|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Dave Tomlinson- The Post Evangelical
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
"Post-Evangelical" is useful because it allows for the fact that many people come through the stage of Scott Peck's second stage of spirituality- the lack of almost any spirituality at all is the first stage- which is the "rules and regulations" and "this way is the only right way" type of spirituality.
The third stage is the questioning, and looking, and taking into account other points of view.
The fourth stage is coming into either deeper beliefs or discarding them entirely.
So P-Es would be third or fourth stage, according to their progression.
I'm not sure about this as a progression. It seems to me that most self-confessed post evangelicals I have met are very angry and bitter about evangelicalism. It is about moving from one extreme to another. Look at Dave Tomlinson for example, heavy shepherding apostle, and now a liberal Anglican. I tend to think of terms like post evangelical as a kind of useful umbrella term for people who like to think of themselves as victims to be able to blame something else before moving on. If someone stays a 'post-evangelical' for any length of time then they have my pity.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Spawn:
"I'm not sure about this as a progression. It seems to me that most self-confessed post evangelicals I have met are very angry and bitter about evangelicalism. It is about moving from one extreme to another. Look at Dave Tomlinson for example, heavy shepherding apostle, and now a liberal Anglican. I tend to think of terms like post evangelical as a kind of useful umbrella term for people who like to think of themselves as victims to be able to blame something else before moving on. If someone stays a 'post-evangelical' for any length of time then they have my pity."
Why might it not be a progression? It's someone moving on from the legalistic, critical, controlling position to one that embraces and/or respects differing points of view and other people.
I haven't met many "post-evangelicals" who are bitter and harsh. Some of them may be damaged and hurt by their previous experiences, but many of us who might be post-evos have built a better edifice on the foundation we have. Evangelicalism does not have to be fighting for a place as it did years ago; it is a biggish group now. And a wide group with many varieties. Many of the younger generation are also post-evangelical (as Dave Tom describes it) because they have grown up in families who have moved on from the old type of evangelicalism.
Bitterness and anger is something we all have to go through in our grieving for past hurts and joys - not just if we're moving on from evangelicalism, but from other theological stances as well. But we don't all stick in that place.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I've noticed that Spawn and some other evangelicals are very clever at arguing, but I've noticed a lot of similarity in the arguments. I come across very similar ones from people I know who are of the HTB/St. Andrew's Chorleywood/Toronto Airport stable - I would like to know where they get the lawyer-like ability to argue like this, is it that they have all read the same books where the arguments have already been set out, or is there a training course that one can go on? Or is it just that this sort of Christianity attracts well-educated people such as lawyers who have learned how to argue like this as part of their training? It is very difficult to put a different point of view against these arguments and most of us are untrained in this area.
It reminds me of 'Doublethink' (was that 1984?) where you can be persuaded that black is white by cleverly crafted words.
To my mind it comes across as rather an aggressive way of putting forward ones views on Christianity and very different from the gentle, laid back ways I grew up with, and which I suspect characterises the post-modern approach.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave the Bass
Shipmate
# 155
|
Posted
Spawn, I don't know where you met your post-evangelicals, but the experience you describe is not typical. Dave Tomlinson was never into "heavy shepherding" - indeed, he and Gerald Coates broke from Bryn Jones back in the seventies over this issue - nor is he now any sort of extreme liberal.
I moved into post-evangelicalism from a fairly moderate evangelical position not because I was angry or bitter with evangelicalism, but because I felt a need to explore more widely issues to do with my faith, and I couldn't find answers to the sort of questions I was asking in an evangelical context. I would now be quite happy to be called a liberal, but still believing, still questioning and still hanging on to faith.
Yes, there are some people who have had very negative experiences in evangelical churches, and they need to be able to express their anger at what happened to them. But that is not why thousands of people have responded so positively to Dave's book over the last few years - it's because their spiritual development has led them to a place not covered in traditional evangelicalism. They're not trying to blame anyone for their situation, they certainly don't see themselves as victims, they're just trying to work out where they belong in the church, which is big enough and broad enough for them to find a place.
Posts: 2162 | From: In a forest | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I've noticed that Spawn and some other evangelicals are very clever at arguing, but I've noticed a lot of similarity in the arguments. I come across very similar ones from people I know who are of the HTB/St. Andrew's Chorleywood/Toronto Airport stable - I would like to know where they get the lawyer-like ability to argue like this, is it that they have all read the same books where the arguments have already been set out, or is there a training course that one can go on? Or is it just that this sort of Christianity attracts well-educated people such as lawyers who have learned how to argue like this as part of their training? It is very difficult to put a different point of view against these arguments and most of us are untrained in this area.
It reminds me of 'Doublethink' (was that 1984?) where you can be persuaded that black is white by cleverly crafted words.
To my mind it comes across as rather an aggressive way of putting forward ones views on Christianity and very different from the gentle, laid back ways I grew up with, and which I suspect characterises the post-modern approach.
Chorister, it doesn't look like Dave C and Daisy May have any problem in dealing with my arguments.
In contrast, your 'gentle and laid-back' ways of communicating your views amount to little more than an ad hominem. You accuse me and a whole group of people of arguing in a lawyer-like way - dismissing us as having undergone the same training or being attracted to this form of Christianity because we're trained in a certain way. In fact we can be dismissed because of our clever words' as being guilty of 'double think' (and yes it was 1984 -- but Orwell didn't use it in this way. Mind you,I don't suppose that matters to the postmodern way of arguing).
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Spawn you responded in just the way I expected. You see - I have you covered ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Seriously, though, I wondered whether there are any books on 'how to argue the evangelical point of view' because I have heard so many people now who sound so alike!
In other words, I am trying to tease out whether you have worked out your own theology through blood, sweat and tears, or whether you are putting forward a party line, rather like Fr. Gregory puts forward 'the Orthodox position' (not that this is wrong, just that it would be interesting to know).
p.s. what does 'ad hominem' mean?
[ 06. January 2004, 10:55: Message edited by: Chorister ]
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
I don't know if I'm breaking nettiquette by throwing out some disparate ideas here. Hopefully the hosts can steer me correctly as a new shipmate.
1) An article on evangelicalism in the last issue of The Church Times before Christmas suggested that people who leave evangelical churches because they feel constrained in their thinking often abandon church altogether. I was disappointed in this as I guess I had hoped for the idea that people would move to other forms of church (post evangelical, etc. etc.). I can't remember if this was a proper statistical study.
2) Alan Jamieson's book "A Churchless Faith" presents anecdotal stories of a wide range of people who left evangelical churches - both established and house churches - but who continue to try to maintain their faith-life in various different ways. As a book of personal stories, the experiences and resultant "new position" of each group are quite divergent. Some people maintained their theology/beliefs but left because of disagreements with leadership.
3) As someone who grew up in conservative Christianity, I have "always" been told by "liberals" and "conservatives" alike that biblical inerrantism (with some leeway for exactly what one means by "inerrantism") is the dividing line between being evangelical or being liberal. Someone just told me this the other day. On the other hand, I continue to meet - in real life and on the internet - people who call themselves evangelical and who claim to not be inerrantists but who simply have a "high" view of the bible. I would like to think of myself as being in that category, but I don't know where the dividing line is between "liberal evangelical" and "evangelical liberal" which is why I'd rather just "fluff" the whole definition thing.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Spawn you responded in just the way I expected. You see - I have you covered
Seriously, though, I wondered whether there are any books on 'how to argue the evangelical point of view' because I have heard so many people now who sound so alike!
In other words, I am trying to tease out whether you have worked out your own theology through blood, sweat and tears, or whether you are putting forward a party line, rather like Fr. Gregory puts forward 'the Orthodox position' (not that this is wrong, just that it would be interesting to know).
p.s. what does 'ad hominem' mean?
I assume you realise how insulting you are being. I'm genuinely interested in whether you think this and your last post are a more 'gentle and laidback' approach as opposed to mine?
Just in case, you're being serious you misunderstand evangelicalism if you think that there is generally a 'party line' on things. And you're going to have be more specific if you think I sound like so many other people. What arguments that I have used sound like they come from a textbook on 'how to argue the evangelical line'.
An 'ad hominem' is an insulting argument which is aimed at the person rather than the issues being discussed.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Within evangelicalism, there are certainly differences of opinion.
Nevertheless, there does appear, to someone from outside evangelicalism, that there is a party line on the specific buzz issues of the day - this is an illusion, as Alan Cresswell and Wood demonstrate - but it is a conception undergirded by an apparent general consistency.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Thanks Karl - you have put it well. Spawn is an example of this illusion, I am not targeting him specifically and I'm certainly not being insulting.
Perhaps what Spawn is trying to say is that just as we see similarities in the evangelical position, he sees similarities in the post modern position. If so, then I can agree with that. If not, then I shall agree to differ.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Thanks Karl - you have put it well. Spawn is an example of this illusion, I am not targeting him specifically and I'm certainly not being insulting.
Perhaps what Spawn is trying to say is that just as we see similarities in the evangelical position, he sees similarities in the post modern position. If so, then I can agree with that. If not, then I shall agree to differ.
I try to see people as individuals and deal with their arguments rather than my perceptions of where they are coming from. If I fail in this I am sorry. Finally, I don't see similarities in the postmodern position -- in fact I don't know whether it is a term that describes one position or any number of positions. Before this exchange I had no idea that you considered yourself an exponent of postmodern arguments.
It is clear to me that you are not willing to engage with what I am saying so much as your perception of me.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
You're right - it is not so much what you are saying, it is the way it is put across: ' you are attacking me....; you are dismissing us....; you are being insulting....'
Like it or not, that kind of over-reaction tends to blind the recipient to what you are actually trying to say. And it is this that I react to as I recognise it as the aggressive, antagonistic approach of previous experience I referred to earlier (and wondered why it was so similar). Perhaps it is not your real character - it is sometimes hard to tell online. Maybe you're really a fluffy bunny like me?
I enjoy looking for patterns, and I can see a pattern in the postmodern approach, maybe because I only partly stand within it (mostly preferring to be a staid old-fashioned Anglican, except when my mischevious rebellious side takes over ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) ). But I agree, it is very diverse as well, and people certainly bring their individual personalities into it.
Anyway, perhaps this semi-tangent should now draw to a close or Dave Tomlinson will be getting upset that we are ignoring him ............
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Seeker, I'm sorry that your very interesting post got tangled up in my mischevious, rebellious side. So I've brought it to the fore again so it can be discussed properly. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't know if I'm breaking nettiquette by throwing out some disparate ideas here. Hopefully the hosts can steer me correctly as a new shipmate.
1) An article on evangelicalism in the last issue of The Church Times before Christmas suggested that people who leave evangelical churches because they feel constrained in their thinking often abandon church altogether. I was disappointed in this as I guess I had hoped for the idea that people would move to other forms of church (post evangelical, etc. etc.). I can't remember if this was a proper statistical study.
2) Alan Jamieson's book "A Churchless Faith" presents anecdotal stories of a wide range of people who left evangelical churches - both established and house churches - but who continue to try to maintain their faith-life in various different ways. As a book of personal stories, the experiences and resultant "new position" of each group are quite divergent. Some people maintained their theology/beliefs but left because of disagreements with leadership.
3) As someone who grew up in conservative Christianity, I have "always" been told by "liberals" and "conservatives" alike that biblical inerrantism (with some leeway for exactly what one means by "inerrantism") is the dividing line between being evangelical or being liberal. Someone just told me this the other day. On the other hand, I continue to meet - in real life and on the internet - people who call themselves evangelical and who claim to not be inerrantists but who simply have a "high" view of the bible. I would like to think of myself as being in that category, but I don't know where the dividing line is between "liberal evangelical" and "evangelical liberal" which is why I'd rather just "fluff" the whole definition thing.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Host
Chorister, your words quote:
Spawn is an example of this illusion, I am not targeting him specifically and I'm certainly not being insulting.
may not seem insulting to you. They are, however, very close to a violation of commandment 3 in that they are directed at Spawn as an individual instead of his position. Please keep this in mind while posting in future.
/Host
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
You're right - it is not so much what you are saying, it is the way it is put across: ' you are attacking me....; you are dismissing us....; you are being insulting....'
Like it or not, that kind of over-reaction tends to blind the recipient to what you are actually trying to say. And it is this that I react to as I recognise it as the aggressive, antagonistic approach of previous experience I referred to earlier (and wondered why it was so similar). Perhaps it is not your real character - it is sometimes hard to tell online. Maybe you're really a fluffy bunny like me?
I'll have the last word then since you seem minded to move on. I am uncomfortable with the approach you've taken to concentrate on how I say things and your perception of me rather than what I actually say. I still find it patronising, dismissive and insulting.
I can assure you that I'm not a fluffy bunny at all in real life. I'm just as bad-tempered, arrogant, antagonistic and aggressive as I am here. Furthermore, I play golf, write reactionary columns, habitually behave in an irritated and impatient manner, I believe that you are damned to hell, and I eat de-fluffed bunnies whenever I can get them from my butcher.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Host
Spawn, your words quote:
I believe that you are damned to hell
were, I assume, meant to be humorous. They cross the line just as Chorister crossed the line.
Chorister and Spawn, if you desire to further your conversation with one another, you may take it to Hell. Please refrain from further personal references in Purgatory.
/Host
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Host
Spawn, your words quote:
I believe that you are damned to hell
were, I assume, meant to be humorous. They cross the line just as Chorister crossed the line.
Chorister and Spawn, if you desire to further your conversation with one another, you may take it to Hell. Please refrain from further personal references in Purgatory.
/Host
Of course, they were humorous. If I had realised that you had said something in your capacity as a host before I pressed the send button on my last post I certainly wouldn't have sent it. My apologies.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I don't want to take this to Hell, which is why I tried to end the argument and bring Seeker's rather good post to the fore again. So I agree with you Tortuf. Pax to all......
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Thank you.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
...but I don't know where the dividing line is between "liberal evangelical" and "evangelical liberal" which is why I'd rather just "fluff" the whole definition thing.
OK Seeker, now you're scaring me! This is precisely what I was thinking about in bed last night.
I know, I know, I need to get out more.
(Jack, FWIW feeling more comfortable with "liberal evangelical" than "post-evangelical", helpful though the book undoubtedly was).
--------------------
"My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand)
wiblog blipfoto blog
Posts: 5767 | From: the land of the deep-fried Mars Bar | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Post-evangelicals (stage three) could move on in stage four to be liberal evangelicals, liberals, atheists, New Agers, Orthodox, etc...
So you're Ok, Jack - reading it and realising the relief was part of stage three, and you're at stage four!
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Post-evangelicals (stage three) could move on in stage four to be liberal evangelicals, liberals, atheists, New Agers, Orthodox, etc...
What about moving on to be evangelicals? Wouldn't that be possible, daisymay?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Humblebum
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
OK Seeker, now you're scaring me! This is precisely what I was thinking about in bed last night.
I know, I know, I need to get out more.
Hmm, yeah, well, if you're thinking about this stuff in bed, you should be scared, don't you think!
I'd be interested in your take on it, though.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
If they were evangelicals moving onto to postevangelicalism then back to being evangelical again then they'd hardly be postevangelical at all would they, Humblebum?
They'd have been evangelical all the time.
Except when they were post ... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Post it and past it.
Gamaliel
--------------------
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
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Post-evangelicals (stage three) could move on in stage four to be liberal evangelicals, liberals, atheists, New Agers, Orthodox, etc...
A serious comment to what may have been meant as a humourous post. My serious comment: Fowler's stages of "faith" are actually stages of theology as far as I can tell. I don't see anything having to do with faith in them.
It's perfectly possible to have genuinely struggled with faith, to have studied a lot of theology and to not end up a "liberal"[1]. I have a lot of respect for well-considered liberal academic theology and often find that a lot of it resonates. I will give "liberals" the fact that as a generalised group, they are probably more willing than many evangelicals to ask the hard questions.
I'm not convinced, however, that unconsidered pop liberalism is any more "advanced" than unconsidered pop evangelicalism. Not theologically, not emotionally, not on a faith-basis. I understand the liberal desire for being able to ask hard questions, for justice and for making the Gospel accessible to 21st century humanity. I understand the conservative desire for scriptural integrity, for holiness and for the sovereignty of God. Ideally, I'd like to see all of these things prevail.
I now don my tin hat and wait for the flack
[1] I'm using the word here to mean more liberal than just having crossed the line of biblical inerrantism.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
It is important with Fowler's stages of faith that they are descriptive but not linear (as in Stage 4 being better than Stage 2, for example) and it is possible to move from stage 3 to stage 4 and back to 3, and so on, all through your life.
The thing I found unsatisfactory about the book, which I find in all books which identify problems with churches, is the conclusions about solutions. Maybe Tomlinson himself was also not satisfied, because he didn't stay the leader of a small alternative church (where the book ends) but became ordained into the Anglican church. I still hope for a book which has a satisfactory solution to what to do about the problems the church has been experiencing in recent years. But then maybe there is no one satisfactory solution which is why the authors struggle so. I wish the next generation of movers and shakers luck.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It is important with Fowler's stages of faith that they are descriptive but not linear (as in Stage 4 being better than Stage 2, for example) and it is possible to move from stage 3 to stage 4 and back to 3, and so on, all through your life.
Huh?
Surely the whole point of using the numbers 1-4 is to imply a linear order, Chorister?
So that Stage one is normally followed by stage 2, which naturally leads to stage 3, even if there are exceptions to the pattern. Otherwise, you would call the stages "N","R","Q" and "D", or something like that.
No?
Humblebum
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
This is a flaw in them being numbered, Humblebum. It would probably have been better if they had been lettered instead. I think you'll find that Tomlinson and Peck explain what I'm trying to say better than I can say it, if you wish to explore this further.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
(Drat, out of time - my broadband is playing up today.....)
What concerns me about the numbering is the awful potential spectacle of one Christian saying to another - 'I'm a stage 3 Christian and you're only at stage 2', and feeling horribly superior. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister
The thing I found unsatisfactory about the book, which I find in all books which identify problems with churches, is the conclusions about solutions.
I have to confess that, personally, I didn't understand the point of the book. As a description of "the way things are" and "the way things could be", I sometimes found myself saying "Yes!" or "That's a good idea!" and sometimes found myself saying "That's a bit harsh".
I'm not entirely certain that there was anything I'd call a conclusion in Tomlinson's book. It felt more like a description of where a lot of people thought they were "at". Even reading Jamesion's book and reading the stories about the "alternatives" people came up with for worshipping outside of church, they often sounded either like house churches or home groups.
For myself, I have been happy to move into a fairly traditional Methodist church (where the worship would have a somewhat different character than "traditional Anglican") and to be with people who have a wide range of theology from fairly inerrantist to not sure there is a God - all views held within our congregation. I confess that once every six weeks I go back to my former evangelical church for the drums and the band because I like to that sort of enthusiastic worship. However, I've come to learn that the 80-year-olds who like their traditional worship style have a lot of spiritiual wisdom to offer. It's not that their faith is either dead or that they never really thought about God as I had formerly been told and assumed. It's just that they have a different approach. And a lot to teach the rest of us. (I speak of my own personal experience and am trying hard not to make generalisations about the thoughts or characteristics of any group.)
[Inserted attribution of quote for clarity]
[ 07. January 2004, 09:37: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
This is a flaw in them being numbered, Humblebum. It would probably have been better if they had been lettered instead. I think you'll find that Tomlinson and Peck explain what I'm trying to say better than I can say it, if you wish to explore this further.
Hmm, to be honest I'm still rather suspicious about this (even without having read Fowler or Peck). Everyone I know who talks about these stages of faith talks about "progressing" from stage to stage (you defended the concept of a progression yourself earlier this thread), so the general linear pattern is too obvious to say that it's irrelevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
What concerns me about the numbering is the awful potential spectacle of one Christian saying to another - 'I'm a stage 3 Christian and you're only at stage 2', and feeling horribly superior.
Yes, you've just identified the concern that lots of (quite down to earth and well-rounded) evangelical Christians have with the terminology "post-evangelical" i.e. "I'm a post-evangelical Christian, and you're only at the evangelical stage", and feeling horribly superior.
Well put!
(Incidentally, Mike Riddell made the comment at Greenbelt last year that he hated the term, prefering the phrase "Pre-Catholic" instead. Made me laugh, anyway!)
Humblebum
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
1) An article on evangelicalism in the last issue of The Church Times before Christmas suggested that people who leave evangelical churches because they feel constrained in their thinking often abandon church altogether. I was disappointed in this as I guess I had hoped for the idea that people would move to other forms of church (post evangelical, etc. etc.). I can't remember if this was a proper statistical study.
I´m sure this happens but then I see statistics showing that - at least in the UK - non-evangelical churches have declined more than evangelical ones. So there must be many more people who leave non-evangelical churches who presumably abandon church altogether?
I´d suggest that all this shows is that evangelicals are better at getting people into the church (look at the church growth statistics) and better at getting people out of churches (they join non-evangelical churches rather than abandon church altogether).
(Chorister, this argument does not come from a HTB course called "How to argue with liberals". Honest. )
I am wondering what the differences between postevangelicals and liberals are. What aspects, if any, of evangelicalism do post-evangelicals continue to identify with?
[Fixed mystery UBB]
[ 07. January 2004, 09:38: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Humblebum,
BTW, I prefer Peck to Fowler as it's more experiential IMO.
Someone who was a post-evangelical could "progress" or "proceed" or "move" to evangelical. Say they grew up in a family who were P-E, who had come out of an evangelical background, and the family were moving towards liberal rather than liberal-evangelical, the questioning (stage 3) process of an individual might end up in their decision to go with evangelicalism (stage 4). It wouldn't be legalistic or critical, but something that was within them personally.
It could also be a teenage rebellion and then they might well go for the legalism (2) bit. That would assume that the P-E stuff they grew up with had never been their own spirituality but something they had dumped on them, or had just assumed.
I do think that rather then a line of progression, Peck's stages might be better envisioned as a spiral, where we may revisit stages at a different level.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
Black Labrador: I just want to be clear that I was not trying to be derogatory toward evangelicals. I was quoting a statement made in the context of an article about evangelicals. I guess I'd also say that given that there was a point in history not too long ago when liberal churches were growing more quickly that: a) I'm not sure "fast growth" is an indicator of anything and that b) I wonder how much the choice of a "type" of church might be a function of the "Zeitgeist". My disappointment, really, was that people were being lost to Christian congregations, full stop.
There are things about both "liberal" and "evangelical" churches that I like and dislike and if anyone is going to have a picture of my views - insofar as I can control it - I'd like to be either a liberal evangelical or an evangelical liberal. I suspect if one is a traditional evangelical, I'm an evangelical liberal and if one is a traditional liberal I'm a liberal evangelical. I.e., I usually feel like I don't quite belong exactly correctly to either camp.
Daiseymay, it's been a long time since I've read the Peck book, but my understanding is that Peck just took Fowler's seven stages and turned them into three and I thought he pretty much said so in the book. But, as I say, I've not read it recently.
I agree with the poster who said (sorry I forgot who) that the stages should be used fluidly. I do often feel that some people see them as linear and see those who do not have as liberal a theology as they do as being somehow less advanced in faith. But that appears to be a "stage" to me as well. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
It could also be a teenage rebellion and then they might well go for the legalism (2) bit.
But somehow I am sure that Peck would describe this as a "backwards" step.
It seems reasonably clear that the mature path to growth should be seen as "moving on" to stage 4, wherever that takes them. (Be it evangelicalism, liberalism, Orthodoxy, new-age pantheism, or whatever)
Humblebum
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
Hmm, to be honest I'm still rather suspicious about this (even without having read Fowler or Peck). Everyone I know who talks about these stages of faith talks about "progressing" from stage to stage (you defended the concept of a progression yourself earlier this thread), so the general linear pattern is too obvious to say that it's irrelevant.
I think I'm more than suspicious. It is a very controlling and elitist rhetorical strategy.
It implies that "we" are at such and such a stage, and have matured away from whatever we used to be.
"They" however, haven't even matured to where "we" used to be, and probably aren't even capable yet of seeing why they should.
If anyone disagrees with the account as presented its not because they are wrong or right, it is because they aren't yet at the correct stage.
Any opposition is just from people who are adoptng the conventional views they were taught and haven't yet matured enough to think for themselves (which, being translated, means thinking the way we do)
I'm almost willing to bet that anyone who specifies a 4-stage progression for spiritual or psychological development thinks that they themselves have achieved stage 3 and are working towards stage 5. Once upon a time they were at stage 2, but now they see how inadequate that was. Anyone who disagrees with them must be stranded on poor old-fashioned stage 1.
Very similar to the "modernisation" rhetoric employed by the Blair & his friends; or to pop-psychological language like "in denial". The taxonomy is rigged. Once you adopt their descriptions, you can't argue against their conclusions. There is no space within the language to state opposition.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
It's a rhetoric as old as the church itself - the NT epistle writers used contrasts of milk and meat, "Christian gnostics" were de rigeur in Alexandria, the Methodists wondered about calling people who weren't trying hard enough "almost Christians", evangelicals think liberals aren't "really" Christians, κτλ κτλ
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The taxonomy is rigged. Once you adopt their descriptions, you can't argue against their conclusions. There is no space within the language to state opposition.
Wow, Ken, you're right. It's 1984 all over again! I think this calls for a new signature...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
I´m sure this happens but then I see statistics showing that - at least in the UK - non-evangelical churches have declined more than evangelical ones. So there must be many more people who leave non-evangelical churches who presumably abandon church altogether?
I´d suggest that all this shows is that evangelicals are better at getting people into the church (look at the church growth statistics) and better at getting people out of churches (they join non-evangelical churches rather than abandon church altogether).
(Chorister, this argument does not come from a HTB course called "How to argue with liberals". Honest. )
I am wondering what the differences between postevangelicals and liberals are. What aspects, if any, of evangelicalism do post-evangelicals continue to identify with?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) I love your humour! (although I am sure HTB will be most disappointed that you have been rebellious and not read the recommended literature )
Some people might argue that a certain number of people left established churches because they were persuaded away by extreme religious groups - both Christian and other cults - where they were exposed to teaching which put them off any sort of church for ever. But how many this affected in total, I don't know.
Presumably to be a true post-evangelical, one first needs to have been evangelical, whereas for liberals this is not necessary?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
OK Seeker, now you're scaring me! This is precisely what I was thinking about in bed last night.
I know, I know, I need to get out more.
Hmm, yeah, well, if you're thinking about this stuff in bed, you should be scared, don't you think!
Well, yes, quite. Let's not go there
--------------------
"My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand)
wiblog blipfoto blog
Posts: 5767 | From: the land of the deep-fried Mars Bar | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Chorister:
quote:
Presumably to be a true post-evangelical, one first needs to have been evangelical, whereas for liberals this is not necessary?
I don't think that's necessary. It would be possible to grow up in a post-evangelical background and have the foundation of evangelicalism within the family or church. Some people might not think this made a "true" post-evangelical. Others would think it was more accurate.Some of my family reckon that only if you are a Thatcher's child do you merit the title "post-evangelical".
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
OK Seeker, now you're scaring me! This is precisely what I was thinking about in bed last night.
I know, I know, I need to get out more.
Hmm, yeah, well, if you're thinking about this stuff in bed, you should be scared, don't you think!
Well, yes, quite. Let's not go there
Sounds like it could be kind of fun, to me!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Some of my family reckon that only if you are a Thatcher's child do you merit the title "post-evangelical".
So having your milk snatched is what does the trick?
That explains why I missed it - I was in secondary school before she got to be Education Secretary.
Is it the psychological experience of loss, or did they use to put some drug in the milk that made people into theological conservatives?
And does the almost complete collapse of the old religious teaching we used to get at school have anything to do with anything (ironically it happened under the conservative government - we carri3d on getting Bible teaching and daly hymns and prayers under the previus Labourt government and there has been a very slight move back towards it under this one - the Tories used to talk about it but never did anything much about it)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave the Bass
Shipmate
# 155
|
Posted
About this idea of a progression through stages of faith - it's only a problem if people see it as prescriptive, so that everyone has to go through the same process. Dave Tomlinson is using this model as descriptive - his faith journey, and that of many other people, fits quite well. There will be other people for whom this model doesn't work, and that shouldn't be seen as a problem, even less a reason to look down on other christians. Unfortunately, finding reasons for spiritual superiority has been a major activity of all sorts of christians ever since the church began, and there's no reason to suppose it will stop now.
Posts: 2162 | From: In a forest | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
Dave C:
This may be too much of a tangential comment. I've noticed, however, that many people (not just Christians) have a tendency to view some useful descriptive tools as being prescriptive.
MBTI is a model that our workplace has actually found really useful but which a lot of people I know either scoff at or "take as gospel". At work, we use it as a sort of menu of possible strengths and weaknesses and accept the fact that people don't always fit into particular moulds. Used loosely in this way, MBTI is really helpful.
I see Fowler's "stages of faith" as useful if used in the same fluid way. However, I'll still protest that I see them as stages of theology (thinking about God) as opposed to faith (what we've internalised about our faith such that it affects our life).
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
finding reasons for spiritual superiority has been a major activity of all sorts of christians ever since the church began, and there's no reason to suppose it will stop now.
First, a confession. I do this.
Secondly, an observation. I know I shouldn't do this - and I'll not put the word shouldn't in scare quotes this time. It seems to me that this sort of "finding reasons for spiritual superiority" is one of the major behavioural causes of division in the church. Instead of taking the "other side's" concerns seriously, we write their concerns off as springing from evil motivation.
I think that religious communities seem more susceptible to this sort of behaviour than the secular world. This is ironic as, to me, the ability to co-exist in Christian unity is one of the major Fruits of the Spirit and if we can't do this, what sort of Good News do we have to offer the world? Disclaimer: I'm not writing off Christ's atoning work on the cross but I think that there has to be authentic outworking and that a 100%-spiritualised Christianity is not Christianity in all its fullness (I was tempted to write that 100%-spiritualised Christianity is not authentic Christianity but I'll have to think about whether I believe that.)
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I see Fowler's "stages of faith" as useful if used in the same fluid way. However, I'll still protest that I see them as stages of theology (thinking about God) as opposed to faith (what we've internalised about our faith such that it affects our life).
I'm not sure they're actually stages of anything pretty much at all; but certainly not necessarily changes of theology. Movement from one stage to another may involve a change in theology, or it may involve very little change. I see no reason why someone can't move through stages without significantly altering their actual theological position, though the reason they hold that position may change (from, for example, accepting the teachings of others to having thought through the implications themselves). Though the evangelical to post-evangelical transition may relate to a move from one stage to another, it isn't inevitable as people move through different stages nor would it surprise me if people moved to being post-evangelical without changing which stage of faith they're at.
BTW (and discussion of Fowler and/or Peck that doesn't relate to post-evangelicals probably belongs on a new thread), I can't see how anyone can consider these stages as anything other than a progression towards a better faith. Fowler himself characterises the different stages in terms of appropriate ages (Stage 1, child 3-7. Stage 2, school age child. Stage 3, adolescence. Stage 4, young adulthood. Stage 5, midlife.)
--------------------
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
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Spot on Dave C. There is no reason to demand that we move "on" from one stage to another, nor that we should regard ourselves as "better" than someone who is at a different 'stage' from us. Some people need to be at a particular place in their life and spirituality, and may need to stay there all their lives. And some of them may be effectively ministering to others who are in a similar place.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Some of my family reckon that only if you are a Thatcher's child do you merit the title "post-evangelical".
As I shall be 51 next week, Daisymay, I only wish that this were true!! ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
I'm not sure they're actually stages of anything pretty much at all; but certainly not necessarily changes of theology.
I'll have to go home and dig the book off the shelf and re-evaluate. I take the point about a new thread.
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
