Ship of Fools: Is Rev Steve Chalke a post

Thread: Is Rev Steve Chalke a post - evangelical? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025184

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

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

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

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

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

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.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

"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 ]

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I would have thought he was just a Christian.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

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.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

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

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
He is certainly a Christian despite his deficient Sacramental understanding.

Deficient? How?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

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.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

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.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...as 'R2' ... He was 'R1' ...

Did I miss the definitions?

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

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]

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.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

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.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

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]

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

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

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

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Steve says that he is an open evangelical.

1 2 3 4 5

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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".

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

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?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

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

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

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.

Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Alisdair - I agree, and the problem is that some - most - of the labels no longer mean anything, because they are too wide.

So you either end up with labels that are meaningless - like Evangelical is becoming - or labels that are so specific that they are also meaningless - like Open Evangelical Liberal Anglican or whatever.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

A few facts.

By blessing a same sex realtionship, Steve Chalke has broken the standadrd BUGB "guidelines" for accredited ministers. Some of us have signed to agree that we will abide by these rules, others have not - whether by omission or design. Steve Chalke claims he hasn't signed them: I'm sure he's telling the truth.

This blessing happened some time ago - why is he bringing this into the public arena now?

Churches in BUGB may, by the way we see our ecclesiology, decide in conscience to perform same sex blessings. There is nothing in the way that churches are recognised by the BUGb that stops them doing this.

There is no standard BUGB policy on same sex issues, except a suggestion that it isn't done: note, a suggestion, no more.

A debate at Union/Conference level ahs been suggested for several years but has always been shelved.

The BUGB and Regional Teams are going through a review process: leadership now is the weakest and most ineffectual I've seen it in the 30 years I've been in baptist churches. We're advertising for a new Gen Sec with a totally unworkable brief and unacheiveable Job Description. I might just stand for the hell of it.

There is a significant % of ministers in favour of performing same sex blessings: this proportion is growing as training colleges are now "open" to this.

Steve Chalke's actions are hardly cutting edge radical - speak out about the rich exploiting the poor in the nation and I'll sit up and take notice. Condemn the growing support for racists in the UK and I'll stand with you. Protest in St Paul's Square or Buck Palace lawn or Didcot about the abuses of the financial city and I'll be with you.

Now the suppositions .....

1. It's suggested that Steve Chalke will be invited to discuss his actions with BUGB hierarchy. Nothing will come of it. It's too embarassing on one hand (a well known and PR savvy Minister once tipped for the top post biting the hand that fed him) and it's too uncertain on another (terms of accreditation)

2. Our ecclesiology doesn't prevent SSB's if a church wants to do it - our rules for ministers just might prevent a minister doing it. In response to an enquiry about it a minsietr was told "we won't discipline you if you do it."

3. Has the BUGb moved to "don't ask, don't tell?"

4. Is there any real sanction for a minsiter who does "step out of line" At a pince one's accreditation might be removed but that would create such issues with the pension fund that it would look like a £100K fine and the BUGB haven't got the balls to run with that one.

5. If anyone does SSB's, nothing will happen, even if its known about.

6. They'll be an uneasy truce in BUGB (at best)between those in favour with SSM's and those opposed. At worst, we could see a split - after all the BUGB has previous in this direction. For soem, conscience will dictate that trhey cannot remain in interdependant connexion with those who believe the opposite to them - a position not on a peripheral matter on sexuality but in reality on a matter that relates directly to how we interpret scripture.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I imagine that the BUGB request to sign up to those rules was because they represented a change from the original rules of accreditation. So any minister who sticks to the original basis would be making a simple choice.

I suppose the BUGB felt it had to do that on behalf of Baptist ministers not prepared to conduct an SSB to safeguard their future position. That was the implication of Jengie's post. They would rather leave such issues of belief to the local congregations, in accordance with the existing policy on autonomy.

That's kind of interesting for this debate.

The EA seems to me to have nailed its colours to the mast, not just by observing that Steve's understanding is different to "the vast majority of evangelicals", but by saying that he is "wrong". I think that is an attempt to ring-fence the "orthodox" position for evangelicals in the UK.

The BUGB position, somewhat forced upon them by Government legislation in the other direction, will have pretty much the same affect on any new Baptist minister wishing to be accredited. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Baptist ministers see themselves as either Open or Conservative evangelicals. The new folks can see that, in effect, the BUGB has provided a doctrinal standard (whether consistent with normal polity or not).

Maybe it's just as well for Baptist ministers that Steve has in effect created a test case? Does the polity win (i.e. that its up to the local congregation)? Will the EA attempted ring-fencing win?

I'm not a Baptist minister so it's kind of academic for me. But it has given me a clue on how to answer Saul's OP.

Steve is a Dissenting evangelical, not a post-evangelical. He's dissenting from those who would wish to see opposition to SSM as an article of evangelicalism. As a result, he's Dissenting from a new formal rule in the BUGB and the current EA view that he's not just out of step with the majoriy, he's got it wrong.

Which makes this "test of Gamaliel" time. And from that POV, I think that long term will probably give him a lot of credit for nailing his colours to the mast at this time.

[ 03. March 2013, 07:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Steve Chalke has broken the standadrd BUGB "guidelines" for accredited ministers. Some of us have signed to agree that we will abide by these rules, others have not - whether by omission or design. Steve Chalke claims he hasn't signed them: I'm sure he's telling the truth.

So am I. The Guidelnes only came in a few years ago, and the first I heard of them was when I received a letter telling me that they were now in place. So I think most Ministers who have been accredited for more than about 6 or 7 years won't have signed them nor even had the opportunity to do so. I was cross about that and don't really feel bound by them.

(By the way, I thought this thread had been closed, which is why I didn't post yesterday).

[ 03. March 2013, 07:52: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Are they his colours? It seems to me that the things that get Chalke into hot water (SSM, PSA) have already been said by Brian McClaren. Both seem to have an evolving theology, based on patoral concerns, and where dogma is at loggerheads with their pastoral concerns are willing to relook at the dogma and adjust it if necessary.

Strange that when Chalke says it it is more controversial, perhaps he needs a bit of McClaren's tact.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Nailing your personal colours to the mast isn't about originality. I thought his article was pretty graciously worded and following the explanation of the background, the timing seems appropriate though embarrassing to some. I thought some of his argument was original.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I adore Brian. And fundamentally disagree with him on the violence of God. His tact is due in part to inaccessibility. He's a writer. A story teller. A prophet. So is Steve a prophet and Steve is more in yer face just by being on video and has a better common touch.

What I want is what has barely started by Clifford and Holmes with Chalke and Campolo with McClaren is a full, no holds barred, all embracing dialectic.

What surprises me is that here we very mainly are incapable of that.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

What do you mean by an all embracing dialectic?

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

As we were discussing a few posts ago, evangelicalism is a spectrum (rather than a monolithic block), I suspect there are a fair few evangelicals who would look at what Chalke said a few years ago, for example, about 6 day creation:

quote:
My personal belief is that those who wish to read into Genesis chapter one that God made the world in six days are not being honest and scholarly. It won’t be taught in the school because I think it’s rubbish. It’s a bizarre thing to claim the Bible suggests that. Genesis is saying that behind creation is a good God

This would certainly disenfranchise him from some evangelicals who do believe that God did make the world in six days.

However, for some, if you then add PSA and SSM , he is so far out of the pale he has practically left the room with his suitcase.

Chalke has said this sort of thing (TLMOJ) :

quote:
Too often we fail to look at others through the eyes of Jesus. While we have spent centuries arguing over the doctrine of original sin, poring over the Bible and huge theological tomes to prove the inherent sinfulness of all humankind, we have missed a startling point: Jesus believed in original goodness! God declared that all his creation, including humankind, was very good. And it’s this original goodness that Jesus seeks out in us. That’s not to suggest that Jesus is denying that our relationship with God is in need of reconciliation, but that he is rejecting any idea that we are, somehow, beyond the pale.
To see humanity as inherently evil and steeped in original sin instead of inherently made in God’s image and so bathed in original goodness, however hidden it may have become, is a serious mistake. It is this grave error that has dogged the Church in the West for centuries

This would put him beyond the pale in some evangelical quarters, in that he seems to be diminishing the scale of original sin (total depravity of man etc.). This would be seen as a core constituent in the conservative evangelical position. Then when SSM is added into the mix, he is the baddest meanest liberal in the village - in certain quarters that is.

I suppose if you analyse a section like this it's not that it's not strictly accurate, God did make everything good, but it slipped pretty darn substantially, so this section is important in what it does not say, from the con. evo. POV.

So whether he is ''disciplined'' by the BUGB(doubtful) or whether he is just defined as a ''not even evangelical'', remains to be seen.

Saul the Apostle

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

hatless, the one which we fail to have here [Smile]

The one in which we even do the "other side's" work for it. I am orbiting chaotically, never in the same loop twice, around the attractors of the narratives of pragmatic violence of extra-incarnate God and the example of Jesus. I want to see and hear us do the best case for the opposition, for all view points. Yes to deconstruct, do the metanarratives, do the objective history of ideas and to be nakedly honest and raw and real.

That one.

Saul The Apostle, he puts THEM beyond the pale. Or rather, they put themselves ... WE put ourselves. Disposition is all.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

The difference between Chalke and McLaren* seems to be mostly a matter of how they describe themselves.

McLaren self describes as Emergent and avoids a lot of the flack that self-confessed evangelical Chalke gets. They both look evangelical to me.

*Not McClaren. I seem to have started a wave of misspelling, sorry.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I'm afraid it was me balaam.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The difference between Chalke and McLaren* seems to be mostly a matter of how they describe themselves.

McLaren self describes as Emergent and avoids a lot of the flack that self-confessed evangelical Chalke gets. They both look evangelical to me.

*Not McClaren. I seem to have started a wave of misspelling, sorry.

Yes, I see that. I think I mentioned earlier as to whether folk would put Chalke on the Emergent Church spectrum now. That would seem a convenient ''label''for some I suppose.

We all label and pigeon hole, to one degree or other and Chalke is no different, the higher your profile the more you're labelled I guess, so I am not skirting around that; maybe it's part of the universal human condition.

The Emergent church has it's own spectrum of course and certainly the combined elements of Chalke's theology would seem to take him in that direction of travel, even if he doesn't define himself so, he may well be pigeon holed there now. I think the controversy will rumble on awhile now, as per the PSA debate a few years ago.

It's interesting the ''hot '' church issues 30 or 40 years ago were Calvinism v Arminiasm I seem to remember as a child. Mind you coming from the Plymouth Brethren (the open variety) we seemed to be in our own particular world most of the time anyway and these current debates would have passed us all by, mostly.

Saul

[ 03. March 2013, 15:01: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I imagine that the BUGB request to sign up to those rules was because they represented a change from the original rules of accreditation. So any minister who sticks to the original basis would be making a simple choice.

I suppose the BUGB felt it had to do that on behalf of Baptist ministers not prepared to conduct an SSB to safeguard their future position. That was the implication of Jengie's post. They would rather leave such issues of belief to the local congregations, in accordance with the existing policy on autonomy.

That's kind of interesting for this debate.

The EA seems to me to have nailed its colours to the mast, not just by observing that Steve's understanding is different to "the vast majority of evangelicals", but by saying that he is "wrong". I think that is an attempt to ring-fence the "orthodox" position for evangelicals in the UK.

The BUGB position, somewhat forced upon them by Government legislation in the other direction, will have pretty much the same affect on any new Baptist minister wishing to be accredited. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Baptist ministers see themselves as either Open or Conservative evangelicals. The new folks can see that, in effect, the BUGB has provided a doctrinal standard (whether consistent with normal polity or not).

Maybe it's just as well for Baptist ministers that Steve has in effect created a test case? Does the polity win (i.e. that its up to the local congregation)? Will the EA attempted ring-fencing win?

I'm not a Baptist minister so it's kind of academic for me. But it has given me a clue on how to answer Saul's OP.

Steve is a Dissenting evangelical, not a post-evangelical. He's dissenting from those who would wish to see opposition to SSM as an article of evangelicalism. As a result, he's Dissenting from a new formal rule in the BUGB and the current EA view that he's not just out of step with the majoriy, he's got it wrong.

Which makes this "test of Gamaliel" time. And from that POV, I think that long term will probably give him a lot of credit for nailing his colours to the mast at this time.

The most recent accreditation rules are less prescriptive on SSM than the old ones were and have been in force for at least 3/4 years. Their introduction was not related to issues of sexuality so far as we know.

It's bizarre that the BUGB can presume to impose doctrinal standards on its ministers but not its churches. However, the standards or guidelines (whatever you may call them) mean little as apart from removal for "moral failure," they have never been enforced in a disciplinary sense to my knowledge and experience.

By his actions, Steve Chalke has forced a debate that is long overdue. This debate has to happen now - and it is ongoing. Given the ability of the BUGB to prevaricate, a decision is another matter: I rather think that a lot of people are hoping it will all just go away. Some hope!

It is sort of a test case: although the first public confrontation over the issue, it isn't the first time the issue has been aired at least in private. My own view - for reasons noted above - is that a particular combination of factors, ecclesiological, structural and statutory have created a unique position. Paradoxically one of the more conservative denominations, the BUGB churches who choose to do so could be amongst the first to offer SSM.

At what point does "dissenting" take you beyond "evangelical?" In Steve's case, my own opinion is that he's "dissented" so far on a number of issues that he's lost the heart of what it means to be evangelical even taking a modern, open definition. His rejection of original sin (alluded to in his Christianity articles), because it isn't in the creed, suggests that he's changed his view of the cross such that it is no longer central to his understanding of God but is treated as very peripheral. What he began with the "Lost Message ..." he's now developing with his position on how we read/interpret/use the bible.

That's the heart of the issue here I think. SSM and SSB is only the example: the real issue at stake is how one reads and understands the bible. That's why you have books called the "lost" or "missing" or "new". (Actually very little is lost, missing or new - most has been seen before and it's rolled out again).

Personally, I'm not keen on the idea of applying the Gamaliel principle to all circumstances. It's a very prescriptive and unpostmodern way of looking at circumstances built on one bible story. I'm not a fan of wait and see especially when I believe I can see the danger now - which I do in this case. It doesn't help that I am by nature decisive and often impulsive, which means I get it wrong but unlike some of the churches I've been in, I do make decisions and deal with stuff.

I think everyone's pussy footing around Steve Chalke and saying he's out of step. The EA have got more guts than most in saying they think he's wrong. I admire them for that. The BUGB have neither the balls nor the desire to do anything about it.

I'd also admire Steve a lot more if he'd written about his experience and publicised it when it had actually taken place. As I've said before on these pages, what he sees as radical is hardly that - how mnay people is this going to impact? Why hasn't he used his undeniable PR savvy ways to speak out against welfare reforms? In my most cynical moments he reminds me a bit of Gideon Osborne and David Cameron saying "we're all in this together ..." and being a bit removed from real life here on the merry go round of inner city life where families are set to lose £20 a week.

He may have created a precedent but it's a two edged sword - some of the things that can now creep through aren't healthy for anyone.

Done now, it looks like something coming in under the rader when the BUGB is in a state of flux. A good day to bury bad news? From where I'm sitting it might - just - look like that from time to time.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The difference between Chalke and McLaren* seems to be mostly a matter of how they describe themselves.

McLaren self describes as Emergent and avoids a lot of the flack that self-confessed evangelical Chalke gets. They both look evangelical to me.

*Not McClaren. I seem to have started a wave of misspelling, sorry.

McClaren may say he's emergent but what is he emerging into? Don't let the teddy bear demeanour or disarming manner mislead you with McClaren - he's outspoken enough towards those who disagree with him.

Like Steve Chalke, McClaren is also good at saying soiemthing but not saying something. He's the guy who called for a 5 year moratorium on decisions about same sex relationships to allow for dialogue. He wouldn't be pushed on his own position yes or no - a while back it transpired that he'd undertaken a SSB for his son.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I'm just SO looking forward to Judgement Day.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I'm just SO looking forward to Judgement Day.

Mmmmmm ironic or just plain daft?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Yes.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

So what IS McLaren emerging into in your view, ExclamationMark?

The Baptist church I was involved with from 2000 to 2006 had some 'emerging' or 'emergent' tendencies and I often used to joff them that I wonder what they'd do once whatever-it-was had emerged. I've made similar points here when the Emergent thing has come up from time to time.

I might be wrong but I'm not sure that a softer line on Original Sin necessarily takes the cross out of the equation ... although it can do, of course. There have been 'non-canonical' Orthodox posters here in the past who've seemed to suggest that atonement wasn't necessary ... and indeed, even in some 'kosher' Orthodox writings and discussions you can pick up an element of that at times.

But I see what you're getting at with a 'lighter' view of Original Sin taking someone beyond or outside of evangelicalism. I wouldn't suggest that this takes they out of the purlieu of Christianity or 'a biblical understanding' per se - as these issues are understood very differently across the broad spectrum of Christendom as a whole.

I'm not sure you're actually suggesting that.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
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.

I think this is a large part of it, to a large extent 'Evangelical' has lost of a lot of it's descriptive meaning and basically covering any sort of middle of the road protestantism.

This isn't just because of evangelicals travelling in different directions, it's also because of the internal process of realising that the same evangelical statements can mean completely different things to different people.

[Even PSA is largely only a shibboleth in the circles that choose it to be - 'christ in our place' could equally be applied to every other atonement theory (except Christus Exemplar).]

I think that some conservative circles have a started to realise that this is the case - though they end up phrasing it differently. Seeing it as a renewal of the 'battle for scripture' etc.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
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.

Must confess to a sneaking suspicion that he likes publicity.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

1. So what IS McLaren emerging into in your view, ExclamationMark?

2. I might be wrong but I'm not sure that a softer line on Original Sin necessarily takes the cross out of the equation ... although it can do, of course. There have been 'non-canonical' Orthodox posters here in the past who've seemed to suggest that atonement wasn't necessary ... and indeed, even in some 'kosher' Orthodox writings and discussions you can pick up an element of that at times.

1. Umm to expolain that wold involve being able to nail a jelly to a wall with 6 oinch nails or be able to teach a pig to sing. Simple answer I don't know nor does Brian - as soon as we think he's got there (or emerged) he's off again. can't nail him down but in mad moments I'd like to .....

2. Well, no original sin = no need for the cross. We can sort it our for ourselves - we need Christ because we can't sort it out for ourselves. Does a lack of belief in original sin equate to one not being a Christian? Suppose it depends on your view of the creeds: we can all do the maths then.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Yes.

Oh good. Sulphur and fires at dawn then? I like a challenge

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It must have been the curried gunpowder last night.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Exclamation Mark

Too pessimistic, Shipmate. Orthodox understandings of ancestral sin and the image of God in human beings can be very cleansing and challenging if you grew up in the faith in a TULIPy Calvinist environment as I did. Such thinking doesn't invalidate the power or necessity of the cross. Whatever atonement theories we apply, the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Indeed. The point I'm making, ExclamationMark is that the Orthodox view of 'ancestral sin', as they prefer to call 'original sin', is less pessimistic than the Western one. Your apparent assertion that a more pessimistic view of the human condition is THE orthodox, creedal default position within Christianity doesn't take that into account.

Here in the West our soteriological paradigm is strongly influenced by Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas. It isn't in the Christian East - hence the common charge that they veer towards semi-Pelagianism.

All I'm saying is that Chalke's views on original sin aren't necessarily incompatible with orthodox Christian belief as the Orthodox (Big O) aren't disimilar in their views on this one and they've held them for a heck of a lot longer than he has.

That doesn't mean that the Orthodox see no need of the cross or no need for atonement, just that they come at it from a different angle.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

So the Orthodox aren't Christians then, in your view and having 'done the math'?

I'm not sure they'd be too pleased to hear that.

Particularly from a 'sectarian' whose grasp of the historic Creeds they might consider iffy at best ...

[Biased]

Actually, the Orthodox do believe in a form of 'original sin' but they don't call it that and they don't articulate it in a 'Western' way.

I'm joffing you to an extent, but I think it underlines a point that within Protestant Christianity it ultimately boils down to one's own individual slant or 'take' on things. So Steve Chalke, or Brian McLaren could turn around and say that their views are completely consonant with the overall trajectory of the Christian revelation whereas an ExclamationMark or anyone else could turn around and say, 'Well, now they aren't ...' or 'Yes they are, but ...'

I'm not arguing for a return to a Magisterium. Just highlighting where we're at.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Quite, Barnabas & Gam. ISTM that both Saul and Exclamation Mark have conflated 'orthodox' with 'the most common / standard evangelical view'. It's not new, and I've come across it enough times before. Orthodoxy is a much wider river than that, and for me, it cheapens the idea of orthodoxy to re-define it so readily.

Of course rejecting the doctrine of original sin doesn't eliminate the need for the cross. We're all still messed up sinful people, in need of a saviour. Disagreements on the specific reasons we're messed up doesn't change that.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I wouldn't criticise Saul and Exclamation Mark on this one as it's a position I held myself for donkey's years - and one I've gradually 'emerged' [Big Grin]

from since being involved with the Ship and also 'fellowshipping' more widely and beyond the confines of evangelicalism in real life ... a process that started (slo-w-ly) for me around about the early/mid-90s but which has accelerated in the last 4 or 5 years.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
.... but I think it underlines a point that within Protestant Christianity it ultimately boils down to one's own individual slant or 'take' on things. So Steve Chalke, or Brian McLaren could turn around and say that their views are completely consonant with the overall trajectory of the Christian revelation whereas an ExclamationMark or anyone else could turn around and say, 'Well, now they aren't ...' or 'Yes they are, but ...'

I see what you are saying. But, pushing it to the ultimate extent, doesn't that mean you can believe whatever you like (even denying the divinity of Christ from the pulpit as I've heard a few times) and still consider oneself an evangelical?

I accept that drawing lines in the sand is fraught with problems (ie who draws it, based on what) but everyone just seems so scared of the whole in/out right/wrong declarations.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Orthodoxy is a much wider river than that, and for me, it cheapens the idea of orthodoxy to re-define it so readily.

There would be those who would argue that by redefining Orthodoxy too widely, it cheapens it because it negates the idea that anything is outside or beyond orthodoxy.

Without external reference points of some kind, self defining as orthodox means I'm seeing it all from my POV. It doesn't mean that, by others' standards, I'm orthodox at all.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Actually, the Orthodox do believe in a form of 'original sin' but they don't call it that and they don't articulate it in a 'Western' way.

Exactly - and I was aware of that. It's simply a matter of semantics - the principle is the same even if the application is a little different. It's not true then to say that i don't see Orthodox as believers - come on Galadriel you're brighter than that.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I wonder if part of the definition of evangelical ought to be that evangelicals tend to be aware of themselves as a group. It's no accident that there is an Evangelical Alliance, affirming and encouraging evangelicals across denominations. Part of the evangelical style is prescriptive preaching, as also, I would say, is challenging what is seen as error in one another. Evangelicalism has leaders and figureheads who are accorded a sort of informal authority. If so and so says something, it must be taken seriously.

A consequence of the tendency to be a defined group, is the need to police the boundaries of the group, which is what is happening in relation to Steve Chalke.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, a belief in the divinity of Christ is both Big O Orthodox and small o orthodox, so that's not what I'm talking about here.

Different views on the atonement aren't on the same level as that. Neither are different views about original sin.

If Steve Chalke had denied the divinity of Christ then I think there'd be no question whatsoever about whether he remained an evangelical or not. Evangelicals are supposed to believe in the divinity of Christ.

I can see what you're getting at and, as Douglas McBain used to say, the BUGB is 'inconsistently orthodox'. There are Baptists around who'd not take an orthodox Trinitarian view etc - just as there are Anglican vicars who wouldn't despite the CofE having the creeds at the centre of what it is meant to believe.

I'm suggesting that different views on original sin aren't quite in that league in heirarchical terms of importance.

We then get into the issue of where we draw the line ...

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Having read the cross posts, I will further venture that the evangelical in group actually needs an out group. Evangelicals are not Catholic, and not liberal. That is how they identify themselves.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

'Galadriel' [Confused]

Sounds like a cross between Sir Galahad and one of the angels from Paradise Lost ...

Who is this Galadriel of whom you speak?

And yes, I was being provocative. I wasn't seriously suggesting that you didn't regard the Orthodox as being 'kosher' Christians ... just playing with the logic of your viewpoint which appears to use your POV as the ultimate yardstick ... which we all do to a certain extent.

@hatless, yes, this is exactly what is going on. There is a kind of 'accepted' and unwritten collective magisterium within evangelicalism and the battle-lines harden around it - but the issues fluctuate. The common ones, of course, are the nature of biblical authority and the atonement - in both areas evangelicals tend to have distinctive viewpoints that they seek to protect.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Who is this Galadriel of whom you speak?

And yes, I was being provocative. I wasn't seriously suggesting that you didn't regard the Orthodox as being 'kosher' Christians ... just playing with the logic of your viewpoint which appears to use your POV as the ultimate yardstick ... which we all do to a certain extent.

@hatless, yes, this is exactly what is going on. There is a kind of 'accepted' and unwritten collective magisterium within evangelicalism and the battle-lines harden around it - but the issues fluctuate. The common ones, of course, are the nature of biblical authority and the atonement - in both areas evangelicals tend to have distinctive viewpoints that they seek to protect.

Galadriel? Sorry Gamaliel - I was wreaking terrible revenge on you for referring to me as EE. If you've read Lord of the Rings .....

Yardstick? Well, it's one of a number but in my view pretty important.

Without a kind of magisterium you have spiritual anarchy. In any event, what are the creeds but magisteria?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Having read the cross posts, I will further venture that the evangelical in group actually needs an out group. Evangelicals are not Catholic, and not liberal. That is how they identify themselves.

Every self identifying group needs an out group! It comes from the nature of language. In order to be able say "that" you have to be able to say "not that". In other words our understanding of words is as much based around what things are not like as what they are like. The basic binary structure of much sociology is built around it. There is some interesting work on boundaries and the work put into sustaining them.

Jengie

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Orthodoxy is a much wider river than that, and for me, it cheapens the idea of orthodoxy to re-define it so readily.
There would be those who would argue that by redefining Orthodoxy too widely, it cheapens it because it negates the idea that anything is outside or beyond orthodoxy.

Without external reference points of some kind, self defining as orthodox means I'm seeing it all from my POV. It doesn't mean that, by others' standards, I'm orthodox at all.

But we have scripture, the creeds, the councils and 2000 years of various traditions. I'm not arguing for no external reference points. ISTM that on a lot of issues it's conservative evangelicals that are self-defining orthodoxy from their own point of view. I was having a conversation only last night with a friend who's very conservative evo, and often describes his point of view as the 'traditional evangelical' position, as if it's backed up by centuries of tradition. But evangelicalism is only 100 or so years old.

One point we disagree on is post-mortem conversion. Since I accept it, he describes my views as unorthodox. However, that measure of orthodoxy is his own - heck, even Luther allowed for it. In terms of scripture and tradition, both an acceptance of, and a denial of post-mortem conversion are orthodox. Same with literal 6-day creation and plenty of other issues - many different views on creationism are allowed for within orthodoxy. I'm fine with someone defining a view as un-evangelical, but it's the conflation with un-orthodox that makes me nervous.

Now, culturally, I'm evangelical. I've only ever been a regular attendee of evangelical churches of various denominations, I'm sure in most ways I think like an evangelical. But over the last decade, I've shifted away from many of the things that many evangelicals say are central. I've found people like Steve Chalke, Brian McLaren & Rob Bell useful, because they're heading in a similar direction. I'm not very bothered by labels, whether I'm still an evangelical or not. But orthodoxy isn't about whether you fit within evangelicalism or not, orthodoxy is more about whether you fit within Christianity or not. And Christianity is much wider than Evangelicalism.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Having read the cross posts, I will further venture that the evangelical in group actually needs an out group. Evangelicals are not Catholic, and not liberal. That is how they identify themselves.
Every self identifying group needs an out group! It comes from the nature of language. In order to be able say "that" you have to be able to say "not that". In other words our understanding of words is as much based around what things are not like as what they are like. The basic binary structure of much sociology is built around it. There is some interesting work on boundaries and the work put into sustaining them.

Jengie

I don't think that's right, except, trivially. Consider caravanners. They are people who enjoy caravanning. There's even a club or two they can belong to and internet forums where they can chat. But they have no out group. I don't think they're suspicious of campers who prefer tents. They won't ostracise someone believed to have once stayed in a B&B. There are non caravanners, of course, but they're not an out group, just all those who are not currently caravanners. No one polices the boundary.

But I think evangelicals do tend to worry about whether someone is really one of us. Are they sound? The word 'liberal' is probably mostly used by evangelicals to describe those who are not. Some liberals happily accept the term, and of course there are many non-evangelicals who are not liberal. Within evangelical circles, though, the open border that needs most policing is with liberals. Liberals have to be understood and combatted.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
[QUOTE]
1. .... often describes his point of view as the 'traditional evangelical' position, as if it's backed up by centuries of tradition. But evangelicalism is only 100 or so years old.

2. One point we disagree on is post-mortem conversion. Since I accept it, he describes my views as unorthodox. However, that measure of orthodoxy is his own - heck, even Luther allowed for it. In terms of scripture and tradition, both an acceptance of, and a denial of post-mortem conversion are orthodox. Same with literal 6-day creation and plenty of other issues - many different views on creationism are allowed for within orthodoxy. I'm fine with someone defining a view as un-evangelical, but it's the conflation with un-orthodox that makes me nervous.

3. Christianity is much wider than Evangelicalism.

1. Where do you get the 100 years bit? Ok our way of currently expressing evangelicalism is perhaps 200 years old but in its form espoused by the "tradition" you talk of it's at least as old as the Lollards in the 14th century. If not older.

2. Just because Luther (anyone) believes something doesn't make it right. It might be ok in tradition but not in my reading of scripture: one leg of the stool then is wobbly. Tribally, I guess we all have our definitions of ins and outs so far as orthodoxy is concerned. For soem it will be post mortem conversion for others a 6 day (actually 7 days - God fcreated rest on day 7) creation. Why are you so nervous around unorthodox if you can accept unevangelical - it's simply a matter at level of accepting the possibility that another propositional statement may be true. Why the concern about orthodoxy - personally I'd revel in being thought or seen as unorthodox.

3. Evangelicalism yes, the evangel - Good News - no. If Evangelicalism is done right then it is the evangel.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
[QUOTE]Of course ... there are many non-evangelicals who are not liberal.

1. Of course - by whose definition?

2. What are non evangelicals then if not liberal?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
[QUOTE]Of course ... there are many non-evangelicals who are not liberal.
1. Of course - by whose definition?

2. What are non evangelicals then if not liberal?

Is the ex-Pope an evanegelical? Is he a liberal?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
[QUOTE]Of course ... there are many non-evangelicals who are not liberal.
1. Of course - by whose definition?

2. What are non evangelicals then if not liberal?
Is the ex-Pope an evanegelical? Is he a liberal?

No. He's a very naughty boy for playing with those nasty germans in the 1940's.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
[qb] [QUOTE]
1. .... often describes his point of view as the 'traditional evangelical' position, as if it's backed up by centuries of tradition. But evangelicalism is only 100 or so years old.
1. Where do you get the 100 years bit? Ok our way of currently expressing evangelicalism is perhaps 200 years old but in its form espoused by the "tradition" you talk of it's at least as old as the Lollards in the 14th century. If not older.

Yes. He appears to be conflating evangelicalism with Pentecostalism, which can be fairly traced to the events leading up to the 1906 Azusa St. Revival. But to talk about "evangelicalism" and leave out Wesley, the 2nd great awakening, the Welsh revival, etc. is, well, silly.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
[QUOTE]Of course ... there are many non-evangelicals who are not liberal.
1. Of course - by whose definition?

2. What are non evangelicals then if not liberal?
Is the ex-Pope an evanegelical? Is he a liberal?

Exactly, but as I think Exclamation Mark's question demonstrates, for many evangelicals. 'liberal' is the alternative. It is the out group, and they forget that there are conservative Catholics (amongst others) who are not at all liberal in any sense of that fuzzy word.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Ok our way of currently expressing evangelicalism is perhaps 200 years old but in its form espoused by the "tradition" you talk of it's at least as old as the Lollards in the 14th century. If not older.

Fair enough. I was thinking about the more modern form of evangelicalism, but you're right, that's probably not fair, it's been around longer than that even if the form is different.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Just because Luther (anyone) believes something doesn't make it right.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that we can disagree with each other on some issues and still both be within orthodoxy. We're still all brothers and sisters in Christ, even if we disagree about certain things and think each other are wrong.

There are other things (Gam gave the example of Christ's divinity) where disagreement takes one party out of the realm of orthodoxy. That's fine. However, elevating other more trivial issues to that same level of importance is, to me, divisive.

For example, I consider Catholics, Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventists Pentecostals and plenty of other groups to be orthodox, even if I strongly disagree with them on different issues. I don't consider Mormons or JWs to be orthodox.

However, I know a few evangelicals who, for example, think Catholics aren't Christians. I'm sure there are Catholics who think that us Prots aren't Christians. IMO both are wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Tribally, I guess we all have our definitions of ins and outs so far as orthodoxy is concerned. For soem it will be post mortem conversion for others a 6 day (actually 7 days - God fcreated rest on day 7) creation. Why are you so nervous around unorthodox if you can accept unevangelical

Because, as I said above, unevangelical just means I'm still a Christian - just a different brand of Christian. But still a brother. Un-orthodox says that I've strayed out of the bounds of Christianity altogether.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

I may be being naive here, but isn't PSA pretty darn fundamental to the Christian faith whichever ''label'' we wear?

Doesn't Catholic orthodoxy broadly accept PSA?

I sort of (maybe I'm mistaken) assumed most 'orthodox' Christians would accept PSA?

I did try and become a junior theologian and read up on it. I came across this and to be fair folk do come at it from different angles. But the cross of Christ and mans sinfulness seem pretty basic doctrines to me. I looked at Theopedia, which seems to help the junior theologian a bit:

http://www.theopedia.com/Penal_substitutionary_atonement

Liberals tend to ''take away from''scripture and talk about things like the ''lost message'' which tends to be another way of debunking something IMHO. Plus the idea it's been somehow ''lost'' and now re-discovered.

I suppose what I am saying is that for some evangelicals they do see Chalke as beyond the proverbial pale and as was said by the Director of EA Chalke has (it appears): ''made a god in his own image.'' That is why I was wondering if Chalke could be conveniently slotted into the Emergent wing of the chuch with McLaren et al?

Saul the Apostle

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Saul, PSA is a very specific slant on what the seriousness of sin and the cross mean. It's not one that I find particularly illuminating.

The idea that there's a punishment that has to be meted out by a God who cannot forgive through forbearance, and which is therefore meted out on an innocent individual, seems to me at any rate to fail the test of justice - justice is violated by punishing an innocent person, not satisfied, and to fail the concept of God as merciful, if he cannot choose to forgive in exactly the way Jesus commanded us to do.

So I hope it's not "pretty darn fundamental", because if it is I'm sceptical at best about a "pretty darn fundamental" Christian doctrine [Biased]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

My understanding - and I confess to not being a theologian or a scholar - is that PSA was quite a late development, (16th century), and that for example, the early church did not teach it.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I may be being naive here, but isn't PSA pretty darn fundamental to the Christian faith whichever ''label'' we wear?

Doesn't Catholic orthodoxy broadly accept PSA?

I sort of (maybe I'm mistaken) assumed most 'orthodox' Christians would accept PSA?

The idea that Jesus' death was substitutionary - he died in our place - is accepted by most Christians, I think, but it's the specifically penal part - he died to take our punishment - that is disputed. What Karl: Liberal Backslider, really.

I thought as you did, Saul the Apostle, until I read The Lost Message of Jesus a few years ago. It never crossed my mind that some Christians had other ways to explain how the atonement works, and for this realisation I'm very grateful to Chalke.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I may be being naive here, but isn't PSA pretty darn fundamental to the Christian faith whichever ''label'' we wear?

Doesn't Catholic orthodoxy broadly accept PSA?

I sort of (maybe I'm mistaken) assumed most 'orthodox' Christians would accept PSA?
The idea that Jesus' death was substitutionary - he died in our place - is accepted by most Christians,

Absolutely not - only by evangelicals, a minority and modern innovation.

There have been loads of threads on PSA so might be a tangent here - but the idea that he died 'in our place' is unscriptural - it hinges on the meaning of the Greek uper - the gist of which is that we share his death in baptism and throughout our lives - but we die too.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think there are about half a dozen different theories of the atonement, some of them rather obscure, and PSA certainly strikes me as not one found in the early church. It seems to conform to 16th century legal theory and language, doesn't it?

The 'satisfaction' theory is itself fairly late; I suppose a quite early view is 'moral influence' and the 'Victor' theory.

Presumably, PSA was a refinement of the satisfaction account, but it's pretty complicated to trace out all the different strands. For example, there is a 'participatory' idea, that we all share in the atonement, probably found in different theories.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
[QUOTE] Un-orthodox says that I've strayed out of the bounds of Christianity altogether.

Depends on what basis you describe un-orthodox: is it a statement of beliefs, practices or both? I'd describe myself as very un-orthodox on a fair few things as a Baptist in BUGB (political views way left of centre; baptism not vital for membership; speaking out publically and vehemently against issues of justice, poverty and class discrimination in the uk etc) but even my detractors would describe me as evangelical doctrinally and conservative to boot.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think there are about half a dozen different theories of the atonement, some of them rather obscure, and PSA certainly strikes me as not one found in the early church. It seems to conform to 16th century legal theory and language, doesn't it?

The 'satisfaction' theory is itself fairly late; I suppose a quite early view is 'moral influence' and the 'Victor' theory.

Presumably, PSA was a refinement of the satisfaction account, but it's pretty complicated to trace out all the different strands. For example, there is a 'participatory' idea, that we all share in the atonement, probably found in different theories.

I think Romans 3: 21 - 26 is instructive here.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Absolutely not - a minority and modern innovation.

I don't know. Romans 3: 21 - 26 suggests otherwise.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

Well the positive element is that I have read and studied my Bible and commentaries quite a bit as I have tried to weigh up this conundrum.

I came across a 2006 statement by the Evangelical Alliance. Obviously this is reference to PSA and the debate that erupted a while ago, due to Chalke's book ''The Lost Message of Jesus'' :

quote:
Board Statement of 27/02/06
The Board of the Evangelical Alliance:
1. Unanimously reaffirms the Alliance Basis of Faith, as revised and adopted in September 2005.
2. Notes that the Basis defines 'all people' to have been 'corrupted by sin', that this sin 'incurs divine wrath and judgement', and that on the cross Jesus sacrificially atoned for sin by 'dying in our place' and 'paying the price' of such sin.
3. Understands these descriptions of Jesus' death to affirm penal substitutionary atonement.
4. Accepts that the Bible speaks of the cross in various other ways in addition to, but not at the expense of, penal substitutionary atonement;
5. Emphasises that other models of atonement are endorsed in the Basis of Faith alongside penal substitution, including Christus Victor, Moral Influence and Recapitulation, but that these should be seen as complementing rather than negating penal substitution.
6. Is committed to ensuring that the Basis of Faith remains determinative of the Alliance's doctrine and practice.
7. Underlines the requirement that Board, Council, permanent staff and all members of the Alliance should assent to the Basis of Faith annually, and should do so with integrity.

I was interested in this one as it seemed to link into what we've been discussing:

quote:
(The EA) Emphasises that other models of atonement are endorsed in the Basis of Faith alongside penal substitution, including Christus Victor, Moral Influence and Recapitulation, but that these should be seen as complementing rather than negating penal substitution.

So PSA seems pretty important to EA, but I guess some would say, they would say that wouldn't they, and that is of course true. But EA is fairly unambiguous and with SSM I would bet on Chalke being seen as ''hopping'' over to Emergent Church territory - IMHO.

I expect Chalke would define himself as a ''Christian''. But the natives do seem to be getting restless and I wonder what bombshell may be landed on evangelicals next by Chalke? Who can tell.

Saul the Apostle.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think there are about half a dozen different theories of the atonement, some of them rather obscure, and PSA certainly strikes me as not one found in the early church. It seems to conform to 16th century legal theory and language, doesn't it?

The 'satisfaction' theory is itself fairly late; I suppose a quite early view is 'moral influence' and the 'Victor' theory.

Presumably, PSA was a refinement of the satisfaction account, but it's pretty complicated to trace out all the different strands. For example, there is a 'participatory' idea, that we all share in the atonement, probably found in different theories.
I think Romans 3: 21 - 26 is instructive here.

It certainly is, but I doubt that it equates to PSA. However, this is o/t, and probably has been done to death on this forum.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Saul the Apostle

The Evangelical Alliance is a voluntary organisation. You can't define socialist by member of the Labour Party, nor can you define Evangelical by member of the Evangelical Alliance.

Jengie

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Absolutely not - a minority and modern innovation.
I don't know. Romans 3: 21 - 26 suggests otherwise.

Not so, IMO. To read either original sin or PSA into those verses i s precisely that -to read them in, to eisogise.

The verses affirm the universal sinfulness of humankind, certainly, but most Christians would do that, whilst many doing so would not believe in OS. And v 25 could actually be read as God demonstrating, in Christ, His implacable rejection of punishment as a way of dealing with sin.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My understanding - and I confess to not being a theologian or a scholar - is that PSA was quite a late development, (16th century), and that for example, the early church did not teach it.

I don't think you can accurately say PSA is a late-term development, given there's some pretty heavy duty biblical support for it, as well as allusions to it (perhaps not by name) in patristic writings & creedal statements. But what you do see as a later development is PSA as the only image for the atonement.

In earlier church history, other images would be prominent in various times/place, or multiple images would be given as different ways to explain/ understand the atonement, but PSA would usually be in the mix somewhere. But seeing PSA as the only explanation, rather than just one image among at least five, that's relatively recent.

[ 04. March 2013, 19:33: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Absolutely not - a minority and modern innovation.
I don't know. Romans 3: 21 - 26 suggests otherwise.
Not so, IMO. To read either original sin or PSA into those verses i s precisely that -to read them in, to eisogise.

The verses affirm the universal sinfulness of humankind, certainly, but most Christians would do that, whilst many doing so would not believe in OS. And v 25 could actually be read as God demonstrating, in Christ, His implacable rejection of punishment as a way of dealing with sin.

It's not eisegesis to point out the imagery found in biblical texts. Rom. 3 goes beyond just affirming the universal sinfulness of all humanity. In fact, honestly, you seem to be engaging in a bit of eisegesis yourself re: v. 25-- it's hard to see how you can get "rejection of punishment" from a phrase like "sacrifice of atonement". otoh, that precise phrase-- the heavy use of temple imagery-- fits better with satisfaction theory rather than substitution. Rom. 5:15-21, otoh, with it's heavy use of legal terminology, seems to point us to substitution theory.

All of which IMHO points us to the fact that substitution has been there since the beginning-- but so have the other five major images of the atonement, all of which have a rich biblical pedigree. IMHO, the problem is not with PSA per se, but with stressing PSA as the only image-- thus pressing the metaphor too far. When you recognize/ appreciate all five of the biblical images of the atonement they tend to balance one another out, correcting for the limitations of each, and reminding us that each is only an image. Not a legal transaction, but a metaphor for an awesome transcendent mystery.

[ 04. March 2013, 19:46: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

@ Cliffdweller

I agree that the imagery points towards OT sacrifice, but that is not an affirmation of a penal understanding of the atonement. The animal to be sacrificed wasn't a sin-bearer. Had it been, it would be unclean, and thus not acceptable. The sin-bearing scapegoat was sent out, not sacrificed. Furthermore, substitution is not necessarily penal. Think "champion", rather than "victim".

But it's the text, rather than the imagery that seems to me to speak against PSA. The natural meaning of v25 seems toe to be that the death of Christ explains why God had not punished wrongdoing, that His idea of justice is concerned with restoration, not punishment, and that this is accomplished through the self-sacrifice of the Godhead.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

This is beginning to turn into yet another PSA thread ...

But it is pertinent as it strikes me that PSA is a particular evangelical shibboleth and one which the EA and others would fight hard to defend.

The Orthodox, of course, would argue very strongly against it and claim that there is very little Patristic emphasis on it - although some of the more balanced Orthodox treatments I've read would concede that there are hints/odd references to what might be understood in a substitutionary way but it's the penal bit that they take exception to.

But I'm no expert.

Fr Gregory, who used to post on these boards, once told me how surprised a visiting group of Anglican theological students were when they came to a service at his church (as part of their studies) and found that here was a Christian tradition that didn't emphasise vicarious substitutionary atonement. It's not that the Orthodox don't believe in the atonement - they do - but they understand it very differently.

PSA as it is currently understood did develop from the 16th century onwards, although reaching back into medieval Catholic understandings - particularly Anselm with his 'Cur Deus Homo', a version of the 'satisfaction' theory.

I'm simplifying things, but in Orthodoxy the emphasis seems to be more on the entire 'Christ event' - from the Incarnation to the Ascension with the Cross/Resurrection more closely linked than they sometimes are - or appear to be - in certain Western emphases.

As for the roots of evangelicalism, well, evangelicalism as we know it is essentially the spiritual descendent of Puritanism mediated through 18th century Pietism and revivalism - and involves a fusion of Calvinist and Arminian elements to a large extent. The Puritan tradition and its forebears didn't emphasise the 'conversion' aspect as much as they believed you could be deceived into thinking that you were among the Elect when you weren't ...

Reading some of the accounts of the Wesleys and their supporters during the 18th century Great Awakening it seems that it was the emphasis on sudden conversion and the 'conscious' apprehension that one's sins had been forgiven that proved among the most controversial elements. Some of the old school 'Black Calvinists' didn't like that at all.

Lollardy in 14th century England and the Hussites and Waldensians on the continent were certainly precursors of Protestantism but not necessarily direct precursors of evangelicalism. Any features they share with evangelicalism would be features they share with Protestantism overall rather than evangelicalism in particular.

I say this because there appears to be a default position within evangelicalism that their particular 'take' constitutes orthodox Protestantism and that other varieties of Protestantism somehow aren't the real deal.

I think we can see this, and I say this respectfully, in the way that Saul and to an extent EM are posting here ... and it's a way I'd have frame things myself at one time ...

He said Emergently ...

[Biased]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
@ Cliffdweller

I agree that the imagery points towards OT sacrifice, but that is not an affirmation of a penal understanding of the atonement. The animal to be sacrificed wasn't a sin-bearer. Had it been, it would be unclean, and thus not acceptable. The sin-bearing scapegoat was sent out, not sacrificed. Furthermore, substitution is not necessarily penal. Think "champion", rather than "victim".

Yes, which fwiw it's what I said-- that it fits satisfaction (temple image), not substitution (law court image).

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

But it's the text, rather than the imagery that seems to me to speak against PSA. The natural meaning of v25 seems toe to be that the death of Christ explains why God had not punished wrongdoing, that His idea of justice is concerned with restoration, not punishment, and that this is accomplished through the self-sacrifice of the Godhead.

Agreed. But that's a bit different than what you said in your post, which seemed like more of a reach to me. Thanks for the clarification.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I think we can see this, and I say this respectfully, in the way that Saul and to an extent EM are posting here ... and it's a way I'd have frame things myself at one time ...

He said Emergently ...

On the other hand, where you are now, I once was. Emergent/emerging - now emerged but a long way from Chalke and McClaren.

You see it from the POV of Orthodox, I see it from the POV of evangelicalism. I don't deny orthodoxen(?) are believers: their balance of the various explanations for (or strands of) the atonement (PSA included) is just different from mine that's all. I don't deny any of the theories advanced here: IMHO taken together they give a balanced and nuanced view of God's work. I might just want to include PSA where others take it out or play it down.

As for PSA being new - well, we're open to new understandings of human sexuality for example, so why not atonement? If we're prepared to move beyond tradition, then we can't pick and chose where the impact is felt.

[ 04. March 2013, 21:34: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Every self identifying group needs an out group! It comes from the nature of language. In order to be able say "that" you have to be able to say "not that".

Evangelicalism has a long tradition of opposing liberalism, which is why we speak of Open rather than Liberal Evangelicals.

No Evangelical would dare call themselves liberal, no matter how liberal they become. Open is the substitute word.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Heck, balaam, I did for years, until I settled for the more general nonconformist.

One conevo friend, to whom I described myself as a liberal evangelical, huffed and puffed. "Isn't that term rather like 'boiling ice'?". To which I replied airily "Of course not. Its a classic dissenter's right to differ!". And then observed that at the right temperature and pressure, ice will actually vapourise ... (nonconformism can be such fun).

I still do self-identify as an evangelical, for historical and ongoing community reasons. If the child is father to the man, my spritual childhood was spent almost entirely in the evo-world, these days I travel more widely.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Absolutely not - only by evangelicals, a minority and modern innovation.

There have been loads of threads on PSA so might be a tangent here

PSA is not the only substitutionary theology of the atonement. A large number of theologies of the atonement are substitutionary at some level.

PSA may be a shibboleth in some evangelical circles, but I suspect it's largely as an unconscious attempt to give themselves an identity in the face of evangelical diffuseness. Once liberalism largely faded away, a form of liberalism was invented so that evangelicalism could define itself against it.

Post evangelism seems to me to be more characterised by the movements and individuals who have tried to keep the bebbington quadrilateral in the background while rediscovering the wider christian tradition (otherwise why even call them post evanglical - you may as well call them the new liberals). I'm not sure that Steve Chalke is necessarily characteristic of that movement such as it is.

[ 04. March 2013, 23:07: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Every self identifying group needs an out group! It comes from the nature of language. In order to be able say "that" you have to be able to say "not that".
Evangelicalism has a long tradition of opposing liberalism, which is why we speak of Open rather than Liberal Evangelicals.

No Evangelical would dare call themselves liberal, no matter how liberal they become. Open is the substitute word.

I refer to myself as liberal (or left-wing) evangelical, but that's primarily a reference to the distinction between political liberal/conservatism & theological.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I've noticed that (in the British context) the word 'liberal' seems less attractive as a self-confessed label than 'evangelical'. The word 'evangelical' has a longer historical pedigree, of course. It seems to have a culture, an identity. Paradoxically, it also seems more inclusive, in the sense that it has the grass-roots, plain-speaking connotations of the plough boy with his Bible, whereas 'liberal' implies ivory towers and theologians who are far from the people.

In reality, the boundaries between the two are shifting all the time, depending on internal and external factors. Perhaps it's often more of a spectrum than two completely separate entities. Nevertheless, calling oneself a 'liberal evangelical' does seem a bit like trying to have one's cake and eat it! In the UK, 'moderates' in the church might think of themselves as open or broad evangelicals. I don't much hear the term 'liberal' used, except in reference to certain clergymen or theologians, or on this website. The increasing amount of self-confessed evangelicalism in our congregations means I'm likely to hear it even less.

Maybe a rebranding exercise is needed re 'liberal' Christianity.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I think 'liberal Christian' has become meaningless. If people ask me what I am, I usually say I don't know. This combines truth with brevity.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

One of the root meanings of the word "liberal" (before it became enmeshed in politics, probably to its detriment) is "generous in giving".

I think when McLaren used the term "generous orthodoxy", that is the kind of value he was reaching for.

I like the word "generous" in this context these days, rather than the word "liberal". Fewer overtones. I suppose you might argue it's an attempt to grab a bit of moral highground. But I don't mind its use by anyone, provided that they are generous!

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
One of the root meanings of the word "liberal" (before it became enmeshed in politics, probably to its detriment) is "generous in giving".

I think when McLaren used the term "generous orthodoxy", that is the kind of value he was reaching for.

I like the word "generous" in this context these days, rather than the word "liberal". Fewer overtones. I suppose you might argue it's an attempt to grab a bit of moral highground. But I don't mind its use by anyone, provided that they are generous!

McClaren has destroyed any vestige of usefulness in the term "generous" - since he isn't, at least to his opponents.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think 'liberal Christian' has become meaningless. If people ask me what I am, I usually say I don't know. This combines truth with brevity.

I say 'liberal, pretty modalist, closely verging on universalist, with occasional atheist tendencies and an enthusiastic evangelical follower of Jesus Christ'

That stumps 'em (and it's true!)

[Big Grin]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ Exclamation Mark

I don't think he likes meanness, Exclamation Mark. I don't think he attacks folks who see differently. Pointing to what he sees as mean-spirited attitudes is playing the ball not the person. People can always respond by explaining why they think the criticism is misplaced.

Of course any of us can take offence at an implication that we are mean. The distinction between criticising an argument or an attitude as mean, and saying that a person is mean, is pretty well recognised in our dialogues here (Commandment 3)

I think McLaren is Purgatorial, not Hellish. It is possible to maintain generosity towards people while disagreeing with them over views and outlook.

[ 05. March 2013, 08:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think McLaren is Purgatorial, not Hellish. It is possible to maintain generosity towards people while disagreeing with them over views and outlook.

Yeah, and given the abuse that gets dished out to him, Steve C & Rob B, they all do pretty well treat those people graciously.

It's perfectly possible to disagree profoundly, yet treat each other with respect and humility. A great example would be NT Wright & Marcus Borg's The Meaning of Jesus.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not sure where I'm 'at', to be honest, ExclamationMark. Non-conformity is in my spiritual DNA as it is with Barnabas62 and your good self - but I'd be lying if I didn't say that I was drawn in a more 'catholic' (broad c) direction when it comes to the sacraments and spirituality - contemplative prayer and so forth.

Evangelicalism is part of my DNA too and for that reason, I too am reluctant to abandon PSA entirely - although I would say I'm inclined to 'use' it alongside the other available theories.

I take your point about progressive revelation and that if we are to adapt/develop our views on issues such as human sexuality, then why not on issues such as the atonement? But that sounds a bit like having one's cake and eating it. But then, perhaps that's the reality of where we're at and up to ...

I s'pose I do use the Orthodox as something of a yard-stick - even though I've not crossed the Bosphorus - in that they've been around longer and I like aspects of their theology very much. That doesn't mean that they don't have problems - they have them in spades - nor does it mean that the RCs (and other Western traditions) don't have some valid points to make against them either.

I like the kind of 'Deep Church' ecumenism espoused by the likes of Andrew Walker - a general 'orthodoxy' based on Paleo-Orthodox pre-Schism emphases common to both East and West ... but then there's an issue because we could end up with 'stasis' based around the 10th century ...

@SvitlanaV2, I think 'liberal' is a loaded term in most evangelical minds and stands as short-hand for 'apostate' or unbelieving. I don't think it's often appreciated that there are nuances and a continuum there just as much as there is within evangelicalism or Catholicism ...

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Exclamation Mark

I don't think he likes meanness, Exclamation Mark. I don't think he attacks folks who see differently. Pointing to what he sees as mean-spirited attitudes is playing the ball not the person. People can always respond by explaining why they think the criticism is misplaced.

McClaren is very disingenuous in what he says over a lot of issues. In fact, he is so disingenuous (and that's what has turned me off from being a big follower at the start), that he has blurred the boundaries such that when he's saying he's playing the ball, he's actually playing the man. That's when you can wrestle a real opinion or truth out of him. (Don't forget though that he rarely admits even to playing the ball). After all, don't forget the ball belongs to the man - as do the attitudes. Attack the attitude and you attack the man.

It's rather like claiming you can hate the sin but love the sinner - it's complete nonesense: to the "sinner", the "sin" isn't "sin" but acceptable, normal behaviour. Matthew Parris pointed this out some years ago in the Times, in a leader article about the church and homosexuality.

What was once incredibly refreshing has become tiresomely similar to what has gone before.

[ 05. March 2013, 09:05: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
After all, don't forget the ball belongs to the man - as do the attitudes. Attack the attitude and you attack the man.

This is worth a thread of its own. There must be a line to be drawn between ball and man, or discussion would not be possible at all.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure where I'm 'at', to be honest, ExclamationMark. Non-conformity is in my spiritual DNA as it is with Barnabas62 and your good self - but I'd be lying if I didn't say that I was drawn in a more 'catholic' (broad c) direction when it comes to the sacraments and spirituality - contemplative prayer and so forth.

Evangelicalism is part of my DNA too and for that reason, I too am reluctant to abandon PSA entirely - although I would say I'm inclined to 'use' it alongside the other available theories.

I take your point about progressive revelation and that if we are to adapt/develop our views on issues such as human sexuality, then why not on issues such as the atonement? But that sounds a bit like having one's cake and eating it. But then, perhaps that's the reality of where we're at and up to ...

I s'pose I do use the Orthodox as something of a yard-stick - even though I've not crossed the Bosphorus - in that they've been around longer and I like aspects of their theology very much. That doesn't mean that they don't have problems - they have them in spades - nor does it mean that the RCs (and other Western traditions) don't have some valid points to make against them either.

I like the kind of 'Deep Church' ecumenism espoused by the likes of Andrew Walker - a general 'orthodoxy' based on Paleo-Orthodox pre-Schism emphases common to both East and West ... but then there's an issue because we could end up with 'stasis' based around the 10th century ...

@SvitlanaV2, I think 'liberal' is a loaded term in most evangelical minds and stands as short-hand for 'apostate' or unbelieving. I don't think it's often appreciated that there are nuances and a continuum there just as much as there is within evangelicalism or Catholicism ...

Thanks Gamaliel. Reasonable as always.

I wouldn't self identify under any label these days as they are all devalued or misunderstood in some way.

I might say dissenter is closet but what am I dissenting against or from? Poverty? The class system in England? The established church? The BUGB? The politicians in Westminster? The so called landed gentry and royalty? Churches that don't give the impression that their faith matters?

All of them as it happens. But, that's perhaps more a function of my nature than my spiritual positioning. I was dissenting in that way well before I became part of any "church."

I accept that you find Orthodoxy gives you a lens to see things in a sacramental way. I'm glad but it's not for me either naturally or spiritually. I'm more inclined to find my sacraments - as befits an ex farm labourer - in the open air of creation, recognising that redemption and sacrifice is a part of that too. I'm not comfortable with anything - people, ritual or qualification - that comes between humanity and God, which is why I am not of a priestly inclination at all.

My life experiences where I was ridiculed for many years for my accent, background and living standards has ignited a fire that seeks to consume abuse of position, hierarchy and social class: sometimes it burns over into a desire to remove all 3 entirely when some spectacular abuse comes to light. At times like that the baby can go out with the bathwater and in attacking the issue, by definition I play the man. I bite the hand that feeds me: (once to the edge of self destruction). Done it once or twice in the BUGB so I'm surprised I was ever allowed to move churches!

Having said all that, if you asked any of the churches I've served they'd certainly say (as they have) "EM is a real life, hard line, paid up Con Evo. He's into looking at new ways of being church but he's on a firm foundation."

I'd no longer say the same even though my preaching/beliefs etc haven't changed - it's just that Evangelicalism has moved to a place where I don't feel defined (or perhaps even welcome) any more.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
After all, don't forget the ball belongs to the man - as do the attitudes. Attack the attitude and you attack the man.
This is worth a thread of its own. There must be a line to be drawn between ball and man, or discussion would not be possible at all.

Depends on the level of ownership. If I own the ball (whether actually) or by association, anyomne playing it is polaying me depending on how "tight" my ownership is.

I'm not a footballer but a cricketer. While I have the ball to bowl it's mine: a good length ball unceremoniously dumped for 6 is not just playing that ball, it's playing me. The skill and effort I've put in is being disparaged: it's not batsman:bowler, this is persoanl.

Why are theological arguments any different unless you are deliberatly trolling or setting up straw men which you don't or can't own?

An e.g for you. If someone disparages the teaching profession for its attitiudes on say strikes or absence here on the ship, you will rightly fly to its defence. You own it and/or it owns you. Different issue but same result: in playing the ball of soem teachers and some bad attitudes (in very walk of like known to man), the whole team crys foul.

Discussion will only really take place when ownership is low - ie people are willing not just to listen (which we can all do) but to move or change (which is another thing entirely). A fair bit of stuff on the ship and in real life isn't discussion but an exchange of views: not much will change as a result unless ownership is loose and the people concerned willing.

It's a very unusual person (and I've not coem across one I know tloerably well in 50 years tbh) who doesn't play the person from time to time under the pretence of playing the ball.

[ 05. March 2013, 09:40: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Those who acknowledge that they are on a journey, that their faith and belief has changed and will probably change again, are inevitably going to be more provisional, cautious and humble. They will be easy to talk to, ready to see a different view as well as to tentatively express their own. If there is disagreement with them, it shouldn't feel final. You are simply reporting on how things seem to you from where you are at the moment.

Those who believe they have arrived at a faith and belief that is true are less easy to talk to. Especially those who think that a yard to either side lie false beliefs that will take anyone who strays there straight to damnation. Talking with such a person is never more than clarifying where you stand. Either you agree and all is well, or you disagree and are therefore enemies who had better disengage.

My point, rather obvious, perhaps, is that there are styles of belief as well as beliefs. There are ways of being evangelical or agnostic or catholic or whatever. You can have a dynamic attitude to faith, as a kitbag for a journey, or you can regard it as static, a territory to be defended.

When the EA redefines and reasserts its beliefs again, and scrutinises the position of Steve Chalke to see if he is still one of us or not, it is operating on the static model.

Those who self-describe as open, and who seek dialogue, are operating on the dynamic model. They might believe that same sex marriage is a terrible thing, and that PSA is the only acceptable understanding of the cross, but if they know that these beliefs are ones that have gradually grown in appeal for them, and acknowledge that they might one day move on from them, then they are as different in spirit as you can imagine from the firm and fixed believers.

Labels and limits will always matter greatly to the static type. For the shifters, not so much. It's about direction more than location.

The dynamic people are, in my opinion, the only interesting ones, and the only ones really fit to talk to. Who wants to risk sharing a precious insight with someone who already knows what they think about everything?

I think it's an observable fact that those on the evangelical liberal spectrum who are open rather than closed drift leftwards.

I think that in reality everyone is a work in progress. Hard evangelicals are simply in denial and bolster their current position with conferences, books, sound mantras and approved heroes. They are scared to think that Jesus might be the Way. They want to fix and freeze everything, not realising that insistent firmness of belief is a failure of faith.

Just a few of my prejudices.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The dynamic people are, in my opinion, the only interesting ones, and the only ones really fit to talk to. Who wants to risk sharing a precious insight with someone who already knows what they think about everything?

I think you're revealing more than prejudice here hatless: you're saying you're not prepared to listen to their insights and thus guilty of the same things you charge them with.

It's worth IME contending with every pharisee and becoming vulnerable with them. OK they may not listen but it's worth listening to them even if you don't agree. It might - just - win their trust and develope the ground for dialogue and growth.

I try no to give up on anyone and I know God won't.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I see that another PSA-type atonement thread has just arrived. Here.

If you want to get busy on that topic per se, I suggest you take your arguments there. On the wider questions of evangelicalism and post-evangelicalism, let's use this thread.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

You're right, of course, Exc.Mark. It's painful, though, sharing tentative, hopeful insights with someone who knows the right answer to everything.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

The exchange between hatless and Exclamation Mark reminds me of a nice bit of Adrian Plass

"Freely I confess my sin
For God has poured His Grace in
But when another speaks my faults
I want to smash his face in"

But seriously, folks ..

It really is possible to discuss differences of opinion, outlook and vision without rancour. Regardless of how dangerous we perceive the views of others to be - and vice versa.

It's a Romans 12 standard viz

quote:
18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

Nobody ever said it was easy. But we're obliged to at least explore the limits of what is possible.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

Both sides make valid points and may think they’re having a dialogue, but they’re not exactly engaging with each other in a meaningful way. The best we can hope for is that each one models a Christ-like way of handling a difference of opinion. Although, based on a reading of this month’s letters page in Christianity, I won’t be holding my breath … Since when did pretending there was no disagreement / difference of opinion and refusing to discuss the issue at all a sensible way of dealing with anything?!

Chalke is saying is that his pastoral experience tells him that the church needs to engage with certain issues and communities in a different way – as it’s current method of operation isn’t doing it any favours whatsoever. And is, in some incidences, completely contrary to the message of the Gospel. His Scriptural interpretation isn’t all it could be, but … The EA’s response is fine as far it as goes – that Scripture says blah, but it ignores the pastoral aspect.

EM – if you substitute the word gay into some of your posts about being mistreated because of your class, accent etc, and your desire to serve the poor, I suspect that you and Chalke are closer than you think.

In Baptist terms, Chalke’s behaviour makes total sense - he has thought and prayed over an issue and bought his conclusions to the discussion … As a Minister, his position is slightly interesting as his actions go against BUGB rules, but he hasn’t signed anything and Baptist Trainfan’s comments suggest that he may not have been aware there were rules.

The thing about congregational government is that you have to accept what the congregation decides whether you like it or not – and that particular Oasis congregation decided that they’re okay with SSM. By wading in the BUGB are going to please as many people as they piss off. No wonder they’re keeping quiet. (And, if pushed, I suspect that most Baptists would argue that congregational government trumps taking a firm stance against that sort of thing as people should be left to make their own minds up).

I’m not sure what the EA can do. They can state that by their definition, Chalke isn’t an evangelical … They can kick Oasis out of the EA if it’s a member. And, um, that’s it … I'd say that Chalke is a evanglical - ticking some of the boxes, but not others. Bit like most of us really.

Tubbs

[ 05. March 2013, 12:49: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Don't get me wrong, EM ... if I am taking a more 'sacramental' line these days, it doesn't mean that I don't see God in the open air and all the rest of it ... same as you do.

It's both/and not either/or.

I think these things can be a barrier and stand 'between' but they can also act as conduits and channels of grace. It depends how you approach them, I suppose ...

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

Forgot to add … When many Christians say words like Christian, Evangelical or Sound, what they actually mean is “People Who Agree With Me”. [Biased]

The fact that is perfectly possible to be a Christian and not agree with them can come as a surprise. Some manage to get their head round this, whilst others go into conversation mode or seek to close the discussion down entirely.

One of the reasons that Chalke has come in for quite such spectacular criticism is that Good Little Evangelical poster boys are not supposed to go off message and start expressing opinions of their own. Where will it end?! [Eek!]

Tubbs

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

It's sad what happens when folks forget that all us noncos are here because our predecessors in the faith found the courage to dissent.

Of all people, nonconformists should be the most comfortable with the possibility of diverse views expressed by sincere believers.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

My point of view is that if people self-identify as liberal, catholic, charismatic, evangelical, atheist even, than that's OK; but let them have integrity and BE those things. I do not mind in the slightest if Rev Chalke wishes to be more liberal and less evangelical - God is fine with that BUT he needs to make clear that he is no longer in that evangelical scenario. If I decided I wanted to celebrate the Lord's supper in salvation Army services, the only honourable and honest thing to do would be to resign my commission (as people I know have done)and accept ordination into the Methodist church.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

The problem ,as I see it, with some people who become 'poster boys' as has been described, or have become media figures, is that they begin to feel they are bigger and more significant than they really are.

I wonder whether there is a case for suggesting that SC, being a well-known face, thought his media-presence and self-perceived popularity would persuade evangelical people of the validity of his cause.

Actually, it seems that his previous self-publicising and rather patronising tones (in the written word as well as vocally) have rather turned people off him.

I still have a negative view of him since he started his Faithworks stuff and the tour he embarked on to teach the rest of the church that he had invented community work and that the church should listen to and learn from him, because he had discovered how to do it all!

As a Salvationist I found that to be patronising and offensive, and rather ignorant of the vast amount of valuable and professionally undertaken community work that a great many church, including TSA, have done for decades.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I think 'liberal' is a loaded term in most evangelical minds and stands as short-hand for 'apostate' or unbelieving. I don't think it's often appreciated that there are nuances and a continuum there just as much as there is within evangelicalism or Catholicism ...

To be fair, though, in some circles the word 'evangelical' is a bit of a insult, so the feelings of unease and incomprehension are probably mutual.

I was interested to read in a denominational survey that the Methodist church is the only denomination where self-professed liberal Christians are a growing proportion of the whole. Maybe that's because the most evangelical ones among them have left for other churches. (Or because for some reason the term 'liberal' doesn't inspire as much confusion and anxiety there as it seems to do among Baptists and Anglicans!)

By Methodist standards I'd easily be a broad evangelical, but I don't know if evangelicals in other denominations would have much patience with me. In reality though, the only two places where I see these labels discussed is on the internet or in books.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I can certainly understand your position, Mudfrog but would suggest that whilst there are parallels in the example you use, I also think there are some important differences.

Arguably, there is nothing in Chalke's position in terms of belief that would go against his being a Baptist. His 'blessing' of a same-sex relationship ie. an issue of praxis - might well be.

There are Baptist ministers around who take a far more 'liberal' view of things than he might. There are Baptist ministers around who are practically if not fully unitarian, for instance.

So that begs the question of what exactly it is about Chalke's position that might put him beyond the pale in evangelical terms - or EA terms - rather than specifically Baptist terms? Most Baptists are evangelical but you don't HAVE to be evangelical to be a Baptist. Hatless here is an example of a non-evangelical Baptist minister. He isn't the only one, although he may feel that he is at times ...

Is it SSM? Particular views on the atonement?

For the record, some liberals I've spoken too also have an issue with Steve Chalke - they think he's somewhat attention-seeking and is making a career out of clashing with his own tradition.

My own view is that the irritating facets - and I think I've have been irritated by the Faithworks tour thingy if I was a Salvationist - come from within the tradition itself. He's simply utilised the style of presentation that has become associated with the popular end of the evangelical movement - the Spring Harvests and so on.

And I suspect that's why he's had so much stick. Because the people he's dissenting from also use that style of communication and they're fearful of seeing it used against them.

I don't have anything against Chalke but he's not a hefty theologian by any stretch of the imagination but a somewhat populist communicator - and in a style that is endemic within contemporary evangelicalism for better or for worse.

I don't think that your irritation with Chalke is an example of Parable of the Prodigal Son elder-brother type behaviour, Mudfrog, but a legitimate response. That said, I think all of us would be gracious enough to concede that Chalke's faith/works going together emphasis is a welcome one in the evangelical world as a whole.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think if you got up close and personal to certain evangelical churches and congregations, SvitlanaV2 you'd quickly find that these things aren't just discussed on the internet or in books. They'd quickly try to suss you out to find how 'sound' you were.

I think that the broad evangelical position you've described wouldn't be out-of-place in most evangelical CofE or BUGB Baptist congregations. But there are places I can think of where they'd ask shibboleth questions to find out where you were at and whether or not you were one of them ...

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

1. I suspect that you and Chalke are closer than you think.

2. In Baptist terms, Chalke’s behaviour makes total sense - he has thought and prayed over an issue and bought his conclusions to the discussion …

3. As a Minister, his position is slightly interesting as his actions go against BUGB rules, but he hasn’t signed anything and Baptist Trainfan’s comments suggest that he may not have been aware there were rules.

4. No wonder they’re keeping quiet. Tubbs

1. Yes I know. Tiresome isn't it but in my defence I've always been a thorn in soembody's side in BUGB

2. Yep and everyone can decide in conscience whether he's right or wrong.

3. Yes it does go against the rules. I can understand that he hasn't signed anything but the chnages have been prettyt heavily signposted over the years that it's pretty near inconceiveable that he wouldn't have known. In fact, the "new" guidelines are more liberal on SSm than the old (which he probably did sign being a "good boy" then destined for higher things).

4. Yes the BUGB are hung is they do, hung if they don't. An invidious position but one they have partly backed themselves into by refusing to address the issue of SSM earlier, at Conference level (and please no, not at that unelected, misrepresentative BU Council).

Hung if they do - as you say, many are sympathetic. Far more than most people realise. Not active supporters, just couldn't care less or see it as a time bandit with lots else to do.

Hung if they don't - creates a precedent. What would it take to get deaccredited? If they don't address this then it efectively blows the whole idea of accreditation out of the water and there's no ins or outs. What about those removed from the list for having affairs - well that action is based on the acceditation rules and would, if Steve C faces no action, be technically free from BUGB action.

Of course they may be concerned that if they do something (why change the habit of a lifetime) then there's a legal perspective on it all. To my knowledge where that route has been put on the table, BUGB have rolled over and played dead every time.

It's a total mess and made worse because the BUGB will basically do nothing. neither to affirm Steve or to challenge him - instead the debate is being thrashed out in the public arena. No place to air our dirty linen.

I am still perplexed why Steve C chose to bring it up now. The BUGB is in state of change: the leadership at national and local level has its eyes on its own future not the doings of its ministers (or that's what it feels like on the ground for a number of reasons other than this debate). Presumably this all happened a while ago. is this all an attempt to be "a good day to bury bad news" type of thing? Perhaps only Steve C can tell.

As regards his evangelicalism - I'm sure Steve and I share many opinion in common. I'm just becoming more and more certain that our differences (and more the way he arrives at the decision) make it hard for me to take some of his stuff seriously.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My point of view is that if people self-identify as liberal, catholic, charismatic, evangelical, atheist even, than that's OK; but let them have integrity and BE those things. I do not mind in the slightest if Rev Chalke wishes to be more liberal and less evangelical - God is fine with that BUT he needs to make clear that he is no longer in that evangelical scenario. If I decided I wanted to celebrate the Lord's supper in salvation Army services, the only honourable and honest thing to do would be to resign my commission (as people I know have done)and accept ordination into the Methodist church.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

The problem ,as I see it, with some people who become 'poster boys' as has been described, or have become media figures, is that they begin to feel they are bigger and more significant than they really are.

I wonder whether there is a case for suggesting that SC, being a well-known face, thought his media-presence and self-perceived popularity would persuade evangelical people of the validity of his cause.

Actually, it seems that his previous self-publicising and rather patronising tones (in the written word as well as vocally) have rather turned people off him.

I still have a negative view of him since he started his Faithworks stuff and the tour he embarked on to teach the rest of the church that he had invented community work and that the church should listen to and learn from him, because he had discovered how to do it all!

As a Salvationist I found that to be patronising and offensive, and rather ignorant of the vast amount of valuable and professionally undertaken community work that a great many church, including TSA, have done for decades.

But that assumes we agree on what those things are in the first place. Now, I could read the EA, the UCCF and similar statements of faith and say that I agree with them. No lie. But whether or not they’d agree with my interpretation of them is another question entirely. If someone self identifies as something, all that someone else can say is that in their opinion, that’s not right.

To be honest, I think that by writing the article in Christianity and putting supporting material in places where it will be seen by the wider Christian community, Chalke has shown bucket loads of integrity. (Same goes for his comments on PSA – however badly expressed I thought they were). It’s a start of a discussion, not the end of one. It would have been far easier to have kept his gob shut.

At the time when FaithWorks was started, some churches had taken a step away from doing practical social Gospel type things – that was covered off by the annual charitable donation to something like Tearfund or Christian Aid. What Chalke did through FaithWorks was get people thinking that a) it could be done and b) it could be them doing it. Some churches still have the social awareness of a stone. It would have been better if Chalke had acknowledged the work some churches were already doing – but that can lead people to think that if someone’s already doing it, it means they don’t have to.

Tubbs

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My point of view is that if people self-identify as liberal, catholic, charismatic, evangelical, atheist even, than that's OK; but let them have integrity and BE those things. I do not mind in the slightest if Rev Chalke wishes to be more liberal and less evangelical - God is fine with that BUT he needs to make clear that he is no longer in that evangelical scenario. If I decided I wanted to celebrate the Lord's supper in salvation Army services, the only honourable and honest thing to do would be to resign my commission (as people I know have done)and accept ordination into the Methodist church.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

The problem ,as I see it, with some people who become 'poster boys' as has been described, or have become media figures, is that they begin to feel they are bigger and more significant than they really are.

I wonder whether there is a case for suggesting that SC, being a well-known face, thought his media-presence and self-perceived popularity would persuade evangelical people of the validity of his cause.

Actually, it seems that his previous self-publicising and rather patronising tones (in the written word as well as vocally) have rather turned people off him.

I still have a negative view of him since he started his Faithworks stuff and the tour he embarked on to teach the rest of the church that he had invented community work and that the church should listen to and learn from him, because he had discovered how to do it all!

As a Salvationist I found that to be patronising and offensive, and rather ignorant of the vast amount of valuable and professionally undertaken community work that a great many church, including TSA, have done for decades.

Interesting points here.

Yes the Salvation Army were being cutting edge when cutting edge meant getting beaten up and there were near riots when SA folk turned up to preach Christ and temperance from the demon drink in Victorian times :-)

Certainly, like a lot of ''new'' kids on the block, Chalke is neither novel in what he does practically or what he says in his books.

He is a persuasive man with an Essex glottal stop; very keen to be noticed and to be fair to Chalke he likes the publicity but he has, it appears, done much through the Ministry he set up and works for today.

But, the debunking proces AKA ''The Lost Message of Jesus'' could be described as being ''lost'' because often the debunking process claims to find something ''new'' when actually it is ressurecting old heresies or stuff which was ''lost'' for quite good reason in the first place; more like a rehash of previous messsages.

I think the call for authenticity by MF is fair. If you are an elephant, call yourself an elephant and be done with it; do the things elephants do - don't try and drag unwilling and less gullible folk with you. But we're back to defining oneself and Chalke will have a label for himself and I am sure others will slap labels on him.

As MF points out God is big enough to deal with Chalke, whatever his motivations may be.

As stated previously I know little of Chalke and his background. I am a straight down the line evangelical and I think the argument for PSA is a strong one, after all - cross - Jesus - in my place - sin - saved. If I might make it that blindingly simple; to find the ''lost'' message seems naive and quite disingenuous to me and the flippant side of me wants to retort not half so lost as the man who penned the book, but that is not for me to know or to judge.

Saul

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

1. I suspect that you and Chalke are closer than you think.

2. In Baptist terms, Chalke’s behaviour makes total sense - he has thought and prayed over an issue and bought his conclusions to the discussion …

3. As a Minister, his position is slightly interesting as his actions go against BUGB rules, but he hasn’t signed anything and Baptist Trainfan’s comments suggest that he may not have been aware there were rules.

4. No wonder they’re keeping quiet. Tubbs
1. Yes I know. Tiresome isn't it but in my defence I've always been a thorn in soembody's side in BUGB

2. Yep and everyone can decide in conscience whether he's right or wrong.

3. Yes it does go against the rules. I can understand that he hasn't signed anything but the chnages have been prettyt heavily signposted over the years that it's pretty near inconceiveable that he wouldn't have known. In fact, the "new" guidelines are more liberal on SSm than the old (which he probably did sign being a "good boy" then destined for higher things).

4. Yes the BUGB are hung is they do, hung if they don't. An invidious position but one they have partly backed themselves into by refusing to address the issue of SSM earlier, at Conference level (and please no, not at that unelected, misrepresentative BU Council).

Hung if they do - as you say, many are sympathetic. Far more than most people realise. Not active supporters, just couldn't care less or see it as a time bandit with lots else to do.

Hung if they don't - creates a precedent. What would it take to get deaccredited? If they don't address this then it efectively blows the whole idea of accreditation out of the water and there's no ins or outs. What about those removed from the list for having affairs - well that action is based on the acceditation rules and would, if Steve C faces no action, be technically free from BUGB action.

Of course they may be concerned that if they do something (why change the habit of a lifetime) then there's a legal perspective on it all. To my knowledge where that route has been put on the table, BUGB have rolled over and played dead every time.

It's a total mess and made worse because the BUGB will basically do nothing. neither to affirm Steve or to challenge him - instead the debate is being thrashed out in the public arena. No place to air our dirty linen.

I am still perplexed why Steve C chose to bring it up now. The BUGB is in state of change: the leadership at national and local level has its eyes on its own future not the doings of its ministers (or that's what it feels like on the ground for a number of reasons other than this debate). Presumably this all happened a while ago. is this all an attempt to be "a good day to bury bad news" type of thing? Perhaps only Steve C can tell.

As regards his evangelicalism - I'm sure Steve and I share many opinion in common. I'm just becoming more and more certain that our differences (and more the way he arrives at the decision) make it hard for me to take some of his stuff seriously.

Whether or not Chalke is a Baptist Minister is less relevant in the wider debate than him being a Minister and A Famous Christian. The particular subtlety of him being a Baptist is probably lost on many people – as is the tangle that the BUGB has made for itself. (You and I will disagree on this as I think in this instance, keeping well out of it is their best option. I think Ministers should be left to decide for themselves).

Tubbs

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Steve Chalke has done some great stuff through faithworks. Yes, it did annoy a few of us in the implication that we weren't doing anything but it made us think.

Yes the "Lost Message" wasn't "Lost" - it's always been there if you want to search it out. That's what annoyed those of us who have read a bit of theology and remember the church history lectures.

Yes he has been honest with the SSB article but his justification for it has proved to be sketchy. It hasn't helped him either in a lot of people's eyes by seeking to escape the wrath of BUGB by saying he doesn't know or can't understand the rules. Wakey wakey Steve, the rest of us know (even idiots like me with way more in common with you than most realise) and if we're going to break them, do so with eyes wide open and don't wriggle when we're found out. That's the saddest of all. I would have said to the BUGB, "So what?" make my 5 minutes if I felt so strongly about it as Steve C seems to want to do.

Steve C has an element of a PR image about him. It has served him, Oasis and the gospel well in the past and does so in any ways now. But don't forget he's a Spurgeons Graduate who did his first church ministry when ordained at Tonbridge.

The saddest thing is that he could have chosen a number of other things from a social justice POV to go public on that (to my mind) are much more important and which would have united poeple behind him and not brought incipient division. Why doesn't he pick up on the Govts benefi reforms that are impacting the poorest in our society? On my doorstep there are 1100 redundancies happening by April (probably impacting 7000 more jobs because of the nature of the industry) with the benefit cuts taking £20 a week off of families. Who is speaking up on that? The Tory MP's and the Council have probably got a contract out on me at the moment on the issue cos I can't keep quiet --- where's Chalk on this?

I can only reiterate my earlier point: why this? why now?

It all smacks of the kind of approach of a smile and a stab: how fatally the BUGB is wounded remains to be seen.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think if you got up close and personal to certain evangelical churches and congregations, SvitlanaV2 you'd quickly find that these things aren't just discussed on the internet or in books. They'd quickly try to suss you out to find how 'sound' you were.

I think that the broad evangelical position you've described wouldn't be out-of-place in most evangelical CofE or BUGB Baptist congregations. But there are places I can think of where they'd ask shibboleth questions to find out where you were at and whether or not you were one of them ...

I wasn't saying they wouldn't have strict theological requirements for belonging, simply that the term 'evangelical' itself doesn't seem to be much in evidence in the ecumenical environment I'm familiar with. Maybe that's just ecumenical diplomacy at play! But I admit that the Baptist minister I know has openly delared as an evangelical without any prompting. (He certainly wouldn't be caught conducting any SSM blessings, but he's said that other Baptist ministers might.) I don't know if their congregations would routinely use this terminology.

A number of local Christians, knowing that I'm between churches, have angled for me to join them at their church, including the Baptist minister. None of them have exactly tried to suss me out, perhaps because they already know me from my previous church work, and they approve of my commitment. No - what I get sometimes is the slight sense of being 'preached at', which is a bit different!

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Gamaliel said

quote:
Hatless here is an example of a non-evangelical Baptist minister. He isn't the only one, although he may feel that he is at times ...

I think I'm non-Evangelical, not non-evangelical. That is, I'm keen on sharing the faith, evangelism, but I'm not part of that informal grouping of people who make up the Evangelical movement.

And I don't feel at all lonely. You tend to gravitate towards the like-minded, but I had no problem just now ticking off on my fingers ten serving Baptist ministers whose positions would be very close to mine. I've just moved from Yorkshire to the Midlands, and I find myself in a town with at least five ministers (two retired) who are kindred spirits. I suspect that the further south you go, we lovely unsound ones get fewer and farther between, though.

I've never met Steve Chalke, and I'm sure we would disagree about many things. Nonetheless I am very grateful to him for raising the issue of SSM. I see him as a force for good in the denomination. I think the consternation that he has caused - the whole question of what Evangelicals should believe - is wonderful. We should all always be challenged about our identities and beliefs.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]You and I will disagree on this as I think in this instance, keeping well out of it is their best option. I think Ministers should be left to decide for themselves. Tubbs

I think we might disagree but it's not for want of my trying not to! I've seen people leave ministry where IMHO the BUGB have been culpable. I've seen some ministries concluded as a result of "breaking the rules"

I accept it's a no win whatever BUGB does. But I think Steve C knows exactly what he is doing and why. He knows nothing will be done and I know nothing will be done. This generosity is not extended IME to other people by the BUGB. It's the partiality that really raises my hackles esp as the BUGB professes to despise it in other denominations.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Gamaliel said
quote:
Hatless here is an example of a non-evangelical Baptist minister. He isn't the only one, although he may feel that he is at times ...
I think I'm non-Evangelical, not non-evangelical. That is, I'm keen on sharing the faith, evangelism, but I'm not part of that informal grouping of people who make up the Evangelical movement.

I don't mean to be nosy, but what are you getting at here? Surely, if the movement is informal then anyone can 'belong' to it? Do you mean you're not part of an evangelical subculture, or that you don't attend an obviously evangelical church?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I suspect that the further south you go, we lovely unsound ones get fewer and farther between, though.

Supposedly it depends on which college you trained at, not location of ministry. I know that when I went to one church it was in an area noted for "liberalism" in any and all denominations. Even Baptists. That wasn't quite as far south as is possible but not that far off. The same was true of the midlands.

In both places as of now, I'm probably in the 1/3 minority as a con evo - although I wouldn't use the term of myself. Nice chaps and all that but not much common ground I'm afraid.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Exclamation Mark asks

quote:
I can only reiterate my earlier point: why this? why now?

I can't speak for Steve Chalke, but for me it's important because it's a gospel value. Jesus healed the sick - bad backs, bad arms, bad eyes, skin diseases - but the emphasis in the gospels is that he healed particularly and precisely those who were also being judged as unclean by the religion of his society. It was the man with the withered arm in a synagogue, the woman made ritually unclean by her haemorrhage, Simon's mother in law on the Sabbath. Jesus deliberately confronted religious condemnation of people as well as sickness itself. He healed, but he also forgave. Sometimes, as with the man lowered through the roof, the forgiving seems to have been the bigger deal.

The religious war on gay people makes them the equivalent for us of the unclean in Jesus' time. The more implacable the churches' stand against justice for gays becomes, the more important I think it is to stand with them. It's the biggest issue for the integrity of Christianity today. If we are not on the side of those judged because of their sexuality then we are not, in my opinion, where Jesus is, and the good news is not proclaimed.

Perhaps Steve C feels the same, I don't know. I do know that I came quite close to resigning my accreditation and therefore my ministry over the possibility that the BU would discipline a minister over this issue.

Being evangelical (not Evangelical) makes this a crucial issue for me. I dare say Steve is the same.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

SvitlanaV2 said

quote:
I don't mean to be nosy, but what are you getting at here? Surely, if the movement is informal then anyone can 'belong' to it? Do you mean you're not part of an evangelical subculture, or that you don't attend an obviously evangelical church?

The movement is made of people with a whole set of beliefs and traditions. I share some of the traditions, but not many of the beliefs. I do, though, believe in the preaching of the gospel, evangelism. The church I attend is keen to reach the community and share its faith, but not particularly committed to other Evangelical beliefs about, for example, sin, scripture and atonement.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
SvitlanaV2 said
quote:
I don't mean to be nosy, but what are you getting at here? Surely, if the movement is informal then anyone can 'belong' to it? Do you mean you're not part of an evangelical subculture, or that you don't attend an obviously evangelical church?
The movement is made of people with a whole set of beliefs and traditions. I share some of the traditions, but not many of the beliefs. I do, though, believe in the preaching of the gospel, evangelism. The church I attend is keen to reach the community and share its faith, but not particularly committed to other Evangelical beliefs about, for example, sin, scripture and atonement.

That's interesting. What you're implying is that evangelism is now so wedded to notions of evangelicalism (whether big 'e' or little 'e')in the popular mind that anyone who wishes to talk about Jesus with non-believers is by default an evangelical, because non-evangelical Christians in our culture no longer attempt to do this.

It's a sad stateof affairs if only 'evangelical' Christians are assumed to be interested in sharing the gospel. Actually, I'm sure there many Christians in non-evangelical congregations who would be offended by your assumption. Whether they would be justified in feeling offended is another matter, though!

[ 05. March 2013, 16:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

1. It's the biggest issue for the integrity of Christianity today.

2. Perhaps Steve C feels the same, I don't know. I do know that I came quite close to resigning my accreditation and therefore my ministry over the possibility that the BU would discipline a minister over this issue.

1. I don't agree. Poverty - the result of deliberate and unjust policies - is. It's a systematic attempt to fragment a nation and to break and punish a group (class) of people for the mistakes of others (bankers), that if perpetrated on other races would be classed as racist genocide. I cannot sit by and watch children go hungry on my doorstep in the name of benefit reform without saying or doing anything. The church - local and national - has said little to its total and absolute shame. Whited sepulcres.

2. It's a brave decision. Bear in mind though that I know of some who will resign if the BUGB doesn't discipline a Minister who has taken that step.

[ 05. March 2013, 17:51: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Absolutely not - a minority and modern innovation.
I don't know. Romans 3: 21 - 26 suggests otherwise.

Depends how you read Romans.

PSA is read BACK into some Pauline texts.

N. T. Wright has written much about this tendency, going back to Luther (who was not into PSA).

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Poverty is a huge issue. Global inequality is, I think, a greater one. Our foolish and vindictive penal system is another. Arguing about where gay rights comes in the list will get us into dead horse territory, but I wanted to make the point that it is, in my opinion, tightly tied up with the proclamation of the gospel.

Human flourishing and good relationships (free of racism, sexism and gross inequality) are truly part of the gospel, but like the issue of the woman bent double who, after eighteen years, shouldn't wait another few hours for the Sabbath to be over but has to be healed now, because she also is a daughter of Abraham, says Jesus, our GLBT sisters and brothers are a marker case. They haven't just happened to find themselves on the wrong side of an economic policy. Their full part in society, their human dignity, is denied because of who they are (as has happened and still does happen with women). Moreover, the church is the main driver of their dehumanisation.

I think you simply cannot proclaim the gospel without fighting this battle. We will always have a new battle to fight for the rights of the disadvantaged. This one, though, is for our time, the test case, the symbolic case, the one that is the key to all the others. Or so it seems to me, and perhaps Steve C also.

I don't believe we can say God so loved the world while still denying gay people equal regard.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

1. It's the biggest issue for the integrity of Christianity today.

2. Perhaps Steve C feels the same, I don't know. I do know that I came quite close to resigning my accreditation and therefore my ministry over the possibility that the BU would discipline a minister over this issue.
1. I don't agree. Poverty - the result of deliberate and unjust policies - is. It's a systematic attempt to fragment a nation and to break and punish a group (class) of people for the mistakes of others (bankers), that if perpetrated on other races would be classed as racist genocide. I cannot sit by and watch children go hungry on my doorstep in the name of benefit reform without saying or doing anything. The church - local and national - has said little to its total and absolute shame. Whited sepulcres.

2. It's a brave decision. Bear in mind though that I know of some who will resign if the BUGB doesn't discipline a Minister who has taken that step.

But how would you know whether the BUGB has disciplined anyone for this? Would you like a full page ad in the Baptist Times? With pictures ... [Biased]

Most work related disciplinarys take place in private, with only those directly involved knowing about it. Assuming that BUGB ones work in a similar way, then by demanding that it's done differently because it's Chalke is a bit crap. Partial even.

Tubbs

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[qb] [QUOTE]But how would you know whether the BUGB has disciplined anyone for this? Would you like a full page ad in the Baptist Times? With pictures ...

Most work related disciplinarys take place in private, with only those directly involved knowing about it. Assuming that BUGB ones work in a similar way, then by demanding that it's done differently because it's Chalke is a bit crap. Partial even. Tubbs

Well, it all rather depends on who EM is and who and what he/she knows, doesn't it lol!

A full page spread - no, I don't think so. Just tarring and feathering should do - or, we could reintroduce the ducking stool on Westminster Bridge. It'll have to be that as I've thrown away my portable stake, heretics burning for the use of.

Name and shame? Well not quite that but Steve's comments have been pretty public .... having said that a discussion on the issues he's raised would not come amiss before any action is taken. Let's see what BUGB think and let ministers decide for themselves which way they want to turn depending on BUGB's decision.

It all has shades of the Ordinariat about it doesn't it? What I find so sad is that we're all getting hot under the collar about this when there's more immediate concerns to deal with.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

To confuse issues, hatless, I understand the distinction that you're making between small-e and Big E evangelicalism, but I've heard Big E Evangelicals make finer distinctions than that ... claiming that their particular brand of Big E Evangelicalism was the original and best ... and that not all evangelicals are Evangelicals ... and not all Evangelicals are Evangelicals either ...

And so it goes on ... all traditions do similar things. All Orthodox are Orthodox but some are less Orthodox than others. All Catholics are Catholic but some are ...

And so on and so forth ...

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[qb] [QUOTE]But how would you know whether the BUGB has disciplined anyone for this? Would you like a full page ad in the Baptist Times? With pictures ...

Most work related disciplinarys take place in private, with only those directly involved knowing about it. Assuming that BUGB ones work in a similar way, then by demanding that it's done differently because it's Chalke is a bit crap. Partial even. Tubbs
Well, it all rather depends on who EM is and who and what he/she knows, doesn't it lol!

A full page spread - no, I don't think so. Just tarring and feathering should do - or, we could reintroduce the ducking stool on Westminster Bridge. It'll have to be that as I've thrown away my portable stake, heretics burning for the use of.

Name and shame? Well not quite that but Steve's comments have been pretty public .... having said that a discussion on the issues he's raised would not come amiss before any action is taken. Let's see what BUGB think and let ministers decide for themselves which way they want to turn depending on BUGB's decision.

It all has shades of the Ordinariat about it doesn't it? What I find so sad is that we're all getting hot under the collar about this when there's more immediate concerns to deal with.

I'd assumed that you're more up on the Baptist grapevine than us. [Biased]

But how can you have any discussion when some of the participants have already decided that they're going to resign if the BUGB doesn't deal with the issue in the way they think is right?

I think Chalke was more concerned about contributing to the discussion about SSM - and anyone who has read his recent books won't be entirely surprised by this - than a desire to put one over on his fellow Baptists.

Good luck with the job application for General Secretary. If you get it, please would you come and preach at our church? Not sure if we could run to GenSec type expenses, but I'd cook you a really nice lunch. [Razz]

Tubbs

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I’m not sure what the EA can do. They can state that by their definition, Chalke isn’t an evangelical … They can kick Oasis out of the EA if it’s a member.

Coming very late to this thread to say that kicking people out of the EA appears to be a lot more difficult than it was back in the Jesus Army days.

As I understand it, it took all the local EA church leaders round Brentwood to resign from the EA to get the notorious Peniel church thrown out a few years back.

Today, if you draw the EA's attention to the overwhelming documentary evidence of serious misbehavings of a member organisation (and let me just make it clear I'm not talking about the church movement I used to be part of!), their first step at present is to invite the trustees of that self-same organisation to investigate, rather than conduct an independent inquiry themselves (which is a bit like asking Iran to conduct its own nuclear inspection programme) - on the basis that the EA has no remit to investigate.

Of course, different standards may apply for anything to do with sex.

My perspective is that the EA is very happy to count as many warm bodies as possible when it comes to claiming how many people they speak for, but extremely reluctant to own any of them when it comes to keeping its own house in order, including on issues I personally think are far more serious than Steve Chalke's headline-grabbing.

[ 05. March 2013, 20:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
....
It all has shades of the Ordinariat about it doesn't it? What I find so sad is that we're all getting hot under the collar about this when there's more immediate concerns to deal with.

It's not like the church isn't trying to challenge
popular myths about poverty as well as doing more practical things ... But what's the better news story? Minster says controversial stuff OR church challenges the prejudices that this newspaper has helped create and continually feed?!

Tubbs

[ 05. March 2013, 21:04: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]

1. I'd assumed that you're more up on the Baptist grapevine than us. But how can you have any discussion when some of the participants have already decided that they're going to resign if the BUGB doesn't deal with the issue in the way they think is right?

2. I think Chalke was more concerned about contributing to the discussion about SSM - and anyone who has read his recent books won't be entirely surprised by this - than a desire to put one over on his fellow Baptists.

3. Good luck with the job application for General Secretary. If you get it, please would you come and preach at our church? Not sure if we could run to GenSec type expenses, but I'd cook you a really nice lunch. Tubbs

1. I've picked up a bit over the years (nudge, nudge).

It's a bit silly in the cold light of day but I think a lot of people are hacked off with the BU's pace of movement on this one that's why the rumblings are starting. Don't forget that hatless said he/she would drop off the accredited list if it went against SSM - so its not all one way.

If the BUGB got their act together and allowed the debate they've suppressed for some years, we'd be further on. At least the antis (on whatever side) would respect the idea of a decision being made even if they disagree with it. It's the classic fudge I'm afraid and BUGB is rather good at it.

I've heard tonight from another source of a minister who has asked his church to think about ditching its charitable status if SSM is permitted by the BU.

2. Yes I can see that and I am far from one to chuck stones at that one. I rather like provocation myself. But, I still have a nagging question about why he's chosen to do it now when the BUGB is rather on the ropes vis a vis leadership and Gen Secs.

3. Aha! My secret is out, my campaign must gather pace. Eugene, the chain saw please.

I'm mad but not that mad. Impossible job as it combines a demand for strategic thinking allied to a managerial whizz kid with an eye for detail. In 30 years of leadership and management (some time in the city)I've only ever seen 2 people capable of delivering that. Neither are/were baptist ministers.

However, that said, I am available for outside gigs weddings, bar mitzvahs, masonic lodge openings and the like. Happy to preach and I don't usually frighten children or the elderly unless asked to do so. I'm cheap (free actually, don't even charge expenses and am house trained. My carer, Nurse Mrs E M, will have the syringe ready just in case. Does it help if I say I trained somewhere on a hill in South London??

Joking aside you only have to ask - and the free bit is true. Always glad to help out. PM me for the truth!

4. Love the blog and recipe ideas. Soup works well for us

5. There is no point 5

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

My perspective is that the EA is very happy to count as many warm bodies as possible when it comes to claiming how many people they speak for, but extremely reluctant to own any of them when it comes to keeping its own house in order, including on issues I personally think are far more serious than Steve Chalke's headline-grabbing. [/QB]

I'm coming to this thread late as well...on purpose!

I'm a relatively new Baptist Minister and had to sign the agreement not to promote or bless same sex relationships. Am not particuarly happy about it and feel as if I come to ths debate with my hands tied.

My only annoyance wih SC is that he comes to the debate from a fairly safe position as he is unlikely to loose his job and then his house etc for speaking out. Many Baptist ministers would love to speak on this as it is an issue of the gospel, justice and grace but don't because of the fear of consequences.

The main difficulty I have is that the head of the BU Ministry dept has spoken in support of same sex relationships. The BU is by no means united in its theological position.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]

1. I'd assumed that you're more up on the Baptist grapevine than us. But how can you have any discussion when some of the participants have already decided that they're going to resign if the BUGB doesn't deal with the issue in the way they think is right?

2. I think Chalke was more concerned about contributing to the discussion about SSM - and anyone who has read his recent books won't be entirely surprised by this - than a desire to put one over on his fellow Baptists.

3. Good luck with the job application for General Secretary. If you get it, please would you come and preach at our church? Not sure if we could run to GenSec type expenses, but I'd cook you a really nice lunch. Tubbs

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
[QUOTE]The main difficulty I have is that the head of the BU Ministry dept has spoken in support of same sex relationships. The BU is by no means united in its theological position.

Yes, that's the daft thing isn't it. A supporter of SMM who will have to kick anyone who does it. We're at home to Mr Cock Up aren't we Baldrick?

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
[QUOTE]The main difficulty I have is that the head of the BU Ministry dept has spoken in support of same sex relationships. The BU is by no means united in its theological position.
Yes, that's the daft thing isn't it. A supporter of SMM who will have to kick anyone who does it. We're at home to Mr Cock Up aren't we Baldrick?

So you wouldn't want to apply for the Head of Ministry post when PG leaves with the others then? [Biased]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
The main difficulty I have is that the head of the BU Ministry dept has spoken in support of same sex relationships. The BU is by no means united in its theological position.

Interesting but not IMO surprising. Can you give me chapter and verse, please?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
[QUOTE]So you wouldn't want to apply for the Head of Ministry post when PG leaves with the others then?

Whats going on? Everyone wants me in Didcot. Help! How do you know Im not there now????

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

You quote your location as "New Jerusalem". I understand irony, but Didcot?!?

You'd not be able to post for laughing.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You quote your location as "New Jerusalem". I understand irony, but Didcot?!?

You'd not be able to post for laughing.

Truth is stranger than fiction Karl

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Mind you, I know a URC lay preacher - a good friend of mine - who is convinced that God's special light shines down upon Framlingham.

Except when it's raining - then it's just another dull little English town.

It's prettier than Didcot (not difficult), but lacks a Railway Museum.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Mind you, I know a URC lay preacher - a good friend of mine - who is convinced that God's special light shines down upon Framlingham.

Except when it's raining - then it's just another dull little English town.

It's prettier than Didcot (not difficult), but lacks a Railway Museum.

Come off it Trainfan - you KNOW where I live and move and have my being! There's bits of railway in the New jerusalem church building (timbers and cast iron piller shoes) - it's close enough to the tracks in any event (less than 3 cricket pitches away).

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

Excuse my ignorance, but as a baptist I don't really have a clue about the shenanigans which EM is alluding to. I've never really thought of the BU as being anything more than an administrative and support organisation rather than a denomination. Maybe it's something that's only really affecting the ministers.

Or maybe my church just doesn't really want to pay any attention. When someone asked people to sign the petition against SSM the leaders were at pains to point out that this was a personal decision, not something the church had a position on.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There's bits of railway in the New jerusalem church building (timbers and cast iron piller shoes)

Now there's an idea: a little railway in church. They had one in Lincoln Cathedral a few years ago when they were doing some building work, and another at Canterbury for moving sandbags during the War.

But something tells me that this has little to do with Steve Chalke (whoops, I failed to genuflect properly there) and Post-Evangelicalism.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
Excuse my ignorance, but as a baptist I don't really have a clue about the shenanigans which EM is alluding to. I've never really thought of the BU as being anything more than an administrative and support organisation rather than a denomination. Maybe it's something that's only really affecting the ministers.

Or maybe my church just doesn't really want to pay any attention. When someone asked people to sign the petition against SSM the leaders were at pains to point out that this was a personal decision, not something the church had a position on.

The BUGB has always been a puzzle.

In some respects it's very hands off, in others quite directive. As a minister there's certain pressures, mostly unseen, to "encourage" one's church to support BUGB. If your church is receiving grants in order to have a minister then that link is much much tighter still (inspections, reports, decisions about funding).

Then there's conferences, regional and national; committees - again regional and national.

We're often being reminded about the baptist "family" but that's not necessarily the most helpful metaphor for a lot of people for a lot of reasons. I suppose we use "family" as a substitute for denomination - which IMHO BUGB is adenomination even if it claims it isn't: distinctive beliefs in common (baptism, church meeting priesthod of all believers, central organisation, hierarchy (of sorts), distinctive "arme" that rely on churches for support (BMS, HMF).

Funnily enough the freedom of conscience which most baptists would say demonstrates our non denominational status actually underpins the denominational status - it's a belief and a prcatice and one promoted and held in common as a baptist distinctive.

Soem churches are very BUGB grounded others not at all. It may be that your church is just happy enough in its own way but dig a bit deeper and you'll probably find more BUGB links than you think. Fulfilling your BMS and HMF quota --- ah, now you see!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

... something tells me that this has little to do with Steve Chalke (whoops, I failed to genuflect properly there) and Post-Evangelicalism.

True. But speaking as a host and contributor here, it's been light relief. I've enjoyed Exclamation Mark's tongue-in-cheek stuff (particularly "there is no point 5").

And the general absence of genuflection. Nonconformists don't like any suggestion of a minister getting too big for his or her boots. Helping them towards humility is a service. Keeps them closer to God, don't you know. It's one of the ways we do submission.

On quantpole's post, my reading of the earlier posts is that the BUGB really didn't want to have a "centrally stated" and prescriptive policy on SSM and SSB, but its hand was forced by the pressure of government legislation (actual and impending?)

Is that a reasonable reading? Maybe there was more than one pressure at work?

[ 06. March 2013, 07:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My reading of the earlier posts is that the BUGB really didn't want to have a "centrally stated" and prescriptive policy on SSM and SSB, but its hand was forced by the pressure of government legislation (actual and impending?)

I don't think so (but I may be wrong). I think it had more to do with internal pressures within the BU, and conformity to perceived Evangelical norms. It's worth remembering that Council (which made the decision) has tended to be older, less diverse and possibly more conservative than the Union as a whole - although the African churches, which would presumably take a "harder line" on this, are hardly represented.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]On quantpole's post, my reading of the earlier posts is that the BUGB really didn't want to have a "centrally stated" and prescriptive policy on SSM and SSB, but its hand was forced by the pressure of government legislation (actual and impending?)

Is that a reasonable reading? Maybe there was more than one pressure at work?

The BUGB has always been wary of openly discussing SSM and SSB. Various groups and people have tried to get it on the Agenda for Annual Conferences but it's always, somehow, been kept off.

It may be that they have other good reasons for this but I do have a sneaking suspicion that
a) they thought if it wasn't mentioned it would go away
b) it's a case of don't ask, don't tell about what ministers teach or get up to (there's a few examples to support this)
c) they assume (rightly IMHO and IME) that on this issue the denominational views are not as conservative as our ecclesiology would require (view of sctipture): they are afraid of the fall out.

It's all been shoved on us by wider dicussions and internal pressures: there is a significant and growing number of people who don't see SSM and SSB as a problem. If rumour is correct, this includes some very senior people in the hierarchy.

Currently (and whatever anyone claims to the contrary) the ministerial rules for accredited ministers require a "traditional" approach to teaching and practice on same sex issues. Doesn't matter if you sign them or not, they are there. No one checks if individual ministers sign them but they are there nonetheless. No one checks if ministers amend the forms they were sent to be signed: I did and no one has challnged it.

There's an untenable position here when you tie in our understanding of freedom of conscience - a key baptist cornerstone - and guidelines which have to be seen as prescriptive.

The seeds then of the current debate were sown a long time ago but the plant has grown. Heads in the sand mean it will all have a greater impact than if it had been addressed when it first became clear that the wind was blowing in this direction. What Steve Chalke has done is to stimulate debate - for which I affirm and admire him even though I don't agree with his actions, timing or methodology. We sit on two different sides of this issue.

What is curious is why he has choisen to do it now. The cynic in me says that if i wanted to destabilish the union then I'd drop this kind of bombshell at a time when we're going through a very painful reorganisation and looking for new direction at the top. It looks too good an opportunity to miss when the eye has been elsewhere. I'm sure I'm putting too much too it but then again ....

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE] although the African churches, which would presumably take a "harder line" on this, are hardly represented.

The African Churches take the hardest of hard lines on this. they now form a significantly minority in the Union and are beginning to punch to their weight. They are the ones most likely to leave if SSB's are permitted alongside a few more calvinist type churches and a few who just can't stick the BUGB's indecisiveness anymore.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Thanks, Shipmates. I wasn't sure whether signing an agreement to a pre-existing denominational policy might be seen to have some protective benefit to ministers (both in terms of discussions with any couple coming forward, or in terms of what test cases have to say about present and impending legislation).

The way it struck me, in terms of normal Baptist congregational independence, is that any congo could pass a motion at a members' meeting, stating that, as a matter of conscience, it is the policy of this congregation to do (or not do) "x" (however that might be worded).

So any incoming minister would know the group view, and the strength of it. From the outside, that struck me as a normal road for Baptists to tread, and take the consequences which flow from belief in congregational government.

I'm aware I'm straying into Dead Horse territory, so if any of you fancy a Steve-Chalke-free discussion on that, I'm happy to set up a thread in DH.

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

EM, if I was asked what denomination I was I'd say Baptist, not Baptist Union (or Grace Baptist or Reformed Baptist - churches I've been to at some point in the past). I personally don't think that Baptist Union is any more of a qualifier to beliefs as saying you are part of the Evangelical Alliance for instance, and I don't think people would argue that the EA is a denomination. These structures just don't seem to matter much on the ground, in my experience, and are much less evident than they are in say the CofE or New Frontiers.

In terms of conferences, I can't actually think of any Baptist specific ones. I'm sure there are some but the vast majority of people in my experience go along to New Wine, Greenbelt, Spring Harvest, Keswick etc depending on what they like.

I am aware of a split in the 70s, which I think was caused by the principal of Northern Baptist College denying the divinity of Christ? The main problem then being not that he believed this but that the BU was unwilling to say he was wrong. This is very much chinese whispers though so I could be very wide of the mark.

Apologies for making this a 'Baptist' thread but I do think it touches on the reaction to Steve Chalke.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Thanks, Shipmates. I wasn't sure whether signing an agreement to a pre-existing denominational policy might be seen to have some protective benefit to ministers (both in terms of discussions with any couple coming forward, or in terms of what test cases have to say about present and impending legislation).

The way it struck me, in terms of normal Baptist congregational independence, is that any congo could pass a motion at a members' meeting, stating that, as a matter of conscience, it is the policy of this congregation to do (or not do) "x" (however that might be worded).

So any incoming minister would know the group view, and the strength of it. From the outside, that struck me as a normal road for Baptists to tread, and take the consequences which flow from belief in congregational government.

I'm aware I'm straying into Dead Horse territory, so if any of you fancy a Steve-Chalke-free discussion on that, I'm happy to set up a thread in DH.

The accreditation rules pre date any discussions of SSM and were updated about 4 or so years ago. Their review was not prompterd by SSM debates, more a function of revised processes for accreditation which included a probationary period with very prescriptive developmental goals.

Churches can take the road you mention although their ability to do so could be limited in other ways. A lot of churches are held in trust for the local congregational by outside trustees either BUGB or Regional Associations. A church may want to offer SSB's but if its trustee is BUGB or an association which is anti, then the guidelines might be given that SSB's can't take place in such churches in trust to these groups.

A church could ignore the trustees wishes of course, under the freedom of conscience idea, but they would be technically and positively in breach of their property trust by doing so. I suspect but don't know for eceratin these days that SSB's do happen in baptist Churches under the radar on a don't ask, don't tell basis.

I doubt though that we'd see legal action even if this did occur. I don't think BUGB on anyone would welcome the resultant PR disaster. Tbh who cares anyway what goes on somewhere else - the vast majority of people in baptist churches have become very local minded and unless it imnapcts them directly they do have concerns but it doesn't go very far from that. I can't see many getting wound up enough to write to the Union, Steve Chalke, Gen Sec or whatever/whoever.

Congregational Govt has many pluses but sometimes it can breed isolation. Ceratinly churches do "advertise" their position on certain things when looking for new minsiters - and vice versa. That way you hope that there's a theological fit which brings a practical fit. I'd very quickly hve problems in a middle class liberal congregation for example which is why I'm where I am - getting down n dirty.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Hi Quantpole! How're things?

I used to a member of Quantpole's church when I lived where he does. I'm not surprised it emphasised the signing of the petition as a personal decision - that fits with the ethos there.

Here, in our local evangelical Anglican parish church they practically lined us all up against the wall and threatened to machine-gun us if we didn't sign the petition. They were all going around with gloomy faces the day the bill went through Parliament as if the sky were about to fall in.

Even if I'd have wanted to sign a petition against SSM I wouldn't have signed it because of the way they were pressurising us all to sign, 'Surely any real Christian would be against this Bill?' was the shocked tone behind it all.

Perhaps I'm still a Baptist at heart. My wife is. I want to raise two-fingers to anyone who tries to compel or coerce me to do anything. I had enough of that back in the restorationist house-churches. I certainly don't want to see it in Baptist or Anglican churches.

I wouldn't say that Quantpole's church was particularly isolated - it's involved ecumenically with the Anglicans and Methodists on local youth work etc - but I think it's fair to say that it sits loosely by BUGB stipulations.

I do think, though, that the BUGB is really only an issue at ministerial level. The people in the pews or the plastic chairs aren't really that bothered, unless they're 'Big Baptists' and keen on all things Baptist in an organisational kind of way.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
EM, if I was asked what denomination I was I'd say Baptist, not Baptist Union (or Grace Baptist or Reformed Baptist - churches I've been to at some point in the past). I personally don't think that Baptist Union is any more of a qualifier to beliefs as saying you are part of the Evangelical Alliance for instance, and I don't think people would argue that the EA is a denomination. These structures just don't seem to matter much on the ground, in my experience, and are much less evident than they are in say the CofE or New Frontiers.

In terms of conferences, I can't actually think of any Baptist specific ones. I'm sure there are some but the vast majority of people in my experience go along to New Wine, Greenbelt, Spring Harvest, Keswick etc depending on what they like.

I am aware of a split in the 70s, which I think was caused by the principal of Northern Baptist College denying the divinity of Christ? The main problem then being not that he believed this but that the BU was unwilling to say he was wrong. This is very much chinese whispers though so I could be very wide of the mark.

Apologies for making this a 'Baptist' thread but I do think it touches on the reaction to Steve Chalke.

There's quite a strong EA/BUGB link in the sense that the statements of beief are very similar and some of the personnel move back and forwards.

I agree that very little of this matters on the ground unless you chose to allow it to or unless you are a BUGB minister when there's little choice but to tow what is a (broadish) party line. Perhaps not broad enough for some but too broad for others.

I wouldn't even claim to be a baptist anyway. In the words of the Monkees "I'm a believer" .

You're right on the money in your description of the 1970's split. Taylor's was a view held by a fair few but the BUGB accepted it in the sense that they tried to keep it quiet. Without success and it all blew up at the 1971(?) Assembly. Te Union lost a lot of big influential churches over it mainly because their politics and indecisiveness over scriptual beliefs were revealed.

The same strands are worringly apparent over the SSM issue today: a groundswell of opinion, a lack of decision making, and a boil about to burst. This time it will be external pressures, not just internal ones that will make it go pop.

We may well see black majority churches jumping ship if the question isn't addressed to their satisfaction. They'll be joined by the con evos (of whcih they are many) and those hacked off by the BUGB;s lack of decision making. Nothing is happening at the moment at least publicly but it should be - not least an emergency motion at the conference in may.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I should clarify, of course, if clarity is required, that the petition they were pushing our arms up our backs to sign at the local evangelical Anglican parish wasn't the same one as the BUGB were asking people to consider. That, if I understand it correctly, was more a connexional/denominational thing.

The one that came round our Anglican parish was more a 'vote-against-this-or-else-the-sky-will-fall-in-and-we'll-all-go-to-hell-in-a-handcart'. It was backed up by scaremongering stories of how Christians would be discriminated against and how freedom of conscience would be irretrievably lost.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I do think, though, that the BUGB is really only an issue at ministerial level. The people in the pews or the plastic chairs aren't really that bothered, unless they're 'Big Baptists' and keen on all things Baptist in an organisational kind of way.

I tend to agree Gamaliel. The number of big baptists is dropping off - witness the attendance at regional and national and even local events on a baptist theme. Baptists aren't as distinctive as they once were. You can find all the theology and practice in other churches but possibly only in baptist churches does it come together in a unique way which if it "works" can be an amazing experience.

Like you I am a dissenter by nature and by experience. A fair few bits of my life have made me like it or reinforced it. I'll always ask "Why?" - great for vision in the church bit not so welcome from denomiunations who expoect you not to ask that question.

As for doing what someone tells me to do without explanation - because I say so or because it's the rules - you can whistle perhaps for good, certainly for a time. I don't do to others and don't expect others to do it to me.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think these recent exchanges show the constraints and freedoms very well.

In the non-Baptist-Union independent nonconformist assemblies, one classic reaction to any questions re policy is to wave the Bible and say "we follow this". Unpicking that kind of gets to the root of the OP. Lots of folks from within think that evangelicalism doesn't have fuzzy edges, which is why the pulpit is "protected" from "unsound" teachers. Reminds me of a Sir Humphrey-ism. "Our policy to is ensure that the Prime Minister is not confused!". In nonco congos, that's often the aim of deacons and elders in their congregational oversight. We need clear proclamation. Trumpets must not sound uncertain notes.

I suppose as I've got older, I've realised that the Christian faith is full of paradoxes. One in Three. Fully human and fully divine. Made in the image of God, marred by sin. Inspired and diverse in understanding. No doubt you can see others. There are things that we do best to hold in tension, recognising that each polarity speaks to the other and the total picture would lack truth without them. Even if we don't understand, we can see the dangers in the demand to resolve the tensions.

But communicating that sort of understanding is not easy to a congo which includes searchers, beginners, longtime travellers and everything in between. The best we can do is "we know in part", which can also make the trumpet sound an uncertain note.

I like questions, questioning voices, wrestling with stuff. It's one of the reasons I'm here. But not only is not everyone like me, I don't think the majority of folks I've met in churches are like me. So I understand the aim of avoiding confusion. In practice, however, I've also found that the "don't confuse" policy (whether stated or not) can be very constraining for the explorers, who may seek to boldly go where no one has gone before. "Heere be mynes". True enough. But "Heere be Treasure" too.

Steve is a pioneer-type, an explorer. That sort of outlook can get you into trouble. But evangelicalism needs its explorers, doesn't it?

[ 06. March 2013, 09:54: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But evangelicalism needs its explorers, doesn't it?

Yes it does but sometimes the explorer ends up being changed by the culture of the new country he's found - and not for good.

I do take issue with Steve Chalke's reaction to all this though: if it creates a problem hold your hands up mate, don't pretend you didn't know the rules.

It's a McClaren style disingenuism and it doesn't work. Have the real courage of your convictions Steve - hit the rules head on and you'll have got a lot more respect instead of a lot of us thinking you're wriggling once you see the waves you've created.

Yes he's got previous as well - something of the same happened with the so called "Lost Message" - when he allegedly claimed that his collaborater on the book put stuff in he (Steve) didn't know about.

Back to the OP - is Steve an Evangelical? Not by my (albeit subjective and post modern) analysis. Is he emergent? Certainly but what into? Brian McClaren for the man on the Clapham Omnibus? I value an admire Steve for a lot of what he does esp when I disagree but there's just too much of the unaccounted for on this one.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Back to the OP - is Steve an Evangelical? Not by my (albeit subjective and post modern) analysis.

So why not? What makes him not Evangelical?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Back to the OP - is Steve an Evangelical? Not by my (albeit subjective and post modern) analysis.
So why not? What makes him not Evangelical?

A low view of the divine authorship and divine authority of Scripture, evidently.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

But in his article, Chalke argues that anyone condemning slavery must have a similarly "low view" of Scripture [Confused]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A low view of the divine authorship and divine authority of Scripture, evidently.

Yeah, evidently:

quote:
I have formed my view, however, not out of any disregard for the Bible’s authority

-- Steve Chalke

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

Barnabas, Spot on.

I knew Steve years ago when I worked for Oasis for a year. He is someone who asks the right questions. I don't think I fully agree with where he ends-up theologically but what makes me far more uncomfortable is the fellow-evangelicals I know who seem to want him to go away and stop asking awkward questions. I think this kind of theological-control-freakery (that is sadly far too common in evangelical circles) is far more dangerous than most heresies - whatever they are...

AFZ

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But evangelicalism needs its explorers, doesn't it?
Yes it does but sometimes the explorer ends up being changed by the culture of the new country he's found - and not for good.

I do take issue with Steve Chalke's reaction to all this though: if it creates a problem hold your hands up mate, don't pretend you didn't know the rules.

It's a McClaren style disingenuism and it doesn't work. Have the real courage of your convictions Steve - hit the rules head on and you'll have got a lot more respect instead of a lot of us thinking you're wriggling once you see the waves you've created.

Yes he's got previous as well - something of the same happened with the so called "Lost Message" - when he allegedly claimed that his collaborater on the book put stuff in he (Steve) didn't know about.

...

By doing that he’s admitted to being too lazy / busy to have read the final proof, as well as not being bothered the content of material that goes out under his name. Classy. It doesn’t wash. Particularly as, having heard Chalke talk at numerous seminars, the whole chapter sounds exactly like the transcript of a tape recorded conversation where he went off on one. And got left as is because there wasn’t time to do a proper editing job on it because the book was due for submission.

B62 wrote:

quote:
I like questions, questioning voices, wrestling with stuff. It's one of the reasons I'm here. But not only is not everyone like me, I don't think the majority of folks I've met in churches are like me. So I understand the aim of avoiding confusion. In practice, however, I've also found that the "don't confuse" policy (whether stated or not) can be very constraining for the explorers, who may seek to boldly go where no one has gone before. "Heere be mynes". True enough. But "Heere be Treasure" too.

I’d agree with that. As I’d mentioned before, Christians divide broadly into two camps – ones who use Christian and related terms to mean Someone Who Agrees With Me. And they expect their church experience, teaching, the books they read and the songs they sing to reinforce what they already think. Which is fine. Others belong to the Martyn Joseph school of “Treasure the Questions” and believe that Bible passages aren’t the end of a discussion, but the start of one. Which is also fine.

The problem with issues like SSM etc is that they bring the two camps into direct conflict. It’s never pretty. BTW, EM when I was blathering on about people having decided they’re going to take their bat and ball home if the BUGB didn’t do what they wanted, I was having a go at both camps. Saying that you’re going to resign if the BUGB doesn’t discipline Chalke is equally as unhelpful as saying that you’re going to resign if they do.

Thing is, issues like this do get to the heart of what it means to be a Baptist. And I suspect that the average Baptist in the pew would think that issues like this are ones where Didcot should keep quiet and let individuals and congregations discern for themselves. Some ministers may want the BUGB to do something – but attempts to force their hand may not play well at church and could result in a few Ministerial bloody noses. Seen that happen a few times over the years.

Tubbs

[ 06. March 2013, 10:53: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Barnabas, Spot on.

I knew Steve years ago when I worked for Oasis for a year. He is someone who asks the right questions. I don't think I fully agree with where he ends-up theologically but what makes me far more uncomfortable is the fellow-evangelicals I know who seem to want him to go away and stop asking awkward questions. I think this kind of theological-control-freakery (that is sadly far too common in evangelical circles) is far more dangerous than most heresies - whatever they are...

AFZ

It's also unBiblical. Christians are explictly told that they have to be able to give a reason for the hope they have. You can't do that if you too busy telling anyone else with a different opinion to STFUP in Christian Love because "we have to present a united front".

Tubbs

[ 06. March 2013, 10:58: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
"we have to present a united front".

I was looking for this cartoon (from Os Guinness' The Gravedigger File) while you were editing your post to add that, Tubbs. The book was published in 1983 so the issues have shifted a bit, but I think it gets the 'gnats-and-camels' idea nicely [Frown]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm pretty chewed up and torn on a lot of these issues, as is probably evident from my posts right across these Boards ...

Let's stick with the Baptist thing a moment, and I really do think it's pertinent to this thread in a lot of ways.

My own experience of Baptists has generally been positive - although I'd seen a lot of infighting and dysfunctionality in Baptist churches in my native South Wales. My brother was involved with one for a time, as was I during university holidays.

Within about 18 months/2 years of my evangelical conversion at university I was embedded in full-on charismatic evangelical restorationism - although I remained reasonably eirenic and had wider contacts throughout my time on that scene.

18 years later, when I finally pulled out of the restorationist/new church scene the Baptists were a god-send. I'd heard all sorts of disparaging comments about the 'church-meeting' and so on when I was in restorationist circles - often from former Baptists. So when I first attended 'church-meetings' after years on the restorationist ambit where things were very top-down, I was amazed. It was like a breath of fresh-air.

As EM and other Baptist ministers have observed, when Baptist church polity works it can be truly jaw-dropping.

That said, I was never that convinced by the talks I heard on Baptist ecclesiology and the efforts to find evidence of it in the NT ... it struck me that there was more of a continuum between the early church and the emerging bishops, priests and deacons thing that appeared during the sub-apostolic and Patristic periods than many Baptists were prepared to admit.

You had to have some kind of notion of everything 'falling away' very rapidly from an apparent NT norm and I'm not sure that church history bears that out.

I was also moving to a more sacramental form of spirituality and that was tolerated (and even encouraged) in the Baptist circles in which I moved - although some former RCs among the Baptists had difficulties with my position because they thought I was heading where they'd been ...

So I find myself in a cleft-stick ... I'm a dissenter by nature but warm towards aspects of spirituality that are perhaps emphasised most in more heirarchical church structures. Problem.

I've heard it said, for instance, that many, if not most, Orthodox priests are control-freaks and that bothers me as it reminds me of the old restorationist days which were control-freakery personified. I'm finding that evangelical Anglican vicars can also be control-freaks over particular aspects ...

Nigel Wright toyed with restorationism for a while but said that it made him realise that he was a 'Baptist' ... and that he needed to draw from his own spiritual roots.

That's fine, but as has equally been said by EM, the Baptists are becoming less distinctive. They often seem to represent a fairly bland mulch of middle-of-the-road, mainstream evangelicalism. I don't have a big issue with evangelicalism per se but I don't like its sub-cultural aspects - and I certainly don't warm to the current trends in worship-styles that are found within evangelicalism ... unless, of course, they are borrowing (as some do) from the more reflective/contemplative or loosely 'catholic' end of things.

So, I'm in an awkward position. I find full-on conservative evangelicalism doctrinaire, tribal and off-putting. I like the idea of open evangelicalism but have yet to find much that approximates to that - at least not in the CofE, despite all claims to the contrary.

I know one can't have one's cake and eat it ... combining the best of each - the dissenting voice, 'soul-competence' and the church-meeting with the sacramental and the numinous ... these things don't work out as neatly as that.

I'm wary of Chalke on one level - the media-personality/poster-boy aspect - but am pleased he's asking the questions.

I'm not sure Mudfrog is right when he says that Chalke is sitting loosely with the authority and divine authorship of scripture ... that strikes me as a subjective judgement ie. 'he doesn't agree with me, therefore he must sit lightly by the authority and divine authorship of scripture ...'

We can all play at that game. I won't play it but one could easily turn around and say to Mudfrog, 'If you're that keen on the divine authority of scripture then why aren't you observing the sacraments ...'

But he'd have an answer for that, of course. Namely that he recognises their efficacy but doesn't see the need to practice them for various ecclesial and soteriological reasons - ie, they are not necessary for salvation.

I'm not saying he's right or wrong, just using it as an example where a tit-for-tat comment could be directed in return - ie. if you sat so squarely on scriptural authority why don't you do X, Y or Z ... baptise people, celebrate the eucharist, sell your possessions and give to the poor, etc etc whatever else ...

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Back to the OP - is Steve an Evangelical? Not by my (albeit subjective and post modern) analysis.
So why not? What makes him not Evangelical?

Simply my subjective view that he's not in my tribe, whatever that tribe now is. It's probably different from yesterday and not what it will be tomorrow. What I don't say by the way is that he isn't saved, nor that he isn't a believer.

If you take the EA's view he isn't - on his view of scripture (however much he protests some of his his writings suggest otherwise). By the BUGB measure well it's more debateable but it does depend on how you define the E word.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

Barnabas62 - totally agree with your post. You and me both...

[tangent]As regarding paradox, I'm quite comfortable with it, and not surprised at finding paradoxical elements in the Christian faith. Paradox is at the heart of the nature of the physical universe, as I discovered when studying quantum mechanics (and especially wave/particle duality) so I'm not surprised to find it at the heart of the spiritual world as well. [/tangent]
Angus

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I suppose the real problem, Exclamation Mark, is that nonconformism in general is a good place for folks who ask questions, don't necessarily take received wisdom as wise, are willing to DISSENT when what is presented as received wisdom doesn't strike them as either wise or all that Christian.

Nonconformism and evangelicalism were the "manure" in the Christian field where I got planted and grew up. Same for Steve. I'm pretty "communitaire" despite my "liberal" "open" "emergent" (pick your adjective views).

I think it does my local congo good to have me around and they think so too. My "wishy-washy" is well known to the more conservative, but they love me anyway and I love them.

So I'm not much taken by "re-branding". The child was father to the man. I owe a lot to my background and early learning.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If you take the EA's view he isn't - on his view of scripture (however much he protests some of his his writings suggest otherwise).

Okay. Tiptoeing round DH territory, how is it that the EA is not in support of slavery, then? What hermeneutic allows one to say "times have changed" with regard to slavery and not, say, SSM?

Generally, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find a definition of "high view of scripture" that doesn't actually mean "different interpretation of scripture to mine".

(I'm not trying to single you out, EM, or say these are your own views, but you seem to have a handle on where the EA is coming from on this).

More on-topic, is the current furore about Chalke really about maintaining "high view of Scripture" or is it about sex? Would there be such a furore if he was "merely" lying? Somehow I doubt it.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
"we have to present a united front".
I was looking for this cartoon (from Os Guinness' The Gravedigger File) while you were editing your post to add that, Tubbs. The book was published in 1983 so the issues have shifted a bit, but I think it gets the 'gnats-and-camels' idea nicely

I love that, thanks for sharing!

Tubbs

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If you take the EA's view he isn't - on his view of scripture (however much he protests some of his his writings suggest otherwise).
Okay. Tiptoeing round DH territory, how is it that the EA is not in support of slavery, then? What hermeneutic allows one to say "times have changed" with regard to slavery and not, say, SSM?

Generally, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find a definition of "high view of scripture" that doesn't actually mean "different interpretation of scripture to mine".

(I'm not trying to single you out, EM, or say these are your own views, but you seem to have a handle on where the EA is coming from on this).

More on-topic, is the current furore about Chalke really about maintaining "high view of Scripture" or is it about sex? Would there be such a furore if he was "merely" lying? Somehow I doubt it.

The EA perhaps like other evangelicals would not see slavery and same sex relationships in the same way. They would condemn slavery as being naturally unjust. They would (?probably) condemn homophobia as unjust.

Where they depart from an open view is that they have reservations and opposition to same sex relationships that are treated on the basis at hetereosexual marriage. It may seem unjust to some to deny equal treatment, to accept it would seem wrong to others.

There's a lot of rhetoric on both sides of the debate that confuses the issue. Here's a resume of some stuff going around and I don't say I agree or disagree with any of it. It's just here to illustrate the spin.

No, there's no actual proof of the gay gene. Equally there's no reason why we shouldn't revise our thinking about such relationships. Yes, Jewish tradition and practice considered same sex activity an abomination but Jesus didn't condemn it. Claims that same sex activity was common in Jesus' time amongst greeks and roman are true in fact but fanciful in estimating the prevalence of it. Far less than people estimate or imagine. SSM affects 10% of the population who are gay so we have to be concerned. less than 2% of the population are exclusively gay: the others chose bisexuality of whatever - why be driven by a small moinority not all of whom wnat it? The bible says it's ok if it's loving and lasting. The bible condemns it all.

Some of it boils down to ignorance, some to revulsion, some to prejudice some to indifference, some to being informed. It's a pretty personal decision for most depending on what one has been fed or what one instinctively believes on gut reaction whether grounded or thought through or not.

The real fuss is not so much the SSM issue but the biblical basis on which aceptance of this practice is arrived at. For some the question is not what baby will be thrown out of the bathwater next, but is there any water left to wash the infant?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So I'm not much taken by "re-branding". The child was father to the man. I owe a lot to my background and early learning.

You and me both. The angry young man has matured but is still indignant about the exploitation of the weak by those who should know better. These days the young man has learned enough to proclaim "The Sky is Red" - read the signs of the times.

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The same strands are worringly apparent over the SSM issue today: a groundswell of opinion, a lack of decision making, and a boil about to burst. This time it will be external pressures, not just internal ones that will make it go pop.

We may well see black majority churches jumping ship if the question isn't addressed to their satisfaction. They'll be joined by the con evos (of whcih they are many) and those hacked off by the BUGB;s lack of decision making. Nothing is happening at the moment at least publicly but it should be - not least an emergency motion at the conference in may.

I would put questioning the divinity of Jesus in a completely different realm to SSM. In the circles I move in so far there hasn't been much of a reaction to Chalke at all. I doubt most people are even aware of what he's said. I mentioned it to someone at another BU church and there was a bit of tutting and an air of "Oh what a naughty boy". To the conservatives I think he's basically on ignore now after his comments about PSA, so it's no particular surprise for them to see him supporting SSM. I haven't heard anyone saying that the BU should take action against him.

I think the comment about 'big' baptists is pretty accurate - all of the people I've come across who have been passionate about baptist heritage and so on have been 60+.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE] Some ministers may want the BUGB to do something – but attempts to force their hand may not play well at church and could result in a few Ministerial bloody noses. Seen that happen a few times over the years.

Tubbs

Yes, when roused there's a few in the BUGB who presume to punch above their weight class. What sanction do they really have?

They do tend to pick on easier targets and leave the diffcult stuff (as of now and 1971) hopoing it will all go away.

[ 06. March 2013, 12:02: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Where they depart from an open view is that they have reservations and opposition to same sex relationships that are treated on the basis at hetereosexual marriage.

But (correct me if I'm wrong) Steve Chalke isn't arguing for that.

He says

quote:
I leave it to others to debate whether a Civil Partnership plus a dedication and blessing should equal a marriage or not

and that when he conducted such a ceremony it was

quote:
Not to challenge the traditional understanding of marriage – far from it

It may well be that he is being disingenuous and provocative, but unless somebody can show me where he's been more specific, it seems to me that saying "Steve Chalke condones SSM, that's unbiblical, ergo he is not an evangelical" is a gross misrepresentation of his remarks by people who make a point out of examining carefully what the text actually says.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

And since when have critics been carefully examining their victims' statements before atacking them wih all guns blazing?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
I would put questioning the divinity of Jesus in a completely different realm to SSM ... To the conservatives I think he's basically on ignore now after his comments about PSA, so it's no particular surprise for them to see him supporting SSM.

I think the comment about 'big' baptists is pretty accurate - all of the people I've come across who have been passionate about baptist heritage and so on have been 60+.

I agree on both counts (and I'm 59!!)

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A low view of the divine authorship and divine authority of Scripture, evidently.
Yeah, evidently:

quote:
I have formed my view, however, not out of any disregard for the Bible’s authority
-- Steve Chalke

"...except in those areas where I disagree with it." he might have said.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[QUOTE] It may well be that he is being disingenuous and provocative, but unless somebody can show me where he's been more specific, it seems to me that saying "Steve Chalke condones SSM, that's unbiblical, ergo he is not an evangelical" is a gross misrepresentation of his remarks by people who make a point out of examining carefully what the text actually says.

It's being very disingenuous. The very act and setting and context gives the impression of equality even if that isn't the design.

Yes we intrepret Steve's actions but what he says about them but also the non verbal interpretation of his actions dependent on possible equivalence. Occam's razor possibly applies here - Steve may not think it is intended to be x but that's the net result.

Since he's actually saying - what's the fuss about, it isn't equal to marriage whetever you might think - he's trying to wriggle again and in the process trying to put the blame onto opponents for their interpretation. They have every right to interpret it that way, however daft we might think it to be.

However, if it walks like a duck, quacks like one then it is a ...... duck. C'mon Steve you can really really better than that whatever you say. If that's the case anyway, why did he do it?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
"...except in those areas where I disagree with it." he might have said.

Don't you mean "except in those areas where I disagree with his interpretation"?

Do you seriously think he has come to different conclusions to you simply because he has a lower regard for Scripture? Is it in fact his different conclusions that prove (in your eyes) that he has a lower view of Scripture? If not, what is it?

Can you point out a way he 'mishandles' Scripture to reach his conclusions and be sure that you yourself never 'mishandle' Scripture in the same way to arrive at your own?

[Confused]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
However, if it walks like a duck, quacks like one then it is a ...... duck. C'mon Steve you can really really better than that whatever you say. If that's the case anyway, why did he do it?

So (back to the OP!) what is a "duck" here? A non-evangelical? A liberal? A post-evangelical?

And if you think Chalke is, um, ducking and weaving, what is it you think he should come right out and say? "Sorry folks, I only pretend to take Scripture seriously, I think teh gayz should really have equal everything, I hereby hand in my evangelical party badge, kthkxbi"?

(I still don't understand how people who support close readings of the text as regard Scripture seem to persist in thinking that anything written by anybody else has a subtext, but still...)

[Confused]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
However, if it walks like a duck, quacks like one then it is a ...... duck. C'mon Steve you can really really better than that whatever you say. If that's the case anyway, why did he do it?
So (back to the OP!) what is a "duck" here? A non-evangelical? A liberal? A post-evangelical?

And if you think Chalke is, um, ducking and weaving, what is it you think he should come right out and say? "Sorry folks, I only pretend to take Scripture seriously, I think teh gayz should really have equal everything, I hereby hand in my evangelical party badge, kthkxbi"?

(I still don't understand how people who support close readings of the text as regard Scripture seem to persist in thinking that anything written by anybody else has a subtext, but still...)

The duck here can be any variety we want - Indian Runner or Khaki Campbell.

I think you're putting up an argument here not based on anything I've said. I've not saying he's ducking and weaving - though perhaps I should - nor that he's not telling the truth. I just think he's blind to what hsi actions look like whether unconsciously or deliberately. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

What he did was specific and planned act. It was in a church and in the presence of a congregation. I'm sure some words were used to recognise commitment of one person to another (vows). It's in the presence of God. That was celebration, prayers and the fellowship giving their support to the 2 people involved.

All these factors taken together with a man and a woman on sat 23rd march in the new jerusalem will constitute a marriage. No the paperwork but the actions. Why is what Steve Chalke did actually any different? What does he see he was doing?

I don't know what he should say actually: I'm not him. If it were me I'd say this is what I'm doing and why esp if I was a minister with a public profile like him whose words are likely to be seized on.

[ 06. March 2013, 12:45: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE] Some ministers may want the BUGB to do something – but attempts to force their hand may not play well at church and could result in a few Ministerial bloody noses. Seen that happen a few times over the years.

Tubbs
Yes, when roused there's a few in the BUGB who presume to punch above their weight class. What sanction do they really have?

They do tend to pick on easier targets and leave the diffcult stuff (as of now and 1971) hopoing it will all go away.

That’s not quite what I meant … Ministers and congregations may have a very different take on this. Ministers may see this purely as a disciplinary issue – where a Minister who’s flouted the rules should go through due process – to encourage the others and because it’s only fair. Congregations may wonder why the BUGB ruled on what is essentially a matter of conscience for Ministers and congregations in the first place.

What I can see happening is, in some cases, Ministers deciding that this is a matter of principle and asking their church to support them in leaving / staying etc and being told to bog right off.

Tubbs

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I don't know what he should say actually: I'm not him.

While I have some sympathy with your annoyance, I don't have much sympathy with your argument.

We're no further forward about what the "duck" you imply Chalke to be is.

You say Chalke is no longer an evangelical, but you can't actually spell out why in terms of his theology (only his actions).

You take issue with his disingenuous style, but you back away from actually articulating what you think it is he would be saying if he were to state his position more overtly.

Your argument comes down to "we all know why he shouldn't be considered an evangelical any more". The trouble is, we don't.

I have to say that this approach strikes me as being every bit as disingenuous as his, and I am no further forward in my quest for understanding.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
He is certainly a Christian despite his deficient Sacramental understanding.
Deficient? How?

In the same way the Orthodox would probably see mine as deficient!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Eutychus is right, Mudfrog.

You could say, 'Steve Chalke has a high view of scripture only insofar as those points in which it agrees with him ...'

To which I (or someone else) could respond, 'Mudfrog has a high view of scripture only insofar as those points in which it agrees with him ...'

To which you could reply, 'Gamaliel has a high view of scripture only insofar ...'

See the pattern?

I won't do so, but I could claim that you were being less than scriptural for believing in but not practising the sacraments. You could, legitimately, say that I'm behaving less than scripturally by posting some of the things I do and 'using language' at times in Hell and even in Purgatory.

That Gamaliel, calls himself a Christian/evangelical/post-evangelical/delete as appropriate and yet he's got a mouth on him like I don't know what ...

It cuts all ways round.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

We have spent some time discussing Chalke's position.

Well, the evangelical position is scripture centred and the flow of scripture, the traditions of the church and the actions, writing of our Jewish forefathers all point towards one man and one woman becoming ''one flesh'' or the equivalent word /phrase in classical hebrew.

I can do double somersaults and discover all sorts of ''new'' angles (the ''new'' or ''lost'' message of Jesus) and all sorts of aspects to give rationale to the zeitgeist but for an evangelical, the weight of scripture and it's consistent thrust are key surely?

We are not talking exclusively about SSM marriage, in these threads, but surely what Steve Clifford says about Chalke, whilst couched in polite phrases he does state Chalke ''made a god in his own image''.

It's probably the most pointed thing any evangelical can say to another evangelical and indeed Clifford says that Chalke is not being rigorous enough and his tough love is not tough enough to really push through adequately in this area (that is SSM).

It's a tough one. As was said a while back we can all say ''in my view......'' etc etc etc. But the ''elephant '' in the room is that most tradition, most exegesis, all seem to point in a unified direction - that tradition and that Genesis starting point, the call of God for Adam to have a mate was Eve. For many, whilst there can be some ''wriggle'' room, for many others there can be none. Chalke has moved (for some) beyond the bounds of acceptable church leader and they see him as a false leader, moving towards clear error.

The evangelical tribe is broad and Banner of Truth will (predictably) clearly label Chalke heretic and false teacher as will other tribes withing the evo. nation, but in a nicer way that is what Clifford has done surely in his statement to Chalke?

It's not going away and the debate will dog him for years to come I'm sure.

Saul the Apostle

[ 06. March 2013, 15:48: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Not originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
We have spent some time discussing Wilberforce's position.

Well, the evangelical position is scripture centred and the flow of scripture, the traditions of the church and the actions, writing of our Jewish forefathers all point towards slavery being a normal and God-ordained state, governed by rules set out on the OT and guidelines promoted by the Apostle Paul.

I can do double somersaults and discover all sorts of ''new'' angles (the ''new'' or ''lost'' message of Jesus) and all sorts of aspects to give rationale to the zeitgeist but for an evangelical, the weight of scripture and it's consistent thrust are key surely?

Not Saul the Apostle

[ 06. March 2013, 15:53: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

The question then is what do we do about someone who we believe is wrong (assuming of course that you do). There are degrees of wrongness. Some things would call into question whether that person is a Christian or not. Others would call into question whether that person is 'sound' (to use conevo parlance), and as such whether they should be ignored or not. Other issues might be regarded as peripheral and just a disagreement.

I suspect that for the fundamentalists there will be some who effectively don't think he is a Christian. The conservatives will think he is unsound so won't invite him to conferences and advise against reading his books etc. The open end will either disagree with him but think he is entitled to his opinion or agree with what he has said and try to use it to forge change.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
originally posted by Saul the ApostleI can do double somersaults and discover all sorts of ''new'' angles (the ''new'' or ''lost'' message of Jesus) and all sorts of aspects to give rationale to the zeitgeist but for an evangelical, the weight of scripture and it's consistent thrust are key surely?

Absolutely, but the point is that, for whatever reason, SC sees that same trajectory differently. He disagrees with you. For sound, evangelical reasons. That's the truth. You may not like it, you may think it blindingly obvious that he is mistaken, but you can't see inside his soul, and neither can I. As it happens, I think he's right to disagree with you, but that really doesen't matter. I would no more think that you could place outwith the evo camp those who believe in a 6 day creation or handle snakes in their services. Disagree with, yes, but if they hold to the basics of evangelicalism, (Biblical authority, check, conversionist, check, mission focussed, check, objective atonement (crucicentric) check) then how can I deny they are evangelical?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
most tradition, most exegesis, all seem to point in a unified direction - that tradition and that Genesis starting point, the call of God for Adam to have a mate was Eve.

Granted. I don't think Chalke would disagree. The question here is how (if one thinks that is the "ideal", to use Chalke's word) one deals with those that for one reason or another, aren't in a position to live up to that ideal.

It's balancing all you say with other major themes within the Bible such as acceptance and inclusion.

I really think the EA's position is straining gnats and swallowing camels, neglecting justice, mercy and faithfulness.

Whatever my views on LGBT issues, the day I decided I could never sign up to the EA in the UK was the day I read their advice to surgically transgendered people seeking EA church membership: they should surgically revert to their original gender, in full knowledge of the associated risks of suicide. I think that about sums up the measure of mercy in their pronouncements.

My view of the EA has not been helped by the fact that for over five months now, I have before them a clear case of misconduct by a member organisation that has none of the shades of grey about it of these high-falutin' theological issues - and they won't even sit down to look at the detailed evidence.

[ETA oh, and very clever, KLB!]

[ 06. March 2013, 16:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

OK, people, as we run out of new things to say on Baptist politics and word definitions, the thread looks more and more Horsey to me.

Off to chat with Louise and Tony about whether we should send it "as is", or redirect the Horse talk to other threads.

Keep rapping meantimes.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Eutychus is right, Mudfrog.

You could say, 'Steve Chalke has a high view of scripture only insofar as those points in which it agrees with him ...'

To which I (or someone else) could respond, 'Mudfrog has a high view of scripture only insofar as those points in which it agrees with him ...'

To which you could reply, 'Gamaliel has a high view of scripture only insofar ...'

I suspect that part of the problem in the evangelical world is that the various emphasises have proven to be so subjective to be rendered almost (but not quite) meaningless.

Things like the Chicago statement end up being unsuccessful ways of determining the boundaries (Scripture is Inerrant if you don't consider the following to be errors).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I think Croesos nailed it right back on page 1.

There are people who think "evangelical" means signing up to a set of rules. This is doomed to failure in much the same way as writing the definitive rules of Calvinball is doomed to failure.

There are other people who see evangelicalism more as mode of spirituality. Admittedly, one that places a major emphasis on what the Bible says, but which from that point outwards is willing to admit differences of opinion and a fair degree of getting one's hands dirty.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

While we're waiting ..

I came across this nice comment in a post by Triple Tiara on a completely different thread, which seemed to me to have something to say.

quote:
As I heard Desmond Tutu once say, there is a fine dividing line between being right and being self righteous. I think we always need to be the first and never the second.

If you offer your perception of truth on an open hand, it can be seen as a gift to be taken or left.

If you offer your perception of truth with a closed hand, it can easily be seen as a fist.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Not originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
We have spent some time discussing Wilberforce's position.

Well, the evangelical position is scripture centred and the flow of scripture, the traditions of the church and the actions, writing of our Jewish forefathers all point towards slavery being a normal and God-ordained state, governed by rules set out on the OT and guidelines promoted by the Apostle Paul.

I can do double somersaults and discover all sorts of ''new'' angles (the ''new'' or ''lost'' message of Jesus) and all sorts of aspects to give rationale to the zeitgeist but for an evangelical, the weight of scripture and it's consistent thrust are key surely?

Not Saul the Apostle

KLB

trouble is my original statement makes no sense now does it?

As slaves were never encouraged to revolt (in the NT), indeed slaves were encouraged to work well, even when their masters weren't present. Slave dealers were seen (in NT) times, to be part of the problem i.e. not very nice people, but to try and swop it around makes it little sense or non sense.

Definitely Saul the Apostle.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

There are people who think "evangelical" means signing up to a set of rules. This is doomed to failure in much the same way as writing the definitive rules of Calvinball is doomed to failure.

I think originally there was enough clearish blue water between the Evangelicals and the 'others' such that some of their statements made some sense as defining markers (the classic Bebbington Quadrilateral).

Since then those boundary markers turn out to be a little bit more fuzzy than envisaged, and at the same time the markers have proved to be sufficiently attractive to be adopted as language (explicitly language rather than practice) by other movements.

Calling oneself 'cross-centered' may have made more sense when there were some groups which downplayed that sort of language (Fosdick etc). When a large amount of people use the term in different ways it's less useful as a boundary marker.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The LGBT issue isn't only an evangelical hot-potato, of course. I could show you internet discussion boards where conservative RCs and Orthodox are having similar discussions and bemoaning the onset of relativism, pluralism and the like. If you altered some of the names and phraseology slightly you'd be forgiven for thinking you'd stumbled across a discussion on a conservative evangelical website.

Be all that as it may ...

The issue for me, though, is what do we actually DO about it? How do we actually treat LGBT people? I've asked that question on those other boards and no-one's given me a straight answer.

It's easy to pontificate about these issues - whether for or against - quite another to deal with them when someone comes to your church who is gay, bi- or transgender. What do you say? Repent? Become celibate? Have your operation reversed? [Eek!]

But that's getting into DH territory.

I'm not sure Steve Chalke's views are a big deal to most conservative evangelicals anyway ... as has been said several times, they pretty much wrote him off over the PSA issue a few years back.

I've had a brief discussion on this issue with a friend from my old house-church days and his view was that Chalke had long since moved beyond the pale so what he's saying is an irrelevance.

I think the more significant issue isn't Chalke's position nor where he stands on whatever issue we may care to discuss but the fact that these views were aired where they were - ie. in Christianity magazine, probably the most influential of all pan-evangelical publications in the UK ... in fact, it might be practically the only one left as far as I know ...

In which case it might represent a groundswell of opinion or dissent within popular evangelicalism as a whole ... in which case I can foresee some polarisation ahead within the evangelical subculture as a whole.

I think evangelicalism as a whole is developing fuzzier boundaries than may once have been the case and there'll be rallyings around different issues as that process continues.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think originally there was enough clearish blue water between the Evangelicals and the 'others' such that some of their statements made some sense as defining markers

Hasn't this sort of debate been going on since about Acts 15 (which seems to set a precedent for cautious inclusiveness, BTW... [Two face]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
OK, people, as we run out of new things to say on Baptist politics and word definitions, the thread looks more and more Horsey to me.

Well, we do't get many Baptisty conversations on this vessel. Please keep the Dead Horses in the hold for now!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There are people who think "evangelical" means signing up to a set of rules.

I was preaching on the Second Commandment on Sunday. In particular I mentioned idols that Christians create and suggested that doctrine - whether Evangelical or Liberal - could become idol if we were too concerned with ticking its one and had forgotten that it is only a human construct for getting a handle on the far bigger God that lies behind it.

[ 06. March 2013, 21:23: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
OK, people, as we run out of new things to say on Baptist politics and word definitions, the thread looks more and more Horsey to me.
Well, we do't get many Baptisty conversations on this vessel. Please keep the Dead Horses in the hold for now!

It's in my mind in advance of any decision. It's just a bit difficult to separate out the Horses from a free ranging discussion on this aspect of Baptist policy. Tendency to inerrancy and the general outlook of the more conevo in the Baptist world means the nags are never far away.

But then you probably know more about that than I do.

But I'll do my best. The Baptist chat has been both illuminating and entertaining.

With tongue firmly in cheek, I must ask this. Did your sermon on the second commandment (graven images) have five points beginning with G or I?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Removes tongue and sticks it in other cheek.

No, it did not. What do you think I am - a Proper Preacher? [Devil]

Heaven forfend!

Any way, Real Sermons have three points: "Evry fule kno that".

[ 06. March 2013, 22:54: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

That's the East Anglian standard. Welsh Baptists are rarely so confined ...

[I was walking Offa's Dyke with an old friend and we sheltered from a thunderstorm in a providentially placed Baptist Church. The minister came in on some routine task, was suspicious at first, then saw an opportunity to share faith. In a remarkably inappropriate segue - I think one of us said how glad we were to have found a place of shelter - he observed that safety and shelter could be a delusion. "Of course I believe in the total depravity of man ..". ("Total depravity" came rolling out with Max Boyce-like cadences.) My friend smiled, said "It's all right, we're both Christians". Minister relaxed visibly, said he was so glad we'd found the place, then we talked about Welsh chances in the (then) Five Nations. Lovely man once he relaxed.]

[ 06. March 2013, 23:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

(sticks on Host Hat)

Following a Hostly exchange, we've agreed to leave the thread here. But on the condition that I strongly encourage all of you to take any extended discussion of same sex marriage per se (or any allied discussion on inerrant ways of looking at scripture) to the DH board, either in an existing thread or a new one if you like. We're hoping that wont prove too difficult in practice.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think originally there was enough clearish blue water between the Evangelicals and the 'others' such that some of their statements made some sense as defining markers
Hasn't this sort of debate been going on since about Acts 15 (which seems to set a precedent for cautious inclusiveness, BTW... )?

I'm not arguing for or against evangelicalism - at least not here - I'm just pointing out that the form the movement took had some kind of historical logic to it.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

A clarification.

Further to my Host post, Louise has now bumped in Dead Horses this thread on Steve Chalke and same sex marriage.

You should go there if SSM and SSB per se, rather than the nature of evangelicalism or the Baptist approach to doctrine and the independence of local churches.

B62, Purg Host

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

Incidentally, Baptists are an interesting sect of Protestantism. Quite successful and quite dissenting too.

Bearing in mind the current debates I came across this quote from Baptist historian Walter Shurden, he says:

quote:
Baptists have faced many controversies in their 400-year history, controversies of the level of crises. The word "crisis" comes from the Greek word meaning "to decide Contrary to the presumed negative view of crises, some controversies that reach a crisis level may actually be "positive and highly productive. Schism, though never ideal, has often produced positive results.Crises among Baptists each have become decision-moments that shaped their future. Some controversies that have shaped Baptists include the "missions crisis", the "slavery crisis", the "landmark crisis", and the "modernist crisis".

Interesting stuff.

I tend to think the Dissenters (Protestant sects like Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostalists etc etc etc. or the evangelical manifestations of those groupings, are far less ''defined'' than say 30 to 40 years ago.

So maybe reference the Chalke controversies, we may see ''clusters'' further forming rather less than armed distinct camps?

Saul the Apostle

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Not originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
We have spent some time discussing Wilberforce's position.

Well, the evangelical position is scripture centred and the flow of scripture, the traditions of the church and the actions, writing of our Jewish forefathers all point towards slavery being a normal and God-ordained state, governed by rules set out on the OT and guidelines promoted by the Apostle Paul.

I can do double somersaults and discover all sorts of ''new'' angles (the ''new'' or ''lost'' message of Jesus) and all sorts of aspects to give rationale to the zeitgeist but for an evangelical, the weight of scripture and it's consistent thrust are key surely?

Not Saul the Apostle
KLB

trouble is my original statement makes no sense now does it?

Au Contraire it makes perfect sense and I'm sure plenty of Christians wanting to defend the institution of slavery argued thus.

quote:
As slaves were never encouraged to revolt (in the NT), indeed slaves were encouraged to work well, even when their masters weren't present.

Which wasn't hard to interpret as being approval of the status of slavery.

quote:
Slave dealers were seen (in NT) times, to be part of the problem i.e. not very nice people

Really? When Paul goes off on one about all the naughty people that he's forseeing the wrath of God coming on, when he lists the fruits of the fleshly nature or whatever, does he list slave trading or slave owning? Does he actually implore Philemon to grant Onesimus his freedom? No. Slave owning in the NT is considered perfectly normal and non-objectionable.

quote:
Definitely Saul the Apostle.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Diddenters becoming less defined is an intrguing topic. Some of us were never well defined or ever wanted to be. The basic pattern through history of English dissent is schism and merger, with the boundaries being drawn differently each time. That is also true of the Reformed tradition.

The other thing is the slow but steady demise of the "200 years member" within the chapel . That is someone whose parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc all worshipped in a specific chapel (Yes I have met some of these, I know of none under 80). At one time they were the bulwark of the chapel, the maintainers of the identity. They were replaced by people with a more denominational identity and they in turn are being replaced by people with a looser Christian identity still (maybe non-conformist).

Jengie

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

There is also the trend for radical dissent of any kind to become routinised from generation to generation - the church-sect typology as defined by Ernst Troeltsch. You can see it for instance in Methodists which later begat the Primitives; I'm sure it also occurs in political movements.

When one couples this with most peoples' inherent desire to "better themelves" one can see why a church like mine, which started as "old dissent" in the 1680s, had become the bastion of upper-middle class merchant Christians by the end of the Victorian era - proud of its traditions but largely comfortable with the status quo. I suspect that the same is happening within the "new churches" of the 70s/80s and will happen with Neo-Anabaptist groups such as "Urban Expression".

I feel that the Baptists have lost their identity as a movement rather than just a label. About 10 years ago Myra Blyth (as Deputy General secretary) worked hard to help churches to develop a new Baptist identity based around the idea of Covenanted Communities but I think it sadly fell on rather deaf ears.

The question thus becomes one of whether Steve Chalke and his ilk, by dissenting from the common consensus of opinion, is actually acting in a way whch is more true to the denomination's historic traditions than those who disagree with him? I would say that they are. However, when thinking of their relation to the wider category of Evangelicalism itself, one has to remember that this grouping includes Anglicans who do not come from Dissenting tradition.

I'm sure that Jengie could put this far better than I!

[ 07. March 2013, 08:53: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is also the trend for radical dissent of any kind to become routinised from generation to generation - the church-sect typology as defined by Ernst Troeltsch. You can see it for instance in Methodists which later begat the Primitives; I'm sure it also occurs in political movements.

I do agree with that. I remember hearing the skyscraper-tall Floyd McClung (a name to conjure with as well) talking at Royal Week (the short lived and normally rainy conference in Cornwall which Adrian Plass hilariously retitled "Let God Spring into Royal Acts of Harvest Growth).

He asked the question, "How long does it take to establish a tradition? Years, Months? How about three days".

And of course we all thought he was going to make some profound point about the interval between Crucifixion and Resurrection. But after a suitable pause he said "How about three days? How many of you are sitting in the same seat here that you were sitting in for the first two days of this conference? Or at least you tried to do that?"

Well of course we all laughed. But he then went on to talk about automatic thinking, in the context of the attitude of the elder brother to the father and the prodigal. The extent to which the prodigal had moved on, but the elder brother was still "sitting in the same seat". And needed to move on himself. Anyway, that's how I remember it - I don't "do" notes but I did think it was a good talk.

There's much to be said for settling. In the physical sense, I'm a settler, a member of the same church for close on 40 years now. I "do" loyalty in that sense. But when it comes to discipleship and theological reflection, I'm much more a pioneer. Also a learner and an inquirer. I don't need to "sit in the same seat" I've always sat in. I find that notion uncomfortable.

In fact, given the dynamic aspects of Christian calling, it would would be pretty amazing if we didn't experience some changes of heart and mind in our following.

Settlers and pioneers make uncomfortable companions sometimes. There's a certain amount of unequal yoking going on. But I think we're meant to stay together and work it out together, as best we can. So we can hold onto that which is good, but be prepared to do some spring-cleaning and weeding too. I think that sits well within the nonconformist DNA. Even inerrantists argue the toss about application. How Strict and Particular are we feeling today?

And you can nick the Floyd McClung insight for a future sermon. It's a good one.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I might be wrong, but I get the impression that EM is railing against Chalke's pronouncements and actions, not on a traditional 'I'm-suspicious-of-LGBT-people' - which would be the default position in our local evangelical Anglican parish - but more from the perspective of Chalke representing some kind of chattering-classes-establishment that needs to be kicked at in dissenting fashion.

I might be wrong, but I don't detect any anti-LGBT tendencies in EM's posts, rather it's a case of him choosing different issues to focus on ... such as his heart-felt crusade against Government policy towards the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

Which is fair enough. But I can't see why it can't be both/and rather than either/or.

I mean, if you are going to take EM's principled and admirable stand on the poverty issue, then it is thoroughly consonant with that to take a pro-SSM approach, surely?

Unless EM is simply a bolshie bugger ... which would come with the territory, of course.

This might sound a very 'catholic' thing to say, but Dissent always seems to end up gnawing its own entrails. I mean, as soon as you've broken from Rome or some other centralised authority such as the 'national' churches set up by the Magisterial Reformers (or the King of England) then as sure as eggs are eggs you are going to end up dissenting among yourselves. Robert Browne, the first of the English Independents found this. He ended up returning to the CofE and becoming a vicar.

Rail against the BUGB or anything else by all means, but sooner or later, it seems to me, if you're not careful you can end up in a sectarian spiral that can only end up in one direction - disappearing up your own backside.

All that said, the Baptist thing is fascinating and the various crises and dissensions have often worked out quite creatively ... it can also foster an interesting auto-didact approach. Without a Magisterium of college of bishops you have to work things out for yourself.

Swings and roundabouts.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I might be wrong, but I get the impression that EM is railing against Chalke's pronouncements and actions, not on a traditional 'I'm-suspicious-of-LGBT-people' - which would be the default position in our local evangelical Anglican parish - but more from the perspective of Chalke representing some kind of chattering-classes-establishment that needs to be kicked at in dissenting fashion.

That may well be true, but Steve isn't a member of the chattering classes. He gets off his backside and does things. And so far as I can see, no one is criticising the fruitfulness of his activism. Steve Clifford (EA) went out of his way to commend it as exceptional.

[ 07. March 2013, 12:33: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, but the principle I was highlighting applies, surely? I get the impression, correct me if I'm wrong and forgive me if I'm being ad hominem - that there's something in the non-conformist 'psyche' that would rail against anything. It's naturally contrary. That's built into its DNA.

I know, because I recognise the same tendency in myself.

Or perhaps I'm wrong, and EM is simply picking up on a particular evangelical shibboleth to rally round.

He tells us that he has 'emerged' from a Brian McLaren style emergent fluff into a principled form of conservative evangelicalism. Fine. But from an 'emergent' perspective that, arguably, constitutes a regression rather than an emergence ...

[Big Grin]

I'm just wondering why EM has chosen this particular shibboleth to rally round?

We're all acknowledging that Chalke's done some good work - as you say, even his critics accept that. But now he's gone beyond the evangelical pale, allegedly, both for his views on PSA and now for SSM.

Is it just me, or am I seeing some inconsistencies here?

Perhaps not ... Mudfrog for instance would combine a principled concern for the poor and the marginalised and a practical social-action approach (which the Salvation Army has in spades) with quite a 'conservative' approach to issues of sexual morality and so on.

So these stances aren't necessarily mutually incompatible.

I'm just wondering what it is that EM has against Chalke's position - other than he thinks that there are more important issues, such as the anti-poverty agenda that he himself espouses.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... Really? When Paul goes off on one about all the naughty people that he's forseeing the wrath of God coming on, when he lists the fruits of the fleshly nature or whatever, does he list slave trading or slave owning? Does he actually implore Philemon to grant Onesimus his freedom? No. Slave owning in the NT is considered perfectly normal and non-objectionable.[Bold emphasis added]

Point of information. Yes he did. (Well, with an acknowledgement of the question of the authorship of the pastoral epistles...) In the list of lawless and disobedient in 1Tim1:10 are andrapodistēs, i.e. slave-traders/enslavers/kidnappers (into slavery).
Angus

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
As slaves were never encouraged to revolt (in the NT), indeed slaves were encouraged to work well, even when their masters weren't present.
Which wasn't hard to interpret as being approval of the status of slavery.[/QB]

Or, that in the context of Roman authority the Christians knew this would be a 'battle' that would only lead to bloodshed and mass arrests and possibly the extermination of the entire Christian community across the roman empire! It's not like today - the Christians could not have an 'Occupy'-style sit-in in the Forum to highlight the evils of an economic system based on human trafficking!

We have the luxury of continued protest and demonstrations - do you really think the governors in any Roman town would have allowed such protests to go on? It was bad enough being Christian and not burning incense to Caesar, without shouting your mouth off in an open air anti-slavery rally!

Apart from the fact that for many of them, Jesus was coming back 'next Wednesday, maybe Thursday' - was the government's economic and human rights policy really the priority when the main thrust of the church was simple disciple-making?

Paul addressed issues and problems in his letters - evidently slavery was either a non-issue - as it was the whole of Roman society - or else it was too huge an issue for just a handful of Christians to tackle.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... Really? When Paul goes off on one about all the naughty people that he's forseeing the wrath of God coming on, when he lists the fruits of the fleshly nature or whatever, does he list slave trading or slave owning? Does he actually implore Philemon to grant Onesimus his freedom? No. Slave owning in the NT is considered perfectly normal and non-objectionable.[Bold emphasis added]
Point of information. Yes he did. (Well, with an acknowledgement of the question of the authorship of the pastoral epistles...) In the list of lawless and disobedient in 1Tim1:10 are andrapodistēs, i.e. slave-traders/enslavers/kidnappers (into slavery).
Angus

I'm sure a reasonably competent commentator wanting to argue against abolition would have claimed that the writer of the epistle was specifically targeting people who kidnap free men to make them slaves, not the institution of slavery per se.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
As slaves were never encouraged to revolt (in the NT), indeed slaves were encouraged to work well, even when their masters weren't present.
Which wasn't hard to interpret as being approval of the status of slavery.
Or, that in the context of Roman authority the Christians knew this would be a 'battle' that would only lead to bloodshed and mass arrests and possibly the extermination of the entire Christian community across the roman empire! It's not like today - the Christians could not have an 'Occupy'-style sit-in in the Forum to highlight the evils of an economic system based on human trafficking!

We have the luxury of continued protest and demonstrations - do you really think the governors in any Roman town would have allowed such protests to go on? It was bad enough being Christian and not burning incense to Caesar, without shouting your mouth off in an open air anti-slavery rally!

Apart from the fact that for many of them, Jesus was coming back 'next Wednesday, maybe Thursday' - was the government's economic and human rights policy really the priority when the main thrust of the church was simple disciple-making?

Paul addressed issues and problems in his letters - evidently slavery was either a non-issue - as it was the whole of Roman society - or else it was too huge an issue for just a handful of Christians to tackle. [/QB]

I daresay this is all true. Nonetheless, the fact remains that interpreting the Scriptures as accepting the institution of slavery was perfectly possible, and, given that it took until the 18th century for some to start questioning this makes me suspect that that was indeed the way it was traditionally seen.

Is all.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ Gamaliel

I get that, Gamaliel. But, heck, all Steve Chalke has done is to express, with reasons, a controversial opinion and ask a couple of questions with the aim of encouraging a conversation. You'd think he'd robbed a bank, or been photographed in the wrong bed, or something.

I think you're probably right to wonder about underlying motivation, and the extent to which they emanate from Baptist or evangelical or nonconformist DNA (recognising common ground and distinctives in the DNA). You can never be sure about motivation. I'm inclined to leave that on one side for others to answer, and confine myself to the following observation.

If the founding fathers and mothers of the Dissenting movements had not asked, and persisted in asking, questions about received wisdom, thereby seeking conversation, there would be no nonconformism in this country. A number of them died in the process.

Thinking about conversation, and probably more appropriate to the DH thread, but interesting in itself; here's a link to the Oasis website and a video presentation by Steve Chalke. It may have been linked earlier and I missed it. I think it's worth watching whatever you may believe about the issue, or Steve Chalke as a person.

[ 07. March 2013, 13:33: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think there's some anachronism going on in Mudfrog's post. I doubt whether it would have occurred to Paul or any of the other 1st century Christians that slavery as an institution was something to be opposed. Mudfrog is right, though, to highlight that they wouldn't have had a culture/vehicle for sit-in type protests and so on - even if they'd wanted to demonstrate in some way (which I doubt).

And as he says, they were also expecting the imminent return of Christ which rather puts the kibbosh on any other than preparing oneself or proclaiming the Gospel in fairly direct terms.

That said, I'm sure the apostle Paul disapproved of the practice of kidnapping freemen (or women) and making them slaves - as per the reference that A.Pilgrim made.

And yes, he did advocate slaves trying to gain their freedom where possible.

I don't think, though, that there is ever such a 'simple' thing as disciple-making. That's never simple. I know what Mudfrog is saying but the fact is that making or becoming disciples has never been 'value-free' in any context - whether 1st century or 21st century.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Barnabas, I'm sure that's true too - the issue about people dissenting/non-conforming even at the cost of their freedom or their lives.

I think we'd all accept that. Heck, I even remember a conversation about the Diggers, Levellers and so on during a visit to Fr Gregory's church to hear Bishop Kallistos Ware (who was having a light snooze at the time) in which Fr Gregory opined that if it hadn't been for their sometimes 'eccentric' witness we wouldn't enjoy the freedoms we enjoy today.

I suspect there are plenty of 'Conformists' who are glad that there have been non-conformists to keep them on their toes. Incidentally, as an Orthodox priest, Fr Gregory also considers himself a non-conformist in the context of the UK.

So, no, I'm not knocking non-conformity per se. But I do think it has a tendency to turn in on itself and chew itself up from the inside out.

On the questioning thing - yes, you're right. All Chalke has done is ask a few questions and bowled a few googlies. Anyone would think he was a serial killer given the reaction in some quarters.

Such is the power of the shibboleth.

And we all have them. We all do it.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... Really? When Paul goes off on one about all the naughty people that he's forseeing the wrath of God coming on, when he lists the fruits of the fleshly nature or whatever, does he list slave trading or slave owning? Does he actually implore Philemon to grant Onesimus his freedom? No. Slave owning in the NT is considered perfectly normal and non-objectionable.[Bold emphasis added]
Point of information. Yes he did. (Well, with an acknowledgement of the question of the authorship of the pastoral epistles...) In the list of lawless and disobedient in 1Tim1:10 are andrapodistēs, i.e. slave-traders/enslavers/kidnappers (into slavery).
Angus

Karl Liberal Backslider

point of information, I'm right - you're wrong
[Biased]

(don't worry just good humour - honest)

Just jokin' don't want to cause a schism or dissent.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one I think.

I am an evo. you're (I think a liberal by your moniker?). But we can still talk to each other [Cool]

The slave trade and the NT is a whole other thread or book all of itself.

Personally I think there were very defined shibboleths that Paul ranted against and you cannot do as you so deftly did and be brutally factual - IMHO.

Saul

[ 07. March 2013, 14:53: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Saul, my argument wasn't about what Paul thought of slavery. It's simply showing how the line of argument you used could quite easily have been used in the late eighteenth century against this funny new idea that there's something wrong with slavery.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyone would think he was a serial killer given the reaction in some quarters.

"Eldorado" died years ago. "Neighbours" still apparently clings to life. "Corrie" is eternal - not that I ever watch it.

[Smile]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Endorsing KLB, Saul. What he's pointing out is an embarrassing truth. That the Biblical material often contains enough cloth to turn the coat both ways.

Steve Chalke argues in the video clip for an approach to determine the answer to the question; how do we decide which way to turn the coat?

Since the Bible witnesses to Jesus as the Living Word of God, then if you want to be biblical you'd better read the Bible through the lens Jesus provides and demonstrates. The "Red Letter Christian" approach. It's not new BTW,

Steve argues as a matter of hermeneutics that without that approach, the biblical contents point towards keeping women silent and out of any leadership role. They are also disappointingly inconclusive about slavery.

And yet the church has moved its view on those issues, despite the case which can be made from the biblical material not to move. How did that happen? What hermeneutical approach enabled that to happen, and why do Christians with a high view of scripture accept that such approaches are still biblical?

Jesus gets the last word. He came to free the captives and to set at liberty those who are oppressed. He did not reject outcasts, he rejected the self-righteousness which made them outcasts, did not lift a finger to help them. The arguments for inclusivity are to be found primarily and most powerfully in Jesus' teaching and example.

You'd think Baptists would stand up and cheer at that point, given the persecution and oppression of the Anabaptist movement.

And then Steve 'spoils' it; he asks the question why. Why should this hermeneutic not be applied to inclusivity issues re gay people? In particular over support against promiscuity and for faithful monogamous relationships. How shocking.

Shocking maybe. But once you've got over the shock, why is it not a legitimate question to ask? Even if you believe the answer is that it is not legitimate to apply that approach, then seek to combat it by giving a reason for the different hope which is in you.

Criticising the argument as unreasonable or flawed, with reasons, is obviously a legitimate response. Rubbishing the argument as obviously unevangelical, or unbiblical, or out of step with nonconformism, isn't. Rubbishing it as out of line with majority Baptist thinking, or existing policy statements, is neither here nor there compared with the argument about how Biblical authority applies to inclusivity issues. If existing policy is inconsistent or wrong from that POV, then it's just wrong. That's a classic Dissenters' argument.

The guy is making a serious point in a serious way. I think it's worth a serious conversation, at local church, BUGB and EA level. And elsewhere. And all this 'playing the man' over his character, track record, perceived "poster boy" status really isn't very clever at all.

[ 07. March 2013, 16:27: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The thing is, Saul, there were evangelicals (or proto-evangelicals) on both sides of the Abolition debate in the 18th century. Even within the more revivalist end of things. The Wesleys were strongly against slavery, George Whitefield strongly in favour.

Wilberforce was strongly opposed, of course, but many evangelicals in both the UK and the US weren't.

The Quakers were the first group to come out explicitly against slavery and they weren't particularly noted for their evangelicalism even back then ... although there were and are Quakers who could be categorised as evangelical.

The Abolition movement was a very 'broad church' indeed and included luminaries such as the Unitarian potter and entrepreneur, the redoubtable and indefatigable Josiah Wedgwood.

Evangelicals like to claim that it was 'they' who led the abolition of slavery but they were simply one element within a much broader movement which tended to attract the strongest support from the more radical side of things. Lots of Abolitions were free-thinkers and Deists, just as many of the signatories of the US Declaration of Independence were free-thinkers and Deists - and also slave-owners ...

There were evangelical slave-owners and traders and non-evangelical slave-owners and traders.

I sometimes think the term 'evangelical' is bandied about as if it means that whoever self-identifies as such is party to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The reality is a lot messier. There are some pretty cool evangelicals and some pretty daft ones. Same as with any other Christian tradition.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

My simple reaction to Chalke (not just on SSM) is this (and I have pinched this of course) : ''not radical enough.''

Clifford in his rebuttal of Chalke says this:

quote:
The two big questions we must consider are these: what did Jesus's vision of inclusion look like in the first century? And what does Jesus's vision of inclusion look like in 2013? In answering these questions, we need to deploy the tools of exegesis (what did it mean?) and hermeneutics (what does it mean?). In other words, our task is to consider what the teaching and praxis of Jesus looked like to his contemporaries and to the earliest recipients of the gospels, and how to apply Jesus's teaching and praxis to the challenges of our contemporary world.

Yes, I wholly agree with you Barnabas, we must really consider what Chalke is saying and I agree with him, but up to a point. For example we have tended to, in the evangelical tradition, push certain minorities off into the long grass and this of course includes homosexuals.

This was wrong , is wrong and will continue to be wrong.

But that is where I feel Chalke must stand up and be counted and, as he says so himself, he has changed his views, but the logical deduction is that if he has changed his views and position he then has moved somewhere along the Christian spectrum. That is for Chalke to decide; he made the statements , he made his bed and he has to lie in it.

I feel Chalke is being radical......but not really radical enough.

The full piece by Clifford is here:

http://www.eauk.org/church/stories/not-radical-enough.cfm

Saul the Apostle.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I'll look at the link in detail in the DH thread but on your main point, "not radical enough" in his treatment of the biblical material is hardly justification for describing him as post-evangelical. Given that his argument is essentially biblical, that is.

Have you changed your mind, Saul? Steve seems to be sitting under scripture on the matter, acknowledging a past error of inconsistency, a self-protecting fear of losing friends etc which inhibited his speaking before etc. A repentant evangelical is still an evangelical. He's neither questioning the authority of scripture nor proclaiming that his reformed understanding is infallible. He's arguing about how the authoritative voice can be found on issues of inclusivity. Requesting a conversation.

So that seems to make him an evangelical, not a post-evangelical doesn't it? Maybe a wrong-headed one, but thst's not a reason for re-classifying him. You seem to have shifted your ground, Saul.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

@Karl:LB
If you note the words in your post that I emphasised in bold when quoting it, that was the point to which I was responding, namely slave trading, and giving the rest of the paragraph for context. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. In the light of this clarification your response is to a point that I wasn't actually trying to make.

----

ISTM that Steve Chalke is pushing the boundaries of openness of open evangelicalism. Whether this puts him outside the scope of evangelicalism depends on how many people who self-identify as evangelical agree with him. I suspect that many will. Also, I have always understood evangelicalism to be defined in a broad sense as the use of the Bible as the foremost source of faith and practice over and above church tradition, and in his argument Chalke appears to be continuing to do this.

However, I don't think that his argument comparing the three issues of slavery, the role of women, and homosexuality is valid, but this thread isn't the place to say more.

Angus

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Has a definition of post-evangelical been attempted?

It is, of course, a slippery term. For my money, I don't know necessarily see 'post-evangelical' as implying 'ex-evangelical' - although it can, of course, be a stage on the journey towards ex-evangelicalism. I've often quoted the bon-mot from a Greenbelt speaker, 'Don't call yourself post-evangelical but pre-catholic ...'

I might be wrong, but from Saul the Apostle's perspective 'post-evangelical' appears to mean 'wrong' or else, 'not a proper evangelical' - as though there is one clear-cut definition of what it means to be an evangelical. In other words, 'they don't agree with me so they must be deficient' or 'they must be post-evangelical because I don't recognise their brand of evangelicalism ...'

I s'pose I'd regard post-evangelicalism as a position in which there is due acknowledgement of evangelical background/distinctives but a combination of that with other influences/traditions/approaches.

Hence a post-evangelical could be moving in a liberal Protestant direction, a liberal Catholic direction, a conservative Catholic direction, a mystical direction, a ...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I s'pose I'd regard post-evangelicalism as a position in which there is due acknowledgement of evangelical background/distinctives but a combination of that with other influences/traditions/approaches.

Surely that's the point? - it's where you're coming from, not where you're going to.

A post-athlete might become an opera singer, a gardener or a cab-driver - but those are nothing like as relevant as the years s/he's had pounding round the track, which will shape them for ever.

[ 08. March 2013, 09:07: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, indeed. I've certainly been shaped, for better and for worse, by my years in evangelicalism. There will be both very positive and very negative aspects.

The same as if someone were a post-catholic or a post-anything-else.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Gamaliel

In so far as there is a definition (rather than a set of various overlapping cultural norms) it is the Bebbington quadrilateral, which seems plenty wide enough to cover Steve Chalke. The questions of whether his biblicism and his crucicentrism are soundly expressed are secondary. What's "sound" is what folks arguing about.

In Steve's case, I shouldn't think anyone has any problems about his activism or his beliefs about the need for conversion.

I suppose you might argue that Bebbington is too vague to be any use other than as a broad description. Show me a better one!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Is the issue that of proxy indicators?

You can't measure someone's commitment to the points of Bebbington's Quadrilateral directly because it's too woolly and too easy to say "yep, believe that".

So evangelicals tend to use proxy measures. If you really take Biblical Authority seriously, they say, then you'll be agin' gay marriage, because the Bible is "clearly" agin' it.

Hence a given group of Evangelicals, with a given tradition of "what the Bible teaches" about a given group of topics will naturally tend to use adherence to those particular versions of "what the Bible says" as proxy measures for one's commitment to Biblical Authority, and thereby one's status as an Evangelical.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think so, Karl. We're a funny lot. But 'we' think we know who 'we'' are. All a bit tribal.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is the issue that of proxy indicators?

You can't measure someone's commitment to the points of Bebbington's Quadrilateral directly because it's too woolly and too easy to say "yep, believe that".

Which is sort of what I was saying above. Back in the days when 'no one' was doing evangelicalism (small 'e'), conversionism was a sufficient marker. Same with the other markers.

When 'everyone' adopted the markers it turned out that each group had their own idea of what those markers implied.

Hence Biblical Authority = certain shibboleths etc.

Along the way 'Evangelical' has become more widespread and less useful as a label. Of course, 'Evangelicals' as a 20th century movement came out of an attempt to be conservative without withdrawing from the world in the manner of the Fundementalists. So in that sense it's understandable that the more conservative members of the movement seem a little aggrieved by what looks like an attempt to 'hijack' a description they use for themselves.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I think that's the case, Chris.

@Barnabas, yes, I think you're right too about the 'we' know who 'we' are thing ... although it's often extended isn't it?

I mean, you'll often hear evangelicals say things like, 'That Mrs So-and-So at the Sacred Heart of Jesus on Anytown Street, she's definitely a Christian ...'

Meaning, she's definitely 'born again', 'a believer', 'converted' etc etc despite being a Catholic ...

Or an Anglican in some instances ...

Heck, back in the day I used to confidently assert that I could 'tell' who the true believers were in any setting ... [Roll Eyes]

Like as if I were judge and jury ...

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Are MoR and Anglo-Catholic churches still referred to as "High and Dead" with a knowing nod, out of interest?

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Has a definition of post-evangelical been attempted?

It is, of course, a slippery term. For my money, I don't know necessarily see 'post-evangelical' as implying 'ex-evangelical' - although it can, of course, be a stage on the journey towards ex-evangelicalism. I've often quoted the bon-mot from a Greenbelt speaker, 'Don't call yourself post-evangelical but pre-catholic ...'

I might be wrong, but from Saul the Apostle's perspective 'post-evangelical' appears to mean 'wrong' or else, 'not a proper evangelical' - as though there is one clear-cut definition of what it means to be an evangelical. In other words, 'they don't agree with me so they must be deficient' or 'they must be post-evangelical because I don't recognise their brand of evangelicalism ...'

I s'pose I'd regard post-evangelicalism as a position in which there is due acknowledgement of evangelical background/distinctives but a combination of that with other influences/traditions/approaches.

Hence a post-evangelical could be moving in a liberal Protestant direction, a liberal Catholic direction, a conservative Catholic direction, a mystical direction, a ...

Funnily enough Gamaliel, ''post-evangelical'' for me means, someone who still believes in the main, the core elements of Christianity, but maybe interprets them somewhat out of ''the tribal'' agreement. Not neccesarily heterodox but a little away from the reservation encampment of evangelical.

I really don't have a hard and fast definition to be fair. So if YOU do let me know :-)

Fundamentally, Chalke would have to define himself and I expect he'd probably define himself as ''evangelical''?

How others define him will remain interesting to watch in 2013 and beyond. Will the speaking engagements in certain parts of ''the tribe'' dry up?

I think the term ''post evangelical'' is an interesting one.

Like you Gamaliel, I am seeing myself on a ''journey'' more and more these days. Once in my Plymouth Brethren days I saw Catholics as hell bound sinners - now I do not - you'll be most glad to hear!

In fact recently I have left my lovely independent charismatic church and it was a very amicable split indeed - I love and respect folk there, but I knew that there was a call for me, that involved not being in that wing of the church. I am more drawn to the liturgical wing.

Being generous to Chalke, if I allow him the benefit of believing in his motives and his statements, i suppose I would still be in the Steve Clifford camp. I wouldn't be so arrogant or nasty as to definitively ''define'' Chalke and if he reads these pages he may wish to ''go on the record''himself; in fact I am surprised no one has asked him this question yet.

Saul the journeyman and apostle

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I have never anyone who wanted to use the term post-evangelical from a URC, Methodist or Baptists background.

It seems to me with those contexts to be a meaningless term. This may explain why Steve Chalke does not use it.

The fact is there are often quite intriguing positions within the category. Let me be clear for instance "the Bible as central to the faith", does not define Evangelical in the URC, no way! Even our liberals (and we are not a overly conservative denomination) often are totally Biblically centred. That is the Bible is bothh studied, supported and quoted regularly in everyday life. So at a recent conference it was the "Evangelical" speaker who called for more freedom in worship and the "Liberal" speaker who called for more use of the Bible. The speakers were deliberately chosen to represent the liberal/evangelical spread of the denomination.

Evangelical therefore is a modifier of Baptist, not Baptist a modifier of Evangelical. So if Steve Chalke chose no longer to be Evangelical he would simply be Baptist. EVangelical as a label in non-conformity probably says more about worship style, choice of hymnody than anything else and a deliberate emphasis on outreach. I suspect that even liberal Baptists tend to have quite a strong emphasis on a personal faith.

Jengie

[ 08. March 2013, 15:21: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Saul the Apostle ... sure, I've got a similar background so I can relate to all that you've posted on this one. I suspect I've become a bit woollier than you though on certain aspects, but I'm not sure it's a case of check-lists and tick-boxes.

@Jengie Jon. I have heard the term post-evangelical used in a Baptist context. I suspect it's not a term that's used in URC or Methodist contexts are the sort of things post-evangelicals might see themselves 'moving on' from are probably the default position in those settings, by and large.

I suspect Steve Chalke doesn't use the term because he sees himself as still an evangelical in the broader sense.

As for this business about some groups being more scripturally-focussed than others ... well, I think that needs unpacking a bit.

I've been going to an RC Lenten study group and no-one could say that it didn't have a Biblical focus. The core of the sessions are 'lectio divina' and there are excellent accompanying notes. Sure, there are some specifically RC elements in what's done but on the whole you could do exactly the same thing in any setting - liberal, evangelical, whatever-else.

To be frank and brutally blunt, it's far less subjective and flakey than many an evangelical Bible study or discussion group I've attended.

What does it mean to be 'Biblically-centred'?

Of course, with the more Catholic traditions there is the appeal to Holy Tradition alongside or as well as biblical authority but would we be right in saying that they weren't 'Biblically-centred'?

I once attended a two-day Orthodox conference on the Orthodox approach to the Bible, led by Bishop Kallistos Ware. Was that not 'Biblically-centred'?

Of course, the good Bishop was calling for an understanding of the Bible in the context of Holy Tradition but the Bible study he led on the accounts of the Transfiguration was one of the best I've ever attended. Was that not 'Biblically-centred'?

In fact, can we say that any Christian tradition isn't Biblically-centred?

The difference, it seems to me, is in the interpretation and application, not whether the Bible itself is central or not.

That said, the good Catholic ladies at the Lent group all remember a time when lay people weren't encouraged to read the scriptures and they'll all tell you that the practice of 'lectio divina' and ecumenical engagement with other churches are the most significant things that have happened spiritually speaking, in their life-times as far as they are concerned.

I agree with you on how Evangelical is understood in non-conformist terms and is more a discriptor these days of worship style and ethos as much as theological position. Although all those things are interlinked, of course.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Yehhh, Gamaliel but I am trying not to be rude about what I think is going on in the URC and Evangelicalism. It is the almost superstitious holding onto the Bible and seeing that as somehow being the surety of doctrinal soundness.

Thus the contrast above is between the two, it is on a meeting for worship as if you high Anglican spoke on use of the Bible while the Evangelical spoke on the role of ritual. "Freedom in worship" is the tagline for the tradition although what the guy was talking about was pushing the boundaries somewhat.

If you want an ecumenical comparison, I once was in an Ecumenical Lent Group. There were two senior men there. One was on the conservative side of an Liberal Anglican (I would put him somewhere in the middle in the Liberal-Conservative line), the other was clearly Liberal URC (far more over to the Liberal side on thhe matter). They gave feed back. The Anglican said "Too much Bible Study", the URC "too little Bible Study". As far as I was concerned, there was so many other levels the groups could be judged by, it is interesting that what both chose was theh amount of Bible study.

Then I can remember being on a pastoral care course and the people leading were asked whether the Bible would be used (CofS dominant context). They answered the affirmative, but I find it interesting that the question was raised.

This is not umambigous relationship but in the URC the liberals are as guilty of it as the Evangelicals.

Jengie

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok - I can see what you're getting at, Jengie Jon and why you chose the example you did - ie. you'd expect one to have emphasised the worship aspect and the other the Bible but it was the other way around ...

Yes, I get that. And your subsequent illustration is interesting too.

At the risk of a tangent, I think I'm coming to the conclusion that we're all as equally confused as one another!

As I read your examples I remembered hearing a young RC ordinand saying on a Radio 4 programme, 'When I started training to be a priest I couldn't quite gather why we had to study the Bible. I couldn't see how this applied to my priestly role and vocation. But gradually, I realised how important it would be ...'

From a Protestant perspective - whether evangelical, liberal or MOTR, this would have raised a few eyebrows. It certainly raised mine. I later heard a new (and short-lived) RC chaplain at a university say something uncannily similar.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I have heard the term post-evangelical used in a Baptist context. I suspect it's not a term that's used in URC or Methodist contexts [as] the sort of things post-evangelicals might see themselves 'moving on' from are probably the default position in those settings, by and large.
[Corrected to make sense intended, I hope! A.P]

Broadly speaking I'd agree with you Gamaliel, but suggest that in my experience the Methodist church is nearer liberal than post-evangelical. When I became a Christian I attended a Methodist church, but bailed out after a few years because of what I saw as frustratingly inadequate bible exposition, where the usual approach was for the preacher to take a single verse as a text and use it as a provocation for some vague ramblings. Maybe the Methodist church was evangelical at some time in the distant past, but if it was, it has gone way past the 'post-evo' point.

I think there is more variation in the URC. I moved on from the Methodists to a URC place, which had been congregational before the merger, and therefore pretty well con-evo. I understand from a previous discussion thread to which Jengie Jon contributed that the ex-presbyterian churches were less evangelical - though whether they had been previously, and therefore 'post' anything, I don't know.
Angus

N.B x-posted with previous two posts by G and JJ, so I don't yet know if anything I've posted needs to be revised in view of those.

[ 08. March 2013, 19:03: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

More complicated than that, many of the Presbyterian churches were cultural churches. Therefore in my home congregation we had the above elder and a former member of the Wee Frees worshipping together, because that was the worship in their cultural form. I am not suggesting anything about belief.

There are very liberal former Congregational churches, I suspect Carrs Lane Birmingham would not mind being so identified. Then there are self identifying evangelical congregations who regularly call gay ministers and have done for thirty years at least.

Jengie

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thanks for the correction, Angus!

Yes, that's what I was getting at and yes, I'd agree that Methodism tends to be more liberal than 'post-evangelical.'

I attended a Methodist church for a short time (about three months) after my evangelical conversion at university at the age of 19. I'd been brought up Anglican but had dropped out in my early tweens.

I thought I'd investigate another tradition and the Methodist church was the closest to where I lived. I soon tired of it as the CU and the more 'lively' churches had more people my own age and I rapidly hardened into an ardent young evo. The last stray for me was when I heard a visiting preacher saying, "I'm not from one of those fringe religions which keeps asking people whether they're 'saved' all the time ..."

By that time, I was ...

[Razz]

Looking back, most of the Methodist preaching was fairly trite back then (30 years ago or so) - but I've since heard Methodist preaching which has impressed me very much. The ministers I know around here are all excellent preachers and seem pretty balanced ... with some aspects that would play well with evos and conservatives and others that would play well with liberals.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
There are very liberal former Congregational churches, I suspect Carrs Lane Birmingham would not mind being so identified.

Carrs Lane URC used to have a notice outside their church defining themselves as theologically liberal, so there was no doubt about that.

As for Methodism, I agree that it can't be 'post-evangelical' in a contemporary sense, because it hasn't really been a notably evangelical denomination for a long time. There are Methodist evangelicals, but as a whole Methodist evangelicalism now represents a heritage admired somewhat from a distance, rather than a challenging inheritance that the whole denomination has to grapple with. One Methodist minister has even said that Methodist evangelicalism is more about social class than theology.

Interestingly, this thread has mostly assumed that evangelicalism is a desirable label that Rev. Chalke has every right to own. This is a bit of a turn-around, because it hasn't been long since 'evangelical' was practically a term of abuse when used by non-evangelicals. Perhaps Chalke should be grateful that he's escaped at last! And perhaps non-evangelicals should be looking out for ways to claim him for themselves, to entice him over to the other side, so to speak!

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Interestingly, this thread has mostly assumed that evangelicalism is a desirable label that Rev. Chalke has every right to own. This is a bit of a turn-around, because it hasn't been long since 'evangelical' was practically a term of abuse when used by non-evangelicals. Perhaps Chalke should be grateful that he's escaped at last! And perhaps non-evangelicals should be looking out for ways to claim him for themselves, to entice him over to the other side, so to speak!

That may be the greatest evidence that Chalke is, in fact, an evangelical-- his desire to bear that label or at least some allusion to it. I find myself in a similar place-- affirming positions both theological and political that many/most of my evangelical brethren abhor, yet arriving there thru the same fourfold touchstones that define our movement. And, perhaps like Chalke, seeing the label somehow still central to my core identity, even if the "tribe" doesn't always agree.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't think your position is that unusual, cliffdweller, at least not on this side of the Pond (I can't speak for the US).

I'm not sure I entirely agree with SvitlanaV2 that the term 'evangelical' is that often a term of abuse among non-evangelicals - although I have heard it used that way.

A lot of liberals I know are very positive about aspects of evangelicalism, even though there are elements that they deplore intensely.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

cliffdweller and Gamaliel

There seems to have been some reconfiguring going on if liberals want to reclaim evangelicalism. I think what's happened is that British evangelicalism, controversial though it is, has become a strong and attractive identity virtually by default, because other Protestant Christian identities are now so weak.

I'll probably be told off for saying so, but once you ditch evangelicalism what's left? You can become some kind of Catholic, but that identity only seems to be flourishing in the actual RCC. You can be Orthodox, but that's not Protestantism, and even if it is, it's a highly specialised version without any desire to capture widespread interest. Then there are the moderate/MOTR/mainstream forms of church. But none of these weak terms represents any kind of historical or cultural weight. And so to liberalism, which is rarely claimed enthusiastically, even on the Ship. It has a secure presence in theological colleges, but at a grass-roots level that’s not where things are happening.

The trick is to combine the marketability of evangelicalism with one or more of these other terms in order to create a less frightening hybrid, but evangelicalism itself now represents the core element in any viable British Protestant identity for the foreseeable future. So Rev Chalke might as well insist on his position within the ‘tribe’ if he wants to remain relevant.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

If we lose evangelicalism, which had become perjorative for me, we lose Hell, damnationism, the kakagelion, dysangelism.

This chimes with Brian McLaren too (already quoted him once today on the 'Is eternal damnation fair?' thread) Svitlana2:

'Why Did Jesus, Moses, The Buddha and Mohammed Cross the Road' p 251, ch 29:

quote:
If Christianity isn't a plan for avoiding hell, why be a Christian? and if we lose hell, our religion loses its reason for existence'.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@SvitlanaV2, sociologically, I think you're spot on.

Those liberals I've met who seem interested in 'outreach' (however defined) would all concede that they have much to learn from the evangelicals.

And yes, you're right, British evangelicalism is holding its own rather more than other forms of Christianity here at the moment.

This is partly by default but I'd also suggest that there is something intrinsically 'adaptable' within evangelicalism which it probably derives from its broader 'reformed' roots ie. the creative tensions and reconfigurings and so on that are part-and-parcel of the 'reformed' and 'Reformed' traditions (I'm always careful when I use these terms in case Jengie Jon dots my i's and crosses my t's ...).

I think there's little doubt too, particularly in the US, that an influx of evangelicals into both the RC and Orthodox churches has, to some extent, helped to 'evangelicise' those communions - for better or for worse. This is barely detectable in the UK but I'm told is more of a feature over in the US.

I'll probably be told off too, but out-and-out liberalism, it seems to me, is on a hiding to nothing and has little to offer ... it's essentially a mule and cannot reproduce itself. It can only leech off more conservative traditions.

On the Orthodox thing, of course Orthodoxy isn't Protestantism. That's the whole point of it. It's appeal will always remain a limited one, I suspect. Not everyone wants to stand all the way through the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom or adopt their fasting regime.

Orthodoxy is making attempts to evangelise and to proselytise - although it would deny the latter. The 'convert parishes' here have grown from a very small base and the Russians, Greeks and Romanians are picking up disaffected RCs and Protestants - and even some previously unchurched people - albeit in very small numbers.

So, yes, I think evangelicalism has a lot to offer some of the other traditions and the Convergence thing could be interesting ... I'd be all for an evangelicalism that drew on some of the insights of the older traditions - in terms of a sacramental approach, spiritual formation, 'lectio divina' and so on.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think your position is that unusual, cliffdweller, at least not on this side of the Pond (I can't speak for the US).

Yes, there's definitely a growing minority contingent of left-wing evangelicals, or post-evangelicals or neo-evangelicals or whatever you wanna call us. Some (mostly younger) do eschew the label, but most (particularly older ones like me) want to reclaim the name. I tend to think that's a good thing-- keeps the conversation going, both on the social issues we disagree on, but also on the core things we do agree on: if we can disagree about same sex marriage or images of the atonement, yee share the same high view of inspiration of Scripture, what does that tell us? How can that inform our hermeneutics? But I realize more "traditional" (although I would say not all that traditional, just the current majority) would see things differently.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think evangelicalism has a lot to offer some of the other traditions and the Convergence thing could be interesting ... I'd be all for an evangelicalism that drew on some of the insights of the older traditions - in terms of a sacramental approach, spiritual formation, 'lectio divina' and so on.

Are you saying that evangelical churches should become more traditional, or that more evangelicals should leave evangelical churches and join traditional ones?

The first option is the more problematic one, because when evangelical churches become more traditional, they often lose some of the distinctiveness that initially makes them attractive to the people who attend. The second option sees evangelical churches as the engine room of the Church; they pump life into the Church but they themselves remain in the background, discreetly providing a steady flow of worship ideas, biblical enthusiasm and believers who are willing to be channelled ever upwards, until they reach their true destiny in a high church environment. I find this option a bit problematic as well, to be honest. But I accept that we all speak out of our own experience of the matter.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

I think it's not so much that evos are arguably becoming more traditional, but rather that many are rediscovering the sacramental insights of other streams of Christian spirituality. On a superficial level, this may manifest as the greater likelihood of the minister vesting, rather than just wearing jeans tee shirt and trainers (ok, the trainers would probably stay). More tellingly, many evo churches, especially those at the charismatic end of things, are now making Communion, rather than morning prayer, the default Sunday service.

I think this is viewed as neo-orthodox radicalism, rather than a return to traditional forms.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Jolly Jape

You must be talking about Anglican evangelicals. I can't imagine that Steve Chalke and his Baptist colleagues are going to start 'vesting' and prioritising Communion.

I admit that the workings of the CofE are mostly a mystery to me, but the very fact that Anglican evangelicals are in the country's foremost traditional denomination must to some small degree temper their disdain for all things traditional! Otherwise they might as well become Baptists themselves. In fact, what does 'post-evangelical' mean in a CofE context? How is it 'radical' to start wearing a robe, in a denomination that's always had them?

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

But Svitlana, it's radical because they haven't done it before! Simples!

But yes, you're right, I'm talking about the Anglican scene, but I'll bet there are parallels in nonconformist circles. Maybe not vesting, but some other signs of "radical orthodoxy". New Monasticism, maybe?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Radical orthodoxy for today's Baptists ought to lie, I think, in a rediscovery of dissent.

Dissent became uncomfortable because it meant separation from the Anglican Church, but there is a deeper meaning, which is dissenting from the accommodation with state and power which the establishment of the CofE represents, and the appropriation by the Catholic Church of power and privilege into its own structures.

The recent popularity of the Anabaptist tradition is evidence that this strand of Protestantism has appeal today. It might be 're-discovered' by means of a renewed emphasis on congregationalism and the church meeting, a new enthusiasm for some of the worship styles of earlier non-conformism (the hymns of James Montgomery, for example), and the establishment of a cultural and spiritual distance from the spirit of the age in its commercialism, celebrity, and violence.

John Smyth, 17thC proto-Baptist, was clear that liberty has to be for all. If we would claim liberty to practice our religion, then we must claim it also for everyone else. That could be a powerful point of focus for the New Dissenters.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Radical orthodoxy for today's Baptists ought to lie, I think, in a rediscovery of dissent.

Dissent became uncomfortable because it meant separation from the Anglican Church, but there is a deeper meaning, which is dissenting from the accommodation with state and power which the establishment of the CofE represents, and the appropriation by the Catholic Church of power and privilege into its own structures.

The recent popularity of the Anabaptist tradition is evidence that this strand of Protestantism has appeal today. It might be 're-discovered' by means of a renewed emphasis on congregationalism and the church meeting, a new enthusiasm for some of the worship styles of earlier non-conformism (the hymns of James Montgomery, for example), and the establishment of a cultural and spiritual distance from the spirit of the age in its commercialism, celebrity, and violence.

John Smyth, 17thC proto-Baptist, was clear that liberty has to be for all. If we would claim liberty to practice our religion, then we must claim it also for everyone else. That could be a powerful point of focus for the New Dissenters.

The debate is very interesting.

In fact you have two dissenters (Steve Chalke and I would also say Steve Clifford) dissenting and counter dissenting, thus was it not always so?

Secondly, I am part of a men's group in the part of Sussex where I live. We use a local Poor Clare's convent for our day away. We are all Protestants (not for the want of asking our local catholic priest and members to join us by the way). We have, this may sound up ourselves a bit) a high degree of energy and creativity and we are pushing out into newer areas; in this case for men.

Maybe this is part of the debate? This would have NEVER happened 20 years ago as a bunch of Protestants would never forge a link with Catholic nuns and for them to see us as a blessing meeting in their convent.

Saul

PS - Our next away day is with speaker Fr. Stephen Ortiger medeivalist and Winnie the Pooh expert. Any men are very welcome. See link (places are limited due to space):
http://www.la-momentum.org/

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think Hatless and Saul in their different ways have answered your question, SvitlanaV2.

I've heard an Orthodox priest say the same as Hatless on this one, he'd like to see the Baptists recover radical dissent rather than blending in with MOTR evangelicalism or the New Wine ambit.

And the example Saul gives is a good one. I think Baptists can draw on neo-monasticism, retreats, pilgrimage and so on without having to vest up and everything ... although some may be drawn that way in the process.

As for what Jolly Jape has said ... well, I wish that was the case around here ...

[Frown]

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for what Jolly Jape has said ... well, I wish that was the case around here ...

I feel the same way... A.
[Edit to re-phrase]

[ 10. March 2013, 11:03: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Radical orthodoxy for today's Baptists ought to lie, I think, in a rediscovery of dissent.

Dissent became uncomfortable because it meant separation from the Anglican Church, but there is a deeper meaning, which is dissenting from the accommodation with state and power which the establishment of the CofE represents, and the appropriation by the Catholic Church of power and privilege into its own structures.

The recent popularity of the Anabaptist tradition is evidence that this strand of Protestantism has appeal today. It might be 're-discovered' by means of a renewed emphasis on congregationalism and the church meeting, a new enthusiasm for some of the worship styles of earlier non-conformism (the hymns of James Montgomery, for example), and the establishment of a cultural and spiritual distance from the spirit of the age in its commercialism, celebrity, and violence.

John Smyth, 17thC proto-Baptist, was clear that liberty has to be for all. If we would claim liberty to practice our religion, then we must claim it also for everyone else. That could be a powerful point of focus for the New Dissenters.

This is an interesting message. However, in Britain it's hard to see how Baptists currently fail to live up to what you describe as 'dissent'. They're already congregationalist; they already focus on church meetings; they're not especially celebrity-obsessed, mired in commercialism or troubled by internal violence. Not as far as I can tell, anyway! And surely Dissenters/Non-conformists now have all the freedom they need. The question is whether you have the freedom to dissent and remain in the gang, or whether freedom means that you go off and start your own gang. Dissenters have usually gone for the latter option, but that's not what's you're proposing, is it?

Re the Anabaptists, what appeals to me about them wouldn't appeal to the traditionalists on this thread; I understand that it was Anabaptist practice to question the preacher after his sermon, during the service itself. I'd like to be able to do this, but I've never come across a church where it happens.

Finally, in my own experience of ecumenicalism I can say that the evangelical denominations have valued the input and fellowship from the more traditional CofE and RCC. The Baptist minister admits he welcomes the chance to mark Lent, which would otherwise go unnoticed in his church. Whether this means his congregation are going to go all liturgical is another matter. I suspect not! The Methodists are a special case.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It might just be me, SvitlanaV2 but whilst I think you're in the right ball-park in general terms, I think there are exceptions to any of these general rules. For instance, I can think of a number of RC and Orthodox priests who've told me of incidents where they've been questioned after sermons or challenged by members of their respective congregations in ways that I found very surprising - and would have found embarrassing or discombobulating (if that's a right word!) in a Protestant setting.

As far as the Baptists and radicalism go, well, yes ... you're right to an extent but I think what Hatless (and my Orthodox priest friend) had in mind was actual 'lay' engagement in radical causes and so on.

I well remember reading an article in The Baptist Times by a minister who told of his involvement in a local pressure-group of some kind - I can't remember what the issue was but it was the sort of thing that ExclamationMark, Hatless and other Baptist ministers here would undoubtedly support.

He said that the most significant thing about it was when a Communist member of the group turned to him and said, 'It's great that you are here and supporting this. But where's the rest of your congregation?'

He had no answer for that challenge.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Gamaliel

Oh, I don't claim to be making 'rules' about the whole of British Christianity! I talk about my own experiences and my own reading, and what people have told me.

In my experience (maybe not yours or anyone else's!) preachers might be questioned over coffee after the service, but actually being questioned as a regular part of the service is a different matter. Do the clergy you're referring to make space for this questioning as part of the service? Does it happen sporadically? Is it just a quick drubbing at the door on the way home?

What sometimes happens in Methodist services is that the lead-in to the sermon might involve the preacher asking the congregation questions. But at the end of the sermon, the service will continue in the 'normal' way, without any further feedback from the congregation. However, preachers try to hang around after the service, where they're likely to be engaged in serious chats by one or two eager people.

Again, I accept that my experiences and feelings won't be necessarily be shared by others. That's why the conversation is worth having!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure - yes, as soon as I posted that I anticipated that this would be your response - and it's a reasonable question to ask. I can't say for sure, but I suspect in each case space for questions wasn't built into the sermon itself ...

That said, I've seen space for questions and quite robust debate following talks at Orthodox conferences - and I suspect that all traditions - RC, Protestant and Orthodox have scope for that sort of thing at the more conference-y events ... just not on a Sunday morning as part of the actual service ...

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

SvitlanaV2 wrote

quote:
This is an interesting message. However, in Britain it's hard to see how Baptists currently fail to live up to what you describe as 'dissent'.

You're right. I suppose I'd like to see us become a bit more distinctive by accentuating certain parts of our tradition.

Yes, we have church meetings, but I don't think we really make the most of them. The attempt to walk together while moving at different speeds, unity in diversity, a consensus rich in tension, all that sort of stuff is a really radical programme. Just having lots of votes is missing the point. Some of those attempts to improve listening by having people repeat what the person before said, passing an object, or only having certain chairs where people can speak indicate to me how far we could go with the Church Meeting. It could be not only a way of making decisions, but form a particular sort of community, membership of which would be a sign and sacrament of the Kingdom.

We do have all the freedom we need, but others don't - asylum seekers, the learning disabled, for example. More importantly, though, we don't use our freedom. We are not properly distinctive. I have long admired the Amish for their deliberate disengagement from the mainstream culture. I don't want to go all the way down that road, but I'd like to see us dissenting in the way we holiday or buy houses or fill our leisure time. And, of course, in more important ways like how we raise our children, how we vote, how we serve our neighbours. Our minds are not properly free, and therefore our lives always falling flat like toddlers.

I think that the way we handle power is crucial. Dissenters traditionally were not powerful people. They were often drawn from the lower classes (though not uneducated). They sought to make a difference by the costly and persuasive exercise of conscience. I think that road is still worth exploring.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

So do I.

I daresay that some of the more sacramental traditions would say that this radical or 'other-worldly' (for want of a better word) edge is achieved in the monastery, convent or the base-community. These are people who have taken a step or two away from 'the world' and its values.

However, the very distinctiveness of that, if you like, can, it seems to me, let everyone else off the hook. Someone else is doing it so we don't have to.

All of us are highly selective of course and can always see the mote in our sisters' or brothers' eyes ... (notice how I inverted the usual order there in order to start practising what I'm preaching ... [Biased]

)

Our local vicar, for instance, is pretty right-on when it comes to Fair Trade, not kow-towing to fashions and advertising and so on ... but in other ways he's pretty 'establishment' if we can put it like that.

It's all relative and inconsistent wherever we are on the ecclesial spectrum.

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure - yes, as soon as I posted that I anticipated that this would be your response - and it's a reasonable question to ask. I can't say for sure, but I suspect in each case space for questions wasn't built into the sermon itself ...

That said, I've seen space for questions and quite robust debate following talks at Orthodox conferences - and I suspect that all traditions - RC, Protestant and Orthodox have scope for that sort of thing at the more conference-y events ... just not on a Sunday morning as part of the actual service ...

[no doubt a tangent but...] Thanks, SvitlanaV2. I wish some churches -- even the liturgical ones -- might try on this Anabaptist practice and ask questions of the preacher in church following the sermon, as part of the service.

There's an established procedure for doing this at conference talks given in secular life, as Gamaliel notes. It's even established practice for a designated audience member to "seed" the discussion with a question, if no one else raises a hand at the end of the talk. (A new duty for the Vestry members! They'll be overjoyed!)

In professional development settings, the practice is to break up into small groups after a talk, discuss the issues raised, then come back to the full group with suggestions. That would make a regular Sunday service much too lengthy for modern tastes, but it might be done at certain special services.

I think I'd love doing this. Imagine developing the congregation's prayers for themselves and their parish in this way, say at Ember / Rogation days!

Enough --

[/no doubt a tangent but...]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

hatless

It's been said before that today's evangelicals aren't significantly distinguishable from the surrounding culture, but it's difficult for the churches to know what to do about this. Christians find it easier to condemn the world when they can't afford to buy into what the world offers, but as we know, abstinence aids the pocket, Christians become middle class, and then shunning material goods, leisure activities and social advancement seems a less attractive thing to do.

Most churches these days do seem to be engaged in social outreach of some sort, although urban theologians complain that there's not enough commitment to attacking structural inequality. And though lip service is paid to being welcoming to all, the reality is that only certain kinds of people will feel comfortable in most churches. Generally speaking, the 'lower classes' haven't felt too comfortable in our churches for a long time - and I speak as someone who mostly worships in inner city churches. The churches with the most resources and manpower are in distant suburbs, where standing alongside the poor is something you do in the abstract. From my point of view, the CofE have a strong advantage in being willing and able to redirect resources to struggling areas, whereas the Nonconformist churches have to sink or swim alone, a reality that may make them less likely to engage in 'radical' adventures.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Re the Anabaptists, what appeals to me about them wouldn't appeal to the traditionalists on this thread; I understand that it was Anabaptist practice to question the preacher after his sermon, during the service itself. I'd like to be able to do this, but I've never come across a church where it happens.

(Continuing tangent) A few years ago I attended a CofE church plant of a congregation that met in a school hall on a modern estate that was a long way from the parish church, and the curate at the time took questions after the sermon. The service was very informal (for the CofE), to match the surroundings, so this wasn't too difficult to arrange. I was very impressed with this practice, but it stopped when the curate finished his training and moved on (as they do).
Angus

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
SvitlanaV2 wrote
quote:
This is an interesting message. However, in Britain it's hard to see how Baptists currently fail to live up to what you describe as 'dissent'.
You're right. I suppose I'd like to see us become a bit more distinctive by accentuating certain parts of our tradition.

That's an excellent idea but I suppose it depends on what our "tradition" is and from where it might come.

To what extent are English baptists the product of Anabaptist influence? The Stuart Murray Williams's of this world would say "a lot", others (possibly Roger Hayden?) would say that any link is purely speculative.

Tradition has a lot to teach us but only with a nod to how tradition might or might not be expressed in a manner which engages with a contemporary world. I struggle to see, for example, how we might replicate the city state of Munster (though there might - just - be a few candidates whose testicles would benefit from being nailed to the city gates).

Radical dissent is a strange beast. Somem people's radical dissent amounts to little more than supporting certain "causes" and, at a distance. It can seem, to the more extreme, a bit like the posh kids trying to talk cockney or a Gideon Osborne claiming we're all in this together.

For others, radical dissent pushes more boundaries than just doing stuff - it's being things. I suspect that the early baptists were seen as pushing the boundaries of good taste as well as anything else - certainly the Methodist Church had to endure the sneering of the established church over its love feasts.

Rediscovering radical dissent is not simply what we say but also what we are prepared to do and/or become. The ultimate radical dissent is a confrontation to unhelpful, unjust or exploitative power bases (for all abuse is founded on the exercise of power). Yes, it may even mean confronting the power base of the police and other agencies who are merely state enforcers, seeking to maintain the status quo. Stand for your local council. Get on the Governing bodies of your local schools/academies. Question, question, question. Pray and pray unti something happens - above all, don't just sit there and aceept. Speak out for the lost, the lonely, the mentally ill, the homeless, the unborn children in a holcaust of abortion. Go out and if necesaary, go down fighting. Fight but don't heed the wouns or count the cost to yourself: imagine what will happen if you don't speak out. If you really want to make a statement fly the red flag over your church! It'll certainly get a lot of publicity.

If you really mean business and say you don't agree with Government policy refuse to pay tax. let them take your home and send you to prison. Yes they might, can and probably will beat you up but if enough people step forward there's more power if not safety in numbers. (Christian dissent just isn't organised and often looks more like a day out at the seaside as opposed to a real desire to change something by on the ground confrontation).

Now, that's radical dissent - not hand wringing and saying how terrible it all is while sipping our latte's and planning our skiing holidays and summer trips to Umbria.

The kind of action this demands is, say, a takeover of parliament over issues of sanctity of life, sexuality or whatever- but we've missed that boat as Otis Ferry was one step ahead. But there's way more scope - 16000 churchgoers in a town of 200,000 that calls 2 MP's could change the course of an election.

Any dissent we see is generally very polite and extremely english and, as a result generally ineffective.

.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
SvitlanaV2 wrote
quote:
This is an interesting message. However, in Britain it's hard to see how Baptists currently fail to live up to what you describe as 'dissent'.
You're right. I suppose I'd like to see us become a bit more distinctive by accentuating certain parts of our tradition.
That's an excellent idea but I suppose it depends on what our "tradition" is and from where it might come.

To what extent are English baptists the product of Anabaptist influence? The Stuart Murray Williams's of this world would say "a lot", others (possibly Roger Hayden?) would say that any link is purely speculative.

Tradition has a lot to teach us but only with a nod to how tradition might or might not be expressed in a manner which engages with a contemporary world. I struggle to see, for example, how we might replicate the city state of Munster (though there might - just - be a few candidates whose testicles would benefit from being nailed to the city gates).

Radical dissent is a strange beast. Somem people's radical dissent amounts to little more than supporting certain "causes" and, at a distance. It can seem, to the more extreme, a bit like the posh kids trying to talk cockney or a Gideon Osborne claiming we're all in this together.

For others, radical dissent pushes more boundaries than just doing stuff - it's being things. I suspect that the early baptists were seen as pushing the boundaries of good taste as well as anything else - certainly the Methodist Church had to endure the sneering of the established church over its love feasts.

Rediscovering radical dissent is not simply what we say but also what we are prepared to do and/or become. The ultimate radical dissent is a confrontation to unhelpful, unjust or exploitative power bases (for all abuse is founded on the exercise of power). Yes, it may even mean confronting the power base of the police and other agencies who are merely state enforcers, seeking to maintain the status quo. Stand for your local council. Get on the Governing bodies of your local schools/academies. Question, question, question. Pray and pray unti something happens - above all, don't just sit there and aceept. Speak out for the lost, the lonely, the mentally ill, the homeless, the unborn children in a holcaust of abortion. Go out and if necesaary, go down fighting. Fight but don't heed the wouns or count the cost to yourself: imagine what will happen if you don't speak out. If you really want to make a statement fly the red flag over your church! It'll certainly get a lot of publicity.

If you really mean business and say you don't agree with Government policy refuse to pay tax. let them take your home and send you to prison. Yes they might, can and probably will beat you up but if enough people step forward there's more power if not safety in numbers. (Christian dissent just isn't organised and often looks more like a day out at the seaside as opposed to a real desire to change something by on the ground confrontation).

Now, that's radical dissent - not hand wringing and saying how terrible it all is while sipping our latte's and planning our skiing holidays and summer trips to Umbria.

The kind of action this demands is, say, a takeover of parliament over issues of sanctity of life, sexuality or whatever- but we've missed that boat as Otis Ferry was one step ahead. But there's way more scope - 16000 churchgoers in a town of 200,000 that calls 2 MP's could change the course of an election.

Any dissent we see is generally very polite and extremely english and, as a result generally ineffective.

.

EM

interesting post.

Is Chalke a ''radical dissenter'' in your opinion?

Saul the Apostle

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

A lot of good stuff there, EM.

I think two of my models for radical dissent (certainly writers/speakers who fired me up) were both US citizens,which seems a bit strange given the generally conservative nature of much US Christianity. Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo. Both of whom have done a fair bit of jail time as a result of protests. Campolo is a Baptist, Wallis grew up with the Brethren, so each knows something of the Anabaptist inheritance. Their church "parentages" have often looked askance at the way in which they've both spoken and put dissent into action.

I think it's probably true that dissent, English version, is generally too polite!

Campolo is an interesting radical, because he is often conservative on a number of issues of personal morality but anything but conservative on poverty.

My favourite Campolo story relates to the time he was one of Clinton's spiritual advisers on personal morality, post Lewinski. Apparently he had an appointment at the White House but had been protesting publicly about some iniquitous Workfair provision and got arrested and locked up over night. He used his phone call from jail to phone the White House to let them know he couldn't make the scheduled 'moral guidance' appointment with the President because he was in jail after protesting against the application of a White House policy.

Not sure how that went down. My guess is that Clinton at least would have had a good laugh.

But the serious point is the one I think you are making. Radical dissent can get you into trouble like that. If you shirk the prospect, that can blunt the cutting edge. Your reputation for "respectability" can take some knocks of course, but, historically, radical dissenters often argued about how wrong "respectable" views were.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
[QUOTE]interesting post.

Is Chalke a ''radical dissenter'' in your opinion?

Saul the Apostle

Based on subject matter perhaps - but who cares outside the church tbh?

Based on persoanl commitment - I just don't know

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Excellent post, ExclamationMark!

I wouldn't worry too much about the historical details of our tradition and whether or not today's Baptists are in direct line from the Anabaptists. Most good traditions are adopted.

I'm particularly interested in your comment about style and taste, questions of being. I'm sure you can't develop an ethos without doing stuff, but I think that if you can get the ethos right, then it will set the activism free.

And I agree that in order to get the ethos right we have to focus on the big thing, which as you say, is money and power.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Excellent post, ExclamationMark!

I wouldn't worry too much about the historical details of our tradition and whether or not today's Baptists are in direct line from the Anabaptists. Most good traditions are adopted.

I'm particularly interested in your comment about style and taste, questions of being. I'm sure you can't develop an ethos without doing stuff, but I think that if you can get the ethos right, then it will set the activism free.

And I agree that in order to get the ethos right we have to focus on the big thing, which as you say, is money and power.

Yeah, no good being without doing. Integrity and credibility bring authenticity or as James put it - faith without works is dead.

Why is it that the church (and even the so called radical dissenters of BUGB) look like we're playing a game instead of fighting a war for the lives of our nation? Why is it that we find it so easy to send money to a (real life) need in Africa but we can't put our hands in our pockets for the people on our doorstep.

Why did we apologise for slavery and not apologise for the abuses in baptist run orphanages and mother and baby homes? Why do we not speak out about the ongoing inequalities in our society such that children from poorer homes are many, many times less likely to proceed to teriary education than those from middle class homes?

When did we apologise for baptist complicity in the exploitation of labour in factories and on farms? (Ok we may not be directly involved but when did you hear the BUGB speak out (ever) for farm labourers, the poorest paid in the UK?

The injustices and our failure to speak out and act agaiunst them are a running sore on all denominations, God help us. "Even as you do this for the least of these little ones - you do it unto me." Do we ever read matthew 25 and its condemnation of pious self righteousness and indifference?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Indeed ... don't be too tough on the Baptists, though, EM, in my experience some of them do (individually) do get involved with sort of thing - but perhaps not at the organisational/denominational level. I was always mightily impressed with a Baptist urban-eco-warrior I knew in a large northern city who would only ever cycle places and who only worked two or three days a week - he said that gave him enough to live on - and who deliberately lived in a council house on a run-down estate but had created a superb garden where he grew his own food (he even made many of his own clothes) and generally practised what he preached.

He used to cycle off to G8 summits in a rickshaw and do all sorts of activist things.

I wish there were more like him.

I wish I were more like him ... [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

What about Bob Holman in Glasgow? (Not a Baptist, I owe). He left a good social work post in academe to live in Easterhouse. Also John Miller, the legendary CofS minister in Castlemilk who got into trouble with his Presbytery by insisting on living in a Council House rather than in the Manse in a "nice" area a couple of miles away.

"Any dissent we see is generally very polite and extremely english and, as a result generally ineffective." Aye, that's the root of the problem.

FWIW, here's a quote from my sermon a couple of weeks ago (on the Second Commandment - I hope I don't sound too pompous):

I think the first idol we might worship is the idol of “respectability”. You know, church people are well-known for being steady and industrious and moral and good citizens – which is all to the good! But the danger comes when we start thinking of church as a group of “people like us”, of folk who never “make waves”, of individuals who never say outrageous but always keep their head well below the parapet of controversy. And it gets even worse when folk within the church itself start saying, “He shouldn’t have said (or done) that: he may be right but it will tarnish the god name of the church”. Talking like that means that we are worshipping that particular idol.

For we have to remember that the Bible contains a long tradition of God’s people not behaving respectably; it is not a Christian virtue! There are prophets such as Hosea who married a prostitute or Jeremiah who got thrown down a well for speaking boldly. There is St. Paul – a man who, in his earlier life, would have valued the praise of the “Establishment” – daring to say, “I couldn’t care less if people call me a mad man, I want to be a fool for Christ”. And he, of course, was only following Jesus who had scandalised the Jewish society of his day by criticising the pompous religious leaders, eating with the wrong people and doing miracles when he shouldn’t have. In fact I think that the Church could do with a lot less respectability and a lot more outrageousness – that would shake up the world, wouldn’t it!

Sorry I've been absent: computer problems!

[ 12. March 2013, 18:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed ... don't be too tough on the Baptists, though, EM, in my experience some of them do (individually) do get involved with sort of thing - but perhaps not at the organisational/denominational level. I wish I were more like him ...

I'm tough on us because I'm tough on myself. I challenged the new jerusalem on Sunday (preaching from mark 10: 17 - 31 - ironic that, eh, as an ex finance guy and consultant) about the good we could do (hypothetical). I then went on the challange them on the good we would do (real).

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What about Bob Holman in Glasgow? (Not a Baptist, I owe). He left a good social work post in academe to live in Easterhouse. Also John Miller, the legendary CofS minister in Castlemilk who got into trouble with his Presbytery by insisting on living in a Council House rather than in the Manse in a "nice" area a couple of miles away.

"Any dissent we see is generally very polite and extremely english and, as a result generally ineffective." Aye, that's the root of the problem.

FWIW, here's a quote from my sermon a couple of weeks ago (on the Second Commandment - I hope I don't sound too pompous):

I think the first idol we might worship is the idol of “respectability”. You know, church people are well-known for being steady and industrious and moral and good citizens – which is all to the good! But the danger comes when we start thinking of church as a group of “people like us”, of folk who never “make waves”, of individuals who never say outrageous but always keep their head well below the parapet of controversy. And it gets even worse when folk within the church itself start saying, “He shouldn’t have said (or done) that: he may be right but it will tarnish the god name of the church”. Talking like that means that we are worshipping that particular idol.

For we have to remember that the Bible contains a long tradition of God’s people not behaving respectably; it is not a Christian virtue! There are prophets such as Hosea who married a prostitute or Jeremiah who got thrown down a well for speaking boldly. There is St. Paul – a man who, in his earlier life, would have valued the praise of the “Establishment” – daring to say, “I couldn’t care less if people call me a mad man, I want to be a fool for Christ”. And he, of course, was only following Jesus who had scandalised the Jewish society of his day by criticising the pompous religious leaders, eating with the wrong people and doing miracles when he shouldn’t have. In fact I think that the Church could do with a lot less respectability and a lot more outrageousness – that would shake up the world, wouldn’t it!

Sorry I've been absent: computer problems!

Thanks - some great stuff here. I wish had more to share than just ppt slides (and I don't always follow those these days when I preach).

I think the "church" should be known as "people behaving badly" who are affronted by our commitment to justice and love.

Spent a while recently arguing with the Borough Solicitor who wanted me to recommend that a homeless guy who visits our lunch club be given an ASBO that effectively removes him from town and the little support he does get. I did quote the Elizabethan Poor Law at him (Borough Solicitor) and have managed to get a reprieve!

I don't think they take much notice of vulnerable adults with schizophrenia living on the streets in this neck of the woods. They just want to run them out of the borough limits and into soemone else's responsibility.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What about Bob Holman in Glasgow? (Not a Baptist, I owe). He left a good social work post in academe to live in Easterhouse. Also John Miller, the legendary CofS minister in Castlemilk who got into trouble with his Presbytery by insisting on living in a Council House rather than in the Manse in a "nice" area a couple of miles away.

I understand the idea, but wasn't the second guy taking up a council house that could've gone to someone who really needed it? I hope the manse was rented out rather than being left empty.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

All sorts of problems, there really is difference between being a professional living in a run down area and being one who comes in for the working day. Look where your spending money goes for starters. How much harder is it for people to knock on your door at midnight if they have to travel two miles. You also probably do not know the stresses of living in the area. Does the ministers kids go to the schools the kids around the church? Living with the people is different than just working with the people. I am not sure it is better but it is not the same*.

As to whether the manse was rented out. The CofS is run by Scots, so the manse will have been rented out.

If there is a grouping who pulls this sort of Christian together in the UK it is Jesus in the City. I think it has fallen short of the dream, and become more an Evangelical thing but at least at the start it included the whole Church. It probably technically still does.

If they are still going, there are a couple of people living this sort of life somewhere in Manchester. When I last went to Jesus in the City, over a decade ago they were close on burnout.

Jengie
* A personal reflection on how to do mission in these areas.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

These things are difficult to work out ... the rhetoric is a lot easier. But I think there are ways of doing it ... not sure what the application is in my case though ... don't do an awful lot of activism these days.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

These things are difficult to work out ... the rhetoric is a lot easier. But I think there are ways of doing it ... not sure what the application is in my case though ... don't do an awful lot of activism these days.

Wasn't there also the World Wide Message Tribe aka "The Tribe?" From my experience of both (talking to someone who went there for a year) their biggest supporterds weren't the local churches (who seemed to see it as a muscling in on their patch - they weren't doing it much) but churches in the rest of the UK.

There's a few exceptions from a baptist pov - Buttershaw in Bradford and New Addington in London, which seemed to be doing a good job.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I know of Buttershaw ... it's doing a good job in a very difficult area. It wouldn't be my cup of tea in terms of style - it's become quite New Wine-y - but they're certainly doing some good stuff.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What about Bob Holman in Glasgow? (Not a Baptist, I owe). He left a good social work post in academe to live in Easterhouse. Also John Miller, the legendary CofS minister in Castlemilk who got into trouble with his Presbytery by insisting on living in a Council House rather than in the Manse in a "nice" area a couple of miles away.

"Any dissent we see is generally very polite and extremely english and, as a result generally ineffective." Aye, that's the root of the problem.

FWIW, here's a quote from my sermon a couple of weeks ago (on the Second Commandment - I hope I don't sound too pompous):

I think the first idol we might worship is the idol of “respectability”. You know, church people are well-known for being steady and industrious and moral and good citizens – which is all to the good! But the danger comes when we start thinking of church as a group of “people like us”, of folk who never “make waves”, of individuals who never say outrageous but always keep their head well below the parapet of controversy. And it gets even worse when folk within the church itself start saying, “He shouldn’t have said (or done) that: he may be right but it will tarnish the god name of the church”. Talking like that means that we are worshipping that particular idol.

For we have to remember that the Bible contains a long tradition of God’s people not behaving respectably; it is not a Christian virtue! There are prophets such as Hosea who married a prostitute or Jeremiah who got thrown down a well for speaking boldly. There is St. Paul – a man who, in his earlier life, would have valued the praise of the “Establishment” – daring to say, “I couldn’t care less if people call me a mad man, I want to be a fool for Christ”. And he, of course, was only following Jesus who had scandalised the Jewish society of his day by criticising the pompous religious leaders, eating with the wrong people and doing miracles when he shouldn’t have. In fact I think that the Church could do with a lot less respectability and a lot more outrageousness – that would shake up the world, wouldn’t it!

Sorry I've been absent: computer problems!

I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

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?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.)

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

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]

'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]

)

Love your sermon quotes, by the way. [Smile]

Totally agree.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

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

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

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

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Baptist Trainfan

Thanks a lot! I really appreciate your comments and inside knowledge!

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

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

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

/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 ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

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.)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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?

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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 ...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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 ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

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 ]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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 ]

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

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

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

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.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

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).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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 ]

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

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 ]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

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.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

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.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

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.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Historically Baptists were a bit lower in social status than Methodists (Wesleyans if not Primitives) but higher than Pentecostals ... but not so true today.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

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.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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 ..

[Big Grin]

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 ...

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

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

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

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 [Smile]

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]

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 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0