Thread: Affirming Evangelical Unity or Shoehorning in division? 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=030796
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
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?
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
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)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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".
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
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
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
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.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Like that Christ is a person of God and that the church is a community of humans?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I am pleased to note that i have never heard of any of the signatories apart from Bp. Pete, David Wenham and Glynn Harrison.
[ 08. April 2015, 13:11: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
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!
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
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?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Actually, the above isn't worded very well - iof ahnyone taskes exception, I can provide a more nuanced comment.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
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.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
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.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
So, if reality conflicts with your religious beliefs, learn to enjoy the taste of sand?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Louise--
Thanks for that article link. Really interesting!
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
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.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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 ...].
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Yes, I know that lot and I also know that some of those who signed up have been denied preferment.
Thought police.....
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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).
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
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.
They may disagree'honourably' among themselves but their pronouncements are toxic to LGBT people, undermining their core sense of being.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
The conservative evangelicals and the traditonalist catholics are still honoured members of the CofE. That's the settlement we've come to, despite the intolerance of some "liberals" (liberal only when it suits them) and their desire to exclude them from the Church now that we have agreed that all three orders of ministry are open to both female and male. Keeping these groups in the CofE does entail that we give space to "sacramental assurance" and "headship" - neither of which doctrines is part of Anglican teaching - and this statement attempts to speak about how we can live together as evangelical Anglicans. I don't believe in complementarianism or the superiority of one gender over another in marriage. I do believe that gender difference entails an understanding that there is a givenness of male and female in creation, as per the Genesis account and Jesus' endorsement of it - which is what 7b says. 7d is more muddled, because analogy is not the starting point for our understanding of marriage (Con Evos get terribly stuck on Ephesians 5). But 7d is reasserting the teaching of scripture, the BCP and Canon B30, which will obviously not be a source of joy and hope for supporters of same sex marriage, but which is common ground for most, if not all evangelicals.
Yes, it's probably part of an internal conversation between two groups of people (Con Evos and Mainstream Evos) who wouldn't be much loved by many on the Ship. But it's one we needed to have.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
They don't "bash" - they disagree and aim to do so honorably.
I don't think denying people equality is ever honorable. I would characterise some as doing so politely and without malice, but cannot add honour to that.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Con Evos get terribly stuck on Ephesians 5.
Sorry, this may be a tangent, but can you enlarge on this statement, please, Pete?
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
Haven't got time to tease this out in detail, but simply that analogy is not parallelism. The Christ <-> Church thing isn't equivalent to the husband <-> wife thing.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
If it's that simple, how is it that they get so terribly stuck on it?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The conservative evangelicals and the traditonalist catholics are still honoured members of the CofE. That's the settlement we've come to... Keeping these groups in the CofE does entail that we give space to "sacramental assurance" and "headship" - neither of which doctrines is part of Anglican teaching -
(i) It's a bad and shortsighted settlement which was bound to cause the difficulties that it is causing now. It needs to be revised, but you're right, that's the situation at present.
(ii)No it doesn't. It entails them recognising that they have got a much better deal than they could legitimately have hoped for, counting their blessings, and keeping schtum so as not to push the tolerance of the mainstream CofE too far.
[ 12. April 2015, 17:56: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
In a perfect nutshell, Albertus.
On a personal level, the ConEvos I've encountered recently could start by not loudly demanding that children of gay couples be refused baptism and by refusing to acknowledge people at the Peace because they are "notorious sinners": both examples I've seen/heard in the past 6 months.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Shouldn't notorious sinners be more in need of the peace?
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
I think the correct phrase is "notorious evil liver" as here.
I always thought of it as referring to the state of one's vital organs after a lifetime in the Anglican ministry... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
A more reasoned extension of my last posting:
'sacramental assurance' and 'headship' are not, as + Pete points out, part of Anglican teaching. However, by admitting women to all three orders of ministry, the CofE has now subscribed to the belief (i) that women may validly and legitimately be ordained to the whole range of holy orders and (ii) that women may occupy senior positions of authority within the church, not excluding archbishoprics.
Now, AIUI 'sacramental assurance' ultimately denies (i) and 'headship' ultimately denies (ii). So if I am correct, these doctrines are not things indifferent: they stand in opposition to, and cannot be reconciled with, what is now, if not the teaching, at least the declared belief of the Church.
If this is indeed the case, how can space legitimately be made for them, as + Pete argues that it should be?
(How revealing, BTW, that when 'liberals' (I don't like the term, but let that pass) are intolerant of those who suggest that half of the human race is inferior because of the arrangement of their chromosomes, +Pete sneers at them ('only liberal when it suits them'); but when it is suggested that some ConEvos are acting in ways which are very arguably lacking in charity and certainly (with regard to the baptism question) advocating a position which runs against the whole CofE understanding of ministry to the parish, he sidesteps it with a laugh.)
[ 12. April 2015, 21:54: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
The point about sacramental assurance and headship is that giving them space to believe those things (wrong though they may be) is inherent in the settlement. The Synod signed up to that, like it or not. Of course they're wrong-headed, but we've agreed to try to make it work.
And no, I'm not excusing bad behaviour by ConEvos, any more than by liberals. Believe you me, the worst part of my job is dealing with the continual stream of ordure that CofE Christians pile upon each other. They shouldn't give you a crosier; they should give you a spade. My point about liberalism is that it makes claims to be inclusive of all, but actually seeks to exclude anyone who doesn't agree with their list of shibboleths. Whereas ConEvos don't claim to be inclusive of all, and seek to exclude anyone who doesn't agree with their list of shibboleths. There's only a fine distinction, but it's ideologically significant - even though the ecclesio-political effect is a mirror image of itself.
Now back to work. Where's that referee's whistle?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
"You are not inclusive as you do not tolerate intolerance" is rubbish.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"You are not inclusive as you do not tolerate intolerance" is rubbish.
This. A million times this.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
Yup. That works both ways too. Of course, privilege can be granted to only certain sorts of intolerance. But don't let that worry you out of your inconsistency.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
They may disagree'honourably' among themselves but their pronouncements are toxic to LGBT people, undermining their core sense of being.
If then, I disagree or have reservations about SSM I can't dialogue on it until I've changed my mind?
Where's your Anglican reasonableness?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"You are not inclusive as you do not tolerate intolerance" is rubbish.
The problem is not inclusivity, it is the blindness caused by self-righteousness. Homophobes and antihomophobes have phobia in common. They feel justified in their disgust.
What's the right way to handle both ourselves and others if we believe that some of their thoughts, words and deeds are disgusting? Do we regard them as incorrigible? Will shouting make a difference? Or shooting? How dangerous to us are the biased, and what dangers exist to us in intemperate responses to bias?
One of my personal touchstones is that bias is normal, as is having blindspots about our own biases. Stokely Carmichael who became Kwame Touré is an interesting study in this respect. See for example the "jokey" comment about misogyny, which seems to sit oddly with Civil Rights activism.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I don't understand statement 1 and it reads as rather dodgy. Does it mean, we agree you are Christian if you have been baptised ? Or we agree you are a Christian if you chose to be baptised after learning the faith ? Or we believe you to be a Christian if you have been appropriately baptised, and, live your life in a way *we think* is consistent with scripture ?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It doesn't say anything about baptism.
It's basically a fairly standard statement of (evangelical) Christian identity - reinforced in points 2 and 3 to clarify the evangelical beliefs of those who sign the document. Evangelical doctrine holds that Christians are those who have been "born again" (although these days that particular phrase is avoided because it's come to have a narrower meaning than most evangelicals would use), straight from John 3; those who have faith in Christ and know themsleves to be adopted children of the Father, with that saving faith demonstrated through good works.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It doesn't say anything about baptism.
It's basically a fairly standard statement of (evangelical) Christian identity - reinforced in points 2 and 3 to clarify the evangelical beliefs of those who sign the document. Evangelical doctrine holds that Christians are those who have been "born again" (although these days that particular phrase is avoided because it's come to have a narrower meaning than most evangelicals would use), straight from John 3; those who have faith in Christ and know themsleves to be adopted children of the Father, with that saving faith demonstrated through good works.
I thought this:
quote:
We affirm as Christian brothers and sisters all who experience the grace of new birth by the Spirit, bringing them to faith in Christ and adoption by the Father, and expressed in a life of obedience to his Word.
Was effectively - we evangelicals recognise these others as Christians - with the points following recognising a subset of people as evangelical.
[ 13. April 2015, 08:56: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I think the problem I have from outside this whole evangelical business is incredulity that anyone would give concepts as irrational as homophobia or sexism the time of day, or consider the credibility of theologies promoting them.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
[response to DT, x-post with Karl]
It basically does. Evangelicals would have difficulty recognising someone as a Christian if they didn't have some form of understanding of being re-born, some form of personal faith in the saving power of Christ, an acknowledgment of being adopted into the family of God/part of the body of Christ, and by their words and actions demonstrating that faith in their everyday life.
[ 13. April 2015, 09:06: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
But does that not entail believing most Anglicans are not Christian ? (Nevermind anyone else.)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "most Anglicans". If you mean the people who enter "CofE" whenever they're asked their religion, but never enter a church, wouldn't know any hymns except "Morning has broken" (and struggle with that), and wouldn't know a Creed if it hit them in the head, then probably most evangelicals would struggle to consider them Christian. If you mean the people who attend church most weeks, can recite and agree with most of the Creeds, etc then most evangelicals would consider them Christian - maybe too liberal, backslidden (hi Karl!), in error and needing to see the light - but Christians. Of course there are some evangelicals who are not willing to admit anyone outside their particular church are Christian.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think the problem I have from outside this whole evangelical business is incredulity that anyone would give concepts as irrational as homophobia or sexism the time of day, or consider the credibility of theologies promoting them.
The generation before mine were, in the majority, racist to some degree, sexist to some degree, and also convinced that homosexuality was a perversion. Some of them, including very elderly people I care a lot about, are still stuck in the previously socially acceptable mindset.
The issue is not whether you think the general mindset was wrong (as I do) but what is the best way of handling people who are still stuck with that mindset, for whatever reasons. And not all of the "stuck" are either very old or evangelical either.
There are good reasons for the paradigm shift which can be presented to those who are stuck, and are very often anxious about the way the world is changing.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The point about sacramental assurance and headship is that giving them space to believe those things (wrong though they may be) is inherent in the settlement. The Synod signed up to that, like it or not. Of course they're wrong-headed, but we've agreed to try to make it work.
.... My point about liberalism is that it makes claims to be inclusive of all, but actually seeks to exclude anyone who doesn't agree with their list of shibboleths. Whereas ConEvos don't claim to be inclusive of all, and seek to exclude anyone who doesn't agree with their list of shibboleths. There's only a fine distinction, but it's ideologically significant - even though the ecclesio-political effect is a mirror image of itself.
...
(i) Weak, weak, weak. Feeble beyond belief. Why does the rest of the church- those who adhere to what we might now characterise as orthodox CofE teaching on gender roles in ministry and authority- have to be the bit that does all the accommodating? And since when have you ever been one for accepting the status quo if it doesn't suit you? If this were Hell I would now be making reamrks about self-styled bad-boy bishops who cultivate a superficially rebellious image but whose scurry back to point to the letter of the law when it suits them to do so.
(ii) I don't actually know any 'liberal', as you would call them, who believes that you have to tolerate or include everybody and everything- or at least I don't know any over the age of about 19 who do so. Almost all 'liberals' who have thought about their position at all recognise that there have to be limits to inclusion precisely in order to maintain a climate in which 'liberalism' can flourish. You go and find me one of the 'liberals' you talk about who doesn't believe that there should be, in the wider world, laws to prevent race and sex discrimination. It's the same principle in the church. What's wrong with that? Or perhaps you do have a problem with anti-discrimination laws?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If this were Hell I would now be making reamrks about self-styled bad-boy bishops who cultivate a superficially rebellious image but whose scurry back to point to the letter of the law when it suits them to do so.
Well it isn't so don't say here what you can safely get away with saying there and then say you're not saying it. That's an old trick but it is still a Commandment 3 offence. Take pete173 to Hell, or back off.
[ETA I'm withdrawing from the discussion as a Shipmate at this stage to enable me to Host. This thread has been getting pretty tetchy at times, so I'm resuming the role of monitor, rather than participant.]
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
[ 13. April 2015, 10:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
OK. I know just how far I can push it.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
Part of the problem of this discussion is the usage of such derogatory terms such as ConEvo which helps few people. While I certainly wouldn't deny that many evangelicals hold conservative views, it is misleading to identify evangelicals with those who are socially conservative, just as it is misleading to label all Yorkshiremen as whippet owners who wear flat caps.
This is why I don't have issues with points 8 & 9 of the declaration. There are few skills at which christians of all stripes excel better at than demonising one another and trying to mark ourselves off from others.
*minor tangent*
The risk is, and this is not uncommon on the Ship and some examples can be seen on this thread, that we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Phrases that are reasonable for any christian to use such as "born again" are often seen as being very evangelical in nature that some now shun the term lest they be thought of as having anything in common with evangelicals.
It's also worth noting, as some of the discussion seems to be quite CofE centred, that most evangelicals aren't anglicans. The evangelical expression of faith is far broader than one fairly niche group.
*/minor tangent*
Coming back to the affirmation in question, it's just a shame that paragraph 7 is worded as it is. If it were left out, I don't think it would lose much, but by having it in, I couldn't sign it and keep a clear conscience.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
ConEvo isn't meant to be derogatory. It's shorthand for "those evangelicals who hold to an understanding of what it means to be evangelical who hold specific and defined positions on (inter alia)
* the inerrancy of scripture
* the nature of the atonement
* the leadership of women
* cessationism
and who might not recognise other evangelicals who don't hold to quite the same view on these matters as being truly evangelical."
"ConEvo" is a lot shorter than that! Mostly they'd be FIEC or Grace Baptist or Affinity. The CofE tends to be the only mainstream denomination in which they are present in any significant numbers.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Depends how you define "mainstream" of course ... (says he, his Baptist hackles ever-so-slightly rising).
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Depends how you define "mainstream" of course ... (says he, his Baptist hackles ever-so-slightly rising).
Mine are rising way faster than slightly .... why is it that some groups always presume that the rest of us want to be like them and, love to have them say it for us?
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
I didn't include Baptists because most of the (Baptist Union affiliated) Baptists I hang out with don't tend to subscribe to that list of shibboleths. As distinct from inerrancy, penal, complementarian and cessationist, they tend to go for God's word written, substitutionary, egalitarian and charismatic. But you may wish to argue differently.
(sorry, this is becoming an internal codeword discussion...)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I think it's fair to say hat BUGB is a fairly broad Church (not as broad as the CofE). While it is, I agree, generally made up of the sort of Evangelical you describe, it also includes some who might be called "fundamentalist", others who are definitely "liberal", and folk with a whole range of views on charismata. And each congregation might include a spread of views within it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Yup. That works both ways too. Of course, privilege can be granted to only certain sorts of intolerance. But don't let that worry you out of your inconsistency.
Could you, pretty please, explain the inconsistency?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"You are not inclusive as you do not tolerate intolerance" is rubbish.
The problem is not inclusivity, it is the blindness caused by self-righteousness. Homophobes and antihomophobes have phobia in common. They feel justified in their disgust.
What's the right way to handle both ourselves and others if we believe that some of their thoughts, words and deeds are disgusting? Do we regard them as incorrigible? Will shouting make a difference? Or shooting? How dangerous to us are the biased, and what dangers exist to us in intemperate responses to bias?
One of my personal touchstones is that bias is normal, as is having blindspots about our own biases. Stokely Carmichael who became Kwame Touré is an interesting study in this respect. See for example the "jokey" comment about misogyny, which seems to sit oddly with Civil Rights activism.
Sorry, I see that you have stepped out of the conversation, but I would still like to address the points and questions you raised.
Homophobes and anti-homophobes do have a reaction in common. But this does not mean they are equivalent.
The conversation should be as polite as possible, this does not mean it should contain no passion.
How dangerous are the biased? They would prevent some from fully participating. Yes, women and gays, you may ride in the bus. But please go to the back and try not to touch anything on your way there.
Regarding Touré, if you read the entire section, it mitigates the comment somewhat. But your point is valid. Many people do not care about equality for all, but only for the group(s) for which they consider themselves members.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
See what I wrote earlier in the thread.
Group A claim to be tolerant, but exclude from their definition of tolerance and inclusivity any people whom they perceive to be intolerant. Thereby they have redefined tolerance and inclusivity as limited to their own narrow understanding of it.
Group B make no claims to be tolerant of any whom they perceive not to hold to their understanding of truth. They do not claim to be inclusive in the widest definition of that word.
What's inconsistent about the Group A approach? It is that they claim to hold inclusivity as a major value (and will often spell the word with a capital I), but are selective about the way in which they apply inclusivity, and are explicit about the fact that they limit toleration to those who do not subscribe to their shibboleths. In other words, they are only selectively inclusive.
What's inconsistent about the Group B approach? Not very much, actually. They are internally consistent in that they don't claim to embrace the opinions and values of those within Group A who wish to exclude them. You may not like them, but at least you know where they stand.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
See what I wrote earlier in the thread.
Group A claim to be tolerant, but exclude from their definition of tolerance and inclusivity any people whom they perceive to be intolerant. Thereby they have redefined tolerance and inclusivity as limited to their own narrow understanding of it.
Group B make no claims to be tolerant of any whom they perceive not to hold to their understanding of truth. They do not claim to be inclusive in the widest definition of that word.
What's inconsistent about the Group A approach? It is that they claim to hold inclusivity as a major value (and will often spell the word with a capital I), but are selective about the way in which they apply inclusivity, and are explicit about the fact that they limit toleration to those who do not subscribe to their shibboleths. In other words, they are only selectively inclusive.
What's inconsistent about the Group B approach? Not very much, actually. They are internally consistent in that they don't claim to embrace the opinions and values of those within Group A who wish to exclude them. You may not like them, but at least you know where they stand.
Absolute bollocks to the power of bollocks.
There is nothing inconsistent about not tolerating murderous hatred from a position of inclusivity. And if you object to the label "murderous hatred" consider the number of people who have been caused to bring their own lives to a premature end by "Christian love".
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
It's not about inclusivity, it's about justice. I interact every day with a group of under-30s (mostly evangelicals) which includes people who have been banned from serving coffee in church because they are gay, who have had to move out before coming out because they know they would have been made homeless, who have been not allowed to get baptised because they are gay, whose parents have lost roles within the church because they have gay children. Look at the homelessness rates for LGBT youth - look at the suicide rates too. Some of those will be Anglicans, and Baptists, and other evangelicals.
I suggest evangelicals whining about nasty liberals take their heads out of their arses and see the cost of their 'unity'.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
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.
I would question the small minority thing. It's not the experience of LGBT evangelicals.
I would also say that evangelicals who seek to respectfully disagree with same-gender marriage but welcome LGBT people need to be much more actively inclusive of them - saying nothing equals siding with the oppressor here. It's not enough to say 'we disagree but want to do so respectfully', you have to actively work at including LGBT people. Church is not a safe place for us, a lot of the time. That needs changing. If you (general you) are sincere about treating LGBT people with respect then you need to be part of making church safe for LGBT people.
Also, the false dichotomy between liberal and LGBT and evangelical and not LGBT needs to stop - there are lots of LGBT evangelicals who love evangelicalism and want to be fully part of their churches, so why not let them?
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
ConEvo isn't meant to be derogatory. It's shorthand for "those evangelicals who hold to an understanding of what it means to be evangelical who hold specific and defined positions on (inter alia)
* the inerrancy of scripture
* the nature of the atonement
* the leadership of women
* cessationism
and who might not recognise other evangelicals who don't hold to quite the same view on these matters as being truly evangelical."
Is this an emic description which you come across often or is this an etic set of shibboleths that have been designed for the purposes of identifying those who are in the intersection of the Venn diagram showing the set of evangelical christians and the set of "conservative" christians?
I wonder if there are elements on both sides of defining the "other" so that they may be isolated and distanced.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
ConEvo isn't meant to be derogatory. It's shorthand for "those evangelicals who hold to an understanding of what it means to be evangelical who hold specific and defined positions on (inter alia)
* the inerrancy of scripture
* the nature of the atonement
* the leadership of women
* cessationism
and who might not recognise other evangelicals who don't hold to quite the same view on these matters as being truly evangelical."
Is this an emic description which you come across often or is this an etic set of shibboleths that have been designed for the purposes of identifying those who are in the intersection of the Venn diagram showing the set of evangelical christians and the set of "conservative" christians?
I wonder if there are elements on both sides of defining the "other" so that they may be isolated and distanced.
There's an article on the taxonomy here.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I get a sense, Pete, in your argument, of a sort of 'Oak Hill ConEvos may be bastards but at least they are my kind of bastard and so when the chips are down we will be on the same side of the barricades'.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
No, it's more that we're all different sorts of bastards, because that's what Church is like.
The discussion on this thread started about an attempt to resolve one of the many internecine wars (in this case between evangelicals) that have been going on for the last 20 years. Personally, I find the inter-evangelical wars more exhausting, because the shared heritage means that I don't get why they don't get the women and leadership thing. But there you go.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Quite, Albertus.
Immediately referring to everyone else as 'liberals' is really not helpful. I am pro same-gender marriage, and perhaps could be referred to as liberal on this and some other dead horses. However as a whole I certainly don't consider myself liberal - I affirm the Creeds and do so literally (ie I believe in the virgin birth, physical resurrection and a physical Second Coming), and I'm not a fan of humanism dressed up as Christianity or Spong.
I am not sure why there is such an obsession checking people's orthodoxy wrt sexuality when there's certainly far more heterodoxy regarding money or church structure or even the Trinity out there, even amongst evangelicals. Why does being for same-gender marriage automatically make me a liberal, when I know there are plenty of say, charismatics with dodgy attitudes towards poverty and the Bible? Why can there not be a simple 'agree to disagree' attitude like there is with the issue of divorce?
The level of sheer fear radiating from the more distinctly homophobic conservatives reeks of internalised homophobia.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
pete173,
Your argument might help the garden bloom, but it conflates two separate things. Freedom of speech and freedom of action.
You are free to express you dislike of who I am, but I'll be damned if I ride in the back of the bus because of it.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
I have no idea who you are, and I have expressed no dislike towards you.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I being a generic I. Those people who do not believe in equality are free to believe and express this belief. But when their actions curtail the right of others to enjoy the freedom they themselves enjoy, the line is drawn. And it is not a prejudicial line, though you insist it is.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Pete - would a solution akin to the marriage of divorced people with a living ex-spouse in the CoE be acceptable to you and other people opposed to same-gender marriage? If not, why not?
I was previously in a conservative evangelical Anglican church that refused to marry people who had been divorced, and I can't see how being able to refuse to marry a same-gender couple would make much difference to them.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
I don't think this thread is about that (except tangentially). It's about a statement (which may or may not hold) on the issue of women in leadership.
We have two years of shared conversations on the matter of the CofE and LGBTI people.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
But this thread has mostly been about evangelicals and same-gender marriage ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I just want to know whether a situation like that with the CoE and divorcees marrying would be acceptable to such a group.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The discussion on this thread started about an attempt to resolve one of the many internecine wars (in this case between evangelicals) that have been going on for the last 20 years.
Only 20 years? I was at university more than 20 years ago, and the question of women in leadership was an old battle ground for the evangelicals I knew then. But, they were almost entirely non-Anglican evangelicals, perhaps the Anglican evangelicals were playing catchup.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Immediately referring to everyone else as 'liberals' is really not helpful. I am pro same-gender marriage, and perhaps could be referred to as liberal on this and some other dead horses. However as a whole I certainly don't consider myself liberal - I affirm the Creeds and do so literally (ie I believe in the virgin birth, physical resurrection and a physical Second Coming), and I'm not a fan of humanism dressed up as Christianity or Spong.
I am not sure why there is such an obsession checking people's orthodoxy wrt sexuality when there's certainly far more heterodoxy regarding money or church structure or even the Trinity out there, even amongst evangelicals. ...
The level of sheer fear radiating from the more distinctly homophobic conservatives reeks of internalised homophobia.
Yup, that's where I'm at, too.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Like you, Pomona, I think this 'liberal' label is a bit of a red herring. Experience has taught me that there are gay people who are exemplary Christians and whose relationships can be loving and holy in the highest degree. Experience has taught me that there are women who are, I believe, excellent clergy. Other than on those issues, I suspect that my beliefs as a Christian and my views on the Church, including especially my views the nature of authority within it, are not significantly different from those of, say, the late Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher (who, BTW, believed that the arguments for and against OOW were 'finely balanced'- this a remarkable statement for someone of his generation and position in 1956 or thereabouts).
Back to the headship thing. Pete says that the nature of the Church is that it is composed of 'different sorts of bastards'. I see what he means, but I don't think that that means that every particular manifestation of the Church (e.g. in this case the CofE) needs to accord equal status to every particular sort of 'bastard'. For example, we all know that there have been people who would regard themselves as devout Christians who believe, on what they believe to be Biblical authority, that black people are inferior to, or at any rate destined to be ruled by, white people. There has not AFAIK ever been any substantial, or substantially noisy, and organised such group within the CofE, but if there were, would Pete feel the need to accommodate them?
Interesting, on looking back through this thread, to see that nowhere does Pete try to defend the principle of making concessions made to the 'headship' (and 'sacramental assurance') crowds. His arguments are based on keeping to the commitments to these groups made in the past. Perhaps he realises that these commitments are, in themselves, indefensible in principle.
[ 13. April 2015, 21:07: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
In the past, evangelicals who disagreed with each other didn't insist on belonging to the same churches. Very often they went off to start new churches, some of which became quite effective in their turn. I'm not sure why the same shouldn't be possible regarding disagreements about about sexuality or sexual roles, or anything else.
We all love to talk about 'unity', but in our culture at present unity only seems to mean that churches close and/or merge, and that Christians have less and less choice when it comes to finding others who share their doctrines, or ways of worshipping. Everything is brought down to the lowest common denominator, which is boring.
No, I think we should all be grateful to 'conevo' congregations that make it clear what they teach, so that members and would-be members can take their their money and time elsewhere if they profoundly disagree!
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
The settlement Synod reached on women bishops (after about 5 attempts) is the one we now have to live with. It's not ideal. It's a pragmatic solution. Because I was part of the process that made it possible to get where we are today (and therefore implicated), I'm committed to making it work, and not letting it unravel in the first year of operation.
We now have bishops and priests, male and female, which is something I rejoice in. I also have to deal with clergy (mainly) and laity for whom I have pastoral responsibility who can't (yet) accept women priests and bishops. Finding ways in which they can stay in the CofE is part of the deal. A lot of people don't like it. But we now have Bishops of Stockport and Hull and Gloucester (all great appointments) which wouldn't have happened without the compromises built into the legislation.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Well, I do wonder whether the concessions that were made in Synod on bishops will be seen as worthwhile if they are allowed to stand for as long as the concessions made about priests have been allowed to. There was the option after women bishops were rejected in 2012 of the senior Bishops saying 'sod it, sod Synod' and getting Parliament to legislate- a semi-nuclear option, but we might yet wish that it had been taken.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In the past, evangelicals who disagreed with each other didn't insist on belonging to the same churches. Very often they went off to start new churches, some of which became quite effective in their turn. I'm not sure why the same shouldn't be possible regarding disagreements about about sexuality or sexual roles, or anything else.
Some evangelicals will still do that. But, there are lots of good reasons not to. For a start, evangelicals will want to take seriously Biblical texts about being One Body, about loving one another, and so on. Evangelicals in general are behind the game in terms of ecumenicalism, and many evangelical churches won't be part of local Churches Together or equivalent. However, even though there's often a reluctance for evangelicals to formally join ecumenical groups, evangelicals are increasingly strengthening relationships with other evangelicals, with a corresponding production of statements similar to this one regarding points of difference between groups within Evangelicalism. There is also a reluctance to make things worse in terms of visible unity by splitting off and forming yet more churches.
That's generally true of evangelicals in my experience. However, Evangelical Anglicans (and also Methodists and others in larger denominations) do tend to be more ecumenically minded than the average for evangelicals. Thus, IME, Anglican Evangelicals are even more likely to value visible unity within the Anglican Communion, and ecumenical initiatives beyond that. That may not result in them having any desire to worship with the AngloCatholic tat-shack down the road, but they would still tend to see themselves as Christians together within the same body.
Of course, the AngloCatholic tat-shack down the road will probably find the worship of evangelicals to not be their glass of gin either. Many of them would also be unhappy about the ordination of women. But, for similar reasons of being part of one body they also want to remain within the Anglican Communion. The desire to maintain visible unity within the Anglican Church has resulted in many groups within the church agreeing with a fudge.
Of course, quite a lot of people have also left the Anglican Church, some to Rome others to independent evangelical churches, some to nowhere in particular, because they couldn't accept the fudge. But, those that remain must surely do so because they value to Anglican Church as a place of common ground.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Evangelicals in general are behind the game in terms of ecumenicalism, and many evangelical churches won't be part of local Churches Together or equivalent.
My (Scottish) wife has chatted from time to time about ecumenical issues with her relatives, who live in Glasgow. She has also - although not recently - taken part in a number of children's work training courses. And her impression is that Scottish Evangelicals are about 20 years "behind" their English counterparts when it comes to getting together with other churches.
To take a concrete example: she was staying with her brother, who is an Elder and Lay Preacher in one of the smaller Presbyterian denominations. The local URC minister dropped round to talk about something happening on their estate; when he'd left, her brother and his wife said, "Of course, our church can't really have much to do with them as they're not Real Christians".
Does that square up with your experience, Alan?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Yes, it does. Coming from the position of an Elder in the URC, and Evangelical I cna relate to being on the other side of that conversation.
And, my experience of Evangelicalism in England is 20 years old, so ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Hallo Alan, I wanted to PM you (again) but your Inbox is full ...
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Sorry about that. I would say I'm popular, but the truth is I'm a hoarder. Sorted now.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
Ecumenacalism certainly varies with region. Where I now live in London, the churches together movement seems to be led by the Anglican churches, backed up the the methodist/URC with a smattering of others. Most of evangelical churches are independent pentecostals with a few RCCG, New Frontiers, Pioneer and Ichthus dotted around.
Before I came here though, I lived in Sussex where churches together was much more evangelical led. The pentecostal and baptist churches provided the impetus for any activities. In contrast the anglican churches were very anti-evangelical, regarding the area as "their" patch. One vicar told me that he regarded the baptist church as interlopers who didn't belong there.
Whenever I hear of "liberal catholic" elements of the CofE, it is this hateful attitude that instantly comes to mind.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Ecumenacalism certainly varies with region.
David Coffey - ex-BUGB General Secretary - has
on several occasions written about the "tribes" of Evangelicalism and the need for unity.
quote:
Before I came here though, I lived in Sussex where churches together was much more evangelical led. The pentecostal and baptist churches provided the impetus for any activities. In contrast the anglican churches were very anti-evangelical, regarding the area as "their" patch. One vicar told me that he regarded the baptist church as interlopers who didn't belong there.
Saly I've come across that attitude: "This is 'our' parish (and your tradition doesn't count)".
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
You surely don't have to remain a member of a particular church in order to have ecumenical relations with it. It's possible to swap churches because of sexuality or other reasons but continue to communicate and to meet up with your former church family for community events and so on. Let's remember that some couples get on much better after they divorce!
In terms of broader ecumenical relations, I was until very recently the secretary for a local inner city Churches Together group, so I'm not anti-ecumenical as such. However, it's plain to see that ecumenicalism of this type is most useful to churches that are not strong enough to pursue their mission or public agenda effectively on their own. Evangelical churches that are doing tolerably well on their own terms don't particularly need to subject themselves to agendas which are largely set by more mainstream denominations or congregations.
I don't really understand what a group of CofE evangelicals mean by 'unity', though. They're already part of a single institution, so all they're doing is discussing what should unite members of the subgroup. If they fall out with each other most of them will still remain in the CofE, so it's hardly a big deal...!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You surely don't have to remain a member of a particular church in order to have ecumenical relations with it. It's possible to swap churches because of sexuality or other reasons but continue to communicate and to meet up with your former church family for community events and so on.
Have you ever left a church over a disagreement on something significant? Especially if it's been a big bust-up across the congregation and you're not the only one to leave. I can tell you, meeting with members of the former church at community events is not easy, there is a lot of frosty silence and averted eyes, a large dose of "get this over so I can leave".
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
If that's the case then why would you want to stay in touch with them anyway?
People leave churches all the time. It always has happened and always will. Many young people will fall out with their parents over religion, and older people will grow weary of supporting churches whose teachings and attitudes they don't fully share. I can't see how any amount of longing for unity is going to change this basic reality. Indeed, the path towards 'unity' is often something else for churchgoers to disagree about! Church mergers often lose people during the process.
Evangelicalism without bust-ups seems to be something of a contradiction, AFAICS. You run the risk of bust-ups when you join a church when everyone takes their doctrines very seriously. The way to avoid that sort of thing is to join a church that values or at least tolerates diversity.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If that's the case then why would you want to stay in touch with them anyway?
Because they're still brothers and sisters in Christ. Because, despite whatever it was that means you couldn't continue in that congregation you would still have friends there (many of whom might have been close to leaving too). Because your time there had brought you closer to Christ, given you a chance to grow and develop in your faith, to serve and be served. Because a church is like family, and there will always be some connection no matter how strained and difficult.
quote:
People leave churches all the time. It always has happened and always will. Many young people will fall out with their parents over religion, and older people will grow weary of supporting churches whose teachings and attitudes they don't fully share.
Yes, people leave churches all the time. In many cases perfectly amicably. I've left a church which had nothing for children to another local church which did have, with the blessing and understanding of all in the church. I've left churches because I've moved away. You leave as friends, are always welcome to come back and visit and everyone wants to know how things are going. People drift out slowly as their faith develops in ways different from the church, or the church changes from what had been a good fit to their faith. They start going elsewhere once a month, then make the final step. And, people at the church understand that, because they've known them for a long time, know where they are and where the church is.
That is very different from the emotions of a big bust up. A sudden realisation that the church is not what you thought it was. When the church that had been friendly and welcoming, and you thought would welcome anyone, suddenly shows an unexpected bigotry and refuses to offer someone a welcome. Then people leave shaking the dust from their feet, vowing to never again darken the door of that church. Friends for many years find themselves unexpectedly on different sides, some going and others staying. Those who leave feel betrayed and angry at the church they're leaving. Those left behind feel abandoned and wonder whether they can keep going without several prominent members of the congregation. No one wants to leave, no one wants others to leave, but the divorce is forced on people by circumstances. And it fucking hurts like hell.
And, just to top it off, having stormed out, knowing that there is no way back, you still want to maintain fellowship because despite everything they are brothers and sisters in the faith, they are family, and they are precious people you still love. And, that hurts too.
I'm glad you've never experienced that, and hope you never will. But, please lay off the platitudes about "some couples get on better after divorce" and "you can still go back for the coffee mornings". Life isn't that simple. Not for couples who break up, not for churches that fall apart.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by pete173 quote:
The settlement Synod reached on women bishops (after about 5 attempts) is the one we now have to live with. It's not ideal. It's a pragmatic solution. Because I was part of the process that made it possible to get where we are today (and therefore implicated), I'm committed to making it work, and not letting it unravel in the first year of operation.
The best description of the hole-in-the-corner deal reached with the conservative evangelicals is that it is shoddy and shameful: pragmatism is one thing, but that went way beyond anything reasonable or acceptable. If I were you I'd be keeping my own part in it quiet.
quote:
We now have bishops and priests, male and female, which is something I rejoice in.
Yes, it is a good thing - but then if previous bishops and archbishops had had the cojones we could (would, and should) have been here more than 20 years ago.
quote:
I also have to deal with clergy (mainly) and laity for whom I have pastoral responsibility who can't (yet) accept women priests and bishops.
And chances are that if you could find the elixir of eternal youth and so stay a bishop for another 100 years you'd still be finding the same thing: partisans and bigots insisting on their own little patch and demanding that the rest of us make special provision for them.
quote:
Finding ways in which they can stay in the CofE is part of the deal. A lot of people don't like it.
No, finding ways in which they "can" stay is what you're obssessed with: there are plenty of us who think you should call their bluff, especially bearing in mind just how much of the doctrine of the CofE they don't/won't accept - and need I remind you that that includes the existence of bishops for a sizeable number of them.
quote:
But we now have Bishops of Stockport and Hull and Gloucester (all great appointments) which wouldn't have happened without the compromises built into the legislation.
We've had bishops of Gloucester since 1541; suffragans of Stockport since 1949 and Hull since 1891 (forget the 16th century appointment). I'm sure that bishops would eventually have been found for all three places with or without the legislation - and its too soon to tell whether any of them are "great" appointments.
Rather than indulging in yet more back-slapping about the issue, when can we expect the House of Bishops to grasp the nettle of reforming the structure of the CofE to reflect the massive contraction in numbers over the past 60 years? Two of the appointments you quote above are of suffragans when the church should really be questioning whether or not we need suffragans and, if we do, where they should be and how many of them.
Above all else, it is puzzling why so many concessions are being made to the ConEvos when few, if any, are made at the opposite end of the scale.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
We've had bishops of Gloucester since 1541; suffragans of Stockport since 1949 and Hull since 1891 (forget the 16th century appointment). I'm sure that bishops would eventually have been found for all three places with or without the legislation - and its too soon to tell whether any of them are "great" appointments.
[snip]
Above all else, it is puzzling why so many concessions are being made to the ConEvos when few, if any, are made at the opposite end of the scale.
Indeed. I am particularly concerned that the new +Gloucester is of such different churchmanship from her predecessors. Are there no high church woman priests with the potential to be bishops?
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by pete173 quote:
The settlement Synod reached on women bishops (after about 5 attempts) is the one we now have to live with. It's not ideal. It's a pragmatic solution. Because I was part of the process that made it possible to get where we are today (and therefore implicated), I'm committed to making it work, and not letting it unravel in the first year of operation.
The best description of the hole-in-the-corner deal reached with the conservative evangelicals is that it is shoddy and shameful: pragmatism is one thing, but that went way beyond anything reasonable or acceptable. If I were you I'd be keeping my own part in it quiet.
Above all else, it is puzzling why so many concessions are being made to the ConEvos when few, if any, are made at the opposite end of the scale.
Oh, no, I'm thoroughly proud of my part in it. Because it keeps people in the CofE and holds us together, and protects them from the bigotry that would exclude them.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Evangelicals in general are behind the game in terms of ecumenicalism, and many evangelical churches won't be part of local Churches Together or equivalent. However, even though there's often a reluctance for evangelicals to formally join ecumenical groups, evangelicals are increasingly strengthening relationships with other evangelicals, with a corresponding production of statements similar to this one regarding points of difference between groups within Evangelicalism.
I can't claim my personal experience as universal, of course, but my experience has been that evangelicals are way ahead of the game in terms of working together between and across denominational boundaries, precisely because they have more theology in common and really do see denominational differences as relatively unimportant. Others in the denominations don't have that large theological common belief, and therefore see their distinctive practices as far more important and not to be easily given up over a 'trivial' cause like Christian unity.
At the Uni I went to, the non-evangelical student societies were pretty fragmented and separate and the nominally unifying 'SCM' was - well, not much anything. The Evangelical Christian Union's active membership likely outweighed all the others put together and was interdenominational all the way from Anglicans to assorted charismatics, 'Open' Brethren, and a local NE-England 'slightly exclusive' Brethren group. Regular attenders at CU meetings also included Greek Orthodox and RCs....
My experiences over many years in the Crusaders youth movement (now rebranded as 'Urban Saints') were similar, working with leaders from many denominations and encouraging young people into a variety of local evangelical churches.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
That wasn't exactly what I was trying to say, and besides others have pointed out that my recent experience in Scotland and older experience in other parts of the UK may no longer be representative.
I agree that evangelicals are very good (well, a lot better than some others) at working and worshipping across denominational barriers. That is, if that is with other evangelicals. When we move location we're much more likely to look for another evangelical church rather than another Methodist, Anglican or URC. So, you're right we place our common theological identity above our identity with a given denomination.
But, my point was while we're good at ecumenical relationships with other evangelical churches, evangelicals (IME, which as has been pointed out is a bit dated for England) are very poor at ecumenical relationships beyond evangelicalism. Evangelical churches in active partnership with non-evangelical CofE, Methodist or URC churches is IME much rarer than those other churches being in ecumenical partnership with each other. And, evangelical churches in partnership with Catholic churches (whether Roman or Anglican) rarer still.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm glad you've never experienced that, and hope you never will. But, please lay off the platitudes about "some couples get on better after divorce" and "you can still go back for the coffee mornings". Life isn't that simple. Not for couples who break up, not for churches that fall apart.
I was part of a church that 'fell apart' several years ago. That was very hard for me, and due to that experience I still don't feel able to give my all to any church today. It wasn't a big evangelical bust-up, just a boring MOTR road church closure due to a lack of money and exhaustion. But no one cares about churches that implode for such mundane reasons. C'est la vie.
From what you're saying, evangelicals will almost always end up unhappy with church, because they always expect more from church life that it can give them. But perhaps you can't have the evangelical highs without the corresponding evangelical lows. That's how ISTM. I have family members in evangelical churches.
One solution is to take the MOTR route and to become tolerant and non-confrontational. In the end, though, this seems to lead to a less evangelical sort of church. So some people leave and the melodrama starts again elsewhere. We don't end up with more unity, ironically, but less.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Just for the record, my personal experience isn't in an evangelical church. It was a bust up over sexuality in a MOTR, "tolerant and non-confrontational" church. You don't have to be evangelical to take your faith seriously, and to react strongly to things which run contrary to that faith.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
In contrast the anglican churches were very anti-evangelical, regarding the area as "their" patch. One vicar told me that he regarded the baptist church as interlopers who didn't belong there.
Whenever I hear of "liberal catholic" elements of the CofE, it is this hateful attitude that instantly comes to mind.
Yes, that's been my experience too in several areas. Where non denom or non Anglican evangelicals are perceived to be the strongest (generally the largest) group, there's a huge amount of Anglican bitching about it.
It reached its zenith a couple of years ago when as an invited guest to the installation of the parish priest (church 200 yards away from our place), I was asked to bring a ecumenical greeting. Both the Priest and Bishop referred to "our" Anglican work in this parish in terms which suggested that they considered it their own patch. Woe betide any of us (Salvation Army, 2 independent churches [one BME - we're inner city], BUGB Baptist - who thought continuing ecumenical activity was the way forward.
At a shot, the work of over 10 years was destroyed. The irony is that the Anglican church is the smallest and least mission minded of all the local churches. It's also the least evangelical by a long long mile.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Evangelicals in general are behind the game in terms of ecumenicalism, and many evangelical churches won't be part of local Churches Together or equivalent. However, even though there's often a reluctance for evangelicals to formally join ecumenical groups, evangelicals are increasingly strengthening relationships with other evangelicals, with a corresponding production of statements similar to this one regarding points of difference between groups within Evangelicalism.
I can't claim my personal experience as universal, of course, but my experience has been that evangelicals are way ahead of the game in terms of working together between and across denominational boundaries, precisely because they have more theology in common and really do see denominational differences as relatively unimportant. Others in the denominations don't have that large theological common belief, and therefore see their distinctive practices as far more important and not to be easily given up over a 'trivial' cause like Christian unity.
At the Uni I went to, the non-evangelical student societies were pretty fragmented and separate and the nominally unifying 'SCM' was - well, not much anything. The Evangelical Christian Union's active membership likely outweighed all the others put together and was interdenominational all the way from Anglicans to assorted charismatics, 'Open' Brethren, and a local NE-England 'slightly exclusive' Brethren group. Regular attenders at CU meetings also included Greek Orthodox and RCs....
My experiences over many years in the Crusaders youth movement (now rebranded as 'Urban Saints') were similar, working with leaders from many denominations and encouraging young people into a variety of local evangelical churches.
That seems surprising - most CUs don't believe that Catholics and Orthodox are 'Real Christians'. This is the thinking behind the lack of ecumenism I've experienced in evangelical churches (Anglican ones at that!) - nnot at leadership levels, but certainly the majority of the laity did not believe that RCs etc were 'Real Christians'.
Also as an SCM member I'm sorry you had a bad experience of them. In the last decade or so we've merged with SCM Ireland and got a new leader, and have been really working on including different denominations. We have many evangelical staff now, for instance, and go to evangelical conferences as well as Greenbelt etc. And as you may know, we do a lot with the UK Anabaptist Network! We have Bruderhof come to every conference.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Ecumenacalism certainly varies with region. Where I now live in London, the churches together movement seems to be led by the Anglican churches, backed up the the methodist/URC with a smattering of others. Most of evangelical churches are independent pentecostals with a few RCCG, New Frontiers, Pioneer and Ichthus dotted around.
Before I came here though, I lived in Sussex where churches together was much more evangelical led. The pentecostal and baptist churches provided the impetus for any activities. In contrast the anglican churches were very anti-evangelical, regarding the area as "their" patch. One vicar told me that he regarded the baptist church as interlopers who didn't belong there.
Whenever I hear of "liberal catholic" elements of the CofE, it is this hateful attitude that instantly comes to mind.
When I lived in Sussex (about 7 years ago now) it was very difficult to find a liberal catholic CoE church! Were you in Brighton? I was nearer Hastings (not in Hastings though) and the Anglican churches were almost entirely conservative evangelical, with a few FiF churches.
I'm really sorry you've experienced that. As an LGBT Christian, liberal catholic CoE churches have been pretty much my only option (I am too theologically high-church to be comfortable in the URC or Methodist churches) and the people who believe in the parish model to the exclusion of all others are very frustrating even to me. I am a pro-gay high-church person (dislike the label of liberal and am more monastic-influenced than tat queen) but I am the first to say that there are huge problems with liberal catholics smugly seeing themselves as the Best Most Progressive Christians Ever when there are serious problems within it (classism springs to mind). I would like to apologise for the experience you had - it shouldn't have happened.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I did say my experience wasn't necessarily universal. And my Uni experience was in the 1960s when Bishop John Robinson had recently published 'Honest to God' and much non-evangelical Christianity was decidedly wobbly - many prominent leaders really ought for honesty to have left the main churches and joined Unitarianism....
Evangelical unity was as I said, considerable - remember the exercise we did on one thread recently where some Shipmates checked how many of the CofE '39 Articles' we could assent to, and even I from the opposite end of Protestantism had a pretty high score. That also applied to other 'Statements of Faith' like the Presbyterian Westminster Confession and its Congregational and Particular Baptist derivatives. Evangelicals could consent to almost all of such 'confessions'; and the differences were not in the important things about the nature of God and Christ and salvation. Evangelicals really differed between themselves only in the areas of Church/State relations, Church Government, and Paedo- v Credo-Baptism (and even on the latter evangelicals probably agreed with each other inter-denominationally more than, say, evangelical Anglicans with high-church Anglicans).
Most of the rather extreme liberal theology of back then seems to have died away - in attempting to be trendy they'd often ended up producing the effect of a church so vague as not to be worth joining once the shock value of things like "the bishop who doesn't believe in the resurrection..." had lost its novelty.
As evangelicals saw it, they were united around these common beliefs, but the liberals in their denominations seemed if anything to be prepared to surrender that common heritage for a merely organisational unity round a very watered-down faith. An initial prospect of talking through the differences and trying to sort them out had turned instead into a funny situation of ignoring the differences and not talking about them between denominations and in front of the world, while within the denominations if anything emphasising the distinctives and making unity harder. It always seemed odd to me that they simultaneously made the loudest noises about being ecumenical but sabotaged unity by their
practice. Of course from an evangelical viewpoint many of those 'distinctives' were not very biblical so not important....
As regards RCs we were still in an era where both evangelical and RCs were still getting used to the post-Vatican II changes in the RC church. There were people like Paisley in Ulster who didn't believe there had been a change - there were also both evangelicals who very much gave the new RCC at least benefit of the doubt, and RCs who felt much freer to associate with non-RC Christians. My Cypriot friend John might perhaps have been better described as 'from an Orthodox background'.
I suspect the position of SCM at my Uni was a bit unusual....
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
No, I think SCM has had a not so great record in welcoming evangelicals, but I think it is changing now thankfully.
And thanks for putting things in context, it makes a lot more sense. I think Honest To God was published by SCM Press to make things even worse! Actually I find that I'm always too liberal/progressive for the conservatives and too conservative for the real liberals - I think sometimes that the internet/technology has increased the polarisation of liberals and conservatives. American post-evangelicals like Rachel Held Evans are making interesting contributions to the discussion though.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by pete173 quote:
The settlement Synod reached on women bishops (after about 5 attempts) is the one we now have to live with. It's not ideal. It's a pragmatic solution. Because I was part of the process that made it possible to get where we are today (and therefore implicated), I'm committed to making it work, and not letting it unravel in the first year of operation.
The best description of the hole-in-the-corner deal reached with the conservative evangelicals is that it is shoddy and shameful: pragmatism is one thing, but that went way beyond anything reasonable or acceptable. If I were you I'd be keeping my own part in it quiet.
Above all else, it is puzzling why so many concessions are being made to the ConEvos when few, if any, are made at the opposite end of the scale.
Oh, no, I'm thoroughly proud of my part in it. Because it keeps people in the CofE and holds us together, and protects them from the bigotry that would exclude them.
The problem with that Pete is that as a straight cis man you don't have to pay the price of the compromise. No-one questions whether you are a real bishop.
Carys
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
No, I don't have to pay the price (though my sexual orientation is not relevant to the Synod vote on the legislation). But there were enough women on Synod who were prepared to vote with the legislation who do have to pay the price. And they were willing to go with it. A purist approach to this wouldn't have got us women bishops.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Yet. But it might have been worth it in the long run.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
And there you have it. Purists tend to see pragmatists as unprincipled. Pragmatists tend to see purists as providing support for the theory that the best is the enemy of the good.
I've worn both hats in my life. Neither was a mitre.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Just for the record, my personal experience isn't in an evangelical church. It was a bust up over sexuality in a MOTR, "tolerant and non-confrontational" church. You don't have to be evangelical to take your faith seriously, and to react strongly to things which run contrary to that faith.
Most of my experience is with MOTR Methodists. Although there will certainly be members who deeply disapprove of intimate homosexual relationships, the Methodist way is to avoid confrontation at all costs. I can't imagine a 'normal' English Methodist church imploding over this issue. But each congregation has its own dynamic, and I suspect that the dynamic in MOTR CofE congregations is quite different.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And there you have it. Purists tend to see pragmatists as unprincipled. Pragmatists tend to see purists as providing support for the theory that the best is the enemy of the good.
I've worn both hats in my life. Neither was a mitre.
I'm far from being a purist. I like pragmatism. But I do also want to get results that can be sustained in the long-term. A short-term fix is perfectly acceptable so long as it doesn't contain something that's going to come back and bite you on the bum, and turn into a chronic headache (to mix a metaphor). That's what happened with the concessions on ordaining women to the priesthood in the CofE, and that's what I fear will happen with the concessions now- especially the 'headship bishop'.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Although, further delays in ordaining women and consecrating women as bishops would have created headaches as well.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
But shorter-term ones. Mind you, if I'd been ++Rowan I'd have had a one-clause bill tabled in the Lords the day after the unsuccessful Synod vote. And I bet they could have got it through.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"?
I'm not a member of the C of E but I can well understand why the pace of change is slow - and sometimes it may be a case of "one step forward, two steps back".
I well recall this speech by Rowan Williams. At the time, I hoped it would be "a moment of truth" for Synod representatives. Particularly this segment.
quote:
Whatever the motivations for voting yesterday, whatever the theological principle on which people acted and spoke, the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society - worse than that, it seems that we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities in that wider society.
The word "wilful" is worth reflection in this context. From my perspective, the "wilful tendency" is a long time a-dying, so being content with small, sometimes compromised, gains seems to me to be an act of realism.
Of course you could be right, Albertus, that the rearguard action has been given a hostage to fortune. But I'm not sure. The history of conservative evangelicalism contains several examples of stubborn public resistance followed by quiet capitulation under a smokescreen.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
I hope that the settlement which the synod made and Bishop Pete173 took part in was not just pragmatism, as for me it represents a principle which is close to the heart of Christianity, namely wanting the best for one's opponents.
The alternative that it's all about winning, and preferably purging the church of one's opponents, I find quite chilling. Anyway whether that principle played a part or whether it was just pragmatism, I am glad the decision was made in synod and not on the ship of fools.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I hope that the settlement which the synod made and Bishop Pete173 took part in was not just pragmatism, as for me it represents a principle which is close to the heart of Christianity, namely wanting the best for one's opponents.
The alternative that it's all about winning, and preferably purging the church of one's opponents, I find quite chilling. Anyway whether that principle played a part or whether it was just pragmatism, I am glad the decision was made in synod and not on the ship of fools.
It's not all about winning for LGBT Anglicans, it's about surviving. I don't want to purge the church of all our opponents, I want them to stop trying to eradicate us. And while not all go that far, there are certainly conservative Anglicans campaigning for the recriminalisation of homosexuality and for reparative 'therapy'.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
We appear to be at cross purposes here. The synod settlement to which I am referring is the one which brought about the appointment of women bishops. Perhaps I could have made that more explicit but it was what Albertus, Barnabas62, and Pete173 had been talking about for the past several posts.
Some had expressed the view that it would be better if opponents of women bishops left the church of England but I am glad they can remain if they want to, and was expressing the view that making concessions which allowed them to do so could be viewed as principled as well as pragmatic, since for me giving up something one feels one deserves or is entitled to, in order to help one's opponents, is a good Christian principle.
My post was not intended to refer at all to the position of gay Anglicans in the church or how they get treated by anyone.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Apologies - but a not-dissimilar level of oppression still applies to female clergy/potential clergy. I used to live in Northampton which Anglican-wise is mostly FiF. There was a lot of hostility towards women who wanted to go for ordination in all but a handful of churches, and a church with a female priest (the only one in the town) really struggled to find anyone to be an assistant minister that was willing to work with women. Being a woman who is called to ordination in an anti-women area or church is extremely isolating and damaging. Nobody ever doubts that an anti-OoW man is a real priest or bishop.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I didn't realise anyone was claiming that the CofE is perfect.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I didn't realise anyone was claiming that the CofE is perfect.
Not sure anyone is. The usual (implicit) claim is that the CofE is the entirety of the church, as amply demonstrated with how quickly this thread got derailed from a discussion about {evangelicals} to being a discussion about {evangelicals} ∩ {CofE}.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The comment about the imperfection in the CofE was a reflection on comments about areas where there still isn't an acceptance of women in ordained ministry.
The thread has concentrated on Evangelicals within the Anglican Church simply because the document that started it all off is so very Anglican to start with. Perhaps it's the good folks at Oak Hill who need to realise that Evangelicalism is a good deal bigger than part of the CofE.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
+Pete quoted- in another context- in this week's Church Times:
quote:
The Synod was "very out of date. . . It's based on a 1980s or 1970s representative-democracy thing, which really doesn't work."
...except presumably, when Synodical process gives me cover to sign up with my conevo mates against those horrid liberals...
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
+Pete quoted- in another context- in this week's Church Times:
quote:
The Synod was "very out of date. . . It's based on a 1980s or 1970s representative-democracy thing, which really doesn't work."
...except presumably, when Synodical process gives me cover to sign up with my conevo mates against those horrid liberals...
Either there is some mitigating context for that sentiment or the quality of Christian political thought has really gone downhill since Gerson and Ockham.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Glad you pointed it out, Albertus: I choked on my breakfast when I read it.
And why have I got a persistent image of the Cheshire Cat in my mind's eye??? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Here is the context, Callan.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Good grief! It's the Gospel According To John Calvin Harris!
"Representative democracy: It was acceptable in the '80s, It was acceptable at the time".
Mind you. Not as bad as Dr Ian Paul. "We count people, because people count". As slogans go that one was turned down by an advertising agency for a building society that demutualised in the 1980s and later had to be bailed out by Gordon Brown after investing imprudently in the Greek financial sector.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
Slightly misquoted - and I think it can be justified. Let me try. (And don't forget I believe in Synod and have been on it since the 198Os)
1. The electorate for laity stinks. Deanery Synods, which are self-selected and mostly people who aren't exactly representative of the laity in their parishes, are the electorate.
2. Synods meet when working people can't get there.
3. 1980s style democracy was endless talk and committees - I was a councillor in the 1980s - we took hours to get stuff done.
4. Most Councils now have Mayoral or cabinet government. Synod is still stuck in that 1980s model.
5. There is a Synodical mentality that is about preventing change (of all sorts) - and all campaigning groups for all kinds of causes (whether women bishops, LGBTI, or church bureaucracy innovators) find it impossible to get movement.
We need a better model. This one doesn't work.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Thank you for that clarification.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Thanks Pete. I would die in a ditch for bloodless proceduralism and letting everyone have their say, but that's reasonably thoughtful and helpful.
[ 24. April 2015, 19:17: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Slightly misquoted - and I think it can be justified. Let me try. (And don't forget I believe in Synod and have been on it since the 198Os)
1. The electorate for laity stinks. Deanery Synods, which are self-selected and mostly people who aren't exactly representative of the laity in their parishes, are the electorate.
2. Synods meet when working people can't get there.
Being only a church (and sometime DCC) member, and never having ventured into Synod, this is certainly my view. Add to this the rather opaque structure which isn't known or understood by many people like me, and it's little wonder people do not want to be involved. It's also not often discussed in church or addressed from the front - something our rector is addressing, for which I am grateful.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Slightly misquoted - and I think it can be justified. Let me try. (And don't forget I believe in Synod and have been on it since the 198Os)
1. The electorate for laity stinks. Deanery Synods, which are self-selected and mostly people who aren't exactly representative of the laity in their parishes, are the electorate.
2. Synods meet when working people can't get there.
3. 1980s style democracy was endless talk and committees - I was a councillor in the 1980s - we took hours to get stuff done.
4. Most Councils now have Mayoral or cabinet government. Synod is still stuck in that 1980s model.
5. There is a Synodical mentality that is about preventing change (of all sorts) - and all campaigning groups for all kinds of causes (whether women bishops, LGBTI, or church bureaucracy innovators) find it impossible to get movement.
We need a better model. This one doesn't work.
Points 1 & 2 I totally agree with. The argument for radical reform is undeniable, ISTM. How strange that there is no move afoot from the bishops to give a lead in this. Every time I've raised the matter with a bishop or archdeacon, I've been given a very odd look.
Point 3 I can't really comment on.
But Point 4 seems to suggest that the C of E should follow the local government model of a "cabinet" making decisions and providing leadership. And I'm really unsure about that in the C of E context. On councils, you elect your mayor at regular intervals. If they aren't doing a good job, or are abusing their executive powers, you can elect someone else. But you can't elect a bishop in the same way...
I agree that the C of E needs a new way. But putting more power in the hands of a small unaccountable elite group is not the way.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Pete173 quote:
1. The electorate for laity stinks. Deanery Synods, which are self-selected and mostly people who aren't exactly representative of the laity in their parishes, are the electorate.
I think you mean the electoral process?
First, start off with properly elected DS members requiring a proper vote and a clear minimum number of votes for a DS member to be elected. A one vote per electoral roll member for Diocesan Synod and General Synod members too.
2. Synods meet when working people can't get there.
Our Deanery Synod meets in the evening: the problem is frequently with meeting length - and that comes down to poor chairing, which is done by a clergyman.
3. 1980s style democracy was endless talk and committees - I was a councillor in the 1980s - we took hours to get stuff done.
In the parish where I was in the 1980s there were proper sub-committees which were given specific tasks and then expected to get on with it. Failure to achieve results was not tolerated.
4. Most Councils now have Mayoral or cabinet government. Synod is still stuck in that 1980s model.
Properly functioning mayors and cabinet government in local councils has been fought tooth-and-nail by the more 'left' parties in the UK: perhaps the reason why most of the church doesn't have fit-for-purpose governance is that in many parishes you have the soft-left at prayer?
5. There is a Synodical mentality that is about preventing change (of all sorts) - and all campaigning groups for all kinds of causes (whether women bishops, LGBTI, or church bureaucracy innovators) find it impossible to get movement.
Actually I'd suggest a degree of autocracy is required. The CofE insistence on carrying everyone along with you on the difficult issues is what led to the 20 years of madness over female clergy, and the nonsense of having ordained women but not allowing for female bishops. ++Robert should have behaved like a proper 'Prince of the Church' and just ordained a woman or two and faced down his critics, rather than just hand-wringing.
We need a better model. This one doesn't work.
Agreed: how about Annual Parish Meetings require a minimum of 50% + 1 to be legal, and go on from there.
Beware of what you wish for coming true: our parish DS members are viewed with deep suspicion by all other members, especially the clergy, who regard us as dangerous radicals because of our insistence on questioning (for example) demands for money, ill-thought out 'initiatives' and the like. Our diocesan office goes further and refuses to respond to questions from us.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
2. Synods meet when working people can't get there.
Same problem with Baptist Union Council, URC Mission Council, etc. ...
I think that our DS usually meets on Saturdays and/or evenings.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Our diocesan office goes further and refuses to respond to questions from us. [/QB]
Two can play at that game. "Forget" to send your parish share unless and until they remember. Don't forget to tell other nearby parishes what you've done .... strength in numbers
[ 25. April 2015, 14:57: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Same problem with Baptist Union Council .. [/QB]
Can anyone pin down who's on it, how they get there and what the minutes might look like?
ISTM it's a (mostly) unelected body
[ 25. April 2015, 15:00: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
You could consider using the quaker business method, but it requires a high degree of trust.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
At least in part in the URC there has been some regret that lay people who rise high in the adminstration do not get permission from work to attend such events.
What happens in reality is people wait until newly retired and then take these posts.
Jengie
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
At least in part in the URC there has been some regret that lay people who rise high in the adminstration do not get permission from work to attend such events.
Unlike, say, Trades Union representatives who (should) get leave to attend political/Union events.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Same problem with Baptist Union Council ..
Can anyone pin down who's on it, how they get there and what the minutes might look like?
ISTM it's a (mostly) unelected body [/QB]
Funny you should say that! I said the same thing to someone at Church today with respect to the Steering Group which, IMO, is even worse as it is a small group and seems to wield some decision-making power.
I think most of them are Association or Didcot folk who attend by virtue of their position rather than by being elected. I know it's hard to elect folk in any realistic way, but I do wonder if there is a better way to handle it.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Rejoice! Rejoice!
Until this year our parish has not only paid its full share, it has voluntarily added 10% to it. We've never had any acknowledgment from Diocesan Office of this extra money, never mind thanks, just a standard letter thanking us for our Share and listing that amount.
At the back end of last year a missive came out of Diocesan Office asking all parishes to 'consider' making a voluntary over-payment of share - the suggested figure was 5% but it was broadly hinted that more would be welcome.
Well, finally this year our parish decided to pay our share and no more: 12 days later we receive a letter from Diocesan Office asking is we realise we haven't paid the correct amount (!).
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Beware! Our Church voluntarily gave extra money to Ministry & Mission (the URC equivalent) ... that then became the "norm" and our "quota" was set at a higher level, which left a bit of a sour taste in our mouths.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
I must admit that I struggle to understand why any C of E parish would volunteer to pay MORE to the Diocese that it had to.
The whole point of Quota (or Parish Share) formulae is to try and work out an equitable amount that each parish should contribute to the diocesan finances. Therefore, Parish Quota ought to be the "right" amount to pay.
If a parish can afford to give more, I think it should give separately and for a clear and specific purpose. In L'Organist's case, my suggestion would have been to give the 10% extra as a separate amount to a specific diocesan venture or project. Many dioceses have something like "The Bishop's Foundation" which is used to fund new initiatives and social care.
Simply giving more as Parish Share only encourages the diocese to presume that you will always do that and that you are a rich parish that is a soft touch. Experience has taught me that diocesan staff and senior clergy don't ever appreciate these kinds of gestures. It's sad but it's true.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
The parish began to give more than the share because in our diocese we were all asked whether we would give more if we could afford to.
At the time some of us advised against giving more but were howled down: the fact that our fears prove to have been well-founded is not comforting.
The make-up of the PCC now is very different and much more financially hard-headed than heretofore - maybe something to do with the perceived profligacy of diocesan spending during the past few years but any appeals for more will likely fall on deaf ears.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0