|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Trouble at Cwmbran / Richard Taylor
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Let me put this as succinctly as I can.
Firstly, in my experience, aside from any legal considerations, plagiarism is a warning sign when it comes to trusting somebody's word (I have never said that in isolation, it disqualified anyone from anything).
Secondly, I think everyone agrees here that in contemporary society, for people assuming a position such as Taylor's (inter alia, published author and former self-styled "principal" of a Bible training academy), plagiarism is a serious issue, whether the person is aware of its seriousness or not.
Thirdly, having alerted a trustee to RT's plagiarism, I said here that another important indicator would be how the church responded. If they had responded with an apology (as Wesley did, by the way) I would have given them all the benefit of the doubt, but they didn't.
Assume for a moment (and I still think this is a massively generous assumption) that RT is blissfully ignorant of why plagiarism is wrong. The issue is then brought to the attention of one of his trustees. If they all persist in thinking there's nothing wrong with it, then they would simply carry on as before. As things turned out, they didn't carry on as before. They concealed the evidence in short order (RT's blog was pulled in its entirety!), but they never acknowledged anything.
To me that indicated that by that point they were perfectly aware it was wrong, but were unwilling to admit it; they simply tried to hide it.
For me at least, that offered further confirmation, not only that RT's word was suspect, but also that the people who were accountable before the law for the ministry he headed up were not able to ensure it was dealt with properly. In short, they were not as in control as they should be.
Given my assessment of RT, the heady atmosphere, and the extravagant claims, to my mind that was a recipe for disaster.
The current turn of events appears to bear this out. I feel for the well-meaning rank and file church membership whose illusions must be being shattered by all this, the ex-addicts who find their newfound high has just come to an end, and for the pastor I quoted above who seems to have led his flock into this deception after having formed the judgement, from RT's blog, that everything was "genuine" and the leadership were "godly, trustworthy men".
Now stop dragging Wesley into this and address the current sorry situation.
[ 20. August 2014, 05:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Further to my last post:
Please ignore the courses I mentioned for "Birmingham Bible Institute" - I got on the wrong website (that was a college of the same name in the USA). The perils of writing a long post after a day's work!
However, the substance of my argument is not affected by this error.
Thanks for this admission EE.
Having said that, your argument has no substance. What Taylor did was wrong and he would be fully aware that plagiarism is not acceptable whatever the nature of his previous education: he is articulate and bright and even if his books etc are penned by a "ghost" writer, he (Taylor) would recognise that you just can't pass off another's work as your own. In academic circles it's called plagiarism, in the wider world it's called fraud as presumably you are looking for some gain from it.
As it is, he's been found out. At this point he could've held up his hands and said - "Ok, I've made a mistake -- forgive me please ...." and it might all have blown over. It might not and the subsequent events may well have been different.
But he chose to pull his blog: whether that it is out of shame or out of a desire to avoid accountability, only he really knows. Trouble is, most people can guess which of the two it seems to be.
The bottom line is that BBI is a recognised Bible Training College: students who undertake any kind of study will be subject to the same rules as anyone undertaking post graduate research. I trained alongside students who had studied there, one a very good friend, and the study appeared rigorous. I knew a previous Principal who had the highest standards: I can't see him not covering such a thing nor condoning it.
My friend had had a very limited education when h went to BBI but they gave him extra help in understanding how to study, write etc - all reflecting his own personal approach to doing things.
The assertion that Taylor could go through BBI without encountering the accepted guidelines on plagiarism is simply untenable. Even if he didn't understand that, his training as a Minister would recognise the importance of truth and if you use something from someone else, acknowledge how they have helped you. Surely we all just know that you don' take something that someone else has produced and pass it off as your own? It's lying!
[An example: I've used a song from a nationally known folk trio in public worship: I acknowledged it - they were good and kind enough to allow me to use it publicly at no charge. It was only right to say that they had done so. In our festival over the weekend we are using some performance pieces from various artists playing on MP3 machines: we've contacted them all and they have all been only too pleased to share their work in the context of a free community festival].
None of us are whiter than white and it's likely we've all plagiarised to a degree generally unknowingly and on the fly. How many of my sermons are 100% my whole work and how many include illustrations, ideas whatever assimilated from past reading where I don't attribute them now? Probably a few; I don't write much down but can remember a fair bit. It doesn't make us better but it does look rather different to shifting chunks of material wholesale from others without attribution.
As for Wesley, well we know now he's not whiter than white. But that's a dead issue .... unless you wish to pursue your line of thinking to its ultimate extent. That suggests that you might be happy with "the end justifies the means" approach - ie anything goes provided people are brought into the Kingdom. One major flaw with that one is imply this: what church do such people come into? It may not be one that Christ would recognise.
EE as I see it, the more you push, the deeper the hole you're digging. This is only wheel spinning and not going forward.
Yes I agree there's a sense of "I told you so's around" and much of that is unattractive. But we are called by scripture to test and to be wise - we can be deceived. Be open minded by all means but make sure that not everything or anything is seen as good. Experience suggests it isn't and church leaders over egg omelettes for all sorts of reasons from genuine mistakes across to blatant manipulation and exploitation/abuse.
Tbh Richard Taylor was setting himself up for it with claims that couldn't be substantiated. It may be that working with a particular client group - which VC do and do well from personal experience - that this is the kind of high that such groups need like oxygen. For some it's a replacement for a high they once had from drink or drugs, for some in our churches it's what I'd see as the constant drive for the new and shiny. But there's nothing new under the sun ....
The plagiarism raised the flag that was already half mast on claims of a "Welsh Outpouring" that impacted a church not a community. [Information from a local ecumenical colleague who ministered in the area until a couple of years ago and who is not unsympathetic to the cause of revival like me]. The danger now is that we focus on the plagiarism not the rest and miss an opportunity to bring wisdom and healing into difficult circumstances.
Sadly the cynical part of my brain is waiting for the announcement that Richard fell into moral failure as a result of the stress of the revival and/or the criticism of it all .... it's a well worn track. I pray and hope not for everyone's sake.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Eutychus - cross posted as I was writing a lengthy reply.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity Killed...
Plagiarism is taken extremely seriously at a much lower level than degree level. So your argument about undergraduate level study doesn't hold up.
But I never said that it was not taken seriously at undergraduate level, but rather that someone like Richard Taylor would probably not have had an acute awareness of its seriousness. A probable silence on the issue on a particular course does not mean that it would not be taken seriously were it to arise.
We need to assess Taylor's likely level of accountability given his background, before making serious moral judgments about his character and spiritual integrity (knowing that God will judge us with the same level of severity and lack of sympathy - "with the judgment you use, you will be judged").
Furthermore, it may not have occurred to some people that reposting an article on a website is in the same moral category as cheating in coursework. Such a failing could therefore be down to nothing more than human weakness. If someone of the recognised spiritual stature of John Wesley can fail in this regard, then I think someone of Richard Taylor's background should be shown a bit more understanding.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
You have completely ignored the argument put forward in my last post, which includes, for your benefit, an assumption that Taylor was plagiarising unawares.
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
1. .... but rather that someone like Richard Taylor would probably not have had an acute awareness of its seriousness. A probable silence on the issue on a particular course does not mean that it would not be taken seriously were it to arise.
2. We need to assess Taylor's likely level of accountability given his background, before making serious moral judgments about his character and spiritual integrity (knowing that God will judge us with the same level of severity and lack of sympathy - "with the judgment you use, you will be judged").
3. Furthermore, it may not have occurred to some people that reposting an article on a website is in the same moral category as cheating in coursework.
1. There's no silence on this at BBI - so he would have been aware.
2. So accountability is situational and personal? I really can't see that. And no, I am not making moral judgements about his character -- I'm pointing out where things don't add up and where this adversely affects the lives of others and projects a false view of the church and the Kingdom.
I can only repeat what I've said before: neither my eyes nor my heart is closed to God working in any ways he chooses. I've experienced it too and encouraged it and taught it. I just believe that "decently and in order" apply.
3. True, "it may not have occurred." But, we can't know and it's very close to standard rules on plagiarism. I find it hard to accept that it is 100% accidental esp. given the alacrity with which it was removed (no, that doesn't prove repentance over it either).
[code]
[ 20. August 2014, 06:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We need to assess Taylor's likely level of accountability given his background, before making serious moral judgments about his character and spiritual integrity (knowing that God will judge us with the same level of severity and lack of sympathy - "with the judgment you use, you will be judged").
On reflection, I think one reason this discussion has got bogged down is this over-moralistic tone.
As I said just now, I saw the plagiarism above all as a common-sense warning sign, not first and foremost as cause for some profound moral judgement.
If I see the oil pressure light go on in my car, I don't think the car is evil or needs to be scrapped. I think I need to check the oil. The lack of response of the church was another warning sign. I can ignore my car's temperature gauge too, and it still doesn't mean my car is evil. But if I keep on driving without paying attention to all those warning lights, chances are the engine will seize up. Now, in Victory Church, it apparently has, leaving a whole load of people in the lurch. That is all.
And I'm tending to agree with EM that further insistence on plagiarism (which I have trouble spelling, to boot) is now irrelevant here (and EM, your PM box is full).
If anyone has the fortitude to start a separate thread on the ins and outs of plagiarism and why not derivative art while we're at it, feel free. I don't think there's a lot more to say on it here with respect to Cwmbran that hasn't already been said.
[ 20. August 2014, 06:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
Thirdly, having alerted a trustee to RT's plagiarism, I said here that another important indicator would be how the church responded. If they had responded with an apology (as Wesley did, by the way) I would have given them all the benefit of the doubt, but they didn't.
But how the church responds is not for you to judge, but for God to judge. You are piqued because they did not respond to you, but, with all due respect, your personal sensitivities don't actually matter in this situation, as far as their personal integrity is concerned. What matters is whether they actually stop doing the wrong. Frankly, I think this is more about you demanding personal vindication and acknowledgment, than anything to do with correcting VC.
Call it a proof text if you like, but I am reminded of something Jesus said:
quote:
“But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go, work today in my vineyard.’ He answered and said, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he regretted it and went. Then he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?”
They said to Him, “The first.”
(Matthew 21:28-31)
It seems obvious to me that what Jesus is saying is that actions are what really matter. While it would have been nice to have had a response from VC, what really matters to God is that they actually did respond by pulling the material. But because you haven't had your acknowledgement, you now interpret this as a cover-up.
OK, well let's talk about cover-ups then.
You say:
quote:
Now stop dragging Wesley into this and address the current sorry situation.
I have presented historical evidence that one of the most recognised Christian leaders in history was guilty of plagiarism (and if you read the article I linked to, you will learn that he did actually try to cover up another fault, when he was threatened with exposure by two former friends of his). He was a man with an excellent academic background (Oxford University), in an age when information was not as 'cheap' as it is today. As a righteous man of conservative instinct (who spoke out against, for example, the evil of smuggling here on the south coast of England where I live - a similar issue about which many were morally lax), he would surely have known the law concerning intellectual property and would have been expected to have been aware of the statute protecting author's rights, which had been in force for over sixty years when he committed his misdemeanour. He committed the act well into his ministry, though he was far from the end of it, so dementia could not be cited as the reason for it. And yet for all this, the Methodists did not consider his 'sin' a "red flag" that spoke to his spiritual integrity or his fitness for leadership.
Now you want to cover up this historical evidence of how plagiarism can be a manifestation of nothing more than human weakness even in a prominent Christian leader. You are clearly embarrassed by these facts, hence you tell me to stop dragging Wesley into it. But it is completely relevant, quite irrespective of the fact that Wesley is a historical figure. Sin is sin whatever the century in which it was committed. However you judge Richard Taylor concerning plagiarism, you also need to judge John Wesley in the same way. Clearly you are not prepared to do so, so you try to engage in a cover up by trying to shut me up about this. Perhaps I should take this as a "red flag" to question your fitness for Christian ministry?
I am not going to allow the evidence to be buried, as you seem to want.
(And as for "addressing the current sorry situation", well, that is exactly what I am doing and have been doing.)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Good for you.
They're en-mired in deceit.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Frankly, I think this is more about you demanding personal vindication and acknowledgment, than anything to do with correcting VC.
You are wrong. As far as I'm concerned, the issue called for a public response in the same medium as it originally occurred. I didn't take the lack of a personal response as a personal slight, but it plus the lack of any acknowledgement at all was another warning sign.
quote:
While it would have been nice to have had a response from VC, what really matters to God is that they actually did respond by pulling the material.
That is not enough, for reasons explained ad nauseam. Don't you think the likes of the pastor I have quoted twice now deserve to know that content they say they used to make a good-faith judgement about the godliness and genuineness of the ministry did not originate from that ministry at all?
Pulling the blog tells us they knew they had been caught. In the absence of any response, it's another warning sign.
quote:
Now you want to cover up this historical evidence of how plagiarism can be a manifestation of nothing more than human weakness even in a prominent Christian leader.
This is complete nonsense. I don't want to cover up the evidence of Wesley's plagiarism at all. You have been doing a pretty good job of presenting it, and nobody's suppressed it.
What I do dispute, along with plenty of other people here, is its relevance. ExclamationMark, amongst others, has put the case in that respect and I don't see the need to repeat his arguments, which you have not addressed.
If you think you're interacting intelligently with the topic in hand, so be it. I don't, and I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you are, to my mind, simply digging yourself a deeper hole.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Also to EE:
I also meant to say, if you think I was completely mistaken to read Taylor's plagiarism and the subsequent responses (both the sudden pulling of his blog and the lack of any other response) as warning signs, then that's your right. But in the light of how things appear to be developing, I think (and that's my right), that they've turned out to be pretty good ones.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Give it up, EE. You're trying to defend what is absolutely indefensible. And no, it doesn't mean everything Victory Church has ever done is worthless, but it is a significant red flag regarding their trustworthiness.
And I say this as someone who is completely on board with the broad concept of charismatic renewal / revival.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
And thirdly...
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But how the church responds is not for you to judge, but for God to judge.
You are right in absolutum. But like the hapless pastor whose recommendation of RT I quoted, I am in a church leadership position and people in our congregation look to me to offer them guidance.
The only way I know how to do that is to tell people what I honestly think with the light that I have - and yes, somebody in my church went to Cwmbran and asked me what I thought about it before going. If you want to call that judgement then so be it. If you want to ignore it, fine.
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity Killed...
Plagiarism is taken extremely seriously at a much lower level than degree level. So your argument about undergraduate level study doesn't hold up.
But I never said that it was not taken seriously at undergraduate level, but rather that someone like Richard Taylor would probably not have had an acute awareness of its seriousness. A probable silence on the issue on a particular course does not mean that it would not be taken seriously were it to arise.
You have clipped the bit where I pointed out that plagiarism is taken seriously at GCSE level too. I will try to make it clearer: students are told continuously that the wholesale copying of unattributed sources is a problem from the minute they get near computers, as they are prone to copy and paste chunks of Wikipedia rather than research, because it is seen as such an issue.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
One of the results of submission of assignments and essays electronically is that there are numerous programmes which can pick up plagiarism so quickly. These are not very expensive either, so schools can use them and deal with issues promptly.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I simply don't believe that anybody in a responsible position, especially one in which one might reasonably be expected to be informed by a moral and ethical system, would think that it is acceptable to take other people's thoughts and pass them off as your own. Hell, even on the Ship we tend to distinguish between what we think is original and what we know is not. Either Richard Taylor has been dishonest, which calls his ministry and his claims into question, or he has exhibited extraordinarily careless and sloppy judgement,which is perhaps marginally less personally blameworthy but still raises a lot of questions.
EE, you've shown energy and ingenuity in seeking to defend poor practice: just think what you might achieve if you devoted your energy and ingenuity to promoting something good and worthwhile.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But I never said that it was not taken seriously at undergraduate level, but rather that someone like Richard Taylor would probably not have had an acute awareness of its seriousness. A probable silence on the issue on a particular course does not mean that it would not be taken seriously were it to arise.
We need to assess Taylor's likely level of accountability given his background, before making serious moral judgments about his character and spiritual integrity (knowing that God will judge us with the same level of severity and lack of sympathy - "with the judgment you use, you will be judged").
Furthermore, it may not have occurred to some people that reposting an article on a website is in the same moral category as cheating in coursework. Such a failing could therefore be down to nothing more than human weakness. If someone of the recognised spiritual stature of John Wesley can fail in this regard, then I think someone of Richard Taylor's background should be shown a bit more understanding.
Why are you defending him so desperately?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
If you think you're interacting intelligently with the topic in hand, so be it. I don't, and I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you are, to my mind, simply digging yourself a deeper hole.
I don't think I am digging a hole at all, and judging by your approach to this, if you thought I was interacting intelligently with the topic, then I would be worried. I expect someone of your position and attitude to despise my criticism of you. It doesn't surprise me.
I have always affirmed that plagiarism is wrong. As I made clear on a previous thread, one of the factors that led to my losing my previous job concerned copyright violation (not by me, I hasten to add, but widespread piracy of a bestseller in a major overseas market, which resulted in huge loss of income). I have personally suffered great financial loss as a direct result of the violation of copyright law. Therefore I think that I am in a strong moral position to speak into this issue, and frankly I think you are straining a gnat. It's sheer desperation.
If you want to rubbish VC and the alleged 'revival', then start addressing the spiritual and theological issues. I have certainly been critical of Richard Taylor - see here concerning the comment about Steve Chalke. I am not a supporter of VC, have never been there and I certainly affirm that plagiarism is wrong. But what I am arguing for is perspective. (BTW, you may want to take note of the comments I quoted in the post I have just linked to - posts by Drewthealexander and fletcher christian. They describe the problem perfectly).
I find it unbelievable that you accuse me of holding to a 'binary' view of morality. Rarely on the Ship - or in the real world - have I seen a Christian with such an absolutist, technocratic view of morality, as you have. I am the one who is trying to take a more complex and nuanced view. It is generally known as intelligence.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Why are you defending him so desperately?
Why is Eutychus et al attacking him so desperately?
I am simply defending him, because I believe that everyone "deserves a fair trial". Funny, but I thought a debate involved the expression of different and even opposing positions. Or am I supposed to get into line and submit to the latest bullying trend on the Ship? (After all, this site has a terrible track record concerning cyberbullying - something far far more serious than plagiarism, and yet I don't see Eutychus speaking out against that!)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
if you thought I was interacting intelligently with the topic, then I would be worried.
Do you mean you think I'm not taking you seriously? If so, please explain why, and if not, please clarify. quote:
I expect someone of your position and attitude to despise my criticism of you.
Which position would that be? And what evidence do you have that I despise your criticism of me.
quote:
I have always affirmed that plagiarism is wrong.
Which is why I find it perplexing that you should devote so much time and energy to arguing that since Wesley did it and everyone respects him, that it's not that much of a big deal.
quote:
If you want to rubbish VC and the alleged 'revival', then start addressing the spiritual and theological issues.
As far as I can see, that has been the historical line taken by the blog linked to in the OP and several other out there. The end result is, in my view, not pretty (the more extreme end links VC's lack of soundness to the logo on the pulpit resembling a symbol of Rosicrucianism, and so on).
My contention is that it should be possible for christians to agree, irrespective of theological differences, and without lapsing into technical theolgical debate, on some simple warning signs that indicate leaders and those they are leading are in danger.
quote:
Rarely on the Ship - or in the real world - have I seen a Christian with such an absolutist, technocratic view of morality, as you have.
I await your examples, and answers to my other questions in this post, with interest.
Here.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Why are you defending him so desperately?
Why is Eutychus et al attacking him so desperately?
I wouldn't call it "desperate". There is a demonstrable, proven, misdemeanour. There is (now) the fact that he's apparently been removed from his position by VC, which suggests that the initial concerns raised by that misdemeanour were on to something. It's perfectly valid to point that out.
In contrast, you have used every trick in the book to make out that what he did wasn't wrong, or if it was wrong that it wasn't particularly important, or if it was important that plenty of other church leaders have done it as well so we should leave him alone.
quote:
I am simply defending him, because I believe that everyone "deserves a fair trial".
Devil's Advocate, then?
quote:
Funny, but I thought a debate involved the expression of different and even opposing positions.
It does. I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it, I just don't understand why you're so insistent on defending someone who has been proved to be in the wrong.
quote:
Or am I supposed to get into line and submit to the latest bullying trend on the Ship?
So now pointing out a demonstrable, proven misdemeanour is "bullying"?
quote:
(After all, this site has a terrible track record concerning cyberbullying - something far far more serious than plagiarism, and yet I don't see Eutychus speaking out against that!)
The hell it does. I'd ask for your evidence for such a ridiculous claim, if it weren't for the fact that I know it's just one more attempt to obfuscate the issue and switch attention away from Taylor's plagiarism, for whatever reason.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Why are you defending him so desperately?
Why is Eutychus et al attacking him so desperately?
I'm not attacking Richard Taylor or attempting to put him on trial. I hope against hope that he and his family is receiving (in all senses of the word) the appropriate support and counselling, that somebody with some sense is similarly helping the church leadership and congregation, and that he will come to his senses if he hasn't already done so. I also hope that all that might lead to some repentance and reparation.
As far as I can see, the church is facing meltdown. They are having to cancel major evangelistic events. Thousands of people have invested time, money, energy and spiritual devotion into it.
If through our collective discussions we can raise awareness of what might have gone wrong and how it might have been dealt with at an earlier stage - for instance by identifying and heeding simple warning signs - (and thus done less damage) then something useful for the body of Christ will have been achieved.
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I have now personally written to Victory Church, and without mentioning any names (not that I know anyone here anyway, because you're virtually all anonymous) I have explained to them the nature of the debate in which I have been engaged. I have set out my position to them and encouraged them accordingly. I have, of course, given them my real name and location.
I hope that this will act as a counterweight to the many attacks on them and on Richard Taylor personally.
As a Christian I feel that this is the least I could do.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Vroom ... vroom ... the wheels are spinning, the mud is splattering and the car is still in the ditch.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have now personally written to Victory Church, and without mentioning any names (not that I know anyone here anyway, because you're virtually all anonymous) I have explained to them the nature of the debate in which I have been engaged. I have set out my position to them and encouraged them accordingly. I have, of course, given them my real name and location.
I hope that this will act as a counterweight to the many attacks on them and on Richard Taylor personally.
As a Christian I feel that this is the least I could do.
Why are you telling us this?
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm glad you are showing VC genuine Christian love and charity, EE - but Eutychus was doing the self same thing in pointing out the errors and plagiarism on their website.
Christian love isn't about condoning the uncondonable.
I'm sure you mean well here, and I applaud that. But I'm not sure you're acting altogether wisely.
I can't get inside your head - nor would I wish to - but from what you're saying here and how you're arguing it seems to me - I said 'seems' - that you are perhaps motivated by a desire to defend the kind of spirituality that Victory Church represents.
South Coast Kevin also shares that spirituality to an extent and isn't out to knock it - but that doesn't mean that he turns a blind eye to the wrong-doing that has clearly taken place there.
I might well be wrong and I can ride certain hobby-horses into the ground myself at times - but that's how it appears to me.
It's a free country and you can do as you please so I'm not criticising you for expressing some kind of support to the leaders at VC. I wouldn't be at all surprised, though, if they sent you a 'thank you' message - whereas Eutychus's legitimate criticisms in his approach were met by a resounding silence.
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on that.
As per your academic credentials. Yes, I did doubt them. I was wrong to do so. However, the way you post and the kind of arguments you adopt do genuinely surprise me - and continue to surprise me - given that self same academic background.
In fact, I'm pretty gobsmacked.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As ever, EE's response is transparently NOTHING to do with the failure at VC.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why are you telling us this?
I suspect because EE feels he has the moral high ground on this one and the rest of us don't.
And he's protecting that moral high-ground with accusations of cyber-bullying.
Thereby putting himself above contradiction and reproach.
That might sound ad hominem but that's how it looks to me.
[code]
[ 20. August 2014, 10:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
...the rest of us...
QED
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
Why are you telling us this?
Presumably for the same reason you told the whole world and his budgerigar about your missive to Victory Church (something you keep going on and on and on and on and on about, and still desperately waiting for a reply....)
Oh, silly me! Different rules apply to different people on this site (quite in keeping with its ethos, I see).
[ 20. August 2014, 10:31: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I have answered you on the Hell thread to keep this one on topic.
[ 20. August 2014, 10:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Sorry, but I am not going on the hell thread, because I am fed up with the abuse* on that board. I've got better things to do.
*(And yes, I know I am guilty of dishing it out in the past - even the very recent past - on hell threads. I repent and stay away.)
[ 20. August 2014, 10:42: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As ever, EE's response is transparently NOTHING to do with the failure at VC.
Martin: you're wrong on this one. Not "as ever", just in this case.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Sorry, but I am not going on the hell thread, because I am fed up with the abuse* on that board. I've got better things to do.
OK, well then keep off the ad hominem suppositions about my motivations, stay within the Purg rules, and answer my question. Why, here on this board, are you telling us you wrote to Victory Church? Not why you imagine I wrote, why you told us you wrote.
[ 20. August 2014, 11:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have now personally written to Victory Church, and without mentioning any names (not that I know anyone here anyway, because you're virtually all anonymous) I have explained to them the nature of the debate in which I have been engaged. I have set out my position to them and encouraged them accordingly. I have, of course, given them my real name and location.
Yes, that's right. Continue to promote the view that if you're "doing God's work" it doesn't matter if you lie, cheat, plagiarise, or do anything else that is fundamentally opposed to the spirit of truth and integrity (both personal and corporate) that should be the foundation of Christian ministry. Continue to perpetuate the idea that God's Anointed Ones can do no wrong, and if anyone points out any such wrongdoing then it is they who are at fault, not the Anointed Ones themselves.
Hell, it's not like such an attitude has ever led to severe and profound failings before. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
EE - you are a bright bloke but sometimes it seems to me that you enjoy taking up an 'EE Contra Mundum' stance ...
That's fine, provided, as Albertus has observed, it's a cause worth fighting for and a position worth defending. In this instance I'm not convinced there is such a position to defend. But then, you are well within your rights to seek to defend whatever it is you are seeking to defend.
By the 'rest of us' I was simply referring to the general consensus on this thread. You'll notice that people from different theological backgrounds and approaches are largely agreed here on this particular issue - irrespective of what other variances there might be in theology and approach.
You also appear to be accusing Eutychus of waging some kind of one-man crusade on issues like this. That's not how it comes over to me at all. I've never met Eutychus so he's not my 'mate' in the sense you've suggested.
I've never met South Coast Kevin either - and he and I often disagree about things but hopefully without us falling out and it becoming personal.
I'm by no means suggesting that the majority view is always the right one. In this instance, if it were only people of a certain persuasion who were meting out criticism of Victory Church then I'd agree with you ... but it isn't.
I'm not engaging on the Hell thread either. But I can see why the Hell call was issued.
To get back to the OP - I'm just hoping that the fall-out from all of this isn't too damaging. Given the very vulnerable people involved - drug addicts, people with alcohol problems etc etc - I can't imagine that it will all pass over smoothly.
Equally, I can imagine there being a feeding frenzy of 'I told you so' gloating on the part of some of the other churches in the area - which won't help either.
It's always sad when this sort of thing happens. But it looks like what's happening is what we've seen a number of times in churches of this kind - which leads me to believe that there are systemic problems in revivalist style fellowships.
Other kinds of church have other kinds of systemic problems.
I'm not singling VC out over against anywhere else - all churches have their problems and issues.
I just hope they can salvage something from the rubble when it all collapses in on top of them.
![[Frown]](frown.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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin... Biohazard
As ever, EE's response is transparently NOTHING to do with the failure at VC.
I'm promoting the case for the defence.
For the prosecution to pressure the defence into incriminating the defendant, is what one would call 'corruption'.
I don't do Kangaroo Court morality. Sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
OK, well then keep off the ad hominem suppositions...
Thank you for that rebuke. I can't find the same rebuke directed at Gamaliel, but I assume you'll have a private word with him about it. And no, this is not a tu quoque, because I am not justifying ad hominem attacks, in case Marvin starts on again about that.
quote:
Why, here on this board, are you telling us you wrote to Victory Church? Not why you imagine I wrote, why you told us you wrote.
You have already heard an answer: because apparently "EE feels he has the moral high ground on this one and the rest of us don't."
If I contradict that 'analysis' will anyone believe me? On the evidence of this thread, I doubt it. So I guess I will just have to let Gamaliel's words stand.
Why should I bother giving an answer if no one pays it any attention? I may be many things, but I am not a fool.
By the way... why did you tell us that you wrote to Victory Church?
x-posted with Gamaliel
[ 20. August 2014, 11:33: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
OK, well then keep off the ad hominem suppositions...
Thank you for that rebuke. I can't find the same rebuke directed at Gamaliel, but I assume you'll have a private word with him about it.
I am posting on this thread in my capacity as a Shipmate, and in doing so I am following customary practice of recusing myself from any hostly role on it.
If you have a problem with how this is being hosted, complain to another host or take it to the Styx is my unofficial advice.
quote:
quote:
Why, here on this board, are you telling us you wrote to Victory Church? Not why you imagine I wrote, why you told us you wrote.
You have already heard an answer: because apparently "EE feels he has the moral high ground on this one and the rest of us don't."
That is someone else's speculation. I asked you.
quote:
By the way... why did you tell us that you wrote to Victory Church?
You may have opted not to post on the Hell thread, and I'll leave others to be the judge of why that might be, but you could at least read the explanation I gave there.
[corrected link]
[ 20. August 2014, 11:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
To get back to the OP - I'm just hoping that the fall-out from all of this isn't too damaging. Given the very vulnerable people involved - drug addicts, people with alcohol problems etc etc - I can't imagine that it will all pass over smoothly.
As you may possibly have your finger on the spiritual pulse in South Wales (I know you're based in the north of England, but are Welsh by background), perhaps you could confirm that the churches there, which are highly critical of VC, have successful programmes for bringing healing and blessing to drug addicts, alcoholics and ex-offenders? I assume those churches are operating in the kind of blessings we read about in the Book of Acts?
After all, don't you think that VC should be criticised from a position of moral justification?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
perhaps you could confirm that the churches there, which are highly critical of VC, have successful programmes for bringing healing and blessing to drug addicts, alcoholics and ex-offenders?
Let's assume for the moment that VC had all those things.
It may have escaped your notice, but Victory Church has just had its founding pastor, who also headed up its rehab programme, dismissed, allegedly on grounds of "moral failure".
Don't you think this turn of events is sending shock waves through the church and indeed, is in danger of destroying any good that was there? (Indeed, the most charitable explanation I can come up with for their silence is that they are still reeling).
As I posted earlier, they are having to cancel major evangelistic events at short notice. That must hurt financially apart from anything else.
Do you think none of us here (for instance, in my final paragraph here) don't feel for the church and its congregation, the vulnerable first and foremost??
And do you really think any of this is the result of our online comments?
What does it matter what other churches are or aren't doing? Any success Victory Church may have had is seriously compromised as of now. We can have theological pissing contests till the cows come home. Right now, theology and programmes aside, they are part of the body of Christ and that body is suffering, so we should be suffering too. I can't imagine what this is doing to the addicts in their programme.
Don't you think there's mileage in bringing to light the possible causes for this meltdown and trying to learn from the mistakes made?
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Eutychus -
I have read your explanation on the hell thread.
I think it is right for Christians to defend and encourage one another, when there is a public debate concerning the faults of any section of the church. I also think it is a righteous thing to inform those engaged in the public debate that such encouragement has been given.
I don't feel that it is right to reproduce the letter here, because it is personal correspondence. I did let VC have the url of the home page of SOF, because it is a publicly available debate on a publicly available site. I did not give the thread url, but if they are interested I am sure they can find the debate. I think the members of the church have a right to know what people are publicly saying about them.
I think it is also right that those engaging in the debate realise that I am serious about this issue, and not merely playing "devil's advocate", as if I am just bored and treating this as a kind of computer game.
That is the reason. (Along with, of course, the desire to morally look down on the rest of you. Or something like that, apparently! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) )
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think it is right for Christians to defend and encourage one another, when there is a public debate concerning the faults of any section of the church.
You'd apply this in all cases? Rwandan genocides, RC kiddy-fiddlers? (Yes, I know that in the overall scheme of things these are bigger issues than a bit of plagiarism in the Gwent valleys, but I'm just probing to see how far your principle extends.)
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think the members of the church have a right to know what people are publicly saying about them.
Very little. Pretty much the whole discussion has been about a single (former) leader of theirs.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
I think it is right for Christians to defend and encourage one another, when there is a public debate concerning the faults of any section of the church.
You'd apply this in all cases? Rwandan genocides, RC kiddy-fiddlers? (Yes, I know that in the overall scheme of things these are bigger issues than a bit of plagiarism in the Gwent valleys, but I'm just probing to see how far your principle extends.)
The discussion of the Rwandan genocide and child abuse in the Catholic Church were highly public debates. I really don't think that those examples qualify as "talking about issues behind someone's back". The RCC was aware of these concerns, and, of course, there have been those who have sought to come to the Church's defence, if the Church could be defended in any way.
There is a world of difference between these kinds of issues and the constant drip drip drip of criticism about a supposedly dodgy church, that goes on among "members of the choir in a back room", as it were (even if "the back room" is technically public, as in the case of an internet message board).
(BTW, I'm glad you acknowledge that there are indeed "bigger issues" than "a bit of plagiarism in the Gwent Valleys". Much much bigger issues, I would say.)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
But you specifically talked about defending and supporting each other in public debates, so I don't get the first point you make here about 'talking about isssues behind someone's back'.
BTW just because nobody's getting killed or sexually abused (as far as we know, and we have no reason to think that they might be) at VC, doesn't mean that the questions raised here are negligible. There are bigger issues in the overall scheme of things, but to those involved these issues may well be big enough.
[ 20. August 2014, 12:29: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The discussion of the Rwandan genocide and child abuse in the Catholic Church were highly public debates.
This is obviously not on the same scale, but the issue has been made highly public by the highly public profile Victory Church has sought to give itself on the national stage and beyond, inviting people from all over to its outpouring.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
EE - I grew up in Cwmbran. I still have relatives in the area. I know something about the church scene down there.
As it happens, in a number of places on this thread I've been critical of the way some of the other churches in the area appear to be gloating over what's happening at VC. There was that link in the OP, remember. I was very critical of the tone of that.
I've also said that VC's drug-rehabilitation programme and outreach was respected. I seem to remember on one of the previous threads about Cwmbran, AberVicar telling us all how some nuns in Bristol would refer people to it.
There were others who expressed some concerns about the programme and the way it was run.
What I'm saying is that I think it's a shame that the valuable work that VC has been doing in working with vulnerable people etc could be jeopardised by all of this.
I'm also saying, however, that the kind of spirituality and over-blown approach that VC has been taking has made this an accident waiting to happen.
Back in the day, when I was involved with the charismatic restorationist churches I used to opine that the way the churches were run would eventually erase some of the good work that they had undoubtedly done ... that the recalcitrance of the leadership would effectively undermine what they had laboured so hard to build.
I still stand by that.
I suspect a similar thing is going on in the case of VC.
I'm not out to make invidious comparisons between VC and the other churches in Cwmbran. All the churches there have strengths and weaknesses like churches anywhere else.
I don't see, however, why we should have to see 'revival' or apparent revival as the defining feature or measure of the 'success' (whatever that means in this case) of any particular church.
I'm simply concerned about the fall-out from all of this and the people who are likely to be hurt and damaged by it. I just hope that there are other churches there which can cope with the fall-out.
--------------------
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
As far as the Book of Acts goes, show me any church anywhere in the country that is enjoying the blessings and power that we read about in the Book of Acts.
There aren't any.
Sure, there are semblances of it and some churches which are enjoying growth and blessing.
But nobody is seeing large scale healings on the way that is so often claimed. No-one is seeing major revival. There have been no documented and attested healings from the so-called 'Welsh Outpouring' in Cwmbran that I am aware of - simply the usual unsubstantiated claims that we have come to expect from certain quarters of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements.
The danger with getting all caught up in those kind of expectations is that we miss the very real work that is going on quietly and unspectacularly without anyone making a great deal of fuss and a song and dance about it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Given Eutychus' Hell thread, I shall be monitoring this thread very carefully for signs of personality conflict masquerading as argument. If you want to get personal, there's now somewhere for you to take that.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
There have been no documented and attested healings from the so-called 'Welsh Outpouring' in Cwmbran that I am aware of - simply the usual unsubstantiated claims that we have come to expect from certain quarters of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements.
What do you mean by "documented and attested" healings?
Documented and attested by whom and for whom?
I would have thought that many healings could never be proven to be miraculous, because there is always the possibility - no matter how slim - that a naturalistic explanation would suffice. There is even the little bit of "naturalism of the gaps" sophistry known as "spontaneous remission", when all else fails! (That is not to say that there is no such thing as "spontaneous remission", because, of course, there may indeed be natural factors in operation that we simply do not yet understand. However, it doesn't follow that all such healings, which cannot be given a standard natural explanation, should fall into this category.)
A person who is a convinced atheist will, of course, never accept the explanation of a miraculous event whatever the nature of the healing. I think that this is also true of many theistic sceptics. Perhaps a dramatic restoration of an amputee's limb is the only exception to this.
Now given this impossibly severe burden of proof, many Christians will simply not care whether their alleged healings are "documented or attested" or not. Why should they try to prove something to people who are so hard to convince? Why should they have to?
Take the case of Paul Haynes at Victory Church. I have read that apparently he did not need a wheelchair on a permanent basis before the alleged healing, and this is presented as evidence that the healing was stage managed. I responded to just such an allegation on one website by pointing out that, as a care worker, I can say with some authority that there are many genuinely disabled people with severe mobility problems who do not need to use a wheelchair on a permanent basis. Severely restricted mobility does not imply an inability to walk. Many people with, for example, acquired brain injury may have mobility problems and an 'unnatural' gait - with an almost total inability to run - but they do not need to use a wheelchair, or perhaps only occasionally will they require one. It is quite amazing what physiotheraphy can do to get a person walking again, after having been injured in a serious accident. But this therapy is a long process, and to suggest that a dramatic increase in mobility, such as being able to run around a room normally, is merely the result of the placebo effect, is just totally unrealistic.
Another charge directed at Paul Haynes concerns his smoking. I think you mentioned this earlier in the thread. This is taken as evidence to cast doubt, not only on his healing, but also his conversion! I find this really bizarre. It doesn't follow that a dramatic physical healing must inevitably involve a sudden reduction in psychological stress. Some forms of healing may be instantaneous, others more gradual.
Furthermore, if I were subjected to the kind of aspersions cast on Mr Haynes, I think I would feel inclined to reach for the tobacco (or perhaps something even stronger). He is claiming that he experienced dramatic healing, and yet many consider him to be either deceived or a liar. AFAIAC, this smoking accusation is just a desperate case of scraping the barrel on the part of the sceptics.
It has been claimed that the alleged hype surrounding a church like VC will cause the ministry to crash with the shipwreck of the spiritual lives of vulnerable people. I would have thought that it is the cynicism and scepticism of outsiders, who always question every healing claim and every experience of blessing, which is more likely to shipwreck the faith of the vulnerable than any OTT claim by the likes of Richard Taylor!
After all, Jesus Himself made some utterly extraordinary claims, which we struggle to see realised. "You will do greater works..." "Ask and you shall receive..." "These signs shall follow those who believe..." "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth..." and so on and so on. If Richard Taylor is full of hype, it is nothing compared to the expectations generated by our Lord and Saviour! So if 'overinflated' expectations are likely to hurt the vulnerable, then I suggest we keep the needy well away from the Bible and from Jesus Christ Himself!!!
The kind of churchmanship that I grew up with in the Methodist Church so often involved such low expectations of what we could expect from God, that it was terrifyingly depressing. Nothing crushes the spirit like that lack of faith. When I actually came to Christ of my own volition at the age of nineteen I began to encounter Christians with a higher level of expectation. I thank God that I encountered people who actually believed in the baptism in the Holy Spirit and didn't explain it away. I thank God that I met people who believed that we could receive spiritual gifts and great blessing in our lives, otherwise I would have been shipwrecked. Quiet, "low expectation" Christianity would probably have destroyed me.
Unfortunately though, "high expectation" Christianity is dangerous and things can easily go wrong. It is not safe and comfortable. So expect turbulence. But the answer is to get it right, not resort to lowering our expectations of what God can do.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
