homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Wycliffe Hall in trouble (Page 18)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  ...  45  46  47 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Wycliffe Hall in trouble
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Call me Numpty I posted this
quote:
It seems we think that Aiken 'spun' a certain image of Richard Turnbull as he spun a certain image of Elaine Stokey. One was positive and academic and the other spiteful and mean.
To which you responded

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Turnbull: Male Conservative Evangelical and therefore not very intelligent or academically gifted.

Storkey: Female Liberal (i.e. Open) Evangelical and therefore highly intelligent and academically gifted.

Hurrah for a priori affiliations!

I know that I have never made such assumptions so that aspect of your post is complete and utter crap. As a response to my actual post, as opposed to the imaginary one in your brain, you can only be saying that Aitkin’s pen portraits are accurate.

And the vehemence of your language proves what exactly? Actually, I do consider your post to be a personal attack. I will leave it to you to decide if that is the case.

In answer to your question: firstly, my post wasn't addressed to you personally, it was an observation concerning the general tenor of the thread. Secondly, I find that your attitude toward what I publiclly post is consistently hostile, despite the fact you seem to be incapable of answering a PM in which I have clarified my position concerning Storkey's place at Wycliffe.

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think this genuinely poses a difficult question.

Ideally, the best outcome would be reconciliation, with all parties admitting and seeking to remedy their mistakes.

If that doesn't happen, the fact remains that Wycliffe's reputation has been hit quite hard by some of the mud that has been slung. If some of that mud was unjustified and untrue (as we have established at least some of it was), then it is quite important to clear the college's reputation.

Of course, such clearing should only use the truth, rather than fabrication, lies, or much opinion. But how much of the truth should it use?

A) Should it use as much as can be used without damaging the reputation of anyone?

B) Should it use as much as it necessary to clear the college properly? Because given some of the comments above, that would include the reasons for the disciplinary action in the first place.

C) Should it go OTT on trying to destroy anyone who disagreed?

If reconciliation doesn't happen (and it looks as if it isn't happening, despite strong effort from students and staff in college) then I think it is probably wisest to start at A), and see how the people involved respond, only moving to B) if they remain unrepentant, the college remains besmirched and you've already done all the stuff in private. C) should be avoided pretty much whatever happens.

I hope that is what's happening here. Certainly the earlier statements from college didn't attack anyone, but the vitriol against college kept on coming.

It's certainly non-ideal, but do you have a better suggestion of how the situation could be handled?

ETA - this was addressed to Barnabas62, and I agree that due process should be followed, and that this sort of thing should be a late resort. But how late is it now?

[ 09. July 2007, 09:20: 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
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:

We've already had more than enough character assassinations. The more the truth comes out, the more it clears the name of Richard and of the college

I don't think the college as such is guilty of anything. What is clear is that Turnbull wants Wycliffe to be a bastion of conservative evangelicism (which is more or less what he said at reform) and the council want the place to be a more practical in it's approach to theology. These two things are indisputable. Some people think that making Wycliffe more conservative is a retrograde step others think it is a jolly good idea. Some people thinkthe place making the place more conservative is a by product of other changes others see it is as Turnbull's main objective.

The only area of real factual argument who said what in the personality dispute. One presentation is that Turnbull is an abrasive person who really doesn't understand theological colleges the other presentation is that the tutors and in particularly Elaine Storkey are to blame. In this presentation the tutors are meant to be preventing a radical change in the college that is needed. Turnbull is heroically fighting to overcome the forces of conservativism in the college so the vision is not lost.

--------------------
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      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Custard

Damage to reputations does come out of due process, but generally you can trust it more. Due processes are evidence-based (or subject to judicial reviews if they are not). Damage caused by hearsay, innunedo, purposeful publicity depends I suppose on how much store one puts on hearsay. In my case, that's not much. But I take your point.

I don't think it is ever too late to go back to a good principle (due process) and turn away from gossip and hearsay. After all, it is now pretty clear that there has a been a lot more heat than light. I don't know whether differences can be reconciled or resolved. Some sort of pause for reflection looks in order all round.

--------------------
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
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, I don't know. I'm a simple soul and I don't understand due process and all that. I hadn't even realized there was a court case under way. All I know is that it is wonderful how a new tone of reasonableness and balance has entered in, even here at Ship of Fools, oddly coinciding with Aitken's article.

Possibly it's a miracle.

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually the only things I have learned that I would class as facts about this whole situation are
  • there is some internal unhappiness at Wycliffe
  • the unhappiness is shared by three former principals
  • Elaine Storkey is subject to disciplinary proceedings
  • Richard Turnbull has told Reform that Wycliffe is one of the trustworthy two evangelical theological colleges and has implied that there are doubts about the other four

The spin which Stephen Bates and Ruth Gledhill put on their pieces was entirely predictable. Jonathan Aitken's piece was a surprise.

The jury is out as far as I am concerned on whether the leaking of the internal document which prompted Stephen Bates's piece was unpleasant media manipulation or legitimate whistle-blowing when all other avenues were perceived as being closed.

Perhaps when the disciplinary process has come to an end there will be the possibility of more clarity - though even then there may still be an unbridgeable gap of perception
  • making tough mangament decisions v. bullying
  • strenghtening the practical side of training v. dumbing down
  • affirming the trustworthiness of Wycliffe as a place of training v. playing evangelical anglican politics

Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Well, I don't know. I'm a simple soul and I don't understand due process and all that.

Yeah you do. Its an example of acting justly. And I bet Micah 6 v 8 is graven on your heart.

--------------------
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
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383

 - Posted      Profile for Yerevan   Email Yerevan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Actually the only things I have learned that I would class as facts about this whole situation are
  • there is some internal unhappiness at Wycliffe
  • the unhappiness is shared by three former principals
  • Elaine Storkey is subject to disciplinary proceedings
  • Richard Turnbull has told Reform that Wycliffe is one of the trustworthy two evangelical theological colleges and has implied that there are doubts about the other four

That pretty much sums it up. And there still seems to be a clear conflict between Turnbulls comments to Reform and his actions elsewhere.

[ 09. July 2007, 10:20: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The only area of real factual argument who said what in the personality dispute. One presentation is that Turnbull is an abrasive person who really doesn't understand theological colleges the other presentation is that the tutors and in particularly Elaine Storkey are to blame. In this presentation the tutors are meant to be preventing a radical change in the college that is needed. Turnbull is heroically fighting to overcome the forces of conservativism in the college so the vision is not lost.

But we know fuck all about who said what to who or who believes what about who. So how can we know any of that? Unless you have secret sources of information not revealed here.

As it is the newspapers, and some posters here, seem to be carrying on a crusade against Wycliffe Hall, Turnbull, and evangelicals in general, which some posters here are apparently either part of or at least fully supportive of.

I don't like it and I wish they would either be honest about what they know or else shut the fuck up.

My own personal opinion of some journalists who write abut church matters is a lot lower than it was when this thread was opened.

I can't say that my personal opinion of Richard Turnbull has changed because I didn't have one. I'd hardly heard of him. I still don't really have one. All I know about the man is what has been posted here and the other articles linked to from here. And all that tells me is that he has enemies. I have no idea whether he deserves those enemies because nothing substantive that has been said about him in public that I have seen comes anywhere near deserving this calumny

Maybe he is persecuting Elaine Storkey an the others. I have no idea. They have said nothing in public. No-one who knows anything has. Its all on the level of "I met a man in a bar once who told me that Richard was nasty to Elaine and she was very upset and he said that she said that he said that..."

(And if you think that video clip is evidence of an evil plot you really, really ought to keep out of politics., ecclesiastical or otherwise. I've seen nastier plots concocted on the stairs between coffee and the gents.)

So from where I'm sitting the only people who look bad out of this are Ruth Gledhill, the Daily Telegraph, and the so-called "liberal" Anglican blogoshites.

And I can't tell why the hell people who mostly post sense on this Ship are going along with them. Unless they know something the rest of us don;'t. In which case they should put up or shut up. If they don't actually know what happened, or if they do but don't want to say, then they should just hold fire until something does come out in public and they can say "I told you so" (or not)

As it is Wyclife Hall looks like its in trouble because there is a malicious rumour campaign against it and this rather unpleasant thread has become part of that campaign.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963

 - Posted      Profile for Charles Read   Author's homepage   Email Charles Read   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Some of us who are reading this thread (and occasionally commenting on it) do actually know more but are not saying because the matter should be handled by the Hall Council and is still subject to due process. One thing that has been revealed by the Aitken piece is that Elaine Storkey is subject to a disciplinary process after comments made at a meeting at which Richard Turnbull was present - this was not in the public areana before but is now.

I am sorry if this comes across as 'we have secret knowledge and we are right, but we are not telling you so you have no proof' etc. but the Hall needs to sort out this situation quickly but fairly.

--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi

"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh

Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
And the vehemence of your language proves what exactly? Actually, I do consider your post to be a personal attack. I will leave it to you to decide if that is the case.

It wasn't personal it was a harsh comment on what seemed to be your assumptions about me.

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
In answer to your question: firstly, my post wasn't addressed to you personally,

If not why did you post this?
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Nightlamp, my sarcasm was designed to be a criticism of your opinion; not a defence a Aiken. Would you please try to take things more personally in future? Thank you.

In one post you are saying you are commenting on my imaginary opinion and later on you say it is nothing about me but a general comment.
It was nice to recieve the PM but I didn't see a need to reply but I now have.

--------------------
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      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Charles Read

The Aitken article actually says "a meeting attended by staff and students" and does not confirm that Richard Turnbull was present. Here's the quote from the article.

quote:
At the heart of the controversy lies a personality clash between Turnbull and a part-time Wycliffe research fellow, Elaine Storkey, who is now the subject of disciplinary proceedings. She has surprised even the most neutral observers with the vehemence of her attacks not only on Turnbull, who she publicly compared at a meeting attended by staff and students to "one of the Nazi defendants at Nuremberg", but also on the chairman of the Hall Council, Bishop James Jones.
I found this in the subsequent comments in Guardian online? (I haven't read them all).

quote:
We desperately need someone to give the other side of the story here, particularly after a staff member has been so publicly and unjustly attacked. I have heard a report about the context of the 'Nuremberg' comment, and I'll leave it to those who were present at the meeting to confirm or deny.
During a staff meeting, Turnbull claimed that he had been pressurized into signing up to the 'Covenant for the Church of England' (a conservative statement from evangelical leaders threatening to seek alternative episcopal oversight if concessions were made to the pro-gay American Anglicans). In response, Storkey said something like 'the Nuremberg trials taught us that we are responsible for what we sign', that one can't use force or pressure as an excuse for putting our name to a document. This seems very, very far from comparing Turnbull to a Nazi, and makes Aitken's allegation in this article seem perilously close to being libellous.
Is there anyone who can confirm this story?

Both of those quotes are hearsay. Taken together, neither of these quotes confirms that Richard Turnbull was actually there. I suppose you might infer it from the second. And neither gives any hard information about what was actually said.

At the risk of being thought "picky", this little critique illustrates why I prefer due process and discount both accounts. They have not brought facts into the public domain. For all I know, you may have just inadvertently revealed something yourself.

--------------------
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
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
In answer to your question: firstly, my post wasn't addressed to you personally,

If not why did you post this?
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Nightlamp, my sarcasm was designed to be a criticism of your opinion; not a defence a Aiken. Would you please try to take things more personally in future? Thank you.

In one post you are saying you are commenting on my imaginary opinion and later on you say it is nothing about me but a general comment. It was nice to recieve the PM but I didn't see a need to reply but I now have.
My comment (quoted above) contained a smiley, as you well know. I was trying to point out that my comments were not a defence of Aiken, but rather a comment about the tenor of this thread; a thread to which you, among others, have been a major contributor. The fact that I identified your opinion, when directly addressing you, as one in which I discern a priori affliliation still stands. But it doesn't mean that I think you are the only perpetrator... on either side of the debate.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963

 - Posted      Profile for Charles Read   Author's homepage   Email Charles Read   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No - the Aitken article does bring into the public arena that which was not hitherto there - i.e. there are (or were) disciplinary proceeedings against Elaine Storkey.

I should add that, while I am friends with Elaine, I have not spoken to her for some months and have had no conversation with her about the recent events at Wycliffe.

--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi

"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh

Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The fact that I identified your opinion, when directly addressing you, as one in which I discern a priori affliliation still stands.

In which my comment about your assumption of my a priori affiliation still stands because it was in total error still stands.

--------------------
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      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK Charles Read. The existence of such proceedings is inferred in the Guardian report in the OP (some 6 weeks before the Aitken article) so I didn't think what Aitken was saying was new. Here is the quote from the Guardian article.

quote:
The document alleges that when Dr Storkey raised concerns about increasing tensions inside the college at a closed meeting, she was sent a letter by the principal by courier to her home demanding her appearance before a disciplinary tribunal. Dr Storkey, who is on sabbatical, refused to comment, saying only: "There is some substance to that."
Perhaps the Aitken article "confirms and amplifies an earlier rumour", which would make it new info. I just knew the possibility of disciplinary action was not new and had been in the public domain for 2 months. So that wasn't what I took you to say.

What I read as new was the confirmation that Richard Turnbull was actually at the meeting, and I couldn't see that in the Aitken article, or the immediate comments around it. Obviously that is important information, but until your post I had not seen any confirmation of it. Hence my post. Thanks for your clarification of your meaning.

--------------------
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
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The fact that I identified your opinion, when directly addressing you, as one in which I discern a priori affliliation still stands.

In which my comment about your assumption of my a priori affiliation still stands because it was in total error still stands.
In which case my comment still stands regarding your still standing comment pertaining to the opinion by which you still stand. [Yipee] Is everybody happy?

[ 09. July 2007, 13:50: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
[Yipee] Is everybody happy?

I just can't resist it, Numpty! And on account of our previously good net-relations, go one! Give me an answer to this previous post!

(I think that's "pretty please, with sugar on it").

On the serious point - I hope I've made it very clear that I would much rather this was resolved by due process, rather than distorted by (pace ex PM Blair) "Ugly Rumours".

--------------------
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
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The seeds of schism are germiniated in the ground of partiality, Barnabas. I haven't commented either positively or negatively concerning Aitken's comments. Your suggestion that I'm defendimg him is precisely the sort the a priori assumption that I'm talking about.

I don't think I was doing that, Numpty. I was asking for your opinion about Aitken's comments; admittedly in a leading way, but then I do think it is very hard to defend his comments. Actually I was thinking, "Setting all loyalties aside, surely we can agree on that?". I believe you to be fair-minded.
I think it was unwise of him. Clearly there are many other former Wycliffe students who don't have the privilege of access to the broadsheets, save the letters page. In this respect I think Aiken may have fallen foul of a little pride inasmuch as he thinks his opinion should be of special interest and influence. Once a politician, always a politician? On the other hand, he is perfectly within his rights to offer comment on the situation, but not, I think upon Storkey's alleged offence. In my view if he didn't hear it first hand he shouldn't have made comment. If he had heard it first hand he should have dealt with it with Storkey directly. Grabbing stray curs is most unwise, as is gossip and meddling. Seems to me that Matthew 18.15-17 should be the order of the day.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Agree entirely.

--------------------
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
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622

 - Posted      Profile for pete173   Author's homepage   Email pete173   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In many instances of institutional inter-staff relationships, a member of staff is subject to discipline, and may also then declare a grievance. The working out of difficult issues depends on an institution having in place good, robust, just and fair procedures. Quite often, in Christian organisations, there isn't a proper grievance procedure. And quite often the disciplinary process is not well managed. (I chair the governing body of a theological college, and we have worked very hard at getting good policies in place).

Anyone who feels that they have been unfairly treated may feel that they could go to an industrial tribunal, but this may not of course be affordable for the member of staff who feels that they have been victimised.

I hope this helps.

--------------------
Pete

Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I don't think the college as such is guilty of anything. What is clear is that Turnbull wants Wycliffe to be a bastion of conservative evangelicism (which is more or less what he said at reform) and the council want the place to be a more practical in it's approach to theology. These two things are indisputable. Some people think that making Wycliffe more conservative is a retrograde step others think it is a jolly good idea. Some people thinkthe place making the place more conservative is a by product of other changes others see it is as Turnbull's main objective.

The only area of real factual argument who said what in the personality dispute. One presentation is that Turnbull is an abrasive person who really doesn't understand theological colleges the other presentation is that the tutors and in particularly Elaine Storkey are to blame. In this presentation the tutors are meant to be preventing a radical change in the college that is needed. Turnbull is heroically fighting to overcome the forces of conservativism in the college so the vision is not lost.

I agree with almost all of this post. (*shock*)

I don't agree that Richard wants Wycliffe to be a "bastion of conservative evangelicalism", largely because I know he doesn't like the term or the distinction, and it certainly isn't about the traditional threefold division of evangelicalism (of which conservative evangelicalism is one). We can see this, for example, with reference to the charismatic issue, which hasn't really been touched by this whole episode. And if one had to split the students here into open, charismatic or conservative evangelicals (or Anglo-Catholics, etc), then I suspect charismatic evangelicals would be the largest group. Nor is it about the opennesses which +Pete173 and Ridley talk so much about - it's largely neutral with respect to those.

Richard (and an increasing number of others) see it much more in terms of a distinction for which I can't think of a better word than "evangelical", seeing a difference between "evangelical evangelicals", which includes many conservatives, charismatics and opens, and who are committed to following whatever they see that Scripture teaches, even and especially if it cuts across their own notions of justice, etc, and "non-evangelical evangelicals", who are mostly opens, but with some conservatives and charismatics, who are often "cultural evangelicals", but without the effective commitment to the priority of Scripture in determining doctrine.

Characteristic issues on this would be:
  • respect for the dual integrities position on women leading churches (with "evangelical evangelicals" generally in favour as they appreciate there are scriptural arguments both ways and non-evangelical evangelicals often opposed to it because it looks too much like authorised misogyny).
  • PSA, with some "non-evangelical evangelicals" rejecting it because of their notions of justice rather than because of Biblical arguments
  • the very high place of preaching in the life of the church and hence the importance of training people for preaching

With this distinction, I think it is fair to say that Richard is wanting to make Wycliffe more "evangelically evangelical", and hence more friendly to conservatives, without necessarily making it more conservative per se.

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066

 - Posted      Profile for Cadfael   Email Cadfael   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
[snip]
Richard (and an increasing number of others) see it much more in terms of a distinction for which I can't think of a better word than "evangelical", seeing a difference between "evangelical evangelicals", which includes many conservatives, charismatics and opens, and who are committed to following whatever they see that Scripture teaches, even and especially if it cuts across their own notions of justice, etc, and "non-evangelical evangelicals", who are mostly opens, but with some conservatives and charismatics, who are often "cultural evangelicals", but without the effective commitment to the priority of Scripture in determining doctrine.

Characteristic issues on this would be:
  • respect for the dual integrities position on women leading churches (with "evangelical evangelicals" generally in favour as they appreciate there are scriptural arguments both ways and non-evangelical evangelicals often opposed to it because it looks too much like authorised misogyny).
  • PSA, with some "non-evangelical evangelicals" rejecting it because of their notions of justice rather than because of Biblical arguments
  • the very high place of preaching in the life of the church and hence the importance of training people for preaching

With this distinction, I think it is fair to say that Richard is wanting to make Wycliffe more "evangelically evangelical", and hence more friendly to conservatives, without necessarily making it more conservative per se.

So, some evangelicals are not real evangelicals. And that is being friendly, not conservative!

Custard, I'm sure you are a lovely person, but as to that post:

[Projectile]

Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Perhaps it would have been better phrased as "with the growth of evangelicalism in the UK, there are some who self-identify as evangelical and whose heritage is evangelical yet who do not identify with the historic doctrinal position of evangelicalism on the role of Scripture in the Church".

Whether or not such people are evangelicals is entirely a matter of semantics.

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:

Characteristic issues on this would be:
  • respect for the dual integrities position on women leading churches (with "evangelical evangelicals" generally in favour as they appreciate there are scriptural arguments both ways and non-evangelical evangelicals often opposed to it because it looks too much like authorised misogyny).

If by "respect for the dual integrities position" you mean that we don't want to kick them out of the CofE even though we think they are wrong, I think the vast majority of evangelicals would sign up to that. The movement to "Revoke the Edict of Synod" (or whatever the technical term is) tends to come from members of the liberal-catholic ascendency in the Church of England, not from any stripe of evangelicals. We mostly don't mind very much if Forward in Faith and their friends and relations won't have women priests,. even if we would prefer it if they did,. No skin off our nose.

But if what you mean by it (or what Richard Turnbull means by it) is that those of us who are happy about the ordination of women should go backwards and agree not to ordain women, or refuse to have women ministers inour own churches, than that's not happening any time soon in the CofE. That argument is over and done in these parts.

quote:

  • PSA, with some "non-evangelical evangelicals" rejecting it because of their notions of justice rather than because of Biblical arguments

This means Steve Chalke right? (Not an Anglican last time I looked)

Most of us are much more likely to say that even if we don't "get" PSA, its an important image of what God does in atonement, with both scripture and church tradition behind it - but one of many such images that have scriptural support. So don't tell us its the only one we are allowed to use. And don't say that it is more than an image or a description or a metaphor or an allegory - it isn't. God may be [l]like[/i] a human judge in a court, but that's not what God is. There may be an analogy between the spiritual consequences of sin and earthly punishment for crimes, but they are not the same thing.

Again the strident opposition to using PSA language at all, and the nonsensical description of it as "Cosmic Chuild Abuse" isn't mostly coming from us cuddly Anglican Open Evangelicals (would we ever say anythign quite as self-commiting as that?). In my experience its from a lot further up the candle than us. Within the CofE from the self-declared liberals, and on this Ship mostly from our Orthodox friends.

quote:

  • the very high place of preaching in the life of the church and hence the importance of training people for preaching

Again, what evangelicals say otherwise?

We think preaching is so important we have everybody doing it and not just the Vicar [Biased]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066

 - Posted      Profile for Cadfael   Email Cadfael   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Perhaps it would have been better phrased as "with the growth of evangelicalism in the UK, there are some who self-identify as evangelical and whose heritage is evangelical yet who do not identify with the historic doctrinal position of evangelicalism on the role of Scripture in the Church".

Whether or not such people are evangelicals is entirely a matter of semantics.

"the historic doctrinal position of evangelicalism on the role of scripture in the Church"?

...Now that sounds like tradition. Or perhaps you can pin it down to a specific dated exposition or debate, thus making it reason. Choose wisely - one choice is catholic, the other liberal (but that's only a matter of semantics, of course - you may or may not be both liberal and catholic).

Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066

 - Posted      Profile for Cadfael   Email Cadfael   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nicely, and politely, argued Ken. [see above]

I could learn a few things here... [Hot and Hormonal]

Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ken - I agree with pretty much all your clarifications. [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If by "respect for the dual integrities position" you mean that we don't want to kick them out of the CofE even though we think they are wrong, I think the vast majority of evangelicals would sign up to that.

Yep. However, there are "evangelicals" who hold that the Act should be revoked, and other "evangelicals" who hold that people against the OoW shouldn't hold certain positions of leadership in the church (as the Vibert fuss showed).

quote:
This means Steve Chalke right? (Not an Anglican last time I looked)

Most of us are much more likely to say that even if we don't "get" PSA, its an important image of what God does in atonement, with both scripture and church tradition behind it - but one of many such images that have scriptural support.

Agreed. But Steve Chalke does have those who agree with him within the C of E, some of whom describe themselves as "evangelicals".

quote:
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
...Now that sounds like tradition. Or perhaps you can pin it down to a specific dated exposition or debate, thus making it reason. Choose wisely - one choice is catholic, the other liberal (but that's only a matter of semantics, of course - you may or may not be both liberal and catholic).

I'm perfectly happy accepting Hooker's view that Scripture is authoritative and sufficient for salvation, but not exhaustive, and reason and tradition are important hermeneutical tools for understanding Scripture and telling us stuff Scripture doesn't say directly (like how to use the Internet).

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Agreed, Custard.

Are you referring to 'non-evangelical evangelicals' in much the same way as IngoB refers to 'Cafeteria Catholics'?

[ 09. July 2007, 20:33: 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
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What with numpty making me spit my coffee out with laughter and custard more or less agreeing with me and then I agree with ken's last post; I feel something is wrong. The rapture must be soon.

[ 09. July 2007, 21:25: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]

Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I'm perfectly happy accepting Hooker's view that Scripture is authoritative and sufficient for salvation, but not exhaustive

Hi Custard,

Just to clarify, you mean that Hooker's view is that Scripture is not exhaustive in matters not related to salvation, don't you? My reading of Hooker's Lawes of Ecclesiastical Polity is that he takes Scripture very seriously as the only source of reliable knowledge of God, including how to be right with Him.

Hooker's talking up of the role of reason is consistently misread. He needs to be understood in his context in the 1590s, as someone responding to a very specific question regarding ecclesiastical polity—hence the title of his work!

He takes very seriously the noetic effects of sin upon human reason, and affirms everything Calvin affirms in this regard.

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It seems to me that there is some truth in what Custard is saying: there are some 'cradle UK evangelicals' (who are historically Arminian) that do seem to be caught in a self-critical and overly revistionistic malaise concerning their ecclesiatical identity. This involves, among other things, dabbling with open theism, challenging the intrinsic authority of scripture, flirting with universalism, and playing around with the atonement. I'm thinking Brian McClaren, Eugene Petersen, and Clarke Pinnock devotees.

Whereas, on the the other hand, you have other UK evangelicals (Calvinistic) who are busy re-discovering the Puritans and aligning themselves with much of the Refomed FUNdamentalism coming out of Seattle, New York, Minneapolis, Southern California etc.. I'm thinking of John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller et al fans.

These two camps are most definately moving in different directions... fast! One is moving towards a very robust re-expression of historically rooted Reformed evangelicalism; some might say 'real' or true evangelicalism. The other is moving into an much more ecclesiologically and theologically eclectic nominal evangelicalism: some might say 'post'-evangelicalism or even neo-liberalism.

[ 09. July 2007, 21:49: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
What with numpty making me spit my coffee out with laughter and custard more or less agreeing with me and then I agree with ken's last post; I feel something is wrong. The rapture must be soon.

It's a Reformed plot based on gentility and powerful reasoning. There is no escape... [Biased]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Interesting turn in the thread - and one that appeals to me, since it may very well be looking at some real underlying causes. Numpty's "gentility and and powerful reasoning" made me chuckle, particularly since gentility and powerful reasoning didn't seem to me to be forces much in evidence in the Wycliffe Hall troubles (more's the pity).

The nonconformist in me (and I think the nonco tradition is actually a more powerful factor in my faith than the evangelical) rather responds to the idea that there is scope for a good deal of criticism of the uneasy conscience of modern evangelicalism. Evangelicalism needs a latter day Carl Henry (or similar) to at least recognise its dis-ease and suggest some over-arching solutions. Fission is far to easy a solution, and defeatist anyway. We need a lot more attempts at constructive argumentation before going down that road. (And possibly a few good, honest, screaming matches along the way).

No, I don't like the fissile predictions in Numpty's post. Guys, we have to do better than that. We forget that the Lord prayed that we might all be one. Now that's a funny thing for a nonco to remind you about. Personally, I get a bit sick of the way we don't do conflict resolution.

I think pete173 had a good point along these lines. Lots of Christian organisations shy away from the idea of planning for the management of conflict, discipline and grievances. Despite the history of Protestantism, some of us seem to have this naive idea that the sort of decently worked out due processes common in the best secular organisations are unnecessary in Christian organisations. We often say we dont need them. That is, until the shit hits the fan. Then it's make it up as we go along, and count the casualties at the end. That ain't the way to do it.

--------------------
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
Emma Louise

Storm in a teapot
# 3571

 - Posted      Profile for Emma Louise   Email Emma Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I guess it partly comes down to whether or not you include open-evangelicals in your definition of evangelical. Id say those that dont *are* ultra-conservative.

By Numptys definition Im obviously not "in" [Roll Eyes]

I rather like Brian McClaren and Eugene Petersen (and those of us that did when I was at wycliffe were very welcome) and personally not a fan of John Piper.

I guess it depends on which "side" of the debate you are as to whether you say ultra-conservative/ bastion of conservativism or whether tyou call it real/ historically routed Reformed Evangelicalism.

Similarly whether you call it "open evangelcialism" or neo-liberalism / liberal-evangelicalism/not evangelical evangelical.

Id guess quite a lot of evos in the pews would be open evo if given a list of descriptors for each standpoint, and certainly a fair number of scholars. I personally lean in that direction so as Ive said before, in response to the posts on this thread would now avoid Wycliffe just as I previously would have avoided OakHill.

Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

No, I don't like the fissile predictions in Numpty's post. Guys, we have to do better than that. We forget that the Lord prayed that we might all be one. Now that's a funny thing for a nonco to remind you about. Personally, I get a bit sick of the way we don't do conflict resolution.


I share Numpty's analysis but I too want to be more optimistic about the future.

Tim Keller is, I think, not as divisive as the others. His emphasis on, e.g., social action brings many different groups together. He is honest enough to admit that we all drawn lines (even if it is to say that we are not like those nasty people who draw lines! [Biased] )but goes on to say that it is our attitude towards those 'on the other side of the line' that matters.

quote:
Originally posted by Emma:
Id guess quite a lot of evos in the pews would be open evo if given a list of descriptors for each standpoint, and certainly a fair number of scholars. I personally lean in that direction so as Ive said before, in response to the posts on this thread would now avoid Wycliffe just as I previously would have avoided OakHill.

But that is precisely how evangelicalism fragments. Each side trying to claim 'the folk in the pews' for themselves. Of course, it goes without saying, that most Christians agree with me on that. [Razz]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963

 - Posted      Profile for Charles Read   Author's homepage   Email Charles Read   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just to clarify re. the exchange with Barnabas above -

I do not know if Dr Turnbull was at 'the meeting' - I have assumed so from the material in the public domain. Another reading of this material is possible.

I am however a bit concerned at this (from Custard):
quote:
I'm not going to criticise Elaine beyond this paragraph, as I don't really know her. She seems to play far less part in the life of the college than any of the other staff, and both the lectures of hers I've been to have been facile and poorly delivered.



As I've said, I'm a friend of Elaine, but even so this comment appears to me to be sailing close to the wind. Are you implying, Custard, that because Elaine is a poor teacher (in your view) and plays little part in Hall life (again, in your view), she can be treated in this way? I assume you do not in fact mean this (from the evidence of your posts here I read you as more reasonable than that!)

As Pete 173 said, it is important that Christian organisations have good emloyment policies (including disciplinary and grievance procedures). Often they do not - good on Pete for making sure his college does. Christian employers ought surely to lead the way and do better than the law requires.

--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi

"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh

Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
UK evangelicals (Calvinistic) who are busy re-discovering the Puritans and aligning themselves with much of the Refomed FUNdamentalism coming out of Seattle, New York, Minneapolis, Southern California etc.. I'm thinking of John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller et al fans.

PS - I'm not sure how many of the above would like the label 'fundamentalism'. Some of them specifically reject it.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
As I've said, I'm a friend of Elaine, but even so this comment appears to me to be sailing close to the wind. Are you implying, Custard, that because Elaine is a poor teacher (in your view) and plays little part in Hall life (again, in your view), she can be treated in this way? I assume you do not in fact mean this (from the evidence of your posts here I read you as more reasonable than that!)

No - I don't mean that. Elaine is a sinful and fallible human being, for whom Christ died, same as me and you and Richard Turnbull and everyone else. She should therefore be treated with love and respect, just like everyone else.

I'd only see the kind of disciplinary procedures alluded to here as appropriate in the case of some fairly serious unrepented-of wrongdoing, after suitable conversations in private had been had with her, and opportunities given for repentance.

I don't know if that's the case or not, and if it is, then the details would obviously be confidential while any action was going on.

--------------------
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      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
[quote] I guess it partly comes down to whether or not you include open-evangelicals in your definition of evangelical. Id say those that dont *are* ultra-conservative.

By Numpty's definition Im obviously not "in" [Roll Eyes]

I'd have to say that the ideas of Brian McClaren fall well outside what I'd would conisder to be historically rooted evangelicalism. Ironically, its only since leaving Wycliffe that I've become more conservative in my understanding of evangelicalism. And this, by and large, has been propmpted by watching fellow evangelicals struggle with, and sometimes abandon, even the basic tenets of Christian (let alone distinctively evangelical) doctrine.

quote:
I guess it depends on which "side" of the debate you are as to whether you say ultra-conservative/ bastion of conservativism or whether tyou call it real/ historically routed Reformed Evangelicalism.
Well, not really. I'd say that many evangelicals simply don't fully understand or appreciate their own theological heritage, particularly their literary heritage.

I think it was C.S.Lewis who advised Christians never to read more than three new books in a row without reading something from a previous century in between. This, I think, is good advice, particularly for professing evangelicals. Many of us could do with engaging a bit of John Owen, John Bunyan, Richard Sibbes, Andrew Murray, Charles Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones etc every now and again. This would give us a better understanding of the defining characteristics of historical evangelicalism so that we would know when contemporary 'evangelical' theologians are beginning to abandon their theological tradition.

quote:
I'd guess quite a lot of evos in the pews would be open evo if given a list of descriptors for each standpoint, and certainly a fair number of scholars. I personally lean in that direction so as I've said before, in response to the posts on this thread would now avoid Wycliffe just as I previously would have avoided OakHill.

But why? If a person is prepared to self-identify as evangelical there should be no reason why they wouldn't want to understand their own heritage through the writings of great evangelicals of the past. Open evangelicals, IMO, are more prone to getting caught in the headlights of theological innovation than are their conservative bretheren. The result of course being that many open evangelicals don't actually know how far away from historical evangelicalism they have strayed. You can't really complain if more conservatively minded evangelicals, who put greater weight on historically continous definition of evangelicalism, point out that your beliefs are incompatible with much of what bygone evangelicals spent a great deal of time writing and thinking about.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Emma Louise

Storm in a teapot
# 3571

 - Posted      Profile for Emma Louise   Email Emma Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:


quote:
Originally posted by Emma:
Id guess quite a lot of evos in the pews would be open evo if given a list of descriptors for each standpoint, and certainly a fair number of scholars. I personally lean in that direction so as Ive said before, in response to the posts on this thread would now avoid Wycliffe just as I previously would have avoided OakHill.

But that is precisely how evangelicalism fragments. Each side trying to claim 'the folk in the pews' for themselves. Of course, it goes without saying, that most Christians agree with me on that. [Razz]
Nope - wasnt trying to claim them all!!! Just that Im well aware that there *is* an open evangelical following (and Im well aware the hard-line conservatives have a following!) having been to various conferences when I used to be involved in church leadership.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Emma Louise

Storm in a teapot
# 3571

 - Posted      Profile for Emma Louise   Email Emma Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Numpty I guess its a question of perspective. I believe whole heartedly in scripture - and since studying theology accademically I have moved more towards liking people like Brian MacLaren etc. A few years ago I was at London Bible College for a conference (which is hardly the hotseat of liberalism).

Anyway - you will continue to call my "side" of the debate as unevangelical and I will continue to say that I am. I hold to a high authority of the scripture, its the tradition I am most comfortable in, etc etc. I loved Wenham at Wycliffe, and also like NT Wright, I just shy away from the more conservative scholars which to me lean more towards fundamentalism/ ultra conservativism rather than what I percieve to be biblical.

So I dont think we are going to get anywhere following this conversation! You will continue to limit evangelicalism to what *you* percieve to be biblical/historic!

Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Emma Louise

Storm in a teapot
# 3571

 - Posted      Profile for Emma Louise   Email Emma Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Numpty I guess its a question of perspective. I believe whole heartedly in scripture - and since studying theology accademically I have moved more towards liking people like Brian MacLaren etc. A few years ago I was at London Bible College for a conference (which is hardly the hotseat of liberalism).

Anyway - you will continue to call my "side" of the debate as unevangelical and I will continue to say that I am. I hold to a high authority of the scripture, its the tradition I am most comfortable in, etc etc. I loved Wenham at Wycliffe, and also like NT Wright, I just shy away from the more conservative scholars which to me lean more towards fundamentalism/ ultra conservativism rather than what I percieve to be biblical.

So I dont think we are going to get anywhere following this conversation! You will continue to limit evangelicalism to what *you* percieve to be biblical/historic!

I am still personally sad that Wycliffe appears to be going that way as when I was (sort of) there (I was at another college but engaged to someone there so regularly there) there were quite a group of us who liked Eugene Peterson etc. The in-thing at the time was "TOdd Hunter" who was ex-leader of the vineyard movement in the USA.

emma//happily a +4

Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Emma. I didn't mean to suggest that you aren't evangelical and I apologise if that's how it has come across. My intention was to point out that people like McClaren should be read with one eye on history. I think that evangelicals who buy fully into McCalren et al's theological eclecticism, without checking it against history, are in danger of losing the substance of what does define them as evangelical.

[ 10. July 2007, 12:20: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose I read Wright for history, McLaren and Wallis for values, Campolo for commitment. No wonder I'm confused ...

There's something I'm working out which has been provoked by this thread. Maybe its because its about a conflict in an academic environment? There is something profoundly sick-making about this. I can't prove it but I sense that there is an underlying cause - a battle over who has the best ideas. It is often said that in war, the first casualty is truth. I'm wondering if, in our battles over ideas, the first casualty is often love. I appreciate that's over broad-brush, even a bit cartoon-like. But I keep remembering the parable of the Samaritan, from which I draw a Jesus thought that being a good neighbour really isn't about the purity of our ideas at all.

It's probably very clear that I'm not a garden variety anti-clerical, anti-intellectual evo. I don't knock folks who seek clarity, I do it myself. But it is not the only thing. And sometimes it can be destructive.

--------------------
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
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suppose I read Wright for history, McLaren and Wallis for values, Campolo for commitment. No wonder I'm confused ...

There's something I'm working out which has been provoked by this thread. Maybe its because its about a conflict in an academic environment? There is something profoundly sick-making about this. I can't prove it but I sense that there is an underlying cause - a battle over who has the best ideas. It is often said that in war, the first casualty is truth. I'm wondering if, in our battles over ideas, the first casualty is often love. I appreciate that's over broad-brush, even a bit cartoon-like. But I keep remembering the parable of the Samaritan, from which I draw a Jesus thought that being a good neighbour really isn't about the purity of our ideas at all.

It's probably very clear that I'm not a garden variety anti-clerical, anti-intellectual evo. I don't knock folks who seek clarity, I do it myself. But it is not the only thing. And sometimes it can be destructive.

This is quite amazing. Before I read this post, I had already written, in PM to another shipmate:

quote:
One insight that I'm trying to wrestle with at the moment is the way that we have turned the "theological" and the "relational" bits of the NT on their head. Thus, rather than seeing, say, Paul as striving to give a coherent pattern, a theology, if you like, to the events of the Life of Jesus, rather we see the life of Jesus as being a vindication of a pre-existing theology. We put our ideas of God above the Son of God Himself. And we miss the rather important fact that Jesus seems to be almost completely careless of theology, but passionately committed to people. If he addresses theological truth at all, it is when he rejects its elevation over relationship. "The Sabbath is made for man", anyone?

Probably means nothing, but heigh-ho!

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jolly Jape

Thanks you very much indeed. I'm not sure if Jesus is careless about theology - the "you have heard it said, but I say unto you" statements suggest that the correction, illumination and amplification of existing beliefs was also a part of his mission. But I agree entirely both about his emphasis on relational matters and the fact that, often enough, we seem to miss or forget that emphasis.

There is a paradox here, which some folks have reduced to the notion that Christian ethics are situational. That isn't right either. I struggle to capture the idea properly but I recall, probably imperfectly, a saying by Isaac Asimov (of all people) put into the mouth of one of his characters in the Foundation trilogy. Goes something like this.

"Never let your values prevent you from doing what is right".

That gets quite close to something I glean about Jesus from the gospels. The old Pauline idea that the law is a schoolmaster which leads us to Christ is quite a good one to apply to the world of ideas. For they are both essential and, without care, can be fatal. I guess idolatry takes many forms.

I've had a tiring and confusing day IRL, and it's probably far too late to be posting this. Maybe I'll regret it in the morning? But heigh-ho, here goes ...

--------------------
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
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804

 - Posted      Profile for Ethne Alba     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
All kinds of options for dealing with this mess.
But "mud" is one word used a fair bit here so far and mud sticks.

The whys and the wherefores can be sorted out later (and of course the due legal course must be run)

But ISTM either Wycliffe is determind to blast this one through and emerge with their Principle.
Or with their principles.

They just can't do both.

I'm not usualy in favour of sacrifices but...........

Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Numpty, you've got me really confused. It seems to me that you are saying that an evangelical is defined by their allegiance to History (the evangelical tradition) rather than to Scripture, but I suspect I'm misunderstanding you here. Could you clarify things for me, please, as I'm even denser than normal this morning?

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Never let your values prevent you from doing what is right".

Close.

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" - Salvor Hardin (Asimov, Foundation)

Your friendly neighborhood sci-fi geek.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  ...  45  46  47 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools