|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Evangelical slide into Fundamentalism
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But how is that different from a positive universal? Is it any harder to prove that no swans are black than to prove that all swans are white? There really doesn't seem to be any basis in fact for this old "Can't prove a negative" canard that I can see.
--Tom Clune
The point being that no one is asking for a positive universal. We are talking about evangelicals, not swans.
In order to make a generalisation about evangelical theologians you need to provide evidence that quite a few / most fit your stereotype. In fact even one would at least be a start.
So we come back to my question - can someone cite some examples of this operating in evangelicalism outside of American culture?
My hunch is that what Chris said here
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
and it is my personal belief that in some circles it is becoming more of an issue - as they take cues from the US based movements that influence them heavily.
is likewise just his hunch for which he has no evidence within the UK. As Lep said earlier this is one of those, "And I'm not the only one who thinks this" discussions.
My response is - fine, where are all these other people?
[PS Props to Svitlana for breaking the scroll lock]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
If so, what would it take for you to accept that people genuinely disagree with you on this?
That train, my dear Alwyn, has already arrived. I am quite well aware that a very large number of people are want to fudge this issue, was that not the very point of my post that you referenced? I said that a large number of Christians have gone fuzzy-headed on this issue. My whole point was that a large number disagree with me!
And how I love to insult and revile them!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
If someone said that a monogamous sexual relationship between a married man and woman of 23 years was comparable to beastiality, I'd feel as if the person to whom I was speaking was irrational and confused, I'd be nonplussed. If the person persisted in this, challenging my relationship, I'd think they were deranged, I might get irritated, angry, or, if my better side was operating, I'd feel sympathy and compassion for the accuser in their delusion.
[/QB]
Yep, that's just how I feel about people who could possibly equate a monogamous, long term same sex marriage with bestiality.
[ 31. July 2012, 02:48: Message edited by: Anyuta ]
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
What fascinates me about this debate is the apparent tension between the position that the moral code of the church should not adapt to the secular world, as against the view, that it always has.
Of course, this tension is actually much more complex than this - for example, I was struck by Svitlana's point that the condemnation of homosexual activity may actually attract some to the church, since it denotes moral firmness, a sense of standards in a lax society and so on. (Well, I think she said that).
On the other hand, it might alienate many young (and old) people who have gay friends, and who object to them being criticized in some way.
Of course, then there is the question, but what is the morally right thing, and how do I decide that?
There is another tension here I assume: that between one's own feelings and one's wish to adhere to a set of teachings.
Tension upon tension! How does one navigate through these stormy waters? I don't know. I suppose there isn't a set procedure.
On the other hand, some might argue that there is!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My hunch is that what Chris said here
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
and it is my personal belief that in some circles it is becoming more of an issue - as they take cues from the US based movements that influence them heavily.
is likewise just his hunch for which he has no evidence within the UK.
If you are talking about statistically rigorous evidence, then I don't have any. Though I suspect that neither do you.
Creationism - to pick up on one of the issues - has certainly made the news a few times in recent years. Though I suspect part of that is that the existing supporters of creationism have grown stronger over time.
I know that YEC/ID media/books etc have proven to be a fairly good growth area for the Christian Media industy. Though perhaps you could argue that that's down availability.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My hunch is that what Chris said here
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
and it is my personal belief that in some circles it is becoming more of an issue - as they take cues from the US based movements that influence them heavily.
is likewise just his hunch for which he has no evidence within the UK.
If you are talking about statistically rigorous evidence, then I don't have any. Though I suspect that neither do you.
Creationism - to pick up on one of the issues - has certainly made the news a few times in recent years. Though I suspect part of that is that the existing supporters of creationism have grown stronger over time.
I know that YEC/ID media/books etc have proven to be a fairly good growth area for the Christian Media industy. Though perhaps you could argue that that's down availability.
But we weren't actually talking about whether views about YEC and inerrancy are views some people hold within evangelicalism. We were talking about whether they are views about which college professors lose jobs, people are ostracised from mainstream evangelical movements etc as per your interpretation of what happened to Enns and Waltke. I know quite a number of YEC people and even more who believe in inerrancy. My experience is that they tend to be rather diffident about their views, but YMMV of course.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But we weren't actually talking about whether views about YEC and inerrancy are views some people hold within evangelicalism. We were talking about whether they are views about which college professors lose jobs, people are ostracised from mainstream evangelical movements etc as per your interpretation of what happened to Enns and Waltke.
That's not correct, you responded to an article by an American speaking American Evangelicalism claiming that it was all bunk - I think that the facts prove otherwise unless you want to contend that they didn't - in fact - lose their jobs. [Your follow up seemed to be that one of them did in fact lose his job, but it didn't matter as he got another one.]
quote:
I know quite a number of YEC people and even more who believe in inerrancy. My experience is that they tend to be rather diffident about their views, but YMMV of course.
I think it depends on the circles you move in. While replying, I was trying to remember the particular creationist who spoke at All Souls a while back, and found this article:
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CreationismInChurches
Some of which is a bit alarmist, but their basic conclusion that creationism is strong in independent movements and less so in more mainstream denominations is something that I would tend to agree with.
The stridency with which some creationists express their views has seems to have grown (see the various creationism in schools stories in the UK). Perhaps the fact that the independent movements (in which creationism is likely to be more prevalent) are also the ones which are experiencing most numerical growth plays a part here.
Perhaps - to take it back to the original topic - this demonstrates the periodic retrenchment at the edges of 'evangelicalism'. Maybe some of Niebuhr's categories are poles between which church movements oscillate.
[ 31. July 2012, 09:56: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was struck by Svitlana's point that the condemnation of homosexual activity may actually attract some to the church, since it denotes moral firmness, a sense of standards in a lax society and so on. (Well, I think she said that).
On the other hand, it might alienate many young (and old) people who have gay friends, and who object to them being criticized in some way.
Of course, then there is the question, but what is the morally right thing, and how do I decide that?
Yes, that's what I was getting at.
I'm also saying that any attempt to find a definitive sexual morality that will apply to all Christians isn't going to work. Anything to do with sex will always raise fierce disagreements, because sex isn't just a private, personal thing. Sex is the starting point for the creation of families and societies, and these are the places where faith is taught and nurtured - or where it's destroyed for life. For this reason, how and when sex happens will always be a contentious issue.
The struggle for some Christians is between the desire to be compassionate on the one hand, and to uphold high standards of self-control on the other. God is loving, forgiving, understanding, but he also he demands blood, sweat and tears, self-sacrifice, fortitude, the willpower to resist the temptations of the flesh. This tension is intrinsic to Christianity.
In an attempt to be ecumenical I'd say that we need both liberal and evangelical churches, because each reminds the other of different aspects of God. We need the inclusive and tolerant churches, but we also need those that have high standards and expect a high degree of self-sacrice.
As for a 'procedure' for discovering which is best, the Bible says:'By their fruits ye shall know them.' There are different kinds of fruit.
[ 31. July 2012, 10:12: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
By the way, there are clearly people who continue to take the hat thing seriously, and who despair at the number of women being led astray by false teaching in this area.
Worth reading. If only to grasp what it's like to be on the side of cultural context when someone is insisting that a Biblical statement continues to apply in the same literal form that it originally did.
And THIS rule is around 1,500 years closer to us, culturally, than the other one we've been tossing around.
What do other Shipmates think of the above link.?
it seems reasonable enough to me.
I belong to a fellowship where none of the women where hats although head coverings were worn when I first joined. also we have women sometimes (often) leading the worship, and the praise etc.
Sometimes I wonder if it is right, but what can I do apart from joining the Brethren which I don't want to do, as they would not aprove of my charismatic views.
By the way do women in the open Brethen still were hats?
I hope I am not derailing the thread. Maybe it should have a thread of its own.
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But we weren't actually talking about whether views about YEC and inerrancy are views some people hold within evangelicalism. We were talking about whether they are views about which college professors lose jobs, people are ostracised from mainstream evangelical movements etc as per your interpretation of what happened to Enns and Waltke.
That's not correct, you responded to an article by an American speaking American Evangelicalism claiming that it was all bunk - I think that the facts prove otherwise unless you want to contend that they didn't - in fact - lose their jobs. [Your follow up seemed to be that one of them did in fact lose his job, but it didn't matter as he got another one.]
In fact, in the Waltke case, the story seems to be that he didn't lose his job, he resigned and for some time the board didn't accept his resignation. In the end they did so and he has come out saying that they didn't do anything wrong.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/04/12/updates-from-waltke-and-from-rts/
quote:
Some of which is a bit alarmist, but their basic conclusion that creationism is strong in independent movements and less so in more mainstream denominations is something that I would tend to agree with.
The stridency with which some creationists express their views has seems to have grown (see the various creationism in schools stories in the UK). Perhaps the fact that the independent movements (in which creationism is likely to be more prevalent) are also the ones which are experiencing most numerical growth plays a part here.
Perhaps - to take it back to the original topic - this demonstrates the periodic retrenchment at the edges of 'evangelicalism'. Maybe some of Niebuhr's categories are poles between which church movements oscillate.
Well maybe, but all this link proves is that there are some rather fringe groups that teach young earth creationism. There's nothing in that research to indicate how those groups deal with other groups or individuals who don't teach YEC and, in fact, nothing about the theistic evolution school who are often still grouped as broadly creationist. Or anything about how these groups get on with each other.
As I say, the only experience I have with YEC people is working with them in a context where the majority are not YEC, and I haven't experienced any tension, spite or attempts to maneouvre people who disagree out of influence.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was struck by Svitlana's point that the condemnation of homosexual activity may actually attract some to the church, since it denotes moral firmness, a sense of standards in a lax society and so on. (Well, I think she said that).
On the other hand, it might alienate many young (and old) people who have gay friends, and who object to them being criticized in some way.
Of course, then there is the question, but what is the morally right thing, and how do I decide that?
Yes, that's what I was getting at.
I'm also saying that any attempt to find a definitive sexual morality that will apply to all Christians isn't going to work. Anything to do with sex will always raise fierce disagreements, because sex isn't just a private, personal thing. Sex is the starting point for the creation of families and societies, and these are the places where faith is taught and nurtured - or where it's destroyed for life. For this reason, how and when sex happens will always be a contentious issue.
The struggle for some Christians is between the desire to be compassionate on the one hand, and to uphold high standards of self-control on the other. God is loving, forgiving, understanding, but he also he demands blood, sweat and tears, self-sacrifice, fortitude, the willpower to resist the temptations of the flesh. This tension is intrinsic to Christianity.
In an attempt to be ecumenical I'd say that we need both liberal and evangelical churches, because each reminds the other of different aspects of God. We need the inclusive and tolerant churches, but we also need those that have high standards and expect a high degree of self-sacrice.
As for a 'procedure' for discovering which is best, the Bible says:'By their fruits ye shall know them.' There are different kinds of fruit.
That's very sensible and well-balanced. Actually, I think talk of a procedure either for making moral judgements, or for choosing which church style one adheres to, is a bit too abstract and schematic.
I would think that a large influence is played by one's own personality. If you are a feeling-type person, then you may well see morality in that way, thus it might 'feel wrong' to condemn gays. If you are more rational, you may be prepared to construct a kind of logical analysis.
I guess this is one reason that discussions often prove difficult, since you have a clash of personalities, and the rationalizations are often post hoc.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
CSL1: since you feel that I’m giving you “circular and vague responses” to your questions, I will respond to your questions, below, as directly as I can. I hope this helps. I’m mentioning this, because otherwise the bluntness of my responses might seem rude.
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
... So your criterion for determining whether something is morally non-objectionable is if all parties to the activity are: 1). consenting and 2). have the capacity to render the opinion that their particular activity is not objectionable?
No. I see consent and capacity as morally relevant in lots of cases, but not as universal moral criteria. You seem to be trying to classify me - first you seemed to think that I applied utilitarian ethics to all moral questions (understandably, since I was talking about harm). Now you seem to wonder if I’m a liberal (in the sense of a person who priorities autonomy in moral questions.). As I’ve said, my criterion for determining whether something is morally objectionable is to ask: what moral rule(s) apply? How should the rule(s) be applied, according to their purpose(s)?
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
...Wouldn't that take a Deity or any higher standard-giver out of the formulation? Couldn't that lead to morally objectionable results?
No to your first question, since (as I aimed to show in my ‘stay in the park’ example) I see this approach as a way to apply God’s moral teaching as faithfully as I can. Yes to your second question – for example, I could misunderstand the purpose of the rule, which could lead to morally objectionable results.
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
...E.g., assume a high priest with a knife to the throat of a sacrificial virgin, assume both "have the capacity to stand up to you and say 'what we're doing isn't wrong'?" Now, does that make the human sacrifice right?
No, because I don’t use consent and capacity as universal criteria. In that situation, I’d ask: what moral rule(s) apply? The rule ‘You shall not murder’ applies. What's the purpose of this rule? Because human life is sacred; we should only kill in very exceptional cases that aren’t ‘murder’ (like self-defence; as Firefly’s Captain Reynolds would say “Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!). Applying this approach, I’d say that human sacrifice is wrong. You could argue that this approach (a) doesn’t answer every moral question (there will be grey areas about whether some situations are murder or not) and (b) uses human reason and secular knowledge (e.g. on defining murder). If you argued that, I’d agree with you on both points.
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
OK, I'll answer it now... So in light of that fact, I'm at a loss for your line of questioning here.
Thank you for answering my question. The point of my line of questioning was that, in a debate, if your opponent links your loving relationship with an abusive one, then they’re associating you with something nasty in your own mind. This may provoke a confused or angry reaction from you, enabling your opponent to point out how ‘hypersensitive’ you are – scoring cheap points. If there’s an audience, then – in the mind of the audience - your opponent has also set up an association between you and something disgusting on a visceral level. That’s why I see linking someone’s loving relationship with abusive relationships is an unfair debating tactic ... I see it as the debating equivalent of ‘going negative’ in a political campaign. I hope that helps you to understand my view, even if you don’t agree.
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
... I simply don't get you, what are you thinking? ...
I am sorry for confusing you! My thinking was along these lines: CSL1 says that he’s debating in good faith. When he seems to ‘go negative’ (e.g. linking me with two notorious alleged liars) while defending debating tactics that I see as ‘going negative’ in a similar way (linking an opponent’s relationship with an abusive one) then I struggle to believe CSL1’s claim of good faith. I shouldn’t conclude that CSL1 is ‘guilty’ of bad faith without putting the case to him (my suspicions may be ill-founded) and looking for an explanation which would show that you are, in fact, arguing in good faith.
Having said all that, I’ve only just noticed ( ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ) that mousethief started this thread in Dead Horses. If we continue this conversation, I guess we should do so on that thread? To facilitate that, I'll take the liberty of re-posting these comments there.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would think that a large influence is played by one's own personality. If you are a feeling-type person, then you may well see morality in that way, thus it might 'feel wrong' to condemn gays. If you are more rational, you may be prepared to construct a kind of logical analysis.
I agree. I'm also inclined to think that social context also plays a part. People who have more to risk by engaging in or accepting more liberated sexual behaviour are more likely to condemn it. Those who have less to risk are more likely to be tolerant. So, for example, it's said that in poorer countries and communities, where families, not the state, provide protection and support, sexual activity that risks spreading disease or creating fatherless children is likely to be condemned by their religious institutions. Temperance, financial probity, hard work, avoiding 'dissipated' leisure activities, all have a very practical purpose for such communities. On the other hand, in the UK, both evangelical and more liberal denominations and churches have their very middle class element, so a fear of poverty or disease, etc. can't be the issue there.
The study of Christian peronality types is quite interesting. I've read that (British) churches tend to be quite different from the country at large in terms of the distribution of personality types. It also seems that in different kinds of church different personality types predominate. Some commentators even notice how certain professions predominate among churchgoers in certain environments, but not in others. Anyone who wants to change evangelical attitudes towards gay relationships (or anything else) probably needs to bear all of this in mind. It's not simply a matter of convincing people with a particular theological argument.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Svitlana - your point about social context is spot on. I recall that some anthropologists have investigated homophobia in different cultures, and have come up with various reasons for it, for example, the requirement to have lots of children, the necessity for men to be tough and war-like, a general code of masculinity, and so on. So gay men might be seen as a liability in various ways, especially in tribal society.
So in fact, the decline or increase in homophobia in different cultures may itself have deep social and economic causes.
Oops, am I not supposed to be discussing this? Substitute then for the word 'homophobia' something like 'potting sheds' or the like.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
If you are talking about statistically rigorous evidence, then I don't have any. Though I suspect that neither do you.
You're doing it again. We really are looking for black swans now.
I said that I didn't think the kind of thing that can happen to American evangelical theologians would happen elsewhere in the (evangelical) English speaking world.
If you could just give one example it would at least be a start. I could start listing theologians who haven't lost their jobs over this kind of thing, but that would be rather tedious.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I said that I didn't think the kind of thing that can happen to American evangelical theologians would happen elsewhere in the (evangelical) English speaking world.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) The context of the discussion is "The Evangelical slide into Fundamentalism". I think the sort of thing that can happen to American evangelical theologians is an interesting data point in that context.
I don't claim that *exactly* the same thing is happening over here. I do think in some circles - usually independent ones - YEC is becoming more prominent and as a result becoming a boundary marker. What sort of evidence would show that? Book/media sales is one - though as I said that could be subject to multiple explanations.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
If you are talking about statistically rigorous evidence, then I don't have any. Though I suspect that neither do you.
You're doing it again. We really are looking for black swans now.
I said that I didn't think the kind of thing that can happen to American evangelical theologians would happen elsewhere in the (evangelical) English speaking world.
If you could just give one example it would at least be a start. I could start listing theologians who haven't lost their jobs over this kind of thing, but that would be rather tedious.
Wasn't there a spot of bother at Wycliffe College not long ago over "headship" and the appropriate roles for women in church? Some professors were let go. That seems to me to be exactly the kind of thing I am thinking of. Conform or be ejected.
If we cast our net a bit wider:
The "Christians are being persecuted by secularists" meme seems to be equally strong among Evangelicals on both sides of the Atlantic. There have been some high-profile court cases in the news in Britain.
Anti-Muslim rhetoric seems about equal.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
If the church should always adapt to society then it follows that no longer should the church have any right to say 'Repent!' Instead it should follow the advice of the unrepentant and 'get with it!'
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's not that the church should adapt to society, but that inevitably and unconsciously, it does. It may of course strive to resist this, and to maintain a distance between itself and social mores; yet at the same time, that distance cannot become too great, can it? I was just watching the Lutheran pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber, her arms swathed in tattoos, and mighty impressive she looks. Should she abjure tats?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If the church should always adapt to society then it follows that no longer should the church have any right to say 'Repent!' Instead it should follow the advice of the unrepentant and 'get with it!'
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the church should always adapt to society. It should, however, examine what society is doing and consider, prayerfully and thoughtfully, whether there is wisdom in the changes that society makes. Sometimes it will be obvious that there is not, and I would suggest the casualisation of sexual relationships is one such instance. The existence of gay people who are prepared to make the same commitment as married heterosexual couples requires close examination rather than dismissal.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
And I don't think that "adapting to society" really means partaking in the wanton excesses of all parts of it. Rather, I would say it implies making the message consistent with the context of it.
I think part of the difference is based on varying understandings of "sin": you certainly won't get any consensus among Christians on a complete list, and even those who can agree on specific items may not agree on the interpretation and how they are applied. We had an eye-opening thread here on the Ship about the types of sexual activities that GLE teens considered acceptable even if they were "saving themselves for marriage". For some people there is a fixed list based on specific Bible passages that applies to everyone regardless of circumstances, others might add some derived from those (gluttony, for example), and on another side you may find those who believe that anything that separates you from God is a sin, making it much more specific to each person. Crocheting might be sinful, for example, for someone who spends too much time trying to outdo the neighbor to where they don't fulfill their other obligations.
Is drinking alcohol a sin? Jesus didn't seem to think so, or he would have turned the wine into water rather than vice versa. But in that context, wine was the common drink, whereas things may be different in a world with clean water and better means of food preservation. That is a case of adapting to changes in society / context. But even in the modern light of alcoholism, drunkenness, and associated problems, is making coq au vin or using real wine for communion (while providing options for those who choose not to drink alcohol) still sinful? I think that only a minority of Christians would agree.
Similarly there may be many modern practices / activities that aren't mentioned in the Bible. How we apply the teachings to the telephone, camera, internet, automobiles, air conditioning, corporations, political and economic theory, third world markets, cassock-albs, or Dungeons and Dragons are all about the church adapting to the modern world. It doesn't mean that we each have to participate in every activity, but the world is changing around us, and these are things we face the impacts of every day.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If the church should always adapt to society then it follows that no longer should the church have any right to say 'Repent!' Instead it should follow the advice of the unrepentant and 'get with it!'
It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Sometimes adapating to society does not necessarily mean always adapting to society.
There's got to be some adaptation sometimes, because the church doesn't exactly have a perfect record. Sometimes society has to pull the church into line, not the other way around. Some of the abuse of children that has happened within churches probably wouldn't have gone on, or gone on for as long, if churches hadn't behaved as a law unto themselves.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If the church should always adapt to society then it follows that no longer should the church have any right to say 'Repent!' Instead it should follow the advice of the unrepentant and 'get with it!'
It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Sometimes adapating to society does not necessarily mean always adapting to society.
There's got to be some adaptation sometimes, because the church doesn't exactly have a perfect record. Sometimes society has to pull the church into line, not the other way around. Some of the abuse of children that has happened within churches probably wouldn't have gone on, or gone on for as long, if churches hadn't behaved as a law unto themselves.
In countries where most people call themselves Christians, does it make sense to put 'the church' on one side and 'society' on the other? Is 'the church' a synonym for some kind of priestly, institutional hierarchy, or is 'the church' the community of believers?
Child abuse in the church is usually assumed to be a Catholic problem, but the RCC has a particular understanding of 'the Church' that wouldn't necessarily be shared by an independent evangelical church, or indeed, by a group like the Quakers.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I know quite a number of YEC people and even more who believe in inerrancy. My experience is that they tend to be rather diffident about their views, but YMMV of course.
Inerrancy is still quite a mainstream position among evangelicals in Britain, though perhaps not dominant the way it might have been a generation or two ago. Its also what I believe myself.
I don;t know whether or not YEC is getting more common but its never been the shibboleth here that it seems to be for some US evangelicals. Some innerrantis evangelicals over here have in my lifetime got all uptight about the finer points of TULIP, or about speaking in tongues (both for and against), or about being a member of the Church of England (also for and against), and these days even about gay vicars, all claiming that anyone who really read the Bible properly woudl have to believe them, but not paritcularly about YEC.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Wasn't there a spot of bother at Wycliffe College not long ago over "headship" and the appropriate roles for women in church? Some professors were let go. That seems to me to be exactly the kind of thing I am thinking of. Conform or be ejected.
Yes, the same place where the said instigator of such an inquisition has just 'resigned'. Also the issues at Wycliffe were not the classic fundamentalist causes - as ken has said - of YEC and inerrancy.
So, in answer to your question, so far this thread has thrown up one possible example which actually turns out to be evidence in favour of my generalistion. We are talking about something peculiar to the US, so it would seem.
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
If we cast our net a bit wider:
The "Christians are being persecuted by secularists" meme seems to be equally strong among Evangelicals on both sides of the Atlantic. There have been some high-profile court cases in the news in Britain.
Anti-Muslim rhetoric seems about equal.
By casting the net wider, do you mean 'talk about something else'?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Wasn't there a spot of bother at Wycliffe College not long ago over "headship" and the appropriate roles for women in church? Some professors were let go. That seems to me to be exactly the kind of thing I am thinking of. Conform or be ejected.
Yes, the same place where the said instigator of such an inquisition has just 'resigned'. Also the issues at Wycliffe were not the classic fundamentalist causes - as ken has said - of YEC and inerrancy.
Isn't "headship" a core issue also?
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Isn't "headship" a core issue also?
Possibly, it could become one, but it hasn't been seen as a classic doctrine of fundamentalism in the past.
Anyway, my main point was that any such 'take over' failed at Ridley, with the Principal going. So even if you take this as an example of fundamentalism trying to take over a British college then it didn't succeed.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If the church should always adapt to society then it follows that no longer should the church have any right to say 'Repent!' Instead it should follow the advice of the unrepentant and 'get with it!'
It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Sometimes adapating to society does not necessarily mean always adapting to society.
There's got to be some adaptation sometimes, because the church doesn't exactly have a perfect record. Sometimes society has to pull the church into line, not the other way around. Some of the abuse of children that has happened within churches probably wouldn't have gone on, or gone on for as long, if churches hadn't behaved as a law unto themselves.
In countries where most people call themselves Christians, does it make sense to put 'the church' on one side and 'society' on the other? Is 'the church' a synonym for some kind of priestly, institutional hierarchy, or is 'the church' the community of believers?
Child abuse in the church is usually assumed to be a Catholic problem, but the RCC has a particular understanding of 'the Church' that wouldn't necessarily be shared by an independent evangelical church, or indeed, by a group like the Quakers.
I don't necessarily think it's correct to put 'church' and 'society' in separate corners, no, but in this context we're inevitably talking about whatever part of 'society' that doesn't agree with the church's view on something.
It's a bit like the fact that 'the world' means different things in different contexts.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If the church should always adapt to society then it follows that no longer should the church have any right to say 'Repent!' Instead it should follow the advice of the unrepentant and 'get with it!'
Exactly. If you adapt to society how can you say"The sky is red ..." from the perspective of prophecy? You're stuck with a meteorological report.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
"Church" and "world" are unfortunate dualisms. God created the world and the church. It is no longer a case for most evangelicals of the old neo orwellian divide Church good: world bad. Depends what both are set on of course but there's a lot of good in both and there is no "out there", out there.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Isn't "headship" a core issue also?
Possibly, it could become one, but it hasn't been seen as a classic doctrine of fundamentalism in the past.
Anyway, my main point was that any such 'take over' failed at Ridley, with the Principal going. So even if you take this as an example of fundamentalism trying to take over a British college then it didn't succeed.
But why would I take it that way? Hardly the point I've been arguing for.
I take it as one example of convergence between British and American Evangelicals. I find they behave in remarkably similar ways (allowing, of course for context) and hold remarkably similar views (with, perhaps, less emphasis, at this point, on YEC).
The rest is mere hair-splitting.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Grammatica
It stands to reason that, theologically speaking, British and American evangelicals would hold some beliefs in common. Otherwise, how could they both be described as evangelicals? It would make no sense.
However, one might compare the usage of the word 'evangelical' with the political term 'right wing'. I've heard it said by people more knowledgeable than I am that a right wing Conservative politician in the UK would be left wing by American standards! Yes, I'm sure there are several important similarities between Prime Minister David Cameron and would-be American president Mitt Romney, but in other respects, I suspect that Cameron has far more in common with President Obama.
There are people in my denomination who call themselves evangelicals. But despite holding an official lay post in my church until recently, I've never heard any talk of YEC from those quarters. (Maybe it's all very hush-hush! But in that case, who cares?) British evangelicalism is a broad church, and different parts of it focus on different things. And they don't always agree with each other theologically.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I take it as one example of convergence between British and American Evangelicals. I find they behave in remarkably similar ways (allowing, of course for context) and hold remarkably similar views (with, perhaps, less emphasis, at this point, on YEC).
The rest is mere hair-splitting.
The problem there is that as I know your descriptions here of British evangelicals are mostly very far from the truth(presumably due to ignorance) what you say makes me distrust your descriptions of Americans as well. If you tell me that A is very like B, and I know perfectly well that what you say about B is false, why should I believe you about A?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If you tell me that A is very like B, and I know perfectly well that what you say about B is false, why should I believe you about A?
I'm torn -- perhaps the right answer is "the law of averages." But it may also be "regression toward the mean." I'm not very good at math (or is it "maths...")
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I take it as one example of convergence between British and American Evangelicals. I find they behave in remarkably similar ways (allowing, of course for context) and hold remarkably similar views (with, perhaps, less emphasis, at this point, on YEC).
The rest is mere hair-splitting.
The problem there is that as I know your descriptions here of British evangelicals are mostly very far from the truth(presumably due to ignorance) what you say makes me distrust your descriptions of Americans as well. If you tell me that A is very like B, and I know perfectly well that what you say about B is false, why should I believe you about A?
You really should trust what I say about religion in the US South, Ken. You may find some of it incredible and much of it uncomfortable, but unfortunately it is the truth.
As to the political affiliations of British Evangelicals: how do you see the interventions of your former Archbishop and the retired bishop of Rochester during your last election? Was there no populist nationalism there? No anti-Muslim rhetoric? No specious allegations that Christians were being persecuted by secularists? No call to regard Britain as a Christian nation? We are familiar with all these political interventions here. (And, of course, there's teh gayz. No difference there, is there? Fighting first civil unions, then full marriage, tooth and nail.)
Increasingly, the public face of UK Evangelicals seems not so different to me.
Side note: "Right-wing" is, yes, something of a relative term, and the United States in general has shifted very far to the populist right, much further than the UK. But Mitt Romney isn't really right-wing, though he is pretending to be, for the sake of getting himself elected. Our right wing would be represented by the Tea Party and/or the Christian Right. They are truly scary.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
But why would I take it that way? Hardly the point I've been arguing for.
I take it as one example of convergence between British and American Evangelicals. I find they behave in remarkably similar ways (allowing, of course for context) and hold remarkably similar views (with, perhaps, less emphasis, at this point, on YEC).
The rest is mere hair-splitting.
This and your other recent posts make me wonder if you are using a different definition of fundamentalism.
Nowadays there are two:
1. Fundamentalism - the term originally refers to a movement within American Protestantism at the start of the 20th century to 'get back to the fundamentals'. It started ralleying around inerrancy and then creationism got sucked in after the Scopes trial.
2. Fundamentalism - is often used generally today for any extremism, usually reacting against some expression of modern culture.
If you are talking about (1) - which I don't think you are - then you have given no evidence at all that UK (and elsewhere) evangelicalism is becoming more fundamentalist. There are US influences, sure, but you've given no evidence of growing shift. The only example you gave was one take over bid that failed. Hence you've given no evidence at all the fundamentalism is gaining ground in the UK. (And I'm still not sure that the gender wars is a good example anyway since the RC and Orthodox hold to a more conservative stance than evangelicals.)
However, if you are talking about (2) - which I assume you are - then I'm not sure if the term is worth using anymore. It is so elastic as to have lost its use. When you start talking about issues like immigration etc. then you are conflating loads of political issues. Unlike the US evangelicals represent a very small percentage of the country (4%?). If you really think that one of the major impacts on politics in the UK is what evangelicals think then you are mistaken.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
As to the political affiliations of British Evangelicals: how do you see the interventions of your former Archbishop and the retired bishop of Rochester during your last election? Was there no populist nationalism there? No anti-Muslim rhetoric? No specious allegations that Christians were being persecuted by secularists? No call to regard Britain as a Christian nation? We are familiar with all these political interventions here. (And, of course, there's teh gayz. No difference there, is there? Fighting first civil unions, then full marriage, tooth and nail.)
Sorry for the length of this post, but it's all relevant.
Civil partnerships were a political issue, true, but they weren't really about 'political affiliations'. Many Labour-voting Christians probably still voted Labour after the Labour party introduced civil unions. There wasn't any other serious party they could vote for anyway, because most of them were in favour of the bill. The Conservatives were split, but for them that was seen as a movement in a more liberal direction, not an example of truculence. The same will be true with same-sex marriage I think. Bishops can grumble loudly about David Cameron, but apart from a few fringe parties with no power, who else is there to vote for? Yet Christians still vote, and are statistically more likely to do so than non-religious people.
Europeans of all faiths and none seem to be more openly critical of aspects of Islam these days - look at the French and the Belgians, criminalising the wearing of the niqab! Nothing to do with Christian evangelicalism! And the British National Secular Society agree with Archbishop Rowan Williams that Muslims ought to show more loyalty to the nation state than to 'the international Muslim community'.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2012/06/rowan-williams-has-acquired-a-backbone--but-its-all-too-late
(Mind you, at one point Dr. Williams seemed quite sanguine about the introduction of sharia law into the UK, which managed to upset quite a lot of people, be they evangelical, non-religious, atheist, etc.)
The only well-known public 'evangelical' comments or writings I can think of that might reasonably be seen as 'anti-Muslim' are by Bishop Michael Nazir Ali, who was born in a Muslim country, and by Patrick Sookdheo, who was born abroad to Muslim parents. Considering their racial and religious heritage, it might be understandable if they're fairly critical of Islam. Be aware that Christians in Muslim countries have criticised British Christians for being far too shy of speaking out against the persecution of Christians in those countries!
And you should be aware that the habit of referring to Britain as a 'Christian country' is something that unites British people from all kinds of faith traditions. Even people who never step into church and have no time for priests or Bibles often insist that this is so. It's not a sign of evangelicalism, but a proclamation of cultural allegiance. It doesn't require much in the way of actual faith. Indeed, there are many Christians now, often evangelicals, who refer to the UK as 'post-Christian' territory.
I agree with you that it's pretty silly for British Christians to whinge about being 'persecuted'. But what this sometimes reflects is a sense that left-wing public sector thinking tries so hard to be PC about ethnic minority cultures that it tolerates - and even encourages - cultural isolation among Muslims, while being nervous about certain Christian forms of public expression. I'm not anti-public sector at all, but I think there's some truth in this. And some Muslims actually agree! So the problem isn't really with decent Muslims themselves, but with inconsistencies in certain secular organisations that are simply ignorant about religion in general, but somehow arrogantly assume that they understand what will offend Muslims, and then overcompensate by being sniffy about Christians!
I apologise if you don't understand what I'm getting at with this last point, but some of the British readers here will, I think. Muslims are a far more significant element in British urban society than in American society, so there's a range of attitudes towards Islam. It's not an abstract issue - many of us live, work or worship in places where Muslims are numerous. Religious pluralism can bring people together as well as driving them apart. Googling even brings up examples of evangelical-Muslim interfaith dialogue!
[ 02. August 2012, 23:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've been away for a week in The Lakes so you've all had a welcome rest from my two happ'orths ...
Some thoughts:
@Grammatica, you might not like this and it probably won't answer your objection to the 'British evangelicals are different to US ones' thing - but the cognoscenti can tell the difference.
Think of it like beer.
A US micro-brewery Pale Ale is different to a British micro-brewery Pale Ale - but both are recognisable as Pale Ale.
In recent years, UK independent breweries and microbreweries have been influenced by US styles - although I'm told that the traffic of ideas isn't all one way.
The same applies to evangelicalism. UK evangelicalism has been influenced by its larger, stronger US counterpart for many, many years. Heck, I live virtually in the shadow of Mow Cop, site of the first US-style 'camp meetings' to take place here in 1806 - under direct American influence through an evangelist called Lorenzo Dow. He influenced Hugh Bourne and William Clowes and the early 'Primitive Methodists'.
As the Scots say, 'It's better felt than tell't.'
From outside the movement or from across the Pond it may look as if UK and US evangelicalism are the same beast - but really there are distinctions. Ok, so we're not talking about a camel rather than a giraffe, but we may be talking about different species of antelope or zebra.
I've known a number of US evangelists and ministers based in the UK, both conservative and charismatic and they would all maintain that there are clear differences between the evangelicalism one encounters on either side of the Pond.
I'm not saying that one is 'better' than the other, just that differences definitely exist. I would also suggest that US evangelicalism is rather broader than might appear from your assessment of it. People like Jim Wallis and The Sojourners don't quite fit the stereotypical mould.
Even the 'emergent' bunch are slightly different in the US to how they have 'emerged'/'are emerging' here in the UK.
All that said, there are clearly very strong similarities too - which should come as no surprise.
I foresee a certain hardening of the evangelical arteries over here over issues like inerrancy or even creationism in some quarters.
@SvitlanaV2, I've enjoyed reading your sociological assessments on this thread and think they're pretty much on the money.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
From outside the movement or from across the Pond it may look as if UK and US evangelicalism are the same beast - but really there are distinctions. Ok, so we're not talking about a camel rather than a giraffe, but we may be talking about different species of antelope or zebra.
and to stretch the analogy to breaking point, the differences between the species reduces as you move from the more established to the less conformist denominations.
For instance - I find it telling that ken has never experienced a circle of British evangelicals in which YEC is a shibboleth. There are plenty of these, they just tend to be inside the independent charismatic/pentecostal groups (the ones that are actually experiencing all the growth in the larger towns and cities).
I presume from what he has written that ken is in an evangelical anglican setting, so it's no surprise that his experience is different. As the link above goes on to say:
"As a generalisation, it appears that creationism is mostly found in independent Baptist churches, the Elim Pentecostal Church and independent pentecostal churches, and within the charismatic movement"
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
And the British National Secular Society agree with Archbishop Rowan Williams that Muslims ought to show more loyalty to the nation state than to 'the international Muslim community'.
In passing: the (front-page!) Observer article from which the Terry Sanderson draws Rowan's supposed changes of mind simply cobbled together a series of out-of-context quotations from public lectures the Archbishop had delivered between 2004 and 2011, mostly transmogrifying the overall message of the lecture in question.
In the case of the quotation referenced above, the newspaper eventually published a retraction - this was in fact a view Rowan had been engaged in rebutting, not legitimating.
"The truth is still half an hour behind the slander"...
--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)
Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elephenor:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
And the British National Secular Society agree with Archbishop Rowan Williams that Muslims ought to show more loyalty to the nation state than to 'the international Muslim community'.
In passing: the (front-page!) Observer article from which the Terry Sanderson draws Rowan's supposed changes of mind simply cobbled together a series of out-of-context quotations from public lectures the Archbishop had delivered between 2004 and 2011, mostly transmogrifying the overall message of the lecture in question.
In the case of the quotation referenced above, the newspaper eventually published a retraction - this was in fact a view Rowan had been engaged in rebutting, not legitimating.
"The truth is still half an hour behind the slander"...
I am pleased to hear that. I thought rather less of Archbishop Rowan when I heard he'd made that statements.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Chris - Ken's ears will burn, but I think I know him well enough to make the following observation (after only one face-to-face meeting it has to be said, but plenty of on-line interaction):
Ken is in an unusual position, it seems to me, insofar as he is an evangelical Anglican who hasn't always worshipped in particularly full-on evangelical Anglican churches. So, for instance, for that very reason I sometimes find his portrayal of evangelical Anglicanism on these boards to be at variance to what I've found - but there will be regional/diocesan and experiential differences that account for that too, of course.
I'm not saying his 'take' is wrong, just different to mine in some respects.
I rather suspect that there is rather more YEC stuff, dispensational stuff and Zionist stuff going on in some evangelical Anglican congregations than we think. My own mum-in-law is an evangelical Anglican with views that sound as if they've come from the Brethren or some of the more millenarian/dispensationalist independent groups. She's never been anything other than an evangelical Anglican, although she's been tempted to join the Penties at times - she'd have been a posh Pentie if she had done ...
In our parish church here there are a number of people with what I'd consider decidedly 'odd' views about Israel and the end-times - but which Mudfrog and Enders Shadow here would consider perfectly acceptable.
The restorationist house-church stream I was involved with was decidedly anti-dispensationalist and anti-Christian Zionist, so they weren't very 'American' in feel in that respect - although in other ways they shared a lot of similarities with US non-denoms.
On the US influence thing, I remember reading an observation by the late Douglas McBain, a prominent charismatic Baptist, that the Baptists in the UK might have been healthier in some respects if they'd had balancing influences from non-Anglophone, European Baptist churches - in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, say, and not just from the US.
This wasn't meant to be an anti-US rant. But McBain did believe that a lot of the dodgier influences on the charismatic scene had US roots.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Think of it like beer.
A US micro-brewery Pale Ale is different to a British micro-brewery Pale Ale - but both are recognisable as Pale Ale.
My experience of all the real ale pubs I've visited in the UK and US* is that while UK and US beer styles are different, what makes a good or bad beer is the same.
It's the same with evangelicalism, the styles are different but what makes them good or bad is the same. I'd say that engaging in society is what makes them good, feed the hungry, visit the sick; that sort of thing; this is true for open and conservative evangelicals, UK and US.
----------
*OK. both the real ale pubs I've visited in the US.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ken is in an unusual position, it seems to me,
<snip>
I rather suspect that there is rather more YEC stuff, dispensational stuff and Zionist stuff going on in some evangelical Anglican congregations than we think. My own mum-in-law is an evangelical Anglican with views that sound as if they've come from the Brethren or some of the more millenarian/dispensationalist independent groups.
I'd say that what you presume is Ken's position is closer to what I have experienced as an Angican and Evangelical than what you presume is the Anglican position, sure there are people who hold YEC an dispensationalist views, but they are far from the majority IMO.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
This is all very enlightening. Thanks to SvitlanaV2 and Gamaliel in particular.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
There are one or two YECcies in our (Anglican) church. Doesn't really seem an issue. I don't know of anyone with strange millenarian beliefs, but that's not to say there aren't any. There are also a few with universalist leanings, and there are a variety of views on the licitness of same sex relationships. Neither of these seem to excite much conflict; the very occasional exchange of views, and everyone gets back to getting on with it.
All that's not to say there aren't different strands of spirituality, which can sometimes lead to disputes. Just that the lines aren't drawn in quite the way that you would think on the basis of this thread.
[ 04. August 2012, 22:05: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
In our evangelical church, there are members with strong opinions on dispensationalism, Calvinism/Arminianism, YEC, spiritual gifts and a variety of other issues, but we tend to get on well by emphasising the things on which we agree.
My hunch, based on having worked with both Commonwealth and American missionaries for some years, is that America's relatively huge evangelical population means that those with strong opinions on potentially divisive issues can find churches, Bible colleges and publicatons which agree with them (and therefore reinforce their particularity) on every doctrinal detail.
In places with smaller evangelical constituencies, we have to "mess in" together and tolerate more diversity.
[ 05. August 2012, 06:28: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
As with others here, my experience of Evangelical Anglicanism is that YEC etc does exist but is far less prominent than seems to be the case in the US, where such things are far more of a Shibboleth/deal-breaker.
Mrs tomsk got a kid's library book about a clever fish evolving and harumphed about it when she found out what it was about. (I thought it's problem was that it this view of evolution was at best overly Lamarckian and at worst was an insidious advocacy of eugenics). But here there's no real necessity to argue over it. Same with Evangelical Anglican's generally. There is possibly a lesson on how to deal with other divisive issues.
In terms of perception, many non-Christians would probably lump UK Evangelical's together with US-style fundamentalists anyway.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Balaam, I've never said that YEC-ies and dispensationalists are anything other than minorities within evangelical Anglicanism, what I am saying is that they do exist. Ken seems to suggest that they don't. Perhaps I've misread him.
To set the balance right, I was also surprised to come across someone in our local liberal 'catholic-lite' Anglican parish (as opposed to the evangelical parish here) who took the prophecies of Nostradamus seriously.
Just shows that you can't legislate for what the people in the pews will get into their heads.
I think Kaplan's right that evangelicals with different views tend to muck along together reasonably well in those countries - like the UK and Australia - where they don't have enormous 'critical mass.'
And Balaam is right about beer, too. And about good religion and bad religion.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
