|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Rev Steve Chalke a post - evangelical?
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes - but as ever with this sort of thing, EM, whenever we point the finger at someone there are three pointing back at us. Rather than railing about what Steve Chalke is or isn't doing why you don't you hop on a bus to London and 'steam' Parliament yourself?
Better still, why not walk?
It would save money, draw attention to your cause and it may turn into a contemporary version of the Jarrow March.
I don't disagree with the stance you're taking on these issues but it seems to me that pointing the finger and blarting on about what other ministers are or aren't doing no more constitutes 'radical dissent' than whatever it is you're accusing Steve Chalke of doing.
If you're as 'hard' on yourself as you claim then you'd get your freakin' boots on and get marching.
Otherwise some of us might begin to suspect that you're simply getting a 'hard on' at the sound of your own voice and your own rhetoric.
![[Razz]](tongue.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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Okay, well I've just taken a look at the website for Steve Chalke's church, the Oasis Church in Waterloo. It would be highly unfair to say that such a socially committed, outward-looking and locally engaged busy church wasn't radical enough. As for their head minister, he's obviously far more effective in his dynamic agenda for the social gospel than the vast majority of church leaders manage to be. He has highly valuable but clearly quite rare skills.
It's interesting to read that the church is actually the result of a merger between two congregations during the war. One of these churches doesn't appear to have been Baptist. Oasis may now be in the BUGB, but Baptists are only mentioned twice on the whole website, as far as I can see. (There's no Baptist logo, or anything like that.) Is this normal for Baptist church websites?
Despite the references to inclusivity, there's not much emphasis on congregational diversity. There's no spelling out of who actually attends. My sense is that the church probably isn't as diverse as the surrounding area, either ethnically or socially. But that's true of many churches.
Finally, looking at the website, I can kind of see how the 'post-evangelical' label might apply. The emphasis on the church's social commitments is far deeper than on its doctrines and teachings.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If what Steve Chalke has said and done represents the totality of radical dissent, then God help us all...
Radical dissent DOESN'T mean you can pick and choose the injustices you call to account. If you think and/or act if it does, then it isn't radical dissent - it's an interest group making a fuss.
(Sorry for the selective quoting, but just wanted to highlight the bits I wanted to respond to).
The thing is, I'm not sure anyone's say what Chalke's said and done are the totality of radical dissent; I don't suppose he particularly thinks that, either. The most I guess people are saying is that it represents an example of radical dissent within one particular context (the UK Baptist denomination) and regarding one particular issue.
As to the second point, is it really possible for one person to fight against every single injustice they come across? Is there anyone who has the time, the knowledge, the sheer energy to do that without either spreading themselves too thin, burning themselves out, saying nothing about lots of things, or being accused of jumping on every bandwagon that rolls by. And it's not as if this is the only issue Chalke's involved in: he's involved in work on human trafficking, amongst other things.
I think to right off someone's claims to "radical dissent" simply because they don't speak up on every single issue in the way you or I might like is deeply unfair. Is getting publicly angry about everything the only way to be a true radical dissenter?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
It's interesting to read that the church is actually the result of a merger between two congregations during the war. One of these churches doesn't appear to have been Baptist. Oasis may now be in the BUGB, but Baptists are only mentioned twice on the whole website, as far as I can see.
This gives a bit of the background history.
Is this normal for Baptist church websites (There's no Baptist logo, or anything like that.)
I think there are many Baptist churches who do not make explicit links to the parent denomination. Some years ago the London Baptist Associstion attempted a common "branding" operation, but it was not taken up by many churches.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Baptist Trainfan
Hmmm.
It's my experience that the URC is normally less evangelical than the Baptists, so a merger between the two, as in the case of Oasis, might create a slightly less strictly evangelical church than would otherwise be the case. It may be that the merged church was already more 'broad' than the other evangelical churches in the area, or in the South East, but it just took this newsworthy issue to bring the differences out into the open.
(This is just a theory. I don't claim to have special knowledge on the matter.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think there are many Baptist churches who do not make explicit links to the parent denomination. Some years ago the London Baptist Associstion attempted a common "branding" operation, but it was not taken up by many churches.
I think that's a strength for Baptists, actually. Resisting the branding. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) 'Branding' works well for other traditions, sure, but I think the autonomy and independence of Baptist churches is an advantage.
Because of course (among other things) you are all linked by the great theological distinctive of believer's baptism ... a distinctive which your spiritual fathers and mothers died for. ( ![[Frown]](frown.gif) )
Love your sermon quotes, by the way. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Totally agree.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It might sound contrary, Laurelin but it fits the Baptist way ... I've heard several Baptist ministers say that their greatest theological distinctives are the congregational form of government and the idea of 'soul-competence' and the priesthood of all believers.
These aren't exclusively Baptist concerns, of course, but there is an argument for suggesting that believer's baptism and all that goes with that emanates from this particular ethos and not the other way round.
So the believer's baptism thing is a corollary of their first principles ... if that makes sense.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Are you thinking of the Eden Project, Jengie Jon?
As a single bloke I was involved with something similar, back in the day, under the auspices of one of the 'new church' set-ups ... and it was hard work ... very hard work. I'm not sure I'd have entertained it if I'd had a wife and kids.
No this group pre-dates Eden, not even sure if they had a name. They already had been there for quite a while in 2001 (I'd say around a decade). There was definitely wife and kids in one household.
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I think that's a strength for Baptists, actually. Resisting the branding. 'Branding' works well for other traditions, sure, but I think the autonomy and independence of Baptist churches is an advantage.
However, hatless says this:
quote:
I suppose I'd like to see us become a bit more distinctive by accentuating certain parts of our tradition.
The question is, how is it possible to acccentuate aspects of the tradition if you also want to step away from being explicit about the tradition? Do the Baptists have to engage in some kind of clever postmodern shapeshifting in order to achieve these apparently conflicting aims?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've heard several Baptist ministers say that their greatest theological distinctives are the congregational form of government and the idea of 'soul-competence' and the priesthood of all believers.
These aren't exclusively Baptist concerns, of course, but there is an argument for suggesting that believer's baptism and all that goes with that emanates from this particular ethos and not the other way round.
So the believer's baptism thing is a corollary of their first principles ... if that makes sense.
I've never heard of "soul competence" ... but I agree with the rest of what you say. In fact the idea of being part of a "covenanted community" fits well with the idea of being baptised into it ... not that "open" Baptists usually make such an explicit link (unlike the so-called "Grace" Baptists).
Regarding Steve Chalke's Church: I think it was pretty moribund by the time he came in, so I doubt if the theological distinctives of the two denominations were very strong.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I like the turn the thread has taken! So far as Steve C is concerned on "respectability", I also like David Kerrigan's observation, which I quoted on the DH thread.
quote:
I see Steve as someone who has walked beyond the safety of the community perimeter to stand by those who are outside but who do not feel the community wants them inside unless they change. It’s a risk to step outside – it may prove to be wrong to have done so, but it may prove to be right. History will declare its judgement in its own time. God already knows.
Most radical acts involve walking beyond "the safety of the community perimeter to stand with those who are outside". That's why they tend to fail the respectability test. The real issue is that Steve's stand is probably getting him more respect "outside the community perimeter than inside".
Does that make him a populist, chasing "the Spirit of the Age"? Or a radical challenging a wrong kind of respectability?
Perhaps some folks judge that maybe there's a bit of both going on. But I'm not about to challenge his sincerity on the basis of what he's written and said so far. He sounds sincere to me. Doesn't make him right of course, either totally or in part. But I think he's a lot more right than wrong. Social injustices and personal morality are not mutually exclusive zones.
I don't disagree but to be really honest how radical is Steve's kind of dissent? Surely dissent impacts and challenges both inside and outside the church? SSM is pretty much a done deal for most - it's the rhetorical "So what?" response that most people would now have even including readers of the Daily Toilet Paper.
Even (many of) those who have serious reservations about the theology and practice of it all, are accepting that any opposition is basically fruitless, liab;le to stir up all sorts of stuff and tbh possibly self indulgent.
If what Steve Chalke has said and done represents the totality of radical dissent, then God help us all. Yes, I'm aware of the argument that you start in a small way and then build .... but why not start with a big splash? Why no march in Central London centred on Steve's church to protest against welfare and pensions reforms? Why don't 25 people swamp No 10 - not many police and the day I walked past there all the police were chatting up some young ladies on holiday. A few martyrs to the cause - if Andrew Mitchell can get out we'd get in with a bit of a diversion! (Must stop having those dreams ...)
Radical dissent DOESN'T mean you can pick and choose the injustices you call to account. If you think and/or act if it does, then it isn't radical dissent - it's an interest group making a fuss.
EM
I suppose you can be in the ''radical dissenting'' tradition and I think of England in the English civil war and post war period when there were all sorts of dissenting going on. Some of it we would call orthodox dissent and some was incredible in it's heretical nature.
Of course it depends on how you see Chalke's arguments.
I would veer towards Steve Clifford's interpretation which is ''not radical enough''. It seems he's saying sorry Steve you're a good bloke and all, we like the work you've done, but sorry buddy, you are not bang on the money on this one. I hope I am being fair to what Clifford said here, that's how I interpreted it anyway.
Radical dissent.....but not radical enough then is one interpretation on Chalke.
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
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I've never heard of soul competence. Well, I did once read the phrase on here, but I've forgotten what it means, so it can't be much of a Baptist distinctive!
I think you're right, Gammy, that congregational government is the prime Baptist distinctive. And it's related to the point about resisting branding. We're a cussed lot, "agin' the government" as a friend of mine used to put it (RIP JW), and that is one of our attributes. So, yes, post-modern shape-shifters is a great phrase and I think we should all do it more often.
I don't claim to have any answers to all this, though. I don't know if it's possible or desirable to re-energise the Baptist churches.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Regarding Steve Chalke's Church: I think it was pretty moribund by the time he came in, so I doubt if the theological distinctives of the two denominations were very strong.
That's interesting. One reason for decline is the lack of unity in a congregation, and that can have theological, social or denominational causes. Maybe this church didn't have a single strong identity, evangelical or otherwise, because the members still saw themselves as two separate groups of people.
On the other hand, most churches would like to be 'moribund' if it meant they could attract a famous minister, and branch out into education a year after he takes over as leader!* According to the church website, Chalke became the senoir minister in 2003. (Was he a member there before he became the senior minister?) He conducted the same sex blessings in 2012. That's not a long time for a moribund congregation to grow, supposedly become strongly evangelical then post-evangelical, as the OP would have it.
* http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2013/jan/23/evangelical-gay-marriage-steve-chalke
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Two points.
1. Chalke had been associated with Haddon Hall Baptist Church in the late 80s-early 90s. That's not far away. However my son worshipped there for a while about 3 years ago and no-one seemed to have heard of him (Steve, that is)! But of course this is an area of high population turnover.
2. From 1994-2003 he was busy with Oasis. I am not sure how he got involved with Christ Church, I think it was more of an amicable takeover by Oasis (with the London Baptist Association's support) rather than a conventional ministerial "call". I do remember that it was billed as something of a radical "new start" for the church.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Baptist Trainfan
Thanks a lot! I really appreciate your comments and inside knowledge!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Christ Church and Upton Chapel are United Reformed Churches as is Salford Central. I have been chasing that down from a vague memory. At Salford Central there still is a URC minister as well as OASIS input. At Christ Church and Upton Chapel I do not know but I do know that there were negotiations about it. I can't say it was moribund, but I do suspect it may have been a close to closure but it may well be that the congregation made the first contacts with Steve.
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
No, it was an LEP and may still be legally - Upton Chapel is/was Baptist.
But I suspect your assessment is right - I only know the "general" history as a (then) London Baptist. As it happens my wife was a Director of the Association at the time but I don't recall her mentioning much about Oasis, suggesting that the Association wasn't much involved, or that it all hapened before she was appointed. But I don't know for sure.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
/Tangent alert/ Taking you into DH territory as I've just had the "Baptist Times" weekly update.
Baptist Union Council is meeting next week and Council will be asked if it wishes to reconsider its guidance for ministers on civil partnerships developed in 2006. If yes, a process will be developed to enable this to take place at November 2013 Council.
How much has Steve's recent "outburst" contributed to this, if at all?
/Tangent ends/ or else you know where we'll all be shunted!
[ 13. March 2013, 19:13: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If you're as 'hard' on yourself as you claim then you'd get your freakin' boots on and get marching.
How do you know that I'm not?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
/Tangent alert/ Taking you into DH territory as I've just had the "Baptist Times" weekly update.
Baptist Union Council is meeting next week and Council will be asked if it wishes to reconsider its guidance for ministers on civil partnerships developed in 2006. If yes, a process will be developed to enable this to take place at November 2013 Council.
How much has Steve's recent "outburst" contributed to this, if at all?
/Tangent ends/ or else you know where we'll all be shunted!
Yep just clocked it. Reconsider could mean anything from do nothing to remove prohibition to get more hard line. The first is most likely.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
.. but to be really honest how radical is Steve's kind of dissent? Surely dissent impacts and challenges both inside and outside the church?
I tick him on both boxes, personally. Not sure what sort of challenges you're thinking about.
A prevailing theme of his social activism has been the challenge to the "outside" (as well as "inside" in some places) view that Christianity is primarily personal. That hasn't just been a proclamation. He's worked for years to get a "level playing field" for provision of public services by Christian organisations, and to encourage Christian organisations to get stuck into social support. That's rattled quite a few cages "outside". He's also got quite a lot of flack from outside the church for these moves, from folks suspicious of whether religious involvement would be either competent or fair.
Anyways, so far as I can see, the history of challenge (OT and NT) is to both social and spiritual authority when it is seen to be both unfair and indifferent to poverty. Both of these are seen as "agin God". Often the social and spiritual authority were the same. Jesus' challenges on matters of both social inequity and personal morality seem to have been primarily directed in the first place to the members and leaders of his own community, within which those considered "outsiders" (i.e. poor or not so respectable) were welcomed and heard him gladly.
So I'm not sure there's all that sharp a distinction between "inside" and "outside" when it comes to challenge.
[ 14. March 2013, 07:44: 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
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
/Tangent alert/ Taking you into DH territory as I've just had the "Baptist Times" weekly update.
Baptist Union Council is meeting next week and Council will be asked if it wishes to reconsider its guidance for ministers on civil partnerships developed in 2006. If yes, a process will be developed to enable this to take place at November 2013 Council.
How much has Steve's recent "outburst" contributed to this, if at all?
/Tangent ends/ or else you know where we'll all be shunted!
Yep just clocked it. Reconsider could mean anything from do nothing to remove prohibition to get more hard line. The first is most likely.
This makes me nervous. If this question is being considered in reaction to Steve Chalke the discussion is likely to have too much heat in it, and any decision might be too hasty.
(One good thing is that Council is apparently going to think about what to do with drones from the Faith and Unity Executive.)
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I agree - but it may not be a direct reaction to Steve Chalke, I hope not. I've just sent a quite long letter to my own Association's Council members, pleading for the issue to be debated on ecclesiological and practical issues rather than allowing it to get stuck in the "rights" and "wrongs" of same-sex relationships.
I don't think that F&U are intending to send drones to strafe BU Council,as you imply, but they might ... As it happens, I was at the F&U meeting where the report was presented, and it is an excellent (if chilling) piece of work. It got debated at the URC Assembly but very badly and in great haste as it was the final morning. Presumably it's been to Methodist Conference, too. It certainly opened my eyes to the issues involved but I wonder how widely known it is within the churches?
[ 14. March 2013, 09:19: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
If you are, EM, then fine ... I'm just an awkward cuss ... I'd make a good Baptist. I may have probably done so in the past. There aren't any Baptist churches in this town but there's an independent one about four miles away which is very fundamentalist and another, 'normal' one about four miles in the other direction but I don't know what that's like ... other than it's pretty 'normal' and the minister is generally seen as a good egg.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I've just sent a quite long letter to my own Association's Council members, pleading for the issue to be debated on ecclesiological and practical issues rather than allowing it to get stuck in the "rights" and "wrongs" of same-sex relationships.
[...]
I wonder how widely known it is within the churches?
I don't know about the Baptists, but as a humble Methodist layperson, my experience is that this topic is never discussed nor pronounced upon within the congregations, nor even at open circuit meetings. Discussions are held and pronouncements are made at Conference, and that's it.
Congregations that are deliberately moving in an inclusive direction must surely discuss the issue, though. I wonder how this happened at Oasis in London. It would be interesting to know if anyone left the church over the same sex blessings. If not, that suggests that the congregation as a whole had already moved far beyond traditional evangelicalism.
BTW, can anyone tell me how big the congregation is?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I've just sent a quite long letter to my own Association's Council members, pleading for the issue to be debated on ecclesiological and practical issues rather than allowing it to get stuck in the "rights" and "wrongs" of same-sex relationships.
[...]
I wonder how widely known it is within the churches?
I don't know about the Baptists, but as a humble Methodist layperson, my experience is that this topic is never discussed nor pronounced upon within the congregations, nor even at open circuit meetings. Discussions are held and pronouncements are made at Conference, and that's it.
Congregations that are deliberately moving in an inclusive direction must surely discuss the issue, though. I wonder how this happened at Oasis in London. It would be interesting to know if anyone left the church over the same sex blessings. If not, that suggests that the congregation as a whole had already moved far beyond traditional evangelicalism.
BTW, can anyone tell me how big the congregation is?
The BUGB is divided into regions and each region has its team of leaders. These aren't really of 'Bishop' status as they have no governmental authority over the local church but each person in the team will have their own area of responsibility (EG Administration, Mission, Team Leader).
Each region of the UK will have its own meetings with local ministers and we discuss the world and everything in it. In our regional meetings we have discussed this whole issue but just because we have it doesn't mean other regions will be given the space to do likewise.
One of our main strengths as Baptists is the autonomy of the local church. It is also one of our main weaknesses!
What this means is that churches such as Oasis can work out their being at local level without outside interference as long as the main core decisions go through the Church meeting.
Where it differs is down to SC style and personality in that he has good people around him who know how to apply for grants and funds for the various projects they are involved in.
They see a need, apply for funds, interview and appoint someone to oversee that project.
This is relevant because Oasis may be perceived to be a huge church when it is just over 100+ for bums on seats on a Sunday.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Polly
Thanks for that. I wasn't really asking about Baptist denominational structures, although it's good to know about them. I see that there are regional bodies where these issues are discussed by ministers.
However, I was interested in the conversations that congregations have internally. Do Baptist congregations - and I mean ordinary laypeople - these days often discuss what they think about SSM, and whether they'd like their ministers to be able bless gay unions?
My sense is that the clergy and other church leaders prefer to discuss this kind of thing among themselves, rather than with the people in the pews. Yet at some point there has to be interaction of some sort, because if the blessings are going to take place in the church building then congregations have to agree on that. I was curious as to how Oasis had come to this position, but I suppose that only someone who'd been a member of this church could say.
Oasis isn't quite as big as I'd imagined if it has a congregation of 100+. But perhaps that's the right size if you want to be radical; you don't have to worry about upsetting a large number of people, but at the same time, you have enough skills, resources and diversity in the congregation to do what you think is necessary.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
My more recent experience of being in a Baptist church (2000 to 2006) is that issues like this would certainly be discussed ... it was a very chattering-classes Baptist church with a generally well-educated, Guardian reading congregation.
My experience of the Baptists in South Wales back in the early 1980s was different. These sort of issues wouldn't have been discussed at all. The Baptist church I knew best was going through a ministerial interregnum, though, and there was a lot of tensions and infighting among the deacons ... and the burning issue back then seemed to be charismatic renewal and that was proving divisive with some people baling out and joining the restorationist new-churches ...
I get the impression that the Baptists as a whole are in a somewhat 'better place' than they were in the early '80s ... at least in the cities. By which I mean that they appear to have found something of a niche for themselves - ie. they aren't on the looney fringe of charismaticdom and have a broader agenda which keeps them more mainstream and 'on track.'
I know that might sound odd in a discussion about Baptists recovering their radical roots and so on, but it's difficult to address social issues and activism and so on if the diaconate are fighting for position or arguing among themselves about whether 'tongues' are legitimate or not ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I was interested in the conversations that congregations have internally. Do Baptist congregations - and I mean ordinary laypeople - these days often discuss what they think about SSM, and whether they'd like their ministers to be able bless gay unions?
We have discussed this both at Deacons and Church Meetings. The first time was following a request made to us about blessing a Same-Sex partnership. I/we couldn't do it, but it did give us the opportunity for a good discussion.
The second time was following the URC General Assembly (our Church is both URC and Baptist) - we wanted to discuss whether we wished to register our building for Civil Partnerships (we decided against it, more for pragmatic reasons than theological ones).
I am sure there are many churches who wouldn't want to discuss it at all - though the BU has been (mildly) encouraging such conversations.
[ 14. March 2013, 14:47: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
As it happens, I was at the F&U meeting where the report was presented, and it is an excellent (if chilling) piece of work. It got debated at the URC Assembly but very badly and in great haste as it was the final morning. Presumably it's been to Methodist Conference, too. It certainly opened my eyes to the issues involved but I wonder how widely known it is within the churches?
Don't think I've seen it. Do you have a link to the said report?
FWIW the discussions been at leadership level and in the small group system here. The overriding sense from both is that if the BUGB were to liberalise on this, then the people here wouldn't be happy at all. Our association has also asked churches who are in trust to them not to do it, though I am not aware of any discussions.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Svitlana said: quote:
Congregations that are deliberately moving in an inclusive direction must surely discuss the issue, though. I wonder how this happened at Oasis in London. It would be interesting to know if anyone left the church over the same sex blessings. If not, that suggests that the congregation as a whole had already moved far beyond traditional evangelicalism.
I can't seem to work out if Chalke is still a practicing Baptist Minister?
Did they in fact discuss the matter at his church if he is a Minister (both PSA and SSM and creation/evolution as well)?
As a general view of the church across England, it seems to me, that there isn't in fact a great deal of democratic consultation within churches going on at all.
This of course does vary from denomination to denomination. Plus each church leader and their team will approach consultation differently.
Many folk don't want to ''rock the boat'' so steer clear of controversy.
Anything like PSA or SSM can ''split'' a congregation easily IMHO so most would rather NOT cause waves and either quietly sweep it under the carpet or say ''we do consider these matters as a leadership team'', but they don't in fact at all.
Seems like the proverbial cop out to me.
Saul
[ 14. March 2013, 16:16: Message edited by: 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
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
The Baptist Union has material for a day course on Human Sexuality, and has trained facilitators to deliver it. The idea is that a church, or perhaps a small gathering, can ask for this course and it will be put on for them. I've been part of this process twice.
The material includes scientific information about sexuality, legal information, biblical material and a number of scenarios showing ways that the issue might arise for a church. There is plenty of time for discussion, but no encouragement to come to a collective decision. It just opens up the questions in a respectful environment. I've no idea how many churches have put the course on.
My own feeling is increasingly that this is an old subject and the arguments have been won. Not everybody has caught up yet, and some never will, but the old generations pass on and things already look and feel very different. Letting sleeping dogs lie actually feels quite a useful policy.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The Baptist Union has material for a day course on Human Sexuality, and has trained facilitators to deliver it. The idea is that a church, or perhaps a small gathering, can ask for this course and it will be put on for them. I've been part of this process twice.
This is a good idea. More churches should run such courses, not to move people in one direction or another, but to make them more knowledgable and aware. Both theology and biology should be included.
quote:
My own feeling is increasingly that this is an old subject and the arguments have been won. Not everybody has caught up yet, and some never will, but the old generations pass on and things already look and feel very different. Letting sleeping dogs lie actually feels quite a useful policy.
You're possibly contradicting yourself here. If you approve of church-based courses on human sexuality, surely that's not the same as letting sleeping dogs lie? That's opening the door to people expressing their views....
Moreover, can we really say that 'the arguments have been won' if ordinary people in the pews haven't been allowed to engage in the arguments? Is it proper for 'Dissenters' to take the view that the laity shouldn't worry their little heads about these things??
My preference would be for congregations to thrash out their theology and to come to an agreement that they can then present openly to the world. This would benefit gay couples, because they wouldn't have to endure the confusion and embarrassment of being rebuffed by con-evo congregations, and con-evos wouldn't have to join a friendly church only to realise that they disapproved of its inclusive theology. This is an argument for strict congregationalism, which even the Baptists don't apparently enjoy if they're ultimately expected to defer to the BUGB on this issue.
[ 14. March 2013, 17:14: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Does Chalke read and contribute on the Ship? It seems to me there are few answers we could elicit. Maybe a confessional from the controversial man himself?
Training , discussion, debate, definitely all good on a range of subjects. The idea that the argument is ''won'' I'm not quite sure on that one. Won which way?
Certainly there are debates to be had and it has to be good when Christians get involved in social issues and nitty gritty issues, being compassionate and washing feet etc.
I personally don't see that traditional Christianity precludes this sort of social involvement. You can be conservative theologically and yet live simply and be compassionate - look at the new Pope for example.
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
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You're possibly contradicting yourself here. If you approve of church-based courses on human sexuality, surely that's not the same as letting sleeping dogs lie? That's opening the door to people expressing their views....
Yes it is, but only those who are interested in the subject would go to a course, and it doesn't ask the participants to come to a decision, either individually or jointly. That's very different from a church or the Union having a big debate and voting on a motion. Inconclusive chats are often creative. Divisive votes aren't.
quote:
Moreover, can we really say that 'the arguments have been won' if ordinary people in the pews haven't been allowed to engage in the arguments? Is it proper for 'Dissenters' to take the view that the laity shouldn't worry their little heads about these things??
No, it isn't, but the people in the pews haven't been prevented from engaging in the arguments. A lot of people aren't interested in these things until they relate to someone they know and care about. At that point, friendship and family love come to the fore, and the whole thing has a very different feel from a theoretical ethical or biblical discussion. People will need help when life raises the question for them, but they don't need to be dragged into an academic but dangerous discussion. Of course, some people love a good debate, and that's fine, too.
quote:
My preference would be for congregations to thrash out their theology and to come to an agreement that they can then present openly to the world. This would benefit gay couples, because they wouldn't have to endure the confusion and embarrassment of being rebuffed by con-evo congregations, and con-evos wouldn't have to join a friendly church only to realise that they disapproved of its inclusive theology. This is an argument for strict congregationalism, which even the Baptists don't apparently enjoy if they're ultimately expected to defer to the BUGB on this issue.
The trouble is that most congregations aren't either pure con-evo or con-evo free, so thrashing out their theology enough to make a public stand on the issue will be likely to cause many casualties. Families and friendships will be divided as well as congregations.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My preference would be for congregations to thrash out their theology and to come to an agreement that they can then present openly to the world.
That's not going to happen for any number of reasons. The congregations are a microcosm of the Union as a whole, and they tend to be filled with middle of the road, middle class people who have a tacit understanding to agree to disagree, up to a point. Where that point is can vary from congregation to congregation, but the general point stands. This is why the BUGB is in the situation it now is on this particular issue after all.
In my time of varying involvement in Baptist circles, the only time I saw a theological motion pushed through by a congregation, it was as a result of legal issue (specifically beliefs mentioned in the trust).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
hatless and chris stiles
I see where you're coming from, but I find it hard to imagine that lay people in the congregations are ever going to be 'radical', or able to pursue spiritual maturity, if we make the (somewhat patronising?) assumption that they're basically middle of the road, and should be left that way. Have Baptist congregations always been like this? Wasn't there a time when there were things they were passionate about?
Well, it's not just Baptists, of course. The sociologists would say that every Christian movement is destined to end up this way. Maybe it's futile to resist - but in that case, perhaps it's also rather futile to talk of congregational radicalism. The radicalism will have to be envisioned as a specialised interest of the few.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
My own feeling is increasingly that this is an old subject and the arguments have been won. Not everybody has caught up yet, and some never will, but the old generations pass on and things already look and feel very different. Letting sleeping dogs lie actually feels quite a useful policy.
I think you're right but clearly milegae varies depending on where you stand. Both sides of the argument claim that its been won and there's nothing left to argue about. Plenty of people in the pews and lots in the pulpit CANNOT agree that SSM's and SSB's are acceptable. For them, the argument is old hat and over. YMMV.
As for the course you mention, a number of the RM's won't (or wouldn't) run it because even they weren't shown the content up front. There was concern at one point that the committee which brought it in, was set up by one D Coffee with a specific agenda as all its members were in favour of change. Hardly balanced then. One (influential) minister on it was actually in a same sex relationship before such thinsg were considered.
[ 15. March 2013, 07:58: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Posing the original question about Chalke, has led to the widening (useful IMHO) question of laity/clergy or leader/congregation involvement and radicalism or not.
England has a reputation for calmness and the proverbial ''stiff upper lip''. This is not so. Historically, and even in contemporary recent history there have been very radical and violent protests by Englishmen. I say Englishmen deliberately as I think we are mainly talking about English religious dissent, mainly by men.
The English civil war was a time of very violent and radical religious change/ movements. Sects of dissenters sprang up and some were barking mad, some exist to this day (e.g. Quakers).
2 points:
1. Most people in a congo. will want to get on with their lives. Many are struggling in the recession and have more than enough on their plate to be ''up in arms '' about some of the issues Chalke has raised over the last 8 years or so. But this does not mean some do not hold to truth passionately and many in the con. evo. camp are still concerned about fundamental doctrines like PSA. Even in the relativist, anything more or less goes, times we live in.
2. The fact that Englishmen are seemingly passive about religion and it appears other things like politics, is deceptive. If some of the previous posts are unwrapped, they seem to say that the clergy ''do'' it or give ''it'' to the laity and they broadly accept ''it''. I am not sure that's true (maybe in some cases of course) neither is it a good approach to take in the longer term. If people are ignored and sidelined (whether it be in church or in politics) they will eventually want to have their say.
Overall I tend to see Chalke as a Baptist dissenter , who will take a number of folk ''with him''. He has or will cause a further schism within evangelicalism IMHO. I don't see the matters he raises as some sort of contemporary evolution of thought or theology. He will be or is a schismatic dissenter, albeit one who has been busy with schools work and social action projects - in my own view.
As evangelicalism is fairly small beer here in the UK, he will from time to time get some headline inches. But by and large much of the ''fuss'' will die down and folk, who know about the issues, will make up their minds.
Saul
[ 15. March 2013, 08:47: Message edited by: 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
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
hatless and chris stiles
I see where you're coming from, but I find it hard to imagine that lay people in the congregations are ever going to be 'radical', or able to pursue spiritual maturity, if we make the (somewhat patronising?) assumption that they're basically middle of the road, and should be left that way. Have Baptist congregations always been like this? Wasn't there a time when there were things they were passionate about?
Well, it's not just Baptists, of course. The sociologists would say that every Christian movement is destined to end up this way. Maybe it's futile to resist - but in that case, perhaps it's also rather futile to talk of congregational radicalism. The radicalism will have to be envisioned as a specialised interest of the few.
I wouldn't describe Baptists as middle of the road, but as diverse. We do have some experience at getting on despite our differences, though, so we don't fly off the handle or stop listening to those we disagree with.
I think that most people become radicalised only by circumstances, not ideas. You hear of churches in America, for instance, that have got caught up with the issues around migrant labourers or inner city poverty, and have become politically savvy as a result. UK Baptists were once outlaws and that radicalised them.
Perhaps we need to put our thinking hats on to uncover the issues all around us, and then those issues will radicalise us, but it will be the real people and their stories rather than the ideas that will do it.
Until the time is right, there may be little we can do except keep our powder dry. I like the idea that there are churches all across our nation constantly reminding themselves of a set of values and principles that society may one day need again. I have to admit, though, that the typical Baptist church doesn't look much like a cell of subversives, or even a platoon of the Home Guard.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
My own feeling is increasingly that this is an old subject and the arguments have been won. Not everybody has caught up yet, and some never will, but the old generations pass on and things already look and feel very different. Letting sleeping dogs lie actually feels quite a useful policy.
I think you're right but clearly milegae varies depending on where you stand. Both sides of the argument claim that its been won and there's nothing left to argue about. Plenty of people in the pews and lots in the pulpit CANNOT agree that SSM's and SSB's are acceptable. For them, the argument is old hat and over. YMMV.
As for the course you mention, a number of the RM's won't (or wouldn't) run it because even they weren't shown the content up front. There was concern at one point that the committee which brought it in, was set up by one D Coffee with a specific agenda as all its members were in favour of change. Hardly balanced then. One (influential) minister on it was actually in a same sex relationship before such thinsg were considered.
I don't think the rhetoric of the antis is actually that relaxed, but, hey, I'm happy to let things rest for another ten years and see how it all looks then.
I hadn't heard about Regional Ministers refusing to have anything to do with the course because of their suspicion of the General Secretary. That is a worrying state of affairs for any organisation. Was it really a clear and open challenge to David Coffey, or was it more a matter of rumours and remarks made behind hands being inflated in the telling? Your description of it, and your remark about the minister in a same sex relationship (that can only mean one person, surely?) that some people felt contaminated the whole project, make me think the latter.
I really wouldn't worry about opposition from people who would prefer to consider a subject like this without input from those directly affected. I think that positions that are ugly and unjust tend to implode in time.
Churches, incidentally, do not need the approval of their RM to run this course or any other. All an RM could do, if they were minded, would be to block information about it. Again, not the sort of thing that appears to put you on the side of light and truth.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
hatless and chris stiles
I see where you're coming from, but I find it hard to imagine that lay people in the congregations are ever going to be 'radical', or able to pursue spiritual maturity, if we make the (somewhat patronising?) assumption that they're basically middle of the road, and should be left that way.
It's less an assumption and more an observation, and I disagree with hatless, Baptists are diverse in the same sense that Guardian readers are diverse (a diverse but don't scare the horses sense).
I agree with him that it's circumstances that tend to radicalise people though. Which is the reason they aren't radical - the baptist movement is a largely middle class one.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Historically Baptists were a bit lower in social status than Methodists (Wesleyans if not Primitives) but higher than Pentecostals ... but not so true today.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Historically Baptists were a bit lower in social status than Methodists (Wesleyans if not Primitives) but higher than Pentecostals ... but not so true today.
Yep, hence the old saw that Baptists were Pentecostals with shoes, and Methodists were Baptists who could read.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Chris Stiles
Where do Plymouth Brethren fit into that scenario then? I expect they are in the corner thinking they're the only ones to be saved?
As an ex- P.B (the ''open'' variety BTW).
Saul
[ 15. March 2013, 18:28: Message edited by: 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
Saul, PSA is only a 'fundamental doctrine' if you're an evangelical. It's not relevant if you aren't an evangelical. There are other Christians around who aren't evangelical ... you might have noticed that ..
I agree with the sociological distinctions that have been made here. In my home town in South Wales the Pentecostals were certainly the most working-class of any of the churches. The Baptists were a bit higher up the scale but not as middle-class as the Anglicans. There weren't many Methodists around in our Valley but they were pretty middle-class by and large. The Salvation Army was probably on a par with the Baptists in demographic terms but there were less of them.
As for the Brethren ... well, all the Brethren I came across in those days seemed to run their own businesses - farm small-holdings, plumbing and heating engineers, small-scale builders ... there were one or two college lecturers as well - generally teaching those kind of trades. They all seemed to do business with one another.
In some parts of the country you could find quite aristocratic and upper-class Brethren - particularly in the 19th century. Less so now, of course - but by and large the Brethren seemed to be self-made entrepreneurs. They were bright but not particularly well educated in the broad sense.
The Baptists where we lived had some success with people from the large council estates and without seeming to try that hard. I remember one guy who just seemed to have a remarkable conversion out of the blue and who later went onto to become a Baptist minister. It just sort of 'happened' and the majority of the congregation (who'd grown up Baptist as part of the wall-paper) couldn't quite seem to grasp what he was so excited and exercised about.
Ours was a very Baptist valley ... with a string of Baptist churches which a Yorkshire Baptist minister once reeled off to me in succession, much to my surprise. There were English Baptists, Welsh Baptists, non-BUGB Baptists ... my Dad's family were Baptists, albeit of a very nominal kind. Baptists could often be nominal in our Valley in the way that Anglicans are generally seen to be elsewhere.
There was one old lady at Ebenezer Two-Locks ('Two-Locks' on the canal, that is, as opposed to 'Five-Locks' further up and denominated such to distinguish it from 'Ebenezer Cong'') who believed that the chapel had been founded by John The Baptist ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Ah the old social divide between Church and Chapel with the NonConformists as Chapel and socially inferior. This worked until Scottish Immigration in the 19th Century. They were very clear they WERE NOT chapel, they were good Presbyterians and how dare these Papish Anglicans describe them as Roman Catholics!
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
My own church (which actually has picked up a number of Scotish Presbyterians over the years) was the "merchants'" chapel (i.e. "trade") a century ago and second in social standing only to the "civic church" (CofE).
It is still fairly "posh" by nonconformist standards, I think.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Gamaliel said: quote:
Saul, PSA is only a 'fundamental doctrine' if you're an evangelical. It's not relevant if you aren't an evangelical. There are other Christians around who aren't evangelical ... you might have noticed that ..
Guilty as charged M'Lud I need a penal substitute
OK as folk will have gathered I am a con evo BUT the debate about Chalke has encouraged me to read more about PSA than I have for a long time. Yes Gamaliel, the household of faith is much larger than I thought as a good old Plymouth Brethren ![[Cool]](cool.gif) Actually, today I have come a long way from the time I thought all Roman Catholics were hell bound sinners and errrr......the Pope was the Anti Christ.
Anyway, the whole debate about dissent is interesting. As a relevant aside the tribes of dissenting non conformity are indeed fascinating.
I would agree with Gamaliel about the Brethren. Some were amazingly wealthy, maybe it was something to do with their industry and it's interesting to see a whole host of church leaders who had Brethren roots; they were the ideological storm troopers of the evangelical movement in some respects.
Baptists are it seems like many of the non conformist tribes a pale shadow of the vigorous strapping figures they once were. Incidentally, this is subjective by the way, a fair few house churches and ''new'' churches seem to have splintered off from both Brethren and Baptist roots.
Saul the Apostle
[ 16. March 2013, 07:41: Message edited by: 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
The great advantage of "higher incomes" in nonconformism is that the tithes tend to be good.
One of the things I like about nonconformist churches is the more direct relationship between giving (both of money and time) and consequences for the life of the church; what it is able to do. One of the old boys in my congo (since passed on) used to observe, in a rich Norfolk accent, that "the last thing to be converted in most people was their purses or their wallets". Treasurers are generally seen as the folks who have the unenviable task of "grounding" the high-flying visionaries in what we used to call "pounds, shillings and sense". After listening to one of those "the Lord will provide" contributions from a visionary member at a church meeting, the then church treasurer turned tp me with a "humph", observed that he didn't think the guy organised his home budget in that basis.
Which in a way gets us back to Steve Chalke. I noted hatless's use of the word "ugly" in his earlier post. We need to face a fact of life. A simple notion of justice has gained significant ground. It is that folks should not be discriminated against because they are different. That's a good change. People are pre-disposed to be more generous to the different than they were when I was growing up. To move outside the "normal" perimeter and be prepared to look beyond the differences to more abiding characteristics of worth. Like trustworthiness, honesty, ability to relate, etc.
I accept that many folks here are taking a principled stand in arguing that Steve Chalke is wrong, that he has taken himself outside the "normal" perimeters of evangelicalism. For my part, I think it is a more generous stance to allow at least for the possibility our traditions may have been ungenerous, less giving, less cheerful, more ugly towards gay people than they should have been. There is a need to repent about that first and see where that gets us. Using David Kerrigan's arresting phrase, to have a go at "standing outside" our normal perimeter for a while and seeing what that looks like.
If we know in our bones that there is a direct relationship between generosity and the richness of church life, I think we ought to at least consider that while intending to be righteous we may often have been mean. Unintentionally ugly. We don't always see what we do.
--------------------
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
