|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is the death of evangelicalism going to happen?
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
The more whitewash accusations of racism/fascism are thrown, the more radicalised moderates become & you have your self-fulfilling prophecy.
Evangelicalism is too amorphous to die.
I agree that the death of evangelicalism is unlikely.
But it's not that evangelicalism is too amorphous. I think it's that evangelicalism is able to easily (and in some cases, shamelessly) change itself to fit the zeitgeist of the time, whilst all the time still claiming to be the one, TRUE, presentation of the Faith.
Evangelicalism WILL change, as it always has. Before long, homosexuality etc will be a non-issue (except among the freaks and extremists, who will be shrugged off with a roll of the eyes). Just as significant parts of Biblical criticism, which were once regarded as hopelessly liberal, are now taken for granted.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ha ha ...
And there was thinking they died for the right to pay as little tax as possible, to carry as many guns and nukes as they wanted, to oppress as many slaves and Native Americans as they could and then turn round and hector the rest of us as to how 'free' and enlightened they are ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Perhaps those elements of Biblical criticism are taken for granted where you are, Oscar the Grouch, but they certainly aren't all over the evangelical world.
I get bashed on other boards for being some kind of wicked liberal and regularly come across 6 Day Creationist and similar views online from our friends across the Pond - and not just Protestants either.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Before long, homosexuality etc will be a non-issue (except among the freaks and extremists, who will be shrugged off with a roll of the eyes). Just as significant parts of Biblical criticism, which were once regarded as hopelessly liberal, are now taken for granted.
I pretty much agree with this assessment. What's got my cogs turning is thinking through "what will be the next issue?"
This might be a tangent that needs its own thread, but its interesting to consider what we might now be taking for granted that in 10, 20, 50 or 200 years' time might be looked back upon in horror at how backwards we could be.
Unless we think we are fully enlightened and have nothing to learn?
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
How about the validity of other religions?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Any assumption of a monolithic entity is demonstrably false.
I'd argue that the BNP vote collapsed to virtually nothing simply because of UKIP. All the hard-core right-wing racists now have a 'respectable' party to vote for.
You might want to counter-argue that this is merely a small factor in UKIP's increased vote. To that, I'd say that all the other racists who couldn't bring themselves to vote for an openly fascist party also now have a 'respectable' party to vote for (that isn't the Tories).
So on one hand, racist fascists are voting for UKIP. On the other hand, non-fascist racists are voting for UKIP.
Still sounds like they're voting for a party that espouses racist policies to me.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't think anybody would claim that UKIP is monolithic. Certainly, I am sure there are racists in other parties, but now, as Doc Tor indicated, there is a reasonably respectable way of voting racistically, yet also reasonably covertly. In other words, the dog whistling is essential to UKIP.
Whereas the National Front had the slogan 'send the blacks back', and the BNP rather similar, UKIP has a more indirect message - e.g. would you want to live next to a Romanian? The other parties condemned Farage for this, but he would delight in that - he is speaking the unspeakable, yet not speaking it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
Look, I have no opinion on whether the UKIP espouses racist policies. I am not well-versed enough in their platform to make an informed judgment. I would say that the FN and BNP clearly espoused racist policies. As I have said before, if the UKIP has racist intent veiled as neutral policy, then they deserve to be called racist as well regardless of appearances of respectability. My only assertion was that one cannot judge a party based solely on its followers; its actions have to be taken into account.
Let us imagine that there were only two viable political parties in the UK: the Labour Party and the Communist Party. In all likelihood, most of the racists would vote Labour. Would this suddenly make the Labour Party racist?
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Look, I have no opinion on whether the UKIP espouses racist policies. I am not well-versed enough in their platform to make an informed judgment. I would say that the FN and BNP clearly espoused racist policies. As I have said before, if the UKIP has racist intent veiled as neutral policy, then they deserve to be called racist as well regardless of appearances of respectability. My only assertion was that one cannot judge a party based solely on its followers; its actions have to be taken into account.
Let us imagine that there were only two viable political parties in the UK: the Labour Party and the Communist Party. In all likelihood, most of the racists would vote Labour. Would this suddenly make the Labour Party racist?
In fact, many Labour voters are racist; I know, as I used to live on a housing estate full of the buggers. They also used to be homophobic and misogynist. But I don't think that made Labour racist or homophobic or misogynist, although undoubtedly there have been Labour politicians who as it were, cosied up to these voters.
But I don't recall Labour party leaders saying 'would you like to live next door to a Romanian?', as clear a dog whistle as you can get.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ha ha ...
And there was thinking they died for the right to pay as little tax as possible, to carry as many guns and nukes as they wanted, to oppress as many slaves and Native Americans as they could and then turn round and hector the rest of us as to how 'free' and enlightened they are ...
# You can't fool the children of the revolution ... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
The American Colonies' tax bill was puny (& lowered still further by the Westminster Parliament after protests). The Revolution was over issues of authority, fueled by rhetoric (in the best sense of the word) about unalienable rights, rights that, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, are "endowed by [our] Creator."
As the colonists were fighting for their rights as "freeborn Englishmen," the source of that thinking goes a lot closer to home than some may like!
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Please stop discussing the relationship between evangelicalism and negative attitudes towards homosexuality. You know it's a Dead Horse. And Justinan created a perfectly viable thread here. If you want to bring in the relationship to other earlier beliefs now seen as prejudice, use the Dead Horse thread.
And there's already a thread in the Styx if you want to discuss current boundaries on this issue.
So play nicely in accordance with the current extremely well known demarcation guidelines.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 03. July 2014, 16:35: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Peter Leithart, Carl Trueman, and Fred Sanders sat down to discuss this issue (well, the future of Protestantism, but all three are broadly speaking evangelical) recently. The entire 2.5 hour conversation can be viewed here. Interesting, if you have the patience to take it all in.
Personally, I'm with Mudfrog; mainline Protestantism is much more likely to go the way of all flesh than evangelicalism is.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's been quoted before, but at Greenbelt a few years ago a speaker apparently said, 'Don't call yourself post-evangelical but pre-catholic ...'
This statement made me think. Does Greenbelt see itself as particularly 'post-evangelical' in its agenda and its appeal?
I'm aware that the Greenbelt festival (which I enjoyed on a visit a few years ago) was once much more evangelical in tone than it is today. Wiki says: quote:
although there is constant tension between its faith-based origins and a more exploratory attitude to engaging with the world, the perspective of the festival remains one rooted in the Christian tradition.
To me, this quote could be read one of two ways. It either implies that the development of Greenbelt indicates a small but perhaps significant example of the 'death of evangelicalism', or else presents an example of post-evangelicalism. The former has no more need of evangelicalism, whereas the latter requires evangelicalism in order to exist and remain in existence....
Does Greenbelt still 'need' evangelicals, or is it doing perfectly well without them?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It has been a while since I went to GB, but I used to be a regular (something like 20 consecutive years at one point). Things may have changed.
IME, GB predates the concept of "post evangelical", though could be regarded as an early example of the "post evangelical". Though, I would say that I don't think in this case "post evangelical" equates to "ex evangelical". Rather like I said about Tomlinson, it's a position within the broad reach of evangelicalism. The original GB founders, AIUI, moved to a "post evangelical" position in relation to expressing the Christian faith, in particular the evangelical tradition, through arts in a way that many of the evangelical leaders of the time considered unwise. The festival has continued that tradition. For evangelicals it has become a place where they can explore other traditions of the faith, and learn from them, in ways that can often be seen as radical - ways of prayer and worship from more "Catholic" traditions, activism that is more than direct evangelism, theology that is more "liberal". In doing so it has also created space where people from other Christian traditions, and from outside the Christian faith, can also share with a range of views they wouldn't normally be exposed to. So, in a way GB has grown beyond its evangelical beginnings.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Would you say that the majority of attendees there are now post-evangelical/'never-were-evangelical'? Or does Greenbelt still rely on plenty of evangelicals to turn up, ready and willing to try 'something a bit different'?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Peter Leithart, Carl Trueman, and Fred Sanders sat down to discuss this issue (well, the future of Protestantism, but all three are broadly speaking evangelical) recently. The entire 2.5 hour conversation can be viewed here. Interesting, if you have the patience to take it all in.
Personally, I'm with Mudfrog; mainline Protestantism is much more likely to go the way of all flesh than evangelicalism is.
About half way through it. Interesting link, thanks.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Byron, of course the Colonists were banging on about the 'rights of freeborn Englishmen' because that's how they regarded themselves - and to that extent they were simply echoing rhetoric that could be found at that time on this side of the Atlantic too.
It's not that this is 'too close to home', it's also something I use as a stick to beat particular types of American 'Patriot' over the head with ... because I like to remind them that we got there first and they didn't invent any of these concepts ...
Originality is an over-rated virtue ...
In fairness, many Americans who've actually looked into the history are happy to agree that the US Revolution was essentially the English Civil War Round 3 (there'd been 2 Civil Wars in the mid-17th century of course).
Some would even say that the US Civil War was a continuation of all that to some extent ...
@SvitlanaV2 - does Greenbelt need evangelicalism?
Well, yes it does. Just like everyone else does.
Evangelicalism isn't the only game in town, of course, but I'm always fascinated by how many former evangelicals I come across in High Church, Liberal and more whishty-whishty mystical type circles ...
Dyfrig, who used to post here regularly at one time (where is Dyfrig by the way?) once said how he'd observed to the late John Stott (an evangelical elder statesman par excellence) that 'evangelicalism is a good place to start, but not necessarily to end up.'
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In a sense, though, the lower the supply of evangelicals into other traditions then the worse for those other traditions it is ...
Liberalism for instance - and I'm about to sound as illiberal as Mudfrog here - it seems to me is patently unable to reproduce itself - it's like a mule, it's neutered.
Consequently, it can only sustain itself by 'leeching' off the more conservative traditions.
I think that the various forms of High Church or more Catholic expressions can and do reproduce themselves - they aren't neutered in the sense that full-on theological liberalism is - but they also depend on an influx to some extent from disaffected members from other traditions.
It's often observed about Orthodoxy in the US - and I would say the same here to a lesser extent and on a smaller scale - that the only converts it's picking up are those from fundamentalist or conservative Protestant backgrounds. If you've ever come across what's now jokingly called 'Southern Orthodoxy' you'll know what I mean ... neo-confederate types turning to Orthodoxy because everything else is too liberal for them ...
Some Orthodox have a genuine concern about this.
Coming back to the OP and the question, though, I think we do need evangelicalism - and indeed its equivalents within the older traditions.
Greenbelt is a good example of something that initially 'fed-off' evangelicalism and then headed off in other directions.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Would you say that the majority of attendees there are now post-evangelical/'never-were-evangelical'? Or does Greenbelt still rely on plenty of evangelicals to turn up, ready and willing to try 'something a bit different'?
Can't speak for all, but I still regard myself as evangelical and I'll be attending for the first time this year. The expectation is that it will be quite anglican-biased but not overly traditionalist. Though there is more choice for evangelicals, whether it be New Wine, Spring Harvest, Big Church Day Out or Revive.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Peter Leithart, Carl Trueman, and Fred Sanders sat down to discuss this issue (well, the future of Protestantism, but all three are broadly speaking evangelical) recently.
Up to a point. The first two are on the very outer fringes of evangelicalism (I suspect that most evangelicals would think an OPC service a perfect example of 'dead orthodoxy' - and similarly the Mullah of Moscow will not be to their tastes).
[ 04. July 2014, 11:02: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
When I encountered Hinduism for the first time, I became aware of the 'personal relationship with God' aspect in some traditions of hinduism.
This led me to question the uniqueness of Christ and the authority of the Bible.
Why? I truly fail to see the logical connection between "There are non-Christians who believe [some tenet of Christianity]" and "the Bible is not authoritative." Can you unpack whatever enthymemes led you from the one to the other?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How about the validity of other religions?
I think that's a good one.
When I encountered Hinduism for the first time, I became aware of the 'personal relationship with God' aspect in some traditions of hinduism.
This led me to question the uniqueness of Christ and the authority of the Bible.
But would it be said that evangelicalism by definition could never get close to accepting the validity of other religions? I suppose the obvious argument then, is that there is no point to Christianity.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
I think the answer to the original question is "Yes", primarily because I think the scope of the term "Evangelical" is now so broad that it just doesn't mean anything.
There are several distinct groups who still use this label and yet are quite distinct:
1. Full on reformed conservative Fundies. Usually American, 6 day creation, 99% of humanity is going to hell, Homosexuality is demonic sin. The bible is literally true, but we HATE happy clappy church, we don't like speaking in tongues or healing or any of that stuff, we wear suits to church. We Like John McArthur and Todd Friel, we hate Rob Bell, we think he is a heritic
2. Charismatic Fundie Evangelicals: as above, but we LOVE speaking in tongues and happy clappy church. We hate rob bell - we think he's demon possessed with a spirit of rebellion, and so is John McArthur with a spirit of sour-faced grumpiness.
3. Conservative Evangelicals: We speak properly and live in the home counties. We went to Oxford university. We accept Evolution and think it can be reconciled with scripture. We love homosexuals..but not in THAT way..and no, they can't get married in our church, even though they are terribly nice chaps. We like our church fairly conservative, but some of that nice Matt Redman's quieter stuff is quite nice, and we'll even clap awkwardly to the odd chorus now and then.We wear cord trousers and shirts to church. We love John Stott and NT Wright, We hate Todd Bentley and Benny Hinn. We're not quite sure about Rob Bell.
4. Liberal Evangelicals. Our Parents were conservative Evangelicals, we made the youth group so hip and "Relevant" that we became liberal. We are love cool media presentations, artsy festivals and social causes and environemtnalism. We think gays should be accepted and loved in the church. We think the Bible is terribly important but errm..don't ask us to quote any of it from memory, and tend to think asking queestions in the form "What does the Bible say about...?" is just too simplistic for a post modern age. We love Rob Bell. (We can quote you Nooma if you like). We Love everybody..except we hate John McArthur...he's grumpy and doesn't love gays like Jesus would.
5. New Apostolic Reformation/Latter Rain/Word of Faith "Evangelical": We don't know what the Bible says about Creation or evolution - but we know that the Bible says YOU should be Rich and empowered. Offically we're anti-gay marriage, unofficially who knows...We believe in the power of Jeeeeeeeezuus name. We Love Todd Bentley and Benny Hinn and Bill Johnson and Bethel. We hate anyone who isn't Rich.
6. Our church is called an "Evangelical" Church because once upon a time we were Ex-bretheren. that's it.
I think this Fragmentation is a phenomenon primarily of the last 20 years, and has led to a point where the term evangelical no longer has much usefulness, aside from differentiating from "nominal" Christianity. As such, yes, the term is dead, but the views represented by it, are not.
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Hey, welcome back!
--------------------
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
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In a sense, though, the lower the supply of evangelicals into other traditions then the worse for those other traditions it is ...
Liberalism for instance - and I'm about to sound as illiberal as Mudfrog here - it seems to me is patently unable to reproduce itself - it's like a mule, it's neutered.
Consequently, it can only sustain itself by 'leeching' off the more conservative traditions. [...]
Liberalism's failure to reproduce itself is easily explained: its marketing and presentation suck.*
Evangelical churches are culturally accessible: modern music, audio-visual, the ubiquitous smoothie. Evangelicalism also sells itself via Alpha.
Liberalism seems to use traditional style to compensate for its theological radicalism. Not that it need bother, since it appears to be incapable of stepping into a pulpit and saying what it means.
Which type of evangelicalism triumphs? Not huddled huts of exclusive brethren debating the finer points predestination, but the charismatic kind, that taps emotions. Self-help and razzle-dazzle are the secrets of its success, & that's not a criticism.
* Generalization, natch.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In a sense, though, the lower the supply of evangelicals into other traditions then the worse for those other traditions it is ...
Liberalism for instance - and I'm about to sound as illiberal as Mudfrog here - it seems to me is patently unable to reproduce itself - it's like a mule, it's neutered.
Consequently, it can only sustain itself by 'leeching' off the more conservative traditions. [...]
Liberalism's failure to reproduce itself is easily explained: its marketing and presentation suck.*
Evangelical churches are culturally accessible: modern music, audio-visual, the ubiquitous smoothie. Evangelicalism also sells itself via Alpha.
Liberalism seems to use traditional style to compensate for its theological radicalism. Not that it need bother, since it appears to be incapable of stepping into a pulpit and saying what it means.
Which type of evangelicalism triumphs? Not huddled huts of exclusive brethren debating the finer points predestination, but the charismatic kind, that taps emotions. Self-help and razzle-dazzle are the secrets of its success, & that's not a criticism.
* Generalization, natch.
I would agree with all that - and would say that it also lacks the mystery and feeling of holiness that's so apparent in standard RC and Orthodox churches.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
When I encountered Hinduism for the first time, I became aware of the 'personal relationship with God' aspect in some traditions of hinduism.
This led me to question the uniqueness of Christ and the authority of the Bible.
Why? I truly fail to see the logical connection between "There are non-Christians who believe [some tenet of Christianity]" and "the Bible is not authoritative." Can you unpack whatever enthymemes led you from the one to the other?
Most of my thinking on this is summarised here.
I don't see where in there you conclude, let alone argue for, the non-authoritativeness of the Bible. All of the things in that article can be true, and yet the Bible also be authoritative.
Also, that sermon accepts that Jesus can be unique, and yet all of those other religions contain deep truths it would do us well to hear.
In short, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises or from the argument you present.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In a sense, though, the lower the supply of evangelicals into other traditions then the worse for those other traditions it is ...
Liberalism for instance - and I'm about to sound as illiberal as Mudfrog here - it seems to me is patently unable to reproduce itself - it's like a mule, it's neutered.
Consequently, it can only sustain itself by 'leeching' off the more conservative traditions. [...]
Liberalism's failure to reproduce itself is easily explained: its marketing and presentation suck.*
Evangelical churches are culturally accessible: modern music, audio-visual, the ubiquitous smoothie. Evangelicalism also sells itself via Alpha.
Liberalism seems to use traditional style to compensate for its theological radicalism. Not that it need bother, since it appears to be incapable of stepping into a pulpit and saying what it means.
* Generalization, natch.
So really, this website's fascination with evangelicalism, though understandable, is arguably misplaced. It's the parlous state of other forms of public Christian expression that really ought to be discussed; evangelicalism will take care of itself....
To turn things around for a bit, I'd say that although more liberal churches may benefit from a steady stream of 'recovering evangelicals', there's also a movement in the other direction. In my family, the movement out of Pentecostalism into more moderate Methodism was preceded in an earlier generation by a movement in the opposite direction! And in my own lifetime I've become aware of people who've moved from Methodism into more evangelical denominations. Methodism has bucked the trend by recording a greater increase in the percentage of liberals than other mainstream denominations have, but this implies that Methodism hasn't benefited from the impact of evangelicalism in the way that, say, the CofE has.
A cynic might say it's important for a mainstream denomination to have a significant evangelical wing, so long as it's kept under control. But few people seem to believe in church authority any more, even the people who are in the church.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Perhaps those elements of Biblical criticism are taken for granted where you are, Oscar the Grouch, but they certainly aren't all over the evangelical world.
I get bashed on other boards for being some kind of wicked liberal and regularly come across 6 Day Creationist and similar views online from our friends across the Pond - and not just Protestants either.
(Sorry for the slowness of response. Been away for a few days)
I accept that there are still significant 6 day Creationists et al. But I think my point still stands in that among "reasonable" evangelicals, quite a lot of Biblical criticism which, 30 or 40 years ago would have been rejected out of hand, is now tacitly or even explicitly accepted.
One simple example is the book of Isaiah. When I first studied theology, it was an evangelical essential to defend to the hilt the unity of Isaiah. These days, it is not at all uncommon (in my experience, anyway) for evangelicals to accept some sort of idea of Deutero-Isaiah and even Trito-Isaiah.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How about the validity of other religions?
Interesting you should say that. I was thinking the same thing the other day. I think it is very possible that we could see a shift among (some or even most??) evangelicals in this area.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
OddJob
Shipmate
# 17591
|
Posted
Me too. A member of our C of E church (I won't say Evangelical C of E Church - any church is made of members with diverse views) who held senior office in the C of E and an international posting pre-retirement has developed links with members of a local but significant Mosque.
Meetings I've since attended between Church and Mosque members have confirmed my long-held view that we're becoming closer to them on many issues/observances than to most of the British population.
My friend met hostility and judgmentalism on both sides two or three years ago when pioneering the initiative, but now the sentiment on both sides is to let our Creator ultimately judge. There also seems to be a genuine desire to understand and respect each other.
Posts: 97 | From: West Midlands | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
When I encountered Hinduism for the first time, I became aware of the 'personal relationship with God' aspect in some traditions of hinduism.
This led me to question the uniqueness of Christ and the authority of the Bible.
Why? I truly fail to see the logical connection between "There are non-Christians who believe [some tenet of Christianity]" and "the Bible is not authoritative." Can you unpack whatever enthymemes led you from the one to the other?
Most of my thinking on this is summarised here.
I don't see where in there you conclude, let alone argue for, the non-authoritativeness of the Bible. All of the things in that article can be true, and yet the Bible also be authoritative.
Also, that sermon accepts that Jesus can be unique, and yet all of those other religions contain deep truths it would do us well to hear.
In short, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises or from the argument you present.
To put it in a nutshell:
Jesus need not be unique. Similar revelation cam to other people through Krishna etc.
The Bible isn't the only authority. Its experience can also be found in the Gita etc.
[ 06. July 2014, 12:57: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How about the validity of other religions?
Interesting you should say that. I was thinking the same thing the other day. I think it is very possible that we could see a shift among (some or even most??) evangelicals in this area.
Do you really? I always thought that that would be a kind of Maginot Line between liberals and evangelicals, but then the Maginot Line eventually proved useless!
I became close friends with various Sufis and Buddhists, and in the end, we couldn't remember what our differences were, which was both comical and alarming. Hence my current sig.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
At the moment, the Maginot Line for most evangelicals is SSM. But as we are already seeing, that line is gradually being abandoned.
Although "the uniqueness of Christ" is often held as a key evangelical belief, I have seen enough shift in evangelical thinking in this area to suggest that it may not be so impossible to change views.
Thoughtful evangelicals who are increasingly encountering thoughtful Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs etc are inevitably going to start chewing on the problem of "these people share much in common with me and their sincerity and piety put me to shame; do I REALLY have to hold to the idea that unless they "turn to Christ" they are doomed for all eternity?"
Add to that the pressure from the world around who are tired of religiously motivated conflict and expect "people of faith" to start acting in love and not hate.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How about the validity of other religions?
Interesting you should say that. I was thinking the same thing the other day. I think it is very possible that we could see a shift among (some or even most??) evangelicals in this area.
For all kinds of Christians who live and/or worship in highly multi-religious areas developing positive relationships with other religious groups is already becoming a necessity, I should think. Churches in fairly homogeneous towns or suburbs might not see it as a priority, though.
Some secularists are worried that too much cooperation will lead to a kind of interfaith power block formed of various religious conservatives. There are already informal examples of this, but in 30-odd years' time, when the de-sacralisation of the public space is an undisputed reality, some Muslims and evangelical Christians might be involved in more serious forms of engagement with each other. Some of this engagement might have a political edge.
[ 06. July 2014, 14:23: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
At the moment, the Maginot Line for most evangelicals is SSM. But as we are already seeing, that line is gradually being abandoned.
Although "the uniqueness of Christ" is often held as a key evangelical belief, I have seen enough shift in evangelical thinking in this area to suggest that it may not be so impossible to change views.
Thoughtful evangelicals who are increasingly encountering thoughtful Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs etc are inevitably going to start chewing on the problem of "these people share much in common with me and their sincerity and piety put me to shame; do I REALLY have to hold to the idea that unless they "turn to Christ" they are doomed for all eternity?"
Add to that the pressure from the world around who are tired of religiously motivated conflict and expect "people of faith" to start acting in love and not hate.
I think that some Hindus are very accepting of Christ; but then they may be seeing Christ in a rather different way, one might say, as the uncreated from the beginning, or some such. But for Muslims presumably, this would be anathema.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
To put it in a nutshell:
Jesus need not be unique. Similar revelation cam to other people through Krishna etc.
The Bible isn't the only authority. Its experience can also be found in the Gita etc.
Which is a position that I don't think any evangelical would hold. So, unless you're claiming that any expression of the Christian faith that doesn't accept your "nutshell" is going to die, I'm not sure how it's relevant to the current discussion on the apparent death of evangelicalism.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Bible isn't the only authority. Its experience can also be found in the Gita etc.
You are shifting the goalposts. You have gone from "the Bible isn't authoritative" to "the Bible isn't the only authority."
Can you not see how those two are different?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Although "the uniqueness of Christ" is often held as a key evangelical belief, I have seen enough shift in evangelical thinking in this area to suggest that it may not be so impossible to change views.
Thoughtful evangelicals who are increasingly encountering thoughtful Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs etc are inevitably going to start chewing on the problem of "these people share much in common with me
There are two separate, but often confused issues.
Is Christ unique?
Is the teaching of Christ unique?
Most evangelicals I know would have no difficulty with a claim that the teaching of Christ is not unique. For a start, there are common strands with a lot of the prophets in the Old Testament. And, it takes someone particularly blind to not recognise that many of the great religious and moral teachers have expressed similar teachings.
But, when it comes to the person of Christ, then I would expect very few, if any, evangelicals to accept that any other religious leader is the Second Person of the Trinity, fully God and fully Man, etc. It's also true that the followers of many other religions would reject such a claim about the founding teachers of their religions as well.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Jesus need not be unique. Similar revelation cam to other people through Krishna etc.
The uniqueness of Christ does not lie in what he revealed, but who he was: God incarnate. I think if you abandon "Jesus, and Jesus only, is God incarnate," you have not just abandoned Evangelicalism, but you're on sketchy grounds as concerns Christianity.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Jesus need not be unique. Similar revelation cam to other people through Krishna etc.
The uniqueness of Christ does not lie in what he revealed, but who he was: God incarnate. I think if you abandon "Jesus, and Jesus only, is God incarnate," you have not just abandoned Evangelicalism, but you're on sketchy grounds as concerns Christianity.
Yes, abandoned evangelicalism - which is what this thread is about.
Evangelicals tend to rate experience higher than doctrine.
So if they find that others have had a similar experience, then it follows that the Bible and Jesus aren't the only way - to that experience.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Ah, the definition tangle. What is incarnation? Is God's Logos synonymous with God? If Jesus of Nazareth had a unique "God-presence" that is, in theory, open to anyone, is that incarnation?
Part of evangelicalism's problem is that words are only signifiers. Words can merely point to something outside themselves, they can't control it, like a Victorian naturalist pegging a butterfly. When their target is something as intangible and indefinable as God, the problem grows out of all hope of a solution.
A desire for control and certainty fuels evangelicalism, but they're forever outside its gasp.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
And in the interest of fairness, liberal theology has the opposite problem: it can take refuge in ambiguity, refusing (in a very real sense) to take a firm position on anything.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Evangelicals tend to rate experience higher than doctrine.
So if they find that others have had a similar experience, then it follows that the Bible and Jesus aren't the only way - to that experience.
Charismatic evangelicals might rate experience higher than doctrine, I would say, but certainly not all evangelicals. Is it not a key tenet of evangelicalism that doctrine - right belief - is of paramount importance?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Do charismatics rate experience above doctrine? Isn't it more that miracles are possible today? (As opposed to cessationism.) Certainly, charismatic-friendly groups like Spring Harvest, HTB, and Willow Creek haven't given an inch on what evangelicals hold to be fundamental points of doctrine, and they base their position on scripture.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Ah, the definition tangle. What is incarnation? Is God's Logos synonymous with God? If Jesus of Nazareth had a unique "God-presence" that is, in theory, open to anyone, is that incarnation?
Part of evangelicalism's problem is that words are only signifiers. Words can merely point to something outside themselves, they can't control it, like a Victorian naturalist pegging a butterfly. When their target is something as intangible and indefinable as God, the problem grows out of all hope of a solution.
A desire for control and certainty fuels evangelicalism, but they're forever outside its gasp.
The Incarnation does not belong to Evangelicalism. It is part and parcel of historic Christianity going right back to the beginning. And, no, something that is open to everyone is not what Jesus had. He was unique and unrepeatable. This is Christianity 101. Hell, this is Christianity 1.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Incarnation does not belong to Evangelicalism. It is part and parcel of historic Christianity going right back to the beginning. And, no, something that is open to everyone is not what Jesus had. He was unique and unrepeatable. This is Christianity 101. Hell, this is Christianity 1.
When and where was Christ's uniqueness decided? Ecumenical councils, drawing on centuries of reflection. Now fair enough that Catholics and Orthodox consider themselves bound by those decisions, but said restriction doesn't apply to Christians outside those churches. They can take Christianity one & raise it a Year Zero. Radical in the strict sense, going right back to the roots of the faith.
Can they call themselves Christian. Well, why not? Words are decided by use, not authority. If some of the 20th century's front-rank theologians are unchurched, the flaw lies not with them, but the definition at work.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If some of the 20th century's front-rank theologians are unchurched, the flaw lies not with them, but the definition at work.
If they are considered "front-rank" Christian thelologians who deny Christ's Divinity, then the flaw might be in those who have classified them as "front-rank."
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
