|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The "Nashville Statement"
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But if you already think the Religious Right is dangerous then what difference does this document make?
It is the same dynamic mentioned by Crœsos in this post. Especially the Vanishing Nazi. This kind of shite draws people in, especially if they are borderline already and it strengthens the believers.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Exactly. Especially since this statement goes far beyond the usual evangelical denunciations of gay sex as sin to suggest in sections 5, 7 and 8, that any homosexual or transgender "self-conception" or "same-sex attraction" is sin. So it has doubled down on the odious "hate the sin, love the sinner" and just jumped to the finish line of "let's just hate the sinner".
Further, all this is presented without defense or argument, even without the normal clobber verses. We're just supposed to take their word for it, since sec 10 states that disagreement "sets one outside of the gospel".
This is actually rather Trump-like in it's authoritarian, raw meat brutality. Coming as it does just mere weeks after Charlottesville, it's at best tone-deaf and at worst chilling.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Well, I suppose believers like to have something to rally around. But they would needn't to create new 'statements' to rally around if their values weren't already under attack from the wider culture.
The USA is secularising. It may look as if the conservative evangelicals are ruining everything for everyone else, but in truth, they're on the back foot. And I doubt that the angry young white men with the neo-Nazi tendencies are going to be the most devoted signatories of the 'Nashville Statement'!
We'll see. But the American red-neck neo-Nazis and white conservative evangelicals are probably alike in at least one way: both groups are losers in the long term.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We'll see. But the American red-neck neo-Nazis and white conservative evangelicals are probably alike in at least one way: both groups are losers in the long term.
And they both voted overwhelmingly for Trump.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We'll see. But the American red-neck neo-Nazis and white conservative evangelicals are probably alike in at least one way: both groups are losers in the long term.
As often as they have been declared near dead, they still are around. Trump and Brexit show that hate is a little healthier than some would proclaim.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Her I hope they're losers in the long term, not all, or even most, of them are society's losers now.The most ardent Trumpets I know are successful small- town businesspeople and eell- pensioned retirees. The trope that poor, despairing un-/ underemployed blue- collar white people make up the bulk of his fan base just isn't true in .y experience, and I live in solidly GOP rural America.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Her I hope they're losers in the long term, not all, or even most, of them are society's losers now.The most ardent Trumpets I know are successful small- town businesspeople and eell- pensioned retirees. The trope that poor, despairing un-/ underemployed blue- collar white people make up the bulk of his fan base just isn't true in .y experience, and I live in solidly GOP rural America.
I think what fueled the media narrative about workers-for-Trump was the blue-collar demographic in the Rust Belt who went over to Trump, because he was against NAFTA and the TPP, and promised to keep factories open.
Now, the GOP these days is considered economically laissez-faire, so voting for the party in pursuit of economic interventionism had a man-bites-dog quality about it, and that's the kind of thing the media likes to play up, ie. more exciting than "Typical Republicans voters vote Republican again".
But I would tend to agree with LutheranChik, that the vast majority of votes that Trump got were from the sort of people who always vote Republican, with the economically marginalized blue-collar crowd being just enough to push them over the top in a few Rust Belt states, and, following that, the Electoral College.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Last night Nashville's air was filled with the sound of tornado sirens. I won't say for sure it is because of those assholes - but it sure is coincidental.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Further, all this is presented without defense or argument, even without the normal clobber verses. We're just supposed to take their word for it, since sec 10 states that disagreement "sets one outside of the gospel".
To me, that is the clause that is the most disturbing as it essentially closes off any further discussion on the matter, claiming for themselves some sort of quasi-papal-inerrancy.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We'll see. But the American red-neck neo-Nazis and white conservative evangelicals are probably alike in at least one way: both groups are losers in the long term.
As often as they have been declared near dead, they still are around. Trump and Brexit show that hate is a little healthier than some would proclaim.
I don't think Brexit has anything to do with conservative evangelicals, as much as you'd like to blame them for everything!
And Trump's reign will soon be over. AFAIK he was voted in fairly according to the rules of his country, and will be voted out again soon enough - that's if he doesn't leave first, willingly or unwillingly. I understand that some of his voters are unhappy at how things are going.
But with regard to Trump and the evangelicals, I've found an interesting article which claims that there's little likelihood that Trump will reverse the changes taking place in American society, and that he represents the 'death rattle of White Christian America' rather than its 'resuscitation'.
I don't think either white evangelicalism or rednecks will die out. It's more about a loss of power and influence. American evangelicalism will also become much more Latino over time, and white evangelicals will eventually realise that people of colour are helping to keep their churches open. In Britain I think this reality has helped to reduce the amount of blatant racism in the churches.
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Her I hope they're losers in the long term, not all, or even most, of them are society's losers now.The most ardent Trumpets I know are successful small- town businesspeople and eell- pensioned retirees. The trope that poor, despairing un-/ underemployed blue- collar white people make up the bulk of his fan base just isn't true in .y experience, and I live in solidly GOP rural America.
My comment was about neo-Nazis, not about Trump voters. The two groups will overlap, but even if you hate the ground that Trump walks on you have to keep a sense of proportion. A vote for Trump might have been stupid, but I'm sure it wasn't fascistic in every case.
And I didn't say that all of Trump's voters were poor. He wouldn't have won the election if only the poor had voted for him.
[ 01. September 2017, 22:19: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think Brexit has anything to do with conservative evangelicals, as much as you'd like to blame them for everything!
You did have a fair amount of "I believe God has a plan" type comments (which didn't go into considering what that plan was).
There was also a slightly better one that had a bit more thought (broadly in terms of relying on human institutions, though again that didn't consider our institutions).
But while they might have been neccessary/sufficient to swing it Brexit/Remainwards they weren't a core constituency.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think Brexit has anything to do with conservative evangelicals, as much as you'd like to blame them for everything!
I think you are right insofar as conservative Christians in the UK are fairly few in number. So in that sense Brexit in itself didn't have anything to do with them.
That said, a disproportionate number of conservative Christians seemed to support it. I saw plenty of material from the charismatic/pentecostal end of conservative Christianity pushing the usual 'EU as Beast of Revelation' schtick - along with numerous 'prophecies' and the like.
The con-evo end tended towards the Tory-skeptic-at-prayer and tended to shoot for economic arguments. The shameful exception to this was the number of them who seemed to land on the 'Turks are coming!' issue in the days leading up to the referendum itself.
I do think there is a lot of truth in this article
"It is a matter of record that, for the last 4-6 weeks of the campaign, this (entirely imaginary) threat of Turkish immigration was, essentially, the sole message of the ‘Leave’ campaign. Michael Gove gave an, astonishing, 90 minute TV interview, where he responded to every question the audience asked him with ‘Turkish immigration’; the infamous final leaflet of the campaign, delivered to every home in the UK, pressed this message, extraordinarily crudely."
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think Brexit has anything to do with conservative evangelicals, as much as you'd like to blame them for everything!
You did have a fair amount of "I believe God has a plan" type comments (which didn't go into considering what that plan was).
There was also a slightly better one that had a bit more thought (broadly in terms of relying on human institutions, though again that didn't consider our institutions).
But while they might have been neccessary/sufficient to swing it Brexit/Remainwards they weren't a core constituency.
Come again? I don't know what you're talking about. I'm just a MOTR Methodist, so I certainly don't know what God's plans are!
My comments about the future of Christianity and/or Neo-Nazis are based on what I've read and (regarding Britain) what I might have experienced or heard about. It's more sociological than theological. I'll try to post some refs if you can explain what exactly you disagree with.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Further, all this is presented without defense or argument, even without the normal clobber verses. We're just supposed to take their word for it, since sec 10 states that disagreement "sets one outside of the gospel".
To me, that is the clause that is the most disturbing as it essentially closes off any further discussion on the matter, claiming for themselves some sort of quasi-papal-inerrancy.
m
Yes. Rather odd coming from the branch of the Church that had a major tantrum 500 years ago re papal infallibility
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
That said, a disproportionate number of conservative Christians seemed to support [Brexit]. I saw plenty of material from the charismatic/pentecostal end of conservative Christianity pushing the usual 'EU as Beast of Revelation' schtick - along with numerous 'prophecies' and the like.
Well, at least this has nothing to do with Nazism, which seems to be the main concern mentioned above.
The anti-Turkish thing is perhaps more relevant. Islamophobia? Probably. Small town Christians in fairly homogeneous areas may worry about the increasing number of Muslims in neighbouring districts. Churchgoers are also on average older than the general population, and age was a factor in people voting for Brexit.
There are some commentators who suggest practising Muslims will outnumber practising Christians in the UK in the next 20 years. But this isn't about the arrival of 1000s of EU-friendly Turks, or a Muslim takeover. It's actually a sign of secularisation; fewer people identify as Christians, and fewer or those who do practise their faith. Islam simply benefits by default. (Of course, one could argue about what constitutes 'practising' any particular religion.)
FWIW, most of the evangelicals I know about live in cities, and there's really no point in them bemoaning the growth of Muslim communities. That ship sailed long ago. And it didn't have much to do with the EU.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Small town Christians in fairly homogeneous areas may worry about the increasing number of Muslims in neighbouring districts. Churchgoers are also on average older than the general population, and age was a factor in people voting for Brexit.
I should add that googling didn't come up with a clear 'Christian' response to Brexit, but it seems inaccurate to equate Christian conservatism with anti-Europeanism. For example, Anglicans seem to have been more likely to vote for Brexit than RCs, even though the RCC is obviously a more conservative institution than the CofE. There are obviously several reasons for that.
Similarly, non-white conservative Christians in the USA aren't especially focused on the issues that the white Religious Right proritises, which suggests that anything like the Nashville Statement is unlikely to go out of its way to include or engage them. IOW, theological conservatism can't be defined simply by reference to the agenda of one group, no matter how visible that group is.
It would be instructive to know how many named non-white church leaders and thinkers helped to create the document, and whether it's being publicised by any non-white or heavily multiracial congregations.
[ 02. September 2017, 01:36: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For example, Anglicans seem to have been more likely to vote for Brexit than RCs, even though the RCC is obviously a more conservative institution than the CofE. There are obviously several reasons for that.
I imagine a large part of that is down to Anglicans containing the largest percentage of non-big city dwellers of the groups studied, and generally less ethnic.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Further, all this is presented without defense or argument, even without the normal clobber verses. We're just supposed to take their word for it, since sec 10 states that disagreement "sets one outside of the gospel".
This is misleading, you put a phrase in quotes which appears nowhere in the document. What the DENY part of article 10 says is:
quote:
WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.
Saying this is not an issue Christians should agree to disagree on, is not the same as saying anyone who disagrees "sets one outside of the gospel" especially given that in article 8 they state:
quote:
WE DENY that sexual attraction for the same sex is part of the natural goodness of God’s original creation, or that it puts a person outside the hope of the gospel.
I don't agree with the Statement but I don't think it helps to mis-characterise it.
Also, and this is more speculative, but I don't think this is an attempt to speak in some magisterium like way. It is claiming a kind of authority, but it's the same kind of authority that protestants has always claimed, here's Truth as we understand it. So far from being an irony it's exactly in line with the way protestants have always acted.
I also don't believe it's intended as an explanation or a defence of a position, it's a declaration of that position. I think it's purpose is to clarify where certain groups stand, a rallying point if you like. It's not aimed at convincing anyone who doesn't already believe it, merely so people can identify each other. And separate from if necessary - again classic protestant behaviour.
I think what it really is is an attempt to counter the evangelical blogging problem. They're not really trying to declare (and argue) to the whole world that these things are true, that happens but it's a side-effect, they're trying to remind their own constituents who may have been influenced by some popular evangelical/post-evangelical blogs what their own leaders believe.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Further, all this is presented without defense or argument, even without the normal clobber verses. We're just supposed to take their word for it, since sec 10 states that disagreement "sets one outside of the gospel".
This is misleading, you put a phrase in quotes which appears nowhere in the document. What the DENY part of article 10 says is:
quote:
WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.
Saying this is not an issue Christians should agree to disagree on, is not the same as saying anyone who disagrees "sets one outside of the gospel" especially given that in article 8 they state:
quote:
WE DENY that sexual attraction for the same sex is part of the natural goodness of God’s original creation, or that it puts a person outside the hope of the gospel.
I don't agree with the Statement but I don't think it helps to mis-characterise it.
Agreed. I was quoting from memory-- had trouble finding the statement in a form where one could copy-and-paste, clearly I was conflating those two articles in a problematic way. I should have been more careful.
In partial defense, though, I would say I was not objecting to the "we deny" part of article 10 as much as the earlier part-- you need both together to parse the meaning. The "we deny" part you quoted out of context could indeed mean some version of "this is a serious issue and not one to be dismissed"-- if not for what comes before:
quote:
WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that
such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.
That's problematic.
While not saying "outside of the gospel" (which would be more problematic-- I should have been more careful) it is still saying outside of "Christian faithfulness and witness". I would interpret that to mean "you can't be a Christian and believe differently than us on this".
This makes it a lot harder to interpret the "we deny" as simply "this is important" and more like some sort of quasi-papal statement of "believe this or turn in your Christian Club card".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This makes it a lot harder to interpret the "we deny" as simply "this is important" and more like some sort of quasi-papal statement of "believe this or turn in your Christian Club card".
The way I'd put it is they are saying "if you don't believe this then you really don't belong in our Christian Club, which as you know is the best and closest to what God intended".
Which, BTW, many of the signatories of this statement would do with one another on other issues.
If we divide things Christians can disagree on into:
1) Things that make you no longer a Christian or at best make you a heretic
2) Things that are not an issue of being in or out but are nonetheless very important
3) Things on which people may disagree with a clear conscience.
In my experience of evangelicals there's a very clear, small set of beliefs* that make up 1), 3) consists things like how to arrange the flowers and what time is best for Bible Study group to start and almost everything else is in 2).
(*not necessarily the same set for all groups however)
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Also, and this is more speculative, but I don't think this is an attempt to speak in some magisterium like way. It is claiming a kind of authority, but it's the same kind of authority that protestants has always claimed, here's Truth as we understand it.
Rubbish. If there were no de-facto magisteriums, you would not have synods and equivalent or so bloody many divisions and intra-sectual strife. Call it a biscuit or a cookie, it still tastes the same.
quote:
I also don't believe it's intended as an explanation or a defence of a position, it's a declaration of that position. I think it's purpose is to clarify where certain groups stand, a rallying point if you like.
Agree
quote:
It's not aimed at convincing anyone who doesn't already believe it, merely so people can identify each other.
Disagree. It is aimed at the tentative, those they feel might potentially agree but are to cowed/infulenced by "librul" society.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This makes it a lot harder to interpret the "we deny" as simply "this is important" and more like some sort of quasi-papal statement of "believe this or turn in your Christian Club card".
The way I'd put it is they are saying "if you don't believe this then you really don't belong in our Christian Club, which as you know is the best and closest to what God intended".
Which, BTW, many of the signatories of this statement would do with one another on other issues.
If we divide things Christians can disagree on into:
1) Things that make you no longer a Christian or at best make you a heretic
2) Things that are not an issue of being in or out but are nonetheless very important
3) Things on which people may disagree with a clear conscience.
In my experience of evangelicals there's a very clear, small set of beliefs* that make up 1), 3) consists things like how to arrange the flowers and what time is best for Bible Study group to start and almost everything else is in 2).
(*not necessarily the same set for all groups however)
Agreed. Historically, Christians have seen #1 as limited to the Nicene or Apostle's Creed. I would say that our understanding of LGBTQ issues lies in #2. But my parsing of article 10 seems to be that the authors are placing that in #1, in a rather preemptory, assuming consensus, papal fiat sort of way.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Historically, Christians have seen #1 as limited to the Nicene or Apostle's Creed. I would say that our understanding of LGBTQ issues lies in #2. But my parsing of article 10 seems to be that the authors are placing that in #1, in a rather preemptory, assuming consensus, papal fiat sort of way.
Not just preemptory but nigh-blasphemously absurd. The evilness of being gay is just as important as the Incarnation and the Trinity? It shows a severe misunderstanding of the Gospel and historical theology, I'd say.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Historically, Christians have seen #1 as limited to the Nicene or Apostle's Creed. I would say that our understanding of LGBTQ issues lies in #2. But my parsing of article 10 seems to be that the authors are placing that in #1, in a rather preemptory, assuming consensus, papal fiat sort of way.
Not just preemptory but nigh-blasphemously absurd. The evilness of being gay is just as important as the Incarnation and the Trinity? It shows a severe misunderstanding of the Gospel and historical theology, I'd say.
And by tying their neuvo-apostolic statement not just to gay marriage or sex, but to homosexual or transgender "self-conception" they are not just throwing those nasty Catholics and Piskies off the Christian bus. They're even throwing the vast majority of conservative evangelicals off as well. It's going to be a very, very small group gathering for their Kristian Klub meetings.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
....
Come again? I don't know what you're talking about. I'm just a MOTR Methodist, so I certainly don't know what God's plans are!
...
[/QB]
It may be a rural thing perhaps. MoTR methodism isn't exactly peak Trump territory either. In any case it was a long-long way from the happening in America.
It's definitely something I heard a few times around then (not enough to really respond too).
Most were from the more consistently tory/ukip (though it was the odd ones I remember in more detail, below). It was rather odd because I don't think they were claiming to know God's plans either:
Visiting a church that would probably strongly identify as Con-Evo one of those weeks, I distinctly remember noticing the prayers or sermon having slightly more brexity language than the less Con-Evo one I attended in the same town.
The one that stuck out as bizarre was someone who'd left unsure, and come back posting about.their leave vote with that (it would have made sense to justify voting with their gut and hence, as it happened, leave)
The final one (which again helped lock the memory in place) was in the aftermath from a remainer, looking on the bright side (where I fully agree with them, but it was odd to see the same phrase).
Another (from the one time CU leader) stood out because it drew on biblical narratives (and while in my opinion, far from watertight) appeared to show some thought.
[ 02. September 2017, 17:26: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
But isn't that the point of these 'groups'? The smaller they are, the More Right (as in Correct) they are.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But isn't that the point of these 'groups'? The smaller they are, the More Right (as in Correct) they are.
IJ
And then one also gets the emotional satisfaction of going all Elijah & crying "oppression!" "the whole world is against us!" and being the persecuted minority-- without the inconvenience of having to, you know, endure actual persecution.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Visiting a church that would probably strongly identify as Con-Evo one of those weeks, I distinctly remember noticing the prayers or sermon having slightly more brexity language than the less Con-Evo one I attended in the same town.
The one that stuck out as bizarre was someone who'd left unsure, and come back posting about.their leave vote with that (it would have made sense to justify voting with their gut and hence, as it happened, leave)
The final one (which again helped lock the memory in place) was in the aftermath from a remainer, looking on the bright side (where I fully agree with them, but it was odd to see the same phrase).
Another (from the one time CU leader) stood out because it drew on biblical narratives (and while in my opinion, far from watertight) appeared to show some thought.
Ah, you're clearly hanging out at too many con-evo churches. Try the Methodists - they keep politics out of the prayers and the sermons! (Only joking!)
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But yes, I should think there was a rural/urban divide that included evangelical Christians as much as anyone else. I doubt that all those HTB-type evangelical churches in London and the South East, with their multicultural congregations and young professionals employed by international companies, were especially keen to scour the Book of Revelation for anti-EU messages.
[ 02. September 2017, 20:21: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Also, and this is more speculative, but I don't think this is an attempt to speak in some magisterium like way. It is claiming a kind of authority, but it's the same kind of authority that protestants has always claimed, here's Truth as we understand it.
Rubbish. If there were no de-facto magisteriums, you would not have synods and equivalent or so bloody many divisions and intra-sectual strife. Call it a biscuit or a cookie, it still tastes the same.
The difference is that a magisterial pronouncement derives its authority precisely from who is doing the pronouncing and that they recognise the fact. That's not the case here. The fact that pastor X, leader Y and theologian Z signed it does not in itself make it authoritative. Nor would those people appeal to their own position as supplying that authority.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Historically, Christians have seen #1 as limited to the Nicene or Apostle's Creed. I would say that our understanding of LGBTQ issues lies in #2. But my parsing of article 10 seems to be that the authors are placing that in #1, in a rather preemptory, assuming consensus, papal fiat sort of way.
What I was trying to say was that I think that they put it in 2) but that it feels like it's in 1) because it's couched in such harsh terms, but that actually nearly everything in 2) would be couched in such a way.
BTW it's interesting (or not) that I recently read a series of blog posts arguing back and forth over whether the idea that the creeds alone are sufficient for what I've called 1). Or that the Church historically viewed them in this way.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Paul wrote:
quote:
The difference is that a magisterial pronouncement derives its authority precisely from who is doing the pronouncing and that they recognise the fact. That's not the case here. The fact that pastor X, leader Y and theologian Z signed it does not in itself make it authoritative. Nor would those people appeal to their own position as supplying that authority.
So, then why don't they just go out onto the street and get random passersby to sign the statement? After all, if it's not the signatories who give the statement its authority, what does it matter who signs it?
[ 03. September 2017, 00:17: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Also, and this is more speculative, but I don't think this is an attempt to speak in some magisterium like way. It is claiming a kind of authority, but it's the same kind of authority that protestants has always claimed, here's Truth as we understand it.
Rubbish. If there were no de-facto magisteriums, you would not have synods and equivalent or so bloody many divisions and intra-sectual strife. Call it a biscuit or a cookie, it still tastes the same.
The difference is that a magisterial pronouncement derives its authority precisely from who is doing the pronouncing and that they recognise the fact. That's not the case here. The fact that pastor X, leader Y and theologian Z signed it does not in itself make it authoritative. Nor would those people appeal to their own position as supplying that authority.
Maybe. But then what is the authority behind this statement? They don't even offer the clobber verses to back up their statements, they don't cite any studies or give any logical or ethical argument for their position. They just make these statements as if they were self-evident, rather than so extreme they aren't held by even the most conservative evangelical groups.
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Historically, Christians have seen #1 as limited to the Nicene or Apostle's Creed. I would say that our understanding of LGBTQ issues lies in #2. But my parsing of article 10 seems to be that the authors are placing that in #1, in a rather preemptory, assuming consensus, papal fiat sort of way.
What I was trying to say was that I think that they put it in 2) but that it feels like it's in 1) because it's couched in such harsh terms, but that actually nearly everything in 2) would be couched in such a way.
BTW it's interesting (or not) that I recently read a series of blog posts arguing back and forth over whether the idea that the creeds alone are sufficient for what I've called 1). Or that the Church historically viewed them in this way.
The language of article 10 puts it in #1. They are saying disagreement puts you "outside of Christian faithfulness and witness." That's not #2 language. You wouldn't say that about baptism, or communion, or 1000 other things that we think are pretty darn important and yet we accept that people who disagree with us are still part of historic Christian witness. Article 10 is very much "option #1" language. I can't think of any "#2 issue" that I would couch in such divisive language.
[ 03. September 2017, 02:14: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Many years ago I heard Grudem preach on complementarianism and invoke the "nuclear argument" that to challenge it was to challenge the essential Trinitarian nature of the Godhead.
This was not the first time I had heard a secondary belief or practice challenged on the basis that it compromised the Trinity.
Doing so is a device to make such secondary beliefs or practices appear to be creedal ones, by association with actual creedal beliefs. The not-so-implicit assumption is that to hold such beliefs is anathema.
The Nashville Statement is absolutely true to form for Grudem, Piper et al in the way it seeks to achieve this.
[ 03. September 2017, 06:30: 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
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
What interests me is the hubris of it all. How do people get up in the morning and decide they can or should write this kind of thing? Does no one among them have any self-awareness? Did none of the above-mentioned considerations occur to anybody?
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Many years ago I heard Grudem preach on complementarianism and invoke the "nuclear argument" that to challenge it was to challenge the essential Trinitarian nature of the Godhead.
This was not the first time I had heard a secondary belief or practice challenged on the basis that it compromised the Trinity.
and in Grudem's case at least - a fairly heterodox doctrine of the Trinity at best.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Many years ago I heard Grudem preach on complementarianism and invoke the "nuclear argument" that to challenge it was to challenge the essential Trinitarian nature of the Godhead.
This was not the first time I had heard a secondary belief or practice challenged on the basis that it compromised the Trinity.
Doing so is a device to make such secondary beliefs or practices appear to be creedal ones, by association with actual creedal beliefs. The not-so-implicit assumption is that to hold such beliefs is anathema.
The Nashville Statement is absolutely true to form for Grudem, Piper et al in the way it seeks to achieve this.
Yes. Piper has gone after my beloved Open Theists in a similar way, attempting to get Greg Boyd fired from Bethel Univ. (Boyd eventually resigned) and making a strong-arm late-night play to get Open Theism declared "heresy"-- not wrong, not misguided, not heterodox, but heresy-- at a NAE meeting.
So yeah, we shouldn't be surprised that the statement includes article 10 with it's implicit strong-arm tactic. It's really part & parcel of their whole hierarchical complementarian position, that is all about militaristic control: kids obey mom, mom obeys dad, dad obeys (male) pastor, pastor obeys Jesus, Jesus obeys the Father. It is a system based on power and control, not love and mutual submission. Very, very Alpha Male.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I was puzzling over how they attack trans people, since there are no proof texts for that, as far as I'm aware. But I suppose the argument would be, God designed male and female, with corresponding accoutrements, such as genitals, brains, etc., and nobody should be messing with that. Or in fancy language, psychology doesn't change ontology.
This raises many interesting questions, captured partly by the idea of becoming a woman, rather than being one (de Beauvoir). I guess God doesn't like that.
And then intersex? I guess you are supposed to opt for male or female and stick with it, cos ambiguity is messing with God's plan.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And then intersex? I guess you are supposed to opt for male or female and stick with it, cos ambiguity is messing with God's plan.
I think it would be more that they should quietly suffer and reflect upon the sin that caused it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was puzzling over how they attack trans people, since there are no proof texts for that, as far as I'm aware.
There is one on clothing from Leviticus (actually Deut 22).
Practically you can see a practical rational behind that in a segregated, patriarchal, veiled society (basically the same as gets applied to toilets today). But if that's the case then that wouldn't have ever applied to trans-sexuality, anyway. (even before any of the other questions that would follow*)
Other than that I think it's got to be over-reading the 'male and female' verses. So it becomes 'males and females, and only male and female and with each individual being exclusively male or exclusively female' (which is of course consistent with the text).
*In my bible the opposite page has specific instructions for Reuben to inherit in a Jacob/Rachel/Leah situation.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What interests me is the hubris of it all. How do people get up in the morning and decide they can or should write this kind of thing? Does no one among them have any self-awareness? Did none of the above-mentioned considerations occur to anybody?
The North American evangelical approach to Sunday morning/Saturday evening worship is behind all this. Being an evangelical preacher or teacher does not require one to listen, nor does it require you to have a systemic theology. The "topic of the week" approach allows you to focus on public speaking ability with an emphasis on "a firm belief".
Not enough reading of the book either.
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was puzzling over how they attack trans people, since there are no proof texts for that, as far as I'm aware.
There is one on clothing from Leviticus (actually Deut 22).
Practically you can see a practical rational behind that in a segregated, patriarchal, veiled society (basically the same as gets applied to toilets today). But if that's the case then that wouldn't have ever applied to trans-sexuality, anyway. (even before any of the other questions that would follow*)
Other than that I think it's got to be over-reading the 'male and female' verses. So it becomes 'males and females, and only male and female and with each individual being exclusively male or exclusively female' (which is of course consistent with the text).
*In my bible the opposite page has specific instructions for Reuben to inherit in a Jacob/Rachel/Leah situation.
Yes, your points about patriarchal society are interesting, since via that one can explain the oppression of women, since they were required as breeders, the ban on gays, since men were also supposed to breed, and prohibitions on other detours from sexual/gender orthodoxy, (although no doubt plenty of subversive activity went on, e.g. same sex sex in the armed services).
An interesting corollary is that patriarchy has been breaking down since the 19th century, hence the partial liberation of women and gays.
The idea of 'exclusively male' begs quite a few questions. One of the interesting ideas in psychoanalysis is that sex identity and gender identity are often failures, but hitherto this has been shrouded in shame and secrecy. I am just about to buy an interesting book, 'How not to be a boy'. People are becoming less afraid of their shame, but the Nashville crowd trade in it.
[ 04. September 2017, 11:54: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was puzzling over how they attack trans people, since there are no proof texts for that, as far as I'm aware. But I suppose the argument would be, God designed male and female, with corresponding accoutrements, such as genitals, brains,
Well, in article V of the statement, they seem to be adopting a kind of genital essentialism [which in itself is problematic from a medical perspective].
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was puzzling over how they attack trans people, since there are no proof texts for that, as far as I'm aware. But I suppose the argument would be, God designed male and female, with corresponding accoutrements, such as genitals, brains,
Well, in article V of the statement, they seem to be adopting a kind of genital essentialism [which in itself is problematic from a medical perspective].
Yes, I grabbed the phrase 'psychology doesn't change ontology' from an evangelical discussion, link below.
I find it interesting in terms of the historical changes in relation to sex/gender, since de Beauvoir's famous comments, 'one isn't born a woman, one becomes one', destroys genital essentialism really, and was part of the shift towards 'constructionism', i.e. that sex/gender identities are constructed.
Actually, this seems to be contradicted by many trans kids, who seems to just experience being the other sex from an early age. I don't know whether this is psychology, or not, but maybe it doesn't matter, except to the Nashville massive crew.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-christian-response-to-gender-dysphoria
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One thing that really gets on my pip in the evangelical literature is the common idea that of course, we treat trans people with love and compassion, but also point out to them (with grace of course), that we all have broken bodies, broken by sin, therefore trans gender feelings are part of this, therefore they should shut the fuck up and stop whining. What a miserable sadistic collection of passive aggressive shit statements that is.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I grabbed the phrase 'psychology doesn't change ontology' from an evangelical discussion, link below.
I think it's more 'confused' than that. The way article V seems to read; external appearance trumps genetics not just psychology.
This seems to be confirmed by discussions I've seen elsewhere.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I grabbed the phrase 'psychology doesn't change ontology' from an evangelical discussion, link below.
I think it's more 'confused' than that. The way article V seems to read; external appearance trumps genetics not just psychology.
This seems to be confirmed by discussions I've seen elsewhere.
It sounds as if they are in headlong flight from possible scientific discoveries, which may show that sex/gender identities are not monolithic nor particularly coherent. The idea of gender fluidity and the non-binary demonstrates this idea, not in a scientific manner, but just a personal one. I suppose Adam and Eve were just straight mom and pop types, and he never tried on her dresses or her mascara, and she never wore his shirts, and they always had sex missionary-style.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
To be fair, most people fit, or near enough, the traditional understanding of binary gender. Which is one reason that understanding is predominant in most cultures.
And we are talking about a group that rejects science when it conflicts with their beliefs already.
Not saying this excuses their belief either in maintaining it or publishing this rubbish.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To be fair, most people fit, or near enough, the traditional understanding of binary gender. Which is one reason that understanding is predominant in most cultures.
And we are talking about a group that rejects science when it conflicts with their beliefs already.
Not saying this excuses their belief either in maintaining it or publishing this rubbish.
That begs some interesting questions about gender and the 'fit'. Javid Abdelmoneim recently showed some films on BBC about gender in kids, and raised the interesting question: which comes first? I mean, do kids naturally fall into gender roles, e.g. girls cry, and boys push tractors round, or are they meeting expectations? He kept changing various parameters, and ended up showing how strong girls are, and how sensitive boys are. Well, so far so superficial. But it did arouse suspicion among Tories! Don't mess with our kids. One thing that Javid showed is how lacking in confidence girls are, but this also changed.
*No More Boys and Girls. Still on iplayer I think.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Gender roles =\= gender
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
