|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Affirming Evangelical Unity or Shoehorning in division?
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
Earlier today, my attention was brought to this statement on the "Theology of Men and Women". One of the opening affirmations appeals to the Evangelical Alliance Basis of Faith. But it seems that this isn't an initiative from the EA.
After asking some of the early signatories, it seems that it's the initiative of one vicar and one ordinand from Oak Hill, a theological college known for being more towards the conservative end of evangelicalism.
For the most part, I think it reads very well. Yet there are two clauses that worry me. 7b states: quote:
Women and men are distinct in their God-given gender and their attributes as female and male.
while 7d goes on to say: quote:
Men and women are not so the same that they are interchangeable in Christian marriage, just as in the biblical analogies of this institution YHWH is not interchangeable with Israel nor Christ with the church.
My reading of these two points is that 7b would seem to exclude transgender people while 7d sounds distinctly complementarian as well as implicitly opposed to equal marriage.
They seem like blips in an otherwise very well worded statement that seems to reach across the wide range of liberal and conservative views within the evangelical churches.
What do other shipmates think of it?
Specifically, do you think that these clauses were inserted so as to make liberal evangelicals either: a) sign up to statements they disagree with or b) appear to seem divisive by refusing to wholly endorse it?
More broadly (and this could cross over into the general election thread) how do you think about endorsing sets of statements where you agree with ~95% of them but disagree on a few fine points?
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Looking at the list of signatories, it would seem that it appeals more to the conservative end of evangelicalism.
Most of this is pretty bland stuff. There are some interesting snippets, though:
quote:
We affirm that fellowship, communion and mutual encouragement with those we believe to be Christians but in theological error is not a hypocritical inconsistency
Now that would presumably be a shot across the bows of the likes of GAFCON.
quote:
Men and women are not so the same that they are interchangeable in Christian marriage, just as in the biblical analogies of this institution YHWH is not interchangeable with Israel nor Christ with the church.
This is quite a convoluted sentence, mainly because it avoids using certain words. What this really means: "We agree that evangelicals can disagree about the ordination of women, but gays and lesbians are still OUT!"
All in all, though, this just reads as a rather desperate attempt to paper over cracks whilst not giving offence to anyone (unless you're a gay or a lesbian)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I agree with the OP's concerns about the two highlighted sections. I also think that the whole thing is very confusing to read - although it probably makes sense to its "target audience".
Personally, anything that tends towards Christian unity and against petty doctrinal nit-picking is to be welcomed. But it is still very "intra-Evangelical" (and Anglican) rather than reaching out to other traditions within the Church. Perhaps that's inevitable, but I would have preferred to have seen something "wider".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Men and women are not so the same that they are interchangeable in Christian marriage, just as in the biblical analogies of this institution YHWH is not interchangeable with Israel nor Christ with the church.
This is quite a convoluted sentence, mainly because it avoids using certain words. What this really means: "We agree that evangelicals can disagree about the ordination of women, but gays and lesbians are still OUT!"
All in all, though, this just reads as a rather desperate attempt to paper over cracks whilst not giving offence to anyone (unless you're a gay or a lesbian)
Exactly. As I said on Twitter earlier today, "it reads as we'll agree to differ on women in leadership so we can fight against equal marriage"
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But it is still very "intra-Evangelical" (and Anglican) rather than reaching out to other traditions within the Church.
Well, the name they've chosen for their statement, Affirming Evangelical Unity does rather imply that it will be intra-evangelical rather than reaching out to other traditions. Though, an addition of "Anglican" in there would help clarify that this statement may well find itself not addressing other parts of the evangelical spectrum.
I'm surprised people were reading it as addressing women in ordained ministry. I read it as about the role of men and women in marriage.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
7d is citing analogies and in doing so is attempting to push the analogies too far. There are lots of ways in which marriage is not like the relationship between Christ and the Church.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Like that Christ is a person of God and that the church is a community of humans?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Indeed. The analogy in Scripture works within the context of the common understanding (at the time) that the husband is the head of the family. But, take away that cultural expectation and we probably need to rethink the Scriptural analogy (and, for the record, I think the Church as the bride of Christ still works as an analogy, just now we're emphasising the two working together as equal partners rather than simply one lording it over the other).
I'm going to need to go through my Bible when I get back to my digs (I probably shouldn't spend my time at work doing that). But, if I recall correctly the passages that talk of Christ as head of the Church, as Lord, Master etc are not the same as the passages that talk of Christ as the groom to the Church as the bride. Scripture doesn't explicitely make the connection that some evangelicals seem to assume is there - that Christ is the head of the Church, the Church is the Bride of Christ, therefore the husband is the head over his wife.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It's a declaration that's addressed to Evangelicals (and, it appears, Anglican Evangelicals in particular). If you're not within that audience then it's not surprising that many of the signatories are unknown to you.
Why pleased that you don't know of them? Are you just pleased you're not an Evangelical? If so, I can introduce you to someone who was pleased he wasn't like that publican over there.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
7b&d are not the only objectionable (to me) parts. 8&9 are anti-equality as well.
But nothing in it seems very surprising to me.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
8&9 are complementary apologies for the way evangelicals on both sides of the ordination of women debate expressed their opinions.
If you're looking for an apology for holding a particular opinion, then you're not going to get it from a group of evangelicals trying to be inclusive of all (Anglican) evangelicals. It's not a resolved issue among evangelicals, by a long shot. You're no more likely to get an apology from the Roman Catholic Church for not allowing women to be priests - for similar reasons of theological considerations that make sure roles only suitable for men.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Hmmm...
I was asked to sign up and have not, even though some people I respect have. My problems are:
1. the statement is too clunky when, for example, it says women and men are not interchangeable in marriage. Does that mean complementarianism? Fixed roles? If it is simply code for asking us to oppose same-sex marriage then that is to import another issue here - on which evangelicals are in fact today divided, whether the authors of this like to admit it or not.
2. The initial signatories came mainly from the three colleges that have a reputation as being the least friendly towards women ordinands, though all three are working on this. This might just be me being overly suspicious, but...
3. Few women seem attracted to sign up. I trust my women friends' instincts on this sort of thing.
Maybe i am being over suspicious, but i will stick to campaigning for Biblical equality!
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
Do we know what the purpose of this is? Under what circumstances would someone make a decision based on whether someone is on the list?
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why pleased that you don't know of them? Are you just pleased you're not an Evangelical? If so, I can introduce you to someone who was pleased he wasn't like that publican over there.
I grapple with evangelicalism but my usual feeling is that many evangelicals are the enemies of progress and make evangelism difficult because many write off Christianity as a result of their pronouncements.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I think that is very unfair, leo. I'm a member of Diverse Church and one of the few non-evangelical members. Anything but enemies of progress. I think MOTR and higher churches being crap at mission and evangelism is not very friendly to progress, and I say that as someone in that group.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why pleased that you don't know of them? Are you just pleased you're not an Evangelical? If so, I can introduce you to someone who was pleased he wasn't like that publican over there.
I grapple with evangelicalism but my usual feeling is that many evangelicals are the enemies of progress and make evangelism difficult because many write off Christianity as a result of their pronouncements.
We can say that about every part of the church. Everyone hinders progress, makes evangelism difficult or puts people off the faith - the particular means of that differs.
I was asking about this particular statement Affirming Evangelical Unity. What is it about this statement that makes you pleased you can disassociate yourself from those who feel able to sign it? Don't you think it's good that evangelicals are at least trying to maintain unity despite quite strong disagreements on the role of women in church and home? Isn't it good that some people from both sides of that divide seek to make an apology for the way they treated others, and offer forgiveness to those who have hurt them in the way they've behaved? Is it simply that you're pleased not to be associated with people who with all those good intentions still manage to produce a clunky, cack-handed (though quite typically evangelical) statement?
Or, rather are you pleased that your particular tradition in the Church doesn't have any disagreements? That you don't need to have someone produce a statement affirming unity despite disagreements? In which case you need to look a lot more closely at your own tradition. Certainly before throwing stones at the tradition of others.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Anything but enemies of progress. I think MOTR and higher churches being crap at mission and evangelism is not very friendly to progress, and I say that as someone in that group.
I spend a lot of time helping former evangelicals to deprogramme themselves.
Also much time explaining that evangelicals are not the only Christians, even if they think they are.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Is it simply that you're pleased not to be associated with people who with all those good intentions still manage to produce a clunky, cack-handed (though quite typically evangelical) statement?
They've united over what is now a done-deal - ordained and consderated women so that they can more strongly clobber LGBT people.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Anything but enemies of progress. I think MOTR and higher churches being crap at mission and evangelism is not very friendly to progress, and I say that as someone in that group.
I spend a lot of time helping former evangelicals to deprogramme themselves.
Have you just read what you wrote? Do you not see that that comes across as incredibly pompous?
I spend some my time trying to show non evangelicals of the richness of this expression of christianity, which is but one of many expressions and trying to dispel the myths and untruths spread about evangelicals by those whose idea of christianity is that one must hate their evangelical brethren.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
I signed it. I can just about live with what it says. Though it does trip over the language of analogy that tends to confuse, rather than illuminate, the debate. Why did I sign? I suppose because I'm the bishop (of Edmonton) who has Oak Hill in my patch (albeit only till September) and I want them and those like them to know that we're serious that they have a continuing place in the CoFE, and that we have a lot more in common than falling out over the OOW.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Problem with that, pete173, is 7b and d.
You signature conveys an endorsement of their stated opinion that women should not be allowed all the privileges of men.
If you believe that women should not share equally with men, then your signature makes sense.
If you disagree, it does not.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
There's also the problem that 7b is not true. Sex is actually very complex and more of a spectrum. This article from Nature is well worth a read (and the comments for once).
Sex redefined. The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.
There's really no clear dividing line in 'attributes' between men and women. You can make up rules of division that will sort most people into male and female, but certainly not for all. To frame everything in terms of two distinct sexes/genders relies on pretending that intersex people with complex conditions and non-binary people don't exist or if they do, that they should be immediately assigned to male or female on some arbitrary and Procrustean basis, but there is no objective basis for doing this.
I suppose technically this statement just asks people to 'affirm' that it is 'evangelical' rather than to affirm that it is actually true. But being 'evangelical', in this case, seems to involve wishing away the existence of real people whose intricate biological facts muck up this forced-binary of theological fantasy.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Louise, an excellent post. Perhaps we will end up with theological sex and gender identity, separate from and at odds with biology and social constructs.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
So, if reality conflicts with your religious beliefs, learn to enjoy the taste of sand?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]]They've united over what is now a done-deal - ordained and consderated women so that they can more strongly clobber LGBT people.
Eating too much cheese late at night is not good for you leo - it gives you the strangest dreams. Or has someone been mixing the incense again?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Also much time explaining that evangelicals are not the only Christians, even if they think they are.
I won't deny that I have heard such things said but it isn't just evangelicals who need to put their house in order on that score - it's an issue with the AC's, FinF etc, not to say the RCC who are the worst of the lot.
As a non Anglican, I often wonder just who within that communion sees me and the denomination to which I belong as a "real" believer.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
leo, you have an "interesting" take on what constitute nuanced statements, rather than "four legs good, two legs bad" types of assertions.
You must surely have met some evangelicals who are not closed-minded and cultish in their conversations and attitudes. This lumping together of what is actually a pretty diverse group of people is akin to "all muslims are brainwashed terrorists", a parallel statement which I know you would deplore.
It just seems so odd to me that you have such a bee in your bonnet about this. Abusive and controlling behaviour by some church leaders and leaders of other groups is certainly dangerous but it is wrong to associate it with, or confine it to, particular ideologies.
Anyway, terms like deprogramming are themselves under a cloud because of some of the techniques used by self-declared deprogrammers. If people have become sucked into self-enclosing ideologies, or the influence of bullying and manipulating leaders, the last thing they need is to be bullied and manipulated out of their "prisons". And that has happened, under the heading of "deprogramming".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, if reality conflicts with your religious beliefs, learn to enjoy the taste of sand?
I thought that many religious beliefs are intended to conflict with reality? Or, putting it more diplomatically, they are often counter-intuitive, which is one of the attractive things about them. But probably with issues to do with sex/gender, we are also dealing with political constructs of various kinds, and also just anxiety. I think for example, that the binary constructions placed on sex/gender are often fiercely defended, in the teeth of reality. But isn't every reality itself a construct?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Louise--
Thanks for that article link. Really interesting!
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
I don't know what 7b ("Women and men are distinct in their God-given gender and their attributes as female and male") even means.
If it means that when my wife and I decided to have children, we didn't need to discuss which of us was going to be the one to get pregnant, then yes, I agree. If it means that we don't need to discuss which of us mows the lawn, takes out the bins, does the ironing... then no, I don't.
If it means something vaguely sexist, like women being on average more 'nurturing' and men more 'rational', then it's probably untrue, but if true, its a truth of no practical importance, because every individual man or woman has their own "God-given attributes" of that sort, and sometimes they match the stereotype, and other times they don't.
7d ("Men and women are not so the same that they are interchangeable in Christian marriage...") I could affirm as literally true - since no two people are "interchangeable" in marriage anyway. Agreeing to this doesn't necessarily imply opposition to same-sex marriage in the political sphere, but does suggest that in Christian theology and ethics there is at least a distinction to be discussed between same sex and opposite sex unions.
I like the assertions of basic equality. It would be nice if Christians could stop there, and not need to qualify those statements or allow space for possible specific inequalities, but we're stuck with the Scriptures that God gave us, evangelicals are committed to taking those Scriptures seriously, so those issues can't simply be avoided.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
[QB] ...I'm the bishop (of Edmonton) who has Oak Hill in my patch (albeit only till September) and I want them and those like them to know that we're serious that they have a continuing place in the CoFE.../QB]
Why?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
You beat me to it, Albertus.
Pete173: there comes a point where the views and prejudices of some who profess membership of the CofE are so at variance with common decency (never mind Christian charity) that the only logical conclusion is that they're not part of the same belief 'club' as you or I.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But, if you get rid of all the Anglo Catholics who object to ordination of women how will you ever manage to put on a good show for those national events - royal weddings etc?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
I thought that many religious beliefs are intended to conflict with reality? Or, putting it more diplomatically, they are often counter-intuitive, which is one of the attractive things about them
Intended would imply they were made up, no? Though having some tenants outside of the readily quantifiable does add to the attraction. How to build a religion might be an interesting Purg topic.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Anything but enemies of progress. I think MOTR and higher churches being crap at mission and evangelism is not very friendly to progress, and I say that as someone in that group.
I spend a lot of time helping former evangelicals to deprogramme themselves.
Also much time explaining that evangelicals are not the only Christians, even if they think they are.
The exact same thing can be said about former Catholics.
You've encountered enough evangelicals on the Ship to know what you say is patronising at best and just plain untrue at worst.
Spiritual abuse exists in ALL denominations and churchpersonships.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]]They've united over what is now a done-deal - ordained and consderated women so that they can more strongly clobber LGBT people.
Eating too much cheese late at night is not good for you leo - it gives you the strangest dreams. Or has someone been mixing the incense again?
Oscar the Grouch and Carys made a similar observation and Louise hinted at it.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]]They've united over what is now a done-deal - ordained and consderated women so that they can more strongly clobber LGBT people.
Eating too much cheese late at night is not good for you leo - it gives you the strangest dreams. Or has someone been mixing the incense again?
Oscar the Grouch and Carys made a similar observation and Louise hinted at it.
Well, when are you going to reconsider your blanket (and unilateral)condemnation of Evangelicals which is so laughably wide of the mark?
Some form of apology might be welcomed
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
I thought that many religious beliefs are intended to conflict with reality? Or, putting it more diplomatically, they are often counter-intuitive, which is one of the attractive things about them
Intended would imply they were made up, no? Though having some tenants outside of the readily quantifiable does add to the attraction. How to build a religion might be an interesting Purg topic.
Yes, intended is not quite the right word. Scott Atran writes interesting stuff on the counter-intuitive nature of religion, and how it encodes vital information in tribal culture, hence must be memorable and costly. Well, 'hence costly' is debatable.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]]They've united over what is now a done-deal - ordained and consderated women so that they can more strongly clobber LGBT people.
Eating too much cheese late at night is not good for you leo - it gives you the strangest dreams. Or has someone been mixing the incense again?
Oscar the Grouch and Carys made a similar observation and Louise hinted at it.
Well, when are you going to reconsider your blanket (and unilateral)condemnation of Evangelicals which is so laughably wide of the mark?
Some form of apology might be welcomed
What would the apology be about? (I'd certainly apologise and do so now for lumping all evangelicals in the same stereotype. But then again, the ones who don't fit the stereotype and accused, by evangelicals as no longer being evangelicls e.g. Steve Chalke)
The stuff above is about gay-bashing, which evangelicals do frequently. I cannot apologise for something that they should have apologised about but didn't in the document linked to in the OP.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The stuff above is about gay-bashing, which evangelicals do frequently.
Quite apart from that being a very simplistic version of what many Evangelicals actually believe, it is by no means true of all Evangelicals.
[But I think certain defunct horses are in danger of being coaxed back into life ...].
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I cannot apologise for something that they should have apologised about but didn't in the document linked to in the OP.
That rather presupposes that the concerns of the authors of the document should be the same as yours. They aren't. The document doesn't seem to aim to resolve differences between evangelicals and other Christians, it doesn't even aim to resolve differences between Evangelicals. It is conjecture that it's a "stop fighting over ordination of women so we can unite on another issue" statement. It doesn't resolve evangelical concerns over ordination of women or roles of men and women in marriage. It doesn't declare one side right and the other wrong. It simply expresses regret over some of the ways both sides (within evangelicalism) expressed their position and described the opposing position. There's no apology for anyone believing something different from what others believe, just for the way in which the discussion was held.
We, of course, run basically the same principal here on the Ship. A Shipmate (let's call him 'X') can be very strongly of the opinion that churches should follow the thematic strand of the lectionary, and that churches that diverge from that strand of the lectionary are expressing dis-unity with the rest of the body of Christ. X can hold that position without official comment. But, if he starts to call those who follow alternate strands or versions of the lectionary in our Sunday worship heretics who are not part of the Church, and that those who follow no lectionary at all little better than pagans then X is going to get asked to apologise. Not an apology for holding his particular views on the lectionary, but for the personal attacks on those who disagree.
This is not, IMO, an unreasonable way to get through life where it's inevitable people will disagree. Perhaps at some point the people who hold differing views will reach a point where they can agree on a single position, and offer an apology for holding onto an erroneous view for so long. The question of the ordination of women is not in that position, it's still a point of strong disagreement between evangelicals (and within/between other parts of the church).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Yes, I know that lot and I also know that some of those who signed up have been denied preferment.
Thought police.....
You know that they have been denied preferment? Ok then, what's your evidence?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The stuff above is about gay-bashing, which evangelicals do frequently. I cannot apologise for something that they should have apologised about but didn't in the document linked to in the OP.
Again Leo you have issued a blanket condemnation which is wholly untrue.
Some evangelicals - after due thought, reflection and prayer - find that they cannot accept that same sex relationships are biblically equivalent to heterosexual ones. They don't "bash" - they disagree and aim to do so honorably.
Some evangelicals are more robust and bigoted, I accept that. But not all: a small minority
Equally some FinF and AC types are aggressively anti evangelical, anti women and anti gay. The latter is rank hypocrisy since the AC/High Church set up has long been a refuge and a closet for gay clergy (Ken Leech says so, so it must be true).
What you seem to be saying, Leo, is that there is a restriction to the areas where you'll recognize that people can honorably disagree. And, it seems to be you drawing the boundary lines - a rather disingenuous attitude given the approach of others you reject out of hand.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Returning to the words of the statement.
I think the points raised by lilBuddha and Alan Cresswell re paras 8 and 9 are equally valid. Personally, I think the attempt at balance misfires a little and from the outside it seems to duck both equality and equity issues, but I can see that it was written for a particular audience. I'd have preferred it to read that "we repent of attitudes, words and actions which disparage or misrepresent the different opinions about the theology of men and women which exist within evangelicalism."
I thought the wording re commitment and the wording of the prayer were fine.
I don't think I could sign it as it stands, and I agree the criticisms of para 7. I rather doubt the assertion that it is trying to produce an anti-LGBT evangelical coalition by stealth, but I guess it could be used that way. However, the overt intention seems to me to "keep the main thing the main thing" i.e. it is a recognition that mission gets loused up by public rancour and slaggings-off over differences. I have no criticisms with that. It's just Ephesians 4:3 actually, about making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit within the bond of peace.
So personally, I'd have been inclined to haggle over the words, see what scope there might be for improving them (particularly 7, 8 and 9). It's not that far away from being a document I could sign.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, if you get rid of all the Anglo Catholics who object to ordination of women how will you ever manage to put on a good show for those national events - royal weddings etc?
That's as sweeping a generalisation as leo has made about evangelicals. I realise you probably intended it to be so, I'd rather not leave it unchallenged. Not all Anglo-Catholics are part of FiF or the ordinariate or anti-women priests; it's another much broader grouping than the stereotypes suggest.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It was meant to be a bit facetious. But I did say "all A/Cs who object to ordination of women" rather than just all A/Cs. I'm well aware of the breadth within AngloCatholicism. It may even be as broad as Evangelicalism. The fact that this statement we're discussing exists testifies to the breadth of opinion on ordination of women, and the depth of feeling of some people on both sides of the debate which often spilt over into personal attacks and other unpleasantness.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Yes, I know that lot and I also know that some of those who signed up have been denied preferment.
Thought police.....
You know that they have been denied preferment? Ok then, what's your evidence?
The evidence was in George Carey's filing cabinet but i am not at liberty to betray confidences.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
