|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Wycliffe Hall in trouble
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Johnny,
Don't worry - rant away!
It wasn't meant as a cheap jibe, but a serious comment on the state of some of the 'leadership' within our churches. Whilst I was part of NFI I was encouraged to read a number of books about leadership ('Developing the Leader within you', 'Courageous Leadership' etc...etc...). I'm not saying that leadership isn't about saying tough things occasionally, or making tough decisions (I'm a GP, which is a form of community 'leader', so know it's hard to break 'bad news' to those who don't want to hear it) - but that it's the 'mode' within which such things are said which makes all the difference. Being a servant is all about humility and THAT is all about realising ones essential brokeness/failures (as well as the essential dignity of the one before you).
Paul was one of the most amazing leaders within the early churches, but isn't it interesting that such a mighty intellect was harnessed AFTER he had been such a 'git' to the Church? His natural abilities were tempered by his own embarassing awareness (along with the full awareness of the rest of the churches) that he had been the 'chief of sinners'.
I think 'life' deals us some essential knocks and blows, which help soften our own pride and self-understanding. I've had my own pain, and it certainly helped infuse a bit of 'creative-doubt' into ideas and understandings that I had once held so certainly. This is why 'experience' is so essential to leadership, which includes simple 'life experience' (having stroppy teenage daughters, experiencing marital difficulties etc...).
The fine line between authority and authoritarianism is relational-love. I'm most open to hearing criticism from those who I love and who I KNOW love me (an experience that can only be discovered after a degree of time). The modern 'managerial' mode of church leadership revolves around the notion that the 'leader knows best' which then flows into getting people 'on message' and 'in-visioned'. Relationship is replaced by 'lines of command' and love flies out the window.
As I said, I know nothing of Richard Turnbull, but have experienced the situation I describe above all too painfully (part of my own personal pain) and, therefore, aren't surprised to see someone allegedly from the Reformed-Charismatic fusion being described as a 'bully'.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Of course! This is all MY fault!
ALL your fault? Oscar, cut it with the simplistic absolutism. It bears no relation to reality, and makes you look like the worst sort of con-evo.
I think you may need to check your sarcasm monitor - I don't think it's working.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
The fine line between authority and authoritarianism is relational-love. I'm most open to hearing criticism from those who I love and who I KNOW love me (an experience that can only be discovered after a degree of time). The modern 'managerial' mode of church leadership revolves around the notion that the 'leader knows best' which then flows into getting people 'on message' and 'in-visioned'. Relationship is replaced by 'lines of command' and love flies out the window.
On this we are 100% agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
As I said, I know nothing of Richard Turnbull, but have experienced the situation I describe above all too painfully (part of my own personal pain) and, therefore, aren't surprised to see someone allegedly from the Reformed-Charismatic fusion being described as a 'bully'.
This is where I think you lose it. You have moved from 'I experienced bullying in X tradition' to implying 'bullying is a common trait in X tradition'.
If "The fine line between authority and authoritarianism is relational-love" then bullying is going to be a temptation / potential problem in all church traditions. I think it is compltely unfair to lay this at the door of one tradition based on your (one person's) experience.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If "The fine line between authority and authoritarianism is relational-love" then bullying is going to be a temptation / potential problem in all church traditions. I think it is compltely unfair to lay this at the door of one tradition based on your (one person's) experience.
I am sure that Richard is more than able to reply in his own words. But I think it is important to say that, whilst bullying (or religious abuse) certainly IS a temptation for all church traditions, it is also true to say that some traditions (and the Reformed/Charismatic fusion that Richard describes is one of them) are particularly vulnerable to this problem. This is because their style of leadership places heavy emphasis upon the authority of the Minister and the duty of the members to submit to that (god-given) authority.
Therefore, I agree with Richard that it is (sadly) not surprising to see bullying attitudes in evidence in such a context. The sad truth is that this happens far too often and (IME) more frequently than you would find in some other traditions (and I would include open evangelical in this category).
I would seriously suggest that you read "Harmful Religion" by Lawrence Osborn and Andrew Walker for a detailed examination of the problem of religious abuse.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Oops!
Sorry - forgot to add that another piece of essential reading is (of course) Ungodly Fear by Stephen Parsons - a book that many on the Ship will well remember! We had some very interesting discussions about the issues raised in the book.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Oscar, all you are doing is revealing your own personal prejudices. I think you should get out more. I quite agree that some streams within the group you so readily dismiss do characterise what used to be quaintly described as 'heavy shepherding'.
However, you seem to forget that an equally large part of this 'stream' come from a congregational based form of church government. (May I take the opportunity to remind you that one of the original causes behind such a model was the perceived abuse of authority within the state church? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) A lot of these types of churches, I notice, are now sending their folk to Oakhill and would presumably be pro Turnball et al.
My experience of these kinds of churches is that abuse of authority can be a problem but far more commonly they lead to heavy sheep. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
I have experienced all sorts of abuse of authority in churches... all the way up to the extreme cults such as the International Church of Christ (as opposed to the Church of Christ ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) - trying to help one girl leave in Edinburgh was a lesson in itself! I repeat my original point, it is a danger in all church traditions and not peculiar to the ones you don't like.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I repeat my original point, it is a danger in all church traditions and not peculiar to the ones you don't like.
Well, there's another way of putting that. Namely that one sees an increased 'peculiarity' to certain abuses in certain traditions which makes it one which you subsequently 'don't like'.
I think there's a saying about smoke and fire which fits the bill here...
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Oscar, all you are doing is revealing your own personal prejudices. I think you should get out more....... it is a danger in all church traditions and not peculiar to the ones you don't like.
(Sigh)
To begin with, this is not my personal prejudices. Go read Parsons and Osborn/Walker. I am saying nothing here that hasn't been said many times before by people far more qualified than I.
Secondly, as I clearly said, religious abuse IS a danger in all traditions. But the sad fact is that experience (others - not just mine) shows that some traditions are more vulnerable than others. To deny this is to deny the plain facts of all research done in this area.
This is hardly rocket science. If your model of church leadership inclines you towards the position that the leader speaks God's word and delivers God's decisions to those who willingly submit themselves to the leader, then the chances of someone abusing that power are far greater than if your model of leadership is collaborative and serving. I know of no-one who deliberately set out to be a church bully. But some people end up in that position, partly because their church tradition inadvertently allows it.
Please note, though, that I am not saying that ALL con-evo churches are places of religious abuse. That would be absurd. There are clearly many such churches where the leaders act with genuine love and in a truly Christ-like servant nature. But the fact remains that a church's (and a minister's) models of leadership will greatly influence the chances of whether religious abuse is likely to happen.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But the fact remains that a church's (and a minister's) models of leadership will greatly influence the chances of whether religious abuse is likely to happen.
It's wonderful to hear that you have now come to accept a congregational form of church government. When are you moving on?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
GrahamR
Shipmate
# 11299
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Both like upbeat and band-led worship, both enjoy waving hands in the air, both use tongues and prophecy. The difference relates to how each understands the role of leadership within the church, as well as the extent of 'inter-relationship' between themselves and other 'churches'.
<snip>
The natural 'antithesis' of this fusion is the alternative fusion of liberalised/catholicised evangelicalism with 'wimber-style' charismaticism. Of course there is some overlap on a number of issues, but I do think these two positions describe a polarity within modern western evangelicalism.
I think that's mostly fair (although obviously there are also Charismatics who aren't evangelicals and I'm not sure about the description "liberalised/catholicised"!) and is basically reiterating the point I was trying to make, which was that Charismatic does not equal Conservative!
Graham (a charismatic who really doesn't like waving his hands around!)
--------------------
My blog - theology, archaeology, science
Posts: 184 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But the fact remains that a church's (and a minister's) models of leadership will greatly influence the chances of whether religious abuse is likely to happen.
It's wonderful to hear that you have now come to accept a congregational form of church government. When are you moving on?
since they seem to me more prone to that form of leadership pattern. I guess not in the near future.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But the fact remains that a church's (and a minister's) models of leadership will greatly influence the chances of whether religious abuse is likely to happen.
It's wonderful to hear that you have now come to accept a congregational form of church government. When are you moving on?
I don't see how anything I've written could lead you to this conclusion. But if you want to avoid the issue - hey, that's your prerogative.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GrahamR:
I think that's mostly fair (although obviously there are also Charismatics who aren't evangelicals and I'm not sure about the description "liberalised/catholicised"!) and is basically reiterating the point I was trying to make, which was that Charismatic does not equal Conservative!
Graham (a charismatic who really doesn't like waving his hands around!)
By saying 'liberalised/catholicised' evangelical I'm really trying to describe what I think an 'Open Evangelical' is. I appreciate that the words 'liberal' and 'catholic' are anathema to the likes of Richard Turnbull (as per his Reform speach), and that these need to be unpacked a little bit more, but taking a more historical-critical approach to the faith/scriptures along with digging more into the ancient treasury of church thinking/tradition/wisdom (and not just that coming out of the Reformation...) is what characterises the 'Open' mindset from the 'Conservative' one.
Again there is going to be some overlap, but I think one can make a case for individual churches taking one position or the other.
I think that the Puritans really were the original 'Restorationists' who were very happy to say that the Holy Spirit had, effectively, left the church soon after the Apostolic era (else it wouldn't have got into idolatrous icongraphy/sacred art, or paganised festivals like Christmas....). Essentially this sort of Christianity is dehistoricised, or at least viewed through the lens of one particular set of historical understandings.
I seem to remember it being said that Calvin took his line on Icons (i.e. against them) partly because he believed that Judaism had always been an 'non-imageing faith. However archeology since his time has uncovered magnificent synagogues with mosaics of Abraham, Moses etc...
The essence of historical research is that it causes us to re-evaulate our previous notions. However, there are those who want to keep Calvin's ideas as they were without realising the areas where he, himself, was wrong.
Because even evangelicalism itself needs to be semper reformanda, this is why the 'Opens' are keen to maintain their liberal/catholic thinking against those who want to keep everything just 'so' (the meaning of 'conservatism').
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
quote:
Originally posted by GrahamR:
I think that's mostly fair (although obviously there are also Charismatics who aren't evangelicals and I'm not sure about the description "liberalised/catholicised"!) and is basically reiterating the point I was trying to make, which was that Charismatic does not equal Conservative!
Graham (a charismatic who really doesn't like waving his hands around!)
By saying 'liberalised/catholicised' evangelical I'm really trying to describe what I think an 'Open Evangelical' is. I appreciate that the words 'liberal' and 'catholic' are anathema to the likes of Richard Turnbull (as per his Reform speach), and that these need to be unpacked a little bit more, but taking a more historical-critical approach to the faith/scriptures along with digging more into the ancient treasury of church thinking/tradition/wisdom (and not just that coming out of the Reformation...) is what characterises the 'Open' mindset from the 'Conservative' one.
Again there is going to be some overlap, but I think one can make a case for individual churches taking one position or the other.
I think that the Puritans really were the original 'Restorationists' who were very happy to say that the Holy Spirit had, effectively, left the church soon after the Apostolic era (else it wouldn't have got into idolatrous icongraphy/sacred art, or paganised festivals like Christmas....). Essentially this sort of Christianity is dehistoricised, or at least viewed through the lens of one particular set of historical understandings.
I seem to remember it being said that Calvin took his line on Icons (i.e. against them) partly because he believed that Judaism had always been an 'non-imageing faith. However archeology since his time has uncovered magnificent synagogues with mosaics of Abraham, Moses etc...
The essence of historical research is that it causes us to re-evaulate our previous notions. However, there are those who want to keep Calvin's ideas as they were without realising the areas where he, himself, was wrong.
Because even evangelicalism itself needs to be semper reformanda, this is why the 'Opens' are keen to maintain their liberal/catholic thinking against those who want to keep everything just 'so' (the meaning of 'conservatism').
Just to say that I know exactly what you are driving at, Richard, and I think that your characterisation of opens is pretty well spot on, (and I speak as one who so self-identifies). I do think that there was (is?) quite a strong sense of closet sacramentalism in a lot of Wimberesque teaching, and I think that those for whom that particular strand of Charismatic praxis is/was important do tend to identify themselves as open evo these days; one of the things opens are open to is a more sacramental understanding of Christianity. I don't know how widespread this is, but it was an understanding that I came to without ever realising there were others around who shared it.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GrahamR
Shipmate
# 11299
|
Posted
Richard- absolutely! As an archaeologist I'm particularly keen on the need for historical depth to arguments (as well as the fact that there really is very little that is "new under the sun")!
As you say, we need to keep continually being reformed, both as individuals and as a Church. I'm personally happy with using 'liberalised/catholicised' as you define them, but I wouldn't use them as self-descriptors as I think they've become too loaded with baggage, so that people's reactions to them will be too conditioned to be helpful in advancing a discussion on my actual views, rather than on what people think they should be (I have enough trouble already with the terms 'evangelical' and 'charismatic' in that regard!)!
And, vainly trying to drag this back to the OP, this is what concerns me about the particular type of Conservativism that Turnbull, Vibert, etc exhibit- a reluctance to be open to other approaches to God (for example, the 'Communion too often' comment of a few pages back).
Jolly Jape- I'm glad to say that think that there are quite a few of us around.
[crosspost with Jolly Jape]
[ 16. June 2007, 17:37: Message edited by: GrahamR ]
--------------------
My blog - theology, archaeology, science
Posts: 184 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I really don't recognise the Planet Numpty version of Open Evangelicalism. What we affirm - the priority of evangelism; the supreme authority of scripture; the necessity of conversion; the importance of the faith being worked out in active service - is that which has been affirmed by evangelicals throughout the centuries.
Yes, of course you affirm all of these things. That, I do not doubt; particularly the last one. However, I don't accept that the Open Evangelicals that I know (note the IME in my previous posts) hold a historically evangelical view of scripture. And I don't accept that the open evangelical view of conversion, be that by crisis or process, is fully compatible with historic evangelicalism.
quote:
In relation to his "areas where we seem to believe one thing and practise another", the approach espoused by evangelicals over the years has shifted very little. We have never been indissolubilist in relation to marriage and divorce; we would tend to believe that homosexual sexual expression was sinful; we would be opposed to relativist dogmatic pluralism, though aware of the reality of social pluralism; we would look for a person to bear the marks of having been "born again", whether by process or crisis; we would discourage people from marrying someone of another faith or someone who wasn't a Christian.
All very well and good in print, but in my experience when the open evangelical back is against the wall pragmatism, not idealism, tends to carry the day. The right and wrong of this approach is another debate, but for now I'm simply saying that open evangelicalism could well be described as "Pragmatic Evangelicalism" and "Conservative Evangelicalism" could be described as Idealistic Evangelicalism.
quote:
What we have become is more socially and ecclesially adaptive, which is what the ConEvos have not done.
I agree. I just think that social and ecclesial adaption can quite easily be corrupted and thereby become doctrinal compromise. I'm in favour of a doctrinally conservative but culturally liberal approach to ministry, partcularly evangelism. However, IDSTM that Open evangelicalism doesn't sufficiently distinguish between cultural-ecclesial adaption (broadly a good thing IMO) and doctrinal adaption (generally a bad thing IMO).
So, drawing things back to the Wycliffe Hall debate, I think that the argument can, at least in part, be seen as a ideological clash between two expressions of evangelicalism (pragmatic and an idealistic) and the consequent impact that these philosophies have had, and are having, upon the Hall.
Another way of putting the distinction between open and conservative could possible be this: Ideological Pragmatism vs. Ideological Totalitarianism.
[ 16. June 2007, 18:47: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Yes, of course you affirm all of these things. That, I do not doubt; particularly the last one. However, I don't accept that the Open Evangelicals that I know hold a historically evangelical view of scripture.
What is that?
I Open Evangelicism believes that it is the inspired word of God and God breathed. What I do not believe is that it is inerrant and without fault since that is not evangelicism but fundamentalism.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But the fact remains that a church's (and a minister's) models of leadership will greatly influence the chances of whether religious abuse is likely to happen.
It's wonderful to hear that you have now come to accept a congregational form of church government. When are you moving on?
I don't see how anything I've written could lead you to this conclusion. But if you want to avoid the issue - hey, that's your prerogative.
Okay. I'll take it s l o w l y so that you can follow your own argument.
- Your point earlier (see above) was that certain models of leadership increase the chance of religious abuse.
- Congregational government was set up by separatists for several reasons, one major one being that institutional leadership was not accountable enough. I know the term is anachronistic in this debate, but for want of a better word congregational government was seen to be more democratic. It was set up deliberately as a way of putting the breaks on authoritarian leadership.
- Of course any form of democracy is open to the influence of charismatic (with a small 'c' ) leadership. But the model itself is there deliberately to mitigate against any abuse of authority.
- If you were being consistent in your argument you would tend towards supporting any leadership structure that mitigated against the abuse of authority (hence, congregational = good). However, it appears that you are only against 'charismatic' abuse of authority rather than the abuse possible in institutional leadership.
Now, again, I want to stress that I do not think that any form of church government is better than another. IME they all have strengths and weaknesses. You are attacking Con-Evos who 'lead from the pulpit' as if they have a particular tendency to abusing authority. However, I think that you are blind to the potential abuse inherent in other traditions. How is "You must because 'the Bible' says so ..." any different from "You must because the Priest / Bishop / Tradition .... etc. says so"? The RC church has just unilaterally told all RCs to stop supporting AI. Are you going to have a go at the Pope for being authoritarian?
IME Con-Evo churches that say "We must because the Bible says so" also have the consistency to say "and check the bible because if it doesn't say what I say it is saying then you don't have to do what I say!!" Again IME at least their method of leadership is upfront and clear. If I don't like it I can tackle them on it and we all know where we stand. In other churches exactly where the leadership is coming from is not so clear. All sorts of unaccountable leadership factors are brought in and the congregation doesn't really know 'how it works'. Of course, if it is working well, most people don't care anyway.
An Anglican has recently joined our Baptist church. He expressed his frustration with our congregational system of government recently. The members voted not to accept the leadership's direction over a particular matter. He thought the members had made a mistake (I agree with him, and he's not very conservative in his views ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ). His observation was that in an Anglican setting the Vicar would have had a bit more 'clout' to push this particular issue through. This is a Baptist church which probably ticks all your boxes as to what you hate most about Con-Evos... and yet Anglicans think we are far too democratic and the leadership structure is not strong enough!!??
This is not a plug for Baptists. It is just demonstrating that it is nonsense to claim that Reformed ecclesiology is a breeding ground for authoritarianism.
I think the point you are trying to make is that people with strong convictions tend to be uncompromising. However, that is simply a tautology.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Yes, of course you affirm all of these things. That, I do not doubt; particularly the last one. However, I don't accept that the Open Evangelicals that I know hold a historically evangelical view of scripture.
What is that?
Well, as I said before, I'm speaking from personal experience and the view that you hold isn't the view that I hear being expressed. The view that I hear being expressed involves ideas like extrinsic inspiration and conferred authority.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Yes, of course you affirm all of these things. That, I do not doubt; particularly the last one. However, I don't accept that the Open Evangelicals that I know hold a historically evangelical view of scripture.
What is that?
Well, as I said before, I'm speaking from personal experience and the view that you hold isn't the view that I hear being expressed. The view that I hear being expressed involves ideas like extrinsic inspiration and conferred authority.
IME the attitude towards scripture of most opens is certainly that it is inspired and authoritative (and maybe, for some, inerrant), but the most characteristic feature ISTM is the use of something very like Tom Wright's "Fifth Act Hermeneutic" in determining its meaning for us here and now. Is that an evangelical methodology? It seems so to me, but, of course, your view may differ.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Okay. I'll take it s l o w l y so that you can follow your own argument.
Thank you so much. After all, I am clearly so much your intellectual inferior that I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
- Your point earlier (see above) was that certain models of leadership increase the chance of religious abuse.
Correct.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Congregational government was set up by separatists for several reasons, one major one being that institutional leadership was not accountable enough. I know the term is anachronistic in this debate, but for want of a better word congregational government was seen to be more democratic. It was set up deliberately as a way of putting the breaks on authoritarian leadership.
That may be true. But the reality is that congregational government has proved no better than "authoritarian leadership" (do you mean episcopal by the way?) at preventing religious abuse. Baptist Churches have experienced it just as much as Anglican ones, as have any number of free independent evangelical churches.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Of course any form of democracy is open to the influence of charismatic (with a small 'c' ) leadership. But the model itself is there deliberately to mitigate against any abuse of authority.
Which it fails to do. And that is because it doesn't matter if your denomination has an episcopal basis or a congregational one. What is key is the leadership model (or style) adopted by the leader and accepted by the congregation. If that model or style is "the leader speaks and the congregation listens", then (experience shows) there is a greater danger of religious abuse by an authoritarian leader.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you were being consistent in your argument you would tend towards supporting any leadership structure that mitigated against the abuse of authority (hence, congregational = good). However, it appears that you are only against 'charismatic' abuse of authority rather than the abuse possible in institutional leadership.
Yes - I would support leadership structures and models that are less likely to lead to abuse. But congregational is not necessarily one of those. I think that part of the problem seems to be that you are understanding this in terms of official structures, whereas I am seeing it in terms of styles or models of leadership which may be found within any structure.
Let me take a positive example. Genuine collaborative leadership is (I would argue) less likely to result in religious abuse than some other forms of leadership. This is because it involves people working together with a greatly reduced emphasis upon The Leader. Usually, in collaborative leadership, there will be a team of leaders who are drawn from the congregation and who give support and oversight to one another.
Now collaborative leadership is a style or model which can be found in any structure. It can be found in congregational churches as well as episcopal ones.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Now, again, I want to stress that I do not think that any form of church government is better than another. IME they all have strengths and weaknesses. You are attacking Con-Evos who 'lead from the pulpit' as if they have a particular tendency to abusing authority. However, I think that you are blind to the potential abuse inherent in other traditions. How is "You must because 'the Bible' says so ..." any different from "You must because the Priest / Bishop / Tradition .... etc. says so"? The RC church has just unilaterally told all RCs to stop supporting AI. Are you going to have a go at the Pope for being authoritarian?
If you bothered to read my posts closely, you'll see that I freely admit that all traditions can allow abuse. All I am saying (and I am no different from many before) is that the Con-Evo tradition tends to emphasise styles of leadership that increase the chances of abuse. They are not alone. Take, for example, the Anglo-Catholic tradition where "Father knows best". Does that also increase the chances of abuse? Of course it does! And lest you think I am trying to argue for a liberal agenda, let me admit that there are plenty of liberal churches where the leadership model permits the possibility of abuse.
I'm not defending the Roman Catholic Church. They have experienced religious abuse and it can easily be seen that the prevalent models of leadership in the RC make it easier to happen than in other forms.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
IME Con-Evo churches that say "We must because the Bible says so" also have the consistency to say "and check the bible because if it doesn't say what I say it is saying then you don't have to do what I say!!"
But the wider experience is that - too often - anyone who disagrees with the church leadership is doubly punished. Not only are they treated with scorn by the leadership, they are made to feel that they are disagreeing with the Bible.
Perhaps this is the key acid test of any leadership style. What happens when someone disagrees with the leader? Are their voices heard or are they put out in the cold? Are they made to feel that opposition to the leader is the same as opposition to God?
All leadership styles (even the most authoritarian) can work well when times are good - when everyone agrees. And it is easy to point at good examples of all leadership styles. But, of course, this isn't always the case. A truly good leadership style must be able to work in the bad times as well as the good - when people disagree as well as when they agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
An Anglican has recently joined our Baptist church. He expressed his frustration with our congregational system of government recently.
That is understandable if he has never experienced anything like it before. But what style of leadership is he used to?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The members voted not to accept the leadership's direction over a particular matter. He thought the members had made a mistake (I agree with him, and he's not very conservative in his views ). His observation was that in an Anglican setting the Vicar would have had a bit more 'clout' to push this particular issue through.
It all depends upon the individual church. In some churches, the Vicar still has that clout (because the leadership model he and the church are working with gives him that clout). But the vast majority of Anglican churches are not like that. The PCC works with the priest and if they don't like something, they'll block it.
If I want to "push something through", I know that I have to present my case, have the discussion and win the PCC over to what I want. If they disagree, I would be foolish indeed to try and go over their heads. That is why some unscrupulous Anglican priests will pack a PCC with his or her supporters, so that they can be assured of getting their way.
In many ways, the best of the Anglican structure would mirror the best of the Baptist structure (I spent over 10 years in a Baptist Church, so I am not completely ignorant of the Baptist ways of doing things).
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This is a Baptist church which probably ticks all your boxes as to what you hate most about Con-Evos... and yet Anglicans think we are far too democratic and the leadership structure is not strong enough!!??
As I said before - it ain't the structures - it's the styles or models that are worked within the structures. If your church is OK at standing up to the leadership when necessary, that's great. I can point to loads of Anglican churches where the same thing applies.
Your ex-Anglican member seems to have a particular expectation of a style of leadership. I would suspect that he is not typical of most Anglicans.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This is not a plug for Baptists. It is just demonstrating that it is nonsense to claim that Reformed ecclesiology is a breeding ground for authoritarianism.
I never claimed that. Not for one instant.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think the point you are trying to make is that people with strong convictions tend to be uncompromising. However, that is simply a tautology.
No - you're wrong. And I wouldn't be that stupid - but thanks for thinking it of me.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
All I am saying (and I am no different from many before) is that the Con-Evo tradition tends to emphasise styles of leadership that increase the chances of abuse. They are not alone. Take, for example, the Anglo-Catholic tradition where "Father knows best". Does that also increase the chances of abuse? Of course it does! And lest you think I am trying to argue for a liberal agenda, let me admit that there are plenty of liberal churches where the leadership model permits the possibility of abuse.I'm not defending the Roman Catholic Church. They have experienced religious abuse and it can easily be seen that the prevalent models of leadership in the RC make it easier to happen than in other forms.
At last! ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
If you had said that at the beginning we could saved A LOT of time. The 'they are not alone' makes all the difference and, IMHO, radically changes the tone and implication of your original post.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
It certainly is 'at last'. It was quite clear for me what Oscar meant. I am amazed Johnny that you needed it to be spelt out what Oscar meant.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
I think that the Puritans really were the original 'Restorationists' who were very happy to say that the Holy Spirit had, effectively, left the church soon after the Apostolic era
No doubt that was why the Puritans wrote so much about the Church Fathers.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I have been thinking aobut Vibert's doctrine of scripture quote:
I believe that the Bible is perspicuous (clear), infallible (it can not err) and non-contradictory
found here. After my earlier conversations with numpty I realise that Vibert's doctrine of scripture falls outside what the reformers believed and indeed what evangelicals have traditional believed. In effect Vibert's doctrine of scripture is fundamentalist. Interestingly enough so called 'open' evangelical doctrine of the bible has much in common with the reformers.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scribehunter
Shipmate
# 12750
|
Posted
Wycliffe Hall are currently advertising for a Tutor in New Testament. But what do you good people think should/would induce an evangelical Anglican New Testament scholar to apply for this position?
Posts: 143 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I am certain people will apply for this post and I suspect the post will be filled but I will be amazed if anyone of quality is appointed. I suspect the reform that Oxford university of Oxford are thinking about for PPH's will have some bearing on the quality of the academic staff employed. A poor appointment may well influence the outcome of this report.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
I think that the Puritans really were the original 'Restorationists' who were very happy to say that the Holy Spirit had, effectively, left the church soon after the Apostolic era
No doubt that was why the Puritans wrote so much about the Church Fathers.
Shame they didn't learn much from them then...
But on a more serious note, I know that the Reformers often appealed to the Patristic writers (because they had to defend the charge of innovation), but this alone is no guarantee that they have understood them or stand in the 'patristic line'. Look at the 'Lord's supper' thread and read Matt Black's quotes from Ignatius and Justin Martyr concerning the Eucharist - hardly 'classic' Puritan thought...
Honestly, the people who bang on about the early church fathers the most are our Orthodox brethren, and I see little correlation between them and the puritans!
I'm sorry if your and disagree, but that doesn't really change the fact that the Puritans represented a major departure from the Churches patristic tradition.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I have been thinking aobut Vibert's doctrine of scripture quote:
I believe that the Bible is perspicuous (clear), infallible (it can not err) and non-contradictory
found here. After my earlier conversations with numpty I realise that Vibert's doctrine of scripture falls outside what the reformers believed and indeed what evangelicals have traditional believed. In effect Vibert's doctrine of scripture is fundamentalist. Interestingly enough so called 'open' evangelical doctrine of the bible has much in common with the reformers.
Now that is an interesting point of view. Why do you think it falls outside the reformers' doctrine of Scripture?
ETA - IIRC there's a big distinction between the early and later Puritans on their use of Patristics
[ 19. June 2007, 16:28: Message edited by: Custard. ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scribehunter:
Wycliffe Hall are currently advertising for a Tutor in New Testament. But what do you good people think should/would induce an evangelical Anglican New Testament scholar to apply for this position?
The appointment may be made internally.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Now that is an interesting point of view. Why do you think it falls outside the reformers' doctrine of Scripture?
The concept of scripture being inerrant is a late nineteenth century concept and not really codified until the Chicago conference but It could be argued that inerrancy can be derived from Calvin and some of the radical reformers. The mainstream reformers approach to scripture has a lot in common with open evangelicals. Vibert’s doctrine of the bible is indisguishable from fundamentalist Christianity and hence not strictly speaking evangelical.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Vibert’s doctrine of the bible is indisguishable from fundamentalist Christianity and hence not strictly speaking evangelical.
Since when have 'fundie' and 'evo' been mutually exclusive? I think of one as a subset of the other.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Since when have 'fundie' and 'evo' been mutually exclusive? I think of one as a subset of the other.
They are both subsets of Christianity. It would seem that some fundamentalists disguise themselves as evangelicals, which in my opinion is dishonest.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
I'm sorry if your and disagree, but that doesn't really change the fact that the Puritans represented a major departure from the Churches patristic tradition.
Who exactly do you mean by "puritans"? I think almost everyone who uses the woprd uses it rather loosely, often as an insult, and includes all sorts of people as "puritan" who aren't really.
Similar to the misuse of "fundamentalist" I suppose. Its mostly just an insult nowadays - whuich us how come someone can write something like "fundamentalists posing as evangelicals" when the original fundamentalists were clearly a group of evangelicals.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I have been thinking aobut Vibert's doctrine of scripture quote:
I believe that the Bible is perspicuous (clear), infallible (it can not err) and non-contradictory
found here. After my earlier conversations with numpty I realise that Vibert's doctrine of scripture falls outside what the reformers believed...
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) Really? What did I say? Or was it something that I didn't say?
[code]
[ 20. June 2007, 13:55: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Who were the Puritans?
A party within the Church in England who took their 'Reformation direction' most directly from Calvin and his 'Geneva setup', and who wanted the whole English church to reject what they saw as 'popish' accruments such as vestments, bishops and the other 'trappings' of medieval catholicism (inc. Christmas/Lenten celebrations etc..).
They conceived themselves as being those of 'hotter faith' within the CofE and sought to take the church in a more presbyterian/congregational direction. Ultimately their particular 'style' of Christianity was rejected by the English as a basis for their national church which ultimately led to an ejection of the more extreme part of this grouping.
I'm sure there was some degree of overlap between their constituency and the more 'established' church and that they, themselves, were far from homogenous (this is always the way with ANY party - just look at the current variety of evangelicalism!), but the term 'Puritan' was used at that historical time to refer to the broad 'ideology' of this wannabe-Geneva group.
I actually have a lot of respect for their 'zeal' and idealism and they had a great love for scripture and piety - so I'm not trying to 'bash' them, but fundamentally I think their lack of historic-catholic insight/agreement meant that they would only ever become increasingly sectarian, and it's no surprise to see this party forming the basis of so many warring colonial protestant denominations.
I see their most closest patristic equivalents being, not the catholics, but schismatic groups like the Donatists or the Montanists - those for whom personal piety trumped any consideration of wider catholic conciliarity.
Turnbull et al fit very nicely into this grouping and truly are the 'heirs to the Puritans'. I suspect they would be delighted that I had made that assertion about them, however I think it is valid to say that - although seeds within 'Puritan thought' were shared by the embryonic Reformed Catholic Church of England - ultimately their (and Turnbulls) version of the Church of England had been (and continues to be) a 'minority option' within the wider Anglican church.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I would see it more as a clash between the principles of the Magisterial Reformation (emphasising continuity with that which has gone before including Tradition where it was not in disagreement with Scripture but endeavouring to reform what did disagree with Scripture - the old jibe about it being an argument between Augustine's soteriology and ecclesiology being very apt IMO) - and the Radical Reformation, which sought to extirpate pretty much all Tradition, base itself on sola Scriptura and return to the purity of 'the New Testament Church™', with its Year Zero for that purpose being fixed variously at 33AD, 70AD or 313AD, depending on how Radical one wishes to be. Anabaptists, Baptists, Congregationalists, Campbellite Restorationists, Pentecostals and Charismatic Restorationists (sorry for everyone I've missed out) IMO fall within the latter tradition; Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians (mainly), and Methodists (again sorry to the ones I've missed) fall within the former IMO.
That then begs the question: where do the Puritans fit in? They by and large arose within Anglicanism but were to a greater or lesser extent influenced by some of the ideas of Calvin, and their desire initially by and large was to continue the 'unfinished business' of Reforming the Church of/in England; to that extent they were part of the Magisterial Reformation. But many of them in time came to the conclusion that the Church of England was incapable of such further reform and that therefore it was apostate and they should separate from it (some key events there would be the publication of Reformation Without Tarrying for Anye(sic) and the 1604 Hampton Court conference); from this Separatist position they tended to become part of and absorb the ethos of the Radical Reformation.
I would see both types of tendency at work in what is being described here as 'Puritanism', both then and today.
[ 20. June 2007, 15:22: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I agree with Matt Black about the general approach of the the Puritans to the reformation. I find it a useful mental shorthand to remember that the CofE settled on "Keep it unless it is contrary to Scripture" whereas the Puritans tended towards "Chuck it unless it is required by Scripture"
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Matt,
My wife and I visited Hampton Court Palace a few years ago and they were re-enacting the 1604 conference with fantastic actors playing all the key parts - including a great scottish accent for King James!
Afterwards you could actually go up to the characters and ask them questions and they answered in character! It was quite un-nerving, but brilliantly done and the actors were very well briefed and prepared.
I asked one of the 'Puritan' members whether he thought the more 'catholic' members of the English church were actually Christian - he replied that 'we all are part of the same church in this fine land, however some of us are of a hotter persuasion'.
Agree with your comment about the conflict between the radical reformers and the rest.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That then begs the question: where do the Puritans fit in? They by and large arose within Anglicanism but were to a greater or lesser extent influenced by some of the ideas of Calvin, and their desire initially by and large was to continue the 'unfinished business' of Reforming the Church of/in England; to that extent they were part of the Magisterial Reformation. But many of them in time came to the conclusion that the Church of England was incapable of such further reform and that therefore it was apostate and they should separate from it (some key events there would be the publication of Reformation Without Tarrying for Anye(sic) and the 1604 Hampton Court conference); from this Separatist position they tended to become part of and absorb the ethos of the Radical Reformation.
I would see both types of tendency at work in what is being described here as 'Puritanism', both then and today.
I think that's fair. Often the term 'Puritan' is used synonymously with 'separatist' but we must not forget that they simply wanted to continue the reformation of the church. Most would have been horrified (originally) by the idea of separatism.
Therefore (IMHO) there will always be debate in the CofE over to who is (or even wants to be ) heirs of the Puritans.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
I find this idea of 'continuing the Reformation' slightly strange. What 'end point' did they have in mind?
Obviously it was a 'good thing' that bibles were available in the vernacular, that priests were able to teach Orthodox stuff and that financial manipulation through indulgences was put down (etc...etc...) but what does 'ongoing Reformation' really mean (from a 16th/17th Calvin-following English Christian's perspective)?
Where does one stop? Getting rid of vestments? Changing the Episcopacy?
My hunch is that there was a group whose core desire was always to reform a 'bit too far' (from an orthodox-catholic historical church POV), and when the CofE in the 17th centuary refused to play ball, they had to be sent off the pitch...
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
My hunch is that there was a group whose core desire was always to reform a 'bit too far' (from an orthodox-catholic historical church POV), and when the CofE in the 17th centuary refused to play ball, they had to be sent off the pitch...
I'm happy to agree with that but you can only make that kind of statement with hindsight. That is what happened. But let's not read that back into original intent, I think church history is a little more complicated than that.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Johnny,
I agree. I think it was ++Rowan who pointed out that prophetic action/thinking was only 'proven' by it's outcome/history (and I think the OT got there before him on this as well...!). One may think that any number of decisions/actions are 'right' at the time, but it's the outcomes and later analysis which counts.
I think the radical reformers had so cut themselves off from the catholic mindset that they were free falling - theological speaking, which explains the errors of their 'innovations'.
Of course I know why they thought like that (the church in the West had been horribly compromsied), but as I often say - the way to address abuse is not disuse but proper use.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
. If anyone wants to see a copy, PM me.
or look at one of the many places with a copy like here.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Johnny,
I agree. I think it was ++Rowan who pointed out that prophetic action/thinking was only 'proven' by it's outcome/history (and I think the OT got there before him on this as well...!). One may think that any number of decisions/actions are 'right' at the time, but it's the outcomes and later analysis which counts.
I think the radical reformers had so cut themselves off from the catholic mindset that they were free falling - theological speaking, which explains the errors of their 'innovations'.
Of course I know why they thought like that (the church in the West had been horribly compromsied), but as I often say - the way to address abuse is not disuse but proper use.
I'm still not sure it is as simple as that. Did the radical reformers cut themselves off from the catholic mindset or were they cut off? (likely to be a bit of both.)
You are right that the way to address abuse is not disuse but proper use. However, therein lies the rub - everyone, at the time, would claim that they were trying to do that!
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Well a former student speaks out who argues that it is all about personalities. This may be a reasonable interpretation but the evidence from the reform conference and the appointment of Simon vibert would seem to contradict this.
I am left to deduce that there is a local tactical disagreement that is mostly about people but there is a strategic issue between the differing strands of the evangelical spectrum.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The letter authorised by the three former principles hardly supports Mr Aitken's somewhat airy view of things. And I wonder just how much freedom of action Elaine Storkey has at present to comment on Jonathan Aitken's view. I presume she is subject to disciplinary action as an employee and that is likely to have some impact on her ability to respond at present. But of course Mr Aitken would know that.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
When I've heard Elaine Storkey speaking, she has appropriately been telling people what sort of rigid, unsensible ideas are "right" - and giving ways and theories of doing/saying something different. Is she being regarded as too flexible, compared to distorted rigidity? And has she really felt "wickedness" as J Aitken has reported she responded to?
And now I'm wondering whether it's good for her safety to post anything re her... ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) I admire her lots, both in her writing and her speaking.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
When I've heard Elaine Storkey speaking, she has appropriately been telling people what sort of rigid, unsensible ideas are "right" - and giving ways and theories of doing/saying something different. Is she being regarded as too flexible, compared to distorted rigidity? And has she really felt "wickedness" as J Aitken has reported she responded to?
And now I'm wondering whether it's good for her safety to post anything re her... I admire her lots, both in her writing and her speaking.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) "NOT right" too late to sort or notice in preview post
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
