Thread: Has the Evangelical Alliance shot itself in the foot? 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=030749
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
Today we saw two statements, one from the Evangelical Alliance and one from Oasis UK about the EA unceremonially booting out Oasis from their EA membership.
Reading both statements, it seems that the views expressed by Steve Chalke have been taken as a proxy for the views of the whole Oasis organisation and that the EA board & council have tried to bully Oasis into issuing statements distancing themselves from the views (effectively asking them to alienate Steve).
As an evangelical who affirms same-sex couples, I find this deeply worrying. Have the EA gone too far in allowing the conservative elements within in to be the sole voice and authority and have now started to kick out the liberals?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Yes and no.
The EA is perfectly within its rights to hold whatever views it wishes, and therefore exclude any organisation with which it disagrees, or any organisation whose Chair makes statements with which it disagrees.
That said, if affirming same-sex relationships with the context of life-long monogamy makes the EA squirm, they're going to start shrinking themselves into oblivion.
People - such as me, and most of those younger than me - who would consent to a broadly evangelical expression of faith - have come to the conclusion that there's very little to get fussed about, and it's certainly not a deal breaker (not like voting UKIP would be... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
)
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
They're going to end up as a very small club indeed. I'm over 60, and most of my contemporary Christian friends (mostly evos) see SSM as either nothing to get worked up about, or as something to be affirmed, as it works towards the biblical trajectories of faithfulness and commitment in relationships. Hardly anyone below their forties thinks there is anything odd or sinful about men loving men or women loving women.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I think the EA has long since lost it's status as an alliance of all evangelicals in the UK - if it ever had that status. It has become progressively more conservative, increasingly alienating those evangelicals who do not accept the strongly conservative line. I stopped my personal membership of EA about 10 years ago, though I would still wholeheartedly agree with the doctrinal statements of the EA (and, UCCF as well).
I suppose the EA leadership need to make a decision - do they want to represent all UK evangelicals, or just conservative evangelicals?
If they want to represent all evangelicals then they need to acknowledge that on issues such as sexuality many evangelicals, in good faith and after careful study, do not consider Scripture to be as clear as those with a more conservative interpretation. And, therefore, membership of the EA is not to be judged on issues that evangelicals disagree over but on our common doctrinal heritage.
If they want to represent just conservative evangelicals then that needs to be clearly communicated, and those members who do not hold conservative views can decide whether or not they want to be part of an organisation that does not represent their views. Whether or not an evangelical organisation is then formed to represent the non-conservative sector of UK evangelicalism (or to be open to all parts of evangelicalism) is upto those who might leave in those circumstances.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I suppose the EA leadership need to make a decision - do they want to represent all UK evangelicals, or just conservative evangelicals?
If they want to represent all evangelicals then they need to acknowledge that on issues such as sexuality many evangelicals, in good faith and after careful study, do not consider Scripture to be as clear as those with a more conservative interpretation. And, therefore, membership of the EA is not to be judged on issues that evangelicals disagree over but on our common doctrinal heritage.
My italics - to highlight what I see as the key point. When pretty much any Christian who affirmed or accepted same-sex marriage did so from a position of holding loosely to the Biblical instructions, I suppose the EA's stance was fairly clear and easy to hold.
But now there are an increasing number (ISTM) of self-identifying evangelicals with doubts and questions over the traditional Biblical interpretation, the EA faces the uncomfortable dilemma Alan has set out above...
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But now there are an increasing number (ISTM) of self-identifying evangelicals with doubts and questions over the traditional Biblical interpretation, the EA faces the uncomfortable dilemma Alan has set out above...
The great irony is that modern evangelicalism is a post-reformation movement. To stand in the evangelical tradition is to be a part of the reformed (small r) tradition which itself was born out of questioning traditional interpretations.
500 years after having broken away from dogmatism, we just seem to be coming back full circle just with a fresh set of topics for discussion.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Nonconformists pressuring others to conform?
Leaving aside from the prominent exploratory types like Steve Chalke, Rob Bell. Brian McLaren, who seem to produce polarisation by questioning the status quo, I suspect JJ has it right. In the UK there is a change under way at grassroots level. Opinions have been changing about what is both fair and loving. What is undermining the traditional evo position is a gradually increasing embarrassment over those factors. The centre of gravity over what is 'sound' is shifting.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I am deeply saddened by the EA's decision.
I wonder if their decision has been influenced by the changing locus and increasing polarisation of British Evangelicals? It seems to me that the recent rise of large African and Caribbean churches, which usually hold to a much more conservative position than many of the older-established churches, has substantially changed the "balance" of the EA's membership and (presumably) its Council. David Coffey wrote yeas ago of the different "tribes" of Evangelicalism and it seems to me that some of those are waxing while others are waning.
How will this play out in those denominations, such as my own (and, incidentally, Steve Chalke's too), which would broadly consider themselves as "Evangelical"?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
That's a very interesting point.
I've read in Peter Brierley's work that 'open evangelicals' have declined more than other types of evangelical, so they're naturally going to be in a weaker position in any evangelical union.
Maybe the time is coming to create a new paring of open evangelicals and moderately orthodox Christians who don't use the term evangelical. They might have more in common with each other at this stage.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And whatever happened to "the Lord hath yet more life and truth to break forth from his Word"?
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
If I were a betting man I would wager heavily on some kind of conversation along the lines of "either they go or we do" from some group or other which would have gravely affected the revenue stream.
To pre-empt the obvious objections can I quote Sir Humphrey and remind people that a cynic is what an idealist calls a realist.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If I were a betting man I would wager heavily on some kind of conversation along the lines of "either they go or we do" from some group or other which would have gravely affected the revenue stream.
I'm afraid my thoughts ran along the same lines.
Many years ago (late 70s) I had a friend who was a member of an American Evangelical missionary society. This was at the time that lines were being drawn in the "charismatic gifts" debate. Churches were telling them, "we will not support you unless you publicly declare that you will have nothing to do with the charismatic renewal".
As it happens there weren't any charismatic Christians in the society! But their Directors felt, as a matter of principle, that they should not delineate their beliefs so strictly. They refused to put the clause into their Statement of Faith, lost quite a lot of support, but survived with their integrity intact.
Was the EA under similar pressure? Who knows? - not me; but money has a nasty habit of talking.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I should think that all institutional church leaders are mindful of their 'revenue stream' and of how upsetting generous givers risks the financial security of the church. It would be unsurprising if an ecumenical organisation were any different.
[ 02. May 2014, 15:54: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I wonder how +Justin will react, bearing in mind he's been very pro EA up until now...
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
1. I am deeply saddened by the EA's decision.
2. How will this play out in those denominations, such as my own (and, incidentally, Steve Chalke's too), which would broadly consider themselves as "Evangelical"?
1. The EA's rules are known: the EA have done what the BUGB failed to do in response to Steve's persistence in seeking to move goalposts (and not just in matters of human sexuality)
2. Evangelicalism as a descriptor is dead - as everyone wants to use it in whatever way they wish. Our own denomination is on the starting blocks for schism along the lines of 1971
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I presume you're referring to the debate over Christology precipitated by Michael Taylor's comments. That was truly a difficult time, not that I was aware of it as I was only just coming into Baptist life.
I have no idea if the BU is on the verge of schism at the present time, over sexuality, Christology or anything else. But I can see that "Evangelical identity" is again at stake.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
1. The EA's rules are known:
As far as I know they only consist of affirming the basis of faith statement and abide by the relational commitment. I don't think that contains anything other than this.
Nothing in the basis of faith about sexuality.
I'm not sure who would be on the good side of
quote:
We respect the diversity of culture, experience and doctrinal understanding that God grants to His people, and acknowledge that some differences over issues not essential to salvation may well remain until the end of time.
Is excluding those who hold particular views which are not essential to salvation from the EA a sign of respecting those differences?
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
We respect the diversity of culture, experience and doctrinal understanding that God grants to His people, and acknowledge that some differences over issues not essential to salvation may well remain until the end of time.
Is excluding those who hold particular views which are not essential to salvation from the EA a sign of respecting those differences?
I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that as a majority (though, knowing a few of the council members, I can't imagine them being happy with what's happened) they made a mistake. I wonder if their thinking may have been tied in with the slippery slope argument.
What seems to further exacerbate the problem is that I've seen a few individuals now say that they will resign their membership of the EA in protest. Personally, I think that only deepens the rift rather than bringing people back to unity. It's essentially saying "you must believe exactly what I believe or else I will have no fellowship with you" which is exactly what the EA did to Oasis.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
What seems to further exacerbate the problem is that I've seen a few individuals now say that they will resign their membership of the EA in protest. Personally, I think that only deepens the rift rather than bringing people back to unity. It's essentially saying "you must believe exactly what I believe or else I will have no fellowship with you" which is exactly what the EA did to Oasis.
The flipside - which I've suffered - is "because you continue with the EA, you will therefore be counted as wholeheartedly supporting our stand."
There is no nuance, and worse, no forum to discuss nuances.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
It's essentially saying "you must believe exactly what I believe or else I will have no fellowship with you" which is exactly what the EA did to Oasis.
I'm not an evangelical, but I think it's rather saying, if you won't have fellowship with everyone I have fellowship with, then I can't have fellowship with you.
If Auntie Angie won't be in the same room as Auntie Beth, then you can only be in the room with one of them. And if the objection is all on Auntie Angie's side, then there's no effective difference between not taking sides and siding with Beth.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
We respect the diversity of culture, experience and doctrinal understanding that God grants to His people, and acknowledge that some differences over issues not essential to salvation may well remain until the end of time.
Part of the problem, of course, is that there is a sizeable body of evangelical opinion that maintains that it is a salvation issue and, therefore, a deal breaker. The only morally decent homophobes, for want of a better expression, are the people who think that people will go to hell for having sexual relations with people of the same sex. I think they are wrong, but I can see that if one held this it might be somewhat urgent. It puts the matter in a different category to, say, candles on altars or sanctuary bells.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
What seems to further exacerbate the problem is that I've seen a few individuals now say that they will resign their membership of the EA in protest. Personally, I think that only deepens the rift rather than bringing people back to unity. It's essentially saying "you must believe exactly what I believe or else I will have no fellowship with you" which is exactly what the EA did to Oasis.
But what's the point of having an 'Evangelical Alliance' if they don't agree on what constitutes evangelicalism? It seems a bit pointless, really.
Fellowship doesn't require that they all believe the same things about evangelicalism, of course. They might still attend each other's jumble sales, etc....
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And whatever happened to "the Lord hath yet more life and truth to break forth from his Word"?
Not much!
For those who want to know that is a quote from the paraphrase of the speech by John Robinson to the Pilgrim Fathers at Plymouth/Bristol* (I can not quite remember which) written about 150 years ago into a hymn. The person who did it was the son of former minister of the congregation I attended as a teenager.
It remains a key point within American churches (far wider than in the UK) but within the UK it is largely confined to historical English dissent** particularly those with tendencies towards the Radical Reformation. The result is that most of Evangelicalism never seem to have heard of it.
Jengie
*What this implies is the actual text was around for quite sometime. I have traced people who have clearly seen it. What I have not managed to do is trace an existent copy although there are three libraries where I suspect a copy may be held.
**I think I can miss the orthodox part of it, as I suspect many Unitarians quite like it.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Was the EA under similar pressure? Who knows? - not me; but money has a nasty habit of talking.
I'm afraid I tend to agree with Gildas and Baptist Trainfan.
I once got thrown out of a denomination, ostensibly due to doctrinal issues, but they let slip along the way that if we didn't go the Swiss were threatening to turn off the tap.
I'm pretty sure Steve Clifford will have agonised over this though.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
1. I am deeply saddened by the EA's decision.
2. How will this play out in those denominations, such as my own (and, incidentally, Steve Chalke's too), which would broadly consider themselves as "Evangelical"?
1. The EA's rules are known: the EA have done what the BUGB failed to do in response to Steve's persistence in seeking to move goalposts (and not just in matters of human sexuality)
2. Evangelicalism as a descriptor is dead - as everyone wants to use it in whatever way they wish. Our own denomination is on the starting blocks for schism along the lines of 1971
I'm sure that everyone at BUGB HQ is thrilled that the EA has stirred up this particular hornet's nest
IMO, the EA has made a mistake ... If you're marketing yourself as an alliance of Christians within the evangelical realm, then you have to be willing to tolerate some differences of opinion on non-core issues. (And SSM, to me, is one). The EA leadership need to get out more. There's a huge range of opinions on this issue. And many are tired of church leaders making this a thing.
Tubbs
[ 02. May 2014, 19:33: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
(slight tangent)
The French baptist union has an incredible straddling position in which they have managed to be part of both the broader Protestant federation (which is not gay-unfriendly on paper) and the more conservative evangelical one (which is), as well as have a charismatic and a non-charismatic wing. I'm not quite sure whether this is the best or the worst of all worlds...
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
For those who want to know that is a quote from the paraphrase of the speech by John Robinson to the Pilgrim Fathers at Plymouth/Bristol* (I can not quite remember which) written about 150 years ago into a hymn. The person who did it was the son of former minister of the congregation I attended as a teenager.
It remains a key point within American churches (far wider than in the UK) but within the UK it is largely confined to historical English dissent** particularly those with tendencies towards the Radical Reformation. The result is that most of Evangelicalism never seem to have heard of it.
The one occasion it was brought to my attention was a (very good) sermon by a Methodist.
I must say I was a bit thrown by the image of John Robinson addressing the Pilgrim Fathers and had a momentary image of a bunch of puritans arguing as to what the devil he meant by "the ground of our being" whilst the future Bishop of Woolwich twirled through the Stuart era with a two-edged sword in his hand and the praises of God in his mouth with "Give Me The Prize!" banging out in the background.
Brain rotted by popular culture, Moi? There can be only one!
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I presume you're referring to the debate over Christology precipitated by Michael Taylor's comments. That was truly a difficult time, not that I was aware of it as I was only just coming into Baptist life.
I have no idea if the BU is on the verge of schism at the present time, over sexuality, Christology or anything else. But I can see that "Evangelical identity" is again at stake.
My understanding is that most people in the BU are hoping the whole thing will go away if they ignore it for long enough. They could be right, if Rev T's group at college are typical, none of them wanted the BU to experience the kind of in-fighting other churches had gone through.
Thinking about it, part of me wonders if this is an attempt by the EA to fix evangelical identity and increase their membership. When I became a Christian in 199-mumble, any evangelical church worth it's salt was a member of the EA. Looking now, there are very few locally, and some of the medium to large, independent, conservative evangelicals are conspicuous by their absence.
Tubbs
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Thinking about it, part of me wonders if this is an attempt by the EA to fix evangelical identity and increase their membership.
Um... you think being openly anti-gay will increase membership? I can't think of any way to get the under 40s running for the hills faster...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Thinking about it, part of me wonders if this is an attempt by the EA to fix evangelical identity and increase their membership.
Um... you think being openly anti-gay will increase membership? I can't think of any way to get the under 40s running for the hills faster...
Most CE outfits aren't run by under 40s, but by old men.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Conservative evangelical Anglican churches, particularly in the South East, have lots of young clergy.
I hope this is related enough to only be a slight tangent - what about Vicky Beeching's endorsement of SSM? Will others follow in her footsteps?
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If they want to represent all evangelicals then they need to acknowledge that on issues such as sexuality many evangelicals, in good faith and after careful study, do not consider Scripture to be as clear as those with a more conservative interpretation.
Your phrasing here makes me laugh a bit, because I always considered scripture to be very clear that supporting homosexual people and equal rights for them was the Christian thing to do. So it was never that I thought that scripture was "less clear" than the conservatives think it is, it's just that the conservatives are totally and completely wrong in their interpretation of scripture. So I find it kindof strange when you speak of, as a lot of people seem to, of a choice between accepting that scripture has a clear (negative) teaching on homosexuality versus thinking it's "less clear". I guess part of the reason I personally was so totally horrified/outraged last year upon learning the full extent of anti-homosexual sentiment within the Christian church internationally was that I simply took it for granted that Christians were all/mostly pro-homosexual because of the bible.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Part of the problem, of course, is that there is a sizeable body of evangelical opinion that maintains that it is a salvation issue and, therefore, a deal breaker. The only morally decent homophobes, for want of a better expression, are the people who think that people will go to hell for having sexual relations with people of the same sex.
But just how many "morally decent homophobes" can there be? You don't hear many of them arguing that slander, greed, or adultery (1 Cor 6:9-10) take you straight to hell too.
I think the trouble with federative bodies in general is that they often get their priorities wrong in the things they speak out on, and in the EA's case in the UK, they tend to behave as a political lobby rather than being truly representative of the grass roots.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Conservative evangelical Anglican churches, particularly in the South East, have lots of young clergy.
I hope this is related enough to only be a slight tangent - what about Vicky Beeching's endorsement of SSM? Will others follow in her footsteps?
Yes, I was just looking at the local scene, which is wrong of me.
Is there any mileage in saying that the younger clergy are looking for affirmation from the old guard, so that they're still regarded as 'sound'?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And whatever happened to "the Lord hath yet more life and truth to break forth from his Word"?
Not much!
For those who want to know that is a quote from the paraphrase of the speech by John Robinson to the Pilgrim Fathers at Plymouth/Bristol* (I can not quite remember which) written about 150 years ago into a hymn. The person who did it was the son of former minister of the congregation I attended as a teenager.
It remains a key point within American churches (far wider than in the UK) but within the UK it is largely confined to historical English dissent** particularly those with tendencies towards the Radical Reformation. The result is that most of Evangelicalism never seem to have heard of it.
This is the hymn - or, at least, part of it! It is still in the current Baptist hymnbook and I have been known to choose it, usually to "Ellacombe".
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Thinking about it, part of me wonders if this is an attempt by the EA to fix evangelical identity and increase their membership.
Um... you think being openly anti-gay will increase membership? I can't think of any way to get the under 40s running for the hills faster...
Most CE outfits aren't run by under 40s, but by old men.
Depends who they're trying to win over. Most of the evangelical churches locally who aren't members are likely to be against SSM. The EA "taking a stand" might encourage them to sign up. If the same applies nationally and these churches do rejoin, then the EA gets an increased footprint amongst it's target audience.
It's going to make no difference to the churches that wouldn't join the EA regardless - but it may confirm to them they've made the right choice.
As I said previously, I think it's a mistake as the EA's stance automatically excludes liberal / open evangelicals. Not much of an Alliance, more a closed shop.
Going back to the events EM referenced and Trainfan linked too, the interesting thing was the conference endorsed the right for Taylor (?) to ask the questions and for people to have the discussion. One of the cornerstones of the dissenter movement. Chalke is part of the same honourable tradition. The difference now seems to be that questions and discussions aren't allowed unless you come up with the right answer at the end of them.
Tubbs
[ 03. May 2014, 07:50: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
A discussion in which only one answer is possible sounds tedious, not to mention pointless.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Baptist Trainfan
You are part of English Historical Dissent, I use that to characterise those traditions that stem from Sepratist and Non-Conforming congregations of the Tudor and Stuart era.
So?
Jengie
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A discussion in which only one answer is possible sounds tedious, not to mention pointless.
Is that a variant of Cresswell's law?! Quotes file I think!
Less of a discussion and more of an affirmation that we're right, ours are the only voices worth listening too and everyone else is wrong and not worth bothering with.
Tubbs
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Going back to the events EM referenced and Trainfan linked too, the interesting thing was the conference endorsed the right for Taylor (?) to ask the questions and for people to have the discussion. One of the cornerstones of the dissenter movement. Chalke is part of the same honourable tradition. The difference now seems to be that questions and discussions aren't allowed unless you come up with the right answer at the end of them.
Exactly (and thanks, too, Jengie). This whole idea of "Open Dissent" has largely disappeared - many Baptists do not understand it and like to elaborate carefully-worded doctrinal statements to "fence" their position. I suspect that URC folk are more aware of where they're coming from.
But a lot of "newer Dissent" is about defining boundaries and the issue in hand seems to highlight this. (And yes, I do realise that many EA members are Anglicans anyway with a very different tradition - 39 Articles indeed!)
Many people feel safer in an environment where any question already has its predetermined answer.
[ 03. May 2014, 08:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
The one thing the Church has never been able to do is to trust God to keep his promise that the powers of Hell will not prevail against it. This is as true of Catholics and Liberals as anybody else. Should we be surprised that Evangelicals do it as well?
Jengie
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
The EA's press release emphasises the need for a member organisation to "profile equally the maintain the traditional Christian view*" in the interests of maintaining good fellowship.
I wonder if other member organisations will be expected to equally profile the non-traditional view" in the interests of good fellowship? Or now that Oasis is no longer a member of EA is that balance no longer felt necessary?
*I did have the idea that the EA and its members didn't go a whole bundle on "tradition". Ho hum, you learn something every day.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The problem with EA press releases, and I speak here from extensive knowledge of the circumstances behind one (not this one!), is that they are so carefully worded as to become vapid.
The EA won't say what it really thinks, probably in a misguided attempt not to further upset some constituency or other or in order not to create a scandal, but by not being clearer it actually perpetuates the controversy.
A friend used to dealing with the EA in a media capacity also told me that their attitude to press releases is to hope they are as little-noticed as possible. In that respect, the timing of this one - right before a bank holiday weekend in the UK - appears typical, too.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Conservative evangelical Anglican churches, particularly in the South East, have lots of young clergy.
I hope this is related enough to only be a slight tangent - what about Vicky Beeching's endorsement of SSM? Will others follow in her footsteps?
Yes, I was just looking at the local scene, which is wrong of me.
Is there any mileage in saying that the younger clergy are looking for affirmation from the old guard, so that they're still regarded as 'sound'?
IME a little, but it's not the whole picture - but my experience is almost entirely of Anglican conservative evangelicalism, which is different anyway. Anglican con-evos (in the CoE) almost all train at the same place, Oak Hill. Everyone knows each other, plus some con-evos outside of the CoE. It's a very small world and they want to keep it that way. Strong links between Anglican con-evos in the CoE and Sydney Anglicans are part of this.
Obviously, though, conservative evangelicalism in the CoE is only a small part of churches involved in the EA.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A discussion in which only one answer is possible sounds tedious, not to mention pointless.
Is that a variant of Cresswell's law?! Quotes file I think!
Less of a discussion and more of an affirmation that we're right, ours are the only voices worth listening too and everyone else is wrong and not worth bothering with.
Tubbs
Yep that's certainly true of some voices on both sides in the SSM debate in BUGB.
I suppose it's better than it once was: then it was "What does BA think" and ran from there
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE] As I said previously, I think it's a mistake as the EA's stance automatically excludes liberal / open evangelicals. Not much of an Alliance, more a closed shop. Tubbs
I think you're misrepresenting the understanding of "Alliance" in the Evangelical Alliance.
It isn't a joining of the strands of evangelicalism but an alliance of churches and groups who all accept EA's definition of evangelicalism.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
[QUOTE]Your phrasing here makes me laugh a bit, because I always considered scripture to be very clear that supporting homosexual people and equal rights for them was the Christian thing to do. So it was never that I thought that scripture was "less clear" than the conservatives think it is, it's just that the conservatives are totally and completely wrong in their interpretation of scripture. So I find it kindof strange when you speak of, as a lot of people seem to, of a choice between accepting that scripture has a clear (negative) teaching on homosexuality versus thinking it's "less clear". I guess part of the reason I personally was so totally horrified/outraged last year upon learning the full extent of anti-homosexual sentiment within the Christian church internationally was that I simply took it for granted that Christians were all/mostly pro-homosexual because of the bible.
You will appreciate that, after careful study, other Christians will see your views as wrong as you see theirs.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]
1. I'm sure that everyone at BUGB HQ is thrilled that the EA has stirred up this particular hornet's nest
2. then you have to be willing to tolerate some differences of opinion on non-core issues. (And SSM, to me, is one). Tubbs
1. Yes - esp since BUGB went public on saying that they would do something - which they haven't.
2. I'd say about 40% of all BUGB ministers have a clear view that SSM is a core issue - recognising that the biblical interpretation that might accommodate it will result in reviewing other areas of belief and practice that are much more uncomfortable. Hence the latest furore over Steve Chalke's seminars on the bible
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]My understanding is that most people in the BU are hoping the whole thing will go away if they ignore it for long enough. They could be right, if Rev T's group at college are typical, none of them wanted the BU to experience the kind of in-fighting other churches had gone through.
Tubbs
Again, my understanding and experience differ from yours although your experience is the classic Baptist response to a crisis (potential or real). Things don't just go away and tbh we can dialogue for ever but unless we make a decision (any of which will be unpalatable to some), then we'll simply remain figures of contempt.
No one wants the in fighting but we have to face facts. Baptist are experts at trying to avoid an issue that is out there. It's probably here already anyway at all sorts of levels in BUGB. There are mixed views even in Ministry Dept. - some of which would've got you deaccredited 3 years ago. In this Regional Grouping there is strong opposition.
I may be geographical thing. I'm not exactly in a south eastern metropolitan area having worked in many rural ones - in those places, views are very conservative on this issue as they are in most of the churches of this pretty big city.
If we don't want the fight let's make the decision and get it over with. I think we all know that it will change anyway - the amendments to a number of things have, for the first time, allowed for the possibility of it happening.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE] As I said previously, I think it's a mistake as the EA's stance automatically excludes liberal / open evangelicals. Not much of an Alliance, more a closed shop. Tubbs
I think you're misrepresenting the understanding of "Alliance" in the Evangelical Alliance.
It isn't a joining of the strands of evangelicalism but an alliance of churches and groups who all accept EA's definition of evangelicalism.
Except, of course, those groups and individuals who accept all of the definitions of evangelicalism described in the statement of belief, but disagree on a matter not mentioned in those statements of evangelical belief.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A discussion in which only one answer is possible sounds tedious, not to mention pointless.
In the early 90s the Anglican Church I went to had a keen young Evangelical vicar. He was keen to show he was open minded, forward thinking and so forth, so ran a long sermon series on Sunday evenings on Sex: The Christian attitude to sex before marriage, divorce, abortion, homosexuality and so on. These got rapidly less exciting as it became clear the answer to each one was, "Don't".
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
You will appreciate that, after careful study, other Christians will see your views as wrong as you see theirs.
Only in a very limited sense of meaning of the word 'appreciate'. And I don't really accept that people who are anti-gay are Christian (see here).
Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on
:
- Posted 03 May, 2014 17:32 Profile for Robert Armin Send new private message Edit/delete post Reply with quote
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A discussion in which only one answer is possible sounds tedious, not to mention pointless.
In the early 90s the Anglican Church I went to had a keen young Evangelical vicar. He was keen to show he was open minded, forward thinking and so forth, so ran a long sermon series on Sunday evenings on Sex: The Christian attitude to sex before marriage, divorce, abortion, homosexuality and so on. These got rapidly less exciting as it became clear the answer to each one was, "Don't".
----
In those days a theologically simplistic, robustly expressed view was seen as sign of spiritual maturity.
Maybe that's why the evangelical sector back then attracted many folk without any hope of getting involved in such pursuits anyway. Internet dating has forced us all to confront practical issues seen at one time as only theoretical.... These days it seems that an increasing number of younger evos are heterosexual and married by 22, thereby avoiding the issues.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
These days it seems that an increasing number of younger evos are heterosexual and married by 22, thereby avoiding the issues.
I actually think that there has always been a lot of pressure on Evos to match up and get married early. My son (at College in Bristol 10 years ago) certainly found it so ... and ended up at a much less Evangelical church as a direct result.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
it's just that the conservatives are totally and completely wrong in their interpretation of scripture.
The conservatives are completely traditional in their interpretation of scripture.
In my adult lifetime the view of homosexuality in society has changed, led in part by gays campaigning for equal rights, but also by science. Psychologists and Sociologists have been to the fore in us accepting to some degree that there is a range in human sexuality which is greater than the old beliefs of heterosexuality or perversion.
Any while I would not suggest that society is tolerant of gays, it has moved and is moving in that direction.
What we have are people so set in their ways that they are not willing to look again at what the Bible teaches in view of what science has told us about human sexuality. It is possible to have a view of human sexuality that regards non-heterosexual leanings as being normal without going down the slippery slope towards liberalism, (which of course is worse in the eyes of the con-evos than satanism )
I'm not ready to remove my EA membership yet. But I am seriously looking at how this pans out.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE] As I said previously, I think it's a mistake as the EA's stance automatically excludes liberal / open evangelicals. Not much of an Alliance, more a closed shop. Tubbs
I think you're misrepresenting the understanding of "Alliance" in the Evangelical Alliance.
It isn't a joining of the strands of evangelicalism but an alliance of churches and groups who all accept EA's definition of evangelicalism.
Except, of course, those groups and individuals who accept all of the definitions of evangelicalism described in the statement of belief, but disagree on a matter not mentioned in those statements of evangelical belief.
And therein lies the can of worms that has been opened. The generally accepted definition of evangelical is someone who subscribes to Bebbington's four pillars:
- biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages)
- crucicentrism, a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross
- conversionism, the belief that human beings need to be converted
- activism, the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort
If the EA had based their decision on Chalke's comments on the atonement, they could have presented a fairly robust argument that he / Oasis could no longer be members because they'd stepped well away from the accepted thinking on crucicentrism.
By focusing on equal marriage and homosexuality, the EA has created a fifth pillar - right thinking. Once you start down that road, where do you stop? Telling members where to shop, what charities to support or who to vote for? A glance over the ocean suggests that this may not end well.
What's truly annoying - apart from the little matters of redefining evangelism in their own image and closing down discussion - is that rumblings from various Shipmates over the years suggest the EA is very picky about the issues it gets involved in. Not so keen on Investigating members who are charlatans conning people in the name or Christ or churches attempting to subvert the political process ... But a gobby minister who strays from the party line?! All over that.
Tubbs
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Tubbs;
quote:
By focusing on equal marriage and homosexuality, the EA has created a fifth pillar - right thinking.
I think the EA would believe that this issue is part of pillar 1, "biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages)". And I'm still waiting for a convincing argument that they would be wrong in that assessment.
The EA does tend to be, even among its non-conformist members, committed to a form of the 'Christian country' principle and therefore to the idea that UK law should reflect biblical standards. Similar to, for example, a certain David Silvester who had such ideas despite being a non-conformist (though I don't know if he and/or his church are EA members). I'm personally still not convinced that homosexual sex is acceptable Christian conduct; but I have no problem with it being legal in a plural democracy.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Tubbs;
quote:
By focusing on equal marriage and homosexuality, the EA has created a fifth pillar - right thinking.
I think the EA would believe that this issue is part of pillar 1, "biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages)". And I'm still waiting for a convincing argument that they would be wrong in that assessment.
The EA does tend to be, even among its non-conformist members, committed to a form of the 'Christian country' principle and therefore to the idea that UK law should reflect biblical standards. Similar to, for example, a certain David Silvester who had such ideas despite being a non-conformist (though I don't know if he and/or his church are EA members). I'm personally still not convinced that homosexual sex is acceptable Christian conduct; but I have no problem with it being legal in a plural democracy.
Fair point, but as the EA has told everyone what they think the answer to this particular Biblical question has to be, they have created a fifth pillar. Under this ruling, according to the EA, you're not an evangelical if you believe in equal marriage etc even if you believe in all the other things. And you can't be an EA member either. Ho and indeed hum.
Tubbs
[ 04. May 2014, 12:55: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think the EA would believe that this issue is part of pillar 1, "biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages)". And I'm still waiting for a convincing argument that they would be wrong in that assessment.
The problem is that there are a large number of scholars who would hold a "biblicism" position (and, accept the other 3 pillars too) who would argue that the Bible does not prescribe homosexual activity. You may not agree with their arguments, but the fact is that they are made by people who take the Bible very seriously as the "supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct". That, as far as I'm concerned, puts the whole issue into the realm of "where believers disagree", and therefore by definition not something that can delineate between evangelical and other Christian.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The problem is that there are a large number of scholars (...) who would argue that the Bible does not prescribe homosexual activity.
I think it's widely accepted that the Bible does not prescribe homosexual activity. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
The problem is that there are a large number of scholars who would hold a "biblicism" position (and, accept the other 3 pillars too) who would argue that the Bible does not prescribe homosexual activity.
I think you meant "proscribe"; 'prescribe' would mean to command whatever was in question, 'proscribe' means 'forbid'.
Also by AC;
quote:
That, as far as I'm concerned, puts the whole issue into the realm of "where believers disagree", and therefore by definition not something that can delineate between evangelical and other Christian.
Just about with you there; but surely the EA are still entitled to say that those concerned haven't yet satisfied the EA and therefore can't be EA members?
I still regard it as the bigger problem that the EA have not only been campaigning about the Christian position for Christians; they've also been campaigning against SSM for non-Christians, not only in a sense of preaching it as part of Christian morality which unbelievers may accept or reject, but also in the sense they have opposed it becoming a legal option in a plural society for non-Christians as well as Christians. That is a separate issue and I thoroughly disagree with them on that point (and as you know, Alan, my disagreement is 'biblicist').
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Just about with you there; but surely the EA are still entitled to say that those concerned haven't yet satisfied the EA and therefore can't be EA members?
Not if the "rule" has come in subtly and without consultation and agreement. It's like fining someone for parking on a yellow line which wasn't there when they first parked up!
quote:
I still regard it as the bigger problem that the EA have not only been campaigning about the Christian position for Christians; they've also been campaigning against SSM for non-Christians, not only in a sense of preaching it as part of Christian morality which unbelievers may accept or reject, but also in the sense they have opposed it becoming a legal option in a plural society for non-Christians as well as Christians. That is a separate issue and I thoroughly disagree with them on that point.
Not sure that it's the "bigger" problem - apart from that, I agree 100%. The EA has the right to make its views known in a plural society, but not to demand agreement.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'd say about 40% of all BUGB ministers have a clear view that SSM is a core issue - recognising that the biblical interpretation that might accommodate it will result in reviewing other areas of belief and practice that are much more uncomfortable.
Surely the problem with this is that you're basically extrapolating from what people have said to what they haven't said and may in fact strenuously deny.
And if we are going to proscribe models of Biblical interpretation because they might lead to heresy, we might as well not read the Bible at all.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Baptist Trainfan;
quote:
Not if the "rule" has come in subtly and without consultation and agreement. It's like fining someone for parking on a yellow line which wasn't there when they first parked up!
As to how much consultation and agreement there was, I'll defer to your superior knowledge of EA internal affairs; but I think for an average 'biblicist' position, it would be perceived that the yellow line in question was always there and that the other party was trying to have it removed...?
Also by BT;
quote:
The EA has the right to make its views known in a plural society, but not to demand agreement.
I assume you mean agreement by the plural society; but again, I'm not sure how much they are 'demanding' in that context - I thought they were basically 'campaigning' in that area. Within the EA surely there are circumstances when they may properly 'demand agreement' of their members (I'm not professing to judge if this is such a case)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'd say about 40% of all BUGB ministers have a clear view that SSM is a core issue - recognising that the biblical interpretation that might accommodate it will result in reviewing other areas of belief and practice that are much more uncomfortable.
Surely the problem with this is that you're basically extrapolating from what people have said to what they haven't said and may in fact strenuously deny.
And if we are going to proscribe models of Biblical interpretation because they might lead to heresy, we might as well not read the Bible at all.
That's very likely partly true but based on 9admittedly anecdotal experience and figures quoted a conference by others).
Er, I don't think I mentioned heresy.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The problem is that there are a large number of scholars (...) who would argue that the Bible does not prescribe homosexual activity.
I think it's widely accepted that the Bible does not prescribe homosexual activity.
Neither side of the argument is widely accepted. Both sides are widely rejected.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
[QUOTE]Only in a very limited sense of meaning of the word 'appreciate'. And I don't really accept that people who are anti-gay are Christian
In that case you are taking a different view from God.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
[QUOTE]Only in a very limited sense of meaning of the word 'appreciate'. And I don't really accept that people who are anti-gay are Christian
In that case you are taking a different view from God.
Wow. You know the mind of God?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
The problem is that there are a large number of scholars who would hold a "biblicism" position (and, accept the other 3 pillars too) who would argue that the Bible does not prescribe homosexual activity.
I think you meant "proscribe"; 'prescribe' would mean to command whatever was in question, 'proscribe' means 'forbid'.
Yes, I meant 'proscribe'. Sorry for saying the exact opposite of what I meant!
quote:
but surely the EA are still entitled to say that those concerned haven't yet satisfied the EA and therefore can't be EA members?
Of course, the EA is entirely free to define who can or cannot be a member. I don't even have a particular problem with them defining membership criteria that exclude current members. It would be great if that was done after extensive consultation, especially with those who would be excluded. But, a clear statement of the change of membership criteria is needed. Put in a line in the statement of belief "We believe the Bible teaches homosexual activity to be a sin" and those of us who disagree with that interpretation can leave (or, in my case, not rejoin).
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE] As I said previously, I think it's a mistake as the EA's stance automatically excludes liberal / open evangelicals. Not much of an Alliance, more a closed shop. Tubbs
I think you're misrepresenting the understanding of "Alliance" in the Evangelical Alliance.
It isn't a joining of the strands of evangelicalism but an alliance of churches and groups who all accept EA's definition of evangelicalism.
In that case, I think they should no longer be referred to as The Evangelical Alliance, but instead an Evangelical Alliance. The thing that makes you an evangelical is, well, being an evangelical, not being anti-gay. There are many many people who would call themselves evangelicals, but not agree with the (an) EA's stance on this issue. They don't have the monopoly on Evangelicalism.
Tubbs is right - this is a huge can of worms that has been opened, and I think it will come back to bite an EA in the arse. I find it all very sad and disappointing.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
[QUOTE]Only in a very limited sense of meaning of the word 'appreciate'. And I don't really accept that people who are anti-gay are Christian
In that case you are taking a different view from God.
Wow. You know the mind of God?
No I don't but I can't find anywhere where he says that those who find SSR's hard to accept, are excluded from His grace.
Well Starlight seems to be doing the same from another POV in deciding who's Christian and who isn't. Me? I like joining in with an approach that seems reasonable.
Perhaps you'll be telling your two Bishops the same thing Leo. I understand from your previous posts that one has taken a very hard line on such matters and I'm aware from personal conversations with the other, that he feels the same way.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
goperryrevs
That's a bit picky! You might just as well criticise denominations that call themselves 'The Church of God/Christ/the Holy Spirit', etc, instead of 'A Church of...' since they have no exclusive right to whatever godly-sounding label they've given themselves.
The point is, things have changed. Once up on a time, latitude on sexual matters certainly wasn't what one associated with evangelicalism. Now, the term apparently encompasses a range of perspectives on all sorts of personal stuff. I don't know much about the EA, but it's hardly surprising that it's in a muddle, all things considered!
Maybe it's time to split the organisation (at least) two or ways, and have a 'Conservative Evangelical Alliance' and a 'Liberal' or 'Open Evangelical Alliance'. This might even attract a range of MOTR congregations that haven't seen themselves as evangelical thus far.
[ 04. May 2014, 20:09: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
yeah, it was a bit tongue in cheek. I don't really like it when Christian groups use those other types of names either though...
I understand what you're saying about it being possibly easier to have two organisations, a 'liberal' and a 'conservative' one, but that is also what makes me so sad. Sometimes division and separation has to happen, but it should be a last resort, and over things that are a huge deal. At most, the issue here is a medium-sized one. It is not a debate over some central truth of the Christian faith. It's essentially a difference in interpretation by people who approach the bible with the same worldview, but come out with different conclusions, like the issue of women in leadership or whatever else. They're all Evangelicals though.
We have a faith that unites us, and much, much more in common than the things we differ on, but when we refuse to stay in fellowship with each other we do Christ a disservice.
But then, that's how I feel about the Church as a whole. It makes me sad that Evangelicals are falling out of fellowship with each other. It makes me sadder that there is not enough fellowship between Christians of all flavours. We're really not a great advertisement for our Saviour a lot of the time. When I read the start 1 Corinthians, it makes me think that if St Paul was, here he'd kick our butts into next Saturday.
It's not like Oasis have even come out pro-gay, they just refuse to be anti-gay.
It's not even like there is a massive difference in Steve Chalke's view of sexual morality and the EA's. I'm sure in terms of fidelity, exclusivity, equality, non-promiscuity and all sorts of other things they'd be in full agreement. The difference only lies in who they each believe can be in that godly type of relationship. So it's a small part of one issue which itself is a small part of Christian belief. Just because it's a hot theological issue of the zeitgeist, does not make it important in the big scheme of Christian Beliefs. By making it something worth disfellowshipping over the EA have simply got it wrong, and set a crappy precedent. I mean, if the solution is to have two new EA's, one pro-gay and one anti-gay, then how long before we have four (one pro-gay / pro-women-in-leadership, one anti-gay / pro-WIL, one pro-gay / anti-WIL and one anti-gay / anti-WIL)? Then eight, then sixteen, and so on, as we find each new issue to fall out over. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I understand what you're saying about it being possibly easier to have two organisations, a 'liberal' and a 'conservative' one, but that is also what makes me so sad. Sometimes division and separation has to happen
That works if the y you define conservative and liberal are judged solely on your reaction to the same sax relationship debate. I don't fit into either a gay intolerant or a liberal organisation, and I don't thing I'm alone on this. Where would we go?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
yeah, it was a bit tongue in cheek. I don't really like it when Christian groups use those other types of names either though...
Such as "The Church of England" ...? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I mean, if the solution is to have two new EA's, one pro-gay and one anti-gay, then how long before we have four (one pro-gay / pro-women-in-leadership, one anti-gay / pro-WIL, one pro-gay / anti-WIL and one anti-gay / anti-WIL)? Then eight, then sixteen, and so on, as we find each new issue to fall out over.
Too late ... David Coffey wrote years ago about
the tribes of evangelicalism who won't talk to each other.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It's not even like there is a massive difference in Steve Chalke's view of sexual morality and the EA's. I'm sure in terms of fidelity, exclusivity, equality, non-promiscuity and all sorts of other things they'd be in full agreement. The difference only lies in who they each believe can be in that godly type of relationship. So it's a small part of one issue which itself is a small part of Christian belief. Just because it's a hot theological issue of the zeitgeist, does not make it important in the big scheme of Christian Beliefs. By making it something worth disfellowshipping over the EA have simply got it wrong, and set a crappy precedent. I mean, if the solution is to have two new EA's, one pro-gay and one anti-gay, then how long before we have four (one pro-gay / pro-women-in-leadership, one anti-gay / pro-WIL, one pro-gay / anti-WIL and one anti-gay / anti-WIL)? Then eight, then sixteen, and so on, as we find each new issue to fall out over.
Well, it's not a big deal to you, but it obviously is to some other folk! At least for now. The reasons are partly symbolic, I think.
I must say, I don't have a huge problem with the idea of Christian separation. Sometimes people get on better when they're no longer living in the same house. It doesn't mean they have to hate each other.
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I don't fit into either a gay intolerant or a liberal organisation, and I don't thing I'm alone on this. Where would we go?
The problem is that SSM has been promoted all along as something that liberally-minded, tolerant people would approve of, not as something that dovetails nicely with any sort of conservatism, whether Christian or not.
At present, the whole issue still comes across as though it's owned, ideologically, by non-religious people or by radical liberal Christians. Pro-SSM evangelicals seem to be in the process 'getting in on the act' rather than generating a serious theology about family diversity that bolsters their evangelicalism rather than qualifying it. Someone ought to write a book or a PhD thesis exploring diverse sexualities as a potential or actual facet of evangelicalism. (The EA's current muddle should surely be worth at least a paragraph or two.) I'd be interested in reading it!
Posted by Elephenor (# 4026) on
:
There has long been a conservative/separatist counterpart to the EA - the former British Evangelical Council, rebranded ten years ago as 'Affinity'.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I wish them well, but 'Affinity'? I wonder how much they had to pay a marketing agency to come up with that?
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
If the EA had based their decision on Chalke's comments on the atonement, they could have presented a fairly robust argument that he / Oasis could no longer be members because they'd stepped well away from the accepted thinking on crucicentrism.
I agree: Booting Chalke for holding 'unacceptable' atonement views would have made sense... the atonement could be regarded as the most important theological issue in Christianity as it is central to the Christian faith and the preaching of the gospel.
But booting him for his website being insufficiently anti-gay??? It's a bit of a lame-duck issue by comparison. I guess it simply shows that evangelicals are actually more obsessed with sexual taboos than they are with the gospel. Because we really really really need to make sure guys' dicks go in the right places, else God will be angry, or something. And we all know that we can't have the "wrong kind of people" getting married!
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by ExplanationMark:
No I don't but I can't find anywhere where he says that those who find SSR's hard to accept, are excluded from His grace.
1 John 4:20
"Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also."
Those that hate others can obviously repent and find God's grace. But they can hardly claim to be Christians or be rightly regarded as such while they are actively hating and persecuting others.
quote:
Originally posted by ExplanationMark:
Well Starlight seems to be doing the same from another POV in deciding who's Christian and who isn't.
It's not exactly that I'm trying to decide who's Christian, so much as trying to decide how to regard "Christianity" as a whole.
To explain (see also this thread):
The historical African slave trade was extremely harmful and oppressive to those it exploited, and I would thus personally call it "wrong" and "evil" and "immoral". If you were to convince me that "Christianity", as a whole and as an entity, endorsed and was responsible for that institution of slavery, then I would have to regard "Christianity" as morally responsible for the harm done to all those people and thus hold the view that "Christianity" was harmful/evil/wrong etc. Now it is clear that a lot of self-professed bible-believing Christians were historically involved in the slave-trade and that they saw no conflict between their own profession of Christianity and the atrocities they were committing. But we can look back at that and say, "well they were deceiving themselves, they were totally wrong about the basics of Christian love for others and how the basic Christian message was incompatible with the harm they were perpetrating on others, and so while they thought of themselves as Christians they were self-deceived and weren't really Christians." The alternative, it seems to me, is to blame Christianity as an entity for the evils of that time.
Thus, I challenge any Christian today to answer the three yes/no questions:
1. Was the slave trade evil?
2. Was it compatible with Christianity?
3. Were the people who participated in it, who thought of themselves as Christians, therefore really True Christians?
(Feel free to answer in the comparison of homosexuality with slavery thread if your answer is big/complex and going to derail this one)
It seems to me you wind up either having to admit that Christianity is evil or that those people weren't really true Christians.
In an exactly analogous way, today there is the issue of Christians who are anti-gay. Christians have brought great harm to a great number of gay people through ongoing persecution and a systematic attempt to deny gay people basic human rights. The world's biggest scientific organisations in the medical, psychological, and sociological fields have repeatedly testified to governments and courts that persecution of, and opposition of, gay people and gay rights brings significant harm to those people affected, up to and including massively increasing their suicide rate. These organisations have also testified repeatedly that extensive scientific research has shown no rational or reasonable basis for such opposition to gay people or their human rights, and that gay people are scientifically provably no different to straight people in every socially relevant way.
In a way exactly analogous to slavery then, we can see that opposition to gay people and their rights, and the persecution of those gay people, is significantly harmful and thus evil. We are then left in a dilemma: Is Christianity evil for promoting harm to gay people? Or are the Christians who are opposing gay people and their rights not really following Christianity? I used favour the second option, and took it for granted that Christianity was about loving others and that therefore anyone who was anti-gay wasn't really Christian... but upon learning the true number of Christians who are anti-gay I now tend toward the view that Christianity as an entity on the whole does indeed promote harm towards gay people and that therefore Christians and Christianity are evil.
[ 05. May 2014, 04:07: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
It seems to me you wind up either having to admit that Christianity is evil or that those people weren't really true Christians.
...
In a way exactly analogous to slavery then, we can see that opposition to gay people and their rights, and the persecution of those gay people, is significantly harmful and thus evil. We are then left in a dilemma: Is Christianity evil for promoting harm to gay people? Or are the Christians who are opposing gay people and their rights not really following Christianity?
There's a significant difference between "not following Christ very well (or at all)" and "not really a Christian". I have often been a very crappy Christian, but that doesn't mean I'm not one.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
balaam
My local congo is a member of the EA and Steve Chalke was the keynote speaker at the celebratory event we held when we moved to a bigger location for Sunday worship. I'd say the congo is typical in that it contains conevos and open evos co-existing pretty well most of the time over local mission as well as living with differences. Not everyone has as much time for Steve Chalke as I do. Given my own convictions, I figure it as part of my personal responsibility to be a voice for change from within. I'm by no means alone in that. I like a lot of the people I disagree with, find a lot of good in them which coexists with what seem to me to be blind spots. And they may well think the same about me. When has this not been a normal part of seeking to live in peace with others in so far as it is possible for us?
Of course there are limits. I will be speaking out about what I see as a big mistake by the EA, without knowing what the effect of that will be. That sort of thing is an ongoing challenge of peaceful co-existence.
On the related tangent. Personally, I think the moral issue which connects slavery and gay-bashing is demeaning other human beings. The difference is that slavery also incorporates the exploitation, (very often, in both ancient and modern times, this included/includes the sexual abuse) of other human beings, regarded as "owned property".
So I think one has to be careful about the moral comparison. I suspect that the Christians who condoned the status of slavery did not condone the mistreatment and abuse of slaves. The kinds of ancient protective paternalism we tend these days to see as morally reprehensible were not seen as a justification for ongoing cruelty, even if they were, in our terms, blind to the intrinsic cruelty of enslavement or other forms of imposed economic and social servitude. A comment more related to the other thread, of course, but we're at a cross-over point.
[ 05. May 2014, 07:06: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Starlight, you're basically arguing that the only True Christian is one who is perfect in all regards. Knows the mind of God perfectly, and is perfect in executing His will.
Whereas Christians are basically flawed folk seeking to follow Jesus as best they can. So we all screw up; we all do unloving things; we all have limited understanding and usually flawed implementation of even that.
Also, one can disagree with something without hating it ...
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'd say about 40% of all BUGB ministers have a clear view that SSM is a core issue - recognising that the biblical interpretation that might accommodate it will result in reviewing other areas of belief and practice that are much more uncomfortable.
Surely the problem with this is that you're basically extrapolating from what people have said to what they haven't said and may in fact strenuously deny.
And if we are going to proscribe models of Biblical interpretation because they might lead to heresy, we might as well not read the Bible at all.
That's very likely partly true but based on 9admittedly anecdotal experience and figures quoted a conference by others).
Er, I don't think I mentioned heresy.
I extrapolated it (sic) from your comment about "reviewing other areas of belief and practice that are much more uncomfortable". I thought you meant something on the lines of "If we can read Romans 1-2 in a non-intuitive way, couldn't we do the same to the resurrection passages and say they mean Christ was resurrected in the hearts of his disciples?" But I appreciate that either way you're reporting other people's opinions rather than necessarily setting forth your own.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Whereas Christians are basically flawed folk seeking to follow Jesus as best they can. So we all screw up; we all do unloving things; we all have limited understanding and usually flawed implementation of even that.
My interest here is in understanding and identifying what Christianity is. If someone is doing something that harms other people (eg supporting slavery, being anti-gay), are they doing it because of or in spite of their Christianity?
It's one thing to say that the people actively harming others simply aren't living up to the ideals of Christianity. That's entirely understandable: Everyone's human and nobody's perfect. It's quite another thing to say that actively harming others is an essential part and parcel of Christianity - that would portray Christianity itself as the cause of the harm, rather the person's fallen human nature as the cause of the harm. And that seems to me what the E.A. is doing here: Far from condemning anti-gay positions as unloving, harmful, and unchristian and considering them as positions that it is understandable that some older people in our society still hold through indoctrination in their youth but which urgently need changing in the light of the bible's teachings of love... The E.A. has instead said that being anti-gay is a core tenet of Christianity and has thrown someone out for having a website that says too many nice and supportive things to gay people.
quote:
Also, one can disagree with something without hating it...
If someone privately in their own mind doesn't approve of gay activity and chooses therefore not perform any gay activity themselves, that is totally fine with me. If you don't think gay marriage should be a thing, then don't get gay married.
However, a very large number of the people who "disagree" with gay sex or gay marriage seem to feel the need to express that view, and particularly to express it strongly in the direction of gay people in the form of clearly conveyed disapproval and condemnation, and express it in the public forums in the form of campaigns to reduce the human rights of gay people and support active discrimination against them within businesses and in legislation concerning marriage. Unfortunately, human psychology is such that if many people make negative comments towards a particular person regularly, that person can become depressed, stressed, anxious, and feel unloved. Such stigmatized people will often feel ostracised and may use alcohol or drugs to compensate, or commit suicide as a result. The negative health consequences for stigmatized groups are typically severe overall. Thus the effect of large numbers of Christians "disagreeing" with gay activities and expressing that view, is that a substantial amount of harm is done to gay people up to and including causing the deaths of a large number of them through suicide. (eg see the Royal College of Psychiatrist's 2012 submission to the UK government on the subject, or the American Anthropological Association's 2013 submission to the US Supreme Court)
Unfortunately a lot of Christians are unfamiliar with this and don't understand how gay people are getting harmed by them "simply disagreeing with the gay lifestyle". I don't particularly mind whether someone thinks the Earth is 6000 years old, as it typically harms no one either way. But unfortunately when you start stigmatizing minorities and teaching prejudice and discrimination toward them, and when the upshot of this ends up being campaigns to deny people human rights, and the circulation of malicious lies about that group ("they molest children" / "they raise children badly" etc), and thousands of the stigmatized group end up committing suicide who otherwise wouldn't have... then you have strayed well out of the territory of simple disagreement and into the territory of pretty actively and seriously harming others.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, it's not a big deal to you, but it obviously is to some other folk! At least for now. The reasons are partly symbolic, I think.
Yes, I think it is symbolic, and that's bad. It's used as a symbol of the liberal/conservative divide, and I think the pastoral implications of it becoming a symbol to highlight the divide is tragic.
The thing is, it is also a big deal to me. But it's a big deal because of the social and pastoral issues that surround it. It's not a big deal because of the theological differences that lead to differing conclusions. So breaking out of fellowship with each other over it is simply wrong. As others have said, if they'd picked the atonement that would have been more of an actual decent reason to kick Oasis out (though I still think they'd have been wrong).
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I must say, I don't have a huge problem with the idea of Christian separation. Sometimes people get on better when they're no longer living in the same house. It doesn't mean they have to hate each other.
That's true, but that's not how I interpret what has happened. There are all sorts of Christian groups with different traditions, and we have much to learn from each other. But we're all part of the same family. What the EA has done is the equivalent kick a family member out of the house, or refuse to invite a brother or sister to a family gathering. Catholics and Orthodox might be cousins to the EA, but Oasis are siblings - the differences are far too small to refuse to fellowship over.
Of course there is a time to kick a brother or sister out of your house, but you have to have a very good reason for it, and should be a last resort. To outsiders, if they don't see a good reason why someone has done that, then that person just looks like an asshole. Jesus said the world would know his disciples by the way they love each other. That's not what I see in the EA's actions.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
It seems to me you wind up either having to admit that Christianity is evil or that those people weren't really true Christians.
If we're going that way, there's only really ever been one True Christian.
Otherwise, we run the risk of saying, I thank you God that I am not as those people who supported the slave trade. I have signed an online petition against deportation; I buy my coffee from the church Fair Trade coffee stall; I marched against the War in Iraq.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It's used as a symbol of the liberal/conservative divide, and I think the pastoral implications of it becoming a symbol to highlight the divide is tragic.
[..]
The thing is, it is also a big deal to me. But it's a big deal because of the social and pastoral issues that surround it. It's not a big deal because of the theological differences that lead to differing conclusions.
As I said in my previous post, this issue has already been 'owned' by more liberal forces in society, so it would be difficult for it to have avoided becoming a symbol of the 'liberal/conservative divide'.
There are pastoral implications, but these aren't new; most churches have members whose sex lives aren't lived strictly in accordance with church 'rules', and church leaders must routinely have to work out what to do about that, if anything. I suspect that many churchgoers (including those whose churches are still in the EA) take their own counsel regarding sexual morality, regardless of church teachings. This may be because, in the words of one scholar, 'the self, rather than religious authority structures' now guides Christians' 'journeys of spirituality and sexuality.'
Isn't there an element of evangelicalism that's always been more about personal spirituality rather than doctrinal purity and/or rule-keeping? I don't know to what extent the EA is in the tradition of the former rather than the latter.
quote:
Jesus said the world would know his disciples by the way they love each other. That's not what I see in the EA's actions.
Well, you could just hope that the world remains entirely ignorant of what the EA says and does! But as I implied, Open Evangelicals might benefit from this situation by being freed up to create new ecumenical partnerships. Maybe Steve Chalke is working on something at this very moment!
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Who'd have thunk it.
With a bit of a media storm I can't find* a mention of this on the EA website. The Oasis site it is the first item under Latest news.
(* Silly me, I was looking in the wrong place. I was looking under News, it is under Current Affairs/Media/Press releases. Not the most obvious place. But for an organisation that prides itself on reprting evangelicals in the media it could be more prominent when the news is about them.)
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As I said in my previous post, this issue has already been 'owned' by more liberal forces in society, so it would be difficult for it to have avoided becoming a symbol of the 'liberal/conservative divide'.
But for those who are theologically conservative for the most part it leaves us in limbo, not part of the liberal half and not in the gay-rejecting half either.
At least I'm Anglican, just about anything is acceptable somewhere in Anglicanism.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Out of interest, are there individual Anglican churches in the EA?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Out of interest, are there individual Anglican churches in the EA?
Yes. My current shack is one. As is my old shack.
Find a member church
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Out of interest, are there individual Anglican churches in the EA?
Yes. If you search for a local postcode on the EA's website to bring up all churches in an area, then list by all and search for the word "England". Looking around central London for example, we get:
- All Souls, Langham Place
- All Saints Islington
- HTB (of course!)
- St Stephen's Canonbury
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
That's interesting; it seems to be very much down to individual congregations - and their leaders. ISTM, then, that open evangelicals and their churches and leaders need to wrangle themselves into positions of power and influence in sufficient numbers so that para-church organisations no longer presume that a more conservative position is dominant.
As someone who's a bit of an outsider yet has some affinities with evangelicalism, I'd say that that open evangelicals need to avoid complaining about other evangelicals making them look bad. This sort of carry-on always strikes me as weak in the mainstream churches, and it's no more impressive in evangelicalism. Complaining about other people's churches changes nothing; what you need to do is work to ensure your own status in these big institutions and in public consciousness. The EA is presumably like all other institutions on earth (not least churches), in that it understands power.
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
open evangelicals need to avoid complaining about other evangelicals making them look bad. This sort of carry-on always strikes me as weak in the mainstream churches, and it's no more impressive in evangelicalism. Complaining about other people's churches changes nothing; what you need to do is work to ensure your own status in these big institutions and in public consciousness.
Isn't that a bit self-contradictory? The way to "ensure your own status" is to stand in contradistinction to the more conservative views. That inherently entails a critique of that which you oppose. It's not necessarily that one whinges, but rather to say "I am happy to worship alongside this person/group/etc but with regards to issue X I disagree with them."
quote:
The EA is presumably like all other institutions on earth (not least churches), in that it understands power.
Herein lies the problem. As soon we use a rhetoric of power we all too easily lose sight of the rhetoric of service. This is a true for churches as it is of politicians or businesses.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
The way to "ensure your own status" is to stand in contradistinction to the more conservative views. That inherently entails a critique of that which you oppose. It's not necessarily that one whinges, but rather to say "I am happy to worship alongside this person/group/etc but with regards to issue X I disagree with them."
I hope the EA isn't forbidding anyone from joining the Oasis Church in ecumenical worship! The problem is one of how you represent each other in a more formal ecumenical way. For some churches formal ecumenical ventures must be like walking on eggshells; you have to watch what you say so you don't embarrass the rest. Or else you say whatever you like, and then the others get cross and embarrassed because they feel your strong words taint them in some way.
quote:
As soon we use a rhetoric of power we all too easily lose sight of the rhetoric of service. This is a true for churches as it is of politicians or businesses.
Yes, but even when we use the rhetoric of service we still buy into the reality of power. Maybe it's cynical of me to say so, but I don't think that any institutional church, no matter how kind and caring its ministry is, avoids power games within its environment, if only in a subconscious way.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
Didn't know where to post this, and I can only comment on what I've seen on Twitter as I'm not there in person, but it sounds like the Baptist Assembly has voted to allow churches to hold same-sex marriages in their premises (if the church wishes to) and to allow ministers to officiate at these ceremonies (which, as I understood it is the new bit, though I may be wrong).
Which would suggest (to me) that Steve Chalke is unlikely to be censured by the BUGB for his actions, though again I may be wrong on that.
Strikes me as a significant and probably inevitable move (though I'm sure not everyone will agree with that!).
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
1. Which would suggest (to me) that Steve Chalke is unlikely to be censured by the BUGB for his actions, though again I may be wrong on that.
2. Strikes me as a significant and probably inevitable move (though I'm sure not everyone will agree with that!).
1. There was a lot of bluster that Steve Chalke would be spoken to - he hasn't been AFAIK even though he'd acted outside the agreed "rules" for accredited ministers.
2. Possibly inevitable but also likely to cause a real fracture in the denomination as there's a substantial majority against it (estimates vary but it seems to be around 2/3rds against and 1/3 in favour).
Of course Baptist churches are not compelled to take any notice of the Conference or of Council - in fact, they can make their own rules provided hey don't baptise infants. Now there's a thought .....
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Didn't know where to post this, and I can only comment on what I've seen on Twitter as I'm not there in person, but it sounds like the Baptist Assembly has voted to allow churches to hold same-sex marriages in their premises (if the church wishes to) and to allow ministers to officiate at these ceremonies (which, as I understood it is the new bit, though I may be wrong).
You're right. The holding of such ceremonies has always been down to the local churches as they are independent, but BU Accredited Ministers have not been allowed to host them. I should be delighted if your understanding is the correct one.
Do you have a link I could check this on? I don't seem to be able to find it on the official Twitter feed.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
Baptist Trainfan: no, sadly I don't have a link and nothing was mentioned on the official Twitter feed; it was mentioned on the feeds of people who were there. According to them, an official announcement will be made on BUGB's website on Monday.
EM: re your point 2, I don't if this was voted on or whether it was announced from "on high" - do you (genuine question!)? If the former, given the numbers you cite, which wouldn't entirely surprise me, wondering how this got through Assembly?
And you're right: there's nothing compelling churches and ministers to take any notice of this at all; I wonder if that might be the thing that stops a split?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
EM: re your point 2, I don't if this was voted on or whether it was announced from "on high" - do you (genuine question!)? If the former, given the numbers you cite, which wouldn't entirely surprise me, wondering how this got through Assembly?
AFAIK there's been no vote - the numbers are a combination of anecdotal evidence, personal knowledge of several regions and a little extrapolation.
I know of several churches who will leave BUGB if it decides to endorse this and a few ministers who will tear up their accreditations.
Anyone for infant baptism?
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
Sorry, I meant whether yesterday's decision was by vote or not, not the numbers in opposition to it.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
I'm not a Baptist but I've just read this blog post from a Baptist minister. A snippet:
quote:
Reports suggest that... decisions concerning the recognition of same sex relationships will [now] be made by the local church, and ministers will be responsible to their church meeting, not to the national denomination. This decision is a surprise to me, because I thought it would be politically impossible, or nearly so, to reach; it is also very obviously right. The way (British) Baptist life works (the SBC is rather different) is that decisions like this properly belong to the church meeting; that is an obvious deduction from our ecclesiology.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
Here's the official statement from BUGB, the key phrase being this:
quote:
Upholding the liberty of a local church to determine its own mind on this matter, in accordance with our Declaration of Principle, we also recognise the freedom of a minister to respond to the wishes of their church, where their conscience permits, without breach of disciplinary guidelines.
In other words, if a Baptist church decides to agree to hold a same-sex wedding, the minister can now "respond" (presumably officiate/celebrate?) without fear of breaching the guidelines - which was, in theory, the risk before.
I'd read Steve Holmes' post that SCK linked to as well. I think it's a good one and makes the point that this brings the policy more fully into line with Baptist principles: ultimately, it's for the local church to think, pray and decide about these issues. The fact that ministers are now officially free* to be part of that church's decision, if it is in favour of allowing SSM within their church, I think brings the policy fully in line with this principle: the minister, who is ultimately part of the local church in Baptist ecclesiology, is now able to be part of his/her church's decision, rather than having to absent themselves from it. To me, at least, it's a wise, sensible and, ultimately, Baptist decision.
* Regardless of whether or not this happened in practice to particular individuals
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
IME, most evangelical churches either have a congregational form of government similar to the Baptist churches, or are within denominations that include non-evangelical churches (and, it's not unusual for evangelical churches in such denominations to often pay lip service to the denominational structure, but otherwise act like Congregationalists). Evangelicals, by and large, would consider liberty for local congregations the ideal - although recognising that historic accident puts some of them within denomonations that do not provide for that as much as they'd wish.
Which puts the position of the Evangelical Alliance in drawing a line the way they have somewhat at odds with the ecclesiology of many evangelicals - regardless of their views on the particular line being drawn.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
Yes, that's a good point Alan, and I hadn't meant to suggest that it was only Baptist churches that had this polity; just that, IMHO, this brings the policy more in line with what Baptists (and the other evangelical groups you mention) profess about their ecclesiology. (Should know better, I'm minister of a Baptist/Congregational Local Ecumenical Project!)
And yes, the EA's decision on Oasis does seem to be a denial of that to any evangelical church that is a member: "you can reach any view on things you want, as long as we don't disagree with it". Which is even worse when Oasis claim (and the EA doesn't dispute this) that they had "no corporate view on this matter": so it's not even that Oasis didn't "think right", it's that they didn't express what they didn't think in the right way (I think...)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Is it just me ... but do other people think that the BUGB statement is more than a trifle ambiguous?
When I was at school, I remember being told that it was a good idea to "show your working" in maths problems, as well as the final result. I think it would have been useful to know how BUGB arrived at this.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Baptist Trainfan quote:
Is it just me ... but do other people think that the BUGB statement is more than a trifle ambiguous?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
When I first read it I thought it had come from either Lambeth or the Press Office in Church House.
Actually, of its type its quite masterly: it leaves it up to individual churches who can then blame individual ministers who can, in turn, claim the advice from BUGB was unclear - so NO-ONE upsets anybody.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Is it just me ... but do other people think that the BUGB statement is more than a trifle ambiguous?
When I was at school, I remember being told that it was a good idea to "show your working" in maths problems, as well as the final result. I think it would have been useful to know how BUGB arrived at this.
As an outsider (ie: non-Baptist) I thought the working was shown quite well in the linked summaries from Council meetings. Fairly typical of denominational working groups - incourage a "conversation" by producing a paper outlining the issue and the major views on it, elicit responses to the document/specific questions from churches, compile and summarise responses, report to an assembly/council/synod and produce a follow-up document for churches, repeat ... The recent statement is quite clearly a point along that process rather than the end. Which is probably why it seems ambiguous.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes, I think it clearly says that it is a waymark rather than a destination.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, I think it clearly says that it is a waymark rather than a destination.
But where is the dialogue we were promised?
It looks rather like the churches can now determine the accreditation rules as well as being the monkeys to blame when all the peanuts fall off the trees.
Interesting too that a very mild comment (by my standards) questioning the process has been removed from the BUGB website
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
When I first read it I thought it had come from either Lambeth or the Press Office in Church House.
Actually, of its type its quite masterly: it leaves it up to individual churches who can then blame individual ministers who can, in turn, claim the advice from BUGB was unclear - so NO-ONE upsets anybody.
That's a feature, not a bug, or at least the "leaving it up to individual churches" bit is. That's how it's supposed to be and, in terms of whether a same-sex wedding can take place in a church, how it has been: that's how Baptists (and Congregationalists and others with this type of governance) are supposed to work. The problem some have seen is that this didn't apply to the ministers of those churches (assuming they were in agreement with the church's decision): they couldn't officiate or take part in the ceremony for fear of losing their accreditation as a minister, now they can.
As for the wooliness of the statement... yeah, I was slightly surprised it wasn't worded a bit more directly. But then I'm not long out of college and that language gets used quite a lot in that environment (and not just by Baptists, I hasten to add), so I guess I should be used to it!
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
But where is the dialogue we were promised?
It looks rather like the churches can now determine the accreditation rules as well as being the monkeys to blame when all the peanuts fall off the trees.
Not sure I fully get that last bit about churches setting the accreditation rules, but isn't this decision just making the rules a bit more how these things should happen? Aren't churches the places who are supposed to be making the decisions about whether they should hold any ceremony of any sort? And why shouldn't ministers, who are in one sense members of their churches the same (almost) as any other, be part of that - why should they have to "stand aside" from the decision of their church if they agree with it?
No minister is going to be forced to conduct a same sex wedding against their conscience - it's just that if they do, they won't face disciplinary action as they (in theory) could've done before. This isn't, from what can see, BUGB endorsing SSM (though I've a feeling that's a debate that's going to happen from here), it's just saying if a church feels it's being led to hold a SSM, the minister can officiate at it. I don't understand the problem.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
In terms of the dialogue, some churches may be reluctant or unable to have that conversation. I suspect that in the vast majority of cases if the question is raised at the Church Meeting the reaction will be "we're not expecting anyone to come to us asking for a SSM, no point discussing it". At least until a couple come up and ask to have a SSM there. Or, they'd follow an example from a previous church of mine where the decision to allow blessings of civil partnerships was passed with practically no discussion because "it'll never happen".
On a related subject a previous church had a major falling out over homosexuality, in the specific situation of calling a minister. We tried to provide multiple opportunities for the church to discuss the subject, in formal meetings, over coffee after services or lunch club, one to one chats with those known to be in favour. At the end of the day, with one or two exceptions, members didn't take the opportunity to talk and simply turned up at the meeting to vote against.
With that sort of attitude, there is no way to have the discussion. When only one side speaks up at church meetings, when one side only turns up at meetings to cast their vote, you don't have a discussion. Until the vote was in most of us in favour were unaware of the depth of feeling and opposition.
How do you manage to engage the whole church in a discussion? How do you avoid the situation where the conversation is conducted by the minority of members who attend the Church Meeting? How do you engage the rest of the congregation who don't attend church meetings?
It might be that evangelical churches, with an expectation of attendance at midweek study groups, may be better placed for such conversations to happen than churches where people don't gather other than on Sunday morning.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In terms of the dialogue, some churches may be reluctant or unable to have that conversation. ...
How do you manage to engage the whole church in a discussion?
In my experience, the problem is that there is a swathe of people in local churches and across denominations, who simply don't believe that conversation is possible. Sin is sin, they say, so what is there to discuss? Those who want dialogue are asking them to sit through a bunch of sophistries, trying to justify the unjustifiable.
This is what those on the more middle-of-the-road-to-liberal end of things find so hard to understand. They believe in dialogue; they don't want to shove anyone out; therefore they are trying very hard to find a way to keep everyone on side. It feels to them that they are bending over backwards to keep the lines of dialogue open, making all sorts of concessions to the point that they are actually violating their own inclusive conscience. And they cannot see why the very conservative can't at least try and reciprocate some of this, just meet them half way (or not even half way), and allow space in turn for the 'liberal' conscience to operate freely.
However, the very conservative simply cannot make room for another point of view on this matter. You cannot make room for sin, period. Live and let live is not an option for them.
I have been learning the hard way that you cannot dialogue with people who believe that dialogue is impossible.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
[QUOTE] This isn't, from what can see, BUGB endorsing SSM (though I've a feeling that's a debate that's going to happen from here), it's just saying if a church feels it's being led to hold a SSM, the minister can officiate at it. I don't understand the problem.
It's creating the space where BUGB will soon endorse SSM on the basis that they can't do much about it so far as the churches and ministers are concerned. And yes, I agree with you on that.
Despite promises there's been no discussions at any level and no theological reflection on the rights and wrongs of SSB's and SSM's, whatever our ecclesiology allows the churches to do.
It's that point I find the most frustrating as well as the usual BUGB language that would make fudge and jelly look solid. It's a pity that, after saying they'd do nothing, Ministry Dept suddenly has a change of tack: one wonders just what or who we can trust.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
[QUOTE]I have been learning the hard way that you cannot dialogue with people who believe that dialogue is impossible.
I agree but it works both ways. A conservative will never shift a liberal 9esp a Quaker!) who has made up their mind first.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
[QUOTE]I have been learning the hard way that you cannot dialogue with people who believe that dialogue is impossible.
I agree but it works both ways. A conservative will never shift a liberal 9esp a Quaker!) who has made up their mind first.
I'm not talking about shifting someone's opinion. I'm talking about making room for it. Allowing it a space to operate. Not legislating against it.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Despite promises there's been no discussions at any level and no theological reflection on the rights and wrongs of SSB's and SSM's, whatever our ecclesiology allows the churches to do.
It's that point I find the most frustrating as well as the usual BUGB language that would make fudge and jelly look solid. It's a pity that, after saying they'd do nothing, Ministry Dept suddenly has a change of tack: one wonders just what or who we can trust.
I agree that there has not been sufficient discussion, publicly at least - there has been a fear that putting it on the Assembly agenda will generate much more hear than light and merely entrench existing polarisations.
However I'm pretty sure this didn't come from Ministry Dept.; I know that some kind of announcement was being formulated by the Steering Group when it met a few weeks ago, on request of the previous Council. Note that the announcement came from Faith & Society rather than Ministry - I think it is they who have been making the running on this issue.
I have no idea how much F&S have discussed the issue ... I do know that the URC (as an example from another denomination) has had a "Sexuality Task Group" running for several years.
[ 13. May 2014, 08:53: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
I would point out as well that there was discussion at last year's Assembly about this, though this was couched more in terms of responding pastorally as churches to this issue rather than the theological rights and wrongs of SSM. It seemed (to me at least) that this was a useful and constructive discussion and far from divisive and the consensus seemed to be that more discussion was needed and welcome.
That said, this conversation has hardly been upfront - it seems to be limited to an email address which could exclude a lot of people (though the same could be said about other consultations recently, such as the Futures consultation which was done entirely online - but that's perhaps a bit of a tangent). Part of that might be because there's the wider changes going on in the Union which might make it difficult to have a focussed conversation on something as controversial as this - but it still could've been made more prominent?
Also, I'd agree with Alan's point here: most churches will probably only discuss this when it becomes "real" for them, when they're actually faced with having to decide, say, whether or not to permit SSM in their church. Until then, it all becomes a bit abstract and theoretical and, if my church is anything to go by, abstract and theoretical stuff doesn't make for engagement by most church members (probably rightly so, as well).
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
The BU has encouraged churches to have the discussion, and has enabled that to take place by putting together a set of materials on sexuality and training facilitators to deliver it.
Saying that the discussion needs to happen in local churches is a consistent and congregationalist approach.
The odd bit of the BU's stance up to now has been including a rule about sexuality in the accreditation rules. It's the only rule like it. There's no equivalent rule requiring ministers not to be, say, racist or sexist. There are no doctrinal requirements about, say, whether women may be in leadership. There are general statements about 'conduct unbecoming' being grounds for disciplinary action, and then there is this one issue of sexuality given special treatment.
I'm pretty sure the BU won't be endorsing same sex marriage. Why would they? How could they? What would it mean if they did?
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The BU has encouraged churches to have the discussion, and has enabled that to take place by putting together a set of materials on sexuality and training facilitators to deliver it.
Actually, now you mention that... that material was being developed and came out when I was at college - we actually went through it together and it was helpful: not taking one side or the other of the argument, but outlining the different arguments on both sides. It was good, though I don't remember it being widely publicised since (though that may be my sleep-deprived brain not noticing it...).
quote:
I'm pretty sure the BU won't be endorsing same sex marriage. Why would they? How could they? What would it mean if they did?
I'd agree with that and the statement that was issued yesterday seemed to make it fairly clear that nothing was changing any time soon in that regard.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Which - to my mind - seems to leave Ministers who do believe in SSM in a strange situation. They can (it seems) perform it, without fear of disaccreditation but they will do so knowing that the BU's is frowning upon them with disapproval!
Again, why did BUGB have to strongly endorse "traditional" marriage? Was that less a statement of "position" and more of a sop to calm the masses who would be worried that it was going "soft" and might leave? They need not have said anything, and just declared that it is an individual matter of conscience. As I say, the whole thing appears very equivocal.
[ 13. May 2014, 10:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
Yes, there's a sense of "We recognise you have the right to do this, but we'd really rather you didn't".
Mind you, someone from Oasis tweeted on Saturday, after the announcement at Assembly, that this had happened and speculated, I think tongue-in-cheekily, whether BUGB might be the next to be kicked out of the EA. I'm (genuinely) sure that wouldn't happen, but couldn't help but wonder if the statement was written with one eye on consequences such as that?
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Yes, there's a sense of "We recognise you have the right to do this, but we'd really rather you didn't".
Mind you, someone from Oasis tweeted on Saturday, after the announcement at Assembly, that this had happened and speculated, I think tongue-in-cheekily, whether BUGB might be the next to be kicked out of the EA. I'm (genuinely) sure that wouldn't happen, but couldn't help but wonder if the statement was written with one eye on consequences such as that?
It seems so to me. EA's beef with Oasis didn't so much even seem to be Chalkie's position but that the materials on their website agitated for the revisionist view without presenting the traditional view (for which, of course, the EA has made a big deal about going into bat for.) The BU have cleverly allowed for congregational change of position whilst still asserting the traditional view.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Again, why did BUGB have to strongly endorse "traditional" marriage?
Yes. I wasn't there, but I'm told there was a statement put up on a screen along the lines that we 'affirm' that most Baptist churches continue to believe that marriage must be between a man and a woman.
The word affirm is really weird. You can affirm traditional marriage, but that most churches believe it is either true or not true. You can't affirm a fact. It either is or it isn't, and you can merely note or acknowledge it.
The word means nothing in that sentence, but putting it in close proximity to 'traditional marriage' might give the impression of a commitment that traditionalists would be happy about.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Yes, there's a sense of "We recognise you have the right to do this, but we'd really rather you didn't".
I'm not a Baptist or a congregationalist, but within the Baptist polity AIUI from what people have posted here, that seems a perfectly reasonable position. In fact, by identifying the right of the local Church to decide its position on SSM as more important than the substantive issue of whether SSM is right or not, it is, surely, saying, however reluctantly, that support for SSM is within the range of positions that a Christian might legitimately take. (By way of a hypothetical contrast, presumably we can't imagine BUGB saying that local churches had a right to decide whether or not to celebrate polygamous marrages.)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Logically, I think that is exactly the position that the Union would have to take, provided that those agitating for it could at least make some Biblical case in favour and, as you say, were within the broad stream of Christian doctrinal acceptability. After all, SSM was a complete "no-no" until very fecently!
You must remember that, coming from a tradition of "Old Dissent", the BUGB has no formal Statement of Faith - unlike the EA (and, indeed, many of its own member churches). All it has is the "Declaration of Principle":
1. That our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws.
2. That Christian Baptism is the immersion in water into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, of those who have professed repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ who 'died for our sins according to the Scriptures; was buried, and rose again the third day'.
3. That it is the duty of every disciple to bear personal witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to take part in the evangelisation of the world.
So, in matters such as morality, you - not individually, but in a covenanted partnership with other churches - are having to decide whether your interpretation is "Spirit-led" or not.
[ 13. May 2014, 12:40: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The word means nothing in that sentence, but putting it in close proximity to 'traditional marriage' might give the impression of a commitment that traditionalists would be happy about.
Yes, that's what it sounds like from where I'm standing. Strangely enough, this question came forcibly to mind on Saturday afternoon (before the "news" broke) as I was taking a wedding and using the BUGB "Gathering for Worship" book of prayers, which says:
"God has made us in his own image, male and female, and marriage is his gift, a holy mystery in which man and woman become one flesh ...
"Marriage is founded in God’s loving nature,and in his covenant of love with us in Christ. Husband and wife, in giving themselves to each other in love, reflect the love of Christ for his Church.
"Marriage is given so that husband and wife may comfort and help each other ...".
Presumably there would be a lot of editing needed for SSM although I'm sure it has already been done in other places!
Someone after the service congratulated me for so strongly "affirming the traditional view of marriage" and I must say that I felt a bit of a fraud as that wasn't my specific intention at all.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
So, in matters such as morality, you - not individually, but in a covenanted partnership with other churches - are having to decide whether your interpretation is "Spirit-led" or not.
The big questions are
- why no wider consultation?
- what is the council afraid of?
- what provision is there for those churches, who in all conscience - and after having studied the scriptures - believe SSB's and SSm's so wromng that they cannot, in such conscience continue to associate with churches who take the opposite view?
- what happens if a minister is considering a move to another church but finds that he/she and the church are on opposite sides of the debate?
= what happens to those who are denied a post for reasons of genuine conviction
I think I can see a split looming on the horizon made worse by BUGB's fudge - affirming the view of marriage as between a man and a woman gives "traditionalists" no sop nor hope whatsoever: BUGB's perspective has changed once, it will do so again - soon.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The big questions are
- why no wider consultation?
- what is the council afraid of?
- what provision is there for those churches, who in all conscience - and after having studied the scriptures - believe SSB's and SSm's so wromng that they cannot, in such conscience continue to associate with churches who take the opposite view?
- what happens if a minister is considering a move to another church but finds that he/she and the church are on opposite sides of the debate?
= what happens to those who are denied a post for reasons of genuine conviction
My answers (for what they're worth):
1) I'm not sure it's true to say there's been no consultation. There have been ongoing conversations, beginning (at least) at last year's Assembly which, I presume, have influenced the statement that came out yesterday.
2) Presumably, Council are afraid of the massive turmoil that's hit some of the other denominations that have been (trying to) address this issue. YMMV as to whether this manages it or not. Remember they've got to try and balance the views you mention with those who are at the opposite end of the spectrum and those, like I'd guess the majority of churches, who are somewhere in between.
3) Don't know, because I'm not sure BUGB's at that stage in its thinking about this issue. Personally (as someone who's still trying to work this issue out for myself), I'd be very sad if that happened, if that became the point of departure. I'd point back to what Baptist Trainfan said about covenantal relationship, which is surely at the heart of Baptist life: the ideal is surely that even when we disagree hugely on something like this, we try and work at it together without necessarily seeking to change each other's minds and without talk of splits or walk-outs. Much easier said than done, I understand, but that's I think what we sign up for as Baptist (/Congregational/similar) churches.
4) Again, that'd be something for the church and the minister to work out together (perhaps with the help of regional ministers etc.). I'd guess if they really couldn't bridge the gap then the move wouldn't happen - again, I think that'd be very sad.
5) What do you mean by this? I'd imagine, given the current state, that'd be more likely to be a minister who's strongly pro-SSM and SSB than someone who's anti.
As for talk of "fudge" - it's not the best-made and communicated decision but, as I said above, to me this is much more in line with the Baptist Declaration Of Principle and with the Baptist way of making these decisions than BUGB simply pronouncing "this is the way it should be" (which has hardly failed to prevent splits in other denominations). It's messy, yes: but I think it's better that we try and work this out together than someone comes down one way or the other and tells us what to do. Isn't that what we believe the Spirit will lead us into if we seek him/her about it?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
The Baptist Ministers' Fellowship (BMF) has held at least two consultations in different parts of the country at the request of the BU. I went to a London one last June at Bloomsbury Baptist Church. There were probably 70 or 80 people there, and a careful discussion was facilitated. I believe there's another one next month.
I'm not sure what provision you can make for people who don't want to have anything to do with each other. That's a pretty terminal attitude.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
- what happens if a minister is considering a move to another church but finds that he/she and the church are on opposite sides of the debate?
= what happens to those who are denied a post for reasons of genuine conviction
Are Baptists calling churches? I suspect they are, in which case ...
A church issues a call for a new minister. That call includes a detailed description of the church. If that church has made a definite decision to either allow SSMs or not that would be part of the church profile. A minister with strong views on the subject can then make a decision as to whether they feel called to a church with a different opinion. If the church hasn't made a definite decision (which, for the foreseeable future is likely to be the vast majority of churches) then if the minister is asked to visit the church then his or her views can be made known, and the church can decide whether or not they want to call someone with strong views on a subject of potential contention they have not had a conversation about.
Either way, a statement from BUGB that churches and ministers are free to make their own decisions means that things can be in the open and no one needs to call or feel called in a way that could result in serious problems in the church over differences of opinion.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The Baptist Ministers' Fellowship (BMF) has held at least two consultations in different parts of the country at the request of the BU. I went to a London one last June at Bloomsbury Baptist Church. There were probably 70 or 80 people there, and a careful discussion was facilitated.
Yes, I was there.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A church issues a call for a new minister. That call includes a detailed description of the church. If that church has made a definite decision to either allow SSMs or not that would be part of the church profile.
Just like CofE churches who say if they have passed Resolutions 1,2 or 3 regarding women's ministry. I can't see the problem, unless churches aren't "up-front" about where they stand.
The alternative is that the issue comes when a potential minister comes "with a view" (although it would be better to know earlier, to prevent time-wasting and disappointment). I remember the church I now serve quizzing me on that occasion about remarrying divorcees, which had ben a contentious issue under my predecessor.
[ 13. May 2014, 16:49: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
Yes, there'd be plenty of time for this to be discussed within the calling process. And if churches (or ministers) felt strongly one way or the other about this, presumably they'd make that clear from the outset.
And surely, if this was the only sticking point between church and potential minister, they could find ways to try and address it somehow? A dispute on this doesn't have to be a deal-breaker.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Agreed. It's worth reminding oneself that the URC does now allow ministers and churches to do SSBs and CPs (SSMs must surely follow). Some ministers and churches are in favour and some are not. Clearly this issue is already having to be addressed in their calling process, though I don't know how.
[ 13. May 2014, 17:00: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Yes, there are plenty of opportunities to identify what might be a problem prior to someone preaching with a view. I only know a bit about the process in the URC, so apologies if there are differences with a Baptist church.
First, of course, there's the church profile which would let a potential minister get a first feel for the church. That should include enough to identify what might be problem areas (which could be choice of hymns, relationships with other local churches etc as well as SSM) and potential ministers who know that's not going to work don't apply.
In the URC, the applications go through the Synod Moderators. A bit of discussion between the moderator for the candidates current charge and the calling church is a second chance to avert a disaster. I guess that's the step most likely to be different in Baptist churches.
The candidates' CV is passed to the vacancy committee for consideration. They may send back a set of written questions, or arrange an initial conversation by phone/Skype. Which is a third chance to avert disaster.
Then there's a formal interview with the vacancy committee, along with a series of "meet and greet" events in the church - coffee mornings, visits to organisations using the hall, a meeting with Elders. By the end of that process major areas of disagreement should be well known, and if those are going to be problems then that's the end of the process.
Finally, there's a "preach with a view" followed by vote of the church members. By the time things reach that point the appointment would be a formality, though in theory a vote against is possible.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Agreed. It's worth reminding oneself that the URC does now allow ministers and churches to do SSBs and CPs (SSMs must surely follow). Some ministers and churches are in favour and some are not. Clearly this issue is already having to be addressed in their calling process, though I don't know how.
We went through a vacancy recently. I thought that the approval for blessing civil partnerships which had been accepted by Church Meeting a couple of years before the old minister retired had been mentioned in the profile, but I've just skimmed through it and it isn't there. Our first candidate, however, certainly knew of it - it was one of the reasons why he (as a gay man in a committed partnership) felt he was called to us. Not that it meant much when it came to the final vote, despite adding an unusual extra step in the process by holding a special church meeting at the end a service (so getting everyone present rather than just the few who come out for a Tuesday evening meeting) in which his letter clearly stating his sexuality and relationship was read out and the congregation discussed this and voted for the vacancy committee to ask him to interview.
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
Alan, what denomination do you write about?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The URC. More precisely, the URC in Scotland which is probably a lot closer to Congregational than the rest of the UK.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The Baptist Ministers' Fellowship (BMF) has held at least two consultations in different parts of the country at the request of the BU. I went to a London one last June at Bloomsbury Baptist Church. There were probably 70 or 80 people there, and a careful discussion was facilitated.
Yes, I was there.
So was I. I had the honour of listening to Trainfan as I was sitting just behind him. I wouldn't say the discussion was careful judging from the heat some of the views expressed both by those in civil partnerships and those vehemently opposed.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I meant that the discussion was structured, with speakers talking to various aspects of the subject, someone chairing the meeting, and scenarios for the group discussion. It wasn't just a bunch of people having a free for all in a big room.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
There's nothing wrong with heated discussion. Often it's essential to actually see how vehemently some people hold their opinions. As long as there's structure to the discussion, and a strong chair, so that it's not just a shouting match. You'll never satisfy the most vehement on both sides, but the vast majority in between may be able to eventually turn the discussions into a viable middle road that is acceptable to the majority. And, if the hot heads hold the unity of the church high enough they may even calm down enough to contribute more than just strength of feeling to the discussion.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Alan Cresswell
IME (and also from what I've read) the URC is less evangelical overall than the Baptist Church. Perhaps this means that the URC has been forced to deal with this issue more openly than the Baptists, and certainly more than an organisation like the EA?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Certainly the URC would not consider itself as evangelical. So, the arguments within the URC regarding sexuality have a slightly different basis, we're not working from a view of the Bible as the "supreme authority on matters of faith and conduct" for example. Those on both sides phrase their arguments differently as a result.
I was really only using my experience to tackle to "what if a minister moves to a church with very different views" and "how do we hold a sensible conversation" questions. Despite the differences in theology, the practical matters of issuing and testing a call to ministry and getting the church to discuss things are going to be similar and I think my experience is informative. If others don't find it useful and informative feel free to ignore me.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Certainly the URC would not consider itself as evangelical.
True - although there is "GEAR" within it.
quote:
So, the arguments within the URC regarding sexuality have a slightly different basis, we're not working from a view of the Bible as the "supreme authority on matters of faith and conduct" for example.
Oh, I don't know, the URC's Statement on Faith & Order states that "The highest authority for what we believe and do is God’s Word in the Bible, alive for his people today through the help of the Spirit". So it's not really that different to the Baptists (who, by the way, do not take the Bible itself as highest authority, but Jesus as revealed through it - a subtle but important difference).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
So, the arguments within the URC regarding sexuality have a slightly different basis, we're not working from a view of the Bible as the "supreme authority on matters of faith and conduct" for example.
Oh, I don't know, the URC's Statement on Faith & Order states that "The highest authority for what we believe and do is God’s Word in the Bible, alive for his people today through the help of the Spirit". So it's not really that different to the Baptists (who, by the way, do not take the Bible itself as highest authority, but Jesus as revealed through it - a subtle but important difference).
Yes, a subtle but very inportant difference.
IME the Statement on Faith & Order comes out when inducting a new minister, ordaining Elders and the like but is not generally something most church members even knows exists, much less take much notice of.
I'd say that if someone gave a "The Bible says in Leviticus ..." comment that it wouldn't be unusual for it to be simply dismissed as "that's not relevant". In many evangelical churches I've known that would create a storm of indignant "you can't just dismiss Scripture as irrelevant!" like comments, you're unlikely to get that indignation in the URC.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I meant that the discussion was structured, with speakers talking to various aspects of the subject, someone chairing the meeting, and scenarios for the group discussion. It wasn't just a bunch of people having a free for all in a big room.
That's fair to say. Unfortunately, for some of us, the steer that ministry dept gave/has given the discussion has been very disappointing in view of previous assurances. We not sure now just how trustworthy they are.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes, but I think much of the point of those discussions was to collate views rather than to steer the debate in any particular direction.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, but I think much of the point of those discussions was to collate views rather than to steer the debate in any particular direction.
We'd have to agree to differ on that one. The views are well enough known, the steer from ministry department was blatant in one direction IMHO - at no point was continuing the status quo ever considered.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
If there were assurances given that the status quo was going to continue then there was no conversation to be had. If there was to be a conversation then any assurances about where that conversation would go are meaningless.
I'll repeat myself: A discussion in which only one answer is possible sounds tedious, not to mention pointless.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
The decision by the BU is the right one although it looks like, feels like bit of a fudge. It sounds as if they are trying to please everyone and ending up not pleasing anyone!
However, all BU churches have at the heart of their ecclesiology the autonomy of the local church and it was ever so slightly hypocritical to boast about this and then say apart from one issue.
Until we focus on more what it is to be a Covenant Community rather than prize our autonomy then we will see more 'fudges' like this.
Although I have a lot of sympathy with SSM I am still unsure whether I would want to take a scenario to my church meeting. In addition if ministers go back into the settlement process I could see questions about this matter deciding whether a minister should be called to a specific church or not.
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
The decision by the BU is the right one although it looks like, feels like bit of a fudge. It sounds as if they are trying to please everyone and ending up not pleasing anyone!
Which I am sure must be the first time this has happened in any church, ever! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
However, all BU churches have at the heart of their ecclesiology the autonomy of the local church and it was ever so slightly hypocritical to boast about this and then say apart from one issue.
Especially as a local Church could take whatever position it wished on this issue - it was only the Minister who could not.
Your final comment is, I think, pertinent and true.
P.S. Some of us like Fudge - not just the sweetmeat but a rather nice brown Labrador of my acquaintance.
[ 15. May 2014, 16:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
To go back a little to the EA's efforts to define evangelicalism, 'conservative' is very much in the eye of the beholder. There's a very substantial evangelical constituency to the right of the EA, largely represented by the Federation of Independent Evangelical Churches. FIEC churches tend not to pop up on people's radars because they keep themselves to themselves at local level, but quite a few of them are big thriving congregations with very healthy age profiles. Total membership in FIEC churches has grown by 15% in ten years (and churches in the FIEC are pretty restrictive about who they let into membership). If current trends continue the FIEC will have overtaken the main historic non-conformist denominations in several decades. And then there are the more-Reformed-than-thou types who think the FIEC isn't quite conservative enough! The EA's stance on issues as ecumenism and the role of women is positively liberal by con evo standards. The same is broadly true of the Baptists. There is a quite substantial Baptist constituency to the right of the BU. For example when I lived in Oxford the second biggest Baptist church in the city was non-BU, and I think that would be fairly typical.
[ 24. May 2014, 19:17: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posted by A Sojourner (# 17776) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
To go back a little to the EA's efforts to define evangelicalism, 'conservative' is very much in the eye of the beholder. There's a very substantial evangelical constituency to the right of the EA, largely represented by the Federation of Independent Evangelical Churches. FIEC churches tend not to pop up on people's radars because they keep themselves to themselves at local level, but quite a few of them are big thriving congregations with very healthy age profiles. Total membership in FIEC churches has grown by 15% in ten years (and churches in the FIEC are pretty restrictive about who they let into membership). If current trends continue the FIEC will have overtaken the main historic non-conformist denominations in several decades. And then there are the more-Reformed-than-thou types who think the FIEC isn't quite conservative enough! The EA's stance on issues as ecumenism and the role of women is positively liberal by con evo standards. The same is broadly true of the Baptists. There is a quite substantial Baptist constituency to the right of the BU. For example when I lived in Oxford the second biggest Baptist church in the city was non-BU, and I think that would be fairly typical.
I would suggest though that many FIEC are doing OK at the moment as they are acting as gather churches, hoovering up much of the remaining vitality of the smaller Brethren Halls. I know many a Brethren Hall that has lost its remaining families to the bigger FIEC aligned church as they offer greater options for the families etc. without anything remotely charismatic. The question is whether these groupings can retain their children once their older... I would suggest that in many cases they are just making the same mistakes as the Brethren have done, expect that they have gained an extra twenty plus years to their lifespan due to removing the remaining vitality of the Brethren...
This is purely my experience though, so if anyone with greater knowledge wishes to say otherwise I will happily bow to their greater knowledge...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
There is a quite substantial Baptist constituency to the right of the BU.
It's interesting you should say this. I met up with a cousin of mine a few weeks ago. I've always known that the other side of her family was mostly Baptist, but now it turns out that most of them belong to an Independent Baptist church, and from what she says it does sound far stricter than the Baptist churches I'm aware of. (I don't know which church it is, but it is 'in the middle' of England, funnily enough.)
I don't know what percentage of EA churches are also in the BU, but maybe both organisations are fearful of losing their strictest churches to other groups. This would obviously be a concern if such churches are a growing constituency. But I imagine that a growing number of churches are also becoming gradually less strict on some of these issues. It's hardly surprising if the EA feels it's being pulled in different directions at the same time!
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
There is a quite substantial Baptist constituency to the right of the BU.
It's interesting you should say this. I met up with a cousin of mine a few weeks ago. I've always known that the other side of her family was mostly Baptist, but now it turns out that most of them belong to an Independent Baptist church, and from what she says it does sound far stricter than the Baptist churches I'm aware of. (I don't know which church it is, but it is 'in the middle' of England, funnily enough.)
I don't know what percentage of EA churches are also in the BU, but maybe both organisations are fearful of losing their strictest churches to other groups. This would obviously be a concern if such churches are a growing constituency. But I imagine that a growing number of churches are also becoming gradually less strict on some of these issues. It's hardly surprising if the EA feels it's being pulled in different directions at the same time!
Out of curiosity due to a cousin of mine attending what I think is an Independent Baptist church - is it in Rugby or in the area?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
No, it's somewhere in the Black Country.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Many independent baptist churches of this nature refer to themselves as "Grace Baptists", formerly known as the Strict Baptists. They are concentrated in the north and east of England and many would consider the FIEC dodgy. Then of course there are those who consider the Grace Baptists too woolly. In short, the EA is never going to attract these churches into its constituency, not least because of their fiercely independent ethos and practice of strict communion (i.e. secondary separatism).
[ 26. May 2014, 06:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE] I don't know what percentage of EA churches are also in the BU, but maybe both organisations are fearful of losing their strictest churches to other groups.
It's probably more accurate to say that many BU churches are in the EA - but I do know what you mean. The majority of the BU is Con Evo ( also most churches are also strongly in favour of women's ministry), sitting well with EA's position.
Bear in mind that the BU sees itself as an association of churches not a denomination, with local churches setting their positions individually as a result of their understanding of scripture. There is technically no hierarchy and no one has authority beyond the local church meeting. If you don't like what the BU or your Regional Minister (aka Bishops) say, then you don't have to do it. This can lead to a wide diversity of opinion on such things as SSM and women's ordination.
Historically, the more reformed Baptist churches and the more charismatic ones are less BU focussed - they tend to link into other groups (New Wine and NFI for some, FIEC for others). Very historically many of the "hard line" BU churches left in the 1970's (e.g. Penzance and Redruth I think) in protest over liberalising trends. Some joined FIEC, many remain totally independent. It may be one of those your family attend - such churches are very unlikely to be members of any ecumenical groups, probably non charismatic and 100% likely to be anti SSM.
This may well continue as the BU is (and is becoming) more liberal on many issues (not just DH ones). The con evos are still in a majority but it's a declining one. Most of the students coming out of college now, although they may self describe as "evangelical," would not be so classed by those taking longer (historical) perspective. Given that's also true of some of the leaders of the denomination then perhaps the future is one of a continuing shift.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
1. However, all BU churches have at the heart of their ecclesiology the autonomy of the local church and it was ever so slightly hypocritical to boast about this and then say apart from one issue.
2. In addition if ministers go back into the settlement process I could see questions about this matter deciding whether a minister should be called to a specific church or not.
1. It is VERY hypocritical. Why did BUGB wait so long to decide this? It does seem like the BU Council found itself on a no win platform (with key figures in Ministry Dept known to be affirming of SSM privately, if not publicly), so they reverted it to churches where it should be all along.
2. That's very true and it will therefore build a divided BU with the two "halves" finding less and less common ground.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It will therefore build a divided BU with the two "halves" finding less and less common ground.
I think that you may be both unnecessarily pessimistic and overly optimistic, as I think that there are actually more constituencies than two but that this need not inevitably lead to a loss of common ground.
For instance I can see at least the following "groupings" within the BU: those (few) churches which call themselves "liberal"; the charismatics (many now lost to other groupings although they may retain a legal link to the BU for Trust purposes); the more "reformed" type although, as you say, we lost many of them in the 70s and 80s; and then the broader centre ground of "Broad Evangelical" and informal "modern-ish" worship, possibly becoming less conservative although I'm really not sure about that. There are also the African etc. churches to take into account, which often operate in rather different ways to traditional "English" BU churches.
Clearly these are very different; however I think that they can hold together if the desire is there. However I'm not sure that it is: many churches seem more "congregation-centred" and less likely to look to the wider denomination than was the case when I started in the 1980s. But I think that is part of a wider trend affecting many denominations.
FWIW, when I was last hunting for a church in 2005, it soon became clear that I would only fit into a handful of congregations. The fact that my present Pastorate has a strong URC emphasis is not a coincidence, although I remain a BU minister.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
...many churches seem more "congregation-centred" and less likely to look to the wider denomination than was the case when I started in the 1980s. But I think that is part of a wider trend affecting many denominations....
Yes, I think it is. Certainly something similar has happened in the CofE's appointment of Bishops.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]
1. Clearly these are very different; however I think that they can hold together if the desire is there. However I'm not sure that it is: many churches seem more "congregation-centred" and less likely to look to the wider denomination than was the case when I started in the 1980s. But I think that is part of a wider trend affecting many denominations.
2. FWIW, when I was last hunting for a church in 2005, it soon became clear that I would only fit into a handful of congregations. The fact that my present Pastorate has a strong URC emphasis is not a coincidence, although I remain a BU minister.
Thanks Trainfan. As for the BME churches they are far more conservative theologically and possibly most likely at the moment to jump ship if BUGB moves to a more liberal position.
A few churches self describe as liberal but considerably more are not con evo in theology.
1. I agree that most Baptist churches in BUGB are less likely to look to the wider denomination than they once were. There's a number of reasons for that - their focus lies in developing local relationships across like minded churches, as well as national neglect and presumption over a number of years.
You and I will both know that local clusters aren't the force they were and associations struggle to get people to fill posts. The only exception to that is possibly London.
2. The same was/is true for me but perhaps for quite different reasons. A significant number of churches (esp the larger ones) don't bother with the settlement system anyway and there's fewer churches looking for someone with the preaching/pastor skills I have to offer. Most want someone rather younger anyway.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There's fewer churches looking for someone with the preaching/pastor skills I have to offer.
That's an interesting point. What, would you say, are churches looking for? Management ability or "Pioneer" skills, perhaps? That question, in turn, then makes one asks just what is the nature of the "Minister's" job today.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There's fewer churches looking for someone with the preaching/pastor skills I have to offer.
That's an interesting point. What, would you say, are churches looking for? Management ability or "Pioneer" skills, perhaps? That question, in turn, then makes one asks just what is the nature of the "Minister's" job today.
Pioneer and youth work mainly I guess. Being "missional," "incarnational" and "intentional" as well. Like you I do all 3 but wouldn't use the "in" jargon .... I prefer to let actions speak for themselves.
The management/leadership bit I can handle as it's been part of life for over 35 years now ... in fact there are those who say that the church here is now working more like a Baptist church should as a result of my "approach" to meetings and involving everyone.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Very historically many of the "hard line" BU churches left in the 1970's (e.g. Penzance and Redruth I think) in protest over liberalising trends. Some joined FIEC, many remain totally independent. It may be one of those your family attend - such churches are very unlikely to be members of any ecumenical groups, probably non charismatic and 100% likely to be anti SSM.
This may well continue as the BU is (and is becoming) more liberal on many issues (not just DH ones). The con evos are still in a majority but it's a declining one. Most of the students coming out of college now, although they may self describe as "evangelical," would not be so classed by those taking longer (historical) perspective. Given that's also true of some of the leaders of the denomination then perhaps the future is one of a continuing shift.
Hmm. Thanks.
I'm fascinated by how the Baptists have to a large extent been able to maintain (or revive?) a form of evangelicalism over such a long period of time, while other historical denominations such as the Congregationalists/URC and the Methodists mostly retreated from theirs at an earlier stage.
The interesting question now is whether British Baptists will be able to align themselves gradually with a less evangelical perspective while also avoiding the steep decline that has faced other historical Protestant churches. I think it's remarkable (though rarely discussed publicly) how the British Baptists in recent times have been able to buck this trend. Churches can sometimes become victims of their own success, though.
These must be awkward times for the EA. Maybe it'll end up with a fancy new name and a new identity.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]Hmm. Thanks.
I'm fascinated by how the Baptists have to a large extent been able to maintain (or revive?) a form of evangelicalism over such a long period of time, while other historical denominations such as the Congregationalists/URC and the Methodists mostly retreated from theirs at an earlier stage.
The interesting question now is whether British Baptists will be able to align themselves gradually with a less evangelical perspective while also avoiding the steep decline that has faced other historical Protestant churches. I think it's remarkable (though rarely discussed publicly) how the British Baptists in recent times have been able to buck this trend. Churches can sometimes become victims of their own success, though.
These must be awkward times for the EA. Maybe it'll end up with a fancy new name and a new identity.
BUGB has remained largely evangelical as a result of its (historical) theology. It has a niche in uk church life that, to many across the broad band of evangelicalism is attractive owing to its stated ecclesiology focussing on the priesthood of all believers. Admittedly much of the growth BUGB sees is by transfer - churches transfer in (and a few new ones are planted) and new adherents move in from other churches/denominations where they no longer feel at home esp with the liberalising trends you mention.
There are few "typical" Baptist churches these days but in many you will find people from all sorts of Christian and non Christian backgrounds, perhaps more so than any other church or grouping.
With BUGB being a loose association rather than a denomination, churches can easily break the link if they feel the nature of the movement is changing. They remain Baptist in theology and government but become unaligned and independent. I suspect that this will become a little more common. I think that there will be a more of a polarisation as the environment becomes less evangelical - whether this will lead to any division remains to be seen.
The EA is in a tough place - like most parachurch organisations. At least it still contending for the truth, albeit in a rather unpopular fashion for some. I'd be concerned if it now bows to some of the criticism and loses what remains of its evangelical voice.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
An excellent post.
Just one comment about the Baptists and being Evangelical! You will know that the E-word is not used in the "Declaration of Principle", however those of us engaged in revising the Model Trust Deeds for churches about 15 years ago spent a great amount of time deliberating over it, even to the extent of taking it to BU Council.
The point was that the earlier 1951 Trusts (which define the beliefs and activities of the church which meets within the building held under Trust) say that "Persons may become or remain members of the Church if they profess their faith in God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit and hold to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and the authority of the Holy Scriptures and that interpretation of them usually called evangelical ..." Similar strictures apply to Ministers.
We were left with three problems. One was that this statement did not accurately reflect the Statement of Principle. Second, we found ourselves running into problems defining "Evangelical"; to do so was beyond our remit. Finally, we believed that Charity Law did not permit us to change this section anyway!
Hence, any Baptist Church whose buildings are held under these Trust Deeds (which is most of them) should legally maintain an "Evangelical" approach to Scripture. The problem lies - as the EA are finding out! - in defining exactly what that word means and where its boundaries lie.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Sitvlana
It is not as simple as that. I think you mentioned FIEC, they basically originate in the Evangelical wing of the Congregational Church pre-1972!
Independant = Congregational (yes the spelling of the first word is correct).
Also Conservative - Liberal does not easily fit onto Historic Non-Conformist stands. It is rather to talk of Magisterial and Radical. The thing is that Radical involves both Evangelicals and Quakers. Go Figure!
Jengie
[ 27. May 2014, 08:45: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The problem lies - as the EA are finding out! - in defining exactly what that word means and where its boundaries lie.
Precisely - it's like nailing jelly to a wall with 6 inch nails. That's why it is actually rather meaningless as it is often taken to mean whatever you want it to mean.
I no longer describe or define my beliefs in that way, for that very reason.
[ 27. May 2014, 11:48: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The problem lies - as the EA are finding out! - in defining exactly what that word means and where its boundaries lie.
Precisely - it's like nailing jelly to a wall with 6 inch nails. That's why it is actually rather meaningless as it is often taken to mean whatever you want it to mean.
I no longer describe or define my beliefs in that way, for that very reason.
I disagree as there is no problem with how 'Evangelical' is defined.
Bebbington and McGrath are recognised as giving this a lot of clarity.
The problem is that for some evangelicals they want to add to this definition in a way that says, "if you don't subscribe to my understanding then you are to be excluded."
This is what has happened with the EA and certain circles within evangelicals.
The EA tried to re-define evangelical identity before when Steve Chalke question penal atonement theory and couldn't exclude him then because the definition Bebbington et al gave as well as the EA website makes no mention of penal atonement neither does it speak of subscribing to a particular theory of sexuality.
The litmus test for faith must always be (IMHO) whether we have a Christ Centred, Cross centred faith rooted in scripture that requires us to demonstrate our beliefs in word and deeds.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Fair points all, although they do not (and cannot) define the particular "feel" and culture of Evangelicalism.
I note that McGrath says, "Evangelicals are Bible people. They don't all agree on exactly what the Bible is, other than the inspired, written Word of God or on what it says (or even on the Rules for interpreting it) but what it say is of utmost importance to them".
I think that this breadth lies at the heart of the Steve Chalke debate: I'm sure that Steve is not suggesting that folk abandon the Bible, rather that they accept an interpretation of it which has hitherto not been regarded as orthodox.
(FWIW, there are certainly some Liberals who take the Bible seriously, albeit via a much more critical engagement with its text and a denial of any notion of divine inspiration).
[ 28. May 2014, 13:43: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Sojourner:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
To go back a little to the EA's efforts to define evangelicalism, 'conservative' is very much in the eye of the beholder. There's a very substantial evangelical constituency to the right of the EA, largely represented by the Federation of Independent Evangelical Churches. FIEC churches tend not to pop up on people's radars because they keep themselves to themselves at local level, but quite a few of them are big thriving congregations with very healthy age profiles. Total membership in FIEC churches has grown by 15% in ten years (and churches in the FIEC are pretty restrictive about who they let into membership). If current trends continue the FIEC will have overtaken the main historic non-conformist denominations in several decades. And then there are the more-Reformed-than-thou types who think the FIEC isn't quite conservative enough! The EA's stance on issues as ecumenism and the role of women is positively liberal by con evo standards. The same is broadly true of the Baptists. There is a quite substantial Baptist constituency to the right of the BU. For example when I lived in Oxford the second biggest Baptist church in the city was non-BU, and I think that would be fairly typical.
I would suggest though that many FIEC are doing OK at the moment as they are acting as gather churches, hoovering up much of the remaining vitality of the smaller Brethren Halls. I know many a Brethren Hall that has lost its remaining families to the bigger FIEC aligned church as they offer greater options for the families etc. without anything remotely charismatic. The question is whether these groupings can retain their children once their older... I would suggest that in many cases they are just making the same mistakes as the Brethren have done, expect that they have gained an extra twenty plus years to their lifespan due to removing the remaining vitality of the Brethren...
This is purely my experience though, so if anyone with greater knowledge wishes to say otherwise I will happily bow to their greater knowledge...
That's very different from the impression I get (my other half is the black sheep in a family very active in FIEC circles - his father is a pastor and his brother is training to be one). The FIEC churches I know of draw in people from all sorts of backgrounds, including unchurched and liberalish Christian. Anecdotally I would say that the independent evangelical subculture has pretty good retention rates in terms of children, better than the historic churches anyway. The point I was making (not very well) is that there is a big constituency to the right of the EA who would argue that THEY are the True Evangelicals, and would claim that the EA's openness to ecumenism / the charismatic movement / women in leadership places it on the slippery slope to heresy. I'm guessing the EA leadership is not unaware of this constituency and the need to assert its evangelical credentials in response.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
I'm guessing the EA leadership is not unaware of this constituency and the need to assert its evangelical credentials in response.
Indeed, I think that this need to "prove credentials", not perhaps with the FIEC and Grace Baptists but to the EA's own constituency, lies at the heart of the debate.
But it is caught in a cleft stick: either it puts down a marker in the sand and alienates its more "progressive" (and possibly younger) members, or else it goes with the flow and thus demonstrates itself to be irredeemably worldly and spineless to its more conservative supporters.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
@ Baptist Trainfan
I liked the McGrath quote and I think it highlights the problem evangelicals have.
There are some who want a more detailed defined definition but by doing that it excludes more and more people.
My preference is to have a broader definition that is more inclusive.
I wonder if we will ever get there??
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
I'm guessing the EA leadership is not unaware of this constituency and the need to assert its evangelical credentials in response.
I think if the EA were interested in courting that constituency they would have drawn the line on the penal substitution issue. That's when the people in those circles "said goodbye" to Steve Chalke. I am guessing that this move has much more to so with the BME majority churches, which are much more in the EA 's target audience. It would, for example, be relatively unusual for an FIEC church to be an EA member.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Red-face Department ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
:
I've just realised that my quote isn't actually by McGrath but comes from this article by someone called Calvin Fox which comments on his definitions of Evangelicalism.
Sorry about that ... but I do agree with the quote!
[ 28. May 2014, 19:48: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
There is a big constituency to the right of the EA who would argue that THEY are the True Evangelicals, and would claim that the EA's openness to ecumenism / the charismatic movement / women in leadership places it on the slippery slope to heresy. I'm guessing the EA leadership is not unaware of this constituency and the need to assert its evangelical credentials in response.
It's interesting that this term is now something for people to fight over. Is there any other word or phrase in British Christianity quite like it? No one argues about who has the theological right to be called MOTR, liberal, Catholic, etc.!
The very struggle to establish boundaries in evangelicalism must be part of its strength. It suggests engagement, if nothing else.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's interesting that this term is now something for people to fight over. Is there any other word or phrase in British Christianity quite like it? No one argues about who has the theological right to be called MOTR, liberal, Catholic, etc.!
No, I think people argue over who gets to be called Anglo-Catholic, with the conservatives arguing that you can only be Anglo-Catholic if you hate women and gays and that other Anglo-Catholics are just liberals who like dressing up.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
@ Baptist Trainfan
I liked the McGrath quote and I think it highlights the problem evangelicals have.
There are some who want a more detailed defined definition but by doing that it excludes more and more people.
My preference is to have a broader definition that is more inclusive.
I wonder if we will ever get there??
We won't - at least in the BU and EA. The stakes might be considered to be too high: too much movement and both might be fatally fractured.
Any definition will draw a line at some point which leads to inclusion and exclusion. It's a fact of life, sadly.
I suppose we could come at it from another direction and reflect on what beliefs (or non beliefs) might preclude us from considering others as "Evangelical."
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I suppose we could come at it from another direction and reflect on what beliefs (or non beliefs) might preclude us from considering others as "Evangelical." [/QB]
Isn't this what has happened with Steve Chalke?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's interesting that this term is now something for people to fight over. Is there any other word or phrase in British Christianity quite like it? No one argues about who has the theological right to be called MOTR, liberal, Catholic, etc.!
No, I think people argue over who gets to be called Anglo-Catholic, with the conservatives arguing that you can only be Anglo-Catholic if you hate women and gays and that other Anglo-Catholics are just liberals who like dressing up.
I suppose the reason why this doesn't register to the same extent is that there are fewer self-proclaimed Anglo-Catholics than there are self-proclaimed evangelicals.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I suppose we could come at it from another direction and reflect on what beliefs (or non beliefs) might preclude us from considering others as "Evangelical."
Isn't this what has happened with Steve Chalke? [/QB]
Sort of but I do feel that there's a element here of Steve Chalke almost teasing the EA - and this time they've bitten big time. It's interesting that they have and BUGB has done - nothing.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Maybe it's a sign that the EA are becoming less and less Baptist and have other fish to fry. But as for the BUGB, are they likely to want to eject the country's most famous living Baptist minister and/or his church? As a non-Baptist with a MOTR church history, I can definitely say I've heard about him. I'm sure there are other high-achieving Baptist ministers who get around a bit, but how many have had the sort of public platform that Steve's had?
(Funnily enough, today at the charity shop where I work I saw a photo of Steve on one of the books that came in. I think it was about teaching kids to read or do maths, something of that sort. He obviously has a wide range of interests!)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe it's a sign that the EA are becoming less and less Baptist and have other fish to fry. But as for the BUGB, are they likely to want to eject the country's most famous living Baptist minister and/or his church? As a non-Baptist with a MOTR church history, I can definitely say I've heard about him. I'm sure there are other high-achieving Baptist ministers who get around a bit, but how many have had the sort of public platform that Steve's had?
(Funnily enough, today at the charity shop where I work I saw a photo of Steve on one of the books that came in. I think it was about teaching kids to read or do maths, something of that sort. He obviously has a wide range of interests!)
Yes Steve Chalke ticked a lot of boxes for BUGB a few years ago. He was undoubtedly set for high office but had a certain amount of naivete in (effectively) taking on BUGB when he assumed that they would do their usual nothing.
He's been on a downwards roll in BUGB ever since "The Lost Message of Jesus" and within BUGB very little is said about him these days - rather different from when he was on TV AM.
[ 30. May 2014, 08:40: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
That's all true; but I also think his main "axis" has become Oasis rather than BUGB.
BTW, we here are all assuming that BUGB has said nothing to Steve ... but AFAIK none of us actually knows that to be the case.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The very struggle to establish boundaries in evangelicalism must be part of its strength. It suggests engagement, if nothing else.
I'd suggest the opposite. Vicious struggles over identity usually occur at the extremes. Politically, the far left and far right have a long and undistinguished history of splits, schisms, factions and so on. Fractures occur on both sides of the spectrum, a massive amount of time is spent navel-gazing about identity and purity, dissent makes you a splitter, and The Life of Brian is a documentary.
To me, vicious arguments over who's in and who's out tend to signal that a group's in danger of spiralling into fragmented oblivion.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Yes, that's one possibility. But not the only one.
It's been said that Methodism ultimately suffered from its arguments and splits, whereas Pentecostalism has grown and spread as a result of the energy they've generated. As for the Baptists, I don't get the impression that 'unity' has ever been their big catchword, but that hasn't necessarily hindered their mission, AFAIK. I suppose there are certain variables that make either a positive or a negative difference in each case.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That's all true; but I also think his main "axis" has become Oasis rather than BUGB.
BTW, we here are all assuming that BUGB has said nothing to Steve ... but AFAIK none of us actually knows that to be the case.
Well I have asked a question and got a reply ....
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Now you're just tEAsing.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That's all true; but I also think his main "axis" has become Oasis rather than BUGB.
BTW, we here are all assuming that BUGB has said nothing to Steve ... but AFAIK none of us actually knows that to be the case.
Well I have asked a question and got a reply ....
Was it more than the proverbial 'go away'?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Oh yes - BUGB have long learned that lesson that on being told that I never do. It's a bit like "you wouldn't dare ..." which I consider a challenge and an invitation not an admonition.
[ 01. June 2014, 06:45: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Re: the splits at the extreme edge: Why do I here "The People's Front for Judea"?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Re: the splits at the extreme edge: Why do I hear "The People's Front for Judea"?
Oh, I'm sure we could all name a few schismatic groups that now seem irrelevant and eventually fizzled out. But many others left their mark, and some grew and became respectable in their turn, only to face possible extinction as secularisation set in. This is a real possibility for a number of British denominations over the next 30-odd years.
I think increasing localisation is likely in British churches. I've been told on the Ship that the CofE is becoming congregational in practice; and on this thread, we see that the congregational Baptists are even chafing against the theological strictures of central bodies like the BUGB or the EA. But Christians hardly care what's happening at 'HQ', and churches that are thriving in Hertfordshire are going to have little in common with churches that are shutting up shop all over Lancashire, for example. Their theology (as well as their social make-up) is probably different too, even if they belong to the same denomination.
The only reason for sticking together will be administrative, and perhaps for positive PR.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Re: the splits at the extreme edge: Why do I here "The People's Front for Judea"?
Perhaps because you'd read this post?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Sorry about that. Here is where I hear you.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE] 1.
I've been told on the Ship that the CofE is becoming congregational in practice;
2. and on this thread, we see that the congregational Baptists are even chafing against the theological strictures of central bodies like the BUGB or the EA.
3. But Christians hardly care what's happening at 'HQ', and churches that are thriving in Hertfordshire are going to have little in common with churches that are shutting up shop all over Lancashire, for example. Their theology (as well as their social make-up) is probably different too, even if they belong to the same denomination.
4. The only reason for sticking together will be administrative, and perhaps for positive PR.
1. So they are finally seeing the One True Light to Church Governance (joke!). I think it represents a shift in culture where people not longer are prepared to believe or accept that "Father knows best"
2. True but its only a stronger flow to a trickle of dissent that's existed for years. The bigger Baptist churches have always been pretty much outside the "system," now it's spreading. It does though reflect a natural outworking of our theology that holds the local church meeting as the place to seek the will of God and mind of Christ. It's that at the moment that drive is a bit our of synch with our other core belief about interdependence. The pendulum swings - after a time of centralising, its now moving to the churches more.
3. True but we surely want local churches which reflect their local areas/local cultures not imposed models as in the past. Perhaps we need to celebrate difference more and not expect everyone to be clones of some mythical church congregation somewhere in Hertfordshire. No names mentioned to slander the living and the dead but I have a couple in mind ....
4. Oh, I don't know. There's always the Kingdom of God
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE] I've been told on the Ship that the CofE is becoming congregational in practice
So they are finally seeing the One True Light to Church Governance (joke!).
Just as some Baptists are moving away from it:
read this.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE] I've been told on the Ship that the CofE is becoming congregational in practice
So they are finally seeing the One True Light to Church Governance (joke!).
Just as some Baptists are moving away from it:
read this.
True - and perhaps BUGB should take a closer look at such congregations where the ability of members to act as the priesthood of all believers is being impaired by leaders.
FWIW I don't agree with the author's views that elder of "leader" driven ministry can be held with our traditional approach. They are vastly different.
The whole concept of "leaders" in Baptist churches is a modern conceit. Scripture knows little of it - and what there is, is more in the context of servanthood and following an example, rather than leading a crowd. If you don't like the rules, don't sign up to the package ....
I'd humbly suggest that a model where everyone is involved - irrespective of age, sex, background, ethnicity, or whatever - remains as radically counter cultural as it has ever been. Why change it when you don't need to?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
That was a very interesting link, but what I took from it was that some churches are coming into the Baptist movement with their somewhat different expectations of church leadership structures already formed. It's not that they're deliberately trying to subvert Baptist ways.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Perhaps BUGB should take a closer look at such congregations where the ability of members to act as the priesthood of all believers is being impaired by leaders.
Actually I was invited to Didcot about 8 years ago to take part in a small group discussion about precisely that, not to do just with leadership in churches coming from different cultures but also with those in the charismatic tradition.
Problem was, although "everyone knows" that proper Baptist churches are Congregationalist, it isn't written down in the Declaration of Principle. It is in the Model Trust Deeds for church buildings, but many newer churches don't have their own buildings (and no-one, in any case, has to have their building vested in a Baptist trust corporation anyway).
So there was little that could be done "officially" ... which, much as I disagree with this kind of strong leadership, may be the "right answer" if we believe in the autonomy of local churches to run their affairs.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Could you politely suggest to inquiring churches of this type that some other institutional body would be a better fit for them than the BUGB? Why do they want to align themselves with the BU anyway?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
That's a very good question.
In some cases, churches with a strong "leadership" ethos are historical Baptist churches which have been influenced by trends in the charismatic movement. Indeed, they may have become affiliated to one of the "new church" groupings such as New Frontiers while still remaining part of BUGB. I do know of at least one quite high-profile case where they were basically told that they had to choose one or the other ... and left the BU.
I have known of other churches, certainly in London, made up of folk from (say) Africa who want to join a denomination so they can become "officially registered" and/or claim some kind of kudos by being a "proper church". This often reflects a different legal status for unincorporated associations in their home countries. I suspect that BUGB, as a fellowship of associated churches rather than a tightly-regulated denomination, is a more appealing choice than (say) the Methodists. But I agree that, in some cases at least, such churches were "allowed in" without sufficient socialising into, and explanation of, British Baptist culture. Indeed, it has been said that the "bar was set too low" in a desire to see Baptist numbers rise than fall, but that may be a cheap jibe.
Finally, and most tricky, are non-British congregations composed of folk who are Baptists "back in their old country" where Baptist polity is much less Congregationalist. One cannot simply override their own tradition or say, "You are not real Baptists"; nor can they be excluded as this would cause real pain! Here I think the only solution is a lengthy discussion and learning process.
FWIW I very much agree with EM's post above.
[ 04. June 2014, 06:04: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
1. I agree that, in some cases at least, such churches were "allowed in" without sufficient socialising into, and explanation of, British Baptist culture. Indeed, it has been said that the "bar was set too low" in a desire to see Baptist numbers rise than fall, but that may be a cheap jibe.
2. Finally, and most tricky, are non-British congregations composed of folk who are Baptists "back in their old country" where Baptist polity is much less Congregationalist. One cannot simply override their own tradition or say, "You are not real Baptists"; nor can they be excluded as this would cause real pain! Here I think the only solution is a lengthy discussion and learning process.
3. FWIW I very much agree with EM's post above.
1. The bar was (and is) being set way too low. It needs to be said.
Many of these new churches are very conservative in theology and anti SSM: they have a big constituency in London and a big clout which they won't be afraid to use. They can go out as quickly as they came in.
2. True but accommodation happens when both sides move. This is England and our culture, although thankfully mixed, is still one that is in the mainstream recognisably distinct. Why dump our history on the altar of growth?
3. Thanks - glad I'm on the mark for once
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Maybe mainstream Baptists will have to draw a line in the sand at some point. If being anti-SSM really is a problem now it's surely best if church leaders know so they can make alternative plans from the beginning, rather than joining the BUGB and then having to leave under a cloud at some later point.
As for the Methodists, I've never heard of any 'BME' congregation that's openly contradicted Methodist culture as the denominational leadership understands it. Methodists today tend to avoid conflict and strongly evangelical positions, and this is probably also true for BME congregations.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
It's interesting that this term is now something for people to fight over. Is there any other word or phrase in British Christianity quite like it? No one argues about who has the theological right to be called MOTR, liberal, Catholic, etc.!
I've heard it argued by at least one historian (I forget who) that the evangelical propensity to define is one of the defining marks of evangelicalism I think it originates in the historic evangelical assumption that discerning God's will is both relatively 'easy' and incredibly important. Historically evangelicals have tended to believe that any sincere individual can discern God's will from the Bible under the Holy Spirit's guidance. Intermediaries were unnecessary. So if you start from that assumption, it can be hard to process situations where equally sincere individuals claiming to work under the guidance of the Holy Spirit disagree.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0