Ship of Fools: Who or What am I?

Thread: Who or What am I? 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=030562

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

OK, after months (years?) of posts defending the label "evangelical" and arguing for the classic Bebbington quad. as the defining element, as well as the historic evangelical tradition of progressive social activism, I give up. There's simply no use: the term has now irretrievably been lost, and if it wasn't before it will now inevitably be bound up with the racism, homophobia, misogyny and xenophobia of the Trump movement. That's not the worst thing that happened last night, but it is one thing.

So, I can't call myself "evangelical" anymore. But I still believe the same things-- that same "quadrilateral" of themes that are important to us (but not unique to us), and still feel affinity with the "tribe" of people I worship with (fortunately my particular expression of that showing the same disbelief and sorrow as the rest of us today).

So what am I/we? What new name will replace "evangelical" to describe politically left-wing/ theologically conservative folks like Tony Campolo, Greg Boyd, Shane Clairborne, Brian McLaren, Jen Hatmaker, Rachel Held Evans? Post-evangelical seems too reactionary-- too much defined by the movement we want to distance ourselves from. So what? Yes, I know we could all just say "Christian" but that smacks of the churches that call themselves "Eastside Christian Church" as if all the denominational churches in their neighborhood were something else. And labels do have uses, even as they can be burdens).

Personally, I'm trying out "Wesleyan" and like it for myself-- but it would exclude a lot of more Calvinist folks right when we're trying to be more inclusive. Thoughts?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Emergent.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Emergent.

hmmm.... maybe. It was a popular term awhile ago, seems to be pretty passé today, but perhaps it will resurge in the vacuum left by the evangelical backwash. It feels a bit young to describe an old evangelical like me, but perhaps the young emergents will let me hang around as a sort of mascot.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Dunno about where you live, but "Wesleyan" is used around here to describe mega-church wannabes, the kind of place that has a "minister of parking".

There was, at one time, a "Wesleyan Methodist" congregation, but that folded up and disappeared a few years ago, leaving a weedy space that is for sale. And, of course, it had been a member of the United Church of Canada since 1925, so that "Wesleyan" had to be attached to "Memorial" on their sign.

But, yeah, the "Wesleyan" name survives on a group of oversized once-evangelical churches, now obsessed with money.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

You can take the Social Gospel from my COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
You can take the Social Gospel from my COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!

Cold live hands please!

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Dunno about where you live, but "Wesleyan" is used around here to describe mega-church wannabes, the kind of place that has a "minister of parking".

Really? In these parts "Wesleyan" basically means Methodist, or the tradition of which Methodist and, to a lesser degree, Holiness denominations are the main expressions.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Dunno about where you live, but "Wesleyan" is used around here to describe mega-church wannabes, the kind of place that has a "minister of parking".
Really? In these parts "Wesleyan" basically means Methodist, or the tradition of which Methodist and, to a lesser degree, Holiness denominations are the main expressions.

Yeah, around here megachurches are usually generic evangelical (in every sense).

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Not sure I understand the need to label oneself these days because as we have seen, labels we use are often wrongly understood or applied. I still love reading McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy, which deals beautifully with different labels and recognises the differing journeys we are all on.

If I must have a label, I would suggest the most appropriate and flexible one would simply be 'a follower of Jesus'. Trouble is this would include a lot of people not at all like me, which may mean I have to make an effort to share fellowship - but that's the glory of the Kingdom of God.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Felafool:

quote:
Not sure I understand the need to label oneself these days because as we have seen, labels we use are often wrongly understood or applied.

Because labels are a shorthand for describing our position. Right now a US Evangelical who wants a signifier which screams "NOT LIKE THEM" is merely being prudent.

My humble suggestion would be Kingdom Evangelical. I'd be sorely tempting to go for Confessing Evangelical and refer to the other lot as "The German Christians" but Cliffdweller is more charitable than I am, and the problem is that the FOCAs got there first.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Kingdom Evangelical.

Conjures up a) JWs and b) dominionism for me.

Most of the time, our church simply goes by its name, without any qualifier. If you delve into the small print on our website I think it says "protestant evangelical", which is true as far as our historic values and our worship style go. In the twelve years of our current incarnation, we've managed to escape having a specific confession of faith.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

Isn't this what the term "Open Evangelical" was coined for? Is that still in use?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I'd want to go for "True Evangelical". Just to rub it in that that other lot have hi-jacked the name and turned it into something false.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
Really? In these parts "Wesleyan" basically means Methodist, or the tradition of which Methodist and, to a lesser degree, Holiness denominations are the main expressions.

Yes. Round here, 'Wesleyan' would be a word reserved for some rather unusual conversations - redundant between English Methodists, but useful when making connections with folks from the Church of the Nazarene or the Salvation Army, or drawing up demarcations with Calvinistic Methodists (! - AKA Welsh Presbyterians) from the wild (north) west.

The idea that a word belonging to such tiny remnants as ours might be used somewhere else in a mega-church context is quite peculiar!

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'd want to go for "True Evangelical". Just to rub it in that that other lot have hi-jacked the name and turned it into something false.

A friend of mine once posited the spoof "Baptist baptist" denomination.

France's historic Reformed church merged with the Lutherans to become the "United protestant church", which sort of nastily implies (perhaps not too inaccurately) that everyone else is divided.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

"How many churches are there in your town?"
"Well, there were two, but they merged, so now there are three..."

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Isn't this what the term "Open Evangelical" was coined for? Is that still in use?

It's never really gained any traction here on this side of the pond, but might work well for me because of my affinity for Open Theism (which I don't think is really what "Open Evangelical" means your side of the pond? But might be a good double play). But of course the vast majority of evangelicals, even the progressive ones I'm wanting to align with, would not be Open Theists.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Why not use "Not-the-Evangelicals-You're-Looking-For"? Like droids, you know.
[Biased]

And what in the heck is "those German Christians"? I can think of several lots.

What's a FOCA?

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

I have had very similar thoughts cliffdweller. Thus far I've tried to:

a) state that I am first and foremost a christian,
b) use 'evangelical' as a qualifier, to distinguish myself from some views/practices taken up by other christians.
c) show people what I mean by 'evangelical' by taking an orthodox (but not conservative) line on theology and a liberal line on ecclesiology and social issues (c.f. dead horses).

One is caught between trying to claim (postively) that we are part of a broad church that incorporates both liberal & conservative views, but on the other hand trying to distance oneself from those whose views we find obnoxious. This has been no more clear than the endorsements given to Trump by Americans who use the term 'evangelical' to describe themselves.

It comes down to "are we at opposite ends of the same spectrum or are we so far apart that we can't meaningfully say we are on the same spectrum?"

If anything, the term evangelical can only be held lightly. Though I still get annoyed when, merely beyond being 'not evangelical' there are criticisms by anti-evangelicals who use a guilty-by-association motif in making overly-broad accusations.

One is caught between two scriptures, even in the same book! If, per 1 Cor 5:11, one shouldn't associate with those who claim to be christians but persist in the named transgressions, what about those who endorese one (Trump) who does? Compare that with 1 Cor 12:22-23 and one find that Jerry Falwell is most distinctly a person will less (no) honour, but we're called to treat them even more respect.

It's bloody frustrating! [brick wall]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Why not use "Not-the-Evangelicals-You're-Looking-For"? Like droids, you know.

And what in the heck is "those German Christians"? I can think of several lots.

What's a FOCA?

The German Christians I had in mind were the ones who supported Hitler in the 1930s.

FOCA is the Federation of Confessing Anglicans who kinda, sorta, broke off from the rest of the Anglican Communion over same-sex relationships.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
"How many churches are there in your town?"
"Well, there were two, but they merged, so now there are three..."

As few as that? [Devil]

What about the "we're not them, nor them, nor the group who left, but the faithful remnant" group?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

We're the ones who split themselves all the way back to where we started...

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

My preferred descriptor is "Open Evangelical",. but the problem is that "Fulcrum", the supposed covering organisation for Opens on this side of the pond, has been hijacked by those whose response to the main dead horse topic is something between openly hostile to real, foaming at the mouth, eye swivelling apoplexy. Please, God, give me your church back!!!

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
but on the other hand trying to distance oneself from those whose views we find obnoxious. This has been no more clear than the endorsements given to Trump by Americans who use the term 'evangelical'

You want a label that excludes those who aren't inclusive enough ?

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You want a label that excludes those who aren't inclusive enough ?

I believe 'liberal Anglicanism' has already been taken.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Why not use "Not-the-Evangelicals-You're-Looking-For"? Like droids, you know.

A bit long for church signage, but worth the extra letters. Love it.
[Axe murder]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Wouldn't the result be that people failed to notice the church at all? [Biased]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Reminds me of a bit of Edward Lear:

Who, or why, or which, or what, Is the Akond of SWAT?
Is he tall or short, or dark or fair?
or SQUAT,
The Akond of Swat?

Which is a little unkind to the Afghan tribal leader but was a reaction to the odd sounding name in the British press in the 1870s.

I'm not sure that any parachurch labels really have much meaning (indeed, even denomination labels may encompass a lot of variety) so I've never really understood the urge to use Evangelical. People believe so many different and opposite things that the term has been redundant for a very long time.

It feels like a moment to throw away old names and theological alliances and pick up new ones that suit better.

At the moment, I feel like a Christian who wants to be wherever Cornel West is.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

Mr Claiborne himself seems to be settling on Red Letter Christians in line with the organisation/loose coalition. Not entirely sure it will catch on, unless it gets TLA'd or something.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Russ wrote

quote:
You want a label that excludes those who aren't inclusive enough ?

That's what I mean about the glory of the Kingdom of God. It's not for us to decide who is in or who is out. We need to learn how to 'disagree well' (ABC) and find ways to be church together.

Aside - I used to be part of a church that had 4 words in the title (including the E word). I reckoned that only the word 'church' might have conveyed any sort of meaning to passers by (and even attenders!)

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Mr Claiborne himself seems to be settling on Red Letter Christians in line with the organisation/loose coalition. Not entirely sure it will catch on, unless it gets TLA'd or something.

Yes-- he is very close with Tony Campolo who coined the term years ago, but as you say, doesn't seem to be catching on. And while I like the emphasis on taking Jesus' words seriously, I don't care much for the implication that every other kind of Christian doesn't. But perhaps when we're trying to distinguish ourselves from people who call themselves Christian and vote for racism, misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia, perhaps that's not too far off the mark.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

In the US, so far as many outside the communities, evangelical has become synonymous with bigot, and hypocrite.

I've been using nonconformist for years. From here, re the nonconformist conscience, you get this quote.

quote:
The "Nonconformist conscience" of the Old group emphasized religious freedom and equality, pursuit of justice, and opposition to discrimination, compulsion, and coercion.

That's me to a tee. I'm an old Dissenter. Well, old certainly. But I still use the term evangelical, largely because of the door I came in through.

[ 11. November 2016, 21:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In the US, so far as many outside the communities, evangelical has become synonymous with bigot, and hypocrite.

....But I still use the term evangelical, largely because of the door I came in through.

That's my story as well. But this week I'm rethinking that, for the reasons you started at the outset.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The issue with "Red Letter Christian" to me is that the emphasis on the words of Jesus doesn't quite fit my evangelical emphasis on the whole of Scripture as supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct. The problem I have with those so-called "evangelicals" who support racism, sexism, homophobia etc isn't solved by emphasising the words of Jesus - I don't see how the rest of Scripture can be faithfully interpreted to support such evils either.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

I guess for me an Evangelical is one who proclaims the gospel through word (emphasis on preaching) and deed (emphasis on social action). The content of what is preached will vary depending on the theological bent of the Evangelist. The emphasis on action/deed has its roots in the radical preaching of the prophets, which continued into the Christian era, starting with Jesus himself:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour."

It is a pity it has become so narrowly defined in recent times. We must fight against it, must we not?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

There is a name for it. The Social Gospel Movement. Not such a large thing in the US, had had much more effect in Canada right down to this day.

I can honestly say with a straight face that the Christian Left has had more time in power in Canada and more persistent and lasting influence in our policy than the Christian Right ever had.

There is a reason that a few of us joke that the NDP is just a collection of Prots and Trots.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Ah, the social gospel! I suppose the biggest change in my local congo has been a move away from the clothes peg on the nose attitude to the social gospel to the understanding that practical local community support by the church is not only respectable, it is essential for the life, work and witness of the place.

There's a good banner in the place. It says 'A church for the community because God loves'. The 'be separate' and 'cessationist' tendencies seem pretty much to have died out.

At the same time there is a sometimes uneasy co-existence between those who take different positions over hot button issues. We're working on that. The trend lines are good.

What bothers me in the US is that for evangelicals, the old red lines, (Trinity, Incarnation, the Person of Christ, Redemption, following Christ) almost seem to take second place to the conservative position on hot button issues. 'We must vote for Trump, despite his dubious moral history, because Hillary is pro-choice.' That might well have cost her the election.

cliffdweller, unless there is some hope of dialogue over these things, I think we have to grasp the nettle. There's great sadness in that, but there it is.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What bothers me in the US is that for evangelicals, the old red lines, (Trinity, Incarnation, the Person of Christ, Redemption, following Christ) almost seem to take second place to the conservative position on hot button issues. 'We must vote for Trump, despite his dubious moral history, because Hillary is pro-choice.'

That is very well put and perhaps the best place from which to attempt dialogue.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
The "Nonconformist conscience" of the Old group emphasized religious freedom and equality, pursuit of justice, and opposition to discrimination, compulsion, and coercion.
That's me to a tee. I'm an old Dissenter. Well, old certainly. But I still use the term evangelical, largely because of the door I came in through.

Same here (not sure about the age though!) - although I had a brief dalliance with a somewhat more theologically liberal stance.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
There is a name for it. The Social Gospel Movement.

I don't think the Social Gospel is quite what cliffdweller is talking about, though. Yes, there is some clear overlap, but when she talks about criteria like the Bebbington quadrilateral, it seems to me that the Social Gospel Movement only ticks some of the boxes of what she's looking for in a descriptive label.

Not that I have a better suggestion at this point.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

cliffdweller

This morning I had two excellent conversations with two members of our worship team. What we discussed were practical ways of strengthening the existing dialogue between moderates and liberals on the one hand, and conservatives on the other.

Painful though it is to say, I appreciate we can only take such steps if we have hope. Diverse pilgrims on the same journey does not make the journey easy. I think it's going to be worth it.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
There is a name for it. The Social Gospel Movement.
I don't think the Social Gospel is quite what cliffdweller is talking about, though. Yes, there is some clear overlap, but when she talks about criteria like the Bebbington quadrilateral, it seems to me that the Social Gospel Movement only ticks some of the boxes of what she's looking for in a descriptive label.

Not that I have a better suggestion at this point.

My point is that Evangelicalism in Canada never got tied to right-wing politics. There were and are right wing evangelicals, sure, but they were always balanced by plenty of lefty ones too.

I put it down to the fact that our most fundamentalist, religion-dominated province that was at points tolalitarian was Quebec, which pushed Protestants in other directions.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
There is a name for it. The Social Gospel Movement.
I don't think the Social Gospel is quite what cliffdweller is talking about, though. Yes, there is some clear overlap, but when she talks about criteria like the Bebbington quadrilateral, it seems to me that the Social Gospel Movement only ticks some of the boxes of what she's looking for in a descriptive label.

Not that I have a better suggestion at this point.
My point is that Evangelicalism in Canada never got tied to right-wing politics. There were and are right wing evangelicals, sure, but they were always balanced by plenty of lefty ones too. .

Until the 1970s this was true in the US as well. In fact, following the 2nd Great Awakening, evangelical Christianity was committed to progressive social action in ways that would make me proud today. All of that shifted after Roe v Wade when abortion became increasingly the one and only overriding political cause. I am passionately pro-life myself, but the way that single minded focus has tweaked us to end up where we are now is, quite simply, insane.

otoh, just as I'm ready to throw it all in and go for one of the alternate designations suggested above, I receive this letter from my alma mater (and leading evangelical seminary) that just might be enough to keep the designator:

Fuller Seminary statement

quote:
"As President and President Emeritus of Fuller Theological Seminary, we lament and reject the disgrace that hateful words and actions by some evangelicals have heaped specifically upon people of color, immigrants, women, Muslims, and LGBT persons in our nation, as we uphold the dignity of all persons made in the image of God. We grieve and condemn the racism and fear, rejection and hatred that have been expressed and associated with our Lord. Such realities do not in any way reflect the fruit of God’s Spirit and instead evoke the sorrow of God’s heart and of our own.

To whatever degree and in whatever ways Fuller Theological Seminary has contributed or currently contributes to the shame and abuse now associated with the word evangelical, we call ourselves, our board of trustees, our faculty, our staff, our students, our alumni, and our friends to repentance and transformation. We ground our hope for the church in Jesus Christ alone, and pray that in our humble reaffirmation of that faith, God will revive and renew the church in America to be evidence of God’s love, justice, and mercy for all people.

Evangelical has value only if it names our commitment to seek and to demonstrate the heart and mind of God in Jesus Christ. This calls us into deeper faith and greater humility. It also leads us to repudiate and resist all forces of racism, misogyny, and all other attitudes and actions, overt and implied, that subvert the dignity of persons made in the image of God. The only evangelicalism worthy of its name must be one that both faithfully points to and mirrors Jesus Christ, the good news for the world, and seeks justice that reflects the character of God’s kingdom."

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Excellent words from Fuller. Thank you for sharing.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
We need to learn how to 'disagree well' (ABC) and find ways to be church together.

For me disagreeing well includes using a label that doesn't make others think I'm a racist misogynistic homophobe willing to support fascists in the name of Jesus.

They can 'be church' and call themselves Christians wherever and whenever they want as long but I want to find a way of not tarring myself with the same brush.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Isn't this what the term "Open Evangelical" was coined for? Is that still in use?

I'd say Open Evangelical, Post Evangelical or Progressive Evangelical make most sense. It'd be nice to come up with a new word that everyone else can understand, but the hard part is getting other people to catch on.

First and foremost, I'd describe myself as a Follower of Jesus. If someone wants to nail it down more, then I'm a Christian. And if they want to nail it down even more, then a Protestant. Even more, then ok, the above will do.

But honestly, I'd prefer to describe my own Christian journey, that I grew up in the Charismatic Evangelical Anglican tradition, skipped around some non-conformist churches including house churches, and now I attend a both a Baptist and a Methodist church regularly. But my own theology overlaps all those and other traditions, and there are things I like and dislike about all of them.

I guess it's a bit like ethnicity. For a lot of people nowadays, to describe their heritage isn't as easy as saying "I'm French" or "I'm South African". People have a mishmash of cultures and ethnicity in their background. Sure, for some people it's easy to just say "I'm White British", just as it is also easy to say "I'm a Conservative Evangelical". For others though, just as our genes and heritage can have a lovely mixture of cultures and races and it might take a little while to explain that; so can our faith have a similar complexity too.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Thanks cliffdweller. I'm seriously thinking about doing a nice French translation of that.

I have also taken Barnabas' old red lines to heart and already started using them in conversation.

The key question for me is increasingly becoming "where do we ['old red line Christians', if you wish] go from here?". How can we continue to have meaningful Christian engagement with society as it lurches to the authoritarian right (US) or looks likely to be about to (France), and do so without simply becoming enslaved to another political constituency?

There are no easy answers to this, and hasty action is probably going to be wrong, but I think some new thinking is required.

FWIW, last Sunday my initial thinking took the form of this sermon (also in my sig at the time of writing).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
I'd say Open Evangelical, Post Evangelical or Progressive Evangelical make most sense. It'd be nice to come up with a new word that everyone else can understand, but the hard part is getting other people to catch on.

[...]
Now I attend a both a Baptist and a Methodist church regularly. But my own theology overlaps all those and other traditions, and there are things I like and dislike about all of them.

It does seem about time for those on the moderate end of the evangelical movement to merge theologically with the moderate Christian (Protestant) mainstream. Not doing so seems to be a matter of branding; evangelicals want to retain a strong visible identity that's lacking almost everywhere else in modern Protestantism. The trouble is that this very prominence means the label's broadened out to include almost everything. That doesn't make much sense at this point.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What bothers me in the US is that for evangelicals, the old red lines, (Trinity, Incarnation, the Person of Christ, Redemption, following Christ) almost seem to take second place to the conservative position on hot button issues. 'We must vote for Trump, despite his dubious moral history, because Hillary is pro-choice.'
That is very well put and perhaps the best place from which to attempt dialogue.

ISTM that many ordinary Christians have lost interest in basic theological ideas. These ideas represent the commonplace, uncontroversial staple of sermons, but the layman isn't expected to have much to contribute regarding whatever intellectual debate they inspire among theologians. The lack of focus on these things may also be a result of evangelicals (like other Christians) reading their Bibles less than they used to.

By contrast, the 'hot button issues' mostly represent lived, contemporary society. They have a bearing on what we experience today, so it's unsurprising if less learned evangelicals, or those who simply want to say something that relates tangibly to people's lives, are drawn to these issues.

(As for a 'dubious moral history', some would argue that both candidates faced this problem. Hillary lost out by being the boring continuity candidate.)

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

cliffdweller

Joining with Alan in my praise for the statement from the Fuller Seminary. Have they got it in the neck as a consequence of their principled statement?

I ask because, by coincidence, I just received an email from Tony Campolo, to whom I sent a warm message of thanks and respect. I did so because he's been getting it in the neck for his stance re the LGBT community.

I didn't expect a reply, but in the reply I did get, Tony told a a story I hadn't heard before. Here it is.

quote:
Many years ago, Abraham Lincoln was asked by a newspaper reporter how he felt about being “run out of town” for his stance against slavery. Lincoln responded by saying, “if it wasn’t for the honor of the thing, I wish they hadn’t done it!”

Honour is an interesting word in this context. I always count it an honour to stand with the marginalised, to stick up for them, and to take on the chin whatever the consequences are. But it always seems to me to be a great shame when others seek to bad-mouth us, or ostracise us, or exclude us for doing that; "run us out of town". You know, even if they are convinced we are wrong, that isn't the way to behave to fellow-citizens, even less so to brothers and sisters in Christ.

Sometimes it really is necessary to do a Martin Luther, say "here I stand, I can do no other", and find out what the consequences are. Then deal with them separately.

[ 15. November 2016, 14:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I'm impressed with the Fuller statement. Exactly what needs to be said!

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
cliffdweller

Joining with Alan in my praise for the statement from the Fuller Seminary. Have they got it in the neck as a consequence of their principled statement?

I don't know, but I would expect they have. In particular, the inclusion of LGBT persons in the lists of those who have now been marginalized by evangelicals would be apt to tweak some donors. Of course, that only makes me love the statement all the more. Labberton (current president) has written some excellent things lately, including one outstanding book entitled
The Dangerous Act of Loving Your Neighbor so I expect he knew what he was getting into.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

I ask because, by coincidence, I just received an email from Tony Campolo, to whom I sent a warm message of thanks and respect. I did so because he's been getting it in the neck for his stance re the LGBT community.

I didn't expect a reply, but in the reply I did get, Tony told a a story I hadn't heard before. Here it is.

quote:
Many years ago, Abraham Lincoln was asked by a newspaper reporter how he felt about being “run out of town” for his stance against slavery. Lincoln responded by saying, “if it wasn’t for the honor of the thing, I wish they hadn’t done it!”
Honour is an interesting word in this context. I always count it an honour to stand with the marginalised, to stick up for them, and to take on the chin whatever the consequences are.

Agreed. A more personal (and braggy) story: my SIL was (unlawfully) "detained" in Ferguson, MO when he was a journalist (with full press credentials) covering the Ferguson protests. Glenn Beck then published on his website the names of all non-Ferguson residents arrested in the uprising, including of course all members of the press, but not identifying them as such, branding them instead "outside agitators".

I advised him to move that honor to the top line of his resume.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Yes, that's the kind of thing I mean. And I've both admired and used your sig. In this world you will have trouble, but take heart.

I was uplifted at my local church last Sunday by a wise and beautiful talk on Grace by a visiting speaker. It contained the following little gem.

"No relationship can flourish in an atmosphere of disapproval".

I suppose the journey we are both on involves this dilemma. We know that bigotry is bad and it is particularly painful when we hear it expressed by folks in our faith communities. So of course we disapprove of it. How do we counter that without adding to "the atmosphere of disapproval" which it generates? Particularly given the powerful external voices which fuel that atmosphere.

I'm working on it. I much admire Rachel Held Evans and I respect the route which in the end she felt compelled to take. But I'm still for staying "in the tent". And avoiding undermining myself and others.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

well said, Barnabus, and much for me to take heart there.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0