|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Evangelical slide into Fundamentalism
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
CSL1:
You are also not answering my main question, which is:
How is it that this one "sin" came to assume such salience in the minds of Evangelicals as to trump all other sins and all other considerations?
or to rephrase it: How is it that the chief tenet of Evangelical Christianity today has become the peculiar filthiness of homosexuals, this, and nothing but this?
Might I attempt a very brief answer to this?
I think I would simply say that it's a reaction, nothing less, to the last 40 years of liberalisation, and more especially to the rather militant promotion of the gay scene as it were - stuff like gay pride marches, high profile gay celebrities, etc. In the face of huge and out of proportion media attention od promotion of homosexuality by the arts and media, the church has done nothing more than state and restate it's traditional view in the face of increasing hysteria, hatred and censure by the liberal community.
In the nonetheenth century the big evangelical enemy was drink. In the twentieth and twenty-first century it seems to be personal morality - and that, I would suggest, is simply because people talk more about sex than they seem to do about food! There is arguably an increasing licentiousness about sex - pornography, the pop industry, etc, etc.
The church - and it's certainly not just evangelicals I have to say - is simply reacting to a situation not of its own making.
In the UK the biggest critics of gay lifestyle and marriage is the RC church - so please don't suggest it's all evangelical nonesense.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Anyhow, CSL1, you and I should both probably be marking papers. If it's not that, it's that law review article you ought to be revising.
So let's both get back to it, eh? The Ship is a great place for academic procrastinators, but it won't help either of us get tenure.
That is so hilarious you say that! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I swear to you I came into the office today to work on a law review article for The American Business Law Journal. Wife was not particularly overwhelmed with joy that I came in on Saturday. What did I do but do a bit of grading, then ignore article for this debate? Some evangelicals would say you "read my mail"!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Look, guy, I know the syndrome. Day of week + time of day + "up for tenure" = just one thing. And looka me, I'm doing it, too. Though not with a law review article.
I come up next year.
Trying to go from being a lowly, untenured biz law assistant prof in a state uni biz school to a mediocre tenured biz law associate prof in a state uni biz school. God help me to become mediocre!
Amen and amen! Good luck to you! And let those who are not academics snicker at both of us, bro'.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Anyhow, CSL1, you and I should both probably be marking papers. If it's not that, it's that law review article you ought to be revising.
So let's both get back to it, eh? The Ship is a great place for academic procrastinators, but it won't help either of us get tenure.
That is so hilarious you say that!
I swear to you I came into the office today to work on a law review article for The American Business Law Journal. Wife was not particularly overwhelmed with joy that I came in on Saturday. What did I do but do a bit of grading, then ignore article for this debate? Some evangelicals would say you "read my mail"!
Look, guy, I know the syndrome. Day of week + time of day + "up for tenure" = just one thing. And looka me, I'm doing it, too. Though not with a law review article.
I come up next year.
Trying to go from being a lowly, untenured biz law assistant prof in a state uni biz school to a mediocre tenured biz law associate prof in a state uni biz school. God help me to become mediocre!
Amen and amen! Good luck to you! And let those who are not academics snicker at both of us, bro'.
Now, get back to work--the article! (and I will stop being a hypocrite and do likewise)
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
How is it that this one "sin" came to assume such salience in the minds of Evangelicals as to trump all other sins and all other considerations?
or to rephrase it: How is it that the chief tenet of Evangelical Christianity today has become the peculiar filthiness of homosexuals, this, and nothing but this?
Both these statements are absurd exaggerations.
In my church, and the Christian milieu in which I move here in Australia, the vast majority evangelicals rarely mention homosexuality, and are certainly not obsessed by it.
It is not even true of America.
For example, that mouthpiece of mainstream evangelicalism, Christianity Today, only runs occasional pieces on it, and while orthodox, they are also thoughtful and compassionate
Some individual evangelicals are preoccupied with it, but that is not all that surprising.
They are reacting to a very recent reversal of a consensus across all Christian traditions and all of church history - it would be incredible if there were not a response to such an unprecedented situation.
It is true that the Bible only mentions homosexual behaviour a few times, and our Lord not at all, but that is not because it was permissible or morally trivial, but because of the universal assumption of its unacceptability, which rendered specific reference to it otiose.
It is true that other sins, such as materialism, greed and indifference to the poor are just as serious, and are mentioned very frequently in the Bible, but the problem is one of subjective interpretation and identification.
The situation of a man bonking another man is unambiguous, compared with deciding what constitutes selfishness and who is guilty of it.
After all, if we were going to be consistent and rigorous about it, just about every Christian in every denomination in the West, even the one who pontificates loudest about "social justice", is guilty of unconscionable self-indulgence in terms of what we have and enjoy, and what we give, in view of the sufferings of those in the developing world.
I don't know what the answer to this is, but many, many evangelicals are aware of it.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Where I'm going with it is that illegitimate children of a married man and illegitimate children of an unmarried man have different implications. Only illegitimate children of an unmarried man would allow you to say "a-ha! we're not talking about adultery!"
Which is pretty darn hard to do when dealing with a figurative passage. How do you assess which reason is the reason for the illegitimacy when you're not literally talking about Abraham's biological children?
I still don't get what your concern is.
I'll try to summarise my original position:
Some NT scholars have tried to give 'porneia' a very specific meaning - e.g. cultic shrine prostitution or adultery. However, those narrow meanings just don't fly in this context. Precisely for the reasons you give above for the figurative meaning to work porneia must have a general meaning - something like illict or illegitimate sex. For someone to be an 'illegitimate child' all that is being asserted is that they were born out of marriage, regardless of whether it was the result of adultery or not.
Hence what I'm saying is that, in the NT, porneia = illegitimate sex.
(Of course exactly what constitutes illicit sex for a 1st century Jew / Christian is the next point of discussion!?)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Okay then, I suppose the best thing is to ask you this: what term would you use to describe a child born out of adultery?
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
How is it that this one "sin" came to assume such salience in the minds of Evangelicals as to trump all other sins and all other considerations?
or to rephrase it: How is it that the chief tenet of Evangelical Christianity today has become the peculiar filthiness of homosexuals, this, and nothing but this?
Both these statements are absurd exaggerations.
I'm not quite sure about this: in many Evangelical circles here in Britain, this issue has become the "touchstone" of orthodoxy, the marker of whether you're "truly one of us" or not. Dig deep enough and you'll get to it.
Might I suggest two reasons.
1. It is an issue on which Evangelicals can relatively easily show their distinctiveness from wider society.
2. It is a hermeneutic issue, and thus goes to the very core of what defines an Evangelical, i.e. their attitude to, and way of interpreting, Scripture. To me this is the crux of the matter.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay then, I suppose the best thing is to ask you this: what term would you use to describe a child born out of adultery?
Do you mean then or now?
I'm not sure what term I would use now.
Back then they would probably have hushed it up and tried to pass the kid off as from the mother's marriage but if it was openly acknowledged then that child would be considered illegitimate too.
That is not a value judgement on my behalf, just a simple statement of how it worked back then.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The church is reacting ENTIRELY to a situation of its own making in going out of its way to be against social liberalism. It is GUILTY. NOT innocent. It needs to be FOR Christ. How can condemning homosexuality be FOR anything ? Or condemning drink 150 years ago ?
Evangelicalism is dead.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Evangelicalism is dead.
I presume you mean morally dead rather than extinct. Because the latter clearly isn't true, while the former is merely debatable.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Or condemning drink 150 years ago ?
Given the actual damage that drink was and is doing to individuals and families, the situations are hardly comparable. The temperance movement needs a revival.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Or condemning drink 150 years ago ?
Given the actual damage that drink was and is doing to individuals and families, the situations are hardly comparable. The temperance movement needs a revival.
I would entirely agree with that.
And not just temperance in regards to alcohol, but temp[erance in all tuhings. the world in the west has just become one selfish, intemperate, licentious and immoral quagmire.
There is little self-restraint and certainly no notice taklen of God's laws.
the church is part of this and should be ashamed.
--------------------
"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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay then, I suppose the best thing is to ask you this: what term would you use to describe a child born out of adultery?
Do you mean then or now?
I'm not sure what term I would use now.
Back then they would probably have hushed it up and tried to pass the kid off as from the mother's marriage but if it was openly acknowledged then that child would be considered illegitimate too.
That is not a value judgement on my behalf, just a simple statement of how it worked back then.
I'll tell you my answer. I would have said that a child born out of adultery would be called an illegitimate child. Exactly the same as I would have said that a child born out of sex-before-marriage would be called an illegitimate child. Because "illegitimate" is a negative, contrasted with "legitimate", and once you're not legitimate the precise reason that you're not legitimate isn't, in our language, a particularly important issue. Whether or not another language makes a distinction is something you can't figure out from only a single example.
That's pretty much my point. I don't think you can work backwards from "child born out of X" (X being porneia, a word of questionable meaning) and definitively say "it's referring to illegitimate children, so X equals..."
And note that I don't think you can definitively say 'X equals adultery' any more than you can definitively say 'X equals all kinds of sex outside marriage'. It simply doesn't help you determine one or the other. X equals adultery would be perfectly consistent with the description, just as X equals a wider sense of sex outside marriage would be perfectly consistent.
The problem is essentially that you have one category nested inside the other.
The best illustration I can think of is coming across a completely new language, being presented with an orange and being told that it is... Name X. You might conclude that "Name X" refers to oranges. You might conclude that it refers to fruit. From that one example you actually have no way of distinguishing between those two answers. You can only distinguish between the two when you're shown another type of fruit and find out whether or not it has the same name.
And even then you still might be wrong, depending on what you get as your second example and what answer you get it's possible that "Name X" refers to particular kinds of fruit (citrus for example) or that it actually is the word for "food".
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Or condemning drink 150 years ago ?
Given the actual damage that drink was and is doing to individuals and families, the situations are hardly comparable. The temperance movement needs a revival.
I would entirely agree with that.
And not just temperance in regards to alcohol, but temp[erance in all tuhings. the world in the west has just become one selfish, intemperate, licentious and immoral quagmire.
There is little self-restraint and certainly no notice taklen of God's laws.
the church is part of this and should be ashamed.
I would say that the church hasn't found effective ways of challenging it, certainly. I think this is partly because the church has been so concerned about getting numbers through the door it hasn't been good at getting people to deepen their faith. I'm not sure it's been that good at it for centuries, ever since it was able to rely on societal pressure to get people to conform. Faith must come before obedience. There is no point lecturing the unchurched or even the slightly churched on their offences against God. Some Evangelicals and Liberals have taken different, but equally ineffective approaches - the former to lecture those in the pews on the evils unlikely to be encountered by those in their pews, the latter by skirting the issue completely.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
How is it that this one "sin" came to assume such salience in the minds of Evangelicals as to trump all other sins and all other considerations?
or to rephrase it: How is it that the chief tenet of Evangelical Christianity today has become the peculiar filthiness of homosexuals, this, and nothing but this?
Both these statements are absurd exaggerations.
I'm not quite sure about this: in many Evangelical circles here in Britain, this issue has become the "touchstone" of orthodoxy, the marker of whether you're "truly one of us" or not. Dig deep enough and you'll get to it.
Might I suggest two reasons.
1. It is an issue on which Evangelicals can relatively easily show their distinctiveness from wider society.
2. It is a hermeneutic issue, and thus goes to the very core of what defines an Evangelical, i.e. their attitude to, and way of interpreting, Scripture. To me this is the crux of the matter.
I'm afraid I have to suggest a third, more pragmatic reason.
Relatively few people are exclusively homosexual in adulthood.
A somewhat larger number may have had some homosexual experiences when young. The college women who were "Lesbian until graduation," for example, or the young men who were on a camping trip, just sitting around the campfire, when ...
Then there are special circumstances: prison, or life on board ship.
Finally, there are people who confine their sexual activities to members of the opposite sex, while investing all their emotional tenderness in their same-sex relationships. That pattern used to be fairly common, as I understand it. One married (if male) to have a hostess and an heir, or to have a home and an income (if female), but man and wife lived largely separate emotional lives.
[Side note: This is still the pattern in the Evangelical South, where I live. Gender roles are absolutes and polar opposites, making friendship across gender lines extremely difficult. Men openly belittle women, and women are supposed to subordinate themselves to their men. Men and women do entirely different kinds of jobs and are supposed to have entirely different interests, and thus spend most of their time in the company of persons of the same sex as themselves. Apart from the sexual act, there's very little contact between husband and wife. Both seem to prefer it that way.]
But all in all, people who invest both their emotional tenderness and their sexual desires in persons of the same sex, while finding it difficult or impossible to experience sexual desire for persons of the opposite sex, are fairly uncommon. Perhaps they are no more than 5% of the population.
So, one might suppose, 95% of Evangelicals would find it extremely easy to denounce the peculiar "sinfulness" of homosexuals, as they themselves would experience none of the "temptations" they are denouncing in others. And 95% of the population would find it extremely easy to join in.
That was Karl Rove's political calculation, anyway. But it depended on another calculation, namely that the homosexual 5% would be so terrified of "exposure" that they would remain silent and in hiding. This is no longer true. Openly gay people are everywhere now. And when openly gay people can be numbered among one's family members and friends,the Evangelical propaganda methods start to boomerang.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
[Side note: This is still the pattern in the Evangelical South, where I live. Gender roles are absolutes and polar opposites, making friendship across gender lines extremely difficult. Men openly belittle women, and women are supposed to subordinate themselves to their men. Men and women do entirely different kinds of jobs and are supposed to have entirely different interests, and thus spend most of their time in the company of persons of the same sex as themselves. Apart from the sexual act, there's very little contact between husband and wife. Both seem to prefer it that way.]
Goodness, we have a lot in common. That's where I teach as well, the "Evangelical South" in the U.S.. Wife and I have found what you say to be precisely true, and having come from the non-Evangelical Upper Midwest and lived out West, we find the segregation of genders stifling.
My wife, coming from an academic family where she wasn't taught that her thoughts were second rate due to her gender, has stepped on many toes since we moved here and gotten strange looks from those in the church who wondered just who this uppity curiosity thought she was.
In some cases, I believe the diminution of women is positively dangerous to the health of the church. We need each other and ought to submit to one another; Moses was nigh to be killed by God until Zipporah finally stepped in and took charge in Exod 4, Abigail had the wisdom that Nabal lacked, it was women, not the 11 of 12 cowardly disciples, who risked their lives to tend to Jesus until the bitter end.
Churches that degrade women through word or deed, overtly or subtly, tend to go the way of Marc Driscoll and Bob Jones, Sr.--they become domineering brutes. I've seen it first hand in a New Frontiers church.
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
So, one might suppose, 95% of Evangelicals would find it extremely easy to denounce the peculiar "sinfulness" of homosexuals, as they themselves would experience none of the "temptations" they are denouncing in others. And 95% of the population would find it extremely easy to join in.
Exactly, people love to pick the things easy for them to avoid (relatively easy for most pharisaical types to pass up the bars, the drugs, to avoid tattoos, coupling with the same sender, using swear words, so avoiding those things becomes the focus of their righteousness. I once was teaching a teenage Sunday school class in which a young lady opined "I don't drink, I don't smoke, I'm a good girl", to which I felt like responding (but lost nerve) "I would that you both drank and smoked but didn't have that pharisaical attitude."
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
CSL1 wrote:- quote:
Churches that degrade women through word or deed, overtly or subtly, tend to go the way of Marc Driscoll and Bob Jones, Sr.--they become domineering brutes. I've seen it first hand in a New Frontiers church.
I didn't post anything on the Mars Hill thread as I have no experience in that kind of church, but the question that interested me was "why did this happen?". Was it there from the start? (there seemed to be no evidence for that) ie a pre-existing tendency. Or was it inevitable due to societal circumstances such as you outline above? Or do you need both?
It strikes me that there are parallels here with the way that predominantly male working environments can degenerate. I think most managers with experience in this sort of thing would agree that a workplace with a reasonable balance of both sexes is far less likely to descend into this sort of thing. At least the ones I have discussed it with do.
(Predominantly female working environments also have quite distinctive ways of degenerating too, though that's not really relevant here).
But how and why church environments can degenerate along these lines strikes me as an interesting line of enquiry on its own.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
CSL1 wrote:- quote:
Churches that degrade women through word or deed, overtly or subtly, tend to go the way of Marc Driscoll and Bob Jones, Sr.--they become domineering brutes. I've seen it first hand in a New Frontiers church.
I didn't post anything on the Mars Hill thread as I have no experience in that kind of church, but the question that interested me was "why did this happen?". Was it there from the start? (there seemed to be no evidence for that) ie a pre-existing tendency. Or was it inevitable due to societal circumstances such as you outline above? Or do you need both?
It strikes me that there are parallels here with the way that predominantly male working environments can degenerate. I think most managers with experience in this sort of thing would agree that a workplace with a reasonable balance of both sexes is far less likely to descend into this sort of thing. At least the ones I have discussed it with do.
(Predominantly female working environments also have quite distinctive ways of degenerating too, though that's not really relevant here).
But how and why church environments can degenerate along these lines strikes me as an interesting line of enquiry on its own.
While I don't think many set out initially to spiritually kill and destroy, I do think it starts with power-hungry, unethical, ungodly men. They then very naturally set up structures that enable them to dominate (just like we all tend to gravitate towards that which will give us the greatest pleasure).
The only reason the cruelty doesn't typically manifest itself clearly from the outset is because from a pragmatic perspective, people like Driscoll would never be able to grow the megachurches to provide them the fresh young souls to abuse and the adulation they crave if they revealed their hearts too early. Once people get locked into relationships within the church, however, and such leaders have access to them and are able to use the bully pulpit regularly to twist and distort, they can begin a process of brain washing.
It then becomes absurdly easy to maintain that megachurch until they eventually, and almost inevitably, bring it down upon their own heads through too much hubris and cruelty even for their benighted followers.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Evangelicalism has NOTHING to say. Neither has Roman Catholicism for that matter. Nor liberalism. Alone. Temperance, what a joke. For whom ? How ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Whether or not another language makes a distinction is something you can't figure out from only a single example.
Agreed.
Porneia is a very common word in the NT - in appears in the gospels and Acts, plus most of the NT letters.
This is not an episode of CSI where I was trying to recreate an entire scene around one smoking gun. I was merely using John 8 to give further traction on a word that we already have a handle on.
I can go through all the occurrences if you want. It is used in so many different ways that it cannot be narrowed down to something like adultery or shrine prostitution, there are just too many instances that don't fit.
In the NT porneia means something along the lines of sexual immorality / illegitimate sex
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Fair enough Johnny. I can't say I've studied the question sufficiently to know anything definite about it. I only piped up because that particular bit seemed odd.
I suspect we've run that tangent from the main thrust of the thread long enough!
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I suspect we've run that tangent from the main thrust of the thread long enough!
Uh, okay, but then I'll have to go and talk to people in RL.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I've heard that can be quite lovely.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Temperance, what a joke. For whom ? How ?
For everyone, I think. If I knew an answer to the 2nd question, I hope I'd be doing something about it.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
in many Evangelical circles here in Britain, this issue has become the "touchstone" of orthodoxy, the marker of whether you're "truly one of us" or not. Dig deep enough and you'll get to it.
That it has become a "touchstone of orthodoxy" is a deeply sad and worrying development. Even more so that it's become that without entering into the formal statements of Evangelical belief. I consider myself to be Evangelical, I can still affirm my assent to the Doctrinal Basis of the UCCF and Evangelical Alliance. Yet, I believe that a) homosexuality is not a sin and b) that the church should affirm monogamous, loving relationships between people - including conducting weddings for homosexual couples. And, I know I'm not alone within Evangelicalism for believing that.
quote:
Might I suggest two reasons.
1. It is an issue on which Evangelicals can relatively easily show their distinctiveness from wider society.
Except that that isn't true. Wider society is by and large as homophobic as many evangelicals; go down to your local pub, factory floor, staff room at Asda etc and run a straw poll of attitudes and see what you find. In condemning homosexuality, Evangelicals are not offering an alternative to the world, but conforming to the world.
There is a change in wider society, a growing acceptance of homosexuality in more vocal parts of society that is spreading into the rest of society. It is slow, and the church (of most strands) is lagging behind the changes, Christians (and, evangelicals in particular though not exclusively by a long way) tend towards conservatism - we build our faith on a large body of tradition that was built up over centuries, and it takes a long time for that tradition to be re-written.
quote:
2. It is a hermeneutic issue, and thus goes to the very core of what defines an Evangelical, i.e. their attitude to, and way of interpreting, Scripture. To me this is the crux of the matter.
I'd agree it's a hermeneutic issue. The crux is how the very small number of potentially relevant texts is interpreted. And, for far too many people that interpretation is one that is conducted through a window of "plain meaning" which is actually the window of "what I already know to be self-evidently true", a window drawn largely from society at large, current and historic. It's a window of tradition, that developed largely over centuries when no one doubted homosexuality was wrong.
An analogy can be made with earlier changes in evangelical understanding. There was a time when European/American society as a whole accepted almost without question that Europeans are superior people and that other races, Africans in particular, exist to serve us. Evangelical reading of Scripture supported this view. However, as society changed it's views what had been self-evident was no longer self-evident. Evangelicalism split, some retained their traditional reading of Scripture and sought to maintain the institution of slavery as "ordained by God", others worked hard to abolish slavery (and, of course, people from other traditions also found themselves in the two camps - it wasn't an exclusive evangelical discussion).
Evanglicals are very strong on affirming the supremacy of Scripture in matters of faith and conduct. And, I would say that we are right to do so. However, we tend to be very weak on recognising that we come to Scripture with a boat load of prejudice and tradition that affects what we read. Of course, if you believe that it's self-evident that homosexuality is wrong (it's what we've always been taught, it's what was almost universally accepted by our parents generation and even more so by our grandparents) then there are a handful of verses of Scripture that will support that position. If you manage to reject the assumption that homosexuality is self-evidently wrong and come to those same Scriptures afresh you may well come to a different conclusion, or at least realise that the verses in question are not as clear cut as you thought. Just as, now we've rejected the self-evident inferiority of non-European races we can read the passages of Scripture cited in support of slavery and the arguments presented from them and say "how on earth could anyone have believed that to be true?".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
It is not true that evangelicals are unique in believing that the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour.
Believing otherwise demands a convoluted hermeneutical and exegetical sophistry.
I have quoted in an earlier thread the words of Oxford’s Diarmaid MacCulloch, one of Britain’s leading church historians, and the author of a Whitbread–winning biography of Cranmer, and A History Of Christianity, on which the BBC series was based.
MacCulloch, who is theologically qualified and a practising homosexual, wrote in his Reformation: Europe’s House Divided 1490-1700, “This is an issue of biblical authority. Despite much well-intentioned theological fancy footwork to the contrary, it is difficult to see the Bible as expressing anything else but disapproval of homosexual activity, let alone having any conception of a homosexual identity. The only alternatives are to try to cleave to patterns of life set out in the Bible, or to say that in this, as in much else, the Bible is simply wrong”.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Believing otherwise demands a convoluted hermeneutical and exegetical sophistry.
This would be because of the window of plain meaning that Alan mentioned earlier, no doubt...
I'm not sure why I have to believe in MacCulloch's two alternatives. I may not have his qualifications, but I have a couple of decades of focus on those half dozen passages up my sleeve. And I believed your 'plain meaning' for a very long time despite it being contrary to my own interests.
[ 23. July 2012, 10:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
ADDENDUM: And I certainly don't believe his sexuality makes his views any more authoritative!
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Diarmaid MacCulloch ... “it is difficult to see the Bible as expressing anything else but disapproval of homosexual activity”.
Whereas, I find no difficulty there, without any fancy footwork. The clearest statements are in the Levitical holiness code, but we ignore practically the whole of the holiness code anyway so why should the statements on homosexuality be any different? The Gospels are entirely silent on the subject. The Epistles contain a couple of verses where it is not entirely clear exactly what they are about - but they're most likely related to something other than monogamous, faithful, loving homosexual partnerships.
We don't have to declare the Bible to be wrong. Just our interpretation.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
On the wider subject of hermeneutics (and, more directly related to the OP) I've often considered how we view 2 Tim 3:16 to be informative. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for ...". What do we mean by "All Scripture"?
One approach is to say "every part of Scripture is God breathed". Another is "Scripture as a whole is God breathed".
In my experience, the more fundamentalist end of the evangelical spectrum would opt for the first option, with the caveat about interpreting each verse in the context of the local passage and Scripture as a whole. It is this approach that leads to "proof texts" and similar approaches to using Scripture. At the other end of the spectrum are evangelicals who are generally unimpressed by proof texts, we find them inadequate and would be much more at home with broad Biblical themes with multiple supporting "case studies". The "proof text" approach is appealing to people who have become more used to sound-bites in politics and other areas of life, so it's probably not surprising that the more fundamentalist end of the spectrum is gaining.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
If blog post by Fred Clark over at Slacktivist is any indication, then there is no point to having much hope for the future of evangelicalism.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If blog post by Fred Clark over at Slacktivist is any indication, then there is no point to having much hope for the future of evangelicalism.
Doug Wilson isn't a particularly good marker for mainstream evangelical thought.
Most of what he says tells you more about Doug Wilson than it does of Evangelicalism.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
The point is not whether MacCulloch's position is right or wrong, but that it is not a dismissable idiosyncrasy unique to evangelicals.
[ 23. July 2012, 11:07: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The point is not whether MacCulloch's position is right or wrong, but that it is not a dismissable idiosyncrasy unique to evangelicals.
Yes, which was the first sentence of your previous post. You then went on to say an awful lot of extra things that weren't about THAT point at all. So why are you surprised that we responded to the bulk of your post, not the first sentence?
There's a huge difference between saying "my position isn't dismissable" and going on to spend the rest of your post saying "here's how I dismiss the contrary position"!!
[ 23. July 2012, 11:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Its strange... there seems to be a lot of interference on this channel... its as if I'm recieving a signal... from the eighteenth century...
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
[Side note: This is still the pattern in the Evangelical South, where I live. Gender roles are absolutes and polar opposites, making friendship across gender lines extremely difficult. Men openly belittle women, and women are supposed to subordinate themselves to their men. Men and women do entirely different kinds of jobs and are supposed to have entirely different interests, and thus spend most of their time in the company of persons of the same sex as themselves. Apart from the sexual act, there's very little contact between husband and wife. Both seem to prefer it that way.]
Goodness, we have a lot in common. That's where I teach as well, the "Evangelical South" in the U.S.. Wife and I have found what you say to be precisely true, and having come from the non-Evangelical Upper Midwest and lived out West, we find the segregation of genders stifling.
My wife, coming from an academic family where she wasn't taught that her thoughts were second rate due to her gender, has stepped on many toes since we moved here and gotten strange looks from those in the church who wondered just who this uppity curiosity thought she was.
And if all that is true, why associate it with evangelicalism, rather then with the South?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Arethosemyfeet - You are not a joke, my apologies, nor your opinions. No one has the answer down here for sure.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its strange... there seems to be a lot of interference on this channel... its as if I'm recieving a signal... from the eighteenth century...
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
[Side note: This is still the pattern in the Evangelical South, where I live. Gender roles are absolutes and polar opposites, making friendship across gender lines extremely difficult. Men openly belittle women, and women are supposed to subordinate themselves to their men. Men and women do entirely different kinds of jobs and are supposed to have entirely different interests, and thus spend most of their time in the company of persons of the same sex as themselves. Apart from the sexual act, there's very little contact between husband and wife. Both seem to prefer it that way.]
Goodness, we have a lot in common. That's where I teach as well, the "Evangelical South" in the U.S.. Wife and I have found what you say to be precisely true, and having come from the non-Evangelical Upper Midwest and lived out West, we find the segregation of genders stifling.
My wife, coming from an academic family where she wasn't taught that her thoughts were second rate due to her gender, has stepped on many toes since we moved here and gotten strange looks from those in the church who wondered just who this uppity curiosity thought she was.
And if all that is true, why associate it with evangelicalism, rather then with the South?
Fair point, there is great diversity within evangelicalism, I consider myself a full blown evangelical inasmuch as I believe in the accuracy of the Bible (but for translation issues here and there and some manuscript variances that don't, IMO, cut away at any essential message) and the absolute transcendent truth of its central and peripheral messages, and in that I aspire to share my faith with others (which is really what I think evangelicalism is about at bottom).
But for certain pockets of abusive thuggery here and there in other parts of the U.S. (e.g., Driscoll's vulgarities in the Pacific NW and MacArthur's constipated "gospel" in So Cal), this is primarily a southern phenomenon. Of course, it goes on in other parts of the world as well.
[ 23. July 2012, 17:22: Message edited by: CSL1 ]
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Not an Evangelical myself, but I found this book rather interesting, somewhat along the lines that Svitlana sets out above.
Excellent; I was thinking likewise.
I might add tnat early Fundamentalism tended to be quietist and separatist, whereas Evangelicals are political activists. This is nothing new. In a fascinating historical tour back to the seventeenth century, Noll attributes many intellectually and socially progressive developments in America to Evangelicals' activity. What is relatively new are the intellectual barrenness and social calcification for which they are now notorious. "The scandal of the Evangelical mind is that the Evangelical today has no mind." As I recall, that is more or less the first sentence in his book. It wasn't always so.
Things may be slowly changing for the better. An awareness of the environment as God's creation of which we are stewards is an encouraging development. And the deliberate callousness towards illegal immigrants and the homeless promoted by some governments is also becoming too much for even right-wing Christians to stomach. When the state presumes to interfere with the right to engage in basic Christian ministry, look out.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
in many Evangelical circles here in Britain, this issue has become the "touchstone" of orthodoxy, the marker of whether you're "truly one of us" or not. Dig deep enough and you'll get to it.
That it has become a "touchstone of orthodoxy" is a deeply sad and worrying development. Even more so that it's become that without entering into the formal statements of Evangelical belief. I consider myself to be Evangelical, I can still affirm my assent to the Doctrinal Basis of the UCCF and Evangelical Alliance. Yet, I believe that a) homosexuality is not a sin and b) that the church should affirm monogamous, loving relationships between people - including conducting weddings for homosexual couples. And, I know I'm not alone within Evangelicalism for believing that.
Agreed. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) (and for the rest of the post).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
What is relatively new are the intellectual barrenness and social calcification for which [Evangelicals] are now notorious. "The scandal of the Evangelical mind is that the Evangelical today has no mind."
I came to faith through an evangelical group over 30 years ago. One of the things that initially attracted me, and led to my growth in the faith over the subsequent years, was that evangelicals (that first group, then CU at university and other groups and individuals I've known) encouraged me to think. A central feature of evangelicalism I grew up with was Bible study; small groups reading Scvripture and thinking through what it said together, and private quiet times of personal study. Questions were asked, thoughts and opinions listened to and discussed - but no one was spoon-fed The Answer™.
I admit I grew disatisfied with much of evangelical worship, and so for many years have not attended an overtly evangelical church. What I have missed as a result is the emphasis on thinking through issues of faith, as the churches I've attended have not had programmes of study and fellowship groups that would be typical of more overtly evangelical places (the Ship was a life-line for me providing a more than adequate substitute).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
What is relatively new are the intellectual barrenness and social calcification for which [Evangelicals] are now notorious. "The scandal of the Evangelical mind is that the Evangelical today has no mind."
I came to faith through an evangelical group over 30 years ago. One of the things that initially attracted me, and led to my growth in the faith over the subsequent years, was that evangelicals (that first group, then CU at university and other groups and individuals I've known) encouraged me to think. A central feature of evangelicalism I grew up with was Bible study; small groups reading Scvripture and thinking through what it said together, and private quiet times of personal study. Questions were asked, thoughts and opinions listened to and discussed - but no one was spoon-fed The Answer™.
I admit I grew disatisfied with much of evangelical worship, and so for many years have not attended an overtly evangelical church. What I have missed as a result is the emphasis on thinking through issues of faith, as the churches I've attended have not had programmes of study and fellowship groups that would be typical of more overtly evangelical places (the Ship was a life-line for me providing a more than adequate substitute).
Yes, I would agree with this. The evangelical bookshops are filled to overflowing with Bible study aids, books, courses, etc.
The historical churches, ITSM, are not known for their Bible studies - or even for encouraging their parishioners to read their Bibles every day or even at all.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The clearest statements are in the Levitical holiness code, but we ignore practically the whole of the holiness code anyway so why should the statements on homosexuality be any different?
The Levitical holiness code is not, contra the popular myth, just about shellfish and beard trimming, but contains, inter alia, prohibitions against incest, bestiality, idolatry, theft, lying, oppressing and defrauding the poor and the alien, victimising the deaf and blind, slander, revenge, sorcery, dishonest business practices and prostituting one's daughter.
Which of them do you suggest we are free to "ignore"?
quote:
The Gospels are entirely silent on the subject. The Epistles contain a couple of verses where it is not entirely clear exactly what they are about - but they're most likely related to something other than monogamous, faithful, loving homosexual partnerships.[/
Evangelical opposition to homosexual behaviour is based not just upon the relevant pericopes, but also on the utter absence, in both the Bible and the entire tradition of Christendom, of any support for homosexual behaviour, "monogomous, faithful, loving" or otherwise.
It has nothing to do with any panic-inducing recrudescence of "fundamentalism" and everything to do with orthodoxy across all Christian traditions.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
It will be interesting to see 'what's next' on the agenda of liberalising sexual behaviour.
After homosexuality, will we get decades of gradual acceptance of sex with minors? I mean, it was3 years ago that Peter Tatchell (then 57) called for sex with 14 year old boys to be legalised!
What next? Incest?
One of the main arguments for same sex marriage is 'why should the law stop two people who love each other from getting married?
Brother/sister?
2 brothers?
Bestiality? Where will it end?
After all, the Bible's injunctions against ALL these things evidently belong to a former age ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mudfrog: After homosexuality, will we get decades of gradual acceptance of sex with minors?
(I'm sorry, I'm not actively participating in this thread although I'm reading it. I rather like the Ship's policy of containing this kind of discussion in Dead Horses. I don't want to step into the Hosts' shoes, but is it possible to request a ruling on whether the last couple of posts would belong there?)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The clearest statements are in the Levitical holiness code, but we ignore practically the whole of the holiness code anyway so why should the statements on homosexuality be any different?
The Levitical holiness code is not, contra the popular myth, just about shellfish and beard trimming, but contains, inter alia, prohibitions against incest, bestiality, idolatry, theft, lying, oppressing and defrauding the poor and the alien, victimising the deaf and blind, slander, revenge, sorcery, dishonest business practices and prostituting one's daughter.
Which of them do you suggest we are free to "ignore"?
Whilst not suggesting any of them be ignored, I'd suggest that this line of argument is fairly unfruitful. The ways in which the Levitical laws are structured are often somewhat at odds with the particular intent conservatives often want to read back into them.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It will be interesting to see 'what's next' on the agenda of liberalising sexual behaviour.
After homosexuality, will we get decades of gradual acceptance of sex with minors? I mean, it was3 years ago that Peter Tatchell (then 57) called for sex with 14 year old boys to be legalised!
What next? Incest?
One of the main arguments for same sex marriage is 'why should the law stop two people who love each other from getting married?
Brother/sister?
2 brothers?
Bestiality? Where will it end?
After all, the Bible's injunctions against ALL these things evidently belong to a former age
Slippery slope arguments are bullshit. If the best argument against something you can come up with is that it might lead to something really bad then your argument doesn't stand up.
That said, if you're going to take Biblical models as an example, what exactly do you think the age of consent should be? It's not like the current age of 16 is a permanent fixture, and indeed it would have seemed quite bizarre in the time of both Jesus and Moses. Not only that, but in many US states, having sex even with a 16 year old would be considered statutory rape.
There are good arguments based on informed consent that prohibit incest and bestiality, as well as paedophilia/ephebophilia.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
I meant in the OP for a discussion as to whether Evangelicalism was becoming more fundamental. It seems from the discussion, when it is on topic, that the consensus is that it is becoming more polarised.
Both the liberal end of the Open Evos and the Fundie end of the conservatives are getting more vocal.
To discuss whether Evangelicalism is sliding into fundieism we have to say what defines a fundie now. To what extent the attitude to female leadership and homosexuality are what defines fundamentalism is something that is relevant IMO to the subject.
To actually discuss these subjects does seem to be trading into other territory. If the horse isn't dead it is at least smelling funny.
Unless the hosts deem otherwise I think this thread I started has run its course.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
What is relatively new are the intellectual barrenness and social calcification for which [Evangelicals] are now notorious. "The scandal of the Evangelical mind is that the Evangelical today has no mind."
I came to faith through an evangelical group over 30 years ago. One of the things that initially attracted me, and led to my growth in the faith over the subsequent years, was that evangelicals (that first group, then CU at university and other groups and individuals I've known) encouraged me to think. A central feature of evangelicalism I grew up with was Bible study; small groups reading Scvripture and thinking through what it said together, and private quiet times of personal study. Questions were asked, thoughts and opinions listened to and discussed - but no one was spoon-fed The Answer™.
I admit I grew disatisfied with much of evangelical worship, and so for many years have not attended an overtly evangelical church. What I have missed as a result is the emphasis on thinking through issues of faith, as the churches I've attended have not had programmes of study and fellowship groups that would be typical of more overtly evangelical places (the Ship was a life-line for me providing a more than adequate substitute).
Yes, I would agree with this. The evangelical bookshops are filled to overflowing with Bible study aids, books, courses, etc.
The historical churches, ITSM, are not known for their Bible studies - or even for encouraging their parishioners to read their Bibles every day or even at all.
The historical churches tend to produce theological scholarship rather than courses and study and material for ordinary Christians. This reinforces two conflicting impressions. One, that their congregations are free to develop their own beliefs untrammelled by official points of view or approved commentaries; and two, less charitably, that theological knowledge and reflection are expected of the clergy, but not of the laity.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The clearest statements are in the Levitical holiness code, but we ignore practically the whole of the holiness code anyway so why should the statements on homosexuality be any different?
The Levitical holiness code is not, contra the popular myth, just about shellfish and beard trimming, but contains, inter alia, prohibitions against incest, bestiality, idolatry, theft, lying, oppressing and defrauding the poor and the alien, victimising the deaf and blind, slander, revenge, sorcery, dishonest business practices and prostituting one's daughter.
Which of them do you suggest we are free to "ignore"?
This, IMO, illustrates the question of whether we view Scripure as a whole as inspired or each individual section. If each section is inspired then, yes, the question of what we ignore in the holiness code is valid. Because, it is appropriate with that undestanding to construct a morality and/or doctrine on a single passage. However, if you view the whole of Scripture as inspired then the validity of a morality/doctrine built on a single passage is highly questionable.
So, with eating shellfish we have other passages (notably the "do not call unclean what I have called clean" vision in Acts) that actually negate the dietary codes entirely. With idolatory, theft, oppression of the poor etc we have vast tracts of Scripture which restates these parts of the code. For a lot of the holiness code the rest of Scripture is practically silent. In those cases a morality based on those verses in the holiness code is built on very unsteady ground, and indeed you'd rarely find even the most fundie fundies arguing against wearing clothing of mixed fabrics.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
... and just to ensure that we are indeed not flogging any deceased beasts, I would simply say in the context of the OP that the recent discussion here is an example of has something that was not an issue 40 years ago has become one now, and the evangelical churches and the Roman Catholic Church are actually trying to maintain and restate what traditional Biblical and Church teaching has consistently said.
We could indeed be discussing the deity or otherwise of Christ, the Virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, the historicity of the Gospel records, the need for repentance - all of which have been questioned, denied, even ridiculed in the last 150 years; all of which have been defended, restated, confirmed and given rise to some good well thought-out modern evangelical scholarship.
What I am saying is that what others see as increased fundamentalism is actually an increased vocal defence of the traditional message and morals of the Faith in the light of growing hostility, ignorance and rejection from within and without the church.
The greater the opposition, the harder the Church will defend it's position; the shame is that this is seen as fundamentalism wheras 'militant' atheism or overt liberalised sexual immorality is seen in a more tolerant light - probably because the media and the arts are tainted with both these things.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
