Thread: Steve Chalke endorses SSM 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=030648
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Summary article here, on Slacktivist
and full article in "Christianity Magazine"
quote from main article: quote:
I’m worried that the noise of the arguments around gay marriage will cloud and confuse the real question for the Church, which is about the nature of inclusion. I am convinced that it is only as the Christian community grapples with this issue that we will find wise answers, not only regarding gay marriage, but also to related questions around the Church’s wider attitude to gay people.
He goes on to say that he had done a service of blessing on a civil partnership to: quote:
to extend to these people what I would do to others: the love and support of our local church. Too often, those who seek to enter an exclusive, same-sex relationship have found themselves stigmatised and excluded by the Church. I have come to believe this is an injustice and out of step with God’s character as seen through Christ. I leave it to others to debate whether a Civil Partnership plus a dedication and blessing should equal a marriage or not. But I do believe that the Church has a God-given responsibility to include those who have for so long found themselves excluded.
Will this make a difference in "church" circles in the UK?
The magazine has circled the wagons to say that they really aren't dumping evangelical belief structures, no, really, they aren't. Except that they are actually discussing these beliefs in a more rational way, which will annoy the fundies.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Chalke has already been abandoned by many evangelicals because of his views on PSA, so no, I doubt this will make much difference other than giving the pro-lobby an ally. Considering that my previous con-evo Anglican church considered Christianity magazine dangerously liberal and went for The Briefing (Matthias Media aka Sydney Anglican friendly) instead, sadly I think many ears have already been closed to what Chalke has to say.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Except that they are actually discussing these beliefs in a more rational way...
Define rational.
1) We don't like what the bible says, so we will ignore it. Traditional liberal
2) We think the traditional interpretation is flawed. Evangelical in approach - however as Luther puts it 'Reason is a whore that will serve any master', evangelicals are traditionally sceptical when the new interpretations funnily newly conformist to the beliefs that make life easier, from a human perspective.
It's blindly obvious that Chalke is desperate to justify his new conformism, so it's hardly a surprise that he finds he can finesse the difficult passages. Funny that...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Except that they are actually discussing these beliefs in a more rational way...
Define rational.
1) We don't like what the bible says, so we will ignore it. Traditional liberal
2) We think the traditional interpretation is flawed. Evangelical in approach - however as Luther puts it 'Reason is a whore that will serve any master', evangelicals are traditionally sceptical when the new interpretations funnily newly conformist to the beliefs that make life easier, from a human perspective.
It's blindly obvious that Chalke is desperate to justify his new conformism, so it's hardly a surprise that he finds he can finesse the difficult passages. Funny that...
Or 3) taking every part of the Bible literally and without the wisdom of Tradition and Reason to help flies in the face of historic, centuries-old Church tradition and is a very recent (in terms of Church history) thing.
It's not about 'making life easier', it's about recognising the shades of grey that exist in the first place instead of forcing them into a black-and-white perspective. It's the conservative evangelical perspective that's artificial, not reason.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's blindly obvious that Chalke is desperate to justify his new conformism, so it's hardly a surprise that he finds he can finesse the difficult passages. Funny that...
It's becoming increasingly clear that a vast majority of those who accuse people of "being wedded to the spirit of the age" are already "wedded to the spirit of the age of 50 years ago when we were young evangelicals and everything was so much better".
In another place, I've had to point out (to a lecturer at a Bible college, no less) that evangelicals used to be universal in their insistence that women couldn't be priests. His fulsome support of this dangerous innovation, while slamming Chalke for repeating the very strictest of interpretations struck me as wilfully blind.
Neither of us, I suspect, are old enough to remember the furore regarding artificial contraception (around 1958), where evangelicals were initially appalled by the idea. Now? Who knew we were ever against it?
You're just as conformed to the spirit of the age, just... slower.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That is probably true of every social change - that social conservatives, whether religious or not, initially oppose them. If we could go back in time, and look at the debates over women's suffrage, the end of coverture, which removed women's legal existence in marriage, the relaxation of divorce laws, and so on, and so on, it is very likely that the same protestations were heard, and the same talk of the Zeitgeist. It also seems to suggest that we can get back to some pure state of being, which is not a Zeitgeist. Can we?
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You're just as conformed to the spirit of the age, just... slower.
Yes, there are a lot of evangelicals whose position is deeply flawed, but don't count me as being one of them; I'm one of those who, along with John Wesley regards the American rebellion of 1776 is a deeply flawed act, not least in that it extended slavery in the USA by 30 years compared with the British Empire. Contraception? Really don't know enough to have a clear view theologically. The fact that the controversy has faded suggests to me that the Evangelicals weren't reacting biblically, but I'm really don't know. And yes, on slavery, the biblical perspective is WAY more complex than the simplicity of saying 'the bible endorses it, but we now know that they were wrong'.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Quite a lot of reflection on this on the "Baptist Times" website (after all Steve is a Baptist) and also an interesting comment on "Ekklesia".
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You're just as conformed to the spirit of the age, just... slower.
Yes, there are a lot of evangelicals whose position is deeply flawed, but don't count me as being one of them
I fail to see how that can possibly be the case, bearing in mind how church teaching has, er, evolved, over the years.
Evangelicals need to acknowledge that their positions move, and importantly, examine when they moved and why they moved, rather than this blank-faced denial that it ever happens.
And if you were a proper, Bible-believing Christian, you'd want the continent of North America returned to its indigenous inhabitants, rather than insisting the colonies revert to the British Empire. For shame, you're caught up in the spirit of the age (1776, in this case).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Trouble is, Enders Shadow can't see how the position he adopts rather undermines rather than strengthens what he sees as the pure, unadulterated evangelical approach which he fondly imagines to have been in place right from the outset ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Trouble is, Enders Shadow can't see how the position he adopts rather undermines rather than strengthens what he sees as the pure, unadulterated evangelical approach which he fondly imagines to have been in place right from the outset ...
You will doubtless be familiar with the local expression 'Can't see for looking'...
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And if you were a proper, Bible-believing Christian, you'd want the continent of North America returned to its indigenous inhabitants, rather than insisting the colonies revert to the British Empire. For shame, you're caught up in the spirit of the age (1776, in this case).
No - the biblical approach seems to be that long term successful conquest is legitimation by God of the outcome. Which is why I wouldn't want to suggest that the UK should attempt to invade the US now (as if!) but AT THE TIME it was negative rebellion, and therefore Christians should be unwilling to celebrate July 4th as a 'good thing'.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Nice one, Abervicar - it's an expression I still use and very apt in this case I think.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
So, Enders Shadow, it would be wrong of Christians to celebrate the 4th July but not November 5th, the foiling of The Gunpowder Plot, say, or to celebrate the Glorious Revolution because the Catholics were effectively excluded from government ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
There is the argument that contemporary conservative evangelicalism is a response to the uncertainties of the modern world, rather than somehow representing a time warp, or a lack of progress. I think I tend to agree. There's no time warp, just different responses to contemporary challenges.
You lot will be able to swop Bible verses back and forth with great erudition, but it seems to me that theology exists in response to circumstances. The congregation and outreach of Chalke's church in Waterloo may have developed in such a way as to make a decision in favour of SSM appear to be the most fruitful for them. Other Baptists in other circumstances probably haven't.
So, for most evangelicals it may seem more expedient to present a theological reading of sexuality that distinguishes them from the wider society. Other evangelicals, in different circumstances, may find another reading more helpful.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Very good point, Svitlana. But some conservatives talk about the Zeitgeist rather disparagingly, as if they are in contact with a Zeitgeist-free state of affairs, which seems odd to me. After all, the Jewish Bible presents us with a picture, or rather a group of pictures, of various Zeitgeists over a certain period in Jewish (and non-Jewish) history.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
queztalcoatl
'Zeitgeist-free'? Don't many evangelical congregations often claim to have a rather more acute sense of what appeals to the modern person than the mainstream congregations do?
What's often fascinated me is that the most theologically liberal congregations are often the most traditional in terms of worship, while the most theologically conservative congregations have been more enthusiastic about incorporating contemporary styles into their worship. This is a huge generalisation, of course, but perhaps this scenario undermines claims from both sides that the other is either too caught up in the zeitgeist, or not caught up enough!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I've noticed that as well.
I suppose claiming to stand outside the Zeitgeist is actually part of it! Or at any rate, part of a particular Zeitgeist, which wants to disown liberal conformity to social trends. It's a veritable hall of mirrors.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
What I feel that Evangelicals often get wrong is that (unless they are very Fundamentalist) they recognise that the Scriptures were written in a number of specific contexts, but still feel they read it objectively. But of course that's never true of any piece of literature: all our readings are shaped by cultural assumptions and personal backgrounds.
It is I think possible to Christians to still say, "It stands written" and then recognise that the conclusions they come to may be very different, while remaining in fellowship. Evangelicals may criticise more "liberal" Christians as succumbing to the Zeitgeist (and that may well be a good critique to make); however they do also need to recognise just how much they have been shaped by the Modern/Rational worldview, together with more localised influences.
[ 20. January 2013, 15:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I would argue that there isn't a single Zeitgeist, but lots of mini ones, which may interlock to a degree, and also may be at odds with each other.
Thus, to say that there is a liberal Zeitgeist, is fine, but there is also a conservative one, and a New Age, and an anarchist one, and so on. They probably overlap to varying degrees.
But to be actually totally free of any Zeitgeist seems impossible to me - I speak of course, from within the postmodern Zeitgeist!
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But to be actually totally free of any Zeitgeist seems impossible to me - I speak of course, from within the postmodern Zeitgeist!
However given that Jesus promises that the Spirit will lead us into all truth, your approach is one of despair, and a rejection of the possibility of being led by God. Whilst the rejection genuine revelation is a given in many liberal circles, it is not one that I accept. YMMV.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Nor do I. The answer is surely that the Spirit of truth will lead us into truth if we recognise our cultural conditioning, rather than unwittingly assuming that our vision is objective.
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
Am I the only one who keeps misreading the thread title as S&M?
Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on
:
The Spirit and the Bride say Come !
Posted by Dennis the Menace (# 11833) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
Am I the only one who keeps misreading the thread title as S&M?
No!!!!!!!
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
Me too - every time I see SSM...
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
Am I the only one who keeps misreading the thread title as S&M?
Are you channeling Chastmastr?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
You Anglicans clearly do not possess such innocent and holy minds as we Baptists - or else you are just more honest about yourselves!
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
quote:
What's often fascinated me is that the most theologically liberal congregations are often the most traditional in terms of worship, while the most theologically conservative congregations have been more enthusiastic about incorporating contemporary styles into their worship. This is a huge generalisation, of course, but perhaps this scenario undermines claims from both sides that the other is either too caught up in the zeitgeist, or not caught up enough!
What it suggests to me is that the human mind can only cope with a certain amount of innovation before it starts panicking...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quote:
What's often fascinated me is that the most theologically liberal congregations are often the most traditional in terms of worship, while the most theologically conservative congregations have been more enthusiastic about incorporating contemporary styles into their worship. This is a huge generalisation, of course, but perhaps this scenario undermines claims from both sides that the other is either too caught up in the zeitgeist, or not caught up enough!
What it suggests to me is that the human mind can only cope with a certain amount of innovation before it starts panicking...
Surely I've mentioned before the concept of the Traditionalist Quotient - found by multiplying the traditionalness of theology by the traditionalness of liturgy. Very few people can cope with it dropping below a certain value.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But to be actually totally free of any Zeitgeist seems impossible to me - I speak of course, from within the postmodern Zeitgeist!
However given that Jesus promises that the Spirit will lead us into all truth, your approach is one of despair, and a rejection of the possibility of being led by God. Whilst the rejection genuine revelation is a given in many liberal circles, it is not one that I accept. YMMV.
However, you seem as intent not to be open to the possibility of following the Spirit into truth as those you are arguing against.
You have chained God and His continuing revelation to the world into a set of limitations, based on your own opinions and acceptable conformities.
Maybe the Anglican Church, Chalke and others are way of mark and not being led by the Spirit, but they are at least open to the possibility of being and they are, in the age old fashion, instead of saying it can't be the Spirit actually testing what they perceive they are being led by the Spirit to do rather than shutting God up into a tickbox list of conformity to our standards:
Your position is, it can only be God leading if the lead fits into certain criteria.
The minute we strict the possibility of God to act we stop being led by the Spirit and stop listening to the Spirit.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
This hymn has been in British Baptists' hymnbooks for many years (certainly since the 1962 edition) ... yet there are many Baptists who do not act as if they believe it. (They don't use hymnbooks either these days, but that's another story!)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But to be actually totally free of any Zeitgeist seems impossible to me - I speak of course, from within the postmodern Zeitgeist!
However given that Jesus promises that the Spirit will lead us into all truth, your approach is one of despair, and a rejection of the possibility of being led by God. Whilst the rejection genuine revelation is a given in many liberal circles, it is not one that I accept. YMMV.
Well, I don't feel in despair at all. I suppose from within a postmodern mini-Zeitgeist, one might say that human beings have always had revelations, and they have been couched within their own cultural language. Thus, the Amazonian shaman has a very different language and set of images from the Jewish prophet, but does that mean that one is a genuine revelation, and one is not? I suppose, within your m-Z, this is so. That would make me despair, as it suggests that many humans are fooled.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal
quote:
Surely I've mentioned before the concept of the Traditionalist Quotient - found by multiplying the traditionalness of theology by the traditionalness of liturgy. Very few people can cope with it dropping below a certain value.
You have mentioned it, but you haven't explained why it should be so.....
Perhaps Steve Chalke's church represents a new departure in being able to scale the divide.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Oh, I've no idea why. It's just an observation.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
This hymn has been in British Baptists' hymnbooks for many years (certainly since the 1962 edition) ... yet there are many Baptists who do not act as if they believe it. (They don't use hymnbooks either these days, but that's another story!)
We have a set of Baptist Praise & Worship which we use from time to time (alongside New English Hymnal, since you ask) and this is one the hymns we use it for.
Of course, good old Father Faber's often-maligned hymn 'Souls of Men' includes:
But we make his love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify his strictness
With a zeal he will not own.
Hmmm....
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Of course, good old Father Faber's often-maligned hymn 'Souls of Men' includes:
But we make his love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify his strictness
With a zeal he will not own.
Hmmm....
Who maligns it and why? It's one of my favourites. (Though usually in the version beginning 'There's a wideness in God's mercy')
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Who maligns it and why? It's one of my favourites. (Though usually in the version beginning 'There's a wideness in God's mercy')
There's a wideness in God's mercy is in fact the start of the second verse of his quite lengthy poem.
Faber is often criticised as being too soft and emotional, yet IMNVHO his work contains the very best in Catholic devotional theology. Compared with much of the drivel that makes it into contemporary hymnals, it stands out for sheer insight and theology.
But that is probably enough of a tangent for now...
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
Do you think we've killed this thread, Angloid?
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Well, I think most people clicked on it through misreading the title and thought [Voice=MontyPythonHolyGrailZootAndZootsTwinSisterDingo]A spanking! A spanking![/Voidce] and got disappointed when it wasn't about S&M.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's blindly obvious that Chalke is desperate to justify his new conformism, so it's hardly a surprise that he finds he can finesse the difficult passages. Funny that...
Blindingly obvious is what you meant.
What is blindingly obvious is that you discount the possibility that Steve Chalke is being sincere. Do you know him sufficiently well to be sure of his insincerity?
Why not address the arguments, rather than demean the man? Pointing to hermeneutical inconsistency is a perfectly legitimate argument. The traditional biblical understanding towards homosexuals can indeed be criticised on hermeneutical grounds. Here's a rather good quote from the article.
quote:
A key challenge the Church faces – which often goes unrecognised – is that the Bible does not provide the final answer to a whole number of issues to do with inclusion with which Christians have subsequently wrestled.At the heart of the matter is the growing sense amongst many evangelicals that it is, and has always been, unfair.
If Steve Chalke wants to get a discussion going on that issue, more power to his elbow. Unlike your post, his article does not debunk the sincerity of those who see things differently.
And that is blindingly obvious.
[ 22. January 2013, 09:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Sorry, an error. The sentence "At the heart of the matter is the growing sense amongst many evangelicals that it is, and has always been, unfair." is mine, not Steve Chalke's, and got included erroneously in the quote from his article.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]What is blindingly obvious is that you discount the possibility that Steve Chalke is being sincere. Do you know him sufficiently well to be sure of his insincerity?
I'm sure he's sincere but what doesn't help his cause is his admission in the Church Times article that he failed to sign the necessary papers that all accredited ministers are supposed to sign, confirming one's agreement to the BUGB's stance on Human Sexuality.
".....Mr Chalke said that the Baptist Union of Great Britain had "imposed a ban on Baptist ministers' blessing civil partnerships", but that he had "never signed anything".
[http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2013/18-january/news/uk/steve-chalke-backs-gay-relationships]
A Giles Fraser moment perhaps?
Chalky's default mode when wanting to wind up "authority", is a bit like a naughty boy sticking out his tongue and saying "Bum." Sometimes he goes too far to make a point, rather as he did with his arguments against PSA.
He might still want to "... cling to the term Evangelical; I don't see why I should give it up" but we can all be rather self deluded. I'm more saddened by this attempt at special pleading that I am by his actions. I can call myself lots of things but that doesn't make me them unless it's affirmed by a wider body. Steve not only seems to want his cake but to keep the 3 tier cake stand too.
If I had to bet on which Baptist Minister would do such a thing then Chalky would be odds on favourite, top of the list, if only for the shock value.
Such a pity, a nice boy and from Tonbridge and Spurgeons too ...right sort of chap and all that.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Makes it sound like the RC position that if The Boss doesn't want to make a change, then the mere peasant should try not to think.
I had understood that the whole point of the Baptist thing was to allow for individual and congregational conscience, rather than mere loyalty tests.
But carry on being dismissive. That will allow you to miss the point.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
My journey continues with Steve Chalke and Brian McLaren against my will, against my conservative 'yeah-buts' and with my shame and confusion and enlightenment and yearning for inclusion.
"In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God" (Robert Kennedy's paraphrase from Edith Hamilton's translation of Aeschylus' Agamemnon.)
Enders Shadow, your rhetoric is second rate compared with Steve's. He persuades me as never before and you - and I have been you - don't. And I want to embrace you and feel sympathy for you, but your inadequate defensiveness is an obstacle for me. I'm sorry.
Tony Campolo is the best apologist for conservatism I've come across so far, are there any others? Evangelicalism is intellectually, rhetorically, spiritually bankrupt. Has NOTHING to say. And I want to embrace, include all evangelicals. In truth I have no choice as they are the only show in town. Nothing can be done from or in the liberal High CHurch.
I can't believe I've got here. And it isn't comfortable. I couldn't quite embrace Steve Chalke on PSA at the time - I tried to include PSA and CV etc - but the failed rhetoric of conservatism on that, on sexuality, on divorce and remarriage, intelligent design, God's violence and above ALL on damnationism which is the elephant on which they all share a howdah, drives me ever postmodern, ever liberal yet not to exclusive liberalism.
Steve's true mostmodern intellectual honesty and courage are unprecedented, especially exposing the modern myth of "Paul was a modern liberal on women really". Myths on slavery. Myths on sexuality.
We have NEVER been here before as a society, as a culture. Conservatism is a MODERN phenomenon which I have been caught up in - and STILL am - for 45 years. It has NO Biblical precedent, there is NOTHING Biblically normative about it as Steve (and Brian and generations of cradle Liberals, hi guys) have brilliantly EXPOSED.
There ARE no biblical difficulties on this issue as on so many others. It doesn't TOUCH them. Except in deep implicit spirit.
It's that realisation that now separates me from conservatism. BUT I do not want to be separated from conservatives.
I want the IMPOSSIBLE reconciliation DESPITE our irreconcilable thinking.
How about it Ender's Shadow ?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's that realisation that now separates me from conservatism. BUT I do not want to be separated from conservatives.
I want the IMPOSSIBLE reconciliation DESPITE our irreconcilable thinking.
How about it Ender's Shadow ?
Same here Martin. I still go to my con-evo Church, and I love them all.
(PS - Ender's has been permanently planked, so it's no use asking him for an answer - see the Styx for the reasons)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think that's my position too, Martin.
I've been clinging onto a certain amount of evangelical conservatism, partly out of loyalty and partly because I've had it at the back of my mind that to walk away from evangelicalism would be to walk away from the Gospel ... that the Gospel and evangelicalism are somehow synonymous.
At the root of it - for all the Dead Horses - I do think that there's still a kernal of truth in evangelicalism which can be overlooked in other traditions - 'Repent and believe the Gospel.'
But the worry I have - and it's not confined to evangelicalism by any stretch of the imagination - is that if we're not careful we can use dogma rather than love and dogma excludes ...
I'm all for a 'generous orthodoxy' - but still with an orthodoxy there - and not for a wishy-washy no boundaries, no holds-barred everything's relative thing ... and yet ... and yet ...
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At the root of it - for all the Dead Horses - I do think that there's still a kernel of truth in evangelicalism which can be overlooked in other traditions - 'Repent and believe the Gospel.'
Been to Mass on Ash Wednesday recently?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Evangelicalism is intellectually, rhetorically, spiritually bankrupt. Has NOTHING to say. And I want to embrace, include all evangelicals. In truth I have no choice as they are the only show in town. Nothing can be done from or in the liberal High CHurch.
I can't believe I've got here. And it isn't comfortable. [...]
BUT I do not want to be separated from conservatives.
I want the IMPOSSIBLE reconciliation DESPITE our irreconcilable thinking.
Isn't this a profoundly shocking - if not contradictory - statement to make? That evangelicalism has absolutely nothing to offer, yet it's the only show in town? That you want to be reconcilled with people whose thinking is worthless to you? Isn't that an appalling state of affairs?
One could be utterly cynical and say it just shows how parasitical liberal Christianity is - it relies on an apparently worthless evangelicalism to get the punters in (or at least to keep them in) and then hopes to 'de-evangelicalise' them once they're settled, so to speak! But perhaps it would be more constructive and less confrontational to see it as a spectrum. Steve Chalke isn't at the same place on the spectrum as another evangelical might be. There are various types of evangelicalism; Methodist evangelicals, for example, are different from Anglican ones.
It also occurs to me that if more liberal Christians are now beginning to 'infiltrate' evangelical churches simply because that's where all the action is, then those churches may become less evangelical over time. After all, Steve Chalke's church attracted gay couples even though they presumably knew that Baptist churches aren't usually the most gay-friendly. Those gay couples then managed to change their pastor's views on homosexuality. On the other hand, the number of more liberal churchgoers is decreasing, which would undermine their impact.
(But all this begs the question as to why 'nothing can be done from or in the liberal High CHurch.')
[ 26. January 2013, 12:44: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
(But all this begs the question as to why 'nothing can be done from or in the liberal High CHurch.')
I'm not sure that is true.
Liberal High Church attendance in some areas (along with 'High-Church', if you are using the term as I think you are, in general) is increasing.
There is a need for 'High-Church' people to re-engage and rethink about how best to present the theology and journey behind 'High-Church', but that does not exclude that somethings are being done, and some things can be done from that position.
I think your question there could be better put as: 'why can nothing be done from or in the MOTR tradition?'
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Sergius-Melli
I think you're really challenging Martin PC's original statement rather than my question. I couldn't claim from either my experience or reading to be able to write off the 'liberal High Church'. We do hear that cathedral worship has grown in popularity, but most eyes these days seem to focus on the colossus of evangelicalism rather than the quieter successes of the liberal High Church. Yet it's always good to be positive where there's cause for positivity!
[ 26. January 2013, 13:18: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Sergius-Melli
I think you're really challenging Martin PC's original statement rather than my question. I couldn't claim from either my experience or reading to be able to write off the 'liberal High Church'. We do hear that cathedral worship has grown in popularity, but most eyes these days seem to focus on the colossus of evangelicalism rather than the quieter successes of the liberal High Church. Yet it's always good to be positive where there's cause for positivity!
So I was, sorry.
It is, from my pov which is evidently slightly biased (for which I do not apologise), a case of loud and quiet as you point out. I think that is a part of the heritage that continues to, rightly, permeate the 'High-Church' tradition - a quite getting on with it.
To link this back to Chalke though - I think his position (whatever your take on it's right or wrong) is actually better out in the open than kept in the quiet, so I guess everynow and again, someone has to beat their own drum or nobody will do it for you...
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Gamaliel, Svitlana, Sergius-Melli
G: I see repent and believe the gospel as a single coin, a single transaction: repent of not believing the gospel - the limitless good news - to believing it. Evangelicalism DOESN'T believe it. Despite working harder than anyone to get people to turn rather than burn after death. BECAUSE it does that, it is doomed. Repentance is about NOW for me. Stopping being punished BY sin, NOW.
S & S-M: My limited but real experience of High Church liberalism (again a single concept in the main, and yeah of course there are High Church conservatives - sexists) - at St. Pancras, Northampton Parish Church (THE Restoration jewel), Leicester and Liverpool Cathedrals - is one of feeling - and being - excluded by tradition. I felt MORE welcome in Liverpool's RC Cathedral where I couldn't take communion. Like being a saboteur at a fox hunt by socialist peers. As for becoming a liberal parasite on the body of evangelicalism, they are the only sea that can be swum in. There is no other sea that I can see.
When Liberals and Catholics stop being so exclusive in the name of tradition, even though I LOVE the contemplative, Taiz'e, Northumbria; when they join the post-Liberal, post-Catholic movement whilst being as INCLUSIVELY Liberal and/or as Catholic as they like and allow me to be as Liberal, Catholic, Evangelical as I like, I'll swim with them too.
In Northampton, Leamington and Leicester there is enough of the via media for me NOT to have to justify being a remora. I am not a wolf in sheeps's clothing, I'm a sheep surrounded by wolves who think they are sheep ... and yeah, I do do irony.
Svitlana, Sergius-Melli, where do you EXCLUDE me ?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I was being hyperbolical (as well as diabolical?), Abervicar - and yes, I have been to Ash-Wednesday communion services ... and very powerful they are too ...
When I first started posting on these boards I'd have said that that liberal Christianity had absolutely nothing whatsoever to offer and could only exist in the first place as a parasitical outgrowth of evangelical and other conservative viewpoints ...
I'd also have suggested that liberalism was a mule - it couldn't reproduce itself because it had no nuts, no bollocks ...
It could only reproduce by deevangelicalising or de-conservatising people ...
I wouldn't suggest that now, but even so, I do sometimes wonder whether there is any 'there' there in liberal forms of Christianity - but then, when I see rampant evangelicalism these days, I run in the opposite direction ...
I've just had a couple of yummy pints with the local liberal vicar by the way ...
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
When I first started posting on these boards I'd have said that that liberal Christianity had absolutely nothing whatsoever to offer and could only exist in the first place as a parasitical outgrowth of evangelical and other conservative viewpoints ...
How roood ...
[ 26. January 2013, 19:19: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was being hyperbolical (as well as diabolical?), Abervicar..
...and what makes you think I was not?
How liberal can your Vicar be if s/he drinks pints rather than G&T?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Gamaliel, Svitlana, Sergius-Melli
G: I see repent and believe the gospel as a single coin, a single transaction: repent of not believing the gospel - the limitless good news - to believing it. Evangelicalism DOESN'T believe it. Despite working harder than anyone to get people to turn rather than burn after death. BECAUSE it does that, it is doomed. Repentance is about NOW for me. Stopping being punished BY sin, NOW.
S & S-M: My limited but real experience of High Church liberalism (again a single concept in the main, and yeah of course there are High Church conservatives - sexists) - at St. Pancras, Northampton Parish Church (THE Restoration jewel), Leicester and Liverpool Cathedrals - is one of feeling - and being - excluded by tradition. I felt MORE welcome in Liverpool's RC Cathedral where I couldn't take communion. Like being a saboteur at a fox hunt by socialist peers. As for becoming a liberal parasite on the body of evangelicalism, they are the only sea that can be swum in. There is no other sea that I can see.
When Liberals and Catholics stop being so exclusive in the name of tradition, even though I LOVE the contemplative, Taiz'e, Northumbria; when they join the post-Liberal, post-Catholic movement whilst being as INCLUSIVELY Liberal and/or as Catholic as they like and allow me to be as Liberal, Catholic, Evangelical as I like, I'll swim with them too.
In Northampton, Leamington and Leicester there is enough of the via media for me NOT to have to justify being a remora. I am not a wolf in sheeps's clothing, I'm a sheep surrounded by wolves who think they are sheep ... and yeah, I do do irony.
Svitlana, Sergius-Melli, where do you EXCLUDE me ?
I'm not actually a high church liberal. More of a low church Methodist, as it happens, but currently wandering. I might be labelled as moderately evangelical, but Methodists don't fit precisely into the categories defined by Anglicans and RCs, or by the other denominations.
But I'll talk about myself another time; what's this, though, about you feeling excluded? Surely the point is that every Protestant has to follow the Holy Spirit wherever it leads? If one church is unsuitable, you move on. Unless, that is, you feel called to stay and struggle for change. But churches are gatherings of people who share a common purpose; just because you don't share that purpose with them, it doesn't mean they're deliberately excluding you - it may mean they're just being true to themselves.
If there's nothing suitable elsewhere, then you can found your own church! What happened to that as an option? We think we have too much church diversity already, but I fear we don't have enough. Rev. Chalke's created a church where gay people may meet the risen Christ! We need more churches where that can happen; but we also need more conservative churches where people in other circumstances would benefit from more restrictive teachings on sexual behaviour.
You seem to want a church that makes very few doctrinal demands of its members, but most people, liberals or evangelicals, seem to appreciate a structure, a sense of commitment to certain beliefs, doctrines and practices. Otherwise, they don't see much point in getting up early on a Sunday morning. (The new 'atheist church' in London may discover this in time.) The Quakers are very inclusive, though. They're also happy for their members to have joint membership with another denomination. However, they're few in number, and you clearly want to hang around with a church that has a big future. I can understand that feeling, as I've read that the Methodist Church may have disappeared by the time I reach old age,which doesn't exactly encourage me to rush back. Still, there are other considerations to be borne in mind, such as one's compatability with and commitment to the goals of the institution.
Yes, evangelicalism has the healthiest prognostics of all forms of British Christianity. But if you don't share any of its goals, or its culture, if you utterly despise its theology, then who benefits by your association with it? Maybe you feel that God has called you to attach yourself to an evangelical church, even though you fundamentally disapprove of what it stands for; it could be the divine thorn in your side. Otherwise, I don't really understand your situation. There has to be more to it than mere numbers, surely?
[ 26. January 2013, 20:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yes, evangelicalism has the healthiest prognostics of all forms of British Christianity.
Really? Guilt and rampant homohobia? Healthy?
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
My, what a rounded view of evangelicalism.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yes, evangelicalism has the healthiest prognostics of all forms of British Christianity.
Really? Guilt and rampant homohobia? Healthy?
Healthy in terms of continued survival, numbers and replenishment - that sort of thing. But as the title of this thread shows, not all evangelicals are rampantly homophobic, to use your terms. I've been told more than once here that some evangelicals are openly gay. As to whether they feel more guilty than anyone else - I thought the RCs already had that wrapped up? Or was that back in the old days?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yes, evangelicalism has the healthiest prognostics of all forms of British Christianity.
Really? Guilt and rampant homohobia? Healthy?
Healthy in terms of continued survival, numbers and replenishment - that sort of thing. But as the title of this thread shows, not all evangelicals are rampantly homophobic, to use your terms. I've been told more than once here that some evangelicals are openly gay. As to whether they feel more guilty than anyone else - I thought the RCs already had that wrapped up? Or was that back in the old days?
Evangelical guilt is a different beast to Catholic guilt. Catholics have confession and penance to deal with their guilt, evangelicals have none of that!
And while yes, not all evangelicals/evangelical churches are homophobic, it is actually the most homophobic/conservative churches that are growing the most - I am guessing because they are the last places in modern British society where it's OK to be homophobic/sexist/what have you, and so people with those views band together.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Gamaliel, Svitlana, Sergius-Melli
G: I see repent and believe the gospel as a single coin, a single transaction: repent of not believing the gospel - the limitless good news - to believing it. Evangelicalism DOESN'T believe it. Despite working harder than anyone to get people to turn rather than burn after death. BECAUSE it does that, it is doomed. Repentance is about NOW for me. Stopping being punished BY sin, NOW.
S & S-M: My limited but real experience of High Church liberalism (again a single concept in the main, and yeah of course there are High Church conservatives - sexists) - at St. Pancras, Northampton Parish Church (THE Restoration jewel), Leicester and Liverpool Cathedrals - is one of feeling - and being - excluded by tradition. I felt MORE welcome in Liverpool's RC Cathedral where I couldn't take communion. Like being a saboteur at a fox hunt by socialist peers. As for becoming a liberal parasite on the body of evangelicalism, they are the only sea that can be swum in. There is no other sea that I can see.
When Liberals and Catholics stop being so exclusive in the name of tradition, even though I LOVE the contemplative, Taiz'e, Northumbria; when they join the post-Liberal, post-Catholic movement whilst being as INCLUSIVELY Liberal and/or as Catholic as they like and allow me to be as Liberal, Catholic, Evangelical as I like, I'll swim with them too.
In Northampton, Leamington and Leicester there is enough of the via media for me NOT to have to justify being a remora. I am not a wolf in sheeps's clothing, I'm a sheep surrounded by wolves who think they are sheep ... and yeah, I do do irony.
Svitlana, Sergius-Melli, where do you EXCLUDE me ?
When you say Northampton Parish Church, do you mean All Saints? Because that along with most Northampton Anglican churches is Forward in Faith, and not liberal at all (there are four liberal Anglican churches and one open evangelical Anglican church in Northampton, and the very conservative evangelical Anglican church in Moulton). But I digress.
I agree with Svitlana - I don't think these places exclude you. They do not suit you, but no church suits everyone. They're excluding you by not being right for you, not on purpose.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Svitlana, Jade Constable
Thank you. Aye Jade, All Saints, I went ONCE to a service that was incredibly High and I feared for my MOST postmodern now Bertand Russell type atheist daughter and she LOVED it! Was in floods of tears. Nowt like a bit of liturgical theatre. I should have known it was FIF from the clergy garb, the austere punters, the incredibly wordy hymns. It was a service involving a very powerful new requiem as I recall.
The speaker had just led the service for the victims of 7/7 in London that day. He was most dry, amusing, au fait - I wrongly assumed he was liberal. May be he was. In the High Church, how can one tell except by the sexism ? Being high up the candle with a roaring thurible (WOW! that WAS impressive) and the kindly leader indicating to muh daughter and me with a twirl of his downward pointing fingers at the end of his high outstretched arm, that we should face the back of the church, struck me as immensely traditional, all it lacked was genuflection (and it probably didn't, but I don't ... even though I've caught myself nodding at the altar and I'm happy to wear a big, bone cross ESPECIALLY in our charismatic evo congregation).
Ramble, ramble, the High even High Conservative is still very liberal in private matters, it seems to me. I can go along with anything and actually did with a strong Marian service at St. Pancras.
And that IS all pretty esoterically, exclusively elitist. Not just a matter of 'taste'.
The Spirit led me to the church round the corner in Leamington, the church I could see from my mother's window whence I'd been matrimonially banished. It was charismatic evangelical Anglican. That was 8 years ago. When I was summoned back to Northampton (and dismissed annd summoned, three times I think) St. Giles was therefore the natural choice and I had visited it before. Prompted by the Spirit. There was no other show in town. The High Church (St. Matthew's, 200 yards away from where I lived) would not have me, wouldn't let me take communion. And I'm VERY low on that sort of thing! Getting lower.
THAT is exclusive. Not taste.
Moving to Leicester nearly 4 years ago, there is only one show in town. Holy Trinity. After sitting alone with God in the Cathedral.
There is an evangelical Anglican church thirty yards away as I write. We've been. It seems absurd that we don't go there all the time. We feel trapped to be honest. No conversation can be had. There is NO social gospel. No inclusion. Nobody calls. My wife burned out with domestic crisis upon crisis there years ago. Nobody called then. Nobody said a word. The vicar did apologise years later.
The Holy Spirit is leading me, under my EXCELLENT charismatic evangelical vicar, who knows I'm his LOYAL opposition, to lead an outreach to the marginalized as long as it doesn't happen in the main building, where it was too visible. Which he then creams the top off. Fine. A 1% effort on my part as I can quantify it. He is not leading me to start my own church, which seems bizarre to me.
As my vicar said to me some years ago, 'You ARE the Church.'. He is THAT radical, at least, as evangelicals are becoming, in form, but not content.
Except in the person of Steve Chalke and other emergents.
The Holy Spirit is leading me to invisibly subvert with His New Wine. 1%.
Hopefully we can move to a REAL inner city parish this year, where a Sikh works from the local Anglican church promoting multifaith activity in a Catholic, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu community with 40 languages.
As for church dogma and divisive mandatory distinctives, I'm done with that. Liturgy, form, ceremony, 'worship' FINE. But I'm just about DONE with exclusive conservatism, tradition, even with private liberalism.
Can't we all just get along?
Which pure Liberalism CAN NOT.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard
Thanks. It's a bit clearer where you're coming from now. And you've obviously developed a radical yet workable Fresh Expression of church, which sounds very impressive. No vicar would want to drive you out if they get to skim off your 'cream', as you put it!
As an outsider, it seems to me that your problem is a particularly Anglican one. The CofE seems riven with antagonism between different wings of the church. 'Getting along' is probably easier where it's a case of different denominations working together. They accept each other's differences because they're secure in their own identity. But I've never heard a definition of 'ecumenicalism' that refers to all the different parties belonging to the same denomination! Clearly, you've found a way around the challenges with your set-up. Perhaps this is because your evangelical vicar sees your ministry as a Fresh Expression of church type thing rather than an attempt to undermine or belittle his own ministry. But if your radicalism started to undermine his authority and nibble away at his congregation, then he probably wouldn't be quite so nice!
In the future, the more liberal/radical Anglicans (such as yourself) will have to ask themselves how they can capture evangelical dynamism while chucking out its theology. I'm not sure how this will work. It doesn't even sound as if cathedral worship is holding its own where you are. There's no point in striding in to 'subvert' an evangelical congregation if the end result is that you drive people away, or if the loss of their evangelicalism makes them less effective as a group. Maybe someone needs to do some research on all of this.
[ 27. January 2013, 13:32: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not sure it's a particularly Anglican issue, SvitlanaV2, although I think these things are probably more visible on the Anglican scene than they might be elsewhere.
That said, I think you've made some very good points and it's a shame we can't get some research funding from somewhere and put your theory to the test.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think this is the key point:
'In the future, the more liberal/radical Anglicans ... will have to ask themselves how they can capture evangelical dynamism while chucking out its theology.'
Are there other groups around who have effectively done this? Among the 'emergents' perhaps - or is it still too early to say?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Ah, whither, not whence. Most perceptive Svitlana. I have NO desire to poach and subvert and intrude sneakily. Or on a soapbox. I NEVER initiate such conversations. Which is a lie as I recently emailed a friend in grief and terror for her dead atheist husband.
I don't overreact to damnationism now but neither will I not react. Most people are wise or inhibited enough not to go there, not to express openly damnationist views. The person who does the most is the vicar ... "I'm not a damnationist BUT ...", literally. He got the word from me. I have engaged privately and I do post provactive links to Rob Bell, Brian McLaren and now Steve Chalke on an unofficial church related Facebook page. And then I get all inclusive on the responses. Cunning eh?
As for the vicar creaming off, that was hyperbole on my part to say the least. And irony. Sort of. He's just started an 'MSC' - anyone else use that jargon? Mission Shaped Community - inviting the marginal, some of whom come to the soup kitchen - 'Triangle' - and stay for the 'God slot'.
In the summer we ran a thriving trade on alternate Sunday afternoons, inviting Triangle friends who found services too challenging. It got an amazing response for several months. In a side room.
But it frightened the horses - street people in the foyer, wandering about, coming early or late, with puppies, having a fag outside, cleaning their nails with penknives - and we were shunned and eventually locked out - for real - and 'encouraged' to do it 'over the road' in a hired overflow building. Needless to say the numbers plummeted. 80% don't come at all. They know they're not welcome. Not included. We even used to get passing trade. No more. There are other factors of course.
The three very broken stalwarts are those 'creamed off' by the vicar along with other marginal members. Apparently. I'm not invited and wouldn't be welcome. So be it.
We went to a service a month ago and there's often a marginal friend or two. There used to be more. Nobody makes them welcome. Nobody sits with then or talks to them. Except my subversive wife and I. So Holy aren't we? One or two ... one other person comes to mind as hospitable. At this particular service 'J' turned up. 'J' started life genetically female and had children. Still only 20 something. Presents as male. We have ALWAYS accepted him from when his identity was less male. Nobody knows WHAT to do. He'd brought Xmas/New Years cards for the clergy. One couldn't make eye contact. The same one who withheld communion from a Roman Catholic street guy. He's not been back.
My lovely upline, a very sweet guy, wants to do more for Triangle. I suggested a team of mentors, counselors for ONE guy at a time, for lunchtimes in the city where several of us are. Months ago. Nothing.
And this is the best. This is Evangelicalism. They won't say the sinner's prayer and leave ALLLLLL their troubles at the foot of the cross and come and sing PSA hymns you see? So what's the point really?
What's the point of including the excluded? Like Steve Chalke proposes.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure it's a particularly Anglican issue, SvitlanaV2, although I think these things are probably more visible on the Anglican scene than they might be elsewhere.
It's the 'why can't we all get along?' thing that's particularly Anglican. All of the different movements within the CofE openly seem to want frustrate each other, whereas other denominations simply have to agree to disagree, and that's it - they're not forced to live in the same house and rub each other up the wrong way all the time!
I suppose the exception is where you have a turf war - the Vineyard and the URC battling it out over who gets the most prominent Christmas card stall in the market, for example. Or 'sheep stealing'.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
In the summer we ran a thriving trade on alternate Sunday afternoons, inviting Triangle friends who found services too challenging. It got an amazing response for several months. In a side room.
But it frightened the horses - street people in the foyer, wandering about, coming early or late, with puppies, having a fag outside, cleaning their nails with penknives - and we were shunned and eventually locked out - for real - and 'encouraged' to do it 'over the road' in a hired overflow building. Needless to say the numbers plummeted. 80% don't come at all. They know they're not welcome. Not included. We even used to get passing trade. No more. There are other factors of course.
[...]And this is the best. This is Evangelicalism. They won't say the sinner's prayer and leave ALLLLLL their troubles at the foot of the cross and come and sing PSA hymns you see? So what's the point really?
What's the point of including the excluded? Like Steve Chalke proposes.
Most church congregations have a traditionalist, stuck-in-mud mentality. My last church closed, arguably for that reason, and it wasn't really evangelical, just MOTR. (The sinner's prayer thing is obviously an evangelical speciality, though.)
I understand your frustration, because I'd be hopping mad too if my successful ministry to the disadvantaged had been whittled away by unwelcoming and unspiritual attitudes in the established congregation. But I don't think that's a mark of 'evangelicalism'. As I say, I think plenty of MOTR congregations would behave the same way, sadly.
Perhaps the moral of the story is that such mission work needs to be built on the prayerful support and understanding of the established congregation that's connected with it. It can't be one person's vision while the rest of the congregation just carries on as before. Of course, getting a congregation to the point of transformation is really hard, because our churches have become mostly inward-looking. There's lots of work needed on helping churchpeople to overcoming their prejudices - I'm particularly aware of this in connection with the racial justice issues that have faced our churches, and the work that's gone into tackling church-based racism.
Just assuming that a congregation of middle class people, mostly middle aged and elderly women, will know how to respond to the regular approaches of homeless and scruffy men is sadly asking too much. It's not a new problem; the poor have been absent from most churches for over a century, and this state of affairs almost seems natural to churchgoers today - they raise money for charity, but have no expectation that the poor are actually going to come anywhere near their churches for spiritual and moral support. Congregations and clergy need help to overcome these attitudes, and first they need to agree to that they need that help.
Books have been written about evangelical engagement with social justice and evangelistic work with poor communities, both here and in the USA. Perhaps it might have been wise to study some of this material so that you could engage the vicar and congregation with examples of how your mission fitted in with an evangelical agenda. If you're going to work with evangelicals as a non-evangelical you need to understand where they're coming from, and what might make them more amenable to what you're trying to do.
It would be interesting to know how Rev. Chalke worked with his congregation in developing his ministry to gay couples.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Martin PC - thank you for your experiences. That is sad (but not surprising) about St Matthew's. Northampton seems to be an FiF hotspot, but certainly at my own church - Holy Trinity, liberal catholic - it is an open Communion, and nobody gets refused (although some choose not to partake).
I must say though, having been to churches all along the Anglican candle, exclusivity as you describe seems rare and I am sad you experienced such treatment.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Gamaliel, Svitlana, Sergius-Melli
G: I see repent and believe the gospel as a single coin, a single transaction: repent of not believing the gospel - the limitless good news - to believing it. Evangelicalism DOESN'T believe it. Despite working harder than anyone to get people to turn rather than burn after death. BECAUSE it does that, it is doomed. Repentance is about NOW for me. Stopping being punished BY sin, NOW.
S & S-M: My limited but real experience of High Church liberalism (again a single concept in the main, and yeah of course there are High Church conservatives - sexists) - at St. Pancras, Northampton Parish Church (THE Restoration jewel), Leicester and Liverpool Cathedrals - is one of feeling - and being - excluded by tradition. I felt MORE welcome in Liverpool's RC Cathedral where I couldn't take communion. Like being a saboteur at a fox hunt by socialist peers. As for becoming a liberal parasite on the body of evangelicalism, they are the only sea that can be swum in. There is no other sea that I can see.
When Liberals and Catholics stop being so exclusive in the name of tradition, even though I LOVE the contemplative, Taiz'e, Northumbria; when they join the post-Liberal, post-Catholic movement whilst being as INCLUSIVELY Liberal and/or as Catholic as they like and allow me to be as Liberal, Catholic, Evangelical as I like, I'll swim with them too.
In Northampton, Leamington and Leicester there is enough of the via media for me NOT to have to justify being a remora. I am not a wolf in sheeps's clothing, I'm a sheep surrounded by wolves who think they are sheep ... and yeah, I do do irony.
Svitlana, Sergius-Melli, where do you EXCLUDE me ?
It might just be the fact that it is Monday morning and my brain doesn't start to wake up till Wednesday but:
I can understand your desire to stop being "punished by sin now" (if I grasp what you are saying, but see my proviso above ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) and in repentance all are, but that does not mean that hte struggle continues on, the journey of faith is just that a journey, it is not about a sudden change, IME, for most people, it is about dealing with the repercussions of sin after those sins have been completely forgiven in repentance. To do this each individual has to love themselves, the sin and all, and appreciate what that sin can teach them, and how the journey is to unfold in the present to take them away from the repercussions of sin, and to remove the guilt. I know full well that the guilt can remain despite having been forgiven, it is seemingly rather human to remain guilty over something that nolonger matters, and when considered in parralel to our relationship with God, I am still at a loss sometimes as to how I can truly accept I have been forgiven for the things I have done, because if I were then surely the guilt shouldn't persist since I have nothing to feel guilty about, but that comes in under the being human thing imo and is a means for growth in the journey.
I echo SvitlanaV2's position that:
quote:
But churches are gatherings of people who share a common purpose; just because you don't share that purpose with them, it doesn't mean they're deliberately excluding you - it may mean they're just being true to themselves.
As yesterday's Epistle reading went on about: the hand is not an eye, both are just as important etc. so it is the same with Christian Communities. No two Churches, no two individual Christians (whether laity or Clergy), are the same, each is called to their particular gifts and calling, not everyone is gifted with prophesy, or the ability of Church governance, or evangelism etc. and therefore Churches which God has gifted with a certain task will gather to itself members who feed into that God given mission and aim to fulfill it (of course there are Churches that try to ignore the Spirit's voice, or try to run away and do their own thing, or try to be all things...). We do occassionally find ourselves in situations where we do not fit into the mission of the Church completely, but that does not mean we cannot aid in that Church's mission, our gifts might not be self-evident to that mission, but the fraternity that underpins the Christian community means that all who find themselves in a particular Church can and do have arole to play, whether it is opening up another angle to the individual mission (as your example of working with the 'outcast' demonstrates - although you have been failed by the Church in that respect who could have done more to help you) or just doing your part in building a strong prayer foundation. Every individual person, and every individual Christian community is not the same, does not have the same function, adn therefore will not always conform to what we think we need and desire - it is very much getting along nad doing what we can in that situation.
I do wonder whether it was the ritualism that put you off and made you feel excluded - and some clarification on what exactly it was that you felt excluded by might go some way to helping me understand (because I fear I may have gone wide of the mark somewhere.)
I do find in your words, I desire to be allowed to be yourself, regardless of the nature of the community you are in, but that cannot happen in the Christian Church - to an extent it can, but there are common rules which we aim to follow and have to follow, but you are seeking a community that on whole accepts you for who you are and is willing to affirm you whilst being true to itself at the same time. It may take time but I pray you find it (I wont say you will because I am no fortune teller) as many Chrstians do...
As to your last question... I hope I don't, I hope that I at least leave open a space where dialogue occurs and mutual affirmation can take place. That can be a struggle and sometimes doesn't work out as the utopian idea in my head would like, but even on a deeper level I don't know that I have willingly and consciously excluded anybody, but I know full well that at somepoint I probably have.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Nice, thank you, I was being appallingly provocative, asking if you'd stopped beating your wife almost.
I don't expect my fellowship to accept my lately acquired deconstructed view of scripture at all.
And it is up to ME to find a way to swim with them. That is what I'm called to do.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think this is the key point:
'In the future, the more liberal/radical Anglicans ... will have to ask themselves how they can capture evangelical dynamism while chucking out its theology.'
Are there other groups around who have effectively done this? Among the 'emergents' perhaps - or is it still too early to say?
This title could be relevant, but I haven't read it: 'Why Liberal Churches Are Growing' (2006)by Ian S. Markham.
Another author notes that liberalism and traditionalism combined are negatively correlated to church growth, so it seems that one way out of this problem is a considered marriage between tolerant theologies and more radical forms of church practice. This is what the 'emergent church' proposes, isn't it? I've never come across it myself, though.
One famous and successful church with a charismatic vibe and also a 'liberationist' agenda is Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, led by President Obama's ex-pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. A mostly black mega-church in a mostly white denomination it's always had a huge social outreach, and a commitment to civil rights. It's clearly also benefitted from a hugely effective, intelligent, dynamic and focused man in Wright. His controversial ways haven't detracted from his church's mission or membership levels - perhaps the opposite.
Bearing in mind his particular context, there can't be many of Wright's calibre around, and mainstream church structures tend not to encourage the development and promotion of this type of personality. Maybe headhunting and church planting with 'Fresh Expressions of mega-church' specifically in mind is something that the mainstream in this country needs to consider. (It wouldn't be appropriate everywhere, obviously.) It would require bypassing some of the constraints that mainstream churches set in place when picking and training clergy and freeing them up to create dynamic churches.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
While yes, not all evangelicals/evangelical churches are homophobic, it is actually the most homophobic/conservative churches that are growing the most - I am guessing because they are the last places in modern British society where it's OK to be homophobic/sexist/what have you, and so people with those views band together.
I see your point, but I wonder if this is necessarily the case. Do you have any refs? I suspect that growth is related to a range of factors, and isn't primarily about being homophobic and sexist. If this was all it took then the RCC, which has its own issues with gay people and women, would be growing fast. But it isn't.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Bearing in mind his particular context, there can't be many of Wright's calibre around, and mainstream church structures tend not to encourage the development and promotion of this type of personality. Maybe headhunting and church planting with 'Fresh Expressions of mega-church' specifically in mind is something that the mainstream in this country needs to consider. (It wouldn't be appropriate everywhere, obviously.) It would require bypassing some of the constraints that mainstream churches set in place when picking and training clergy and freeing them up to create dynamic churches.
This seems to be rather dependent on your ecclesiology and view of Church governance.
I am sure, as it has been done, that 'Fresh Expressions' is possible within the current structures of the CofE and CiW (the CiW has sent of Ordinands to be trained as 'pioneer ministers' in the 'Fresh Expressions' vein) but I have to side with those who are opposed to taking it to the level that some parishes have tried - Church planting outside of their Parish boundaries. If it is a co-operative effort then there is no problem really.
I have personal problems with 'mega-churches' in general (as others have highlighted elsewhere on the boards) and am not entirely clear that 'Fresh Expressions' has been properly codified as to give a clear understanding of what it really is (if anyone can help go ahead).
I also worry that in our aim to grab hold of every new trend that comes along we do end up becoming just as irrelevant as the culture moves on again, and again, and again - leaving the Church i na state where it is just continually going round in circles aiming to just keep up and in the end forgets to focus on the message whilst focussing on the 'expression'.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Of course, I expect that many will disapprove of mega-churches on principle. But my feeling is that mixture of church structures and sizes is best. Mega-churches won't suit everyone, just as cell church don't. Rather than rushing after every passing trend, I think that a more postmodern approach is necessary - a mixed economy, so to speak.
And weren't the cathedrals of old the mega-churches of their time? The Non-conformists too used to build churches that could hold 1000-odd people. So the idea that churches should never consider attracting large numbers to one place isn't exactly historical. The question is when, where and how large gatherings can be appropriate and useful.
[ 29. January 2013, 11:21: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There is the argument that contemporary conservative evangelicalism is a response to the uncertainties of the modern world, rather than somehow representing a time warp, or a lack of progress. I think I tend to agree. There's no time warp, just different responses to contemporary challenges.
You lot will be able to swop Bible verses back and forth with great erudition, but it seems to me that theology exists in response to circumstances. The congregation and outreach of Chalke's church in Waterloo may have developed in such a way as to make a decision in favour of SSM appear to be the most fruitful for them. Other Baptists in other circumstances probably haven't.
So, for most evangelicals it may seem more expedient to present a theological reading of sexuality that distinguishes them from the wider society. Other evangelicals, in different circumstances, may find another reading more helpful.
The decision about whether SSM can take place in a Baptist church is entirely up to the congregation. It would be discussed and voted on in the church meeting in the same way as anything else. The BU don’t get a say. Depending on the area and the make up of the congregation, I’d guess that for some churches that this would be no biggie whilst for others it would be make or break. For others, it would be completely irrelevant.
Baptist Ministers aren’t allowed to perform SSM – and could lose their BU accreditation if they do. I’m not entirely convinced that “I never signed anything” would work as a defence. OTH, I got the impression that a lot of BU ministers were miffed that the BU made the decision for them rather than letting them make up their own minds about what to do. Further developments will be followed with interest.
Like Jade, I’m not entirely sure that Chalke’s reputation within the wider church ever recovered from the whole PSA debacle. Which means he’ll get dismissed ut of hand because of who he is. Which is a shame. People outside the church are going to know him from his GMTV days and the social work he does – and they might listen to what he has to say more closely. Goodness knows, he makes a refreshing change from the loons the media usually wheel out when they want to portray a “Christian” viewpoint.
Tubbs
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Of course, I expect that many will disapprove of mega-churches on principle. But my feeling is that mixture of church structures and sizes is best. Mega-churches won't suit everyone, just as cell church don't. Rather than rushing after every passing trend, I think that a more postmodern approach is necessary - a mixed economy, so to speak.
And weren't the cathedrals of old the mega-churches of their time? The Non-conformists too used to build churches that could hold 1000-odd people. So the idea that churches should never consider attracting large numbers to one place isn't exactly historical. The question is when, where and how large gatherings can be appropriate and useful.
I guess with my personal fears about mega-churches (looking at the examples as they currently exist) I do go overboard in my desire to avoid them.
A mixed bag economy can work, and may, in reality, have to become an economical norm in densly populated areas where the small local Church is just keeping its head above water/drowning...
As long as those large gatherings are actually formed with a foundation of smaller groups then it can work as the entire structure is absed around the personal, smaller group which feeds into and supports the larger group... Imo there needs to be a reinvigorating of the smaller house group in much of the CofE and CiW before we consider the larger Church model.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
@ExclamationMark (page 1)
Briefly, you're making assumptions about Steve Chalke in the same way as the OP. Which is a bit of a shame really.
Tell me what is wrong with his argument that on issues of inclusiveness, the traditional evangelical hermeneutic is showing signs of inconsistency. Scripture points both ways on slavery, on attitudes to women etc. We weigh scripture with scripture, look for the higher value, argue about its relevance and limits of application, often disagree. That's what we do.
It's simply wrong to assume that any Christian makes judgments about such things on the basis of what is fashionable. When it comes to the evangelical world, which has been Steve Chalke's dwelling place for a very long time, Steve has chosen the difficult road of challenging underlying assumptions and traditional attitudes at some considerable cost to his reputation within the constituency he comes from. It is much easier to toe the party line, accept the endorsements, the speaking engagements, the "comfortable centre".
You picture him as someone who courts popularity with those outside the church and notoriety with those inside. Having met him on a number of occasions, I think that's just wrong. Like a good many of us he's been on a difficult journey, prompted (I'm pretty sure) by an uneasy conscience. Martin PC has described that journey very well. Fundamentally, we are trying to be fair to a minority of human beings who have, historically, been much maligned and deeply misunderstood. If we err on the side of charity (at least in some folks eyes), I'm happy to be perceived to be in error that way.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Baptist Ministers aren’t allowed to perform SSM ... I got the impression that a lot of BU ministers were miffed that the BU made the decision for them rather than letting them make up their own minds about what to do.
My point exactly, which I have expressed pubicly and taken up with the powers-that-be on more than one occasion. The current Guidelines did not exist when I entered ministry, many moons ago.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
When it comes to the evangelical world, which has been Steve Chalke's dwelling place for a very long time, Steve has chosen the difficult road of challenging underlying assumptions and traditional attitudes at some considerable cost to his reputation within the constituency he comes from. It is much easier to toe the party line, accept the endorsements, the speaking engagements, the "comfortable centre".
I don't know Steve (although I got cross at the way he was made the "poster boy" for the BU many years ago). I have no doubt that his recent comments, and also those on PSA, were made with thought and the knowledge that they would be controversial (which is not to say at all that he said them with the aim of stirring up controversy or gettng publicity).
"Toeing the party line", refusing to challenge the status quo and staying within the realms of safety are exactly the issues which David Coffey highlighted in his book about the "Tribes of Evangelicalism" some years ago. We need people like Steve to drop a stone in the water, make ripples and start conversations. And it can only be someone fairly "high profile" who will be heard!
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
And weren't the cathedrals of old the mega-churches of their time?
Probably not. Most people worshipped in their own parish churches. Cathedrals were not parishes, and had no congregations. They were centres of pilgrimage or offerings to the glory of God, not places which were expected to house or support regular congregations.
Unless, of course, they were also monastic, in which case the congregation of the cathdral comprised the monastic community and its hangers on.
You look at a medieval cahtedral today, with its nave sometimes still filled with (18th and 19th centuey) seating, and marvel at the number of people who would have attended service. In medieval times there would have been no nave seating -- it might at times have resembled a market or a meeting place but not a modern church, and the business being transacted would have had little or nothing to do with religion. Almost never a service in the nave itself, because any services would have taken place in the side and transept chapels (sometimes so small they would barely hold a priest and the altar) or in (part of) the chancel, with no place for the public to sit. Other side of the screens at best for the public in those days.
Members of the public might choose to attend services in any cathedral, but had neither rights, nor responsibilities, nor roles in what they did and how they did it.
John
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
@ Baptist Trainfan
There's a lot of truth in your post. But I'd make a small qualification.
I don't think Steve Chalke (and Brian McLaren) are causing the ripples in the pond; rather they are responding (with awareness as you say) to the ripples they are seeing, the questioning voices they are hearing. And i have some personal evidence to support that.
Years of involvement with youth work have provided my wife and I with an enduring legacy; the friendship and affection of many Christians in their 20s and 30s. When we meet up with them, this topic always comes up. So far as I can tell, the majority of them are increasingly uncomfortable with the traditional line. It is not perceived as fair.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
When it comes to the evangelical world, which has been Steve Chalke's dwelling place for a very long time, Steve has chosen the difficult road of challenging underlying assumptions and traditional attitudes at some considerable cost to his reputation within the constituency he comes from. It is much easier to toe the party line, accept the endorsements, the speaking engagements, the "comfortable centre".
I don't know Steve (although I got cross at the way he was made the "poster boy" for the BU many years ago). I have no doubt that his recent comments, and also those on PSA, were made with thought and the knowledge that they would be controversial (which is not to say at all that he said them with the aim of stirring up controversy or gettng publicity).
"Toeing the party line", refusing to challenge the status quo and staying within the realms of safety are exactly the issues which David Coffey highlighted in his book about the "Tribes of Evangelicalism" some years ago. We need people like Steve to drop a stone in the water, make ripples and start conversations. And it can only be someone fairly "high profile" who will be heard!
Having seen Steve speak a few times, the PSA comments in that book read exactly like they were transcribed from a tape. I always thought that he wanted to get people thinking, didn't have time to review everything as the book was due and then got more than he bargained for when it came out. The SSM comments are much more thought out and considered. It's got people thinking, which is all good.
Tubbs
PS. Some of the newer Baptist ministers aren't thrilled by the BU's policy either. There are few things Baptist's like less than being told what to do. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 29. January 2013, 21:03: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QB] @ExclamationMark (page 1)
Thanks Barnabas62. As for making assumptions, I plead guilty - in the same way that Brian McClaren is wont to do. I am unfair, biased ....
I don't find the generic inconsistency, that seems clear to others, over this issue. As you rightly say we weigh, we look, we argue and "..often disagree" - and I do on this one.
I've looked; I've thought; I've asked, reflected and argued but my views are still the same. I can't shift them unless I suspend ... I don't know actually. And no, I am not trying to steer a comfortable course: I've had my fair share of run ins with the BUGB hierarchy so I am not afraid to put my neck on the line for my faith and beliefs.
For all those who, in good conscience, recognise the validity of Steve Chalke's claims, there are others in equal good conscience who have, after serious and deep thought, arrived at the opposite conclusion. Sadly the cat calls and name throwing on both sides is obscuring the real issues.
I can't state my position any better or clearer than what I read from Steve Clifford of the EA in Christianity or Steve Holmes in the BT.
Yes, Steve has chosen the difficult road but he's been on it a while now and has gone a long way down it. He can call himself an evangelical but what definition is that based on? There are so many, that any label or description of one's personal theological position is really meaningless. I wouldn't describe myself as an evangelical: I don't like nor do I welcome labels. It's one (short)step away from discrimination.
I may call myself a cricketer and I may follow some of the rules. When I pick up a bat or a ball, these days, my pretensions are shown up for what they really are: a dream, a wisp, an imagining.
If Steve isn't making a point then why did he choose to publicise his views and actions in Christianity magazine? Yes I can see where he has moved and why: the uneasy conscience sits with many of us over matters of injustice and the church.
I struggle when baptists don't speak out against the ills of our nation: the welfare reforms, the pandering to the wealthy, the control of the state by the same oligarchies over hundreds of years - all this burns and sears my conscience and sense of justice, to fight on the side of the poor and oppressed.
I've worked as a labourer; I've been treated like an idiot. I know what it's like to be dismissed educationally and socially as a council house child. I've lived in a house unfir for human habitation. Now as an educated man my unease over privilege and power is palpable - and the church as a whole is doing little about it. So yes, I understand where a fretful conscience can lead - mine leads me to street corners in the city, to hostels, to the lonely. I can't understand personally where Steve's and others' conciences have led them.
[ 29. January 2013, 21:06: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE] Some of the newer Baptist ministers aren't thrilled by the BU's policy either. There are few things Baptist's like less than being told what to do.
Aaaah the rebellion of youth! In a few years time you'll all be on BU Councils and Committes (joke!)
Some of us who have been around for a while have yet to learn the obedience trick (not that most of us are good on celibacy either) but poverty we manage quite well. We aren't exactly push overs either.
Some of US got naughty boy lectures from a Spurgeons Principal in 1999 for being "nasty" to the poor people on our trip to Didcot. All we did was ask questions ..... and whoops, they weren't the right ones.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And what might those questions have been?
Footnote: I never got a trip to Didcot when I was at Spurgeon's in the late 80s ... but then I was only of those lowly creatures they hadn't yet worked out how to cope with, a Church-based student!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Baptist Ministers aren’t allowed to perform SSM ... I got the impression that a lot of BU ministers were miffed that the BU made the decision for them rather than letting them make up their own minds about what to do.
My point exactly, which I have expressed pubicly and taken up with the powers-that-be on more than one occasion. The current Guidelines did not exist when I entered ministry, many moons ago.
But noone is currently allowed to perform religious SSMs in a church, Baptist or otherwise. Do you mean that the BU doesn't allow Baptists to perform same sex blessings? If so, what's going to happen to Rev. Chalke, since he admits that he has performed such blessings? Will he get chucked out? How does that work?
(I understand that some churches have taken up the chance to host civil weddings on their premises. Maybe this is what the BU is currently opposed to?)
[ 30. January 2013, 00:01: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
And weren't the cathedrals of old the mega-churches of their time?
Probably not. Most people worshipped in their own parish churches. Cathedrals were not parishes, and had no congregations. They were centres of pilgrimage or offerings to the glory of God, not places which were expected to house or support regular congregations.
Unless, of course, they were also monastic, in which case the congregation of the cathdral comprised the monastic community and its hangers on.
You look at a medieval cahtedral today, with its nave sometimes still filled with (18th and 19th centuey) seating, and marvel at the number of people who would have attended service. In medieval times there would have been no nave seating -- it might at times have resembled a market or a meeting place but not a modern church, and the business being transacted would have had little or nothing to do with religion. Almost never a service in the nave itself, because any services would have taken place in the side and transept chapels (sometimes so small they would barely hold a priest and the altar) or in (part of) the chancel, with no place for the public to sit. Other side of the screens at best for the public in those days.
Members of the public might choose to attend services in any cathedral, but had neither rights, nor responsibilities, nor roles in what they did and how they did it.
John
Sounds like the perfect modern church - no responsibilities and no expectation to attend! And perhaps we need more church buildings that are willing to host lucrative 'business' activities during the week, so they don't always need to be pestering people for donations to repair the roof, etc.
I'm joking. Perhaps.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But noone is currently allowed to perform religious SSMs in a church, Baptist or otherwise.
"Allowed"? Who enforces this religious conformity? The kind of organizational hierarchy you're implying doesn't sound very Baptist.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And what might those questions have been?
Footnote: I never got a trip to Didcot when I was at Spurgeon's in the late 80s ... but then I was only of those lowly creatures they hadn't yet worked out how to cope with, a Church-based student!
The passage of time has eroded most memories but I do seem to remember that in the open forums which followed the presentations, Spurgeons stiudents were the most vocal while the others sat and listened.
The one thing I do remember is that we were split into small groups and sent to different depts for presentations and group exercies. I foun d myself in one where staffing and finance was being discussed (remember this was 1999).
I kept my mouth shut because with the benefit of a few years in consultancy I could see they were way over staffed for the work they did (probably by 50%). Fine until one of my chums asked me a question - across the presentation - along the lines of "you've run a business, how mnay people did you have to do this stuff" I admitted the number which was somewhere around half the number in the BUGB depts .....
I think it was as much a questioning attitude that got us an interview with a principal, not just the questions. I think a few of the questions were along the lins of where the union was going and its perceived lack of lightness of feet. How prescient was that!
Btw most of us (apart from 2 I think) were church based.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Baptist Ministers aren’t allowed to perform SSM ... I got the impression that a lot of BU ministers were miffed that the BU made the decision for them rather than letting them make up their own minds about what to do.
My point exactly, which I have expressed pubicly and taken up with the powers-that-be on more than one occasion. The current Guidelines did not exist when I entered ministry, many moons ago.
But noone is currently allowed to perform religious SSMs in a church, Baptist or otherwise. Do you mean that the BU doesn't allow Baptists to perform same sex blessings? If so, what's going to happen to Rev. Chalke, since he admits that he has performed such blessings? Will he get chucked out? How does that work?
(I understand that some churches have taken up the chance to host civil weddings on their premises. Maybe this is what the BU is currently opposed to?)
You can perform an same sex ceremony at the moment but it wont be a marriage in the eyes of the law. I have heard it said that there are sympathetic priests in the CofE who have been doing such things for ages and it wouldn't surprise me if covertly, clergy from oher deominations have been doing the same, to bless a union.
As regards BUGB churches being not allowed, it's not as straightforward as it sounds. The individual church can choose to do it as a decision of the church meeting. The first problem comes when, or if, that church is held in trust by the Baptist Union (churches can have different overarching trustees). If the BU hold the trust then if they (BUGB) prohibit SSM's they coul perhapos under charity law prevent the church from going ahead.
If the BUGB approves or turns a blind eye, then no problem. Does anyone though really know what the BUGB's position is in practice?
If the main trust is held elsewhere, then the views of the trustees are again from a legal POV, to be taken into account - as above.
The issue is complicated further when a minister is included in the equation. Most, but not all ministers, are accredited by the baptist Union. Soem churches have lay pastors and some choose to call someone as their minister who hasn't got BUGB accreditation. Technically, if its a BUGB Trusteeship the minister must be accredited or have a waiver from the BUGB. Not followed 100%.
The BUGB can only dscipline a minister to the maximum extent of removing them from the list of accredited ministers. The only effect this has is perhaps to restrict movement between churches for new pastorates. You'd also have to come out of the pension scheme which isn't a hardship, given its not a good one. The church may also be liable under pension legislation for a fairly hefty sum of money as a contribution towards a deficit in the existing pension fund (soemthing like 50% under funded).
A minister can't be dismissed by the BUGB - yes they can recommend it - but the church who calls the minister must dismiss him. You could get a situation where someone is no longer accredited by virtue of BUGB disciupline but remains in post as the church are happy with them. Phew!
This is important in discussing the Steve Chalke case. If a minister performs a SSM (or even a same sex blessing) they could technically be disciplined and removed from the list by BUGB. This may not mean that they will be removed from the church, if the church has agreed to host the ceremony. My guess is, that if the church is happy for the ceremony, it will also be happy to keep the minister.
If the minister isn't accredited then the BUGB haven't got many legs to stand on, in opposition.
The whole issue is a bit convuluted, driven as it is by our local Government, Charity law, Trusteeships, pensions etc. I rather think that although public policy is opposed, for all practical purposes the BUGB will choose to overlook it.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
That seems to be a very good summary.
Perhaps it is worth pointing out to non-Baptist readers that Baptist churches do not have to seek denominational approval for doing things in the same way as some other groups do. For instance no URC church could legally register for Civil Partnerships until this had been agreed by General Assembly, and I imagine that the same thing would be true for Methodist churches vis-a-vis Conference. But for Baptists the supreme decision-making authority is the local Church Meeting.
The real question for churches (not ministers) does centre on what the Trustees might do following a decision by Church Meeting to register its building for Civil Partnerships. Given that (a) the default position of Baptist Trustees is to endorse the decisions of Church Meeting unless there are very good reasons for doing otherwise; and that (b) there will be nothing explicit about this kind of thing in Trust Deeds, I think that Trustees would be on very shaky ground if they refused.
[ 30. January 2013, 09:23: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The kind of organizational hierarchy you're implying doesn't sound very Baptist.
You are dead right - which is one of the reasons that Baptists are having ths debate.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The kind of organizational hierarchy you're implying doesn't sound very Baptist.
You are dead right - which is one of the reasons that Baptists are having ths debate.
And it’s one of the reasons that the Baptist debate about this will be framed in very different terms to ones happening elsewhere. The BU can publish guidance about issues such as SSM / SSB, but the ultimate decision about what happens will be made by each and every congregation in their church meeting. There are issues where individual congregations are completely at odds with denominational policy – and the denomination doesn't have any real come back.
Tubbs
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Thanks for all explanations about the Baptists. I'm finding the Baptists more interesting as time goes by!
My point was that LEGAL SSM doesn't yet exist in the UK - that's why Baptist clergy can't perform such marriages. But of course, any church may or may not conduct a purely religious marriage ceremony, or register to perform civil partnerships, depending on its rules and doctrines about such things.
Explamation Mark
If I've understood you correctly, the BU doesn't have many teeth as far as 'disciplining' Rev. Chalke goes. In that case, he doesn't have much to worry about, does he? Maybe this could be a sort of 'test case' for other Baptist clergy and their congregations who want to go down the same road. In fact, this is starting to sound rather like a storm in a teacup; other Baptists may make a fuss, and angrily shake documents in the air, but at the end of the day each Baptist
congregation will do what it likes, more or less with impunity.
Baptist Trainfan
Maybe you should stop writing letters to the BU and just hold your SS wedding ceremonies if you want to! What's the worse that can happen? Someone will have to change the wording on your church's headed notepaper??
[ 30. January 2013, 12:06: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Well, you could be right - although we've only been asked once, a couple of years ago. We couldn't do a Civil Partnership in church anyway (it wasn't legal at that time) and the BU did warn me against doing a "blessing", even off-site. Today I might well have been tempted to ignore that ruling: my personal position is as you and EM describe.
Our Church is actually an LEP and the buildings are held in trust by another denomination which has authorised Civil Partnerships to go ahead. So that would be no problem. We have discussed it in Church Meeting but decided not to register because (a) there was no consensus as to doing so and (b) it is an expensive and complicated process. We might well need to look at this again when solemnising SSMs become legal.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Explamation Mark
1. If I've understood you correctly, the BU doesn't have many teeth as far as 'disciplining' Rev. Chalke goes. In that case, he doesn't have much to worry about, does he?
2. Maybe this could be a sort of 'test case' for other Baptist clergy and their congregations who want to go down the same road.
3. In fact, this is starting to sound rather like a storm in a teacup; other Baptists may make a fuss, and angrily shake documents in the air, but at the end of the day each Baptist
congregation will do what it likes, more or less with impunity.
1. Nope he doesn't have much to worry about. I think the BUGB are in a pretty dodgy position (theologically from a baptist POV) if they kick a decision made by a local church meeting into touch.
2. I'm sure it will become the bginning of a movement towards acceptance of SSM's. There seems to be much wider acceptance amongst younger ministers than most people realise.
3. Yes it can look like that I grant. However Baptists can (often) do more than simply wave order papers around. Historically, such issues have resulted in schism, the most recent being in the early 1970's. I can't remember how many churches dipped out of the BUGB then, but it was quite a few.
That's not to say it will or must happen again, it all depends IMHO how its handled and discussed. Our ecclesiology recognises the decision making within the local church, with guidance from others - but we don't have to follow it!
The SSM issue hasn't really been discussed at Union level or in most churches IME. Some churches will be in a situation where there is a mismatch between the conscience of the minsiter and the decision of the church. It's all rather jumped up and bit us at a time when reorganisation is taking place and the BUGB is possibly at its weakest for many years as a result.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's all rather jumped up and bit us at a time when reorganisation is taking place and the BUGB is possibly at its weakest for many years as a result.
Agreed - but it needn't have done if the issue hadn't been consistently shoved under the carpet whenever anyone raised it. (At least, that's how things looks from where I'm sitting).
[ 30. January 2013, 12:43: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's all rather jumped up and bit us at a time when reorganisation is taking place and the BUGB is possibly at its weakest for many years as a result.
Agreed - but it needn't have done if the issue hadn't been consistently shoved under the carpet whenever anyone raised it. (At least, that's how things looks from where I'm sitting).
The trouble is, other denominations have had 'dicussions' about homosexuality, and it seems to have generated more heat than light. There's no guarantee that everyone will be happy with the outcome.
In my many years of attending Methodist churches, I never once heard the topic of homosexuality rear its head in a sermon or any other church meetings. I think Conference discussed it for a while, and then there was a moratorium. It was decided at one stage that ministers could hold SS blessings in church, but then that changed, and now they have to hold them elsewhere. But none of these issues have really been explored at congregational level. It's possible that small groups and circuit level gatherings have started to talk about SSM since it's been in the news, but I haven't been involved in those for a while, so I wouldn't know.
It would be interesting to see if Baptist clergy are becoming more tolerant on this issue, while clergy in certain other denominations are perhaps becoming less so. (A theologian at a local college told me that CofE and Methodist ministerial candidates were increasingly likely to be evangelical.) As it happens, I know a Baptist pastor who told me recently that he didn't approve of SSM, at least not in Baptist churches, but he know of others who did. (I should say that this wasn't the focus of our conversation). He's in his late 30s/early 40s. He's a livewire from an unusual background, and probably not at all typical.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
Not just Steve Chalke. Another prominent erstwhile defender of California's Prop. 8 has seen the light and is changing the direction of his whole organization. Unfortunately, I can't remember his name, but the conversion was well covered in today's New York Times. Some on his board resigned immediately, and he has lost the support of a few corporate deep pockets, so it hasn't been an easy change for him. But he has found the condition of marriage and parenthood in American society to have become so parlous, that fussiness over who should be allowed to try is counterproductive of any worthwhile objective.
Hallelujah!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I get the impression that American evangelicalism will move more rapidly in a pro-SSM direction than the British variety. This is because American evangelicalism is accepted as part of popular culture, and has already absorbed aspects of that culture, such as a willingness to tolerate divorce and teenaged pregnancy. If SSM is now accepted by wider popular culture then there are surely many evangelicals who are ready to move in that direction too, because the culture and the church already overlap with each other considerably.
British evangelicals are in a more precarious position because they're not part of popular culture. Although they're more committed so social justice issues, they seem to be a bit more conservative on divorce and teenaged or premarital sex, so it's unlikely that they're going to rush to be tolerant of gay relationships. (I'm sure someone will put me right if I'm utterly mistaken here.)
On the other hand, as evangelicalism gradually becomes the only flourishing part of the British church, 'refugees' from the more mainstream churches may be entering evangelical congregations in greater numbers, and urging them to change their attitudes on SSM. I wonder if this was a factor in Rev. Chalke's case? One thing that's surprised me about the Ship is how many non-evangelicals are attending evangelicals churches (as we've seen on this thread). This is bound to change the dynamic of these churches.
The sociologists would say that all evangelical movements end up by reigning in their evangelical impulses as time passes, and that their success inevitably attracts people who
don't share all of their values. It's obviously happening as we speak!
[ 31. January 2013, 12:17: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Some UK evangelicals are definitely moving in an accepting direction. Would a group like http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org/ even have been thinkable a decade or two ago?
[ 31. January 2013, 12:42: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Some UK evangelicals are definitely moving in an accepting direction. Would a group like http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org/ even have been thinkable a decade or two ago?
Steve Chalke is a member - I don't know for how long. Interestingly enough, another member called Roy Clements and very much a "force to be reckoned with in Evangelicalism" resigned his ministry in 1999 - would he have felt the same need to do so today?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Some UK evangelicals are definitely moving in an accepting direction. Would a group like http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org/ even have been thinkable a decade or two ago?
Steve Chalke is a member - I don't know for how long. Interestingly enough, another member called Roy Clements and very much a "force to be reckoned with in Evangelicalism" resigned his ministry in 1999 - would he have felt the same need to do so today?
Maybe the problem with some of these pastors is that they've been married to women, and then they they come out as gay, thus requiring a divorce as well as entering into a gay relationship. We all know that some gay men feel they have to marry women in order to gain acceptance in a homophobic world, but when the truth is revealed, people feel deceived. Congregations don't want to feel deceived by their pastors. The deception may be harder for them to bear than anything else.
Hopefully, social changes will mean that fewer male gay clergy feel they have to marry women.
BTW, are British evangelicals mostly okay with divorce these days?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
This letter (not by me) from the Mailbox on the "Baptist Times" website may go some way to answering your question:
I would simply like to observe that the Bible, and Jesus himself, have far more to say, and to say more heavily, against adultery than against homosexuality. Yet many, if not most, of those crusading against the latter are "soft" on the former. There are many divorced-and-remarried members and ministers in our churches.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]Agreed - but it needn't have done if the issue hadn't been consistently shoved under the carpet whenever anyone raised it. (At least, that's how things looks from where I'm sitting).
That's totally true. It was one of David Coffee's least honourable decisions - probably because there were those who didn't want to rock the boat. If you stick your fingers in your ears and say "I can't hear anything ...." you can delude yourself for ever.
I don't happen to agree with Steve Chalke - I find his argument on "inclusion" quite specious really. [Inclusion doesn't mean, as he seems to imply, that we have to accept or welcome everything about a person to include them]. There is, for example, a man in the local congregation who has a problem with alcoholism. He's accepted into church but we don't welcome his behaviour when drunk.
As I've said before, I'd respect the BUGB more if it did soemthing, even if I don't agree with what in does or decides. I have little time for an approach that is one small step ahead of putting your head, ostrich like, in the sand.
It's all standard behaviour from the BUGB in my experience - ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist and it will go away. I'm also less than impressed when there's clear evidence of partiality involved - people being treated differently over the same issue, not necesarily this one.
The BUGB faces a crisis on all sorts of fronts IMHO. It's effectively unable to do anything (should it wish) about Ministers conducting same sex blessings or (even) involved in same sex relationships, provided the local church has sanctioned the activity or chooses to overlook it.
Yes, the minister can be deaccredited but so what? What does that really mean? I suppose that there is a danger that the BUGB could fragment into 2 provinces - one in favour of SSM and the other against it.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
This letter (not by me) from the Mailbox on the "Baptist Times" website may go some way to answering your question:
I would simply like to observe that the Bible, and Jesus himself, have far more to say, and to say more heavily, against adultery than against homosexuality. Yet many, if not most, of those crusading against the latter are "soft" on the former. There are many divorced-and-remarried members and ministers in our churches.
Yes and it's wholly unacceptable to apply double standards. But there's a bit of a hole in the argument: Jesus specifically recognises divorce as being permitted out of the hardness of man's heart while same sex relationships are never proscribed in the same way by Him.
OK he will have been aware of Roman and Greek attitudes on the same sex issue (although they wouldn't have termed it as such). He'd also been aware of rabbinical prohibitions against it. There's a conflict between the secular behaviour (which was not as widepsread as sometimes cliamed - my daughter did her thesis on issues of sexuality in ancient rome) and religious or spiritual intentions.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[snip] same sex relationships are never proscribed in the same way by Him.
Jesus never proscribed SSR's in the same way because it seems He had nothing to say on the issue whatsoever if I remember the Gospels rightly...
Which then allows us to run around with gay aboundment trying to figure out what the position which is faithfully in tune with Jesus' teachings should actually be.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
[QUOTE] Jesus never proscribed SSR's in the same way because it seems He had nothing to say on the issue whatsoever if I remember the Gospels rightly...
Which then allows us to run around with gay aboundment trying to figure out what the position which is faithfully in tune with Jesus' teachings should actually be.
Exactly. Which means whatever position we adopt is arguing from the perspective of silence on Jesus' part. Either he had no problem with same sex relationships or it was such a given that it was wrong, that it was a non starter and he didn't need to say anything.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Or that, for whatever reason, it was simply not a current issue of discussion within the mostly Jewish audiences he was addressing. After all, we are given to understand that quite a lt of Jesus' teaching was reactive, i.e. responding to questions of topical debate.
At the risk of uttering a gross oversimplification, it seems to me that the Early Church had to try to contextualise Jesus' teaching for Christians who came from a far broader set of cultural contexts, about which Jesus had said nothing.
Which is our problem,too.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Which is our problem,too.
Absolutely. Determinism and grace are incompatible.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I don't happen to agree with Steve Chalke - I find his argument on "inclusion" quite specious really. [Inclusion doesn't mean, as he seems to imply, that we have to accept or welcome everything about a person to include them].
quote:
From Steve's article:
Here is my question: shouldn’t we take the same principle that we readily apply to the role of women, slavery, and numerous other issues, and apply it to our understanding of permanent, faithful, homosexual relationships? Wouldn’t it be inconsistent not to?
You see, he really does not say what you imply. He does not endorse all expressions of homosexuality. He argues for the principle of inclusivity to be applied to faithful homosexual relationships. Note the word "faithful".
The double-standard argument re attitudes to adultery and homosexuality has some practical force. As does the argument that there is some weighing of scripture with scripture involved in the tacit "forgetting" of Old Testament penalties. It's quite obvious that there is selective exegetical "fancy footwork" behind prevailing attitudes towards some sexual behaviour, but not all.
Anyway, as I said earlier, Steve's question does not originate with him. I've got a number of emails at home from young Christians in their twenties and thirties asking broadly the same questions about consistency. That issue isn't going away any time soon, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]
1. You see, he really does not say what you imply. He does not endorse all expressions of homosexuality. He argues for the principle of inclusivity to be applied to faithful homosexual relationships. Note the word "faithful".
2. The double-standard argument re attitudes to adultery and homosexuality has some practical force. As does the argument that there is some weighing of scripture with scripture involved in the tacit "forgetting" of Old Testament penalties. It's quite obvious that there is selective exegetical "fancy footwork" behind prevailing attitudes towards some sexual behaviour, but not all.
3. Anyway, as I said earlier, Steve's question does not originate with him. I've got a number of emails at home from young Christians in their twenties and thirties asking broadly the same questions about consistency. That issue isn't going away any time soon, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.
Barnabas - thanks. I'd comment as follows
1. I agree but only up to a point. Steve, like everyone in the debate draws a line on inclusion - in his case, on the basis of "faithful."
2. There's selective exegetical footwork on both sides. It's perhaps drawn into sharper focus when we consider the 3 legged stool beloved of theologians (even in the "new" hermeneutic many have adopted): reason, scripture, tradition.
At best one could say that reason allows for the possibility of SSM - at least there's no obvious prohibition except where one considers the direct reproductive possibilities of such relationships. Scripture is now being interpreted either way depending on your viewpoint (no news there then)- so if we take a top level view it's a split jury. Tradition? Well, same sex relationships have traditionally been treated as not being in accordance with God's will.
It all seems a bit of a wobbly stool for me.
The double standards we all know exist are wrong. A more excellent way is to seek "Eros Redeemed" liberating intimacy (and people) from the constraints and influence of culture and rediscovering God's intention for broken humanity.
3. I've been aware that the issue has been around for a good few years and haven't claimed Steve as its source. We must be vareful though that we are not swayed by the questions and concerns of particular groups (e.g 20's to 30's) but take a broader view of all concerned.
It's just that Steve's been a bit of a BUGB poster boy and trusty in the past, such that any article by him will up the stakes somewhat in the BUGB's response. The concern will be greater but the reaction perhaps less extreme because it is him. It wouldn't look good from a PR POV to discipline him for his actions but if the BUGB don't a precedent has been established. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I also deprecate the timing of this. It couldn't have come at a worse time for BUGB as I really think we're in the hardest place we've been for a long time. When did Steve carry out the blessing? Why bring this up now just as the BUGB is in the throes of seeking what it is to be and become? Why not, I suppose too?
Perhaps the constant delays of the past over the issue mean that the chickens have come home to roost.
4. There are gay BUGB ministers some of whom may be in active relationships. I know of 2 in same sex partnerships which I suppose (under our "rules")means that they are celeibate but it's a case of don't ask, don't tell. Nothing can be proven.
It's not going to go away, I agree. However, the way we deal with those affected and the way we process this through our denomination (let's face it, we are one whatever we claim), will determine what the real future is for a united BUGB and the future of our witness of Christ redeeming love.
!Mark
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
EM: quote:
I also deprecate the timing of this. It couldn't have come at a worse time for BUGB as I really think we're in the hardest place we've been for a long time. When did Steve carry out the blessing? Why bring this up now just as the BUGB is in the throes of seeking what it is to be and become? Why not, I suppose too?
As a non- Baptist I'm curious - why is this such a difficult time for the BUGB? Do Baptists need particular prayer at this time?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I agree but only up to a point. Steve, like everyone in the debate draws a line on inclusion.
That was one of the reasons that the ill-fated URC "Zero Intolerance" campaign got all snarled up - it implied that churches had to be tolerant of everyone and everything. Well of course that's not possible; the issue of where you draw boundaries. (The campaign was pulled last year, but there's still references to it on the Web if you go hunting).
[ 01. February 2013, 11:39: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
[EDIT: this may be totally irrelevant now - skimming at work and didn't realise I was replying to a post at the end of page 2! Gosh darn it]
As a pew-sitter in a Baptist shack, I would expect the clergy to divide largely, but not exclusively along generational lines. Some blurring at the edges due to life experience, church situations, what they've been faced with and thus re-visited/re-considered from "the default position" etc. but mostly generational.
I'd also expect a natural leaning towards a "soft conservative" stance just because in my limited experience Baptist churches tend to be Evangelical, but also tend to be quite good on social action, the marginalised, inclusive stuff etc. so there are plenty of interfaces where the edges get rubbed off a bit. And of course the tutors and the grandees in Baptist circles are largely going to be of the older generation, so any age-related change in view won't quite be filtering through yet.
The BUGB thing is interesting, too. Although they are in many ways largely toothless if push comes to shove, at the same time if you're a BUGB church there's a lot of incentive to try to remain in the Union rather than either get chucked out or shout "Bollocks to you" and storm off. Partly inertia, partly some of the resources that being in the Union brings to bear, and partly just the sheer PITA of having to find a new holding trust, sort out all kinds of constitutional matters that would arise and so on. Congregational governance has a lot of positives, but one of the negatives is that it takes bloody ages to get anything significant done, particularly without the fuck-up fairy coming to town.
[ 01. February 2013, 11:44: Message edited by: Snags ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I'm not close enough to Baptist politics to comment on the timing, but I think the truth is that the issue will continue to be divisive for any protestant denomination for a number of years. Snags is probably right about a generational divide.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
That is certainly true in our congregation, not that we've got many younger folk. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]That was one of the reasons that the ill-fated URC "Zero Intolerance" campaign got all snarled up - it implied that churches had to be tolerant of everyone and everything. Well of course that's not possible; the issue of where you draw boundaries. (The campaign was pulled last year, but there's still references to it on the Web if you go hunting).
Not just a matter of where but who draws the boundaries.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Snags is probably right about a generational divide.
That's probably true but amongst ministers it's more related to the era of their training as opposed to the age of the trainee!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
[QUOTE]As a non- Baptist I'm curious - why is this such a difficult time for the BUGB? Do Baptists need particular prayer at this time?
The BUGB is in the midst of a reorganisation owing (mainly) to a budget shortfall. It has affected centralised functions and will ripple out to regions. The effect is like any other change to a structure that has been in place for some time: people take time to adjust and until new roles are confirmed have to exist with uncertainty.
There's also an ad out for a new General Secretary which although it may not mean a change of direction, might mean a change of emphasis.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
The BUGB thing is interesting, too. Although they are in many ways largely toothless if push comes to shove, at the same time if you're a BUGB church there's a lot of incentive to try to remain in the Union rather than either get chucked out or shout "Bollocks to you" and storm off.
Partly inertia, partly some of the resources that being in the Union brings to bear, and partly just the sheer PITA of having to find a new holding trust, sort out all kinds of constitutional matters that would arise and so on. Congregational governance has a lot of positives, but one of the negatives is that it takes bloody ages to get anything significant done, particularly without the fuck-up fairy coming to town.
The BUGB have always worked on the basis that they do have teeth - so this has come as a pretty big shock I think. So long as they actually realise the problem they've got. It's a lose:lose really.
I agree that there's a goods deal of "soft" evangelical outfits but even the harder conservative outfits that I know best, are pretty active in local mission and social action. I don't see conservatism and social action as two opposing poles as you often find in evangelicals elsehwere. It must be a radical dissenter thing, holding the two together with little apparent tension.
I suppose most churches stick with the BUGB owing to inertia and the hoops you have to jump through to break the ties.
The biggie is the pension fund debacle - it causes enough problems for churches who are in vacancy. Part of the issue is recent legislation but had the BUGB not gone with an untried investment company in Guernsey of all places - performing well below par - the deficit and attendant issue would be much less.
The net imapct is that any church who doesn't move PDQ if their minister resigns or they leave the union, will be laible for a proprtionate share of the pension fund deficit. It's likley to be a six figure sum for most churches. It could be seen as a lever to hold over churches if some think about splitting over SSM issues.
Some 40 years ago a crisis in the BUGB led to a few churches leaving. There weren't the same financial penalties then - even the constitutions were far less onerous. Then, once the doctrinal basis for associating had been broken, there ws no impediment to a church leaving.
Now there is and it might - just - keep a few churches in, who'd otherwise jump ship. These days I find that people in BUGB are noticeably less "baptist" than ever before and recognise "alliegance" (if I can put it in those terms) primarily to Christ and the local church and not a denomination. Most are just not interested in events at Didcot or even Regionally - the main interest beyond the wals of the local church is other very local churches. I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, it's just where people are.
Given our radical roots and determination, this doesn't bode well for BUGB.
Congregational Government can be frustrating but if handled correctly can be liberating as you hear and respond to a wide range of stories. Communication, prayer, clarity and respect are vital as are meetings which are times of fellowship, prayer and reflection which don't go on too long!
Who or what is the "fairy" you're referring to?
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
quote:
Who or what is the "fairy" you're referring to?
Oops. Had to re-read what I'd posted to get the reference.
I honestly can't remember where it originates, but amongst some of my friendship circles "the Fuck-up Fairy" is an epic mythic creature, possibly related to the Tooth Fairy, but with a less helpful mission.
Gender unknown, the FF can be viewed as the roving implementor of Sod's Law. A somewhat more robust and low-brow term for gremlin, perhaps.
I think in the post in question I was thinking back to a few incidents when I was on the diaconate. After "discussing" an issue for countless diaconate meetings, countless church meetings, reinventing the wheel multiple times, everyone finally agrees a form of words on something. The church meeting vote on it, but somewhere between either what the leadership agreed on and what was put forward to the meeting, or between the vote at the meeting and the final write up, low and behold the wording is subtly changed so as to actually undermine the original intention and complicate everyone's lives. That wording, of course, is the one that gets enshrined for all time, primarily because people have talked themselves bass-ackwards and no longer know which way is up. This is because the FF has sprinkled everyone with his/her special FF dust.
Pointing out that we've had a visit from the FF tends to get one drummed out of the brownies for heresy.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
*bump*
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
A couple of links and a comment or two, stimulated by the parallel thread in Purgatory.
Video links on the Oasis website
The first is relatively short, but is a very accessible explanation of Steve's article and his reasons for putting it forward at this time.
The second is a series of responses to criticisms of the article. It is significantly longer, and addresses some pretty thorny issues. It's harder work.
I think Steve Chalke is tackling the questions and criticisms courteously, but head on.
Link to Steve Cliffords second response
This takes the interesting argument that Steve Chalke is right to raise the issue of inclusivity but doesn't take it far enough. In this context, not taking it far enough seems to mean that of course gay people must be welcomed into the inclusive community, but by so doing they must also accept the radical challenge that human sexual expression can only take place legitimately in a relationship for life between a man and a woman. Here is the current EA guidance.
What seems clear is that Steve Chalke's article has brought the issue "out of the closet" and into a much more open debate. There is a conversation going on in public. That strikes me as inherently valuable.
Finally, here is a link to a comment by David Kerrigan General Director of the Baptist Missionary Society, which Steve has encouraged folks to read. It's also useful in having loads of links to lots of other comments.
I was particularly struck by this comment towards the end of his article.
quote:
To come back to Steve Chalke, I have something of a picture of what is happening here. Its imperfect but I’ll give it a go. 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.
That is a very good thing for people to recognise at this stage, however they see Steve Chalke's initiative.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0