The BU can discipline a minister, but what will they do to a church that is exercising the right of liberty to interpret scripture laid down in the BU's Declaration of Priniciple?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
A mystery, folks. I got back in from some time out to discover the thread was closed - I took a peek at it using my smartfone while i was out and suppose I might have hit the wrong button. Anyway, there's nothing on Host Board to explain the closure so while I'm asking around, the thread is open again.
B62, Purg Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I do not think the Baptist Union will come after Steve Chalke over same sex marriages and let me explain why.
There is something churches which are not Congregational are going to get their heads around. The natural stance for both URC, Congregational Federation and Baptist Union on the matter of same sex marriages was to do nothing as an overall body. It is up to the local church, the primary expression of the Church, to decide.
[diversion to explain why in this matter URC comes in the same group as Baptist and Congregational Federation]The URC has a system for doing things through national bodies, but it also has the ability to do through local churches. It comes from being a union. The national bodies have failed to get consensus on this matter (we did the debate prior to 2000) and we had to close it down. We are not ready to open it again. So if this is dealt with it is dealt with by the local congregations. We are basically behaving like Congregationalist on this issue rather than Presbyterians.[/diversion]
Now the snag is the UK Government requires the national bodies for denominations to pass a resolution on the issue. This is wrong, it actually goes against the polity of these three denominations but never the less. To get around this you can take the line the URC took and pass an enabling resolution, which allows local congregations to decide.
However look at how that carried in the media. It is seen as de facto support for same-sex marriages. It isn't it simply says that it is up to the local congregation.
Now Baptists have a higher proportion of Evangelicals, or more accurately people who are likely to make a lot of noise about same sex marriages and because the numbers could carry the day they were not up for an enabling resolution but the denomination had to pass one by law. So they passed the one they did.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I was trying hard to define evangelicalism without being dismissive of others. I know that all Christian groups do treat the Bible with respect and authority, the evangelical approach is, I think, to put this as a primary focus. The traditionalists take tradition (duh) as another authority, and liberals take a more critical look at all authority.
And that might be mistaken. But none of it is wrong, just about where and why you start from. As I have tried to say repeatedly, labels are becoming less and less relevant, which also becoming more common.
In the end, if someone self-identifies as Christian, that is probably the only relevant label. And even that is not always very helpful - it doesn't actually say anything about WHAT you believe, just how you identify yourself.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837
|
Posted
Isn't it the case that the labels we pin on ourselves and each other are really only useful for 'pidgeon-holing', i.e. shorthand that means we don't have to think too much about what we actually mean; and grabbing a quick generalisation of a group---again a kind of linguistic shorthand.
As soon as we apply one of these labels to an individual human being it almost always breaks down in terms of accuracy and usefulness. Human beings are simply too complex and dynamic (unless they're dead), for such descriptions to be definitive of who we truly are.
From a Christian point of view, perhaps it's enough to know that Jesus came to people and said: "Follow me". After that it really is down to God's grace and judgement, certainly not ours.
As the years have gone on I have found these labels describing people as this or that regarding their faith position as largely unhelpful, and usually only useful to an ignorant press who almost always grab the wrong end of the stick in pursuit of their own agendas.
Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks to hatless and Jengie Jon. You've illuminated the "realpolitik" (if I may put it that way)so far as the BUGB is concerned.
I had a look at the formal position, as set out in the BUGB consitution - pdf link here. The Principles and Objects are pretty broadly framed and fully recognise local autonomy. In addition, the brief comment under "6. membership" is worth quoting.
quote:
Applications for membership with the Union shall be submitted to the Council, and shall be accepted upon a majority voting in favour thereof. The constituency and list of Members may be revised by the Council, and its decision shall be duly notified to the persons concerned, who shall have the right of appeal to the Assembly.
Clearly enough, that identifies the right to exclude from association and the responsibility of the Council, for any exercise of that right. Any exclusion would be of churches, not individuals. I don't know on what basis a Baptist minister would be taken off the "approved" list; no doubt there are Council guidelines on that. I'd be surprised if any of them applied in this case.
I think the EA position is rather different, because the basis of association with the EA (either churches or individuals) is different. The Articles of Association leave lots of room for individual interpretation, recognise that sincere differences of view will persist, but there is rather more spelling out of the Basis of Faith and Relationships Commitment and applications to join require commitment to these.
Exclusion is indeed very rare, but it's clear that the EA can exclude individuals or churches if they decide to do so. It looks as though the reason would be a major and ongoing departure from either the Basis of Faith or the Relationships Commitment.
None of that suggests that the EA thinks it has definitional power over the term "evangelical" but the EA provide a summary answer to the question "What is an Evangelical". That answer includes the Bebbington Quadrilateral and, interestingly, a fifth factor viz
quote:
Christocentrism— God's eternal Word became human in the historical man Jesus
of Nazareth, who definitively reveals God to humanity
At this stage, I don't think exclusion from the EA is on the cards either, but there is no doubt that the EA believes that Steve is wrong and by expressing his view he has distanced himself from "the vast majority of the evangelical community in the UK". Steve Clifford has pretty much nailed the EA colours to the mast.
The end game is by no means clear! I think they'll find a way of agreeing to disagree within the terms of both the Basis of Faith and the Relationships Commitment. But I suppose that is not guaranteed.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
